Talk:Vietnam War

Archives

1 2 3 4 5

This article is part of Wikiproject:Vietnam War

Draft Dodgers

What do people think of the draft dodgers? People have said that they got in the way of the country doing it's job, whilst others feel that they were brave for standing up for what they beleive in. I personally beleive in the last. But i am interested in different views.

Unless it directly relates to the content of the article this is not the place to have this discussion. Please see WP:TPG. Cripipper 03:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This does relate to the article as the Vietnam War was where draft dodgers were first really in effect. so i want to gether peoples ideas in the issue.

If you intend to write a section on this topic then the more appropriate article is The United States and the Vietnam War; however, and no offence is intended, you do not go about writing it by asking other editors' opinions, you read appropriate citable literature on the topic. Cripipper 01:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

VPA vs PAVN

Been a whole lotta changin' goin on. Evidently someone likes the inaccurate title PAVN (first used by the US military during the conflict). Well lemme tell ya, the US Army has changed its tune. Just check out the first two volumes of their official history of the conflict - The United States Army in Vietnam: Combat Operations Washington DC: Center of Military History, 1998 & 2000. All North Vietnamese regular army units are given the designation Vietnam People's Army (VPA). Who am I to argue with the US government or the United States Army. They should know. RM Gillespie 22:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

For starters, there is nothing inaccurate about the translation People's Army of Vietnam for Quân Đội Nhân Dân Việt Nam. In fact, it is a more accurate translation than Vietnam People's Army, which doesn't actually even make sense in English. But that is by the by, VPA is how somebody mistranslated it back in the 1940s. PAVN is the standard, and it is what was agreed upon. I am not particularly interested in what the U.S. military call them one way or another. I am interested in what is the convention in academic writing, and that is PAVN. If and when a time comes that VPA is the norm and easily recognized by a casual reader then we'll run with that; but until such times it is not the place of wikipedia to attempt to change naming conventions. Cripipper 09:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent editing

For whoever the individual was who replaced the previous talk page, I will leave it to you to answer the three questions posed by commentators since I last edited it. Most of the questions concerning article content (except those dealing with POV) have been answered in or merged into the article. If you are one of the three with questions, go to the history page and find your answers. I guess someone did not appreciate the combing and editing. It was done so that it might be easier for commentators on the new edit to be recognized on a talk page that is almost as long as the article itself. Thats OK, I just won't come back to this talk again. Might have been the guy who wanted to know when the Vietnam War occurred. RM Gillespie 21:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It was me who restored it. If you want to tidy up the discussion page, archive it, don't delete its contents. Cripipper 09:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Cripper tried to move the timeline down but ended up deleting it. It is difficult to cut and paste (the sections on Kennedy, containment, and the coup, into the upper body with the timeline in the way. Why not place it at the bottom of the section dealing with Kennedy? Just trying to keep the article's integrity in line. RM Gillespie 22:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we not eliminate these massive timelines? They are redundant, occupy large amounts of space and would be better suited in article on the individual presidents (whose foreign policies they tend to reflect). They also make it more difficult to edit pieces of the article into a coherent whole. RM Gillespie 15:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be against it, as I think they help to strike the balance between the indigenous origins of the conflict, and the early origins of American involvement: the text focuses on Vietnamese developments, but the timelines provide relief of what the U.S. was up to. I wouldn't worry too much about trying to make all the sections collectively sing - somebody will be along to edit them in a day or two anyway. Good work though! Cripipper 16:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I didnt know where else to add this so I I will put it here.

North Vietnam followed up its southern victory by first making Laos a virtual puppet state. Socialist fraternalism did not last long. The Khmer Rouge, who had historical territorial ambitions in Vietnam, began a series of border incursions that finally led to a Vietnamese invasion. The VPA onslaught overthrew Pol Pot's murderous regime and a pro-Vietnamese government was installed (see Third Indochina War. Ironically, the US did not recognise the new government of Cambodia, and, along with the United Nations, continued to consider the Khmer Rouge (perpetrators of the greatest genocide since the Second world War) as their ally. And the ironies just kept on coming. In 1979 the Chinese, furious with the Vietnamese for eliminating their Khmer Rouge allies, launched an invasion of Vietnam's northern provinces. After fighting to a stalemate, the Chinese withdrew. So much for expansive, Moscow-dominated communism. The domino principle, the original pretext for US involvement in Southeast Asia, had been stood upon its head.

There is to much POV and downright ridiculous statements in that paragraph. Since when does an encyclopedia note "ironies?" It reads like a POV essay from a Chomsky type or something. I think some revision is needed.128.138.26.42 00:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree. POV language is strong in this section and citations are weak. Revision is definitely needed. gwlucca 02:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky's view

"The leading dissident scholar of the war is Noam Chomsky who was a prominant opponent of the war from the early 1960s. He believes the war is misdescribed by western historians as an unsuccessful defence of South Vietnam against North Vietnam aggression by the US and it's allies. He regards the war as a success for the US. In his view the US goal was the destruction of the indiginous nationalist movement amoung the peasentry - largely in the south. This movement was a threat to US interests not least because if successful there was the risk it would spread: "the domino effect." He views this period as critical, "The real invasion of South Vietnam was directed largely against the rural society and began in 1962 after many years of working through mercenaries and client groups. That fact simply does not exist in official American history."^[1]"

Discuss. Cripipper 15:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, this isn't even accurate. You would struggle to find a mainstream historian who depicts the Vietnam War as "an unsuccessful defence of South Vietnam against North Vietnam aggression by the US and it's allies". This was how it was depicted in the 1960s, not today. Cripipper 16:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

- You are correct to say that Chomsky is nowhere in the mainstream - I think he'd agree that amoungst _western intellectual_ opinion he is in a small minority. The accuracy or importance of a point of view is not determined by the views of western intellectuals. Western intellectuals once believed the earth was the centre of the Universe- they were wrong. Nevertheless, putting the accuracy of his position to one side it is a disgrace that the article doesnt contain a summary of the argument of the leading American dissident who has written volumes on the topic and wrote the forward to the proceedings of the Bertrand Russell War Crimes Tribunal.

I therefore propose that the above paragraph or some summary of the various strands of anti-war opinion including Chomsky be instated in the article.WW

Can you tell me where he is considered in the mainstream, because he is not taken seriously in Asian intellectual circles either. Unfortunately for Chomsky, practically no-one takes him seriously on South East Asia as a result of his defence of the Pol Pot regime and decades spent denying the genocide in Cambodia. Just because he is prominent doesn't make his views correct. Chomsky is an opinion-giver not a historian - big on theory and poor on fact. He and President Bush share something in common - a love for 'truthiness'. The reason one struggles to find mention of his position is not because of some big theory, but because it was wrong. The article you cite is simply a later rehash of his early 1960s views; by claiming that the U.S. was successful in suppressing an indigenous revolt by 1963 he sought to draw attention away from the fact that contrary to what he spent most of the 1960s denying, Hanoi was largely in control of the NLF. That said, there is certainly a place for Chomsky's views - perhaps in a section on the anti-war movement, which to be fair this article is lacking. IMHO it does not belong in a section on Kennedy. Cripipper 16:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by mainstream? He is widely considered one of the foremost philosophers of the century. Your description of Chomsky is 100% POV. If you think that Chomsky is an "opinion giver" rather than an empericist I suggest you correct your misapprention by reading some of his work. It is extremely well referenced. Moreover he is distinguished on the left by his consistant appeal to empirical evidence rather than political theory. I have never seen any evidence that Chomsky denied the genocide in Cambodia. I suggest you supply some or remove this allegation. Otherwise agreed - a section on the antiwar movement and its various strands would be welcome. There are I conceed at least two strands: the liberal "terrible blunder" strand and the Chomsky strand both of which deserve a description. If a better citation is sort for the Chomsky strand I will seek out a summary from his "American Power and the New Mandarins" which is a good well referenced work published just after the war. WW

I have read plenty of Chomsky thanks. Unfortunately being a good linguistic theorist does not make you a good historian. I didn't feel the need to quote anything about Cambodia as Chomsky's attempts to malign those who attempted to bring to the attention of the world the horrors of the Pol Pot regime are so well known that I didn't think I needed to. If you have the time and access to it, begin with the Nation review he wrote of Francois Ponchaud's Cambodia: Year Zero or get a copy of After the Cataclysm; alternatively try doing an internet search for 'Noam Chomsky deny Cambodia genocide' and I am sure you will find plenty of information. Of course my description of Chomsky is 100% POV - it is an opinion. All opinions are 100% POV: yours is no different, nor is Chomsky's. That is my point - Chomsky is not a historian, he is an opinion-giver. Cripipper 17:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The point of US policy in SE Asia was mainly to prevent Communism from encroaching on the key states in the region (Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines). This goal was achieved. But these nations were secure by 1966 and the war dragged on years longer. Overall the war was a terrible blow to US goals. U.S. weakness, and the fact that the anti-Vietnam sentiment prevented substantial support to other regimes in the immediate aftermath, permitted a wave of African and Latin American countries to fall to Communism -- Ethiopia, Benin Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Angola; Grenada, and Nicaragua. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Up to a point, but US policy was, on the whole, to prevent the spread of communism PERIOD. All Presidents had inhereted an unenviable legacy from Truman that made it a personal and national necessity to contain communism wherever it surfaced. Eisenhower earned his credibility in Korea, Kennedy did it during the Missile Crisis. It is arguable whether 'national interest' demanded the defence of SVN; unfortunately Johnson felt national credibility (something all Presidents associate with their personal credibility) required it. Cripipper 19:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• OK, First things first Mr. Ww. Please sign your posts with the use of 4 tildas, and please stop going back and entering text into previous discussions, so that there exists an accurate record of the discussion. To answer your points below:

Putting aside questions of Chomsky's character; he is unquestionably the most mainstream intellectual alive. He has greater name-recognition and popularity than all other living intellectuals. Wouldn't you agree that makes him 'mainstream'? Perhaps he isn't 'apple pie', but to assume that he is therefore not mainstream simply shows you do not understand the world beyond your nationalist point of view. In other words, you do not see humanity through the eyes of a human, but through the artificial conceptual framework of the institutions which govern you. This is known as institutional bias, and it is imposed upon you by school, work, family, media, and government, which are all dominant social institutions. It takes a very brave and mature person to grow beyond this immature point of view unless a nurturing environment is provided. This is why Wikipedia will never become a reality-based encyclopedia, based on documents and figures instead of political opinion. If objective data were published, it would foster an environment where readers are encouraged to think critically of the US, which means thinking beyond patriotic bias, or, learning to 'hate America' as it is commonly known among US television viewers.

• Oh, I see. I 'do not understand the world beyond your nationalist point of view. In other words, you do not see humanity through the eyes of a human, but through the artificial conceptual framework of the institutions which govern you.' Only problem with that is that 1) I am not American; 2)my school was not American; 3) I don't live in America 3)my family is not American; 4)I read mostly non-US media in several different languages; 5)I have lived under a variety of different governments in countries with different social systems, and none of them was America. Please do not lecture me, who you do not know from Adam, on what biases I may or may not have. Cripipper 18:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen Chomsky's supposed denials of Cambodian genocide, mostly because I assumed they were bullsh*t. I came to this conclusion after first exploring his supposed denial of the Nazi genocide, which was purely a waste of my time. Perhaps if someone were actually brave enough to step forward and provide links to his supposed denial of Cambodian genocide I would gladly have a look. Genocide is evil, such as the genocide of the Americans by European invaders. However, this genocide is gladly denied by those who committed it. Its funny how our institutional bias allows us to deny some genocides.

