Talk:South Korea in the Vietnam War

Alleged rape/sexual slavery

By this diff: [1] User:DoctorHell added Sexual slavery and a wikilink to Lai Đại Hàn. By this diff: [2] I changed Sexual slavery to Alleged Rape/sexual slavery because the Lai Đại Hàn page refers to alleged rape and allegations that Korean troops took Vietnamese comfort women: "...and the alleged rape of Vietnamese women by Korean soldiers", "Many births of Lai Daihan people are allegedly due to rape and the desertion of the children", i.e these are allegations, not proven/admitted acts. However by this diff: [3] User:DoctorHell started edit-warring this issue stating "Not alleged as there are plenty of evidence of confirming sexual slavery" Really? where is the evidence? I reverted this change and User:DoctorHell reverted it again stating "There plenty of evidence that confirms it happened, and the page lists Vietnam, American and South Korea sources" Those are allegations, not proven facts and they are largely based on hearsay or Vietnamese sources which are generally unreliable as far as the Vietnam War is concerned. Alleged should be reinstated because that all it is. Mztourist (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Obsessive monitoring by MZTOURIST and Distortions

The articles I linked the sources I mentioned are directly from village testimony in generally reliable news sources, much more reliable than obscure unit websites Mztourist links. Going to echo the above comment, but its amazing you are engaging in petty monitoring because villager testimony is in your words "unreliable". This is morally repugnant to even assume this is a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.86.245.217 (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The testimony of villagers is inherently unreliable, particularly in Vietnam where the state controls the news media and has a particular agenda to push regarding the war. There was a page for the Binh An/Tay Vinh "massacre" but it was deleted as being based on unreliable sources here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre (2nd nomination) and you should note that even in the Deseret News/AP story source that you provided, it clearly states "The AP was unable to independently confirm their claims" and "An additional 653 civilians were allegedly killed the same year by South Korean troops in neighboring Quang Ngai and Phu Yen provinces, according to provincial and local officials interviewed by the AP on a trip the government took two months to approve. As is routine with foreign reporters, several government escorts accompanied the AP staff. The AP was unable to search for documents that would back up the officials' allegations" so they are not WP:RS. There was a page for the Vinh Xuan "massacre" and it too was deleted as unreliable see here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinh Xuan massacre, the Newsweek link you posted says the page is not found. So there are no reliable sources provided for these purported massacres and you should stop adding them in. On a related point, I find it very strange how this is your first edit on Wikipedia and you immediately make controversial changes on a page and seem to know your way around Wikipedia fairly well which indicates to me that you are a sock of another user or a blocked user. If you wish to escalate this to an Admin please go ahead, but I don't think you'll get far. Mztourist (talk) 06:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Copied over from User talk:Mztourist

(@Mztourist) I've just had to revert a strange edit by you which appears to have termed the addition of a WP:THIRDPARTY academic source, an article in the Asia-Pacific Journal, as "vandalism." I am somewhat confused about why the addition of an academic source - a peer reviewed academic journal article, among our highest confidence level sources - is "vandalism". The "Asia-Pacific Journal" article is twice cited by other academic work as listed in Google Scholar, so it is a relatively well respected academic article. If you have a problem with this particular article, please follow the correct procedure, which is raising the issue on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (WP:RSN). In the meantime, I do not see any valid, policy-based reason why the reference, and the data it supports, should be removed. If I'm confused and there's an issue with the source that I'm not aware of, feel free to make me aware of it. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Please read the following discussions: Talk:South Korea in the Vietnam War#Obsessive monitoring by MZTOURIST and Distortions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinh Xuan massacre and the article itself. The quoted article is poorly referenced with regard to purported massacres by South Korean troops, relying largely on inference from the My Lai Massacre and is based entirely on Vietnamese sources which are not reliable. I find it strange that you as an Admin are siding with an anonymous IP which has made repeated POV changes, may well be a sock for a banned User and is unwilling to discuss the issues on the Talk page. Is that really responsible Admin action? Mztourist (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

MZTourist has consistently been changing and re-editing and distorting actual articles based on allegations that witness testimonies are all "government-coerced discussions". None of this is verifiable, and has called Newsweek and other articles as "unproven" despite edits stating these are only alleged. Its interesting that he has a very strong POV bias and has consistently re-written articles around war-crimes, war atrocities and others to fit his narrative.

I don't really understand him accusing me of being a sockpuppet either. He has instead of fixing discussions or editing it to rephrase it, just blanketly undid edits, even when I fix them. A stubborn, very sad man to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.86.244.135 (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It is interesting that you have omitted citing the Deseret News/AP story source that you previously provided about the supposed "Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre", link here:Tay Vinh Massacre, which clearly states "The AP was unable to independently confirm their claims" and "An additional 653 civilians were allegedly killed the same year by South Korean troops in neighboring Quang Ngai and Phu Yen provinces, according to provincial and local officials interviewed by the AP on a trip the government took two months to approve. As is routine with foreign reporters, several government escorts accompanied the AP staff. The AP was unable to search for documents that would back up the officials' allegations", presumably because that undermines the POV that you are pushing.Mztourist (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Right, this was one source that I used, which at the time I didn't explain. Even when I wrote on further massacres which you deleted, citing Newsweek and Hankyoreh, you deleted the entire section even when I wrote "could not be verified" and added notable exclaimers. You could have just edited it to refit YOUR POV, which accepts for a fact the most obscure, unverified sources yet dismisses any source which alleges on ROK atrocities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.86.244.135 (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

You are a POV pusher and probably a sock of a banned user who hides behind IPs. The sources you provide are all based on Vietnamese sources which as I have said and the AP story quoted above confirms are not reliable. Mztourist (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I had come here intending to advise that I was moving the whole discussion to the SVVN War talk page. However, we seem be having a discussion here. Firstly, you cannot write off Vietnamese sources as unreliable in toto. One must have sufficient grounds for believing that a particular source is POV for such-and-such a reason and justify it. The place to do that is WP:RSN, not just trading insults. If all Vietnamese sources were unreliable, then no reputable publisher would have republished the PAVN's Official History in English nor would the U.S. Army have employed ex-ARVN generals to write numerous pieces of the war's history after 1975!! Second, having started to look at the Heonik Kwon article on alleged massacres "..based entirely on Vietnamese sources which are not reliable", the first near-primary reference I found substantiating any allegations was to the American Friends Service Committee - the Quakers - in 1974. So, Mztourist, first, while Vietnamese sources may be affected by SRV government writ and propaganda, we cannot simply write them off just like that. Second, do not allow your strong views to lead you into POV or intemperate allegations yourself, because, clearly, the American Friends Service Committee is not a Vietnamese source. So I would kindly request you, again, to take any problematic sources to WP:RSN instead of describing them as "vandalism", which adding sources is clearly not. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Buckshot06 I find it hard to believe that you could read the Heonik Kwon Asia-Pacific Journal story and regard it as being in any way reliable as he fails to provide any reliable references for the claimed massacres. The separate Hà My massacre page is based entirely on Kwon as a source and see my comments on the Talk page there Talk:Hà My massacre#Ref improve. It could well be a hoax just like many of those which I have collected here: User talk:Mztourist#Deletion of non WP:RS Vietnam War articles. In the 6th para Kwon refers to "massacres in two neighboring villages of Ha My, Ha Gia and Ha Quang", this is apparently separate from the Ha May Massacre which supposedly occurred in February 1968, but Kwon provides no reference for it. In relation to the investigation supposedly conducted by 2 Quakers alleging 45 massacres, where is a copy of that report? Have you or the IP actually read it when you place so much faith in its reliability? The Quakers had their own POV to push regarding the war. Footnotes 23, 26 and 27 which supposedly relate to massacres are Vietnamese sources and inherently unreliable as propaganda and on this I draw your attention to the AP story quoted above. The relevant extracts of which are: "The AP was unable to independently confirm their claims" and "An additional 653 civilians were allegedly killed the same year by South Korean troops in neighboring Quang Ngai and Phu Yen provinces, according to provincial and local officials interviewed by the AP on a trip the government took two months to approve. As is routine with foreign reporters, several government escorts accompanied the AP staff. The AP was unable to search for documents that would back up the officials' allegations" So yes, I do regard Vietnamese sources with great suspicion as they still push the same propaganda agenda regarding the war and go so far as to completely invent battles and events e.g.: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hoa Da – Song Mao and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Pat To. As to your argument that "no reputable publisher would have republished the PAVN's Official History in English" I'm not sure which publisher you are referring to but I don't see why it wouldn't be published as it was the North's claim of the progress of the war and no doubt like all the translations of Vietnamese histories of the war that I have read I'm sure its full of "puppets", "mercenaries" and wildly exaggerated claims, but it is their version of history. In relation to the US Army employment of ARVN Generals to write history of the war, I am sure that the Army would have exercised editorial control to ensure that all content was verified.Mztourist (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't have access to a 1974 report by the Quakers. The process with WP:THIRDPARTY is that the journal editors assess whether the academic writing it is credible, and if they're credible, they publish it. That's the process endorsed by WP:REFERENCES as among our highest standard - peer-reviewed journal articles - and unless you have specific information to attack the credibility of that article or the Quaker report, you need to back off. If you do, go to RSN.

