Talk:Vietnam War

Edit request about Kennedy

In the section "During John F. Kennedy's administration, 1961–1963" it says of Kennedy :-

"He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that "to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences"

On the grounds that we judge a person as much as by his actions as by his words, can we make clear that he was most definitely in favour of sending more troops there. We know this because this is exactly what he did. I do not see the benefit of making Kennedy out to be against the use of military force in Vietnam when he most defintely was. A retrospective lionising strips the dead of their dignity : the dead were entitled to make mistakes too.

Can we clarify this statement and source it and then, if sourced properly, state that he "Kennedy said on such and such a date (give reference) that he was against the use of troops in South Vietnam, but subsequently changed his mind". That at least would more accurately record the events as they actually were, rather than some would like it to be. Jackd1000 (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In fact a better (more accurate rendition) would be

"Kennedy said on such and such a date (give reference) that he was against the use of troops in South Vietnam. Whether or not he believed this, he subsequently substantially increased the US's military participation in South Vietnam"

Jackd1000 (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, this gets iffy. After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, Kennedy couldn't back away from the Laotians and their fight with the Pathet Lao, since this would alarm President Diem in South Vietnam. And way back in 1961 the Soviet Union was against the Chinese regime over Laos and Cambodia. The Vietnam War encompassed all of Southeast Asia--Laos, Cambodia, etc., not just North and South Vietnam. Kennedy had to try and balance a lot of situations. 69.228.116.138 (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Robert McNamara and General Maxwell Taylor had visited Vietnam and in 1963 had advised President Kennedy to phase out American troops by 1965. In 1962 Kennedy had sent over some 5,000 US Army Special Forces as "advisors". It was Johnson who ramped up the war and sent over massive amounts of troops. Neither Kennedy nor Khrushchev wanted a war in Laos (it was landlocked) so Kennedy put his emphasis on Vietnam. Then Johnson escalated it. 69.228.116.138 (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The questionable phrase is currently sourced against a primary source. It should really be sourced against scholarly history, or rather, Kennedy's position on the war if infact notable, should be sourced against scholarly secondary sources based on what they say, not what Kennedy actually said. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it just cannot be said to be in dispute that Kennedy substantially escalated the use of armed forces in South Vietnam. He did it, and that's that. That Johnson escalated it to a greater extent subsequently is irrelevant, as are the geopolitical considerations that were connected to it. This contrasts with the wording of the article, which says that Kennedy was against the deployment of troops in South Vietnam. If indeed he did say this, his behaviour contrasts with his words, not exactly untypical behaviour for politicians - in which case it is important to record this fact, rather than simply echo a traditional line whose intention may be to minimise the actions of a now venerated figure. I'm absolutely sure Kennedy would not have been happy about this editing of the truth.

Jackd1000 (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that if Kennedy had not been assassinated, then he would have extricated the US from Vietnam, pulling out troops rather than escalating, and the Vietnam War would have been averted. --This is usually the point that "historians" argue over. 209.77.230.59 (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There is one problem with the latter poin - there is not one shred or scrap of evidence from Kennedy's words or writings that this was the case. In which case the above point is mere speculation and part of an attempt to change the legacy of Mr Kennedy Jackd1000 (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it goes a little something like this: the NLF starts their armed campaign; South Vietnam starts to falter; Kennedy sends an influx of US troops; the NLF are pushed back; Kennedy states that things are looking up in Vietnam so he's going to withdraw the US troops; Kennedy is assassinated. Kennedy apologists ignore the fact that Kennedy condtioned the envisioned withdrawal on the fact that the US/South Vietnam were winning. Had Kennedy not been killed, he would have done exatcly the same thing as LBJ: escalate when things got worse. There is no evidence to the contrary AFAIK.--Sus scrofa (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

NLF Vs VC

The common naming policy applies to artciel titles, not artciel content.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Viet Cong or NLF in Infobox

