- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 18,238
- Reaction score
- 12,105
South Vietnam was never a democracy, it was a series of military dictatorships after the US plot to have Diem assassinated.
Any country is a "military dictatorship" during a state of war. But there were attempts at holding elections and forming a more legitimate form of government. Of course it crashed to pieces, because again, the democratic will was weaker than the socialist will. The Vietnamese would not rally behind the idea of democracy, like they rallied for socialism.
For the moment.
They will never reach USSR levels of power and cruelty, not in the modern world.
Resistance was meaningless it collapsed on its own.
Not much of a relief to those people who lived their whole lives under USSR rule. Resistance wasn't meaningless, but at that time the balance of power in the world wasn't clearly in favour of democratic governing, like it is now. Nobody would risk a large-scale conflict with USSR like they would with a shitty regime like Venezuela, as long as there's any kind of a horse to back in the race.
The fact that government controls the distribution of food, medicine and the such is probably the reason why they dont revolt at a large scale.
The second was that there were democratic elections lined for 2018 so people had hope to oust him through democratic means.
Meanwhile the government keeps stocking the guns and food for itself all with cooperation from Cuba.
Too damn bad.
People have revolted under far worse conditions.
You cannot fight for a people that do not want to fight. The point of socialism is to completely control the distribution of food, medicine and such while dis-arming the population, so that they become powerless. They wanted it, and they sure as hell got it.
Again, Syria was never a democracy.
It was, but democratic rule never lasted long.
Last edited: