Talk:Vietnam War

U.S. Won the Vietnam War

Okay, here it is, a published, verifiable source by an American Vietnam Veteran that the U.S. did not lose the Vietnam War: "...The U.S. did not lose the Vietnam War--we left by March 28, 1973, and two years later, on April 30, 1975, the South Vietnamese lost the war, not us." --Published in the Chico News & Review, Chico, California, July 29, 2010, Letters, page 6. The aim of the U.S. was to halt the spread of Communism to all of Southeast Asia, and the U.S. accomplished that. The U.S. achieved it's objective. Remember, the U.S. always takes the war to the land of the enemy. No Viet Cong attack was ever launched on American soil. No Communist invasion of the U.S. ever occurred. THAT'S the point.

The Vietnamese Communist fought to liberate their country, they never had any intention of invading America. The Communists' objective objective was to get rid of the Americans and reunite their country, and they achieve that goal brilliantly. And by the way, the Americans DID NOT win every battle of the war.Canpark (talk) 08:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

63.192.100.142 (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It’s a good point that you have made. Although it does sound like one vets opinion. The US were involved to prevent the communist north taking control over the south. This was not accomplished (I don’t think). But you could be correct in the fact that they did stop the spread of communism throughout the region.Monkeymanman (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Excepting Loas and Cambodia. I would also susgest that this would fail RS.Slatersteven (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The snippet quoted and sourced above is a snippet from a reader response in a discussion forum (see it here). It would not be acceptable as a supporting source (per WP:NEWSBLOG, "Posts left by readers may never be used as sources."). Even if this had been published as a straight news item on the front page of the New York Times (relying on presumed editorial fact-checking by the Times as confirmation that the person credited with that statement actually is the person who made that statement), it would fail unless that person was an established expert on the topic of the article and/or there was some other reason to give weight to that statement by that person. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

So Vietnam Veterans are not experts on the Vietnam War? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.158.245 (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

no, they are not 188.109.184.204 (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they are. You should talk to Vietnam Veterans sometime. They know stuff you would find incredible, stuff that isn't in the history books. A lot of things that went on during the Vietnam War were Top Secret and they weren't allowed to discuss it until five years after they separated, by which time they had moved on with their lives. Did you know that 75% of Vietnam Veterans were volunteers? (People think it was a draftee Army.) Documents are being de-classified daily and I'm waiting for the actual history of the Vietnam War to be published someday. What these vets tell me is totally different than what we read in the history books. First hand accounts are not allowed in Wiki however, so this leaves a big hole in the article but I suppose there are many subjects that don't fit into Wiki's standards for inclusion. But anyway, keep up the good work, guys, I have an avid interest in the Vietnam War and appreciate Wiki's historical overview.71.154.158.137 (talk) 06:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You could probably line up a lot more veterans that say that the US lost the war.. only most of them would be from the other side of the conflict. Sifting through anecdotal evidence to arrive at historical truth is a job for historians and not wikipedia. Participants in an event are also not neutral observers and are prone to obvious bias regarding their own side. Sus scrofa (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

An example of trying to elucidate what really went on during the Vietnam War can be seen in President Obama's recommending yesterday that General John D. Lavelle's four stars be restored. During the Vietnam War Lavelle was demoted to the rank of two star general and forced to retire because of politics and his being used as a scapegoat over the issue of protective reaction strikes. Here it is, almost 40 years later and his name is finally being cleared! Lavelle was a great Air Force general but he was used as a scapegoat. Wiki has a really good article on him which I encourage you all to read. It will give you some insight into the Vietnam War. Here's a quote by Lavelle from the Wiki article..."If anybody really wanted the total story or wanted the true story, no effort was made to gather it by historians, by the Senate, by the press, by the Air Force."71.154.158.137 (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It should also not be forgotten that after the Great War German generals and veterans all claimed they did not lose or if they did it was not because they were defeated on the battlefield but at home. Just because veterans and officers do want to believe something does not make that something (especially if those officers might want to shift blame) true.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Slatersteven makes a good point, I've talked to American GI's who have been stationed in Germany, and there are German veterans of WWII who feel that they did not lose, that the Americans simply had more men and material. For instance, the Tiger tank and Panther tank were superior to the American Sherman tank but the Americans built 40,000 Sherman tanks while the Germans only built 1,355 Tiger I tanks. It was overwhelming logistics that won WWII for the Americans. It was logistics also that won the war for the North in the American Civil War, the North simply had more men and material and General Grant used this strategically to defeat the South (the South had to melt down church bells to get metal to make guns). In the Vietnam War it was logistics that allowed North Vietnam to vanquish the South after the Americans left. When the Americans left, they took their money with them and South Vietnam lost its logistical supply and billions of dollars in aid. Here's some data from "Eyewitness Vietnam", Gilmore and Giangreco, Sterling Publishing, New York, 2006, pgs. 275-276...After the U.S. left, all military training of South Vietnamese soldiers was stopped. Lack of money for spare parts forced the South Vietnamese to cannibalize equipment; hand grenades, bullets and artillery shells were rationed, soldier's salaries were lessened so that some soldiers had to get extra work to make ends meet or they stole military equipment and sold it; thousands of South Vietnamese soldiers deserted every month, inflation soared, and unemployment was rampant. By 1974 1/3 of South Vietnamese civilians were out of work. ...So yes, the old saying that an army travels on its stomach appears all too true. By 1975 South Vietnam was a hollow shell and Shirley Temple could have conquered it with a BB gun and a lollipop.71.154.158.137 (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is (in a sence) the point. The US did not just withdraw from SVN they abandoned it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the U.S. abandoned Vietnam, currently the U.S. is Vietnam's chief export market and Americans are the #1 foreign investor in Vietnam. Just last Tuesday an American warship, a destroyer, docked in DaNang to conduct friendly exercises. It seems the U.S. won the war economically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.225.242 (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

After how many decades of ignoring the country (which by the way is still ruled by the same party that fought the Americans, So who won?), beside if we use that criteria I think Japan easily beat the US in WW2.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, under the concept of "Hakko ichiu", Japan has done a great deal of conquering. Using military force to achieve world dominance is just one method, there are also economic methods, religious methods, cultural methods, etc. As far as Vietnam, once the U.S. got the Vietnamese addicted to Coca-Cola and all the other clap-trap of Western "civilization" we had them conquered, they just didn't know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.229.16 (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha, what? There are Americans that are STILL claiming they won the Vietnam war? Even after ALL this TIME? Oh my. Yeah sorry American, reality doesn't change because you personally don't appreciate the outcome. 124.148.249.46 (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

No, I think only a few Americans might contend that we won the Vietnam War. It's certainly not a mainstream opinion. --Habap (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I liken the American involvement in Vietnam to England's imperialism in the 19th century--if you've studied British history, Britain had all kinds of campaign medals for military involvements of Britain all over the world. I don't think concepts like winning and losing are helpful in understanding the matter, it's more a matter of international equilibrium and has to be looked at in the "big picture" concept. England, France, Germany, Spain--all had international exploits and military involvements but when these became economically or politically unfeasible they pulled out. 64.169.154.183 (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's something interesting that occurred to me--We never invaded North Vietnam. How can we conquer a country if we don't invade it? How can we either lose or win if we don't invade? This seems to be a major point that everybody overlooks. 71.157.182.121 (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

History is replete with examples of war-winners who did not invade their opponents: the U.S. over Britain in the Revolutionary War, the Allies over Germany in the First World War, the U.S. over Japan in the Second World War, Britain over Argentina in the Falklands, etc. etc. Of course one would not say that these countries "conquered" the others but they certainly won the wars in question. Barnabypage (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, your source of a 'Vietnam Veteran' is 100% bias to the US favour. According to source analysis templates (V=DAC2 & DATA), your source ranks between 0-3 validity the highest being 1045. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.133.136 (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems I need to point out that "did not lose" is not equivalent to "won". 175.45.146.82 (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, so if the German Army had stopped the Allies cold at the Rhine River in WWII, and the U.S. sued for peace and withdrew because they could not stomach the casualty count, would we call WWII a victory? Even if we had slowed the spread of facism, and the Nazis never attacked us on our own soil? Of course not.

The United States lost the Vietnam War - take the pain and give the communists the win they earned. Losing once in a while is a good thing, so check that revisionist history sideways logic. One must always point-out, however, that the Vietnam War was NOT lost by U.S. troops in the field, who completely dominated the communists. As all the top communist Vietnamese leaders of the time have agreed, the communists won the Vietnam War because of the anti-war movement in the U.S.
Mark Rizo (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Mark Rizo makes an excellent point. I recall Ho Chi Minh saying that the American people would not stand for a prolonged war in Southeast Asia. Here's a quote from "Eyewitness Vietnam", Gilmore and Giangreco, Sterling Publishing, N.Y., 2006, pg. 188: "The enemy knew that the killing of large numbers of American soldiers would infuriate the antiwar dissidents and demonstrators in America...The North Vietnamese politburo was aware of the American dissenters and tailored some of its actions and much of its propaganda with them in mind." So the antiwar dissidents lost the war. Now there's an interesting viewpoint. 75.7.155.251 (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That's it Mark blame the people not actually involved in the fighting for the defeat. Do you have a RS for this statement? America lost the war, and make no mistake they lost it, for lots of reasons including political, strategic, unsuitable terrain and the also the inability to stop military supplies from reaching the south to mention just a few. Bjmullan (talk) 08:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that in 2009 Newsweek offered up a snippet I often use: "One of the iconic exchanges of Vietnam came, some years after the war, between Col. Harry Summers, a military historian, and a counterpart in the North Vietnamese Army. As Summers recalled it, he said, 'You never defeated us in the field.' To which the NVA officer replied: 'That may be true. It is also irrelevant.'" See it from Newsweek here. It comes from On Strategy (the intro, I think) by Harry G. Summers, Jr.. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Bjmullan, did you know that we used Calgon bath oil beads on the Ho Chi Minh Trail during the rainy season to make it slippery so the North Vietnamese trucks couldn't get through? Here's the verifiable source: "Lawrence of Vietnam" by Michael M. Peters, Stansbury Publishing, 2006, pg. 20 at http://heidelberggraphics.com/stansbury%20Publishing/Lawrence%20of%20Vietnam.htm Also, I should point out that 85% of North Vietnam's supplies were coming through the ports, not the Ho Chi Minh Trail (the Trail transported war goods from North Vietnam to the guerilla war in the south). So when Nixon mined the ports, that choked off North Vietnam's supplies and with the Christmas Bombing the North Vietnamese were brought to the peace table and thus were forced to sign the Paris Peace Accords. Yeah, of course the North Vietnamese didn't like signing a peace treaty under such circumstances. They would have voided the treaty as soon as possible, which they did. 63.198.19.93 (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

How did those supplies get fro the ports of Noth Vietnam to the trrops fighting in Souoth Vietnam (or are you susgesting that the VC used ports in South Vietnbam?)?

