Jump to content

Talk:Vietnam War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 50.202.81.2 (talk) at 20:46, 11 May 2017 (→‎Total Army involved from Vietnam War are wrong). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former good article nomineeVietnam War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 6, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 8, 2004, April 30, 2004, April 30, 2005, and April 30, 2006.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage


War was extended:

It turns out Nixon helped prolong the war.

" Now, for the first time, the whole story can be told. It begins in the summer of 1968. Nixon feared a breakthrough at the Paris Peace talks designed to find a negotiated settlement to the Vietnam war, and he knew this would derail his campaign. rest Here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21768668

For first time ? this has been common knowledge for decades ! Where you been bunky ? This is all part of the Kissinger Legacy, a gift from a really nice man 116.231.75.122 (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2016

Date of the end of the Vietnam war is wrong. The war ended on May 7. 1975 by presidential order of Ford. The reason for this is the last combat ships of South Vietnam were being escorted to Subic bay NAval base in the P.I islands. The USS Kirk escorted 34 ships in a combat evacuation of South Vietnam Navy and military units. Before they were allowed to enter the base they had to be surrendered to the USS kirk and re-flagged as United States Ships. On May 7, 1975 they completed the re flagging and on that date South Vietnam no longer existed . How do I know this ? I was on the USS Kirk. Get it right! 50.102.141.170 (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting story and perhaps it should be repeated -- with appropriate sourcing -- in one or another Wikipedia article. However, the US had not been a direct participant in the war since 1973. As the war after 1973 was between North and South Vietnam, the date that South Vietnam as a country ceased to exist for all practical purposes -- April 30, 1975 -- seems the better date. Smallchief (talk

Wrong Again! Until President Ford declared the Vietnam war over US forces were in the South still evacuating High level South Vietnam Officers and politicians who would of been killed on sight if captured. Why do you think Ford waited a week before he declared the war over. It was to safely get out the South Vietnam Navy to Subic bay and finish the evacuation. The last marine from the Embassy is just that the embassy evacuation not the evacuation of the whole country. The whole country was being evacuated up to May 7, 1975 by US forces. As for sources type in SOuth Vietnam navy evacuation escorted by the USS Kirk it all documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.141.170 (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: every source I've ever read, for example: [1], gives 30 Apr 75 as the "official" end date of the Vietnam war. As for Ford, he declared the war ended on 23 Apr 75 at Tulane when he spoke in a speech, "...the Vietnam War is finished as far as America is concerned". You are not the first to dispute the end date, and just as in the case of when the war actually started, all disputes are valid. Sources – reliable sources – are what Wikipedia uses to handle this type of circumstance, and as I noted, reliable sources have settled upon the last day of April as the end of the war. As a fellow veteran who knows how much veterans just L-O-V-E to hear this: Thank you for your service! (heh)  Paine  u/c 23:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not just me. The VFW and the American legion both say May 7,1975 is the end of the Vietnam War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.141.170 (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the Mayaguez Incident is regarded as being the last military action of the Vietnam War, 15 May 1975 is arguably the end date, however almost all WP:RS I've ever read refer to 30 April 1975 i.e. the Fall of Saigon as being the end of the war. 50.102.141.170 do you have any WP:RS that shows that "US forces were in the South still evacuating High level South Vietnam Officers and politicians" after 30 April, because I've never seen anything that says that. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we looked at the Vietnam War more broadly (and accurately) we would call it the "Indochina War." Considering the war in that wider context, one might also select December 2, 1975 as the end of the war as that was the day that the communist Pathet Lao established their government in Laos -- thus completing their trifecta of conquering all three Indochinese countries which had been supported by the United States. However, I'm content with citing April 30, 1975 as the official end of the Vietnam War. That date saw the end of the US presence in Vietnam and the demise of South Vietnam as a separate country.Smallchief (talk 10:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Smallchief you are absolutely right that the conflict should properly be called the Second Indochina War (the French one being the first), but the Vietnam War is the name that has stuck and which Wikipedia should use. In relation to the end date, various different arguments can be advanced for dates other than 30 April 1975, but all WP:RS agree that that was the end, the Fall of Saigon being the grand finale and subsequent events just being the final fallout. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely. Smallchief (talk 09:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since this question has been raised, I searched the web and found two interesting pages. The first is at the Veterans Today website that cites a congressional document, The Veterans’ Benefits Improvement Act of 1996, which states in section 505 that for the purpose of the definition of Vietnam Era Veterans, the end date of the war is indeed May 7, 1975. Is this enough to change the end date in this article? Please help, because I'm not sure that I was correct to deny this edit request.  Paine  u/c 04:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be extremely US-centric to accept a date set by the US congress for the narrow purpose of determining what government benefits a soldier might receive for his service in or near Vietnam. Five American Presidents, Republican and Democratic, asserted that the US was in the Vietnam War only to assist South Vietnam -- that the war was between South and North Vietnam. Thus, the date the Vietnam War ended was the day that the South Vietnamese government ceased to exist: April 30, 1975. The vast majority of sources accept that date. Smallchief (talk 10:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Smallchief, that would be an entirely US-centric position to adopt and is not supported by numerous WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I knew something was not right about my reasoning, but couldn't quite put my finger on it. Thank you Mztourist and Smallchief for your help on this!  Paine  u/c 03:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, of course it is a US-centric position. It was a US war ! US against the Viet Minh. All this crap about Korea Australia Thailand participation as "allies" is as stupid as the Iraq "allies" propaganda. There are no allies. Other countries sent token numbers of soldiers to give the US imperialists the facade of "the Free and Independent West opposing Communism" but without the US ? None of those countries would have sent even a dog-catcher to Vietnam. They only sent token soldiers because otherwise the US would have spanked them in the pocketbook. Someone should wake up around here and face the Truth. 116.231.75.122 (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The war was not over until May 7,1975. I should know I was there during the evacuation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.141.170 (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

