Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 14

policing action

Why are the words policing action not to be found in the article? 89.180.37.213 (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You probably mean "police action," which a phrase U.S. President Truman used to describe the Korean War. He meant that the U.S. military was in Korea to enforce U.N. decisions, just as police enforce laws enacted by others. Kauffner (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carter pardon

"In 1977, United States President Jimmy Carter from the Democratic Party issued a pardon for nearly 10,000 draft evaders"

Is it necessary or informative to list his political party here? Or was it inserted as a political prank? I left it alone for now, thought I might see some discussion here (I guess it might be archived, of course). Huw Powell (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason for it. I'd fix it myself, but the article seems to be locked. So much for Wikipedia, the article anyone can edit. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the article to fix this. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

french involvement error

This article says that laos and cambodgia obtained their independence in geneva: false, france granted them independence in 1949. They weren't even members of the french union: they left it in 1953, and south vietnam asked to left it the same year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.205.182.238 (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NZ Victoria Cross error

Recently Corporal Willie Apiata of the New Zealand Army received the VC for actions in Afghanistan.

"the first Commonwealth recipient since Australian Warrant Officer Keith Payne received the award in 1969."

http://www.army.mil.nz/at-a-glance/events/cpl-apiata-vc/tvc.htm

Whiad169 (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the section and expanded the footnote to more accurately reflect this. It took a while but if your still floating around on wiki have a look and let me know what you think. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti War - Peace Movement

Hi Guys, I add the section on the Anti War Movement. I'm surprised it was missing. I did a cut & paste from the Peace Movement Article. I need help getting the headding right and adding the heading to the index section. Peace ! Bill Ladd (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American War

I am Vietnamese and it is true we all say 'American War' when we talk about it with foreigners. The information must please return to wikipedia! Dhvietnam (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your first and only contribution. You created an account just to say this? If I am wrong, you can tell me to f*k off in Vietnamese. In any case, American War is in article now, in the "Terminology" section. Kauffner (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why so rude Kauffner? What do you mean? I normally edit wiki with no problem but to edit this page required to register.Dhvietnam (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be obvious that "American War" cannot be the Vietnamese name for the war since neither "American" nor "war" are Vietnamese words. If you translate "American War" literally into Vietnamese you get either Chiến tranh người Mỹ or Chiến tranh Mỹ -- not one Google hit. No one calls it by either of these names. In contrast, Chiến tranh Việt Nam (Vietnam War) gets 1.4 million hits. This is also the title of the Vietnamese Wikipedia version of this article. The communist propaganda name for the war, Kháng chiến chống Mỹ (Resistance War Against America), gets 700,000 hits. Kauffner (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a moot point that googling a transliteration does not result in hits. Further, Vietnamese people don't talk in transliterations of Vietnamese "phrases" -- they simply speak Vietnamese, and when interfacing with English speakers refer to the very same war as "The American War." This has always been the case in my experience interfacing with vietnamese people in and outside of Vietnam, both official and inofficial channels. When googling "The American War" + Vietnam I get 198,000 hits for English pages alone. What is your agenda for denying such a well-documented fact? You even have books and academic papers acknowledging this term. Please see the following references (just a few examples -- I urge you to do your own research):

"...what is referred to in Vietnam as The American War" http://www.harrellfletcher.com/theamericanwar
"The Viet Nam War is also called "The American War" by the Vietnamese."(http://www.asian-nation.org/vietnam-war.shtml)
"...a memorial to what the Vietnamese call the American War." (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/arts/design/05chan.html)
Academic paper (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2137774)
Academica paper (http://dva.state.wi.us/Vietnam/Vietnam_30years_later_Series_Column5.pdf)
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/modern_fiction_studies/v043/43.2br_christopher.html
Many books titled and clearly referring to the Vietnamese term "The American War" (http://books.google.com/books?q=the+american+war+vietnam&btnG=Search+Books)
"...the Vietnamese perspective of “The American War.”" (http://www.csus.edu/indiv/d/dymj/files/vietnam_seminar_syllabi.pdf)
http://www.amazon.com/Vietnam-American-Representations-Euro-American-Asian-American/dp/1558490094

Mouseydung (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain this real simple for you. The overwhelming majority of people in Vietnam don't speak even a word of English -- and they certainly don't call the war by an English-language phrase. To say that such-and-such is the Vietnamese name for the war implies that it is a phrase used by Vietnamese when they talk to each other. What Vietnamese say when they speak English isn't really relevent, but in my experience they say just "the war." Finally, 198,000 hits is pretty small beer compared the 2.9 million for Chiến tranh Việt Nam, which is by far the most common Vietnamese name for the war. Kauffner (talk) 06:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your personal experiences, they are outweighed by the fact that it is a well-documented term that has made it into countless books and academic journals, in English (often in headlines and titles). What I am going by is not my personal experience alone. It is a matter of record that "The American War" is widely acknowledged as a term used by Vietnamese people when referring to the same war.

