Talk:Vietnam War

Photo selection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of Australian casualties

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

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

entire page is bias

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

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

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

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

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

Combatants

We need a source for the figures presented for the NVA it seems very high (its a massive junp). Was there ever 2 million communist forces in the field at one time? This [[1]] seems to indicate that at its highest (in 1971, the newly inserted ppoint of greatest steength) it was around 230,000Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lets just leave it at total commitemtn in 1968.Slatersteven (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

December 2010 Sourcing quality

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

NVA military strength

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am still hoping Wiki editors will make the correction to the Infobox regarding U.S. casualties and losses. It should be corrected to read 58,220 dead vice 58,159, and 303,644 wounded vice 303,635. The Department of Veterans Affairs fact sheet, dated May 2010, confirms the number of American deaths in Vietnam at 58,220 (10,786 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 these numbers back in December of 2007 when I was working on my book, Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173. Additionally, the CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, dated February 26, 2010 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). Additional detail is provided in Archive 16.72.197.57.247 (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I medited the article to use the 58,220 figure, with a supporting note and cites. Someone else may wish to improve my edit, which is pretty wordy. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

In regards improving the edit, you might wish to change Annotation 2 to read:

The figure of 58,220 U.S. deaths comes from the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), Defense Manpower Data Center, as well as from a Department of Veterans fact sheet dated May 2010, and the book Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173. The figure of 303,644 U.S. wounded comes from the CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, dated February 26, 2010.

The reason I cite the book Crucible Vietnam is because the Director of the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division, Defense Manpower Data Center, provided the author a detailed breakdown of the 58,220 figure back in 2007.

Notes 5, 6, 7, and 8 would need to be rearranged. You only need two notes: 5 (for deaths) and 6 (for wounded) to read as follows:

Note 5 (for U.S. deaths) should be corrected to read:

The Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), Defense Manpower Data Center, as well as a Department of Veterans fact sheet dated May 2010, and A. T. Lawrence, Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173.

Note 6 (for U.S. wounded) should be corrected to read:

CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, dated February 26, 2010.72.197.86.130 (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I presume the Vietnam War was termed the 'Vietnam Conflict' within the US for legal reasons. The same thing occurred in the Malayan Emergency where the British Government termed the war officially an 'Emergency' so that Lloyds of London would have to pay out insurance claims by the MNLA-targeted British-owned mining industries and rubber plantations. These insurance policies usually specifically exclude 'acts of war'. The soldiers on both sides knew it was a 'war' though.

BTW, in the section; Vietnam_War#Background_to_1949 there's no mention of the British ever leaving Vietnam - presumably they did at some point so it might be a good idea for someone to add it, otherwise it's rather puzzling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.74.176 (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I added info on the British departure. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

OK - thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.44.121 (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

NVA Strength facts

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

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

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

Not stating USA was defeated is POV

We state who was defeated in other wars, to not state that USA was defeated in this war is clearly a POV violation. ScienceApe (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Really, then we better fix World War II, which doesn't state that the Axis lost. Oh, and Franco-Prussian War which only mentions that Germany won. Oh, and American Civil War, which doesn't mention in the result that the Confederacy lost. Please, point out on which "other wars" that the loser is listed next to "Result". --Habap (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's more important to dispel the myth that the United States 'won every major battle but lost the war' in Vietnam, such as the fights in Kham Duc, Hill-937 (FSB Ripcord) and the An Lao Valley. Once that had been achieve to some degree, than we shall discuss the American defeat in greater detail.Canpark (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Helicopters used by US is missing at least four

Omitted were the OH-13, OH-23,OH-6,OH-58 that were used as scout and spotter aircraft. Also the first Army large troop transports were CH-21, H-34, CH-37, and the Marines had CH-46. There were a few others but these were major players. You can see the list of aircraft lost at the VN Helicopter Pilot's Assn website. http://vhpa.org/heliloss.pdf I can testify that the first four OH's were there as I flew them. We lost 842 OH-6's and a total of 1152 Observation Helicopters. Please add at least the first four. R. Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasconc (talk • contribs) 16:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Italian peace efforts of 1965-68

Hi, I'd like to add mention of the Italian-led peace efforts of 1965-68:

1. The mission of Giorgio La Pira to Hanoi in April 1965 (see M. Sica, La Pira e la ricerca della pace in Vietnam, Il Politico, Pv 2004)
2. The Operation Marigold, a Polish-Italian attempt to reach a compromise, thanks to the Italian ambassador in Saigon, Giovanni D'Orlandi, and his Polish counterpart, Janusz Lewandowski (member of the International Control Committee), in the so-called Operation Marigold. The Marigold peace efforts were supported by the Italian foreign minister Amintore Fanfani. The final compromise reached between D'Orlandi and Lewandowski in September included: free elections under international control before 2 years; a South Vietnam government including representatives of the extreme parts (general Ky and the NLF), and keeping to a policy of neutrality; a final withdrawal of the American troops. The peace efforts were halted by the reprise of the American bombing over Hanoi on the 2 and 4 December 1966 (see Mario Sica, Marigold non fiorì; Florence, 1991).
3. The Operation Killy, trough Giorgio d'Orland, the PCI member Carlo Galluzzi and the North Vietnam ambassador to Prague, Pham Van Su.

Wehere could these information be added in the page? Thanks, --Dans (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Cuba?

Should we add Cuba under communist forces as according to the Cuban section in the article there was a small Cuban presense? Spongie555 (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Given its not proven they were there (and neither they nor the Veitnames admit they were there) no.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"Highest estimate"

Saying the N viet's causalities being the "highest estimate" is like saying the Holocaust deniers' estimates are the highest. Even those who made the estimates would probably faint seeing their estimates being labels as highest. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)