I have restored Viet Cong to the infobox because common name policy mandates the usage of the common name in english over the official name. What do other editors think?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking historical literature, it tends to depend on when a book was written and (to a lesser degree) the political slant of the author. Viet Cong was common early on, but writers like Douglas Pike tended to use PAVN and NLF. Over time, at least in US historical works, both terms came to more or less replace NVA and VC. I've also seen a distinction made between the NLF and VC as the political and military parts of the organization, respectively. I'd be inclined to go with NLF if you're referencing the flag, as it's more of a political marker and thus appropriate. We should also remember that the term VC was invented by the GVN and US and was intended to be at least slightly offensive.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The sum of reliable sources hold that Viet Cong is the prevalent term as seen here. Moreover, the infobox should be consistent; the section above declares victory for the Viet Cong...why confuse things by changing from one section to the other? The article already states the alternate name for the VC so there is no need to pontificate that in the box. The majority of english speakers use "Viet Cong".
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet your own graph shows that Viet Cong peaked during the war years (which is only to be expected when you consider the origin of the term VC and the fact that the usage search is based on English publications) and has steadily declined since then, while NLF has remained constant. Not quibbling, just pointing that out.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the decline has more to do with the whole subject declining in the media. There is still a prevalence of VC over the NLF by about 2 to 1 on the current trending. That said, the contemporary sources fall under the large blue envelope and represent the mass of sources. Current trends shouldn't necessarily supersede the bulk but that is neither here nor there as VC comes out on top either way.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Then why open it here? The spike you're talking about in contemporary sources is to be expected, given that VC was the approved US government term and figured in all their releases and military journal articles of the time. Might as well make the change, since that sounds like what you want to do. I don't have a marked preference, actually, but I'm just not sure how appropriate it is to use an invented term for an organization that had its own name.Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

See the thread above. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias VC is more common the NLF because it is the US given name, But we should be trying to avoid such cultural bias, and as the common name policy applies to article names and not content is not a justification for not using the correct name.Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't make the initial change...R41 did but I felt it was a reasonable change so when I saw it reverted I decided this should be discussed. (re Steven) I saw your thread above and tried to blend them during the edit conflicts but after Intothatdarkness replied, I just went with this thread. I have already accounted for your response within this thread. The logic on titles remains although we are not discussing changing any article titles. Arguably, we are preventing unnecessary redirects. Again, there should be consistency for the infobox (call them the same thing throughout the box). (re Intothatdarkness) It is entirely appropriate to have a different name for a group or organization than they seek to represent themselves with. We use Japan and not Nippon; we use Apache (a Zuni word) and not what they call themselves. The article here already states the NLF name so this isn't depriving our readers of anything. Steven what policy are you citing for trying to have NLF?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no policy (as far as I am aware) that requires us to call them by a given name, but neither is there one that does not allow is to. But I would point out that Japan is the westernise version of Japan (and has always been), but VC (which is not even English) is not the westernised version of NLF (that national liberation front), it a propaganda name. The same with Apaches, it’s the only English name, there are no toerh English language names for the group. We are asked to try and avoipd obviouse westernise culterual bias.Slatersteven (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It will likely confuse the average reader - our audience, if Viet Cong is replaced by NLF throughout the article. Noting what they called themselves would seem enough. Even if Viet Cong was intended to be offensive, I doubt more than a handful of readers know this - and if they already do, probably know more about the conflict than is in the article. (Hohum ^@) 00:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of the usage for NLF is on Mondays during the U.S. football season, which suggests that it is mainly people mistyping "NFL". "NLF" is not "what they called themselves", but an unofficially translated and shortened form. The whole concept doesn't exist in the official Vietnamese literature. If you look at Victory in Vietnam, they do not recognize any distinction between northern and southern communist forces. U.S. policymakers had traumatic memories of Korea and didn't want to invade the North. So they created the fiction that the U.S. was at war with someone other than Hanoi. Kauffner (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This is actually a different issue. During the conflict the North maintained that the NLF was a distinct organization that wasn't controlled or directed by Hanoi.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the part of what Kauffner is pointing out is that from a common name perspective, there are few hits on WP for National Liberation Front (3047) whereas their are substantial hits for Viet Cong (40689). I only used December as a sampling but I think these proportions are roughly consistent across time. Also, the NLF page is a DAB and actually represents many other organizations that bear that name. In short, people call them Viet Cong and but a few scant folks use the other name.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I get 8,650 post-1990 English-language Google book hits for "Vietnam War" NLF OR National-Liberation-Front, 33,000 for "Vietnam War" Vietcong OR Viet-Cong. This scholarly preference is misleadingly close. Vastly more readers are searching for Viet Cong/Vietcong than for "National Liberation Front", according to Google Insights. Kauffner (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Once again it seems like the decision has been made. Why waste the time going through the talk page stuff?Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This is actually an interesting discussion. The North Vietnamese referred to themselves by various names such as the bo doi of the Viet Minh, the Chu Luc of the regular army, and each division had its own name such as Nam Dinh, Viet Bac, Ben Tre, Bien Hoa and even the humourous Dong Bang...it would be interesting to know what the North actually considered naming themselves, I wish some North Vietnamese would contribute to this article but I assume they have censorship problems in their "liberated" country. It seems to be all a matter of perspective. While the Americans would consider themselves "Americans" yet at the same time they would consider themselves Air Cav or Brown Water Navy or Wild Weasels or whatever their mission or unit was. What did the North collectively call the Americans? I'm sure it was something disparaging--in WWII we called the Germans Krauts and in Vietnam we called the North "zipperheads" so it's probably something quite colorful. I'm sure the North hated the Americans. 64.169.155.134 (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The BBC in Vietnam

There's a 1995 BBC Timewatch programme showing some of the BBC's reporting of the Vietnam War on YouTube here: [1]] - it include contemporary reports by, amongst others, Julian Pettifer, Martin Bell, Charles Wheeler and Brian Barron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Participants

Why does DPRK stay as participant, while Soviet and even CHINA stays as supported by? DPRK sent only 300 troops there while China sent 170 000! This is vandalism. It seems to be one supporter of the war that want to give the illution that no nations supported Vietnam with troops, except from the North Korea prison! Here's a message to the vandal: If you can't edit seriously, or objective, you may just find something other to do than editing Wikipedia! Cuba was the only to give humanitarian support to Vietnam without participating military! The REPUBLICAN BUSHIST that did this is the worst idiot I've MET on Wikipedia. And I think the use of the propaganda word "Viet Cong" shall be removed, if you want to call yourself neutral. Wikipedia is not unlike CONSERVAPEDIA! And vandalism KEEP STAYING in long time because most articles about politics is written from an imperalist view. That a war killing 2,5 million or more innocent civilians is becoming a place for political views seen from the killing machine (it had been more OK if it had been pro-Vietnamese than pro-American, because NVN/FNL didn't committed any war crimed and killed only 2000 civilians, though I prefer neutrality), that is pretty HORRIBLE! --153.110.194.139 (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw that a vandal removed this, but please don't remove others' inlays because you don't agree with them. --153.110.194.139 (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, okay...your point being? And your RS is...? 69.236.142.194 (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Women in Vietnam section totally inaccurate

The bit about American women serving in Vietnam, sexual harassment, etc. is totally bogus. Enlisted men were not allowed to fraternize or become "overly familiar" with officers (nurses), according to military law. If they did, they'd go to the brig. There was even an entire movie made about the quandry of enlisted men not being able to go with female officers called "Operation Madball" in 1957 with Jack Lemmon and Ernie Kovacs. The person who wrote the women in Vietnam paragraph obviously was never in the military and attempted to implant some sort of contemporary feminist overlay to the war, implying sexual harassment of women, portraying women as victims of societal prejudice, etc. --Totally bogus. Contempory rhetoric stamped onto a war that happened 40 years ago. Ridiculous. It discredits the entire article on the Vietnam War. Somebody didn't read the UCMJ. 69.228.116.96 (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

we repeat what RS say, not what films do.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's the RS: Article 92 (unprofessional relationships) and Article 134 (fraternization) of the UCMJ are taken quite seriously and Courts-Martial may result. If nurses (who were officers) in the Vietnam War were engaged in the slightest impropriety heads could roll. The person who wrote the paragraph about women in Vietnam obviously had no knowledge of military courtesy, military law or military history and probably wrote the paragraph based on some feminist course he took or somesuch nonsense. The paragraph should be amended to at least contain references to Articles 92 and 134. This would give it some degree of historical accuracy. Apart from dating, sexual relationships, etc., officers and enlisted personnel can not have business dealings together, loan money to each other, share living quarters, go on vacations together, etc. The erroneous paragraph starkly delineates the problem with letting "pop history" political fads worm their way into Wikipedia. 209.77.229.65 (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources, sources related to the subject are not WP:RS ("Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."). Regulations only tell us what the regulation says, not how well they were followed. Given that the US military doesn't have a handle on rape within the ranks even today, it beggars belief that no sexual contacts occurred between nurses and other soldiers during Vietnam.--Sus scrofa (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly I could find laws saying that murder is illegal, does that mean we can't have material about Jack the Ripper because its impossible for some one to break the law. However we can say that such liasons wee illegal.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the last sentence on American women in Vietnam says that few cases of impropriety were noted in the Vietnam War, compared to a startling 1/3 rate of sexual harassment of BOTH men and women in today's military. --Has there been a paradigm shift? This might be a matter worth investigating. In Vietnam, there were plenty of Oriental women around since the US was an occupying country, and US men dated and married South Vietnamese women. There was no shortage of eligible women. There's even a YouTube video of the Cam Ranh Bay Meat Market where the girls are lined up alongside a metal fence, waiting to date GI's. If they landed a GI, they could get married and then go live in the USA. (So there was a lot of THAT kind of hanky-panky going on). A lot of guys dumped their girlfriend back home and married a girl from SEA, since women in this sphere of the world were brought up to respect men. Nurses you would not want to annoy, since they might have to save your life someday. 67.117.24.65 (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I probably should mention the "Candy Stripers", who were nice, civilian American girls who went to Vietnam to, um, "help" the troops. 67.117.24.65 (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Weapons List?