• If you had bothered to read my post above, I directed you straight to where you can read about Chomsky and Cambodia.Cripipper 18:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Cripper, I have tried to follow your directions for finding evidence that Chomsky denies the genocide in Cambodia and I havent been able to. I did the google search that you reccomended but not one of the articles the I read provided a quote attributed to Chomsky in which he denies that genocide has occured there. If you could provide a link to quotations from Chomsky, or just put the quotation here with a reference, that would be helpful. I think this is a huge claim to make about a respected scientist and I think it is strange that if there is any truth in it, that I, non sub-rock dweller should not have heard of it. Surely it would be as big a scandal as Gunther Grass being in the SS?

--- This is a long ass article article and I have read all of it before. If you still doubt Chomsky isnt biased as hell and continues to misrepresent his positions and others after you read that, whatever dude. The guy is not a historian, he is a social COMMENTARIAN which is why his views are not taken seriously by historians.

If you dont read that and you want a direct quotation that shows he was 100% wrong about the Khmer Rouge I will be happy to supply it128.138.26.42 00:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have followed up a few huge accusations about contentious people through links provided and it always turns out to be a waste of time, reading windy trash that isnt scholarly or referenced(i.e.no quotes, just general opinions). Thanks for the offer to provide the direct quotation and save me wading, I would be grateful. Fyntan 07:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Mr. WW - PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS WITH THE USE OF FOUR TILDAS. THANK YOU!

Beyond that, I couldn't be more clearer in my earlier posts: read Francois Ponchaud's Cambodia: Year Zero, and then read Chomsky's review of it in The Nation, and then read After the Cataclysm. I have not read the article linked to above, but having skimmed it it appears to be extremely well researched, referenced and foot-noted, and appears to contain all the information you are looking for. Regards. Cripipper 09:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The "long ass article" contains everything you say, research, footnotes etc, etc, but not one single qoute in which Chomsky denies the cambodian genocide. Because he never did. Before anyone else wastes their time on the "long ass article" here is the general feel of it. "The question of whether or not Noam Chomsky supported the Khmer Rouge is not as clear as either his critics or his defenders would like to pretend...blah blah blah... conveniently ignoring the overall theme of his articles....." Their argument is that his tone doesn't give as much weight to the genocide as they feel is appropriate to the topic, therefore he is effectively denying it. If you dont like Chomsky that's cool but you need to find some other way to express thisFyntan 11:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Alas were it only that simple. The point is that Chomsky derided Francois Ponchaud's work, which has stood the test of time, as American propaganda and compared it very unfavourably to Gareth Porter's rather glowing accounts of the Khmer Rouge regime. It speaks volumes that you choose to discourage people from reading a lengthy and detailed discussion of the issue rather than let them make up their own minds. I would go beyond that, and as I have said before, go and read Ponchaud's Cambodia Year Zero and then see what Chomsky had to say about it. Let's just say that it was not his finest hour... Cripipper 11:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky and Herman did not deride Ponchaud's work, they were ambivalent about it. They said it was "serious and worth reading" and "Ponchaud's account seems at best careless, sometimes in rather significant ways. Nevertheless, the book is a serious work, however much the press has distorted it." The errors that C&H pointed out were actual errors. However Ponchaud's work was only one element of the review that was concerned more with distortions of Ponchaud's work by Jean Lacouture which were amplified and spread by the media. Once again, it is notable that the errors that C&H indicated were actual errors; it is interesting that their critics rarely discuss the actual distortions that C&H revealed, instead they tend to employ slurring tactics from a perspective of 20/20 hindsight. The recent revelations concerning how the American bombing of Cambodia was far far greater than previously believed supports C&H's original position, although the critics have not yet been honest enough to make a reassessment. Don't hold your breath.BernardL 17:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I take note of the above comment; but I havent read the homework Cripper set me. Even if Chomsky disagrees with an account of the genocide, that is not the same as him denying the cambodian genocide "for decades" as cripper claims he did. If his dispute over Ponchaud's work is all that those claims boil down to, then there needs to be some exceptional argument for how this amounts to denying genocide. Please, cripper, tell me what it is, give me the quote, don't keep giving me a reading list. I checked out the "long ass article" in good faith and it was a waste of time. The point of this section is to discuss whether his views on the vietnam war should be included in this article, and how to include them. This page is a completely lame duck without his views, he is the most important voice to dissent from the US view of the war which at present this page reflects very wellFyntan 09:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

POV in favour of official US history

The article is generally POV in favour of the official US position. Which is not surprising since it is generally written by people exposed to the official US point of view over 50 years. There is a tendancy to adopt the official line as true, particularly to assume stated war aims to be actual war aims. An example:

"Rolling Thunder was the code name for a sustained bombing campaign against North Vietnam conducted by United States armed forces during the Vietnam War. Its purpose was to destroy the will of the North Vietnamese to fight, to destroy industrial bases and air defense (surface-to-air missile or SAMs), and to stop the flow of men and supplies down the Hồ Chí Minh Trail." Ww

Yes, it is true that one of the main aims of Rolling Thunder when it began was to boost morale in South Vietnam, and that 'mission creep' set in after that, but beyond that you are incorrect to say that the above aims were false. The entire intellectual underpinning of graduated response was to convince Hanoi to 'call off' the attacks in the South by demonstrating that the U.S. had the capacity to destroy the North, without actually having to go that far. What are the war aims you had in mind that you do not feel are addressed here? Cripipper 21:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is generally POV in favour of the official US position. No, it isn't at all, but thanks for sharing. Haizum 09:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Consider this statement: "The chief cause of the war was the failure of Vietnamese nationalists, in the form of the Viet Minh, to gain control of southern Vietnam both during and after their struggle for independence from France in the First Indochina War of 1946-1954." This is outrageous. If a foreign nation takes a side in a civil war and intervenes, it creates a new definition of the war for itself. This is the influence of celebrationist United States history; the conflict was most certainly an internal one. The United States replaced France as an imperial power believing it had the power to change what, when viewed in retrospect, appears if not inevitable, most plausible. Furthermore, the entering and escalation of the war by the United States is the logical outcome of Cold War foreign policy. This "chief cause" sentence bears little historical accuracy to the nature of society and politics in Vietnam, as well as United States foreign policy. - proud american

You’re right. it's like saying that victorious north Vietnam should have continued and utilize force to occupy and impose their idealogy on the rest of Vietnam , should not have signed the Geneva accord, should not have agree to splitting Vietnam in half nor to hold free election THAN the war would not happen. Even with citation from reliable source this statement cannot be verified. Therefore I will delete it if no one can come up with a better replacement. --Factus 09:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to assume that in 1954 that there were two Vietnams, separate and distinct. There were not. South Vietnam was the creation of Ngo Dinh Diem and his American backers. If the Viet Minh had succeeded in 1954 in ousting the French from the south, there would have been no second war, civil or not. If the elections called for at Geneva had been held, Vietnam would have been united under a communist government. Therein lay the rub. RM Gillespie 13:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

North Korean participation in Vietnam

During the war North Korea sent fighter pilots to Vietnam, I feel we should add them to the official history. Links: N Korea admits Vietnam war role and North Korea fought in Vietnam WarCanpark 05:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

it is mentioned now Istanbuljohnm 09:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

My Lai massacre

Why is the My Lai massacre listed under the Nixon administration? March 16, 1968 would have been the LBJ administration.

Because the massacre would take on a great significance when it was descibed in detail in the US newspapers, in 1969, when Nixon was presidentIstanbuljohnm 09:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Because stating the truth would make it on Johnson's (D) watch instead of Nixon's (R). I love how predictable Wikipedia is. Haizum 09:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

To note, and all "liberal bias" comments aside currently neither the words "My Lai" or "Massacre" are mentioned in this article, and quite frankly if you feel it is being misrepresented, then change it. That's what Wikipedia is based around. Haemo 07:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The final sentence, attempting to somehow balanace the cold-blooded murder of civilians by an invading army with unsubstantiated assertions of other cold-blooded murder by the other side, is anot worthy of inclusionw ithout citation. Is this a good place to describe the Pheonix programActio 06:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)actio

Institutional Bias

This article serves no purpose for non-US readers. Americans simply cannot understand that humanity witnesses US foreign policy from an objective point of view, and is therefore not impressed with America's attempts to makeover its image. For example, most of the world views the US War on Terrorism as a psychological war aimed at the American public by industrial forces through government and public institutions. Likewise, the war in Vietnam was truthfully an attack by Americans of rural Buddhist peasants who were seeking unified independence from colonial rule. In fact, of all Vietnam deaths, only 1 out of 60 was American, according to figures contained in the article. Most were killed by cowardly means, such as bombs and chemicals. The Vietnam war is therefore technically a massacre. However, these fact are obfuscated. The second sentence of the article clearly exemplifies this:

"By its end in 1975, the Vietnam War had claimed between two and four million lives."

This sort of sentence is offensive to non-US readers and proves Americans are at least conscious of their actions. A mature and secure people would allow these facts to be known without evasive language. However, Americans must live under the shattering psychological effects of American corporate television, and are not allowed to understand the institutions which govern them.

• I'm non-US, and struggle to understand how that sentence is offensive or evasive. I am not sure how the Vietnam War, as opposed to any other war, was a massacre. Cripipper 18:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, this article is supposedly written from "mainstream" "scholarly" sources, which simply means US book-writers who formulate opinion within the institutional boundaries which distribute their writings. "Mainstream" is a term used only in America, where political polarization has destroyed the notion of objectivity. It is a marketing term. If this were a reality-based encyclopedia it would be based from actual documents, such as the Pentagon Papers, Nixon and LBJ tapes, which are the richest sources of non-biased material concering the Vietnamese massacre known to humanity. However, these materials are probably not considered "mainstream". In fact, I don't believe any of these resources are even mentioned in the articles. Likewise, you will probably not find any mention of US politicians misleading the public deeper into the war, which was the chief political feature of the war.

• Unfortunately you are wrong again, as the use of primary sources would technically be original research and not permissible in Wikipedia. However, as mentioned in the discussion of Chomsky, historians actually do use factual evidence, such as the White House tapes, in their work, and these are the people whose work the article is based on. What revealing insights do you have to share that have been revealed in the Pentagon Papers or White House tapes or anything else documentarily based, that you feel is missing?
• Either provide specific examples of where this article is wrong and how it should be improved, or stop patronising the rest of us with your ill-informed comments; believe it or not, some of us actually do know a thing or two about the Vietnam War, and maybe a couple of other things besides. Cripipper 18:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "mainstream" is being used here as a form of censorship and should not be a consideration of wether a source is credible or not. Let the facts speak for themselves. I think that "primary sources" and "original research" are distinct. "primary sources" are the published material as it is before commentators digest it, original research, "is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source" Wether the White house is a reliable source is another matter. Fyntan 07:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

On the whole, Wikipedia does an excellent job of presenting the US Political point of view. It is a great idea-based encyclopedia. For example, the entire article on the Kent State shootings is pasted directly from the Nixon administration's lawyers.

to whomever wrote this...what you wrote is probably one of the truest and most insightful things I have have read on this site. cheersBernardL 21:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are all brainwashed and incapable of original thought. Thank you for being you, and being here and taking the time to let us know. Or another theory one might throw out is don't complain unless you have a solution. If the article needs work or is biased in your most "humble" opinion then contribute and help fix it. Spare us the condescending rants.--Looper5920 22:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a section on the Pentagon Papers anyway.