50.102.141.170 see the discussion above, the end of the war was 30 April 1975. While personal accounts are not WP:RS, where exactly were you on 7 May 1975 to claim that the evacuation was still ongoing? Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the USS Kirk cant you read?

As Smallchief has pointed out above 30 April 1975 is the generally accepted date. Your personal recollection of reflagging of South Vietnamese ships is not WP:RS for an alternative date. Mztourist (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Funny, buncha kids who weren't even a sparkle in their dad's eyes blabbing away pompously about Vietnam. But it was never a war. The US never declared war. Lots of constitutional questions involved here that were never really answered, so the president has continued to wage war illegally ever since. No, not tinfoil helmet talk, I have references, To Chain the Dogs of War, Francis Dunham Wormuth, among others.

Since it was never a war, how could there be an official end date for something that never existed ?

btw, this article is not very good. Too much "communist" this, "communist" that. Someone should read Bernard Fall.116.231.75.122 (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf of Tonkin incident was a false flag, U.S. government lie for the military economy

Just like President Bush lied about WMD to get the U.S. into a war against Iraq,the war in Vietnam was no different.
″The first third of the book essentially ends with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which our government portrayed as an unprovoked attack by the North Vietnam government on one of our ships, even though the administration knew that it was anything but unprovoked. President Johnson and McNamara used that incident to get Congress to pass legislation that they then took to give them cart blanche to convert the war to an American war and to send so many of our men to fight and die in the jungles of Vietnam.″-1-
Researchist (talk) 12:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC) [1][reply]
There is no shortage of information on this topic.

What edit are you suggesting?Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sheehan, Neil. "A BRIGHT SHINING LIE". goodreads.com. Vintage. Retrieved 15 February 2017.

122mm rockets are not "gunfire"

In the "Women in Vietnam War" section it states that Sharon Ann Lane was killed by enemy "gunfire". She was not. She was killed by a barrage of 122mm rockets launched by the Viet Cong. Rockets are not guns. Also, she did not work 12 hour shifts because they were "short staffed". In Vietnam EVERYBODY worked 12 hours a day, six days a week. Also, Sharon was the ONLY American military woman killed in combat in Vietnam, and I think this should be mentioned. Also, the article states that at the beginning of the Vietnam War it was thought that women had no place in the military. This is outrageous! Women served in WWII and Korea and were an integral part of the military. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources for this?Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American women who died in combat.