I'm a little confused about the weapons list, is it supposed to be inclusive or just representative? For instance, it lists the AC-130 gunship of which we only had about a dozen or so operating out of Ubon, Thailand with the 16th SOS (Special Operations Squadron) which was part of the 8th Wing. In reality, we had hundreds of C-130's of various models (C-130A's, C-130B's, C-130E's) performing a multiplicity of missions (C-130's were used to drop the world's biggest bomb (at 15,000 lbs.) by pushing it out the back of the airplane for Commando Vault missions--and they got the highest bombing accuracy rate of any "bomber" in the course of the war!) C-7 Caribous were used extensively, in fact they were used to relieve the siege at Dak Seang, and almost all of them received battle damage there and as I recall at least three of them were shot down, two Congressional Medals of Honor were handed out at Dak Seang, along with a bunch of Silver Stars, etc. and the 834th Air Division received the Presidential Unit Citation. The only other time the 834th got the PUC was for helping to relieve the siege at Khe Sanh. So Dak Seang was Hot City. The reason Dak Seang is so little known is that it was primarily a South Vietnamese camp. So should the list be an all-inclusive list or just list "some" of the aircraft? There might be some old pilots out there who will feel slighted ("According to this here Wiki list I wasn't even in the Vietnam War, I guess I got my Purple Heart by slipping on a beer bottle in Wichita and falling down the stairs"). So if it's just a "starter list", it would be easy to add to. 69.238.198.15 (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There is already an article listing the Weapons of the Vietnam War, the "Weapons" section in this article could conceivably be pared down so that it only talks about new/decisive developments relating to the course of the war, and not a list that already exists in full form elsewhere. --Sus scrofa (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Casualties and Loses

There was a discussion of American war deaths (hostile and non-hostile) in the early part of 2011, which is now in Archive 18 that cited total U.S. Vietnam War deaths as follows:

Total Deaths (Hostile and Non-Hostile): There were a total of 58,220 American deaths (47,434 hostile and 10,786 non-hostile) during the Vietnam War as set forth below:

	Total

1956 1 1957 1 1959 2 1960 5 1961 16 1962 53 1963 122 1964 216 1965 1,928 1966 6,350 1967 11,363 1968 16,899 1969 11,780 1970 6,173 1971 2,414 1972 759 1973 68 1974 1 1975 62 After 1975 7 Total 58,220*

• Seven (7) individuals died of their wounds or from illness after 1975.

The figure of 58,220 U.S. deaths as well as hostile and non-hostile totals are confirmed by the CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, February 26, 2010, pages 3 and 11 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf), and the yearly breakdown is provided by A. T. Lawrence, Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2009), 223-24 (Appendix C/updated 2012 reprint). This graph would be a useful addition to the Wiki article.72.197.86.130 (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the addition of some sort of graph of American war deaths would be very useful. 69.104.55.32 (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The McFarland website enables one to view yearly breakdowns of hostile deaths:

http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/contents-2.php?id=978-0-7864-4517-2

Totals match up with the CRS report figures.72.197.86.130 (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Actually the yearly breakdowns of both hostile and non-hostile deaths, totaling 58,220 American deaths (during the Vietnam War), are available on the Mcfarland website.72.197.86.130 (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The Lawrence book referenced above is the only source I have found that provides a yearly breakdown of the 58,220 Americans who died in the Vietnam War.72.197.57.247 (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

AFAICS, the figures given above and discussed in archive 18 don't meet WP:V requirements. The figures in A. T. Lawrence (2009). "Appendix C : U.S. Hostile (Combat) and Non-Hostile Deaths". Crucible Vietnam: memoir of an infantry lieutenant. McFarland. ISBN 978-0-7864-4517-2. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) do. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Vietnam War title

