Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 16

Is our focus too narrow?
It looks to me like the artificial separation of US actions by country in Indochina doesn't correspond to the reality, in which extensive saturation bombing lasted from 1965 on, only shifting targets. We're also missing any discussion of the impact on Vietnam, instead shifting it to its own article. Filling in what Operation Phoenix actually was would probably also be a good idea. And why is it that the most iconic pictures of each period are not being used to illustrate the article? I understand that this is going to shift the POV, but as it's written now it's a very pro-US article because so many of the omissions in our summarization are of negative facts.

Relevant and major operations not mentioned: Bombing of North Laos Operation Phoenix Destruction of villages. US support for Khmer Rouge after Vietnamese invasion. US bombing of Cambodia: The extent is massively underreported, and the protestations of the Cambodian government not actively discussed.

Given that Second Indochina War redirects here, we should reflect at least some of the broader history. Watson Ladd (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

'Revisionist' historians
Considering there are a small but passionate and well-researched group of historians; as well as veterans and political commentators; who have a sharply different view of almost all aspects of the Vietnam War, including disputing much of what the mainstream considers 'settled', shouldn't there be a separate section along the lines of 'Revisionist History'? It's a red-hot, current, controversial issue, it should be on there. Farawaychris (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which ones are the revisionists?Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you mean a section describing how the scholars are fighting, then there would need to be an extra article to explain the paradigm. Among revisionists, Lewis Sorley, Mark Moyar and Guenther Lewy and probably more.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 22:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is Guenther Lewy a revisionist given that he wrote in 1978? Moreover whilst Mark Moyar's say hes a revisionist there is no source for this, so can we have a few sources that these writers are?Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Lewy still is, and Moyar styles himself as such in the intro of his book, as well as identifying Lewy as being a leading revisionist  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 00:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Link in note 108
is disfunctional and should read http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/gulf_of_tonkin/articles/rel2_thoughts_intelligence.pdf --88.64.147.154 (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a Vietnam Veteran (1968-72) and Here's the Scoop
No, the U.S.A. did not lose the Vietnam War, otherwise we'd be speaking Vietnamese and there'd be Viet Cong in the White House. Vietnam was a proxy war--we were actually fighting Russia and Red China. That was a time of high international political pressure and political steam had to be let out somewhere, if not Southeast Asia, then it would have been Africa or South America, who knows? Korean War veterans I worked with back then knew what was up--if we started "winning" too much in Vietnam then that would draw in the Red Chinese in massed force and we didn't want that. We never did invade the North in massive force with our own infantry, which would have been necessary to "win" the war in any conventional sense. President Johnson, who was good at domestic policy, was inept at military strategy and thought we could dominate the North with intermittant bombing (the Vietnam War was actually Johnson's War). Vietnam was just a loose end from WWII; Ho Chi Minh even wrote President Truman asking for recognition but Truman had allegiances with the French who wanted to re-establish their claim in Indochina. Truman could have prevented the war if he could have forseen the consequences, so I guess the Vietnam War is all his fault. As for that evacuation melee at the U.S. embassy, the crowd broke into the liquor supplies at the State Department Club and turned into a drunken mob. We could have gotten them all out but the pilots had over-extended their flight hours and needed rest for safety reasons. So there were 6 loads of people left that didn't make it out, but if the Navy fleet had known there were only 6 loads left, they would have gotten them out. I should like to point out that the student demonstrations ended when the draft ended--the students weren't protesting the war, they just didn't want to die and were hypocritical about it. Believe me, if we had a draft now there'd be student demonstrations on college campuses all across the U.S. protesting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So it looks like an all-volunteer military is actually a smart political move since it keeps dissent down. I always concluded that in Vietnam we were the 300 Spartans guarding the pass against Communism, so actually we did achieve our strategic military objective. We actually did "win". But people think war is a football game and that there should always be a clear winner and loser. A couple of good reference books I refer you to are "Eyewitness Vietnam" by Gilmore and Giangreco, Sterling Publishing, 2006, and "The Vietnam War Experience" by Souter and Giangreco, Barnes and Noble, 2007. Both are very readable with lots of illustrations and could be used for term papers in high school or college. They get down to the facts, with first person accounts and accurate reporting and would make good additional"source" material for this Wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.199.171 (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OR at its worst. I think this soapboxing should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)                                                                     The references were cited:  "Eyewitness Vietnam" and "The Vietnam War Experience", which contain primary, secondary and tertiary sources.209.77.231.183 (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What referances? I see none, or are you talking about material removed from the articel. Or are you talking about unsourced claims above that contain no inline referances?Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

the vietnam war was a loss, because we failed our goal to stop communism. i suppose that the korean war was our loss because in north Korea they dont speak english right? no! sometimes a war has a partial victory like korea. there is the case when you get a stalemate like the iraq-iran war, but this was a politicilal defeat for the U.S. i understand that this war is heavily debatable, but this was in the lnog run a temporary ceasefire, and then loss for the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.2.206 (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem With "Original Research" Concept
The problem with the Original Research prohibition of Wikipedia is that it encourages the re-publication of erroneous material over and over again. First person accounts, on the other hand, do much to dispell inaccurate renditions of recorded events. I think the "OR" prohibition weakens Wikipedia and this guideline should be re-evaluated. I'd much rather read about something by somebody who was actually there rather than read the third or fourth rendition of a hack news reporter's account who was on a deadline, had a quota, a bias, and who was pandering to common fads. What do Wiki editors think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.231.183 (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's the question of what to do when different first hand accounts contradict each other. Participants in a conflict also have a bias for their side - stacking first hand accounts from both sides of the conflict against each other would make for a fairly confusing article. Wikipedia is not the place to evaluate the truth of historical testimony, that task falls on historians and wikipedia editors should (ideally) represent what mainstream experts are saying about the subject. --Sus scrofa (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would also be wary of using OR, for other reasons as well. We tend to look at the past thru a prism and thus recollection may be coloured by things such as survivor guilt or self-justification. Also studies have shown that witness groups do not always see the same event in quite the same way. Moreover how can we verify OR, anyone can claim to be a witness (after all disasters there are fake survivors who would be considered eye witness until found out). Then we have opinion, this creeps into eyewitness accounts, so will we restrict their use to only those areas they did actually witness.
 * One last point At the battle of the little Big Horn there were some Indians, what’s odd (unless you are willing to have a whole new idea about the battle) is that many of the eye witness statements from them have different chronologies (in the sense that different events happen at different times). There is a reason for this, and it cultural, as such I would argue that to use OR when witnesses are from different cultures (and thus may have different perspective of what’s important) is fraught with potential pitfalls.

Soapboxing" About the Vietnam War
We don't have soapboxing here in the US, I think it's a distinctly British tradition--the closest thing we might have would be Letters To the Editor in our newspapers. As for sourcing for Slatersteven above, in "The Vietnam War Experience", pg. 11, it states that Ho Chi Minh sent President Truman eight letters asking for help but Truman did not respond since his commitments were to the French. Secretary of State Dean Acheson recommended to Truman that he aid Ho Chi Minh but Truman half-heartedly aided the French instead (pg. 7). This book even has some photostatic replications of Top Secret documents concerning this matter, including a letter from Ho Chi Minh dated Feb. 28, 1946, imploring Truman to help the Vietnamese against the French. So there's the start of the Vietnam War for the US--Truman declining to help the Vietnamese establish their independence from the French. The war was Truman's fault.****As for the drunken riot at the American embassy on the evac when the South Vietnamese broke into the liquor cabinet at the State Department Club, this is described on pages 284 to 287 of "Eyewitness Vietnam".****The famous Easter Offensive, when General Giap invaded South Vietnam with 200,000 troops and was soundly beaten, getting 40,000 of his troops KIA, is discussed on pages 52 to 53 of "The Vietnam War Experience". By Oct. 22, Linebacker I ended after the US flew 40,000 sorties. My squadron was the 561st TFS (Wild Weasels) flying F-105's (the casualty rate for Wild Weasel aircrews was 63% over the course of the Vietnam War) and we were awarded the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with Combat V for Valor for our Linebacker role. We, the US Air Force, got General Giap fired, and Giap had been the General who had defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu. By Nov. 30, all American troops were out of Vietnam except for 16,000 advisors to help the ARVN. From Dec. 18 to Dec. 29 (the "Twelve Days of Christmas") we had Linebacker II, which brought North Vietnam to the negotiating table and the Paris Peace Accords were thus signed on Jan. 27, 1973, with the US agreeing to pull out all personnel within 60 days (hence the Vietnam Service Medal, which I have with three battle stars, ceases on March 28, 1973). TWO YEARS later the South Vietnamese lost the war on April 30, 1975. The US hadn't even been in Vietnam in two years and in any combat strength for three years (the pullout was started in 1969). So no, the USA did not lose the war, the South Vietnamese did. I could go on but I recommend you folks in Internet Land read "The Vietnam War Experience", Souter and Giangreco, 2007, Barnes & Noble; "Eyewitness Vietnam", Gilmore and Giangreco, 2006, Sterling Publishing; "Lawrence of Vietnam" by Michael M. Peters, 2006, Stansbury Publishing; and other books on the matter.****In closing, I should add that when we were in Vietnam we'd get hometown papers about actions in Vietnam that we were involved in and we'd laugh our rear ends off at the inaccuracies and fairy tales the folks back home were being told by reporters. 'Nuff said?70.237.14.65 (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Sgt. Rock