The ports supplied North Vietnam with supplies from the Soviet Union and China for the war effort for the entire country (SAM missiles, for instance, which stayed in North Vietnam). Only 15% of war supplies went down the Ho Chi Minh Trail, the rest stayed in North Vietnam to support the country's regime and for standard military operations. The Ho Chi Minh Trail primarily supported guerilla operations. Hope this clarifies it. The Ho Chi Minh Trail, by the way, was the name the Americans gave it, the North Vietnamese called it something else. I'll see if I can find that name, I don't recall it right now.63.198.19.93 (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

But the fighting was in ther South (except for the air war, which gave the north something to use all that aid for). So mining the harbours of the north would have has little impact on the fighting in the south. Its hard to undertsand the point you are making. Are you saying that the north agreed to the cease fire to stop the US from mining harbours that were used to supply aid that was used, to defend the harbours?Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

We'd have to look at the bills of lading to find out what was actually on those ships coming into the ports but I assume it would be all kinds of supplies, not just armaments, but food, medicine, construction material, clothing, etc. So cutting off shipment of goods would have put a lot of pressure on the North Vietnamese. Without logistical support of all kinds the North would be seriously hampered to support the war effort on the home front. But yeah, just what was on those ships? Oh, and here's what the Vietnamese called the Ho Chi Minh Trail: the Truong Son Strategic Supply Route, named after a range of mountains.63.198.19.93 (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Its a very good point. Without knowing what was stoiped we cannot say what impact it had (and there are many given reason why the North cames to the table, some of which involve some very nasty little conspiracies). However the idea that cutting of medical supplies to a third world peseant economey having a major impact on war making potential is wrong, same with cloting. North VBietnam had a far lower standerd of living (and thus far lower logistical requirments) then say the USA (or even the urbanised population of the South. It might have had a long term impact, if it had been a long term operation. Its hard to see however (beyond the implied threat it might continue) that the short term mining hasd any real impact on the course of the war. It might have convinced the North that getting the US out of the war as a good strategic goal, nd thus convinced them that PAris was a good away of achiveing this as any. Which is what they got, its hard to see giving the enamey exaclty what they want to achive (at least as a short term goal) as a triumph, or even a mild sucess.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, the North ran out of SAM missiles during the Christmas Bombing, and since the ports were mined the North couldn't resupply itself with SAM's. If a Soviet ship with a supply of AK-47's can't dock, then those AK-47's aren't going to be subsequently transported down the Ho Chi Minh Trail to Viet Cong that are fighting in the South. Since the Soviet Union didn't directly border North Vietnam they needed the ports to ship in their war supplies. Of course, over time, the North Vietnamese could have arranged new and different supply routes. But cargo ships can move an awful lot of goods at once compared to some guy on a bicycle carrying bits and pieces. Even a peasant with an AK-47 living in a straw hut is going to have to get his bullets from some outside source, some major weapons manufacturer that would ship by boat or rail or truck. As I recall, most of the gunpowder used by the Americans in the Revolutionary War in 1776 came from France. So if Britain had found a way to stop the shipment of gunpowder (say by mining American ports), that would have seriously hampered the American War effort. War is all about logistics.63.198.19.93 (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

NorthVietnam shared a long land boarder (with many crossings) with Chiina. One of the reason the soviots (and not the chineses, who did not need to) used the harbour was the politics of Sino-Soviot relations. Thus there were alternative supply routs. Not perhaps as efficenta but still uefull. And of course we should not forget that Hanoi was bombed into accepting what they had already agreed to. Its not as if the USA got extra concensions.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right about the complex Sino-Soviet situation, a constant fleet of trucks/trains traveling from the Soviet Union through China to deliver war goods to Vietnam would present political problems. I did find this quote from the Wiki article on the "United States Merchant Marine": "During the Vietnam War, ships crewed by civilian seamen carried 95% of the supplies used by the American armed forces." So apparently using ships to transport war supplies was the standard at the time.63.198.19.93 (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I found in the book "The Tragedy of the Vietnam War" by Van Nguyen Duong, pgs. 165 to 171: "As a poor country lacking any industrial or economic means of production, North Vietnam could not make war without the communists's bloc continuous and abundant economic and military aid". "The U.S. blockade of Hai-Phong Harbor aggravated the shortage of their economic and military potential." 65% of the aid came from the Soviets, 25% from China and 10% from other Eastern Bloc countries. When conflicts arose between China and the Soviets there would be a cutback of railroad shipments from the USSR through China, emphasizing sea transport instead. The Soviets had two fleets of ships carrying war supplies, 125 ships out of Odessa and another 25 ships out of Vladivostok. They would transport such war supplies as MiG-17's, Mig-21's, SAM-7 missiles, 130mm heavy artillery pieces; T-54, PT-76 and BTR-85 tanks; small arms; ammo, etc. The North Vietnamese suffered not only an equipment shortage but a manpower shortage during this time and had to draft 15 and 16 year olds for the People's Army. With Linebacker II "North Vietnam was on the verge of collapse", says Duong. Van Nguyen Duong was a South Vietnamese officer and has a lot of insights and access to info. Duong also gets into the "nasty little conspiracies" that Slatersteven refers to (above) about the peace negotiations, including the concept that the US did not want South Vietnam to be a strong military power unto itself since this would perpetuate Southeast Asia warfare indefinitely. Duong's book is on the Internet.71.148.53.57 (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's some more data about Soviet shipment of arms from "Eyewitness Vietnam", Gilmore and Giangreco, Sterling Publishing, New York, 2006, pg. 226: "As Le Duc Tho talked of peace and quibbled endlessly over terms and terminology, the Soviet Union was sending North Vietnam huge quantities of military supplies: T-34, T-54, and T-55 tanks; surface-to-air missiles; MiG-21 fighter jets; long-range 130mm guns; trucks; shoulder-fired SA-7 anti-aircraft missiles; tons of ammunition; 120mm mortars; and petroleum products...By the end of 1971, well-equipped North Vietnamese Army units had surged into the area just North of the DMZ. Now, with the NVA poised on the northern border of South Vietnam, Le Duc Tho refused to talk to Kissinger any longer." So the shipment of arms by the Soviets provided the equipment for the Easter Offensive. If the U.S. had mined Hai-Phong Harbor earlier perhaps the Easter Offensive could have been averted.66.122.182.159 (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Or other things may have happed (such as China allowing more Soviot aid by rail).Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the title of this section should be "Russia Won The Vietnam War". The North Vietnamese were just rice farmer peasants, without the influx of massive amounts of Soviet aid they couldn't have achieved much. They were just Soviet pawns. The Soviets played it smart--by not sending in hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops Russia didn't have to worry about political problems on the home front like the Americans. That was the weakness in the American strategy--putting our own troops at risk greatly increased the political hazard for America. President Johnson goofed when he committed large numbers of American troops because it made the US vulnerable, he should have just sent material aid. The Soviets played it smart by keeping out of the fray personally--they always were good chess players. (Of course if the Soviets had sent in hundreds of thousands of troops then that would have been the start of WWIII.) I get the feeling the Soviets played everybody for a fool--the North, the South, the Americans, all were just pawns to the Soviets. 66.122.182.159 (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think at this point I need to ask, what are you porposing we shoud do with the article?Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Good question. "War is the father of nations", as someone once said. The Robert Southey poem "The Battle of Blenheim" springs to mind: "'Now tell us all about the war and what they fought each other for.' 'Why that I cannot tell says he, but 'twas a famous victory'". 70.237.14.233 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"War is a racket...A racket is...something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about." --Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, 1935 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.14.233 (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

General Butler is one of only 19 men to win the Medal of Honor twice.70.237.14.233 (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the article needs more input from the Vietnamese people, North and South. A lot of reporting of the Vietnam War was done by journalists from the US and the US has an activist press. The press did have a lot to do with the war and so the neutrality of the press was breached. Wiki strives for objectivity. Van Nguyen Duong's book "The Tragedy of Vietnam" mentioned above has some interesting insights from the South Vietnamese point of view. And as for American Vietnam veterans' points of view, I can recommend the novels "Lawrence of Vietnam" and "Nam-A-Rama". Barnes and Noble has a good collection of recent Vietnam War books. 70.237.14.233 (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Novels are fiction, even if based on real events. As such they would fail RS. I agree a wider view would be nice, but a soler on the ground only actauly sees what he sees, in fatf his understanding of the wider matters would be no greater then a historians (and may be less, he might not have access to the testomones of the higher escelons that a historian miht have access too).Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who studies the Vietnam war knows that America achieved it's objectives in the war, which was the halt of the North Vietnamese army's advance into South Vietnam and the preservation of the Democratic South. This objective was achieved via the Paris Peace Accords that stated the North would respect the South's territorial integrity. However, like the French years earlier the North did not respect it's end of the bargain and advanced as soon as the US left the South, in which the US responded by sending it's airforce to assist the South.