Since the "Vietnam War" was never declared in the United States, is the title accurate in stating that the military action was indeed a War? The Vietnam conflict was not a War since the U.S. Congress did not declare War, just as there was no war in Korea, since the U.S. Congress did not declare War there either. Suggested title rename to "U.S. - Vietnam military conflict 1955-1975" Cmguy777 (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe this question was discussed ad nauseam in Archive 19.72.197.57.247 (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The idea that Vietnam was a "conflict" as opposed to a war because the US Congress did not formally declare it is laughable on the face of it. Millions were killed, more bombs were dropped on SE Asia than all of Europe during WWII, but don't call it a war! These guys[2] seem to have no problem with calling it war, as well as the Pentagon [3], LBJ[4] and Nixon[5]. Hinging it on a formal declaration of war is just splitting hairs, it's original research, and in any case the name most commonly used by independent historians is "Vietnam War" making the discussion moot even if all US government sources had carefully avoided the word "war". As far as I can tell, efforts to redefine the Vietnam War as a "conflict" is just a fringe trying to make the US look better ("we never lost a war, because we never declare one in Korea or Vietnam."). Moving the goalposts will not help you score in the nationalistic mythos Olympics, sorry. See further the previous discussion on this.--Sus scrofa (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me but rhe USA was not the only party to the war. I bleive its called a war by the Veitnamese, The Ausies [6], New Zeeland [7]. I won't bother checking any others.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Original research? The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power Healy (2008) p. 31. The U.S. constitution states that Congress declares war, not historians. The President has the power to defend national interest, such as any treaty negotiation. Vietnam was a full scale war without any declaration from Congress. Maybe rather then name change, this issue needs to be discussed in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I have solved the matter. According to Healy (2008), p. 91, the Tonkin Resolution on August 5, 1964 was in fact a declaration of war without having stated a declaration of war. In essence, the Tonkin Resolution was an actual declaration of war giving the President authorization to launch a full scale war in South East Asia. I have added information in the article with Healy (2008) as a reference source. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Again all this is orrelevant it was not soley (or even majoritaly) a US war, so what the US thouight is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. lost the most men in the war and that is not irrelevant. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Cmguy777 (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

South Vietnam lost 4 times as many and North Vietnam 20 times as many, so if we are going by numbers lost we should use the NV’s name for the conflict (Resistance War Against America), do you agree to that name change?Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

In terms of European American powers the U.S. lost the most troops. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Does the NV list include civilian casualties or just the NV soilders? I mentioned previously the issue "name" has been resolved. I am no longer for any name change. I added pertinent information on Healy (2008), p. 91. There is no need to rename the article "Resistance War Against America". That means that the VC believed the primary factor in the Vietnam War were Americans or U.S. troops. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

So only European American matter? Nore does it matter if teh deaths are cvilian or millitary, they are still dead.Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The South Vietnamese were the U.S. ally, supposedly. They would be included as part of the overall anti-communist alliance to defeat the NV's. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

NV still sufferd 4 times as many casualties as the FW forces.Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I found a source for Vietnam War casualties The encyclopedia of the Vietnam War. This source divides causalties between two wars the Indo China War and the Vietnam War. In the Vietnam War there were no European powers fighting, other then Russia for the NVN. In terms of the U.S. Alliance the RVN lost the most at 1,390,357 and the U.S. 361,855. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Your source says SVN had 225,000 killed in action (as compared to 1,100,000 thousand communist battlefield deaths). With a total of 2,000,000 civilian dead between both sides (Figures ranging from SVN range from 500,000 to 1,000,000 whilst those in the north range from 30,000 to 2,000,000. So a figure of 2,000,000 for both sides does seem to be the middle estimate).Slatersteven (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Slatersteven. The numbers I gave were from the Vietnam War article. The War was definately high casualties. Maybe there needs to be an update on the casualty list in the Vietnam War article.Cmguy777 (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

From the Vietnam war article SVN 220,357 (lowest est.)[7] – 316,000 dead (highest est.);[8] (that is no where near 1,000,000).Slatersteven (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I included the wounded and the dead. Casualties include both wounded and dead. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The communitst suffred over 1,800,000 casulties.Slatersteven (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Casualties and losses info box for United States

Casualties and losses info box for United States cites 1,687 missing. The figure of 1,687 missing (per source: Vietnam-Era Statistical Support) addresses all of Asia, including China, and should be deleted.

