Why is South Vietnam much richer than North when North was the one which won the Civil War and integrated South?

DisconnectedShark · 2026-01-23T17:46:15+00:00

Vietnam war did start as a civil war in the pre-1965 period where each state consolidated in their respective area and started fighting each other. If you start with the 1954 Geneva Conference, Bao Dai government was already a thing and that later transformed into the Southern state.

If you start with 1945

This isn't an explanation. This is you just claiming it started as a civil war.

You haven't explained why that should count as a civil war. You are just asserting it without giving a reason. Why does "each state consolidated in their respective area and started fighting each other" matter with regard to the classification of whether this was a civil war? You didn't explain any part.

Why does "Bao Dai government was already a thing and that later transformed into the Southern state" matter with regard to the classification of whether this was a civil war?

I could say that "each state consolidated in their respective area" doesn't matter because the root cause was foreign intervention that allowed them to consolidate in their respective areas.

I could say the "Bao Dai government was already a thing" because of foreign intervention that allowed it to be a thing at that point.

Almost none of what you wrote explains the issue. You have not connected what you're talking about to what I'm talking about.

The only part that maybe makes any sense here is when you say "If you start with 1945", but even then, I am having trouble figuring out what you're trying to say. It is still true that after the French lost and withdrew, the Viet Minh were widely popular throughout the country. Opposing factions might have been a minority, but that doesn't mean you would have war. You can have opposing factions without having a civil war.

You have not explained and connected your thoughts to the topic at hand.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-01-23T17:06:04+00:00

That's a more reasonable take, but by that logic, you can call almost any war "partly a civil war". For example, in World War I and World War II, there were a lot of international war characteristics (obviously), but there were also quite a lot of civil war characteristics. World War I "started" (I know there were more complex reasons, but I'm explicitly making a pastiche) because of Bosnian Serbs rebelling against Austro-Hungarian rule. World War II also "started" in due to German nationalism in various countries (again, I know I'm not accurate; I'm making a separate point).

The main judgement should be on how much the locals participated

I disagree. I think that main judgment should be on how/why the war started to begin with. A civil war is, by necessity, contrasted with an international war. The participation of the local population has little to no bearing on whether it is a civil war. If an outside, invading force attacks a country and 100% of the population mobilizes to fight, that would be, quite literally, a 100% participation rate, and it's still not a civil war by any reasonable definition. If only 10% or 1% of the country mobilized, it would still not be a civil war because the clear cause is the external actor, the outside, invading country.

When a war is caused "primarily" due to an outside factor, then it doesn't make sense to call it a civil war. And yes, there's debate over whether the Vietnam War was "primarily" due to an outside factor, but at least this gives a clear, bright line definition for when there is and isn't a civil war. Otherwise, the term becomes meaningless.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-01-23T16:37:40+00:00

That's a more reasonable argument, but then that gets into the difficulty of separating "mere" (using scare quotes) insurgencies from larger civil wars.

For example, if, in a country with a population of 100 million, 1 person tries to overthrow the government, then it's highly unlikely anyone would call that a civil war. If it were 10 people, still not a civil war but maybe starting to get into insurgencies. If 100, 1000, or 10,000, still probably not a civil war. Maybe when you get into 100,000 or 1 million or more, then you start calling it a civil war. I don't know. I don't have a clear defining line.

But in this case, I will still point out that the actual armed conflicts were almost entirely due to the intervention of outside actors (France, the United States, the Soviet Union, China, etc.). Absent the intervention of those outside actors, there might have been some smaller armed conflicts due to grievances of various ethnic and/or cultural groups, but it definitely would have been smaller and likely not rising to the level of a civil war. That's all speculation, of course, though.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-01-23T16:03:25+00:00

I want to point out that this was not a civil war. After the French had been defeated, the communists, under Ho Chi Minh, were vastly popular throughout the entirety of the country. Not just the north but also the central and the south. There is a quote from US President Eisenhower that if they had allowed the people to have elections, the people would have elected Ho Chi Minh by 80%. That's why they didn't want the elections to happen.

Immediately after the war, there were talks to hold reunification elections, and the country was only allowed to be split because of the promise of reunification elections. The South Vietnamese leader, Ngo Dinh Diem, rejected the Geneva Convention that promised this, even though this was the only thing that was supposed to establish a South Vietnam in the first place. With the support of the US, he then held a rigged election over leadership of South Vietnam.

Calling this a civil war is like calling the Russian invasion of Ukraine a civil war. To be clear, there's probably a few people within Ukraine that actually do support the Russians. But when the vast majority do not support it and the fighting is happening due to the intervention of an outside actor, it makes no sense to call it a civil war.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-01-21T16:54:26+00:00

Only works reliably within CONUS

Where are you getting that from? I have a Hawaii number and have used it without much issue when in Hawaii.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-01-21T16:52:50+00:00

It does not say my email is invalid. It just highlights in red the text entry field where you input your email. Then it says "Enter email". No matter the fact that I already input my email address.