And have the Watergate tapes revealed anything about Vietnam?, take that evidence, put it under your nose, and continue to try and ignore it. starkt 09:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Việt Nam was ruled by the Chinese for centuries! He could not just forget that! He would never allow Chinese domination of Việt Nam. He was very wary of foreign domination, and this is a known fact. The Soviet Union did not even recognize the Democratic Republic of Việt Nam until 1950, six years after he proclaimed it! The Soviet Union did not support his numerous attempts to get Việt Nam into the UN in the 50's. He was very wary of both of them. --Ionius Mundus 15:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If Ho felt threatened by China and forsaken by the Soviet Union, how does that square with his dependence on them to fight against the U.S. and South Vietnam? It doesn't, and you know it. His wariness of China became much less marked when China became communist, and his disappointment in the Soviet Union, if any, ended when that country gave him weapons and material to fight his war. starkt 08:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It waas either get their help or fail, unless of course you think that he still should have taken a shot with asking the West. By the way, I think I can decide what I know and what I don't know for myself, thanks. --Ionius Mundus 03:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Vietnam was not fighting on behalf of the Soviets and Chinese and neither was the US fighting on behalf of French imperialism. They had similar goals to those which you claim they were fighting on behalf of had had (in one respect), but were NOT fighting for them. -Ionius Mundus 13:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine. As long as you concede that the goals were similar, that's good enough for me. And I still maintain that Vietnam was a battleground for outsiders trying to achieve their ends with little regard for the well-being of the Vietnamese. Both sides were guilty in this regard. As were the Vietnamese leaders on both sides who accepted the help of those outsiders and the strings that came with that help. starkt 08:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not concede anything. It is rather obvious that the goals were similar in one respect. But Chủ Tịch Hồ Chí Minh did genuinely care for the Vietnamese people. Read Bác Hồ's "The Path Which Led Me To Leninism". Don't worry, it is short and easy to find. Then let's see what you have to say. --Ionius Mundus 21:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you say that it is rather obvious that the goals were similar in one respect, then you are conceding something. Ho Chi Minh might have cared for the Vietnamese people, but it seems that many Vietnamese didn't care for him and still don't. I've read twenty to thirty books on the Vietnam War, from a variety of perspectives. I hope that "The Path Which Led Me to Leninism" isn't the only book you've read. And, incidentally, anyone who admires Lenin -- a mass murderer -- does not any earn points in my book. The book might as well have a flashing sign on the cover, saying "Nonsense herein". starkt 08:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay... First of all, even Eisenhower conceeded that Hồ Chí Minh had the support of 80% of Vietnamese. Show one politician who has actually gained 100% support. And no, you can't use Diệm (who apparently got 150% of the votes in Sài Gòn) as an example. Second of all you have basically said that you have not read Bác Hồ's "The Path Which Led Me To Leninism", as it is not even a book at all, and is merely a few paragraphs. Lenin was not a mass murderer, you have mixed him up with Stalin. And, no, I have actually read some books on Việt Nam aside from those few paragraphs which you unknowingly called a book. --Ionius Mundus 15:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to complain about institutional bias, why don't you take a look at Wikipedia? Haizum 09:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

US Centric

This article reads like it's about "Foreign policy of the United States during its war in Vietnam", rather than the Vietnam War. Most of the action took place in South Vietnam, yet hardly anything is said about the social, economic, and political situation there (how did Thieu gain power? what was his rule like? what was the mood of civilian Vietnamese?) while minute details about the situation in faraway USA are discussed at length (Robbie Kennedy's candidacy, some guy's primary election fortunes in some tiny state, protests in a college in Ohio, US foreign policies post-Vietnam, etc.) This article needs a serious rewrite, and needs to focus on where the action is. 207.178.224.50 22:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. A more appropriate title would be "U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War". Beit Or 17:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There may indeed be important omissions and unnecessary inclusions. However, if the USA features highly in this article overall, it is because of its crucial role in the war. US policy in relation to Vietnam, the way it was formulated and implemented, parallels in importance any of the political, sociological or economic conditions/events within Vietnam itself. Rewriting this article with less emphasis on US involvement will not only obscure the facts and events presented but also mislead the reader.Alexandert14 12:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"A more appropriate title would be 'U.S involvement in the Vietnam War'" Do we say the same as the French in Algera? No, we say it occupied Algeria. In regard to Vietnam, acted to re-conquer Vietnam and the rest of Indochina. So a 'more appropriate' description could be US Occupation War, Diem was clarly a Viceroy(unelected and supported by the SV landed-Gentry. The UK Consul-General Kenneth Blackwell in Hanoi described the aim as "To occupy the country indefinitely as the Americans seem prepared to do" on the 23rd of May 1962. User:Green01 8:06, Jan 04 2006 (UTC).

You are right, but a lot of that talk about US politics is because the US government views it as their fight against the Communists, not as a Vietnamese civil conflict. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Is it possible that one day, the USA will apologize to the people of Vietnam for the rape of the people and their land? The USA expects apologies from a minor-despot like Gaddafi while it ignores its own behavior.

American Defeat?

I notice the article once said 'political defeat' and now 'Political and military' defeat in the war box, US won every single engagement of the war apart from the earlier Vietcong vicotories that fueled the US intervention.

Every single engagement of the war? Perhaps you have never heard of the fall of the Ashau SF border camp? Or the loss of Kham Duc - the largest American defeat of the conflict? RM Gillespie 01:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It was most certainly a political defeat, but military also? As for failure to defend south vietnam didnt that responsibility lie with South vietnam?

The changes here are applicable to the Soivet war in Afghanistan page aswell as both were interventions in other countries by the two cold war super powers, Hence if this is a US military and political defeat, Afghanistan is likewise for the Soviet union.

Lets hope we can clear this up. S Seagal 03:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot win a war with your military and later pull out because of that, then its a military defeat. Israel did a lot of damage and killing during the recent war in Lebanon, yet Hezbullah still came out the victor. Its the same thing. It doesnt matter how many battles you win or people you kill, its about whether you accomplish your objective or not.Khosrow II 00:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The DRV and NLF succeeded in uniting Vietnam under a Communist flag. This is argubably the outcome expected in the early sixties during Diem's presidency. So, all that the USA's involvement achieved was to delay this event by more than a decade and at the expense of millions of lives, entire ecosystems and incalculable sums of money. Some might call that a defeat and others would call it a shameful tragedy.Alexandert14 13:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Seem like a military defeat to me; America might have won a most of the battles, but they surely lost the war. Kind of like Iraq right now. 24.222.8.32 05:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

An old saying "You might had won every single battle, but still lost the war." In which the Americans didnt suffered many serious defeat but politically they didnt achieve their goals to defeat Communism. Ho Chi Minh said that "For every ten men you killed ours, we will kill one of yours, in the end we will still win." Basically just because that side had huge casualties or lost many bases, as long as their leader or ideology still survive for another day, they are not defeated yet and can fight for another day. Just my two cent for this discussion about America defeat. Hanchi 3December 2006

I think there has to be some mention on an American Strategic Defeat. There is simply no question that the US Military was unable to handle the situation, for whatever reason. Take the Suez Crisis, for example. It was inarguably a Anglo-French/Israeli defeat, but it was still a stunning military campaign on the part of those powers. It was the politics, ie American and Soviet pressure, that lost the British Suez, not any lack of military victory. Still, Suez goes down in the history books as a mangling defeat for the UK. Vietnam was not only dodgy militarily, but was also untenable politically, and therefore must be considered a defeat for the Americans. I am amending the battlebox accordingly. Psidogretro 19:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A military defeat would have meant that the US Military Forces would have been annihilated or surrendered. They were withdrawn as a result of Congress pulling the funding for them. This is not a Military Defeat, but a political one. I have corrected the battlebox.Corporaljohnny 19:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• U.S. troops were not withdrawn because of Congress pulling the funding for them. They were withdrawn as part of Nixon's 'Vietnamization' plan. Cripipper 16:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Congress withdrew funding because everyone had realized that the war was a stalemate, and that the US wasn't winning. Consensus has already been reached on this issue; the war was a strategic defeat as well. I have corrected the battlebox to the status of the war that we agreed on back in December. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Nevermind, someone else has already fixed it. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Everyone realized? Sounds like POV and weasly words to me. Show me some proof that everyone realized it was a stalemate and that the war could not have been won had congress continued to fund the troops.Corporaljohnny 16:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 16:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Cripipper, the article cleary states the withdrawl was because of a bill that congress passed... In December 1974, the Democratic majority in Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, which cut off all military funding to the South Vietnamese government and made unenforceable the peace terms negotiated by Nixon. Nixon, threatened with impeachment because of Watergate, had resigned his office. Gerald R. Ford, Nixon's vice-president stepped in to finish his term. The new president vetoed the Foreign Assistance Act, but his veto was overridden by Congress.Corporaljohnny 20:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the article clearly says that funds for the South Vietnamese government were cut off by Congress; by December there were no U.S. troops left in Indochina to fund. By the summer of 1972 there were fewer than 25,000 U.S. combat troops left in the country. By the time of the signing of the Paris agreements in January 1973 there were practically none. All advisers officially left before the end of March 1973 (though many stayed on in different guises). Cripipper 00:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Phillipine Involvement

Theirs not so much mention of the phillipine involvment! I want info on that!--Johnston49er 07:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Political defeat for US(?)

I notice this article refers to the war as being a "political defeat" for the U.S. A number of commentators these days refer to the U.S. defeat as "political," and not military as well. I do not believe this is the case. Make no mistake, this war was a military defeat for the U.S. Just because the VC didn't follow the Western "rules" of classic military conflict doesn't mean that they didn't prevail militarily. Guerrilla warfare is every bit as valid a form of war as any classic Western military doctrine.

However, because of jingoism and general ignorance of VC military methods, U.S. writers have long denigrated what the VC accomplished militarily. For example, U.S. soldiers and military analysts have often referred to what they saw as "chaos," in Vietnam during the war. It may well have been "chaos," seen through the eyes of the U.S. military----but the VC side knew exactly what was going on. Keeping one's enemy confused and in the dark is a key tactic of guerrilla warfare in any case. Just because the VC didn't follow what American military leaders would call classic military doctrine doesn't mean that the VC didn't prevail militarily. In the real world, you don't get extra points on the battlefield for following "classic rules of war."