There are two “missing” categories pertaining to the Vietnam War: missing in action/declared dead (a hostile death category), and missing presumed dead (a non-hostile death category). Both of these “missing” categories are addressed in the CRS Report and the Lawrence book mentioned in the U.S. Casualties and Losses discussion above.72.197.57.247 (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

There were 303,644 Americans wounded in Vietnam (153,303 U.S. troops were wounded and required hospitalization, and anotherr150,341 wounded, in a separate category, received flesh wounds from shrapnel or from small arms fire and received treatment at field aid stations, and were then sent back to their units). Verification of these numbers can be found on page 3 of the CSR Report referenced in the section above. Consequently the number in the info box is incorrect, though the number and references in the Annotations is correct.72.197.57.247 (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that the Wiki editors have not yet gotten around to correcting the info box for U.S. wounded from 303,635 to 303,644. In looking down the article at the “Effect on the United States” section, 9th paragraph, 1st sentence, which currently reads as follows: “By war's end, 58,220 soldiers were killed, more than 150,000 were wounded, and at least 21,000 were permanently disabled.” I feel this sentence should be re-written to state, “By war's end, 58,220 soldiers were killed, 303,644 were wounded (153,303 were wounded who required hospitalization, and another 150,341 wounded, but in a separate category, received flesh wounds from shrapnel or from small arms fire and received treatment at field aid stations, and were then sent back to their units). The war produced 5,283 amputees.” All of these casualty figures can be verified in the CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, February 26, 2010 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf).72.197.57.247 (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy in casualty statistics is imporatant and would improve the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Redoing the entire "Insurgency in the South, 1956–1960" section

I have to say I'm dismayed at the entire section. I'll leave it intact until further discussion.

Here are the claims which are usable given the actual history:

Source for Pentagon Papers.

• "Hanoi authorized communists in South Vietnam to begin a low-level insurgency in December 1956."

The Pentagon Papers say at the earliest, North Vietnam recognized the rebellion in 1960, let alone "authorize" it, the source is a book by Randy Roberts and James Olson which I doubt is as valid as the government study or the scholarship that came from it.

• "This insurgency in the south had begun in response to Diem's Denunciation of Communists campaign, in which thousands of local Viet Minh cadres and supporters had been executed or sent to concentration camps, and was in violation of the Northern Communist party line, which had enjoined them not to start an insurrection, but rather engage in a political campaign, agitating for a free all-Vietnam election in accordance with the Geneva Accords."

Again the Pentagon Papers point out that there was no "Northern Communist line" and that the 100,000 or so prisoners were non-communist and not even pro-communist and that the prisons were effectively "little more than concentration camps for potential foes." As P.J. Honey pointed out after visiting the camps:

"the consensus of the opinion expressed by these peoples is that...the majority of the detainees are neither communists nor pro-communists."

The claim that the insurgency was organized is dubious given that, as the Papers point out, as late as mid-1959 "[South Vietnam] did not construe it as a campaign, considering the disorders too diffuse to warrant committing major GVN resources." Again, I doubt Sheehan's book disproves all this.

• "Ho Chi Minh stated, "Do not engage in military operations; that will lead to defeat. Do not take land from a peasant. Emphasize nationalism rather than communism. Do not antagonize anyone if you can avoid it. Be selective in your violence. If an assassination is necessary, use a knife, not a rifle or grenade. It is too easy to kill innocent bystanders with guns and bombs, and accidental killing of the innocent bystanders will alienate peasants from the revolution. Once an assassination has taken place, make sure peasants know why the killing occurred." This strategy was referred to as "armed propaganda.'"

The quote is from a dubious source and can't be found in a Google search on anything that's not citing this very Wikipedia article or a verifiable source. As the Papers point out, North Vietnam didn't encourage the rebellion until 1960 so the quote is unlikely and barely verifiable.

• "Lê Duẩn, a communist leader who had been working in the south, returned to Hanoi to accept the position of acting first secretary, effectively replacing Trường. Duẩn urged a military line and advocated increased assistance to the insurgency."

Lack of citation and unlikely given that according to the Papers the North government didn't support the insurgence until 1960.

• "The insurgency sought to completely destroy government control in South Vietnam's rural villages and replace it with a shadow government".

This is based on the work of Mark Moyar which is highly disputed among historians and should be mentioned.

