Talk:Battle of Dien Bien Phu/Archive 2

the first time

 * "the first time that a non-European colonial independence movement had evolved through all the stages from guerrilla bands to a conventionally organized and equipped army able to defeat a modern Western occupier in pitched battle."

What "does Non-European colonial mean"? Does that exclude movements made up of descendents of Europeans? But even if one ignores the American War of Independence, (and south American independence wars), European colonial history is littered with examples of locals defeating European's in pitched battles. For example First Anglo-Afghan War, and closer to all things French (which also meets the guerrilla bands proviso without any quibbles), Haitian Independence and the Battle of Vertières (November 18, 1803) which was only the last of several pitched battles the rebels won against a number of European powers. As the quote is so clearly incorrect I think it should be removed. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The "non-european colonial" is obviously in there to exclude something, but I don't know what that something is. The American Revolution was entirely a conventional (read: non-guerilla) conflict, so by defintion, it never evolved through the stages. I don't know enough about the other conflicts you mention to say for sure, but I doubt that those evolved through the stages either. I think it's correct and should stay in. Raul654 23:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It started with a slave revolt one does not get much more "irregular military methods" than that! --Philip Baird Shearer 09:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if I can accuratly answer what non european colonial might be trying to exclude, but I can tell you that the lines the first time that a non-European colonial independence movement had evolved through all the stages from guerrilla bands to a conventionally organized and equipped army able to defeat a modern Western occupier in pitched battle. have been lifted precisly as they are there from Martin Windrow's the last valley. Isn't direct copying of such a book a violation of copyright or something? Unless of course, Mr. Windrow wrote parts of this article himself, which of course is fine. Incidentally, I know this for certain because I was reading that very line as i clicked onto this talk page. SGGH 20:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a direct quote from Windrow, and marked as such in the article. Kirill Lokshin 20:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Very true, I was going on the copy of the quote on this talk page, as I couldn't locate it in the article. SGGH 21:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This line also, while not lifted from the text, isn't something I expected, As a result of blunders in the French decision making process, the French undertook to create an air-supplied base, at Dien Bien Phu, deep in the hills of Vietnam the same text that I am reading refers to the fortress construction as a deliberate attempt to draw Giap into "smashing his inexperienced forces against [the fortress]". This is just a minor query of course, my point above is more pressing. SGGH 20:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What does "modern Western occupier" mean? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You'd have to ask Winthrop to find out precisely what it means, but I think it can safely be taken at face value - an occupying western (European or American) power in modern times (with heavier than air flight, automatic weapons, and the like) Raul654 (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The quote is not a universal truth see above so I am adding that the author claims. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD
I recomend shortening the lead paragraph a little. I understand this is a historical article, yet the lead does look rather long. FrummerThanThou 13:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The lead is the standard length expected for a featured article. In fact,wp:lead recommends "three or four paragraphs", which is exactly what this article has. Raul654 20:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

New image of Vietnamese troops
General Vo Nguyen Giap in 1946

Reflects some of the spirit of the Vietnamese after WWII (this is no French army) perhaps this article or the article about the whole war could benefit from it. Wandalstouring 13:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Years?
In Battle of Dien Bien Phu, it says:
 * According to one Viet Minh major: "Every evening, we came up and took the opportunity to cut barbed wire and remove mines. Our jumping-off point was moved up to only two hundreds years from the peaks of Beatrice, and to our surprise [French] artillery didn't know where we were".

Shouldn't that be yards, or meters or something like that? --Angus 21:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be my typo. I have fixed it. Raul654 21:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad math?
The box on the right states that the strength of the French force was 10,800 soldiers, but immediately below, under "Casualties," it gives the following:

