Talk:Vietnam War

videogame

I know this is unimportant but their have been alot more video games about the war than the ones listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.2.82 (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"Result" flaw

OK, I hope I'm doing this right. Looking at the narrow picture of whether this was a victory or a defeat (or something else, then what?) for the U.S., first, let's get past the jargon. #1: how do you justify the statement that "the US military won pretty much every battle in the war"? It is just the wrong measuring stick to use for this kind of a war. The key to the military-political strategy of the Vietnamese was to engage the US in a long drawn out war of attrition that would cost too much and tire us out. That most definitely succeeded. The comment directly below me is mostly biased political jargon. The narrow goals of the US were not met: a pro-US government was not preserved and was not in any state of being able to survive on its own upon withdrawal. That really counts as a "loss". In terms of pitched battles, that wasn't the main strategy of the PAVN/NLF, where the main tactic was guerilla warfare. So you are comparing apples to oranges. Yes, your apples are brighter red, perhaps, but the oranges are juicier.

grog225 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grog225 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that the statement "the US military won pretty much every battle in the war" is menaingless given the stratagy adopted by both sides it is not hard to justify the statement (it is true), its just not relevant.[[Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)]]

Look, all that I am saying, and I am sure others are too, is that the US military won pretty much every battle in the war. It is very hard to say a superpower was defeated in a war that it won all the battles. The correct term would be US withdrawal and a communist victory over South Vietnam. Nobody is trying to be G.W. Bush (look where it got him: ELECTED TWICE & NO FURTHER US ATTACKS SINCE 9/11 - the bad part is we now have 4 years of Obama the screw up), we are simply stating that there was far more to the story that "the North won." Of course Pakistan, China, Russia etc. are going to say the US was defeated. There was no military defeat, plain and simple. That is the point. The result should be worded differently because 20 years down the road children are not going to know what happened. As far as teaching thins in US schools, maybe if they instilled a sense of history these things would not happen. I have studied topics like this for many years and know many people who were there. In no way was the US defeated militarily. We withdrew. Politically we were defeated, but when on the topic of a war by saying the North won it seems as if the US military lost. It did not. Pure and simple.

[[[User:WWIIKVIAI]] 16:41, 10 May, 2009(UTC)]

The communists never sought to defeat the overwhelmingly superior US forces in battle. Their strategy was a war of attrition, keeping up the fight until the enemy could no longer afford fighting (politically and economically). In this they succeeded. From a purely military standpoint it is of course very irrational to slug through the mud and fire pop-guns at the enemy when you can just drop nuclear bombs until the population is exterminated. But there are other consideration; war is the continuation of politics by other means after all.

The US was also fighting a war of attrition, and in that they lost. They were not willing to take the same casualties as the Communists. In a war of attrition its not how many battles you win, its the last man standing that counts, inn that the North won, they were the last combatants in the field. Moreover the US military is not yet the US government or nation; it is a branch of it. So whilst it may be true (if we ignore the fact that the US military chose a strategy that failed to bring it victory) that the US military did not lose the war the US nation did, it failed to achieve its aims. [[Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)]]

So the political goals were not met but the US did not lose? what other criteria is there for losing a war then not achiving what you set out to do. No one is saying it was milliterily defeated, what they are saying is that the US lost the war by failing to achive most (and argualbly all) of its stated war aims. If you withdraw from a fight, and the fight is not over then you have lost it.[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)]]

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)

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)]]

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)

Kauffner, after reading many of your comments, it does appear to me that your position is primarily political. Why would you, if you are serious, engage in ad hominems against Noam Chomsky? For example, you declare him a supporter of Pol Pot and nothing I've read of his seems to support that view. Granted, I haven't read everything, but what I recall is that Chomsky questioned the attribution of 2 million deaths to the Khmer Rouge and blamed the US for a percentage of the deaths caused by starvation on actions by the US (for example, bombing Cambodia). What I read also condemned the actions of the Khmer Rouge but pointed out that atroctities of similar scale were often overlooked if undertaken by US allies (I think his main example is the U.S. blocking of U.N action against Indonesia for the invasion of East Timor). This seems to be a far cry from what you characterize as an endorsement of the Khmer Rouge. I could be wrong, maybe Chomsky did endorse the Khmer Rouge and you can produce the evidence to back up that contention. I'll be waiting for citation.Grog225 (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2009 (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)

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)

I think there is a point to be made, though, that the article gives no clear reason for the motivation of the Vietnamese who opposed French/U.S. policies. The broader Cold War context is mentioned, but I think it betrays our own cold war tinted glasses to think that Vietnamese communists just acted out of a desire to be a tool of Soviet plans for global domination. The situation was far more complex and nuanced than that. This article does not address that. Grog225 (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In a sence it was a nationalist conflict. In a sence an ideological one.[[Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 9 June 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)

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)

There are persistent rumours of British involvement in Vietnam, but no really hard evidence. We have this http://www.tf116.org/vgallery1.html It looks like an Avro Vulcan. In addition there were relief flights (it appears) using Beverlys to deliver food aid. John Parker's book, SBS: the inside story of the Special Boat Service (London: Headline, 1997) mentioned that SBS personnel were training the Vietnamese Lien Doi Nguoi Nhai (LDNN) (Vietnamese SEALs) alongside with U.S. Navy SEALs advisors. However there is mostly a rather dubious collection of hearsay and rumour. There were certainly personnel attached to the embassy but not in any military role. Moreover your cliam is very much OR now3 if you can provide reliable sources then include your claim in the article.[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)]]

The British Government under Harold Wilson on several occasions declined to become involved in the Vietnam War despite repeated 'pleas' by Lyndon B Johnson. Johnson wanted outside involvement in order to make the war seem more like a UN action rather than simply a US one, and he was also seeking to gain from British experience of successful jungle warfare gained in the Malayan Emergency. The reason for Wilson's refusal was the US's response to the Suez Crisis and Operation Musketeer, in which the US was perceived by the Wilson government as having seriously pissed-on British interests.

Small numbers of Special Air Service (and possibly SBS) personnel were operating 'unofficially', i.e., clandestinely, alongside US troops, mainly in training US Special Forces, and in acting as observers reporting back to the UK government. Their observations on the US forces handling of the conflict, re: the likelihood of US success, and of the level of training of the US ground troops, were not of an optimistic nature, and this may have discouraged any later thoughts of joining the war alongside the US after Wilson left office. Another possible reason was the large number of British and Commonwealth reporters present during the war, and the sometimes-graphic news reports by them that were broadcast on the then-three UK TV channels, and on popular documentary programmes such as World in Action - John Pilger was a notable reporter whose reports stirred-up several hornet's nests at the time regarding the US behaviour in Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.20 (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems British personnnel were in Vietnam (and one RAF officer was killed there) but never officially and never as whole units. The SBS may possibly have been there. The SAS definately weren't as they were extremely busy elsewhere. Other personnel would have been on secondment to US and Australian units that were posted to Vietnam and they may have defied orders and gone into battle.

The Britain's Small Wars website, an excellent site for ex-servciemen's stories, has had an appeal out for some time for anyone with any firm information to come forward and no-one has.213.249.162.132 (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Matériel losses

What where the matériel losses by the anti-communist during the Vietnam War, either from the French, or from the US period of involvement? I know there is an article on the aircraft losses, but the Vietnam War was not fought only in the air. Everything from naval vessels to handguns was lost as part of the ground combat. Where are these statistics available from?--124.184.92.15 (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

odd sentence

There's an odd sentence in the Diem Era section:

"However, this wide popularity was expressed before Ho's land reform program and the suppression of a peasant revolt in Ho's home province,[citation needed] and Diem's imprisonment of 20,000 communists in reeducation camps"

I can see how Ho Chi Minh's popularity could have been affected after a land reform or supposed peasant revolt (although the latter is unsubstantiated, and his popularity was most likely linked to the land reforms, as the land reforms gave peasants back their land from the French-allied landlords and landlords in general), but how would Diem's imprisonment of 20,000 communists make Ho any less popular? Um, does the author of this sentence actually think that such "reeducation" would have turned those 20,000 into French-loving, peasant-hating, capitalist bastards?

It's an odd sentence, needs rewording. The claim regarding a peasant revolt should also be deleted since no citation has been provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.143.199 (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Land reform led to widespread starvation, so it's assumed that this made Ho less popular.[1] This section assumes that Vietnamese voters would have to choose between Ho and Bao Dai in the never-held 1956 election, but there were also opposition leaders like such as Phan Huy Quat and Nguyen Van Hinh. Kauffner (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Dubious Claims

Notes 48 and 49 only refer to "Pentagon Papers". More specific citations would help to support the claims these are making, which I would call Dubious. I really doubt that the Vietcong murdered schoolteachers and health care workers. These are claims which need much more support than what is given. 142.104.143.199 (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that clear sources wouldn't hurt, do you really put it past militant communists?Prussian725 (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of the serious attrocities during the Vietnam War which haven't been proven to be false accusations after thorough investigations were the responsibility of US and South Vietnamese forces. The Viet Cong and the NVA after all were both originally, predominantly nationalist political organisations with few weapons and even fewer communist ideas. It was only after they had nearly the full weight of the West's energies thrown at them in lead that they turned to the Communism and therefore the USSR.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought they were. They give the book name, Author and page number. Of course publisher and year of publication would be nice, but from the information provided you can find the book in question. [[Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)]]

The article has been evolving, complicating this. Notes 48 and 49 of this version of the article (10:59, March 22, 2009, the same timeframe as the opening of this thread) are numbered 78 and 79 today. They refer, respectively, to "Pentagon Papers Gravel, 335." and "Pentagon Papers Gravel, p. 337." I'm doubtful about whether or not I would be able to verify that easily even if I had a copy of the Pentagon papers handy.

The unsupported remark "I really doubt that the Vietcong murdered schoolteachers and health care workers." strikes me as a bit naive, though. I haven't been able to quickly come up with an on-target refutation of that in the context of the Vietnam war, but War and Public Health, Oxford University Press US, 2007, p. 277, ISBN 9780195311181 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help), speaking of El Salvador in the 1980s, says, "Before the war, 1,000 Salvadoran civilians were 'disappeared' or killed each month—union leaders, student activists, peasant organizers, health care workers, catholic priests, nuns and lay church leaders ...". There are people in the world today who are prepared to kill innocents in order to achieve a political objective; there were in 1980; there were in the 1960s; there were in other eras. When heaven and earth change, Plume, 1990, p. 271, ISBN 9780452271685 might give explicit support in the Vietnam context in the text surrounding the snippet "... it would be obscene to give these people work while 'honest citizens'—the Viet Cong and and North Vietnam army veterans and their supporters—are still waiting for work themselves. Unfortunately, because of their ties with the west a good many of the nation's health care ...", but that surrounding text doesn't seem to be viewable online and I'm just guessing at what it might say. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Massacre at Huế and Dak Son Massacre--Looper5920 (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikepedia is not a reliable source. The Elsalvadorian example refers to pro-govenment activities does it not, so would not give 'explicite' support to the activities of leftist rebles.[[Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)]]

WP:RS rules don't apply to informal discussions on article talk pages. Also, I didn't ring in the Salvadoran example as a cite in the article; I had it in mind that such things do happen in guerella conflicts when I mentioned it here. The incident at issue is supported by a Pentagon Papers cite which I haven't seen. assuming good faith, I presumed that the cited source does in fact support the assertion in the article. Since you ask again, I dug up another supporting source: Ayon kay Anthony James Joes (2001), The war for South Viet Nam, 1954-1975, Greenwood Publishing Group, p. 50, ISBN 780275968069 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help), "The Viet Cong boasted of their terror tactics; when, for example, in 1966, terrorists opened fire with mortars on the main market center of Saigon, killing and maiming many, the Viet Cong radio called the attack 'a resounding exploit.' Sometimes the Viet Cong would kill the entire family of an official or schoolteacher, just to make their point more effectively. ...".

(OK, that doesn't explicitly say that the VC killed schoolteachers as a terror tactic, just that they sometimes killed the families of schoolteachers.) -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS may not apply to talk pages, but I would have to say that as we are discussing how to improve the sources for the claim about killing school teachers (ect) I would have though that we should only be looking for sources that meet WP:RS. As to the El Salvadorian example, we are discussing to actions of the Guerrillas, not government forces as such it can only be used as an example of what government forces do in such wars and therefore is invalid. As is the fact that because one thing happens in a war (the Nazis gassed 11 million people) does not mean it happens in another war (by inference the US must be gassing millions in Iraq). I never challenged the source; in fact if you look I said there is no issue with them. But I also believe that if we are to discus better sourcing for the claim we should at least try and make the sources better. I would also sugest checking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines it states that WP:V (and by extension WP:RS) applies to talk pages. [[Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)]]

OK, I oversimplified. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines says that WP:V and WP:RS apply to talk pages, but not to the same extent that they apply to articles. It goes on to say "There is of course some reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation", and remarks, "it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements."

I am physically located on a small island in the Philippines, and my facilities for searching out supporting sources are limited. I did find an item which explicitly supports the assertion that the VC killed teachers, but I haven't been able to nail down citation information for it. One (apparently incomplete) copy of the document is located here in the Texas Tech University Vietnam Center and Archive. Explicit support for the assertion that the VC killed schoolteachers can be found in incident descriptions for July 26, 1961 (p.60), April 3, 1963 (p.62), September 12, 1963 (p.62), February 6, 1967 (p.69), August 5, 1967 (p.71). Support for the assertion that the VC killed medical workers can be found in a May 11, 1967 (p.70) incident. This google book search turns up a hit with the exact wording of the February 6, 1967 incident in United States, United States. Embassy (Vietnam) (1967), Viet Cong use of terror: a study, but Google Books doesn't support preview of that item.

I assert that the point that the VC killed teachers has met Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines policy requirements re WP:V and WP:RS and that the assertion that the VC did not kill teachers has not met those policy requirements. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

By you own admission "it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements.". your Tech University source does not actualy have the pages that you assert support the claim, so cannot be verified thus is OR. Google Books doesn't support preview of that item, so again cannot be verified. In fact that whole of your book search suffers from this problom.

Viet Cong did not kill teachers. http://books.google.com/books?id=2bzVAAAAIAAJ&q=%22viet+cong%22+did+not+kill+teachers&dq=%22viet+cong%22+did+not+kill+teachers&pgis=1 But you might like to look at http://books.google.com/books?id=OBC7yHS10AQC&pg=PA648&dq=%22vietcong%22+did+not+kill+teachers#PPA648,M1 (foot note 12). As I have said I do not dispute the claim (and have no issues with the sources as they stand) I just do not feel that dodgey sources or OR is a good way to go about proving the point. Also the Free world forces killed teachers too. http://books.google.com/books?id=mFiBAAAAMAAJ&q=%22vietcong%22+did+kill+teachers&dq=%22vietcong%22+did+kill+teachers&pgis=1 and http://books.google.com/books?id=KAXFjbOZriUC&pg=PA21&dq=%22vietcong%22+did+kill+teachers [[Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)]]

The VC did 18,000 assassinations in 1966-69.[2] You are claiming that none of these were teachers? The VC would pull the pin out of a grenade, give it to a student and say, "Give this to your teacher." At this time, China in the throws of the Cultural Revolution and teachers were the enemy. I recommend reading one of Douglas Pike's books on this subject. Kauffner (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me but the source you provide does not mention (or claim) anything about teachers in this context, therefore I do not have to refute something it does not say. Please provide me with the title of a Douglas Pike book about Vietnam and I will try to find it. But as we are not talking about I shall not bother to read a book on an unrelated subject. By the way did you actually bother to read http://books.google.com/books?id=OBC7yHS10AQC&pg=PA648&dq=%22vietcong%22+did+not+kill+teachers#PPA648,M1 (foot note 12). Perhaps I need to try harder lets try this one [3] or this [4] or this [5] well that’s three and I think that should be enough. [[Slatersteven (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)]]

I don't understand what you're claiming. The VC assassinated tens of thousands of South Vietnamese government employees and also killed thousands of civilians in random attacks: grenades were thrown into cafes, AK-47s used against the patrons in bars, mines planted on civilian highways (thus blowing up a busful of schoolchildren on one occassion). But somehow, miraculously, none of the people killed were teachers? Douglas Pike has all the gory details in Viet Cong: The Organization and Techniques of the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (M.I.T. Press, 1966) Kauffner (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am claiming that a source has to actuly state what you say it states, not what you infer it states. I would also ask you to actualy read my sources please. As I have said (more then once) I do not dispute the fact (nor beleive that the origionaol point was valid) I am just not happy with the quality of sources that have been provided by other editors, none of which can be either verified or support the claim (from WP:OR "Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited.", & "conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source.". Also (on the same page) "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources.". Ot to put it another way it does not matter how many wars people have killed teachers in (or hop many communists states), nor how many civilains were murderd by the VC, your sources have to state that teachers were actualy killed (see sources in my last post, please).[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)]]

Slatersteven, I think that the source titled Viet Cong use of terror: a study which I titled above amply supports this. The source itself is not at all dodgy. What is dodgy is that I have not personally verified the content I spoke of above in a copy of the source, but only in snippets from the source which I have found online. I am trying to further verify this source (difficult for me because of my location), and I will add it to the article if and when I am able to do that. In the meantime, I note that in the source above where you spoke of footnote 12, footnote 13 on the same page speaks of teachers being attacked in the Viet Cong assassination campaign. I've also found another verifiable and reliable supporting source which explicitly supports the assertion about the VC having killed schoolteachers, and I've added a cite for that into the article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Which means that you have not verified it, which means you cannot say what it says, just what you think it says (OR). Odd about the foot note I thought is was not 12 tghat said teachers were killed (hense "But you might like to look at" which was meant to convey that it was a refutation of the rather dodgey source before it (designed to convey the idea that just doing word searches in Goggle book search is not reliable)). I shall obviousley have to be more specific now and point out I have never questioned the fact, just asked that sources be provided that can be verified (do look at the sources in my last reply to of 18th) in oder to oithe question at the start, which is 'these are dodgy sources can we remove this section'.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)]]

It took me a while, but I have now to nailed down an online verifiable copy of this source. See part 1 and part 2. Explicit support for the assertion that the VC killed schoolteachers can be found in incident descriptions for July 26, 1961 (p.60), April 3, 1963 (p.62), September 12, 1963 (p.62), February 6, 1967 (p.69), August 5, 1967 (p.71). Support for the assertion that the VC killed medical workers can be found in a May 11, 1967 (p.70) incident. I will be adding a citation to this document to the article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for those they prety much back up the sources I provided.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)]]

See Karnow in the are about pp 260-280. It's in there. Kill public servants. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Page 260 - 262 describe the Battle of Ap BAc in December of 1962, it makes no mention of Teachers. 262- 264 describe F Noltings early experiences in Saigon in the same period, and an attempt to assassinate Diem by SVAF pilots, again no mention of teachers. 265-267 describes his attitude to Nhu, still no mention of those teachers. In fact there is no mention of attacks on civilians between pages 260 And 269. 269-276 are photos, none of which feature dead teachers. Page 277 is about Diems assassination, I don’t believe he was a teacher. Page 278-280 describes the events leading up to this (mainly the Buddhist crisis), it does mention the machine-gunning by RVN armoured cars of Buddhists (page 279, sources should list the actually page, though there may be problems in the way with my sources above). These are the only civilian deaths mentioned on these pages, please could you be more explicate as I may have missed the line that claims the VC killed teachers.[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)]]

My Grandfather's sister was a teacher, she was killed by North Vietnam in 1968. Do you need an (English) article for that? Because you're gonna be hard pressed to find one, considering that my Grandfather is gone and that the North Vietnamese killed South Vietnamese families, so we couldn't speak. This is a problem with articles relating to the Vietnam War, on the one hand we have the Communists who have won (and we know what they're like with freedom of information) and the U.S. which had their own agendas covering up the fact that they betrayed the Republic Of Vietnam. The people of South Vietnam have either been killed, or don't have the appropriate media outlets. I know many of them, considering my Father is one of them, they don't have the English skills, so many of the texts are written in Vietnamese. How many of you are going to read Vietnamese - let alone people who are going to translate them? twinqletwinqle (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Vietnamese books are allowed. And there's plenty of historiuans with all types of views. You can find a cite for anything really YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have provided a few sources which back up the claim I have neverf challenged. I was pointing out that the other 'sources' did not backi up the claim.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)]]

History of Vietnam prior to 1949

I suggest that we either throw in one of those "Expand this Section" banners in this section or just pull the whole section entirely, since we're really speaking of the Vietname War conflict. If it were me, I'd want a simple explanation of how the history of Vietnam led up to the events of the war, so I'd go with a section expansion. What does everyone think? --MadameArsenic (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The first communist millitary action against the Western allies post WW2 was in 1945.[[Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)]]

Mention of Refugees in the "Aftermath" section?

I may have missed it, but I can't find any mention of the millions and millions of Vietnamese who fled Vietnam, because of the result of this war. It would improve the article immensely, wasn't the coining of the term "boat people" a reflection of the mass scale of Vietnamese refugees after 1975? twinqletwinqle (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Start date of war

MAAG-Indochina was renamed MAAG-Vietnam in November 1955 only because the French dissolved their Indochinese administration at this time. I find it bizarre that anyone would use this as the start date of a war. In early 1958, Vietnam was generally viewed as a country at peace: "The country has enjoyed three years of relative peace and calm", according to P.J. Honey, a British journalist who visited Vietnam in early 1958.[6] Bernard Fall's July 1958 article claiming that a new war had begun was big news and quite controversial. The North Vietnamese Politburo formally approved war in March 1959, although the real decision must been made earlier, perhaps in early 1958 when Le Duan became top leader. The first Vietcong vs. ARVN large unit military action was in September 1959. Encarta gives the dates of the war as 1959-75. Kauffner (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Image Caption

Several times now the caption of the image of the helicopter in this article has been changed “back” to “US Air Force”. Although the UH1 Iroquois was a US built aircraft, it was provided to nations all over the world and in this case, to the South Vietnamese military. It has been said that the USAF did not use this type of aircraft in Vietnam but my research on the Internet has found that “Special” AF units did use the UH1 as well as, of course, the US Army. An Internet search for “Vietnamese Air Force” will provide images of the RVN AF 217th Helicopter Squadron in color [7]. Close comparison of the image in the article and the color images will show that the stylized stars on the tail are yellow on a red background which US forces did not use. Additionally, examination of the black and white photo’s roundel compared to the roundel seen at [[8]] will show that the RVN AF roundel has yellow and red bars, a white star on a blue field, and all is surrounded by a red outline. The gray-scale contrasts of the black and white photo will clearly match this description Vs. the roundel of the USAF at [[9]] which has a blue outline matching the blue field behind the white star. Obviously the source information for the image was mistaken, but that isn’t a big deal. Meyerj (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Then could someone please change the description of the image?74.180.79.68 (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Claim that Dulles offered nuclear weapons to French

There is an assertion in the article that the US offered nuclear weapons to France in order to defeat the communists. The citation for this is a weak and unreliable source. The source says that this assertion is supported by "Nixon's trial balloons." How can a trial balloon be presented as evidence? If the assertion is true and notable, there must be several 100 references to it in reliable objective sources. I am removing the sentence until one of those sources is cited.Dcooper (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the "trial balloons" were public statements issued by Dulles and/or Nixon to the effect that the US would step in with air power/nukes to break the siege at Dien Bien Puh.--Sus scrofa (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Could be. The story is that Dulles made the offer privately to Bidault on his way to the Geneva conference. Afterwards, Dulles denied he made the offer and said that Bidault misunderstood because of the language barrier and his stress level. I don't believe such an uncertain and unestablished event should be stated so forcefully in the article.--Dcooper (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's in line with the New Look policy en vogue in american foreign policy at the time. After the expensive and but inconclusive Korean War, the US adapted the "New Look" in regard to its nuclear arsenal. In short, it meant that the US would respond with nuclear arms to conventional "threats" (since this was cheaper than drawn out conventional war). The New Look was formulated right around this time and in line with it, the US apparently issued statements to the effect that they would intervene with nukes in the Indochina War when the French started losing. In my view, this context shifts the burden of evidence over to Bidault's version of the exchange. --Sus scrofa (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)--Sus scrofa (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

See the Operation Vulture article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The Operation Vulture article contradicts what is written in the Vietnam War article. So does the source cited by the Operation Vulture article. I am not disputing that the US considered and debated the use of nuclear weapons. That fact is well established, but that is not what is stated here.--Dcooper (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

We have two versions of the exchange. Given the context of public threats and indeed plans to use nuclear weapons one of these versions is more credible.--Sus scrofa (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not our role to determine which is more credible or to make judgments about which is more likely to be true. As it stands, this article contains a statement with a biased and inappropriate citation. In addition, the statement contradicts other Wikipedia articles. I can't think of a way to justify how it is written in the article right now. Can anyone justify it?--Dcooper (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, ok.--Sus scrofa (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it could be pointed out that wikipedia is not a relaible source, so the fact that the statment contradicts other Wikpedia articles is not a valid objection. Also in the book 'The Ten Thousand Day War' it states that in his memoirs Nixon stated that (my abridgement)"In Washington...a plan known as operartion Vulture, for using three small tactical Nukes..." page 57.[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)]]

It looks to me as if this article mischaracterizes a source. The article says, "... , though no firm evidence exists as to the seriousness of these talks." citing Vietnam at war, Sidgwick & Jackson 1989, Lt gen Phillip B Davidson, page 263. The cited source actually says, "There appears to have been some discussion about using three Atomic bombs, although reports about how seriously this was considered and by whom are even now vague and contradictory". Sources cited in the Operation Vulture article provide some detail about what was considered and about who did the considering, so I've rewritten that bit of this article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The source says that the evidance is contadictory and vague. I reworded that as no firm evidance. Which is more or less what the source says, that there is no evidance to suport the idea that these discusions were serious nor that there is any evidance that they were not.[[Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)]]

How did the Vietnam War start.

I don't have clear answers and I need some please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironclad 16 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The U.S. had Military advisers in Vietnam for sometime. However a decision was made in 1965 to carryout a build up of U.S. Forces to a massive extent. The strategy being that the opponents to the American backed South Vietnamese Government would back down in the face of overwhelming inferiority to U.S. Military strength. What we now call 'The Vietnam War' grew from a refusal of the Vietnamese groups apposed to American involvement to accept that they could not resist such an American Expedition, and the U.S. refusal to back away from the commitment they had so publicly made. Both Americans and Vietnamese then found themselves locked into an escalating spiral of violence where both sides accused the other of intransigence.Johnwrd (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And to explain the success over many years of North Vietnam's war effort, the slow buildup of US involvement gave North Vietnam ample time to match that buildup. The lesson might be that in territorial wars, outsiders must implement their "overwhelming" superiority quickly and effectively, not just allow it to be inferred. Otherwise the territorial opponents are able to mount an effective defense, and even a respectable offense against the outsiders.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  06:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Money supply for Vietcong.

Who supplied the Vietcong with money for their weapons, equipment, and such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironclad 16 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The NLF got it's financial support from North Vietnam (I believe it was more in the form of equipment rather than cash), and I think they also taxed Vietnamese under their control in southern Vietnam.--Sus scrofa (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of the early clashes between American soldiers and Vietcong fighters only involved the Vietcong using small arms. The Vietcong strategy of using mostly ambushes of American patrols combined with Booby traps required few weapons. As the War developed the Vietcong increasingly had access to American weapons looted from U.S. prisoners and casualties. One of the tactics the Vietcong developed (fighting Americans at hideously close combat) was to compensate for their lack of heavy weapons. At such close combat the Americans could not use artillery or Air strikes in support of their troops for fear of killing their own men.Johnwrd (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The VC got their weapons from North Vietnam through the Ho Chi Minh Trail, Sihanouk Trail, or by sea. The North Vietnamese got the weapons from the Soviets and from the Chinese. The VC made money buying rice in Cambodia, where Sihanouk set the price artificially low, and smuggling it to South Vietnam. They also confiscated rice from South Vietnamese peasants and set up checkpoints to collect tolls. The VC already had AK-47 fully automatic rifle in 1965, when the U.S. and South Vietnamese were still using semi-automatic M-14 rifles. About 1970, the communists gave up on VC guerrilla tactics. After that, it was the regular North Vietnamese army attacking across the DMZ with tanks and artillery. Kauffner (talk) 06:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

They also used weapons left over from WW2 and the war against the French, including French weapons. They also made use of captured US weapons. Between 1962 and 1964 free world force lost 12,000 weapons.[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)]]

Yes. Cf. George K. Tanham; Michael A. (FRW) Sheehan (2006), Communist Revolutionary Warfare: From the Vietminh to the Viet Cong, Greenwood Publishing Group, p. 86, ISBN 9780275992637 {{citation}}: |contributor= requires |contribution= (help), "Particularly in the early phases of the war, ambushes were often used to obtain weapons. ...". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I should point out my figure above is a net loss, they actually lost over 24,000 between 1962 and 1964 b recovered over 12,000. Thus a net loss of around 12,000.

Sir Robert Thompson (consultant editor) (1981), War in Peace, Orbis, ISBN 0856133418 {{citation}}: |author1= has generic name (help); |contributor= requires |contribution= (help)

[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)]]

Communist GDR involved

There is information lacking about the contingent of East German NVA (Nationale Volks Armee) soldiers who were flown into North Viet Nam, clad in Cuban uniforms during the flights and, after landing, instructed the Viet Cong how to operate new combloc weapons. This contingent has taken part in actual battle and has caused an abruptly increasing rate of downed enemy planes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.184.34.168 (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Any sources you'd care to provide?[[Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)]]

I googled around a bit on the off-chance of finding something, but came up dry. I did stumble over a very interesting source, though. It is Robert K. Dornan (1998), Accounting for Pow/Mias from the Korean War and the Vietnam War: Hearing Before the Committee on National Security, U. S. House of Representatives, DIANE Publishing, ISBN 9780788171147. The statement of Joseph D. Douglass, Jr. contains a section headed Vietnam War: Setting the stage which begins, "American POWs also were used in medical experiments by the Soviets and Czechs dring the Vietnam war." The next statement in order, that of Jan Sena, former Czech General officer, says here, "Between 1961 and 1968, when I left Czechoslovokia, I estimate at least 200 American POWs were shipped to the Soviet Union through Czechoslovokia." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Notable commanders in the infobox

Too much weight on the US and not enough on the ARVN. I can't think of which ARVN should he there the most though. I guess Nguyen Khanh and Duong Van Minh headed juntas for a while, Tran Van Don was a general and then became defence minister for a while I think so was Nguyen Huu Co, Tran Thien Khiem was head of the armed forces for a while. What about leading battlefield generals. I'm not very much up to speed with that. Suggestions? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC) I want add this soucres http://www.vietnamgear.com/casualties.aspx. But I can'tSaruman89 (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hollywood

One of the important functions actors, artists, singers etc, fulfill in their countries is their function of helping their fellow citizens come to terms with 'National Trauma' (War, Famine, Economic disaster, Civil Rights, etc). Hollywood has served Americans well throughout it's years in this service. Yet Hollywood seems to have struggled with Vietnam. Vietnam Veterans Groups have also strongly objected at times to the image given to them by Popular Culture. Is this a case of a Nation still so divided and Polarised to an extent where they cannot ever reach a point of consensus? If you doubt Americans still hold strong views on Vietnam, just Google 'Jane Fonda'.Johnwrd (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

So are you sugesting that we should include a section about how America (as seen thru the prism of teh film industry) is still traumertised by the war?Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No. What I am suggesting is that Americas Artistic community seem to have been overwhelmed as much as their fellow countrymen by the War. Totalitarian nations would simply ramp up the Propaganda machine. Johnwrd (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

But this venue is not a discussion blog. It is, rather, a place editors to discuss changes to its associated article Can you please state your point in the form of a suggestion about how the article should be changed in order to improve it? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O126-EasterOffensive.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Support for Ho Chi Min in the US

Is this true? I mean I can believe that there were people opposing the war......but to support a socialist dictator with 1 million deaths over his head? Agrofelipe (talk) 09:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Halberstam is missing from the bibliography on the Vietnam War

A major oversight, no?