• "In January 1959, North Vietnam's Central Committee issued a secret resolution authorizing an "armed struggle," allowing the southern communists to begin large-scale operations against the South Vietnamese military. North Vietnam supplied troops and supplies in earnest, and the infiltration of men and weapons from the North began along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. In May, South Vietnam enacted Law 10/59, which made political violence punishable by death and property confiscation."

No citation on North Vietnam authorizing "armed struggle" and unlikely given that the Papers say the earliest recognition from the North wasn't until 1960.

• "Observing the increasing unpopularity of the Diem regime, Hanoi authorized the creation of the National Liberation Front (NLF) on 12 December 1960 as a common front controlled by the communist party in the South."

No citation and unlikely given that the Papers say it was recognized by North Vietnam after it's creation and especially no mention of it being created from Hanoi.

CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You'd be better off using the actual Pentagon Papers found at the National Archives website. In any case, the date given (1959) for the initiation of the major construction efforts along what was called the Ho Chi Minh Trail is correct. Link to the actual Papers is here.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point with the National Archives but I couldn't find anything mentioning the Ho Chi Minj Trail in relation to the beginning of the NLF. The problem is that like leaves like 90% of the section to be redone. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• You'd be better off referring to histories published by academic presses in Vietnam, the United States, South Korea, Thailand, Australia and other countries. The source you cited is a mix of government commissions and primary sources. It isn't the appropriate source to use to write about VWP planning and timing (scholarly journal articles published by Vietnamese speaking historians exist on just this topic.) Fifelfoo (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That's point two, obviously. The Papers were, after all, compiled during the conflict and leave a great deal out because of that. I doubt, for example, if they take any account of documents captured during the Cambodian incursion (to give just one example).Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The section is a mess though, and in particular it underplays the horrific governance by the Diem regime in the period. Additionally, works I've read published in the last 10 years by specialists do not make the absurd claims cited against Pike about widespread indiscriminate violence prior to 1959 by the southern VWP comrades. And it doesn't place the structure of governance and the assassination campaigns into appropriate context. It is a mess, cited generally to sub-par sources, with sub-par citation quality. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The party's decision to launch an insurgency in 1956 was not the decisive moment since that decision was conditional on getting approval from Moscow, which they didn't have until Ho's visit in October 1957. There was certainly quite a lot of fighting in the South prior to 1960. The first shipment down the Ho Chi Minh Trail was in August 1959 and the first large-unit military action was a VC ambush of two ARVN companies on 26 Sept. 1959. The Communists had a strict chain of command and no local commander was doing anything without Hanoi's approval. Moscow approved the war for reasons having to do with top-table international relations and the Sino-Soviet Split. A explanation that focused on Diem or his policies would be misleading. The Vietnam War from the Other Side by Cheng Guan Ang has an account of Communist decision making.

Also, to say the Le Duan effectively replaced Truong in 1956 as party boss is to misunderstand how a Communist system works. Titles like "president", "general secretary" and the rest don't tell you who is really running the show. Truong was seated in the No. 2 position at the 1957 May Day parade, which suggests that Le Duan and the war mongers did not gain full power until somewhat later. Kauffner (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Your exegesis assumes that VWP members naturally garnered public support for their policies. This isn't the case. Diem's policies allowed the southern VWP networks to grow, legitimise, and extend. They also allowed "liberal" nationalists to consider cooperation. Your analysis is sadly substitutionalist, it substitutes Hanoi for the Southern VWP, the Southern VWP for the national liberation movement, and the national liberation movement from the public. More nuance please. Even the most rigid lock-step analyses are aware that southern comrades were lobbying Hanoi for a more active line. I'd suggest P Asselin and T Vu, though Grossman (10.1080/14682740500284804) is also useful for the VWP. Quite obviously, adequate accounts of the NFL are rare. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd strongly suggest that the article needs to better engage with the historiography that Asselin outlines in "The War from the Other Side" in A Companion to Lyndon B. Johnson, 2011 Fifelfoo (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as public opinion goes, the big issue at that time was the famine, which was blamed on Truong and the Maoists. So it was important to make it look like Truong had been punished and demoted. But judging from what happened later, he obviously remained powerful. Kauffner (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

In the North, definitely. In the South? As opposed to Catholic landlordism and the poorly managed political policing? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

