Talk:Army of the Republic of Vietnam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Vietnam (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Southeast Asia (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

M-48 picture[edit]

Is it just me for whom it's not obvious why the picture is there? Can someone write a sentence in the article itself so that it's obvious why the picture is relevant to the ARVN? I assume it's something to do with how well- or poorly-equipped either they or the NVA were. Or something. Cheers. 59.167.59.145 14:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)DaveY did class snobishness among the arvns officer corps damage relations with the peasents while on the other hand viet cong and north vietnamese soldiers were able to develop good relations with the peasents who are the most vital component in guerilla warfare ensuring victoryBouse23 12:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Binh Xuyen[edit]

"Diem also crushed the armed forces of the Binh Xuyen crime syndicate, which were supported by the French." is it a joke? the french were no more in vietnam by thzt time and binh xuyen assassinated french and eurasians so there's a problem here. please release your source for such a bizarre statement Paris By Night 22:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The picture of a 12 year old child[edit]

Please stop posting this picture of the child in uniform. What is your real intention in this? Do you want to discredit the ARVN as a militia that uses childsoldiers? That is historically not true! Communist propaganda does not belong here and will not be permitted!!! We have be keep Wikipedia politically neutral! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjerky (talkcontribs) 18:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The picture of a 12 year old child in ARVN uniform and holding an M79 needs to be removed as it may give misleading info about the ARVN. In general, the ARVN was a formal army, not a milita or guerilla force that might draft children into war. Men had to be at least 18 to join or be drafted into the ARVN and are on government payroll. The North Vietnamese People's Army might, otherwise, had soldiers as young as 16 because the high school system in the North finished at 10th grade. The Viet Cong militias and guerilla forces did employ many child soldiers and publicly hailed them as national heroes. One can go to children libraries in Vietnam and find books about "anti-American heroes" of very young ages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.150.230 (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:QLVNCH M-48b.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:QLVNCH M-48b.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Tag?[edit]

The article has a neutrality tag from a year and a half ago, but no discussion. I don't see the problem, myself. Solicitr (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, I think we should remove this tag.--AM (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Outnumbered by NVA ?[edit]

This article claims that in the final year of the conflict ARVN was outnumbered by PAVN . But article about Ho Chi Minh Campaign ( https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh_Campaign ) clearly indicates that forces of ARVN were actually few times more numerous than PAVN forces that invaded South Vietnam . Considering the fact that those figures look credible (they come from several reasonable credible sources) , it is my opinion that following sentence "ARVN ground forces were severely outnumbered by the NVA, which had the world's fifth largest army in 1975." should be dropped from the text and some alternative explanation about the defeat of ARVN should be given . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.65.234 (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

NVA & VC & Communist[edit]

Should we using People's Army of Vietnam and National Liberation Front instead of North Vietnamese Army and Vietcong? Since basically, this isn't their offical names, they're actually "nicknames" that the US Army and ARVN used to call them. And if we go on with using those, then should the PAVN and NLF article could use "puppet army" instead of ARVN?

And it would be alright if we use Socialist Republic of Vietnam instead of "communist gorvement", "attacking" instead of "invading"? Those are words that not entirely true, especially toward an sensitive topic like the Vietnam War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeraful (talkcontribs) 08:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think both are appropriate. Many people have heard of the NVA and VC, and have not heard of PAVN/NLF. I've know Vietnam veterans who didn't know what "NLF" meant. Wikipedia is about using "commonly known" names as often, or more often, than "official" names. There's a policy for that; if you want I'm sure I can post/link it here. The way the article is written now, PAVN/NLF are used most often with NVA/VC in parentheses at the beginning of major sections, which seems to me fair, accurate, and in-line with other articles. As for other terms, I think "communist government" is accurate without being disparaging, and since they were two different nations, each recognized by the international community, with clearly defined borders, "invading" is an apt description. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Is there a source that indicates "NVA" and "Vietcong" are pejorative terms of reference, similar to what "puppet army" would be? Using pejorative terminology would have relevance for NPOV, whereas using alternative terminology probably would not, as long as the terms are understood as referencing the same entity (for example "People's Army of Vietnam (or North Vietnamese Army (NVA))." The entry for Vietnamese People's Army does note that "NVA" and "PAVN" were both commonly used.
Same comment for the second paragraph: is "communist" in the context of the article used as a pejorative/NPOV? I don't think it is, but I'd be OK with having the first reference say something like "Democratic Republic of Vietnam (or communist)" to identify that the terms are synonymous . I'm assuming we're all accepting that the North Vietnamese government was actually communist in composition at the time of the war, since that'd be a larger debate if there's disagreement on that point. Preceding comment by Tagryn(talkcontribs) 12:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"Since they were two different nations, each recognized by the international community, with clearly defined borders, "invading" is an apt description", should we jump to conclusion that quickly? Like in 2011 Libyan civil war, the some countries has recognized the National Transitional Council, but does it become a country?

