Talk:Vietnam War

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

How is it that there are 8 pictures that represent/depict America being the aggressor towards civilians, Northern Vietcong, etc by sea/air and foot and none showing any aggression towards the U.S. or South Vietnam by the North Vietnamese or showing U.S. casualties, etc? It should be at least 50/50 ratio. Are you depicting the war as purely an American search and destroy action and nothing else? Were the Vietcong on the defensive the entire time? Doubtful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.59.108.20 (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well one of the reasons might be that North Vietnam was never aggressive towards the USA, they never even set foot on US soil, now did they? Maxim K (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation Needs work

someone should go and fix all the citations that are all messed up SubaruSVX (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Liberal Article

The article is completely wrong. It put 3 wars together when there was really The first one which France lost, the second one where U.S. forces won and the third war where North Vietnam finally won.I suggest 3 articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.10.251.170 (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, even if you put it that way, North Vietnamese still won all of those conflicts. At the end of the "American phase" of the war the peace agreement was favorable to the North as they kept all territories they've conquered, and while the US basically cut the ties with South Vietnam, the North was rearmed by the Soviets. These advantages directly led to their ultimate victory and reunification of Vietnam under the North's regime.Maxim K 19:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The US won in 1973? If so, why by late 1972 was PAVN holding the entire DMZ, Khe Sanh (site of the 1967-1968 siege) and the Route 9 corridor, the mountainous hinterlands above Hue and Danang, including the A Shau valley (site of the Hamburger Hill battles of 1969), the triborder area and the border areas to the west of Dak To, Kontum ("Rocket Ridge"), the Ia Drang valley (site of the early 1965 battle), etc. etc. all the way down to the U Minh forest areas on the Ca Mau peninsula?

The only thing clear is that the US certainly won its war against the VC, and major NV combat units actively operating in the south.

Unfortunately, as Col Harry Summers described in his book On Strategy, it is impossible to actually "win" such a conflict when one fights offensively only on the tactical, but not strategic levels. Strategically, PAVN was in a much stronger position in 1973 than it was in 1965, while, strategically, the US was much weaker in 1973 than it was starting out. By 1971 our draftee Army was largely in tatters due to the great burdens of grinding counter-insurgency / tropical jungle warfare placed upon it . Morale was still high in the USAF, but even so by 1972 NV was holding a sufficient number of captured airmen as hostage (in inhumane conditions) to (IMHO) force us to agree to remove our airpower from the conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.101.161 (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Was not one of the stated US aims the driving out of PAVN forces from the South? In this they failed. In could be argued that the only success the US achived was by a differnt criteria then they one they set in 1965. [[Slatersteven 20:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)]]

Above someone wrote that after the 1973 "peace accords" the "US basically cut the ties with South Vietnam, [while] the North was rearmed by the Soviets." I'm not disagreeing with the second half of this assertion, regarding the Soviets. However, Congress still authorized $700 million for South Vietnam in 1974 - - a substantial foreign aid package - - but this sum was indeed half of what had been authorized the year before. So South Vietnam was not entirely cut off. When South Vietnam underwent the final assault in March 1975, it was a weakened U.S. Presidency under Gerald Ford that was unable politically to take on the crisis. Nixon might have reacted differently if he was still in office, although certainly without success due to the drastic nature of the final collapse. [Douglas Hawes, 3/7/08] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.15.244 (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Listen, we could go on for months debating this. If you want to say that militarily the U.S. won, which I believe they did, then fine. But ultimately, we did not achieve our objectives of keeping the Communists out of South Vietnam. To put it more broadly, the U.S. failed in its objectives and, as said by many, lost. It's just like the Russians in Afghanistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:New Zealand forces with Viet Cong prisoners during the Vietnam War.jpg

Image:New Zealand forces with Viet Cong prisoners during the Vietnam War.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What's up with commanders in the infobox

Hi all, just noticed that a lot of the commanders have crosses behind their names implying they are casualties of the conflict. When I checked out the crosses I found that all of them died during the conflict. However only 1 (Ngo Dinh Diem) or possibly 2 (not sure about Nguyen Chi Thanh) died as a consequence of the fighing all others died from disease, old age, or home assassination (Kennedy). I think we should clearly decide what we want to depict by the crosses. (1) Casualties of war; i.e. the actual act of war, (2) Commanders who died during the war for whatever reason (IMHO this is weird, look what it would do to commanders of e.g. the 100 years' war) (3) Commanders who are now dead (this makes no sense because this would clutter all oder war boxes because everybody will die). This article has now adopted my 2nd option and ends up with a fairly cluttered commander box. I would suggest to change it for option 1 and only use the cross to denote a commander dying as a consequence of the war. Arnoutf 13:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Soviet casualties

Fewer than a dozen Soviet citizens lost their lives in this conflict.

Acoording to official Russian data, there were 16 deaths among Soviet military personnel in North Vietnam. Also there were casualties among civilian personnel (figure unknown). 195.248.189.182 20:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

America was defeated

Why isn't that plainly stated in the battle box's result? It's POV to use euphemisms like "America withdrawal". Malamockq 22:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably because the end of the war was due to opposition of the public in America, the defeat was due to low tech tactics versus American technology, e.g. bombing, and because the war has been re-imaged as something noble in the USA. Along with ideas that the USA army could have won if the public had supported it. It also impacts today on the "support the troops" rhetoric "even if you don't like the war". It's politics. Fremte 21:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is what is meant by POV surely. [[Slatersteven 21:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)]]

As the US was trying to stop the reunification of a vietnam under communist control would that not define the result as a defeat foe the US (or at least it's foreign policy)?. [[Slatersteven 11:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)]]

In my humble opinion, if the United States is mentioned as one of the combatants, and given the fact that it was a very active player in the conflict it maybe useful to mention it in the "Result" box. It could be something like "South Vietnamese defeat, following the US withdrawl", or such. It would describe the situation more or less acurately, as the Northern victory was enebled largely by the US withdrawl (as the Americans thwarted previous NVA offensives). Maxim K 00:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)~== shs ==

hey jake this is not usefuoll

But the USA did fail in it's aims. South East Asia did fall the the communists. The US was forced out (for whatever reason). [[Slatersteven 13:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)]]

Well, those who really don't want to admit a "defeat" could try to argue that failure and defeat are different things, because in "classical defeat" one of the armies gets routed or surrenders, which did not happen to the US forces. I mean, to me that seems like a pitiful attempt to save one's wounded national pride when it's pretty obvious to everyone that the US failed and lost in Vietnam, because they've wasted enormous resources and many lives without getting any success while antagonising the world and incurring international humiliation when the Communists finally did take over despite everything, but to be objective one has to consider the difference between military defeat and a strategic failure. Maxim K 22:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The problom is that America was not defeated on the battle field, but in the political arena. Moreover The US cut and run (I can see it in no other terms) before actual millitary defeat occured (which given the vertual abandunment of the South by the US seems to be the case, egnoring as they did constent cease fire vilolations by the North). So in a sence the US lost and in a snece they drew. [[Slatersteven 11:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)]]

-It was a cowardly act. The last American troops left the country on April 30 1975, but major combat offensives by the U.S. were over 2 years earlier as Lyndon Johnson declared the end of combat operations.

Well, political arena and battlefield are not that far removed, the reason why America's political position (and will to fight) was going downhill was largely due the situation on the ground. If the Vietnamese did not resist as they have the outcome may've been different. But as far as the "defeat" vs "withdrawl" is concerned, I don't think either describes what happened accurately enough, because it wasn't a "normal" war whith two armies each attempting to destroy another and capture some land. It seems that according to statements made by Ho Chi Minh and various US Presidents, the US wanted to crush the Communist war machine and break their will to fight, the Communists wanted the US out so that they can invade South Vietnam in peace, so to speak. So NVA never intended to obliterate the US forces, just outlast them; while the US never meant to stay in Vietnam forever. And in short term the Americans did manage to protect South Vietnam for a time and they quit while ahead, sort of (just stopped the easter offensive, Linebacker 2 and all that), that's why it may seem to some that the US didn't lose, but jumping out of a burning house in time does not mean that you beat the fire Maxim K 08:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I could also be said that as the US failed to destroy the Communist forces i the field, by the criteria used by US forces, te US failed to achive its main tactical aim (and by extension their stratigic aim). [[Slatersteven 17:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)]]

Withdrawal is just another word for defeat. So is failure to establish tactical aims. The hard fact is that the US military intervention was unsuccessful. Interestingly, no one is arguing that France "successfully withdrew". Codik 00:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Or that USSR successfuly withdrew from Afghanistan, or that North Korea withdrew from the South... I don't think that a war can be a "draw" because of the resources and lives that have to be expanded to launch a campaign, so if you simply withdraw without getting anything out of it, you loose. But, of course, that's my humble opinion, others may see it differently, though American defeat in Viet Nam is only controversial in highly extremest circles in the US, everyone else, in or out of United States, knows the score... Maxim K 21:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

-America was handed their first defeat. The defeat was so obvious and undeniable. It is a serious matter and many if not all historians as well as unbiased Vietnam historians use the word defeat, not withdrawal. More importantly this article is filled with the term insurgents, which I think shouldn't be used, Vietnam was a conventional war for more than half of its duration. Lastly, they loss. It doesnt matter when or how you're defeated, as long as you lose, a defeat is a defeat. It is sound and logical.--CompScientist 01:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's just like when athletes say, "We didn't lose the game, we just ran out of time." Whatever. You lost. Deal with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sociolgist (talk • contribs) 16:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No matter which way you look at it, The USA DID lose this war, so grow up and accept it (and stop breeding with vegetables kk?) (80.42.245.103 (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

No matter which way YOU look at it, you'll just see a defeat for the US when it didn't happen at all.

What is it with all of this anti-American POV crap? Why would any of you "fair and balanced" people want to make this article extremely bias and POV? The US DID NOT LOSE A WAR IN VIETNAM. The US defended South Vietnam while they were there. They forced the communist aggressors to the peace talks in Paris, and forced them to sign the treaty. Then, the US left (for whatever reasons were established, it was purely political). After the US left, the North reneged on the treaty, and resumed hostilities. A weak US administration decided not to go back in and defend the South, which, if it would have happened, would have been another defeat for North Vietnam and communism. This is plain, historical facts.

During the actual hostilities, the US was forced to fight a war with one armed tied behind its back. The result was still one military defeat after another against the North, and if the US were allowed to fight fully without holding back, the North would have been overrun and Vietnam would be united today under a democratic government, instead of the torturous and tyrannical communist regime that's been in control ever since. Too bad that didn't happen, but that's the rub, it didn't happen, and the liberals in the US got a victory at the cost in lives of thousands and thousands of South Vietnam citizens.

It would be a wise move for all of you to actually read history and accept it instead of placing your anti-US agendas as a cover blanket over all of your opinions--but its the "cool thing" to do now, bash the US. --signed by splash.

It's somewhat logically difficult to "lose" a war when the historical record shows you have not lost a single major battle. While those with geopolitical agendas may wish to assert such a loss, in reality it is somewhat laughable; like asserting that Mike Tyson lost a fistfight to Donnie Osmond because Tyson decided not to fight. It's not exactly a loss. If it makes the faded, weak, and impotent former empires feel better to pretend it was a "loss" - fine. 74.185.105.135 (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The United States military was not defeated, but the United States as a political entity certainly was. Though they didn't lose a major battle, they lost the war. The enemy remained in the field and eventually fulfilled its aims completely. To use the "we didn't lose a battle" argument would seem to show a lack of understanding of the nature of the war. The contest was political; military victory was impossible without political victory. The United States lost politically, thus it lost militarily. 99.247.149.200 (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

THESIS - War (for a time) was won militarily, but lost politically... The war was actually going much better militarily in 1969-1970, with the devastation that the VC government/ infrastructure in South Vietnam underwent in the aftermath of Tet. However, the war was being lost politically, both at home and internationally. North Vietnam's war effort was dependent on the violation of the neutrality of Laos and Cambodia, where they stockpiled massive ordnance and supplies. But there was no way to challenge this violation of international law, as the U.N. General Assembly - - very busy condemning Zionism as racism during the time - - was dominated by socialist block nations and their allies. And the Soviet Union over and over again would deny that NVA forces were in Laos and Cambodia. So defeat was both at home, and internationally. Nowadays the U.N. would be sending a peacekeeping force into the Laotian and Cambodian border areas to supervise the "neutrality." But in 1970 the U.N. General Assembly was a socialist cesspool. [Douglas Hawes, 3/7/08] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.15.244 (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you actually arguing that the US achieved their military objectives in Vietnam? I'm sorry, but the US failed to achieve their military objectives in Vietnam and, faced with this incapacity, had to leave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.99.63.186 (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If you research real carefully, you will find out that the U.S lost many battles in the Vietnam war.130.166.46.85 (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, I think that this issue will never be resolved. Now, I do not believe that the U.S. military lost, despite losing battles, ok, I have many relatives that fought in Vietnam and I have researched the war extensively. But ultimately, it is a simple matter of what people define as a "loss" of a war. If you want to say America lost the war in Vietnam then fine, but to say that our military forces were defeated without mentioning the unreasonable restrictions placed by Washington is just wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Summary box picture

I would like to thank whoever made the effort of making that new summary box picture, but apart from showing a handful of dead Vietnamese civilians at My Lai, theres only pictures of American troops. Why is is so bias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canpark (talk • contribs) 06:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There was only an american troops image before. I think this new box picture is an upgrade, a good summary effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.42.222 (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Only American was fighting ?