76.181.114.227 (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Jade rat

For what it's worth, I heard from an old South Vietnamese living here in the US that the US did not lose the Vietnam War, that Vietnam was a poor peasant country and the US could do whatever it wanted, that the US could have bombed its way to victory anytime. However, the US was using Vietnam to test out new weapons and tactics, Vietnam was just a "prooving ground". This is just what I'm told , I wonder if anyone has run across published, verifiable sources regarding this aspect of the war from the Vietnamese point of view. I doubt the South Vietnamese found a large publishing house that would print their viewpoint after the war. 63.198.18.100 (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam War was Unconstitutional

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear cases about the Constitutionality of the Vietnam War. Since Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states that only Congress can declare war, not the President, numerous attempts were made to declare the war illegal (and those participating in it to be war criminals under the Nuremberg provisions). See: Mora v. McNamara, 1967; Mitchell v. United states, 1967; Massachusetts v. Laird, 1970. Is the reluctance/cowardice of the US Supreme Court to take a stand on the legality of the Vietnam War significant enough to be included in the Wiki article? Or is it just a minor side issue? The Supreme Court is pretty much a laughing stock in the U.S.--people don't give credance to what nine crabby old men and women with their personal biases think. 66.122.184.14 (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you propose to improve the articel?Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought Wiki editors might like to include mention of the fact that the US Supreme Court selectively decided not to hear cases on the Constitutionality of the war, thus hiding from the issue. The "Opposition to the Vietnam War" section in the Wiki article would be a good place for insertion. There's a good online source at Answers.com under "Vietnam War", under sub-heading "US Supreme Court: Vietnam War", which gets into it in some detail. Probably just a sentence or two would suffice for the Wiki article. I don't want to alter the article because I'm not an experienced editor. 66.122.184.14 (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This is all original research. siafu (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well, here's some direct quotes from Answers.com under Vietnam War, referencing the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia (Vietnam War)--"The Court ducked the toughest of these questions: the Constitutionality of the war itself." And ..."the Court persistently employed its discretionary authority to determine which cases it would hear to exclude from consideration all Constitutional challenges to the war." 66.122.184.14 (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be a good addition to the article to add something in that says that the constitutionality of the war was challenged and that the US Supreme court refused to consider the cases. We can not say that the war was unconstitutional because the Supreme Court never decided a case that way and that s just someone's opinion. ~~ GB fan ~~ 02:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with this. We can repoprt a fact not comment on it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A sentence might be appropriate, though the Korean War had already established that the President could send troops into combat without a declaration of war from Congress. As such, the precedent of the Korean War is a reason enough for the Supreme Court not to hear the cases. If no case has been put before them since 1970, there has been no opportunity to rule on the Constitutionality since then, so there's nohtin cowardly about the last 40 years. I'm not sure where you are, but I've not heard anyone says the Supreme Court is "a laughing stock" around here. --Habap (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point, but the U.S. became ensnared in the Korean War because of U.N. Resolution 83. As a member nation of the United Nations, the U.S., along with many other countries, contributed troops and materiel to the war. It was a U.N. war, not an American war (though the U.S. contribution was immense). By the way, I'm an American old codger in my 60's and we old folks complain about the Supreme Court all the time--it might be an age thing. I would agree with Slatersteven and GBfan--we should report the deliberate, pre-meditated avoidance of the Supreme Court to hear cases about the Constitutionality of the Vietnam War (since it's an important issue), but not interject our own interpretative comments. One of the Supreme court justices wrote dissenting opinions about the court's refusal to hear cases about the Constitutionality of the Vietnam War. It would be interesting to read the opinions, I wonder if they're in the local law library at the university. 66.122.184.14 (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

From my point of view, it doesn't matter whether the UN was at war, since nothing in the Constitution authorizes the UN to declare war for the United States. The last thing I'd want is for the heads of state of every other country in the world to be able to determine US foreign policy. I mean, should the Burundian ambassador have more influence on whether the US goes to war than a US Senator? Why even elect a government if we start ceding authority to the UN? So, that it was a UN war doesn't exempt the President or Congress from their obligations to the Constitution. --Habap (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter what anyones POV is, what matters is what RS say. In this respect did congress say that Korea acted as a precident or not. If they did end of story theres your justification. If they did not then we can't.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

My mistake in using the POV phrase. Korea was also not a declared war, as Congress did not declare war. We'll have to wait on 66's research to know if the Supreme Court used that as a reason for not hearing the cases. Since we don't currently know why they did not hear the cases, we should be careful with our wording - that is, saying it was "deliberate, pre-meditated avoidance" is putting words in the mouth of the Court. --Habap (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Or we could all check. Heres a start [[1]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I've gleaned so far: the cases about the legality of the Vietnam War largely stemmed from draft dodgers who were looking for some legal angle to get out of the war. Maybe the old justices didn't want to give the draft dodgers a legal loophole. Justice Douglas would dissent in the Court's denial, wanting to hear the cases, claiming the cases had "standing" and "justiciability" (two legal terms). Douglas said "We have here a recurring question in present-day Selective Service cases". Apparently he wanted the question answered in regard to draft dodgers, since cases kept coming up. The US Supreme Court did mention that the Pact of Paris and the Treaty of London were the controlling authorities, that determining the legality of the war was not within the US Supreme Court's jurisdiction. The Pact of Paris (1928) forbade wars of aggression. Since the North Vietnamese were the aggressors, they would be the liable party. The US was defending South Vietnam from the invading aggressors, so the US would not be liable (according to the Pact of Paris). And here's something really interesting: officially declaring war in the US drastically alters the financial system of the country, all kinds of legal mechanisms go into play, insurance rates change, industries are taken over by the government, the banking system changes, etc. So there would be strong financial incentives not to "officially" declare war! (The Justices back then were Earl Warren (Chief Justice), Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, John M. Harlan III, William J. Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron White, Abe Fortas, and Thurgood Marshall.) 66.122.184.14 (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This recent edit to the comment above (by a different anon -- perhaps the same person editing from a different IP, perhaps some other anon) popped up on my watchlist. Those are interesting assertions, but probably don't lead to fruitful discussion here. If supportable, that info probably ought to appear in the Declaration of war by the United States article, supported by citations of supporting sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The Vietnam War was not unconstitutional, and that accusation is as rediculous now as it was then. Though the U.S. President cannot DECLARE war, at the time he was free to WAGE war in defense of the country as he saw fit. It is nearly unanimously accepted that the presidents that persecuted the Vietnam War all felt that they were acting in the immediate and necessary defense of the United States, and thus they were within their constitutional rights. Had Congress cut off funding, President Nixon could have sold two of our aircraft carriers in 10 minutes over the phone to raise money for the Vietnam War, and been completely within his constitutional rights. That being said, the Korean and Vietnam wars presented a new type of long-term, large commitment "defensive action", which necessitated Congress imposing specific limitations on the President's ability to wage war without a declaration of war, via the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
Mark Rizo (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

War end date and introduction

The 1st paragraph of the introduction to this page spends WAY too much space mentioning the Mayaguez incident. The intro should be a brief summary of the Vietnam War, and it currently focuses too much on a very minor incident who's only historical significance is in determining the technical end date for the war from an American perspective. I think the intro should be designed for someone that knows very little to nothing about the subject and this talk about Mayaguez will only confuse a reader when it's presented so early in the narrative. I recommend removing all mention of Mayaguez from the introduction. The end date of the war could still be listed as May 15th with an explanation in a later section with the technicalities. The intro could then say: "final United States action in Southeast Asia ended on May 15, 1975". I didn't change anything myself because I've never edited anything on this page or participated in any discussions. Hopefully, someone that has adopted responsibility for this page can consider my recommendation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanhupka (talk • contribs) 23:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you're quite right. 71.139.246.16 (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

One of my old outfits, the 374th Tactical Airlift Wing, was involved in the Mayaguez incident. We dropped the 15,000 pound bomb that cleared a landing zone for the helicopters--we just shove the bomb out the back of a C-130; I think there's a YouTube video of a C-130 bomb drop on the Internet. If you're within a mile of that thing when it goes off you're in trouble. We developed the technique during the Vietnam War but the Mayaguez incident was a commando operation for us, so it can actually be viewed as a separate military operation from the Vietnam War. It was a limited operation with a specific objective, to be accomplished in hours. We do stuff like that a lot. Anyway, here's a quote from "The Air Force", Air Force Historical Foundation, 2002, pg. 188: "The action at Koh Tang ended the Air Force involvement in America's Southeast Asia conflict" for a verifiable source. But for all intents and purposes the war ended for us, the USA, in 1972. 71.148.53.170 (talk) 04:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Photo selection

I find the four images selected to illustrate the top of the article to be rather lop-sided. They show only American soldiers in action and destroying infrastructure (for the want of a better term) and Vietnamese civilian casualties. Surely a more balanced set of images can be found? 175.45.146.82 (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the Huey copter photo and hut burning should be kept; the other two photos should be replaced with one of a peace demonstration at Berkeley and one of a B-52 dropping bombs. This will give the photo montage counterpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.122.184.21 (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As an afterthought, an interactive sight would be great--you know, push a button and see the changing map of war, or go on a virtual trek with a North Vietrnamese down the Ho Chi Minh Trail with a load of war supplies. 66.122.184.21 (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The photo selection went through many discussions. It was chosen in its current state because it represents the most well known and significant moments of the war from the position of the readers of English Wikipedia. Whether we like it not, the events pictured were the most famous and the most commonly reported in reliable sources, and after all, that is what matters most. I can see that for some it is insulting to see the US armed forces causing destruction in some of those pictures, but our personal sensibilities do not affect (or should not affect) the content of this encyclopedia. Those pictures reflect how the war was reported in reliable sources, and our job is to reflect reliable sources above all. ValenShephard (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not have a rotating carousel of photos? There's a lot of dramatic photos from the war. It could be a featurette of the article. 66.122.184.21 (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

While the idea of an interactive site or a carousel of photos would certainly add to the usefulness of the page, I don't think either is going to be possible on Wikipedia. It's not the place for high-bandwidth, interactive media, nor is there a collection of tech-savvy web artists sitting around waiting for such projects. Nice idea, but not likely to happen. --Habap (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I haven't seen the previous discussion, so I can't comment on it. But for me the issue has nothing to do with whether those images might offend sensibilities. It's about balance. If you knew nothing about the Vietnam war, those images would likely lead you to conclude this article was about nothing but the US army and some civilians somewhere. 175.45.146.82 (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well if anything the selection needs more photos not less. We could do with a photo of the other armes fighting on the anti-communist side (British, South Korea, Australian etc) as well as photos of the South Vietnamese and North Vietnamese. Who are very conspicuously missing from pictures of the war they were in. ValenShephard (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It should be totally redone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 10:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Those photos should be deleted. This article should be deleted, it is propaganda for the Viet Cong. The murders were bad, but they already happened and people should forget about it all, we do not gain anything from remembering it, cause it has past, it's only history now. The Viet Cong also committed murders, and murders on both sides cancel each other out, so only Viet Cong's murders should be mentioned. The article name should be redirected to the article about the Viet Cong. 173.183.71.170 (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Canada

I move that we get rid of the 'wars involving Canada' category, seeing as they weren't really involved

I woould like to see a very good reason why7 canada is in the artciel.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the other ICC members should be similarly categorized by adding Category:Wars involving India and Category:Wars involving Poland. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are being sarcastic.Slatersteven (tore plainly, malk) 13:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much. Per this, The ICC was comprised of Canada, Poland and India. Put more plainly my thought was that if Category:Wars involving Canada is to be retained for this article, cause should be shown why the others should not be added. If cause cannot be shown why the others should be added, cause should be shown why Canada should be retained. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems fair to me.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Cambodia and Laos

First of all, I should think that the extremely comprehensive and well-respected demographic study of Charles Hirschman estimating 1.2 million deaths on all sides in the war should be included along with Vietnam's estimated 1.3 million dead soldiers and 2 million or so dead civilians (hence the article should probably read "one to three million Vietnamese"). But the figures on Cambodia and Laos are far more problematic.

