Not intentionally, and I am not arguing that they did. I argue what the locals actually wanted was independence (and everyone else was more or less acting to prevent that, by whatever motives or means).
> The US has no interest in making South Vietnam a vassal state. It was nothing more than a bulwark against perceived communist expansion (incorrectly perceived). It devolved into a civil war between opposing Vietnamese parties, with superpowers backing each side.
Yes, except I would say the southern parties lacked actual genuine support from the locals. They were promoted by the USA because there had to be an indigenous party to develop into a stable country. The real non-Communist locals had been destroyed by the French.
> Not intentionally, and I am not arguing that they did. I argue what the locals actually wanted was independence (and everyone else was more or less acting to prevent that, by whatever motives or means).
I think that's a reasonable take.
> Yes, except I would say the southern parties lacked actual genuine support from the locals. They were promoted by the USA because there had to be an indigenous party to develop into a stable country. The real non-Communist locals had been destroyed by the French.
I guess I would ask at what point in time?
Prior to 1945, there were many pro-independence parties in Vietnam. Most were located in the North due to the proximity to China (and the freedom the civil war brought there to organizing activities). There was VNQDD who was relatively powerful, but was eliminated by the communists and it's vestiges eliminated after 1954.
The South was less organized and the communists were the leading pro-independence group. They were fought by the French, and yes, the French treated all pro-independence groups as enemies (which hurt them in the end as they may have had a chance at a semi-autonomous relationship with some of the groups).
After the Japanese left, Diem controlled the South and battled the communists quite successfully until the North decided to help them more directly (and ok more violence).
While Diem wasn't George Washington, he had a level of support when he was able to deliver peace and despite what the press says, wasn't anti-Buddhist (rather they were opposition political groups also vying for power). After a few coups and a questionable election, by 1970 Thieu was able to deliver on a functioning economy, relative peace and a lack of the worst democratic abuses, and had a level of support that could have continued had the war not escalated.
As studies of wars have shown, the vast majority of people are apolitical during war. 10% support one side, 10% the other, and 80% are just worried about their next meal and the safety of their family and will accept either.
And considering the number of South Vietnam who fled the war after 1975 (2M or 15%) and the remarkable last ditch battles that happened, there was maybe not support for Thieu, but their was support for the idea of an independent South Vietnam.
Not intentionally, and I am not arguing that they did. I argue what the locals actually wanted was independence (and everyone else was more or less acting to prevent that, by whatever motives or means).
> The US has no interest in making South Vietnam a vassal state. It was nothing more than a bulwark against perceived communist expansion (incorrectly perceived). It devolved into a civil war between opposing Vietnamese parties, with superpowers backing each side.
Yes, except I would say the southern parties lacked actual genuine support from the locals. They were promoted by the USA because there had to be an indigenous party to develop into a stable country. The real non-Communist locals had been destroyed by the French.