 * Please see WP:NOTSOAPBOX. As to the sources. I do not dispute that they exists or that they back up some of the material. What I dispute is that the poster could have been an eye witness to some of these events. He is mixing his own memories with what he has read, and as such we cannot determine what is his own recolection nad what is the opinion of others. For example were you party to the NV's negotiating discusions?Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

History vs Mythology
I tried to reference everything I wrote to published sources, as per the Wiki guidelines. My own personal experiences during the war were with the day-to-day operation of combat aircraft, so I only mentioned such matters when it was re-iterated by published sources. I was not at the negotiating table with North Vietnamese leaders and I only saw Nixon once, after the war. I have advised Presidents since on tactical military matters (taking out the enemy's 300 tanks with Apache helicopters in the Bosnia conflict; using commandoes on the ground working with locals and fully supported by TAC Air in Afghanistan after 9-11, etc.) Right now the USA is involved in the Great Game in Afghanistan just like the British were in the 1800's.  Afghanistan is just a wild, desolate place but it's located at a crossroads of the world and its location makes it strategically important. I feel sorry for the poor Afghan people, just like I did for the Vietnamese who had a great country which could have been another Florida-type vacation haven. So yes, the world is messed up because people are jostling each other for elbow room (that's soap-boxing). Here's my point: I was trying to clear up the confusion as to whether we lost the Vietnam War or not, as others on the discussion page were interested in this topic, and went to published sources for objectivity and verifiability. Forty years after the war there's some good books out there now with stand-off objectivity, given the perspective of time. History is replete with myths, which I'm trying to dispell. Here's something to ruminate upon: did the British really lose the American Revolutionary War? After all, the Brits still had 44,000 troops in America after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown. Well, the British withdrew because the war had become too expensive. In February 1782 the House of Commons voted against continuing the war and Lord North resigned. It was simply a money matter. The Americans lost most of their battles and George Washington was a lousy field commander. Here's what is said about him in "The American Past" by Joseph Conlin, 1990, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Third Edition, pg. 152: "Nor was Washington a successful field commander.  His expeditions during the French and Indian Wars were fiascos.  In the early years of the Revolution, he won a few small battles while his defeats were legion.  Most of his seven years in command were spent in retreat or wary watchfulness, a step ahead of annihilation." (Sounds like the North Vietnamese in the Vietnam War.) And yet in American schools he is treated as a military genius, winning battles all the time. He has become a myth, displacing history. In actuality, the French won the war for us but American school books never mention D'Estaing, deGrasse or Rochambeau at Yorktown. So there's a distinct similarity between Vietnam and the American Revolutionary War, the difference is that the Americans did finally secure a massive victory at Yorktown, so a military defeat of the British did occur, while no such defeat happened to the Americans in Vietnam. ****Hope I clarified things somewhat, but I probably just muddied the waters. P.S. I wish Slatersteven would use Spellcheck.63.207.227.77 (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Sgt. Rock
 * So why do we need OR when we (and you) can (and have) used RS? As to victory or loss. America's aim was a SV free from communist influence, the Paris peace accords not only force SV to recogonise the communist (and allow them to stand in ellections) but also allowed NV forces to remain in country. A situation that was actualy worse then in 1965. Moreover America was supposed to come to SV aid in the event that NV broke the cease fire, in the end they did not. Its true that NV did not millitarily defeat the USA, they defeated it politicaly. The USA failed in its stated reason for going to war, how can that be anything but a deafeat.Slatersteven (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

More on Vietnam; We Won the Chess Game; How Many Vietnam Vets Were There and How Many Are Still Alive?
Nixon was supposed to start the air war against North Vietnam again if the North didn't abide by the Paris Peace Accords, but Nixon had to leave office, so that option vanished with him. We have to look at Vietnam in terms of Tactics, Strategy and Grand Strategy. The Grand Strategy was to prevent the world wide spread of Communism and we succeeded in that. It was a very dicy situation back then, with the US and Soviet Russia pointing nuclear missiles at each other. Look at it like a chess game: we gave the Commies a pawn (Vietnam) but we got their king when the Soviet Union collapsed around 1990. We won eventually.****  As for the importance of original research (OR), I had a seminar with Alexander Kerensky at UC Berkeley in the late 1960's in which Kerensky said he had been keeping in touch with friends in Russia and they told him the Soviet Union would collapse in about 20 years because of internal problems, which it did. I don't think there's any written record of this seminar, but it's important because it dispells the erroneous popular notion that President Reagan defeated the Soviet Union. I remember reading some news account in which Gorbachev also said the Soviet Union collapsed internally, that Reagan had nothing to do with it, so Kerensky was spot on the money 20 years in advance. But according to Wiki guidelines, we can't use the Kerensky statement. Also, during the Vietnam War a lot of guys who had been in Korea and WWII would tell me stuff about these wars that wasn't in the history books, so we can't use info of this nature in Wiki.****Right now there's some questionable stuff in the Vietnam War article that I think should be cleared up. For instance, the article states that there were 3,000,000 Vietnam Veterans but when the war ended there were only 2.1 million Vietnam Veterans, then it went up to 2.3 million and now I'm reading 2.5 million vets because I guess they included guys who had never set foot on Vietnam soil but served offshore on ships or were stationed in Thailand for missions to Vietnam, etc. but I've never seen that 3 million figure before! Also, I've read on the Internet where there's only about 800,000 of us Vietnam Vets still alive, which seems really low. I'm 61 and I guess most people die off in their sixties so we might just have 10 years left of a good amount of Viet Vets to get info from. Anybody out there got any accurate figures?63.207.227.77 (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Sgt. Rock


 * Actually it was congress that passed a law in August of 1974. Vietnam is still ruled by the communist party, so the US did not keep it free from communism.
 * The problem with OR (as I have said) is that we cannot be sure if the person saying they survived 11/9 did or not. So Wikipedia decided to have verifiability rather then fact. This is to stop the possibility of falsehoods (not that it does there are always users who claim source X says Y when it does not). That is the problem even with RS and V we still have people telling porkies. If we allowed OR then Wikipedia would become about as reliable as an MP's expenses claim. Moreover who's OR would you allow? My Dad told me, my mate told me, some bloke down the pub told me, a friend of a friend told me? How do you verify what they have said is true?Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Should We Include North Vietnamese Historical Assessment?
Hmm, yes, and let's not forget Congress's Case-Church Amendment of June 19, 1973 which prohibited anymore American intervention in Southeast Asia starting on Aug. 15. ****I think Wiki guidelines became emplaced to prevent vandals from fouling up sites, which is a shame since there always seems to be a few who ruin a good thing for everybody else. But I'm new to the Internet so I'm not familiar with its developmental history. Here's the thing though: there's a quote by Henry David Thoreau which says "We speak conformably to the rumour which we have heard". Much of what we have been taught in school is in error. For instance, (many contend that) Laurens Janszoon Koster invented movable type, not Gutenberg. Also, Pocahontas did not save John Smith's life, he made the story up. George Welch was the first to break the sound barrier, not Chuck Yeager. The Wright Bros. did not build the first powered heavier-than-air airplane, there were others before them: John Stringfellow (1848), Felix du Temple de la Croix (1857), Alexander Mozhaisky (1884), Sir Hiram Maxim (1894), Clement Ader (1890), Samuel Langley (1894), Augustus Herring (1898), Gustave Whitehead (1899), Karl Jatho (1903), etc. Then there's always the "Rashomon" effect, as was noted. Probably the quintessential piece on different people seeing things differently is the famous poem "The Blindmen and the Elephant" by John Godfrey Saxe. In regards to all this, then, do Wiki editors think a section on the North Vietnamese perspective, by North Vietnamese, should be included in the Vietnam War article? Just a thought I had, it might prove interesting and illuminating.69.104.55.34 (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Regards, Sgt. Rock