New picture of the Infobox show me 3 pictures about American was fighting and 1 pictures about Vietnamese civilian o.O . Where is others ? Vietcong ? Republic of Vietnam ? North Vietnam ? Magnifier 19:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

When I first saw the infobox pictures I was under the impression that the maker is trying to glorify the American side of the war at the expense of dead Vietnamese. As a Vietnamese myself I feel very insultedCanpark 14:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Picture does seem one-sided, it only shows American military and (dead) Vietnamese civilians. I don't know if it is meant to glamourize the US or make them look like civilian-murdering monsters, but it seems strange that there is no VPA or NLF soldiers in this murial. I don't know how copyrights work exactly, but there are many photos on the internet that depict them (ex.: http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-enemy/vietnam.htm, http://www.pixelpress.org/pixelpicks/picks20.html, http://www.photius.com/countries/vietnam/national_security/vietnam_national_security_the_armed_forces.html, http://wind.prohosting.com/flyaces/usr/home/web/f/flyaces/acesandeightsjetengineaces_northvietnameseaces.htm) Maxim K 21:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Normally commanders in direct conflict and control, usually represent the country that is heavily involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CompScientist (talk • contribs) 09:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

References

The references aren't displaying properly. Anyone know how to fix this? 58.173.50.235 02:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"United States-supported Republic of Vietnam"

If the article is going to include support from 3rd-party nations in the conflict, why is only the US mentioned? Should not the USSR and China be mentioned in the lead as supporters of North Vietnam? —divus 20:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The support given by the US was rather more direct then Russia or China. [[Slatersteven 14:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Although the US contributed fighting soldiers, materiel is nearly as important as men. Sticks and stones can't break tank's bones... It should be mentioned who supported whom, and then omitted from that point forward. Wordings such as "United States-supported Republic of Vietnam" merely clutter up the article, when one could say that the US supported the R of V once, that the Chinese and Russians supported the North, and then call the countries simply by their proper names henceforth. C.anguschandler (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Another important thing is that the U.S. had combat commanders in charge of every hour and minute of their men. Russia and China didn't have that immediate combat-leadership role on the ground. DUH. CompScientist (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Without completely disagreeing about the ground, there certainly was Soviet and Chinese operational participation in the air war in the North, although Vietnamese took on more and more responsibility. With respect to the ground, however, it is true that U.S. commanders had direct control of U.S. and some outside country units. It is not, however, the same thing as in Korea, where the U.S. commander is theoretically the overall UN multinational commander. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

And at all levels within the RVN armed forces[[Slatersteven 19:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)]]

I'm agreeing with you Divus on this issue about the U.S supported part. What an injustice to other countries like Australia and New Zealand when many of their men died in Viet Nam, and for them not to be mentioned in the first part of the article. If anything, the "Domino Effect" was of Aust/NZ primary concern! If you look at the edit history I did add that bit of information but CompScientist deleted it. I've about given up of editing this article twinqletwinqle (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction needed for JFK/LBJ NSA

In the subsection "Us Goes To War. End of 1963-1968" the name of the National Security Advisor for JFK and LBJ is erroneously stated to be "George McBundy". The correct name is "McGeorge Bundy".

Sunfighter54 00:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)sunfighter54 (Tom Campbell), 07-NOV-2007

Help please!

I know the Americans used a thing called "Search and Destroy" and i know the Vietnamese had a similar version too it but what was it called?

PoliceMadJack

Are you refering to the pre 1965 "ARVN,"Jack? If so, it was called spear and net, I believe. It's covered in the Battlefront Vietnam documentary. Not sure in which of the first 3 or four episodes it's mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sociolgist (talk • contribs) 16:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Geographical or grammatical error?

This quote from the article just isn't right, 'Major allies, however, notably European nations, Canada and Great Britain, declined Washington's troop requests'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the libery to alter it to NATO nations (I suspect that was what was meant). [[Slatersteven 17:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Kent State, Nixon's Response

While it is generally accepted as true that Nixon's response to Kent State was received unfavorably, it is doubtful that he was moved to Camp David to assure his own security. Such security measures are rarely employed except in extraordinary circumstances, e.g., belief that a nuclear attack is imminent. U.S. security forces have always been able to assure the safety of the President while he is in the White House, especially when the threat is protestors. The passage dealing with Nixon's withdrawal to Camp David should be excised.137.165.208.48 (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Only war America lost?

I would argue for this to be struck from the article. Whether this is strictly true or not is open for debate; it is generally understood in Canada that the combined forces of Britain and Canada defeated the United States in the War of 1812. C.anguschandler (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It depends a lot on your definition of lost, and more importantly won. To decide the issue of the war of 1812 you would have to look at the stated aims of each side and determine which one achieved the most. But it could indeed be said that this statement is POV (another example could be Red Clouds war).[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)]]

The notion that the United States lost the War of 1812 is highly disputed. The Treaty of Ghent ultimately declared the outcome status quo ante bellum. Sad Wings of Destiny (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Which brings us back to the question what were the US and Britains aims, and did they achive them? some historians have susgested that the US failed to achive any of the stated reasons for the declerartion of war. On the other hand the Britsh (as the offended party) had no war aims, other then to stop the US ones. I particular the desire by the US to conquer Canada. Now it (as I have said) depends on you definition of defeat, in this case the standerd view is that becasue the British did not re-gain control of the US they lost (or at least the US did not). But if we use the criteria of achiving your reason for going to war the US did lose, as they failed in their goals status quo ante bellum was the British objective, they achived it. [[Slatersteven (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Which is exactly my point - this statement is not necessarily grounded. Maybe they lost the war of 1812, maybe they simply didn't win, maybe they even won, but the matter is open to debate, The article is not any worse off without claiming the US never lost another war. If there is no direct opposition to this movement in the coming days, I will edit the article to omit references to "the only war America lost". C.anguschandler (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

One more time,

    "The notion that the United States lost the War of 1812 is highly disputed. The Treaty
    of Ghent ultimately declared the outcome status quo ante bellum. Sad Wings of Destiny
    (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)"

Interestingly the combined forces of Britain and Canada won? Or was it that Britain won before Canada? Or that Canada must have ousted Britain some how or some way to defeat the U.S. Same rhetoric goes for the Vietnam war. It was a TOTAL defeat for the United States and South Vietnam. Now apply the "status quo ante bellum" of the Treaty of Ghent to the Vietnam war. The fact of the matter is that after the Vietnam war things were not the way they were before the war began, which favored North Vientam, hence suggesting "America's (first) defeat". Direct opposition.CompScientist (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A nation loses a war if it fails to achive its aims, the US falied to achive it's aims in the war of 1812. Canada was a Britihs terratory at the time, so yes the British wond (but only by the smallest of margins). It does not matter that the The Treaty of Ghent said status quo ante bellum it was not what the US had planed for. [[Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)]]

By that standard, Britain lost WWII. Its stated war aims were to liberate Poland, which was being carved up by Germany and the Soviet Union. They just didn't have any helicopters to evacuate Warsaw.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason for Britains decleration of war was to stop Germanys conquest of Poland (it was Germany they declared war on not Russia)I seem to remeber that the Germans surrenderd (and thus Poland was liberated from German occupation) in 1945, plesae provide a referance to the contary. Now it could be said that Britain betrayed Poland in 1945, but Britian never declared war on Russia, the US did (in 1812) declare war on Britain. [[Slatersteven (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Britain was fulfilling a promise to Poland. They declared war days or weeks before the Soviets entered, and so the Soviets weren't mentioned.

Yes, you could say that Britain didn't lose, and that they simply betrayed Poland. But then you could say the same thing about Vietnam.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Except that the US went to war in Vietnam to stop communist aggression in Vietnam, in this they failed (although you could argue that they achived this in the (very) short term), to force the NVA to withdraw from the country, in this they failed, and to enforce the Truman doctorin, in this they failed. even on a tactical levle it could be argued thy failed, after all a war of attrition is about breaking the enamys will to fiight by infliicgiing more casualties then he is willing to take in this the US clearly failed and the PRVN clealy succeded. Britain went to war to force German withdrawl from Poland, they succeded (but in a very shamefull way). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 23:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. went to war not only to stop communist aggression in Vietnam, but to stop the threat of communist aggression in Asia. There was a very real fear of the domino theory. As Mark Moyar wrote, "American intervention in Vietnam saved Indonesia from going Communist in 1965. It probably also prevented countries such as Thailand, Japan, the Philippines, and Malaysia from becoming Communist or pro-Communist." You were talking about achieving war aims, and it could be said that the U.S. did achieve that.

This is highly speculative at best, I've never seen any indication that DRV was planning an invasion of Indonesia or Thailand (granted I'm not an expert), but given how easily they've defeted South Vietnam, if they wanted to invade anyone else they would've (and did, in case of Democratic Kampuchia). And you can take any old defeat and argue that it prevented something even worse (i.e. USSR "won" in Afghanistan, because if they didn't get involved the Taliban would be in Kazakhstan now).Maxim K (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It may be speculative, but it can't be denied that U.S. objectives were driven by fears (i.e. speculation) of communist expansionism. Without the rest of the world map having been redrawn the way it was, it's unlikely that the U.S. would have had any ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. So, the war wasn't so much to defend South Vietnam as it was to hold back communism, and the importance of that objective had greatly diminished by 1973.

I'm not saying we shouldn't mark Vietnam as a loss for the U.S. It's just that we were talking about war objectives wrt the War of 1812, and I don't think that one was a loss because the objectives were broader than that.

BTW: I should say it's possible that Britain's defense pact with Poland was limited to a war with Germany, in which case that comparison falls apart, but the point remains. The true war objectives matter.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well, I'm sure that preventing expansion of Communism could've been a genuine war-goal of the US government at the time, but to credit the war with preventing the said expansion one has to show that it was an actual threat. If something isn't going to happen anyway, you can't prevent it, even if you think it might occur. And in my non-expert opinion DRV was not ambitious in that regard, they appear to have been more nationalist then communist (the US leaders at the time didn't see it that way though, I think it is telling that the Vietnamese paramilitaries called themselves National Liberation Front, while the US called them Viet Cong (Vietnamese Communists)). I think they were more concerned with getting the invaders (or those they saw as invaders) out, not spreading Communism. I don't know much about 1812, in Canada they teach that Canada won the war (big surprise), but, you know... Maxim K (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the U.S. was worried about North Vietnam itself being the threat. But it means something to a country when they see that America is an ally. (That's how Panama gained its independence.) It also meant something for the Soviet Union to be an ally, and that's what they were worried about. Ignoring South Vietnam would have strengthened the Soviets' position. People around the world would then have played their cards differently. I imagine this to be what Mark Moyar was writing about.

On 1812, yes, I suppose they could say Canada did win that one, but we could have settled the score with War Plan Red....

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. But still it is a speculation, maybe the Soviet position would have been stronger had the US ignored South Vietnam, but others argued (I forgot where I read that) that USSR was actually emboldened by the success in Vietnam and that Soviet backed communist insurgency escalated following the war. But the problem is that one cannot look back to see what would have happened otherwise, so it is anyone's guess. I can see, though, that given the American commitment to containment and worldwide opposition to communism it would have been politically difficult to simply ignore South Vietnam, and could potentially encourage other communist movements. Obviously it would have been better for the US to win, sinse both ignoring Vietnam and loosing can be seen as encouraging the Soviets. Maxim K (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the U.S. government was making a speculation when they formulated their policies.

And yes, the USSR was emboldened by their success in Vietnam, but that didn't really happen until after 1974. I'm guessing from Moyar's article that the relevant points about the rest of Asia didn't matter so much by that point. China was certainly becoming a different story. Just as we don't know what would have happened otherwise, it's possible that defending South Vietnam in 1965 and abandoning them in 1973 could have been the best possible outcome.