2,293 dead, 5,195 wounded, 11,800 captured

Obviously, at least one of the figures is wrong. I'm guessing it's the "captured" tally, but I don't know for certain. Funnyhat 05:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Neither is wrong. The strength given is for March 13 (the day the fighting started). The casualty figure is for the entire battle (through May 7). The difference between the two is [approximately] the number of reinforcements the French dropped into the battle between March 13 and May 7. Raul654 06:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits
I feel that a few of the edits were solid changes. Raul recently reverted the edits, so I feel a discusion is in order here to determine which should stay and which should be changed. I'm not all that interested either way, since both are accurate enough, so I'll leave most of the discusion to the main writers. &mdash; Deckiller 04:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Removing and worse - altering - quotes is not an improvement at all. Removing the refereence to Oskar von Hutier is not an improvemet. Saying that Biergard "reverted" to infiltration tactics is grossly inaccurate (being that he had no formal tactical schooling). And the list goes on. Raul654 04:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, that was a quote, not something in incorrect tone. That explains it. But "...changed hands several times that day" innaccurate? I think that change is acceptable. &mdash; Deckiller 05:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can live with the 'changed hands several times" and the 'couter-counter-attack' -> renewed assult changes. Raul654 05:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Some sanity prevailed
What was that Bulwinkle cartoon? Freeless Leader was obsessing about the anti-antimissile missile. I am glad that the phrase counter-counter is no longer in the article. The rest of today's attempted changes were incremental at best and rejected by those better-read in the matter. But I still dislike direct quote about no-medical-facilities being bad for morale. Wikipedia should be able to indicate thus in its own authentic voice. It hardly strains credulity and there is a supporting citation. WP:BOLD and all that. -- 64.9.238.26 07:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I wish "airhead" wasn't a real word, in this article when one encounters the phrase "establishment of the airhead" one cant help but anticipate some sort of historical reference to the war-planner who came up with the original idea. Oh well. 130.60.28.29 14:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's how George W. Bush got his job - "establishment of the airhead".


 * A bridgehead is a force of troops whose supplies are carried by a "bridge" of ships. An "airhead" is, in turn, a force of troops supplied by air. One follows another. Raul654 04:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

POV
This article is weighted quite heavily against the French high command. The French Generals, Navarre in particular, were not as ignorant as this article seems to make out. I've made one edit to try to remove a little bit what I feel is a traditionalist dominated account which is rather unencyclopedic in place, but I won't proceed with more without mentioning it on the talk page, as per wikiquette.

I am hoping to give fair article time to the more revisionist historians in order to give space for both interpretations, or in the least to just remove the one sided attack of the French high command.

This isn't a comment on contributers, so please don't see it as an attack. Cheers SGGH 16:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * firstly, Navarre didn't blindly fall into the trap, I don't believe that this article is neutral enough on this point. There is plenty of evidence showing Navarre to be aware of the risks, and that his plan to lure the Viet Minh into a traditional battle had merit, in light of previous failures at Na San and during Giap's 'western style' failed assault on the Delta.
 * secondly, there were other constaints Navarre had to deal with which also I don't think have fair mention in this article, particularly the continuous demand for troops from the french commanders in the Delta, which absorbed part of Navarres command. I also don't think the article gives enough merit to the fact that the possibility of having to defent laos was an important factor for Navarre, the article just makes a small mention of it at the end without alluding to the true weight of it in the thinking process.

I'm not proposing major changes, I just think this article should give more air time to the factors which Navarre had to content with, rather than focusing on his 'inability' to command, which is what I feel it does now. SGGH 16:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * For example, The arrival of the 316th Viet Minh division prompted Cogny to order the evacuation of the Lai Chau garrison to Dien Bien Phu, exactly as Giap had anticipated. The evacuation of the garrison at Lai Chau had been planned before the establishment of an air-base at Dien Bien Phu, as far as I knew... SGGH 17:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there are some serious POV issues with this article, I'm surprised that it has been a featured article. In contrast to the French side, there is no discussion of the strategic significance of the battle for the Viet Minh. I assume this kind of information is now in the public domain. The narrative is told essentially from a European POV - a concrete example, but which to my mind illustrates the general tone - section 2.8 is called "the final defeat" - why not "the final victory" or, more NPOV, "the final battle"? I don't know enough about the subject to change this myself, but I would be interested to know what the general feeling is. I think this is very POV. --Brianpie 09:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree, though I think the addition or replacement of just a few words would go some way to balancing things out - your suggestion of the final battle is a good example. Otherwise, I'd certainly like to see much more information about/from the Viet Minh forces. Pinkville 11:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Movie
Article sited that "The battle was depicted in Diên Biên Phu, a 1992 documentary film by French director Pierre Schoendoerffer." According to imdb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104105/) it is Drama/War movie. I changed it to drama, any objections? I agree there're some POV problems with this article too. I don't know why in the first paragraph of "Background and preparations" they mention Laos was a French ally: "During their 1952–53 campaign, the Viet Minh had overrun vast swaths of Laos, a French ally and Vietnam's western neighbor. " There was no doubt that the French had invaded Laos and turned this country along with Vietnam, Cambodia into French Indochina. I don't know if the author actually learned history before Dien Bien Phu Battle? (!). We'd need a real history here and biased perspective should not be allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradissatravel (talk • contribs) 03:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

