Talk:Vietnam War

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2018

There were 4 military organization in this war, each has their own characteristics and goals in this war, therefore, to prevent confusion for the readers (I saw a lot of people mistaking the PAV and the Viet Cong when reading this article), I suggest a subheading to clarify these information.

Also moving "The primary military organizations involved in the war were, on one side, the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) and the U.S. military, and, on the other side, the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) (more commonly called the North Vietnamese Army, or NVA, in English-language sources), and the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (NLF, more commonly known as the Viet Cong in English language sources), a South Vietnamese communist guerrilla force." to the beginning of this new subheading.

Agent Orange deaths 1975-2018

Does not include deaths that happened as a direct cause of US military persons being exposed to Agent orange. The estimated deaths caused by Chemical warfare weapon Agent Orange from 1975 to 2018 after Vietnam Exposure is 35,000 to 44, 000.

Infobox Revisions

There is an error with the infobox in that Total Military Dead for Combatant One is placed in the wrong box. Additionally, I'd suggest removing Park Chung Hee as a commander as he had virtually no impact on war policy or course and moving the Korean commanders/unit numbers just below Laos and Cambodia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piccadillysquare (talk • contribs) 08:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I have moved the Total Military Dead to the correct side. Park Chung Hee stays as is, he was the President of South Korea throughout so should be there just as much as Diem, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon etc. Mztourist (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Except he was at home, governing his own country and did not actively participate in strategy or any other matter regarding the war. The figures you removed in blindly reverting my edit included people who actually headed South Vietnam for a period or were four-star generals during the war. I don't see why you would think this is justifiable.Piccadillysquare (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Historical Revisionism regarding the Viet Nam draft

In 1970 and 1971, the percentage of new Army recruits going to Viet Nam that were drafted was in excess of 98% if you exclude transfers from the National Guard, etc. They had to discontinue most of the deferments, including college deferments, in order to get enough soldiers, since practically no one was volunteering to go there. In order to clean up the image of the federal government and the US military, numerous efforts have been made to REVISE the historical draft records for the war. Even some college professors are completely ignoring the horrible situation that existed in 70 and 71, and teaching that throughout the war most of the new inductees were volunteers. This grossly adds insult to injury to the poor soles who fought under those conditions, who died, who went to Canada and ended up as male prostitutes, etc. To many, it is on a par with saying the holocaust never happened.

RS please?Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Park Chung-hee listing in Infobox

As leader of the 2nd largest contributor of forces to the war in South Vietnam, Park should be listed in the infobox, however User:Piccadillysquare has arbitrarily decided to delete him and edit war when I reinstated him.Mztourist (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. Neither were they the 2nd largest contributor of forces, gives that Cambodia and Laos were larger, and their leadership directly involved. By the same extension there isn't a reason to include every Australian PM or the King of Thailand. Or should we also include Mao and the PRC? The best option is to restrict it to leaders with substantive influence on its progression, in the same way that for example the Korean War fails to list the PM of Canada and Turkey. Piccadillysquare (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Read what I said: "2nd largest contributor of forces to the war in South Vietnam". Park was directly involved in the decision to commit troops and keep them in South Vietnam throughout the war. Yes the leaders of all Belligerents and their key generals should be listed. Korean War is completely different as the involvement there was under the UN and so only UNC commanders should be listed.Mztourist (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

They should be listed on the follow-up page linked by "and others", if they were not arguably directing the war strategy in any capacity. Some are obviously but that list is seriously out-dated.

Park was dictator of South Korea, he directed everything the South Korean military did.Mztourist (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Ia Drang, Courtwright

The narrative becomes sparse between March 1965 and 1967. I am adding some discussion of the Battle of Ia Drang, condensed from that article, and using an article by Galloway as a source, also from that article. Moore & Galloway (1992) is surely a better source, but I only have access to the article.

On another note, I have been looking for the source of the quote "We were not in Vietnam for 10 years but for one year 10 times”. I found a source that attributes it to Courtwright (2005), which is listed in the references here. I cannot find the quote on Google Books, but it may be on a page that is unavailable. So I am adding the cite with a "page needed" tag. Please improve the citations if you have access to these works. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Wrong date / president

This article currently says that "U.S. involvement escalated in 1960 under President John F. Kennedy . . ." Of course, this is impossible, since JFK wasn't president until 1961.2604:2000:EFC0:2:955E:3B23:F160:E881 (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox: US involvement

There is an edit war regarding what should be stated in the Results section. Should it simply state Withdrawal of U.S. forces (1973) or Withdrawal of U.S. forces and Expulsion of U.S. civilian/military staff from Cambodia, Laos and South Vietnam? As fond as I am of Operation Eagle Pull and Operation Frequent Wind, having largely drafted them, I don't believe they need referencing in the Infobox and to refer to them as "expulsion" is incorrect, as the US withdrew its Embassy personnel and citizens from Cambodia and South Vietnam before the Khmer Rouge and North Vietnamese victories, while the situation in Laos is less clear. Mztourist (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it should simply state "Withdrawal of U.S. forces". The "(1973)" is unnecessary and not entirely accurate has there were U.S. personnel past 1973. I don't really care about the other stuff. Lucasjohansson (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

