Talk:Vietnam War

Americancentrism redux

All the Vietnamese people I have met (English speakers included) refer to this war as the American War (because they also fought major wars against the French and Chinese in the last century). This is a matter of record. I supplied a reference for these, now kindly do not delete my update again.

A shared episode between millions cannot and should not be known only by titles from one perpective (the western one). The western one you spell t wrong. Western terms for this war should not be the automatic default. Mouseydung (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

--Guys I a agree with the poster below, in the quoted sourced encyclopedia it states that the US was 'defeated' 4 times in that whole page. Someone keeps removing the "defeat for the US" from the outcome section of the war. People please remember, the US entered the war claiming that they wanted to prevent the unification of Vietnam under communism. In anyway you want to look at it, NONE OF THE US OBJECTIVES were achieved.Yeah but they did help Southern Vietnamese I.e a defeat, please try and understand this.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.98.84 (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Why does the lead always try to emphasize the American aspect? The US withdrew in 1973, and the war ended on April 30, 1975 with the Fall of Saigon and the subsequent dissolution of South Vietnam. . DHN (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Any talk of the outcome of the war must mention North and South Vietnam first, then United States later, Queanbeyan (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense since the partition itself was phoney. Vietnam was temporarily partitioned at the 17th parallel in 1954 and it was agreed that an election was to be held withing two years. The US blocked the elections since they viewed Ho's inevitable vicory as contrary to their interests.

It was generally conceded that had an election been held, Ho Chi Minh would have been elected Premier. Unhappily, the situation was exacerbated by the almost total lack of leadership displayed by the Vietnamese Chief of State, Bao Dai, who, while nominally the head of that nation, chose to spend the bulk of his time in the spas of Europe rather than in his own land leading his armies against those of Communism. Queanbeyan (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Your rhetoric is biased. Read and research the war. It is known as the "American War" in Vietnam for a reason(not the South Vietnamese War), the PBS source says "America suffered it's first defeat". The Encyclopedia Britannica source says "America came to terms with its defeat". It goes on and on. Coincidently your rhetoric is American centric in trying to hide the fact that the U.S. was defeated.75.4.3.134 (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not denying that the US lost, but that's like saying "the US lost the 1998 World Cup" in the lead to 1998 FIFA World Cup; of course it did, but isn't it more relevant to mention the two teams in the final? Both of the sources you mention was discussing the war with respect to the US. The PBS source was about "America's longest war", and the EB source was talking about "America and its defeat." DHN (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's known in Vietnam, by the Government as the "American War" because it's political propaganda. Ask the people of Viet Nam what it is called. Those encyclopedias (Britannica... etc )and sources you have mentioned are written by who? Obviously not Vietnamese! Bias?! Even till this day, we are discovering more and more about Wars fought long ago. Britannica couldn't even tell you the full story on the Vietminh, let alone the War. Not only did the US withdrew in 1973 but, the war was being waged for at least 6 years before they even entered. Many US troops had no idea what they were doing in the War. Whilsts the ARVN knew exactly what they were in the war for. I move for this article to reflect the aforementioned, by the person who started this discussion topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.10.204 (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

---

To be neutral, it would probably be called the "Vietnam-American war", like the "Mexican-American war".

Exactly. The war was not waged between North and South Vietnam, but between Vietnam and USA. South Vietnam "government" was a convenient puppet regime that never gained any legitimacy. The conflict did have elements of proxy war between USA on one and PRC ans USSR on other side, but not as clearly as in the case of Korean War. Wars that preceded it, those that Vietnamese fought for liberation from French, then Japanese, then again French occupation, didn't have virtually any Chinese or Soviet involvement, and Americans just continued lost French battle. (I know this is not very useful for practical improvement of the article....) --bonzi (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're living in one of these two countries, then for shorthand, the name of that country can be dropped, because it's understood implicitly.

For this article to present a world view, it would need to have the names of both countries.

What is the naming convention, or historical precedent? It seems to me that wars are named primarily according to who's fighting, much like a sports contest. Battles or conflicts are named by where the conflict occurs, particularly if the conflict, battle or war is not in either country. This is also similar in sports!

Good discussion DHN, et.al.. Mikiemike (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)--

---

Mainly it focuses on teh US because most editors are from teh US, hardly any from VN, and people are using this article as a football for their opinions on foreign policy etc. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not just call it the Vietnam Conflict?Prussian725 (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Two points of concern. First,the lead in, or overview, states, "In response to the anti-war movement, the U.S. Congress passed the Case-Church Amendment in June 1973 prohibiting further U.S. military intervention." Is there some source, without bias, that gives the reason for passing the Amendment. I know of none, but that doesn't mean that the legislative history of the amendment may not itself identify the reason. "In response to the anti-war movement..." without evidence is a poor approach to writing history. Could it have also been because an agreement was made between the US and NK for the US to enact legislation, and not because of the anti-war movement? I don't know. Does anyone else?

Secondly, and this discussion seems to be under several headings, a debate is on over the US losing the war, or the combatants agreeing to withdraw without decision. The answer is simple historically, if one sticks to what has happened and I won't lay it out here as it is clear as to what happend. Since the end of fighting is abundantly clear, those looking for defeat of the U.S. (perhaps some with the anti-war bias I just addressed above), slide into the disingenuous fall back saying that it is the goals of the engagement that determine victory or defeat. That is historically incorrect and abundantly clear. Policy can be defeated without a military defeat and policy can win without a military victory. One small example and I'll leave this. Winston Churchill went to war to defeat Germany, and ALSO to defeat communism. His problem was that his ally was communism. The Allies defeated Germany (no agreement to withdraw)and then Churchill sought to go to war with Russia and destroy communism. He didn't lose a war,but the Americans, British, and Russians (the listing you should note is strictly alphabetical)agreed to the spheres of influence for each. Churchill's policy was defeated without defeating Russia.Asvrc100 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a major flaw in your argumentation, which is that Churchill did not go to war, it was Neville Chamberlain. Cripipper (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Case-Church co-author Frank Church was a famously anti-war senator. The legislation was originally introduced in 1972 and only narrowly defeated, months before the peace treaty. When the Amendment was passed in 1973, "Nixon and Kissinger frantically lobbied to have the ban extended" (Karnow, p. 671), so it certainly wasn't part of the peace agreement. This article by Tom Hayden gives the anti-war movement credit for Case-Church. Kauffner (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You addressed my tounge-in-cheek question but didn't answer it. You failed to address my concern that there is no evidence offered to attribute 'the anti- war movement' with a cause and effect evidence for the amendment. Let's see, you say "Case-Church co-author Frank Church was a famously anti-war senator". But being anti-war does not give evidence to the 'anti-war movement' assertion. You say, "The legislation was originally introduced in 1972 and only narrowly defeated, months before the peace treaty." That doesn't prove anything on behalf of defending the statement that the 'anti-war movement' caused the amendment. You say, "When the Amendment was passed in 1973, "Nixon and Kissinger frantically lobbied to have the ban extended" (Karnow, p. 671), so it certainly wasn't part of the peace agreement." That may be interesting, but is certainly naive to think that politicians don't do one thing and mean and say another. None of the foregoing you present amounts to any evidence tor the "anti-war movement" assertion in the article, and certainly is insufficient for a scholarly history. You conclude, "This article by Tom Hayden gives the anti-war movement credit for Case-Church." And that is certainly not a disinterested source but can convincingly be said to be a biased source.

No, it is is not scholarly history, nor even substance to the point. It appears as though it is someone whose personal life and belief is enhanced by believing they had some part in history. Anti-war activities are a big part of US hisroty but Wiki does not have to write history where there is no proof and no reason. This type of history just reduces Wiki credibility. 69.41.137.111 (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Which should be that - The term Vietnam Conflict is often used to refer to events THAT took place between 1959 and April 30, 1975

ietnam War, also known as the Second Indochina War, and in Vietnam as the American War, occurred from 1959 to April 30, 1975. The term Vietnam Conflict is often used to refer to events which took place between 1959 and April 30, 1975. The war was fought between the Communist-supported Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the United States supported Republic of Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brw3sbc (talk • contribs) 15:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Environmental Movement?

"Momentum from the protest organizations became a main force for the growth of an environmental movement in the United States." -- Is that statement from the article original research, or is it drawn from somewhere that needs to be cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.119.251 (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of image in the article

Hi guys, the image is an orphan and needs to find a home. I'm not sure exactly where it was originally used, but this image is a featured picture and generally cannot continue to be unless it is used in article(s). It has been nominated for delisting as a result. I didn't want to barge in here and insert it somewhere arbitrarily without first mentioning it on the talk page. If one of the regular editors could find a home for it here or elsewhere, that would be appreciated. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

god that guy looks like he's 13!--AtTheAbyss (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions in an Article?

I do not believe the following quote should be found in the 'Fall of Saigon' subsection of the 'End of the War' subsection, it runs counter to the 'don't ask rhetorical questions in the middle of the article without answering them or justifying why they are there' policy of Wikipedia. This might be an intriguing quote, and an interesting conversation piece, but it should not be here.
"Though American equipment still stocked Saigon's markets, the Americans were gone. They counted nearly 60,000 dead and more than 300,000 wounded. It was their first defeat. The promised end of the tunnel had brought not light but a new uncertainty, new questions: what was America's role in the world? What were the lessons of Vietnam bithches rule this world"[109]
70.70.219.180 (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"Result" flaw

on the page it says that the U.S. was defeated and that Vietnam was united under a Communist state. This is wrong, first of all the U.S. signed a cease fire with North Vietnam which ended the war with no winner, second of all Vietnam was united under a single communist state AFTER the war ended, we should fix the Result flaw in the article

Dunnsworth (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to counter your arguement Dunnsworth, if the US signed a cease fire with North Vietnam, then the North breached it. Because part of the cease fire is a cessation of hostilities. This did not happen. The vietcong were still pushing the south. The Americans just wanted a nice and clean exit, something to which they never got. Since we all saw those television broadcasts of the last american troops evacuating off the roof. Don't make me laugh. Don't revise history because the majority of the world believes the US lost the vietnam war. India, China, Russia, Pakistani, Europe, Latin america all have their text books state "Defeat for the US". Please don't try and be George W Bush here. He was the only other white man apart from you to go up against the world. Look where that got him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.98.84 (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, they do teach some stuff in modern American schools don't they. The US was DEFEATED pure and simple. You wouldn't like it if I went round saying that the American War of Independence was a British victory would you? (Trip Johnson (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

It was NOT defeated, a cease fire was signed, and South Vietnam and North Vietnam remained seperate nations. No country was defeated and no country won. What was very ironic was that there was sighns of attack but no one attacked and so this is why Vietnam was separated; it had no straight government! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnsworth (talk • contribs) 16:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

North Vietnam ended up in better position then before (they've occupied northern positions in South Vietnam) while the South ended up in a worse position (the US cut their aid, while USSR and PRC still supplied the North) so the North did win either way. And South lost. Maxim K (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

well i still stand that imformation about the cease fire should be added in the result category and it should be added that the victory was over South Vietnam not the U.S.

User:Dunnsworth  —Preceding comment was added at 01:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 

Strategically, this is a US defeat. Was not the aim of the US military involvement to stop the communist's progress in South East Asia ? Whatever US army left before or at the end of the war, the fact is US Army left South Vietnam alone facing the North and finally the last one won. 86.206.109.135 (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

USA was defeated in the Vietnam War because, they didn't go there for a peace deal. They went there to win. More than half of the social textbooks world wide reads "USA lost" or "USA defeated". Only the neo-conservatives who want to spin this truth other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.198.255 (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is Canada listed as a belligerent?

Canada did not send any troops. Some Canadians fought, but did so of their own volition, not under the auspices of the Canadian government. Josh (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Also curious about this. Canada should be removed from the list of "anti-Communist forces." If anything, Canada's stance against participation in the war (as it is with the present Iraq conflict) is seen as a stark difference in foreign policy and philosophy with the United States by Canadians. I am removing Canada from the list of belligerents.Wyldkat

if you look at the Canada and the Vietnam War article, Canada was a major supplier of weapons to the U.S during the war & 30,000 (estimated) Canadians went south to serve in the U.S military (110 died in Vietnam), also Canada's foreign policy during the war was not anti war, however I agree that Canada shouldn't be listed since the direct involvement is limited to a small contingent of gatekeepers in 1973. Thisglad (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

The info box on the right places the Communist Forces at 520,000. It then places the casualties at 560,000 dead/missing, with 600,000+ wounded (just from the NFL) and a further 5646 in dead/wounded from the PRC. While these figures already fail to match up, the total casualty figures denote severe mathematical failings by placing the number of dead at over 1,000,000 and the total of wounded at 604,000. To have twice as many casualties as you have soldiers seems remarkably odd. Perhaps this section should be clarified. It was also noted by von Clausewitz that in most engagements there is usually a ratio of around 1:4 in terms of dead:wounded, a figure which is not represented here. While of course this is not fact and mere hypothesis, it is relatively "traditional" to have higher numbers of wounded than dead. Would someone be able to clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.72.110.11 (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

the Strength at any given time is difficult to assess because the communist forces recruitment would make up for any casualties, the north Vietnamese army was one of the largest in the world by the mid 1970s Thisglad (talk) 06:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the number of U.S. military casualties in this article.Originalname37 (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Was US forign policy defeated?

US foreign policy was always going to be defeated. You can look back as far as the 3rd Crusade led by King Richard the Lionheart when he failed to take back the city of Jerusalem. His armies fought the arabs in the holy land only to find that that the jewish population fled to Asia, most notably the north of Vietnam where they mixed in with the locals of the area. Centuries later the french who had colonies in vietnam fought the vietminh who was led by Ho Chi Minh a descendent of Jewish knight Balian of Immula who incidentally was part of the second crusade. Ho Chi Minh or Ho Chi as he like to be called did not want the french in vietnam and led a crusade of his own to remove the French only to find that the United States wanted to keep the north and south a seperate country and under asian jewish law this was not possible which is evident in the Acre treaty that was negotiated between King Richard and Yasser Arrafat a palastinien celebrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenroygenius101 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Can this be removed as obvious vandaliam?[[Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)]]

No sorry this cant be removed as this has been certified by JESUS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenroygenius101 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this true? For example Noam Chomsky's view is that the US scored a victory by destroying South Vietnamese nationalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Noam_Chomsky#Opposition_to_the_Vietnam_War

Twotdot24334 (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky isn't someone whose opinion can be trusted, to put it diplomatically... Maxim K (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Maxim, the academic world disagrees with you somewhat about Chomsky, where his contributions in the fields of linguistics, cognitive psychology and politics are very highly regarded. This is the main reason why he is the world's most cited living author. Paulzon (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, linguistics and cognitive psycology, perhaps, but his political views are bit umm... strange: he, for example, tried to whitewash Cambodian Khmer Rouge, and claimed to have disliked Stalinism but admired the Stalinist North Vietnam. In general he appears to like the less developed anti-western regiemes, even some rather atrocious ones, but accuses the US and to a lesser extent USSR of being terrorists in cases where their violence is much more limited. He also occasionally claimed that US media was/is very propagandistic (which is perhaps true) but didn't seem too bothered by the much more propaganda in the media of, say, North Vietnam again. Many of my profs were a bit suspicious of him, and some didn't like him at all, so I'm guessing "the academic world" is not homogeneous when it comes to it's view of Chomsky, especially his politics.

"Chomsky isn't someone whose opinion can be trusted, to put it diplomatically... " that does not really address the argument.Twotdot24334 (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, given Chomsky's opposition to the US involvement in Vietnam, I wonder if he really did call it a victory...

Maxim K (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A cease fire was negotiated and South Vietnam was still in existance with the terms of the treaty, so I'd say that the U.S. Foreign Policy suceeded —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnsworth (talk • contribs) 01:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I honestly doubt that the US policy was to sacrifice 58000 Americans (not to mention money and equipment) just to buy South Vietnam a few more years of existance, but if it was, it was obviously successful. A bit like a suicidal kid is successful in killing himself... When the goal is really stupid, it may be better if it fails. Maxim K (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Maxim K, Hi think you've misunderstood Chomsky's argument. He argues that the primary goal of US foreign policy was to destroy the nationalist ambitions of South-Vietnamese peasants rather than to ensure the maintenance of the south-Vietnamese government which was a secondary aim. The US did this by saturation bombing, driving the rural population into camps etc. He argues that despite the victory of the North-Vietnamese military the US policy was successful because south Vietnamese society was destroyed. To be sure if the US had wanted to defeat North Vietnam it could have done, it was after all the greatest military power in the world. It seems to me a convincing argument which at least casts some doubt on the notion that American policy was defeated. Twotdot24334 (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I still fail to see what was the policy that was successful, sure enouth South Vietnamese nationalism was crushed, to be replaced with Communist North Vietnamese nationalism, how does it help the US, and again, if they did want to destroy South Vietnam, why didn't they just let the NVA do it? What did the US do to South Vietnam that the Communists whouldn't have? And why would they prefer Communist Nationalism to a Capitalist one? As for US being unable to defeat Vietnam despite being greatest military power, they can't defeat the Taliban either (who now control most of Afghani territory) or Al Sadr, and he is just cleric with a private army, for crying out loud. It seems the Americans tend to um, overestimate their war-making capability, they are good at killing a lot of people, but not neccessarily in a strtegically useful ways, and it was as true in Vietnam as it is now. Maxim K (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point entirely. The South Vietnamese so called Nationalist government had little to no popular support and no authority outside Saigon. Throughout the Vietnam War the NLF, eg. the real Nationalist forces of South Vietnam, better known to the US as the Viet Cong, ran, administered and defended South Vietnam. In fact, at numerous points the Saigon government tried to join sided with the NLF to fight off the Americans because of the amount of damage they were doing. The whole point of the US war was to stop Vietnam from becoming a successful, independent country. This is because US planning did not allow for countries to prove that other systems of government can survive and thrive. The majority of US actions during the war were directed at the rural population of South Vietnam. They were either being forceably moved from their land, killed en masse or having their locally created political organisations destroyed. And despite this they remained peaceful for the first few years after the American invasion. It was only when it was clear their government wasn't going to survive if it didn't fight for it that they took up arms and became 'the viet cong'. And by the end of the war they were decimated. Most of the politically active were dead or injured and their legal structures were completely destroyed, making way for the North Vietnamese to take control. In other words, the USA wanted to push the Vietnamese into a corner so that they acted ferociously and looked like a poor example to the rest of the world and in many respects they succeeded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Freebie (talk • contribs) 06:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we have some sources for the above, a lot of it sounds rather dubious. Fisrt of when did the Americans Invade? What mass killings? When did Saigon try to join with the VC?[[Slatersteven (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)]]

When the USA put troops on the soil of a foreign country whose domestic politics they had manipulated to allow this to be a pallatable affair for the press at home. If a puppet says to you "come and help me" when its on your hand and you go and help it beat someone up ... you're the one committing the assult whether or not you believe someone else asked you. As for sources here goes:

Mass killings - "South Vietnamese civilian dead: 1,581,000, Cambodian civilian dead: ~700,000, North Vietnamese civilian dead: ~3,000,000, Laotian civilian dead: ~50,000*" source - Heart of Darkness: The Vietnam War Chronicles - same source as Wikipedia uses.

Lack of effective control in the South - source - Argument Without End pp 377-79 Note that this occured 3 years before the Viet Cong began their armed struggle against the South and 1 year before Diem massacred massive amounts of suspected Communists. Also 2 years AFTER Eisenhower invaded Vietnam.

US invasion of Vietnam - source - http://www.brainyhistory.com/events/1955/february_12_1955_116498.html

Political alliance between Khahn and North Vietnam was cited in 'The Essential Chomsky' but I don't remember the source ... it was however very solid and I might dig it up soon--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The raw numbers of dead does not give a break down as to which were combatants and which were civilians, not does it provide information as to who did the killing. Certainly a lot of people were killed, but you post seemed to imply the US deliberately carries out mass murder, you source does not support that claim, just that a lot of people got killed in a war.

http://www.brainyhistory.com/events/1955/february_12_1955_116498.html

Does not use the words invasion, it says he sent advisors. There is a difference between a legally recognised government inviting in troops (not matter how much of a puppet it may be), and an uninvited invasion. South Vietnam (no matter how unjustly) was a recognized sovereign state, that had the right to ask for assistance.

Which Khahn do you mean? [[Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)]]

The General Khahn who was the only 'independent' coup detat leader in the South. As in supposedly he did without orders from the USA. There was documented, although at the time, covert communication between him and the VC to enter into an 'alliance' of sorts. I don't remember the source but its out there if you can dig deep enough.

Also, I would like to contend that it is not for us to decide at what point sending troops to a foreign country is an invasion because the US government (being one of the major protaganists) is much less inclined to talk about invasion next to say people watching foreign troops enter their country. I'm referring to the fact that the USA has very rarely actually declared war, especially in the 20th century. Yet its troops have been in hostile countries shooting at hostile troops and eventually rendering the hostile governments control of regions from them on a number of occasions, one of those occasions being Vietnam. That is what I would classify as an invasion and advisers are just as much a 'military force' as the your own grunts. At least according to some schools of thought. Of course, in the rarer occasions where advisers aren't just training the troops of a puppet ruler they're more legitimate such as the Canadian advisers working with the Chinese currently but this certainly wasn't the case in Vietnam. Those 'advisers' which mind you were in the 10's of thousands right from the start, were running and coordinating military units that were in combat.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I take it then you cannot find source for the claim that the alliance (odd that VC activity increased after Khahns Coup). Certainly the coup was not instigated by the US, and took them by surprise, but that in and of it self is not proof that there was an alliance between the General and the VC. I do not need to dig it out; you are supposed to provide it.

The source for a US invasion did not use the phrase invaded, that was an interpretation you put onto the source. The South Vietnamese government was not hostile to the US. It is also not for us to judge when sending advisors is legitimate and when it’s an invasion, by the way US troop levels in Vietnam did not reach 10’s of thousands until 64/65. It is not for you to judge what is an invasion (look up OR). Nor are we discussing US history, we are discussing the Vietnam War, so US actions outside that conflict are not really that relevant. [[Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)]]

I don't deny that the U.S. was defeated in Vietnam, but the war did successfully divert Soviet resources from other projects. The Vietcong got along with very limited supplies, but the Hochiminh Trail really ground the stuff up. For every ton of supplies the Vietcong recieved, 100 tons had to be sent through Haiphong. The communists could have done worse things. Che Guevara had tons of explosives he wanted to blow up around New York City. Vietnam didn't have much strategic value, certainly not compared to the oil fields of Indonesia, which also considered as a target for communist subversion.Kauffner (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It also diverted massive US resources, and it could be argued far more (especially in terms of manpower) then the Soviet Union. Indeed the US was strategically massively overstretched by Vietnam, in a way the Soviets were not. Moreover the conflict was a major political disaster for US foreign policy. Not only (and as early as 1968) did it alter people’s perception of the US (abroad) but also saw the dissolution of SEATO (at least in part due to the ‘un-declared’ nature of the war). As well as the major political impact in the US (which the Soviets would have to wait until Afghanistan to see). Both in terms of undermining peoples confidence and respect in their leaders but also in undermining 40 years of stated US policy. It is true that the political question within the US is complicated by other factors (such as the civil rights and female emancipation questions) but Vietnam (especially after the ending of drafts deferments, not I suspect entirely coincidental) made those who traditional supported without question those in power to question them. [[Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)]]

Yes, the U.S. was defeated in Vietnam, no denying that. But if the U.S. hadn't fought, the Soviets would put their resources into some other project. That project would have diverted U.S. resources as well. Do you think that the communists cared about Vietnamese unity or about the peasants of South Vietnam? The point was to make trouble for the U.S.

You talk about loss of respect, but that would have been even more true if the U.S. had let South Vietnam fall without a fight. A major motive for intervening in Vietnam was the feeling that we hadn't done enough to help the Hungarians back in 1956. Anti-Americanism isn't all about Vietnam. Nixon was attacked by a rock throwing mob in Venezuela in 1958. The main reason foreigners resent the U.S. is because we're No. 1 and they're not.

The response of the U.S. public opinion to war generally follows the same pattern as in Vietnam: broad initial support followed by gradually declining support. Soon after World War I, the U.S. public came to believe that it was all a big mistake, even though we had won the war. Vietnam was our longest war, so the full cycle of support and rejection happened while the war was still going on. The enemy was able to continue fighting for at least a little longer than the U.S. public was willing to. Kauffner (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course the aim objective was to draw the US into a protracted and bloody conflict, and in this they succeed. Far better then the US succeeded in its aim.

I do not agree that the US would have lost respect anyway. Venezuela had problems of it’s own (as did the whole of Latin America) which were separate from Vietnam. So to with France (going back to before the end of WW2). but the Vietnam war exported this dislike of US policy to countries that had been far less critical of US policy to this date. [[Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)]]

Average of Vietnamese fatalities

Are there any reliable estimates for the average age of Vietnamese fatalities? This would include, naturally, civilians. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cronkite "Contribution"

It seems to me that Walter Cronkites "Stalemate" broadcast is a glaring omission from this article, given the impact it had on the outcome of the conflict. Hopefully someone more astute than myself will be able to shed some light on this.Adventurous63 (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Cronkite's televised editorial of the 1968 Tet offensive significantly discouraged the American public regarding continued support of the South Vietnamese in the Second Indochina War. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that the sight of NLF sappers assaulting the American Embassy in Saigon, for example, might not have had something to do with it? Cripipper (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

While it certainly should be mentioned, I don't think Cronkrite's broadcast really had a significant impact on the outcome of the war. If you go by opinion polls, opposition to the war rose gradually the longer it continued. There was no major opinion shift in response to Cronkrite, Tet, or any other particular event. Years after Cronkrite's broadcast, Nixon was still committed to winning the war. The anti-war movement wasn't in a position to make policy until after the 1972 congressional election.Kauffner (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Cronkite's report on the tet offensive is often considered the turning point in public opinion of the Vietnam War. This is the time when the American people see a credibility cap between what is happening over in Vietnam, and what the pentagon is telling them. At this point, there was a shift in anti-war sentiment in main-stream America. While you can argue that there was no big shift in the opinion polls right after the speech, you do see his opinion propagated among antiwar protesters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.185.7 (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No matter when or why someone really changed his mind about the war, the easy, respectable answer was "Cronkite." We know that the anti-war movement swelled right after Nixon was elected president, but almost no one will admit to switching sides on the basis of sheer partisan politics. IMO, the 1972 election was the turning point. Even though McGovern lost, he got the Democrat Party to commit itself to defeatism. Kauffner (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Anti-American Bias

The article claims a defeat of American Forces, but U.S. Forces were pulled out of Vietnam as a result of a Cease Fire, not because of a defeat. Later, however, South Vietnam was defeated but it is outright anti-American bias to say the U.S. was defeated. Dunnsworth (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

They didn't achieve their objectives and had to do a backflip, therefore they were defeated. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that meeting their objectives was hard to do, since the obstacles were so ill-defined, especially at the Washington command level? The most succinct statement of irrational objectives available online probably is http://vietnam.vassar.edu/ladrang03.html; the comment about the Chinese ignores quite a bit of history, going back to the first century or so. Shall we say that the Two Trung Ladies were not exactly Chinese cheerleaders?

In print, the best reference I know on internal objectives and decisionmaking is H. R. McMaster's Dereliction of Duty. This is worth reading even if you have gone, page by page, through the Pentagon Papers. McMaster, an Army officer, got some interviews and documents that had not been available before. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Their object was to defend South Vietnam, and while they were part of the war and imediatley after they left, South Vietnam remained seperate from the North, so they succeeded. Dunnsworth (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If their objective was to defend South Vietnam why did the USA drop more bombs on South Vietnam then North Vietnam? Why was South Vietnam in a higher state of disrepair then North Vietnam at the end of the war despite the 'communists' not using heavy weaponry? Why was the main target of consistent US assaults the only viable political force in South Vietnam (The NLF?).--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC):::

The US droped more bombs in the south because that is where they were supporting their groound forces, not subtle tactics but very America. Also there is the fact that the US did not alow the bombing of politicaly dangerous targets in the North (such as Haphong) for much of the war. Actualy the NVA did use heavy weapons, inclu7ding tanks and artillery up to 130mm and Rockets up to 122mm hardley small arms.[[Slatersteven (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)]]

And whats your source for that unsubstantiated claim? I've seen sources that contradict this. Sources which saw first hand the targets of many of the attacks. There were even entire operations revealed later in the Pentagon Papers which showed the USA had a policy of destroying the rural way of life in the South as well as in Laos and Cambodia. Is your source more trustworthy then leaked government planning documents or civilian eye witness accounts? Also by heavy weapons I was referring directly the Viet Cong and the NLF who primarily used small arms, crew served weapons and occasionally used some light vehicles. Are you sure you can attribute the devastation in South Vietnam of rural civilian infrastructure to them when in most cases the damage was done by large bombs dropped innaccurately on 'hostile' regions?--Senor Freebie (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we see theses sources then, can you provide were they were published or were they are available on line?

Source for UASF supporting ground forces.

War in Peace, Orbis 1981, page 204/205

Source for restriction placed on the bombing of the North.

Vietnam at War, Sidgewick & Jackson 1989, page 339,341.

Can we see theses sources then, can you provide were they were published or were they are available on line?

Source for UASF supporting ground forces.

War in Peace, Orbis 1981, page 204/205

Source for restriction placed on the bombing of the North.

Vietnam at War, Sidgewick & Jackson 1989, page 339,341.

The NVA were involved in combat in the South, so it does not matter how lightly armed the VC were. I am not claiming that they did all the damage, or even most of it. But it is not true to say that all infrastructure damage was caused by the US. Nor is it true that the communists (not just the VC, they were not alone) had no heavy weapons. As you have not challenged that the NVA used heavy weapons I shall not provide a source proving a point you agree with.

The NVA were involved in combat in the South, so it does not matter how lightly armed the VC were. I am not claiming that they did all the damage, or even most of it. But it is not true to say that all infrastructure damage was caused by the US. Nor is it true that the communists (not just the VC, they were not alone) had no heavy weapons. As you have not challenged that the NVA used heavy weapons I shall not provide a source proving a point you agree with. [[Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)]]

hahaahah. What do they teach nowadays. The U.S was defeated, plain and simple. If you study carefully you'll see that they let the North Vietnamese soldiers sleep in the backyard of the South Vietnamese soldiers. That is not a successful objective.71.156.48.219 (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not anti-American bias when the U.S. was clearly defeated.71.156.48.219 (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The United States was defeated. The United States lost the Vietnam War. It was our show, and we blew it. The one who retreated lost. The communists took the field. And they won militarily, eroding and finally breaking their enemy's will to fight by constant pressure and harrassment. No, they didn't crush our forces, but they achieved their objectives. That is called victory. (By the way, we can't learn from mistakes unless we first admit they were mistakes. Re-read the "Effect on the United States" part.) --Milkbreath (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The Battle of Khe Sahn was a huge defeat for the NVA, after which the U.S. had a clear path through Laos and the DMZ; had the U.S. government been fully committed to actually beating the Communists instead of "containing" them the Vietnamese Communists would have been severely crushed. More specifically, had our bombers had unrestricted targeting liberties, the NVA's capacity for warfare would have been critically reduced. If there is any reason the U.S. "appeared" to have "lost" the blame is squarely at the feet of the politicians in Washington. Our forces in Vietnam were vastly superior to our Communist opponents'. If anyone cares to study Khe Sanh, read Voices of Courage. 4-25-08

OK, you do hear yourself, right?—"had the U.S. government been", "Communists would have been...crushed", "had our bombers had", "would have been...reduced", "If"—the makings of a good alternate history, but not useful in this article. Don't get me wrong, I think the U.S. mission was right, but it did fail. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Battle of Khe Sanh can't be considered in isolation. In terms of damage to the NVA, it was a tactical victory, but, in terms of the way it diverted attention from the plans for the Tet Offensive, it contributed to strategic failure. By strategic failure, I refer to substantial changes in U.S. domestic opinion, as a result of the apparent inability to stop attacks on cities. One could also argue that Khe Sanh and Tet contributed to a strategic failure for the National Liberation Front, as their casualties were greater than that of the NVA and the NLF did not, subsequently, have the same influence. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the U.S. failed it's mission but it wasn't the military's fault; it was Washington's. I do not want an injustice done to the men in uniform who faught over there. 4-25-08

This is POV statement and as such must not influence the article in any way. It also does not matter whether the government or military lost the war, the country of America lost - must have if the North Vietnamese won. With respect, justice to soldiers form either side has nothing to do with this article. Fremte (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. But the article needs to just keep it in a more general sense, like saying that "America lost" or something like that because this is what happens when you get into specifics about things like this. 4-25-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. What sentences in the article need work in that regard? --Milkbreath (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, even though I agree with the section "Effect on the United States" in the "Aftermath" section, it might lead to more dispute. I think that we should wait and see if it brings up a lot of controversy and then decide whether or not to edit it. On another note, perhaps a short synopsis of the Battle of Khe Sahn should be included. I know this is considered original research but it is my understanding that that battle was the turning point in the war for U.S. forces. What do you think?

I'm no expert on the War. I just came here recently to copyedit because there was a bad line someone brought to my attention. I'm here to tidy up the formatting and the English (which was pretty good already). I think the article has a long way to go in many respects, but that additional detail about particular battles is not good, because the article would get too long. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I see your point. Well, thanks for being civil in this talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Right back atcha. It's easy to get emotional about this one. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Canada was Involved

I believe Canada should be in the infobox because like werent Canadian troops involved. Canada sent forces to Vietnam to help the Americans.

Nope. Canada did not. Did give sanctuary to war resisters - it was the only involvement Canada had. Fremte (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Strong sourcing needs to be established before putting Canada as a belligerent in the infobox. The Canadian role in Vietnam itself was neutral by definition, as a member of the ICC. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Average age of US fatalities, 19?

The following was my posting from last month:

"Are there any reliable estimates for the average age of Vietnamese fatalities? This would include, naturally, civilians. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)"

I heard nothing back on that and would particularly welcome any numbers any editors may know and have sources for.

As for US fatalities, I had found sources that the commonly stated view that the average age of a US Vietnam fatality is false. I had inserted the following text based on sources:

"The average U.S. serviceman was twenty-two years old (and not nineteen years old as is often believed, particularly given the popularity of a pop song called 19 by Paul Hardcastle). This compares with twenty-six years of age for those who participated in World War II. Soldiers served a one year tour of duty. The average age of the US Military men who died in Vietnam was 22.8 years old."