As regards your repeated assertions that all Vietnamese sources are worthless, this is simply unsustainable and against wikipedia's principals. You simply cannot write off every indigenous source as propaganda - you need to justify your claims in detail. U.S. people, may, indeed, tend to suspect enemy writings, but this is not U.S.-military-encyclopedia, and one *must* advance *reasons* why you believe that such-and-such a source is too biased to use. Drmies explained this to you over a year ago - I don't really expect to have to do it again. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

As regards Pat To and Hoa Da, one can easily believe the casualty counts are inflated. But simply getting three or four other wikipedia editors with no specialist knowledge to agree is no particular evidence that the actions did not take place. I'm of the opinion that outbreaks of firing at the specified time/place probably did occur, but the casualties could have easily been exaggerated. The PAVN did do this for propaganda reasons, but you'll almost certainly know better than me that U.S. military reporting could not be relied upon at time for casualties either. Body counts were overestimated willy-nilly. We have to try and put aside our biases, sift the available data, and adhere closely to the reliable sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The Kwon Asia-Pacific Journal story was used to get the Quaker claim into the page, but you don't think its worth checking the Quaker report or Kwon's article about the Ha My Massacre? I have set out the unreliability of Vietnamese sources in 9 of the 11 pages deleted above. Your statement that "simply getting three or four other wikipedia editors with no specialist knowledge to agree is no particular evidence that the actions did not take place" shows extreme arrogance and disrespect of all those who took part in the AfDs. There is no RS that shows that anything happened at Hoa Da or Pat To. I don't see why I should have to prove repeatedly that Vietnamese sources are propaganda. I also don't know on what basis you say "Clearly from your U.S. military background you would, indeed, tend to suspect enemy writings." Where have I ever claimed or confirmed a U.S. military background? Once again you are making unsubstantiated assumptions. I do know that your suitability to be an Admin is questionable. Mztourist (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It's past time this was moved to the article talk page and third opinions invited. I'm going to copy this over and my further replies will be made over there. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Now, I have to remind editors of two things: (1) if one wishes to dispute the reliability of sources, you are free to do so, but have to advance valid policy-based reasons for it. There is no particular barrier to non-English sources just as long as they are reliable; whether French, Chinese, Russian, or indeed Vietnamese. Half our articles on these subjects would not exist if we did not properly use non-English sources from former enemies. (2) Accusations of WP:SOCK breach our requirement to be civil, and also, accusations of POV-pushing. We are all potentially vulnerable to letting our POV creep into our editing; accusing any editor without valid reasons for so doing does not help settle disputes. We must remain WP:CIVIL.

It's also past time that third parties were called in to give their opinions. Anotherclown, AustralianRupert, Sturmvogel_66, Nick-D, would you all mind taking the time to comment? Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't really feel qualified to comment at the moment. AC is on an indefinite Wikibreak also. If there is a particular proposal for consideration, maybe an RFC might help resolve the matter. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

AustralianRupert I am quite able to sanction Mztourist if he continues to slander fellow editors unjustifiably, though he has now opened a checkuser. The core issue here is the reliability of Vietnamese sources - not any involved discussion of any particular content. What I would appreciate from you is your understanding of the policy on those sources, and any other comments that might flow from that understanding. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really keen on getting involved with this topic, to be honest, as my energy levels are about zero these days. In general, though, I agree that sources shouldn't be blanket discounted simply because of their nationality. Even if biased, a source can be considered "reliable" in some situations from a Wikipedia perspective per WP:BIASED, although great care is needed in how these are used and strong attribution is required. Having said that, extraordinary claims require strong sourcing, so I can also understand the need for caution with some of these sources. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Buckshot06 you don't seem to take seriously the real possibility that the IP adding this controversial information is a sock of a banned user, which is why they are using an IP. You also don't seem to be applying any kind of POV analysis to the changes made which are loaded with inference and short on tangible facts. Nick-D please note that you are one of the "three or four other wikipedia editors with no specialist knowledge" that Buckshot06 is referring to above in relation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hoa Da – Song Mao Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Also is this [4] Noam Chomsky paper from 1973 really RS? The first line of the section about Korea states "South Korean mercenary forces.." I would write it off at that point. The account seems to be entirely based on the same Quaker report from 1972 and its worth noting this [5] other quoted source published by the Harvard University Press in 2007 which refers to the claims in the Quaker report and then states "While much research is needed to confirm the extent and nature of Korean atrocities in Vietnam, the ROK reputation for ferocity is well established and reported consistently by Korean, Vietnamese and American sources." Also is this [6] RS? On a quick search I can't determine who publishes "News of the World of Peace" but it quotes from Nouvelles du Sud Vietnam which I believe was a French language paper published by North Vietnam during the war and so probably Propaganda. In relation to media and press freedom generally in Vietnam, I draw everyone's attention to this [7], where Vietnam ranks 175th out of 180 worldwide for press freedom. Mztourist (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

If you believe someone is a sock, take it to WP:SOCK. Ask for a checkuser. Otherwise, innocent until proven guilty; can't work any other way. What matters more is the credibility of the sources put forward. Chomsky? Why don't you skip his description of the forces involved - you're calling the NVA/VC liars, he's calling the South Koreans mercenaries - and focus on the Quaker report - 74 rather than 72, surely? The quote about ferocity *adds* to the likelihood of massacres by the ROKA, I would think, rather than diminishes it. I still remain unable to fathom why you think that there's no possibility ROK forces committed atrocities. Everybody else did, and they have a pretty harsh reputation for discipline in their own forces, let alone with enemies. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Based on my experience checking if an IP is a Sock is a waste of time due to the policy of not outing Users, even those who are banned. Yes the NVA/VC are liars as I have proven repeatedly and press freedom in Vietnam ranks near the bottom in the world, but you refuse to acknowledge any of that. The Chomsky paper was produced in 1973 and it says the Quaker study was done in 1972. Once again you make wild assumptions that I "think that there's no possibility ROK forces committed atrocities", when have I ever said that? ROK forces did commit the Phong Nhị and Phong Nhất massacre, however the other claimed massacres lack reliable sources and can only be regarded as allegations. I am trying to ensure that only reliably sourced events are retained on WP, not the buildup of propaganda and vague inference that this IP has spun and which you apparently regard as credible and non-POV. Mztourist (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of what your experience is or not, continually questioning a user's good faith without raising any Sock question in the proper forum breeches our requirement to remain WP:CIVIL and AGF. Kindly either raise it there, or cease and desist from slandering other editors in this conversation. Given that you've repeatedly done that, I now have to put my administrator hat on and say that constitutes your first warning.

SPI opened here: [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2604:1500:8213:5B00:DD46:86B2:D1F8:1628], 3 different IPs making the same changes only on this page. Mztourist (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou for your note on the substance of the matter. I believe we are now starting to repeat arguments, so I will pause my response until we've had some third party opinions. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You should have put your Admin hat on before making several false assumptions about me! Mztourist (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Last series of edits

Mztourist thankyou for your last two reverts to this article. While I have only snippet view access to page 299 of the work in question, it does not appear that the words introduced by 172.86.241.193 include the phrases that were associated with the p.299 quote by the last additions. On such a contentious topic we need to stay strictly with what the sources say, otherwise we're guilty of WP:OR. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for noting the misleading nature of these edits. As I have said earlier, a particular POV is being pushed here. Mztourist (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

A Canadian is distorting Wikipedia data by only extracting negative data about the Korean troop dispatch, intentionally. This is obviously wrong, so I brought in another Wikipedia that contains facts. English translation may be wrong, but my notes are much more reliable information than the content of Wikipedia that was previously written.