René Cogny
I created an article on René Cogny, if anyoen wants to check it over to make sure i have everything 100% right regarding his actions in indochina. Feel free to add more of course SGGH 17:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

well i was looking just for him in the comments section. In my opinion Navarre was the right and honest here,(article heading "Lead up to Castor") a "mooring point" would never be understood as a lightly defended base. You don't moor a ship to a matchstick, it actually suggests strongly held positions and "mooring-points" have been used in trenchwar for example and in large scale mobile operations with territorial prioritys that could hardly be accomplished: "in the storm". In any historic example it would be among the strongest defended points ,in the mobile case through having the most forces available.(basically up to the next big militairy airfield in this case i think). So the result of that terminology is Navarre build a strong position with offensive capacity and rather some troops, to control the field onto more then halfway the next base. (that hadn't been applied extra militairy functions). A bit shortsighted perhaps,in the military optimism to plan offensive actions, but that could all have to do with french politics and not the militairy's. 24.132.170.97 (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Triage vs. first aid, and Germans
I changed a reference to giving survivors "basic triage" to "basic first aid," because triage is a quick judgement process, not medical care. While I was in there I fixed some other language, but the Prisoners section is still a little muddy. For example, the statement "many of [the prisoners were] Legionnaires of German origin" is (A) buried in this section, and (B) not supported by its citation. The source says "[M]any ex-SS men fought and died at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954," but that's not the same as saying many of the survivors were German. If somebody's interested enough they can remove that or move the reference to German fighters somewhere else. Chester320 08:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And the cited source is only another Wikipedia article anyway, and therefore unusable. Pinkville 00:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits and comments
Well, I missed the boat on the FAC discussions, but I hope you all don't mind that I've started adding some queries and corrections to this generally excellent article. I left a fair number of SGML questions/comments that refer to lingering minor problems. I got about half way through the article and I'd like to go through the rest later on today. Well done folks. Pinkville 13:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Continuing with some copyediting, etc.... The paragraph beginning Much to French disbelief... is confused and confusing. I knew nothing about direct and indirect artillery and, I fear, I'm none the wiser having read this. I have a sense of the point intended - that in spite of the fact that the Viet Minh were forced (due to lack of effective lines of communication and experienced gun crews) to use poorly regarded direct artillery, they turned this apparent setback to their advantage and inflicted greater damage on French positions than the French command would have anticipated. Do I understand this correctly? As it stands, the paragraph in question has several unfinished ideas and is very wooly. Can someone tighten it up?

In the subsection March 30–April 5 assaults, we are suddenly introduced to the designations Dominique 1 and 2, etc. but without explanation. There are numbers on some of the maps that presumably correspond to the numbers in the main text, but what do they refer to? Hills? Troop positions? Map coordinates? A one or two word explanation would be nice.

We read that the French launched a fierce counterattack against Eliane 2, and recaptured half of it, but in the preceding paragraph we read that The 316th division captured... half of Eliane 2...; doesn't this mean that the French counterattack resulted in the recapture of all of Eliane 2, or is something missing?

The description of low morale among the Viet Minh troops comes across as not quite believable - sandwiched as it is between descrptions of their remarkable military successes... And isn't there more information about conditions, planning, etc. within the Viet Minh forces?

Also, at times it's "Castries" at other times it's "de Castries". The better form should be used consistently through the article - I suspect it's "de Castries", but I don't know for sure. Pinkville 02:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've corrected this last point to "de Castries" throughout. Pinkville 16:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * lingering questions
 * Some very good updates seem to have been made on the article, but I believe my questions above are still lingering, unanswered/unaddressed. I'm particularly curious about the places [?] styled Eliane 1, etc. I understand that, for example, Eliane 1 is a location, but of what kind? Is just a military designation, compass coordinates, a hill, an encampment? Someone (Raul, I believe) added Eliane 1 to the text at a point where I had left an SGML question on this issue, but my question was regarding what type of location is being talked about, not which location precisely (the precise location is already mentioned earlier in the sentence anyway). Pinkville 00:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% certain, but I'm fairly sure that "Elaine 1, Huguette 2", 'etc refer to fortified positions on those hills. That is, Elaine 1 was a fortified position on Elaine, Huguette 2 a position on Huguette, 'etc. Raul654 00:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That certainly would make sense. Any way to confirm this? It seems odd to use (so many times) a name without knowing what it refers to. One thinks, too, of "Pinkville": My Lai 4 and My Lai 2, etc. (but they were hamlets - and identified as such) so there's some minor risk of confusion, though it seems sure that Eliane 1, etc. do not refer to hamlets. Pinkville 01:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I just checked Davidson. He refers to them as "strongpoints" (pg 240), which would seem to verify my suspicion. Raul654 02:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perfect. Then I'd say we should add the word once or twice for clarity. Thanks. Pinkville 02:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * But looking again at the relevant sections, Eliane, Huguette, etc. are themselves described as strongpoints (which makes less sense to me - aren't they just military zones which encompass strongpoints?) - suggesting that there are strongpoints within strongpoints. Alright, it's a detail, and maybe I'm nitpicking, but... Pinkville 02:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Davidson (228): "The french located three subsidiary positions two of three kilomters to the north, northwest, and northeast of the main defensive area. They called these Anne Marie, Gabrielle, and Beatric... Seven kilomters to the south of the main position, the French located another center of resistance, Isabelle".
 * Davidson (240): "... as well as Huegette 7 and 6, the strongpoints which protected the Western and northwestern side of the airstrip" Raul654 02:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So does that suggest to you: strongpoints, such as Eliane 2, located within positions? That makes sense to me. If so, then it wouldn't be right to say strongpoints Eliane, Huguette, etc., but rather positions Eliane, Huguette, etc. within which are located strongpoints Eliane 1-12, Huguette 1-7, etc. Have I got that right? Pinkville 03:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems like appropriate terminology to me. Raul654 21:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