Journalists

Georgette "Dickey" Chappelle

Killed by a mine on patrol with Marines outside Chu Lai, November 4, 1965.

Phillipa Schuyler

Killed in a firefight, Da Nang, May 9, 1966. 

    That's some good research.  You should also mention the many women who were killed when the C5A cargo plane they were on evacuating a whole lot of war orphans crashed (Operation Babylift).  But Sharon Ann Lane remains the only female member of the American MILITARY who died in combat.  As such she received the Purple Heart, Bronze Star with Combat "V" and the highest award of the South Vietnamese, the Military Medal, equivalent to our Medal of Honor.

Missionaries

Carolyn Griswald

Killed in a raid on the leprosarium in Ban Me Thuot during Tet 1968.

Janie A. Makil

Shot in an ambush, Dalat, March 4, 1963. Janie was five months old.

Ruth Thompson

Killed in a raid on the leprosarium in Ban Me Thuot, February 1, 1968.

Ruth Wilting

Killed in a raid on the leprosarium in Ban Me Thuot, February 1, 1968. 

    ***See above paragraph.   50.202.81.2 (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
   --Here's the particular public law that lifted the 2% maximum enlistment for women and allowed them also to become admirals and generals:  Public Law 90-l30, passed in 1967 during the Vietnam War, so the first female generals were during the Vietnam War in 1970.  So I hardly think women were "oppressed" during the Vietnam War, as the article states. The article needs to be re-written. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)````[reply]
OK name one female general who had a command position during in the Vietnam WAR?Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 --On June 11, 1970 President Nixon promoted Anna Mae Hays to Brigadier General, she was Chief  of the Army Nurse Corps; on the same day Nixon Promoted Elizabeth Paschel Hoisington to Brigadier General, she was Director of the Women's Army Corps.  These were the first two women to become generals.  50.202.81.2 (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So they did not have combat commands, in t e war zone and commanded female units. Sorry not sure this disproves the idea that women did not enjoy equal rights in the US army during Vietnam.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • All military commands can serve in combat. For instance General Elizabeth Hoisington served in France after D-Day and received the Bronze Star and French Croix de Guerre, and these are war medals. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which is irrelevant, did they command troops in combat? If not then they had "administrative" command only. In essence this was the start of a long road to equality, to paraphrase Churchill, this was not then end of the beginning, but the beginning of the start. Even today women do not enjoy full equality in the military.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However what we think is unimportant, do you have any RS saying that women were not oppressed during the war.?Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply] 

   I think you're the victim of the "Feminist False Narrative".  Remember, feminism is communism, it's Cultural Marxism using Critical Theory.  And communists lie.  So feminists lie.  I was in the Vietnam War and women were treated very well, we were governed by the UCMJ.  The military was only 2% women, so they were rare and well treated and protected.  Nowadays, with, I think, 14% of the Army being female, there's all kinds of problems.  Women getting pregnant on aircraft carriers and having to leave ship, drill instructors raping women, etc.  But I don't recall anything like that happening in the 1960's. RS on this I'd have to look around a bit, since it was never a matter for concern in those days.50.202.81.2 (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well when you have the sources we can discus how to include them.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's something: General Dwight Eisenhower never served in combat, he has no combat medals. So I guess he falls into the same "administrative" group as female Generals Hoisington and Hays. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.202.81.2 (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And here's something: I was in the states at a hospital because of a war injury and the head nurse on the ward was a snotty, pushy obnoxious 2nd Lt. that everybody hated. Rather than laud women in the military as perfect angels I think we should look at it realistically, they are just humans and some of them were really ill mannered. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 11:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have a source for it include it, as to IKe, he commanded combat troops.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just ran across this interesting tidbit that you've been looking for: Capt. Linda Bray, US Army, was the first woman to lead American troops in combat. It was Panama, Operation Just Cause, in 1989. She captured a dog kennel. True fact! 50.202.81.2 (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Total Army involved from Vietnam War are wrong