The text of the change the editor wants

The South Korean government, under the administration of Park Chung-hee, took an active role in the Vietnam War. From September 1964 to March 1973, South Korea sent more than 300,000 troops to South Vietnam. The South Korean Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force all participated as an ally of the United States. The number of troops from South Korea was much greater than those from Australia and New Zealand, and second only to the U.S. military force. The military commander was Lieutenant General Chae Myung-shin of the South Korean army. summary The Vietnam War is also very relevant to Korea. The U.S., which was short of combat troops at that time, withdrew from the Nixon government to the 7th Infantry Division, similar to the end of the Vietnam War, among U.S. troops stationed in Korea. The Park Chung-hee administration, which feared a possible invasion by North Korea due to the U.S. military withdrawal and a vacuum in its military power, will first suggest to the U.S. that " we send troops on your behalf! " With the U.S. consent, Korea will send combat troops from the Capital Division of the Army and the Second Brigade of the Marine Corps, followed by the Army's 9th Infantry Division.At first, only the Army's Capital Division was going to be sent, but the Marine Corps expressed strong intention to join the war, and Powell's commander Chae Myung-shin thought it would be better for the Marine Corps to have combat experience. The additional dispatch of the 9th Division was at the request of the United States. Thus, a 50,000-strong South Korean soldier participated in the Vietnam War and carried out 563,877 operations over the course of eight years from 1965 to 1973. In fact, before that ... As a matter of fact, the Vietnam War was all about the Second Indochina War between the U.S. and the Vietnam War. After the Korean War ended in January 1954, the Rhee Syng-man regime expressed intention to send a division to Iraq, not only to repay the right to send troops abroad in return for the cause suggested by the Rhee administration. The proposal, however, calls for an end to public opposition if the United States were to send Korean troops abroad amid the establishment of a U.S. military system in South Korea and large-scale free aid. However, as the Vietnam issue moved to a firm position in the India-China Peninsula, contrary to Washington's expectations during the June 1954 Geneva meeting, the U.S. considered sending three divisions of Korean troops to the South in consultation with the Rhee Syng-man regime. However, the French side, which is in charge of the colonial issue, refused to allow the Korean troops to dispatch their troops. The Situation and the Cause of the Korean Army Some argue that the U.S. was not simply trying to pull out the USFK due to the poor war situation when it decided to send troops to the Vietnam War, but because it was shunned by all other allies, it forced Korea to pull off its allies. Some of these claims were said to have been pressured by the U.S. and had to do so because Seoul had no other choice. In fact, it makes some sense. As is well known now, the war and military forces in Vietnam were beyond imagination. According to a confirmation by the incoming defense secretary during the war that the U.S. administration has been replaced, the U.S. administration has poured goods and funds into Vietnam without congressional approval, even into other regions such as European forces. In other words, it was not a time for him to give a leisurely look at the situation in Korea. If some Korean troops had not gone, more U.S. troops would have been left out. And as you can see from the history of the U.S. forces in Korea, there has never been a return of the troops that escaped once. It is also believed that the dispatch of troops to Vietnam was aimed at securing U.S. support for the military forces that took power in the coup. Park Chung-hee, who visited the United States as chairman of the Supreme Council for National Reconstruction right after the May 16 coup in November 1961, said he could send troops to South Korea if the U.S. wanted to meet President John F. Kennedy. However, the United States refused because it feared that the dispatch of Korean troops to South Korea would provoke China and the Soviet Union. Instead, the U.S. government virtually approved the military government, promising economic aid. And the third republic was launched in 1963 when President Park Chung-hee won the 5th presidential election held by the people's direct vote. However, as the situation of the Vietnam War moved into the gutter, the U.S. changed its stance. U.S. President Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy in February 1965, even invited Park Chung-hee to the United States for a grand parade and asked for the dispatch of Korean combat troops.[8] Lyndon Johnson asks for the first troop dispatch and offers to modernize military equipment and provide financial support in return.[9] For your information, some non-combat troops, including taekwondo instructors, had already been sent to Vietnam. In other words, the actual dispatch of troops to Vietnam was ultimately due to U.S. demand, and there was no choice in the reality of the Republic of Korea when it depended on the United States for much of its diplomacy, economy and defense. The argument that military forces simply sold our young people as mercenaries to please the U.S. is too simple and fragmented for some, if not for some. Moreover, the actual timing of the troop dispatch came after the Park Chung-hee administration was inaugurated through elections. However, it is true that military dictatorship was very vulnerable due to the democratic movement, and there are certain aspects of the movement that took an active stance beyond the U.S. demand to compensate for it. Also, the reason for the troop dispatch was good enough for the people at that time who did not know the mess of the Vietnamese republic. South Vietnam was, by the way, a communist country like South Korea during the Cold War, and the South Vietnamese government at that time was a diplomatic power that extended both Korea and its embassies to each other. In other words, Korea sent reinforcements to its diplomatic allies, not to build a " Taeguk Empire " in Southeast Asia. In addition, the South Korean people, who had been literally Helgate opened up due to North Korea's attack only 10 years ago, were naturally persecuted by the North Vietnam Communist Party for their survival with the help of the UN forces. The government and most media outlets have attracted public opinion in this direction. It is strange that they were not persuaded by North Korea 10 years ago by their own arguments. " Now that the U.S. helped us in the Korean War, let us help the United States. In conclusion, for one reason or another, all Koreans believed that Korea's troop dispatch was legitimate. The U.S. forces, however, withdrew their troops from Korea during the Vietnam War and sent them to Vietnam. It happened under the Richard Nixon administration, and with unilateral notification, the 7th Division was removed and the number of U.S. troops in Korea was reduced to the lowest ever of 37,000. This was less than 46,000 Korean troops who were in the South at the time, and Park Chung-hee was furious and tried to make a statement against the U.S., but the U.S. also warned that it would not stand by the Yushin regime. A major battle record • New Year's attack (Jan-September 1968) • Battle of Duco (August 1966) • Battle of Zabin-dong (February 1967) • Operation Ochanggyo (March 1967) • Battle of Zabinback [11] (January 1967) • Battle of Ankepass (April 1972) • The 11th DokkirI attack Evaluation at the time of the Vietnam War There are two views on the Vietnam War. The first is that it sees the Vietnam people (France, the U.S., and other foreign powers) as a showdown between the Vietnamese people who want to become independent and unified nations. Initially, the Vietnam War began when France tried to ignore the changed international situation and keep Vietnam as a colony, and South Vietnam was virtually a puppet country created by France. Furthermore, the South Vietnamese position was very weakened as the South Vietnamese government refused to hold the 1956 general elections for reunification between the two Koreas after France left Vietnam after losing the battle of Dienvienfu. Thus, from this point of view, the Vietnam War is a civil war for the establishment of a unified state, and the U.S. intervention is certainly unjustified. Many of the world's new world powers, which were colonies like Vietnam and gained independence after World War II, naturally responded. In Western Europe, where colonies were abandoned after World War II, there were also many political groups who agreed with this view. Therefore, unlike the U.N. approval and the Korean War, in which most Western European countries followed the United States, the United States had a difficult time engaging its Western European allies in the Vietnam War. The second is the confrontation between the communist North and the free South Vietnam, a view strongly suggested by South Vietnam and the United States. At the height of the Cold War, the United States cried out for anti-Communism and was absolutely hostile to communism in many parts of the world. For this reason, the U.S. began to intervene on the theory of dominoes when France lost its battle with Dienvienfu and gave up Vietnam. From this point of view, North Vietnam is an aggressor who started a war against the same people, and the U.S. intervention is a legitimate move to protect the free camp and prevent the communization of Asia. In fact, since Vietnam was unified into North Vietnam, there is a view that the dominoes of Laos and Cambodia were also communized, and therefore the dominoes theory worked. Of course, there is a view that the U.S. intervention has fueled the domino effect in the wrong direction. Modern assessments It is not easy to assess the Vietnam War itself because it is such a complicated war. As evidence goes, no country was unilaterally declared an aggressor in Vietnam. From a modern perspective, the U.S.'s decision to intervene with ideological logic without sufficient geopolitical and historical review in Vietnam's chaotic situation is considered a mistake. The United States ignored the fact that North Vietnam was wary of China and France and simply rejected them rather than winning them over. He also blindly believed in military superiority over North Vietnam and preferred military solution rather than diplomatic resolution of conflict.[14] Therefore, the most objective assessment of the Vietnam War is ' tragedy resulting from the proxy war of the Cold War regime. ' The war has killed numerous allies, including South and North Vietnamese, U.S. soldiers and South Korean troops, and the aftermath remains in part. The assessment of the dispatch of troops to South Korea can also be judged to have happened in an irrational Cold War era, neither a one-sided victim nor a unilateral perpetrator, but never proud or exemplary. Positive assessment of the Korean troop dispatch At that time, the treatment of the Korean military was not as good as the U.S. military but also other members of the Korean War Alliance, which was lower than that of Thailand, which had been under similar economic conditions.Despite that, the Korean troop dispatch has been at an alarming level, including a 25-1 rate of casualties, which eats 9:1 from the U.S. military. During the latter half of the war, the operation was also brilliant, showing the cost of switching a hundred units.[15] In fact, there were many circumstances in the Vietcong and North Vietnam that the Korean army's bravery was not limited to the order of ' do not fight with the Korean army unless there was a guarantee of a certain victory. ' In terms of equipment and physical condition, it is normal to be less active than the U.S. military because of the opposite result [16] [17]. The reason why the Korean military fought well is that it was the first Korean to send troops overseas, and [18] second, it has had some experience in guerrilla warfare since liberation. For this reason, the Korean army, Powell, has put a high priority on public action and support, which made it more widely known in this field than as a combat soldier.