Talk:Opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


What is the exact date of the Bryant Park rally? Based on the coats Lennon and Kerry are wearing summer seems too broad a time period, and also unlikely.

Again, no swearing please[edit]

Shouldn't the title be "Opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in the United States" or "Opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in the West". After all there was a fair amount of opposition in SE Asia and it got rather violent.;-) Domminico 13:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The war was basically created by the U.S. government. there would have surely been some fighting between North Vietnam's extremely popular ho chi minh and the south's elite government, but that what have ended very fast. most of the vietnamese supported ho chi minh and the only reason the south vietnamese government ever gained any strength or power was because of U.S. involvement. the U.S. got involved to stop the spread of communism unfortunately that's what the majority of vietnam wanted, we denied them democracy and split their country in half to prevent it. Amirman 18:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not true. The war was actually an extension of Ho Chi Minh's desire to force communism upon the entire region of Indochina, which was being carried out as far back as the 1930's when he was purging the anti-colonial revolution of non-communists. ----DanTD (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Rather than a change in title, I think someone should add details of Asian opposition. Firbolag 23:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This movement has many names. The Peace Movement, Anti War Movement to Americans age 40 and older.Bill Ladd (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Short, poorly laid out article[edit]

For such a large and interesting subject this article is very poorly laid out. The "protests" section is laughably small and contains some very unimportant protests while leaving out important ones. A good timeline would be a godsend. Someone more knowledgeable than myself should add to this. --User:Anonymous 5:57, 5 May 2006

Other protests[edit]

In the wake of Kent State and the escalation of bombing by Nixon in Cambodia, the number of anti-Vietnam War protests increased in number, size and intensity. In the fall of 1969 the "Moratorium" was intended to stop business as usual in major U.S. cities. Protests occurred in Boston, New York, and Washington, as well as other locations. One of the more interesting protests took place on May 26, 1971, in Boston. About 5,000 people, mostly older students, trained in civil disobedience, encircled the federal building in Boston's Government Square. The goal was to shut down local federal operations. Prevent people from normal access to the building. They were piled up there six to 10 deep linked arm in arm.

--Padraig 02:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

While they did not, in fact, prevent access to the building. They did, in effect, shut down the building because employees spent the whole day watching out their windows to see what would happen. In the afternoon police arrived and swept through the square. Using truncheons and shields they clubbed their way through the encircled mass and made some arrests. Of course the point of civil disobedience is to get arrested.
The sources for the above are Boston Globe accounts of the day and first-hand accounts from witnesses.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:50, March 15, 2007

The term "anti-war"[edit]

Many people use "anti-war" and "anti-Vietnam War" in the narrow sense of against America's involvement in the war. I can't recall anyone ever saying they were against Soviet or Chinese involvment.

And protesters generally assume that North Vietnam had a right to be involved in the war. They never protest North Vietnamese involvment.

One posistion is that "north" and "south" vietnam are artifical constructs created by the western powers; after the defeat of the occupying, racist french, most vietnamese would have supported Ho Chi Minh in open elections. As to the soviets and chinese - that is a real complex subject; suffice to say, would they have been there if we were not ? (just as we left afghanistan after the soviets did; leaving all our weaponry and proxy soldiers like osama with nothing to do)Cinnamon colbert 01:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like an attempt to equate "the war" with "the US military campaign".

Does it look like this to anyone else?

Could it be related to the "US out of Vietnam" PR campaign? As in, "If the US pulls out, the war will end". Comments, please! Uncle Ed 20:30, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe those who criticized america's involvement in the war were americans, so they were critical of their country, of what they belonged to; maybe, apart from being pacifists, they were against their own country commiting murders for political, power, and prestige reaons, which, by the way, are not important for one's daily life, but it is for rich people's wealth and power. That's what they could stop. You don't have to state that you are against other's involvement when critizing that of your own country. I'm not an American, but let say I am an American who is against some republican policy. Maybe I voted for the republicans. That doesn't make me democrat if I don't state such a thing. Accordingly, an american being against US involvement not only in vietnam, but in any other war, doesn't mean that they support the other country. That's a radical misconception, and it only echoes that fanatic and fallacious motto that "either you are with me or against me". Let's be serious. I don't think many people in the US, or in western societies, would have supported North Vietnam, among other things because I don't think they were likely to know what North Vietnam was fighting for or which were the reasons for that war. It was a conflict thousands of miles away from any western country.

But the Establishment likes to use such arguments. Either you are with me or against me. That is used to deter people from disobeying the will of the rich (i.e. the Establishment), by making them have to side either with their own country (that is, the war of their own country, regardless of whether they support it or not) or with their enemies, which may be just as repugnant, if not more.