• Source 1: - Vietnam Helicopter Flight Crew Network Website;
• Source 2: - Vietnam: Looking Back - At the Facts - by K. G. Sears, Ph.D.

This was reverted to state that the average age was nineteen. The statement that the average was nineteen is not backed up by sources. I will reinsert my text which should remain unless there are more reliable sources that indicate the average age was nineteen? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Genuine fact could be hard to come by. If you google the string "Assuming KIAs accurately represented" the 351 hits suggest a lot of cutting-&-pasting, without much hope of getting to an original source. I supplied the cite from Dave Grossman, who at least is an original author, and an authority on military deaths. DavidOaks (talk) 04:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I just recently watched a history channel show on vietnam and the average age of nineteen was used SubaruSVX (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, as there is a disparity between the title of this section and what is being discussed here: the pop song did not suggest that the average age of fatalities was nineteen, but rather that 19 was the average age of those who volunteered or were drafted. Anarchangel (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

'Vietnam'

In the section concerning the terminology of the war, wouldn't a note concerning the use of simply the word 'Vietnam' to refer to the war be relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.168.93 (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding redirects (originally posted elsewhere)

Currently our article about the Vietnam War is at Vietnam War. If you think it should be moved to "Second Indochina War", you can raise that proposal at Talk:Vietnam War. In the meantime, Second Indochina War merely redirects to Vietnam War, so, under our policy of avoiding redirects, changing the wikilink as you did here and elsewhere is inappropriate. JamesMLane t c 15:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Second Indochina War or "Vietnam"

James, Thanks for your input and note re. redirects. The term "Vietnam War", or "Vietnam" is a distinctly provincial U.S. perspective of that era of the Second Indochina War and the Cold War. The French, and most of Europe are more familiar with the First and Second wars in "Indochina". Some Vietnamese refer to the later as the "American War". Part of the problem people have in understanding the history of that war is that many Americans persist in using the U.S.A.-centric term that's primarily based upon years of daily televised news coverage that norrowly focused on U.S. participation in the "conflict" in Viet Nam. Thanks again. Keep up the great work! Best regards, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You make an interesting argument. My point is that you should make the argument here, in support of an explicit proposal to move this article, rather than just changing links unilaterally. If you want to pursue a move, the steps are outlined at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves. My own reaction is that what the French think doesn't matter here; this is the English-language Wikipedia, and the article should be where most English-speaking readers would look for it, which is probably Vietnam War, even if some Britons would use the other term. JamesMLane t c 16:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Addendum: I was going to edit my comment to add that, in light of the point you make, the phrase "Second Indochina War" should be included in this article, but I see it's already there. I'm not arguing that it should be removed -- just that it shouldn't be linked to unless and until there's a consensus to move the article to that title. JamesMLane t c 17:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I question the use of the term European in this context. IN Britian it is known widley as the Vietnam war. This may be the case in other English speaking parts of Europe. Most Britons I doubt have eve heard of Indo-china. [[Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)]]

In Australia, whose citizens fought in the war, it's also called the "Vietnam War" as in The Australian Vietnam War Veterans Association. [1] I must say it's been a pain going back through all the links where "Second Indochina War" was substituted for "Vietnam War". I've reverted a few, but in case anyone else wants to pitch in, you can find the "what links here" page here: Special:WhatLinksHere/Second_Indochina_War

I can see using the former in articles that predate significant US military involvement, say early 1960s (of course, that demarcation is subject to debate), but in articles specifically about US military units, veterans, operations, technology, etc., the latter should be used. Alcarillo (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Popular Culture section is not objective, US-centric

Popular culture section is US-centric, not objective:

"The Vietnam War has been featured heavily in television and films. The war also influenced a generation of musicians and songwriters."

A more objective phrasing would be:

"The Vietnam War has been featured heavily in many US television shows and films. The war also influenced a generation of US musicians and songwriters." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom0063 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And Donavn [[Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)]]

The US-centric aspect is true to an extent however, it is undenied that other nations who served in the Vietnam war shaped their own popular culture because of this. --Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.220.125 (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Donovan (Donovan Phillips Leitch, Maryhill, Glasgow), is a Scottish singer-songwriter and guitarist. Emerging from the British folk scene. Hardley American.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)]]

Taiwan

I've just removed the 'Taiwan' section as it appears to be a clear hoax. AFAIK, neither the US or South Vietnam invited Taiwan to participate in the war, and if they did this offer was not taken up. The RoCAF certainly didn't fly air strikes against North Vietnam as the article was claiming. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Defeat and withdrawal?

There is a little war going on about the wording in the infobox under "Result". As someone who has weighed in on the question of whether the US lost, I want to toss in my two cents about it. Yes, the US lost. The result of the war was a U.S. defeat, and they withdrew, but it is just stupid to put both words there. The result was a defeat. Of course the U.S. withdrew. Does anybody think they could have been defeated and stay? Or that they were wiped out to a man? Might as well say "defeat and withdrawal and sailed home and put their gear away and had a shower and...." As if the nonsensicality wasn't enough, "defeat and withdrawal" implies that they were actually driven out militarily, which is not what happened. The U.S. didn't get its ass handed to it like France did, the U.S. just quit. Come to think of it, the line should be deleted completely, because "Communist forces victory" says it all already. It is redundant (and seemingly POV) to mention that the other side lost. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The other side did win but not because they were capable of winning. If they were winning wouldn't they have been able to tell us to leave vietnam in the paris peace accords but they were not. The treaty they signed said we would leave and they would stay inside their border. That doesn't sound like they were able to dictate terms to us like a conquering army would be able to. I would also like to say they were never able to move beyond their border until we left so it wasn't like there army was capable of pushing us out. They only won because they inflicted enough casualties on us that it took our desire to participate any further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yocrap (talk • contribs) 04:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This comes up again, and again, and again. Can I suggest that we follow the chronology and keep it as simple as possible:

1) U.S. withdrawal

2) Communist victory

3) Invasion of... etc.

4) As is

So it says very clearly the Americans withdrew, and the Communists won, but if people still want to interpret that as meaning America didn't lose then they are free to do so. Cripipper (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

But America was defeated. They were driven out militarly, consequences on the ground force people on top to ultimately pull the plug. You can't say "communist forces" won and at the same time break up the non communist forces saying who lost or not. You can't have it both ways. It should say "North Vietnamese Victory" Their allies are listed for the reader.Webster121 (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's how the current state of things appears to me: it is undisputed that American forces withdrew; it is also undisputed that the outcome is widely regarded as an American defeat. That's what the infobox reflects. I'm thinking in terms of what an encyclopedia is for -- imagine someone too young to remember this war, trying to get an understanding of it. I think she or he will be served best by being told the facts, including the facts about the state of a question that turns out to be thornier than some of us might initially have thought (I found the discussion of the War of 1812 illuminating in this regard -- it is certainly NOT (generally) taught as a loss to American schoolchildren, but it's been made very clear that it is so understood elsewhere, and that there are sound reasons for viewing it in that way). An encyclopedia must deal in facts, and where the facts are in dispute, it must report the dispute. I myself find it hard to see how it could be regarded as other than a loss, but I understand that to be a debate about interpretation of a category ("defeat") which is part of the social world of historiography, rather than a dispute about a factual claim like whether Canada had troops present. DavidOaks (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

About what cripipper said I would just omit step 2 altogether. When the U.S. signed the cease-fire with North Vietnam, the U.S. was not beaten into signing it. It was a foolish deception that the Communists would back down because they signed a simple treaty. Once the U.S. left, there was nothing stopping the NVA, so they invaded. If you are going to say it was a military defeat, then list some of the battles that turned the tide against the U.S. Oh, the Tet Offensive was an American victory by the way (Voices of Courage); the media made it look like we got chewed.Prussian725 (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no way you could call the Vietnam War an American defeat. If we pulled our troops out of Iraq now, and the Iraqis lost the war would we call it an American defeat? When we pulled our final troops out of Vietnam, the South Vietnamese were put in control of themselves. When Saigon fell to North Vietnamese, the American troops were no longer present. We withdrew, were not defeated. InColor 32 (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. We were not beaten, we quit. There's a difference. But alas, some people hate the U.S. so much that they are willing to distort history in order to make us look bad because they don't have the balls to take us on like men.Prussian725 (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just, the french weren't drive back militarily too: they did exactly the same thing than the US did, the only difference was that they had a defeat before they withdrawal, but France decision to withdraw wasn't due to dien bien phu, this battle was only to negociate in a strong position. And for the US, US army wasn't defeated, USA as a state was. clems78 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.205.182.238 (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

When the U.S. pulls out of Iraq today it necessarily wouldn't be an American defeat because the conventional war is over and the U.S. is now occupying Iraq. In the Vietnam War, the U.S. never occuppied North Vietnam. I suggest you read up further on what happened during the war with the French and how the U.S. got involved. The U.S. funded the French and also suggested using an atomic bomb at Dien Bien Phu.

And...?Prussian725 (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's see if we can put it simply. The US failed in it's objective of retaining an independent South Vietnamese state. North Vietnam achieved it's objective of re-uniting Vietnam. Score: North Vietnam 1, United States 0. As for "we quit" if a football team walks off the field before the final siren, that is still a loss. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You've got it wrong. The U.S.' objective was not to retain a free RVN but to keep out Communit aggressors, which we did all the way up to when we signed a cease-fire. The Communists attacked RVN after the treaty was signed and we pulled out our military. That's not a defeat.Prussian725 (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me but did not the communists have forces in country when the cease fire was signed. A cease fire that no only did not require them to leave but forced South Vietnam to legalise and recognise the communist party? I fail to see how that can be considered keeping SVN free of communist’s aggressors. Moreover US forces continued to operate in country until a unilateral withdrawal of US combat support in August 1973. A decision (along with the decision to cut military aid to SVN) that was decided without an agreement by NVN to end or suspend the activates that had prompted action after the signing of the January cease fore (not by the way a peace treaty or ending of hostilities merely a suspension of them). Thus US forces actually ended military involvement whilst active hostilities were ongoing, whilst communist forces were still active in country.[[Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)]]

(Undent)Well, I personally don't know about that but I do know that about when we pulled out the Tet Offensive had just finished, a battle in which the NVA was terribly defeated. So there was really no forcing of a withdrawal. It was just poor decision-making on Washington's part. About the communists, there are communists in the U.S. right now, I'm talking about the NVA and the Viet Cong. I'm willing to bet that their were indeed both in RVN but at the time of the cease-fire but that was not our fault; that was the North Vietnamese stabbing us in the back.Prussian725 (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Tet was in 1968, the US pulled out its forces in 1973, that’s 5 years, not just after.

The NVA had 219,000 men in SVN in January 1973. MR 1 NVA 63,000 VC 3000 MR2 NVA 19,000 VC 6000 MR3 NVA 20,000 VC 5000 MR4 NVA 123,000 VC 11,000 These forces were in country before the signing of the Paris accords, which had no clause requiring them to leave. The accords had clauses such as. Within sixty days of the signing of this Agreement, there will be a total withdrawal from South Viet-Nam of troops, military advisers, and military personnel, including technical military personnel and military personnel associated with the pacification program, armaments, munitions, and war material of the United States and those of the other foreign countries mentioned in Article 3 (a). Advisers from the above-mentioned countries to all paramilitary organizations and the police force will also be withdrawn within the same period of time. There was no similar requirement on the part of NVA. How therefore can it not be the fault of the country that signed an agreement that let them stay? How can the US claim to have kept SVN free from communist aggression when it made a peace deal that allowed 219,000 armed troops to remain in country [[Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)]]

I was talking about when the troop withdrawal started to take place, you must forgive my improper wording. Anyway, I have a question of my own: how can you say that the U.S. lost the war? In what way were we defeated? Who beat us? These are valid questions that I think everyone keeps dancing around but doesn't answer.Prussian725 (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

But the cease fire was signed in 1973, which means that US troop withdrawals began at a time when the NVA and VC were very much still active. So again we have the US not having stopped communist agrees ion when it chose (without any agreement from NV to suspend hostilities even) top begin to pull out US fighting men. How can the North have stabbed the US in the back if they had not agreed to anything in the first place? Who beat the US? North Vietnam, and the VC. How? By causing the US to begin troop withdraws without any agreement on the part of NV to end hostilities or leave the country. In fact to begin troop withdraws before the fighting was over, whilst the NVA consoled large tracts of SVN. Whilst the NVA continued to attack SVN and US forces, a withdrawal in the face of enemy action. By inflicting more loses on US forces then the American public were willing to bare. By causing the US public to believe they had an open-ended and ultimately unsinkable war. How did the US not lose? Did they keep SVN free from communist aggression, not in 1969-73 they did not. The NVA remained an active force in occupation of areas of SVN actively engaged in military. After January of 1973, they did not US forces remained active until August of 1973. NVA forces remained active and in occupation of areas of SVN at the same time. Did the US begin troop withdrawals only after an agreement from NV to stop aggression, no. DID the US stop troop withdrawals when it became obvious that the NV’s were in breach of the Paris accords, no. [[Slatersteven (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)]]

A question of my own, if the US did not loose, in what way did it win? Did the Soviet Union also win in Afghanistan? If you want to see what a victory against communist insurgents looks like, look at the British in Malaya. The US failed to achieve its objectives, and withdrew, therefore it lost. It didn't have to be defeated on the battlefield. The NVA and the VC only had to survive to win. And really, no talk of backstabbing please. You really need to read Clausewitz on the nature of war. --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you make it sound like the NVA and VC were a giant monster when we pulled out. They were beaten during the Tet offensive, in which they DID break their word by launching the campaign in the first place. Our troops were pulled out because of lack of support on OUR part, not by anything the NVA did. Our media was turned against us, Washington would not allow our military to achieve victory...the list goes on but nothing the Communists did had any influence on the outcome. Our government pulled our military out when they realized that hippies and peace-lovers had taken over the media and were painting the war as a slaughter, which it was but with the NVA as the ones being obliterated. So, if we just stopped fighting and left their country, does that mean we lost? No.Prussian725 (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You place too much emphasis on the Tet offensive. Keep in mind that it occurred five years before the American withdrawal, the US was involved in the Second World War for less than four years. Yes we know now that the offensive was a military disaster for the NVA/VC, however it was very much a pyrric victory for the US. It prompted the collapse of morale and support for the war in the US which did lead to the US withdrawal. As Napoleon said, in warfare, the mental to the physical is as three is to one. You are right the US pulled out because of a lack of support within the US, but that is as much a victory for the NVA/VC as anything that happened on the battlefield. As I said the NVA/VC only had to survive and outlast the US to win. To quote Napoleon again, victory belongs to the most persevering. The US failed to achieve it's war aims, withdrew, "ran away" if you like, and so it lost. The communists won. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

How did they break their word with Tet? No one has said they were giant monsters, what I said was that they were a still a fighting force in the South. That the NVA could still launch operations ans still hed large tracts of SV. It does not matter why the US lost, it does not amtter why the US pulled out they did. and in so doing sealed SV's fate (moreover they did not go back to save SV in 74/75). [[Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)]]

The immediately following moved from bottom of page by Anarchangel (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC) I took quite a few looks on this article, and most of the things that I read were true and correct. But I also saw a HUGE and INCORRECT statement. It said as a result of the Vietnam War that the North Vietnamese Communists won the war. That is false. It has been believed that North Vietnam won the war but, South Vietnam, United States, South Korea, Austrailia, Phillippines, New Zealand, Khmer Republic, Thailand, and Kingdom of Laos were the anticommunists forces. Record shows it that these forces never signed one defeat paper. Also, if you look at the statistics, only 285,831 anticommunists soldiers died(58,159 U.S. Soldiers died). Now, don't get me wrong, that's alot of men dead, but 1,177,466 Communists soldiers died. So if you compare those numbers the Anticommunists forces actually won the Vietnam War.U.s.marinecorps24 (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)U.s.marinecorps24U.s.marinecorps24 (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

is this a joke?[[Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)]]

No, I think he's being serious. Logic dictates that a defeat is being stopped of achieving ones goals, by others or by himself. The U.S. did not acchive its goals.

You need to look at the Discussion page also. It has been said before, but bears repeating. The criteria used to give the result is whether the stated aims of the two parties were achieved. This also, incidentally to Wiki, I grant you, suits the intuitive notion that regardless of whether the US could or could not have won, it left before winning. Anarchangel (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing withdrawal with defeat.Prussian725 (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I take it then your sugesting that the US's objective in entering the Vietnam conflict was to withdraw from it?[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)]]

Please don't feed this troll --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of pieces of meat.... (1) In his book, On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War, Harry G. Summers, Jr. describes an exchange he had in Hanoi with a senior NVN General during a break in some post Paris-Agreement talks. As I recall it (I don't have the book handy), Summers describes himself remarking that NVN forces never defeated the American Army in a major tactical engagement. The response was, “That may be true, but it is also irrelevant.” (2) Some decades ago I came across a T-shirt or somesuch saying tongue-in-cheek something like, "VN War results: US-2nd place; NVN-next to last." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I can agree to say that nobody really won or lost the war.Prussian725 (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Given thr result that seems rahter hard to justfiy.[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)]]

Paris Peace Accord

In it, were provisions for the United States to leave Vietnam completely and for the North Vietnamese Soldiers to stay and hold their territorial gains in the south, a victory for the North Vietnamese and defeat for the United States. The inclusion of this provision was a victory for the communist side of the negotiations by allowing that the war was not a foreign aggression against South Vietnam.71.156.53.226 (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ho Chi Minh famously returned Johnson's peace proposals unopened. Having to recognize Thieu's government and sign an agreement with it was a lot of crow for the communists to eat. The reason they signed anyway is because they got a bloody nose during the Easter Offensive in 1972. Nowadays, the communists see the peace treaty as an embarassment, since it shows they can't be trusted. North Vietnam was very proud of keeping the Geneva Accord. Le Duc Tho never became a hero in Vietnam.Kauffner (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

America still thinks it won the Vietnam war and I tell you why its films,films are a big part of American culture films like Rambo and Apocalypse now which should of had the opposite affect the way they went about warfare an overpowering and crushing army with weapons like napalm and the vietcong still won the sheer incompetence of the Americans during that war and even now the Americans just dont learn from their mistakes with the so called green berets counterinsurgency force. The Americans were beaten by insurgents then and now invade the middle east and they wonder why there is terrorist attacks against them because they have killed and offended so many people the vietcong were communists and the middle east has oil. ---matt suter--- 13:48, 19 August —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.30.7 (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Commanders of Communist forces

Was Truong Nhu Tang really a commander of communist forces? (Correct me if I'm mistaken) Article on himself states that he was the founders of the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (NLF) and Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam. There is no indication that he fought for communist forces, where as other entries on commanders clearly stated that they were commanders of communist party and had actively participated in this war.--NAHID 10:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you that Truong Nhu Tang and Duong Van Nhut were both low-ranking commanders. Duong Van Nhut was only a major general. So, I will correct that mistake for wiki Kenshin top (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Vietcong flags for Trà and Hùng?

Shouldn't the Vietcong commanders, Trần Văn Trà and Phạm Hùng, get Vietcong as opposed to North Vietnamese flags? Of course, they were North Vietnamese commanders as well. But I think the idea of the flags is the emphasize distinctions. Perhaps they can get both flags next to their names. Kauffner (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph

I think it might be a good idea to mention that America did not "officially" declared war in Vietnam in the first paragraph, instead of when you start talking about America. I find it slightly misleading. Also in the first paragraph, make sure that the reader knows that the debate of whether or not the Vietnam War was a victory or defeat is still debated today. Possibly mention the popular view that America did not lose the war militarily, but lost it politically. Again, just some suggestions. Something needs to be done though about

"The war was fought between the communist Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and its communist allies and the US-supported Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam). It concluded with the defeat of the United States, the dissolution of South Vietnam, and the failure of United States foreign policy in Vietnam." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.185.7 (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I was going to bring this up as well. Sure, every kid knows we "lost" the war, but the US withdrew with a cease-fire, hardly "losing" in the proper sense of the word; we can afford to draw the distinction, after all, the same sentence points out the failure of the foreign policy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bumping this, because apparently people just revert; yes, there will be sources that say "defeat", but we should be technically accurate; the US withdrew active combat forces as part of a pact with the North, and they continued to supply the South with materials, etc., but we never "surrendered" and were thus defeated in that sense. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The US failed to achieve most of the reasons it stated were its aims upon intervention. Its ‘pact’ (an inaccurate term) with North Vietnam gave away many concessions that the US had lost 50 odd thousand men trying to achieve (and can be seen as a repudiation of 20 years of American foreign policy), in this respect it can be seen as a defeat. Moreover almost as soon as the ceasefire (not pact) was signed the NVA launched a series of highly unsuccessful attacks, which the US did not respond to, thereby signalling that they were not willing (or politically able) to back the South in any meaningful way, this can be seen as a surrender, at least in kind, after all they were not willing (or able) to meet their part of the ceasefire agreement with regards to Communist breaches of it. Indeed it could be said that there was no cease fire between 1973/75 just a scaling down of the conflict, as both sides (but especially the North) re-built themselves for the next phase. The 1973 ceasefire paved the way for the 1975 offensive that ultimately destroyed the South, and forced America into a humiliating evacuation (which in itself can be seen as a defeat, and certainly as a rout, as well as a surrender (remember that the Saigon embassy was US sovereign territory, that the US was forced to abandon)).[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)]]

Issues

The infobox says the war started in 1959, while the first paragraph says it started in 1956. Which is right? I understand that it's sometimes difficult to tell when wars actually begin, but these two dates should agree.
The fifth paragraph states that North Vietnam and China recognized each other diplomatically and "the Soviet Union followed suit". By doing what? Recognizing both countries? If so, the article needs to state as much. "Followed suit" could mean that it recognized either country or both countries.
I've learned next to nothing about this conflict in school, and wanted to read this article to get some understanding of what happened. The first five paragraphs did nothing but raise more questions for me, and I stopped reading. — MusicMaker5376 20:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Vietcong started a campaign of assasination and terror in 1957 and first instance of large military unit combat was in late 1959. I don't what know what the basis for the 1956 date might be. Kauffner (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

US-centric lead material

I agree with Blnguyen that this material is too US-centric, and is written from a specifically American perspective, and so is not appropriate here. Furthermore, the specific casualty figures for just one of the many combatants is information too specific for the lead. I have removed it again. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it's kind of written from a western perspective, by which I don't mean biased, but theres less attention to the south vietnamese army and war crimes commited by north-vietnamese troops, because war crimes by the us have become most famous. Interesting is the Vietnamese wikipedia on the war[2]. Previously many more south viatnamese commanders were listed, let's not forget that many more south vietnamese people fought against the communists then american soldiers.

Another interesting thing is they have a picture up of the Massacre at Huế commited by communist forces. While on this page there's a picture up of the my lai massacre, the massacre at hué doesn't have one. It deserves a picture+description too per wp:npov, especially since the casualty count was much much higher than the my lai massacre.- PietervHuis (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well it's true that focusing on one country doesn't make it POV, it just makes the article more like United States in the Vietnam War. Yes, unfortunately this article is usually populated by people, usually Americans, who are interested in either bagging their foreign policy, or saying that the US didn't lose, and aren't actually concerned too much about the actual war. In any case, the lead that I reverted was mostly about US public opinion and not the actual war. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User Binguyen, You have deleted the complete edit which was supported by a neutral reference. Why? there is no history between 1945 (japan's defeat ) to 1950???????. The use of a single word "freedom fighter" will not make the edit "POV" . Please note that this is from a source which can be considered as neutrale. The sources used in this article , like pentagon papers are not RS and there is no reason why a WP article should look like a US army history book. -Bharatveer (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Because he has a way he thinks the article should be and by golly he's gonna keep it that way.(sarcasm)Prussian725 (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Imperialism and Colonialism

In the dictionary, it states that imperialism is the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies and colonialism is the control or governing influence of a nation over a dependent country, territory, or people. Using these definitons it can be assumed that the Vietnam War was a war of imperialism and colonialism because the country was torn into two parts, (North Vietnam and South Vietnam) and they were being aided by the Chinese and the United States. The civil war that was about to break out in Vietnam soon became a war that some of the world was thrust into.

The war of imperialism and colonialism dates back to the Chinese who had ruled Ancient Vietnam and to this day, they have never really left the Vietnamese to do what they liked as the years went on. This could be one of the reasons why there are so many ties to the Chinese culture that stands with the Vietnamese. After the Chinese had lessoned there grip on Vietnam the French broke through and established the French Indochina. This would also leave Vietnam with strong ties to France and these ties would be shown in the culture and everyday lifestyles of the Vietnamese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimprincess419 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

main picture

I'm just curious, was the new main picture just put up by someone because they felt like it or was it discussed and then put up?Prussian725 (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I put it there, in response to 1) discussion of the picture on this page (it's a featured picture, it's relevant if American-centric), and 2) the removal of a previous picture with murky permission. Naturally, any editor who has a better picture, or wishes to argue that no picture at all is better than this one, can and should go ahead and change it. DavidOaks (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I was just wondering if some one person decided that he would put it there because he felt like it. Thanks!Prussian725 (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like this choice of photo, as it's too US-centric (eg, as it shows a scared looking young Marine on arrival in Vietnam, it only represents the US experiance of the war). I don't know what a better choice would be though... Nick Dowling (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's an arresting image and that's certainly a big point in its favor. But he could be anywhere. Without the caption, you wouldn't know he was in Vietnam. "American-centric" -- the war was all about the U.S., that's reality. The communists wanted to make trouble for the U.S. and that's what it was all about. In communist propaganda, it's the "Anti-American Resitance War." There was a civil war in the Congo that killed more people. But that didn't involve America, so no one cares. Kauffner (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That might be news for the Vietnamase: the goal of the war for the North Vietnamese was to unite the country under their rule, and it started before there was any significant US involvement. The great majority of combatants, and casualties, were Vietnamese. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask you this: why in Hades would the Communists give squat about the unity of Vietnam? Ho Chi Mihn was nothing but another Asian sock-puppet with a Russian hand up his back. It was nothing but the Soviets creating another satellite nation to spit in the face of the U.S. The Cold War was about the U.S. spreading Democracy and the Commies spreading Communism. Oh, and what are you trying to say when you say "majority of combatants...were Vietnamese"?Prussian725 (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

was'nt Hoe initialy backed by the OSS?[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)]]

Ho became a full-time communist back in the 1920s. The OSS just wanted his help rescuing downed U.S. pilots. Did you know that Stalin and Hitler were allies for several years? I hope such complexities of history are not too much for you. Kauffner (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. A lot of times in war, things that are not immediately pressing are put aside for a greater cause, i.e. Stalin and Hitler as well as Stalin being an Ally.Prussian725 (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware I had had said that things were even that simplistic, I just pointed out that in war and politics alliances, and affiliations change. That at one time Ho and the US had been allies (no matter how unwilingly). But it is indead true that The US's involvment in Vietnam was often as venal and self serving as that of the Russians.[[Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)]]

Hella typo

yeah in the casualties section it says like "two doazen" instead of two dozen someone fix this, i can't because the page is protected you see —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.173.252 (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Results"

How about this for the results:

• North Vietnamese/Communist takeover of RVN
• Communist takeover of Laos and Cambodia
• U.S. withdrawal

? Does anybody have any objections to this?Prussian725 (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

How about:

• Communist takeover of South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.
• North Vietnam and South Vietnam are unified

The phrase "U.S. withdrawal" is I assume watered down from "U.S. defeated." But the underlying problem is still the same. Why not "South Korean withdrawal" or "Australian withdrawal"? It makes it sound like only the U.S. lost and that no one else had a stake in the outcome. If you say that the communists won, that should be enough -- it's implied that the other side lost. The infobox for WWII doesn't say anything equivalent to "Germany defeated" or "Japan defeated." Kauffner (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure that works.Prussian725 (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

US lost is specifically in there because US was the biggest supporter with around 500,000 soldiers. South korea had some 50,00 or some small number. The reason is the impact of US in this war and the huge role it played and that can not be understated 71.237.70.49 (talk)

This is not a hard topic to understand. Ultimately North Vietnam "won" and South Vietnam and US "lost." Simple as that. You have to use the term "victory" and "defeat." Every war template in wikipedia uses "victory" and "defeat." This is not that damn hard to understand. Americans get over the fact that you lost and ran like chicken. Who told you to go in there and lose your damn 50,000 soldiers. It is your loss. Get over the fact that you got "defeated." North vietnam won and "US" lost. This was a huge US operation. 500,000 soldiers involved. Half a million soldiers. Australia had some 6,000. US played huge role in this. So this is not some minor defeat.71.237.70.49 (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What other info box uses "vistory" and "defeat"? I haven't found any. The box for the Austro-Prussian War just says "Prusso-Italian victory." Nothing about Austria being defeated. Franco-Prussian War: "Decisive Prussian and German victory; Treaty of Frankfurt." Again, no "France defeated." Kauffner (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If "U.S. Defeated" is even in the box, it is just someone making a political statement. If everyone can agree on the info boxes on all those other wars (To add, no "Germany Defeated" or "Japan Defeated" in the WWII box), then the only reason for "U.S. Defeated" is for somebody to try to exert their opinion about the war. There are many conflicting opinions about the Vietnam War, so let's just revert to tha norm for info boxes...unless somebody wants it to say that the U.S. was defeated.Prussian725 (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"US is defeated" is already changed to "US withdrawed." Game over and let's move on. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

U.S. was defeated. America can win a war and withdraw and they can lose a war like in Vietnam and withdraw, the distinction needs to be made clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.13.45 (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Which it has, but not in your favor.Prussian725 (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What gives anyone the right to say it's over untill all sides agree it is over? Indead it seems that the person who said game over is not a registerd user, so exactly who come he has editorial control over this page? Now if idead no pages's say a side was defeated then on those grounds there is reason to say that it should not be present here. But only on those grounds[[Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)]]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War

‘tactical and strategic Arab failure’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War ‘Strategic Iraqi failure’ So perhaps we should we not put ‘US strategic failure’?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Lapland ‘German strategic retreat’ So maybe ‘US strategic retreat’ should be used?

Of course most seem to just have either a: ‘x’ won or b: ‘Treaty of…’. A few have Decisive victory (which I think is pretty much what NVN achieved so may be we should put that.

But http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency ‘Defeat of Communist guerrillas’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Civil_War ‘defeat of anti-Treaty IRA forces’ So are pages that do list a defeat. So it is not a universal rule (and certainly is not an official rule) that conflicts do not list the defeated.

This is by no means an exhaustive survey (there are a rather lot of wars), but it does I hope demonstrate that there is no common pattern to the results part of the info box in regards to wars. [[Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)]]

Many countries participated in the war. It's much simpler to say "North Vietnamese victory" or "communist victory" than to list all the countries on the anti-communist side as "defeated." The idea of the info box is to express the result in the briefest possible way. The old box that said "US defeated" made it sound like no one else was involved, not even South Vietnam. Kauffner (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

But the US withdrawal/defeat is in a wider international context the most significant thing about Vietnam. It was not just that America withdrew militarily, they withdrew politically and economically (did any other nations break of diplomatic ties and abandon their embassy? Indeed it could be argued that the Vietnam war only enjoys the status it does precisely because of the failure of the US to achieve its aims in the region. Moreover it was the withdrawal of the US that led to the communist victory, I doubt that even ROK withdrawal had such a massive impact. All of these make what happened to the US war making effort vital to understanding the war, and if the info box does anything it should be a summery of the salient and significant facts about the events it discuses.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)]]

I know that this topic has been beaten to death but I just have one question: did the NVA ever take over RVN while american forces were there?Prussian725 (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

no, but Did the US drive the NVA from SV before they withdrew? Dd the US pull out before having ensured the continued survival of SV? Did the nUS honourm its obligations and step in when the North violated the cease fire and over ran the South? But perhaps this might sum it up. As the North Vietnames flag went up over the Presdiential place an unnamed radio operator in the US embasy sent out this message 'its been a long hard fight and we have lost...Saigon signing of'[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)]]

Just for kicks I've opened the Wiki article for war and clicked on 20 random wars, not a single one of them lists who was defeated or who lost in the info box, and I don't see any reason why this should be different. It is pretty obvious that if two sides fight and one of them wins, the other one has effectively lost for whatever reason (military defeat, new gov't doesn't want to fight, desided they didn't care about it anyway etc.) and there is no reason to explicitly state it. Plus the US withdrawl is simply not a result of the Vietnam War as defined in the article, the war ended in 1975, the US withdrew in 1973, so it wasn't an outcome of the overall conflict, it was an event during it. If there was an article about something like a Vietnam-USA War of 1961 - 1973, then US withdrawl would be a proper result. This isn't to say that the US didn't lose, simply because they ran away in time, though Maxim K (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency

‘Defeat of Communist guerrillas’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Civil_War ‘defeat of anti-Treaty IRA forces’ So there are pages that do list a defeat. So it is not a universal rule (and certainly is not an official rule) that conflicts do not list the defeated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Lapland ‘German strategic retreat’ So maybe ‘US strategic retreat’ should be used? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War ‘tactical and strategic Arab failure’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War ‘Strategic Iraqi failure’ So perhaps we should we not put ‘US strategic failure’?[[Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)]]

Well when you hate the US it's real easy to downplay them because that's what everyone thinks anyway.Prussian725 (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

‘US strategic failure’ would certanly be pretty acurate and alot less subjective then 'defeat', and there does seem to be a precedent for that in those articles listed. It can be argued that the US wasn't militarily defeted, their forces were not destroyed, but the US certanly did fail to crush the Communist war machine. And some of the battles and operations, like Rolling Thunder alredy have 'Strategis US Failure' as a result, so I would agree with that. Maxim K (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok I don't mean to belittle you, but the word of one radio operator does not determine what actually happened. Why don't you talk to some of the soldiers who fought their and see if they tell you that we were horribly beaten. Opinions kinda change depending on who you're talking to.Prussian725 (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

General Philip B Davidson Says the US lost. [[Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)]]

What about the rest of them?Prussian725 (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

forgive me but that wo9uld be OR, on the other hand I can provide a varifiable source for what General Davidson said[[Slatersteven (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)]]

[3]Here's my source. PBS is openly liberal but even they say that it wasn't us who "announced the renewal of war" after peace talks had already taken place. Face it, they're the ones who started fighting again after we left, not after we were driven out.Prussian725 (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Im was not aware that PBS was a solder who served in Vietnam. Fighting continued after the signing of the Cease fire, and the USAF continued millitary operations up until August of 1973. In fact there was no period of peace between 1973 and 1974 just a large scale reduction (but not ending) of millitary operations. [[Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)]]

I provided my sources...where are yours?Prussian725 (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The source which Prussian725 mentioned above (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/timeline/tl3.html#b, saying only "1974 Thieu Announces Renewal of War") seemed a bit weak to me. A bit more detail can be seen in a four page letter which Thieu sent to Gerald Ford on 19 September 1974 saying, in part, "...Now the leaders of the Hanoi regeime openly declare their active support for movements aimed at overthrowing the legal government of the republic of Viet-Nam while they intensify their infiltrations and military action, thus baring their plans for a forcible conquest of the whole of South Viet-Nam.". See http://www.ena.lu/letter-nguyen-van-thieu-president-gerald-ford-19-september-1974-022300078.html (wait a while, it takes some time to load in a popup window). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I apologize if my source seemed vague, but I was quite tired and about to go to sleep when i pulled that one up.Prussian725 (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Intensify, not start. So this just says that the NVA were infact already engadged in millitary activity before this letter was sent.

Source for no end of the fighting in January 1973. Lt Gen Philip B Davidson (US officer in Veitnam, as you asked a solder who faught there) Vietnam at war ISBN 0-283-99935-7 Page 737 'Launched by the VNVA after the cease fire came into effect'. same page in the 'first two weeks...over 200 violations' No end to the fighting had occured. Ther had been a large ascale reduction to little more then raids and opatunisitc land grabs (by both sides). but no actual peace.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)]]

Yes, intensify. THEY are the ones who did not lay down their arms like they agreed. THEY are the ones who did not leave the country like they agreed. THEY are the ones who pushed the issue after a cease-fire was agreed upon. You make it sound like just because they did not keep their word then we somehow failed to do our part. Face it, we were not beaten. Being beaten implies that you were driven to it one way or another. Vietnam for us is just like the American War for Independence was for you. If you get into a fight, kick the crap out of your opponent, and then walk away from the fight, that doesn't mean you lost.Prussian725 (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Actualy they never agreed to lay down thier arms, nor did they agree to withdraw, they only agreed to stop fighhting. They did not keep thier promis as ealrly as an hour after the ceasefire came iinto effect, whilst US forces were still in country, and continued to attack SV's forces whilst the US withdrew. The US were required to step in to defend SV if the North violated the ceasefire, which they stoped doing. By the way we did lose the Revolutionary war, thats why the US is now independant[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)]]

If one person is badly beaten but still has the fight in him and ready to continue, while the other got a black eye and had enough, wants to run away now, one could argue that the latter lost the fight. Although I agree that "defeat" might be too strong a term, it is true that the US wasn't beaten in the normal sense of the term. The failure was largely psychological, North Vietnamese were defending their homeland, so it isn't surprising that they had better spirit then people who had to fight a country few of them heard of for no real reason. As for them breaking thier promises and agreements, I'm sure the US violated a treaty or two when they fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin incident and launched a war of agression (considered a war crime in some circles) to begin with, they of all people should not have been so naive as to think that the Commies would be more noble. If they honestly believed that North Vietnam would be restrained by a piece of paper, forced on them through an illegal war, despite being vastly superior militarily to South Vietnam then they failed in more ways then one ^__^ Maxim K (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that our politicians at the time were not the brightest bulbs in the drawer as far as dealing with Communism goes, I personaly think Reagan did a much better job, but how did we lose? What was taken from us? How did the North Vietnamese defeat the U.S.? I don't see this discussion going on in the Russian-afghan War article, so why is it such a big deal here that it be stated that the U.S. lost when nobody seems to care about whether the Russians lost or not?Prussian725 (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You are of course right the Soviots did lose in Afganistan. However this page is not about the war in Afganistan. Now there may be many reasons why no one cares (by the way I assume you do thibnk that the info box should at least say US wiithdewrl?) about the Soviot defeat, I have not looked at its talk page.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)]]

Actualy there is a dbate (it ended a while vback) that involvedd the question of Lose/Victory. Much of the same arguments as to why the USSR did not lose are the same as to the ones here as to why the USofA did not lose.[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)]]

Well, for what it's worth, *I* think that wars in Afghanistan and Vietnam were very similar, and most of the arguments here can be applied to the results of Soviet-Afghan War (both withdrew before their proxies were defeted, neither were bested militarily but psychologically etc.) so if this article says "Strategic US failure" in the results, the Afghan article should say "Strategic Soviet Failure". Right now now it says "Soviet Withdrawl, civil war continues"... As to what was lost (besides lives) the real price of those failures, was inspiration given to Russia's and USA's enemies, who feel that even though they are technologically inferior and are heavily outgunned they may yet prevail; that could be one of the reasons why the Chechen separatists and Iraqi insurgents felt they could succeed. What Vietnam (and Afganistan) showed is that you don't need to defeat the enemy, you just need to tire them out until they go away. Maxim K (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Which in itself can be seen as a defeat, the defeat of US prestige (something they lost). They also lost cedibilblity both owhich comfort to Americas enamys. Ths is what is meant by stratigic faliure.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)]]

(undent)Exactly. Lack of committment is crippling to any country. It's like Gen. MacArthur said: "It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it."Prussian725 (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Again the reason why does not matter. You do not seem to disagree that the US failed in its aims, mealry that it did not lose[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)]]

And...? While we were there the Commies did not take over RVN.Prussian725 (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope they just got the US to pull out with out any reciprical agremso as to have fores in place that could (ad evetualy did)takeoerthe South, whilst the US had no forces in country to stop it. It was fatal for the US to not have the will to win (which by inferance means they lost) but they did not lose, they achived a sort of non-victory?[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)]]

Actually the U.S. were technically there when the NVA took over the south in 1975, they were forced to abandon their embassy in which they were sworn to protect. They couldv'e sent the second comming of the christmas bombings to recoup and buy time at home to reanalyze their strategy, but like every war hypotheticals arise. Without a doubt the U.S. was still heavilly involved though the Paris Peace Accords had them in a weaker position. Operation Frequent Wind occurred in April 29, 1975 to April 30, 1975. Surely you cannot omit this operation or any other operation operated by the U.S. from the timeline of the Vietnam war. The last U.S. soldier killed in action in Vietnam was in May 15, 1975, just a few weeks after the end of Operation Frequent Wind. The last official battle of the U.S. in the Vietnam war was the Mayaguez incident. And...?ChonanTheVegetarian (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

They didn't cause us to pull out. That decision was made by our government. "Pull out" does not mean lose.Prussian725 (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, they caused the United States Commander-in-Chief to pull out U.S. troops...Cripipper (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to rephrase the same thing over and over, Operation Frequent Wind shows that U.S. military personnel were forced to "Pull out" in 1975 as mentioned above.ChonanTheVegetarian (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls.

They didn't "cause" us to pull out. Their military was in absolutely NO position to force us to do anything. If our troops were forced to pull out then it was by their own commanding officers who were acting on orders from higher authorities anyway.User:Prussian725|Prussian725]] (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The us pulled out because the NVA reamined a figting force, and the US public and politicians did not think they couold beat them/[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)]]

User:Prussian725 has made over 150 edits, mostly on talk pages, and not one on a main page. He/she is clearly acting like a troll. Please do not feed him/her. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

May I ask why I am labled a troll?[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)]]

You weren't. But this whole discussion has gone past anything useful for the article, and is turning the talk page into a high school debating society. By continuing it you are just encouring this. --Michael Johnson (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If you will look at the title of this section, you will see that it started as a discussion fo the "results" box at the beginning of the article. while some of it has gotten out of hand, the subject of this whole thing is whether or not to put "US defeat" in the infobox.Prussian725 (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Which raises two points. Was the US defeated, This largley depends on what the US objectives were (both upon entry and at the point of withdrawl). And is the withdrawl of US forces important enough to be considerd a 'result' inh the first place (seperaed and disticnt from the other combatants).[[Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)]]

How about you guys take this conversation to your talk pages. This page is for discussion aimed at improving the article, not for this type of debate. --Michael Johnson (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The Latest Summary Box Picture

Ok I've noticed those pictures had been changed several times this week, but each time it becomes more ridiculous. The image is either about dead Vietnamese or American soldiers. Whoever load up those pictures must be obsessed with images of dead Vietnamese. Canpark

The guy calls it a "panoramic view of the war." He apparently has no idea that showing a stack of fresh corpses is any different than showing fire or helicopters. I think of the Palestinians whooping it up when they see pictures of dead Jews. Kauffner (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Photo Caption

Whoevever added those photos needs to caption them, and if they have no idea of their origins please remove them. 69.18.107.13 (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That collage is way too controversial. It's showing pictures of the Mai Lai massacre, but not massacres commited by communist forces. On top of that it's not very good looking in general (the cropping is done really bad). I'll change it back to something else (temporarely). Before someone starts adding dead babies in the infobox, ask the others first. - Pieter_v (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This infobox is used in Wiki-es, Wiki-fr and Wiki-pt, Wikipedia is not censored. This is a panomaric view of the war. American war genocides hurts you? MachoCarioca (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And this collage stayed here for months, before user Kauffner changed it by himself. MachoCarioca (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't what you're talking about. I had a helicopter picture up before you came along, not that that matters. What does matters is that this point, you're clearly in the minority. Two of the pictures are duds, so the graphic doesn't work just an artistic level. Now that you're admitting its POV, perhaps it could be balenced with pictures of Massacre of Huế. Kauffner (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"American war genocides hurts you?" thank you for admitting your biased view. Anyway there is already pictures of the mai lai massacre in the article. Same goes for the Massacre at Hué now. This article is about the Vietnam War, not about either massacres, so its best to insert simply pictures of actual battle or troops, just like most war pages do. - Pieter_v (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Best would probably to have an image of North-Vietnamese forces, since the war was their victory. The tank picture was pretty dull though. - Pieter_v (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, Green Berets. "This article is about the Vietnam War, not about either massacres". And isn't it part of the war? The infobox is an overview about that. MachoCarioca (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people edit this article and no one cares about that but you, Green Beret. You're the minority here, not me, have you ever heard about 'silent majority'? Cheers!MachoCarioca (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Or just a map of the country?[[Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)]]

Mistake

Here's a mistake in section "Escalation and ground war". It says: "In May, Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) forces suffered heavy losses at the Battle of Binh Gia", though actually Binh Gia battle happened in December 1964, while in May 1965 there was Song Be battle. Could someone correct it? 195.248.189.182 (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why

Is the US listed as "American defeat/ strategic failure and withdrawal." when they won just about every single military operation while in the "Soviet war in Afghanistan" article the Russians are simply listed as "Soviet withdrawal" when every single battle that is listed as a defeat and their withdrawal from the conflict have over 500 KIA. So is this bias or what?--66.229.12.186 (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

US casulaties in Vietnam were rather more then 500 (how many MIAs are there?). But you do have a valid point. If the US lost in Vietnam Russia lost in Afganistan, but the reverse is also true. If the US withdrew from Vietnam then the Soviots withdrew from Afganistan. But in one repest I disagree with you. The US may not have lost any battles, but that does not mean they did not lose the war the two do are not the same. The Uinited States of America is not the United States Army. [[Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)]]

I was referencing too when the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan that were the 500 KIA came from. and Thank you anyways. --66.229.12.186 (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You should be happy that the article is stated "American withdrawal" instead of "American defeat," which it was. It should be stated "American defeat." If North Vietnam won, someone must've lost. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. was certainly defeated in Vietnam. But if you look at the info boxes for other wars, say the Franco-Prussian War, Napoleonic Wars, or the Spanish-American War, they don't say that anyone was defeated. If you say that one side won, then obviously the other side lost and it is unnecessary to write anything more. Kauffner (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Look I'm saying the US pullout like the Russians way before the war actually ended. South Vietnam fought off both forces for 3 years with out US ground support. If the US was still in vietnam till the very end of the war. Yeah that sounds like a defeat. The other war you were talking about Kaullner is bettwen 2 Nations. The Vietnam war and Afghan wars are two very different type of wars. --66.229.12.186 (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

USAF 67-113 - flew the last F-111 combat mission of the war on April 17, 1973, and is credited with having flown the last combat mission on a Cambodian target four months later.

Both of these after the signing of the peace accords, so the US was still militarily involved in the war after the signing of the Paris peace accords. But I note that you do in fact say ground forces. Unfortunately a nations involvement is not just determined by the presence of one service.

Last US ground forces death’s o 29 April 1975-US Marine Embassy Guards McMahon and Judge killed. {Corporal Charles McMahon & Lance Corporal Darwin L. Judge} o 12–30 May 1975—41 US servicemen killed and 41 servicemen wounded during the "Mayaguez Incident" in "Democratic Kampuch Between 1973 and 1973 around 500 (plus) US servicemen lost their lives.[[Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)]]

The peace treaty was a big nothing. Everyone knew the fighting would continue, treaty or no treaty. I would the put the end of U.S. military involvement as Aug. 15, 1973, the deadline set by the Case-Church Amendment. Without U.S. bombers tearing up the Hochiminh Trail, it was only a matter a time before South Vietnam collapsed. The Democratic congress that passed Case-Church understood this and thought that defeat in Vietnam was a great way to discredit Nixon and the Republicans. So there was never any question of the U.S. marching out victoriously. Kauffner (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the person. Make it just say "North Vietnamese victory." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.70.49 (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. having won all the battles is a myth. The U.S. uses dead enemy body counts to arrive at victory in each of their battles and this is flawed. By this standard, should the U.S have won the war because there were more North Vietnamese deaths in the end? The U.S. also lost strategically and they changed how they viewed and counted the battles won. So they disregarded the number of dead North Vientnamese bodies as a quota for victory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.53.183 (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Any fan of the "The US have won every battle." slogan is encouraged to find out what FSB Ripcord was. Altus Quansuvn (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is this article referencing boxed DVD sets and PBS TV programs rather than decent academic sources?

For example the current estimate of civilian casualties is much lower than it was a few months ago and much lower than estimates I've seen in books I've read on the war. Compare to the article on Vietnamese wikipedia. Looks like this article has gone down hillDomminico (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, why not incorporate your sources? Also, if the casualties are in dispute, just say so and say who says what. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No U.S. Marine Barracks at Pleiku in March 1965

There was no U.S. Marine Barracks at Pleiku in March 1965. There was A MAAG compound of Army Soldiers and some civilian contractors at the Pleiku Citadel (VN III Corps HQ, and a part of a U.S. Army Aviation Battalion at Camp Holloway across the town from the MAAG Compound. Both of these US Activities were attacked by the Viet Cong at 2 AM on 7 February 1965. There were no U.S. Marines in Pleiku or the entire province. I was assinged to the MAAG Compound from November 1964 until May 1965. (Oldarlprohist (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)) W. Horn, 08-28-08

Nobody cares. I bet it will never be corrected. This page seems to exist only for a quarrel about "does America lost the war" question. 195.248.189.182 (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like OR, are there any sources to back this up. I(f so then it should be altered.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)}].

Some do not have a RL

He is not a historian, he is a linguist, who is a far-left political activist and is a supporter of Pol Pot. And secondly, to describe South Vietnam as a client state and somehow North Vietnam as not, is a joke. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If the overwhelming majority of Vietnamese had really supported the communists, the communists would have held a multiparty free election after the war. Kauffner (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure his politics invalidate his views, but his actual accademic credentials are another matter. now are there any other sources that are used that are from mnon-historians, if so then mr Chomsky is as validas any other non-accademical historian. Both were client states, and so the article should reflct this. The issue of elections is a complex one, it has been sugested in the past that the reason why election were not held in Germany after tyhe war and Vietnam is that the resulots in one would not favour the west, and that results in the other would not favour the east, so both sides accepted a status que. By the way after which war? According to the terms of the Geneva Accords, Vietnam would hold national elections in 1956 to reunify the country. The division at the seventeenth parallel, a temporary separation without cultural precedent, would vanish with the elections. The United States, however, had other ideas. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles did not support the Geneva Accords because he thought they granted too much power to the Communist Party of Vietnam. In late 1957 Diem used the help of the American Central Intelligence Agency to identify those who sought to bring his government down and arrested thousands. Diem passed a repressive series of acts known as Law 10/59 that made it legal to hold someone in jail if s/he was a suspected Communist without bringing formal charges. This would make free and fair elections rather hard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 15:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant after 1975. But nothing resembling a free election was held after 1954 either, so the comment works for both wars. Non-communists were purged from the Vietminh's National Assembly in 1946 and only communists have been allowed to contest elections since. The Geneva Accords were between France and the Vietminh. Neither South Vietnam nor the U.S. signed. Mao Zedong wanted a Vietnam that was divided and therefore posed no threat to China. So he strong-armed the Vietminh into the signing the accords. The proposed referendum was never more than a bit face saving designed to allow the Vietminh to blame the U.S. and the French for the division of Vietnam. Whatever election or referendum the communists wanted to hold, they could have just held it themselves in the North. That's the way is it was done in South Korea in 1948, which is a precident everyone would have been familiar with at that time.

Hanoi's shift to a more militant strategy in late 1950s was part a worldwide shift in communist strategy that included the invasion of Hungary, Sputnik, and the second Taiwan Straits crisis (1958). This shift was persumably the outcome of a power struggle in the Kremlin. I don't think its reasonable to connect it up to the canceled referendum or to some law enacted by Diem.

The problem with Chomsky isn't his credentials; it's his style of writing. It's pure opinion, like using an editorial as a source. His writing is focused on establishing himself as the most left-wing, anti-American writer alive. He's even endorsed the Khmer Rouge and the 9/11 hijackers, just to show he means it. Kauffner (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Having declared communists enemies of the state in 1955, and Diem's Anti-Communist Denunciation Campaign, organized by his Department of Information and Youth, gathered information to arrest more communists; even the numbers admitted by his government (he had fixed an election to give himself 99% of the vote, after all) showed 15-20,000 communist prisoners in re-education camps. Southern Vietnamese communists were not physically or mentally free, let alone free to hold public office.

Mao 'strongarmed' the DRVN into accepting a proposal that mandated elections because he wanted a divided country? Your time frame/understanding of causation seems to be skewed, you also say that the 'mandate', by which I believe you mean elections, was a way for the Vietnamese to blame the US and French for them not being held?

I see Chomsky as, among other things, a defense lawyer in a world of would-be DAs. All comments I have ever seen on Wiki attack him as biased; none, other than yours, ever even mention the substance of his writing. Perhaps you would care to provide a case or cases of his facts being mistaken, that he has not retracted. Surely, if his facts were in error, then he would be criticized on that basis. Using him as a source would seem to be a fairly safe bet as far as factual accuracy is concerned.Anarchangel (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No there were no free elections after 1954 (although it was supposed to have been in 1956, but the Americans pre-empted them by creating the state of South Vietnam, it was not the Communists who refused to have the national vote) or 1975, now is that because of the fear that the communists would lose, or because they had a one party system anyway (in common with all communist states)? The Vietmin national assembly was not the government of Vietnam in 1946 (by the way the French had outlawed the communist party). South Vietnam did not exist as a separate entity until 1956, so there was no South Vietnam for the French to negotiate with, and the US were not a party to the conflict and as such had no right to expect to be included. Did the communists hold such a referendum (by the way as far as I was aware South Korea was not communist so can hardly be used as a model of how a communist state would have behaved, but can be used to demonstrate US thinking). As to the issue of blame, the US handed the Vietmin a far better accusation then just losing a referendum, they did not even bother to hold one (proof of communist support they were willing to hold free elections (even if it was a lie it was not put to the test), proof of lack of US support the US refused to take part in country wide elections). Or presumably the shift is strategy was due to the fact that the US was not going go allow free elections in which the communists could stand, just like the French before them (another historical model every one was aware of). I think it is more the reasonable to assume that if you cannot win by peaceful you use more militant measures. I am not sure his writing style should be an issue either (after all any academic will allow his opinions to colour his writing). What has to be demonstrated is that the ‘facts’ as they are presented are wrong, or at least not supported by any evidence. Now you admit that there is nothing wrong with his credentials, that (therefore) he is academically respectable, as such that surely means that he is an academically reliable source. Moreover his support for causes does not make any ‘fact‘ he presents wrong, it has to be proved it was wrong by demonstration not association.[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)]]

Chomsky's opinions can't be separated from his writing because his writing is pure opinion. His idea of scholarship is to cite Z Magazine. When you say Communists don't hold elections because they believe in a one-party state, I think that hits it on the head. They immediately regretted holding the December 1945 election even though they won because a multiparty election grants legitimacy to the opposition.

Your Vietnamese history is pretty shaky. Did you get it from Chomsky? The French created the State of Vietnam as a government for South Vietnam in 1949 and it received international recognition the following year. Before that, the South Vietnam was a French colony called Cochinchina, so it was a separate political entity going back to the 1860s. South Vietnamese Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem canceled the referendum on unification in July 1955. It was his call and who was America to tell him he couldn't do it? What with the agricultural crisis in the North in 1955-56, I can't believe the communists would have been eager for a referendum at that time anyway. Kauffner (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky is an impeccable source. His work is always extremely well cited. All the same if there's any dispute we should go back to the original sources. Not difficult with Chomksy, since his books are riddled with sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domminico (talk • contribs) 18:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

policing action

Why are the words policing action not to be found in the article? 89.180.37.213 (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You probably mean "police action," which a phrase U.S. President Truman used to describe the Korean War. He meant that the U.S. military was in Korea to enforce U.N. decisions, just as police enforce laws enacted by others. Kauffner (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Carter pardon

"In 1977, United States President Jimmy Carter from the Democratic Party issued a pardon for nearly 10,000 draft evaders"

Is it necessary or informative to list his political party here? Or was it inserted as a political prank? I left it alone for now, thought I might see some discussion here (I guess it might be archived, of course). Huw Powell (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for it. I'd fix it myself, but the article seems to be locked. So much for Wikipedia, the article anyone can edit. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the article to fix this. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

french involvement error

This article says that laos and cambodgia obtained their independence in geneva: false, france granted them independence in 1949. They weren't even members of the french union: they left it in 1953, and south vietnam asked to left it the same year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.205.182.238 (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

NZ Victoria Cross error

Recently Corporal Willie Apiata of the New Zealand Army received the VC for actions in Afghanistan.

"the first Commonwealth recipient since Australian Warrant Officer Keith Payne received the award in 1969."

http://www.army.mil.nz/at-a-glance/events/cpl-apiata-vc/tvc.htm

Whiad169 (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti War - Peace Movement

Hi Guys, I add the section on the Anti War Movement. I'm surprised it was missing. I did a cut & paste from the Peace Movement Article. I need help getting the headding right and adding the heading to the index section. Peace ! Bill Ladd (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

American War

I am Vietnamese and it is true we all say 'American War' when we talk about it with foreigners. The information must please return to wikipedia! Dhvietnam (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is your first and only contribution. You created an account just to say this? If I am wrong, you can tell me to f*k off in Vietnamese. In any case, American War is in article now, in the "Terminology" section. Kauffner (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why so rude Kauffner? What do you mean? I normally edit wiki with no problem but to edit this page required to register.Dhvietnam (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be obvious that "American War" cannot be the Vietnamese name for the war since neither "American" nor "war" are Vietnamese words. If you translate "American War" literally into Vietnamese you get either Chiến tranh người Mỹ or Chiến tranh Mỹ -- not one Google hit. No one calls it by either of these names. In contrast, Chiến tranh Việt Nam (Vietnam War) gets 1.4 million hits. This is also the title of the Vietnamese Wikipedia version of this article. The communist propaganda name for the war, Kháng chiến chống Mỹ (Resistance War Against America), gets 700,000 hits. Kauffner (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a moot point that googling a transliteration does not result in hits. Further, Vietnamese people don't talk in transliterations of Vietnamese "phrases" -- they simply speak Vietnamese, and when interfacing with English speakers refer to the very same war as "The American War." This has always been the case in my experience interfacing with vietnamese people in and outside of Vietnam, both official and inofficial channels. When googling "The American War" + Vietnam I get 198,000 hits for English pages alone. What is your agenda for denying such a well-documented fact? You even have books and academic papers acknowledging this term. Please see the following references (just a few examples -- I urge you to do your own research):

• "...what is referred to in Vietnam as The American War" http://www.harrellfletcher.com/theamericanwar
• "The Viet Nam War is also called "The American War" by the Vietnamese."(http://www.asian-nation.org/vietnam-war.shtml)
• "...a memorial to what the Vietnamese call the American War." (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/arts/design/05chan.html)
• Academic paper (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2137774)
• Academica paper (http://dva.state.wi.us/Vietnam/Vietnam_30years_later_Series_Column5.pdf)
• http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/modern_fiction_studies/v043/43.2br_christopher.html
• Many books titled and clearly referring to the Vietnamese term "The American War" (http://books.google.com/books?q=the+american+war+vietnam&btnG=Search+Books)
• "...the Vietnamese perspective of “The American War.”" (http://www.csus.edu/indiv/d/dymj/files/vietnam_seminar_syllabi.pdf)
• http://www.amazon.com/Vietnam-American-Representations-Euro-American-Asian-American/dp/1558490094

Mouseydung (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain this real simple for you. The overwhelming majority of people in Vietnam don't speak even a word of English -- and they certainly don't call the war by an English-language phrase. To say that such-and-such is the Vietnamese name for the war implies that it is a phrase used by Vietnamese when they talk to each other. What Vietnamese say when they speak English isn't really relevent, but in my experience they say just "the war." Finally, 198,000 hits is pretty small beer compared the 2.9 million for Chiến tranh Việt Nam, which is by far the most common Vietnamese name for the war. Kauffner (talk) 06:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of your personal experiences, they are outweighed by the fact that it is a well-documented term that has made it into countless books and academic journals, in English (often in headlines and titles). What I am going by is not my personal experience alone. It is a matter of record that "The American War" is widely acknowledged as a term used by Vietnamese people when referring to the same war.

Also I can't disagree more that "what Vietnamese say when they speak English isn't really relevent." Just trying to understand here: Are you saying that the Vietnamese are not qualified to come up with an English term for the same war by virtue of being Vietnamese or having Vietnamese as their mother tongue?

About googling, as you well know it just depends on your search words. What I provided was the simplest of examples.

Mouseydung (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"The American War" respresents English speakers cracking wise. It's a good joke, but it isn't even close to common usage in Vietnam, even among English-speaking Vietnamese, as I have already demonstrated more than once. Kauffner (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Vietnamese people I spoke with certainly weren't cracking wise. But my personal experience aside, what do you make of the documentation and countless publications which cite this term as being used by Vietnamese people, and what do you make of the War Museum's own brochures? Or did you bother to check these links at all? I supplied references and documentation that this is widely accepted as a Vietnamese term, to the point of being quoted in academic journals and included in the titles of many books. Are they all wrong and you alone right? You haven't demonstrated anything to me except your insistence on that a Vietnamese-coined English phrase cannot qualify for English Wikipedia, even when it is acknowledged in the mainstream. May I suggest you supply some documentation (not personal anecdotes) to support your case, or else desist from your censorship campaign based on pet personal views?

Here is more documentation -- just a small sampling of the fact. And nobody is wisecracking. You have journalists from the International Herald Tribune, BBC, PBS, ABC, etc, testifying to it, plus first-hand accounts of people who interacted with Vietnamese and/or visited their War Remnants Museum:

• http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/18/asia/vietnam.php
• http://www.pbs.org/hanoi/vietnam.htm
• http://atlanticphilanthropies.org/health/news_listing/vietnam_passage
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/5169638.stm
• http://www.gluckman.com/Vietnam2000.html
• http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2004/s1132424.htm
• http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,Galloway_050405,00.html
• http://www.nationalvnwarmuseum.org/vietnamculture.htm
• http://www.jasonbarbacovi.com/2007/02/saigon-war-museum.html
• http://www.virtourist.com/asia/vietnam/saigon/16.htm
• http://www.uncorneredmarket.com/2007/02/american-war/
• http://www.thestar.com/article/277303
• http://www.traveljournals.net/stories/22938.html
• http://realtravel.com/ho_chi_minh_city_saigon-journals-j1048011.html

Mouseydung (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You're relying on traveler's tales and blogs? Try an English-Vietnamese dictionary! This is from Lac Viet, one of the most popular dictionaries in Vietnam:

Vietnam War *danh từ = Chiến tranh Việt Nam (từ 1954 đến 1975)

Chiến tranh means "war." The rest you should be able to figure out. This is the only translation given, i.e. there is no translation resembling "American War." Kauffner (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You fail to address the points I bring up: 1) THE VIETNAMESE WAR REMNANTS MUSEUM'S BROCHURES, 2) VARIOUS PUBLISHED BOOKS, 3) JOURNALISTIC AND 4) ACADEMIC SOURCES. It seems your mind is made up so you won't even check the sampling of links I supplied?

Mouseydung (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanh Nien is one of the top English-language papers in Vietnam. On the newspaper's site, "American War" gives you 60 hits. For the most part, it isn't being used as a name for the war, but in phrases like "American war veteran" or "American war resister." In contrast, "Vietnam War" gives you 311 hits. The most official sources, the embassies and the Vietnam News Agency are split pretty evenly. Only Viet Nam News uses "American War" in any consistent way (478 hits to 72 hits). Where do tourists get the idea that Vietnamese call the war the "American War"? Perhaps because this tidbit is in the Lonely Planet guidebook, which is extremely popular and sold everywhere.

The central point, which I have made before but you refuse to address, is that Vietnamese don't use English language phrases when they communicate with each other. The Vietnamese name for the war, the name from the Vietnamese perspective, or whatever, must therefore be a Vietnamese language phrase, the kind of thing you might find in say, an English-Vietnamese dictionary. Kauffner (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I did address your central point repeatedly: the fact that Vietnamese people do not speak English to each does not negate the fact that whenever they do interface with English speakers (officially and inofficially) they collectively refer to the war as "The American War." And having Vietnamese as a mother tongue does not automatically disqualify them from popularizing a Vietnamese-coined English term. In fact, so successful have they been at propagating this, that it is now widely accepted that the Vietnamese simply refer to the same war as the American War. It is documented in countless sources (books, journals, academia), and therefore should be a matter of record on a NPOV encylopedic page with such as this.

Mouseydung (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You have repeatly resorted to this type of rhetoric as if you speak for oppressed Vietnamese. I'm just "one persistant editor," but you represent millions of people? That certainly gives your life a transcendent quality. Being right or wrong -- that's for lesser mortals. Kauffner (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not mere rhetoric to question your efforts and motives for censorship. I am speaking for the fact (and I repeat) that this Vietnamese-coined term has successfully entered the English mainstream, to the point of being quoted in serious journalistic reports, academic papers and countless books, and should therefore be cited on a NPOV Wikipedia page. What I do question however is why you would assume to decide that a Vietnamese-coined English term does not qualify for wikipedia.

Mouseydung (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This arguement addresses a somewhat different point then what you are adding to the article. If the question is, "What is the Vietnam War known as in Vietnam?" The answer is, Chiến tranh Việt Nam. Kauffner (talk) 08:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Some points; "American War" would only refer to the latter phase of the war, I suppose? As per names, "chiến tranh giải phóng dân tộc" gives a few google hits, notably from .vn domains. "Chiến tranh Việt Nam" gets many google hits, but mainly 2/3 is non .vn hits. --Soman (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Couldn't the simplest explanation be that "American War" is a sloppy translation of "Kháng chiến chống Mỹ"? Some examples of the usage of the term in contemporary Vietnamese discourse [4], [5]. It seems 'Anti-American war' is also in usage([6], [7]). --Soman (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Chiến tranh giải phóng dân tộc means "war of national liberation." It's not really the name of a war, but it can be used to refer to the wars of 1945-75 collectively. For Vietnamese-language pages in Vietnam (which, oddly enough, gives you more hits than searching globally) there are 814,000 hits for Chiến tranh Việt Nam, 592,000 hits for Kháng chiến chống Mỹ, 14,300 (all pages in Vietnam) for "American War" Vietnam, and 43,000 hits (all pages in Vietnam) for "Vietnam War." So the bottom line 857,000 for Chiến tranh Việt Nam/Vietnam War against 608,000 for Kháng chiến chống Mỹ and "American War" combined. Kauffner (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You failed to take into account how many hits among those 814,000 were mere translations of English materials. Such translations constitute no support for finding which Vietnamese term is currently being used in Vietnam by Vietnamese. Altus Quansuvn (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

How many? [[Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)]]

Good question for Kauffner. The mere existence of such pages just made his playing with numbers invalid. Altus Quansuvn (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda

If you restrict your search to within websites based in Vietnam, you'll see that Kháng chiến chống Mỹ gets more usage. Obviously, most Vietnamese outside of Vietnam, who probably have more access to the Internet than those in Vietnam, aren't going to use that propaganda term. DHN (talk) 03:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

In what sense is it propaganda? Seems a fairly accurate description to me.

1) It was a war

2) They were fighting the Americans (ok the US not the whole continent)

3) The Americans attacked Vietnam (South and North) the Vietnamese did not attack the US: so it was resistance.

"Accurate propaganda" at the very least

"Resistance (3) War (1) Against America (1)"

Domminico (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Propaganda" is a word used by the communists officially to describe their publicity. I don't know what you're getting all huffy about. Downtown Saigon has stores selling "Old Propaganda Posters." The government even puts out a magazine whose title translates as "Propaganda and Training" During the war, there were "Armed Propaganda Teams" (Doi Tuyen truyen Vo trang). Kauffner (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would even question the use of the word "resistance", because the Communists were on the warpath when we got there; we just stepped in the their way.Prussian725 (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The word "resistance" actually meant the Vietnamese considered USA a formidable foe who had the upper hand in almost everything, and the fight wouldn't be one between equals.Altus Quansuvn (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to forget the peaceful elections that the U.S. blocked. Those elections would have prevented the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.53.183 (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

South Vietnamese President Diem it the one who decided not to hold the election. It wasn't America's decision to make. Even if Diem had agreed to the referendum, there is no way that the North would have gone along. North Vietnam was in famine at that time. Hanoi was going to allow politicians from the South to campaign? I don't think so. The Viet Quoc might have won in a free election -- neither the communists nor the Diemist wanted that. Kauffner (talk) 05:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You can theorize anything you want. The facts are that DRV inquired RVN on the modalities of the election four times. Each time it was the RVN who turned the talk down, or simply chose not to answer.Altus Quansuvn (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

We do not know what the North would have done, we can speculate but then wwe can also speculate about why you would not hold a refeerendum you expect to win. Now if the North had stoped free and fair electionering then that would have nullified the result, and the Communists would not have had a lot of credibility. The lack of referendum gave the communist's a certain degree of sympathy that made the US position on both the internal (US ans SVN) and external political scene that much less justifiable (you are fighting for freedom by not holdiing a free vote). [[Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)]]

Oh, they would have won, all right. Communism was inseparable in the minds of Vietnamese from Nationalism and Freedom Fighter. The communists had been the major resistance against Japan, and continued to be until the French were defeated. -The United States in Vietnam: An analysis in depth of the history of America's involvement in Vietnam by George McTurnan Kahin and John W. Lewis, Delta Books, 1967Anarchangel (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a fact that the communists did not hold multi-party election in 1956 or at any other time. This flailing around is designed to show what? That the U.S. prevented Hanoi from an holding an election? That Saigon did? Hanoi could hold an election without approval from the South. After all, South Korea went ahead with elections in similar circumstances in 1948. Are you arguing that the unheld election was causus belli? The communists didn't justify the war as a necessary step so that an internationally surpervised election could be held. In fact, this issue isn't even mentioned in the NLF's ten point manifesto of 1961. Nor did Hanoi propose elections during the Paris Peace Conference. Kauffner (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It is also a fact that the South in 1956 had equally no record on organizing free elections. This flailing around is designed to show that Saigon (Diệm to be exact) bore partial responsibility for the ensuing war. No all-Vietnam election could be held in 1956 without RVN's approval. And the Paris Peace Accords did provide for "peaceful means" to determine the future of a united Vietnam. Altus Quansuvn (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To say nothing of, as an ally of the 'democratic, multiparty' US, Diem had a higher standard of larger numbers of party machines restricting the political discourse to a narrow focus favoring the elite to uphold. Instead he blew it and did it all for himself.

"The Americans attacked Vietnam (South and North) the Vietnamese did not attack the US: so it was resistance." That's where you're wrong. The Americans were simply aiding the south in the defense of their country. 98.215.34.127 (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Title image

Could we possibly change the image to something a little less gruesome? A pile of remains isn't particularly representative of the war anyway. Perhaps a photo of an actual conflict would be better? Edit: I went through the history and found that the picture was changed for no real reason. Changed back now. Hayden120 (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. People have complained on it before. Before this image which shows the My Lai Massacre someone also uploaded the Massacre at Hue. Neither are good, we need an image of combatants or something else, because the infobox should not be the place for users to try and prove a point or to spread propaganda. Grey Fox (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see you you also picked the collage which contains dead babies. Maybe you did it without notice, but a pile of dead babies isn't exactly less gruesome than a pile of remains. We simply need a picture of fighters, preferebly North Vietnamese. Grey Fox (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Or a Collage of flags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 15:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Current picture really does represent the war. Its also a great picture. CindyAbout/T/P/C/ 05:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Further Reading

Given the enormous amount of literature on the Vietnam War, I would suggest that either 'further reading' be established as a seperate page, or dropped, as I suspect it will evolve into either a mammoth list of books on the war, or if it is to be restricted in size then a source of controversy or contention. Cripipper (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Could be. I established the section, admittedly because I admire Summers' books (I was in VN from '64 through '72 and, though I don't share his expertise, I know a bit about whereof and whatof he speaks). I'm biased on this, so I'll not comment beyond this and will leave it up the the consensus of other editors. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I like then idea in theory in practice it will not work except as a seperate page, after all how do you define inclusion?[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)]]

Reasons for war.

Call me stupid (Many do), but wouldn't it be a nice idea if somewhere in this article there were the reasons given at the time for them fighting the war, from each side? I even had a quick look through wikiquote, but couldn't find any clear, unambiguous reason for why the sides were fighting. -OOPSIE- (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Right at the beginning, the article does mention the causes, namely containment versus communism. But I agree this could be fleshed out a little more. The U.S. feared, and the Soviets hoped, that communist victory in Vietnam might lead to communist takeovers elsewhere. For both sides, South Vietnam was a good place to fight because it was far away from more vital interests. Vietnam arose as an issue soon after the Cuban Missile Crisis, which emphasized both the stakes involved as well as the danger of going for the jugular. Kauffner (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

MariochaCarioca's mural

I don't think this picture is NPOV at all. It only includes death and destruction wrought by one side of the conflict. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 00:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Kennedy, domino theorist?

Replaced cite: "John F. Kennedy. America's Stakes in Vietnam. Speech to the American Friends of Vietnam, June 1956." with fact check. Read the speech for yourself at[8]
Neither 'domino' nor 'theory', nor anything resembling the domino theory are anywhere in the entire speech.
Personally, I will be disappointed if it gets removed. I do enjoy this Reds under the Bed idea of communism as some amorphous floating Thing making its way on the tradewinds to Hawaii and then inevitably making its evil way to California. "Look, see, dominos fall, so..." But perhaps it would be for the best.
Also absurd is the uncited notion that GIs in Viet Nam were the inspiration for soldiers in the film Aliens. Heinlein's Starship Troopers was first published in 1959. 'Nuff said. Anarchangel (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Starship Troopers was of course inspired by the Korean War. This reminds me of MASH, which so many people think is about Vietnam, even though the characters say "Korea" several times in every episode. Kauffner (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

MASH was about Vietnam; it was just set in Korea. As for Kennedy, he was a disciple of the domino theory. From the link that was removed, "First, Vietnam represents the cornerstone of the Free World in Southeast Asia, the keystone to the arch, the finger in the dike. Burma, Thailand, India, Japan, the Philippines and obviously Laos and Cambodia are among those whose security would be threatened if the Red Tide of Communism overflowed into Vietnam." The metaphors are slightly different, but the underlying principle is the same. Cripipper (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No link was removed. I provided one. You're welcome. And readers of this page are now welcome to indulge in paranoid fantasy to their heart's content. Anarchangel (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

By your own admission above, it was. And just because something was a deluded paranoid fantasy, it didn't mean people didn't believe in it... Cripipper (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a link. It was a cite. You know, the ones where they write down roughly which speech it was and then someone else has to go find the actual site online? I won't bother with 'you're welcome' this time, I have wasted enough time already. And you are correct. Inasmuch as Wiki is the repository of verifiability and not truth, it is indeed includable. Anarchangel (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That is the most idiotic thing ive seen in this talk page. Well...one of the most. Cripipper, MASH was about the KOREAN war. What with the fact that war took place during it, the show was about it, the show was set in it, and the characters in the show mention it. That it carried on until after Vietnam war finished should have tipped you off. A new WW2 movie has nothing to do with the current Iraq conflict, nor did MASH. The reaction to MASH mirrored the reaction to Vietnam because they were both similar wars in relation to reasons for, damage during and the US atrocities. How moronic do you have to be to think MASH was about Vietnam. 121.221.130.77 (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

"Provisional military demarcation line"

Partition in the context of the Geneva Conference (1954) is, in short, a lie. A lie repeated all too often on this page and others. It even has its own page. The Geneva Accords carefully worded the division as a "provisional military demarcation line", "on either side of which the forces of the two parties shall be regrouped after their withdrawal". To specifically put aside any notion that it was a partition, they further stated, "The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Vietnam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary" -The United States in Vietnam: An analysis in depth of the history of America's involvement in Vietnam by George McTurnan Kahin and John W. Lewis Delta Books, 1967, which also includes the full text of many related documents including the Geneva Agreements. Partition is the redrawing of political boundaries between two countries. Had the Geneva conference in fact attempted to do such, they would also have to have established that northern and southern vietnam were countries, so that they could draw their boundaries, and then redraw them. Partition is utterly unacceptable as a word in this article period, it has no relevance to it and it never will. Anarchangel (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2008 (U

I really don't see the problem. The net result of Geneva was that Vietnam was partitioned, whatever the text of the treaty. This was certainly understood at the time. In fact, it was South Vietnam's pretext for refusing to sign the agreement. Few failed to notice that Geneva's terms were striking similar to what the great powers arranged earlier in Korea -- terms which resulted in permanent partition. There is good reason to think this was deliberate. Zhou Enlai drafted the preliminary text of the treaty. From a Chinese point of view, a divided Vietnam was less of a threat. Kauffner (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I looked at Korea's agreement, and it is similar, assuming they were both printed on paper. Course, Korea's might have been on a postcard. It sure read like one. Wish you were here, we're loving sunny Cairo, and btw, Korea is free. Astounding coincidence, then. They both had agreements and they both ended up partitioned...What a load of cobblers. Korea agreement was nothing like Geneva. You missed the fact that Korea's was drawn up on a napkin by Roosevelt, Chang Kai and Churchill while Geneva was a committee, somehow? And how could the wording be similar? Geneva was pages, Korea was one paragraph if you squished it together. Anarchangel (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

According to Stanley Karnow, Zhou told French Premier Mendes-France that "he foresaw the probability of 'two Vietnams'" (p. 218). At a farewell dinner after the conference, he suggested that South Vietnam open a diplomatic mission in Beijing. (p. 220). South Vietnamese Premier Diem rejected the agreement, saying "another more deadly war" lay ahead. (p. 221) Kauffner (talk) 08:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Johnson's Refusal to commit more Troops representing Culmination?

{{editsemiprotected}} In the Article, under the Tet offensive section, the second to last sentence states : "His refusal to send more U.S. troops to Vietnam was Johnson's admission that the war was lost." This is not cited and I have reasoning to believe it is incorrect. In the Article "Strategic Reassessment in Vietnam: The Westmoreland "Alternate Strategy" of 1967-1968" Brigadier General [Then Colonel] Charles F. Brower IV., U.S. Army alludes to the sensitivity of implementing politically dangerous mobilization (i.e. Troop Escalations of up to an "optimum level" 300,000 for operations in Laos or Cambodia, and a possible North Vietnam invasion.) in the face of an approaching election year.

This does not mean that he thought the war was a failure at the end of his term of office. More likely, it means that he was wary that increased mobilization and pursuing alternate strategies would be admitting that his attrition strategy had failed, and would thus be political suicide. Furthermore, he did increase Troop levels by 55,000, far short of Westmoreland's requests, but against McNamara's established 470,000 troop ceiling.

Please Remove the passage: "His refusal to send more U.S. troops to Vietnam was Johnson's admission that the war was lost."

It has no factual grounding.

 Done —Ms2ger (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree, with the qualification that although it has many and varied bases in fact, it can never be more than a wide sweeping generalization with that wording, and is removable for that reason alone. A suitable replacement or replacements must be inserted in its place. Anarchangel (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Johnson's troop decision was election year politics motivated by his poor showing in the New Hampshire primary. It had nothing to do with Tet or the military situation in Vietnam. There's no reason to think Eugene McCarthy voters were more dovish than Johnson voters. Eugene was an unknown at the time and many voters assumed that he was related to Joe McCarthy. Kauffner (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

A good case for the argument that "His refusal to send more U.S. troops to Vietnam indicated Johnson's understanding that the war was unpopular." Your second sentence, in the light of the first third and fourth, is tantamount to saying that he stood at his window, looking out on the demonstrators across the White House lawn from him, and just chose at random to not do something, because his poll numbers were low, and the random choice happened to be not sending in troops. Anarchangel (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Johnson's poor showing was because of the Vietnam War. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sending in more troops would have been a negative politically because it would been interpreted as a confession that existing U.S. strategy wasn't working. The pattern of Johnson's poll numbers suggest that the urban race riots had a much bigger influence on his popularity than Vietnam did. Kauffner (talk) 05:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that you know a great deal about this subject, but you really have to stop taking wild and original stabs in the research dark and claiming it is the true course of events. First the above contradiction, then, you can't tell if Johnson lost votes from hawkish voters. Only you try and say it as though not knowing means that VN war wasn't a factor. Then you puncture your own argument by saying McCarthy's unfortunate name was to blame for his poor showing. If that is so, then McCarthy stops being a factor over and above VN. Now it's race riots. Or are you just musing out loud? I feel it would be best to treat it as such. Anarchangel (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I never meant to imply that McCarthy's name had a significant impact on the vote in New Hampshire. I was just trying illustrate how unknown he was at the time. People were voting for or against Johnson and McCarthy's anti-war agenda was either irrelevant or unknown to the vast majority. The race riots gave many Americans the sense that the country was unraveling, which is why Johnson's poll numbers fell and why people in New Hampshire might think that it was time for new leadership. Kauffner (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

But the press at the time did portray Johnsons decision as an admision that the war was unwinable.[[Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)]]

Recommendation: Under the heading ‘Commanders”,

Recommendation: Under the heading ‘Commanders”, this should be split into two categories; one could be ‘National Leaders’ and the other ‘Military Leaders’. Meyerj (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

<Ref> problems with this article need fixing

WP:GTL#Notes, Footnotes, or References says that those sections should precede the Further reading and External links sections (if any). This article is compliant with that. As is common practice, this article expands Ref-packaged footnotes in the Notes section. No problem with that.

However this article has Ref-tag-packaged material located in sections which follow the Notes section. Since footnotes have already been expanded at this point, this material is not included in the article. The superscripted boxed numerical links associated with the unexpanded material are present in the article, but are nonfunctional. (The WP:Cite.php software which handles Ref-packaged material does not detect this unexpected error condition, and ends up misnumbering the superscripted boxed links)

I suggest that this problem be corrected by someone who has more familiarity with this article than I. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Because I read a lot of books in US and in VN, they considered the Vietnam War as the fighting between American and Vietnamese...

Firstly, I need to ask all of you: Do you think the Vietnam War is the conflict between Vietnamese, or between American and Vietnamese?

And Who caused that war? Daocongkhai76.200.161.84 (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I started this article and stopped when I got annoyed! It says that successive U.S. administrations overestimated Hanoi's control of the NLF quoted Robert McNamara former U.S. defence secretary's current views. I am sorry that is just plain wrong! At the time there was a great deal of propaganda from the pro-communists about how the NLF was an 'independent organisation' and 'hadn't anything to do with the North' and the North didn't want to 'annex the South it just wanted to free it' blah, blah. I believe one of the first things the North did when it conquered the South (by conventional military assault btw) was disband the remmants of the NLF (of which nothing has been heard of since despite the takeover of the south by the North). The total control of the North in directing the 'Viet Cong' is fairly obvious when you start to look into, such as with the decision to speed up the insurgency with North Vietnamese troops directly and all the decisons, such as the Tet offensive coming direct from Hanoi.

Also I read something recently which says though the Tet Offensive was seen as a defeat for the U.S. at the time (through the dubious prism of the Media!) it was of course a defeat for the Communists (Viet Cong) which were practically wiped out. The Viet Cong, of course, having finally came out of hiding to fight.

A section on how media commentators wanted the Communists to win over their own forces and those that have subsequently recanted would be interesting (sorry can't rember the commentators!). Whilst directly linking the triumph of the Communists to the subversion in the U.S. would be useful as a reminder that ultimately this ended in the Communist 're-education camps' and the killing fields. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.243.150 (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that Mcnamara did not say that or that what he said was not true? It has been sugested that Tet was a deliberate attempt by Hanoi to destroy the VC because they were more independantly minded then Hanoi would like.

- Hello, I meant that surely this quote from Macnamara isn't based upon fact in reality. I am afraid I have never heard that theory about Tet sounds an interesting one, but surely Tet was designed (by attacking the population centres all controlled by South Vietnamese forces) to destroy the Army of South Vietnam leaving the United States forces no option to evacuate? (Again can't quite remember where I read that sorry!).

But as Mcnamara was the man who had access to intel at the time its reasonable to assume that he has some knowledge of the subject. As well as some reason to believe what he said was true.

At the moment this is the only source I can find for the deliberate destruction of the VC http://www.nam-vet.net/book1_11.html but its not the one I recall the claim from, I just can't remember were I read it.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)]]

(inserted inline) I vaguely recall that On Strategy By Harry G. Summers or A Bright Shining Lie By Neil Sheehan may say something about that, but I could be misremembering. I've lost my copies of those books and I have no access to libraries, so can't check. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The article does say "Despite its military failure, the Tet Offensive became a political victory" Thus making it clear it was a defeat for the Communists. As well as "After the war, North Vietnamese officials acknowledged that the Tet Offensive had, indeed, caused grave damage to NLF forces.", and "decimating the ranks of the NLF". Prety much saying that tehy had indead suffers great losses. So your second point seems to already be coverd in the article.

As to the media wnating the Communists to win, that is harder to justify withiin the article as it is very much POV. Much of the latter opposition to the war was caused by the applainig public relations of the Johnston administration (such as knowing about Tet but making statements about the inability of the communists to mount such an operation). Moreover the issue of the atni-war movment is rather more complex then the 'stab in the back' theory. Moreover many of the most vocal oponents of the war were Vetrans, hardley traitors bent on the defeat of the US (after all tehy had done of what so many of those who supported it had not done, served).[[Slatersteven (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)]]

- Okay mostly POV sorry! :) I did read about one media commentator of the time who said later 'basically we wanted the communists to win', sorry don't know who that was! I think the whole 'Ho Ho Chi Minh' chanting; 'NLF' flag carrying; throwing excrament (I read that somewhere) over the coffins of US soldiers, etc by students shows they weren't 'anti-war' but very pro- the other side. I remeber something about Henry Kissinger saying the Communists at the Geneva accords used to taunt them with what the protestors had been saying. Then there is the whole 'Hanoi Jane' fellow travellor stuff. I agree Veterans had served their country and could say what the heck they liked :)But surely there was the element of taking on a fashionable cause at the time (?), was there anyone back then in the military who said pull-out would in reality mean 'defeat'. I always think it is quite ironic after Kennedy said about bearing any sacrifice for the sake of freedom which turned out not to be the case. Something I read suggested that the fall of South Vietnam encouraged Communist insurgencies in Latin America and Africa and lots of them fell to the Communists and didn't really stop till Reagan came to power. Thanks for getting back to me with your interesting and informative views.

No doubt there were those in America who wanted a communist victory (such as Hanoi Jane, and the shameful exhibition of the treatment of coffins), just as much as there were those who opposed the war on moral grounds (such as Croncite who seems to have been turned of the war by the civilian loss of life), or those who resented what they saw as a meaningless sacrifice or an uncaring country (the state of Veterans hospitals at the time for example). There is a suggestion that the peace movement was unimportant until after Tet (and that the press were largely supportive until Tet) and that even after Tet it was only the ending of deferments that seriously undermined core support for the war (and was a factor in Johnsons refusal to increase troop numbers). The issue of the peaqce movment is a complex one, with no one reason for its existance (and it should not be forgoten that every US war has had one). I am not sure that the events in Africa or the Americas have any real relevance to the issue of the peace movement in the US.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)]]

Hello, that's very interesting I agree with a lot of what you have to say. But I do think that Wikipedia's article on the Viet Conmg seems pretty fair and balanced (and well-researched to me). From that it does seem fairly clear from that that North Vietnamese control of it was total, which would then seem kind of strange to have the Macnamara quote (about not realsing their level of independence) in the Vietnam War Article which seems to be arguing something completely different to the Viet Cong one (especially since they were absorbed into another organisation and then disolved in 1977 acccording to the Viet Cong article). It just seems incoorcet on that basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.243.150 (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, on the other hand reliable sources have been provided for the claim that the Hanoi government had issues with a too independent VC. [[Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)]]

Hehe, yes Wikipedia isn't a reliable source :) However since the North conquered the South and annexed it and the NLF (which was an indigenious anti-governmental, etc force in the 'anti-war' propaganda) which was wound up by them after the war, and what I understand as being a recognised front for the Communists (by Hanoi's control over it) I can't see any merit in the article seeming to contain an untruth. For example what is the evidence that the VC acting independently? Against Hanoi's wishes? Sorry I seem to obsessing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.243.150 (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Tgoung Nhu Tang (former PRG Minister of justice) writes that there were bitter policy disputes between PRG and Hanoi. Also during the Kisinger talks the PRG offerd its own peace deal seperate from Hanoi.[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)]]

Well that is pretty interesting, I stand corrected hadn't heard that before. I noticed the pargraph has become:

"Successive American administrations, as Robert McNamara and others have noted, overestimated the control that Hanoi had over the NLF.[15] Diem's paranoia, repression, and incompetence progressively angered large segments of the population of South Vietnam.[52] Thus, many maintain that the origins of the anti-government violence were homegrown, rather than inspired by Hanoi.[53] Historian Douglas Pike asserts that, "today, no serious historian would defend the thesis that North Vietnam was not involved in the Vietnam war from the start.... To maintain this thesis today, one would be obliged to deal with the assertions of Northern involvement that have poured out of Hanoi since the end of the war."[54]"

Do you think it should say "However Historian Douglas Pike..." as he seems to be making the opposite point?

t would seem fair.[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)]]

Tony Poe = Anthony Alexander Poshepny

This is near the end of the "Coups and assasinations" section:

Current text:

One legendary Paramilitary Operations Officer was named Tony Poe. He was assigned with J. Vinton Lawrence to train Hmong hill tribes in Laos to fight North Vietnamese and Pathet Lao forces. In Laos, Poe gained the respect of the Hmong forces with practices that were barbaric even by anyones standards. His Hmong fighters to bring him the ears of dead enemy soldiers, and, on at least one occasion, he mailed a bag of ears to the US embassy in Vientiane to prove his body counts. He dropped severed heads onto enemy locations twice in a grisly form of psy-ops. Although his orders were only to train forces, he also went into battle with them and was wounded several times by shrapnel. He received two Intelligence Stars, the CIA's equivalent of the Silver Star, an award that is rare for a person to receive one. Several press stories have suggested that Poshepny was the model for Colonel Walter Kurtz in the film Apocalypse Now.

Suggested text:

One legendary Paramilitary Operations Officer (known as Tony Poe) was named Anthony Alexander Poshepny. He was assigned with J. Vinton Lawrence to train Hmong hill tribes in Laos to fight North Vietnamese and Pathet Lao forces. In Laos, Poshepny gained the respect of the Hmong forces with practices that were barbaric by anyone's standards. His Hmong fighters brought him the ears of dead enemy soldiers, and, on at least one occasion, he mailed a bag of ears to the US embassy in Vientiane to prove his body counts. He dropped severed heads onto enemy locations twice in a grisly form of psy-ops. Although his orders were only to train forces, he also went into battle with them and was wounded several times by shrapnel. He received two Intelligence Stars, the CIA's equivalent of the Silver Star, an award which very few people receive even once. Several press stories have suggested that Poshepny was the model for Colonel Walter Kurtz in the film Apocalypse Now.

(I tried to fix a couple of grammatical errors, but my main concern is that in the original text the name "Posephny" is used in the last paragraph without having been properly introduced beforehand.)

Marie519 (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Opening Intro is Fairly Confusing

It says "The Vietcong, the lightly armed South Vietnamese communist insurgency, largely fought a guerrilla war against anti-communist forces in the region." Is it me or this slightly unclear? It almost makes it seem like South Vietnam, the US ally, was called "Vietcong" and was a Communist Insurgency. Perhaps it should read "Vietcong, a lightly armed communist insurgency based within South Vietnam, largely fought...". This is because South Vietnam was the official name of one of the belligerents in this war so we have to differentiate between the region and the government/organization/nation(?). Would you guys agree? Fatrb38 (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That would certainly be an improvement, although they were actually based in Cambodia for much the war. Kauffner (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it seems clear enough that the South Vietnamese communists were called the Vietcong. That they fought the Anti-communist forces. Iperhapscoulde worded better but how, as has been said they were based largley in cambodia, but were (at least at first) South Vietnamese. how about "The Vietcong, the lightly armed insurgency of the South Vietnamese communists, largely fought a guerrilla war against anti-communist forces in the region iluding the Goenemnt of SVN."[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)]]

Chemical warfare & War crimes & reparations (epilogue)

While the part about the chemical poisoning of the land "needs additional citations" I myself wonder, why people responsible for that never answered at the international war-crime tribunals? Even thought USA lost the war and it is widely known the crimes against civilian populace were severe nobody answered for those. Nobody paid any damages (that I know of). It is very convenient to have a puppet state wage war for you it seems. Maybe someone can enlighten me a bit. By the way - it is stated in the article that " Civilian deaths were put at two million in the North and South, and economic reparations were expected. " So any more info about that? Since USA is one of those countries that can actually afford to pay for what they have done (for example Germany in 1918 could not and that spawned more nonsense). Neikius (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As there was no international war crimes tribune at the time there is no need for the article to mention that no US personnel (or NV for that matter) were ever tied for war crimes (I assumes that you are talking about improving the article and not soap boxing). Nor (as far as I am aware have any indictments ever been issued, so again there is nothing for the article to include. Certainly if you can provide source to state that there have been calls for US personnel to be tried under international war crime legislation there would be an argument for its inclusion in the article.

I agree that there sho9uld be more info on the reparations issue, if this was ever an agreement the US entered into, but if it were a unilateral decision there is no reason to include many more info then that.[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)]]

The 1973 treaty says, "the United States will contribute to healing the wounds of war and to postwar reconstruction." In a secret memorandum, Nixon explained that this would include $3.25 billion in reconstruction aid to North Vietnam, as well as $1.5 billion in other aid. Since the communists didn't live up to their end of the agreement, I don't see a basis on which they can collect. Kauffner (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Was the aid package dependant on their obeying the conditioned of the cease fire, or was it in fact not related (other then being a sweetener). For example the letter says.

1) The Government of the United States of America will contribute to post-war reconstruction in North Vietnam without any political conditions

This would to indicate that the aid had no strings attached regarding non compliance with other agreement or pre-conditions.

3) The United States will propose to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam the establishment of a United States-North Vietnamese Joint Economic Commission within 30 days from the date of this message

This should have been implemented before any major infringements by the North occurred (although there had been infringements from the first).

This "pledge" to the North Vietnamese was made on February 1, 1973, several days after the Paris Peace Accords, ending the war, were signed. Thus, this letter was not a part of the peace agreement, nor reliant upon the conditions of the cease-fire agreement. In the letter preamble it says.

The President wishes to inform the Democratic Republic of Vietnam of the principles which will govern United States participation in the postwar reconstruction of North Vietnam.

Thus the letter states that it will be the contents (and compliance with those contents) that will govern aid the North Vietnam, not compliance with the cease fore agreement. It does also say that.

As indicated in Article 21 of The Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam signed in Paris on January 27, 1973, the United States undertakes this participation in accordance with its traditional policies. These principles are as follows:

But this reinforces the above point as article 21 says.

Article 21 The United States anticipates that this Agreement will usher in an era of reconciliation with the Democratic Republic of Viet- Nam as with all the peoples of Indochina. In pursuance of its traditional policy, the United States will contribute to healing the wounds of war and to post-war reconstruction of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam and throughout Indochina.

It no where states that this is conditional upon compliance.[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)]]

VCs

A new VC was awarded to an Australian serviceman this year. Brentonjames (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

For service in Vietnam?[[Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)]]

split article(s)

very long article, I would create more seperate articles and/or take some of the "fat" out of this article.

Define 'the fat'[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)]]

interesting! i love Vietnam! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.172.12 (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Fix Link in Footnote 79

The google books link runs right across both columns and inhibits readability. Would someone edit it to display as a short text link, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toyblocks (talk • contribs) 02:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The psychological and physical degradation of American soldiers in the Vietnam War

The harrowing and catastrophic events that plagued the American soldiers during the Vietnam War truly are unimaginable. Not only did the soldiers endure physical pain while crossing enemy lines in Vietnam, but they were also faced with psychological obstacles as well. Three movies that strongly portray an American soldier’s physical and psychological deficits while in Vietnam include Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, and The Deer Hunter. Each movie portrays harrowing and unforgettable scenes of gore, which invokes sympathy within the viewer as the viewer witnesses the Americans human condition slowly deteriorate. Full Metal Jacket is a movie directed by Stanley Kubrick, which is a deromanticization of the Vietnam War. This highly political and second wave film was originally based on the 1979 novel The Short-Timers. The Short-Timers, written by Gustav Hasford, is based on the experience of Hasford while serving in Vietnam (Full Metal Jacket). Full Metal Jacket portrays many brutal scenes that portray each of the soldier’s loss of humanity and each of the soldier’s desire to kill and stay alive. Stanley Kubrick’s film is a prime example of the psychologically effects the brutal war tactics of the combatants of the Vietnam War played on the American soldiers. Sergeant Hartman takes it upon himself to buck up a group of timid boys and turn them into merciless soldiers ready for battle. Psychologically and physically, Hartman tears away at the young men preparing them for the worst and most unexpected of events that will take place in Vietnam. Initially, the movie takes place within the training camp as the Marines prepare for war, in the second half the soldiers battle to survive in Vietnam. Although the soldiers are ready for battle, they each face a loss of humanity and are confronted with the desire of revenge. Each of the soldiers is in a way dehumanized and forced to fill the roles of unborn killers. One particular scene, which is quite memorable from Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket, is the scene in which one of the characters known as Private Joker is confronted with the task of killing a pre-teen sniper. Private Joker is forced to give up and ignore any sense of compassion and sincerity, and must do what is best for his country and fellow comrades. The scene is a battle between an unadulterated protagonist and a callous antagonist; however, Private Joker is strictly doing what is best for his country and for his survival. This scene encompasses the Joker’s loss of humanity and shows the tactics and skills he had learned from Sergeant Hartman; a loss of humanity and vigor for violence. This unforgettable scene of gore shows how the solider will do anything for himself and his comrade to survive and make it out of war alive. Their immorality on the battlefield helps them to survive, and defeat as many Vietnamese as possible. Francis Ford Coppola is the director and producer of the first wave Vietnam movie Apocalypse Now. Apocalypse Now is an extremely unique film representing the Vietnam War. Coppola’s film became infamous because of its extensive production documented in Hearts of Darkness: A filmmaker’s Apocalypse. Hearts of Darkness depicts the troubles the crew went through while filming the movie, including weather conditions and actor’s health (Hearts of Darkness). Coppola does a unique job of portraying how a soldier deteriorates mentally and physically throughout the war with his use of Martin Sheen’s narrative. Sheen’s character, Captain Benjamin L. Willard, does a magnificent job of expressing his deep and darkest nightmares throughout. The audience is able to follow Willard’s journey, discover his most fearful nightmares, and experience his adventures through his narration. The viewer listens to his psychological degradation and witnesses his physical dilapidation. Although Apocalypse Now entails numerous battle scenes that portray a soldier’s loss of humanization, one specific scene portrays Captain Willard’s callousness. While riding down the river, the group of soldiers spots a boat hosting Vietnamese civilians. Although Willard protests against stopping, the crew insists that the civilians may be smuggling supplies. Bullets break out when one of the Vietnamese civilians reaches for something unknown to the American soldiers. Willard refuses to save the one badly hurt surviving civilian, and ends up shooting her mercilessly. The killing of the young civilian depicts Willard as a callous killer, which the Vietnam War has turned him into. Ernest Giglio’s book Here’s Looking At You describes the incentive of the soldiers within the war as those who understood that, “war could not be fought by conventional means, nor could it be won by civilized methods” (pg 206). His main goal is to survive, and do what is best for himself. Willard is psychologically degraded and has obtained a bleak outlook on life. The soldiers were worn down and after killing the young girl Willard’s thoughts are, “It was the way we had over here of living with ourselves. We’d cut ‘em in half with a machine gun and give ‘em a bandaid” (Dirks). Humanity was for those who didn’t believe in survival. Michael Cimino’s star filled film The Deer Hunter portrays a group of young steelworker’s adventures in the Vietnam War. Cimino’s film is loosely inspired by Three Comrades, a German novel written in 1937 regarding a trio of World War I veterans. The Deer Hunter, a first wave film, coveys and goes into the deep understanding of the mental consequences Vietnam had on such young American soldiers. The movie’s title accounts for the metaphor of ‘deer hunting’- both from the perspective of the hunter and from the perspective of the game target. Cimino’s extremely political and emotional film portrays three young men and their struggle to survive in Vietnam. Each of the men endures unimaginable torture by the Vietnamese combatants, and is forced to survive by means of forgetting humanity and embracing a killer’s attitude. The battle scenes represented in the film strongly depict the physical torment but also reveals the unimaginable psychological damage a soldier faces. One of the most memorable scenes of The Deer Hunter is when the American soldiers are forced into a game of Russian roulette for the Vietnamese guards’ entertainment. Before playing in the game, the prisoners are forced to stay in an underwater trap with rats until called for the next game. While waiting, one of the soldiers, Steven, breaks down. He can hear the gun shot up above him, and the psychological effect plays deep into his conscious. The fear and anxiety of what is to come of him takes over; these were tactics of the Vietnamese. The Vietnamese also have an underwater cell with rats trapping the victim with bamboo sticks covering their escape. The game itself forces the prisoner to question his life, whether or not the next bullet will kill him or not, it portrays the callous absurdity of war. Finally, two American soldiers overcome the guards with their own ideas of loading the gun with enough bullets to kill the guards with guns. The two men are forced to overcome their psychological anxieties and rely on their instincts as prisoners of war. The soldiers were psychologically degraded and in the time of war, lost their sense of humanity and focused on survival. These three films superbly delineate the psychological and physical effects the American soldiers endured while fighting in Vietnam. Each of these artists have monumental themes within their Vietnam War films, the dehumanization of the soldiers conveys more than just the portrayal of the physical and psychological degradation of the soldiers in Vietnam. These young men put their lives in extreme danger for their country, although many believed the war was unnecessary and unsupported, the soldiers were doing their duty to America. Physically, emotionally, psychologically they were tortured, beat down, and tormented. Upon arriving back in the U.S, they received no support, and were left with nothing but war wounds. Ernest Giglio touches on this aspect of the war in his book “Here’s Looking At You” in which he states “Vietnam veterans returned to America in silence, either ignored or scorned by their country. There were no heroes in this war” (pg 203). The underlying theme and messages within these movies surrounding Vietnam is the fact that the American soldiers fought an unsupported war. The Vietnam War lead to the degradation of the American society, nationalism was non-existent. “Hollywood focused on the American presence rather than on the Vietnamese people who endured and suffered through the war,” states Ernest Giglio on the film industry’s portrayal of the Vietnam War (pg 210). The American soldiers returned to an ungrateful nation when instead the nation should have paid homage to their efforts and struggles to survive in war. Physical and psychological degradation ruined many of the soldier’s lives, and it occurred because of the brutality of war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsands (talk • contribs) 19:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

British Forces

I happen to personally know a British RAF Vietnam War veteran, and yet its not mentioned in many places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.185.163 (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)