The number of army from total China, North Vietnam and Vietcong are only 500,000 but total loss 1,100,000. It must be something wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.137.152.228 (talk) 07:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source please?Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a mistake, but it can be confusing. The estimates of soldiers fighting in South Vietnam is calculated at a point in time, e.g. 1968. The casualty estimates cover combat losses over 20 years. Example: 2.5 million US soldiers served in Vietnam; but the maximum number of US soldiers in Vietnam at one time was 500,000 plus. Of those 2.5 million, 58,000 were killed. The table lists maximum number of US soldiers in country; but US casualties for the whole 20 years we were engaged in Vietnam.Smallchief (talk 10:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for jumping in. I should point out that with TDY's the total amount of troops in Vietnam at its highest point was around 750,000. Also, if you include offshore Navy and troops in Thailand the number of Vietnam vets jumps to 3.5 million. Then there's a certain amount of guys who went to Vietnam on special missions where no orders were cut, so they're not annotated as Vietnam vets on the record. I went to Vietnam on SECRET orders and the military still won't acknowledge that I was there, even though they issued me the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry and Vietnam Service Medal. So I'm probably not listed, and there's no way to find out. Also, of the 58,000 Americans who were killed, 10,000 were accidents and 25,000 were the result of mines and booby traps. So the North only killed 25,000 Americans in actual combat. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you get your figure of 750,000 from. Peak US strength on the ground in Vietnam was 543,000 in April 1969. Obviously if you count other forces in theatre who were also engaged in the war, Thailand, Gulf of Tonkin, Subic, Guam etc. that takes the figure much higher.Mztourist (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The figures you quoted are PCS (Permanent Change of Station) personnel--that's your 543,000 men. But we sent tons of guys to Vietnam on TDY (Temporary Duty) and this causes the numbers to jump up considerably. In a war you move men in a hurry to wherever they're needed. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not supported by any WP:RS I know of. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Westmoreland didn't want the public to know the actual number of troops in Vietnam was 750,000 which was well beyond the limit. It was not highly published as I recall. A TDY tour was a "half tour" so the military could add another "half tour" into your overseas duty. If we stayed longer than 60 days TDY they'd take those days off your overseas duty so we had to boogie out of Vietnam after 54 days, so as not to exceed the 60. Then they'd send us to another base in SEA. We went TDY ALL OVER SEA. I'm sure Westmoreland historians have probably read how Westmoreland bolstered troop strength by TDY's in his biographies, so jump in guys. I know that in June 1965, 59% of the Air Force in Thailand were TDY and 30% in South Vietnam were TDY. The USA didn't send its first PCS squadrons to Vietnam until 1965. One of my squadrons, early on in the war in 1965, flew 1500 missions TDY for five months out of Takhli and picked up two Combat "V's" and lost 10 of its 18 aircraft as I recall but wasn't awarded the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry because it was there on secret orders so as not to upset the political regime. So it was never there even though it became the most experienced squadron in the USAF. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC) 50.202.81.2 (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the more I look into this TDY business the more I think the article needs a section on TDY's in Vietnam, since they constituted an additional 250,000 military. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 07:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't offered a single WP:RS to support any of this, so unless you do any section you propose will be quickly deleted. Which "One of my squadrons, early on in the war in 1965, flew 1500 missions TDY for five months out of Takhli"? Mztourist (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's something: "Almost 750,000 U.S. troops were present in the East Asia and Pacific Theater at the height of the Vietnam War". --That's @ www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/maps 50.202.81.2 (talk) 08:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's some more: read pages 146 & 147 of Jacob Staaveren's "Gradual Failure: the Air War Over North Vietnam 1965-1966", in which he describes in detail the TDY situation and recounts that the first PCS squadron wasn't until 1965. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I was referring to the 563rd TFS flying F-105's. They were disbanded in 1972 and I was transferred to the 561st TFS, a Wild Weasel Squadron: we sent over 12 planes and 4 of them got shot down, one of them was the last F-105 shot down in the Vietnam War. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 08:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In which theater was Hawaii? How about Japan or South Korea?Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's something: in "Trade and Security: the United States and East Asia, 1961-1969" by Charles M. Dobbs, on page 53 it states "...to a peak of 750,000 Americans on the ground in South Vietnam, on air bases in surroundimg countries or at sea in the region..." 50.202.81.2 (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
