07-24-2017, 04:40 PM
(07-24-2017, 03:20 PM)Dill Wrote: I am a bit puzzled by your reading of the Korean situation. The US and the Soviets both occupied the Korean peninsula after WWII. Immediately after the war, the Americans drew the line between North and South for administrative purposes. Two years later, the South then declared a government and the North followed suit. Each government had a roughly equal claim to legitimacy, each claim supported by an Allied victor of WWII.
I'd take issue with your assertion that the South was occupied by the United States, they were liberated by the United States. This is an important distinction as Korea was not a belligerent in the war and the South was left to develop as its own nation. This is evidenced by the fact that South Korea has, and had, complete autonomy from the US. It would be fair to say that both superpowers used Korea as a buffer zone against the other. What is equally true is that North Korea invaded the South, which would make them the aggressor, hence our, and the UN's, defense of South Korea. Whether both governments once had equal claim to legitimacy I don't think any rational person would say that is still the case. Yet, if the South invaded the North tomorrow they would be the aggressors.
Quote:The importance of Dien Bien Phu is that that victory legitimized the Vietminh and Ho Chi Minh as liberators of Vietnam and their DRV as the legitimate representative of the Vietnamese people. This was in the eyes of most of the rest of the world and the great majority of the Vietnamese. No one "stole" the North from the South. The Vietnamese, represented by the Vietminh/DRV, took Vietnam, the whole of Vietnam, back from the French.
What about the Vietnamese who did not want to live under communism? Would they have been given an opportunity to voice their dissent or carve out their own area to live? The actions of the North after the war (reeducation camps anyone?) would seem to indicate that would be a foolish hope to have possessed.
Quote:The State of South Vietnam was the colonial puppet government formed after the French reoccupied Vietnam post 1945. As a French puppet, it did not have the support of the people and was not regarded as a player at the Geneva conference. It was effectively represented by France, so the players at the Geneva signing were France and the Vietminh/DRV, not the State of Vietnam. Diem's Republic of Vietnam (not "South Vietnam") was just an attempt to hijack and nationalize the puppet state under a new name after 1955. Its supporters would be rich landowners and Catholics--about 5% of the population, many of whom had fought with or otherwise worked for the French, who were hated by the majority.
All of which I have essentially acknowledged. Yet again, none of this detracts from the fact that the North subsequently used military force to conquer South Vietnam. I ask again, who was the aggressor? You can argue the legitimacy of their claim to governance all day. You can throw numerous historical facts at this argument. None of this will change the unalterable fact that the North was the clear aggressor in the Vietnam war. Whether you think their aggression was justifiable, which I'm getting the impression you do, or not doesn't change the fact that they initiated armed conflict.
Quote:To continue the Civil War analogy, if you think the South's secession was legitimate, then you see the US as "clearly the aggressor"--hence the "War of Northern Aggression" as it is still known in the South. If you don't think the secession was legitimate, then you don't think the US was the aggressor, clear or otherwise.
I have to give you credit for the attempt, but there is a huge distinction between these two scenarios. Vietnam was on the cusp of nationhood as we now know it. It was not a country with an established history of self governance or sovereignty. Unless you want to count their successive monarchies. If you do then you're opening the door to arguing for their resumption after the overthrow of colonialism as the last legitimate sovereign government of Vietnam.
The United States was both a well established nation and had operated under the same form of government for close to a century. Hence the South was the aggressor in the sense that they annexed United States territory in clear defiance of the well established government of the United States.
Your analogy would be closer to the mark if the North and the South of what became the United States formed separate countries and governments at the end of the revolution. If then, at a later date the North decided to invade the South and remove their government and annex their lands the North would absolutely, without a doubt, be considered the aggressor. This would almost be a direct parallel to the situation in Vietnam, a former colony gains independence and forms its own sovereign state. Your issue is with the how and why of the founding of South Vietnam, which I get. Regardless, this does not excuse the North's aggression nor does it in any way make them less of the belligerent in this conflict. You can be 100% convinced you're in the right and still be the aggressor, such is the case here.
Quote:Same deal for Vietnam. "Clarity" when determining aggression depends upon legitimacy accorded the various actors in the war.
I essentially addressed this above.
Quote:If you think 1) the DRV was the legitimate government of all Vietnam which had agreed to nation wide elections for a unified government to be held in 1956, and 2) that the upstart RVN which hijacked the South, abrogated that agreement to elections, and began actively persecuting and imprisoning former Vietminh, was not a legal government, then the DRV won't appear to be "clearly the aggressor" when it takes back its own territory from what amounts to a rebel government sustained wholly by a foreign power.
You're arguing the same point here, which is the issue of legitimacy. I'm not arguing any of these points, they are all conceded. None of this changes the fact that the North was the armed aggressor in this conflict. We get it, they saw themselves as legitimate unifiers of an unjustly fractured country. "Just" aggression is still aggression and you cannot make a factual argument that the South attempted to usurp the North by force of arms.
Quote:If you think the Republic of Vietnam was justified in refusing national elections and was the legitimate government/representative of the Vietnamese people--whether they supported it or not--then of course you think of the DRV as "the clear aggressor" and talk of the DRV's claim to the South mere "spin."
Again, arguing legitimacy is not in the cards for me. I'll end by reiterating, justified aggression is still aggression. If you think the likely hundreds of thousand of dead were justified by the North's need to be the sole government of a unified Vietnam then that's certainly your prerogative. It sill wouldn't change the fact that they initiated armed conflict over the issue.