Also I can't disagree more that "what Vietnamese say when they speak English isn't really relevent." Just trying to understand here: Are you saying that the Vietnamese are not qualified to come up with an English term for the same war by virtue of being Vietnamese or having Vietnamese as their mother tongue?

About googling, as you well know it just depends on your search words. What I provided was the simplest of examples.

Mouseydung (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The American War" respresents English speakers cracking wise. It's a good joke, but it isn't even close to common usage in Vietnam, even among English-speaking Vietnamese, as I have already demonstrated more than once. Kauffner (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Vietnamese people I spoke with certainly weren't cracking wise. But my personal experience aside, what do you make of the documentation and countless publications which cite this term as being used by Vietnamese people, and what do you make of the War Museum's own brochures? Or did you bother to check these links at all? I supplied references and documentation that this is widely accepted as a Vietnamese term, to the point of being quoted in academic journals and included in the titles of many books. Are they all wrong and you alone right? You haven't demonstrated anything to me except your insistence on that a Vietnamese-coined English phrase cannot qualify for English Wikipedia, even when it is acknowledged in the mainstream. May I suggest you supply some documentation (not personal anecdotes) to support your case, or else desist from your censorship campaign based on pet personal views?

Here is more documentation -- just a small sampling of the fact. And nobody is wisecracking. You have journalists from the International Herald Tribune, BBC, PBS, ABC, etc, testifying to it, plus first-hand accounts of people who interacted with Vietnamese and/or visited their War Remnants Museum:

Mouseydung (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're relying on traveler's tales and blogs? Try an English-Vietnamese dictionary! This is from Lac Viet, one of the most popular dictionaries in Vietnam:

Vietnam War *danh từ = Chiến tranh Việt Nam (từ 1954 đến 1975)

Chiến tranh means "war." The rest you should be able to figure out. This is the only translation given, i.e. there is no translation resembling "American War." Kauffner (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to address the points I bring up: 1) THE VIETNAMESE WAR REMNANTS MUSEUM'S BROCHURES, 2) VARIOUS PUBLISHED BOOKS, 3) JOURNALISTIC AND 4) ACADEMIC SOURCES. It seems your mind is made up so you won't even check the sampling of links I supplied?

Mouseydung (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanh Nien is one of the top English-language papers in Vietnam. On the newspaper's site, "American War" gives you 60 hits. For the most part, it isn't being used as a name for the war, but in phrases like "American war veteran" or "American war resister." In contrast, "Vietnam War" gives you 311 hits. The most official sources, the embassies and the Vietnam News Agency are split pretty evenly. Only Viet Nam News uses "American War" in any consistent way (478 hits to 72 hits). Where do tourists get the idea that Vietnamese call the war the "American War"? Perhaps because this tidbit is in the Lonely Planet guidebook, which is extremely popular and sold everywhere.

The central point, which I have made before but you refuse to address, is that Vietnamese don't use English language phrases when they communicate with each other. The Vietnamese name for the war, the name from the Vietnamese perspective, or whatever, must therefore be a Vietnamese language phrase, the kind of thing you might find in say, an English-Vietnamese dictionary. Kauffner (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did address your central point repeatedly: the fact that Vietnamese people do not speak English to each does not negate the fact that whenever they do interface with English speakers (officially and inofficially) they collectively refer to the war as "The American War." And having Vietnamese as a mother tongue does not automatically disqualify them from popularizing a Vietnamese-coined English term. In fact, so successful have they been at propagating this, that it is now widely accepted that the Vietnamese simply refer to the same war as the American War. It is documented in countless sources (books, journals, academia), and therefore should be a matter of record on a NPOV encylopedic page with such as this.

Mouseydung (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatly resorted to this type of rhetoric as if you speak for oppressed Vietnamese. I'm just "one persistant editor," but you represent millions of people? That certainly gives your life a transcendent quality. Being right or wrong -- that's for lesser mortals. Kauffner (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not mere rhetoric to question your efforts and motives for censorship. I am speaking for the fact (and I repeat) that this Vietnamese-coined term has successfully entered the English mainstream, to the point of being quoted in serious journalistic reports, academic papers and countless books, and should therefore be cited on a NPOV Wikipedia page. What I do question however is why you would assume to decide that a Vietnamese-coined English term does not qualify for wikipedia.

