Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 13

Defeat and withdrawal?

Look, all that I am saying, and I am sure others are too, is that the US military won pretty much every battle in the war. It is very hard to say a superpower was defeated in a war that it won all the battles. The correct term would be US withdrawal and a communist victory over South Vietnam. Nobody is trying to be G.W. Bush (look where it got him: ELECTED TWICE & NO FURTHER US ATTACKS SINCE 9/11 - the bad part is we now have 4 years of Obama the screw up), we are simply stating that there was far more to the story that "the North won." Of course Pakistan, China, Russia etc. are going to say the US was defeated. There was no military defeat, plain and simple. That is the point. The result should be worded differently because 20 years down the road children are not going to know what happened. As far as teaching thins in US schools, maybe if they instilled a sense of history these things would not happen. I have studied topics like this for many years and know many people who were there. In no way was the US defeated militarily. We withdrew. Politically we were defeated, but when on the topic of a war by saying the North won it seems as if the US military lost. It did not. Pure and simple.

[[[User:WWIIKVIAI]] 16:41, 10 May, 2009(UTC)]

SOAPBOX? You are on here more than anyone. [[[User:WWIIKVIAI]] 11:35, 19 May, 2009(UTC)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.226.154 (talk)

please do not shout, I was f corse refering to your staments about curretn evetns unconnected to this page[[Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)]]

Please do not soapbox about events unconnected with this page; it makes your views look very POV. No one disputes that the US military won almost every battle, but the US military is not the US state. It is the nation that lost, not its armed forces. The point is that the US government (and therefore by extension its agencies) failed in their stated aims. They then went on the abandon SV to its fate (despite treaty obligations to the contrary). Even the US militaries chosen strategy (attrition) failed, after all attrition warfare is about causing to many casualties for the enemy to want to continue, this the Communists succeed in and the US military failed. The US military failed to achieve a situation were the politicians could achieve their objectives, in this the US military failed. A wars victors (and losers) are determined by the final outcome of the war, not how it was achieved, in this respect the communists clearly won.[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)]]

There is a little war going on about the wording in the infobox under "Result". As someone who has weighed in on the question of whether the US lost, I want to toss in my two cents about it. Yes, the US lost. The result of the war was a U.S. defeat, and they withdrew, but it is just stupid to put both words there. The result was a defeat. Of course the U.S. withdrew. Does anybody think they could have been defeated and stay? Or that they were wiped out to a man? Might as well say "defeat and withdrawal and sailed home and put their gear away and had a shower and...." As if the nonsensicality wasn't enough, "defeat and withdrawal" implies that they were actually driven out militarily, which is not what happened. The U.S. didn't get its ass handed to it like France did, the U.S. just quit. Come to think of it, the line should be deleted completely, because "Communist forces victory" says it all already. It is redundant (and seemingly POV) to mention that the other side lost. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The other side did win but not because they were capable of winning. If they were winning wouldn't they have been able to tell us to leave vietnam in the paris peace accords but they were not. The treaty they signed said we would leave and they would stay inside their border. That doesn't sound like they were able to dictate terms to us like a conquering army would be able to. I would also like to say they were never able to move beyond their border until we left so it wasn't like there army was capable of pushing us out. They only won because they inflicted enough casualties on us that it took our desire to participate any further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yocrap (talk • contribs) 04:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This comes up again, and again, and again. Can I suggest that we follow the chronology and keep it as simple as possible:

1) U.S. withdrawal

2) Communist victory

3) Invasion of... etc.

4) As is

So it says very clearly the Americans withdrew, and the Communists won, but if people still want to interpret that as meaning America didn't lose then they are free to do so. Cripipper (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

But America was defeated. They were driven out militarly, consequences on the ground force people on top to ultimately pull the plug. You can't say "communist forces" won and at the same time break up the non communist forces saying who lost or not. You can't have it both ways. It should say "North Vietnamese Victory" Their allies are listed for the reader.Webster121 (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's how the current state of things appears to me: it is undisputed that American forces withdrew; it is also undisputed that the outcome is widely regarded as an American defeat. That's what the infobox reflects. I'm thinking in terms of what an encyclopedia is for -- imagine someone too young to remember this war, trying to get an understanding of it. I think she or he will be served best by being told the facts, including the facts about the state of a question that turns out to be thornier than some of us might initially have thought (I found the discussion of the War of 1812 illuminating in this regard -- it is certainly NOT (generally) taught as a loss to American schoolchildren, but it's been made very clear that it is so understood elsewhere, and that there are sound reasons for viewing it in that way). An encyclopedia must deal in facts, and where the facts are in dispute, it must report the dispute. I myself find it hard to see how it could be regarded as other than a loss, but I understand that to be a debate about interpretation of a category ("defeat") which is part of the social world of historiography, rather than a dispute about a factual claim like whether Canada had troops present. DavidOaks (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

About what cripipper said I would just omit step 2 altogether. When the U.S. signed the cease-fire with North Vietnam, the U.S. was not beaten into signing it. It was a foolish deception that the Communists would back down because they signed a simple treaty. Once the U.S. left, there was nothing stopping the NVA, so they invaded. If you are going to say it was a military defeat, then list some of the battles that turned the tide against the U.S. Oh, the Tet Offensive was an American victory by the way (Voices of Courage); the media made it look like we got chewed.Prussian725 (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no way you could call the Vietnam War an American defeat. If we pulled our troops out of Iraq now, and the Iraqis lost the war would we call it an American defeat? When we pulled our final troops out of Vietnam, the South Vietnamese were put in control of themselves. When Saigon fell to North Vietnamese, the American troops were no longer present. We withdrew, were not defeated. InColor 32 (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. We were not beaten, we quit. There's a difference. But alas, some people hate the U.S. so much that they are willing to distort history in order to make us look bad because they don't have the balls to take us on like men.Prussian725 (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just, the french weren't drive back militarily too: they did exactly the same thing than the US did, the only difference was that they had a defeat before they withdrawal, but France decision to withdraw wasn't due to dien bien phu, this battle was only to negociate in a strong position. And for the US, US army wasn't defeated, USA as a state was. clems78 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.205.182.238 (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

When the U.S. pulls out of Iraq today it necessarily wouldn't be an American defeat because the conventional war is over and the U.S. is now occupying Iraq. In the Vietnam War, the U.S. never occuppied North Vietnam. I suggest you read up further on what happened during the war with the French and how the U.S. got involved. The U.S. funded the French and also suggested using an atomic bomb at Dien Bien Phu.