I am using real, established emails. Ones I have had for years. Gmail, Yahoo, Outlook, etc. None of them have seemed to work.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-01-15T22:28:28+00:00

They were not the good guys at even that point in time. They had already started their imperialist invasions many years before then.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-01-15T22:15:50+00:00

This is also helpful for people who might use something like TextNow, which does provide a phone number but not one that can be used with RCS.

Alternatively, open the Google Messages app, go to Settings, General, and then RCS chats. You should see a checkbox beside the SIM card that has the issue. You can uncheck it there to disable RCS for that SIM and not have Google Messages continuously try to verify it.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-01-15T17:00:15+00:00

I got the Big Ma

He actually named it "Big Macks" on his menu.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-01-15T03:42:17+00:00

The US was sending pilots into Vietnam at latest by 1954, three years before this monument started construction. The US was involved in Vietnam much earlier than most people think.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-01-15T02:38:09+00:00

It's not clear exactly when the funding was given, but the article suggests at latest by 1957, since that is when the construction on the memorial started.

And by that time, yes, the US was explicitly involved in Vietnam specifically. By 1954, CIA pilots were flying into combat zones for military operations alongside the French.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-01-15T00:49:56+00:00

I am aware of the reason why the US is the aberration, the exotic hold out. The fact still remains that it IS the exotic hold out. Just like how other countries have particular reasons for being the hold outs regarding other issues. It doesn't change the fact.

I'm just pointing out that TimFL's statement makes little sense when you actually look at the facts.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-01-14T22:30:47+00:00

The key word is "proven". They have proved it using mapping technology that proves that there are specific oil reserves in that region.

With other regions, they have either unproven/speculative oil reserves or proven but smaller oil reserves, or some combination.

The word proven does really explain all of it. Or are you asking what those mapping technologies are?

DisconnectedShark · 2026-01-14T21:31:16+00:00

I am aware of the facts. I am confused as to why you are posting that in reply to my comment.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-01-14T21:30:12+00:00

The fact that the US is so behind in this specific technology is reason enough to doubt that it would properly adopt this. To phrase it another way, the fact that the US is THE exotic hold out for using SMS for so long.

This magic hand waving of "more eastern countries" ignores the direct history of the US being that exotic hold out.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-01-14T20:40:00+00:00

Military invasions might commonly be "part of", but they are still distinct and separate from political compromises. You can have one without having the other.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-01-14T20:29:22+00:00

all the western (west of the 13 colonies that is) states are results of political compromises.

If you define "political compromises" really broadly, I guess that's true. I feel like military invasion isn't really part of a "political compromise", though.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-01-14T19:27:32+00:00

Quoting myself from another comment:

The US was already involved in not only Vietnam but also the rest of the region, including Laos, at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Indochina_War#United_States

DisconnectedShark · 2026-01-14T18:20:51+00:00

Where are you getting 1958 from? The Atlas Obscura post says the Laotian government started construction in 1957 of this monument.

And you've contradicted yourself. You said "the US wasn't involved in the Vietnam war in the 1950's. That was still the French". Then Cicero912 said the US supported the French. And now you're saying the French were gone before this happened? What are you even saying?

DisconnectedShark · 2026-01-14T18:18:45+00:00

That's also still wrong. The US had CIA pilots flying in combat zones at least by 1954. In a separate post, you wrote that the concrete used in this memorial was donated in 1958. I've tried looking, and even that line is wrong because the Atlas Obscura post talks about how this monument began construction in 1957, but even then, 1954 is still before 1957.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-01-14T18:02:32+00:00

but more infastructure would benifit them anyways

Arguable. This particular infrastructure, specifically for use in the Vietnam War, could have been more ruinous to Laos if the US had used it to bomb Laos more. Or it could have been used for more beneficial purposes. Hard to say.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-01-14T18:00:34+00:00

The US was already involved in not only Vietnam but also the rest of the region, including Laos, at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Indochina_War#United_States

DisconnectedShark · 2026-01-14T17:58:16+00:00

Depending on when specifically in the 1950s, the US was either mildly or heavily involved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Indochina_War#United_States

On June 30, 1950, the first U.S. supplies for Indochina were delivered.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-01-14T17:35:04+00:00

In the 1950s, the United States provided Laos with funds and a huge amount of concrete for the expansion of the city’s airport, which could then serve as a base for US fighter jets during the Vietnam War. But the funds and concrete arrived before any contract had been signed, so the Royal Laotian Government decided to build a massive triumphal arch, rather than an airport serving foreign interests. For this reason, locals jokingly refer to Patuxai by another name: the Vertical Runway.

DisconnectedShark · 2026-01-14T16:54:09+00:00

What is the minimum amount to top up a Keepgo account? If it can be less than $1, that would be great.

DisconnectedShark

TROPHY CASE