-- 09:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Page Name[edit]

The page name should be moved to Opposition to the Vietnam War, this is what the movment was popularly percived and presented to be. If there is debate (referanced rather then original research) about whether people were against the war itself of just the US's involvement in the war this can be discussed in the text. In my opinion, protesters focused on the US's involvement because they (rightly or wroungly) considered that invovlement to be a defining feature of the war, ending it then would be seen as ending the war. The name change would also put inline with Protests against the Vietnam War and Opposition to the 2003 Iraq War/Protests against the Iraq war--JK the unwise 10:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

CounterCulture Wikia[edit]

Wikia (formerly Wikicities) now has a new CounterCulture wikia inviting people to join in. I think that people interested in this subject might find it useful as it grows -- it's only very new but looking for contributors. Alpheus 12:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Exact Number of Draft Dodging Americans[edit]

Those fleeing to Canada for example. 'Thousands' is pretty awful.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Seems like it would be pretty difficult to get anything better than a rough estimate. Even immigration records would be unreliable, since "dodging the draft" is not a legitimate reason for a visa, and they're a little particular about having reasons.
There may be some record of the number of people who were called up but did not appear for service. These stats may be available from the US gov't. However, they may be classified, even today.
Administrative notes: When adding to the talk page, add at the bottom of the page so people can see your comments. I had to check the history to find them. Also, signing your comments is standard protocol. JordeeBec 04:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


I deleted some info about pro war polls:

  • February 1967: 70% of Americans favor continued bombing of Vietnam. [2]
  • Public opinion polls in February 1968 show that 61% of Americans define themselves as "hawks" compared to 23% "doves". [3]
  • March 1969 polls indicate that 19% of Americans want the war to end as soon as possible, 26% want the South Vietnamese to take over, 19% favor current policy and 33% want all-out military victory. [4]
  • In July 1969, 53% of Americans express approval of Nixon's Vietnam policies. [5]

These polls were cherry picked to show the ones most favorable to the war. The links to the Gallup polls are invalid as only a paying subscriber can access them, but it looks like Gallup did a poll on Vietnam every month. If you want to do a comprehensive section on public opinion, here are some more stats both for and against the Vietnam war from

  • May 1965: The Gallup Poll shows that only 48% of the US respondants feel that the US Government is handling the Vietnam conflict effectively; 28% feel that the situation was being handled badly; the balance have no opinion. [LAT, 7/18/65; NYT, 8/8/65]
  • A June 1965 Harris Poll indicates that over 60% of the Americans queried support both the infusion of additional troops into Vietnam and the retaliatory bombing of North Vietnam. [LAT, 6/28/65]
  • Early 1966: A Gallup Poll indicates that 47% of US college students support President Johnson's conduct of the war.[Heineman]
  • June 1966: A Gallup poll indicates that the number of respondants supporting the US handling of the war in Vietnam has slipped to 41%; 37% express disapproval; the balance have no opinion. [LAT, 6/8/66]
  • May 1967: A Gallup poll of US students indicates that 49% of the respondants consider themselves "hawks" (in favor of the war) and 35% consider themselves "doves" (opposed to the war); the balance have no opinion. [LAT, 5/28/67]
  • July 30, 1967: A Gallup poll reports that 52% of the American people disapprove of President Johnson's handling of the war; 41% think that the US made a mistake in sending troops to Vietnam; over 56% think that US is losing the war or at an impasse. [Bowman, p. 108]
  • February 1968: A Gallup poll indicates that 35% of the respondants approve of President Johnson's handling of the war; 50% disapprove; the balance have no opinion. [NYT, 2/14/68] In March, a Gallup poll reports that 49% of the respondants felt that involvement in Vietnam was an error. [NYT, 3/10/68] [Hmmm, doesn't seem like the Feb 68 poll referenced above)
  • April, 1969: A Gallup Poll reports that three out of every five persons responding support President Nixon's handling of the war. [Bowman, p. 225]
  • July 1969: A Gallup poll indicates that 53% of the respondants approve of Nixon's handling of the war; 30% disapprove; the balance have no opinion. [NYT, 7/31/69] [Hmm, maybe because at that point they thought he was disengaging?)
  • In October 1969, 58% of Gallup respondants indicate the opinion that the US entry into the war was a mistake. [LAT, 10/5/69]
  • March 1971: Opinion polls indicate... approval of his Vietnam strategy has slipped to just 34 percent. Half of all Americans polled believe the war in Vietnam to be "morally wrong."

Blockinblox 23:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, list them if you want to. But don't remove polls you don't like. Nothing in these polls contradict each other.... 00:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

(BTW, there is a difference between regarding U.S. entry into the war as a mistake and actually opposing the war in principle.) 00:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Both the Pacifica website which is well researched, and your source, which looks like an editorial, reference Gallup polls of February 1968, but the numbers are very conflicting. Do you suppose your source got it jumbled up? Blockinblox 01:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Johnson was widely viewed as mismanaging the war so one could disapprove of him without being "dovish". 18:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Not So Peaceful Protests[edit]

I am horrified by how these protestors would demonstrate their thoughts. Burning ROTC buildings was actually common in some areas, and there actually were slogans such as, "If they shoot them gas, shoot them bullets back!" This is disgusting to me, we were fighting a war that needed to happen, just not fully properly thanks to Democrat LBJ. Furthermore, although I know this is a rediculously childish act, I had to take the labour of taking f***ing out of the article, and replacing it with what I have put before, in order to comply with Wikipedia policy.

