Jump to content

Talk:Canada and the Vietnam War

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

Untitled

[edit]

Removed One of the most visible expressions of this was at Expo '67. President Johnson was visiting for the opening of the American pavilion, which would involve a large American flag being unfurled. The FLQ secretly informed the government that anyone who tried to raise the flag would be shot. The original government plan was to use a Boy Scout to raise it, under the assumption the FLQ would not assassinate a child, but this idea was rejected and an extremely nervous scout leader wearing a bullet proof vest did so. While he was not shot it was discovered upon the unfurling of the flag that the canton with the stars had been cut out by a protester.

I can't find any references for this happening, and am sure I would have heard of it if it were the case. (I'm Canadian, btw) If anybody can point to a reference, I'd be happy to see it reinstated, but otherwise I feel it should remain out. Sherurcij 00:08, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

It is from a 2004 CBC documentary titled EXPO 67: Back to the Future. - SimonP 00:16, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


I'm removign the claim of 40,000 put in by an anonymous IP address unless it's sourced Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 15:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even the CBC reference of 30,000 'Canadians' volunteering is proving hard to substantiate. Does anyone know where the CBC sourced this number?

I suppose the CBC would probably be the best people to answer that question. =) - TheMightyQuill 01:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that Canada's position vis a vis the Commonwealth should also be mentioned. I have put in a short paragraph about this. Canada's position would not be purely influenced by the USA, but also by the UK (non-participant), and Australia + New Zealand (participants). --MacRusgail 16:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A user has assumed I was referring to pre-Statute of Westminster Commonwealth law. This was not what was implied at all, rather that the Commonwealth at the time was still an influence on Canada, and is to a minor extent today. Canada's position on Vietnam cannot be looked at purely through its relations with the USA. --MacRusgail 15:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that the Commonwealth was influential, merely that this situation was unusual. What's your logic? HistoryBA 23:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Unusual" is probably the wrong term here. However, I still think Canada's attitude towards US militarism is well contrasted with A-NZ and the UK here. --MacRusgail 16:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The picture

[edit]

The evidence that this picture was taken at the 1965 meeting is derived from connecting the ID number associated with the photo (PA117602) as seen here with the description in the National Archives of Canada seen here. The date matches the date of Pearson's visit to Johnson's ranch in January, 1965. Fishhead64 23:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, except that's not the meeting where Johnson berated Pearson. HistoryBA 12:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pearson made two trips to the LBJ Ranch within three months in 65? Something's wrong here. Fishhead64 16:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the April trip wasn't a planned one. He was invited to the ranch after giving the speech at Temple University. Pearson's memoirs make it clear that the berating took place in April. In any case, I don't think there were any photographers for the April trip, given how it is described in the memoirs. HistoryBA 16:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-participant" as against "neutral"

[edit]

I think that some explanation is needed for why Canada was "non-participant", rather than "neutral", and what exactly the former entails, given that "non-participant" (unlike "neutral") lacks a commonly understood meaning. Although anyone can guess more or less what it means, its use instead of "neutral" suggests that it has some precise meaning, perhaps in diplomatic jargon, and perhaps hairsplittingly different from "neutral", which is not familiar to an average reader. Is this a distinction without a difference, perhaps -- just two ways of expressing the same thing? By whose officialdom and by whose way of classifying states in relation to a war was Canada "non-participant"? What, if anything, is the effective difference between that and neutrality? Also, is "non-participant" rightly an adjective, or should that be "a non-participant"?
-- Lonewolf BC 05:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an important distinction in the world of international relations, where the word neutral has a very specific meaning. Canada was not neutral in the war, it actively supported and hoped that one side would prevail; however, it did not participate directly in the conflict. - SimonP 06:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well enough (and much as I'd guessed), but the term and distinction need to be explained in the article, whereas they seem to be matters of the field's specialised jargon. At the least there must be a link to an article on "non-participant", if such exists within WP. That's really what I was saying in my last comment, as against asking for an explanation to be given here on the talk-page. It might be just as well to avoid using the jargon altogether.
What about "non-participant" versus "a non-participant"?
-- Lonewolf BC 08:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Accuracy of "Assistance to the Americans"

[edit]

