Quote:
Originally Posted by Strider
Then by all means show me some examples where you feel the Saigon regime was unduly deferential to American pressure vis a vis economic issues. I'd be happy to examine them.
|
I'll do better, and merely point out that our having him removed from power was a pretty clear indication that he wasn't living up to our expectations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strider
Outside the urban elite, the vast majority of the Vietnamese population were concerned with local issues and not national ones. The general population generally hung back to guage which side was stronger and could offer them a better deal.
|
What led you to this conclusion?
IMO, the general population would've preferred not to have undergone the war that was a result of our choosing to prolong the partitioning of the country. Given the end result, can there really be any doubt that the people would've preferred not to have undergone the violence and havoc that we unleashed on them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strider
How, in your view, were their interests unrepresented? Generally speaking, the majority of Vietnamese had two main interests at this time, land reform, and security. The Saigon regime provided the first (without any of that bothersome whipping up of mass frenzy that occurred in the DRV), and at times, managed to provide the second.
|
You're separating out some possible positives from the hell that came about and was inherent in choosing to maintain partition. There was no way that we were going to win, short of extermination, and we came very close to crossing that line. That, IMO, was decidedly contrary to the interests of the South Vietnamese people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strider
Virtually all support is conditional to at least some extent, I should think that Diem realized if he converted to Marxism-Leninism and joined the Hanoi government, he could probably count on a loss of American support. But that's not what you're talking about, you're implying the conditions were primrily economic ones. So, again, if you've got times where you feel his regime was unduly subservient to American pressure, I'd be happy to look at them.
If not, you may wish to consider to proposition that it's possible to be a client of a great power without being its puppet.
|
Again, I'll point to the fact that our having him removed from power shows clearly that he was seen as a puppet, and whether or not Diem saw himself that way is beside the point, I think.
By definition, a client is a subservient role, though we can certainly argue as to what degree. The salient question is whether or not the client role is adopted voluntarily. Diem's ouster, IMO, clearly indicates that he was expected to be a puppet -- or else -- hence it wasn't up to Diem to choose whether or not to be a client, and under what terms.