surely you know that many acts of violence were due to agents provacateurs. This is what the war was about: many Vietnamese babies died in horrible agony as napalm burnded through their bodies. That is what the protests were about: death and savagry for NO REASON. If burning some ROTC buildings would have saved even a few of hte children and babies who died, I think that a good bargain.Cinnamon colbert 01:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Countless babies were mascaraed by the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong, but there was no protest over this. Millions of civilians died AFTER the war by the Vietnamese Government, again no protest over this. Please don't claim you gave a damn about the Vietnamese babies when you didn't. Protesters are in many ways responsible for the deaths of millions since they condoned the actions of the North Vietnamese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

yeah, but many thousands more Vietnamese died once we left and the communists came in

What nonsense. How "common" was the burning of ROTC buildings? As one who was active in the movement against the war, and went to hundreds of demonstrations, I can say that while I heard some things I didn't agree with and some things that I thought were silly, I never heard anyone advocating use of firearms at any antiwar demonstration.

Despite your claim as haven't had experienced violence in the VN war anti-war movement, it happened.

Oct. 22, 1967 Chicago, Ill. The student center, dining hall, and auditorium as the University of Chicago were the targets of small fires set for recent anti-war protests.

Aug. 23, 1968 Chicago, Ill. An Army Recruiting Office was "slightly damaged" by a Molotov cocktail.

May 25, 1969 Chicago, Ill. Files were stolen and burned from a Selective Service Center.

May 12, 1969 Chicago, Ill. A firebomb was tossed through window of ROTC building at Loyola university.

May 14, 1969 Chicago, Ill. An arson fire hit the administration building, the school bookstore, and an ROTC building.

May 29, 1969 Evanston, Ill. A small fire, caused by an incendiary device, was discovered in the building which houses the NROTC offices at Northwestern University. Minor damage resulted.

Mar. 31, 1968 New York, N.Y. an Induction Center bombing.

Apr. 19, 1969 Buffalo, N.Y. Two firebombs thrown at building, University of Buffalo, where U.S. Navy-sponsored research project is located.

Aug 20, 1969 New York, N.Y. A dynamite bomb exploded at the Marine Midland Building causing extensive damage and injuring 19 persons.

Oct. 4, 1969 New York, N.Y. A Molotov cocktail was thrown into the Navy ROTC office in Hartley Hall on the Columbia university campus.

Oct. 7, 1969 New York, N.Y. A bomb explosion occured on the 5th floor of the Armed Forces Entrance Examining Station.

Nov. 12-13, 1969 New York, N.Y. A bomb was tossed into a National Guard truck parked outside the 69th Regiment Armory. The bomb did not explode.

Feb. 21, 1970 Brooklyn, N.Y. A Brooklyn military recruiting office was firebombed.

Mar. 14, 1970 Brooklyn, N.Y. An explosive device was discovered outside the U.S. Army Reserve Building, Ft. Hamilton, N.Y.

Apr. 25, 1970 New York, N.Y. An Army and Air Force recruiting office was racked by the explosion of a homemade pipe bomb.

Apr. 25, 1970 New York, N.Y. An Army and Air Force recruiting office on the 2nd floor of a Harlem office building was damaged by a dynamite explosion.

May 1, 1970 Geneva, N.Y. A firebomb destroyed the ROTC office at Hobart College.

May 2, 1970 New York, N.Y. A U.S. Armed Forces recruiting booth at 600 West 168th St. was heavily damaged by a firebomb.

May 5, 1970 New York, N.Y. ROTC equipment in Townsend Hall at City College was set on fire.

May 7, 1970 Buffalo, N. Y. The ROTC Building on the State university campus was firebombed.

May 14, 1970 New York, N.Y. A firebomb attack did an estimated $50,000 damage to ROTC Headquarters at Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute.

May 16, 1970 Bronx, N.Y. A bomb was thrown from an elevated subway into a U.S. Army truck.

May 18, 1970 New York, N.Y. A 14-inch pipe bomb containing five pounds of gunpowder concealed in a brown paper bag was placed in the doorway of the Army Recruiting Station at 163rd Street & Southern Blvd., Bronx by a man being watched by police. The man was arrested and the bomb was dismantled by police.

July 4, 1970 New York, N.Y. A firebomb was tossed into an Army truck at Fort Hamilton.

Sept. 5, 1970 Rochester, N.Y. Eight men and women were arraigned for breaking into the Federal Building and destroying draft records at the Selective Service office.

Feb. 10, 1969 Athens, Ga. Arsonists attempted to burn down the Army ROTC building on the University of Georgia campus. This was the second attempt in a year.

Aug. 27, 1970 Athens, Ga. A Molotov cocktail was thrown into the Rotc Building at the University of Georgia.