[19] Great guerrilla warfare can be achieved only when the public sentiment is based on it, but the Korean military had a high degree of expertise in the war because the Korean military prevented it from escaping. During the Korean War, the Korean military provided 3,353,364 public health services, 1,640 tons of food, 461,764 points of clothing, 6,406 farm tools, and 3,319 bridges. The South Korean military was carrying an old weapon, M1, but after General Chae Myung-shin persuaded the U.S. military command, it was only a few years before the U.S. military started receiving M16. As a result, the U.S. troops were no less powerful than the U.S. military in individual military fires. Furthermore, due to the commander's proper command, the U.S. forces fought better than the U.S. forces. In fact, it had some difficulties in the early days of the U.S. military's poor helicopter and artillery support, and after handing over the area to the Korean military, it came out to take care of itself (...). Especially in the early days of the war, the first major operation of the Marine Blue Dragon unit, Operation 1 of the Blue Dragon, or Operation 6 of the Blue Dragon, was an independent operation of the Korean military.[20] In particular, the " Blue Dragon 1 " operation had to go up against the rough mountain of Tuihua and hit many Vietcong bases hiding in the mountains. Despite these problems, however, the U.S. military began to provide massive support after an unexpected success. In the latter operations, the U.S. military helicopter support brought in from high or high ground, hitting and dropping from top to bottom at the same time, encircling and wiping out the enemy. Wowol Korean troops had many duties such as fighting guerrillas, supporting the public, and defending the compound. Therefore, it may be doubtful that the South Korean military only played an incidental role in the Vietnam War. However, if you look at the fact that the scale of the defense is the size of the military compound, it is a sophisticated operation that provides aerial lessons by helicopter, supports the U.S. military's horned-guard (...) fire force, and has siege nets. Also, in Vietnam, where the war was not originally occupied, guerrilla eradication, public support, and defense within the compound were inevitable. When it comes to the menstrual operation of special forces, it was not intended to hold a regular war, but to block guerrilla activities. The Lunar New Year offensive also expanded the scale of guerrilla warfare throughout South Vietnam, and the Battle of Kesan was a huge defensive battle. In addition to the Vietcong, the Korean military also confirmed that it was able to set up its military records after several rounds of fighting against the North Vietnamese, including the Battle of Duco, Ankepass and Jabbing. In addition, there are many cases in which Wolmain and Wowol fought, including Operation 70-1 of the eagle, Operation 71-1 of the eagle, Operation 9-12 of the white tiger, and Operation Hong Gil-dong. Among them, the Battle of Zabin-dong is a battle that will remain in the history of the Korean military. If you'd like to see details of the battle jeontu this way. So, we can say that Wowol Korean troops have fully demonstrated their worth in an environment that receives full support from the U.S. Although Wowol Korean troops received support from the United States and actually won the victory based on the support, it was the Korean army that fought for the battle. Some claim that the story of the South Korean military's dance in the Vietnam War was exaggerated and distorted under the military regime. James McNaugh, a U.S. military political advisor who visited the Vietnam War, sent a long report on the Marine Blue Dragon unit (2nd grade) to Nicholas Son. • The R.O.K. Marine did not want to take the leading military action against its enemies, including the Viet Cong, in a major battle, and failed to establish proper operational links with the U.S. military. (In particular, many U.S. Marines, who worked together in the Korean marines, argued, " They were more likely to believe each other than they were to trust, " but they were also assigned to the Korean Marine Corps. Members of the team, Thomas PetrI and Scott Leis, returned to their countries and published books on their lives with the Blue Dragon soldiers.) • There were frequent murders of civilians and prisoners, and Vietnamese farmers were more afraid of the Korean army than of the Viet Cong. • The moral hazard was serious, such as selling goods on the black market, stealing goods, and looting sites. As you can see, James Mac gave a general negative review of the Korean military. In response, Commander Chae Myung-shin refuted : However, some irregularities on the black market were admitted. • There was a serious conflict of opinion between the U.S. military and the South Korean army in June over whether to allow the Korean military to exercise its own operational control, from the character regulations of the Vietnam War. • The U.S. military did not understand Asian culture and lacked understanding of the nature of guerrilla warfare, which later completely accepted the concept of tactics adopted by the Korean military. • In the case of Marines, it does not make sense that they are not ready to fight aggressively. • Rather, it was only when it was discovered that the three or more officers were ordered to chase the enemy after they falsely reported the deaths of many of them in ambush or surprise attack. Also, not all Korean troops are able to do this because James Mc`s assessment is based on the Marine Corps's assessment of the two or more Marine Corps units in the southern part of Queung Nam Province. Other U.S. data generally positively assess the military activities of the Korean military.[ Allied Participation in Vietnam. Department of the Army(1985) (Larsen, Stanley). http://www.history.army.mil/books/Vietnam/allied/ch06.htm This book is a comprehensive assessment of the official evaluation of the U.S. military, including those of James McMack and others.]For your information, James McMack was a diplomat, a civilian, not a military officer. On the contrary, military advisers say that if the Korean Marine Corps is active, they are too aggressive and never passive. And the issue of black market and corruption was often bought more for poor support than for selling weapons. According to Korean soldiers and U.S. veterans who were in the military service, they did not receive the M16 in the first place, and the Korean military was secretly buying weapons in the black market for the weak M1 or Kabin rifles. Since the Korean military fought mainly on the Vietcong issue, there was no reason for an individual to sell his weapon and there is no reason for him to sell all new weapons. And who knows if the military in the 1960s, already heavily disciplined and beaten, sold its weapons on the battlefield or lost them? But in some cases, soldiers stole the remaining items, such as transportation, televisions and refrigerators, or bought them on the black market and sent them home [23]. Technically speaking, it is illegal, but it is not crazy to sell weapons to Betwicks, and to some extent one can understand how poor Korea was then. It is also recognized by the United States that the ratio of Korean soldiers killed in the Vietnam War is 1:24, far ahead of that of the United States. https://specialoperations.com/Foreign/South_Korea/Default2.html And here's the full description. The ROKs very much favored small unit operations, aggressive offensive raids on isolated targets, offensive ambushes, especially at night, and, because of their martial arts expertise, they felt they had a distinct advantage in close hand-to-hand combat, which was most certainly true. They appeared to have a natural nose for picking up enemy weapons that were, as far as the enemy thought, securely cached away. Considered opinion was that it was good the Koreans were "friendlies." An analysis of the over-all Korean contribution to the pacification program leads to the conclusion that Korean combat forces had their greatest success with small unit civic action projects and security operations within their Korean tactical area of responsibility. Complete success eluded the Koreans, however, because of their insufficient coordination and co-operation, and the initial impression they made in dealing with the Vietnamese. The Marine Corps, which James McCam dispenses so much, is also the 1:24 casualty rate. (http://www.usarpac.army.mil/history2/history_jan.asp ) During Operation VAN BUREN, one the Korean platoons of about 13 Marines wipes out an elite North Vietnamese Army (NVA) regiment. There are only two Koreans dead and more than 400 NVA soldiers dead. The Republic of Korea Marine Corps boasts a kill ratio of 24 to 1 in the Vietnam War. And it is hard to say that these assessments are exaggerated, in fact, the Korean combat units had a lot of interaction with the U.S. military, especially with the U.S. combat troops. In the case of the Blue Dragon unit, the brigade was in charge of moving around the area. Since he fought [25] [26] for entering dangerous areas, sweeping the Vietcong and moving to another region, he needed a lot of support and received that support from the U.S. military. Therefore, there were many exchanges with individual combat troops as well as joint operations, and their fame was very high among them. In particular, the ANGLICO members of the U.S. Marine Corps were assigned to each unit of the Battle Team of the Blue Dragon, and there were two of the U.S. Marines in the Battle of Zabin. They informed the overseas veteran community of their experiences with the Korean marines, and this is why most of the positive evaluations of the Korean marines during the Vietnam War came from this. In other words, James McLee's Blue Dragon unit, especially the troops stationed in Quang Nam Province, has had numerous exchanges with the U.S. troops, and their comments are rather positive. Of course, Mac's assessment can not be ignored, but it is quite the opposite. However, it was not just a victory. Although it is still in official records, the Korean military did not actually carry out large-scale operations against regular forces such as the U.S. military and the South Korean military in Vietnam, and the size of the regiment-bright operation was minimal. There were also large-scale operations such as Operation Ochanggyo, Operation Hong Gil-dong and Operation Hwangnyong, but most of them were small battles and ambush. Among them, they have been successful, but have suffered losses due to ambush and bobby traps. In response, the Ministry of National Defense sometimes covers up cases of some damage to announce the victory, which turned out to be rather painful with Powell's writings. For example, the Zabinback battle was part of the " net fishing operation, " which the Marines lost, but because the ministry did not mention it, it was all about a specific operation that achieved success. In addition, the Vietcong entered the military barracks in the 1st Battle of Hyesanjin, which was hit by the surprise attack of the 11th Dokkaebi of the White Horse. In the case of the Ankepass battle, the Korean military posted a high criminal record, but it was also revealed by the war veterans ' notes that many were killed by the wrong judgment of the command. Interestingly enough, U.S. veterans have a unique view of the Korean military. They said that while American veterans, who were seen by the side as " hard workers, " could not have been more likely to be punished due to the severe military discipline and harsh behavior, there were also psychopaths who said, " Let's not do that. " While the U.S. soldiers were drafted and dragged out of the military at that time, Korean Powell soldiers were highly skilled because they were recruited with assistance. The Western view of the Korean army. South Korea's huge contribution to the free future of the free South is a sure proof that the trust and help the United States planted in South Korea 17 years ago were not in vain. - Richard Nixon, December 17, 1967 - According to the captured Vietcong document, the Vietcong instructs the Korean military to avoid any confrontation unless it is 100 percent sure of its victory. All Korean troops are trained in taekwondo, so don't rush even the