   I should point out that 80% of US Air Force strikes in North Vietnam came from Thailand, according to the Wiki article "US Air Force in Thailand".  50.202.81.2 (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was reading some C-130 sites and apparently ALL C-130's in Vietnam were TDY except for the rescue C-130's. President Johnson was getting flak from Congress about the high number of troops in Vietnam so he used TDY troops. A lot of guys who pulled missions in Vietnam TDY had no record of it so they had to use their travel vouchers to prove they were in Vietnam. So TDY troops were used on purpose to cover up the real number of troops in Vietnam. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
50.202.81.2 You said above "total amount of troops in Vietnam at its highest point was around 750,000", however the sources you are quoting state "Almost 750,000 U.S. troops were present in the East Asia and Pacific Theater at the height of the Vietnam War" and "...to a peak of 750,000 Americans on the ground in South Vietnam, on air bases in surroundimg countries or at sea in the region..." both sources are referring to US forces in the Southeast Asia theatre, not on the ground in Vietnam - big difference. Mztourist (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see what you're saying, but these troops pulled TDY's into Vietnam, so that would make them part of the 750,000 "boots on the ground". For example, guys would go from my Wing on Okinawa to Vietnam, come back for two days, then go back to Vietnam at another base. So they were never counted as PCS even though they were in Vietnam the majority of the time. Their PCS base was listed as their home base on Okinawa, not Vietnam. TDY's had to come from another place, obviously, and the TDY's were drawn from bases CLOSE to Vietnam. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And you need an RS that says this, not your OR anecdotes.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with your reasoning is that you're proposing to initiate a never ending chain. If you count the AF personnel in Thailand and Okinawa and Hawaii as being included among the "total amount of troops in Vietnam" (your words), then why shouldn't we also count the people who worked in the Pentagon in Washington and any other military people in the US, Germany, or elsewhere who had anything to do with the war?
And if we're going to count everybody on the US side who was involved in on way or another in the Vietnam War, then we would also have to count everybody in North Vietnam who was involved to the war effort -- and that was virtually everybody in North Vietnam.
The simple, straight-forward and comprehensible way to count US military in Vietnam is to count the number of soldiers on the ground in the country. I'm pretty sure that any TDY's who weren't counted in the 543,000 max troop level of the US were few in number. Statistics were kept ad nauseum in Vietnam by the U.S. military, and I seem to recall (from my vantage point) that military personnel were actually moved out of Vietnam early to ensure that the ceiling on personnel was not exceeded by new arrivals. Smallchief (talk 14:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 * I'm looking at my Secret TDY orders to  Vietnam with the 834th Air Division.  The Air Force refuses to acknowledge that I served with the 834th, even though I worked on their planes 12 hours a day, six days a week.  Everybody from the 374 TAW went TDY to Vietnam, we even had a CIA squadron, the 21st TAS, that would pull Top Secret missions in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia.  But these orders were all classified.  But the 374th TAW rotated planes and men continuously in and out of Vietnam.  50.202.81.2 (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom

The UK should be listed as one of the belligerents as 2,000 British soldiers were allowed to volunteer for service in Vietnam from 1964. (JamesFenner (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

The problem is they had to resign as I recall from the British forces, thus they did not serves as member of HM armed forces.Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Slatersteven, the UK was not officially a belligerent.Mztourist (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

US involvement was illegal

The lede should mention that US involvement in Vietnam was illegal under international law, as it violated Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. (81.159.6.40 (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vietnam_War&oldid=779918554"