Mouseydung (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This arguement addresses a somewhat different point then what you are adding to the article. If the question is, "What is the Vietnam War known as in Vietnam?" The answer is, Chiến tranh Việt Nam. Kauffner (talk) 08:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some points; "American War" would only refer to the latter phase of the war, I suppose? As per names, "chiến tranh giải phóng dân tộc" gives a few google hits, notably from .vn domains. "Chiến tranh Việt Nam" gets many google hits, but mainly 2/3 is non .vn hits. --Soman (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Couldn't the simplest explanation be that "American War" is a sloppy translation of "Kháng chiến chống Mỹ"? Some examples of the usage of the term in contemporary Vietnamese discourse [1], [2]. It seems 'Anti-American war' is also in usage([3], [4]). --Soman (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chiến tranh giải phóng dân tộc means "war of national liberation." It's not really the name of a war, but it can be used to refer to the wars of 1945-75 collectively. For Vietnamese-language pages in Vietnam (which, oddly enough, gives you more hits than searching globally) there are 814,000 hits for Chiến tranh Việt Nam, 592,000 hits for Kháng chiến chống Mỹ, 14,300 (all pages in Vietnam) for "American War" Vietnam, and 43,000 hits (all pages in Vietnam) for "Vietnam War." So the bottom line 857,000 for Chiến tranh Việt Nam/Vietnam War against 608,000 for Kháng chiến chống Mỹ and "American War" combined. Kauffner (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to take into account how many hits among those 814,000 were mere translations of English materials. Such translations constitute no support for finding which Vietnamese term is currently being used in Vietnam by Vietnamese. Altus Quansuvn (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many? [[Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Good question for Kauffner. The mere existence of such pages just made his playing with numbers invalid. Altus Quansuvn (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda

If you restrict your search to within websites based in Vietnam, you'll see that Kháng chiến chống Mỹ gets more usage. Obviously, most Vietnamese outside of Vietnam, who probably have more access to the Internet than those in Vietnam, aren't going to use that propaganda term. DHN (talk) 03:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense is it propaganda? Seems a fairly accurate description to me.

1) It was a war

2) They were fighting the Americans (ok the US not the whole continent)

3) The Americans attacked Vietnam (South and North) the Vietnamese did not attack the US: so it was resistance.

"Accurate propaganda" at the very least

"Resistance (3) War (1) Against America (1)"

Domminico (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Propaganda" is a word used by the communists officially to describe their publicity. I don't know what you're getting all huffy about. Downtown Saigon has stores selling "Old Propaganda Posters." The government even puts out a magazine whose title translates as "Propaganda and Training" During the war, there were "Armed Propaganda Teams" (Doi Tuyen truyen Vo trang). Kauffner (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would even question the use of the word "resistance", because the Communists were on the warpath when we got there; we just stepped in the their way.Prussian725 (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "resistance" actually meant the Vietnamese considered USA a formidable foe who had the upper hand in almost everything, and the fight wouldn't be one between equals.Altus Quansuvn (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to forget the peaceful elections that the U.S. blocked. Those elections would have prevented the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.53.183 (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Vietnamese President Diem it the one who decided not to hold the election. It wasn't America's decision to make. Even if Diem had agreed to the referendum, there is no way that the North would have gone along. North Vietnam was in famine at that time. Hanoi was going to allow politicians from the South to campaign? I don't think so. The Viet Quoc might have won in a free election -- neither the communists nor the Diemist wanted that. Kauffner (talk) 05:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can theorize anything you want. The facts are that DRV inquired RVN on the modalities of the election four times. Each time it was the RVN who turned the talk down, or simply chose not to answer.Altus Quansuvn (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do not know what the North would have done, we can speculate but then wwe can also speculate about why you would not hold a refeerendum you expect to win. Now if the North had stoped free and fair electionering then that would have nullified the result, and the Communists would not have had a lot of credibility. The lack of referendum gave the communist's a certain degree of sympathy that made the US position on both the internal (US ans SVN) and external political scene that much less justifiable (you are fighting for freedom by not holdiing a free vote). [[Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Oh, they would have won, all right. Communism was inseparable in the minds of Vietnamese from Nationalism and Freedom Fighter. The communists had been the major resistance against Japan, and continued to be until the French were defeated. -The United States in Vietnam: An analysis in depth of the history of America's involvement in Vietnam by George McTurnan Kahin and John W. Lewis, Delta Books, 1967Anarchangel (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that the communists did not hold multi-party election in 1956 or at any other time. This flailing around is designed to show what? That the U.S. prevented Hanoi from an holding an election? That Saigon did? Hanoi could hold an election without approval from the South. After all, South Korea went ahead with elections in similar circumstances in 1948. Are you arguing that the unheld election was causus belli? The communists didn't justify the war as a necessary step so that an internationally surpervised election could be held. In fact, this issue isn't even mentioned in the NLF's ten point manifesto of 1961. Nor did Hanoi propose elections during the Paris Peace Conference. Kauffner (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is also a fact that the South in 1956 had equally no record on organizing free elections. This flailing around is designed to show that Saigon (Diệm to be exact) bore partial responsibility for the ensuing war. No all-Vietnam election could be held in 1956 without RVN's approval. And the Paris Peace Accords did provide for "peaceful means" to determine the future of a united Vietnam. Altus Quansuvn (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of whether or not the "communists" held elections subsequently or instead of those described by the Geneva Accords is a red herring. The point was unification of the country which the North could not do if the South wasn't going to participate. Again, this is a politically motivated position, not one based on sound historical analysis. Who would have won if they had been held is hypothetical, although I think there is some backing for the claim that Ho would have won. The US position on the Geneva Accord was that neither it nor the RVN were bound to its provisions. Certainly, the US was, at best, not encouraging the elections, and at worst, undermining them. So Kauffner's position here is really that of apologist, taking the most favorable position possible: that officially it was RVN that bears responsibility for the failure of the Geneva Accord. Again, as we try to reconstruct the closest approximation to what "really happened", we have to admit that there are nuances behind that official position. Grog225 (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To say nothing of, as an ally of the 'democratic, multiparty' US, Diem had a higher standard of larger numbers of party machines restricting the political discourse to a narrow focus favoring the elite to uphold. Instead he blew it and did it all for himself.

"The Americans attacked Vietnam (South and North) the Vietnamese did not attack the US: so it was resistance." That's where you're wrong. The Americans were simply aiding the south in the defense of their country. 98.215.34.127 (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title image

Could we possibly change the image to something a little less gruesome? A pile of remains isn't particularly representative of the war anyway. Perhaps a photo of an actual conflict would be better? Edit: I went through the history and found that the picture was changed for no real reason. Changed back now. Hayden120 (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. People have complained on it before. Before this image which shows the My Lai Massacre someone also uploaded the Massacre at Hue. Neither are good, we need an image of combatants or something else, because the infobox should not be the place for users to try and prove a point or to spread propaganda. Grey Fox (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see you you also picked the collage which contains dead babies. Maybe you did it without notice, but a pile of dead babies isn't exactly less gruesome than a pile of remains. We simply need a picture of fighters, preferebly North Vietnamese. Grey Fox (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or a Collage of flags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 15:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current picture really does represent the war. Its also a great picture. CindyAbout/T/P/C/ 05:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

MariochaCarioca's mural

I don't think this picture is NPOV at all. It only includes death and destruction wrought by one side of the conflict. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 00:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy, domino theorist?

Replaced cite: "John F. Kennedy. America's Stakes in Vietnam. Speech to the American Friends of Vietnam, June 1956." with fact check. Read the speech for yourself at[5]
Neither 'domino' nor 'theory', nor anything resembling the domino theory are anywhere in the entire speech.
Personally, I will be disappointed if it gets removed. I do enjoy this Reds under the Bed idea of communism as some amorphous floating Thing making its way on the tradewinds to Hawaii and then inevitably making its evil way to California. "Look, see, dominos fall, so..." But perhaps it would be for the best.
Also absurd is the uncited notion that GIs in Viet Nam were the inspiration for soldiers in the film Aliens. Heinlein's Starship Troopers was first published in 1959. 'Nuff said. Anarchangel (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starship Troopers was of course inspired by the Korean War. This reminds me of MASH, which so many people think is about Vietnam, even though the characters say "Korea" several times in every episode. Kauffner (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MASH was about Vietnam; it was just set in Korea. As for Kennedy, he was a disciple of the domino theory. From the link that was removed, "First, Vietnam represents the cornerstone of the Free World in Southeast Asia, the keystone to the arch, the finger in the dike. Burma, Thailand, India, Japan, the Philippines and obviously Laos and Cambodia are among those whose security would be threatened if the Red Tide of Communism overflowed into Vietnam." The metaphors are slightly different, but the underlying principle is the same. Cripipper (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No link was removed. I provided one. You're welcome. And readers of this page are now welcome to indulge in paranoid fantasy to their heart's content. Anarchangel (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By your own admission above, it was. And just because something was a deluded paranoid fantasy, it didn't mean people didn't believe in it... Cripipper (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a link. It was a cite. You know, the ones where they write down roughly which speech it was and then someone else has to go find the actual site online? I won't bother with 'you're welcome' this time, I have wasted enough time already. And you are correct. Inasmuch as Wiki is the repository of verifiability and not truth, it is indeed includable. Anarchangel (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is the most idiotic thing ive seen in this talk page. Well...one of the most. Cripipper, MASH was about the KOREAN war. What with the fact that war took place during it, the show was about it, the show was set in it, and the characters in the show mention it. That it carried on until after Vietnam war finished should have tipped you off. A new WW2 movie has nothing to do with the current Iraq conflict, nor did MASH. The reaction to MASH mirrored the reaction to Vietnam because they were both similar wars in relation to reasons for, damage during and the US atrocities. How moronic do you have to be to think MASH was about Vietnam. 121.221.130.77 (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Harlequin[reply]

"Provisional military demarcation line"

Partition in the context of the Geneva Conference (1954) is, in short, a lie. A lie repeated all too often on this page and others. It even has its own page. The Geneva Accords carefully worded the division as a "provisional military demarcation line", "on either side of which the forces of the two parties shall be regrouped after their withdrawal". To specifically put aside any notion that it was a partition, they further stated, "The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Vietnam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary" -The United States in Vietnam: An analysis in depth of the history of America's involvement in Vietnam by George McTurnan Kahin and John W. Lewis Delta Books, 1967, which also includes the full text of many related documents including the Geneva Agreements. Partition is the redrawing of political boundaries between two countries. Had the Geneva conference in fact attempted to do such, they would also have to have established that northern and southern vietnam were countries, so that they could draw their boundaries, and then redraw them. Partition is utterly unacceptable as a word in this article period, it has no relevance to it and it never will. Anarchangel (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2008 (U

I really don't see the problem. The net result of Geneva was that Vietnam was partitioned, whatever the text of the treaty. This was certainly understood at the time. In fact, it was South Vietnam's pretext for refusing to sign the agreement. Few failed to notice that Geneva's terms were striking similar to what the great powers arranged earlier in Korea -- terms which resulted in permanent partition. There is good reason to think this was deliberate. Zhou Enlai drafted the preliminary text of the treaty. From a Chinese point of view, a divided Vietnam was less of a threat. Kauffner (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I looked at Korea's agreement, and it is similar, assuming they were both printed on paper. Course, Korea's might have been on a postcard. It sure read like one. Wish you were here, we're loving sunny Cairo, and btw, Korea is free. Astounding coincidence, then. They both had agreements and they both ended up partitioned...What a load of cobblers. Korea agreement was nothing like Geneva. You missed the fact that Korea's was drawn up on a napkin by Roosevelt, Chang Kai and Churchill while Geneva was a committee, somehow? And how could the wording be similar? Geneva was pages, Korea was one paragraph if you squished it together. Anarchangel (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Stanley Karnow, Zhou told French Premier Mendes-France that "he foresaw the probability of 'two Vietnams'" (p. 218). At a farewell dinner after the conference, he suggested that South Vietnam open a diplomatic mission in Beijing. (p. 220). South Vietnamese Premier Diem rejected the agreement, saying "another more deadly war" lay ahead. (p. 221) Kauffner (talk) 08:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson's Refusal to commit more Troops representing Culmination?

{{editsemiprotected}} In the Article, under the Tet offensive section, the second to last sentence states : "His refusal to send more U.S. troops to Vietnam was Johnson's admission that the war was lost." This is not cited and I have reasoning to believe it is incorrect. In the Article "Strategic Reassessment in Vietnam: The Westmoreland "Alternate Strategy" of 1967-1968" Brigadier General [Then Colonel] Charles F. Brower IV., U.S. Army alludes to the sensitivity of implementing politically dangerous mobilization (i.e. Troop Escalations of up to an "optimum level" 300,000 for operations in Laos or Cambodia, and a possible North Vietnam invasion.) in the face of an approaching election year.

This does not mean that he thought the war was a failure at the end of his term of office. More likely, it means that he was wary that increased mobilization and pursuing alternate strategies would be admitting that his attrition strategy had failed, and would thus be political suicide. Furthermore, he did increase Troop levels by 55,000, far short of Westmoreland's requests, but against McNamara's established 470,000 troop ceiling.

Please Remove the passage: "His refusal to send more U.S. troops to Vietnam was Johnson's admission that the war was lost."

It has no factual grounding.

Done —Ms2ger (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, with the qualification that although it has many and varied bases in fact, it can never be more than a wide sweeping generalization with that wording, and is removable for that reason alone. A suitable replacement or replacements must be inserted in its place. Anarchangel (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson's troop decision was election year politics motivated by his poor showing in the New Hampshire primary. It had nothing to do with Tet or the military situation in Vietnam. There's no reason to think Eugene McCarthy voters were more dovish than Johnson voters. Eugene was an unknown at the time and many voters assumed that he was related to Joe McCarthy. Kauffner (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good case for the argument that "His refusal to send more U.S. troops to Vietnam indicated Johnson's understanding that the war was unpopular." Your second sentence, in the light of the first third and fourth, is tantamount to saying that he stood at his window, looking out on the demonstrators across the White House lawn from him, and just chose at random to not do something, because his poll numbers were low, and the random choice happened to be not sending in troops. Anarchangel (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson's poor showing was because of the Vietnam War. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sending in more troops would have been a negative politically because it would been interpreted as a confession that existing U.S. strategy wasn't working. The pattern of Johnson's poll numbers suggest that the urban race riots had a much bigger influence on his popularity than Vietnam did. Kauffner (talk) 05:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you know a great deal about this subject, but you really have to stop taking wild and original stabs in the research dark and claiming it is the true course of events. First the above contradiction, then, you can't tell if Johnson lost votes from hawkish voters. Only you try and say it as though not knowing means that VN war wasn't a factor. Then you puncture your own argument by saying McCarthy's unfortunate name was to blame for his poor showing. If that is so, then McCarthy stops being a factor over and above VN. Now it's race riots. Or are you just musing out loud? I feel it would be best to treat it as such. Anarchangel (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never meant to imply that McCarthy's name had a significant impact on the vote in New Hampshire. I was just trying illustrate how unknown he was at the time. People were voting for or against Johnson and McCarthy's anti-war agenda was either irrelevant or unknown to the vast majority. The race riots gave many Americans the sense that the country was unraveling, which is why Johnson's poll numbers fell and why people in New Hampshire might think that it was time for new leadership. Kauffner (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the press at the time did portray Johnsons decision as an admision that the war was unwinable.[[Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Recommendation: Under the heading ‘Commanders”,

Recommendation: Under the heading ‘Commanders”, this should be split into two categories; one could be ‘National Leaders’ and the other ‘Military Leaders’. Meyerj (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<Ref> problems with this article need fixing

WP:GTL#Notes, Footnotes, or References says that those sections should precede the Further reading and External links sections (if any). This article is compliant with that. As is common practice, this article expands Ref-packaged footnotes in the Notes section. No problem with that.

However this article has Ref-tag-packaged material located in sections which follow the Notes section. Since footnotes have already been expanded at this point, this material is not included in the article. The superscripted boxed numerical links associated with the unexpanded material are present in the article, but are nonfunctional. (The WP:Cite.php software which handles Ref-packaged material does not detect this unexpected error condition, and ends up misnumbering the superscripted boxed links)

I suggest that this problem be corrected by someone who has more familiarity with this article than I. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I read a lot of books in US and in VN, they considered the Vietnam War as the fighting between American and Vietnamese...

Firstly, I need to ask all of you: Do you think the Vietnam War is the conflict between Vietnamese, or between American and Vietnamese?

And Who caused that war? Daocongkhai76.200.161.84 (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I started this article and stopped when I got annoyed! It says that successive U.S. administrations overestimated Hanoi's control of the NLF quoted Robert McNamara former U.S. defence secretary's current views. I am sorry that is just plain wrong! At the time there was a great deal of propaganda from the pro-communists about how the NLF was an 'independent organisation' and 'hadn't anything to do with the North' and the North didn't want to 'annex the South it just wanted to free it' blah, blah. I believe one of the first things the North did when it conquered the South (by conventional military assault btw) was disband the remmants of the NLF (of which nothing has been heard of since despite the takeover of the south by the North). The total control of the North in directing the 'Viet Cong' is fairly obvious when you start to look into, such as with the decision to speed up the insurgency with North Vietnamese troops directly and all the decisons, such as the Tet offensive coming direct from Hanoi.

Also I read something recently which says though the Tet Offensive was seen as a defeat for the U.S. at the time (through the dubious prism of the Media!) it was of course a defeat for the Communists (Viet Cong) which were practically wiped out. The Viet Cong, of course, having finally came out of hiding to fight.

A section on how media commentators wanted the Communists to win over their own forces and those that have subsequently recanted would be interesting (sorry can't rember the commentators!). Whilst directly linking the triumph of the Communists to the subversion in the U.S. would be useful as a reminder that ultimately this ended in the Communist 're-education camps' and the killing fields. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.243.150 (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Mcnamara did not say that or that what he said was not true? It has been sugested that Tet was a deliberate attempt by Hanoi to destroy the VC because they were more independantly minded then Hanoi would like.

- Hello, I meant that surely this quote from Macnamara isn't based upon fact in reality. I am afraid I have never heard that theory about Tet sounds an interesting one, but surely Tet was designed (by attacking the population centres all controlled by South Vietnamese forces) to destroy the Army of South Vietnam leaving the United States forces no option to evacuate? (Again can't quite remember where I read that sorry!).

But as Mcnamara was the man who had access to intel at the time its reasonable to assume that he has some knowledge of the subject. As well as some reason to believe what he said was true.

At the moment this is the only source I can find for the deliberate destruction of the VC http://www.nam-vet.net/book1_11.html but its not the one I recall the claim from, I just can't remember were I read it.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

(inserted inline) I vaguely recall that On Strategy By Harry G. Summers or A Bright Shining Lie By Neil Sheehan may say something about that, but I could be misremembering. I've lost my copies of those books and I have no access to libraries, so can't check. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article does say "Despite its military failure, the Tet Offensive became a political victory" Thus making it clear it was a defeat for the Communists. As well as "After the war, North Vietnamese officials acknowledged that the Tet Offensive had, indeed, caused grave damage to NLF forces.", and "decimating the ranks of the NLF". Prety much saying that tehy had indead suffers great losses. So your second point seems to already be coverd in the article.

As to the media wnating the Communists to win, that is harder to justify withiin the article as it is very much POV. Much of the latter opposition to the war was caused by the applainig public relations of the Johnston administration (such as knowing about Tet but making statements about the inability of the communists to mount such an operation). Moreover the issue of the atni-war movment is rather more complex then the 'stab in the back' theory. Moreover many of the most vocal oponents of the war were Vetrans, hardley traitors bent on the defeat of the US (after all tehy had done of what so many of those who supported it had not done, served).[[Slatersteven (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

- Okay mostly POV sorry! :) I did read about one media commentator of the time who said later 'basically we wanted the communists to win', sorry don't know who that was! I think the whole 'Ho Ho Chi Minh' chanting; 'NLF' flag carrying; throwing excrament (I read that somewhere) over the coffins of US soldiers, etc by students shows they weren't 'anti-war' but very pro- the other side. I remeber something about Henry Kissinger saying the Communists at the Geneva accords used to taunt them with what the protestors had been saying. Then there is the whole 'Hanoi Jane' fellow travellor stuff. I agree Veterans had served their country and could say what the heck they liked :)But surely there was the element of taking on a fashionable cause at the time (?), was there anyone back then in the military who said pull-out would in reality mean 'defeat'. I always think it is quite ironic after Kennedy said about bearing any sacrifice for the sake of freedom which turned out not to be the case. Something I read suggested that the fall of South Vietnam encouraged Communist insurgencies in Latin America and Africa and lots of them fell to the Communists and didn't really stop till Reagan came to power. Thanks for getting back to me with your interesting and informative views.

No doubt there were those in America who wanted a communist victory (such as Hanoi Jane, and the shameful exhibition of the treatment of coffins), just as much as there were those who opposed the war on moral grounds (such as Croncite who seems to have been turned of the war by the civilian loss of life), or those who resented what they saw as a meaningless sacrifice or an uncaring country (the state of Veterans hospitals at the time for example). There is a suggestion that the peace movement was unimportant until after Tet (and that the press were largely supportive until Tet) and that even after Tet it was only the ending of deferments that seriously undermined core support for the war (and was a factor in Johnsons refusal to increase troop numbers). The issue of the peaqce movment is a complex one, with no one reason for its existance (and it should not be forgoten that every US war has had one). I am not sure that the events in Africa or the Americas have any real relevance to the issue of the peace movement in the US.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

Hello, that's very interesting I agree with a lot of what you have to say. But I do think that Wikipedia's article on the Viet Conmg seems pretty fair and balanced (and well-researched to me). From that it does seem fairly clear from that that North Vietnamese control of it was total, which would then seem kind of strange to have the Macnamara quote (about not realsing their level of independence) in the Vietnam War Article which seems to be arguing something completely different to the Viet Cong one (especially since they were absorbed into another organisation and then disolved in 1977 acccording to the Viet Cong article). It just seems incoorcet on that basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.243.150 (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, on the other hand reliable sources have been provided for the claim that the Hanoi government had issues with a too independent VC. [[Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

Hehe, yes Wikipedia isn't a reliable source :) However since the North conquered the South and annexed it and the NLF (which was an indigenious anti-governmental, etc force in the 'anti-war' propaganda) which was wound up by them after the war, and what I understand as being a recognised front for the Communists (by Hanoi's control over it) I can't see any merit in the article seeming to contain an untruth. For example what is the evidence that the VC acting independently? Against Hanoi's wishes? Sorry I seem to obsessing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.243.150 (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tgoung Nhu Tang (former PRG Minister of justice) writes that there were bitter policy disputes between PRG and Hanoi. Also during the Kisinger talks the PRG offerd its own peace deal seperate from Hanoi.[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

Well that is pretty interesting, I stand corrected hadn't heard that before. I noticed the pargraph has become:

"Successive American administrations, as Robert McNamara and others have noted, overestimated the control that Hanoi had over the NLF.[15] Diem's paranoia, repression, and incompetence progressively angered large segments of the population of South Vietnam.[52] Thus, many maintain that the origins of the anti-government violence were homegrown, rather than inspired by Hanoi.[53] Historian Douglas Pike asserts that, "today, no serious historian would defend the thesis that North Vietnam was not involved in the Vietnam war from the start.... To maintain this thesis today, one would be obliged to deal with the assertions of Northern involvement that have poured out of Hanoi since the end of the war."[54]"

Do you think it should say "However Historian Douglas Pike..." as he seems to be making the opposite point?

t would seem fair.[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

Tony Poe = Anthony Alexander Poshepny

This is near the end of the "Coups and assasinations" section:

Current text:

One legendary Paramilitary Operations Officer was named Tony Poe. He was assigned with J. Vinton Lawrence to train Hmong hill tribes in Laos to fight North Vietnamese and Pathet Lao forces. In Laos, Poe gained the respect of the Hmong forces with practices that were barbaric even by anyones standards. His Hmong fighters to bring him the ears of dead enemy soldiers, and, on at least one occasion, he mailed a bag of ears to the US embassy in Vientiane to prove his body counts. He dropped severed heads onto enemy locations twice in a grisly form of psy-ops. Although his orders were only to train forces, he also went into battle with them and was wounded several times by shrapnel. He received two Intelligence Stars, the CIA's equivalent of the Silver Star, an award that is rare for a person to receive one. Several press stories have suggested that Poshepny was the model for Colonel Walter Kurtz in the film Apocalypse Now.

Suggested text:

One legendary Paramilitary Operations Officer (known as Tony Poe) was named Anthony Alexander Poshepny. He was assigned with J. Vinton Lawrence to train Hmong hill tribes in Laos to fight North Vietnamese and Pathet Lao forces. In Laos, Poshepny gained the respect of the Hmong forces with practices that were barbaric by anyone's standards. His Hmong fighters brought him the ears of dead enemy soldiers, and, on at least one occasion, he mailed a bag of ears to the US embassy in Vientiane to prove his body counts. He dropped severed heads onto enemy locations twice in a grisly form of psy-ops. Although his orders were only to train forces, he also went into battle with them and was wounded several times by shrapnel. He received two Intelligence Stars, the CIA's equivalent of the Silver Star, an award which very few people receive even once. Several press stories have suggested that Poshepny was the model for Colonel Walter Kurtz in the film Apocalypse Now.