BTW: Italics are made on Wikipedia with two apostrophes, and bold with three, although some HTML will work, too.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's possible. Some say things like, "if only we went in full force", but that could've turned out even worse, for everybody. Thanks for the italics tip Maxim K (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This is somewhat similar to what happened for Britain vis a vis Poland. It's war aim was to defend Poland, not hand it to another conqueror. (It wasn't British forces that got the Germans out of Poland anyway.) I'll grant that this is a smarmy rationalization, but I think it's not much different from the U.S. abandoning Vietnam.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Who was allied with Britain for most of the war (for slightly longer then the US in fact). Against whom there was no military action by Britain. Britain abandoned Poland to an ally The US abandoned South Vietnam to an enemy. [[Slatersteven 19:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Well, this has gotten less and less relevant. I am removing the passage; if anyone has a good reason to put it back, please post it here. C.anguschandler (talk) 08:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Original passage: It concluded with the North Vietnamese military victory after more than 15 years and was the first ever major military defeat for the United States.

New Passage: It concluded with a North Vietnamese military victory after more than 15 years of conflict.

We could also go with something like this: It concluded with the North Vietnamese military victory after more than 15 years and was a major American military defeat.

Or: It concluded with the North Vietnamese military victory after more than 15 years and was arguably the first ever major military defeat for the United States.

I prefer the new passage, but the others would also be acceptable. If you have another option, feel free to post it. C.anguschandler (talk) 08:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the last one sums up the situation, it acknowledges that it is viewed as the USA’s first defeat, but that it is not a universally held view.[[Slatersteven (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Whether or not you declare Vietnam a victory or defeat for America, it needs to be clearly stated that that outcome was determined by the politicians. If any of you studied the vietnam War, especially the Battle of Khe Sahn, you would see that we were not at a military disadvantage. In fact, we won the Battle of Khe Sahn and were ready to drive the NVA out of the DMZ and Laos. I just do not want an injustice done to our militarymen who fought over there. They did their jobs, Washington didn't. (1-20-08)

If you must mention things that are debateable, at least be completely honest. It was NOT a military defeat, but a political one. They are not one and the same. If you need references to determine the difference, you have to understand that militarily there are three contexts that operations occur in (tactical, operational, and strategic). Politicians make and decide policy, NOT the military. We only advise at that level (civilian control of the military). The US military was not defeated on a tactical or operational level in Indochina. Indochina is too small of an area to truly be considered of strategic importance, but in the world of geopolitik the strategy was one of containment and mutually assured destruction. 15.235.137.72 (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. The "containment" policy was first introduced by Harry Truman in Korea. We never really won that war either. There were many problems with it by I will only state one: Truman did not let Macarthur finish the job. Now I am not a huge Macarthur fan, I actually think he was quite an ass (personal opinion), but the point still remains. I quote him in saying "it is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it". 2-17-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, if your research real carefully you will find out the U.S. lost many battles in the Vietnam war.130.166.46.85 (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh...yes, we lost many battles in Vietnam but that does not mean that we lost the war. We lost more men in WWII than we did in Vietnam but we still won. The point is that our military never really got a chance to win the war because of all of the illogical, unsound, and nonsensical restrictions placed by MacNamera and Johnson. We lost more soldiers in the 90 days after D-day than we did the entire time we were in Vietnam. If you had a moderate level of understanding about war, you would know that losing battles does not mean defeat. 4-13-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.225.58 (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It is generally understood in the U.S. that America won the war of 1812. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnsworth (talk • contribs) 04:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's generaly uunderstood that it was a rather inconclusive draw. However it is true to say that there are those who claim (and there is some basis in this) that Vietnam was not the first was the US lost. The war of 1812 is seen as a defaet for the US by many Canadians. Now unless you are saying that thier opionions do not matter then it must be clear that the view "the only war the US lost" is niether universal, nor NPOV. [[Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)]]

Defeat of American Forces

Shouldn't it mentioned that the American withdrawal (hence, defeat) was more political than militarily related ? U.S forces never lost a single battle that had more than minor repercussions on the conflict. As far that I know, combat performance could be considered quite excellent when we take in consideration that the North Vietnamese were not enough suicidal to launch another offensive until the U.S military was gone after suffering the important demise of the 1968 Tet Offensive. Sad Wings of Destiny (talk)

The article seems detailed enough for the reader to draw their own conclusion about how much of it was political. Besides, although the US did win majority of battles they did lose some (not too many, but still), and evidently that did have some effect on the conflict, even if those battles seem minor. Moreover combat performance doesn't strike me as exellent, because the conscrips were severely demoralised, the world's most powerful airforce was having close to 1-to-1 casualties in air combat against a country that only recently aquired any jets, bombing compaigns were often ineffective, causing only strategically negilgent damage at the cost hundreds of aircraft. It is true that North Vietnam was scared of the US and only attacked when the US was safely out, but the US were also afraid of North Vietnam sinse they didn't go back in. It was largely political, but the political will was lost largely because of battlefield performance. Maxim K (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

MaximK, I am sorry I didn't read this sooner, but your facts are WAY wrong. We were never close to a 1:1 kill/loss rate...ever. At one point it dropped to 4:1, but by the end of the war was well above 10:1. As for bombing, Linebacker II brought the North Vietnamese to their knees at the cost of 13 aircraft, not hundreds. While they only recently acquired jets, those that were most dangerous were the Chinese and Russian pilots flying in Vietnamese jets. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

But the article says very clearly at the top that America and South vietnam was defeated, leaving nothing in the imaginations of the reader! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.180.9 (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, given how widely the claims by North Vietnam and the USA diverge sometimes it is doubdful we'll be able to reach a consensus regarding loss rates. According to F-105 article, for example, the US claimed 28 MiGs shot down by Thunderchiefs, at the cost of 17, about 1.6 to 1 in favor of US, but the North Vietnamese claim 40 Thuds which would make the Thud vs. MiG battles 1.4 to 1 in Vietmese favor, whom do you believe? Similarly the US sources state 15 B-52s lost in Linebacker, but the Vietnamese claim 34 or so. Problm is, the Communist are well known for their propaganda and, to put it bluntly, lying to raise enthusiasm and fighting spirit of the people, North Vietnam is no exception. On the other hand we have the USA: I'm sure I don't need to remind anyone about that whole WMD deal, the mobile labs that what's-is-face had photos of at the UN, the aluminum tubes, uranum from Africa and so on. Not to mention the overclaiming of air victories in Korean war by a factor of more then two. Bottom line, the two countries that have the most direct knowledge of what actually happened can't be trusted. However, even according to Western sources Rolling Thunder resulted in losses of hundreds of aircraft for no apparent gain. And while Linebacker 2 was much less bloody for the US, it's success is stil questionable: the North Vietnamese offered the same deal as before the bombing and it was the US who made concessions and dropped previous demands (feel free to look it up, on this very Wikipedia), so even on their knees the North Vietnamese were in better bargaining position then the USA, which to me speaks volumes about overall performance of these operations. Combat performance in Linebacker and Linebacker 2 was indeed quite good, but it occured only towards the end of the war and in relatively isolated cases, I disagreed with original poster that combat performance was excellent in general, it was in some case, but not most of the time.

P.S. Also, top Vietnam war aces were actual Vietnamese, whose claims were for the most part verified by the US , so while there may have been foreign pilots fighting there, the Vietnamese seem to have doing most of the work there (not Soviets, like in Korea) Maxim K (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

1. I trust the U.S. figures much more on the B-52s because those numbers have to be verified with the Soviet Union per several treaties. That said, inflated numbers are generally more of a response of more than one person claiming a kill when both had a part in it.
2. The F-105 is more of a bomber than a fighter and comparing one aircraft to another doesn't take in the totality of all the kills from both countries.
3. Linebacker II may not have made them change their demands, but it brought them back to the tables (which they left). The dropped demands may or may not have been in response to the Linebacker II campaign, but it is far removed from the results of the bombing (diplomatic tactics may have been to make those demands then pull them out as a "concession" to the North Vietnamese). Furthermore the success Linebacker II did bring Hanoi to a standstill militarily. They were able to re-arm, but they were out of SAMs (for the most part) and the U.S. had virtual control over their skies. That was the stated objective and it was an unqualified success.
4. For those not familiar with Rolling Thunder, the losses were primarily due to ground-to-air fire, not air-to-air combat.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 00:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I trust the US more or less when it comes to American losses, sinse they tend to publish actual names and if they were to try and under-report casuilties a lot of people would get upset. But the enemy losses, as far as I can tell the US has a long and proud tradition of overclaiming, not just aircraft, and not just Korea or Vietnam, in recent Iraq war as well (I remember the news report about 300 Iraqi soldiers killed, which gradually got revised down to thirty), so those numbers are hard to trust. There is issue of shared kills, but I don't think it was the case with 800+ clamed MiGs during Korea, which according to the article were closer to high 300s (which incidentally is more similar to USSR estimates).

I used claims about F-105 vs MiGs as an example of diverging claims, not as reperesentative sample of air battles.

I don't see how it makes sense to scare the North Vietnamese away from the negotiations by making unreasonable demands and then to bomb them back to the table, only to agree with them. Why not just agree to them in the first place and skip the bombing step? I suspect it was done to "save face", which didn't work out so well; or to scare North Vietnam from attacking South, again didn't pan out. It was perhaps operationally successful, i.e. it achieved mission goals, but those goals turned out irrelevant in the end.

In my original post I said: "bombing compaigns were often ineffective, causing only strategically negilgent damage at the cost hundreds of aircraft", Rolling Thunder seems to fit the description, no? As far as air battles, I really don't know how to discuss them reasonably, I mean, like I said, both sides can be inacurate, so we can find websites that support our respective viewpoints but that woudn't prove anything, sinse they'll all be biased and argued to be propaganda...

Maxim K (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote from reknown warfare historian Gabriel Kolko-

     "If we use conventional military criteria, the Americans should have been victorious. They used 15 million tons of   
     munitions (as much as they employed in World War Two), had a vast military superiority over their enemies by any        
     standard one employs, and still they were defeated."

CompScientist (talk) 09:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, this article needs an overhaul because it's template is structured and seemingly favored for this new "revision" of history and denial of defeat.CompScientist (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The USAF took so many casualties mostly because of idiotic ROE, and we didn't go into north vietnam en force (with ground forces) because of political reasons. --MKnight9989 13:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

According to some, the reason the US didn't go to the North en force was because they were afraid of PRC entering en force as well, a la Korean War. So it was partially a military considereratin. I don't know what you mean specifically, but in my experience when people say "political reasons" they often mean "Pansy Liberal politicians didn't want to offend their commie friends in Moscow", which in this case is not completely true. Maxim K (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Rephrased to show that the result is a matter of dispute...left your reference. I'm not so sure that publication is as "unbiased as you think: from their main page: "...we lay out the consequences of 60 years of brutal Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. Feroze Sidhwa details the human price of systematic, intentional destruction of the Palestinian social and economic fabric: physical and mental deterioration, traumatized youth, a savaged environment. Nancy Glass and Reem Salahi describe the Kafka-esque conditions in which Palestinian lawyers try to defend their people in Israel's courts..." They seem to have an axe to grind. I'm not saying that he isn't a distinguished historian, but his view isn't the only one out there. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

His focus was on Vietnam, besides we need to keep this argument within the Vietnam War and the historian's is just the plain truth. I think that every war that is lost will be lost politically, especially with the United States and ultimately they go hand in hand. I do not see the reason to rephrase to "political defeat". It is true that majority of battles were won. But the main U.S. tactic was not met and largely the most important aspect, attrition. This is where it gets confusing to many people. You can keep winning battles, yet if I continue to confront you and still you can keep winning the battles(I will let you) -but if you cannot outlast me- you lose the WAR. The U.S. lost the war! Remember Vietnam was a war of attrition. The north Vietnamese army was prepared to go to war for another twenty years!!! Kolko's stance is clear and he has already answered many if not all disputes that may arise in this discussion forum. I'll take the Harvard historian and scholar over public opinion anytime. The revisionist schools are wrong in speculating that the United States could have won the war. Fact is U.S. lost and history is written. You can try to rewrite history but everyone knows the score.

You can win all 11 rounds(BATTLES) in a boxing match, but if your too tired to fight in the 12th round, I will definately knock you out and you will lose the match(WAR)!!! But did you win the match(WAR)? The answer is no. This is the legacy of the Vietnam War. And that was exactly what happened on the ground and politically for the U.S. in the Vietnam War!!! CompScientist (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

MaximK I agree wholly with your remark about the PRC entering a la Korean War. The political reasons had a lot to do with not wanting to expand an already unpopular war (think invading Iran in 2008). This is somewhat offtopic, but would LBJ actually have to ask congress to declare war on North Vietnam in order to invade, or could he have just done so using the Tonkin resolution? --MKnight9989 13:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that countries especially the U.S. no longer officially declared war since WWII. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CompScientist (talk • contribs) 02:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Very well, then. Please name a single round (battle) that the U.S. lost. Using your analogy, I would suggest one near the end of the war.

My point is that the Vietnam war was not lost because of military defeats (Even the Tet Offensive wasn't a success). It is more accurate to say the U.S. decided to let the South Vietnamese handle their own war (their corruption and incompetence is what lost versus North Vietnam, not the U.S. military). It all depends on your point of view. Furthermore, just because your source is from Harvard and/or is a historian doesn't mean he is correct (here is a perfect example of this). The fact is that the U.S. turned the war over to the South Vietnamese (whether that was a good or bad decision) and they subsequently lost it.

Third: Please try to be civil and remember to assume good faith on edits of those other editors. If you disagree with a revert, the proper step in Wikipedia is to bring it to the talk page (as I requested), not continue reverting in an edit war. As a compromise, can we simply come up with a phrase that states the status of a military loss for the U.S. is a matter of dispute in current intellectual circles? — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the use of military defeat is used by intelligent circles, it is the unintelligent circles that do not(no offense). And lets keep this discussion within the Vietnam War. First, let us deal with the facts and numbers;

  According to the info box.  The United States had ~500,000 troops in the height of the war(1,000,000) at some point.
  ~58,000 dead, ~2,000 missing, ~305,000 wounded.  Of the 305,000 wounded not many will continue to be affective.  If you
  can prove me wrong, please do so.  Now subtract.  That leaves less than half of the fighting soldiers left!  Now the U.S 
  couldn't have fought for another 20 years.  Not even 1 in as the MILITARY was completely strained. Nixon knew  
  this and I can quote him if you'd like.  Leaving the war lost and the south finally was taken.

Finally, please provide concrete responses to this post and the numbers to and how it wasn't a military defeat to end this discussion. As opinions can go on and on forever. The numbers speak for itself. Thank You. CompScientist (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Offense taken and refering to my opinion (as well as that of others) as unintelligent can hardly be taken otherwise. Saying something insulting and then saying "no offense" doesn't suddenly make it non-offensive.

Using the numbers you quoted, the fact that we had 400,000 troops in the country at any one time has no bearing on the capacity of the military as a whole. At the time, our military was comprised of somewhere near 5 million (I do not have specific numbers, but our current military is at just over 2 million now and we've cut approximately 60% since then, so, well, do the math). 300,000 may have been wounded, but the number of people that returned to duty was not stated (as an example, John Kerry got three purple hearts and was no one exceptional...at the time). That doesn't "leave ~50,000 fighting soldiers left" as you suggest because those 300,000 were shipped home and there were still 400,000 in-country. It should also be noted that the majority of the casualties came during the offensives (especially the air casualties in the air campaigns of Rolling Thunder and Linebacker II) staged near the end of the war to get us out of Vietnam in the first place. In particular, the air campaigns in 1972 crippled the North's capability to wage war and forced them to the negotiating table.

In short, those killed and injured were replaced, so, 50,000 is not the total number of soldiers left. As a modern example, the U.S. has roughly 300,000 personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I know people in the Air Force who are on their 10th tours in that area and I hardly know anyone in the Army who hasn't been there. It's a rotation, not static numbers. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, proving the point of my previous post, another tactic lost and it was a war of attrition. It is not that easy to just replace another soldier especially one that died/injured and not from one that is coming home from duty. So how long does it take to ship troops and equipment over? Resources/intelligence were lost. Moreso, during time of combat. Yes if we use the soldiers at home and sacrafice security at home. Fact is U.S. commited to 500,000 troops and that was a mistake. I can have the strongest and largest military but commit only one soldier on the field and lose! Do not confuse the war with military superiority. I am not saying the U.S. had an inferior army. Many get this confused. Again let's stay within the Vietnam War, it is only fair. But, as a modern example, The U.S. is strained in Iraq with only 160,000 troops!!! That is a fact. You cannot disagree to this, yet it contradicts your previous post. Post surge will leave Iraq with 130,000. Remember the number wounded would've continued to grow and put a strain in support and military resources. 300,000+ and growing is a lot of inactive soldiers. You can't ignore this! U.S. lost a complete war should be more accurate. Thank You.CompScientist (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to count the attrition of U.S. forces, why do you ignore the attrition of enemy forces?

It should also be noted that the arithmetic you're using can't be amortized over a different imaginary war like this. Life doesn't work that way. The number of U.S. troops in South Vietnam had been reduced considerably by 1972 when Linebacker I and II were run. Had the U.S. decided to support South Vietnam through an extended war, the math would be completely different.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Again North Vietnam was commited to fight another 20 years. The revisionists are imagining. -"if this, if that"- I go with the facts. Do you realize you made your point in the above post and then didn't follow through with your last sentence? You said, "It should also be noted that the arithmetic you're using can't be amortized over a different imaginary war like this. Life doesn't work that way." Then you said, "Had the U.S. decided to support South Vietnam through an extended war, the math would be completely different." I am done with this discussion. CompScientist (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You are going with only some of the facts and are skewing them in such a manner as to support your conclusions. No one is saying if this, if that. What they are saying is that our tactics would have been different if we wanted to stay and fight versus wanting to get out. The U.S. may be strained largely because of Iraq, but it is also because of outside commitments, a severe cut in military spending, aging equipment that is not being replaced (and was not purchased with the situation in Iraq in mind), and a host of other reasons that weren't applicable in Vietnam. I used Iraq as an example to show how troops rotated in & out, not for means of a direct comparison or analogous conclusions. Furthermore, you stated that "300,000+ and growing is a lot of inactive soldiers." Again, you assume that none of them are fighting or are a strain on the military system. In reality, many people wounded in battle returned to duty (Again, I point to John Kerry and his three purple hearts as an example). Those that didn't were subsequently discharged from the military (not without VA benefits and medical care) and were not in the military to produce your alleged drain. I concur you are using facts from this article that are undisputed, but your analysis is original research.

The conclusion over Vietnam is clouded and a simple conclusion is going to continue to be elusive because there isn't a simple answer. In previous wars there was a victor who forced the loser to sign terms of surrender. With the dawn of "police actions", there are no simple conclusions and clear winners/losers in a conflict unless someone signs terms of surrender (such as in the first Gulf War).

Second, it should be noted that you (CompScientist) have gone back and changed several of his posts. Please don't do this as it alters the conversation and the subsequent responses of others. Please read WP:talk.

Third, you are a new user. Welcome. I hope this hasn't been too much of a baptism by fire. Please take the time to read our key policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:MoS, WP:IAR, etc.). If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page.

As a last note, please use the "show preview" button to view your posts before submitting them. This will allow you to check spelling, grammar, etc. without making scores of edits. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not hit the preview button often, then do not realize there was a quick response when I am editing my discussion. As far as skewing information to derive a conclusion, aren't you doing the same? Mine is based on facts and point to a simple answer. Of course there are exceptions, but the facts are overwhelming.CompScientist (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Overall, this is a good discussion and I would like to know the real numbers(%) behind whom were injured and redeployed, and what part of the army they were in, what position they held, etc. My point is that an airforce pilot cannot replace a medic soldier on the field, or a sniper specialist, etc. 300,000 soldiers injured would drastically complicate that - draining your resources. My point is that you must take away the asumption that the U.S. is as powerful as it looks. They are but not as a whole as certain soldiers are marked and skilled in their respective division. There is no one soldier who is a pilot, commander, medic, and trained in all aspects of the military. So this picture of a "whole" and powerful army must not be taken to account when imagining that the U.S. would've continued the fight. 300,000 soldiers in all different fields INJURED changes the game. That number injured would have doubled, or even tripled. Who am I to say and imagine but the facts point in that direction. Tech wise and on paper the U.S. military looks very impressive. But I will leave it to historians whom spent decades studying the war and witnessed the actions first hand. They were there. Again 300,000 injured soldiers and growing is not as easily replacable as you think. There are more ground soldiers, than medics, etc. and 300,000 injured changed a lot in my opinion. "If" the U.S. could continue the fight they would have, but they didn't and had a REASON not to. This reason ultimately and obviously. What is so difficult about this? The facts point to a simple answer and if you wanted to you can argue and detest anything. I would like more concrete info in this wiki article about injured soldiers as this discussion has brought to my attention the importance and often neglected statistic.CompScientist (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, care should be taken to not "go beyond" what is expressed in the sources, nor use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using the information out of context. In short, stick to the sources."

I know where the template of this wiki "Vietnam War" article is originally from, and I must say, there are many changes that have gone beyond what is expressed in the sources, such as adding the term "withdrawal" all over the original source, which only recently I have removed(from the heading). I stick and provide STRONG ACADEMIC sources especially ones that I know isn't patriotic to some, yet it is still removed. Wiki itself isn't used in academic circles so this Vietnam War article should be taken with a grain of salt.CompScientist (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I never questioned your patriotism, so don't try to throw that in the mix. Your strong academic sources have a few problems with them (addressed above). Furthermore, just because some academics think something, doesn't make it true. It also doesn't make it the entire opinion of the world. If you read the Tet offensive article , you'll find that one of the outcomes of this was a shift in U.S. policy. The goal of the North Vietnamese was to reunite the country under Communist, North Vietnamese rule. The goal of the U.S. was to keep communism from advancing. As the stalemate (IMHO caused by politicians who didn't want to get their hands dirty) ensued, the U.S. decided its goals really should be to turn the defense of the country over to the locals (and I concur). Goals in war change all the time as victories, defeats, and losses mount. One goal of WWII was to conquer Germany. Instead, we split it with the Russians. Did we fail? Well, maybe, but it depends on when you define the goals.

All I am saying is that it is not as simple as "one side won" and "one side lost" when you don't have an official declaration of war (a perfect example of legislative cowardice since WWII ended). When politics and making "the other guy" look worse than you are more important than winning/losing the battles, war devolves into a series of events that can be parsed and pasted in any way a politician wants. Furthermore, there are many scholars who consider Vietnam a draw with the U.S., but a loss by the South Vietnamese due to corruption. How it is defined for the U.S. is simply a matter of perspective. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fact is most countries, especially U.S. no longer declares war after WWII. This and you are a classical example of trying to undermine a war the U.S. lost, it is obvious for everyone to see. Denial. You provide arguments for "operation rolling thunder" and you were shot down with facts. Communism fell to South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia. This has been discussed before, just scroll up. Simply put. South vietnam existed, then after the war, no longer existed, correct? My point exactly. CompScientist (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Please keep your comments on the subject and confine responses to the discussion. Calling me names doesn't help discussions.
2. What you deem "obvious" is a gross oversimplification and ignores many nuances of combat and politics.
3. I don't deny the figures and outcomes you stated (XXX dead, XXX injured, Vietnam fell after we left), but those are the facts. The U.S. "suffered a military defeat", the Tet Offensive was a victory for the North Vietnamese, etc. are conclusions that are not necessarily supported by the facts. These topics are debated in educated circles. Simply putting such a clarification in the text certainly is acceptable and prudent. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Facts? I have provided many, academic sources to my edits, yet you still rebuff that. I have provided facts from a reknown Vietnam historian, yet you say he is wrong, You have only merely provided statements that just undermines this part of history. Why not concentrate on the number theory I presented above? John Kerry and his purple hearts is an exception to the 300,000 injured and how that number drastically changed the logistics of the war. Who is ignoring this? Here's some more revealing info: Where does it state that on January 14,1975 Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger testified before Congress stating that the U.S. is not living up to its promise to South Vietnam of "severe retaliatory action to North Vietnam" in the event North Vietnam violates the Paris peace treaty. Where does it state that on January 21,1975 that President Ford stated that the U.S. is unwilling to re-enter the war. Where in this article does it say that North Vietnam did indeed violate the Paris Peace Accords of 1973 and that the U.S did nothing. No mention of it whatsoever.CompScientist (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Both of your arguments are moot. Most of the dying are done by the Vietnamese, and it doesn't really matter if the Americans are defeated since they are not directly involved. The war ended in North Vietnamese victory and South Vietnamese defeat. Please don't make this article any more American-centric than it already is. The lead sentence clearly says the war was mainly between North Vietnam and South Vietnam, then suddenly it claims that the Americans lost. The South Vietnamese side lost. DHN (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that your stance is the same as Nixon's, which he stated that he didn't want to be the first u.s. president to lose a war, so his propaganda following the war was and is a biased view, the same view that your supporting, yet the whole world doesn't see it that way, how is u.s not directly involved you say? that is POV. so this has been discussed before thanks for contributing.CompScientist (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Are you claiming that the US was more involved than South Vietnam? You can't go around in the lead sentence saying that the war was between North and South Vietnam and then in the next sentence saying that the US lost the war. Whether the US lost or won the war, it has to be stated after mentioning the outcome for South Vietnam. DHN (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

reverted to use "total" as stated by kolko's book and was what the intro looked like a month ago before continuous edits by wiki editors.71.156.55.167 (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"the South Vietnam side lost due to incompetence and corruption..." The reality is that South Vietnam was left in a completely untenable strategic position in 1973, which had been aggravated after the Easter Offensive of 1972 resulted in the loss of critical strategic territories, particularly in the Central Highlands. The fundamental strategic problem was that the NVA had essentially annexed the border areas of Laos and Cambodia, giving it access to an immense border area of South Vietnam - - including areas only 100 miles (or less) from the capital city of Saigon. If North Vietnam had abided by the rules of international law, and had not systematically violated the neutrality of Laos and Cambodia, the North Vietnamese would have only faced the South Vietnamese along the narrow DMZ zone. And South Vietnam's strategic position would have been tenable. After 1973, even a well run South Vietnamese state would have been in a dire strategic situation. [Douglas Hawes, 3/7/08] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.15.244 (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

†

What is the point of the daggers next to the "commanders" names? A dagger usually indicates a footnote, but there is no corresponding footnote in the article.. 213.48.73.89 (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Deceased during the period of the conflict. William Avery (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I might be ignorant on this, but in this case is the placing of the † appropriate given that most if not all of these denoted fatalities that had no relation to the actual combat. I suppose when I see † I instantly assume a level of causality, that the fatality was caused by the war. I conceed it might be correct, but I think it might confuse things a bit. Someone without prior knowledge might think that JFK wasn't really assassinated in TX, but on a trip to Viet Nam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.82.48.137 (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree the "†" should be only for people who were Killed In Action. LCpl (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Defeat of American Forces

After reading the long debate on this talk page between CompScientist and BQZip01 I'd just like to quote the following (from Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines) for everyone's benefit:

"Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material (for an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikibate proposal)." (emphasis added)

I realize that both of you have been debating with an eye toward improving the article, but I think that your debate has become less and less helpful to that end. It seems clear that the question is controversial (yes, in spite of it being "obvious" to CompScientist). I want to remind everyone that we don't have to decide the debate in order to write the article. In fact, we shouldn't try, since as everyone here will already be aware, Wikipedia is a tertiary source.

I think it's clear, at least, that there is a debate, and that should be enough. You both seem to have sources for your viewpoints, let's put language in the article that notes the debate over whether the U.S. "lost" or "withdrew" or what-have-you, and cite the competing sources (or better yet, cite some sources that themselves note the controversy). At any rate, that will hopefully make the article more stable, because it will probably make people a little more squeamish about reverting back and forth from one version to another, which is going on even as I write this. Torgo (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I find this to be an interesting quote, 'During the Vietnam War, colleges, universities and seminaries lowered standards to keep students in school for as long as possible. While the effects cannot be measured precisely, the lowering of standards in our graduate schools and seminaries fostered a generation of scholars, spiritual leaders, and politicians who believe that there can be competing truths and that several truths can be valid simultaneously. With the loss of truth has come a loss of certainty. What does American stand for?' CompScientist (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This article has been a magnet for anti-american pov pushers on the wikipedia for years. It gets worse every time I look at it; more and more facts get swamped out in favor of unnecessary secondary sources and their biased analyses. I take comfort in the fact that idiots waste countless hours of their lives spin-doctoring this mess that no one could possible follow anyway. However, I see that we are now focusing on trying to instill the reader with a singular take-home message. Cute. 75.11.182.180 (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This article has been a magnet for american-biased pov pushers on the wikipedia for years. It gets worse every time I look at it; more and more facts get swamped out in favor of unnecessary secondary sources and their biased analyses. I take comfort in the fact that idiots waste countless hours of their lives spin-doctoring this mess that no one could possible follow anyway. However, I see that we are now focusing on trying to instill the reader with a singular take-home message. Cute. 75.7.149.115 (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The End of war chapter

The End of the War, 1975 -chapter has same text three times "On December 13, 1974 North Vietnam violated the Paris peace treaty and tested President Ford's resolve by attacking Phuoc Long Province in South Vietnam... etc Teveten (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed text which was repeated several times and re-organized in chronological order--Teveten (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How about the sub-article of Vietnam War in popular culture?

A'la Soviet war in Afghanistan in popular culture etc? --HanzoHattori (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ace of spades video

I'm sure it's interesting, but it's much too large and prominent for placement in a general topic article isn't it? --Bachcell (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

info box

Should not the info box also say at least? “American withdrawal from region”, or some such statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 19:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We already explain that all parts of Indochina came under Communist control, so I think the point is evident. And beyond Indochina there was no US withdrawal so the addition would not add much in my view. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That is why I said or some such. American withdrawl was total, it was not only millitary but economic and political (even to the extent of having no diplomatic realtions for, what, two decades). It was also a major faliure of US foreign policy. As such I feel that the info box effectly ignores the degree of faliure the US sufferd.[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)]]

seato

Should the article not mention that the war (at least partly) caused the disolution of the seato alliance.[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)]]

Gulf of Tonkin never happened

According to a report by the NSA, described in this article. Maybe someone more familiar with this article wants to make the necessary changes? Murderbike (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

this one may be better. Murderbike (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

First Gulf of Tonkin incident (Aug 2, 1964) did happened, it's well known fact. Second incident (Aug 4, 1964) didn't happened, at least it seems that North Vietnamese didn't participated in it. 195.248.189.182 (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

it became necessary to destroy the village...

This phrase is autenthical and was said by Maj. Booris from 9th Infantry Division after the battle. See here for the full story. 195.248.189.182 (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Last correct version

The references in the current version doesn't show correcly (at least for me). The last version which works is: 19:59, 18 January 2008 ClueBot (Talk | contribs) m (129,133 bytes). I don't want to revert to that version because all later edits (serious or vandalism) disappears. Ulner (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to fix this problem, see the history for details. Ulner (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Rise of the Khmer Rouge

The victory of the communist North Vietnamese and the unification of Vietnam did not give rise to the communist Khmer Rouge regime. The Khmer Rouge were an independent communist force who fought their own war civil war in Cambodia unaided by the Vietnamese. In fact, the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge governments were constantly at ends and it was the Vietnamese army that invaded Cambodia and put an end to the Khmer Rouge genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.244.67 (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Did America really lose the war?

Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but I personally don't think America lost the war, i mean, in 1973 north vietnam sued for peace, just because Americas ally the south was defeated two years later in a seperate war, doesn't mean America was defeated, it's absolute nonsense to think that, not one north vietnamese soldier stepped foot on American soil!58.107.180.9 (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there was a big fight over that and the matter just got left in this mess with random quotes by not-particularly-notable sources getting placed all over to make a point.

Seems to me if people want to play semantics and say "I mean defeat as in they ultimately failed to achieve their objective", then you can solve all the confusion and arguments by saying "they ultimately didn't achieve their objective". But of course that's not negative-sounding enough, or something. 71.128.203.12 (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No matter which way you look at it, you did lose, Perhaps more politically that military. Saying that you didn’t is as stupid as saying America could of won its independence without the help of the French. (80.42.245.103 (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

Please don't write "you", write exactly what you mean, that is, United States. Ulner (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and don't use "could of" either. 71.128.203.12 (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am speaking the truth. The US did lose this war politically most of all. (And if you really think that you would have won your independence without the French then you really don’t know your history).(80.42.133.29 (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

Nobody cares if America lost this war militarily, politically or stupidly. When the war is lost it is lost, no matter what the reason. If South Vietnam is democratic, peaceful and free country today? If yes - then America really didn't lost this war. If no - sorry. The winner takes it all. 195.248.189.182 (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. didn't even fight in the war. This conflict was entirely fought by the American Empire for the sake of furthering its agenda against communism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.108.25.108 (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC) no one ever wins wars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.36.10 (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If one considers the Second Indochina War dispassionately, and within the context and larger scope of the Cold War, it was something the U.S. neither won or lost. South Vietnam's capitalist allies withdrew from the war in the early 1970s. The communist North Vietnamese government and their VPA continued recieving ongoing material, financial, and personnel support from their allies. In 1975 the VPA successfully invaded and defeated the ARVN. This occurred several years after the U.S. Congress withdrew U.S. combat forces and the material support which was necessary for the South Vietnamese forces to prevail against the communist invasion. The rest of "Indochina" (Cambodia and Laos) was also overwhealed in 1975 by their own communist insurgencies with the help of the VPA and other communist allies. From the U.S. government's perspective, the Vietnam War was a theater of war within the larger Cold War, which was ultimately ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

But if you consider Vietnam War in the context of Vietnam War, then it was lost. On a really grand theme of things nothing really matters, including Cold War, that why it makes sense to evaluate these things within their own context. Maxim K (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well in all fairness, the U.S.'s objective was to secure South Vietnam's independence, which, when the war ended for the United States in the Cease-Fire, was accomplished. Saying the U.S. lost is obviously politically biased and is pushing your PoV. Dunnsworth (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Its objectives were (upon intervention). A free RVN in 1973 it still was. No communist influence in RVN (in accordance with the Truman doctoring) not achieved, in fact specifically given up as part of the Paris peace accords. To drive PRVN forces from RVN (and specifically the central highlands) not achieved, and indeed in 1973 the PRVN actually controlled more of RVN then they did when the US intervened. Moreover the war did not end for the US in 1973, not only did they continue to supply RVN with supplies, but they were also treaty obliged to provide direct military assistance if the PRVN violated the cease fore, which the US did not. Thus the war only ended for them because they reneged upon an international agreement to defend RVN independence. We shall also have to mention the abandonment of the embassy, the US was actually driven out of the country in 1975.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)]]

What was driven out? A small party of ambassadors? The Communists didn't force us to sign the cease-fire, it was mutual. The NVA didn't threaten us with severe loss if we didn't sign the agreement. All that Charlie did was stab RVN in the back when we left, which probably was going to happen anyway but the point is we were not defeated, we were actually ready to drive all the way to Hanoi at one point. But the military just has to do as it's told, the politicians make the decisions, if you want to blame anyone, blame them.Prussian725 (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course the US was driven out, what was the level of US influenve and presence in Vietnam after 1975? zero, they had none, they could not even force the North to release thousands of US prisioners (an abadonment/surrender if ever there was one). moreover the US fled in some panic (and in the process abandoned thousands of it's supporters). Numbers do ot mattrer what matters is the totla and abject faliure of the US to protect it's interests after 1973, or even to force the North to obey the cease fire restrictions. Akll the US did was to say, were out now and notjing will drag us back, which would no doubt have happened anyway, the US would have just given more and more concessions untill they could pull out (such as escalating the 'Vietnamisasion' program). Who was ready to drive on Hanoi at one point? who was willing to send in the troops needed (specificly th National Guard) to have provided the aditional forces to achive this, and assuming that we did not end up with just another Chosin. In order to blame some one there has to be something to blame them for, more over I was not aware we were aportioning blame, just trying to decide if there is anythig to blame someone for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 15:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Astonishingly US Centered

Reading the introduction, you would think the only people affected by this war were Americans. It boggles the mind. Surely this article should be about the Vietnamese, as the war primarily involved them? They didn't just loose a few thousand young men (at a rate of about 20 or so to every American), they lost a good few million old men, old women, young women, and children too. Their material losses were more than tax dollars spent on helicopters and tanks, they were their schools, their hospitals, their crops, their own homes. I mean sure, there aren't any sad films about the horror experienced by a solider with the ARVN or Veitcong and the Vietnamese were too busy struggling to survive to go on any peace marches or get high and listen to Jimi Hendrix, but it wouldn't be very fair to use any of that as a rational for excluding them from this article right? Woscafrench (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, not to mention Laos (which Nixon said he would "bomb back into the stone age") and Cambodia. Basically the Vietnam war was about testing US weapons systems on a defenceless population using black US soldiers as patsies and affordable losses. The most important thing from the point of view of Washington was the development of chemical warfare corporations like Monsanto, plus the chance to test out all types of anti-personnel weaponry in a fraught situation. The war was started deliberately by the US military with the faked "Gulf of Tonkin" incident and propagated with greater and greater viciousness by the "saintly" JFK and his successors. Millions of civilians were slaghtered to no benefit for no genuine geo-political or anti-communist advantage. 86.141.142.150 (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ho Chi Minh declared war on South Vietnam in 1959, long before the Gulf of Tonkin incident (1964). Retired Air Force General Curtis LeMay was the one who said "bomb them back into the stone age." You should read up on Vietcong atrocities such as Dak Son at the Massacre at Hue. Kauffner (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You might want to think about citing references for your claims. I have many relatives that fought in Vietnam, so please try not to make us look like the Nazis in the Spanish Civil War. 4-25-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And what we're supposed to honor them? I mean take a look at the My Lai massacre and say they didn't act like Nazis. LOTRrules (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, if you want to get into that the nazis had WAY more atrocities than we ever did. Malmedy is just one of MANY, and all of the massacres that happened to the Slavs, Poles, Russians...etc., outweigh the U.S. by a long shot. There are always atrocities in war and they should not be excused, but soldiers do as they're told, nothing more, nothing less. If you want to start flinging mud at anyone then throw some at the politicians of that day who refused to allow the military a victory. Soldiers do not sit down and form a committee and decide if they want to fight a certain war or how they want to fight it. They do as they are told PERIOD. When they step out of line they should be severely punished. And secondly, Yes, I honor every one of the men and women who go off to another country to fight for my freedom and the freedom of those around me and don't you EVER slander the name of the United States military unless you have the guts to get out there and be with them as they spend countless days away from their families and homes getting disfigured, paralyzed, and killed for people they will never even meet. People like you make me want to vomit. You just want to sit back and piss on my countries military when you won't lift a finger to help out a country in need. and when we don't, we get criticized for it because we are supposed to take care of everyone and if anyone falls on hard times it is somehow George Bush's and the U.S.'s fault right? So make up your mind, do you want us helping people out or NOT. There are Iraqi's that, before we intervened, had NEVER voted in an election. "Those who have long enjoyed such priveleges as we forget, in time, that men died to win them." Think about that while you sit in your free country without wondering every day of your life whether or not you will lose your home, family, or life. If Americans are so terrible then why does everyone come to us for help? YOU MAKE ME SICK.Prussian725 (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia communist propaganda tool??

Seriously, American never lost vietnman, which was never technically even a war but ignoraning that for the time being: America left vietnam with the agreement that north vietnam would not further try to invade south vietname in "reunification". Because the north later invaded anyway does not mean America lost the previous war. In fact, America won the war as clear as the very pen on the paper specifically in relatio to vietnam(the picture because much more confused when including other countries and activities that occurred in proximity to vietnam) Additionally, rhe intro is loaded with ridiculous babble and factoids, such as comparing the total amount of arms used compared to World wat II and other such nonsequitur agenda laced nonsense. 66.190.29.150 (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

So will you be making useful contributions and editing the article with sources and verifiable information, or continue to complain about how factually incorrect the article is? If you want, you can snip relevant portions of the text you find in dispute and paste them here for analysis. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

To the original poster. A withdrawal without completing a military objective is just as bad as a defeat, as technically it is one. The US aim was to stop the spread of communism to the South, which in the end, failed. Due to public support dropping and heavy casualties sustained in battles, the US saw there was no point in fighting a war it could not win anyway and withdrew. Ultimate political and military aim, failed. Defeat. That's like saying that the Mexicans won the Battle of Gonzales. Even though their aim was to retrieve cannon, they withdrew, does that make it a victory? No, they failed their objective and withdrew. Even though the US employed as many munitions used in World War 2, and did have a clear superiority over its enemy, it was still defeated. Nearly all the soldiers say they were defeated. Politicians say the US was defeated. All those people admitting to a defeat, and yet many still believe it was a victory? It's also like saying the American War of Independence was a victory for Britain and its allies. Though two armies surrendered, the colonists did not re-capture New York and they were badly mauled throughout the war by the onrush of the British and Hessian armies. You can't say it was a victory, you could argue a military stalemate on the grounds that the British still held New York and many naval fights against the French were won after Yorktown, but you wouldn't get very far with it. Ultimately, the British and Hessian withdrawal from all of America led to a defeat, as a democratic presidency replaced monarchy. The same as Vietnam. Communism replaced democracy. End result of the Vietnam War = failed. (Trip Johnson (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

Typo in article

Under the "Fall of Saigon" segment, it reads "A tank crashed through the gates of the Presidential Palace and at 11:30 a.m. local time with the NFL flag raised above it". That should probably read "NLF Flag".

Math correction

The introduction states that there were 1.4 million military deaths and that only 6% of these deaths were suffered by the US military. Elsewhere the article places US military deaths at 58209 with 2000 missing. If we assume the 2000 missing were also killed and that 1.4 million military deaths is correct, then the percentage of military deaths suffered by the US was 4.3%, not 6%. I suggest "less than 5%" be substituted for the 6% figure.jonslow1Jonslow1 (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Simple grammar

"Johnson had a difficult time with American foreign policy makers, specifically Harriman and Acheson, who to Johnson spoke a different language" should be "Johnson had a difficult time with American foreign policy makers, specifically Harriman and Acheson, TO WHOM Johnson spoke a different language"

In support of the 'this article is terrible' suggestion, even simple grammatical correctness has been thrown out. For any educated person, reading this kind of mistake is a painful experience. Costers(talk) 20:28, 25 February 2008 (GMT)

Be bold and edit :) seicer | talk | contribs 20:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Richard Nixon and nukes

Is it true that Nixon wanted to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This option was discussed under Johnson "in the event Communist China entered the war in force" (like in the Korean war), according to this. 88.217.94.193 (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The Vietnam War on the CIA website

I discovered a stash of interesting documents via an Asia Times article. The main article is not editable, but this link deserves to be included in the "Weblinks" section:

• CIA and the Vietnam Policymakers: Three Episodes 1962-1968, Center for the Study of Intelligence

Episode 1 deals with the Kennedy years (1961-65), Part 2 details the US-sanctioned coup against Diem and the decisions that lead to the bombing of North Vietnam, Part 3 covers '67-68 and the Tet offensive. 88.217.94.193 (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Emphasize South Vietnamese achievements more...

I think more of a mention should be made of the tentative successes of South Vietnamese nationalism after Tet. Lewis Sorley in "A Better War" refers to how South Vietnam was finally able to proceed with full mobilization after Communist atrocities in the cities of South Vietnam became widely known in the aftermath of the Tet Offensive to millions of South Vietnam's population. The terrible events at Hue in 1968 might finally have rallied the Buddhists to the South Vietnamese government, since Hue, the old imperial capital, was a center of Buddhist culture. The Catholics had been stalwart supporters of the Saigon government from the beginning, but the Saigon government had had a problemmatical relationship with the Buddhists. But this probably changed after Tet.

Also, South Vietnam's military achievements in the last years of the war should be more emphasized. In the Laos incursion of 1971, ARVN unfortunately ran up against well fortified positions with massive ordnance. In the Easter Offensive, however, ARVN forces dug in their heels and fought hard, particularly in the battles that culminated at An Lac. Most of the emphasis in the article regarding the Easter Offensive is given to American air power, but ARVN forces fought hard on the ground as well.

In 1974, South Vietnam's armed forces lost 40,000 men on the battlefield - - after American ground forces had completely exited the arena. The year 1974 was inconclusive on the battlefield, but the ARVN held its own in various engagements that year.

I am glad that attention is given to the ARVN division that in April 1975 held up the attacking NVA forces for two weeks, just before the fall of Saigon. One point that is not mentioned - - the ARVN forces serving for a long duration along the DMV were allowed to bring up their families to stay with them during their long deployments. This was one of the causes of the catastrophic collapse in March 1975, when these families crowded the roads trying to flee from the collapsing front, making military operations impossible.

In the article, little or no mention is made of the controversial Phoenix Program, involving assassination of the members of the VC shadow government. And no mention is made of the atrocities against civilians conducted by the VC during the Tet Offensive. I believe that these events should have been mentioned.

It is clear that American military actions during the war were heavy handed. As Sorley pointed out in "A Better War," a more political war could have been pursued as far back as 1964-5 if the position of the Army Chief of Staff post had gone to Abrams or the other main candidates instead of Westmoreland. All of the other candidates supported a more political approach to the war, instead of the heavy handed approach that Westmoreland favored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.15.244 (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

One important addition to the literature of the war that does emphasize the South Vietnamese angle is Zalin Grant's "Facing the Phoenix." This work focuses on Tran Ngoc Chau, an important South Vietnamese politican that Grant argues was the most innovative South Vietnamese thinker of the war. Very little has been written about Chau, and Grant's work serves as a healthy corrective. Tran Ngoc Chau was a favorite of Daniel Ellsberg and John Paul Vann during the war, due to his dissident views, but he has subsequently been forgotten in most histories of the war. The significance of "Facing the Phoenix" is further bolstered by the fact that Grant was one of the very few American journalists who mastered the Vietnamese language during the war, and so had unique access to the Vietnamese people and to their outlook on the conflict. Douglas Hawes, 3/7/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.15.244 (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

One significant achievement of ARVN should be noted that was left out above. During the Tet Offensive of 1968, VC and NVA strategists had calculated that South Vietnamese forces would not put up much of a fight in the major cities. But in fact, ARVN forces offered up determined resistance in South Vietnam's cities during Tet. American commanders were impressed by ARVN's performance in urban combat during the Tet crisis.

[[Douglas Hawes, 3/7/08] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.15.244 (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Response: I agree, please approve the article by mentioning these facts. Thank you. twinqletwinqle (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree we should emphasis the south more, but we should not move away from the fact that the U.S. escalated the war, that is most important, that is why it is in the lead and the U.S. has been emphasized with the support of the south, not the other way around, because the U.S. was agressive in their policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.166.68.25 (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

They might have escalated the war, on US home-front. The War was in escalation-mode in Viet Nam. How many ARVN soldiers died compared to US? The question begs, Who was supporting who? How many US soldiers went to Reeducation camps? You do realise that your sources are English sources. How many Vietnamese people would have written those articles? The sources out there are incredibly bias. It was a war that was fought in Viet Nam. South Vietnamese people were fighting for their country and lost their country, draped themselves in their flag and committed suicide. The US lost nothing. This article is incredibly insulting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.10.204 (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Most famous photo of the war

Why do we not have the most famous and indeed iconic photo of the war in the article? 86.141.142.150 (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean?98.196.76.228 (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Americancentrism redux

Why does the lead always try to emphasize the American aspect? The US withdrew in 1973, and the war ended on April 30, 1975 with the Fall of Saigon and the subsequent dissolution of South Vietnam. Any talk of the outcome of the war must mention North and South Vietnam first, then United States later. DHN (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Your rhetoric is biased. Read and research the war. It is known as the "American War" in Vietnam for a reason(not the South Vietnamese War), the PBS source says "America suffered it's first defeat". The Encyclopedia Britannica source says "America came to terms with its defeat". It goes on and on. Coincidently your rhetoric is American centric in trying to hide the fact that the U.S. was defeated.75.4.3.134 (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not denying that the US lost, but that's like saying "the US lost the 1998 World Cup" in the lead to 1998 FIFA World Cup; of course it did, but isn't it more relevant to mention the two teams in the final? Both of the sources you mention was discussing the war with respect to the US. The PBS source was about "America's longest war", and the EB source was talking about "America and its defeat." DHN (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's known in Viet Nam, by the Government as the "American War" because it's political propaganda. Ask the people of Viet Nam what it is called. Those encyclopedias (Britannica... etc )and sources you have mentioned are written by who? Obviously not Vietnamese! Bias?! Even till this day, we are discovering more and more about Wars fought long ago. Britannica couldn't even tell you the full story on the Viet Minh, let alone the War. Not only did the US withdrew in 1973 but, the war was being waged for at least 6 years before they even entered. Many US troops had no idea what they were doing in the War. Whilsts the ARVN knew exactly what they were in the war for. I move for this article to reflect the aforementioned, by the person who started this discussion topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.10.204 (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

---

To be neutral, it would probably be called the "Vietnam-American war", like the "Mexican-American war".

If you're living in one of these two countries, then for shorthand, the name of that country can be dropped, because it's understood implicitly.

For this article to present a world view, it would need to have the names of both countries.

What is the naming convention, or historical precedent? It seems to me that wars are named primarily according to who's fighting, much like a sports contest. Battles or conflicts are named by where the conflict occurs, particularly if the conflict, battle or war is not in either country. This is also similar in sports!