And...?Prussian725 (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's see if we can put it simply. The US failed in it's objective of retaining an independent South Vietnamese state. North Vietnam achieved it's objective of re-uniting Vietnam. Score: North Vietnam 1, United States 0. As for "we quit" if a football team walks off the field before the final siren, that is still a loss. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You've got it wrong. The U.S.' objective was not to retain a free RVN but to keep out Communit aggressors, which we did all the way up to when we signed a cease-fire. The Communists attacked RVN after the treaty was signed and we pulled out our military. That's not a defeat.Prussian725 (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me but did not the communists have forces in country when the cease fire was signed. A cease fire that no only did not require them to leave but forced South Vietnam to legalise and recognise the communist party? I fail to see how that can be considered keeping SVN free of communist’s aggressors. Moreover US forces continued to operate in country until a unilateral withdrawal of US combat support in August 1973. A decision (along with the decision to cut military aid to SVN) that was decided without an agreement by NVN to end or suspend the activates that had prompted action after the signing of the January cease fore (not by the way a peace treaty or ending of hostilities merely a suspension of them). Thus US forces actually ended military involvement whilst active hostilities were ongoing, whilst communist forces were still active in country.[[Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)]]

(Undent)Well, I personally don't know about that but I do know that about when we pulled out the Tet Offensive had just finished, a battle in which the NVA was terribly defeated. So there was really no forcing of a withdrawal. It was just poor decision-making on Washington's part. About the communists, there are communists in the U.S. right now, I'm talking about the NVA and the Viet Cong. I'm willing to bet that their were indeed both in RVN but at the time of the cease-fire but that was not our fault; that was the North Vietnamese stabbing us in the back.Prussian725 (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Tet was in 1968, the US pulled out its forces in 1973, that’s 5 years, not just after.

The NVA had 219,000 men in SVN in January 1973. MR 1 NVA 63,000 VC 3000 MR2 NVA 19,000 VC 6000 MR3 NVA 20,000 VC 5000 MR4 NVA 123,000 VC 11,000 These forces were in country before the signing of the Paris accords, which had no clause requiring them to leave. The accords had clauses such as. Within sixty days of the signing of this Agreement, there will be a total withdrawal from South Viet-Nam of troops, military advisers, and military personnel, including technical military personnel and military personnel associated with the pacification program, armaments, munitions, and war material of the United States and those of the other foreign countries mentioned in Article 3 (a). Advisers from the above-mentioned countries to all paramilitary organizations and the police force will also be withdrawn within the same period of time. There was no similar requirement on the part of NVA. How therefore can it not be the fault of the country that signed an agreement that let them stay? How can the US claim to have kept SVN free from communist aggression when it made a peace deal that allowed 219,000 armed troops to remain in country [[Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)]]

I was talking about when the troop withdrawal started to take place, you must forgive my improper wording. Anyway, I have a question of my own: how can you say that the U.S. lost the war? In what way were we defeated? Who beat us? These are valid questions that I think everyone keeps dancing around but doesn't answer.Prussian725 (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

But the cease fire was signed in 1973, which means that US troop withdrawals began at a time when the NVA and VC were very much still active. So again we have the US not having stopped communist agrees ion when it chose (without any agreement from NV to suspend hostilities even) top begin to pull out US fighting men. How can the North have stabbed the US in the back if they had not agreed to anything in the first place? Who beat the US? North Vietnam, and the VC. How? By causing the US to begin troop withdraws without any agreement on the part of NV to end hostilities or leave the country. In fact to begin troop withdraws before the fighting was over, whilst the NVA consoled large tracts of SVN. Whilst the NVA continued to attack SVN and US forces, a withdrawal in the face of enemy action. By inflicting more loses on US forces then the American public were willing to bare. By causing the US public to believe they had an open-ended and ultimately unsinkable war. How did the US not lose? Did they keep SVN free from communist aggression, not in 1969-73 they did not. The NVA remained an active force in occupation of areas of SVN actively engaged in military. After January of 1973, they did not US forces remained active until August of 1973. NVA forces remained active and in occupation of areas of SVN at the same time. Did the US begin troop withdrawals only after an agreement from NV to stop aggression, no. DID the US stop troop withdrawals when it became obvious that the NV’s were in breach of the Paris accords, no. [[Slatersteven (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)]]