Additionally, if you're going to label this war as a "political," and not military defeat for the U.S., then you could really say the same for many other wars throughout history. For example, you could say that the German defeat in World War I was a "political" defeat (as strikes and political turbulence on their homefront played a major role in their defeat). Same thing goes for World War II. If Hitler had simply allowed his generals to run the war and had not meddled, then the Germans would have probably prevailed.

---You are absolutely correct: will anyone review this position? (signed) Dan4J 20:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

-- "...Make no mistake, this war was a military defeat for the U.S. Just because the VC didn't follow the Western "rules" of classic military conflict doesn't mean that they didn't prevail militarily. Guerrilla warfare is every bit as valid a form of war as any classic Western military doctrine....."

We were winning when I left - bwmoll3

No matter what you do, no matter how you want to lable it, when you leave, you lose. Period. If not emotionally attached, it should not be a difficult concept to understand. --Factus 09:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like somebody to change the following line, then, as it seems strangely out of place: "Although the U.S. and South Vietnamese were initially surprised by the scale and scope of the offensive, they responded quickly and devastated the ranks of the NLF. Despite its tactical failure, however, the Tet Offensive effectively ended the political career of President Johnson, who refused to run for reelection and spent the rest of his term working for peace in Vietnam." This makes it sound like they lost, but we lost too many men defending, marking a phyrric victory for the US, but that does not seem to have been what has historically occurred. Sim 15:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the Tet Offensive is that it was not how many men the Americans lost, but rather that the communist forces were able to launch an offensive at all when Westmoreland and others were seeing the "light at the end of the tunnel" and expected the end of the war soon. That's why Tet was a political defeat, because it showed that the US was no closer to victory than it had been 5 years earlier.

The analogy to World War I above is incorrect. German leaders in the inter-war years labelled the war as a political, but not military defeat, but they were wrong. To quote from the Wikipedia article, in discussing Allied victory in 1918:

By the start of October, it was evident that Germany could no longer mount a successful defense, let alone a counterattack. Numerically on the frontline they were increasingly outnumbered, with the few new recruits too young or too old to be of much help. Rations were cut for men and horses because the food supply was critical. Ludendorff had decided, by 1 October, that Germany had two ways out of the War—total annihilation or an armistice. He recommended the latter to senior German officials at a summit on that very same day. During October, the Allied pressure did not let up until the end of the war.

So, Germany was militarily defeated, but the politicians had to figure out how to end it and THEN home front problems began. During the Viet Nam War, home front problems began despite continuing tactical military victories. Thus, despite the great losses faced by the Vietnamese in the Tet Offensive, it achieved it's strategic goal of ending American involvement. --Habap 15:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Typo

under his leadership. In his exultant speech before a hugh audience in Hanoi, he

should read: before a huge audience in Hanoi, he

Typo

e with the insurgency with the aid of U.S. materiel and advisers

• Fixed. Cripipper 15:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Should read: e with the insurgency with the aid of U.S. material and advisers

• Materiel (materiél) is the correct word. Cripipper 15:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

>> Hey, Cripipper...if you're fixing typos, pleeeeaase see my post. Dan4J 20:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Helicopter Evacuating Vietnamese Civilians from roof of US Embassy.

The article that states that the US Military was evacuating from the US Embassy is false. The helicopter is a "civilian" helicopter (Air America), and they were evacuating from an apartment building.

"The picture of a Huey helicopter evacuating people from the top of what was billed as being the U.S. Embassy in Saigon during the last week of April 1975 during the fall of Saigon helped to establish this myth.

This famous picture is the property of Corbus-Bettman Archives. It was originally a UPI photograph that was taken by an Englishman, Mr. Hugh Van Ess. Here are some facts to clear up that poor job of reporting by the news media.

Facts about the fall of Saigon

It was a "civilian" (Air America) Huey not Army or Marines. It was NOT the U.S. Embassy. The building is the Pittman Apartments. The U.S. Embassy and its helipad were much larger. The evacuees were Vietnamese not American military. The person that can be seen aiding the refugees is Mr. O.B. Harnage. He was a CIA case officer and now retired in Arizona."

Here is your source.

http://www.vhcma.org/fact.html

I ask that you would change this to the facts, not popular speculation. Students use wikipedia as a resource, and false information does not need to be given.

70.61.253.210 16:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Tabitha70.61.253.210 16:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Typographical Errors, Punctuation, Phrasing

Notably worse in this article than typical, I'm afraid. With all the discussion about content, organization, and subjectivity, this should not be pushed aside.

If anyone with authority wants a list of typos etc, I'd be happy to provide one. (e.g. "hugh" io huge under Laos) Breaking with good sense and suggested rules, I can even provide an email address if you want. Or just leave word on my Home page (Dan4J).

I'm not familiar with "Editprotected", but willing to use if it can be explained simply and it's OK.

Dan4J 22:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Article is locked so I can't correct it, so someone please do so: "the precursor of theCentral Intelligence Agency" There is no space after "the".

--Derrill 08:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Official Communist losses were 1,100,000 dead

Why it's "600,000"? Civilian dead were some 900,000, not 1,000,000 (mostly South Vietnamese). --HanzoHattori 13:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A lot of vandalism like this seems to occur. Numbers that have been considered facts for decades are changed, to more properly represent a politically correct view of a given war. It also happened in various WW2 articles, such as Stalingrad, where they up the casualties for the Germans, and reduce the casualties of Russia.

Possibly inflating civilian casaulties is okay for me (no one knows the exact number anyway, and probably never will). Almost halving the Communist dead is not. --HanzoHattori 18:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see no one will correct this? Not important, I guess. --HanzoHattori 17:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The official US estamation of Vietnamese(North and South) dead is 2 million isn't it? User:Green01 3:12, Nov. 30 2006 (UTC).

2 million dead is US estimates,they might have exaggerated it, however hanoi officially claims total communist dead is 1.1 million so whoever put the death toll of 600000 must be a complete retard. I suspect some retarded chauvinist viets might have done this, typical of communist pigs. I wouldn't say this, if the report was untrue, but it's obviously not even the current vietnamese government officially put the figure at 1.1 mil dead, not more, not less.

so vietnamese pigs face the truth.

XXXXXXXXX 4:12, Nov. 31 2006 (UTC).

How large was the Vietnamese population during the Vietnam war?

How large was the Vietnamese population during the Vietnam war?

I would have thought that it would be interesting to know, so one could understand how big a percentage of the population was affected.

Such demographics would ease understanding and wikis value and usage for educational purposes I would imagine.

85.112.144.50 22:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Vietnamese population around 1965 - 1975

Wartime Population

South VietNam had a population of about 16,000,000 and North VietNam about 19,000,000.

Operation Bolo

i have just created a new article about an air operation for the US that went perfectly 7:0 7 MIG-21s, 0 F-4 phantoms it is called operation Bolo and i would like you guys to see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bolo Tu-49 01:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The article needs some serious work. More details in the relevant discussion page.Alexandert14 12:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

South Vietnamese Held on for Two More Years

South Vietnam held their own against the communists for two years after the 1973 withdraw of most American forces. It did this until congress cut the funding for the support of South Vietnam in 1975. The common conclusion that we had lost the war is not viable. The Soviets continued to send $1 billion dollars annually to Hanoi, which later precipitated the collapse of the Soviet Union due to economic failure. It is safe to say that Vietnam was a political loss, not a military one. User:Jfhenn 10:06, 21 November 2006)

• I think it is going a bit far to say that $1 billion (source?) of Soviet expenditure to Vietnam per year precipitated the collapse of the Soviet Union. The U.S. failed to achieve the goal that it sent in its military to pursue, i.e. the preservation of an independent, non-communist South Vietnam. The political defeat is the more serious one; you send in the Army to pursue military victory in an effort to achieve political goals, not the other way round.

POV on Exit of French

"What had been a colonial war in Indochina became another example of expansive world-wide communism, directed by the Kremlin." - Exit of the French, 1950-1955. POV Alert! No offence but I have never seen evidence of this and it is clearly an act of aggression by the US. The Vietnamese repell the French, then the US strikes, imposing Diem and later assult the country(ground and air) in 1962.

The Pentagon Papers says the contrary:

"It is equally clear that North Vietnamese communists operated some form of subordinate apparatus in the South in the years 1954-1960. Nonetheless, the Viet Minh "stay-behinds" were not directed originally to structure an insurgency, and there is no coherent picture of the extent or effectiveness of communist activities in the period 1956-1959. From all indications, this was a period of reorganization and recruiting by the communist party. No direct links have been established between Hanoi and perpetrators of rural violence.

Statements have been found in captured party histories that the communists plotted and controlled the entire insurgency, but these are difficult to take at face value. Bernard Fall ingeniously correlated DRV complaints to the ICC of incidents in South Vietnam in 1957 with GVN reports of the same incidents, and found Hanoi suspiciously well informed. He also perceived a pattern in the terrorism of 1957-1959, deducing that a broad, centrally directed strategy was being implemented. However, there is little other corroborative evidence that Hanoi instigated the incidents, much less orchestrated them." - Section 1, pp. 242-69, The Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Volume 1, Chapter 5, "Origins of the Insurgency in South Vietnam, 1954-1960"

"The primary question concerning Hanoi's role in the origins of the insurgency is not so much whether it played a role or not--the evidence of direct North Vietnamese participation in subversion against the Government of South Vietnam is now extensive--but when Hanoi intervened in a systematic way. Most attacks on U.S. policy have been based on the proposition that the DRV move on the South came with manifest reluctance, and after massive U.S. intervention in 1961. For example, George McTurnin Kahin and John W. Lewis, in their book The United States in Vietnam, state that:

"Contrary to United States policy assumptions, all available evidence shows that the revival of the civil war in the South in 1958 was undertaken by Southerners at their own--not Hanoi's--initiative. . . . Insurgency activity against the Saigon government began in the South under Southern leadership not as a consequence of any dictate from Hanoi, but contrary to Hanoi's injunction" - Ibid

User:Green01 3:14, Nov. 30 2006 (UTC).

Minor Error

In the section 1.1.1 Harry S. Truman and Vietnam (1945-1953) it states that OSS officer Lieutenant Colonel A.Peter Dewey was the first American casualty involved in Vietnam. But in the section 2.1.1 Dwight D. Eisenhower and Vietnam (1953–1961) it states that Charles Ovnand/Dale R. Buis were the first two American advisors to die in Vietnam. Wasn't this OSS officer an American advisor?Just trying to perfect Wikipedia:)

US did not just oppose reunification of Vietnam in 1950's

I call to attention an unsubstanciated and POV assertion that I urge be edited:

(this was the only occasion during the post-war period in which the U.S. opposed the reunification of a divided nation) - The Diem Era, 1955-1963, The Winston Churchill of Asia, Vietnam War, first paragraph.

This is plainly untrue, the US opposed the reunification of Germany after WW2, as did each of the 3 powers(USSR changed policy, UK and US didn't):

"The United Kingdom, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics shall possess supreme authority with respect to Germany. In the exercise of such authority they will take such steps, including the complete dismemberment of Germany as they deem requisite for future peace and security." 111 Dismemberment, Yalta Conference

George Kennan in the US Dept. of State in 1946 warned against a reunified Germany and called for "endevour to rescue Western zones of Germany by walling them off against Eastern penetration" "and integrating them into an international pattern of Western Europe, rather than into a united Germany." - John H. Backer, The Decision to Divide Germany (Duke 1970), pp. 155-6. User:Green01 11:51, Dec. 03 2006 (UTC).