To address Kauffner, there was no "party", "decision," or "chain of command," the NLF was completely disorganized until 1960 (the same year North Vietnam recognized and supported them) and it would be difficult to link the Ho Chi Minh Trail to the NLF in 1959 because they didn't exist until a year later or at least according to any serious literature, to Fifelfoo, I don't think a passage on Vietnam from an nearly unknown book about LBJ would be a good source. As far as I can tell the Pentagon Papers are the best source out there even today since not a lot was really discovered since then and the Gravel edition is just as good as the source papers. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This is recycled wartime propaganda and not even the communist leaders talk about the issue this way anymore. Tran Van Tra was the top VC commander, but his memoirs suggest he was hardly even aware the NLF. (He usually calls it the "PRG of the RSVN".) There is a relevant passage on how Tra got appointed NLF delegate to the peace conference (p. 9). COSVN recommended Tra to the Central Committee in Hanoi, and no one bothered to ask the NLF for its opinion. Tra was an NVA officer and he got his orders from the "Military Commission of the Party Central Committee" in Hanoi (pp. 9, 56, 66, 76, etc, etc, etc). Kauffner (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that CartoonDiablo bother to investigate the academic literature, which regularly publishes, and which unlike the edition of the Pentagon Papers cited here, produces scholarly secondary sources. Kauffner, as you would know, the PRG was formed after US intervention—memoirs are not considered reliable as they're primary and involved—Tra has great reasons to remember the later period over the earlier period. Particularly when (as you note) at the level of policy leadership most of the NFL was interchangeable with VWP responsibilities. But, by concentrating on PLAF/VWP leadership, you're grossly underplaying the nature of the NFL as a popular organisation. Again: the scholarly literature, particularly since 1989, is advanced from the arguments being placed here. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Effect on the United States -- Section

9th paragraph, 1st sentence, currently reads as follows: “By war's end, 58,220 soldiers were killed, more than 150,000 were wounded, and at least 21,000 were permanently disabled.”

I feel this sentence should be re-written to state, “By war's end, 58,220 soldiers were killed, 303,644 were wounded (153,303 were wounded who required hospitalization, and another 150,341 wounded, but in a separate category, received flesh wounds from shrapnel or from small arms fire and received treatment at field aid stations, and were then sent back to their units). The war produced 5,283 amputees.”

All of these casualty figures can be verified in the CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, February 26, 2010 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf).72.197.57.247 (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.57.247 (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

8th Paragraph, first two sentences read as follows:

More than 3 million Americans served in the Vietnam War, some 1.5 million of whom actually saw combat in Vietnam. James E. Westheider wrote that "At the height of American involvement in 1968, for example, there were 543,000 American military personnel in Vietnam, but only 80,000 were considered combat troops."

The first sentence contradicts the second sentence. I recommend rewriting the 1st sentence as follows (whiling deleting the 2nd sentence as it was only during 1969, not 1968, the troop levels reached 543,000): "More than 3 million Americans served in the Vietnam War, less than 700,000 actually served in combat roles in Vietnam."

Fyi -- A total of 2,644,000 servicemen and women served in the Vietnam War sent into harm’s way to Vietnam (50,000 up through 1964, and then 2,594,000 between 1965 and March of 1973). Source: VFW Magazine, April 1997.

Also, many sources contend that 22% of all the Army soldiers in Vietnam were in combat roles, with the remaining 78% providing support. 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 it is arguable 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. Supporting 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).72.197.86.130 (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If you go with the 2.6 million figure vice the "more than 3 million" figure, then those serving in “combat roles” would total less than 600,000, which is probably the most accurate statement. In Vietnam there was the equivalent of 9 Army divisions and 2 Marine divisions. Perhaps the Marines had a higher percentage in combat roles, since much of their support was provided by Navy personnel, however the Navy and Air Force had a smaller percentage in combat roles, hence 22% of the 2.6 million, or "less than 600,000 in combat roles" is a supportable figure to apply.72.197.57.247 (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how the Wiki editors go about making corrections/changes to the article. There are about half a dozen significant corrections put forward within this Talk section, and yet it seems they can sit there for weeks, during which no action is taken. I was just wondering whether there is a "to do" schedule that the Wiki editors have set for themselves to turn their energies to this Vietnam War article, or whether an authorized Wiki editor can make changes to the article whenever he or she deems it appropriate. I have no idea how corrections are incorporated, and I don't know whether our contributions to this Talk section have any real impact. Hopefully a Wiki editor can enlighten me.72.197.86.130 (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-US date formatting used in the article?

Rightly this article is written in US-ENG, but isn't "1 November 1955" for example non-US date formatting? XD - or did it change? Excuse my ignorance :3 --Nutthida (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)