The Reverend Daniel J. Berrigan a 49-year-old Jesuit priest who, with his brother and seven other Catholic war protesters, used handmade napalm to destroy draft records at the Selective Service Office in Catonsville, Maryland, on May 17, 1968.

In 1966 a Berkeley anti-war activist shot and killed a U.S. Air Force recruiter in California.

The list is longer in fact the U.S. Treasury states over 5000 bombings between 1967 and 1970, the point is made.

So let's not pretend the anti-war movement didn't include sabotage, fire bombs, rock and bottle throwing, the SDS {Students for a Democratic Society} or Weather Underground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


I was just listening to the first broadcase of All Things Considered [6] which features a long report on an attempt by protestors to shut down the city of Washington. If this happened today, it would seem like a major event. I wonder if this and other events are missing from the chronology, or if in the turbulence of the times, it was minor. -- Beland 01:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali[edit]

His story is mention twice in the timeline: 1966 and 1967. Which year is it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 05:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

"no Viet Cong ever called me nigger." - According to the New Yorker book review Notable Quotables Ali, never said this. Also from David Mills at Huffington post "Contrary to popular belief, Muhammad Ali never said this. It was an often-seen protest slogan during the late '60s. (The New York Times, United Press International and Time magazine reported the appearance of "No Viet Cong ever called me nigger" on placards at a variety of demonstrations and protest marches, with no reference at all to Ali.)" KAM 17:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the documentary about Ali, "True Stories: Thrilla In Manila", as reported by the Telegraph, Ali did say that, but he was told to say it by Ferdie Pacheco, Ali's Nation of Islam handler.--Joelrosenblum (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Baloney. Mugginsx (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Antiwar paraphanalia[edit]

Does anyone have a picture of the T shirt with the slogan (aprox) "Southeast Asian War Games, 2nd place finish", often with the dates ?

I have such a shirt. I'm happy to take a picture of it. What use would you like to make of such a picture? And do let me know if that shirt has any particular historical interest -- or is it just something you remember? Roregan (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup tag[edit]

When I first came to this article today, the article sections were in a strange order, with the list of protests right up front (meaning have to scroll through all the years to get to the main context sections). Then all the context sections seemed jumbled up too (and one had a section name, Government Suppression, which did not match its content), with the 1971 war crimes hearings section coming before the draft protests section which happened earlier in time (plus another separate 1971 section in "Later years" after this). I've tried to bring a more logical order to the article through section rearranging, but I think further cleanup scrutiny of the content is needed for a solid logical order Bwithh 08:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Whew - I gotta agree. Although there is a lot of informative material, overall this article is both a mess and sorely lacking in many respects: many of the paragraphs are jumbled chronologically, and there is only the barest mention of Congressional opposition, or of the antiwar movement inside the military -- which was every bit as important as the campus protests, etc. And the article is exclusively concerned with what was happening inside the United States -- as if there was nothing going on elsewhere in the world outside our borders. Cgingold 17:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars[edit]

Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars” redirects here but is not mentioned in the article. Please delete the redirect (either making it a red link or creating an article) or write about it here. Thanks. Wikipeditor 23:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Famous Life Magazine Cover[edit]

A signal event emphasizing the country's weariness of and revulsion with the war, and influencing further anti-war sentiment in the general public, especially in the segement of the public known as middle America was the cover of Life Magazine showing the faces of all the American soldiers who had died in Viet Nam during the previous week. I belive this came late in the war circa 1971. I would like to find out the date of that particular issue of Life; and, since, at the time, it was considered shocking and influential in turning public opinion against the war and against Nixon for prolonging the war, I belive that mention of it should be included in this article. The public were shocked by: the large number killed in one week, the youth of the dead soldiers, and the fact that the war was not letting up after a number of years of our involvement. That issue of Life Magazine was considered so shocking and influential that it was considered a turning point in public tolerance of the war. It was obvious that in future wars the press would have to be carefully managed and manipulated to prevent that sort of thing happening again. Note the concealment of coffins coming back from Iraq and the ban against photographing them not to mention the generally pusilanimous, kowtowing attitude of the press today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue of Life you speaking of was published in May 1969. Stanley Karnow in his book Vietnam: A History talks about it for a paragraph, but it is a start. Best wishes--A.S. Brown (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Legality of the war[edit]

In what sense was it an "illegal" war? Was this war illegal under the UN Charter, which only allows military action in self-defense or with UN Security Council approval? Captain Zyrain 04:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Congress never declared it a "WAR" It is called the Vietnam Conflict officially. Mugginsx (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Kerry's inclusion among those who evaded service[edit]

Kerry served in the Vietnam War. He signed up and was not drafted. He won three purple hearts. His heroism was controversially challenged by the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" in the 2004 presidential campaign, but whatever one's opinion of how much he "deserved" his Purple Hearts, the above facts are indisputable. His inclusion with these draft dodgers is misinformation, pure and simple.

Terrible article[edit]

It is possible there were one or two Asian people living in Vietnam that also didn't much like the war either, but there are no references in English that positively reinforce that assertion. Should this be mentioned somewhere?