Aid from USSR

"Other Countries' Involvement

Soviet Union

The Soviet Union supplied North Vietnam with medical supplies, arms, tanks, planes, helicopters, artillery, ground-air missiles and other military equipment. 80% of all weaponry used by the North Vietnamese side came from the Soviet Union. Hundreds of military advisors were sent to train the Vietnamese army. Soviet pilots acted as training cadre and many have flown combat missions as "volunteers". Fewer than a dozen Soviet citizens lost their lives in this conflict."

What are the source/s for this(eg. 80% figure)? User:Green01 1:41, Dec. 04 2006 (UTC).

PL 93-559

This:

"In December 1974, the Democratic majority in Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, which cut off all military funding to the South Vietnamese government and made unenforceable the peace terms negotiated by Nixon . . . The new president vetoed the Foreign Assistance Act, but his veto was overridden by Congress."

is, like the great bulk of this article, a rather 'revisionist' appreciation of the history of the conflict.

For one, Ford did not veto this act:

"Statement on Signing the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974. December 30, 1974"

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=4660

Other minor points, like the Congressional split was not quite (Dem/Rep) partisan but ideological ('Hawk' vs. 'Dove'), and the fact that PL 93-559 did not "cut off" all military funding:

"Provides that after June 30, 1976, no military assistance shall be furnished to South Vietnam unless authorized under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or the Foreign Military Sales Act."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d093:SN03394:@@@D&summ2=m&%7CTOM:/bss/d093query.html%7C

would provide much-needed accuracy to this article.

I, too, found that statement mystifying and totally unverifiable. The timeline doesn't make sense as the US involvement in the war was over and most troops had been withdrawn. It does seem to be part of the folklore that Congress ended the US involvement by cutting off funding, but I can't identify any credible source. Anyone citing any legislation needs to include the Thomas link to support it. Mulp 17:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I deleted the paragraph as it seems to be more a myth or folklore than in any way related to reality. According to HNN, the Case-Church Amendment in June 19, 1973 cut off military spending in Asia. http://hnn.us/articles/31400.html I haven't found a quick link into thomas for this. I did find in LOC an electronic copy of a book with this relevant exerpt:

Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho end their talks on implementation of the Vietnam truce agreement. 19 June 1973

U.S. Congress passes the Case-Church Amendment which forbids any further U.S. military involvement in Southeast Asia. 1 July 1973

U.S. Congress votes to end all bombing in Cambodia after August 15. 16 July 1973

The U.S. Senate Armed Forces Committee begins hearings into the secret bombing of Cambodia during 1969-70. 17 July 1973

Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger testifies about bombing raids in Cambodia. This results in first call for Nixon's impeachment. 14 August 1973

U.S. bombing of Cambodia halted. 22 August 1973

Congress passes the War Powers Resolution requiring the President to obtain the support of Congress within 90 days of sending American troops abroad. 7 November 1973

U.S. Congress overrides presidential veto of War Powers Act. 9 May 1974

Congress begins impeachment proceedings against President Nixon stemming from the Watergate scandal. 9 August 1974

the above is from "The Vietnam War era : a personal journey / Bruce O. Solheim." at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0618/2006025641.html

Mulp 18:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Strategic Military defeat for the US?!

That is obviously in error. It was a political loss, but militarily the US won every single major engagement during the Viet Nam war, so why in the world is this labeled a defeat? That needs to be corrected.(Username?)

I agree in the sense there was no defeat, the aim was to prevent a reunified Vietnam as a model of Third World development, like China and the USSR were as alternatives to the US. The declassified record shows 'concern' about 'radical nationalism' and 'economic nationalism'. A 'viris' that 'might infect others'. So yes there was a victory, Vietnam and indeed the region is a wreck. Not a model of development. User:Green01 11:16, 16 Dec. 2006 (UTC).

If we won militarily, why in 1973 did the PAVN still controll all of NVN, the DMZ, much of the country immediately south of the DMZ (including Khe Sanh), Tchepone, the Laos infiltration routes south from Tchepone, the A Shau Valley (site of the Hamburger Hill battles of 1969), the Cambodia sanctuaries, much of the SVN areas adjacent to Cambodia. AND have enough military power and logistics to send 20 divisions into RVN in 1974-75? We did not stem the Red tide in SE Asia, we only delayed it 10 years. That is not a victory, and not a stalemate. What's left? ~~ Troy

"We did not stem the Red tide in SE Asia, we only delayed it 10 years. That is not a victory" No because it has nothing to do with US aims, or the aims of any state. The US was not opposed to Marxist-Leninist regirmes. It supported Pol Pot and Romania's regime. The region is a wreck, so it was a victory for the US. Largely a military defeat because of violent rebellion by South Vietnamese. User:Green01 6:15. Dec. 18 2006 (UTC).

The larger picture is that Communism was rolled back in Indonesia but gained in Vietnam (and temporarily in Laos, Cambodia). China broke with Vietnam and became much friendlier to US, as did Russia. All in all a mixed bag generally favorable to US. Rjensen 12:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• The "roll back" of communism in Indonesia had peculiarly little to do with the United States, and the Vietnam War made Sino-American rapprochement more, not less, difficult. It would be more accurate to say that the long-term outcome was generally favourable to the U.S. despite the Vietnam War, not because of it (although one could argue that the weakening of America's global position that occurred as a result of Vietnam and the emboldened Soviet foreign policy of the late 1970s led to the U.S.S.R.'s own foreign misadventure in Afghanistan, which in itself played no small part in the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union). Cripipper 17:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is speculative at best to debate from either perspective the role of the United States in any "roll back" of Indonesian communism. There are simply too many variables for definitive comment.

Hoya1 16:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• How can you have a study on the collapse of communism in Indonesia and not examine the role of the United States? Cripipper 23:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not an error. You are correct in noting that they US won every major engagement over the course of the war. Those are tactical enagagements. However, the outcome of the war was directly contradictory to the strategic goals the US laid out for itself when it went in, so the conflict as a whole is labeled a strategic defeat. It is important to keep these two terms separate when considering military-historical information. Haemo 07:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It may be important to make that distinction, but a valid application of the distinction assumes an unbiased assessment of the "strategic goals the US laid out for itself" and a second unbiased assessment of whether in fact the eventual outcome contradicted all of those goals. At minimum, the mere delaying of a communist takeover in the South for well over a decade should at least be considered as satisfying a "strategic goal."

Hoya1 04:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So presumably every war which has ended up with the opposite situation to that wished by one of its participants should be described as "satisfying a strategic goal", as long as it delayed the failure to achieve its aims? Were the Vietnamese better off in the years before the war was lost by the West because communism was not yet victorious? I would say not, because the civilian death toll and the obliteration of the Vietnamese economy was, on balance, worse even than living in a communist regime. One has to be careful not to start with a premise such as "our political leaders are supermen who never make strategic blunders or fail" and twist historical facts to suit this viewpoint in any way possible. The war was a tragedy for Vietnam. The fact that the country became a communist regime was a different sort of tragedy which it is not clear could have been avoided due to the nature of the enemy. In my opinion, both have been bad for Vietnam and can only be viewed a historical tragedy with very little positive to be found in it beyond the experience to avoid similar things happening again. It would be beneficial if current political leaders studied history with a view to avoiding similar mistakes. 82.21.244.172 17:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Characterization of Moyar book

While this work undoubtedly qualifies as "revisionist," I question the summary of its primary contentions in the bibliographical material. IMO, Moyar's principal arguments involve: 1) an attempt to in part rehabilitate Diem and view his removal as the turning point to eventual defeat; 2) an attempt to discredit certain of the on-site reporting of David Halberstam and Neil Sheehan and stress its importance in driving events; and 3) arguing for the importance of two Kennedy decisions--the failure to use early military force in Laos and the appointment of Henry Cabot Lodge Jr.

Hoya1 00:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahudson's partial splitting of the article

I am not particularly impressed by the half-hearted splitting of this article, which has left in inferior in quality and content. I propose to revert it unless it is completed tomorrow, 22-12-2006. Cripipper 16:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Anyone have an opinion before too many additional edits are made? A half-assed split of the article is worse than no split at all. Cripipper 16:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the splits made by Ahudson, and attempted to reduce the length of the article through the creation of The United States and the Vietnam War, which goes into more detail. I am not sure how well this works in comparison to what has gone before: feedback welcome. Cripipper 12:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm.... You could've added to what I had done instead of reversion... and I think you might benefit from reading this article: Help:Reverting, specifically this sentence: "If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.". Plus, I would like to add that calling someone's honest work "half-assed" isn't a good way to get them to get along with you. I didn't just abandon this article; I went on vacation, and had no internet access for a week.

Now, as to what you were saying about the changes you made: there is no point in doing that, now you have 20kb or so of duplicate material. This can all be summarized inside the main article, that was the whole point. Also, the page that you copied into is now once again too large. You just wasted any work you did addressing this issue. Please think more next time. Ahudson 02:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The new page you created doesn't seem very helpful. Its topic includes 75% or more of what is in Vietnam War, so it will probably be at a very similar level of depth. I think AHudson's approach would probably have been more successful. However, to AHudson, in the future when you are planning a major change to an article it is often good to prepare it on your local computer and not to leave a major article like this in an "under construction" state for a long period of time. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that with an article this large, a period of a few days is acceptable for reconstruction, especially since such a task would take several hours to complete and many people do not spend more than an hour a day on wikipedia. Even if you had all the text written out ahead of time, creating all of the new articles, splitting the information, and informing the general community of your changes would take up a large amount of time, especially with a slower internet connection. Taking a vacation in the middle was not the best of ideas, but Cripipper's original demand of finishing the splitting in one day was completely unreasonable and unprecedented for an article this large. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Well, I didn't do anything for more than a week. And I really am sorry about that, I was expecting to have internet access when I was on vacation but I only had time to check my email once. I looked through to the article how I left it last time, and I understand completely why you reverted it. I would have done the same thing. I hope you guys will accept my apology. Ahudson 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Template to add?

I just created a template for linking together articles involving America's internal and external wars and conflicts. If you want to toss in Template:American conflicts, I leave it up to you guys. Cwolfsheep 07:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is this page semi-protected?

This page has been sprotected for over 2 months. Have there been chronic vandalism problems in the past, or does the block need to be removed? CalebNoble 11:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Prior to protection this page did see a large amount of vandalism. However it was nothing that careful watching could not deal with. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Speculation:"It was as though the administration had just been awaiting such an opportunity."

Can someone please find a source for "It was as though the administration had just been awaiting such an opportunity."?

