Talk:Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam/Archive 1

Entity names

Re:

The Republic of South Vietnam was a Communist-backed government formed by the VietCong? and should not be confused with the anti-Communist U.S.-supported Republic of Vietnam.

Actually, that sentence DID confuse me. Could you please relate the "official" names of the various regimes to the more commonly-used terms North Vietnam and South Vietnam? --Ed Poor

Did these governments exist simultaneously in southern Vietnam, perhaps? Or was the Republic of South Vietnam a short lived government after the fall of the Republic of Vietnam? I don't know. --rmhermen

South Vietnam

1. Called: Republic of Vietnam (1954-1975)
2. Called: Republic of South Vietnam (April 1975 to July 1976)

The Republic of South Vietnam / PRG had its own flag, similar to that of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) but with the bottom half blue. The one shown in the article is incorrect - it is the flag of the non-communist Republic of Vietnam which fell in Appril 1975.

The Republic of South Vietnam was granted observer status to the UN, but its application for full membership, along with that of North Vietnam, was vetoed twice by the US in 1975. The reason given by the US was not that the US wished to prevent the two Vietnamese memberships but in protest at the inability of South Korea (Republic of Korea) to present an application for membership due to procedural blocking by the USSR and its allies. See http://untreaty.un.org/cod/repertory/art4/english/rep_supp5_vol1-art4_e.pdf

North Vietnam

• Democratic Republic of Vietnam (1954-1976)

Vietnam

A year after North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam, the two countries were united as:

• Socialist Republic of Vietnam (1976-present)

From googling:

"The Republic of South Vietnam was proclaimed on 30 Apr 1975 by the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG, established in rebellion 8 Jun 1969) upon the military collapse of the Republic of Vietnam." (source)

--Ed Poor

Now I understand it better.

Except for one thing: how come "Democratic Republic" means a Communist dictatorship which defines emigration as treason? --Ed Poor

Because Communists are liars, of course. Just like they put "socialist" in their names — although in that case, for some reason, people believe them. — Toby 23:56 Aug 6, 2002 (PDT)

Of course East Timor's offcial name is "Democratic Republic of East Timor" (shades of "Democratic Republic of Vietnam") but it is not a Communist country. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.196.232 (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2002

Vietnam

Toby, you are just a stupid moron. If you have researched enough about communism and socialism, you would know that it is not completely different. Every country which want to progress to communism have to go through socialism otherwise it will end up like Cambodia under Pol Pot. Vietnam upto 1986 is a communist state, but it did not work out. Vietnam after 1986 is NOT a communist state but rather a socialist state. About 50% of companies in Vietnam today is privately owned (the rest is being privatised as a government's policy).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.242.242 (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2005

Pol Pot was Vietnam's creature. The PAVN gave him his weapons and sheltered his men. Then they gave him more weapons and told him to destroy Cambodia. Then Vietnam invaded and kicked him out so they could "save" Cambodia by turning it into their colony. They left Pol Pot and his few remaining men alone in the hills because they needed him as an excuse to rule over Cambodia forever. The so-called communists and socialists of Vietnam were never more than a bunch of fascist gangsters.

Progress toward socialism means a bunch of gang members who call themselves a party steal everything for themselves and leave everyone else with nothing. They talk about anti-imperialist and then turn around and reduce their neighbors to a colonial oppression worse than the French. When the gangsters can't get anymore Soviet money, they start selling off the entire country (except what they own) to the highest international bidder.

Today's Vietnam looks more like South Vietnam used to than any of Ho Chi Minh's promises.

Such is the power of stupidity. Everybody (except you of course) know that Pol Pot was a member of the Indochina Communist Party but later decided to split (if I'm not mistaken in early 1960s) to create the Communist Party of Kampuchea, at that time it is supported by the PRC not Vietnam. Vietnam never want the Communist Party of Kampuchea to take power at that time as Sihanouk is nice enough(or maybe just plainly stupid) or maybe Cambodia is just too week to resist and allows North Vietnam to use it as a base to attack South Vietnam. In fact, when Pol Pot asked for help fighting Lon Nol, North Vietnam government even told Pol Pot to be patient and wait until South Vietnam has been defeated. Allowing Pol Pot to take control of Cambodia too son would only give the U.S a perfect excuse to publicly attack Cambodia & Laos and North Vietnam would lose its base (and the Ho Chi Minh trail would be cut in half). Now, who would be stupid enough to want this?? Maybe you.