B-26 Marauder
Submitted for your consideration: the Martin B-26 Marauder was an aircraft flown by the allies in WWII. The US Army Air Force phased it out of service as early as spring 1945. The B-26 flown in Vietnam was the USAF Douglas Invader. During WWII the Invader was designated A-26. From 1948 to 1962 it was re-designated B-26. 68.112.206.105 00:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not the last major battle of the first indochina war
The article claims the battle of dien bien phu was the last major battle of the first indochina war. it was not. the battle of mang yang pass was also a big one. (1200 killed and wounded french troops + an unknown number of viet minh). suggesting it is changed.Tridungvo 13:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * you are right. dbp is used like a symbol. Shame On You 14:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

hmong mercenaries?? what about regular laotian and thai batallions fighting with the french?
the combattants flag are incomplete. the french troops were supported by anticommunist vietnam, laos, cambodia and thailand. and it lacks the french indochina flag of course. the french troops at dien bien phu were not from the french metropole but from the expeditionary corps in far east including colonial forces only, from legionnaires (all nationalities inc. polish), algeria, morocco and africa. it lacks the us flag as well!! us pilots were killed at dbp. others earned the chivalry order légion d'honneur in 2004 by the french ambassy in the usa. this is far more complete than what american can think. i've red there were "former wehrmacht mercenaries" in the french side (foreign legion), this is ignorance. probably someone here has watched the 317th platoon movie (1967) including one alsatian french telling he was in the wehrmacht during ww%II. alsatian are french! alsace was annexed by the germans hence the french were forced to join the wehmacht, thy were not germans! i wonder how americans can talk about dien bien phu without knowing such basic things. Shame On You 13:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

vietnamese troops with the french not viet minh! vietnamese light infantry in a "cleaning and pacification" mission in the buichu on 12th of august 1953. Shame On You 14:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

cold war perspective and role of the french communists
Le Figaro newspaper 8th May 1954 from the official European Union History Institution archives Shame On You 13:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"''In France, Moscow did all it could to encourage public disillusionment with the war. In Asia, it whipped the crowds up against us.

There can be no more miserable backtracking than the tears shed by the CP over the slaughter caused by weapons which communism placed in the hands of our enemies.

The real victors this evening are the friends of Mr Thorez and Mr Duclos [note: from the french communist party founded in paris by ho chi minh]. It is they who should raise the red death’s head banner over the ruins and graves.

One hope remains: that the tragedy which has just been played out will finally arouse the conscience of the free world and that the Western powers will combine forces in Geneva in a common front to end the madness and arrive at a peace settlement.

Pierre BRISSON''"

colonialist war perspective is from the viet minh and modern US pov, not the non-communist french one (incl. the army) which is cold war. funny to note the us did not used independence term when the NVA tried to unify the country but cold war. when the us are officially involved it is cold war, when they aren't it isn't! but the truth is the us were deeply involved in the french indochina war. Shame On You 13:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Cold war motives? In 1946? Wasn't Maurice Thorez, a communist himself, encouraging Leclerc to use force in regaining Indochina for France? The French only resorted to Cold War rhetoric when the situation was getting dire for them. Altus N 11:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * know your history you young grass hopper, yes it was COLD WAR in 1954! what was Korean war 1953? for your information the Far East Expeditionary Corps that fought in DBP trained for japanese occupied french indochina ops as early as march 1945 in french algeria. 1945 was COLD WAR avant la lettre. all french supply came from the US and viet minh from chinese and russian how do you call this? WHY WERE 2 AMERICANS DEAD AT DIEN BIEN PHU IF NOT COLD WAR er?! the us only use cold war when they need an excuse. french communists are traitors, always been, they were called "suitcase carriers" when they brought supply to the FLN during the algeria war. Shame On You 22:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL!! the 1927-1950 Chinese Civil War is part of COLD WAR... LMAO. have a look at this kid and learn! >> Civil Air Transport.

