Mike76

@Extro91: the AK47 rifle used by the Northerners and the Viet Cong was worth at least as much as the Americans', if not more. For the rest, the USA had infinitely superior means and armaments, but in guerrilla conditions, they were of little use. The Russian-Chinese contribution was definitely decisive for the outcome of the war, just as it surely was for the rise of the communists in the North.

Neither you nor I have a crystal ball to know if under American control, South Vietnam would have turned into a dictatorship like Chile or an industrial power like South Korea; I lean more toward the second hypothesis, especially because, bordering a communist bloc country, the Americans would have had every interest in keeping its economy as prosperous as possible.

But beyond the "ifs" and "buts," we both know for sure that South Vietnam, after unification, fared much worse under the communists than under the Americans and their "puppet" presidents, which is more than enough for me to hold onto my views. Your argument about "the original idea of the Viet Cong," which was betrayed and distorted, only makes me feel more anger and sadness: thousands of naive young people were deceived by propaganda, becoming Viet Cong, and they died fighting, thinking they were doing it for the good of their country, only to end up leading it to ruin.

The idea I have of the Vietnam War comes not only from the films and books I have read but also from the direct testimonies of many former South Vietnamese refugees I know and regularly meet. Often, when they gather for celebrations like Tet, they display the old South Vietnamese flag with red and yellow stripes, singing the old national anthem. And there is no Yankee forcing them to do this, I assure you; it is only sincere and moving nostalgia for their country that is no longer there.

Extro91: "Honestly, I can tell you that I have more respect for a guy who defends his own home alone than for a uniformed slave!"
For me (and not just for me), it was LOAN defending the homes of the South Vietnamese while VAN LEM, whether in good faith or not, was playing right into the hands of those who wanted to take over those homes.

@extro91: your dislike for Americans and what they represent makes you see only that point of view, which I personally find secondary, that is: it is known that during those years the two superpowers were playing "Risk" and trying to have more pieces of the world under their hegemony. It would have been nice if the Americans had stayed at home just as it would have been nice if the Russians and the Chinese had not helped and armed the Northern communists, and maybe the two Vietnams would have reunited peacefully, perhaps, but alas that’s not how it went. More than Russian-Chinese or American ambitions, I am more interested in the perspective of the South Vietnamese, and I assure you that most of them were terrified at the idea of being ruled by communists. Perhaps the terror was due to anti-communist propaganda, you might say; however, since the communists conquered Saigon in 1975, the darkest predictions came true and even worse than one could imagine, with hundreds of thousands of people fleeing desperately by boat or trying to do so... Beyond the political sympathies one might have, it is undeniable that communism was a disaster for South Vietnam, and I have reason to believe that if the Americans had won, they would have spent the last 35 years much better from every point of view. You make comparisons with South American or African states; I would compare them with the closer South Korea, and South Korean boat people have never been seen; history speaks for itself.

"with its phrases LOAN", pardon.

"The widow of Lém confirmed that her husband was a member of the Vi?t C?ng" (from Wikipedia). But it doesn't change much; I really don't think Mr. Lèm was just some passerby whistling as he walked, who was killed by chance. I still quote Enbar77's phrase: "All men become beasts, whether they belong to one faction or another." But precisely those who speak out about Geneva rights regarding this episode should first put themselves in the shoes of a general who must defend a metropolis like Saigon from an invisible enemy, watching his men being killed by guerrillas who blend in with the civilians. I'm not saying "he did well"; I'm just saying that given the context he was in, I understand. With his words, Lém wanted to express his disdain for those who kill while fighting without a uniform, blending in among civilians; it was certainly the only way the Viet Cong had to win, so I blame neither faction: wars are never clean and honest. I'll throw out a provocation (I'm not at all interested in turning this into politics, but reading some of your statements, I can't help it): if a photo circulated of the execution of a member of Batista's clan by a squad of Guevarist guerrillas, would your reaction be the same?