Moreover, right after taking power, Pol Pot started organising guerrilla raids into South Vietnam and held a close relationship with China which has always been Vietnam's enemy for more than 2000 years. In fact, Vietnam risked a 2 front war to oust the Pol Pot regime (with Cambodia to the West & China to the North). You said Vietnam want to turn Cambodia into a Vietnamese colony? If we wanted to we could have conquered Cambodia, and slaughter all of the few millions Cambodians left to finish Pol Pot's works and virtually merging Cambodia with Vietnam making its Vietnam's 60th province. How many days did it take Vietnam to conquer the whole of Cambodia? If I'm not mistaken it took 2 weeks. Between 1975-1979, the Khmer Rouge killed around 30% of the Cambodian population and nobody cares, do you think anybody would do anything if Vietnam finished off the other 70%? Especially right after the defeat of U.S & China? I think not.--lt2hieu2004 00:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

PRG

I decided to split off the PRG stuff to a separate article specifically on the PRG. I did this for a number of reasons.

For one, the formal list of who was in what job changed after the PRG took over as the RoSVN; some of the job titles changed (e.g. from Chairman and Vice-Chair to President, Prime Minister, etc).

For another, they are technically quite different entities; the RoSVN was an internationally recognized country, whereas the PRG (although recognized as the government by several communist-bloc countries) was really just an underground government-in-exile until the fall of Saigon. Noel (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

PS: I transplated the Vietnamese name text to the PRG article only because it seemed to be Vietnamese for the PRG's name. I.e. I have nothing against incluing the Vietnamese name for this entity (and I hope someone can add it)- I just didn't know what it was. Noel (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Just a piece of information: PRG had an office in Stockholm, Sweden, from at least 1973 until 1975, located at Riddargatan (a road). It is mentioned here: [1] (Swedish).--Battra 14:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Lt2hieu2004 for at least saying some fair words for the invasion of Cambodia by Vietnamese communist regime. Though I'm not very satisfied with the way they controlled Cambodia through puppet government at that time, it was the Vietnamese communists that saved the lives of the rest of Cambodian people, by any means I don't care, while noone was reacting (I don't want to mention the support of the PRC for the Khmer Rouge). I think that invasion looked exactly what the US did to Afganisktan just some years ago. (sorry if my English is bad 'cuz it's not my native).

Oh and by the way, I agree that Loby, you are a stupid moron. Why can you say "communists are liars"? What did they put in your brain anyway? I don't mean to offend but I find communism interesting, and I truly respect some communists (not all). Anyway politics is nearly all about lying my friend.

I agree, except that politics is most certainly not about lying, but quite the opposite. --Ionius Mundus 19:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is not appropriate

This article describes a country that never existed. The Republic of South Vietnam was a provisional government. It never ruled any territory or exercised the authority of a government. It was internationally recognized, but recognition for provisional governments is not unusual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.127.0.52 (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2006

The Republic of South Vietnam, even if it was a puppet of the North Vietnamese government, is well above the standard used by Wikipedia in other articles. For example, the Slovak Republic (1939–1945) was nothing more than a puppet state of Germany, under German occupation, wasn't recognized by most of the world, and yet it has an article. The South African Bantustans weren't recognized by anybody except South Africa, and they have articles too. Given that, it's hard to justify excluding a state that actually was recognized internationally. Jsc1973 03:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite so. The article should stay. 64.72.137.241 19:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Diplomacy

This article needs info on the diplomatic relations of the PRG, which states that recognized the PRG as the legitimate government of South Vietnam 1969-1975. --Soman (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)