(I tried to fix a couple of grammatical errors, but my main concern is that in the original text the name "Posephny" is used in the last paragraph without having been properly introduced beforehand.)

Marie519 (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Intro is Fairly Confusing

It says "The Vietcong, the lightly armed South Vietnamese communist insurgency, largely fought a guerrilla war against anti-communist forces in the region." Is it me or this slightly unclear? It almost makes it seem like South Vietnam, the US ally, was called "Vietcong" and was a Communist Insurgency. Perhaps it should read "Vietcong, a lightly armed communist insurgency based within South Vietnam, largely fought...". This is because South Vietnam was the official name of one of the belligerents in this war so we have to differentiate between the region and the government/organization/nation(?). Would you guys agree? Fatrb38 (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly be an improvement, although they were actually based in Cambodia for much the war. Kauffner (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it seems clear enough that the South Vietnamese communists were called the Vietcong. That they fought the Anti-communist forces. Iperhapscoulde worded better but how, as has been said they were based largley in cambodia, but were (at least at first) South Vietnamese. how about "The Vietcong, the lightly armed insurgency of the South Vietnamese communists, largely fought a guerrilla war against anti-communist forces in the region iluding the Goenemnt of SVN."[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

Chemical warfare & War crimes & reparations (epilogue)

While the part about the chemical poisoning of the land "needs additional citations" I myself wonder, why people responsible for that never answered at the international war-crime tribunals? Even thought USA lost the war and it is widely known the crimes against civilian populace were severe nobody answered for those. Nobody paid any damages (that I know of). It is very convenient to have a puppet state wage war for you it seems. Maybe someone can enlighten me a bit. By the way - it is stated in the article that " Civilian deaths were put at two million in the North and South, and economic reparations were expected. " So any more info about that? Since USA is one of those countries that can actually afford to pay for what they have done (for example Germany in 1918 could not and that spawned more nonsense). Neikius (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As there was no international war crimes tribune at the time there is no need for the article to mention that no US personnel (or NV for that matter) were ever tied for war crimes (I assumes that you are talking about improving the article and not soap boxing). Nor (as far as I am aware have any indictments ever been issued, so again there is nothing for the article to include. Certainly if you can provide source to state that there have been calls for US personnel to be tried under international war crime legislation there would be an argument for its inclusion in the article.

I agree that there sho9uld be more info on the reparations issue, if this was ever an agreement the US entered into, but if it were a unilateral decision there is no reason to include many more info then that.[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

The 1973 treaty says, "the United States will contribute to healing the wounds of war and to postwar reconstruction." In a secret memorandum, Nixon explained that this would include $3.25 billion in reconstruction aid to North Vietnam, as well as $1.5 billion in other aid. Since the communists didn't live up to their end of the agreement, I don't see a basis on which they can collect. Kauffner (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was the aid package dependant on their obeying the conditioned of the cease fire, or was it in fact not related (other then being a sweetener). For example the letter says.

1) The Government of the United States of America will contribute to post-war reconstruction in North Vietnam without any political conditions

This would to indicate that the aid had no strings attached regarding non compliance with other agreement or pre-conditions.

3) The United States will propose to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam the establishment of a United States-North Vietnamese Joint Economic Commission within 30 days from the date of this message

This should have been implemented before any major infringements by the North occurred (although there had been infringements from the first).

This "pledge" to the North Vietnamese was made on February 1, 1973, several days after the Paris Peace Accords, ending the war, were signed. Thus, this letter was not a part of the peace agreement, nor reliant upon the conditions of the cease-fire agreement. In the letter preamble it says.

The President wishes to inform the Democratic Republic of Vietnam of the principles which will govern United States participation in the postwar reconstruction of North Vietnam.

Thus the letter states that it will be the contents (and compliance with those contents) that will govern aid the North Vietnam, not compliance with the cease fore agreement. It does also say that.

As indicated in Article 21 of The Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam signed in Paris on January 27, 1973, the United States undertakes this participation in accordance with its traditional policies. These principles are as follows:

But this reinforces the above point as article 21 says.

Article 21 The United States anticipates that this Agreement will usher in an era of reconciliation with the Democratic Republic of Viet- Nam as with all the peoples of Indochina. In pursuance of its traditional policy, the United States will contribute to healing the wounds of war and to post-war reconstruction of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam and throughout Indochina.

It no where states that this is conditional upon compliance.[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

VCs

A new VC was awarded to an Australian serviceman this year. Brentonjames (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For service in Vietnam?[[Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

No, but the point is valid and the section needs to be re-worded, which I have now done. Anotherclown (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

split article(s)

very long article, I would create more seperate articles and/or take some of the "fat" out of this article.

Define 'the fat'[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

interesting! i love Vietnam! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.172.12 (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]