Talk:Battle of Thượng Đức (1974)

Result
"Threatening" Danang is not an equivalent to that an overrun or raid is carrying out at the same time. Therefore it is inappropriate to claim that the ARVN succeeded in "stopping" an attack on Danang. In fact, the PAVN successfully captured Thượng Đức but failed to capture Hill 1062. Thus, it should be written as "North Vietnamese limited victory" so far. If you can prove otherwise, give a full quotation of the book or another RS to consolidate your view.Dino nam (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The text that Mztourist copied from the books (or paraphrased) says nothing to claim that it was an ARVN victory, except for Hill 1062, which was just a single hill nearby the whole town. In fact, it recognizes that the PAVN did captured Thượng Đức, which was their objective. So this can hardly be called a "South Vietnamese Pyrrhic victory". If you can prove otherwise, please state the evidence.
 * The Oxford Dictionary defines "pyrrhic" as "(Of a victory) won at too great a cost to have been worthwhile for the victor." http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/pyrrhic Therefore, if the battle was won by the PAVN, it must be based on the value of the town in comparison to their losses. We don't have any detailed analysis on that here so far, so it is acceptable that the word "pyrrhic" is removed.Dino nam (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The PAVN didn't seek to capture just Thượng Đức, they sought to threaten Danang. Hill 1052 was strategic because the PAVN could have installed their artillery there and used it to bombard Danang. At the end of the battle the ARVN had lost Thượng Đức and retained Hill 1052, but at a huge cost to their elite troops and with severe depletion of ammunition reserves all of which would have a direct impact 4 months later. This is what Veith says and you haven't provided any RS that says otherwise.Mztourist (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You haven't read Veith and haven't provided any RS, just your view of the events. I have really had enough of your editing style of making changes without providing reliable sources and if you change this again I will seek to have you blocked.Mztourist (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I saw this on the admin noticeboard, read the article, and I think I can contribute a third opinion. To me, the article relates how Hill 1052 changed hands several times, but ultimately remained under ARVN control, with significant losses on both sides.

If the town of Thượng Đức had been strategically important on its own, then the battle would be considered a PAVN minor victory. Now, the article contains, to its credit, coordinates of the town and Hill 1052, and I think it is clear that the PAVN operational objective was Danang. Their objective of bombarding or raiding a major city was prevented because Hill 1052 was under ARVN control. Since the attacker did not achieve their objective, the defender can claim victory on an operational scale, even if PAVN did maintain control of a town along the approach to Danang.

I do have two questions for Mztourist. First, why is this a Pyrrhic victory? The impact of the losses on the ARVN regiments involved is stated, but my understanding of a Pyrrhic victory (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the victor would have had a better strategic outcome if they hadn't fought the battle at all. Is it Pyrrhic because Danang was taken only a few months later?

Second, the lead says it is was decisive; is that because it halted the offensive, or for some other reason? Roches (talk) 11:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input. Yes the objective was Danang whether by direct attack or by artilley fire. The reason why it was pyrrhic was because the ARVN suffered irreplacebale losses among its elite troops (who formed a threadbare ARVN mobile reserve) and depletion of resources which by that time were being rationed due to US funding cuts and rising oil prices and then as you note Danang fell 4 months later anyway. The ARVN also maintained substantial blocking forces opposite Thượng Đức that could have been used elsewhere in early 1975 if they had realised how badly damaged the 304th PAVN Division was. The ARVN had no choice but to fight at Thượng Đức and Hill 1052 and ultimately were somewhat victorious but it was a Pyrrhic victory or as Churchill said of the Battle of Verdun "victory was bought so dear as to be indistinguishable from defeat". It was decisive because it blocked the PAVN assault on Danang, was the last ARVN victory of the war, rendered the 304th PAVN combat ineffective and severely damaged the ARVN before the ultimate battles of 1975 Mztourist (talk)

