Originally Posted by Pogo

I don't think there's any question that our support of him was conditional on his being amenable to US economic interests.

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

On the contrary, there's plenty of certainty. Your problem is that it goes against the views that you brought with you into the discussion.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Pogo

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.

Originally Posted by Imperator

And that’s the problem, Diem was doing very well until Lodge became ambassador. Then slowly but surely it became unwound. Kennedy needed to be rid of him regarding an ongoing political feud; he feared he would be the rep. nominee in the next pres. election and thought he would be rid of lodge by sending him to Vietnam, lodge accepted as he thought he could make enough hay over this issue and others to make a case against Kennedy in 64.

His understanding of Vietnamese interests, as seen from the south’s perspective and in fact based on the Vietnamese culture as strider alluded to was infantile at best, and in effect hamstrung Diem at crucial times and forced him to make decisions antithetical to Vietnamese cultural mindset and there by own and the souths best interest(s).


thats slippery question with no answer before the events. Ho and the north wanted the French out, there belief being that th french had zero interests in governing their country other than as a colony, and they were correct. Hos form of gov. And because he did eject them doesn't mean his form of gov. was nay better that say Diems vision of gov. Ho used the ussr and china as sppt. and as a lever to make his fashion of gov. the predominat one.


Not true, diem was winning, and as I have said a number of times, our destruction of diem etc. made the rest of the decade possible. IF Diem had been left to do what he had been ding that war there after would have been avoided on the scale it was practiced.


He fought us tooth and nail, and was forced to make decisions, ala allowance of factionalism etc. that lost him sppt. amongst the public and amongst his generals, resulting in confusion, perceived weakness and loss of face, which was the core of that loss of sppt. for himself despite gains on the ground which evaporated once those factors became prevalent as the flag went up that diem was weak subservient not to Vietnamese interest, but the US’s, and could be toppled.

He told Lodge et al that always giving into factionalism etc. would surly spell the death of the south viet regime. He know it, and said so, we in our western arrogance ( see; Iraq) thought we could move in, install democracy and the Vietnamese would go merrily upon their way. wrong.


yes , he was expected to be a puppet, and he was assasinated because the US did not understand what was called for, or, lets say they went in with eyes wide shut from the git go.

Originally Posted by Pogo

In what way would you say that Diem was winning? Isn't it true that the reunification elections were canceled because it was known that Diem wouldn't win? Do you mean in terms of winning the support of the South Vietnamese rural population?

Originally Posted by Imperator

Winning in terms of the rural pop. the viet cong started out as usual promising better gov. more organization better conditions etc...and early on they had that sppt. which told Diem that he had didn't have chance against that agitation to keep the county outside the Ho governmental sphere and consequently lose his power as well.

As time progressed, the hearts and minds battle took a turn, effective south gov. sppt. the tender mercies of the form of Northern gov. being displayed by forced induction into cong militias, confiscation of crops etc. etc. took hold and took its toal, not unlike AQ's loss of public sppt. in Iraq. The more northerners that came down as advisors convinced the rural viet. in the south that they maybe be trading one form of subservience for another.

The fact that Diem opted to not allow unification can be summarily seen as the vote came relatively quickly as after Bo Dai went down in 45, then the machinations of the soviets and even more so the Chinese etc. into 54. At the time, many saw Ho as a hero as he had defeated the French. 75% of the pop. probably would have voted for unification there fore Ho’s form of gov.


Dulles died 3 years before Lodge got to Vietnam. Lodge got there in early 63....he was convinced Diem wasn’t “ the guy”, and worked hard against him and was complicit against Kennedy’s orders in supporting the coup by back door sppt.

Originally Posted by Pogo

Quite a proactive ambassador, eh?

Do you know what Kennedy's response was when he found out Diem had been assassinated?

Edit: I think you've got Allen Dulles confused with his brother John. Allen served on the Warren Commission.

Originally Posted by Pogo

Quite a proactive ambassador, eh?

Do you know what Kennedy's response was when he found out Diem had been assassinated?

Originally Posted by Pogo

In what way would you say that Diem was winning? Isn't it true that the reunification elections were canceled because it was known that Diem wouldn't win? Do you mean in terms of winning the support of the South Vietnamese rural population?

As for Lodge, do you think he had more say in what was going on than Dulles?