unarmed Korean soldiers. The Times, July 22, 1966 Why don't you put all the people in Vietnam aside and let the 600,000 Korean army have a war? The 50,000-million South Korean troops defeated their enemy who broke into the strategic area during the enemy's Lunar New Year offensive in just one day. The central coast of the Vietcong, which has been under control since the Vietcong War, is now fully integrated by the Korean military. - U.S. Journal of Evansville, March 1968 Americans in South Vietnam have the highest opinion of both Korean and South Korean troops in combat and stabilization. In fact, some U.S. soldiers who have been carrying out operations with the Korean military came to believe that it would be okay for the U.S. military to learn the methods (tactics) of the Korean military. Newsweek, April 10, 1967 Communist invasion from the North Korea beyond the 38th parallel was like when the South Korean has defected to South Korea's military now. But now, 17 years later, the South Korean military is fighting back against the communists in tens of millions of miles of land, leaving the frozen Yalu River, leaving the high altitude of Cheorwon, and leaving the port of Incheon and Busan. - Observer, May 24, 1967 The central area where Korean troops are stationed is the safest. The South Korean military is brave enough to confront enemies with very special tactics and defend the region. In addition, he gets along well with local farmers, plants crops for farming, and good medical doctors give him good treatment for the public. - 1/2 newspaper in South Vietnam, February 17, 1968 South Korean troops killed the enemy at a rate of 15:1 against their allies and chased and crushed the enemy from the swamp coast of Binding Province, where France and South Vietnam had failed for 20 years. One of the basic characteristics of Koreans is the indomitable spirit. There is nothing strange about the enemies being careful. According to the captured Vietcong or the Wall-Conflict army documents, all soldiers are ordered to avoid any possible close contact with the Korean military. - Saigon Post, March 20, 1968 If South Korea had taken control of the former South Korea or if the U.S. soldiers had been able to learn the lesson of " high visibility, " the Vietnam War would have already won. Even if you drive 96 kilometers in the utter darkness, there is no sign of gunfire or ambush. There is no one else in the South but Korean troops - The London Times of England. There is a significant difference between the South Korean military's tactics and the U.S. military tactics. The South Korean military did not give the Vietcong a chance to escape by firing two or more attacks immediately upon receiving fire from the enemy. On the other hand, when the U.S. forces receive fire from the enemy, they step back and ask for artillery support or air bombing. The enemy disappeared after the attack. - testimony from the Chairman of the House of Representatives Defense, which appears in the Executive Statement of the US House of Representatives. " What have you done to the French, the Vietnam Army and the U.S. Army, two of the conspiracies that caused the failure and frustration of our forces, even though they fired millions of artillery shells and killed thousands in 12 years? " Are Korean troops invading troops? In conclusion, it is not. The question of invading troops is an issue that has long been talked about. One thing to notice here is the intervention of the Vietnam War. Still, there are some scholars that the United States calls " invading troops, " and others who see it as legitimate intervention because they are allies who came to help their friends, the Vietnamese republic, or the Free South. Of course, there are a lot of scholars and if everyone has a slightly different idea, then there are two major scholars on justification : Apologists and Revisionist. Currently, the Vietnamese government and some scholars see the U.S. intervention as an invasion and see South Vietnam as a U.S. puppet government, which makes it fair to do the same. In other words, the Vietnam War is regarded as a war of national liberation and unification. On this issue, the United States and its allies in free Vietnam see it as an unjustified intervention that prevents the unification of the people. They are called apologist scholars. On the other hand, some scholars see the Vietnam War itself as nothing more than an ideological war, one of the many wars of the Cold War, rather than a national liberation or unification war. Rather than the Vietnam War fighting for unification, the Vietnam War is communist vs. anti-Communism, and the Vietnam War, which the two powers (the United States, the Soviet Union, China) have supported, and the U.S. forces are acting according to them. They are called revisionists. However, although not all believe so alike, it is easy to divide the issue of party politics into fair versus no. That is why, depending on the eyes, the debate over whether the Korean military is an invading army is over and is now in progressive form. Therefore, judgment will have to be made by itself, reading history. But the word " invading troops " is not given to the Korean military in the dictionary. This is because South Vietnam, no matter how it was established, was a recognized government in the international community and South Korea was asked to help and sent troops in accordance with all procedures. And what's important is that the Korean military has never entered the Walmain territory. The main duties of the South Korean military were policing, helping the people and sweeping the Vietcong in the South Korean territory. Of course, the U.S. or South Korean military and South Korean Air Force have attacked the North Korean territory, but the South Korean military has nothing to do with it. And in terms of legitimacy, the Wall-Confeder illegally invaded and occupied Laos and Cambodia to secure the route of Ho Chi Minh. In any case, it is impossible to easily determine whether South Korea's philosophical involvement in Vietnam is right or not in this politically and ideological war. However, they are not invading troops in advance or in the international community. Even Vietnam, which consistently defines the Vietnam War as an invasion war that started after improving diplomatic ties and relations with the U.S., does not define other countries other than the U.S. as invasion nations such as South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Thailand. It is also funny to define the United States as an aggressor. Neither the U.S. nor any of them had taken the North Vietnamese territory. Of course, Navy Seals and Green Beret have worked in North Vietnam, but since they are special forces, they are small and have never made any significant achievements. In the previous version, the U.S. said it was an aggressor because it bombed North Vietnam, but it would not be fair to conclude that it was an aggressor just by bombing. In addition, North Vietnam did not even suffer a single damage, even though the United States dropped bombs on the North. The U.S. Air Force is so shocked that even North Vietnamese civilians can not pee. At that time, the government exchanged economic aid for the dispatch of troops and received a lot of supplies directly from the U.S. military, which is still a record. And there are critics and critics that the Korean military has been serving as a mercenaries in the Vietnam War or sold out its conscience. There are even those who come up here to refer to the image of mercenaries who do not hesitate to murder for money versus those who apparently mean a negative meaning in order to reverse the good Vietnamese people's framework. But the South Korean military was never a mercenaries. 1) The troops are not mercenaries because they were sent as allies in political interests between countries. Many of the assistance received from the U.S. in return for the dispatch was the result of " let's get this anyway, " which means they did not send it to receive money. And it was not Cuba that they acted like they were desperate to make money here and there, but it was the first dispatch since the Korean War, and even before and after the 20th century, combat troops were dispatched.(There are some peacekeepers.) 2) In World War II, it can not be called a mercenaries based on economic support between the allied countries of the United States. It is said that the assistance provided on behalf of the troop dispatch is part of this. The U.S. military also provided a large amount of combat supplies for the Korean military. He might think that the alliance, which is not very good at home (Korea was not doing very well at the time), showed minimal sincerity at that time. 3) Is there any necessity for ' money and Buller's mercenaries yongbyeong to do so much public service in the war? Some claim that If it was simply for the purpose of fighting and making money, there is no reason to work hard on this side and build facilities in South Vietnam. In fact, during the Vietnam War, did you actually come here to fight or volunteer for Korean generals, including Chae Myung-shin?" I laughed at the Korean military's public service program, but later it was hard for them to ignore it. 4) According to the Geneva Convention, the Korean military had different military markings of its own military uniform, rank leader, mark, and insignia, which were not related to mercenaries. The mercenaries in the Geneva Convention are also defined as mercenaries for those who do not have a uniform mark or uniform uniform uniform, and thus are not listed as mercenaries in the 3rd Convention in 1977. Considering the fact that the South Korean military has made clear the name of the Korean military, it can not be defined as a foreign soldier. 5) In case of the Australian or Philippine troops dispatched to Korea, they did not form their own headquarters, and were commanded by MA .. On the other hand, the Korean military used its independent command rights to set up a separate headquarters for the Korean Army and to conduct operational activities that were completely separate from the U.S. military in matters of command.(In the Vietnam War and I = In my book, I have told many times about the controversial issue of command in my memoirs and official interviews.) If you are a foreign player, you can not be a foreign player even if you have been directly commanded by MA ., just like other Australian soldiers. It would be the same as the South Korean military is not treated like mercenaries even though it is under direct command of the ISF Command, such as the current Cheonghae Unit - Oshino Unit. 6) The size of the dispatch does not mean that it is a mercenaries. In 1967, the number of Australian troops stood at around 7,000, while the Thai army stationed 12,000 from 1969 to 1970. The Philippine army stationed about 2,000 people between 1966 and 1967. True, South Korea sent the second largest number after the U.S. troops, but the fact that there were only a handful of South Korean troops and a few other allies is a political decision based on the circumstances of the country. There is a clear difference in the definition of mercenaries in public perception and international law, and it should be remembered that the dispatch of Korean troops under international law is clearly legitimate and does not meet at least the modern categories of mercenaries. In fact, the word mercenaries is one of the words Vietcong and Walmain have used for propaganda not only by the Korean military, but also by the Australian and New Zealand forces, the Thai forces, the Philippines and other allies in the United States and South.[1] Also, there are those in the United States who call Korean troops " mercenary, " which they call " mercenary. " In Vietnam, the allies said, " Allies of US Viete. " In the United States, mercenaries are often used in negative ways, and they are not available unless they are used for deprecating purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SUTAINOR (talk • contribs) 10:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The above text is the content that SUTAINOR thinks the article should be. SUTAINOR please discuss the change, not just repeat it here. ~ GB fan 10:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Is this article a war crime of the ROK army? Or is it a description of the ROK army?

