@Benton12 said:

This movie is set partially in the Vietnam War era Vietnam. Minh in real life caused the US to stop him from taking South Vietnam after he committed a brutal 1950's land reform in North Vietnam where he slaughtered thousands of landlords. The USA realized after that how Minh indeed had to be stopped and doing likewise to its landlords.Ken Burns wrote of this slaughter in his own book on Vietnam.

Ho Chi Minh was instrumental in overthrowing militarised occupation by French forces and was, rightly or wrongly, poised to reunify Vietnam through democratic means but for the opposition of the US, UK and an undemocratic South Vietnamese government. You would struggle to point to any civil war where the victors don't unpleasantly impose their will on the losers through brutal suppression order to cement their victory. Are you suggesting US military involvement in Vietnam was born primarily from concern for the welfare of Vietnamese citizens rather than a desire to keep the upper hand militarily against Sino-Soviet Communist influence?

I don't doubt that there was large scale murders by Comminist forces in Vietnam, but I think suggesting there was virtuous motives behind US military involvement is stretching believability. For example, look at how they supported a murderous undemocratic South Korean regime following the Korean war.

Whilst international democratic forces being involved in the Korean war was an admirable sacrifice, US intervention in Vietnam was undemocratic, militarily naive and politically calamitous both domestically and internationally. If they'd managed to get an international alliance (as with Korea) then I could have perhaps sympathised with US efforts, but some countries, like Francem supported democratic elections over war.

South Korea is another story. A writer once put it best that South Korea's atrocities could not hold a candle to North Korea's. South Korea allowed Christianity to thrive. North Korea made it illegal to make a cross sign.

Fergoose, Minh was butchering landlords on his own affair. He wanted their land. He bumped off Nguyen Tho Nam who helped him drive French forces out of 'Nam merely because she was a private land owner! Stealing the land badly and criminally and exiling landlords alive out of the country would have been one thing. Killing so many of them was trying to show the subjects of NV who was boss.
Yes. The USA had a sense of justice and had Minh not butchered the landlords there would not have probably been a Vietnam War. At least not on this magnitude, but he was highly deadly and scummy even after the French pulled out he continued his landlord butchering act.

I will provide some references later. I am putting you on complete ignore. You will not wear me out with your missed attempt at points.

Everyone else. A book called 'Magic and Mayhem' showed North Korea far more deadly than South Korea.

Everyone! It is thoroughly true that Minh's mass-murder of landlords starting in '53 was why we could not let him take South Vietnam. We had a history of keeping communist regimes free from invasion by more democratic regimes ( but no examples to stay on topic).Minh's unnecessary gigantic civilian act of mass-murder drove the US to fast realize how sick and dangerous he was.

Politicians of America knew for years back in the 1960s about Minh's brutal mass-murder of landlords. I wonder if the writing party of this film here knew!

@Fergoose said:

@Benton12 said:

This movie is set partially in the Vietnam War era Vietnam. Minh in real life caused the US to stop him from taking South Vietnam after he committed a brutal 1950's land reform in North Vietnam where he slaughtered thousands of landlords. The USA realized after that how Minh indeed had to be stopped and doing likewise to its landlords.Ken Burns wrote of this slaughter in his own book on Vietnam.

Ho Chi Minh was instrumental in overthrowing militarised occupation by French forces and was, rightly or wrongly, poised to reunify Vietnam through democratic means but for the opposition of the US, UK and an undemocratic South Vietnamese government. You would struggle to point to any civil war where the victors don't unpleasantly impose their will on the losers through brutal suppression order to cement their victory. Are you suggesting US military involvement in Vietnam was born primarily from concern for the welfare of Vietnamese citizens rather than a desire to keep the upper hand militarily against Sino-Soviet Communist influence?

I don't doubt that there was large scale murders by Comminist forces in Vietnam, but I think suggesting there was virtuous motives behind US military involvement is stretching believability. For example, look at how they supported a murderous undemocratic South Korean regime following the Korean war.

Whilst international democratic forces being involved in the Korean war was an admirable sacrifice, US intervention in Vietnam was undemocratic, militarily naive and politically calamitous both domestically and internationally. If they'd managed to get an international alliance (as with Korea) then I could have perhaps sympathised with US efforts, but some countries, like Francem supported democratic elections over war.

Well Fergoose, I'm surprised that the OP didn't close this thread down after reading your comment (he just put you on ignore this time), which he usually does after someone disagrees with him.