But seriously. This entire article presumes an American viewpoint without stating that it is an American viewpoint. Were there not Vietnamese against a war that was killing people in that country by the tens of thousands? Shouldn't they be a focus of the article? (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a very, very good point, but it depends on what you mean.
Presumably, those lucky few South Vietnamese who jumped on helicopters, and then later the million or so who took boats (many of whom died) all trying to escape were also opposed to the war. They just opposed the communist end of it.
This article's description of the "opposition" to the war seems to end in 1973 when the U.S. left with a "peace" treaty in hand. One would think there wasn't much "opposition" to the bloodshed that resumed after that.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Song titles[edit]

Okay, I have to ask also, why is a list of song titles - some predating major American military involvement - relevant to this article? (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

An article on songs concerning the Vietnam War would please many. For instance songs from Johnny See, Becky Lamb and Victor Lundberg, some completely absent on this Wikipedia, can get the attention of anyone wanting to know about the popular cultural reaction to the war, apart from the already mentioned professional protest singers. (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


Should we move the timeline to Protests against the Vietnam War? (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The link for reference #2 is no longer valid[edit]

I do not have another link for the book in the reference, however, the "Famous Photograph" can be found in a number of places. Here is a good link to the picture:


Story link is here:


--GourmetAnarchy (talk) 04:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


  1. ^
  2. ^ "Flowers, Guns and an Iconic Snapshot". 2007-03-18.

Very US Specific[edit]

This article seems to be excessibly US specific and will be moved to a more appropriate title.   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Per MOS:ABBR I have changed the article's title to use "U.S." rather than "US". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

poor intro[edit]

the current intro (below) reads like it was written by a 12 year old. The sentence "opposition..." is just jarring; surely someone can do better. In the next part, isn't the antecedent of which in "which had laid.." segregation laws ? IN any event, the whole paragraph is unsourced opinion; to my personal knowledge, many people were opposed for very selfish reasons - they didn't want their kids dying in the jungle (explains lack of protest on Iraq).

quote "Opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War is significant because it was the first time a war was shown and accessed through to the public in the United States.

The protests gained momentum from the Civil Rights Movement that had organized to oppose segregation laws, which had laid a foundation of theory and infrastructure on which the anti-war movement grew. Protests were fueled by a growing network of independently published newspapers (known as "underground papers") and the timely advent of large venue rock'n'roll festivals such as Woodstock and Grateful Dead shows, attracting younger people in search of generational togetherness."Cinnamon colbert (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Edits for the Article[edit]

Hello! I am a college student and one of my assignments for class is to edit a Wikipedia article to make it more unbiased and informational. I plan to edit this article in a number of ways, including: -rewriting the introduction to make it less grammatically awkward -adding more events to the timeline -editing the "Antiwar movement section" by rewriting the intro, adding subsections about antiwar and the arts, women in the antiwar movement and African American opposition movements, and expanding the list of antiwar groups -adding Joan Baez and Joni Mitchell to the antiwar music section -editing the "student participation in the antiwar movement" by adding more to the overview subsection and expanding the list of student antiwar groups -adding specific data to the "draft" section -expanding the list of "common slogans and chants" I've been doing research for a while and my proposed changes are well-cited. I plan to upload my article in the upcoming weeks. If you have any questions or concerns about my changes, please let me know! Padfoot91 (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Padfoot91

Awesome! I'll keep track of the nuts and bolts of wiki markup, and I will offer advice if I have any! Welcome!

Binksternet (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

One of the facts about the Anti-war movement seems to be ignored but its the sad truth. Many college students were in favor of the war but were against fighting it themselves. They felt the war was good for the economy and bussiness and had hoped to have jobs for companys that provided war material but they did not want to be drafted. When they ended the draft on college campuses across the US protest dropped about 75%. So basically they thought it was a fine idea to ship the poor kids off to war but god forbid we loose the college students. Also it really should be noted that the counter culture hippies of yesterday became the yuppies and corporate raiders of today.

So I just added my edits into the article. If you have any questions about citations or anything, please let me know! Padfoot91 (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Here's another one; The Worker's World Party claimed that tbey were responsible for organizing a demonstration in 1962, which hasn't been covered in this article. I can try to find more of the details, but I don't have them now. ----DanTD (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Berrigan[edit]

This is a good article but is extremely remiss in that it does not mention Daniel Berrigan, a primary mover and shaker in the Anti-Vietnam War movement. Mugginsx (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The Draft and Deferments[edit]

The section entitled "The Draft" contains the following statement:

"To gain an exemption or deferment, many men attended college, though they had to remain in college until their 26th birthday to be certain of avoiding the draft. Some got married, which remained an exemption throughout the war."

The second sentence regarding deferments for marriage is not true. I was 24 years old when I was drafted in the Fall of 1968. When drafted I was married and my wife was three months pregnant. I was also a white, well-educated, middle class, registered pharmacist (R.Ph.), which put me is the group of men least likely to be drafted. I served 13 months with the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam (July 1969 - Sept 1970). I can furnish a copy of my pharmacy diploma and DD-214 if necessary for proof.