Let's write an introduction at the top of the document and write a separate paragraph for positive and negative reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BerrySonKahn (talk • contribs) 12:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no introduction to the activities of the ROK Army. Only criticism is full from beginning to end. What if you would rather fix this Wikipedia article as a "war crime of the ROK Armed Forces"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BerrySonKahn (talk • contribs) 12:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The first reference also describes the positive aspects of the ROK military, (http://en.asaninst.org/contents/issue-brief-no-53-a-perspective-on-koreas-participation-in-the-vietnam -war /)

"The North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong domination there. The North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong domination there. American war planners lean heavily on ROK forces, given their ability to carry out missions with considerable success. In the minds of US military peers, the Koreans outperformed other allied forces in Vietnam in lethality, organization, and professionalism.7 However, it was not all sweetness and light. Under orders to avoid high casualties, ROK forces were perceived by the Americans as difficult and inflexible, preferring to remain in the safety of their bases as war dragged on. Worse yet, decades after Korea's departure from Vietnam, stories emerged implicating ROK troops of massacring thousands of innocent civilians."

The opening paragraph also describes the positive aspects of the ROK military. In Wikipedia, however, they cited only negative parts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BerrySonKahn (talk • contribs) 12:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Edits by SUTAINOR and BerrySonKahn

Please don't sockpuppet to build consensus, both SUTAINOR and BerrySonKahn have very suspicious account histories, they have only edited this article, and both appeared to have started editing around the same time. This is unreasonable. Also introduction of low-quality points and badly translated, badly written sections is unreasonable, as well as removing and altering much of the previous content. A bicyclette (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

What is the problem? Rather, is it not you who makes a biased narrative? I also added a negative rating of the ROK military. Are you criticizing the messenger because you can't refute the article? I did not directly delete the contents of the ROK military massacre, but only recorded the positive evaluation of the time. The title of this document is 'south korea in the vietnam'. However, the article is filled with criticism of the Korean military. When I first saw this, I thought it would be better to change the title of the document to "War crimes of the ROK military." — Preceding unsigned comment added by BerrySonKahn (talk • contribs) 23:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The " Role " category contains unnecessary content.

The title of the role should only include the role of the Korean army during the Vietnam War and the story of combat. But now, negative evaluations of the Korean military, which the U.S. military says, make up the bulk of the content. Negative evaluations of Korean troops off topic should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.114.75.96 (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Questions about the neutrality of Wikipedia documents

I think Wikipedia should remain neutral. But the neutrality of the majority of documents on the Vietnam War (or the content of the massacre or battle) does not seem to be observed. Most of this seems to be caused by a Wikipedia writer. The author draws most of the documents in favor of North Vietnam and only the disadvantages for the allied forces, including the Korean military. As a short example, there is little in the North Vietnamese document about the massacre of countless civilians that was committed at the time, while most of the Korean military documents are about genocide. This is obviously a problem. This does not deny all problems with the Korean military. However, there were also a lot of positive comments about the Korean military at that time. There are also reported cases of the Viet Cong committing crimes in Korean uniforms and disguised as Korean soldiers.(There were incidents in which the Vietcong made it look as if the Korean army had committed a crime.[8] Most of the details of the massacre were fabricated by the 구수정, Or it was found to be fabricated by Japan [9]. I don't know why the particular editor is trying to malign the Korean army, but I want you to be more neutral in writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.114.75.96 (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Bình Hòa massacre is a lie.

A joint investigation team has revealed that Bình Hòa massacre is lacking in evidence and is only rumored. In addition, there are a number of other murders in the document without exact evidence. There was only one case in which the Korean military was found guilty by law.

Ripping out and Placing AP/Reuters Article Lines, and Using It As A Quote

Regarding RVing of edits here [10] to just take reuters or AP and using it as a source of WP:QUOTEFARM.

• Given that the article isn't about the Binh Hoa massacre and this easily constitutes a third of the section, summarising it and removing irrelevant details is necessary. Details the title of an official e.g. whether they were part of some history unit or not isn't relevant to the article.
• Given that, there is also a handful of placing AP/Reuters article quotes out of context. "However, when asked for comment and to confirm the alleged killings, Vietnam's foreign ministry said it did not want to dwell on the matter.", which is very unclear but much clearer when contextualized with "due to a policy of closing the past". Neither is ""was unable to independently confirm their [the Vietnamese victims'] claims", without clearly elaborating what specifically they were doing. The article clarifies this in that the AP team was trying to verify it through other sources, e.g. asking for comments from other groups and governments, is what the team did.
• There is a point of double use of purported/alleged here, "The 1972 Jones study looked at Quảng Ngãi and Quảng Nam Province where Korean forces operated and alleged they had conducted 45 massacres including 13 in which over 20 unarmed civilians were purportedly killed." Having both is not necessary and is detracting alongside creating a non-neutral POV.
• In addition, this is an distortion of the source here, "General Robert E. Cushman Jr. stated several years later that "we had a big problem with atrocities committed by them which I sent down to Saigon." presumably in reference to the Phong Nhị and Phong Nhất massacre. when the article is clearly talking about a plurality of events, not just one.
• I personally do not get why this edit was also preserved in the RVs, [11] given it seems fairly consistent.
• Neither is removing this not necessary in this edit [12], specifically "Bình Hòa massacre was reported in the late 1980s when a British journalist Justin Wintle had visited Vietnam, and was attributed to Korean forces." If you are going to inject quotes and truncate a section, while also simoltaneously introducing less relevant things into the matter, consider putting it into the actual Binh Hoa article.