Shame On You 02:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * LEARN ABOUT YOUR FRENCH COMMUNIST FRIEND Georges Boudarel!

Shame On You 03:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

evidence of pro-viet minh pov!
"The Battle of Dien Bien Phu (Vietnamese: Chiến dịch Điện Biên Phủ)" why the viet translation is included while the french is not? BTW it wasn't a battle but a siege. Shame On You 14:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty scant evidence. Add the French name, if you like.
 * It's most commonly referred to as the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Pinkville 14:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * done. Shame On You 22:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

official source archives in english
european navigator more docs are available in french.

chronology

exclusive: audio recordings of transmission and reports of castries and cogny during the siege of DBP!! includes testimonials from veterans interviewed 10 years later (incl. director schoendoerffer.) Shame On You 14:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

not QUALITY ARTICLE!!
why is this article featured while it lacks crucial infos? there is nothing about the forces and the combatant list is false. it was the French Far East Expeditionary Corps that was involved not the metropolitan forces, it lacks the french indochinese support with entire battalions of VIETNAMESE, LAOTIAN, CAMBODIAN, THAI troops. it lacks the french colonial forces with battalions from ALGERIA, MORROCO, SENEGAL (A.O.F.). also why did you removed the US pilots who died at DBP in support to the french? this war was cold war since the russian and us were deeply involved into it. the first gave MOLOTOVA trucks and KATYUSHA rocket launchers, the latter gave aircrafts and millions of $ in furniture from helmets to uniforms. US pilots died there i'll never let you lie about this. Shame On You 18:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Far East Expeditionary Corps training in French Algeria in 1945
a popular myth is french indochina was gave back to france thanks to the british (the british myth as ever) here is an archive form 1945 showing the french forces trained in french algeria in view to free the french indochina from the japanese invaders!! more infos are needed in order to draw the true story of the 1945 events. archive video Shame On You 18:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

___________________________________________________________________________

Pretty good show buddy. The "Commando Ponchardier" has been trained in Colombo (Ceylon) to be first landed in Saigon with the Indian Division led by Genral Gracey to disarm japanese troops. Then, the French fought first with British help from Singapore and then with US hardware from the Philippines after 1949.

Takima 23:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

lacks role of former french indochina colonies and thailand
there were regular battalions -not damn mercenaries!- of thai, cambodian, laotian troops fighting with the french loyalist viet at DBP. will create the full unit names that fought at DBP so you can't deny facts anymore. Shame On You 22:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

________________________________________________________

These Thai are ethnic mnorities of the highlands of Lai Chau-Dien Bien district, but not Siamese from Thailand (name taken by Siam in 1939).

Takima 00:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

question
was this article quickly featured so we cannot add evidences of US direct participation? i wonder. Shame On You 01:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL :o)
Vietnam War has the russian and chinese featured in the combatants list... LMAO :o) NOW i'm sorry but i'm forced to add them in this article too. it would be unfair right? what's right for the US defeat is right for the french. (see Civil Air Transport, Battle of Dien Bien Phu) Shame On You 02:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

THANKS TO GOD!
here is the picture of the soviet trucks used by the viet minh at DBP. i've used it once in the dien bien phu docudrama article but it was deleted by people willing to preserve the communist myth. '''it wasn't peugeot bicycle that carried out artillery pieces people but BIG FAT SOVIET TRUCKS! here there are!!''' (the magnificent 308th division) :o) i'm happy because i did not found these evidences elsewhere and got a dead link error using the old article link. for your information have a look at the viet minh parade in hanoi following the fall of DBP and LEARN! (p.s. this is a vietnamese official website so you cannot deny evidences anymore bleh!). i wil give it more credit than THIS... (used in the military museum of hanoi)Shame On You 06:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The picture of the bicycle was for the Vietnam war with the US. As the name of the picture: Truong Son is the name of the mountain ranges with jungle where supplies were flown through. The fact that you found the pictures cannot conclude/confirm what you are trying to say. Also think about it, there was essentially no road to DBP to use those trucks (how could there be at that time?). Even if there were, it is suicidal to use regular route (such as well-built roads on which trucks can be used) while Vietminh fought a guerrilla type war. The French force will destroy the supply line nice and easy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.58.85 (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