A question of my own, if the US did not loose, in what way did it win? Did the Soviet Union also win in Afghanistan? If you want to see what a victory against communist insurgents looks like, look at the British in Malaya. The US failed to achieve its objectives, and withdrew, therefore it lost. It didn't have to be defeated on the battlefield. The NVA and the VC only had to survive to win. And really, no talk of backstabbing please. You really need to read Clausewitz on the nature of war. --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you make it sound like the NVA and VC were a giant monster when we pulled out. They were beaten during the Tet offensive, in which they DID break their word by launching the campaign in the first place. Our troops were pulled out because of lack of support on OUR part, not by anything the NVA did. Our media was turned against us, Washington would not allow our military to achieve victory...the list goes on but nothing the Communists did had any influence on the outcome. Our government pulled our military out when they realized that hippies and peace-lovers had taken over the media and were painting the war as a slaughter, which it was but with the NVA as the ones being obliterated. So, if we just stopped fighting and left their country, does that mean we lost? No.Prussian725 (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You place too much emphasis on the Tet offensive. Keep in mind that it occurred five years before the American withdrawal, the US was involved in the Second World War for less than four years. Yes we know now that the offensive was a military disaster for the NVA/VC, however it was very much a pyrric victory for the US. It prompted the collapse of morale and support for the war in the US which did lead to the US withdrawal. As Napoleon said, in warfare, the mental to the physical is as three is to one. You are right the US pulled out because of a lack of support within the US, but that is as much a victory for the NVA/VC as anything that happened on the battlefield. As I said the NVA/VC only had to survive and outlast the US to win. To quote Napoleon again, victory belongs to the most persevering. The US failed to achieve it's war aims, withdrew, "ran away" if you like, and so it lost. The communists won. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

How did they break their word with Tet? No one has said they were giant monsters, what I said was that they were a still a fighting force in the South. That the NVA could still launch operations ans still hed large tracts of SV. It does not matter why the US lost, it does not amtter why the US pulled out they did. and in so doing sealed SV's fate (moreover they did not go back to save SV in 74/75). [[Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)]]

The immediately following moved from bottom of page by Anarchangel (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC) I took quite a few looks on this article, and most of the things that I read were true and correct. But I also saw a HUGE and INCORRECT statement. It said as a result of the Vietnam War that the North Vietnamese Communists won the war. That is false. It has been believed that North Vietnam won the war but, South Vietnam, United States, South Korea, Austrailia, Phillippines, New Zealand, Khmer Republic, Thailand, and Kingdom of Laos were the anticommunists forces. Record shows it that these forces never signed one defeat paper. Also, if you look at the statistics, only 285,831 anticommunists soldiers died(58,159 U.S. Soldiers died). Now, don't get me wrong, that's alot of men dead, but 1,177,466 Communists soldiers died. So if you compare those numbers the Anticommunists forces actually won the Vietnam War.U.s.marinecorps24 (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)U.s.marinecorps24U.s.marinecorps24 (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

is this a joke?[[Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)]]

No, I think he's being serious. Logic dictates that a defeat is being stopped of achieving ones goals, by others or by himself. The U.S. did not acchive its goals.

You need to look at the Discussion page also. It has been said before, but bears repeating. The criteria used to give the result is whether the stated aims of the two parties were achieved. This also, incidentally to Wiki, I grant you, suits the intuitive notion that regardless of whether the US could or could not have won, it left before winning. Anarchangel (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing withdrawal with defeat.Prussian725 (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I take it then your sugesting that the US's objective in entering the Vietnam conflict was to withdraw from it?[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)]]

Please don't feed this troll --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of pieces of meat.... (1) In his book, On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War, Harry G. Summers, Jr. describes an exchange he had in Hanoi with a senior NVN General during a break in some post Paris-Agreement talks. As I recall it (I don't have the book handy), Summers describes himself remarking that NVN forces never defeated the American Army in a major tactical engagement. The response was, “That may be true, but it is also irrelevant.” (2) Some decades ago I came across a T-shirt or somesuch saying tongue-in-cheek something like, "VN War results: US-2nd place; NVN-next to last." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I can agree to say that nobody really won or lost the war.Prussian725 (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Given thr result that seems rahter hard to justfiy.[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)]]

Paris Peace Accord

In it, were provisions for the United States to leave Vietnam completely and for the North Vietnamese Soldiers to stay and hold their territorial gains in the south, a victory for the North Vietnamese and defeat for the United States. The inclusion of this provision was a victory for the communist side of the negotiations by allowing that the war was not a foreign aggression against South Vietnam.71.156.53.226 (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ho Chi Minh famously returned Johnson's peace proposals unopened. Having to recognize Thieu's government and sign an agreement with it was a lot of crow for the communists to eat. The reason they signed anyway is because they got a bloody nose during the Easter Offensive in 1972. Nowadays, the communists see the peace treaty as an embarassment, since it shows they can't be trusted. North Vietnam was very proud of keeping the Geneva Accord. Le Duc Tho never became a hero in Vietnam.Kauffner (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

America still thinks it won the Vietnam war and I tell you why its films,films are a big part of American culture films like Rambo and Apocalypse now which should of had the opposite affect the way they went about warfare an overpowering and crushing army with weapons like napalm and the vietcong still won the sheer incompetence of the Americans during that war and even now the Americans just dont learn from their mistakes with the so called green berets counterinsurgency force. The Americans were beaten by insurgents then and now invade the middle east and they wonder why there is terrorist attacks against them because they have killed and offended so many people the vietcong were communists and the middle east has oil. ---matt suter--- 13:48, 19 August —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.30.7 (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Commanders of Communist forces

Was Truong Nhu Tang really a commander of communist forces? (Correct me if I'm mistaken) Article on himself states that he was the founders of the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (NLF) and Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam. There is no indication that he fought for communist forces, where as other entries on commanders clearly stated that they were commanders of communist party and had actively participated in this war.--NAHID 10:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you that Truong Nhu Tang and Duong Van Nhut were both low-ranking commanders. Duong Van Nhut was only a major general. So, I will correct that mistake for wiki Kenshin top (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

US-centric lead material

I agree with Blnguyen that this material is too US-centric, and is written from a specifically American perspective, and so is not appropriate here. Furthermore, the specific casualty figures for just one of the many combatants is information too specific for the lead. I have removed it again. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it's kind of written from a western perspective, by which I don't mean biased, but theres less attention to the south vietnamese army and war crimes commited by north-vietnamese troops, because war crimes by the us have become most famous. Interesting is the Vietnamese wikipedia on the war[1]. Previously many more south viatnamese commanders were listed, let's not forget that many more south vietnamese people fought against the communists then american soldiers.