Can someone explain what is in dispute here, or can I remove the tag? - TheMightyQuill 04:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that section is fine. The dispute was over some inane comments by Ann Coulter, and has hopefully blown over.- SimonP 11:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not "Asylum"

[edit]

Several articles that link here use the term asylum. There was no special status given by Immigration Canada to draft *evaders* & deserters - though they did not extradite them. The article needs to include explanation of WHY Canada would extradite NEITHER evaders NOR deserters. As I recall, Trudeau gov't at one point announced they would not co-operate with US in pursuing such people, nor would it count against them when trying to obtain landed immigrancy or citizenship. RCMP did continue to interview (sometimes just by phone) such people & passed info along to FBI. See: http://archives.cbc.ca/IDCC-1-71-348-1937/conflict_war/draft_dodgers/ http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-71-348-1928/conflict_war/draft_dodgers/clip5 Details STILL needed. --JimWae (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Anne Coulter bit

[edit]

the part about where it says how she said canada sent troops in...second line says they did under national forces, so they did, only troops were NATO and not canadian troops, per se.

so what's the fact?

canada semt troops or canada didnt, ignoring which banner they went under? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.182.27 (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

they'd count as peacekeepers if sent under an international banner or under a un banner. like in the rwandan crisis or in the congo.

it only counts as sending troops if there is a war declaration and if they are sent as part of a country's regular armed forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.2.32 (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Related Controversy was removed: Historical Revisionism as a News Story

[edit]

Greetings Jking:

On Aug 18 2009, you removed the entire “Related Controversy” Section, attaching the following words to your edit: “Le's please not air our partisan bickering for all the world to see in an encyclopedic forum. It's not relevant, it's inappropriate, and it's seedy besides. :()”

My response to this is as follows: Wikipedia:No original research provides clear guidelines as to what is original research and what is not. If you feel that I have violated that Wikipedia guideline in any way, please point me to the specific part of that guideline that I have violated. After a reply from you on this, perhaps we can work something out. Thanks.

Was my edit original research?

The story about the website editing is not my story: It was covered by the The Toronto Star and The Canadian Press. See references. Therefore it does not violate Wikipedia's policy on original research.

Was my edit partisan?

It was not me, but the Toronto Star news article, which printed the quote about “the Harper government.” This was not an editorial, nor a columnist, but a news article. Therefore your criticisms about "partisanship." does not stand.

When the Toronto Star article printed the phrase, "in 2009, the Harper government [took] a much dimmer view" they used the word "dimmer." The use of the word "dimmer" causes the reader to ask "Dimmer than who?" I have provided the reader with the answer to that question. But I limited the information to only the answer to that question without engaging in any further partisan statements. (Quite frankly, I have never voted for Chretien nor the Liberals in my life.)

Is my edit encyclopedia material?

One of the purposes of an encyclopedia is to document phenomenon in society. This controversy exists as a phenomenon in Canadian society: There were two Parliamentary motions on the issue of Canada and Iraq War Resisters. As documented by The Toronto Star, the "Harper government" is clearly attempting to relate that issue to Canada and the Vietnam War. With two Parliamentary recommendations being ignored, this controversy is clearly a noteworthy phenomenon in Canadian society, worthy of note in any encyclopedia. The existence of the controversy is simply a fact, regardless of which side of the issue one finds themselves on. Wikipedia recognizes that societal phenomenon, including controversies, are worthy of note. See Wikipedia policy on controversy at this link: Wikipedia:Controversial articles

The website that was edited was not just any website. It was a website paid for by Canadian taxpayers. This clearly makes the edit of this website a societal phenomenon, as opposed to a private incident on a privately owned website. That is probably why The Toronto Star covered the story in the first place.

Also see Historical revisionism.

In the meantime, I am now replacing the well-referenced section that you removed in its entirety. Please let me know which Wikipedia policy I have violated, and then I will be more than happy to amend the section. Thank you.Boyd Reimer (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Levant Quiet Complicity

[edit]

Here is the review in French.