 * I think we should end the discusion about wikipedias policies here. I think this is the best place for what has become rather long [] or []. As to NV sources. I would agree that as long as we attribute them thier inclusion would benifit the article.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Name of the war(s)
-   - " Vietnam War, also known as the Second Indochina War," -- In Vietnam today, the fighting between the U.S. and Viet-nam is called the "American War" (e.g., at the national museum of Viet-nam history in HCMC). Kdammers (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I second that, having been to Vietnam myself in 2008, the war is always refered as the "american war"; american politicians as "imperialists" and soldiers as "american GIs". This is common practice among all communist ideologies, to clearly separate military, politicians and people. in Portugal a recent tv series about our own oversees war was called "The Oversees/Colonial/Independence war", reflecting on the complexity of views about this and any war. while i don't propose a move, i think the current Vietnamese name should be included.Galf (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of Vietnamese do not speak English or call the war by any English-language name. The most common Vietnamese name for the war is Chiến tranh Việt Nam, which translates literally as "Vietnam War." There are several English-language newspapers in Vietnam, and only the most official one (Việt Nam News) uses "American War." The phrase is strictly officialese -- in casual conversation, it's always "the war." Kauffner (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if the war is called "American" by official sources, then I'd say that is a very good reason to add that moniker as well. Galf (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Etymology
How is this etymology? Is it not merely a naming issue? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Rewording
I believe there is a small typo in this sentence in the "Exit of the Americans: 1973–1975" section:

"This time, Trà could travel on a drivable highway with regular fueling stops, a vast change from the days was Ho Chi Minh Trail was a dangerous mountain trek."

Should be

"This time, Trà could travel on a drivable highway with regular fueling stops, a vast change from the days when Ho Chi Minh Trail was a dangerous mountain trek"

This Talk section should best be removed after the correction to avoid cluttering up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calonectris (talk • contribs) 09:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done for spotting this. You should be bold and go ahead and make this correction yourself...welcome to Wikipedia. :) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 12:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thai Troop Totals
if anyone has a good source for the total number of thai troops that served, please add the number to the conflict infobox. the thai total is the only one we're missing.Capt Jim (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Contribution of Spain in Vietnam War
I would like to say there were spanish forces(from Spain)in the Vietnam War.They're not mentioned a all in the article and It would be great if someone try to investigate and write about their role during the conflict. Spanish forces were in Vietnam during the same time Australian forces did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.80.4.162 (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A very small number of Spainish personnel were deployed in Vietnam from 1966 to 1970. The total number in theatre at any one time apparently never exceeded 13. No idea what their role was but it probably doesn't warrant inclusion in this article given the very small numbers involved. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Anotherclown (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a source (In the attic at the moment) that mentions them as being a medical unit. Perhaps a very slight mention might be in order.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. It's too much undue weight  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  09:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned up
the article to remove some errors, repetition, and undue weight on a whole pile of things and moved bits to froks etc  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  09:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"Result" flaw
I coucou the correct terminology should be "US Political defeat, withdrawal of US forces after cease-fire in 1972, Communist victory over South Vietnam in 1975." Something along those lines. Reading these posts it is obvious that some people are proud of the military tradition, and I too am one to say that the U.S. military did not lose this war. It was a political failure from the start back in the 50's that did not allow the fighting men of the US to actually do their jobs cotrrectly. Although I do not know another fighting force in the world that can be told to fight with both hands tied behind their backs and still win virtually every battle. However, the eventual fall of Saigon happened 3 years after the US withdrew. I think that is one fact that is often times overlooked. On the topic of winning every battle, the US pretty much did. The target strategy in 1968 for the US was to defeat the Communists by killing more than they could send. However, with the Chinese supplying men to the North that is merely impossible using conventional means. I think this article is too much of a "broad stroke" in acutally breaking down what happened. A major problem with topics such as this is that Americans are notorious for being historically ignorant.


 * The US failed to achive its aims, it withdrew whilst NVA forces were still in country, It decided to stop aid (and to not responed to NVA cease fire violations) whilst fighhting was going on. Also you seem to be saying that the US had a stratagy that failed becasue thoes commies did not fight by our rules, how can that not be defeat then?Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I hope I'm doing this right. Looking at the narrow picture of whether this was a victory or a defeat (or something else, then what?) for the U.S., first, let's get past the jargon. #1: how do you justify the statement that "the US military won pretty much every battle in the war"? It is just the wrong measuring stick to use for this kind of a war. The key to the military-political strategy of the Vietnamese was to engage the US in a long drawn out war of attrition that would cost too much and tire us out. That most definitely succeeded. The comment directly below me is mostly biased political jargon. The narrow goals of the US were not met: a pro-US government was not preserved and was not in any state of being able to survive on its own upon withdrawal. That really counts as a "loss". In terms of pitched battles, that wasn't the main strategy of the PAVN/NLF, where the main tactic was guerilla warfare. So you are comparing apples to oranges. Yes, your apples are brighter red, perhaps, but the oranges are juicier.

grog225 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grog225 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that the statement "the US military won pretty much every battle in the war" is menaingless given the stratagy adopted by both sides it is not hard to justify the statement (it is true), its just not relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)]]

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

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


 * The communists never sought to defeat the overwhelmingly superior US forces in battle. Their strategy was a war of attrition, keeping up the fight until the enemy could no longer afford fighting (politically and economically). In this they succeeded. From a purely military standpoint it is of course very irrational to slug through the mud and fire pop-guns at the enemy when you can just drop nuclear bombs until the population is exterminated. But there are other consideration; war is the continuation of politics by other means after all.


 * The US was also fighting a war of attrition, and in that they lost. They were not willing to take the same casualties as the Communists. In a war of attrition its not how many battles you win, its the last man standing that counts, inn that the North won, they were the last combatants in the field. Moreover the US military is not yet the US government or nation; it is a branch of it. So whilst it may be true (if we ignore the fact that the US military chose a strategy that failed to bring it victory) that the US military did not lose the war the US nation did, it failed to achieve its aims. Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)]]

So the political goals were not met but the US did not lose? what other criteria is there for losing a war then not achiving what you set out to do. No one is saying it was milliterily defeated, what they are saying is that the US lost the war by failing to achive most (and argualbly all) of its stated war aims. If you withdraw from a fight, and the fight is not over then you have lost it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)]]

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)

I just wanted to counter your arguement Dunnsworth, if the US signed a cease fire with North Vietnam, then the North breached it. Because part of the cease fire is a cessation of hostilities. This did not happen. The vietcong were still pushing the south. The Americans just wanted a nice and clean exit, something to which they never got. Since we all saw those television broadcasts of the last american troops evacuating off the roof. Don't make me laugh. Don't revise history because the majority of the world believes the US lost the vietnam war. India, China, Russia, Pakistani, Europe, Latin america all have their text books state "Defeat for the US". Please don't try and be George W Bush here. He was the only other white man apart from you to go up against the world. Look where that got him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.98.84 (talk) 09:22, 2 August 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)


 * There were no two nations. That is US propaganda. You know nothing about the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2010 (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)

Strategically, this is a US defeat. Was not the aim of the US military involvement to stop the communist's progress in South East Asia ? Whatever US army left before or at the end of the war, the fact is US Army left South Vietnam alone facing the North and finally the last one won. 86.206.109.135 (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

