Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 7

South Vietnamese Held on for Two More Years
South Vietnam held their own against the communists for two years after the 1973 withdraw of most American forces. It did this until congress cut the funding for the support of South Vietnam in 1975. The common conclusion that we had lost the war is not viable. The Soviets continued to send $1 billion dollars annually to Hanoi, which later precipitated the collapse of the Soviet Union due to economic failure. It is safe to say that Vietnam was a political loss, not a military one. User:Jfhenn 10:06, 21 November 2006)
 * I think it is going a bit far to say that $1 billion (source?) of Soviet expenditure to Vietnam per year precipitated the collapse of the Soviet Union. The U.S. failed to achieve the goal that it sent in its military to pursue, i.e. the preservation of an independent, non-communist South Vietnam.  The political defeat is the more serious one; you send in the Army to pursue military victory in an effort to achieve political goals, not the other way round.

POV on Exit of French
"What had been a colonial war in Indochina became another example of expansive world-wide communism, directed by the Kremlin." - Exit of the French, 1950-1955. POV Alert! No offence but I have never seen evidence of this and it is clearly an act of aggression by the US. The Vietnamese repell the French, then the US strikes, imposing Diem and later assult the country(ground and air) in 1962.

The Pentagon Papers says the contrary:

"It is equally clear that North Vietnamese communists operated some form of subordinate apparatus in the South in the years 1954-1960. Nonetheless, the Viet Minh "stay-behinds" were not directed originally to structure an insurgency, and there is no coherent picture of the extent or effectiveness of communist activities in the period 1956-1959. From all indications, this was a period of reorganization and recruiting by the communist party. No direct links have been established between Hanoi and perpetrators of rural violence.

Statements have been found in captured party histories that the communists plotted and controlled the entire insurgency, but these are difficult to take at face value. Bernard Fall ingeniously correlated DRV complaints to the ICC of incidents in South Vietnam in 1957 with GVN reports of the same incidents, and found Hanoi suspiciously well informed. He also perceived a pattern in the terrorism of 1957-1959, deducing that a broad, centrally directed strategy was being implemented. However, there is little other corroborative evidence that Hanoi instigated the incidents, much less orchestrated them." - Section 1, pp. 242-69, The Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Volume 1, Chapter 5, "Origins of the Insurgency in South Vietnam, 1954-1960"

"The primary question concerning Hanoi's role in the origins of the insurgency is not so much whether it played a role or not--the evidence of direct North Vietnamese participation in subversion against the Government of South Vietnam is now extensive--but when Hanoi intervened in a systematic way. Most attacks on U.S. policy have been based on the proposition that the DRV move on the South came with manifest reluctance, and after massive U.S. intervention in 1961. For example, George McTurnin Kahin and John W. Lewis, in their book The United States in Vietnam, state that:

"Contrary to United States policy assumptions, all available evidence shows that the revival of the civil war in the South in 1958 was undertaken by Southerners at their own--not Hanoi's--initiative. . . . Insurgency activity against the Saigon government began in the South under Southern leadership not as a consequence of any dictate from Hanoi, but contrary to Hanoi's injunction" - Ibid

User:Green01 3:14, Nov. 30 2006 (UTC).

Minor Error
In the section 1.1.1 Harry S. Truman and Vietnam (1945-1953) it states that OSS officer Lieutenant Colonel A.Peter Dewey was the first American casualty involved in Vietnam. But in the section 2.1.1 Dwight D. Eisenhower and Vietnam (1953–1961) it states that Charles Ovnand/Dale R. Buis were the first two American advisors to die in Vietnam. Wasn't this OSS officer an American advisor?Just trying to perfect Wikipedia:)

US did not just oppose reunification of Vietnam in 1950's
I call to attention an unsubstanciated and POV assertion that I urge be edited:

(this was the only occasion during the post-war period in which the U.S. opposed the reunification of a divided nation) - The Diem Era, 1955-1963, The Winston Churchill of Asia, Vietnam War, first paragraph.