Victor Levant. Quiet Complicity: Canadian Involvement in the Viet Nam War. Toronto, Between the Lines, 1986, 336 p. http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/702404ar

Takima (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canada was NOT in the Vietnam war

[edit]

I don't know how people do not understand this, Canada never went to war in Vietnam so why i there a page for "Canada and the Vietnam War"? It did not affect them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collingwood26 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation

[edit]

I really like the way this article juxtaposes information about those who supported the war in Canada and those who opposed the war. I hope it stays that way. - Babel41 (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Canada and the Vietnam War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After the War - Historical Revisionism

[edit]

The information about the boat people is a bit of historical revisionism that is encouraged by the former Saigon military leaders who are now in Canada, aided by Senator Ngo and Jason Kenney. Someone needs to get the facts. The outline is this: Canada admitted about 4700 Vietnamese between 1975 and 1978. Those people were not generally referred to as "boat people" -- most were evacuated by the US military and came to Canada from the US. Canada felt that cleaning up after the fall of Saigon was a US responsibility and Canada was motivated at this time primarily to reunify families who already had members in Canada.

The boat people crisis started in late 1978 when Vietnam had a falling out with China (see the Wikipedia article on the boat people!) It had absolutely nothing to do with the fall of Saigon or the Vietnam war. If it had, Canada would have left it to the Americans to clean up as we did in 1975-78. Canada responded to the boat people crisis in 1979 and subsequently admitted 168,000 Vietnamese over the 18 year duration of that crisis. Canada did not ask any of those refugees what their role had been in the Vietnam war -- they came from all over Vietnam and at least 70% were ethnic Chinese. That is in contrast to the US who then and now admits anyone who was involved with them in the war.

In short, the first paragraph in "After the War" should reflect that Canada, in fact, did NOT respond to the fall of Saigon. That was in keeping with Canada's new-found national independence that is described in the very next paragraph. The Vietnamese community in Canada did NOT originate in the aftermath of the fall of Saigon. The majority of Canada's Vietnamese community is ethnic Chinese because it originated in Vietnam's falling out with China.

There are many possible motivations for this historical revisionism, but the attempt to tie it all back to the fall of Saigon has the effect of continuing the persecution of Vietnam's ethnic Chinese minority in Canada.

TayRuong (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Canada and the Vietnam War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Canada and the Vietnam War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canada and the Vietnam War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After the war -- Vietnamese Boat People

[edit]

"After the fall of South Vietnam in April 1975" ... Canada admitted 4,781 people from Vietnam between 1975 and 1977, most of them because they already had family in Canada. End of Story. In 1978 an exodus of ethnic Chinese began from Vietnam which had nothing to with the fall of Saigon. On account of that, between 1979 and 1996 Canada admitted 165,000 Vietnamese. They came from all over Vietnam and not one was asked what their role had been in the war. THAT is where Canada's Vietnamese community came from, not the Vietnam war. Knowles is not an unbiased source, I suggest Howard Adelman. TayRuong (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not belong in "Canada's military history"

[edit]

Canada's "involvement" in the Vietnam War was overwhelmingly diplomatic. The only direct military involvement - i.e. deployment of military assets - was to send peacekeepers, which is a diplomatic action undertaken with the agreement of both warring sides. People trying to use the fact that Canadian policy was seldom overtly confrontational or obstructionist toward the US war in Vietnam are spinning based on personal bias. Canada and the US are diplomatic and military allies, so there was never going to be a chance that Canada was going to openly condemn the US or block Canadian companies from doing private business that supported the US war effort (though the article as written currently implies that all metal and food sales to the US military ended up in Vietnam, which is simply untrue - at the time the US also maintained a large domestic force as well as huge garrisons in Europe and elsewhere). The attempt to paint the Canadian involvement in the ICC as somehow nefarious is the sort of error a high-school student would make; in reality the ICC membership was deliberately drawn from countries trusted by one side or the other.

Even more tiresome is the persistent effort by some people to paint the presence of people with Canadian citizenship in the US military in Vietnam as proof that Canada was a party to the Vietnam War. This is being done by people on the left (a core strand of the Canadian nationalist left of the 1960s and 70s was persistent anti-Americanism) and the right (Americans and Canadians alike who have been swayed by forces ranging from Ann Coulter to a movement of Canadian veterans of Vietnam trying to claim that the Canadian government somehow owes them recognition for choosing to fight for a foreign country). This just isn't how international law works.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canada_and_the_Vietnam_War&oldid=1206526557"