Placing things out of context also seems to have a very negative slant. The truth of that isn't up for debate in Wikipedia, and proper use of articles or sources which can dispute this ought to be considered rather than taking articles and placing them out of context, distorting what AP/Reuters reported.42.118.133.7 (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The AP and Reuters quotes are not specifically related to the supposed Binh An massacre (not the Binh Hoa massacre as you assert), but give context to all claims of massacres by South Koreans. AP and Reuters are 2 highly reliable sources and both quotes show their journalistic skepticism of the claims regarding the Binh An massacre, the supposed Go Dai massacre and other purported massacres in Quang Ngai and Phu Yen provinces in 1966 (when most of the supposed massacres apparently took place). The quotes make it clear that interviews require Vietnamese Government pre-approval which takes several months and that Government officials are present during the interviews, the clear implication of this being that the interviewees are coached on what to say and that a Government official makes sure that the interviewee sticks to the official line. There is nothing "out of context" or "distorting what AP/Reuters reported" as they are direct quotes, it is you who is trying to reframe what they say. The quotes provide readers with a reliably sourced balance to the rest of the section which effectively asserts that the Koreans conducted numerous massacres, when only one massacres is confirmed to have taken place: Phong Nghi and Phang Nhat. All the rest of the sources are frankly of dubious reliability:

• • The Jones report apparently alleges various massacres, but I haven't read it, have you?
  • Chomsky merely parrots the Jones report
  • Rambo's comments came in a 1970 NYT story, 4 years after the supposed massacres

Regarding the supposed double use of purported/alleged, I don't understand your objection. The Jones report alleges that the Koreans conducted 45 massacres, it is not proven, just an allegation. In those alleged massacres there were 13 in which more than 20 civilians were purportedly killed - again these figures are allegations, they are not proven.

In relation to the supposed distorting of the Marine Corps source, there is no such thing, the only massacre that the Koreans were alleged to have conducted in 1968 was the proven Phong Nghi and Phong Nhat massacre, which was investigated by the Marines as it took place in their operational area. By emphasising the use of one word in the plural: "atrocities" you seek to imply that multiple events took place, when no others are alleged in any source provided

I didn't originally remove this para: [13], although I support the deletion of the sentences regarding the apparent killing of 2 Korean officers because News of the World of Peace is not WP:RS

The reference to Wintle adds nothing and it is already covered on the Binh Hoa massacre page, there is no need to repeat it here.

Per WP:BRD, the page stays as it is until these issues are resolved.Mztourist (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay well given that I worked free-lance for AP/Reuters across Asia I definitely do not disagree with them being a reliable source. The articles you cite specifically are about one event or collection of events in a region, Go Dai according to the article is a hamlet located in Binh An rural commune, in Tay Vinh district from what I gather. Both the AP/Reuters deals with one event, not several. These are not separate massacres and therefore shouldn't warrant their own seperate topic, but presumely has its own articles and much of what you inserted ought to go there.

Summarizing it for here is more useful given it constitutes a third of this section and this article isn't about Binh An/TayVinh. This is one area or one event and the AP team definitely did not generalize as a whole to other issues or events or patterns of behavior. Moreover, just copy-pasting AP/reuters as a quotable source isn't necessarily useful given quotes are generally for individual commenters.

De-contextualizing articles doesn't make the article and clearer at all. What does it mean by "dwell on the matter", when you isolate it with referring to whatever policy of "closing the past" that the article clearly states right after. Neither does "unable to independently verify claims", which is clarified when they asked the South Korean/US governments to independently confirm it.

While its probably true for these issues their are government staff around, certainly in other cases such as protests there often is, these are not a fair presentation of the article topic. The articles themselves aren't skeptical whether it happened or not, they do however for integrity reasons disclaim their report. You are going into dangerous territory when you claim they are being coached, and therefore the events did not happen and this constitutes a strong breach of WP:OR which is not the job of wikipedia editors. None of this is presented in the AP/Reuters articles and would have been picked up if it had been.

Moreoever you are misreading the quotations from the CNN articles, it reads to be about several massacres or events, just simply reading quotations themselves clarifies this as they are speaking in plurality or a generality e.g. "whenever they would", or "serious problems with atrocities" are a plurality of events. There should be no misattribution of the CNN article. The CNN article does not state just the Phong Nhi events, it literally stated what I put in previously, a pattern of events right before presenting those quotes.

My objection with purported and alleged, is one or the other is fine in contextualizing it. Adding both already gives off a hint that its non-neutrally written, "purported that 13 massacres occured in which over 20 were killed" seems to reasonably stand as neutral, given they are just talking about massacres where more than 20 victims were killed.

The Terry Rambo article seems to be by itself a seperate matter, and relates to an independent study not necessarily conducted in Binh Dinh. Neither does the Jones study seem to be. If you are trying to dispute these, it would be terribly grave breach of WP policy for you to do so, its not your job to so I'm not sure why you brought it up since I didn't even edit these nor looked at it in-depth. 184.22.109.126 (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to add, I can't see how you would try to call these dubious, or questionable. Even doubting it as a source while admitting to have not read it is obviously not a fair take. Second, the article that the user deleted was much more than news of the world of peace, and both should be taken to WP:RS if its dubious, given its already archived by a generally reliable site, pro-quest.

Given that you seem to be engaged in edit-warring yourself and already went on 3RR these issues I hope can be resolved within this talk page. As it is I already disagree with a portion of the original presentation of the articles and you seem to oppose it for "weakening" quotes which I don't believe it did. 184.22.109.126 (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you regarding the AP and Reuters articles. Those articles are not just about Binh An, they specifically refer to other alleged massacres in Quang Ngai and Phu Yen provinces in 1966 (when most of the alleged massacres by Koreans took place) and raise questions about the reliability of all reports of these alleged massacres.

"Unable to independently confirm their claims", doesn't mean that "they asked the South Korean/US governments to independently confirm it" it is much wider than that, it means that AP were unable to verify the massacre claims from any sources.

I have said nothing about protests as you assert. A reader is entitled to know the interview conditions and can draw their own conclusions from them, no OR goes into the page. I believe the interview conditions mean the interviewees have been coached, you say that is OR, fair enough, but I don't write my own personal conclusions into the page.

The Marine Generals' quotes come from the official Marine Corps history, the CNN article just copies them. The CNN article is devoted to the Phong Nghi and Phong Nhat massacre with a lot of My Lai thrown in and a vague reference to Ha May. As there is no evidence that anything happened at Ha My other than what is claimed by Heonik Kwon (who incidentally I have emailed asking for details, but received no response yet), Phong Nghi seems the most relevant as Ha My isn't mentioned in the Marine Corps history. However, as a compromise I can agree to "presumably in reference to the Phong Nhị and Phong Nhất massacre and the alleged Ha May massacre."

In relation to the Jones report what exactly are you proposing? 45 massacres is an allegation as is 13 in which 20 or more civilians were killed

I can indeed call the Jones report, Chomsky and Rambo into question. All of Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, as I can't access the Jones report I can't read what says to determine its neutrality and reliability nor can I refer it to WP:RSN if its not accessible. I have read Chomsky and it relies entirely on the Jones report, with a lot of extra vitriol thrown in. Rambo is a news story with scant details published 4 years after the study, it is long on accusations and short on verifiable facts as it doesn't confirm any specific incident.

The only source for the supposed killing of 2 South Korean is News of the world of peace, the fact that the story is archived on pro-quest doesn't mean that News of the world of peace is WP:RS. I googled News of the world of peace, but was unable to find out any details of who published it. It appears to be a pro-North Vietnamese propaganda paper. I agree to reinstating information about alleged massacres motivating people to join the Viet Cong.

I suggest that you read the rules on 3RR and edit-warring again. Rather than edit-warring, discussion here on the Talk Page is the first step to trying to resolve these disagreements. While we are discussing policy, why don't you have a Wikipedia account? You are obviously not new to Wikipedia and your edits have geolocated you to Hanoi, Vietnam and Udon Thani Thailand, which does raise suspicions. Mztourist (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't live in one city given I do freelance work across the region, and I don't see what the issue is with needing an account. I'd prefer the anonymity of editing from cafes.