Another interesting thing is they have a picture up of the Massacre at Huế commited by communist forces. While on this page there's a picture up of the my lai massacre, the massacre at hué doesn't have one. It deserves a picture+description too per wp:npov, especially since the casualty count was much much higher than the my lai massacre.- PietervHuis (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well it's true that focusing on one country doesn't make it POV, it just makes the article more like United States in the Vietnam War. Yes, unfortunately this article is usually populated by people, usually Americans, who are interested in either bagging their foreign policy, or saying that the US didn't lose, and aren't actually concerned too much about the actual war. In any case, the lead that I reverted was mostly about US public opinion and not the actual war. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User Binguyen, You have deleted the complete edit which was supported by a neutral reference. Why? there is no history between 1945 (japan's defeat ) to 1950???????. The use of a single word "freedom fighter" will not make the edit "POV" . Please note that this is from a source which can be considered as neutrale. The sources used in this article , like pentagon papers are not RS and there is no reason why a WP article should look like a US army history book. -Bharatveer (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Because he has a way he thinks the article should be and by golly he's gonna keep it that way.(sarcasm)Prussian725 (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Imperialism and Colonialism

In the dictionary, it states that imperialism is the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies and colonialism is the control or governing influence of a nation over a dependent country, territory, or people. Using these definitons it can be assumed that the Vietnam War was a war of imperialism and colonialism because the country was torn into two parts, (North Vietnam and South Vietnam) and they were being aided by the Chinese and the United States. The civil war that was about to break out in Vietnam soon became a war that some of the world was thrust into.

The war of imperialism and colonialism dates back to the Chinese who had ruled Ancient Vietnam and to this day, they have never really left the Vietnamese to do what they liked as the years went on. This could be one of the reasons why there are so many ties to the Chinese culture that stands with the Vietnamese. After the Chinese had lessoned there grip on Vietnam the French broke through and established the French Indochina. This would also leave Vietnam with strong ties to France and these ties would be shown in the culture and everyday lifestyles of the Vietnamese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimprincess419 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

main picture

I'm just curious, was the new main picture just put up by someone because they felt like it or was it discussed and then put up?Prussian725 (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I put it there, in response to 1) discussion of the picture on this page (it's a featured picture, it's relevant if American-centric), and 2) the removal of a previous picture with murky permission. Naturally, any editor who has a better picture, or wishes to argue that no picture at all is better than this one, can and should go ahead and change it. DavidOaks (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I was just wondering if some one person decided that he would put it there because he felt like it. Thanks!Prussian725 (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like this choice of photo, as it's too US-centric (eg, as it shows a scared looking young Marine on arrival in Vietnam, it only represents the US experiance of the war). I don't know what a better choice would be though... Nick Dowling (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's an arresting image and that's certainly a big point in its favor. But he could be anywhere. Without the caption, you wouldn't know he was in Vietnam. "American-centric" -- the war was all about the U.S., that's reality. The communists wanted to make trouble for the U.S. and that's what it was all about. In communist propaganda, it's the "Anti-American Resitance War." There was a civil war in the Congo that killed more people. But that didn't involve America, so no one cares. Kauffner (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That might be news for the Vietnamase: the goal of the war for the North Vietnamese was to unite the country under their rule, and it started before there was any significant US involvement. The great majority of combatants, and casualties, were Vietnamese. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask you this: why in Hades would the Communists give squat about the unity of Vietnam? Ho Chi Mihn was nothing but another Asian sock-puppet with a Russian hand up his back. It was nothing but the Soviets creating another satellite nation to spit in the face of the U.S. The Cold War was about the U.S. spreading Democracy and the Commies spreading Communism. Oh, and what are you trying to say when you say "majority of combatants...were Vietnamese"?Prussian725 (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

was'nt Hoe initialy backed by the OSS?[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)]]

Ho became a full-time communist back in the 1920s. The OSS just wanted his help rescuing downed U.S. pilots. Did you know that Stalin and Hitler were allies for several years? I hope such complexities of history are not too much for you. Kauffner (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. A lot of times in war, things that are not immediately pressing are put aside for a greater cause, i.e. Stalin and Hitler as well as Stalin being an Ally.Prussian725 (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware I had had said that things were even that simplistic, I just pointed out that in war and politics alliances, and affiliations change. That at one time Ho and the US had been allies (no matter how unwilingly). But it is indead true that The US's involvment in Vietnam was often as venal and self serving as that of the Russians.[[Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)]]

Hella typo

yeah in the casualties section it says like "two doazen" instead of two dozen someone fix this, i can't because the page is protected you see —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.173.252 (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Results"

How about this for the results:

• North Vietnamese/Communist takeover of RVN
• Communist takeover of Laos and Cambodia
• U.S. withdrawal

? Does anybody have any objections to this?Prussian725 (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

How about:

• Communist takeover of South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.
• North Vietnam and South Vietnam are unified

The phrase "U.S. withdrawal" is I assume watered down from "U.S. defeated." But the underlying problem is still the same. Why not "South Korean withdrawal" or "Australian withdrawal"? It makes it sound like only the U.S. lost and that no one else had a stake in the outcome. If you say that the communists won, that should be enough -- it's implied that the other side lost. The infobox for WWII doesn't say anything equivalent to "Germany defeated" or "Japan defeated." Kauffner (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure that works.Prussian725 (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

US lost is specifically in there because US was the biggest supporter with around 500,000 soldiers. South korea had some 50,00 or some small number. The reason is the impact of US in this war and the huge role it played and that can not be understated 71.237.70.49 (talk)