Good discussion DHN, et.al.. Mikiemike (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)--

---

Mainly it focuses on teh US because most editors are from teh US, hardly any from VN, and people are using this article as a football for their opinions on foreign policy etc. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not just call it the Vietnam Conflict?Prussian725 (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Which should be that - The term Vietnam Conflict is often used to refer to events THAT took place between 1959 and April 30, 1975

ietnam War, also known as the Second Indochina War, and in Vietnam as the American War, occurred from 1959 to April 30, 1975. The term Vietnam Conflict is often used to refer to events which took place between 1959 and April 30, 1975. The war was fought between the Communist-supported Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the United States supported Republic of Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brw3sbc (talk • contribs) 15:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of image in the article

Hi guys, the image is an orphan and needs to find a home. I'm not sure exactly where it was originally used, but this image is a featured picture and generally cannot continue to be unless it is used in article(s). It has been nominated for delisting as a result. I didn't want to barge in here and insert it somewhere arbitrarily without first mentioning it on the talk page. If one of the regular editors could find a home for it here or elsewhere, that would be appreciated. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

god that guy looks like he's 13!--AtTheAbyss (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions in an Article?

I do not believe the following quote should be found in the 'Fall of Saigon' subsection of the 'End of the War' subsection, it runs counter to the 'don't ask rhetorical questions in the middle of the article without answering them or justifying why they are there' policy of Wikipedia. This might be an intriguing quote, and an interesting conversation piece, but it should not be here.
"Though American equipment still stocked Saigon's markets, the Americans were gone. They counted nearly 60,000 dead and more than 300,000 wounded. It was their first defeat. The promised end of the tunnel had brought not light but a new uncertainty, new questions: what was America's role in the world? What were the lessons of Vietnam?"[109]
70.70.219.180 (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"Result" flaw

on the page it says that the U.S. was defeated and that Vietnam was united under a Communist state. This is wrong, first of all the U.S. signed a cease fire with North Vietnam which ended the war with no winner, second of all Vietnam was united under a single communist state AFTER the war ended, we should fix the Result flaw in the article

Dunnsworth (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, they do teach some stuff in modern American schools don't they. The US was DEFEATED pure and simple. You wouldn't like it if I went round saying that the American War of Independence was a British victory would you? (Trip Johnson (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

It was NOT defeated, a cease fire was signed, and South Vietnam and North Vietnam remained seperate nations. No country was defeated and no country won. What was very ironic was that there was sighns of attack but no one attacked and so this is why Vietnam was separated; it had no straight government! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnsworth (talk • contribs) 16:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

North Vietnam ended up in better position then before (they've occupied northern positions in South Vietnam) while the South ended up in a worse position (the US cut their aid, while USSR and PRC still supplied the North) so the North did win either way. And South lost. Maxim K (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

well i still stand that imformation about the cease fire should be added in the result category and it should be added that the victory was over South Vietnam not the U.S.

User:Dunnsworth  —Preceding comment was added at 01:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 

Why is Canada listed as a belligerent?

Canada did not send any troops. Some Canadians fought, but did so of their own volition, not under the auspices of the Canadian government. Josh (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Also curious about this. Canada should be removed from the list of "anti-Communist forces." If anything, Canada's stance against participation in the war (as it is with the present Iraq conflict) is seen as a stark difference in foreign policy and philosophy with the United States by Canadians. I am removing Canada from the list of belligerents.Wyldkat

if you look at the Canada and the Vietnam War article, Canada was a major supplier of weapons to the U.S during the war & 30,000 (estimated) Canadians went south to serve in the U.S military (110 died in Vietnam), also Canada's foreign policy during the war was not anti war, however I agree that Canada shouldn't be listed since the direct involvement is limited to a small contingent of gatekeepers in 1973. Thisglad (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

The info box on the right places the Communist Forces at 520,000. It then places the casualties at 560,000 dead/missing, with 600,000+ wounded (just from the NFL) and a further 5646 in dead/wounded from the PRC. While these figures already fail to match up, the total casualty figures denote severe mathematical failings by placing the number of dead at over 1,000,000 and the total of wounded at 604,000. To have twice as many casualties as you have soldiers seems remarkably odd. Perhaps this section should be clarified. It was also noted by von Clausewitz that in most engagements there is usually a ratio of around 1:4 in terms of dead:wounded, a figure which is not represented here. While of course this is not fact and mere hypothesis, it is relatively "traditional" to have higher numbers of wounded than dead. Would someone be able to clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.72.110.11 (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

the Strength at any given time is difficult to assess because the communist forces recruitment would make up for any casualties, the north Vietnamese army was one of the largest in the world by the mid 1970s Thisglad (talk) 06:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Was US forign policy defeated?

Is this true? For example Noam Chomsky's view is that the US scored a victory by destroying South Vietnamese nationalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Noam_Chomsky#Opposition_to_the_Vietnam_War

Twotdot24334 (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky isn't someone whose opinion can be trusted, to put it diplomatically... Maxim K (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Maxim, the academic world disagrees with you somewhat about Chomsky, where his contributions in the fields of linguistics, cognitive psychology and politics are very highly regarded. This is the main reason why he is the world's most cited living author. Paulzon (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, linguistics and cognitive psycology, perhaps, but his political views are bit umm... strange: he, for example, tried to whitewash Cambodian Khmer Rouge, and claimed to have disliked Stalinism but admired the Stalinist North Vietnam. In general he appears to like the less developed anti-western regiemes, even some rather atrocious ones, but accuses the US and to a lesser extent USSR of being terrorists in cases where their violence is much more limited. He also occasionally claimed that US media was/is very propagandistic (which is perhaps true) but didn't seem too bothered by the much more propaganda in the media of, say, North Vietnam again. Many of my profs were a bit suspicious of him, and some didn't like him at all, so I'm guessing "the academic world" is not homogeneous when it comes to it's view of Chomsky, especially his politics.

"Chomsky isn't someone whose opinion can be trusted, to put it diplomatically... " that does not really address the argument.Twotdot24334 (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, given Chomsky's opposition to the US involvement in Vietnam, I wonder if he really did call it a victory...

Maxim K (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A cease fire was negotiated and South Vietnam was still in existance with the terms of the treaty, so I'd say that the U.S. Foreign Policy suceeded —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnsworth (talk • contribs) 01:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I honestly doubt that the US policy was to sacrifice 58000 Americans (not to mention money and equipment) just to buy South Vietnam a few more years of existance, but if it was, it was obviously successful. A bit like a suicidal kid is successful in killing himself... When the goal is really stupid, it may be better if it fails. Maxim K (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Maxim K, Hi think you've misunderstood Chomsky's argument. He argues that the primary goal of US foreign policy was to destroy the nationalist ambitions of South-Vietnamese peasants rather than to ensure the maintenance of the south-Vietnamese government which was a secondary aim. The US did this by saturation bombing, driving the rural population into camps etc. He argues that despite the victory of the North-Vietnamese military the US policy was successful because south Vietnamese society was destroyed. To be sure if the US had wanted to defeat North Vietnam it could have done, it was after all the greatest military power in the world. It seems to me a convincing argument which at least casts some doubt on the notion that American policy was defeated. Twotdot24334 (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I still fail to see what was the policy that was successful, sure enouth South Vietnamese nationalism was crushed, to be replaced with Communist North Vietnamese nationalism, how does it help the US, and again, if they did want to destroy South Vietnam, why didn't they just let the NVA do it? What did the US do to South Vietnam that the Communists whouldn't have? And why would they prefer Communist Nationalism to a Capitalist one? As for US being unable to defeat Vietnam despite being greatest military power, they can't defeat the Taliban either (who now control most of Afghani territory) or Al Sadr, and he is just cleric with a private army, for crying out loud. It seems the Americans tend to um, overestimate their war-making capability, they are good at killing a lot of people, but not neccessarily in a strtegically useful ways, and it was as true in Vietnam as it is now. Maxim K (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't deny that the U.S. was defeated in Vietnam, but the war did successfully divert Soviet resources from other projects. The Vietcong got along with very limited supplies, but the Hochiminh Trail really ground the stuff up. For every ton of supplies the Vietcong recieved, 100 tons had to be sent through Haiphong. The communists could have done worse things. Che Guevara had tons of explosives he wanted to blow up around New York City. Vietnam didn't have much strategic value, certainly not compared to the oil fields of Indonesia, which also considered as a target for communist subversion.Kauffner (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It also diverted massive US resources, and it could be argued far more (especially in terms of manpower) then the Soviet Union. Indeed the US was strategically massively overstretched by Vietnam, in a way the Soviets were not. Moreover the conflict was a major political disaster for US foreign policy. Not only (and as early as 1968) did it alter people’s perception of the US (abroad) but also saw the dissolution of SEATO (at least in part due to the ‘un-declared’ nature of the war). As well as the major political impact in the US (which the Soviets would have to wait until Afghanistan to see). Both in terms of undermining peoples confidence and respect in their leaders but also in undermining 40 years of stated US policy. It is true that the political question within the US is complicated by other factors (such as the civil rights and female emancipation questions) but Vietnam (especially after the ending of drafts deferments, not I suspect entirely coincidental) made those who traditional supported without question those in power to question them. [[Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)]]

Yes, the U.S. was defeated in Vietnam, no denying that. But if the U.S. hadn't fought, the Soviets would put their resources into some other project. That project would have diverted U.S. resources as well. Do you think that the communists cared about Vietnamese unity or about the peasants of South Vietnam? The point was to make trouble for the U.S.

You talk about loss of respect, but that would have been even more true if the U.S. had let South Vietnam fall without a fight. A major motive for intervening in Vietnam was the feeling that we hadn't done enough to help the Hungarians back in 1956. Anti-Americanism isn't all about Vietnam. Nixon was attacked by a rock throwing mob in Venezuela in 1958. The main reason foreigners resent the U.S. is because we're No. 1 and they're not.

The response of the U.S. public opinion to war generally follows the same pattern as in Vietnam: broad initial support followed by gradually declining support. Soon after World War I, the U.S. public came to believe that it was all a big mistake, even though we had won the war. Vietnam was our longest war, so the full cycle of support and rejection happened while the war was still going on. The enemy was able to continue fighting for at least a little longer than the U.S. public was willing to. Kauffner (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course the aim objective was to draw the US into a protracted and bloody conflict, and in this they succeed. Far better then the US succeeded in its aim.

I do not agree that the US would have lost respect anyway. Venezuela had problems of it’s own (as did the whole of Latin America) which were separate from Vietnam. So to with France (going back to before the end of WW2). but the Vietnam war exported this dislike of US policy to countries that had been far less critical of US policy to this date. [[Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)]]

Average of Vietnamese fatalities

Are there any reliable estimates for the average age of Vietnamese fatalities? This would include, naturally, civilians. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cronkite "Contribution"

It seems to me that Walter Cronkites "Stalemate" broadcast is a glaring omission from this article, given the impact it had on the outcome of the conflict. Hopefully someone more astute than myself will be able to shed some light on this.Adventurous63 (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Cronkite's televised editorial of the 1968 Tet offensive significantly discouraged the American public regarding continued support of the South Vietnamese in the Second Indochina War. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that the sight of NLF sappers assaulting the American Embassy in Saigon, for example, might not have had something to do with it? Cripipper (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

While it certainly should be mentioned, I don't think Cronkrite's broadcast really had a significant impact on the outcome of the war. If you go by opinion polls, opposition to the war rose gradually the longer it continued. There was no major opinion shift in response to Cronkrite, Tet, or any other particular event. Years after Cronkrite's broadcast, Nixon was still committed to winning the war. The anti-war movement wasn't in a position to make policy until after the 1972 congressional election.Kauffner (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Cronkite's report on the tet offensive is often considered the turning point in public opinion of the Vietnam War. This is the time when the American people see a credibility cap between what is happening over in Vietnam, and what the pentagon is telling them. At this point, there was a shift in anti-war sentiment in main-stream America. While you can argue that there was no big shift in the opinion polls right after the speech, you do see his opinion propagated among antiwar protesters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.185.7 (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No matter when or why someone really changed his mind about the war, the easy, respectable answer was "Cronkite." We know that the anti-war movement swelled right after Nixon was elected president, but almost no one will admit to switching sides on the basis of sheer partisan politics. IMO, the 1972 election was the turning point. Even though McGovern lost, he got the Democrat Party to commit itself to defeatism. Kauffner (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Anti-American Bias

The article claims a defeat of American Forces, but U.S. Forces were pulled out of Vietnam as a result of a Cease Fire, not because of a defeat. Later, however, South Vietnam was defeated but it is outright anti-American bias to say the U.S. was defeated. Dunnsworth (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

They didn't achieve their objectives and had to do a backflip, therefore they were defeated. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that meeting their objectives was hard to do, since the obstacles were so ill-defined, especially at the Washington command level? The most succinct statement of irrational objectives available online probably is http://vietnam.vassar.edu/ladrang03.html; the comment about the Chinese ignores quite a bit of history, going back to the first century or so. Shall we say that the Two Trung Ladies were not exactly Chinese cheerleaders?