domino theory
it speaks by itself! this doctrine was first used by eisenhower back in 1954 about the french vietnam war. it was cold war. Shame On You 07:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What? Anyway, why are you adding point-form sections to an article that is entirely prose. They read poorly and are not entirely intelligible. El_C 20:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the fact that (1) The "War crimes & reeducation camps" is basically a POV fest, (2) he's adding dozens of barely-related threads to this talk page, and (3) putting the stub-section tag into a featured article. Raul654 20:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * well it's quite funny to notice now this user is banned everyone is answering his questions. Can i ask you -without being banned too if possible- why the americans are not featured in the combatant list since the CAT pilots were deads and seven were honoured with the French Legion of Honor? Cliché Online 01:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Because covertly sending a dozen people to fight in a battle of 80,000 doesn't really count a nation as participating. Also, you'll notice that that user was banned for repeated, obnoxious incivility. Raul654 02:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Raul it wasn't dozens but hundreds of Americans involved in the Indochina War. It seems your perspective on this war is based on obsolete material. As you may know, material was recently declassified in France, new documentaries have been produced and France officially honoured US pilots 50 years after the battle. From the document I have gathered the USA are deeply involved in the war since 1950 not 1953. There was the Mutual Defense Treaty bounding Free World allies you might have forget this. "Bois Belleau" is the name of the USS Belleau Wood gift by the USA to back up France in Indochina. I don't know many nations that would give a carrier that easily... Whatever, watching archive newsreels will teach you how much the US were pro-French in this era. Some are available as Public Domain resource, it could be a good idea for you to check some. Moreover, having a look at the so called "multinational task force"'s chart will teach you how the Americans deal with dozens when these dozens are on their side. In my humble opinion, a "multinational task force" with  2  Icelandic troopers and 250,000 U.S. troopers is  NOT  that much an multinational task force but the biggest hypocrisy in history. Cliché Online 17:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

2 chinese artillery battalions at dien bien phu

 * for those who can read french. it is an official source: "Pierre Journoud, cet article est publié conjointement dans la revue Communisme et dans le Bulletin de l’Institut Pierre Renouvin de l’Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne. Son auteur, chargé de recherches au CEHD, achève une thèse sur « les relations franco-américaines à l’épreuve du Vietnam, 1954-1973 » à l’Université Paris I." Paris By Night 12:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

operation vulture
not a single word about vulture? however it existed, i saw video footages of Ely with Eisenhower and Radford and there are many books about this in both france and the united states. Paris By Night 12:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Image culling
An images has been culled from this article for reasons which I confess I will never fully agree with, but that is just my opinion. We will have to find some replacements because at the moment we seem to just have maps and one of an aircraft. SGGH speak! 17:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Dien Bien Phu Museum
I've recently visited the museum at Dien Bien Phu. A few points may be of interest:

Viet Minh medical facilities: There were photos of what appeared to be a Viet Minh field hospital and a collection of surgical instruments that were used during the battle. In addition there was a letter from a French Officer to Ho Chi Min thanking him for the good conduct towards prisoners after the battle. (No mention was made about what happened to non-European's fighting on the side of the French). I have removed the assertion that the Viet Minh had "no medical facilities" as it is POV at best.

Challenges by the French: Leaflets were dropped by the French challeging General Nguyen Giap to come and fight at Dien Bien Phu.

Importance to the Viet Minh: Dien Bien Phu is the largest valley in Northwest Vietnam and was very important for rice production.

222.252.237.140 13:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)mja
 * I've restored that section in slightly altered form. It previously said "Total lack of medical services". I re-consulted my reference, and it said they totally lacked an "effective" medical service, and went on to say they had exactly one surgeon to treat their 22,000-odd casualties. Raul654 03:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

POV and importance of this article
OK, I've just come back from Vietnam. Judging by the amount of museum space given to the conflict, the first Indochina war and against the French and this battle are clearly of great importance to the Vietnamese in terms of defining the Nation's identity (far more so than the second Indochina (American) war). As it stands, the article is POV in that it relies on almost exclusively on European material. As it stands, the article is POV in that it relies on almost exclusively on European material. Given the material referenced the article is balanced and well written, however, it only tells the story from the French side. Some of the claims made seem quite extravagant given the scant amount of available evidence. For example, "At this point, the morale of the Viet Minh soldiers broke..." is a strong claim based on intercepted radio messages. It couldn't of broken that much, based on the outcome of the battle! This battle is very important to the Vietnamese. Is somebody able to add information from Vietnamese sources, so that people have somewhere to go, to find a fair, unbiased account of the battle? 222.123.143.133mja —Preceding comment was added at 11:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Role of Women
We tend to think of a battle as involving only men. After reading Windrow I became aware of the number of women involved. As a result I have added a section as starting point. I assume there were large numbers of women serving on the Vietminh side as porters. cooks, solders, etc, but I can find no reference to quote. --John Prattley (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And women serving as combatants, possibly, too. Must look into this... Pinkville (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