This is not a hard topic to understand. Ultimately North Vietnam "won" and South Vietnam and US "lost." Simple as that. You have to use the term "victory" and "defeat." Every war template in wikipedia uses "victory" and "defeat." This is not that damn hard to understand. Americans get over the fact that you lost and ran like chicken. Who told you to go in there and lose your damn 50,000 soldiers. It is your loss. Get over the fact that you got "defeated." North vietnam won and "US" lost. This was a huge US operation. 500,000 soldiers involved. Half a million soldiers. Australia had some 6,000. US played huge role in this. So this is not some minor defeat.71.237.70.49 (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What other info box uses "vistory" and "defeat"? I haven't found any. The box for the Austro-Prussian War just says "Prusso-Italian victory." Nothing about Austria being defeated. Franco-Prussian War: "Decisive Prussian and German victory; Treaty of Frankfurt." Again, no "France defeated." Kauffner (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If "U.S. Defeated" is even in the box, it is just someone making a political statement. If everyone can agree on the info boxes on all those other wars (To add, no "Germany Defeated" or "Japan Defeated" in the WWII box), then the only reason for "U.S. Defeated" is for somebody to try to exert their opinion about the war. There are many conflicting opinions about the Vietnam War, so let's just revert to tha norm for info boxes...unless somebody wants it to say that the U.S. was defeated.Prussian725 (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"US is defeated" is already changed to "US withdrawed." Game over and let's move on. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

U.S. was defeated. America can win a war and withdraw and they can lose a war like in Vietnam and withdraw, the distinction needs to be made clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.13.45 (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Which it has, but not in your favor.Prussian725 (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What gives anyone the right to say it's over untill all sides agree it is over? Indead it seems that the person who said game over is not a registerd user, so exactly who come he has editorial control over this page? Now if idead no pages's say a side was defeated then on those grounds there is reason to say that it should not be present here. But only on those grounds[[Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)]]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War

‘tactical and strategic Arab failure’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War ‘Strategic Iraqi failure’ So perhaps we should we not put ‘US strategic failure’?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Lapland ‘German strategic retreat’ So maybe ‘US strategic retreat’ should be used?

Of course most seem to just have either a: ‘x’ won or b: ‘Treaty of…’. A few have Decisive victory (which I think is pretty much what NVN achieved so may be we should put that.

But http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency ‘Defeat of Communist guerrillas’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Civil_War ‘defeat of anti-Treaty IRA forces’ So are pages that do list a defeat. So it is not a universal rule (and certainly is not an official rule) that conflicts do not list the defeated.

This is by no means an exhaustive survey (there are a rather lot of wars), but it does I hope demonstrate that there is no common pattern to the results part of the info box in regards to wars. [[Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)]]

Many countries participated in the war. It's much simpler to say "North Vietnamese victory" or "communist victory" than to list all the countries on the anti-communist side as "defeated." The idea of the info box is to express the result in the briefest possible way. The old box that said "US defeated" made it sound like no one else was involved, not even South Vietnam. Kauffner (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

But the US withdrawal/defeat is in a wider international context the most significant thing about Vietnam. It was not just that America withdrew militarily, they withdrew politically and economically (did any other nations break of diplomatic ties and abandon their embassy? Indeed it could be argued that the Vietnam war only enjoys the status it does precisely because of the failure of the US to achieve its aims in the region. Moreover it was the withdrawal of the US that led to the communist victory, I doubt that even ROK withdrawal had such a massive impact. All of these make what happened to the US war making effort vital to understanding the war, and if the info box does anything it should be a summery of the salient and significant facts about the events it discuses.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)]]

I know that this topic has been beaten to death but I just have one question: did the NVA ever take over RVN while american forces were there?Prussian725 (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

no, but Did the US drive the NVA from SV before they withdrew? Dd the US pull out before having ensured the continued survival of SV? Did the nUS honourm its obligations and step in when the North violated the cease fire and over ran the South? But perhaps this might sum it up. As the North Vietnames flag went up over the Presdiential place an unnamed radio operator in the US embasy sent out this message 'its been a long hard fight and we have lost...Saigon signing of'[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)]]

Just for kicks I've opened the Wiki article for war and clicked on 20 random wars, not a single one of them lists who was defeated or who lost in the info box, and I don't see any reason why this should be different. It is pretty obvious that if two sides fight and one of them wins, the other one has effectively lost for whatever reason (military defeat, new gov't doesn't want to fight, desided they didn't care about it anyway etc.) and there is no reason to explicitly state it. Plus the US withdrawl is simply not a result of the Vietnam War as defined in the article, the war ended in 1975, the US withdrew in 1973, so it wasn't an outcome of the overall conflict, it was an event during it. If there was an article about something like a Vietnam-USA War of 1961 - 1973, then US withdrawl would be a proper result. This isn't to say that the US didn't lose, simply because they ran away in time, though Maxim K (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency

‘Defeat of Communist guerrillas’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Civil_War ‘defeat of anti-Treaty IRA forces’ So there are pages that do list a defeat. So it is not a universal rule (and certainly is not an official rule) that conflicts do not list the defeated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Lapland ‘German strategic retreat’ So maybe ‘US strategic retreat’ should be used? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War ‘tactical and strategic Arab failure’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War ‘Strategic Iraqi failure’ So perhaps we should we not put ‘US strategic failure’?[[Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)]]

Well when you hate the US it's real easy to downplay them because that's what everyone thinks anyway.Prussian725 (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