Article length problems

A couple of weeks ago I started to section off this article, and had gotten halfway through the project when I went on vacation and didn't have internet access... but now I come back and find that all the stuff I moved out and summarized has been added back into the article! What's up, people? Is there some protocol that I'm not following, or what? I said what I was doing on this talk page, and stated my reasons for it (see Talk:Vietnam_War#Article Size). Why were my changes reversed instead of added to? I wasn't finished, and now so many edits have been done since then that I'm afraid to simply revert to the old version. What's going on with this article? I'm talking especially to Cripipper and Publicus, but anybody else that can tell me what's going on please do. Ahudson 16:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please seek consensus for major edits before making them, especially in well-develoed articles like this one. -Will Beback · † · 03:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There seems to have been plenty of community consensus for splitting off parts of the article, as splitting is the first item on the task list and several users have mentioned a need for size reduction and condensation. I don't see what lack of consensus there is for Ahudson's edits, unless editors need to haggle over each individual sentence and fact; if this is the case, they are free to edit it once the effort has been made to trim down the article.Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Just a question for whoever works on this article regularly: what purpose does the "background" section serve? Most of the information is either too far back or too obscure to have any effect on the reader's understanding of the Vietnam War. Couldn't it be reduced to three or four smaller paragraphs without harming the article as a whole? Ahudson 16:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Exit of the French POV Again

Once more someone puts the clear POV that the US fought in South Vietnam because the Pres. and co. thought there was a "worldwide communist conspiracy". This I just outlined was not true in the earlier post in this Discussion Page in reference to the Pentagon Papers. User:Green01 7:45, Jan. 04 2007 (UTC).

I have just edited the relevant sentance again. User:Green01 9:08, Jan. 04 2007 (UTC).

I issue a warning against Cripipper not to insert any more POV edits into this page. If he can't prove what he writes(I doubt one can disprove the Pentagon Papers then he should restrain his imagination about Washington's perceptions in the 1950's and '60's. User:Green01 2:38, 5 Jan. 2006 (UTC).

I suggest you be a bit more careful about your warnings:

• "American thinking and policy-making was dominated by the tendency to view communism in monolithic terms. The Viet Minh was, therefore, seen as part of the Southeast Asia manifestation of the world-wide communist expansionary movement. French resistance to Ho Chi Minh, in turn, was thought to be a crucial link in the containment of communism. This strategic perception of the communist threat was supported by the espousal of the domino principle: the loss of a single nation in Southeast Asia to communism would inexorably lead to the other nations of the area falling under communist control. The domino principle, which probably had its origin at the time of the Nationalist withdrawal from mainland China, was at the root of U.S. policy. Although elements of a domino-like theory could be found in NSC papers before the start of the Korean War, the Chinese intervention in Korea was thought to be an ominous confirmation of its validity. The possibility of a large-scale Chinese intervention in Indochina, similar to that in Korea, was feared, especially after the armistice in Korea." (Pentagon Papers, Chapter 2, p. 54) Cripipper 15:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Reduction in Progress

I have a tenative version of the section "Escalation and Americanization" in my sandbox for people to look at and give comments on. Please only state specific problems with that section, not problems with the idea of revising the article as a whole. also keep in mind that this is only a draft, I haven't checked for spelling, usage, etc. Ahudson 00:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't see why it needs to be so drastically reduced - look at the articles on the Korean War, WWII etc - conflicts which were shorter in duration. I am not at all convinced that reducing five years of war to 8 paragraphs is the right way to proceed and suggest you take a vote before you replace the current text with your reduced version. Cripipper 01:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing the same thing there too; look at their talk pages. I'm just starting with this one. I would also like to add that this article has nothing about the social implications of this war, only military history; summarizing the military history will make room for that.

And if you read and compare the original and my version, I really didn't take much of anything out-- just explanations and details that don't contribute much to the reder's understanding and shouldn't be in the main article anyway, and belong in a side article. In fact, I would go as far as to say that because of the removal of these details, the article has become more coherent. Ahudson 16:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree to a large extent, though I think what you currently propose is a bit too drastic. Cripipper 12:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything that he took out that you think needs to be put back in? If so, what?

I know it looks like Ahudson has taken a lot out, but when I reviewed the section he rewrote, I found that it still gave content analogous to the original text. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Due to a lack of specific problems and/or constructive criticism, I have replaced the "Escalation and Americanization" section with my reduced version. The next section, "Vietnamization and American Withdrawl" should be posted in my sandbox within the next couple of days. Ahudson 16:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Now posted right here. Please review it, I don't like the subsection titles but don't know what else to name them. Ahudson 22:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Total U.S. withdrawal section appears factually inaccurate

I think the section on “Total U.S. withdrawal” is factually inaccurate.

First, Gerald Ford did not veto the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974. You can find Gerald Ford’s signing statement for Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=4660.

If you go to the Library of Congress Bill Summary and Status search for the 93rd Congress(http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/93search.html), change the search from ‘word/phrase’ to ‘bill number’ and enter ‘S.3394’, then click on ‘Major Congressional Actions’ link, it will show you that this bill was passed in the Senate on 12/4/1974, passed in the house on 12/11/1974 and signed by the president (Ford) on 12/30/1974.

If you go to the CRS summary link in Library of Congress search on this bill, you will see that the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 “Provides that after June 30, 1976, no military assistance shall be furnished to South Vietnam unless authorized under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or the Foreign Military Sales Act.” I could not find the full text of this bill online, but this summary indicates that the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 did not “cut off” military assistance until June 1976, more than 1 year after the collapse of South Vietnam, and furthermore, it only says that military assistance after that date must be approved by Congress.

It looks to me like the characterization of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 is factually inaccurate, and statements like “By 1975, the South Vietnamese Army stood alone against the well-organized, highly determined, and foreign-funded North Vietnamese,” are not accurate either.

Mikeca42 19:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Allies"?

Maybe I'm just misreading this passage from the Aftermath section:

North Vietnam followed up its southern victory by making Laos a virtual puppet state. Socialist fraternalism did not last long. The Khmer Rouge, who had historical territorial ambitions in Vietnam, began a series of border incursions that finally led to a Vietnamese invasion. The VPA onslaught overthrew Pol Pot's murderous regime and a pro-Vietnamese government was installed (see Third Indochina War). The U.S. did not recognise the new government of Cambodia, and, along with the United Nations, continued to consider the Khmer Rouge (perpetrators of the greatest genocide since the Second world War) as their ally.

Is this meaning to say that the United States and the United Nations (!) considered themselves to be "allied" with the Khmer Rouge? If so, I think this requires a citation quoting an acknowledgement of this alliance by, at least, an official of the United States government of the day. Otherwise it's a rather controversial assertion that probably shouldn't be there... On the other hand, if I am indeed simply misreading this passage, please excuse me. --Hiddekel 20:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You are reading it absolutely correctly. Throughout the 1980s the United States refused to recognise the Vietnam-installed government in Phnom Penh and afforded diplomatic recognition to the Khmer Rouge regime, which retained Democratic Kampuchea's seat at the UN because that organisation refused to recognise a government installed by a foreign power after an invasion. 'Alliance' would be putting it a little strongly though. Cripipper 21:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect pic caption

Caption under image included in the section "Return to Paris" currently states "Le Duc Tho and Henry Kissinger (third and fourth from the left respectively)". Unless I am mistaken, Dr. Kissinger is actually shown fifth from the left (and I suspect Le Duc Tho is shown forth from the left).

144.189.5.201 23:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Rick Arnold

I agree, I have changed it for now. Kissenger certainly wasn't fourth from the left that's for sure. SGGH 19:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Link to Pentagon Papers

It'd be useful for readers to be able to skip right to the Pentagon Papers article when it shows up in the references section as well as the one time it shows up in the text. ~ Syrae Faileas - «Talk» 00:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Crazy sourcing

Citing some US guy from 1985 of 666;) thousands and ignoring Northern 1995 official figures of 1.1 million? This including 300,000 MIA, but some [2] say practically all of dead are now "missing". --HanzoHattori 03:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

contradictory counts of number of military advisors in 1964

In one place (Tonkin Resolution) the number of advisors is supposed to have been around 21 000 just before the resolution; way further down it is said that there had been 16 000 in 1964.GabrielMo 16:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sorted. Cripipper 18:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

POWs

Someone should add the number of US POWs held in NV. I thin its vital information and its missing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.212.75.164 (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

It's probably more appropriate for The United States and the Vietnam War. Cripipper 17:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Pentagon Protest

Image:Pentagon vietnam protests.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.207.206.69 (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

hello is yellow

?? In the land of the free there is no such thing as "protests". That only happens in communist Russia.

Ongoing Revision

Over the past few weeks, I have been slowly revising this article because of its enormous size; I have now finished two sections, and have another section in my User:Ahudson/Sandbox for review. Please leave comments on my progress, I haven't gotten any input so far. Ahudson 17:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The text seems to suggest that Ho based his declaration of independence on the hope that Roosevelt would support independence. Problem is, FDR was dead on the date the speech was given, so I think this needs clarification that Ho hoped the US would support him because of FDR's speeches. Jjjanos 21:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think the History to 1949 offers interesting, but irrelevant information. Example - French shelling of Haiphong isn't germane to the second conflict.Jjjanos 22:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)jjjanos

To put it bluntly: this is the stuff I'm taking out. You're looking at the sections I haven't done yet. :-). There is a portion of that on my sandbox that I've been playing with, please take a look. Ahudson 18:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahudson, I hope you've seen the input you've received already, #Article Reduction in Progress. I see you just ignored the concern and posted your version anyway. -Will Beback · † · 23:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears you are the one not paying attention. Will Beback, I have read and re-read every single criticism that has been made in that section; however, as I stated in my posts, the only response I got was that it didn't need to be done, which is a matter of opinion anyway. Stop trying to impede the progress of an article unless you have a concrete problem with the version I have posted. Ahudson 18:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This is meant in the nicest possible way, but the biggest critique of the revisions being made is that you don't appear to have a great deal of knowledge on the subject, meaning that you are not really adequately qualified on the subject to decide what is important and what is not. To be perfectly frank, the versions you have produced thus far were riddled with factual inaccuracies and errors (which I corrected while keeping the integrity of your text), and the latest one in your sandbox is no different. I strongly oppose your introducing it into the main body text. The end result is also an unnecessary over-simplification to a standard not befitting an encyclopedia entry. What this article really needs is references! Cripipper 20:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Finally, some actual criticism! I would like to point out, though, that all of the infromation is what was already there; I didn't change any of it, although there may have been a copy error or two. So in terms of factual inaccuracies, that's not my fault, although I would be willing to help go back and check everything with the other Vietnam articles. Refrences, though, may be an easy thing to fix after all; I'm sure we can find relevant refrences in the main and related articles for each section. Thanks for the input, though; I'll try to be more careful and copy-edit the remaining sections to death before I post them. Ahudson 22:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not just copy errors. Because you don't appear to have any specialist knowledge of the subject beyond what is written in this article, you make factual errors when summarizing the information because you are not aware of the nuances which might superficially seem quite trivial but which are actually, historically, quite important. I am absolutely and totally opposed to your current version - there is some room to perhaps abbreviate the section to 1949, however the section on the Exit of the French, and the Diem era, are vital. I suggest you do not replace the current section with your version until someone else has had a chance to work on it. Cripipper 12:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand. However, keep in mind that if I didn't pick these nuances up after reading lots of wikipedia articles on the Vietnam War, then it's likely many others won't as well; so what I'm doing still shouldn't change the validity of the content. I am, however, open to any further revisions you might want to make. Go ahead and edit my sandbox, that's why its there. Ahudson 16:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

there's obviously lots of editing attention to this article lately, but please NEVER change the main pic

It is like, so perfect, it's simple, a soldier with a burning jungle hut in the background, even there's no explosions or anything, it just feels so destructive. one of the few perfect battle box pics of any conflict. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.72.32.95 (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I am looking for the name and of a song and its author name that was used by the helicopters during an attack during the Viet Nam War that was used to frighted or intimidate the enemy.

