'North' Vietnamese? The partition is a colonial construct.
And what "battle" did the US win? As a military exercise it was a debacle from start to finish (much like our more recent efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan). Wrong war, wrong reason, wrong plan, incompetently executed (strategically).
And the comparison with 'Spartans' is off too. The Spartans were pretty weird (not just by our standards, but by contemporary standards too) and their society was entirely wrapped around military tradition. Despite centuries of foreign occupation and resistance, Vietnamese culture was and is basically Confucian (in which the soldier is pretty much the bottom of the totem pole).
Actually the cultures of north, central, and south Vietnam are quite different. The accents vary so much that people from one section of the country struggle to understand people from another. They have been ruled by different rulers for much of the last thousand years.
Speak to many southern Vietnamese even today and they'll tell you the war was an illegitimate land grab of the more fertile and valuable land in the south by communists in the north wrapping themselves in nationalist ideology.
South Vietnamese ex-pats are not an especially unbiased source. (Consider the Cuban ex pat population, which again tends to be descended from people who backed the anti Castro forces. Not saying Cuba or Vietnam are perfect, but the people who flee a regime aren't the best people to assess it. Our strategy in Iraq was informed by information from Iraqi ex pats.) North, South, and Central Vietnam are traditionally distinct regions, yes, but the war wasn't between the north and south, it's just that the south started out occupied.
I've discussed this subject with Vietnamese, in Vietnamese, all over the country, including Hanoi. Anti-communist sentiment runs strong everywhere. People are smart enough to understand how much the communists have held back the development of their country.
> What "battle" did the US win? As a military exercise it was a debacle from start to finish.
No it wasn't. It was a political, moral, social debacle from the start. But not a military one. Read some history and understand difference between "engagement", "battle", and "war". Those words mean specific things in military context.
True, I should have been more precise. I meant 'North' aligned forces as in all those that opposed American invasion, Northern and Southern Vietnamese alike.
In fact, Vietnam would have never won if there were no substantial (some might even say majority) support from the Southern inhabitants. From manpower, to resources, to shelter and hiding FNL agents the support of the population helped to erode the Diem regime et al.
Being Spartan like in certain ways! Confucian philosophy Vietnamese flavoured. Values like respecting elders, being of virtue, and being studious certainly are highly regarded. But just as much valor, military prowess (and by proxy the ability to defend the country against much stronger occupying forces) and endurance in the face of adversity are highly regarded in Vietnamese culture.
So yes, the profession of being a soldier e.g. being a mercenary is not as respected as a teacher; a soldier 'by circumstance', following the call of duty, fighting to defend the country? Very much so.
And what "battle" did the US win? As a military exercise it was a debacle from start to finish (much like our more recent efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan). Wrong war, wrong reason, wrong plan, incompetently executed (strategically).
And the comparison with 'Spartans' is off too. The Spartans were pretty weird (not just by our standards, but by contemporary standards too) and their society was entirely wrapped around military tradition. Despite centuries of foreign occupation and resistance, Vietnamese culture was and is basically Confucian (in which the soldier is pretty much the bottom of the totem pole).