This is plainly untrue, the US opposed the reunification of Germany after WW2, as did each of the 3 powers(USSR changed policy, UK and US didn't):

"The United Kingdom, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics shall possess supreme authority with respect to Germany. In the exercise of such authority they will take such steps, including the complete dismemberment of Germany as they deem requisite for future peace and security." 111 Dismemberment, Yalta Conference

George Kennan in the US Dept. of State in 1946 warned against a reunified Germany and called for "endevour to rescue Western zones of Germany by walling them off against Eastern penetration" "and integrating them into an international pattern of Western Europe, rather than into a united Germany." - John H. Backer, The Decision to Divide Germany (Duke 1970), pp. 155-6. User:Green01 11:51, Dec. 03 2006 (UTC).

Aid from USSR
"Other Countries' Involvement

Soviet Union

The Soviet Union supplied North Vietnam with medical supplies, arms, tanks, planes, helicopters, artillery, ground-air missiles and other military equipment. 80% of all weaponry used by the North Vietnamese side came from the Soviet Union. Hundreds of military advisors were sent to train the Vietnamese army. Soviet pilots acted as training cadre and many have flown combat missions as "volunteers". Fewer than a dozen Soviet citizens lost their lives in this conflict."

What are the source/s for this(eg. 80% figure)? User:Green01 1:41, Dec. 04 2006 (UTC).

PL 93-559
This:

"In December 1974, the Democratic majority in Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, which cut off all military funding to the South Vietnamese government and made unenforceable the peace terms negotiated by Nixon . . . The new president vetoed the Foreign Assistance Act, but his veto was overridden by Congress."

is, like the great bulk of this article, a rather 'revisionist' appreciation of the history of the conflict.

For one, Ford did not veto this act:

"Statement on Signing the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974. December 30, 1974"

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=4660

Other minor points, like the Congressional split was not quite (Dem/Rep) partisan but ideological ('Hawk' vs. 'Dove'), and the fact that PL 93-559 did not "cut off" all military funding:

"Provides that after June 30, 1976, no military assistance shall be furnished to South Vietnam unless authorized under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or the Foreign Military Sales Act."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d093:SN03394:@@@D&summ2=m&|TOM:/bss/d093query.html|

would provide much-needed accuracy to this article.


 * I, too, found that statement mystifying and totally unverifiable. The timeline doesn't make sense as the US involvement in the war was over and most troops had been withdrawn.  It does seem to be part of the folklore that Congress ended the US involvement by cutting off funding, but I can't identify any credible source.  Anyone citing any legislation needs to include the Thomas link to support it.  Mulp 17:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I deleted the paragraph as it seems to be more a myth or folklore than in any way related to reality. According to HNN, the Case-Church Amendment in June 19, 1973 cut off military spending in Asia.  http://hnn.us/articles/31400.html  I haven't found a quick link into thomas for this.  I did find in LOC an electronic copy of a book with this relevant exerpt:

Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho end their talks on implementation of the Vietnam truce agreement. 19 June 1973

U.S. Congress passes the Case-Church Amendment which forbids any further U.S. military involvement in Southeast Asia. 1 July 1973 U.S. Congress votes to end all bombing in Cambodia after August 15. 16 July 1973 The U.S. Senate Armed Forces Committee begins hearings into the secret bombing of Cambodia during 1969-70. 17 July 1973 Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger testifies about bombing raids in Cambodia. This results in first call for Nixon's impeachment. 14 August 1973 U.S. bombing of Cambodia halted. 22 August 1973 Congress passes the War Powers Resolution requiring the President to obtain the support of Congress within 90 days of sending American troops abroad. 7 November 1973 U.S. Congress overrides presidential veto of War Powers Act. 9 May 1974 Congress begins impeachment proceedings against President Nixon stemming from the Watergate scandal. 9 August 1974


 * the above is from "The Vietnam War era : a personal journey / Bruce O. Solheim." at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0618/2006025641.html

Mulp 18:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Strategic Military defeat for the US?!
That is obviously in error. It was a political loss, but militarily the US won every single major engagement during the Viet Nam war, so why in the world is this labeled a defeat? That needs to be corrected.(Username?)

I agree in the sense there was no defeat, the aim was to prevent a reunified Vietnam as a model of Third World development, like China and the USSR were as alternatives to the US. The declassified record shows 'concern' about 'radical nationalism' and 'economic nationalism'. A 'viris' that 'might infect others'. So yes there was a victory, Vietnam and indeed the region is a wreck. Not a model of development. User:Green01 11:16, 16 Dec. 2006 (UTC).