USA was defeated in the Vietnam War because, they didn't go there for a peace deal. They went there to win. More than half of the social textbooks world wide reads "USA lost" or "USA defeated". Only the neo-conservatives who want to spin this truth other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.198.255 (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The US came there to stop the spread of communism. The spread of communism was not stopped. The nation set out to achieve an objective and failed. That's pretty much the definition of defeat right there. Who won how many battles is irrelevant, because they quite clearly weren't that vital to the overall objective. Winning a battle does not equal winning a war, and sometimes even winning all the battles does not equal winning the war. - Alltat (talk) 04:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

ok it should say temporary ceasefire U.S. withdrawal North Korea conquers South Korea in 1975 oh and technically it WAS a U.S. defeat because U.S. failed init's goal and North Korea gained it's goals--70.253.84.225 (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

IP70, It's North/South Viet Nam. My idea is: US defeat in proxy war vs. USSR/PRC, South Viet Nam defeat vs. North in traditional war. Xomm (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Guys, please note the lead sentence of Wikipedia's verifiability policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true." The opinion of individual Wikipedia editors on this matters not one whit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

How about shortening the introductory part of the article
I'm thinkning about the sections "Background to 1949", "Exit of the French, 1950–1954", "Transition period", "Diem era, 1955–1963". I think there are a lot of words before the reader gets to the actual Vietnam War (that IMO got started in 1959 with the FNL campaign to topple the RVN) and I'm not sure all of it is relevant in this article. On the other hand all that is now written seems to provide important background information to the war. Maybe shorten the intro radically, moving text into other articles or maybe there needs to be a seperate article called Background to the Vietnam War or something, where excess data can be moved. This would move the focus of the article closer to the main subject. So I ask my fellow editors what should be done if anything (status quo is also a choice.) :) --Sus scrofa (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "the actual Vietnam War (that IMO got started in 1959 with the FNL campaign to topple the RVN)" and WWII started in 1942.


 * This is Wiki. Even know-nothing kooks like Sus scrofa can contribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Current Error
It says The Viet Cong, a lightly-armed South Vietnamese communist-controlled common front, largely fought a guerrilla war against anti-communist forces in the region. The North Vietnamese Army engaged in a more conventional war, at times committing large units into battle. U.S. and South Vietnamese forces relied on air superiority and overwhelming firepower to conduct search and destroy operations, involving ground forces, artillery and airstrikes.

The first to mentions of South and North are mixed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Iv (talk • contribs) 01:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In what way?Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Fringes of war
http://www.nfb.ca/film/sad-song-of-yellow-skin/

"A sad song of yellow skin. A film about the people of Saigon told through the experiences of three young American journalists who, in 1970, explored the consequences of war and of the American presence in Vietnam. It is not a film about the Vietnam War, but about the people who lived on the fringe of battle. The views of the city are arresting, but away from the shrines and the open-air markets lies another city, swollen with refugees and war orphans, where every inch of habitable space is coveted."

A Montreal, QC, Canada NFB/ONF (National Film Board/Office National du Film)educational purpose documentary film.

Takima (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your point being?Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Decisive victory
Last week, the adjective decisive was added to the N. Vietnamese victory. I restored the long-standing version but was reverted. A "decisive victory" is not necessarily the same as a "total victory" (where the opposing force is largely depleted of troops or resources). The problem with using decisive victory is there's no standard definition of the term and more often than not, people rely on their personal overall judgment instead of providing sources. Considering that the war lasted over a decade and both sides suffered over a million casualties (comprising military and civilian deaths and injuries), it makes the term open to debate. In any case, the burden of evidence is on you to provide references stating the war was an overall decisive communist victory. It was obviously a victory, but I doubt that academic works generally describe this as overall decisive. Spellcast (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * IWHT a decisive victory is one that decides the long-term outcome of the conflict, rather than one that is necessarily skewed greatly to one side or the other in terms of casualties and other losses. Decisive victory seems to more or less agree and is sourced... Barnabypage (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That article defines a decisive victory as one "which decides the outcome to a campaign, though not necessarily to the war as a whole". Under that definition, you can only apply it to battles, not wars. I disagree that the war was overall decisive because it was protracted for far too long with too many casualties on both sides, but our personal judgment is irrelevant. It all comes down to what the sources say and I see no evidence that the consensus of reliable sources describe this as an overall decisive NVN victory. Spellcast (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Paris Peace Accords or 1973 supposedly established peace in Vietnam and an end to the Vietnam Conflict. Those accords ended direct U.S. military involvement as a participant in the conflict and temporarily stopped the fighting between north and south. A couple of years later, in apparent violation of those accords to which it had agreed, NVN launched Campaign 275, which led to the conquest by NVN of a SVN unsupported militarily by the US. I don't dispute that the end result of this was a "decisive victory" by NVN but, if that is to be a part of this article, I believe that it should be made clear that this was not a "decisive victory" over a SVN supported militarily by the US. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying that it was only a decisive victory after the US withdrawal would complicate what should be a simple infobox. The US were involved through the vast majority of the war and if this time period can't be described as decisive (which you and I agree), the infobox should simply say NVN victory. Spellcast (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The victory was only political against the US. The US won pretty much 99% of the battles in which it fought. The victory was tricking the US population to thinking the war was going badly. American hippies were spoon fed North Vietnamese propaganda and ate it up.
 * recounts (in the Introduction, I think; I don't have a copy of the book handy) an exchange between the author (a US Army Colonel at the time) and an NVN officer. Paraphrasing:
 * Col. Summers: "You know you never defeated us in the field."
 * Unknown North Vietnamese Colonel. "That may be true, but it is also irrelevant."
 * Other sources on this:
 * battlefield combat by other means" (copyedit stray snippet)
 * To appropriate and horribly misquote an oft-quoted Clausewitz dictum: "Propaganda is an extension of battlefield conflict into other areas." (see this, this, this, etc.). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To appropriate and horribly misquote an oft-quoted Clausewitz dictum: "Propaganda is an extension of battlefield conflict into other areas." (see this, this, this, etc.). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Reneame Proposal
I would like to propose that this article be renamed 'Vietnam Conflict', with 'Vietnam War' redirecting to it, as technically the United States never declared war upon North Vietnam, thus technically making the 'war' a 'conflict'. Anybody else have opinions? Lukefan3 (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE. the renaming proposal is based on OR --or rather just speculation. The title is NOT the "Declared Vietnam War" . Wiki uses the common name which is "Vietnam War." Rjensen (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE In the English language (This is English wikipedia) Vietnam War is the most commonly used term for this war. -- Esemono (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Its widley kn wn as the Vietnam war.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, in English it is universally known as the Vietnam War. (Both whitehouse.gov and the portal of the Vietnam government at www.chinhphu.vn use the term, incidentally.) Barnabypage (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Every other encyclopedia I've seen calls it the Vietnam war, or the Second Indochina War, not a conflict. BlackSabbath1996 (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, fine, I give. 208.106.47.61 (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"Part of Cold War"
This is not necessarily completely correct. Sure, the Americans viewed it as part of the Cold War, thats why they were there, but the conflict was essentially nothing more than a civil war. All the Vietnames people saw it was a fight for independence, there was a strong feeling of nationalisation in the country, they had been invaded countless times over the past century. To maintain an unbiased interpretation I think it would be better to emphasize that it was only part of the cold war from the Americans angle, from the Vietnamese point of view, just a war between the North and the South. Witty Beast (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And the Soviot and Chinese angle. There is no doubt that the war was the cold war impossing itself on a conflict unrelated to the cold war as such. But tehre is also no doubt that it was a conflict that was a hot part of the cold war.Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

But The Soviet Union and the Chinese were not that interested in Vietnam, they provided weopons in an attempt to weaken their enemy American, but they were saw it as vital part of the cold war. Indeed, when America eventually "lost" the USSR and China had not won, indeed they ended up fighting the communist government for Vietnam a very short while later. It is very easy to argue that it was a war of independence, nothing more. Witty Beast (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There were 300,000 Chinese troops in North Vietnam at one point. They were pulled out after the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, which caused the Chinese to switch their support to the Khmer Rouge. So after the war, Vietnam was a Soviet satellite while Cambodia was a Chinese satellite. North Vietnamese leaders always emphasized that their struggle was part of a global war against imperialism and so forth. Kauffner (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think thats the point, the USSR and China saw it as an extension of the cold war. As such it is part of (by proxy) the cold war. Which i belive was my point. Moreover the stated US aim was to stop the spread of Communism, again making it part of the wider US war against its 'communist' opponents. It was in part a war of independance, and in part a proxy war betwen the USA and the soviot block (including China of course). Much like the Spanish Civil war before it it was an internal strugle upon which out sode politics imposed itself (without regard for the realities on the ground).Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Quiet complicity: Canadian involvement
Victor Levant, Quiet Complicity: Canadian Involvement in the Vietnam War

http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/mb_history/16/canadainvietnamwar.shtml.Book review in English. History Department, Athabaska University, Manitoba

As member of SEATO (South East Asia Traity Organization), Australia has sent troops at the frontline, but not Canada as NATO member and US satellite "de facto".

http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/702404ar review of this book in French. Département de Science Politique, Université Laval, Québec.