I would appreciate any help.

thanks Bob K --70.80.186.223 16:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about Flight of the Valkyries, by Wagner? The one played during the helicopter attack in Apocalypse Now?

The numbers game

The link provided in the article (which can only be accessed through the internet archive) claims that 800,000 Vietnamese were transported south, of them about 450,000 civilians and 190,000 French soldiers. However the Pentagon Papers claim that 900,000 civilians left in addition to the 190,000 French. Why is there a discrepancy and who should we trust? CJK 00:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the answer is fairly obvious from the opening line of John Prados's article - "One old chestnut of Vietnam lore is that following the 1954 Geneva agreements a million civilians fled what became North Vietnam to seek safety in the South." The Pentagon Papers repeat this lore; Prados offers a scholarly analysis of the actual 'numbers game'. Cripipper 07:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

But on the basis of what evidence? Is there evidence that did not exist in 1955 that was available in 2005? Did the authors of the Pentagon Papers act deliberately to mislead people in a secret document? And why are the French movements included in Prados and not in the papers? This leaves too many unanswered questions. CJK 23:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the Pentagon Papers simply perpetuated the old chestnut. There is, after all, no evidence offered in the Pentagon Papers either to support the higher number claim. I am certain John Prados is not making these numbers up (!), and as an analyst at the National Security Archive, an organisation dedicated to securing the declassification and public dissemination of documents relating to U.S. foreign policy, he is uniquely placed to have access to the documentary evidence. It is rather unfortunate that the VVA article contains no footnotes, but I would trust Prados's scholarship over the Pentagon Papers. Cripipper 10:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The higher figures are also used by UNHCR. Prados cites no evidence for this new revelation. If he presented actual evidence for his number, then he would have more credibility. Unless there is more evidence evidence presented or other scholars in agreement, there is no reason to take his word above anyone else. CJK 00:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The UNHCR uses as its source literature written in the 1980s before access to the documentary evidence was available. The numbers are broken down very precisely - he is clearly not plucking them out of thin air. I am sure if you email him he will provide you with the appropriate citations to calm your conspiratorial nerves. You seem rather intent in proving that a million fled communist persecution, to the extent of calling into question the professional credibility of a distinguished historian in the field. Smacks a little of POV, don't you think? Cripipper 00:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

amount of dead american soliders

the article lists more than 50,000 dead us soliders. Tuchman's book march of folly says 45,000 dead and 300,000 wounded

I am not sure where Barbara Tuchman gets here figures from. The Vietnam memorial wall lists 58,249 names; this is the official death toll. Cripipper 19:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

living POWs

Is their an article on the POW hoaxes of the 1980s? Where people created photos and testimonies of POWs still held prisoners to collect money to try and release them? Let me know at my talk page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Editorial suggestion on wording

The last sentence of the first paragraph kills me. It states, "As a result of this it is therefore often considered part of the Cold War." Ouch. It should read either "As a result of this it is often considered..." or "It is therefore often considered..." Please think about making this change. Thanks, from Grammar Nut, aka Salsera Aimee 18:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Living Room War

Vietnam was known as the "Living Room War" because of the massive effects the media had. People would literally watch footage of the war with their families or while in bed. Just thought it would be a good thing to put in there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.255.158.68 (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Other countries: Spain

Other countries sent help to USA. Spain send 13 military doctor or Germany send supplies etc. Noviscum 00:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this? Cripipper 12:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Commanders

I am removing the commanders list from the infobox. It was a bizarre, incomplete mix of political and military leaders with no clear basis for who was included and who was not. I would argue that over 20 years of war, with dozens of distinct parties involved, to distill "commanders" to a few links in an infobox is deceptive and facile and ought to be avoided. However, we should definitely have a standard for inclusion that makes sense. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The list was neither bizarre nor incomplete: Johnson and Nixon were C-in-C of U.S. forces; Johnson in particular micromanaged the selection of bombing targets, while Westmoreland and Abrams were the commanders on the ground. Vo Nguyen Giap, Nguyen Chi Thanh, Van Tien Dung, and Tran Van Tra were the main generals for the D.R.V. I had a few reservations about the inclusion of Ho Chi Minh, but since he was chair of the CMC he is as good a 'figure-head' for this body as any. Until such times as you document your particular objections to these commanders, or can suggest others whom you think are absent, I am reinstating them. Cripipper 11:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

All the South Vietnamese commanders in chief would suggest themselves, if we are going to include their American counterparts. JFK, as another commander in chief of U.S. forces who initiated U.S. involvement. The rest of the DRV chiefs, e.g. Le Duan, whom we might as well include if we are going to add American presidents. The leaders of the NLF and PRG. Further, if we are going to include Westmoreland and Abrams, its unclear why we aren't including all the commanders of the ARVN, which was of course far larger than the American presence. And if Tra Van Tra is in there, you might as well include the rest of his counterparts in the PAVN, ARVN and U.S. forces. Personally I don't believe that adding two dozen 'commanders' on each side makes a lot of sense, nor that an infobox is well-suited to presenting this sort of information. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not meant to be an exhaustive list - it is meant to be those who made the most significant contributions to the conduct and outcome of the war.

• There were no U.S. combat troops in SVN while JFK was President, nor Ford.
• I mentioned the problem of the collective nature of DRV decision making above - that is why Ho is there, but I am completely open to the argument that he should be replaced by Le Duan, although it should be noted that he, unlike POTUS, was not commander-in-chief.
• No NLF and PRG leaders were as significant military commanders as those already named.
• Tran Van Tra is included because of his role in the Ho Chi Minh Campaign that brought the war to a conclusion - that is what makes him more significant than his counterparts in the ARVN.
• None of the SVN commanders, Thieu aside, were as responsible for the conduct of the war than Westmoreland in particular, but also Abrams.

I completely agree that there is no point in having a list of a dozen commanders on each side - that is why it only includes the most significant ones. My basis for inclusion was significance: I don't think there are any individuals who are more significant and need to be included - but that is what the talk section is for. Cripipper 15:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Vietnam War?

I fail to see the reasoning behind the continued use of the present title of the article. Since the vast majority of the information regarding U.S. involvement has been removed, why has the mistitle been retained? Shouldn't it be renamed the "Vietnamese Civil War"? The direct U.S. involvement in 1965 (which prompted the "war" description) has been removed to "American participation", a separate article, has it not?

I have always opposed the "Vietnam War" moniker, since Congress did not declare act of war (the Southeast Asia Resolution was not the same thing, as Congress came to regret). Oh, I know, readers of Wiki should be able to find an article by its popular name, so who cares that the U.S. has not been at war since 1945? And the article remains mistitled regardless of the fact that Wiki, an encyclopedia (which purports to uphold scholarly, or at least knowledgeable accuracy) perpetuates a historical untruth.

Yes, a declaration of war by Congress is just a legalism, but a great many of the difficulties faced by the U.S during the last 50 years or so have hinged on just that legalism (and as we have come again to realize). Well, I cannot say that I am surprised by the present state of the article, it looks even worse than when I abandoned it. Too hot a topic with too many whackos trying to get their 1/8th of a cent in. I'll just fill in the blanks elsewhere. RM Gillespie 04:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

So you think that an act of the US Congress is needed for it to be called a War? What do you think the vast majority of the participants call it? It's a war that occurred in Vietnam. Calling it the "Vietnamese Civil War" is not very POV, since the communists don't see it as such, and neither is calling it "US-Vietnam War", since the South Vietnamese don't see it as such. DHN 03:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know what the other participants call it. This one calls it the by its correct title - the Vietnam Conflict. If you are an American, yes, it is not a war unless Congress declares it to be so. Or did you miss the point of the above? I'm sure the guys who fought in the Philippine Insurrection thought of that as a war too, but it was not and is not refferred to as being a war now. Its a moot point anyway. In another 20-50 years it will receive it correct designation, or will be seen as part of the larger Second Indochina War. RM Gillespie 00:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Since it was basically a Vietnamese civil war, I think "Vietnam War" is quite apt. The US forces, while substantial, were always outnumbered by South Vietnamese forces. Grant | Talk 02:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fall of Saigon

Is it just me or is the wording used to describe the fall of Saigon a bit zealous? It is an opinion to say that the flag waived "victoriously", and there are also unsubstantiated claims of conversation between leaders. Can someone help me check this out? It struck me as a little odd. Blaiseball 03:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• That section has other problems, mainly that the first paragraph has no chronological structure. The conversation presented is possibly apocryphal, but frequently described in the literature. It probably isn't worth including here, however. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

video overview

Heres a good overview I found on youtube: Pinky Show -Ste|vertigo 12:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Stevertigo's changes

Stevertigo recently made extensive changes to the opening paragraph without discussing them first. I object to those changes and have reverted them back. Please discuss the changes first before making the changes. In particular, his changes were not NPOV:

• He characterized the war as one between the entire Vietnamese people against the United States and its puppets.
• He placed importance on the US ahead of South Vietnam even though most combatants were South Vietnamese
• He attributed the communist POV as the "Vietnamese point of view"

DHN 19:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not make those characterisations. Your third point is clearly expressing your POV in that you are characterising a Vietnamese nationalist majority as a "communist POV." The Viet Minh were nationalists who happened to be communists, not the other way around. I think most sources will bear this out. They wanted the foreign powers (China, France, Japan, China, the U.S., China again) out. Although a couple paragraphs could have been condensed, I think the tenor was correct. Here for example are the first two paragraphs. Please explain how these are POV, and I will explain how they are not. -Ste|vertigo 09:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The Vietnam War (occurring from 1959 to April 30, 1975) was a military conflict in present day Vietnam between Vietnamese nationalists (Viet Minh, Democratic Republic of Vietnam [or "North Vietnam"] with the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam [also known as the Việt Cộng ]) against the United States and the South Vietnamese Republic of Vietnam (RVN) government.

The U.S. ceded its objectives in Vietnam, South Vietnam's government fell, and the DRV victory under Ho Chi Minh unified Vietnam under a communist state government.

From the Vietnamese point of view, the "American War" was like the other Indochina Wars in that it was a war of independence, but one that successfully resulted in a liberation of Vietnam from foreign (Western world) influence. The United States point of view is mixed, and the "Vietnam War" era is regarded as a period of extreme political division, touching on controversial matters of imperialism and human rights.

They are expressing POV because:

• You listed the United States first on the anti-communist side even though most of the fighting was done by the South Vietnamese
• "The Vietnamese point of view" implies that all Vietnamese believe that way, clearly not the case when there are South Vietnamese fighting. Are they not also Vietnamese? Whatever their motivations, you can't just disregard their point of view and lump them together with the other side.