If we won militarily, why in 1973 did the PAVN still controll all of NVN, the DMZ, much of the country immediately south of the DMZ (including Khe Sanh), Tchepone, the Laos infiltration routes south from Tchepone, the A Shau Valley (site of the Hamburger Hill battles of 1969), the Cambodia sanctuaries, much of the SVN areas adjacent to Cambodia. AND have enough military power and logistics to send 20 divisions into RVN in 1974-75? We did not stem the Red tide in SE Asia, we only delayed it 10 years. That is not a victory, and not a stalemate. What's left? Troy

"We did not stem the Red tide in SE Asia, we only delayed it 10 years. That is not a victory" No because it has nothing to do with US aims, or the aims of any state. The US was not opposed to Marxist-Leninist regirmes. It supported Pol Pot and Romania's regime. The region is a wreck, so it was a victory for the US. Largely a military defeat because of violent rebellion by South Vietnamese. User:Green01 6:15. Dec. 18 2006 (UTC).


 * The larger picture is that Communism was rolled back in Indonesia but gained in Vietnam (and temporarily in Laos, Cambodia). China broke with Vietnam and became much friendlier to US, as did Russia. All in all a mixed bag generally favorable to US. Rjensen 12:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The "roll back" of communism in Indonesia had peculiarly little to do with the United States, and the Vietnam War made Sino-American rapprochement more, not less, difficult. It would be more accurate to say that the long-term outcome was generally favourable to the U.S. despite the Vietnam War, not because of it (although one could argue that the weakening of America's global position that occurred as a result of Vietnam and the emboldened Soviet foreign policy of the late 1970s led to the U.S.S.R.'s own foreign misadventure in Afghanistan, which in itself played no small part in the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union). Cripipper 17:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is speculative at best to debate from either perspective the role of the United States in any "roll back" of Indonesian communism. There are simply too many variables for definitive comment.

Hoya1 16:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How can you have a study on the collapse of communism in Indonesia and not examine the role of the United States? Cripipper 23:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it is not an error. You are correct in noting that they US won every major engagement over the course of the war.  Those are tactical enagagements.  However, the outcome of the war was directly contradictory to the strategic goals the US laid out for itself when it went in, so the conflict as a whole is labeled a strategic defeat.  It is important to keep these two terms separate when considering military-historical information.  Haemo 07:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It may be important to make that distinction, but a valid application of the distinction assumes an unbiased assessment of the "strategic goals the US laid out for itself" and a second unbiased assessment of whether in fact the eventual outcome contradicted all of those goals. At minimum, the mere delaying of a communist takeover in the South for well over a decade should at least be considered as satisfying a "strategic goal."

Hoya1 04:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So presumably every war which has ended up with the opposite situation to that wished by one of its participants should be described as "satisfying a strategic goal", as long as it delayed the failure to achieve its aims? Were the Vietnamese better off in the years before the war was lost by the West because communism was not yet victorious? I would say not, because the civilian death toll and the obliteration of the Vietnamese economy was, on balance, worse even than living in a communist regime. One has to be careful not to start with a premise such as "our political leaders are supermen who never make strategic blunders or fail" and twist historical facts to suit this viewpoint in any way possible. The war was a tragedy for Vietnam. The fact that the country became a communist regime was a different sort of tragedy which it is not clear could have been avoided due to the nature of the enemy. In my opinion, both have been bad for Vietnam and can only be viewed a historical tragedy with very little positive to be found in it beyond the experience to avoid similar things happening again. It would be beneficial if current political leaders studied history with a view to avoiding similar mistakes. 82.21.244.172 17:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Characterization of Moyar book
While this work undoubtedly qualifies as "revisionist," I question the summary of its primary contentions in the bibliographical material. IMO, Moyar's principal arguments involve: 1) an attempt to in part rehabilitate Diem and view his removal as the turning point to eventual defeat; 2) an attempt to discredit certain of the on-site reporting of David Halberstam and Neil Sheehan and stress its importance in driving events; and 3) arguing for the importance of two Kennedy decisions--the failure to use early military force in Laos and the appointment of Henry Cabot Lodge Jr.