Thank you. Robert Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbmartiniv (talkcontribs) 16:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Nine Paragraph MLK Speech[edit]

I'm inclined to agree with the earlier IP editor that this is undue and should be trimmed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it should be cut down. Kbog (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Military Nature of many protesters[edit]

One of the distinguishing features of anti-war sentiment in the Vietnam era was how often it entailed antipathy to the military. This element is present in modern anti-war movements but far less visible; it was almost normative in Vietnam. Editors of varying political perspectives (e.g., those who feel that anti-military sentiment was despicable and those who feel it was justified in the context of the time) are encouraged to address this issue. It has a lot of descriptive import, in my view. Steeletrap (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)



I'm the person who's slapped the Globalize tag, so please hear me out. Such an article should absolutely focus on the US, but it should also mention anti-war movements around the world. I'm no expert on the subject, but the Swedish anti-war movement led the country to accept US deserters which surely deserves more than a one-word mention (as it does now). Ditto numerous European and South American countries, where anti-Vietnam war protests were also big. Brigade Piron (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, there was world-wide Opposition to the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. But this article is almost entirely about opposition within the U.S. That political movement within the U.S. is necessarily qualitatively different from the political movement outside the U.S. Coverage of world-wide opposition to U.S. involvement deserves an article of its own, rather than being shoe-horned into this current article. The size of a demonstration, nor the breadth of opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War is not the justification for inclusion in the present article. This article covers opposition within the super-power that in the main, was responsible for prosecution of the war. The war was almost entirely fought between Vietnam and the U.S., on the soil of Vietnam. When political will to prosecute the war ebbed in the U.S., the war ended. Opposition to the Vietnam War within the U.S. was the necessary factor to end the war. Neonorange (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
With all respect, that's not the feel that's given off by the article. If the title was "American opposition to the Vietnam War", then I'd absolutely agree with you. However, since the nationality of the opposition is not currently defined within the article title this isn't the case. Therefore, even if it's just a section, "foreign" opposition is badly needed. If you feel a move would be preferable then perhaps that might be a solution? Brigade Piron (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
In fact, the article IS about opposition inside the U.S. to U.S. involvement in the War in Vietnam. The lead exclusively reflects opposition within the U.S. Out of the long list of by-year incidents of protest, only one is for an event out side the U.S. Every section of the article exclusively deals with opposition to U.S. involvement in the War in Vietnam. A reference article for opposition outside the U.S. is second article that could be linked inside a short section of this article. Until an article is available for opposition outside the U.S. I don't think a move is a good solution. And consider the difficulty of getting consensus involving such a fraught subject. Neonorange (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

North Vietnamese encouragement of the protests could be included. A few activists, notably a Weather Underground delegation, visited North Vietnam. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


topic is the the 1965 - 1969 Vietnam war from usa perspective and also write it from the Vietnam perspective... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Move title[edit]

This article is overwhelmingly about opposition inside the United States to prosecuting the war in Vietnam. The few lines in the current article that do cover opposition outside the United States can be split out to start an article about world-wide opposition. A paragraph can be inserted into the current article to briefly describe opposition outside the U.S., and then cross-link the two as appropriate, with redirects sufficient to overcome two very awkward titles. - Neonorange (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

How about United States opposition to the Vietnam War? Binksternet (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response! Now, how to be precise and concise? My suggestion isn't concise, but, to me, United States opposition to the Vietnam War indicates government opposition to the war. How about Opposition the Vietnam War (United States)? In certain other countries opposition was at the government level and perhaps also at the social/political movement level. - Neonorange (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I oppose any splitting of content until a satisfactory summary umbrella article can be produced. One of the problems we have is that, because people who work on articles like this know the material well, there tends to be the assumption that our readers do too. This is a key theme of the conflict (and of post-WWII history) and there should be a one-stop article for an overview of it. Once that's in place, the need for more detailed, subsidiary articles occurs. (Btw, how about just Opposition to the Vietnam War in the United States? It removes the need for brackets!) Brigade Piron (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose move. The article has the proper title at present. The opposition was worldwide, and it was worldwide opposition to US involvement specifically, let me assure you. If the content now focuses on US protests at the time, material on massive protests elsewhere can certainly be dug up for the proper global perpsective. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

One way of looking at this is - it's not the right article for the current title. The Vietnam War (or the Second Indochina War or the American War) was a continuation of an anti-colonial war; and also a civil war, an anti-imperialist war, and a proxy war for the United States and the Soviet Union; followed by conflicts between Vietnam and Cambodia and between Vietnam and China. There was no one political movement against U.S. involvement. And already the article is far too long. And please, let's not get into 'my demonstrations is bigger than your demonstration'! Do you think you can come up with a list of suggested cuts and additions on the way to producing two (or more) articles? I in no way oppose coverage of events and movements against the war on a broader basis. I do, however, think that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. What do you think is the best way forward? - Neonorange (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