And since you were say that both PAVN and NLF are not commonly known to the public, then doesn't it Wikipedia jobs to make them more commonly, instead of keep using the "nicknames". And I also know that there are many Vietnamese veteran who doesn't know both NVA and VC stand for, and some others are very offened about it. And what if one of them are reading this article, what would they're say about it?. So now I suggest of using NVA/PAVN and VC/NLF instead of just using solely NVA and VC.

And for the "communist gorvement". Basically it was a gorvement lead by a communist party, right. But does this gorvement function any different than other gorvement that Wikipedia should put them into a whole category? If anyone would like to write a whole article about the "communist gorvement", and explained how different it is from other gorvement, then I would be happy to keep the term. But if it won't, then I suggest of using Socialist Republic of Vietnam Zeraful —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC).

re: communist government in Vietnam, I suggest reading the entry on Communist_Party_of_Vietnam. When a government is single-party, and that party is communist, then "communist government" is an apt description. Tagryn 15:04, 14 July 2011
  1. Agree with User:Tagryn. Describing as "communist" is not pejorative. "Those damn commies" = pejorative.
  2. Keeping both self denoted terms (PAVN/NLF) as well as common designations (NVA/VC): Agree.
  3. On the issue of two countries: this would not be "jumping to conclusion", this would be a "foregone conclusion". The two countries were partitioned and recognized after the dissolution of French Indochina according to The Geneva Accords in 1954. South Vietnam was a recognized capitalistic country, with UN representation, from 1954 until 1975. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Geneva Conference has nothing like the partitioned of the two countries, it's just mentioned that there's will be a free election to unite the 2 states in 1956 Geneva_Agreements "Vietnam was to be temporarily divided along the 17th Parallel until elections could be held to unite the country". So by saying that the Geneva Agreement result is 2 countries would be leading into misunderstood.

And I have to disagree with the using of Communist_Party_of_Vietnam. The Socialist Republic of Vietnam is not entirely governed by the Communist Party, it was having a Congress, and it's member was not entirely communist party member. Not to mention the Vietnamese Fatherland Front. By saying that the Communist Party of Vietnam was neglecting the Vietnamese Congress and Vietnamese Fatherland Front, and like above, could be leading into cases of misunderstanding. Zeraful —Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC).

The section on government in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam entry you point to notes that "(t)he Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a single-party state" and "(o)nly political organizations affiliated with or endorsed by the Communist Party are permitted to contest elections. These include the Vietnamese Fatherland Front, worker and trade unionist parties." We can get into a long debate over what 'communist' vs. 'socialist' means, but in terms of the common parlance of the term as illustrated in the entry on Communism, the usage in the article seems to be appropriate. Tagryn 18:29, 14 July 2011

I still said that using Socialist Republic of Vietnam would be more approriate than just "communist gorvement", since after the election in 1976, there's a lot member of the NLF was elected in the Vietnamese Congress and having roles in the gorvement. And like i said above, not all of them was communist party member. Basically, we could get into a debate about what is "seem to be appropriate" and what is "appropriate", but now i suggest a compromise that we're using both terms like this "thousand of ex-ARVN officers was send into reeducation camps by the communist gorvement of the new, unified Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Zeraful —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC).