Hoya1 00:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahudson's partial splitting of the article
I am not particularly impressed by the half-hearted splitting of this article, which has left in inferior in quality and content. I propose to revert it unless it is completed tomorrow, 22-12-2006. Cripipper 16:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone have an opinion before too many additional edits are made? A half-assed split of the article is worse than no split at all. Cripipper 16:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I reverted the splits made by Ahudson, and attempted to reduce the length of the article through the creation of The United States and the Vietnam War, which goes into more detail. I am not sure how well this works in comparison to what has gone before: feedback welcome. Cripipper 12:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Umm.... You could've added to what I had done instead of reversion... and I think you might benefit from reading this article: Help:Reverting, specifically this sentence: "If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.". Plus, I would like to add that calling someone's honest work "half-assed" isn't a good way to get them to get along with you. I didn't just abandon this article; I went on vacation, and had no internet access for a week.


 * Now, as to what you were saying about the changes you made: there is no point in doing that, now you have 20kb or so of duplicate material. This can all be summarized inside the main article, that was the whole point. Also, the page that you copied into is now once again too large. You just wasted any work you did addressing this issue. Please think more next time. Ahudson 02:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The new page you created doesn't seem very helpful. Its topic includes 75% or more of what is in Vietnam War, so it will probably be at a very similar level of depth. I think AHudson's approach would probably have been more successful. However, to AHudson, in the future when you are planning a major change to an article it is often good to prepare it on your local computer and not to leave a major article like this in an "under construction" state for a long period of time. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that with an article this large, a period of a few days is acceptable for reconstruction, especially since such a task would take several hours to complete and many people do not spend more than an hour a day on wikipedia. Even if you had all the text written out ahead of time, creating all of the new articles, splitting the information, and informing the general community of your changes would take up a large amount of time, especially with a slower internet connection. Taking a vacation in the middle was not the best of ideas, but Cripipper's original demand of finishing the splitting in one day was completely unreasonable and unprecedented for an article this large. Heavy Metal Cellist talkcontribs


 * Well, I didn't do anything for more than a week. And I really am sorry about that, I was expecting to have internet access when I was on vacation but I only had time to check my email once. I looked through to the article how I left it last time, and I understand completely why you reverted it. I would have done the same thing. I hope you guys will accept my apology. Ahudson 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Template to add?
I just created a template for linking together articles involving America's internal and external wars and conflicts. If you want to toss in Template:American conflicts, I leave it up to you guys. Cwolfsheep 07:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is this page semi-protected?
This page has been sprotected for over 2 months. Have there been chronic vandalism problems in the past, or does the block need to be removed? CalebNoble 11:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Prior to protection this page did see a large amount of vandalism. However it was nothing that careful watching could not deal with. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Speculation:"It was as though the administration had just been awaiting such an opportunity."
Can someone please find a source for "It was as though the administration had just been awaiting such an opportunity."?

Article length problems
A couple of weeks ago I started to section off this article, and had gotten halfway through the project when I went on vacation and didn't have internet access... but now I come back and find that all the stuff I moved out and summarized has been added back into the article! What's up, people? Is there some protocol that I'm not following, or what? I said what I was doing on this talk page, and stated my reasons for it (see Talk:Vietnam_War). Why were my changes reversed instead of added to? I wasn't finished, and now so many edits have been done since then that I'm afraid to simply revert to the old version. What's going on with this article? I'm talking especially to Cripipper and Publicus, but anybody else that can tell me what's going on please do. Ahudson 16:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please seek consensus for major edits before making them, especially in well-develoed articles like this one. -Will Beback · † · 03:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There seems to have been plenty of community consensus for splitting off parts of the article, as splitting is the first item on the task list and several users have mentioned a need for size reduction and condensation. I don't see what lack of consensus there is for Ahudson's edits, unless editors need to haggle over each individual sentence and fact; if this is the case, they are free to edit it once the effort has been made to trim down the article. Heavy Metal Cellist talkcontribs


 * Just a question for whoever works on this article regularly: what purpose does the "background" section serve? Most of the information is either too far back or too obscure to have any effect on the reader's understanding of the Vietnam War. Couldn't it be reduced to three or four smaller paragraphs without harming the article as a whole? Ahudson 16:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Exit of the French POV Again
Once more someone puts the clear POV that the US fought in South Vietnam because the Pres. and co. thought there was a "worldwide communist conspiracy". This I just outlined was not true in the earlier post in this Discussion Page in reference to the Pentagon Papers. User:Green01 7:45, Jan. 04 2007 (UTC).

I have just edited the relevant sentance again. User:Green01 9:08, Jan. 04 2007 (UTC).

I issue a warning against Cripipper not to insert any more POV edits into this page. If he can't prove what he writes(I doubt one can disprove the Pentagon Papers then he should restrain his imagination about Washington's perceptions in the 1950's and '60's. User:Green01 2:38, 5 Jan. 2006 (UTC).


 * I suggest you be a bit more careful about your warnings:


 * "American thinking and policy-making was dominated by the tendency to view communism in monolithic terms. The Viet Minh was, therefore, seen as part of the Southeast Asia manifestation of the world-wide communist expansionary movement. French resistance to Ho Chi Minh, in turn, was thought to be a crucial link in the containment of communism. This strategic perception of the communist threat was supported by the espousal of the domino principle: the loss of a single nation in Southeast Asia to communism would inexorably lead to the other nations of the area falling under communist control. The domino principle, which probably had its origin at the time of the Nationalist withdrawal from mainland China, was at the root of U.S. policy. Although elements of a domino-like theory could be found in NSC papers before the start of the Korean War, the Chinese intervention in Korea was thought to be an ominous confirmation of its validity. The possibility of a large-scale Chinese intervention in Indochina, similar to that in Korea, was feared, especially after the armistice in Korea." (Pentagon Papers, Chapter 2, p. 54) Cripipper 15:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Reduction in Progress
I have a tenative version of the section "Escalation and Americanization" in my sandbox for people to look at and give comments on. Please only state specific problems with that section, not problems with the idea of revising the article as a whole. also keep in mind that this is only a draft, I haven't checked for spelling, usage, etc. Ahudson 00:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't see why it needs to be so drastically reduced - look at the articles on the Korean War, WWII etc - conflicts which were shorter in duration. I am not at all convinced that reducing five years of war to 8 paragraphs is the right way to proceed and suggest you take a vote before you replace the current text with your reduced version. Cripipper 01:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm doing the same thing there too; look at their talk pages. I'm just starting with this one. I would also like to add that this article has nothing about the social implications of this war, only military history; summarizing the military history will make room for that.


 * And if you read and compare the original and my version, I really didn't take much of anything out-- just explanations and details that don't contribute much to the reder's understanding and shouldn't be in the main article anyway, and belong in a side article. In fact, I would go as far as to say that because of the removal of these details, the article has become more coherent. Ahudson 16:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree to a large extent, though I think what you currently propose is a bit too drastic. Cripipper 12:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there anything that he took out that you think needs to be put back in? If so, what?
 * I know it looks like Ahudson has taken a lot out, but when I reviewed the section he rewrote, I found that it still gave content analogous to the original text. Heavy Metal Cellist talkcontribs


 * Due to a lack of specific problems and/or constructive criticism, I have replaced the "Escalation and Americanization" section with my reduced version. The next section, "Vietnamization and American Withdrawl" should be posted in my sandbox within the next couple of days. Ahudson 16:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Now posted right here. Please review it, I don't like the subsection titles but don't know what else to name them. Ahudson 22:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Total U.S. withdrawal section appears factually inaccurate
I think the section on “Total U.S. withdrawal” is factually inaccurate.

First, Gerald Ford did not veto the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974. You can find Gerald Ford’s signing statement for Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=4660.

If you go to the Library of Congress Bill Summary and Status search for the 93rd Congress(http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/93search.html), change the search from ‘word/phrase’ to ‘bill number’ and enter ‘S.3394’, then click on ‘Major Congressional Actions’ link, it will show you that this bill was passed in the Senate on 12/4/1974, passed in the house on 12/11/1974 and signed by the president (Ford) on 12/30/1974.

If you go to the CRS summary link in Library of Congress search on this bill, you will see that the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 “Provides that after June 30, 1976, no military assistance shall be furnished to South Vietnam unless authorized under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or the Foreign Military Sales Act.” I could not find the full text of this bill online, but this summary indicates that the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 did not “cut off” military assistance until June 1976, more than 1 year after the collapse of South Vietnam, and furthermore, it only says that military assistance after that date must be approved by Congress.

It looks to me like the characterization of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 is factually inaccurate, and statements like “By 1975, the South Vietnamese Army stood alone against the well-organized, highly determined, and foreign-funded North Vietnamese,” are not accurate either.

Mikeca42 19:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Allies"?
Maybe I'm just misreading this passage from the Aftermath section:

North Vietnam followed up its southern victory by making Laos a virtual puppet state. Socialist fraternalism did not last long. The Khmer Rouge, who had historical territorial ambitions in Vietnam, began a series of border incursions that finally led to a Vietnamese invasion. The VPA onslaught overthrew Pol Pot's murderous regime and a pro-Vietnamese government was installed (see Third Indochina War). The U.S. did not recognise the new government of Cambodia, and, along with the United Nations, continued to consider the Khmer Rouge (perpetrators of the greatest genocide since the Second world War) as their ally.

Is this meaning to say that the United States and the United Nations (!) considered themselves to be "allied" with the Khmer Rouge? If so, I think this requires a citation quoting an acknowledgement of this alliance by, at least, an official of the United States government of the day. Otherwise it's a rather controversial assertion that probably shouldn't be there... On the other hand, if I am indeed simply misreading this passage, please excuse me. --Hiddekel 20:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are reading it absolutely correctly. Throughout the 1980s the United States refused to recognise the Vietnam-installed government in Phnom Penh and afforded diplomatic recognition to the Khmer Rouge regime, which retained Democratic Kampuchea's seat at the UN because that organisation refused to recognise a government installed by a foreign power after an invasion. 'Alliance' would be putting it a little strongly though. Cripipper 21:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Aftermath" expurgation
Re Beebob excision Jan.29: Someone more familiar with the subject may want to have a look at this ... cutout without statement. Since it's been filled in with more opinion. Twang 08:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect pic caption
Caption under image included in the section "Return to Paris" currently states "Le Duc Tho and Henry Kissinger (third and fourth from the left respectively)". Unless I am mistaken, Dr. Kissinger is actually shown fifth from the left (and I suspect Le Duc Tho is shown forth from the left).

144.189.5.201 23:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Rick Arnold


 * I agree, I have changed it for now. Kissenger certainly wasn't fourth from the left that's for sure. SGGH 19:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Link to Pentagon Papers
It'd be useful for readers to be able to skip right to the Pentagon Papers article when it shows up in the references section as well as the one time it shows up in the text. ~ Syrae Faileas - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 00:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Crazy sourcing
Citing some US guy from 1985 of 666;) thousands and ignoring Northern 1995 official figures of 1.1 million? This including 300,000 MIA, but some say practically all of dead are now "missing". --HanzoHattori 03:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

contradictory counts of number of military advisors in 1964
In one place (Tonkin Resolution) the number of advisors is supposed to have been around 21 000 just before the resolution; way further down it is said that there had been 16 000 in 1964.GabrielMo 16:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorted. Cripipper 18:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

POWs
Someone should add the number of US POWs held in NV. I thin its vital information and its missing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.212.75.164 (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC).


 * It's probably more appropriate for The United States and the Vietnam War. Cripipper 17:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Pentagon Protest
Image:Pentagon vietnam protests.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.207.206.69 (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

hello is yellow

?? In the land of the free there is no such thing as "protests". That only happens in communist Russia.

Ongoing Revision
Over the past few weeks, I have been slowly revising this article because of its enormous size; I have now finished two sections, and have another section in my User:Ahudson/Sandbox for review. Please leave comments on my progress, I haven't gotten any input so far. Ahudson 17:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The text seems to suggest that Ho based his declaration of independence on the hope that Roosevelt would support independence. Problem is, FDR was dead on the date the speech was given, so I think this needs clarification that Ho hoped the US would support him because of FDR's speeches. Jjjanos 21:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think the History to 1949 offers interesting, but irrelevant information. Example - French shelling of Haiphong isn't germane to the second conflict.Jjjanos 22:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)jjjanos