But... Why?
For what reason did the French even think they had the capability to take Vietnam in the first place? Even if French conduct in WWI and WWII is completely ignored, one is still left to ponder the fact that the French couldn't even defeat the swarm of mosquitoes that successfully expelled them from Panama. What exactly were they after, anyways? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaphraud (talk • contribs) 19:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * France had held Vietnam since the mid 19th century... Pinkville (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As said Pinkville, France had Vietnam since the middle of the 19th century, before to ask that kind of question, you could search some informations about... France in Panama, what are you talking about ? If it's about the Canal, you should know that France didn't have enough money to do it... But you should know too that there are lots of mosquitoes in Vietnam too, cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.9.29.2 (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

American Intervention
My knowledge of the battle is that the American Intervention was limited to some little of value, but not that promised. For political advantage, which I am not going to begin on here, the USA did not give its promised military assistance to the French, effectively leaving them in the lurch in a battle which would have been won with that assistance had the Americans performed even half as well as the French. Perhaps then the later Vietnam War as we know it might not have eventuated in the form it did and been lost.

It is common of US administration to mock the French and "the old order", as opposed to the New World Order based on feudal economic principles eminating from the USA, the UK and Australia. The courage of the French under adversity was notable.

The French were plagued with tropical diseases and amoebic dysentry, which killed numerous otherwise fit,young soldiers. Their engagement in a desperate situation was courageous and determined against all odds of nature. Fighting in terrrains and climates of this type, soldiers often in ill health require great skills and resistance to an environment which bases itself on returning everything to the soil.

There is first hand evidence that America did not fulfill its commitmetns to the french, even when it went through the motions.

The minimal efffort made by America is outlined in a defence of the USA by Arthur Snyder(source Rutger's college class of 1951 Pt.2 http://oralhistory.rutgers.edu/Interviews/snyder_arthur_part_2.html)

" SI: The first trouble spot you were sent was to Dien Bien Phu.  What were you told about what was going on there?  You mentioned that you were just told where to go and what to do, and not the why, but did you have any idea why you were going?

AS: There, yes. The French were in trouble. They were being beaten by the Vietnamese, and we were sent there to try to help support them. We would do bombing missions, strafing, and napalm, in support to the French troops, that is why we were there.

SI: How many missions went to Dien Bien Phu?

AS: Eight or nine missions I would say. We didn't try very hard there because you soon got to know that the French did not fight like the Americans did in Korea, and you didn't have much of a desire to take a chance being shot down when the French weren't, in our opinion, doing their share."

A lot could be said about that first hand breathtaking expose and supposition, in the final paragraph, of one aspect of the betrayal based on a personal pretext. Their were others.

The 'Pentagon Papers' does not enter far into the betraying of the French however they do state that it is certain that many French were persuaded that the U.S. and the UK furnished inadequate support to France during the latter phases of the war.

It needed no persuasion in less partial places to meet the facts, the French knew they were betrayed. The French of my generation have not forgotten the betrayal and the losses and the deaths of their children at Dien Bien Phu are sacred to them still.

In that battle, knowing that death was a certainty, more so owing to their Nationality as was later shown in the appalling treatment they received under Pol Pot,numerous South Vietnamese (I am aware that Vietam was then French Indo China)fighters parachuted in to help the French. The French and their comrades from the South performed great feats of courage and strategy in very a limited geographical domain and had no idea how close the opposing forces came to pulling out..but as in the later invasion by the USA mines and tunnels were notable in settling one or two outcomes,a part of effective Viet Minh strategy.

Paradoxically, politics since WW11 has made our world a more dangerous and treacherous place than it was prior to it through the maintenance of regimes and the implimenting of regimes to advance the interests of major powers. The political culture of death is now political methodology under which tens of millions of innocent men women and children have been conscienclessly obliterated by regimes claiming the moral high ground, and as today also officially sanctioned in being tortured and abused.