The subsequent paragraphs in the intro continue to characterize the war as a failure of the Americans to maintain two Vietnams instead of the success of the communists to reunify the country. What do you think is POV about the current version before you changed them? DHN 16:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"You listed the United States first on the anti-communist side even though most of the fighting was done by the South Vietnamese." I think what you are trying to say is that most of the fighting was done in the South, not by the South. The South didnt conduct all those massive boming raids for example. There were a million U.S. troops in Vietnam at one point. "Are they not Vietnamese?" Certainly true, but they - for whatever reason - differed from the majority. This view needs to be represented, but in proportion with the "other side." Perhaps you could write a sentence or two which sums up this general point of view?

"What do you think is POV?" The South governments came about through attempted nationbuilding by the United States and that was the casus belli. The current version is POV because it emphasised "failure of nationalists to unify the country" which is misleading: Ho abided by the Geneva Convention of 54, but the U.S. did not. The current version fails to mention the immediate background of French colonialism (and the U.S. support for it), the popularity of the nationalists, U.S. nationbuilding in the South starting in 54 (right where the French left off), the unpopularity of Diem, the rejection of elections in 56, and the inevitable "collapse" (reunification) of the South without massive U.S. support. There is of course the popular misconception that the war was one between freedom and communism, which needs to be sort of explained. Maybe we could write an article that just has basic questions and answers? -Ste|vertigo 18:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll agree that South Vietnam was much more involved in this war than the US. It suffered more losses than the US and the war was essentially about its survival. As such, it deserves "first billing" in the combatant list. I think it's specious to ascribe point of views to "the Vietnamese" when there were no free elections on either side. It's much more productive to say "To North Vietnam and its allies, the "American War" was like the other Indochina Wars in that it was a war of independence, but one that successfully resulted in a liberation of Vietnam from foreign (Western world) influence. To South Vietnam and its allies, the war was...". I think that was in one of the earlier versions of this article but somehow got lost. We should keep the intro to a max of 2 paragraphs, specifying the combatants, their points of view, the causes of the war, and the results. All the parenthetical info should be in the body. I'm not happy with the current "failure of nationalists to unify the country" statement either, but perhaps we can work something out that is more neutral. DHN 19:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, calling the communists the "nationalists" expresses a certain point of view. South Vietnamese also view themselves nationalists (in fact, contemporary South Vietnamese historians call the war the Nationalist-Communist war, in parallel to the Chinese Civil War). The fact was that there were two sides in this conflict: a communist side and an anti-communist side. The NLF contained some non-communist members, but they were hardly influential. I think calling one side communist and the other anti-communist is the best way to describe the two sides. DHN 19:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestions and think we can work well together on a good opening. I think it should be longer than two paragraphs however, as the subject is one of depth and interest - its not merely a clash between ideologies. I agree that the terms are difficult, which is why I dislike the communist vs. anti-communist paradigm. In fact I think its a rather specious argument if its not framed in the right context: It only became an anti-communist war after the U.S. installed Diem and promoted an ideology of Western allegiance. Even Diem no doubt had misgivings about this relationship. In general I think it wouldnt be too controversial or biased to explain things in terms of majoritarian versus minority governments - the colonial backdrop is important. It sets the basis for why the South identity you described to emerged (in a short time), and why the much older identity of majoritarian nationalism prevailed (as it tends to do). -Ste|vertigo 21:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Dates

This article says the war began in 1959 but the vietnamese interwiki says the war began in 1954. Which is the correct date? @ Doitunh 20:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Depends on what you read. 1954 was the date of the partition, and some level of conflict began pretty much immediately. The event that happened in 1959 was the northern Politburo formally authorizing armed operations. And these are the dates for the second Indochina war only; sources that see the war as a struggle against imperialism often identify a single conflict lasting from 1945-1975. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Freedom vs. Despotism

Vietnam provokes too much of a reactionary view in liberals. It has become the hair trigger for their pathological despise-the-US tendency. Much of the subjectivity in this Wikepidia article is hampered by this. Just because you lost a war doesn't automatically imply that you were wrong to fight it. For the left, that is all it means and no amount of facts will ever change that. This Wikipedia article is proof.

Notice how clinically the ideals of the NV are presented in this article: they just want a unified nation. No such antiseptic characterization for the US's motives or actions: imperialistic desires and a proclivity for human right abuses are some of the suggestions.

Here are some facts you won't read in Wikipedia:

-Over 900,000 refugees fled the communist takeover in North Vietnam to South Vietnam in the early 1950's. None fled north.

• The vast majority of this number consisted of Roman Catholics, exorted into exile by their anti-communist priests and bishops; landlords; and former Vietnamese members of the French military, who feared being tarnished as collaborators.

-After 1954, President Eisenhower provided substantial financial aid to South Vietnam. This produced an improving social and economic situation.

• So, this was an attempt to "buy" nationalism in the south?

-The NV communists, who had expected the south to fall, grew concerned and in 1957 resumed terrorist and sabotage attacks in an attempt to destroy the fledgling republic.

• The communists only resorted to armed conflict after Diem moved against cadres in the south that were openly proselytizing for the promised election., which was never going to be held.

-In 1959 Secretary of State Dean Rusk noted that since there were no foreign powers in SV that the only threat it posed to NV was that it was outshining the 'Communist paradise.'

• Dean Rusk only became Secretary of State in 1961.

-From 1960 through 1961 over 3,000 civilians were murdered by the NV terrorists. 2,500 were kidnapped by them.

• From 1957 onwards the Diem regime killed or imprisoned tens of thousands of former Viet Minh and later members of the NLF.

-A tool of the NV was assasination of key personnel, teachers and intellectuals, administrators, health care specialists, etc. Its one way of damaging the social structure of a village/nation. (see Kennedy's quote below). -In 1963 there were 17, 710 terrorist acts:

   Assassinated: Civilians 1,558; Gov't 415; Civil Srv	100.
   Injured		8,375
   Kidnapped	        7,262		

• Guerrilla war, aint it something?

The NV wanted a communist dictatorship, the West wanted a democracy. Ho Chi Minh wanted to rule, Lyndon Johnson wanted freedom and prosperity for the Vietnamese. Thats all Vietnam was about.

• Ah, democracy during the Cold War! Pinochet's democracy, Samoza's democracy, the Greek general's democracy, the Shah's democracy, Batista's democracy, all God's children need democracy!

There were many mistakes made by the US in its involvement in Vietnam. And, of course, the US ultimately had to surrender. However, neither of these were, as this article presumes, the result of an immoral attitude on the part of the US.

• Immoral isn't the word. Blind hubris, tinged with racism, is more like it. Perhaps even worse, a total lack of any knowledge of Vietnamese history, culture, and capabilities.

Whatever the causes of the failure of the U.S. in Vietnam, the only objective was to establish a form of government for a unified Vietnam that provided and protected individual human rights: a democracy.

• See above.

The west had been offering support for a unified Vietnam since the fall of China to the communists. France was not trying to maintain a colony in Vietnam, rather it did not want a despotic communist government to take hold.

• Not even Americans fell for that one. The French struggle in Indochina was perceived (even by the U.S. government) as a colonial struggle, one that it supported only due to France's position in European affairs. It was not until the "fall" of China and, more particularly, the Korean Conflict, that the conflict in Vietnam took on the mantle of "anti-communist" struggle.

If Ho Chi Minh had wanted to unify Vietnam with a democratic form of government, the West would gladly have supported him.

• And why would he have possibly thought that? The U.S. had just paid, equipped, and morally supported the French forces against the Viet Minh. You are caught in the same old trap of the Cold War. Any peasant in some third world boondock who wanted a better life for himself or his children had to oppose an oppressive government supported by one of the two superpowers. What choice did he/she have? Whichever side will provide you with the guns and training to change your situation.

Since the war ended, communism has had a spectacular collapse worldwide and democracy has blossomed.

• Seems to me that at least one third of the Earth's population still live under a communist form of government, regardless of what Ronnie Reagan's supporters have to say.

Which form of government does history say would have served the Vietnamese people better?

• Its a little late now for second guessing history don't you think?

The following are quotes from the US president's who increased the US's involvement in Vietnam.

"…Strategically, South Viet-Nam’s capture by the Communists would bring their power several hundred miles into a hitherto free region. The remaining countries in Southeast Asia would be menaced by a great flanking movement…The loss of South Viet-Nam would set in motion a crumbling process that could, as it progressed, have grave consequences for us and for freedom": Eisenhower.

• Ah, the domino principle, claptrap then, claptrap now. Or have you missed the Vietnamese/Cambodian War and the Sino-Vietnamese War?

“…the United States is determined to help Viet-Nam preserve its independence, protect its people against Communist assassins, and build a better life through economic growth.”: Kennedy.

• And we will do this despite the wishes of the majority of the Vietnamese people and kill a million of them, a couple of million Cambodians and Laotians, and 58,000 Americans.

“…we are bound by solemn commitments to help defend this area against Communist encroachment. We will keep this commitment. In the case of Viet-Nam, our commitment today is just the same as the commitment made by President Eisenhower to President Diem in 1954—a commitment to help these people help themselves.”: Johnson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.201.31.198 (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

• Help Ngo Dinh Diem help himself? Well, you see what that got him. RM Gillespie 14:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You just couldnt resist could you :) -Ste|vertigo 08:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ho Chi Minh

How come Minh isn't on the commanders list here? He kind of started the whole thing.--The Fourth Swordsman 01:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

the vietnam war is the longest lasting war so far... its CrAzY!!!

President Ford signs Foreign Assistance Act

== http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#South_Vietnam_stands_alone.2C_1973.E2.80.931975 under heading the South Vietnam stands alone, 1973–1975 submitter states incorrectly: ==

"In December 1974, the Democratic majority in Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, which cut off all military funding to the South Vietnamese government and made unenforceable the peace terms negotiated by Nixon. Nixon, threatened with impeachment because of Watergate, had resigned his office. Gerald R. Ford, Nixon's vice-president stepped in to finish his term. The new president vetoed the Foreign Assistance Act, but his veto was overridden by Congress."

On http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php a link to Presidential signing statements 1974 which states states in part:

"I HAVE signed S. 3394, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, with some reservations, but with appreciation for the spirit of constructive compromise which motivated the Congress. I sought a bill which would serve the interests of the United States in an increasingly interdependent world in which the strength and vitality of our own policies and society require purposeful and responsible participation in the international community. Foreign assistance is indispensable in exercising the role of leadership in the cooperative and peaceful resolution of conflicts, in pursuing political stability and economic progress, and in expressing the American spirit of helping those less fortunate than we are...."

I think the submitter may be confused with the Freedom of Information Act of 1974 which President Ford vetoed and Congress over-rode him.

Ormondron 13:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The dead to wounded ratios

ARVN 230,000/300,000 (only few more), ROK 5,000/11,000 (twice) and US 58,209/153,303 (less than three times)? Compare with the Australian 37/187 or NZ 512/2,400 (both about five times).

Usually, it's about three-four times, and the heli MEDAVAC was praised at the time, and now it's claimed it was less effective than in WWII? I'd (somewhat and hardly) understand only ARVN (and the Aussies, of course). --HanzoHattori 14:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

There's an awful lot of spelling mistakes in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.26.106.44 (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC).