Talk:Vietnam War

The Philosophical Concept of the Asian's Contempt for Time

I appreciate everyone's interest in the Vietnam War since I'm an American Vietnam veteran so here's something to mull over: the Asian's "contempt for time". The Vietnamese didn't care how long it took for their country to unify, five years or a hundred years. It made no difference to them. Ho Chi Minh (which means "The Enlightener", his real name was Nguyen Tat Thanh) said that the American people would not stand for a prolonged war in Southeast Asia. Americans like tasks completed on a set schedule. So no matter how many foreign countries might occupy Vietnam, Vietnam would eventually become a unified, independent country. They just had to wait. 69.104.54.170 (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Sgt. Rock

So what do you thneeds addresing the the articel to cover this?Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely you're misstating the case? The Vietnamese may have been prepared to wait a hundred years if they had to, but that's a long way from saying they didn't care how long. Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a culture clash--the Vietnamese were Buddhists primarily and they tend to be fatalistic; also corruption was the way they did business (very overtly, in contrast to Western cultures who attempt to hide their corruption); so this contrast between East and West was formidable, we still don't understand them and they still don't understand us. The Chinese ruled Vietnam for a thousand years but the Vietnamese didn't inbreed with them, they kept their ethnic identity and thus maintained their country's integrity for a thousand years. --I guess they're used to waiting. The mysterious Orient. That's why I think a section for this article covering the Vietnamese point of view would prove illuminating. Any South Vietnamese out there living in the USA reading this article? We sure would like to hear what you think--would it be comparable to the South in the American Civil War being decimated by the Northern States? I know Southerners in the Deep South who are still angry even though the Civil War ended 145 years ago. Vietnam is a great country, by the way, and would make a top-notch vacation mecca. You're right on the ocean, with terrific beaches. The Vietnamese could make billion$ of dollars off tourism. But I digress. 71.157.182.121 (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Sgt. Rock

When did the Vietnam War Start?

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) Okay,here is how the war started: Diem was executed in 1963 and the following year the North Vietnamese started a massive anabasis (invasion) into South Vietnam. To counter this the U.S. landed 3,500 Marines at Da Nang in March of 1965 and by the end of that year there were 184,300 U.S. troops in-country. By the end of 1966, there were 389,000 U.S. troops and by the end of 1967 there were 480,000 U.S. troops in-country. That's it, pure and simple.Silver Bayonet (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2010 (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)

According to conventional wisdom, at any rate. This is not necessarily the whole story. There is, in fact, much debate as to the exact causes of the war. Gingermint (talk) 22:42, 27 October 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.[1] 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)

The start date and the reasons for the war are in dispute. The article should reflect this. Gingermint (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• As talked about in the Richard B. Fitzgibbon, Jr. article the start of the war was officially moved to Nov. 1, 1955 by the American Department of Defense in 1998. The November 1955 date was chosen as the new start date because that was when the Military Assistance Advisory Group ( MAAG ) that reorganized from a general Indochina into the different countries that the deployments were stationed. This is shown in the following sources: Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant By A. T. Lawrence Pg20 and defense.gov release. Should the start date be moved to 1955? -- Esemono (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Good question hard to answer for historians. As a political scientist with numrerous publications on Vietnam in French, I'd say in 1956 when the time of general referendum for reunification came without any referendum. At the 1954 Geneva Accords, Zhou Enlai out manouvered all in pressing Pham Van Dong to accept the temporary partition of Vietnam in two temporary military regroupment zones, making the Vietnamese fighting the American for the Chinese to finish the 0-0 Korea War and making the American fighting the Vietnamese (see Joseph Buttinger "The smaller dragon")for the Chinese. The 1979 Third Indochina War or SinoVietnamese War made it evident well after the event (Freudian-Laplanche "après-coup"). -- Takima (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Start date of war

November 1, 1955 is given as the start date of the war based on this press release. But the release doesn't say anything about the start date of the war, but only about "the earliest qualifying date for addition to the database and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial." The renaming of MAAG-Indochina as MAAG-Vietnam hardly qualifies a major historic event. I would define the start date as the first large unit military action, which was 26 September 1959.[2] Only four Americans are on the wall with death dates earlier than this, which seems a thin reason to push the date forward by four years. Kauffner (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The government killed over 2000 communists cadres in anti-insurgency anti-VietMinh drives in 1958. Actually the first attack was an ambush on February 12, 1958 when insurgents killed the occupants of a South Vietnamese army truck. On October 22, 1957 13 Americans were wounded in bomb attacks. In 1956 South Vietnamese government controlled papers started referring to communists as Viet Cong (A shortened version of Viet Nam Cong-San which means "Vietnamese Communist"). From 1955 till the NLF was created the VietMing engaged in a low level armed campaign of intimidation and assassinations in support of winning the election to reunite the country. And IMO all anti-South-Vietnamese-government attacks should be included in the Vietnam War such as the Battle of Saigon (1955) and the suppression of the Hòa Hảo sect. The "Vietnam Veterans Memorial" is for people who died in the Vietnam war and the American qualifying date for the start of the Vietnam War is 1955. -- Esemono (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are going bring in the sects, what about all people killed in the North as a result of Land Reform 1954-1956? Eligibility for the Vietnam War Memorial has nothing to do with when the war started, especially when the dividing line is something arbitrary like the renaming of MAAG. Journalists writing in early 1958 thought Vietnam was at peace. Bernard Fall was the first notable writer to claim that a new war had begun (July 1958).[3] IMO, this is earliest reasonable date to use. The latest reasonable date would be the communist offensive in January 1960, or Dong Khoi uprising. Kauffner (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

So attacks against Americans on October 22, 1957 don't count[4]? The attack against South Vietnamese army on February 12, 1958 doesn't count[5]? Killing and massacres of South Vietnamese government officials, like the 1957 Chau Doc massacre, don't count[6]? It's not only the American start date that changed but in 1955 Diem solidified his power and started the Vietnam War by attacking all his opponents in South Vietnam and then rigging the election. -- Esemono (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Note number 15 was attributed to me, where, under Annotations, it states, “The November 1955 date was chosen as the new start date because that was when the Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) that reorganized from a general Indochina into the different countries that the deployments were stationed.[15]” This sounds disjointed and is not what I wrote. I recommend the sentence presently appearing be deleted and replaced with the following: “U.S. government reports currently cite November 1, 1955, as the commencement date of the “Vietnam Conflict,” for this was the day when the United States Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Indochina (deployed to Southeast Asia under President Truman), was reorganized into country-specific units and MAAG Vietnam was established.” A. T. Lawrence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.250.184.150 (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph 3, Note number [182] states as follows: 3. ^ On May 6, 1965 the first American combat troops the, Third Marine Regiment, Third Marine Division, are sent to Vietnam to protect the Da Nang airport.[182]

I don’t believe this is correct; Marines arrived on March 8, 1965. I wrote the following in my book, Crucible Vietnam, on page 27:

“on the 8th of March 1965, 3,500 Marines of the 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade, the lead element of the 3rd Marine Division, stormed ashore near Da Nang, about 100 miles to the south of the DMZ, to become the first U.S. ground combat troops to set foot upon Vietnamese soil (the 1st Marine Division would be dispatched to Vietnam one year later).”

Source: A. T. Lawrence, author of Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173, p. 27.