"...he wasn't in uniform, and I can't respect a man without a uniform who kills soldiers..." and "...what would you do to a man who has killed three or four of his allies..."
I don't find the general's justifications delirious at all. One must put themselves in the shoes of a military leader who had to fight against a deceitful and invisible enemy, someone without a uniform; a Viet Cong could be anyone and can infiltrate anywhere, even a child or a woman could be one. The reason for the victory of the communists was mainly this "invisibility," which, however, led on the other side to a climate of exaggerated suspicion characterized by witch hunts, a sense of encirclement and helplessness, and subsequent drastic measures like that in the photo, which compared to many other terrible things that happened in that conflict is truly a trifle.
The reviewed document is exceptional from many points of view, but personally, I feel neither pity nor enjoyment for the victim, just as I didn’t when I saw the execution of Saddam Hussein. When a murderer kills another murderer, I remain rather insensitive, especially when it comes to war. If anything, the pity and broken heart (and the disgust for the "reporter") were reserved for when I saw a Kurdish girl stoned by her family and recorded by a cellphone...

I don't understand who is against these photo-testimonials and the photographers who take them. It is these shots that give people a (albeit very partial) idea of what war might be and shape opinions. If it weren't for this kind of information, we would still be stuck with the romantic idea of war that existed in the early 1900s. Down with censorship.
That said, I note with disappointment that many still reduce the Vietnamese conflict to a political issue between "American imperialist invaders" and "communists fighting against the invader," a rather distorted and partial view, I would say. The Americans may have been "imperialists," but South Vietnam was a sovereign state with a normal free economy (some might say small-capitalist: the fisherman, the farmer, the merchant...) and, above all, did not want to know anything about communism or be conquered by North Vietnam backed by the Russians and the Chinese.
The general in the photo, whom someone carelessly wrote was "on the wrong side," was undoubtedly a cynical and ruthless person like all those who occupy these roles, but he was a general who had the duty to prevent by any means necessary his people from being conquered by the communist north, so he could not and should not have been soft. The majority of South Vietnamese were people who did not want to wait in line for a ration of rice, who wanted to work for themselves and their families rather than for the state, who did not want soldiers sleeping in their homes to prevent escapes, who did not want the state choosing their music, theater shows, and hairstyles or preventing them from moving freely, or having their homes or boats seized, earned through years of hard work because "one is enough for you," who did not want hunger… as unfortunately happened later on.

"But it's futile to hide it: this piece, like all concrete music, is very fragile from the standpoint of musical values." Well... yes and no, because concrete music, in fact, did without the old compositional and arranging clichés, so it's not very meaningful to evaluate it for the absence of melody, rhythm, harmony, and all that stuff. I find Schaeffer's work very fascinating and incredibly innovative; I listened to the monumental "L'Oeuvre Musicale," and you can find within it what many musical genres and artists will recycle over the years. Dark and industrial music root their origins in these grooves, but also artists like Frank Zappa, a great admirer of Schaeffer, took a lot from him for the more experimental tracks.

Well, a biased review even if sincere. It’s obvious that American military intervention (which we can date between '65 and '73) is viewed today as a colossal failure from all possible perspectives; however, seen through the eyes of that time, it wasn’t so absurd to try to help South Vietnam remain independent, especially considering the encouraging precedent of the two Koreas that suggested a shorter and less costly war in all respects. If South Vietnam had followed the fate of South Korea instead of being conquered by their northern cousins (with help from the USSR and China, let’s not forget), they would have certainly benefited, sparing themselves decades of hunger and misery, as well as the flight (and often death) of thousands of South Vietnamese boat people. Even the protagonist of the photo, Kim Phuc, who, as I read from the review, was unwittingly instrumentalized by the communist regime, also made her escape to Canada. With "ifs" and "buts," history is not made, and in the end, the Vietnam War remains a senseless slaughter, even though, I reiterate, the premises and hopes for the Americans (and South Vietnamese) were different.