‘US strategic failure’ would certanly be pretty acurate and alot less subjective then 'defeat', and there does seem to be a precedent for that in those articles listed. It can be argued that the US wasn't militarily defeted, their forces were not destroyed, but the US certanly did fail to crush the Communist war machine. And some of the battles and operations, like Rolling Thunder alredy have 'Strategis US Failure' as a result, so I would agree with that. Maxim K (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok I don't mean to belittle you, but the word of one radio operator does not determine what actually happened. Why don't you talk to some of the soldiers who fought their and see if they tell you that we were horribly beaten. Opinions kinda change depending on who you're talking to.Prussian725 (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

General Philip B Davidson Says the US lost. [[Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)]]

What about the rest of them?Prussian725 (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

forgive me but that wo9uld be OR, on the other hand I can provide a varifiable source for what General Davidson said[[Slatersteven (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)]]

[2]Here's my source. PBS is openly liberal but even they say that it wasn't us who "announced the renewal of war" after peace talks had already taken place. Face it, they're the ones who started fighting again after we left, not after we were driven out.Prussian725 (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Im was not aware that PBS was a solder who served in Vietnam. Fighting continued after the signing of the Cease fire, and the USAF continued millitary operations up until August of 1973. In fact there was no period of peace between 1973 and 1974 just a large scale reduction (but not ending) of millitary operations. [[Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)]]

I provided my sources...where are yours?Prussian725 (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The source which Prussian725 mentioned above (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/timeline/tl3.html#b, saying only "1974 Thieu Announces Renewal of War") seemed a bit weak to me. A bit more detail can be seen in a four page letter which Thieu sent to Gerald Ford on 19 September 1974 saying, in part, "...Now the leaders of the Hanoi regeime openly declare their active support for movements aimed at overthrowing the legal government of the republic of Viet-Nam while they intensify their infiltrations and military action, thus baring their plans for a forcible conquest of the whole of South Viet-Nam.". See http://www.ena.lu/letter-nguyen-van-thieu-president-gerald-ford-19-september-1974-022300078.html (wait a while, it takes some time to load in a popup window). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I apologize if my source seemed vague, but I was quite tired and about to go to sleep when i pulled that one up.Prussian725 (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Intensify, not start. So this just says that the NVA were infact already engadged in millitary activity before this letter was sent.

Source for no end of the fighting in January 1973. Lt Gen Philip B Davidson (US officer in Veitnam, as you asked a solder who faught there) Vietnam at war ISBN 0-283-99935-7 Page 737 'Launched by the VNVA after the cease fire came into effect'. same page in the 'first two weeks...over 200 violations' No end to the fighting had occured. Ther had been a large ascale reduction to little more then raids and opatunisitc land grabs (by both sides). but no actual peace.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)]]

Yes, intensify. THEY are the ones who did not lay down their arms like they agreed. THEY are the ones who did not leave the country like they agreed. THEY are the ones who pushed the issue after a cease-fire was agreed upon. You make it sound like just because they did not keep their word then we somehow failed to do our part. Face it, we were not beaten. Being beaten implies that you were driven to it one way or another. Vietnam for us is just like the American War for Independence was for you. If you get into a fight, kick the crap out of your opponent, and then walk away from the fight, that doesn't mean you lost.Prussian725 (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Actualy they never agreed to lay down thier arms, nor did they agree to withdraw, they only agreed to stop fighhting. They did not keep thier promis as ealrly as an hour after the ceasefire came iinto effect, whilst US forces were still in country, and continued to attack SV's forces whilst the US withdrew. The US were required to step in to defend SV if the North violated the ceasefire, which they stoped doing. By the way we did lose the Revolutionary war, thats why the US is now independant[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)]]

If one person is badly beaten but still has the fight in him and ready to continue, while the other got a black eye and had enough, wants to run away now, one could argue that the latter lost the fight. Although I agree that "defeat" might be too strong a term, it is true that the US wasn't beaten in the normal sense of the term. The failure was largely psychological, North Vietnamese were defending their homeland, so it isn't surprising that they had better spirit then people who had to fight a country few of them heard of for no real reason. As for them breaking thier promises and agreements, I'm sure the US violated a treaty or two when they fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin incident and launched a war of agression (considered a war crime in some circles) to begin with, they of all people should not have been so naive as to think that the Commies would be more noble. If they honestly believed that North Vietnam would be restrained by a piece of paper, forced on them through an illegal war, despite being vastly superior militarily to South Vietnam then they failed in more ways then one ^__^ Maxim K (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that our politicians at the time were not the brightest bulbs in the drawer as far as dealing with Communism goes, I personaly think Reagan did a much better job, but how did we lose? What was taken from us? How did the North Vietnamese defeat the U.S.? I don't see this discussion going on in the Russian-afghan War article, so why is it such a big deal here that it be stated that the U.S. lost when nobody seems to care about whether the Russians lost or not?Prussian725 (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You are of course right the Soviots did lose in Afganistan. However this page is not about the war in Afganistan. Now there may be many reasons why no one cares (by the way I assume you do thibnk that the info box should at least say US wiithdewrl?) about the Soviot defeat, I have not looked at its talk page.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)]]

Actualy there is a dbate (it ended a while vback) that involvedd the question of Lose/Victory. Much of the same arguments as to why the USSR did not lose are the same as to the ones here as to why the USofA did not lose.[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)]]

Well, for what it's worth, *I* think that wars in Afghanistan and Vietnam were very similar, and most of the arguments here can be applied to the results of Soviet-Afghan War (both withdrew before their proxies were defeted, neither were bested militarily but psychologically etc.) so if this article says "Strategic US failure" in the results, the Afghan article should say "Strategic Soviet Failure". Right now now it says "Soviet Withdrawl, civil war continues"... As to what was lost (besides lives) the real price of those failures, was inspiration given to Russia's and USA's enemies, who feel that even though they are technologically inferior and are heavily outgunned they may yet prevail; that could be one of the reasons why the Chechen separatists and Iraqi insurgents felt they could succeed. What Vietnam (and Afganistan) showed is that you don't need to defeat the enemy, you just need to tire them out until they go away. Maxim K (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Which in itself can be seen as a defeat, the defeat of US prestige (something they lost). They also lost cedibilblity both owhich comfort to Americas enamys. Ths is what is meant by stratigic faliure.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)]]