Bruce Sharp notes:

There is substantial anecdotal evidence which suggests that the war toll is lower than what is commonly believed. In the many memoirs written by Cambodians in the aftermath of the Pol Pot time, it is surprisingly difficult to find firsthand accounts of deaths during the 1970-75 war. In Chanrithy Him's When Broken Glass Floats, Him describes fleeing her family's home in Takeo province, and describes finding the house destroyed upon their return. In spite of this, no one in the family is killed. She describes two deaths in the family, "children not touched by bombs but who might have survived if there had been access to hospitals and medical care." During the Khmer Rouge years, by contrast, Him lost 28 members of her extended family. (64) Haing Ngor, too, mentions the destruction of his father's house, but also does not mention any deaths in his family.(65) In Leaving the House of Ghosts, Sam and Sokhary You describes the bombing of their family's villages in Kompong Speu province; most villagers left immediately, but You's family remained for another six months, until another bombing raid destroyed their house; again, however, there is no mention of casualties. (66) Someth May and Thida Mam both describe seeing rocket and terrorist attacks on Phnom Penh, but do not mention any deaths in their families. (67) Vann Nath describes the death of a friend who was killed in an attack by the Khmer Rouge (68), but, again, does not mention any deaths in his own family. Memoirs by Loung Ung, Sophal Leng Stagg, Paul Thai and Molyda Szymusiak similarly do not discuss family deaths during the war years.(69)

Other evidence also suggests that the war toll should be re-evaluated. Anthropologist May Ebihara, who conducted fieldwork in a village in Kandal province in 1959-1960, returned to the village in 1990. Of the 159 people she had known in 1960, she found that by 1975, 16 persons had died from old age or illness, and 4 had died during the war. Of the 139 remaining people, half of them -- 69 people -- died during the Khmer Rouge regime. (70) Discussing Ebihara's research, Kiernan notes that "Eighteen new families had formed in the hamlet after 1960; but from 1975 to 1979, 26 of the 36 spouses and 29 of their children also perished." (71)

Ebihara's data highlights the disparity in the death ratios between the civil war and the Pol Pot regime. The number of deaths in 1975-1979 was roughly seventeen times the number of deaths during the war.

To demonstrate the implications of these ratios, let's return to Vickery's original estimates of 500,000 war dead, and 740,000 deaths during the Khmer Rouge regime. If this is accurate, one would expect that interviews with survivors would reveal a substantial death toll for both periods: there would have been roughly 2 deaths during the war for every 3 deaths during the Khmer Rouge regime. If we accept Kiernan's estimates, meanwhile, we would expect that for each family member who died during the war, five or six would have died under the Khmer Rouge.

However, even this ratio may still be too high. Steve Heder concluded from his interviews that the death toll among peasants was roughly seven times higher than the toll from the war. (72) We should also bear in mind that Heder referred to peasants, who in general were more affected by the war than those in urban areas, and slightly less affected by mortality in the Khmer Rouge years.

The 50% death rate in Ebihara's village was clearly higher than normal during the Khmer Rouge years; yet even if we applied a more typical death rate of around 25%, we would be still be left with a ratio of 1 to 8.5.

While the exceptionally high ratios from this village might not be typical, they were also certainly not unique. My own conversations with refugees also suggests very high ratios. When questioned about the Pol Pot years, most Cambodians will immediately begin listing names: "the terse tally of the dead," as author Minfong Ho once put it. (73) Yet when asked about deaths during the war, the list of names is almost invariably short: perhaps a cousin who was a soldier, an uncle whose fate was never entirely clear, and so on.

It is important to stress, however, that the subjects I have interviewed would not represent an broad cross-section of the overall population, or even the overall refugee population. One would expect that, in general, refugees represent the people who have suffered greatly under the regime they have fled; after all, it takes a great deal of hardship to motivate an individual to leave her or his own country. Additionally, the majority of the refugees I have interviewed were predominantly from either Battambang province, or Phnom Penh. Both of these locations were less affected by the war than other regions.

Another significant consideration is the likelihood that respondents may not immediately recognize some deaths as war-related. Establishing cause-and-effect is not always easy. As Craig Etcheson remarked, "Your buffalo gets blasted, so you can't plow your field, so your crop fails, so your kids get hungry, and then they get sick and die from beriberi or something." (74)

Clustering of mortality during the civil war might account for the difficulty of finding survivors who lost family members between 1970 and 1975. Casualties from bombing are likely to be heavily clustered; a bomb that falls on a house may kill an entire family, while leaving every other household in the area unscathed. The repression of the ethnic Vietnamese during the Lon Nol regime, too, would have resulted in a clustering of mortality among specific families. (75)

Another critical consideration is that those most likely to have died during the war -- that is, residents of the areas close to the Vietnam-Cambodia border -- were also among the most likely to die during the Khmer Rouge regime. The bloodiest purges of the Khmer Rouge reign targeted peasants in the Eastern zone. Substantially higher mortality among these families during the war might have affected our interpretations of the death rates in each period.

A final consideration is the possibility that the cultural emphasis on not offending others is relevant here: would Cambodians be hesitant to discuss deaths caused by Americans with an American interviewer?

Nonetheless, while one could theorize about what other evidence might have existed, it is not clear that these factors would account for the apparent discrepancy that we see when we compare the ratio of war deaths to deaths during the Khmer Rouge regime. The clustering of mortality in during the Khmer Rouge regime would likely have been even more pronounced than the clustering during the war. The repression and murder of ethnic minorities was even more severe. Lon Nol's wrath focused primarily on ethnic Vietnamese. Under the Khmer Rouge, however, ethnic Chinese, Chams, and Vietnamese all died in numbers in excess of the general population. Additionally, the paranoia of the Khmer Rouge meant that entire families were often murdered in the drive to exterminate "enemies." In many instances purges went beyond immediate family, and reached into extended families as well.

There are also other open questions regarding the war toll. What are we to make of Etcheson's assertion that only two mass graves contained victims of the bombing campaign? Of those who died in the bombing, how many were North Vietnamese, and not Cambodian? Consider the assertions by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, that contemporary press accounts of the war failed to quote victims of the bombing: was this because the press was unsympathetic, or was it because there simply were not as many victims as was widely believed? Compared to Vietnam -- where Communist guerrillas could strike anywhere at any time, and Americans and South Vietnamese could rely on rapid mobility to immediately retaliate -- it seems likely that the front lines in Cambodia were more predictable, making it easier to evacuate before battles took place. .... [Discussing a common kill/wounded ratio of 2 to 1] There are few statistics available for Cambodia, but at the end of 1970 the government reported their losses at 3,888 killed and 7,895 wounded. (78) It seems likely that this 1:2 casualty ratio probably deteriorated over time, as their battlefield situation worsened and limited medical resources were depleted. Khmer Rouge forces, meanwhile, probably suffered the same rate of dead-to-wounded as the Vietnamese communists. ....As of 1973, Khmer Rouge troop strength was estimated to be around 200,000. Lon Nol's forces, including paramilitary groups, probably peaked at around 290,000. (79) If we assume that all of the dead and wounded were replaced by fresh recruits as the war progressed, we would have a total of around 730,000 fighters. This would mean that nearly one out of every three combatants was either killed or wounded, an incredibly high rate in comparison with other conflicts.

The fact that this rate is exceptionally high does not mean that it cannot possibly be correct; after all, the death rates during the Khmer Rouge years were also exceptionally high in comparison to other regimes. In the sad history of human conflict, there will be one war that holds the distinction of being bloodier and more destructive than any other. However, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that the Cambodian civil war was markedly more destructive than other conflicts.

Bannister and Johnson estimated the death toll from the war to be around 275,000. (80) Sampson, too, believed that the toll from the war was overestimated. He suggested that civilian deaths "could be numbered in tens of thousands, but not more," and also noted that military attachés estimated the size of each army to be between 100,000 and 150,000. (81) If correct, these figures would mean that even a figure of 300,000 deaths is far too high.

We should also remember what the number of deaths implies in terms of the number of wounded. If we were to accept a figure of 500,000 dead, we would be expect to see least another half-million wounded; this would mean that about 1 out of every 16 people among the 1975 population would have been wounded during the war. Again, interviews with survivors suggests that this is cannot possibly be accurate. I would consider any figure between 150,000 and 300,000 as plausible, and would regard 250,000 as the most likely figure. (82)

Think about what your figure of 1.5 to 2 million would mean. Since wounded amounts to three times dead; a figure of 2 million killed would mean 6 million wounded--in other words, that literally every Cambodian was a war casualty. Since Cambodia's population was around 8 million in 1975, and Ben Kiernan's "foremost demographer of Cambodia" predicted a 1979 population of 8.5 million in 1972 even accounting for an indefinite continuation of the trends that then existed at the height of the civil war (with the population falling to 6 to 6.5 million due to the Khmer Rouge genocide); where are all the missing Cambodians? Any estimate above 500,000 in the war is statistically and demographically impossible. The lowest possible estimate would be nearly a tenth of that. Kiernan's 300,000 is the most widely accepted estimate. You should probably revise the total to 100-500,000 or 150-300,000 or simply a quarter of a million Cambodians.

As far as Laos goes, I'm not sure if your wording was intended to do so; but, to me, it implies that potentially hundreds of thousands died there as well. Virtually all sources available put the total at 30 to 50 thousand. Wikipedia itself later endorses a figure of 50,000 in Laos, so there seems to be no real factual dispute on this matter.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

GOCE

• All redirected & disambiguation links fixed and some dead links.