The immense loss of life and often courageous enactment of duty in a battlefront where as in Iraq drugs are "introduced" by the military in post Diem Vietnam brought no Victory. Dien Bien Phu was perhaps the last of the honorable open battles in which such overwhelming courage was displayed in this case by the French and South Vietnamese, setting aside that of any Viet Minh, and in the face of the knowledge that death was the virtually certain outcome. However vain-glorious the defeat of the Frnech and it's Vietnamese aides, one can still say that, this, was their finest hour.

an editorial

 * warning: this article is written from the viewpoint of European imperialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.38.223.247 (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Really ? Unless you can explain the mean of your sentence, i don't think we can care of your point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.9.29.2 (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

number of outposts?
Nice article, but one thing puzzles me. The article says that there were eight outposts, named using the first eight letters of the alphabet. But I ("Isabelle") is the ninth letter of the alphabet. Apologies if this has already been discussed. Looie496 (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look closely at the map used in the article, you'll notice that the letter F was not used. Pinkville (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, then, the part that says they were named using the first eight letters of the alphabet is wrong. Win one way, you lose another. :-) Looie496 (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, looking back I see it says there were seven positions named using the first eight letters of the alphabet. I guess the farther-away Isabelle was being omitted here. Looie496 (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I remember when I was writing this article, some sources (but not all) mentioned the existence of another fort west of Anne Marie. I cannot remember the name, sorry. Raul654 (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The strongpoint west of the central position, which began with "F", was "Francois." ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by NelsonLB (talk • contribs) 18:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Casualties
There's a great discrepancy between casualty numbers between this and the Vietnamese page. They latter seems to provide more detailed data with various sources to back it up. --79.68.204.111 (talk) 06:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It does list more detailed numbers, but the sources it quotes are links to web articles that don't exist any more -  - so I'm not comfortable changing this article until an extant citation is found. Raul654 (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

10,998 captured
How can there be 10,998 captured soldiers when the strength of French troops was only 10,800? There's indeed something wrong with those numbers.--Narayan (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The French continually parachuted reinforcements into Dien Bien Phu, so the number of soldiers committed increased on a daily basis. The infobox explicitely states that the 10,800 number is for March 13, the day the battle started. Raul654 (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Map tweak needed
The map shown to the right highlights Dien Bien Province but needs to also show the location of Hanoi, since the caption discusses the distance between Hanoi and Dien Bien Phu. Tempshill (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. And the location of the sites mentioned for the hedgehog battle and locations in Thailand. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Couldn't it also show the exact location of Dien Bien Phu? Brutannica (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new map. Raul654 (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmong Mercenaries
I would just like to note that Hmong people served as scouts to the French--not mercenaries.

Vietnamese casuaties figures
I propose to include the official figures published by the Vietnamese, which are published in "History of the General Staff in the Resistance War Against the French", People's Army Publishing House, Hanoi, 1998. This issue was debated here sometimes back, at that time a verifiable source could not be provided. Now that such a source has been found, I think it would be fair to include it in the summary table, together with French estimates. What do you all think? Altus Quansuvn (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4.020 KIA
 * 9.118 WIA
 * 792 MIA
 * I don't think it is a WP:RS but I won't go against your edits. However, according to WP:CITE you should provide author name, Vietnamese name of this book, place of publishing, and the number page that contains "the official figures" whenever you use an offline source or this source will be removed. These steps is needed to let everyone verify source(s) easily and prevent academic cheating.--Amore Mio (talk) 05:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. People's Army Publishing House is the official publishing agent of the Vietnam People's Army and its publications can be considered as equal to official government documents. When it comes to accuracy, especially of figures, I'm fully aware that there will be controversies. But those are the best anyone can get from the Government of Vietnam at the current moment and deserve to be listed as an alternative source.


 * As for the additional citation details, would the following be enough?


 * "Lịch sử Bộ Tổng tham mưu trong kháng chiến chống Pháp 1945-1954", Ban tổng kết-biên soạn lịch sử, BTTM, 1991. Tổng kết Chiến dịch ĐBP, BTTM, tr. 799 (History of the General Staff in the Resistance War against the French 1945-1954, History Study Board, The General Staff, People's Army Publishing House, Hanoi, 1991, p. 799). Altus Quansuvn (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Try to use cite book for a better citation style.
 * will produce:
 * I'm neutral and have no idea regard to its reliable. If someone asked you, you should answer yourself. This guideline could be helpful for you.--Amore Mio (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral and have no idea regard to its reliable. If someone asked you, you should answer yourself. This guideline could be helpful for you.--Amore Mio (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral and have no idea regard to its reliable. If someone asked you, you should answer yourself. This guideline could be helpful for you.--Amore Mio (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks, will be working on it. Altus Quansuvn (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see you changed the citation for me. Thanks for lending a hand. Altus Quansuvn (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Airstrip closed on 13th, not 14th
According to Dien Bien Phu: The epic battle America forgot By Howard R. Simpson, one of the last flights out was Major General Cogny. He visited on March 13th for a "hurried conference in the CP." de Castrie's intelligence officer predicted an attack by 1700. The control tower for the landing strip closed at 1600 on the 13th due to heavy bombardment, ostensibly just for the rest of the day. Of course there were no further landings following that.Hvatum (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)