When I get around to it, hopefully before too long, I can certainly add plenty of major protests in other countries to the timeline. Some are certainly notable enough for inclusion like the Embassy protests of February 1965, and the anti-US protests actually climaxed in violence during the last two weeks of the bombing, in January 1973. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
@Brigade: I suppose not every aspect needs to be packed into the article title: I keep thinking a title needs to read as a sentence. What do you see as necessary arrangement of redirects? (I see the current redirect from Vietnam War protests as setting up expectations of a global article.) (Sorry if this formatting is unclear; I hit an edit conflict and lost my concentration.)- Neonorange (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
And, to continue the conversation: I suggest spinning off the current timeline as a U.S. anti-war movement only article. Does that make sense? And drastically reducing the Gallup poll section. And the music section is far too long. Please suggest a framework to organize the current article before making it still longer - Neonorange (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't make much sense really, there is no need to fear a longer article if we have that much information to present on anti-Vietnam protests around the world. I would rather see a more thorough article that better depicts the scale of the subject. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, it has been two weeks since any activity on this thread. In an attempt to get things going, I have posted all content in this article that is specific to opposition to U.S. involvement that occurred outside the U.S.

#1. Protests against the Vietnam War took place in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The protests were part of a movement in opposition to the Vietnam War and took place mainly in the United States. (See also Students for a Democratic Society, Free Speech Movement, Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman, Youth International Party, Chicago Seven.)

#2. Students demonstrate in Saigon, July 1964, observing the tenth anniversary of the July 1954 Geneva Agreements.

#3. The Japanese anti-war group Beheiren helped some American soldiers to desert and hide from the military in Japan.[58]

#4. May – First anti-Vietnam War demonstration in London was staged outside the U.S. embassy.[74]

#5. By mid-October, the anti-war movement had significantly expanded to become a national and even global phenomenon, as anti-war protests drawing 100,000 were held simultaneously in as many as 80 major cities around the US, London, Paris, and Rome.

#6. A crowd of 4,000 demonstrated against the U.S. war in London on July 3 and scuffled with police outside the U.S. embassy. 33 protesters were arrested.

#7. In June 1966 American students and others in England meeting at the London School of Economics formed the Stop It Committee. The group was prominent in every major London anti-war demonstration. It remained active until the end of the war in April 1975.

#8. May 2 – British philosopher Bertrand Russell presided over the "Russell Tribunal" in Stockholm, a mock war crimes tribunal, which ruled that the U.S. and its allies had committed war crimes in Vietnam. The proceedings were criticized as being a "show trial."

#9. In the summer of 1967, Neil Armstrong and various other NASA officials began a tour of South America to raise awareness for space travel. According to First Man, a biography of Armstrong's life, during the tour, several college students protested the astronaut, and shouted such phrases as "Murderers get out of Vietnam!" and other anti-Vietnam War messages.

#10. (image plus caption) Demonstrations in The Hague in the Netherlands, 1967. The placards read "USA out of Vietnam".

#11. March 17 – Major rally outside the U.S. Embassy in London's Grosvenor Square turned to a riot with 86 people injured and over 200 arrested. Over 10,000 had rallied peacefully in Trafalgar Square but met a police barricade outside the embassy. A UK Foreign Office report claimed that the rioting had been organized by 100 members of the German SDS who were "acknowledged experts in methods of riot against the police."

#12. (image plus caption)Anti-Vietnam War demonstrations in Lund, Sweden.

#13. On May 22, the Canadian government announced that immigration officials would not and could not ask about immigration applicants’ military status if they showed up at the border seeking permanent residence in Canada.

Almost all of this content appears as part of a list or timeline. Can anyone expand these bare mentions? Would the following changes make sense?

a. Take the first sentence of the lede The movement against the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War began in the U.S. with demonstrations in 1964 and grew in strength in later years. and expand it to cover global opposition.

b. Place two headings above the current section hierarchy: Opposition inside the U.S. and Opposition outside the U.S. (any order or wording that can be reached by consensus).

c. Combine the second sentences of the lede The U.S. became polarized between those who advocated continued involvement in Vietnam and those who wanted peace., combine it with the second paragraph of the lede (plus a bit in addition); place it under the new top level section Opposition inside the U.S..

d. Write an introduction for the Opposition outside the U.S. section.

e. Place all the current content and section structure, starting with the section Reasons (except for the content #1. through #13.) under the new section Opposition inside the U.S.

f. Expand #1. through 13#. and add lots of additional content to populate the section Opposition outside the U.S.