1973 was when all US combat forces were withdrawn, the only "personnel" that remained after that date were Embassy staff and guards, which do not qualify as "forces". The insertion of 1973 was presumably meant to indicate that the war carried on without US involvement for a further 2 years after US forces were withdrawn. Mztourist (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure the reasoning for the insertion of 1973, but Operation Frequent Wind, Operation Eagle Pull, the Mayaguez incident, and Fall of Saigon shows that U.S. forces and involvement were still present, as well as the names listed on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial past 1973. Lucasjohansson (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that is a misleading perspective. The US stopped fighting the PAVN/VC in 1973 and all combat forces were withdrawn, they did not engage the PAVN/VC again. 2 Marine guards were killed by PAVN artillery fire during the evacuation and 2 Marine crewmen were killed in an accident during the evacuation. As User:MarkMcCain noted earlier, Operations Frequent Wind and Eagle Pull were not combat operations, they were evacuation operations. The Mayaguez Incident (which I also largely wrote) is a little murkier, US ground forces hadn't been engaged in Cambodia since 1970 and all combat operations, which consisted almost entirely of air support, ceased in August 1973, so there were no US forces in Cambodia from that time. The Mayaguez Incident was the only known engagement between US and Khmer Rouge forces and were it no so close in time to Operation Eagle Pull and the Fall of Phnom Penh would be regarded as an event completely separate from the Vietnam War. Mztourist (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

There was still combat regardless as shown with the 70 names listed on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial past 1973. The article has done fine simply stating "Withdrawal of U.S. forces" for years. This is also suppose to be listing the result of the war's conclusion, so if we're only focusing on the events of 1973, then that whole bullet point should be removed as it's not part of the aftermath. But obviously that's not the case. Lucasjohansson (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Mztourist's perspective on the edit, the Mayaguez Incident was also triggered initially at sea and not within any nation's sovereignty. Once again, the casualties listed post-Paris Peace Accords are not related to the initial combat role ended in 1973. Just because it's been this way for a significant amount of time doesn't mean it's not wrong and subject to change. Frankly, there are more people who disagree with you and that constitutes a consensus. There is also no "expulsion" of U.S. troops if they withdrew gradually over the course of 5 years (1968-1973). MarkMcCain (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm finding the whole thing a bit excessive and unnecessary, but this is meant to be informative and the current bullets are misleading. MarkMcCain (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

That is not how consensus works, see WP:CONSENSUS. You were also reverted by User:Smallchief (who thanked me after I reverted you). It should simply state "Withdrawal of U.S. forces" as it has been for years or remove the bullet altogether if we're only focusing on 1973, as this is about the aftermath of the war. Lucasjohansson (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

We were both thanked for our edits, unfortunately Smallchief hasn't weighed in on this talk page so his opinion is not yet accounted for. That's acceptable, though if that's the case the additional "expulsion" bullet is to be removed. You don't sign a ceasefire agreement with a country if you've expelled them. Right then, so that's the compromise. We should alter the dates a bit then to signify American involvement in the conflict. MarkMcCain (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll weigh in. The result in the info box should read "Withdrawal of U.S. forces." No date is needed or desired. In the World War I info box regarding results, we don't mention that Russia left the war early; in the World War II info box we don't mention that Italy was defeated in 1943, or that Germany was defeated before Japan. Thus, precedent. A date on U.S. withdrawal from the Vietnam War in the info box would complicate what is already an overly detailed and complicated info box, and, of course, raise debatable questions. Smallchief (talk)

Fair point. Mztourist (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Why not just "US withdrawal from the country".Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Fine with me. Smallchief (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

This makes sense. People could quibble all day about what constitutes forces in country and so on. Intothatdarkness 20:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2001

50.226.189.182 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Wrong crosses

There are crosses beside the names of people like Kennedy or Hồ Chí Minh who didn't die because of war, these crossed are irrelevant, confusing and wrong. Nochyyy (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Citation suggestions

Hi there--I don't think my account is old enough to edit this article so leaving this in Talk. https://tools.wmflabs.org/citationhunt/en?id=47d0d347 led me here with hopes to provide some citations for the quote "Failure of the war is often placed at different institutions and levels. Some have suggested that the failure of the war was due to political failures of U.S. leadership." which needs citation

Doing some research I found the following sources that could suffice.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/opinion/vietnam-was-unwinnable.html Reasoning: The quote "In contrast, the revisionist case rests largely on the assertion that our defeat in Vietnam was essentially psychological, and that victory would therefore have been possible if only our political leadership had sustained popular support for the war." indicates the war's failure was placed on political leadership failure (at least in a revisionist sense).

Source: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a601702.pdf Reasoning: this paper cites a failure of leadership to commit to one war strategy (changes from Kennedy, Johnson, to Nixon) hurting the war effort, leading to a weakened bargaining position for Nixon and a dissatisfied US population causing the ultimate failure. ArlJJAS (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)