In print, the best reference I know on internal objectives and decisionmaking is H. R. McMaster's Dereliction of Duty. This is worth reading even if you have gone, page by page, through the Pentagon Papers. McMaster, an Army officer, got some interviews and documents that had not been available before. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Their object was to defend South Vietnam, and while they were part of the war and imediatley after they left, South Vietnam remained seperate from the North, so they succeeded. Dunnsworth (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

hahaahah. What do they teach nowadays. The U.S was defeated, plain and simple. If you study carefully you'll see that they let the North Vietnamese soldiers sleep in the backyard of the South Vietnamese soldiers. That is not a successful objective.71.156.48.219 (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not anti-American bias when the U.S. was clearly defeated.71.156.48.219 (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The United States was defeated. The United States lost the Vietnam War. It was our show, and we blew it. The one who retreated lost. The communists took the field. And they won militarily, eroding and finally breaking their enemy's will to fight by constant pressure and harrassment. No, they didn't crush our forces, but they achieved their objectives. That is called victory. (By the way, we can't learn from mistakes unless we first admit they were mistakes. Re-read the "Effect on the United States" part.) --Milkbreath (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The Battle of Khe Sahn was a huge defeat for the NVA, after which the U.S. had a clear path through Laos and the DMZ; had the U.S. government been fully committed to actually beating the Communists instead of "containing" them the Vietnamese Communists would have been severely crushed. More specifically, had our bombers had unrestricted targeting liberties, the NVA's capacity for warfare would have been critically reduced. If there is any reason the U.S. "appeared" to have "lost" the blame is squarely at the feet of the politicians in Washington. Our forces in Vietnam were vastly superior to our Communist opponents'. If anyone cares to study Khe Sanh, read Voices of Courage. 4-25-08

OK, you do hear yourself, right?—"had the U.S. government been", "Communists would have been...crushed", "had our bombers had", "would have been...reduced", "If"—the makings of a good alternate history, but not useful in this article. Don't get me wrong, I think the U.S. mission was right, but it did fail. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Battle of Khe Sanh can't be considered in isolation. In terms of damage to the NVA, it was a tactical victory, but, in terms of the way it diverted attention from the plans for the Tet Offensive, it contributed to strategic failure. By strategic failure, I refer to substantial changes in U.S. domestic opinion, as a result of the apparent inability to stop attacks on cities. One could also argue that Khe Sanh and Tet contributed to a strategic failure for the National Liberation Front, as their casualties were greater than that of the NVA and the NLF did not, subsequently, have the same influence. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the U.S. failed it's mission but it wasn't the military's fault; it was Washington's. I do not want an injustice done to the men in uniform who faught over there. 4-25-08

This is POV statement and as such must not influence the article in any way. It also does not matter whether the government or military lost the war, the country of America lost - must have if the North Vietnamese won. With respect, justice to soldiers form either side has nothing to do with this article. Fremte (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. But the article needs to just keep it in a more general sense, like saying that "America lost" or something like that because this is what happens when you get into specifics about things like this. 4-25-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. What sentences in the article need work in that regard? --Milkbreath (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, even though I agree with the section "Effect on the United States" in the "Aftermath" section, it might lead to more dispute. I think that we should wait and see if it brings up a lot of controversy and then decide whether or not to edit it. On another note, perhaps a short synopsis of the Battle of Khe Sahn should be included. I know this is considered original research but it is my understanding that that battle was the turning point in the war for U.S. forces. What do you think?

I'm no expert on the War. I just came here recently to copyedit because there was a bad line someone brought to my attention. I'm here to tidy up the formatting and the English (which was pretty good already). I think the article has a long way to go in many respects, but that additional detail about particular battles is not good, because the article would get too long. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I see your point. Well, thanks for being civil in this talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Right back atcha. It's easy to get emotional about this one. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Canada was Involved

I believe Canada should be in the infobox because like werent Canadian troops involved. Canada sent forces to Vietnam to help the Americans.

Nope. Canada did not. Did give sanctuary to war resisters - it was the only involvement Canada had. Fremte (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Strong sourcing needs to be established before putting Canada as a belligerent in the infobox. The Canadian role in Vietnam itself was neutral by definition, as a member of the ICC. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Average age of US fatalities, 19?

The following was my posting from last month:

"Are there any reliable estimates for the average age of Vietnamese fatalities? This would include, naturally, civilians. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)"

I heard nothing back on that and would particularly welcome any numbers any editors may know and have sources for.

As for US fatalities, I had found sources that the commonly stated view that the average age of a US Vietnam fatality is false. I had inserted the following text based on sources:

"The average U.S. serviceman was twenty-two years old (and not nineteen years old as is often believed, particularly given the popularity of a pop song called 19 by Paul Hardcastle). This compares with twenty-six years of age for those who participated in World War II. Soldiers served a one year tour of duty. The average age of the US Military men who died in Vietnam was 22.8 years old."

• Source 1: - Vietnam Helicopter Flight Crew Network Website;
• Source 2: - Vietnam: Looking Back - At the Facts - by K. G. Sears, Ph.D.

This was reverted to state that the average age was nineteen. The statement that the average was nineteen is not backed up by sources. I will reinsert my text which should remain unless there are more reliable sources that indicate the average age was nineteen? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Genuine fact could be hard to come by. If you google the string "Assuming KIAs accurately represented" the 351 hits suggest a lot of cutting-&-pasting, without much hope of getting to an original source. I supplied the cite from Dave Grossman, who at least is an original author, and an authority on military deaths. DavidOaks (talk) 04:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I just recently watched a history channel show on vietnam and the average age of nineteen was used SubaruSVX (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

'Vietnam'

In the section concerning the terminology of the war, wouldn't a note concerning the use of simply the word 'Vietnam' to refer to the war be relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.168.93 (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding redirects (originally posted elsewhere)

Currently our article about the Vietnam War is at Vietnam War. If you think it should be moved to "Second Indochina War", you can raise that proposal at Talk:Vietnam War. In the meantime, Second Indochina War merely redirects to Vietnam War, so, under our policy of avoiding redirects, changing the wikilink as you did here and elsewhere is inappropriate. JamesMLane t c 15:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Second Indochina War or "Vietnam"

James, Thanks for your input and note re. redirects. The term "Vietnam War", or "Vietnam" is a distinctly provincial U.S. perspective of that era of the Second Indochina War and the Cold War. The French, and most of Europe are more familiar with the First and Second wars in "Indochina". Some Vietnamese refer to the later as the "American War". Part of the problem people have in understanding the history of that war is that many Americans persist in using the U.S.A.-centric term that's primarily based upon years of daily televised news coverage that norrowly focused on U.S. participation in the "conflict" in Viet Nam. Thanks again. Keep up the great work! Best regards, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You make an interesting argument. My point is that you should make the argument here, in support of an explicit proposal to move this article, rather than just changing links unilaterally. If you want to pursue a move, the steps are outlined at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves. My own reaction is that what the French think doesn't matter here; this is the English-language Wikipedia, and the article should be where most English-speaking readers would look for it, which is probably Vietnam War, even if some Britons would use the other term. JamesMLane t c 16:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Addendum: I was going to edit my comment to add that, in light of the point you make, the phrase "Second Indochina War" should be included in this article, but I see it's already there. I'm not arguing that it should be removed -- just that it shouldn't be linked to unless and until there's a consensus to move the article to that title. JamesMLane t c 17:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I question the use of the term European in this context. IN Britian it is known widley as the Vietnam war. This may be the case in other English speaking parts of Europe. Most Britons I doubt have eve heard of Indo-china. [[Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)]]

In Australia, whose citizens fought in the war, it's also called the "Vietnam War" as in The Australian Vietnam War Veterans Association. [1] I must say it's been a pain going back through all the links where "Second Indochina War" was substituted for "Vietnam War". I've reverted a few, but in case anyone else wants to pitch in, you can find the "what links here" page here: Special:WhatLinksHere/Second_Indochina_War

I can see using the former in articles that predate significant US military involvement, say early 1960s (of course, that demarcation is subject to debate), but in articles specifically about US military units, veterans, operations, technology, etc., the latter should be used. Alcarillo (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Popular Culture section is not objective, US-centric

Popular culture section is US-centric, not objective:

"The Vietnam War has been featured heavily in television and films. The war also influenced a generation of musicians and songwriters."

A more objective phrasing would be:

"The Vietnam War has been featured heavily in many US television shows and films. The war also influenced a generation of US musicians and songwriters." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom0063 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And Donavn [[Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)]]

The US-centric aspect is true to an extent however, it is undenied that other nations who served in the Vietnam war shaped their own popular culture because of this. --Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.220.125 (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Donovan (Donovan Phillips Leitch, Maryhill, Glasgow), is a Scottish singer-songwriter and guitarist. Emerging from the British folk scene. Hardley American.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)]]

Taiwan

I've just removed the 'Taiwan' section as it appears to be a clear hoax. AFAIK, neither the US or South Vietnam invited Taiwan to participate in the war, and if they did this offer was not taken up. The RoCAF certainly didn't fly air strikes against North Vietnam as the article was claiming. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Defeat and withdrawal?

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)

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)

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)

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)

Vietcong flags for Trà and Hùng?

Shouldn't the Vietcong commanders, Trần Văn Trà and Phạm Hùng, get Vietcong as opposed to North Vietnamese flags? Of course, they were North Vietnamese commanders as well. But I think the idea of the flags is the emphasize distinctions. Perhaps they can get both flags next to their names. Kauffner (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph

I think it might be a good idea to mention that America did not "officially" declared war in Vietnam in the first paragraph, instead of when you start talking about America. I find it slightly misleading. Also in the first paragraph, make sure that the reader knows that the debate of whether or not the Vietnam War was a victory or defeat is still debated today. Possibly mention the popular view that America did not lose the war militarily, but lost it politically. Again, just some suggestions. Something needs to be done though about

"The war was fought between the communist Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and its communist allies and the US-supported Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam). It concluded with the defeat of the United States, the dissolution of South Vietnam, and the failure of United States foreign policy in Vietnam." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.185.7 (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I was going to bring this up as well. Sure, every kid knows we "lost" the war, but the US withdrew with a cease-fire, hardly "losing" in the proper sense of the word; we can afford to draw the distinction, after all, the same sentence points out the failure of the foreign policy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bumping this, because apparently people just revert; yes, there will be sources that say "defeat", but we should be technically accurate; the US withdrew active combat forces as part of a pact with the North, and they continued to supply the South with materials, etc., but we never "surrendered" and were thus defeated in that sense. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The US failed to achieve most of the reasons it stated were its aims upon intervention. Its ‘pact’ (an inaccurate term) with North Vietnam gave away many concessions that the US had lost 50 odd thousand men trying to achieve (and can be seen as a repudiation of 20 years of American foreign policy), in this respect it can be seen as a defeat. Moreover almost as soon as the ceasefire (not pact) was signed the NVA launched a series of highly unsuccessful attacks, which the US did not respond to, thereby signalling that they were not willing (or politically able) to back the South in any meaningful way, this can be seen as a surrender, at least in kind, after all they were not willing (or able) to meet their part of the ceasefire agreement with regards to Communist breaches of it. Indeed it could be said that there was no cease fire between 1973/75 just a scaling down of the conflict, as both sides (but especially the North) re-built themselves for the next phase. The 1973 ceasefire paved the way for the 1975 offensive that ultimately destroyed the South, and forced America into a humiliating evacuation (which in itself can be seen as a defeat, and certainly as a rout, as well as a surrender (remember that the Saigon embassy was US sovereign territory, that the US was forced to abandon)).[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)]]

Issues

The infobox says the war started in 1959, while the first paragraph says it started in 1956. Which is right? I understand that it's sometimes difficult to tell when wars actually begin, but these two dates should agree.
The fifth paragraph states that North Vietnam and China recognized each other diplomatically and "the Soviet Union followed suit". By doing what? Recognizing both countries? If so, the article needs to state as much. "Followed suit" could mean that it recognized either country or both countries.
I've learned next to nothing about this conflict in school, and wanted to read this article to get some understanding of what happened. The first five paragraphs did nothing but raise more questions for me, and I stopped reading. — MusicMaker5376 20:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Vietcong started a campaign of assasination and terror in 1957 and first instance of large military unit combat was in late 1959. I don't what know what the basis for the 1956 date might be. Kauffner (talk) 15:37, 15 June 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[2]. 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)

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)

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)