I could concur with that. Boneyard90 (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I also. "Socialist Republic of Vietnam" is the official name of the country as rendered in English, that's not in question. I think "communist government" as a term might be more of an issue where there could be more than just SRoV being talked about (for example, any parts discussing China), since that could lead to some confusion about which is being referenced. In those cases, using SRoV or "North Vietnam" would probably be more appropriate. Tagryn 02:09, 15 July 2011

Done. I hope nobody minds that I took the liberty of editing the lead in accordance with the wording proposed by User:Zeraful. Wish all my Wiki-discussions were this productive and amicable. Boneyard90 (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Happy with this change IMO, seems a reasonable compromise. Anotherclown (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Rewording the lead further[edit]

Once again Zeraful please ensure that there is consensus before making whole sale changes. I agree with your concerns about the assessment of ARVN divisions not being referenced, and have added a citations need tag to fix the incorrect markup you applied. In response to your other changes I propose the folllowing rewording the lead:

"The Army of the Republic of Viet Nam (ARVN, from alternate spelling of Vietnam), sometimes referred to as the South Vietnamese Army (SVA), was the land-based military forces of the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam), which existed from October 26, 1955 until the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975. The ARVN is often erroneously used as a collective term to refer to all South Vietnamese military forces, including the Vietnam Air Force and Republic of Vietnam Navy.[1] They are estimated to have suffered 1,394,000 casualties (killed and wounded) during the Vietnam War."[2]
"After the fall of Saigon to the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) (also known as the People's Army of Vietnam) and the Viet Cong (or National Liberation Front), the ARVN was dissolved. While some high-ranking officers fled the country to the United States or elsewhere, thousands of former ARVN personnel were sent to reeducation camps by the communist government of the new, unified Socialist Republic of Vietnam."

Essentially my rationale for this wording is as follows. I agree with Tagryn and Boneyard that both Viet Cong and NLF and North Vietnamese Army and PAVN are legitimate terms and can both be used. Indeed favoring one or the other leaves us open to claims of POV. Likewise the use of the word "communist" here seems correct, as it describes the system of government used by Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Equally your previous wording seems to imply that the PAVN was part of the NLF, when in reality the reverse was the case. As such I have altered the order of this phrase. I have also removed the word "parsimoniously" which seems unnecessary and changed it to South Vietnamese Army, from Southern Vietnamese Army, which IMO is more correct. Comments? Anotherclown (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, this mean I can edit this article, right? Zeraful(talk) 10:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.254.57.188 (talk)
Probably best if we discuss the proposed changes first. Do you have any comments about my proposal? Anotherclown (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't even recognize any immediate differences between the lead that you wrote above and the one that I remember in the article, so I don't have any problem with it. However, I would caution editors about the relationship between the PAVN and NLF (NVA and VC). User:Anotherclown implies that the VC was under the NVA command. They were two separate entities, and at times were at odds over strategy. I've even read that since war's end, the new government has denied crediting the VC's participation in records and history books and dismissed claims by VC veterans for pensions, etc. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

American Funding and Blame for the Defeat[edit]

I have a few issues with this section:

"Congress cut funding to South Vietnam for the upcoming fiscal year from 1 billion to 700 million dollars. Historians have attributed the fall of Saigon in 1975 to the cessation of American aid along with the growing disenchantment of the South Vietnamese people and the rampant corruption and incompetence of South Vietnam political leaders and ARVN general staff."

"Without the necessary funds and facing a collapse in South Vietnamese troop and civilian morale, it was becoming increasingly difficult for the ARV to achieve a victory against the NLF. Moreover, the withdrawal of U.S. aid encouraged North Vietnam to begin a new military offensive against South Vietnam."

It starts by stating that funding was reduced, then proceeeds to say it was cut ("the cessation", "the withdrawal"). It says "Historians" have blamed the fall of the South on this cut, but doesn't say specifically who these are, or offer any cites other than some minor militaria, and I'd disagree anyways, seeing as most of the ARVN could hardly fight its way out of a paper bag back in '72 during the Easter Offensive, being saved then by American airpower. Corruption, political generals, and institutional learned helplessness re: American airpower and American aid in general are as far as I know the relevant factors in explaining the ARVN defeat far more than any loss of funding (which the article admits the North was suffering from at the same time). However, I'd welcome more info regarding this funding shortfall and its relevance.

The section needs cites and, specifically, a clarification of the funding issue. I won't change anything because I don't have the data on hand - I'd rather ask the current maintainers to do so through a discussion here. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.104.233 (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/students/arvn/arvn.html History of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam
  2. ^ Casualties – US vs NVA/VC