I repeat, the problem is not there is an RS or not, but the problem is the result written by Mztourist is not supported by the RS he given itself. There is not a single word in pp. 95-96 of Veith's book claiming that the Thuong Duc was part of a campaign to capture Danang, or Danang would have been consequently attacked if the ARVN had lost Hill 1062. It is clear that Danang would have been seriously threatened if the PAVN had captured both the hill and Thuong Duc; I have never ever denied that. But was it a part of a campaign to capture Danang, as Mztourist claims, or only a part of a separate campaign to threaten or encircle the city, and then the capture of the city would be planned later in another campaign? The text in Veith's book neither supports the latter NOR the former. In fact, Van Nguyen Duong (in The Tragedy of the Vietnam War: A South Vietnamese Officer's Analysis, McFarland, 2008, p. 183) opines that the objective of the PAVN was not Danang, but "to relieve ARVN's control over the western bank of South Vietnam's territory from Cam Lo in Quang Tri Province to Quang Duc Province in II Corps & Region". Therefore, the claim that it is a South Vietnamese victory is based on Mztourist's own inference, and can be considered an original research.Dino nam (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Also in accordance with the opinion in Van Nguyen Duong's book, I think the result of the battle should be regarded as a North Vietnamese limited tactical victory + South Vietnamese Pyrrhic strategic victory.Dino nam (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Dino nam you are the one doing OR on what the PAVN's intentions were. I said that Danang was threatened and that the capture of Hill 1062 would have put Danang in the range of PAVN artillery, as stated by Veith on page 96 "Enemy 130mm artillery was now in range of Danang." and then on page 97 after the battle of Hill 1062 ended "the threat to Danang had been halted". An ARVN officer's opinion on the PAVN's intentions in attacking Thuong Duc is just that, an opinion, but since you place such great weight on Duong I have added a contrary opinion by Quang Thi Lâm (a source that you rely on on the Battle of Cua Viet page) that the target was indeed Danang. Your battle summary is overly complicated and assumes that the PAVN target was Thuong Duc, when we have 2 RS saying that it was to threaten Danang, so I am reversing your edits, again.Mztourist (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The outcome of the battle should be as stated in the RS, so the version supported by the two sources (South Vietnamese pyrrhic victory) should be retained. The article needs to depend on the independent analysis of reliable secondary sources because a primary source such as an officer's published opinion can easily be restated to make the outcome seem more (or less) favorable. Roches (talk) 07:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with User talk:Dino nam. According to sources of ARVN, it recaptured the 1062 on Nov. 8th. However, PAVN recaptured the 1062 in the middle of the Nov and it use the 1062 for attacking Da Nang in March, 1975. The ARVN had to retreat to Hill 52 after losing Hill 1062, the distance between ARVN and the 1062 is 4 kilometers.(http://batkhuat.net/tl-tran-thuongduc-1974.htm). As the result, PAVN is the winner.025665hohn166.jisjifj (talk) 02:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is not WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Who is the winner
Accroding to Vienamese resouces, NVA is the winner

https://www.vietmaz.com/2012/08/the-victory-statue-of-thuong-duc/

http://english.quangnam.gov.vn/CMSPages/BaiViet/Default.aspx?IDBaiViet=3900

I do not think that Vietnamese sources are not WP:RS because they match all requirements of WP:RS. Especially, the 2nd source belongs to Vietnam government

I think we shoul set both sides claimed victoryTonnytaffoc (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Disagree as per extensive discussions previously. Vietnamese Government sources are not WP:RS. See Articles for deletion/Battle of Hoa Da – Song Mao for an example of a claimed North Vietnamese victory based on Vietnamese sources, we couldn't find any WP:RS to show that a battle had even taken place when the story claimed that 900 ARVN and 100 US had been killed! Mztourist (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Further to quote the article you refer to: "Possessing a large- scale and impressive architecture construction, the Victory statue of Thuong Duc is located in Dai Lanh commune, Dai Loc district, 40km west of Da Nang. This place records the resounding victories of the 340 Division and local troops in the battle against American Imperialists on August 7th 1974. Situated in an important location in military strategy, Thuong Duc was changed into a great military base by Americans and their puppets, inlcuding a feeo-concreted tunnel system and many modern weapons-equipped posts. This base is considered as a steel gate protecting Da Nang- one of the largest military areas of American battlefield in Southern Vietnam. Thuong Duc victory affirmed that Vietnamese troops could defeat the Americans and their puppets in every battle and it was a stepping-stone to attack the final heading to the entire liberation of the southern part." Any source that refers to "American Imperialists" and "puppets" is clearly biased and should not be relied on. In addition the US was not even a combatant in the battle having withdrawn all its forces in January 1973! If you think this amounts to WP:RS then you need to read the policy and WP:NPOV much more closely. Mztourist (talk) 07:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Tonnytaffoc. Whatever the North Vietnamese sources claim, it does not sound right to attribute victory to the South Vietnamese when even each side's objective is debatable among sources. "Indecisive" would be most satisfactory. Alex D. Tran (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Tonnytaffoc is a blocked sock and his comments have no merit. Suggest you read Pyrrhic victory which is defined as "a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat" Mztourist (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)