I don’t believe this represents the start of the Vietnam War, but I believe it does mark “the arrival of U.S. ground combat troops in Vietnam.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.141.103.15 (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this "start date" of the war and I think for the Americans it was March 8, 1965 when the Marines landed. Here's why: the American Civil War started when Fort Sumter was fired on, yet for decades before that the North and the South had been at cross purposes with all kinds of eruptions happening. Why not use John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry in 1859 as the start date for the Civil War? Or the slave Nat Turner's uprising in 1831, etc? The battle plans for WWI were drawn up in 1895! I think we need to commit our entire military for an official start date to be established. The problem with Vietnam is that there was no official declaration of war by the U.S. (the closest thing might be the Tonkin Gulf Resolution on Jan. 7, 1964). Therefore the start date for the Vietnam War seems to be arbitrary, yet we know the exact date the Marines landed in Vietnam, so I would regard the Marines landing on March 8, 1965 as the actual military start date of the war. What do Wiki editors think about this approach to the dilemna? 71.157.182.121 (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Actual Military Start Date of Vietnam War

The Vietnam War for the U.S. Military was divided into 17 Campaigns (it is further divided into 30 Campaigns for individual Service requirements). The first Campaign was The Advisory Campaign which started on March 15, 1962. The last Campaign was the Cease Fire Campaign which ended on Jan. 28, 1973 (it officially ended on March 28, 1973 to allow for a 60 day pull-out of the last few remaining U.S. troops). There were only 746 American military advisors in South Vietnam in January, 1962 but by the end of 1965 there were 11,000. Any Marine will tell you that the war starts when his boots hit the ground so the 3,500 Marines landing in Vietnam on March 8, 1965 to cover for Arc Light, Rolling Thunder and other military operations could be said to be the start of the war. After that the troops built up fast and we had about 200,000 American troops in-country by the end of the year. For the classic military ground war involvement 1965 qualifies as the year for the start of the war for the U.S. Silver Bayonet (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The infobox gives November 1, 1955 as the start date, citing this DoD source, which says, "the establishment of the Military Assistance Advisory Group, Vietnam, on Nov. 1, 1955, is now formally recognized as the earliest qualifying date for addition to the database and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial." That strikes me, as a reasonable date to use, but perhaps a clarifying footnote would be useful. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a footnote about the 1955 date at the start of the actual article. -- Esemono (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Er....., thanks (silly grin). I've changed the footlink for the start date in the infobox to point to that footnote. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Post-War Insurgent Groups

There was a great deal of anti-Communist activity after the South surrendered. The book "The Vietnam War Experience", Souter & Giangreco, Carlton Books, 2007, on page 60 lists these anti-Communist insurgent groups that were active after Saigon fell on April 30, 1975: Montagnard tribes of the Central Highlands; religious groups such as the Cao Dai and Hoa Hao; and national anti-Communist organizations such as the Dai Viet and Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang (which had former ARVN soldiers in their ranks).Silver Bayonet (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a proposal to put into the article which has not been attempted. Monkeymanman (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

They were insignificant. And anyway, Montagnards, Cao Dai and Hoa Hao had always been fighting everyone for independence so it has nothing to do with communist/anit-communist anyway YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Lessons of the War

"If anything came out of Vietnam, it was that air power couldn't do the job.[216] Even General William Westmoreland admitted that the bombing had been ineffective." --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.43.230.194 (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Given the premises, it would be much more correct to state that if anything came out of Vietnam, it was the ineffectiveness of the military instrument handled directly on a tactical scale by the politicians. The air power was ineffective because it was used in the most ineffective way possible. And the lesson was well learned as it led to a new model of military structure, with far more decisional power at the lowest levels (Fire Teams), so that the situation can be handled in times compatible with the rapidity with which the situation modifies at the tactical level. Trying to plan air strikes from Washington as it was done during Vietnam is like trying to hit a fleeing rabbit pointing a fine hunting gun by committee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.43.230.194 (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What sources do you have supporting that view (and there will be some I have no doudt). Also I would add that recent conflcits seem to have re-afirmed the leasson that airpower is an highly ineffective counter insurgency tool. As well, as the fact that bombing a country into the stone age only works if they are not already not that far from there anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The point, as I understood it, was not to say that air power is an effective counter-insurgency tool, but rather that conflict is more effectively managed by commanders close to the action than by politicians and bureaucrats halfway around the planet. I'll offer a cite supporting that: Tom Clancy; Chuck Horner; Tony Koltz (8 January 2008). Every Man a Tiger: The Gulf War Air Campaign. Penguin Group. pp. 515–516. ISBN 9780425219133. Retrieved 23 July 2010. There, General Horner says that target selection by White House leaders with an immense knowledge of the politics of the war but little comprehension of battle contributed to U.S. failure in Vietnam. Horner (who flew Wild Weasel missions into North Vietnam in F-105s) argues there, "Though each higher headquarters will—rightly—have a role in determining goals and objectives, we must keep in mind that those who are closest to the action are the most important participants in the action. They are the ones the so-called higher echelons are there to support." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Horner's comments are slightly disingenuous, since the Air Force itself tried in many instances to keep target selection out of the hands of those closest to the action (Linebacker II suffered so many early losses, for example, due to SAC's obsessive centralization of targeting and tactics). Setup provides some good examples of that, and The Eleven Days of Christmas is a great examination of Linebacker II.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Result

Since this war includes the conflicts in Cambodia and Laos, I recomment that we change the result to "Communist victory." Then we will add the note: North Vietnamese and Viet Cong victory in South Vietnam, Pathet Lao victory in Laos, and Khmer Rouge victory in Cambodia. Always be prepared (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Won the Vietnam War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm Dreaming Of A White Christmas

I think mention should be made that the broadcasting of the song "I'm Dreaming of a White Christmas" was the code for the evacuation of Saigon April 29-30, 1975 in Operation Frequent Wind, thus ending the Vietnam War. It sort of caps the article (and the war) and adds a poignant literary sense and I feel would be an improvement to the article. 71.154.158.137 (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Effect on the United States -- Section

Effect on the United States, 8th paragraph, second sentence, currently states, in part, “By war's end, 58,193 soldiers were killed.”

This statement could be more accurately expanded to state: “During the Vietnam War, according to the official DoD figures, Americans suffered 47,434 hostile deaths, comprised of four categories: Killed in action (40,934); died of wounds (5,299); missing in action/declared dead (1,085); and captured/declared dead (116)); while an additional 10,786 deaths (18.5%) were non-hostile, meaning they died from other causes besides combat, which included illness, accidents, missing/presumed dead, and even homicides. It is these two categories (hostile and non-hostile) that comprise the total of the 58,220 troops who died in Vietnam.” [source attached]

A. T. Lawrence, author of Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173, p. 154. [Footnoted Sources] Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), Defense Manpower Data Center, casualty figures provided to author on 31 Dec 2007, and, Vietnam Conflict - Casualty Summary, June 2004, assembled by the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), and, CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, Updated June 29, 2007, p. CRS-11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.250.184.150 (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, the 10,000 or so that died "non-hostile" deaths did not receive a Purple Heart since they did not die in combat. There was only one American woman in the military to die in combat in Vietnam, 1st Lt. Sharon Ann Lane, a young, pretty nurse of only 25, who was awarded the Bronze Star with Combat "V" for valor, the Cross of Gallantry and the very rare and prestigious National Order of Vietnam Medal which was the highest award given to officers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.55.200 (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I went on-line to the Department of Veterans Affairs at the following website:http://www1.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_wars.pdf This fact sheet, dated May 2010, confirms the number of American deaths in Vietnam at 58,220. It also confirms the number 10,786 for non-hostile deaths and 47,434 hostile deaths. The Director of the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division, Defense Manpower Data Center, had provided me his working spreadsheet on these numbers back in December of 2007 when I was working on my book. So I feel that this is a good confirmation of the number of hostile and non-hostile deaths in Vietnam. A. T. Lawrence, author of Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.141.119.38 (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that “friendly fire” deaths were listed under accidental deaths. It wasn’t until 1985 that award of the Purple Heart was finally authorized (Public Law 99-145) for wounds received as a result of friendly fire. The U.S. Department of Defense states that 153,303 U.S. troops were wounded in Vietnam, which only counts those who required hospitalization, in essence, those considered to be most seriously wounded; it does not count the other 150,332 additional soldiers (acknowledged by DoD, but in a separate category), who received flesh wounds from shrapnel or from small arms fire (some of whom received multiple wounds during their tours) and received treatment at field aid stations, and were then sent back to their units, which boosted the total number of U.S. soldiers wounded in Vietnam to 303,635, all of whom were entitled to award of the Purple Heart. [Source: A. T. Lawrence, author of Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173, p. 160. [Footnoted Sources] CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, Updated June 29, 2007, pp. CRS-3, CRS-4.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.141.109.183 (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I see that the most recent CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, dated February 26, 2010 now states a total of 303,644 U.S. military personnel were wounded in Vietnam. There were 153,303 who required hospitalization, and another 150,341 (wounded from shrapnel or from small arms fire who received treatment at field aid stations, and were then sent back to their units). Consequently the number 150,332 (derived from the CRS report of June 2007) that I cited above should be changed to 150,341. Here is the website for the CRS report: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf This will effect your two entries under Casualties and Losses for the U.S., which should cite 58,220 (vice 58,159) dead, and 303,644 (vice 303,635) wounded. A. T. Lawrence 72.197.57.247 (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I remember reading one Marine's account that his company commander was yelled at for having too many casualities in his unit so the commander would go through the aid tent kicking out the Marines that had been lightly wounded, telling them to get back on the line, thus artificially lowering the casualty count but at the same time denying them their Purple Hearts. I don't know if this was an isolated incident or more widespread, and can't remember where I read it, it was on the Internet though. Anybody else heard of this? 209.77.229.16 (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

One last change should be made to the section titled, Effect on the United States: 8th paragraph, first sentence, currently states, “More than 3 million Americans served in Vietnam.” This statement is not correct. VFW Magazine (January 1998), which I consider to be a reliable source, states: 2,594,000 personnel served within the borders of South Vietnam (January 1, 1965 - March 28, 1973), while another 50,000 men served in Vietnam between 1960 and 1964. A total of 3,403,100 (including 514,300 offshore) personnel served in the Southeast Asia Theater (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, flight crews based in Thailand, and sailors in adjacent South China Sea waters). A. T. Lawrence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.250.181.56 (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC) I see in my book, where I use the numbers of U.S. personnel serving in Vietnam, I refer to a 1997 (vice 1998) VFW Magazine edition: A. T. Lawrence, Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173, p. 109. [Footnoted Source] VFW Magazine April 1997.

I concur. Here's what I have read in "Eyewitness Vietnam", Gilmore and Giangreco, Sterling Publishing, New York, 2006, on page 10. There were 2,594,000 American personnel who served in South Vietnam (boots on the ground), just less than 25% of whom were draftees, belying the myth that the Americans were a draftee army in Vietnam (66% of Americans were draftees in WWII by comparison). In all, 3,403,100 Americans served in the Southeast Asia theatre of operations, including air bases in Thailand and ships offshore of Vietnam. 10% of deaths were among helicopter crews, both combat and non-combat deaths. Of those serving in Vietnam, 88.4% were Caucasian, 10.6% black and 1% "other". Almost one fourth (23%) of the soldiers in Vietnam came from "privileged" families. 63.192.100.247 (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Posted in the article

Note number 15 has been attributed to me under Annotations, it states, “The November 1955 date was chosen as the new start date because that was when the Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) that reorganized from a general Indochina into the different countries that the deployments were stationed.[15]” This sounds disjointed and is not what I wrote. I recommend the sentence presently appearing be deleted and replaced with the following:

U.S. government reports currently cite November 1, 1955, as the commencement date of the “Vietnam Conflict,” for this was the day when the United States Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Indochina (deployed to Southeast Asia under President Truman), was reorganized into country-specific units and MAAG Vietnam was established.

