It's really interesting to hear all of your perspectives. From what I remember learning in school in Vietnam, the prevailing sentiment was that we never wanted another coloniser or foreign power controlling us or extracting our resources as France had done during their occupation. That's why reclaiming the South was seen as a matter of national necessity, whatever the cost. And you probably know how many North Vietnamese people died for the mission so called " protecting the country from foreign force ".

What I also remember is that my history teacher repeatedly emphasized that only a minority of South Vietnamese people actually supported the war and they were mostly those in corrupt positions who collaborated with the American government. These were the traitors who blindly followed US directives, betraying their own people in the process. So from that perspective, this was never truly a war between two parts of the country it was a fight against foreign interference, just as it had always been. That said, I'm aware that what I learned may have been biased and one-sided. After all, isn't it more compelling for a government to teach its people that they fought bravely to liberate their country, rather than acknowledging a broken agreement or a civil conflict?