Takima (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Duplicate articles
As well as this article, there is another very similar one called The Vietnam War. Surely they should be merged? Colonies Chris (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just from a quick glance they look identical but i do not have a great knowledge of the history of the article. Monkeymanman (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been merged. -- Esemono (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * is a Redirect to this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

End date of the war
Is there any serious doubt that the war ended in 1975? A user is trying to claim that the war ended in 1973. -- Esemono (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The date that all S. Vietnamese forces surrendered and the date in which the South was fedreated under the north should be the declared end date for this war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.175.238 (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

picture for article
popular among vets was a t shirt that said, "SE Asian wargames - 2nd place finisher" Does anyone have a picture ?Cinnamon colbert (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When I was in the Vietnam War we had patches that said "Southeast Asia War Games--Participant", and then the patch listed the countries--Laos, Cambodia, South Vietnam, North Vietnam. The patch was round, in the shape of the "ban the bomb" peace sign.  Thailand might have been counted (we had a lot of air bases there but it wasn't a direct participant--I remember the Khmer Rouge attacked one of our gunships at Ubon around March of 1970 because the plane was going to be shown to the King and Queen of Thailand the next day.  The Khmer Rouge had satchel charges tied around their waists and when they got close they pulled the lanyards and blew themselves up.  They must not of had a good life.  They were probably hopped up on opium.  They didn't even get near enough to the plane to damage it.  I guess the message is clear--don't do drugs.)  I've seen stickers on a pilot's helmet on the Internet that said:  "Bomb Hanoi"; "Bomb Haiphong"; "Bomb Disneyland"; "Bomb Everyone".  And I remember at Nha Trang someone hung a huge professional-looking banner outside their barracks that said "We Give S&H Green Stamps".  So yes, the humour and esprit de corps of American soldiers should probably be included in the article to balance the hang-dog "war is bad" attitude.  We already know war is bad.  71.157.182.121 (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

pyrrhic victory?
It should be fair to declare the N. Vietnemese as a pyrrhic victory due to large ammount of heavy casualites and lose of equipment it took to reach the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.175.238 (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Tough one as it was also a total vistory, they took over the whole country.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (commenting in haste) Is this as viewed from the viewpoint of the victors or as viewed from some other viewpoint? If other info exists which meets WP:DUE criteria, then the article should give that info due weight, citing supporting sources. If not, it should not. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I can get sources that could state such a fact. I mean, the North won sololy by objective but over all tactically, they lost just about every battle they were ever engaged. After you take into account: over all allied loses were about 300,000 while North Vietnemese were over a million. (not counting N. Vietnemese allied loses). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.175.238 (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Your source would have to say it was a pyrrhic victory. I would also point out that the SVN sufferd over 1 million casualties (The usa was not the only country inviolved you nknow). Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

My numbers it only counter deaths, not wounded or missing. Second, I know that the US wasn't the only nation invovled, which is why I used the term allied, not US. Point being is that though the N. Vietnam did secure there over all objective, they lost just about every battle and lost about 4 men for ever 1 they killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.175.238 (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

LONGEST WAR??
How can Afghanistan be the longest war in American History? It says here this shit lasted for 20 fucking years! (1955-1975) Jesus. Does anyone have an explanation for this?


 * Well for a start the USA withdrew in 1973. thats 18 years (note the lack of expleative, it was hard but someone had to do it).Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * American G.I's and troops were sent in year approximately 1963-1964 and the final evacuation 1973 (or 1975 but 1973 was the mass exodus) thats approximately 9-12 years. Afghanistan, troops were sent in approximately 3 months after september 11th 2001 and are still there today June 2010.  So in a perspective it is the longest war in 'american' history.  There is a good link here (that could be skewed to the perspective that the reporter was wanting but you would never officially find that out) here with a good paragraph below this reply.  Hope that helps. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The Vietnam War's length can be measured in many ways. The formal beginning of U.S. involvement often is dated to Aug. 7, 1964, when Congress passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, giving the president a virtual carte blanche to wage war. By the time the last U.S. ground combat troops were withdrawn in March 1973, the war had lasted 103 months. 
 * U.S. forces attacked Afghanistan on Oct. 7, 2001. On June 7, the war will complete its 104th month

This artical is not even relevent but since I started to type, the Korean war is the longest war for US forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.175.238 (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"Background to 1949" section
The lead-in to the "Background to 1949" section could use more info. The Vietnamese were ruled by China for 1,000 years, gaining their independence from the Chinese in 938 A.D. The Vietnamese ruled themselves for the next 800 years until the French takeover in 1858 began. Back in 1847 is the first year that the Vietnamese Empire clashed militarily with Europe: French gunboats attacked the port at Da Nang, sinking several vessels and destroying a couple of forts, in response to the arrest of a Catholic missionary, Vietnamese emperors being hostile to Catholicism. The missionary had already been set loose and was reportedly roaming freely around Singapore. Catholic missionaries were eventually successful in Indochina and this created the Buddhist/Catholic dichotomy which later played an important role in the nation's history. The French invaded in 1858 and increased their control until in 1893 they had Southeast Asia in their grasp. Silver Bayonet (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Its already coverd in the linked articels, unless you want this to change to hte history of veitnam page?Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought a nice prologue to improve the article in a literary fashion would be sensible. The mention of the 1,000 year rule by the Chinese and the intervention of the French with armed Catholic militias, etc. gives a nice background to the Vietnam War, making it more easy to grasp in context.  Silver Bayonet (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Vietnam War Did Continue
The war did not end for the Vietnamese on April 30, 1975 when "Big" Minh surrendered. The Vietnamese inherited a hornet's nest. There were anti-Communist insurgencies across the country, composed of former ARVN soldiers, religious groups, nationalists, Montagnards, etc. which PAVN (People's Army of Vietnam) was called upon to suppress. PAVN also attacked the Hmong across the border in Laos, in support of the Pathet Lao. In Cambodia the Khmer Rouge was slaughtering ethnic Vietnamese so in 1978 PAVN invaded Cambodia and installed a new government there that would fight against the Khmer Rouge, and this war lasted until 1996 when most of the Khmer Rouge gave up. The Chinese resented Vietnam invading Cambodia so on Feb. 17, 1979 China invaded Vietnam with 100,000 troops. The Vietnamese killed 30,000 of the Chinese troops and the Chinese then went scurrying back across the border to China. Vietnam continued raids on China from a base on Mount Laoshan, and at last report this has settled down to exchanging a few artillery rounds on occasion. For purposes of historical demarcation, March 28, 1973 is the date the Vietnam War ended for America and April 30, 1975 is the date the war ended for the South Vietnamese. I think a little epilogue about the morass of war the Vietnamese found themselves in after the Vietnam War would be intriguing. Silver Bayonet (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So what date do you bleive we should use?Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Vietnam War was a War between South Vietnamese government and its enemies, be it communists, religious groups or democratic advocacy forces. You may have a point about the continuing insurgency after South Vietnam surrendered and it would be interesting if you have any sources about the groups you talked about. However, the Cambodian–Vietnamese War, the Sino-Vietnamese conflicts 1979-1990 are separate wars and not part of the Vietnam War that is covered in this article.--Esemono (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The post-1975 pro-ROV attacks shouldn't be counted. If a platoon attack counts then many wars have never ended  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  04:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have founded this source about the post-war resistance in South Vietnam. Moreover, is there possible that we can change the name of this article, because this is NOT the only Vietnam War. Before that, the Vietnamese had fought two conflicts against the British and the French, those conflicts were likely also referred to as Vietnam War. 75.31.73.162 (talk) 06:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I have been able to tell the British never called their involvment the Vietnam war (or even a war).Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont think there is any danger of anyone becoming confused with the title. Given common cultural knowledge and the extensive opening introduction. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Post-War Insurgent Groups
There was a great deal of anti-Communist activity after the South surrendered. The book "The Vietnam War Experience", Souter & Giangreco, Carlton Books, 2007, on page 60 lists these anti-Communist insurgent groups that were active after Saigon fell on April 30, 1975: Montagnard tribes of the Central Highlands; religious groups such as the Cao Dai and Hoa Hao; and national anti-Communist organizations such as the Dai Viet and Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang (which had former ARVN soldiers in their ranks).Silver Bayonet (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a proposal to put into the article which has not been attempted. Monkeymanman (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They were insignificant. And anyway, Montagnards, Cao Dai and Hoa Hao had always been fighting everyone for independence so it has nothing to do with communist/anit-communist anyway  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  00:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Result
Since this war includes the conflicts in Cambodia and Laos, I recomment that we change the result to "Communist victory." Then we will add the note: North Vietnamese and Viet Cong victory in South Vietnam, Pathet Lao victory in Laos, and Khmer Rouge victory in Cambodia. Always be prepared (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm Dreaming Of A White Christmas
I think mention should be made that the broadcasting of the song "I'm Dreaming of a White Christmas" was the code for the evacuation of Saigon April 29-30, 1975 in Operation Frequent Wind, thus ending the Vietnam War. It sort of caps the article (and the war) and adds a poignant literary sense and I feel would be an improvement to the article. 71.154.158.137 (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Posted in the article
Note number 15 has been attributed to me under Annotations, it states, “The November 1955 date was chosen as the new start date because that was when the Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) that reorganized from a general Indochina into the different countries that the deployments were stationed.[15]” This sounds disjointed and is not what I wrote. I recommend the sentence presently appearing be deleted and replaced with the following:

U.S. government reports currently cite November 1, 1955, as the commencement date of the “Vietnam Conflict,” for this was the day when the United States Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Indochina (deployed to Southeast Asia under President Truman), was reorganized into country-specific units and MAAG Vietnam was established.

Source: A. T. Lawrence, author of Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173, p. 20. (Submitted by User:41.250.179.3)

Off2riorob (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Lessons of the War
"If anything came out of Vietnam, it was that air power couldn't do the job.[216] Even General William Westmoreland admitted that the bombing had been ineffective." --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.43.230.194 (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Given the premises, it would be much more correct to state that if anything came out of Vietnam, it was the ineffectiveness of the military instrument handled directly on a tactical scale by the politicians. The air power was ineffective because it was used in the most ineffective way possible. And the lesson was well learned as it led to a new model of military structure, with far more decisional power at the lowest levels (Fire Teams), so that the situation can be handled in times compatible with the rapidity with which the situation modifies at the tactical level. Trying to plan air strikes from Washington as it was done during Vietnam is like trying to hit a fleeing rabbit pointing a fine hunting gun by committee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.43.230.194 (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What sources do you have supporting that view (and there will be some I have no doudt). Also I would add that recent conflcits seem to have re-afirmed the leasson that airpower is an highly ineffective counter insurgency tool. As well, as the fact that bombing a country into the stone age only works if they are not already not that far from there anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The point, as I understood it, was not to say that air power is an effective counter-insurgency tool, but rather that conflict is more effectively managed by commanders close to the action than by politicians and bureaucrats halfway around the planet. I'll offer a cite supporting that: There, General Horner says that target selection by White House leaders with an immense knowledge of the politics of the war but little comprehension of battle contributed to U.S. failure in Vietnam. Horner (who flew Wild Weasel missions into North Vietnam in F-105s) argues there, "Though each higher headquarters will&mdash;rightly&mdash;have a role in determining goals and objectives, we must keep in mind that those who are closest to the action are the most important participants in the action. They are the ones the so-called higher echelons are there to support." Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Horner's comments are slightly disingenuous, since the Air Force itself tried in many instances to keep target selection out of the hands of those closest to the action (Linebacker II suffered so many early losses, for example, due to SAC's obsessive centralization of targeting and tactics). Setup provides some good examples of that, and The Eleven Days of Christmas is a great examination of Linebacker II.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Exit of the French, 1950–1954
I feel that the last paragraph of the Section titled, Exit of the French, 1950–1954, should be expanded, to include the following:

France’s elite paratroopers and Legionnaires were decisively defeated by the Vietminh on the 7th of May 1954. The bloody 56-day battle of Dien Bien Phu had ended, into which the French had poured more than 16,000 troops and suffered nearly 1,300 killed and more than 5,000 wounded.

During the more than seven years (from December 1946 to May 1954) that the French had been fighting in Vietnam, French Union Forces (made up of Frenchmen, French Foreign Legionnaires, and French Colonial troops from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Senegal, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) suffered more than 74,000 deaths, of which 20,685 were Frenchmen.

Source: A. T. Lawrence, author of Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173, pp. 16-17.

[Footnoted sources: Bernard B. Fall, Hell In A Very Small Place: The Siege of Dien Bien Phu. (Cambridge, Mass: Da Capo Press, 2002), p. 483; Bernard B. Fall, Street Without Joy. (Mechanicsburg, Penn: Stackpole Books, 1994), p. 385; and, Micheal Clodfelter, Vietnam in Military Statistics: A History of the Indochina Wars, 1772 – 1991. (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 1995), p. 33.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.141.97.113 (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thgis is coverd in the article on the French involvment.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I was looking for some reference to casualties suffered by the French, but I did not see any. A. T. Lawrence


 * As this articel is about the American period I am not sure that listing French casulaties is relevant. the proper place for that is in the artciel i the French Indo-China conflict.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Philosophical Concept of the Asian's Contempt for Time
I appreciate everyone's interest in the Vietnam War since I'm an American Vietnam veteran so here's something to mull over: the Asian's "contempt for time". The Vietnamese didn't care how long it took for their country to unify, five years or a hundred years. It made no difference to them. Ho Chi Minh (which means "The Enlightener", his real name was Nguyen Tat Thanh) said that the American people would not stand for a prolonged war in Southeast Asia. Americans like tasks completed on a set schedule. So no matter how many foreign countries might occupy Vietnam, Vietnam would eventually become a unified, independent country. They just had to wait. 69.104.54.170 (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Sgt. Rock
 * So what do you thneeds addresing the the articel to cover this?Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Surely you're misstating the case? The Vietnamese may have been prepared to wait a hundred years if they had to, but that's a long way from saying they didn't care how long. Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a culture clash--the Vietnamese were Buddhists primarily and they tend to be fatalistic; also corruption was the way they did business (very overtly, in contrast to Western cultures who attempt to hide their corruption); so this contrast between East and West was formidable, we still don't understand them and they still don't understand us. The Chinese ruled Vietnam for a thousand years but the Vietnamese didn't inbreed with them, they kept their ethnic identity and thus maintained their country's integrity for a thousand years.  --I guess they're used to waiting.  The mysterious Orient.  That's why I think a section for this article covering the Vietnamese point of view would prove illuminating.  Any South Vietnamese out there living in the USA reading this article?  We sure would like to hear what you think--would it be comparable to the South in the American Civil War being decimated by the Northern States?  I know Southerners in the Deep South who are still angry even though the Civil War ended 145 years ago.  Vietnam is a great country, by the way, and would make a top-notch vacation mecca.  You're right on the ocean, with terrific beaches.  The Vietnamese could make billion$ of dollars off tourism.  But I digress.  71.157.182.121 (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Sgt. Rock

How did the Vietnam War start.
I don't have clear answers and I need some please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironclad 16 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)  Okay,here is how the war started:  Diem was executed in 1963 and the following year the North Vietnamese started a massive anabasis (invasion) into South Vietnam. To counter this the U.S. landed 3,500 Marines at Da Nang in March of 1965 and by the end of that year there were 184,300 U.S. troops in-country. By the end of 1966, there were 389,000 U.S. troops and by the end of 1967 there were 480,000 U.S. troops in-country. That's it, pure and simple.Silver Bayonet (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The U.S. had Military advisers in Vietnam for sometime. However a decision was made in 1965 to carryout a build up of U.S. Forces to a massive extent. The strategy being that the opponents to the American backed South Vietnamese Government would back down in the face of overwhelming inferiority to U.S. Military strength. What we now call 'The Vietnam War' grew from a refusal of the Vietnamese groups apposed to American involvement to accept that they could not resist such an American Expedition, and the U.S. refusal to back away from the commitment they had so publicly made. Both Americans and Vietnamese then found themselves locked into an escalating spiral of violence where both sides accused the other of intransigence.Johnwrd (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And to explain the success over many years of North Vietnam's war effort, the slow buildup of US involvement gave North Vietnam ample time to match that buildup. The lesson might be that in territorial wars, outsiders must implement their "overwhelming" superiority quickly and effectively, not just allow it to be inferred.  Otherwise the territorial opponents are able to mount an effective defense, and even a respectable offense against the outsiders.    .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.   06:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * According to conventional wisdom, at any rate. This is not necessarily the whole story. There is, in fact, much debate as to the exact causes of the war. Gingermint (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Start date of war
MAAG-Indochina was renamed MAAG-Vietnam in November 1955 only because the French dissolved their Indochinese administration at this time. I find it bizarre that anyone would use this as the start date of a war. In early 1958, Vietnam was generally viewed as a country at peace: "The country has enjoyed three years of relative peace and calm", according to P.J. Honey, a British journalist who visited Vietnam in early 1958. Bernard Fall's July 1958 article claiming that a new war had begun was big news and quite controversial. The North Vietnamese Politburo formally approved war in March 1959, although the real decision must been made earlier, perhaps in early 1958 when Le Duan became top leader. The first Vietcong vs. ARVN large unit military action was in September 1959. Encarta gives the dates of the war as 1959-75. Kauffner (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The start date and the reasons for the war are in dispute. The article should reflect this. Gingermint (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As talked about in the Richard B. Fitzgibbon, Jr. article the start of the war was officially moved to Nov. 1, 1955 by the American Department of Defense in 1998. The November 1955 date was chosen as the new start date because that was when the Military Assistance Advisory Group ( MAAG ) that reorganized from a general Indochina into the different countries that the deployments were stationed.  This is shown in the following sources: Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant By A. T. Lawrence Pg20 and defense.gov release.  Should the start date be moved to 1955? -- Esemono (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Good question hard to answer for historians. As a political scientist with numrerous publications on Vietnam in French, I'd say in 1956 when the time of general referendum for reunification came without any referendum. At the 1954 Geneva Accords, Zhou Enlai out manouvered all in pressing Pham Van Dong to accept the temporary partition of Vietnam in two temporary military regroupment zones, making the Vietnamese fighting the American for the Chinese to finish the 0-0 Korea War and making the American fighting the Vietnamese (see Joseph Buttinger "The smaller dragon")for the Chinese. The 1979 Third Indochina War or SinoVietnamese War made it evident well after the event (Freudian-Laplanche "après-coup"). -- Takima (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Start date of war
November 1, 1955 is given as the start date of the war based on this press release. But the release doesn't say anything about the start date of the war, but only about "the earliest qualifying date for addition to the database and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial." The renaming of MAAG-Indochina as MAAG-Vietnam hardly qualifies a major historic event. I would define the start date as the first large unit military action, which was 26 September 1959. Only four Americans are on the wall with death dates earlier than this, which seems a thin reason to push the date forward by four years. Kauffner (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The government killed over 2000 communists cadres in anti-insurgency anti-VietMinh drives in 1958. Actually the first attack was an ambush on February 12, 1958 when insurgents killed the occupants of a South Vietnamese army truck.  On October 22, 1957 13 Americans were wounded in bomb attacks.  In 1956 South Vietnamese government controlled papers started referring to communists as Viet Cong (A shortened version of Viet Nam Cong-San which means "Vietnamese Communist").  From 1955 till the NLF was created the VietMing engaged in a low level armed campaign of intimidation and assassinations in support of winning the election to reunite the country. And IMO all anti-South-Vietnamese-government attacks should be included in the Vietnam War such as the Battle of Saigon (1955) and the suppression of the Hòa Hảo sect.  The "Vietnam Veterans Memorial" is for people who died in the Vietnam war and the American qualifying date for the start of the Vietnam War is 1955. -- Esemono (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are going bring in the sects, what about all people killed in the North as a result of Land Reform 1954-1956? Eligibility for the Vietnam War Memorial has nothing to do with when the war started, especially when the dividing line is something arbitrary like the renaming of MAAG. Journalists writing in early 1958 thought Vietnam was at peace. Bernard Fall was the first notable writer to claim that a new war had begun (July 1958). IMO, this is earliest reasonable date to use. The latest reasonable date would be the communist offensive in January 1960, or Dong Khoi uprising. Kauffner (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So attacks against Americans on October 22, 1957 don't count? The attack against South Vietnamese army on February 12, 1958 doesn't count?  Killing and massacres of South Vietnamese government officials, like the 1957 Chau Doc massacre, don't count?    It's not only the American start date that changed but in 1955 Diem solidified his power and started the Vietnam War by attacking all his opponents in South Vietnam and then rigging the election. -- Esemono (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Note number 15 was attributed to me, where, under Annotations, it states, “The November 1955 date was chosen as the new start date because that was when the Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) that reorganized from a general Indochina into the different countries that the deployments were stationed.[15]” This sounds disjointed and is not what I wrote. I recommend the sentence presently appearing be deleted and replaced with the following: “U.S. government reports currently cite November 1, 1955, as the commencement date of the “Vietnam Conflict,” for this was the day when the United States Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Indochina (deployed to Southeast Asia under President Truman), was reorganized into country-specific units and MAAG Vietnam was established.” A. T. Lawrence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.250.184.150 (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph 3, Note number [182] states as follows: 3. ^ On May 6, 1965 the first American combat troops the, Third Marine Regiment, Third Marine Division, are sent to Vietnam to protect the Da Nang airport.[182]

I don’t believe this is correct; Marines arrived on March 8, 1965. I wrote the following in my book, Crucible Vietnam, on page 27:

“on the 8th of March 1965, 3,500 Marines of the 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade, the lead element of the 3rd Marine Division, stormed ashore near Da Nang, about 100 miles to the south of the DMZ, to become the first U.S. ground combat troops to set foot upon Vietnamese soil (the 1st Marine Division would be dispatched to Vietnam one year later).”

Source: A. T. Lawrence, author of Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173, p. 27.

I don’t believe this represents the start of the Vietnam War, but I believe it does mark “the arrival of U.S. ground combat troops in Vietnam.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.141.103.15 (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about this "start date" of the war and I think for the Americans it was March 8, 1965 when the Marines landed. Here's why:  the American Civil War started when Fort Sumter was fired on, yet for decades before that the North and the South had been at cross purposes with all kinds of eruptions happening.  Why not use John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry in 1859 as the start date for the Civil War?  Or the slave Nat Turner's uprising in 1831, etc?  The battle plans for WWI were drawn up in 1895!  I think we need to commit our entire military for an official start date to be established.  The problem with Vietnam is that there was no official declaration of war by the U.S. (the closest thing might be the Tonkin Gulf Resolution on Jan. 7, 1964).  Therefore the start date for the Vietnam War seems to be arbitrary, yet we know the exact date the Marines landed in Vietnam, so I would regard the Marines landing on March 8, 1965 as the actual military start date of the war.  What do Wiki editors think about this approach to the dilemna?  71.157.182.121 (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Actual Military Start Date of Vietnam War
The Vietnam War for the U.S. Military was divided into 17 Campaigns (it is further divided into 30 Campaigns for individual Service requirements). The first Campaign was The Advisory Campaign which started on March 15, 1962. The last Campaign was the Cease Fire Campaign which ended on Jan. 28, 1973 (it officially ended on March 28, 1973 to allow for a 60 day pull-out of the last few remaining U.S. troops). There were only 746 American military advisors in South Vietnam in January, 1962 but by the end of 1965 there were 11,000. Any Marine will tell you that the war starts when his boots hit the ground so the 3,500 Marines landing in Vietnam on March 8, 1965 to cover for Arc Light, Rolling Thunder and other military operations could be said to be the start of the war. After that the troops built up fast and we had about 200,000 American troops in-country by the end of the year. For the classic military ground war involvement 1965 qualifies as the year for the start of the war for the U.S.   Silver Bayonet (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The infobox gives November 1, 1955 as the start date, citing this DoD source, which says, "the establishment of the Military Assistance Advisory Group, Vietnam, on Nov. 1, 1955, is now formally recognized as the earliest qualifying date for addition to the database and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial." That strikes me, as a reasonable date to use, but perhaps a clarifying footnote would be useful. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a footnote about the 1955 date at the start of the actual article. -- Esemono (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Er....., thanks (silly grin). I've changed the footlink for the start date in the infobox to point to that footnote. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Stats
I'm not sure what there is here to discuss. I simply cited a demographic estimate on the war casualties that the AP called the most detailed demographic study. There's absolutely no reason why it cannot be included in the article. Obviously, some don't like the estimate because they want to believe in a higher one. It's worth noting that while my source is a demographic survey; the one you have at present is a link to an assertion on a webpage, without any study backing it up. I kept that estimate intact; I simply included another.

No demographic study ever conducted has estimated a death toll as high as 3, 4, or even 5 million. Right now I'm looking at photos of peace activists with signs reading "Over 600,000 Vietnamese Dead!" No house to house survey endorsed such findings, no medical journal. R.J. Rummel puts the total as 1.2 million dead-- South and North Vietnamese, and Laotians and Cambodians.

Look at the Cambodian civil war: Bannister and Johnson estimated the death toll from the war to be around 275,000. Sampson, too, believed that the toll from the war was overestimated. He suggested that civilian deaths "could be numbered in tens of thousands, but not more," and also noted that military attachés estimated the size of each army to be between 100,000 and 150,000. One survey said 230,000 was "the highest mortality we could justify." No survey ever conducted has gotten anywhere near 1.5 to 2 million Cambodians and Laotians killed.

The fact remains that the estimates currently cited are official figures from the Vietnamese government. That's fine to note; but one should not censor other sources. The Vietnamese originally claimed 2 million dead, to which Noam Chomsky replied: “In the case of Vietnam, we literally do not know within millions the real number of civilian casualties. The official estimates are around two million, but the real number is probably around four million.” Others claimed even 2 million was Communist propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.118.198 (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In the citation that has been there for some time these figures are supported. These figures here should more or less be equivalent to the figures here Vietnam_War_casualties. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was told the US had a 20 to 1 kill ratio, which sort of jibes with the figures. The Commies could be giving either a low or high figure for propaganda purposes, or maybe for once they're telling the truth.  I recall some Lt. fresh out of West Point at the beginning of the war saying "We can't kill them fast enough". So apparently there was a lot of killing with modern mechanized warfare.  Did the Commies keep good figures, though?  Did they record every insignificant rice farmer who got killed?  I kind of doubt it.  Under General Giap, people were expendable, like throwaway beer cans.  71.157.182.121 (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The planned ratio was 12:1 but the Americans couldn't consistently hold that ratio. -- Esemono (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Effect on the United States -- Section
Effect on the United States, 8th paragraph, second sentence, currently states, in part, “By war's end, 58,193 soldiers were killed.”

This statement could be more accurately expanded to state: “During the Vietnam War, according to the official DoD figures, Americans suffered 47,434 hostile deaths, comprised of four categories:  Killed in action (40,934); died of wounds (5,299); missing in action/declared dead (1,085); and captured/declared dead (116)); while an additional 10,786 deaths (18.5%) were non-hostile, meaning they died from other causes besides combat, which included illness, accidents, missing/presumed dead, and even homicides.  It is these two categories (hostile and non-hostile) that comprise the total of the 58,220 troops who died in Vietnam.” [source attached]

A. T. Lawrence, author of Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173, p. 154. [Footnoted Sources] Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), Defense Manpower Data Center, casualty figures provided to author on 31 Dec 2007, and, Vietnam Conflict - Casualty Summary, June 2004, assembled by the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), and, CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, Updated June 29, 2007, p. CRS-11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.250.184.150 (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently, the 10,000 or so that died "non-hostile" deaths did not receive a Purple Heart since they did not die in combat. There was only one American woman in the military to die in combat in Vietnam, 1st Lt. Sharon Ann Lane, a young, pretty nurse of only 25, who was awarded the Bronze Star with Combat "V" for valor, the Cross of Gallantry and the very rare and prestigious National Order of Vietnam Medal which was the highest award given to officers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.55.200 (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I went on-line to the Department of Veterans Affairs at the following website:http://www1.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_wars.pdf This fact sheet, dated May 2010, confirms the number of American deaths in Vietnam at 58,220. It also confirms the number 10,786 for non-hostile deaths and 47,434 hostile deaths. The Director of the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division, Defense Manpower Data Center, had provided me his working spreadsheet on these numbers back in December of 2007 when I was working on my book. So I feel that this is a good confirmation of the number of hostile and non-hostile deaths in Vietnam. A. T. Lawrence, author of Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.141.119.38 (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that “friendly fire” deaths were listed under accidental deaths. It wasn’t until 1985 that award of the Purple Heart was finally authorized (Public Law 99-145) for wounds received as a result of friendly fire. The U.S. Department of Defense states that 153,303 U.S. troops were wounded in Vietnam, which only counts those who required hospitalization, in essence, those considered to be most seriously wounded; it does not count the other 150,332 additional soldiers (acknowledged by DoD, but in a separate category), who received flesh wounds from shrapnel or from small arms fire (some of whom received multiple wounds during their tours) and received treatment at field aid stations, and were then sent back to their units, which boosted the total number of U.S. soldiers wounded in Vietnam to 303,635, all of whom were entitled to award of the Purple Heart. [Source: A. T. Lawrence, author of Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173, p. 160. [Footnoted Sources] CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, Updated June 29, 2007, pp. CRS-3, CRS-4.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.141.109.183 (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I see that the most recent CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, dated February 26, 2010 now states a total of 303,644 U.S. military personnel were wounded in Vietnam. There were 153,303 who required hospitalization, and another 150,341 (wounded from shrapnel or from small arms fire who received treatment at field aid stations, and were then sent back to their units). Consequently the number 150,332 (derived from the CRS report of June 2007) that I cited above should be changed to 150,341. Here is the website for the CRS report: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf This will effect your two entries under Casualties and Losses for the U.S., which should cite 58,220 (vice 58,159) dead, and 303,644 (vice 303,635) wounded. A. T. Lawrence 72.197.57.247 (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I remember reading one Marine's account that his company commander was yelled at for having too many casualities in his unit so the commander would go through the aid tent kicking out the Marines that had been lightly wounded, telling them to get back on the line, thus artificially lowering the casualty count but at the same time denying them their Purple Hearts. I don't know if this was an isolated incident or more widespread, and can't remember where I read it, it was on the Internet though.  Anybody else heard of this?  209.77.229.16 (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

One last change should be made to the section titled, Effect on the United States: 8th paragraph, first sentence, currently states, “More than 3 million Americans served in Vietnam.” This statement is not correct. VFW Magazine (January 1998), which I consider to be a reliable source, states: 2,594,000 personnel served within the borders of South Vietnam (January 1, 1965 - March 28, 1973), while another 50,000 men served in Vietnam between 1960 and 1964. A total of 3,403,100 (including 514,300 offshore) personnel served in the Southeast Asia Theater (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, flight crews based in Thailand, and sailors in adjacent South China Sea waters). A. T. Lawrence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.250.181.56 (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC) I see in my book, where I use the numbers of U.S. personnel serving in Vietnam, I refer to a 1997 (vice 1998) VFW Magazine edition:  A. T. Lawrence, Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173, p. 109. [Footnoted Source] VFW Magazine April 1997.
 * I concur. Here's what I have read in "Eyewitness Vietnam", Gilmore and Giangreco, Sterling Publishing, New York, 2006, on page 10.  There were 2,594,000 American personnel who served in South Vietnam (boots on the ground), just less than 25% of whom were draftees, belying the myth that the Americans were a draftee army in Vietnam (66% of Americans were draftees in WWII by comparison).  In all, 3,403,100 Americans served in the Southeast Asia theatre of operations, including air bases in Thailand and ships offshore of Vietnam.  10% of deaths were among helicopter crews, both combat and non-combat deaths.  Of those serving in Vietnam, 88.4% were Caucasian, 10.6% black and 1% "other".  Almost one fourth (23%) of the soldiers in Vietnam came from "privileged" families.  63.192.100.247 (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)