Anyways, did you read the article by Dean Yates from Reuters? Its entirely on the Binh An case from Jan/Feb 1966 in Binh Dinh. The latter material on asking the ministry for comments was added post-publication given it was updated in 2018, in which they asked for a comment and the policy has clearly shifted given the government really avoids pushing these issues for domestic reasons. This contextualizes it when I added the quote. The specific line that you used as a quote in the AP article relates to independent confirmation of just two events, Binh An and a brief mention of Binh Hoa, but the article seems to clearly have pointed at interviewing villagers and dealt entirely with Binh An area villagers in the article. Independent confirmation wasn't confirmed from US/Korean/South Vietnamese government sources, the only other reliable body of work, and it should either be truncated or moved to corresponding articles like you did with the Binh Hoa reference to Justin Wintle. The fact that appropriations from reuters/ap articles on just one or two events takes up 1/3rd of that section doesn't seem appropriate as an overview.

The CNN article dwells on Phong Nhi/Phong Nhat, but the quotes are prefixed with "A US Marine Corps history of the period suggests such behavior was common: Quote, and Quote", which does not deal with only one event. This is misattribution of the source and article.

I don't know why you keep bringing up other events or pages, I've only edited the article in which you insert pieces of an article, which isn't all that clear when its decontextualized. I assume it was just misreading the article, but it seems you are interested in proving these events never happened when you are contacting source authors directly while already assuming so or so event didn't occur is already crossing the line of pushing OR. The Jones report I know nothing about but the Terry Rambo study is from RAND Corporation which presumably has copies. I personally don't get why you would just dismiss them without reading it, they don't point to nothing if its reported in the NYT or contracted by Rand Corp.

Anyways its quite easy to read "allege 13 massacres where purported as a non-neutral point. Its just like reading "its alleged that sheriff john brown was purportedly shot", vs. "he alleged that sheriff john brown" was shot which is a more neutral phrasing.

By the way, the Ha My issue in the CNN article I noticed on a re-read, it says it isn't just something only one guy made up it seems to be discussed by a conference or civic group in Korea. I don't care what you do with it outside of wikipedia, but probably contacting them is a better way to gather evidence rather than emailing some guy assuming he made it up. 184.22.109.126 (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

It is preferable if you have an accounts as making edits under multiple different IPs looks suspiciously like socking.

Of course I read the Reuters article. It stands with the AP article in showing the vagueness and Vietnamese Government control of claims of these supposed massacres

You say "The latter material on asking the ministry for comments was added post-publication given it was updated in 2018", where does it say that?

You say "Independent confirmation wasn't confirmed from US/Korean/South Vietnamese government sources" where does it say that? You are adding your interpretation as to what investigations the AP carried out, which is not correct.

You say "appropriations from reuters/ap articles on just one or two events takes up 1/3rd of that section doesn't seem appropriate" to me it seems at least as appropriate as the bold claims of the Jones report and the vague and non-specific accusations of Chomsky and Rambo. It is entirely relevant that readers understand the limitations imposed on investigative journalism in Vietnam, one of the worlds lowest ranked countries for press freedom, and so they can draw their own conclusions as to the reliability of Vietnamese accounts

When you say "I don't know why you keep bringing up other events or pages", I'm not talking about other pages specifically, merely pointing out the lack of WP:RS for all purported massacres other than Phong Nghi and Phong Nhat. As I have said before, all of Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, if you claim a massacre has taken place then you have to have very solid RS. I don't have the Jones Report and so can't submit it to WP:RSN; I have read the NYT story on Rambo and it lacks any specific detail. I can only view page 190 of the Elliott RAND study and again it is all generalisations lacking details of any specific event. And that is the whole problem with this section, lots of generalisations and innuendo suggesting a vast number of massacres by the Koreans, when there is only one proven massacre: Phong Nhgi and Phong Nhat

Given that the Jones allege 45 massacres in which there were 13 in which over 20 unarmed civilians were purportedly killed the current wording is accurate it is completely different from your "its alleged that sheriff john brown was purportedly shot"

The Ha My massacre was first reported by Heonik Kwon who was the original published source for it. Given that he is a university professor and presumably is expected to meet certain academic standards of research, it seems reasonable to ask him how he actually determined it was true. Yes some Korean groups have held reconciliation conferences which a few "survivors" of alleged massacres have attended, but that's just their word against anyone else's. There is no contemporaneous reporting of the event nor any incontrovertible evidence that anything happened at Ha My. Mztourist (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Same person as before, different location. Since you are obviously not interested in comprimising on this, and think just adding quotes instead of paraphrasing as I suggested, regarding "weakening of quotes", I went ahead and compromised by adding in additional texts from the articles that are cited. All of these should reasonably stand given its quote farming from the exact same sources.

I still don't get why you keep telling me why you think so-and-so study is wrong based on what you believe. I really don't care, you should go tell it to someone that does or a discussion board that does. My original complaint was the non-neutrality of very minor phrasings, literally one word and you went on a bizarre diatribe. 27.89.85.118 (talk) 07:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

That is not the correct procedure to follow, so I will review your edits and revise as necessary. You have made various statements above without backing them up. I have set out my explanations of various issues not gone "on a bizarre diatribe" as you assert. As advised previously you should open an account as editing from different IP creates the assumption of IP socking. Mztourist (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Can somebody please check the sources before adding them?

Most of these sources have dubious claims and the authors' credibility is also questionable.

For example, this article is talking about Operation Ohjakgyo when the source is talking about a different battle, not to mention that the author of the sources is not credible at all, and was pulled from a blog post.

Second, there are allegations about most South Korean officers during the Vietnam War as being Japanese trained.

Most officers would have been born between 30s~40s, excluding generals including Chae Myoung Shin. These officers would have been toddlers during the Japanese occupation and Chae was in fact one of the officers who criticized Japanese-trained officers during the Korean War. There are some serious allegations in this article that is simply not true and needs to be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woo1693 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Bilateral Relations Aspect

Just a point to clarify. This isn't a diplomatic issue between countries, certainly not in the same way that historical grievances have now defined Japanese-Korean diplomatic relations or Japanese-Mainland China relations. I added edits to clarify this point, as the foreign policy of the vietnamese government doesn't acknowledge this as an issue. This issue is largely driven by domestic politics/groups and courtroom litigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.11.97 (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixing structure and flow of sections.

Would recommend fixing the structure of the Reported War Crimes section and the Evaluations section. Sections and paragraphs don't really connect with each other. The sections were somewhat confusing since it would jump to different topics frequently. I don't have the time to do this so just a headsup for anyone maintaining this page.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Photo taken by Phillip Kemp from cockpit after sling-loading water drums to outpost..jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Mass removal of sourced info

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Korea_in_the_Vietnam_War&diff=prev&oldid=1151433844 user is removing info that is relevant and sourced. I don't think the removals are appropriate and leaves out important info.

User also removed important info in the lead paragraph under "causes". the removed info highlights the motivations and consistent offerings of South Korean leaders. SK leaders offered troops for years because they deemed it was in their interest to do so, but they were rejected by two American presidents. This info was removed. The current version gives the reader the impression that Lyndon Johnson randomly made a request for SK troops.

I would suggest reverting and returning the information that was removed because the info is relevant, appropriately sourced and attributed.

anyone else want to give their opinion?

Political edits

@HistoryLover1800s seems to be making political edits by deleting references. 70.51.244.161 (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

30 October 2024

User:70.51.244.161 you have made numerous changes: [14] to the page which I reverted as they are not improvements. Rather than following WP:BRD you reverted me saying "Previous version had blatant grammar issues. Also political editing by removing the Boston Globe article."

• Firstly addressing the "blatant grammar issues" the Republic of Korea Air Force supported Korean forces in South Vietnam, so its deletion is incorrect. You merged two sentences into one overlong sentence. Changing "the U.S. paid for the financial costs" with "the US has covered the cost" is bad grammar. There is no need to break out semi-colons into separate sentences. "averaging of $200 million" is bad grammar. Replacing "they can attribute their subsequent success and growth to the lucrative" with "this also included" obscures the effect of the contracts. There is no need to merge two sentences into one long sentence by replacing "Korea. He arrested" with "Korea by arresting". You are deleting important information with the removal of the para starting "Because of the alliances the U.S. had with Japan and South Korea..."
• Moving onto the supposed "political editing", we already have an extensive section on war crimes that cover everything in the Boston Globe article (which I note you have been trying to add to every WP page you can find). Your rewording of the RAND study is not an improvement and "further made in a seperate" is bad grammar and includes a typo, there was only one author, not "authors".

So please explain why any of those edits should be made. Mztourist (talk) 06:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

User:70.51.244.161 blocked as a sock here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette, all edits reverted. Mztourist (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)