It could be argued we and the Americans screwed it up.We both had troops there and supported the reinstatement of French rule in 1945 rather than making allies of the Viet Minh.

I think it has to be seen in context of the history surrounding that post war era, and WWII. The Vietnamese under Ho Chi Ming had fought against the Japanese (quite successfully) during WWII. Like many countries that were parts of empire.

This was not to be 'part of an empire' but out of a sense of national identity, which then fuelled the idea of independence, and like many colonies this fed into the wave of national liberation that swept colonies of the empires after WWII. Many of those who fought, often on the side of the allies, weren't fighting to be subjects of empires, but for their own national identity.

The US made the same mistake the French did, to believe they could extinguish this idea of national sovereignty - The puppet government of South Vietnam really only represented a 'different form of subjegation' - it was corrupt, selfish and cruel and very much akin to the imperial French rule.

I'm sure you, as a nationalist, understand just how fiercely the idea of national sovereignty is, and that cannot be extinguished effectively by military might.

Plus the Vietnamese insurgents were buoyed by victories - They'd effectively beaten the Japanese to a standstill and defeated the French - not specifically through outright military victories but by forcing their enemy to re-evaluate the cost (in manpower and casualties) of occupying Vietnam - and they knew that the same would probably apply to the Americans.

They were right, people weren't happy with their sons dying in a far corner of the world, with little economic or strategic military value - Not so soon after WWII and Korea, and more importantly, the children of that generation weren't interested in dying in a war fought for ideological reasons, so remote from their own existence.

The US couldn't really win, as long as the cause of national liberation was strong.

Of course the national liberation movements were often allied to the Soviet for one real reason - They needed weapons and equipment, to fight against US allies (European ex-Empires). This tended to make the Communists the best 'choice in town'.

You see something similar in the middle east now. Groups that sprang up out of the Arab spring and the conflicts, increasingly becoming Islamist - because they're the best 'choice in town' in terms of weapons and equipment (and pay). Its a survival thing, and then overtime, you become increasingly politically aligned to that cause.

Its a common trait in civil wars. At the start of the Spanish civil war, the communists and fascists were just factions of the republican and nationalists - but they had backing, which meant equipment, training and resources.

If you're looking to pick a side in a civil war, you pick a side based on what you believe in (generally but not always, sometimes you join the 'enemy' because otherwise you're going to get murdered) but then you tend to gravitate towards the factions that are better armed, equipped and resourced (long term survival).

Which were the fascists and the communists. By the end of the civil war, these were the main factions.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Can we put a spoiler alert on this thread. I haven't watched the series yet and don't want to know how it finishes.