Mlpearc powwow 16:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Number of Australian casualties

the texts states 501 Australian casualties in truth there were 521 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.124.38 (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Good pick up. I have fixed this now. Anotherclown (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

Etymology

I find that the following information is misleading: Kháng chiến chống Mỹ does not loosely translate to mean "The American War." The citation is ^ "Asian-Nation: Asian American History, Demographics, & Issues:: The American / Viet Nam War". Retrieved 18 August 2008. "The Viet Nam War is also called 'The American War' by the Vietnamese." The article is comprised of assumptions, biases, and does not appear to be have undergone rigorous scholarship to arrive at its conclusions. Therefore, I do not believe that this is a valid citation.

In addition, on the Etymology of the Vietnam War Wikipedia Page, it states that in Vietnam the war has been called Resistance War against the American Empire to Save the Nation (Chiến tranh giữ nước chống Đế quốc Mỹ). "Resistance War against the American Empire to Save the Nation" is the term favored by North Vietnam; it is more of a saying than a name, and its meaning is self-evident. Its usage has been reduced in recent years.

The two names are similar, but at odds with one another. It seems to me that either one or the other or both ought to be cited on the main Vietnam War page. Also, the information that the name has been used by the North Vietnamese probably should be more clearly stated on the main Vietnam War page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.255.198.155 (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

technicalities

This article needs to be possibly corrected in two places.

Due to the General Election in that year, the 1945 Clement Atlee government only got as far as an initial draft of a peace treaty with Japan as a cease fire arrangement. A final peace treaty was never signed so technically the UK is still at war with Japan with a further outbreak of hostilities again technically possible. (Burma Star Association source).

Therefore is it correct to state "Japan surrendered unconditionally"? To whom?

Secondly it was pointed out to President Johnson at the the time that if he escalated the Vietnam CONFLICT and Congress declared war in Vietnam the US armed forces were legally abliged to use all weapons in their arsenal including thermo-nuclear.

This legal nicety was used to justify the dropping of two atomic weapons on Japan during WW2, Roosevelt and Congress had declared war against Japan. It was safer for the US to avoid having to use such weapons by simply never declaring a state of war in Vietnam.

If war was never declared in Vietnam can this article really be titled the Vietnam War? 12:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)212.93.199.154 (talk)

"The Gyokuon-hōsō (玉音放送?), lit. "Jewel Voice Broadcast", was the radio broadcast in which Japanese emperor Hirohito read out the Imperial Rescript on the Termination of the War (大東亜戦争終結ノ詔書 Daitōa-sensō-shūketsu-no-shōsho?), announcing to the Japanese people that the Japanese Government had accepted the Potsdam Declaration demanding the unconditional surrender of the Japanese military at the end of World War II." from the Gyokuon-hōsō article. A cursory search of .mil and .gov domains for the terms "Vietnam War" finds tens of thousands of hits, so I don't think the use of the name is in serious dispute.--Sus scrofa (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I recall reading that the US considered using tactical nuclear weapons during the siege at Khe Sanh, anyone got any sources? Also, the US has declared war only five times. Using nukes is problematical I should point out, a shift in wind could send that radioactive cloud over your own troops. And an atomic blast sends all kinds of radiation into the atmosphere which disrupts communications--you'll just get a lot of static on your radios, TV's, etc. apparently. So your own communications systems will be knocked out. One technique of using a nuclear missile in fact involves detonating it in the path of an incoming nuke--the resulting radiation will scramble the electronics guidance system of the incoming missile and render it incapable. Nuking Japan was easy, since it was an isolated island country. Also you have to hate somebody enough to want to nuke them--with Japan this was easy enough because of their sadistic war crimes, just Google "unit 731" to see what the Japs were doing, they were worse than the Nazis. Horrible stuff. We didn't hate the Vietnamese, we were trying to help them. The situation would be kind of absurd: "Okay, we're here to help you, we're going to nuke you now."71.148.53.57 (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam, here's a quote from "Eyewitness Vietnam", Gilmore and Giangreco, Sterling Publishing, New York, 2006, pg. 158: "Much speculation has been made concerning why Giap withdrew from Khe Sanh without making a Dien Binh Phu-like attempt to capture it. Some analysts say the horrendous air and artillery fire U.S. forces rained down on his troops made capturing the base too costly. Others, however, have noted that the Communists may have been aware of talks between General Westmoreland and President Johnson concerning the use of an atomic weapon against Giap's troops if they massed to take the base."70.237.14.233 (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Did some googling[2]; there's lots of stuff out there on this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous editor posting from IP address 212.93.199.154,

• Re your questions about Japan's surrender, see Surrender of Japan, Japanese Instrument of Surrender#Text and Potsdam Declaration.
• Congress did not declare war in re the Vietnam War. The U.S. engaged in extended military combat that was authorized by Congress, but short of a formal declaration of war. See Declaration of war by the United States.
• I think that it is a real stretch to suggest (out of the blue, with no support) that the U.S. intentionally avoided a formal declaration of war in Vietnam as a "legal nicety" so as to avoid having to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam.
• Re the naming of the article, see WP:UCN.

Apologies to all if I'm feeding a troll. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

more updates

212.138.47.12 (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)To the oriental mind the concept of "face" is all important. The Americans may have won the battle of the "Tet Offensive" but as this all seems to have caused the resignation of the American President to the oriental "face" was gained irrespective of Viet Cong losses.

In 1945 the US Marine Corps was exhausted by the fanatical resistance of the Japanese and there was still the Japanese home land to invade and who wanted to be the last casualty of WW2?

My late Father was serving out the Far East at the end of WW2 and the story on the ground at the time was that with the American exhaustion and the Red Army already invading the islands to the north of Japan, the Truman administration was able to use the previously declared state of war to then justify using nuclear weapons on Japan. The important thing was to knock Japan out of the war before the Russians got any further. Had the Russians got any further Stalin would have been master of most of the northern hemisphere from Berlin to Tokyo.

Also according to the BBC World News due to continuing disputes over some islands to the north of Japan, both Russia and Japan have never signed a peace treaty formally ending WW2 hostilities. As the UK and Japan have also not yet signed a final peace treaty and hostilities still technically possible, hostilities between Russia and Japan could technically restart at any moment.

what is yur sugestion?Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam nuclear issue

During the 1960s as the Viet Nam conflict kept getting bigger there were articles in the newspapers at the time pointing out the legality of America declaring war and then having to use nuclear weapons in Viet Nam.

The communist newpapers, in the UK "The Daily Worker" and in France "L'Humanity, used to regularly publish articles making this point and seemed to be almost taunting the Americans over this issue.

As American never did declare a state of war in Viet Nam it still seems reasonable to suppose that this was a major factor in why they didn't.212.26.1.18 (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Why would the US be required to use nuclear weapons in a war? That's a ridiculous assertion. It was no factor at all in whether the US declared war. We weren't prevented by not being in a war (don't forget that they considered using them in Korea and the question of whether it required a declaration of war never came up). --Habap (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Treason

212.138.47.16 (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)As the UK and Japan never signed a final peace treaty the Burma Star Association used the 13th century Treason Act to prevent the Duke of Edinburgh attending the funeral of the late Emperor Hirohito as an Official Mourner.

Some compromise was reached with the Duke attending as a personal/private mourner. The TV broadcast from Japan both showed and described the Duke as "giving a curt nod of the head" to the new Emperor of Japan.

How is is about Vietnam?Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

further clarification ?

212.138.69.24 (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Babur,

The situation seems reasonably clear for those of us old enough to remember both the Korean and later Viet Nam conflicts. When the nuclear weapons were used on Japan in 1945 Macarthur claimed to have been completely unaware that such weapons existed.

During the later Korean conflict Macarthur wanted to use nuclear weapons rather than ground forces and made this clear to the press.

The then UK Prime Minister, Clement Atlee immediately informed the House of Commons, United Nations and the world press that if such weapons were likely to be used he would withdraw all British troops from Korea. At the time there was still a large British National Service Army. The Australian government also issued similar such statements.

It was either Adlai Stevenson or John foster Dulles who informed the world press that in 1945 with America at war with Japan there was both a legal requirement and tactical necessity to use all available weapons including nuclear.

By the time of the Korean and later Viet Nam conflicts the results of using nuclear weapons were far better known and increasing reluctance to use these despite the fervent wishes of Macarthur. After the Bay of Tonkin action President Johnson was apparently informed that if he then escalated the Viet Nam conflict and war declared the use of nuclear weapons would be required. War was therefore never declared. The whole thing seems clear enough from my having lived through this period of world history.

The comment about Giaps action is interesting but there was some other more likely explanation mentioned in his biography

Here's a couple of articles that may be of interest:

http://www.watsoninstitute.org/pub_detail.cfm?id=743

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB195/index.htm Barnabypage (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I was not born until 1965, so I've got to really on what I can read rather than personal experience or memory. There is nothing about a "legal requirement" statement in either Adlai Stevenson or John Foster Dulles, nor does one appear in Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Similarly, no such mention is made in either of the links Barnabypage supplied. I couldn't find anything in a quick dogpile search. If such a statement was made, there should be something out there about it. My college history courses might have covered it, but that was over 20 years ago, so I don't remember. So, I'm hopeful that someone can find evidence if it's actually true and not just a Daily Worker canard. --Habap (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear Protocol

I was in the US Air Force during the Vietnam War and would set the dials on nuclear bombing computers. The US Air Force can drop a nuke anytime, anywhere. However there are nuclear protocols involved. Dropping a nuke requires some degree of forethought. During the Vietnam War the only good nuclear target was Hanoi. (Drop one small atomic bomb and the job's done.) However, we were fighting an armed guerrilla force and army supplied by the Soviets. The factories were in the USSR and we couldn't bomb those. So there was no tactical or strategic reason to use a nuke in Vietnam, which means the question's off the table anyway. And nobody was about to throw the whole nuclear game over some small third world country like Vietnam. Certainly the Marines at Khe Sanh were ticked off enough to nuke the pukes, and I'm sure General Westmoreland considered all the options at his disposal, but that's the Army. 67.121.225.137 (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice description by the way as to why the war was never escalated. But there are mentions of the Nuclear squekebag, so what is you susgestion?Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Wtmitchell in the "technicalities" section above Googled some good sources on the possibility of using a nuke at Khe Sanh, perhaps a paragraph in the main article about maybe using nukes in Vietnam would be a good mention, and it might spur others who have referenced knowledge of the matter to contribute.67.121.225.137 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

We would need the sources before puting it in.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

German Involvement

I was quite surprised to see Germany among the bellingerents, for, being a German, I have never heard about this other than in speculations before. It is true that the French Foreign Legion in Indochina had many Germans in their ranks. But that West-Germany would officially have taken part in the Viet Nam war as a nation, as it did with the Legion Condor during the Spanish Civil War, is new to me. For those who understand German, I suggest that you check source [1] which is supposed to prove this particular point. It is almost entirely written in conditional tense, and loaded with assumptions but lacks of actual evidence--Habap (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC) to proof this point.

Also, the simple term "Germany" is historically false, "Federal Republic of Germany", or "West Germany" would be more appropriate.

Hence, in order to keep this article tidy, and in order to protect Wikipedia from becoming a platform for conspiracy theories, I propose that the German flag, the name "Germany" in the box on the top right and the link "Wars involving Germany" at the bottom of the page are deleted.

Sven —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.231.129.179 (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhpas a translation of the source might be nice.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will give it a go. But before, I would like to translate the site's title: "DAVID NOACK: History and German Foreign Policy in the focus of the Left" - the left being the political spectrum I persume. It is worth note-taking that the author is a prominent and active member of the German post-communist party, and that this article was during the first month of the author's first year at university. This article, not published in the context of his academic work mind you! - is written as a reponse on some theories about a possible German participation during the war in Iraq. The only part of the text that really treats a possible direct involvement of the German government in military action in Vietnam is the seventh paragraph, whereas the remaining parts deals with the German industry's willingness to provide Agent Orange, or the sending of a hospital ship, etc.

And this is how it goes: "Legion Vietnam - Wie französische und US-amerikanische Medien herausfanden, verrichteten deutsche Piloten Dienst in den Reihen der US-Armee. Am 2. August 1966 bestätigte das Hauptquartier der US-Streitkräfte in Saigon, dass eine - wenn auch geringe - Anzahl deutscher Staatsbürger in den US-amerikanischen Einheiten in Südvietnam eingesetzt werde. Hierbei machte man sich die Erfahrungen der faschistischen “Legion Condor” zu eigen: Die Soldaten traten mit Billigung der Regierung aus der deutschen Armee aus und dienten als Freiwillige der Armee im Konfliktgebiet. In Anlehnung an das “Freiwilligenkorps” der Wehrmacht nannte man die bundesdeutschen Soldaten auch die “Legion Vietnam”. So waren unter anderem 40 Hubschrauber der Bundeswehr im Einsatz - samt deutscher Besatzungen. Insgesamt soll sich die Anzahl von “zivilen” und Bundeswehr-”Spezialisten” in Vietnam auf 2.500 Deutsche belaufen haben."

"Legion Vietnam. French and American media found out that German pilots served in the ranks of the US-Army [during the Vietnam war, I guess]. On August 2nd 1966, the US Force's HQ in Saigon confirmed that a - however insignificantly low - number of persons with a German citizenship served in the ranks of the US forces in Southern Vietnam. In this context, the experiences gathered by the fascist "Legion Condor" proved quite helpful: The men in question left the ranks of the German Army with the consent of the government [which one: German or American?] and served as army volunteers in the conflict area. In allusion to the Wehrmacht's "voluteer corps", the Germans were also called [by whom?] "Legion Vietnam". Amongst others, the contingency included 40 helicopter crews. All in all, the number of "civil" members of the German army involved in Vietnam was supposedly at the height of 2.500."

I believe it is quite a bold thing to derive the conclusion of Germany actually leading a war in Vietnam from this source, especially if we take into account its origin and the speculative manner in which it is written. Especially the references to the Legion Condor is a bit strong, if one recalls the role the Germans played in the Spanish Civil War. And I would also like to point out on this occasion that Germany is not listet as a war leading nation in the article treating this subject. It is also worth note-taking that I did not find Germany among the bellingerents on the German, French, Dutch, Spanish and Italian Wikipedia articles on the Vietnam War.

I let you judge for yourselves.

Sven —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.231.129.179 (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is a source more reliable than a website belonging to an undergraduate student, there's no verifiability. --Habap (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Also even if it were RS it does not prove that Germany was a co-beligerant, only that Germans served there.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This is, I believe, the very point. The author did not seize the legal difference between the German government and German individuals. The text does not even state if the helicopters those persons served on were used for rescue of combat missions. Sven —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.231.129.179 (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed West Germany as a participant per this discussion. --Habap (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

First Paragraph

"The Mayaguez incident involving the Khmer Rouge government in Cambodia on 12–15 May 1975, marked the last official battle of US involvement in the Vietnam War. "

Last official battle??? what does this mean? Using the wording "official" means there must have been "unofficial". Wording should be changed to "last battle". If there were other US involved battles post May 1975, mention should be made.Surfing bird (talk) 09:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The photographic panel is bias

The overview template shows a photo of the Lia may incident as one of the major events of the war. Why is this so? The North torched hundreds-if not thousands of villages under orders of senior officers, so why is a incident that involves an action where no order was given one of the main photographs? The panel itself is also over focused on US-involvement every one of the photos relate to US involvement. While it's true that the US was one of the major players, it was only the 4th largest force involved behind the VC, NVA, and ARVEN.

Template should reflect the key events of the war, not make blatant and bias remarks. A more fitting overview panel would be the VC command stucture in the tunnels, the Maddox incident, a Napalm strike, the Tet offensive, and the signing of the Paris treaty.

76.181.114.227 (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Jade Rat

I agree with you but apparently the subject was previously discussed and the selected war photos for the opening were selected by committee. (The photos make the Americans appear to be going around deliberately killing innocent civilians though, don't they?) Iconographic photos of the Vietnam War typically display just one aspect, so there's bound to be debate. 67.121.225.204 (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

entire page is bias

Fact the US did not lose the war, please keep in mind the Paris treaty and how North Vietnam broke the treaty in 1975, after the US force had downside considerably. The photo and articles are bias and one sided, always putting the USA in a poor light. It is getting to the point that wikipedia is a joke world wide and it is type of entries and articles that is making it a laughing stock, bias, POV and far from the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.225.181 (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Actualy the North broke the treat witin hours of its signing.Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I was told that Population and Development Review’s study that calculated fewer than one million war-dead was right-wing propaganda, unlike the neutral and unbiased neo-Nazi blogs CounterPunch and Znet, which have more accurate statistics. In all seriousness, Wikipedia is so dominated with Chomskyite conspiracy theorists and 9/11 Truthers, it is difficult to conceive of a more dangerous wasteland of vulgarity and dishonesty with which to deceive an entire generation of semi-literate American youth, or of a greater intellectual threat to our national security and freedom. Wikipedia is the most elaborate and extensive re-writing of history ever attempted in a free society.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean like in the short story "Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius" by Jorge Luis Borges? Yeah, I wish I could re-write the world. 69.104.55.67 (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering the recent Wikileaks scandal and the fact that our government has been lying to us, I would think any intellectual inquiry on the part of Wiki contributors would be welcome. I find Wikipedia extremely useful. Anyway, back to the Vietnam War... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.55.67 (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Combatants

We need a source for the figures presented for the NVA it seems very high (its a massive junp). Was there ever 2 million communist forces in the field at one time? This [[3]] seems to indicate that at its highest (in 1971, the newly inserted ppoint of greatest steength) it was around 230,000Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Going back to p. 428 and looking through the table, I see the following peak-month strength estimates:

Year	Month	NVA	VC	Total
1964	Dec	10,430	170,240	180,670
1965	Dec	34,090	191,576	225,666
1966	Oct	60,620	231,538	292,158
1967	Feb	57,860	228,958	286,818
1968	Jan	98,600	188,865	287,465
1969	Feb	80,281	178,904	259,185
1970	May	87,245	150,320	237,565
1971	Jan	86,070	138,758	224,828
1972	Jan	85,381	124,348	209,729

The peak of 287,465 coming in Jan 1968, a few months before the March 1968 Tet offensive. That's a lot less than the unsupported figures currently in the article. I'd say remove the unsupported figures and replace them with supported figures from this source and possibly also other figures supported by other cited reliable sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Which is lower (by some way) then the lowest estimate we currently have. I will however leave it another few hours to allow other sources. I am assuming that the edd who made these changes was working from a source.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ancilery to this. How are the figures worked out, The USA seems to represent the high point whilst austraila looks very high (they has one brigade). This whole Info box section needs re-working. So a simple question do we list total number of cambatants or highest commitment?Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC).

It looks like this may need more space to cover properly than is available in the infobox. Once there's a handle on what is supportable, how much of a difference there is between supporting sources, and how the info might be presented, perhaps the article should have a short section on this and the infobox should refer readers to that section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Estimates are that 35,000 to 50,000 Communists were killed in the Tet Offensive. (The Americans knew Tet was coming, they were expecting some sort of Battle of the Bulge by the North.) This troop loss would be reflected in the data tables, using a graph showing troop strength plotted against time. During the Easter Offensive Giap had 40,000 troops KIA also. Giap would throw men away needlessly, so data of troop strength would invariably reflect Giap's losses. 69.104.55.67 (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What reliable source did you get the 35,000 to 50,000 range figure from?

See P. 434-437 here for one such graph. However, some consensus is needed about what figures supported by what reliable sources should be presented before considering the mode of presentation (prose, table? graph? other? combination?). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's one source: During Tet "the VC suffered disastrous casualities among their regular soldiers and especially their political cadre, perhaps as many as 40,000 dead". --From "Eyewitness Vietnam", Gilmore & Giangreco, 2006 Sterling Publishing, NY, pg. 152. Here's another source: By February 3, Tet was over, "leaving between 35,000 and 50,000 Communists dead and wounded. The Americans lost 1,500 killed, the ARVN 3,000 dead". --From "Vietnam War Experience", Souter & Giangreco, 2007, Barnes & Noble, pg. 33. What percentage of North Vietnamese soldiers were draftees, one wonders, since they were suffering these very high attrition rates? Amongst Americans, the draft rate was less than 25%. 69.104.55.67 (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Before discusing casulaties can we decide what the Number of combatants refers to. Total comited over the whole conflict or highest comitment at one time?Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's also important to recognize that the intelligence estimates you're citing here count only what MACV considered combatants, while your US figures include ALL troops in theater, not just combat troops. The MACV figures also don't include support and garrison troops in Laos or Cambodia. If you're wanting a more accurate picture, I'd suggest going with peak troop strength (to include support troops, since that's automatic with the US) instead of skewing the picture by using the current model.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

By way of illumination, though the US had 2.6 million troops (boots on the ground) in Vietnam over the course of the war (3.4 million in SE Asia overall), the highest number of troops in country at a given time for the US was 500,000 (with another 250,000 attached TDY (Temporary Duty), as I recall. The number of North Vietnamese combatants in the field at any given time would seem to be around a couple hundred thousand, as the aforementioned numbers attest. So the war was being carried on by troops numbering in the hundreds of thousands, not millions. 69.104.55.67 (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

So do you have a source that says that the NVA had some 2 million support troops? Also at its peak the US had (according to Dupey and Dupey) 625,866 (as of 27/3/69) around 100,000 more then the figure we give. It also gives a figure of 72.000 (19669) for the FW forces (excluding RVN at 1 million) and total communist strength at 1 million (estimated), half the amount that I have contested.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I can find one (in fact, a quick search of Global Securityturns up the figure of 100,000 personnel at any given time working for Group 559 - and they just worked on the trail network in Laos). But the point I was making is that your basic comparison is flawed. The MACV numbers for NVA troop strength don't include support troops, while every US figure does. To get a full picture of the North's commitment to the conflict you have to widen the scope.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

How do you mean widen thed scope? include all support personel (we would need sources, not our own extrapelations) or imnclude the total number of combatants for the whole conflict?. I agree the figures we have an not all thast accurate (as I have pointed out all the figures we are using for all sides seem low). I am not comparing numbers I am asking how we improve a clearly flawed set of figures. The way we do not do it is to iinsert random conjecture based upon differing criteria for each side (for eample it could be argued that you would have to include all US service personel who supplied support to US operations, including storesman in fort bragg). Which of course raises a new question do we include only in thearter personel?Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the US figures you're using DO include support personnel in country, while those that you have for the NVA do NOT consider support personnel. If you want to start with a basic improvement, change the title from combatants to something else (say military personnel, for example). And the figures for trail personnel aren't conjecture...any more that using a MACV intel report to determine NVA strength is conjecture. MACV intel estimates were concerned mainly with what we would call rifle or foxhole strength (in other words personnel in the line infantry companies), while the US numbers count everyone who was stationed in RVN (including mechanics at Long Binh, clerks in MACV Saigon...you get the idea).Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

They figure from the Laos section of the Ho Chi Min trail is not, but extrapolation from the figure would be. Nor did I disagree that the figures are dubious and incomplete. What I am asking is what figures do we use. Total forces deployed or combat strength? Maximum strength or greatest at point strength? We can argue about exact figures latter but least try and establish some kind of universal criteria we can use first. So what kind of strength do you think the info box should list?Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I would aim for a generic "troops in country" title, and present the figures with proper notation. It will be hard to determine exact US combat strength (not total strength) without (gasp) original research, as the line strength of various units isn't often listed in anything other than original returns. It will be hard to get total NVA deployed strength, and then you run into the question of counting (or not counting) VC troops and the like. If you present "Troops in Country" and then qualify it with a note about inexact sources and reporting, I would think that would be a good and workable start. There just needs to be a mechanism to let people know the limitations of the sources, IMO.Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

OK but you have not specified if you mean an agrigate for the whole duration or at a given point.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Aggregate for the whole duration is tough. I'd suggest that we use the strength figures for 1968, since when you're dealing with the US combat involvement that's considered the peak and/or midpoint.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

OK so now we can work on the figures, sources. USA seems fine. ANZAC though is way off. Also we need better sourcing for the NVA.Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The Australian and New Zealand figures given in the infobox, whilst fairly accurate, represent the total number of personnel that served in the conflict, not the number deployed at any one time. AFAIK total Australian strength peaked at around 8,000 pers in 1968. Anotherclown (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a sources (I have one for 69, but if we accept the 68 date then we need a source for that).Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've got a copy of Shelby Stanton's Vietnam Order of Battle that should have the information for 1968. Stanton also includes numbers for other nations.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a copy too, but we have a lot of work going on so I have no idea where it is. But I seem to recall that (for the ANZACs at least) it only lists units, not numbers.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Stanton does give numbers for ANZAC. It's something like 6-7,000 for the Australians and a few hundred for NZ in 1968 (these are located in either Appendix 1 or 2...I looked last night but don't have the book in front of me at the moment). The US numbers are about 536,000 at the end of 1968. I looked up some sources on the NVA, and I did find figures for the end of 1967 (works out to about 170k in SVN, but it also notes that headquarters and support units were NOT included in the estimates).Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don’t know if this will help, but it is common knowledge that during 1972 the NVA had thirteen regular combat divisions of which twelve were unleashed into South Vietnam during March of 1972. Additionally, the following source provides information pertaining to U.S. support and combat troops in Vietnam: In so far as U.S. troop levels were concerned, by the end of 1967 the number of U.S. military personnel in Vietnam had climbed to 486,000, rising to 536,000 during . . . 1968. During April of 1969 the number of American troops in Vietnam reached its zenith of 543,300. In regards Army combat and support roles in Vietnam, one author (with supporting sources) has written: “If one considers that South Vietnam was slightly smaller than the State of Florida, and if one realizes that only 22% of all the Army soldiers in Vietnam were in combat roles, with the remaining 78% providing support, then this meant that during 1965 less than 40,000 soldiers were actually out in the jungle trying to kill the enemy. Some contend that only 15% (vice 22%) of the soldiers serving in Vietnam were actually in combat arms (10% serving in the infantry, and 5% serving in the artillery and armor). However this 15% figure does not take into account medics, helicopter pilots, and combat engineers, which many contend should also be added to the mix, so I have elected to stay with 22% as being a realistic, albeit conservative, percentage of those soldiers in Vietnam at any given time that were considered to have served in combat roles. I have heard of people using higher ratios than 4 to 1 in referring to support troops, some have used ratios as high as 9 to 1, but I assume they must be focusing on the 10% infantry figure, whereas I consider the 4 to 1 ratio as being more realistic, based on the 22% figure of soldiers serving in combat roles. In addition to the three combat branches (Infantry, Armor, and Artillery), the Army has thirteen other branches (Air Defense Artillery, Adjutant General Corps (admin), Aviation, Chemical Corps, Corps of Engineers, Finance Corps, Medical Service Corp (of which its medics served in the field with the infantry), Military Intelligence, Military Police Corps, Ordnance, Quartermaster Corps (supply), Signal Corps, and Transportation) as well as some additional specialties, such as chaplains and lawyers (Judge Advocate General’s Corps). If only 22% of the Army troops who served in Vietnam were in combat roles, then, for every soldier out in the jungle seeking to engage the enemy, there were four . . . [soldiers] in the rear providing support by driving trucks or working as clerks or supply guys, and those guys might pull some guard duty around the division base camp perimeter, but the fact of the matter is, that of all the Army soldiers who actually went to Vietnam, only about one in five was out in the field hunting the enemy, and if you take away the medics, helicopter pilots, and engineers from this mix, then only about one in seven soldiers in Vietnam was actually in the combat arms.” Source: A. T. Lawrence, Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173, pp. 102-103. [footnoted sources: Statement of Vietnam Veterans of America (cites the 15% figure), submitted to the Subcommittee on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and the Institute of Medicine on 6 July 2006, and Melvin R. Laird, “Iraq: Learning the Lessons of Vietnam.” (cites 10% infantry figure) Article, Vol 84, Number 6, (NY: Foreign Affairs, November/December 2005)] Troop levels were cited on pages 160 and 204.72.197.57.247 (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This is some good info on troop strength, however we still have to look at the number of troops who were in South Vietnam on Temporary Duty (TDY). As I recall, we were limited to about 500,000 troops in-country on PCS orders (Permanent Change of Station) but we supplemented this with TDY troops which brought the number up to around 750,000. I recall the war peaked in 1969, because that's when President Nixon started taking troops out of Vietnam (the first several thousand troops to be returned, though, were Marines who were already due to be rotated back to the States, so there's some political chicanery involved there). However, it started the exodus. A lot of troops were TDY in Vietnam for 6 months or more, so there's more ambiguity--were they TDY or PCS at this point? The orders would say TDY, consequently they wouldn't be annotated as PCS for the historical record. A lot of troops went to Vietnam on an emergency basis ("we'll cut your orders later") and there is no record of them being in Vietnam, which creates havoc for them when they apply for Veteran's benefits later. Also, if you stayed more than 60 days, then those days would be taken off your overseas tour (say if you were stationed at Guam, Japan, Philippines, etc.) so eventually TDY's were limited to 53 days to avoid the ruse of troops "accidentally" missing their flight and staying in Vietnam over the 60 day mark, thus getting back to the States and their families that much sooner. Then we have the lack of a front line, which meant there was no safe rear echelon area and almost all troops were subjected to being fired upon (155 mm rockets and so forth). And troops pulled double duty--their normal workday might consist of working on aircraft radar but then they'd volunteer to be crew on combat flights and get shot at by SAM missiles, then go back to their regular jobs the next day. Or they might volunteer to be gunners on a Huey gunship. So there's a great deal of ambiguity, and the situation is like a bar of slippery soap. (Sailors offshore would be involved in fire missions from their battleships but weren't fired on in return so were they in combat? B-52 crews flying out of Guam and dropping bombs were not stationed in Vietnam but were fired upon, etc.) We could break it down by MOS (military specialty) since it was the grunts in the field who sustained the brunt of the ground fighting, but this is the bureaucratic approach and would not represent the actuality of the war in Vietnam. So it's a perplexing issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.155.54 (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

December 2010 Sourcing quality

I removed "Rummel, Rudolph, Statistics of Democide, (1997), estimates 32,000 total." from the article. Rummel's website is a Self Published Source in an area of academia where non academic publication by academics is abused for political ends. In addition, Rummel's reliance on Transaction Publishers, a non-scholarly press, further raises issues about relying on his expertise to produce an SPS that is citeable on wikipedia. Given the variety of other sources of better derivation, and the poor quality of the Rummel source, I have removed it due to the preponderance of problems with Rummel when publishing SPS or with Transaction. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

NVA military strength

In the infobox section, the figure given for NVA seems a bit on the low side. It is my understanding that by 1968, the NVA had some 470,000 personnel. If there are no objections to this figure, I'm going to include it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

We're actually talking about this just above. If the source for that number is a MACV intel analysis figure (which I suspect it is), it's only going to count combat troops, not headquarters and support elements. The MACV figures also only include troops in SVN, not forces in Laos or Cambodia.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

At this time we can only use what sources we have. I also object to the inclusion of any figure 'based on my understanding' we would need a source for the figure (its wh we are using then one we have at this time).,Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Slater and would not include any figure unless it is reliably sourced.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, "It is my understanding that ..." doesn't meet WP:V requirements.

Intothatdarkness, One source from which discussions above draw figures is BACM Research. Vietnam War After Action Reports. BACM Research. GGKEY:AE5NRSPR4YN. Pages 475 onwards there seem to say that the strength figures given there include headquarters and support elements. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems to say isn't the same thing as explicitly stating. The product you're referencing (dated 1972) does make it clear (although the Google version seems to be spotty in terms of what you can and can't see) that it takes a number of categories into account when tabulating strength. Not all MACV products do. In addition, the 1972 MACV product only provides an approximate for VC strength. Its NVA numbers are good, but it's also important to recognize that this was the time of the Easter Offensive and US intelligence collection functions better in a conventional-type situation as opposed to unconventional situations. I'd say that, in true encyclopedia fashion, we should just settle on figures that are accepted by at least three reputable secondary sources and call it good.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Re what should and should not be done re article content, See WP:V and WP:DUE, Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and due weight.

Re the source I mentioned above, I said "seem to say" to point up the fact that my characterization above re inclusion of headquarters and support estimates in strength figures was based on my interpretation of the source. I'm not used to reading this sort of material, and don't know whether there might be unstated expectations that readers would be familiar with jargon and interpretational conventions with which I am unfamiliar. AFAICS, though, that source does make firm, specific, and official assertions re VC and NVA strength figures as estimated by MACV, and that source looks to me to be usable as a primary source (about which see WP:PRIMARY). I haven't seen the paper document -- only bits of what is previewable online via Google Books. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox (Casualties and Losses for U.S.) and Effect on the United States -- Section

I note that Archive 16 contains corrections, and authoritative sources, to U.S. casualties and losses (58,220 dead vice 58,159, and 303,644 wounded vice 303,635 [153,303 wounded who required hospitalization, and another 150,341 wounded from shrapnel or small arms fire who received treatment at field aid stations, and were then sent back to their units]). Will this information in Archive 16 find its way into the article? 72.197.57.247 (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know ,when did the Vietnam Conflict ,Became a WAR. ????

I would like to know when did the VIETNAM CONFLICT became a WAR? As a Vet of the Vietnam conflict ,I wonder when it was decided to be called a WAR. Alot of fellow VET's lost alot because we fought in a Conflict not a war. So could somebody let me know when was this decided to be called a WAR? Thank You 69.97.158.227 (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8) states, “The Congress shall have Power to declare war.” However this was not done in the case of Vietnam, as President Johnson had all the power he needed to escalate the “Vietnam Conflict” (the term used in the Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report and other government documents), due to his expanded authority under the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, and thus he had no cause to go back to Congress for a formal declaration of war. The last time Congress declared war was during 1941 against Japan.72.197.57.247 (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

One interesting consequence of taking this approach is that there could be no prisoners of war in Vietnam. No war - no prisoners of it. This would in turn lead to some sweeping changes in wikipedia articles dealing with the Vietnam and Korean war etc.--Sus scrofa (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources please. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we can attribute the naming of this event to the news media. The US Government never officially named this conflict a war but the US and other non communist news media around the world put it into print and then all the "I want to write a book" guys jumped on the bandwagon with the tag. So it is a "pop culture" thing that through use and reuse has been accepted as an "official" title. A lot like using 'Kleenex' for tissue paper.Meyerj (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who makes a google search of the .gov and .mil domains will find more hits for the term "Vietnam War" than "Vietnam Conflict" so I don't think the use of the name is in serious dispute.--Sus scrofa (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The American Heritage College dictionary definition of war simply reads, “A state of open, armed conflict between nations.” Whether or not Congress declared war, those of us who fought in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, certainly considered ourselves in the midst of a war.72.197.84.216 (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say the U.S. involvement with Vietnam became the "Vietnam War" sometime between 1966 and 1968 when the American mass consciousness came to recognize it as a war because of the massive influx of American troops there at this time. Officially the U.S. has declared war only 5 times. Declaring war in the U.S. drastically alters the structure, methods, objectives, rules, regulations, goals, etc. of the U.S. 209.77.230.226 (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources please. Also, check your clear nationalist bias at the door please. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

He's speaking or seems to be speaking from the US perspective, so you should expect some "nationalist bias" because it's from that collective perspective. And what exactly do you want secondary sourced? There is the official state of "declared war", which is a legalistic construction, which follows the dictionary definition quoted above, and the conflict version of war. I'm sure there's some pop culture explanation of the change in language, but most serious historians of the American involvement have been calling it the "Vietnam War" for many years now (going back to at least the early 1980s).Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• If the IP wishes to modify the article, I want to see their sourcing basis for change. If they're not seeking to modify the article, then WP:SOAPBOX applies and they should really not be editing this talk page. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The United States Code, or U.S.C., is the compilation of the federal laws of the United States, containing 50 titles of which Title 10 pertains to the armed forces and exceeds 2,000 pages. This compilation frequently makes reference to “declaration of war or the declaration of a national emergency by the President.” It does not appear to differentiate substantially between a declared war (by Congress) or a national emergency declared by the President. Title 10 refers to the “Korean conflict” and occasionally to the “Korean War.” It refers to the “Vietnam conflict” and the Persian Gulf conflict (First Gulf War). It refers to “Operation Iraqi Freedom (Second Gulf War)” and Operation Enduring Freedom (the official name used by the U.S. Government for the War in Afghanistan). I found it interesting that over time, the “Korean conflict” additionally came to be referred to as the “Korean War” within Title 10 of the United States Code.72.197.57.247 (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

US Law is a primary source. Cite social, military or economic historians of the Vietnam war when they're writing on the Vietnam war. For preference you should be citing US, former RVN, and Vietnamese historians on any major characterising point. If characterising the opinion of a particular state, you should still be citing historians of the Vietnam war when they're writing on the Vietnam war, though it is probably safe to simply cite any one of the three largest historical traditions on the opinion of any particular state. Regardless of your personal opinion, if you're advancing an argument, you should be advancing it out of secondary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to the Wikipedia article on the topic, War is "... a phenomenon of organized violent conflict, typified by extreme aggression, societal disruption and adaptation, and high mortality. There is some debate about other characteristics, but in general there is agreement that war involves at least two organized groups, is a premeditated activity at least on the part of one side, and at least one of the groups uses violence against the other." Yes, in the context of conflicts involving the U.S., and in the specific case of the Vietnam War (sometimes called the Second Indochina War), there is often much discussion about "declared" vs. "undeclared" regarding its political context within the U.S.

If this discussion involves specific suggested changes to resolve perceived problems with this particular article, please focus it on such suggested changes. If it does not involve such suggested changes, see WP:NOTFORUM. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

US Law is a primary source. Cite social, military or economic historians of the Vietnam war when they're writing on the Vietnam war. For preference you should be citing US, former RVN, and Vietnamese historians on any major characterising point. If characterising the opinion of a particular state, you should still be citing historians of the Vietnam war when they're writing on the Vietnam war, though it is probably safe to simply cite any one of the three largest historical traditions on the opinion of any particular state. Regardless of your personal opinion, if you're advancing an argument, you should be advancing it out of secondary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC) ┌─────────────────────────────────┘ (edit conflict) According to the Wikipedia article on the topic, War is "... a phenomenon of organized violent conflict, typified by extreme aggression, societal disruption and adaptation, and high mortality. There is some debate about other characteristics, but in general there is agreement that war involves at least two organized groups, is a premeditated activity at least on the part of one side, and at least one of the groups uses violence against the other." Yes, in the context of conflicts involving the U.S., and in the specific case of the Vietnam War (sometimes called the Second Indochina War), there is often much discussion about "declared" vs. "undeclared" regarding its political context within the U.S. If this discussion involves specific suggested changes to resolve perceived problems with this particular article, please focus it on such suggested changes. If it does not involve such suggested changes, see WP:NOTFORUM. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I was simply trying to express the view that the Wikipedia article, “The Vietnam War,” is accurate as written and does not require any changes insofar as terminology is concerned.72.197.57.247 (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

NVA Strength facts

I really would like to know how come these numbers are inaccurrate?

First, the Tet Offensive has more troops than listed in the Vietnam war article. Second, during different parts of the war, there were different amounts of Vietconc/North Vietnamese troops throughout the war. Tet had 595,000 NVA forces, while 80,000 Vietcongs were there, according to History Channel. Allied had 1,000,000 troops. Should the Vietnam War have the total numbers of troops, based on what I saw from all of the other wikipedia articles about the Vietnam war? Look at all the Vietnam battle articles then tell if I was right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALEXF971 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

For data on the Viet Cong numbers one can refer to the Phoenix and CORDS programs (q.v.), which kept track of the VC and purposefully sought to eradicate the VC using various methods; hence they would keep accounts. Here's some brief data: During Tet in 1968 the North Vietnamese suffered 32,000 KIA and 5,800 captured (NVA and VC). Of the remaining 80,000 Viet Cong who survived Tet, 1,950 defected, 2,250 were killed, and 10,800 captured by the end of the year. By the end of 1971, the number of "neutralized" Viet Cong was 17,000 who had accepted amnesty, 20,000 killed, 28,000 captured, and many thousands more fleeing to sanctuaries in Cambodia. Large areas of Vietnam were now "Viet Cong free" and the NVA was now forced to turn to conventional warfare. The Viet Cong, with it's power broken throughout most of the South, took little part in the armor-heavy offensives of 1972 and 1975. --From "Eyewitness Vietnam", Gilmore and Giangreco, Sterling Publ., NY, 2006, pgs. 229-231. So there were 80,000 Viet Cong after Tet... 209.77.230.226 (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)