The section hierarchy would then be


1. Opposition inside the U.S.
1.1 Reasons
1.2 Polarization
1.3 Antiwar movement
2. Opposition outside the U.S.
- Neonorange (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Citation I removed for last item under section 11.4 1967[edit]

I could not find the NYT article (for 26 November 1967)in the original cite (ref name=NYTimesNovember1967 cite book|title=Article of November 26, 1967|year=1967|publisher=NY Times|pages=1|author=Unknown|authorlink="Vietnam War Referendum Results San Francisco CA"|editor=Unknown /ref special characters removed), so I removed that cite. I did find a NYT 8 November 1967 article headlined "Voters in San Francisco Reject Immediate Vietnam Cease-Fire; San Franciscans Reject Proposal for a Cease-Fire and Withdrawal of Troops" that supports the result of the referendum, but not the conclusion drawn by the Johnson administration. I added that cite, but placed it before the Johnson conclusion. If anyone can find the originally cited article, please reverse my changes.

I intend to work on cleaning up Opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War while waiting for some agreement on 'globalization'. - Neonorange (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

New draft: Pacifism in the United States ‎[edit]

Please add to Draft:Pacifism in the United States. Thanks. M2545 (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Be a bit careful though: advocating pacifism is not restricted to/the same as opposing a war. It's ideological too and this should be considered in a separate section (at the least!) —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Pacifism was one motivation for opposition to the US in Vietnam, but not the whole story. Opposition to unjust war may be accompanied by support of a just war. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Congress of Unrepresented People - Anti Vietnam War[edit]

The "Committee To End the War in Vietnam" was formed at the Congress of Unrepresented People in Washington, DC. I was there and part of this small group of people - maybe 20-30. Some of the known leaders present in this group were Bayard Rustin, David Dellinger, Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman. I don't see this mentioned on the Anti-War Movement pages in Wikipedia that I just read.Judyt63 (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Pat Cherkin [1]


  1. ^ personal knowledge


In the "effects" section Howard Zinn is quoted as saying: "[the anti-war] movement that played a critical role in bringing the war to an end". To me this is vague and unprovable. Also, as someone who was there, I would have to say this is a questionable statement. The average American was not in sympathy with the anti-war movement. You can look at the poll results following the riots outside of the 1968 Democratic Convention to see what the public thought of them (that is available on the wiki article on the riot). The bottom line is: because the American public eventually turned against the war because of it's costs and so forth, doesn't necessarily mean they shared the views of the average protestor.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

1966 Bullet Point 3 makes no sense[edit]

The reported results of a Gallup poll shows much different results than I believe makes sense. Reference 94 does nothing to prove the point. I propose eliminating the statement and the reference. If I am wrong, please tell me within a few days. Otherwise, I will edit that section by eliminating the text and reference. Dandlyin (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Song by the 5th Dimension[edit]

The following text I wrote was immediately removed as "an off-topic tangent". In a section discussing musical aspects of the protests, I think it is very much on topic.

In 1970, The 5th Dimension set to music and recorded the opening of the Declaration of Independence. It was issued as a 45 and reached 64 on the Billboard Hot 100. It has never been included in any collection of the 5th Dimension songs, and is not available through Spotify. There are two performances available on YouTube.[1] The name of the song is "Declaration." It is the only known musical setting of any portion of the Declaration. In a clear reference to the political state of the country, the song suggests that the Declaration is still relevant: that if the present government of the United States is destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the people have the right, indeed the duty, to alter or abolish said government, and "to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

deisenbe (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

In addition to being off-topic, it's original research and lacks a reliable source. The cited source (YouTube) is not only not a reliable source, it fails to support any of the contentions included in the added material, aside from the simple fact that the song exists. (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


The war was illegal[edit]

The article should mention that US involvement in Vietnam was illegal under international law, as it violated Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. (2A00:23C4:638D:D500:C1A2:1042:BD0D:7F64 (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC))

Two problems with that. First off, the UN never passed such a resolution on the Vietnam War. And secondly, Article 51 (of that chapter) gave South Vietnam the right of self-defense. Since North Vietnam was clearly the aggressor (i.e. the NLF was controlled, supplied, and formed at the order of North Vietnam; and the South fell to a conventional invasion (by the North) at the end), there was nothing illegal about our support or their self-defense. We were their at the request of the South Vietnamese government (as per the SEATO agreement).Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The US invasion of Vietnam was clearly illegal under international law, which is why the British never sent troops. South Vietnam was an artificial colony and its puppet government would not allow a referendum as the majority of people in Vietnam wanted to be united with the north. The US should have accepted Vietnamese independence in 1945 under Ho Chi Minh. (2A00:23C4:638D:D500:24BD:7970:AF28:6AB1 (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC))
South Vietnam was no more artificial than North Korea, East Germany, or North Vietnam. South Vietnam was endorsed for membership in the UN but a Soviet veto (on the security council) blocked it. If the United States "invaded" Vietnam by supplying support than the USSR and China "invaded" the North by doing the same. All that notwithstanding (as this is not the subject), the notion of saying the United States violated international law has to be sourced in order for it to be added to the article. (And there is more than one pov on this needless to say.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Public Opinion[edit]

I plan on improving the public opinion section and was going to use these three sources to expand on it, if anyone has any other sources or suggestions it would be greatly appreciated! Ryankoch4 (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Ryankoch4 (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Opposition to United States involvement in 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 01:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)