(undent)Exactly. Lack of committment is crippling to any country. It's like Gen. MacArthur said: "It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it."Prussian725 (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Again the reason why does not matter. You do not seem to disagree that the US failed in its aims, mealry that it did not lose[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)]]

And...? While we were there the Commies did not take over RVN.Prussian725 (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope they just got the US to pull out with out any reciprical agremso as to have fores in place that could (ad evetualy did)takeoerthe South, whilst the US had no forces in country to stop it. It was fatal for the US to not have the will to win (which by inferance means they lost) but they did not lose, they achived a sort of non-victory?[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)]]

Actually the U.S. were technically there when the NVA took over the south in 1975, they were forced to abandon their embassy in which they were sworn to protect. They couldv'e sent the second comming of the christmas bombings to recoup and buy time at home to reanalyze their strategy, but like every war hypotheticals arise. Without a doubt the U.S. was still heavilly involved though the Paris Peace Accords had them in a weaker position. Operation Frequent Wind occurred in April 29, 1975 to April 30, 1975. Surely you cannot omit this operation or any other operation operated by the U.S. from the timeline of the Vietnam war. The last U.S. soldier killed in action in Vietnam was in May 15, 1975, just a few weeks after the end of Operation Frequent Wind. The last official battle of the U.S. in the Vietnam war was the Mayaguez incident. And...?ChonanTheVegetarian (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

They didn't cause us to pull out. That decision was made by our government. "Pull out" does not mean lose.Prussian725 (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, they caused the United States Commander-in-Chief to pull out U.S. troops...Cripipper (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to rephrase the same thing over and over, Operation Frequent Wind shows that U.S. military personnel were forced to "Pull out" in 1975 as mentioned above.ChonanTheVegetarian (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls.

They didn't "cause" us to pull out. Their military was in absolutely NO position to force us to do anything. If our troops were forced to pull out then it was by their own commanding officers who were acting on orders from higher authorities anyway.User:Prussian725|Prussian725]] (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The us pulled out because the NVA reamined a figting force, and the US public and politicians did not think they couold beat them/[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)]]

User:Prussian725 has made over 150 edits, mostly on talk pages, and not one on a main page. He/she is clearly acting like a troll. Please do not feed him/her. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

May I ask why I am labled a troll?[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)]]

You weren't. But this whole discussion has gone past anything useful for the article, and is turning the talk page into a high school debating society. By continuing it you are just encouring this. --Michael Johnson (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If you will look at the title of this section, you will see that it started as a discussion fo the "results" box at the beginning of the article. while some of it has gotten out of hand, the subject of this whole thing is whether or not to put "US defeat" in the infobox.Prussian725 (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Which raises two points. Was the US defeated, This largley depends on what the US objectives were (both upon entry and at the point of withdrawl). And is the withdrawl of US forces important enough to be considerd a 'result' inh the first place (seperaed and disticnt from the other combatants).[[Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)]]

How about you guys take this conversation to your talk pages. This page is for discussion aimed at improving the article, not for this type of debate. --Michael Johnson (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been half a year since this debate was seemingly "resolved," but I'd like to reopen it. The results state "communist takeover of..." - clearly, this word 'takeover' has villainous connotations which imply that the 'good guys' lost. This is biased. We have to change the word 'takeover.' The North Vietnamese and Vietcong were not foreign invaders; they were indigenous participants in a civil war. If South Vietnam and the US had won, would the result state "capitalist takeover of North Vietnam"? Hell no. Remove "takeover"! 142.104.143.199 (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it has villainous connotations. But it might perhaps be intended to convey a POV by a back door route. Perhaps some more neutral phrase could be used. Communist conquest perhaps.[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)]]

Actually, "Communist Takeover" seems ok to me. I do not intend to repeat the above debate again ;) but the term "takeover" seems fine to me. I don't think it implies that the good guys lost so much as it does the literal takeover of RVN. But if everyone else sees fit to change it I won't make a fuss.Prussian725 (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The Latest Summary Box Picture

Ok I've noticed those pictures had been changed several times this week, but each time it becomes more ridiculous. The image is either about dead Vietnamese or American soldiers. Whoever load up those pictures must be obsessed with images of dead Vietnamese. Canpark

The guy calls it a "panoramic view of the war." He apparently has no idea that showing a stack of fresh corpses is any different than showing fire or helicopters. I think of the Palestinians whooping it up when they see pictures of dead Jews. Kauffner (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Photo Caption

Whoevever added those photos needs to caption them, and if they have no idea of their origins please remove them. 69.18.107.13 (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That collage is way too controversial. It's showing pictures of the Mai Lai massacre, but not massacres commited by communist forces. On top of that it's not very good looking in general (the cropping is done really bad). I'll change it back to something else (temporarely). Before someone starts adding dead babies in the infobox, ask the others first. - Pieter_v (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This infobox is used in Wiki-es, Wiki-fr and Wiki-pt, Wikipedia is not censored. This is a panomaric view of the war. American war genocides hurts you? MachoCarioca (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And this collage stayed here for months, before user Kauffner changed it by himself. MachoCarioca (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't what you're talking about. I had a helicopter picture up before you came along, not that that matters. What does matters is that this point, you're clearly in the minority. Two of the pictures are duds, so the graphic doesn't work just an artistic level. Now that you're admitting its POV, perhaps it could be balenced with pictures of Massacre of Huế. Kauffner (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"American war genocides hurts you?" thank you for admitting your biased view. Anyway there is already pictures of the mai lai massacre in the article. Same goes for the Massacre at Hué now. This article is about the Vietnam War, not about either massacres, so its best to insert simply pictures of actual battle or troops, just like most war pages do. - Pieter_v (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Best would probably to have an image of North-Vietnamese forces, since the war was their victory. The tank picture was pretty dull though. - Pieter_v (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, Green Berets. "This article is about the Vietnam War, not about either massacres". And isn't it part of the war? The infobox is an overview about that. MachoCarioca (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people edit this article and no one cares about that but you, Green Beret. You're the minority here, not me, have you ever heard about 'silent majority'? Cheers!MachoCarioca (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Or just a map of the country?[[Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)]]