Source: A. T. Lawrence, author of Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173, p. 20. (Submitted by User:41.250.179.3)

Off2riorob (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Stats

I'm not sure what there is here to discuss. I simply cited a demographic estimate on the war casualties that the AP called the most detailed demographic study. There's absolutely no reason why it cannot be included in the article. Obviously, some don't like the estimate because they want to believe in a higher one. It's worth noting that while my source is a demographic survey; the one you have at present is a link to an assertion on a webpage, without any study backing it up. I kept that estimate intact; I simply included another.

No demographic study ever conducted has estimated a death toll as high as 3, 4, or even 5 million. Right now I'm looking at photos of peace activists with signs reading "Over 600,000 Vietnamese Dead!" No house to house survey endorsed such findings, no medical journal. R.J. Rummel puts the total as 1.2 million dead-- South and North Vietnamese, and Laotians and Cambodians.

Look at the Cambodian civil war: Bannister and Johnson estimated the death toll from the war to be around 275,000. Sampson, too, believed that the toll from the war was overestimated. He suggested that civilian deaths "could be numbered in tens of thousands, but not more," and also noted that military attachés estimated the size of each army to be between 100,000 and 150,000. One survey said 230,000 was "the highest mortality we could justify." No survey ever conducted has gotten anywhere near 1.5 to 2 million Cambodians and Laotians killed.

The fact remains that the estimates currently cited are official figures from the Vietnamese government. That's fine to note; but one should not censor other sources. The Vietnamese originally claimed 2 million dead, to which Noam Chomsky replied: “In the case of Vietnam, we literally do not know within millions the real number of civilian casualties. The official estimates are around two million, but the real number is probably around four million.” Others claimed even 2 million was Communist propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.118.198 (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

In the citation that has been there for some time these figures are supported. These figures here should more or less be equivalent to the figures here Vietnam_War_casualties. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I was told the US had a 20 to 1 kill ratio, which sort of jibes with the figures. The Commies could be giving either a low or high figure for propaganda purposes, or maybe for once they're telling the truth. I recall some Lt. fresh out of West Point at the beginning of the war saying "We can't kill them fast enough". So apparently there was a lot of killing with modern mechanized warfare. Did the Commies keep good figures, though? Did they record every insignificant rice farmer who got killed? I kind of doubt it. Under General Giap, people were expendable, like throwaway beer cans. 71.157.182.121 (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The planned ratio was 12:1 but the Americans couldn't consistently hold that ratio. -- Esemono (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Exit of the French, 1950–1954

I feel that the last paragraph of the Section titled, Exit of the French, 1950–1954, should be expanded, to include the following:

France’s elite paratroopers and Legionnaires were decisively defeated by the Vietminh on the 7th of May 1954. The bloody 56-day battle of Dien Bien Phu had ended, into which the French had poured more than 16,000 troops and suffered nearly 1,300 killed and more than 5,000 wounded.

During the more than seven years (from December 1946 to May 1954) that the French had been fighting in Vietnam, French Union Forces (made up of Frenchmen, French Foreign Legionnaires, and French Colonial troops from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Senegal, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) suffered more than 74,000 deaths, of which 20,685 were Frenchmen.

Source: A. T. Lawrence, author of Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173, pp. 16-17.

[Footnoted sources: Bernard B. Fall, Hell In A Very Small Place: The Siege of Dien Bien Phu. (Cambridge, Mass: Da Capo Press, 2002), p. 483; Bernard B. Fall, Street Without Joy. (Mechanicsburg, Penn: Stackpole Books, 1994), p. 385; and, Micheal Clodfelter, Vietnam in Military Statistics: A History of the Indochina Wars, 1772 – 1991. (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 1995), p. 33.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.141.97.113 (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thgis is coverd in the article on the French involvment.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I was looking for some reference to casualties suffered by the French, but I did not see any. A. T. Lawrence

As this articel is about the American period I am not sure that listing French casulaties is relevant. the proper place for that is in the artciel i the French Indo-China conflict.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Dak Son versus My Lai

A lot of attention has historically been given to the massacre at My Lai by Americans, which overshadows the horrible atrocities committed by the other side such as the massacre at Dak Son by the Viet Cong. I certainly don't like dwelling on such things, but is there some way we could bring balance to the article? The atrocities committed by North Vietnam were deliberate and planned, and were part of their war strategy. 71.157.182.121 (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The differance is that events like the My Lai massacre had major impts on the way the war was percieved. Whuilst most of the non US massacres had li8mited propoganda impact, thus limited impact on the war.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam War was Unconstitutional

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or we could all check. Heres a start [[7]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

500,000 Draft Dodgers

Apparently there were 500,000 guys who violated the draft during the Vietnam War but only 10,000 got convicted or were held accountable. So draft evasion was fairly safe and sane. So there'd be lots of legal cases. Maybe the Supreme Court didn't want to be deluged with draft dodger cases. But again, why did they avoid making a definitive ruling? 66.122.184.14 (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Curiouser And Curiouser

This talk page is not a forum to discuss the Vietnam War, it is a forum to discuss how to improve the article. This section and the section above seem to be going towards a general discussion of the war not the article. If you think the article can be improved, please start discussing how it can be improved. ~~ GB fan ~~ 05:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably just a sort sentence stating that the Supreme court avoided hearing cases on the constitutionality/legality of the Vietnam War. As to why, that has yet to be answered. 66.122.184.14 (talk) 07:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion on how to proceed. Create a new section with an {{edit semi-protected}} tag on it. In that section provide a draft sentence along with with references and a description of where on the page you think it belongs. Then it can be discussed or placed on the page by an autoconfirmed user. ~~ GB fan ~~ 08:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"Maybe the Supreme Court didn't want to be deluged with draft dodger cases." They wouldn't have been. If they'd taken one case, that ruling would have been applied by lower courts to all other cases. Unlike normal courts, the Supreme Court never accepts multiple cases with the same set of charges and tghe same resolution. They rule on one case and it becomes part of "case law" that is applied by all lower courts. Perhaps, then, the people who think the Supreme Court is a laughingstock don't understand what the Court does? --Habap (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, I agree. The US Supreme Court cherry picks its cases, it's selective and as such determines our country's legal structure, thus they legislate from the bench. Typically, their decisions just trade off one set of problems for another. 66.122.184.21 (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Add a line about Constitutionality of Vietnam War?

Here's a succinct quote about the US Supreme Court refusing to hear cases about the Constitutionality of the Vietnam War: "Federal courts were asked repeatedly during the late 1960's and early 1970's to rule on the constitutionality of the war. The Supreme Court declined to hear such cases, on the view that war was a political question". --from http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/E-N/Judiciary-Power-and-Practice-War-and-the-courts.html Some form of the statement could be included under the "Opposition to the Vietnam War, 1962-75" section in the Wiki article, perhaps mentioning that Justice Douglas (dissenting) wanted the Court to hear cases on the matter since there were 500,000 draft violaters which made the issue significant. 66.122.184.21 (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that sentences sounds good, though "repeatedly" makes it sound like there were hundreds of cases appealed at the circuit court level. I believe you listed three earlier. So, if it is only 3, we should state that it was asked three times. If it's at least 3 and maybe more, we should say "at least three times". --Habap (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

how about 'many times'?Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"Many times" sounds good to me. There were up to 125,000 draft dodgers in Canada and many II-S student deferments in college in the US, along with many C.O.'s, so that "many times" seems a good choice. By the way, the US has declared war only 5 times! (War of 1812, Spanish American War, Mexican American War, WWI and WWII.) War wasn't even declared during the American Civil War. 66.122.184.21 (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If there were only three cases, "many" seems excessive. If you think it was more than three and we don't have specific evidence that it was more than 3 times, I would urge that we state "at least three times", as most people would likely use "few" to describe three, rather than "many".

As an aside, war was not declared in the American Civil War because the view of the government was that they were simply putting down a rebellion , like the Whiskey Rebellion and that no country existed against which war could be declared. --Habap (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a quote from Y&M Magazine, "War resistance, amnesty and exile" by Harold Jordan, May 2000: "During the Vietnam War, 209,517 young men were formally accused of violating draft laws. Another 360,000 were never formally accused. Of the former group, 25,000 indictments were handed down; 8,750 were convicted and just under 4,000 served jail time." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.122.184.21 (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

While that is a significant number of cases, we still only have 3 known attempts to have the Supreme Court here cases. The other 8,747 must not have appealed or must not have appealed past the Circuit Court level. The American Foreign Relations website provides no details or citations to support the "repeatedly", so I think we have to go with "at least 3 times" until proven otherwise. Interestingly, that same web page provides a justification for not hearing the cases - the Court had a precedent:

When U.S. involvement in other international conflicts was challenged in the courts, the judiciary has ruled that declaration is not required. For example, in Bas v. Tingy (1800), the Supreme Court held that Congress need not declare full-scale war and could engage in a limited naval conflict with France.

Perhaps we ought to include that as well. --Habap (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In the Federal Court system, it goes Federal Court, Federal Appeals Court and US Supreme Court, so of the 8,750 convicted only 4,000 went to jail which means there would have been a lot of appeals, in the thousands. In Answers.com under "Draft Resistance and Evasion" it states that during the height of prosecutions, draft cases accounted for 10% of all cases in the federal courts. I haven't found a site yet that states how many cases were appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. 66.122.184.21 (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

My impression was that if you were convicted and appealed, then won the appeal, you were not longer counted as convicted. So, when I see that 4,000 of 8,750 went to jail, that means to me that the other 4,750 received some sentence other than jail time. However, I'm neither a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, so my understanding may be rather incorrect. --Habap (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Going back to the question of constitutionality (the topic of this section), answers.com (not a great source) says here that the Vietnam War created many opportunities for the courts to consider constitutional questions related thereto, but that after lower courts determined that the war's constitutionality was nonjusticiable in Holtzman v. Schlesinger (1973), Orlando v. Laird[8] (1971), and Mora v. McNamara (1967), the Supreme Court avoided these cases by denying judicial review, even though, as in Mora, and later in Massachusetts v. Laird (1970), some justices dissented on the ground that the Court at least should have openly faced the question of justiciability—as well as the broader one of judicial responsibility in times of crisis.

This better source discusses historical cases which, it says, settled the issue whether a state of war could exist without formal declaration by Congress. However, regarding the Vietnam war, it goes on to say that The Supreme Court studiously refused to consider the issue of whether the President is empowered to commit troops abroad to further national interests in the absence of a declaration of war or specific congressional authorization short of such a declaration in any of the forms in which it was presented, and the lower courts generally refused to adjudicate the matter on "political question" grounds. Francis Dunham Wormuth; Edwin Brown Firmage (1989), To chain the dog of war: the war power of Congress in history and law, University of Illinois Press, pp. 69–70, ISBN 9780252060687 says that Congress purported in the Gulf of Tonkin resolution to authorize the President to enter a state of war in the future, and the president did so. It then goes on to opine, though, that such a situation must have been contrary to the intent of the framers of the constitution. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's two more cases I came across: Hart v U.S., No. 1044, Misc., 391 U.S. 956 (1968), and U.S. v Holmes, 387 F. 2d 781 (7th Circuit) 391 U.S. 936 (1968). 66.122.184.21 (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

War end date and introduction

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

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

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

Photo selection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cambodia and Laos

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

Bruce Sharp notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOCE

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

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

Number of Australian casualties

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

Etymology

Etymology

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

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

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