Mistake

Here's a mistake in section "Escalation and ground war". It says: "In May, Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) forces suffered heavy losses at the Battle of Binh Gia", though actually Binh Gia battle happened in December 1964, while in May 1965 there was Song Be battle. Could someone correct it? 195.248.189.182 (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why

Is the US listed as "American defeat/ strategic failure and withdrawal." when they won just about every single military operation while in the "Soviet war in Afghanistan" article the Russians are simply listed as "Soviet withdrawal" when every single battle that is listed as a defeat and their withdrawal from the conflict have over 500 KIA. So is this bias or what?--66.229.12.186 (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

US casulaties in Vietnam were rather more then 500 (how many MIAs are there?). But you do have a valid point. If the US lost in Vietnam Russia lost in Afganistan, but the reverse is also true. If the US withdrew from Vietnam then the Soviots withdrew from Afganistan. But in one repest I disagree with you. The US may not have lost any battles, but that does not mean they did not lose the war the two do are not the same. The Uinited States of America is not the United States Army. [[Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)]]

I was referencing too when the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan that were the 500 KIA came from. and Thank you anyways. --66.229.12.186 (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You should be happy that the article is stated "American withdrawal" instead of "American defeat," which it was. It should be stated "American defeat." If North Vietnam won, someone must've lost. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. was certainly defeated in Vietnam. But if you look at the info boxes for other wars, say the Franco-Prussian War, Napoleonic Wars, or the Spanish-American War, they don't say that anyone was defeated. If you say that one side won, then obviously the other side lost and it is unnecessary to write anything more. Kauffner (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Look I'm saying the US pullout like the Russians way before the war actually ended. South Vietnam fought off both forces for 3 years with out US ground support. If the US was still in vietnam till the very end of the war. Yeah that sounds like a defeat. The other war you were talking about Kaullner is bettwen 2 Nations. The Vietnam war and Afghan wars are two very different type of wars. --66.229.12.186 (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

USAF 67-113 - flew the last F-111 combat mission of the war on April 17, 1973, and is credited with having flown the last combat mission on a Cambodian target four months later.

Both of these after the signing of the peace accords, so the US was still militarily involved in the war after the signing of the Paris peace accords. But I note that you do in fact say ground forces. Unfortunately a nations involvement is not just determined by the presence of one service.

Last US ground forces death’s o 29 April 1975-US Marine Embassy Guards McMahon and Judge killed. {Corporal Charles McMahon & Lance Corporal Darwin L. Judge} o 12–30 May 1975—41 US servicemen killed and 41 servicemen wounded during the "Mayaguez Incident" in "Democratic Kampuch Between 1973 and 1973 around 500 (plus) US servicemen lost their lives.[[Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)]]

The peace treaty was a big nothing. Everyone knew the fighting would continue, treaty or no treaty. I would the put the end of U.S. military involvement as Aug. 15, 1973, the deadline set by the Case-Church Amendment. Without U.S. bombers tearing up the Hochiminh Trail, it was only a matter a time before South Vietnam collapsed. The Democratic congress that passed Case-Church understood this and thought that defeat in Vietnam was a great way to discredit Nixon and the Republicans. So there was never any question of the U.S. marching out victoriously. Kauffner (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the person. Make it just say "North Vietnamese victory." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.70.49 (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. having won all the battles is a myth. The U.S. uses dead enemy body counts to arrive at victory in each of their battles and this is flawed. By this standard, should the U.S have won the war because there were more North Vietnamese deaths in the end? The U.S. also lost strategically and they changed how they viewed and counted the battles won. So they disregarded the number of dead North Vientnamese bodies as a quota for victory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.53.183 (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Any fan of the "The US have won every battle." slogan is encouraged to find out what FSB Ripcord was. Altus Quansuvn (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is this article referencing boxed DVD sets and PBS TV programs rather than decent academic sources?

For example the current estimate of civilian casualties is much lower than it was a few months ago and much lower than estimates I've seen in books I've read on the war. Compare to the article on Vietnamese wikipedia. Looks like this article has gone down hillDomminico (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, why not incorporate your sources? Also, if the casualties are in dispute, just say so and say who says what. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No U.S. Marine Barracks at Pleiku in March 1965

There was no U.S. Marine Barracks at Pleiku in March 1965. There was A MAAG compound of Army Soldiers and some civilian contractors at the Pleiku Citadel (VN III Corps HQ, and a part of a U.S. Army Aviation Battalion at Camp Holloway across the town from the MAAG Compound. Both of these US Activities were attacked by the Viet Cong at 2 AM on 7 February 1965. There were no U.S. Marines in Pleiku or the entire province. I was assinged to the MAAG Compound from November 1964 until May 1965. (Oldarlprohist (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)) W. Horn, 08-28-08

Nobody cares. I bet it will never be corrected. This page seems to exist only for a quarrel about "does America lost the war" question. 195.248.189.182 (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like OR, are there any sources to back this up. I(f so then it should be altered.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)}].