 * To put it bluntly: this is the stuff I'm taking out. You're looking at the sections I haven't done yet. :-). There is a portion of that on my sandbox that I've been playing with, please take a look. Ahudson 18:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahudson, I hope you've seen the input you've received already, . I see you just ignored the concern and posted your version anyway. -Will Beback · † · 23:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears you are the one not paying attention. Will Beback, I have read and re-read every single criticism that has been made in that section; however, as I stated in my posts, the only response I got was that it didn't need to be done, which is a matter of opinion anyway. Stop trying to impede the progress of an article unless you have a concrete problem with the version I have posted. Ahudson 18:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is meant in the nicest possible way, but the biggest critique of the revisions being made is that you don't appear to have a great deal of knowledge on the subject, meaning that you are not really adequately qualified on the subject to decide what is important and what is not. To be perfectly frank, the versions you have produced thus far were riddled with factual inaccuracies and errors (which I corrected while keeping the integrity of your text), and the latest one in your sandbox is no different.  I strongly oppose your introducing it into the main body text. The end result is also an unnecessary over-simplification to a standard not befitting an encyclopedia entry.  What this article really needs is references! Cripipper 20:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Finally, some actual criticism! I would like to point out, though, that all of the infromation is what was already there; I didn't change any of it, although there may have been a copy error or two. So in terms of factual inaccuracies, that's not my fault, although I would be willing to help go back and check everything with the other Vietnam articles. Refrences, though, may be an easy thing to fix after all; I'm sure we can find relevant refrences in the main and related articles for each section. Thanks for the input, though; I'll try to be more careful and copy-edit the remaining sections to death before I post them. Ahudson 22:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately it's not just copy errors. Because you don't appear to have any specialist knowledge of the subject beyond what is written in this article, you make factual errors when summarizing the information because you are not aware of the nuances which might superficially seem quite trivial but which are actually, historically, quite important.  I am absolutely and totally opposed to your current version - there is some room to perhaps abbreviate the section to 1949, however the section on the Exit of the French, and the Diem era, are vital.  I suggest you do not replace the current section with your version until someone else has had a chance to work on it. Cripipper 12:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I understand. However, keep in mind that if I didn't pick these nuances up after reading lots of wikipedia articles on the Vietnam War, then it's likely many others won't as well; so what I'm doing still shouldn't change the validity of the content. I am, however, open to any further revisions you might want to make. Go ahead and edit my sandbox, that's why its there. Ahudson 16:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

there's obviously lots of editing attention to this article lately, but please NEVER change the main  pic
It is like, so perfect,  it's  simple, a soldier with a burning  jungle hut in  the background, even there's no explosions or  anything, it just feels so destructive. one of the few perfect battle box pics of any conflict. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.72.32.95 (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I am looking for the name and of a song and its author name that was used by the helicopters during an attack during the Viet Nam War that was used to frighted or intimidate the enemy.

I would appreciate any help.

thanks Bob K --70.80.186.223 16:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about Flight of the Valkyries, by Wagner? The one played during the helicopter attack in Apocalypse Now?

The numbers game
The link provided in the article (which can only be accessed through the internet archive) claims that 800,000 Vietnamese were transported south, of them about 450,000 civilians and 190,000 French soldiers. However the Pentagon Papers claim that 900,000 civilians left in addition to the 190,000 French. Why is there a discrepancy and who should we trust? CJK 00:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the answer is fairly obvious from the opening line of John Prados's article - "One old chestnut of Vietnam lore is that following the 1954 Geneva agreements a million civilians fled what became North Vietnam to seek safety in the South." The Pentagon Papers repeat this lore; Prados offers a scholarly analysis of the actual 'numbers game'. Cripipper 07:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

But on the basis of what evidence? Is there evidence that did not exist in 1955 that was available in 2005? Did the authors of the Pentagon Papers act deliberately to mislead people in a secret document? And why are the French movements included in Prados and not in the papers? This leaves too many unanswered questions. CJK 23:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the Pentagon Papers simply perpetuated the old chestnut. There is, after all, no evidence offered in the Pentagon Papers either to support the higher number claim.   I am certain John Prados is not making these numbers up (!), and as an analyst at the National Security Archive, an organisation dedicated to securing the declassification and public dissemination of documents relating to U.S. foreign policy, he is uniquely placed to have access to the documentary evidence.  It is rather unfortunate that the VVA article contains no footnotes, but I would trust Prados's scholarship over the Pentagon Papers.  Cripipper 10:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The higher figures are also used by UNHCR. Prados cites no evidence for this new revelation. If he presented actual evidence for his number, then he would have more credibility. Unless there is more evidence evidence presented or other scholars in agreement, there is no reason to take his word above anyone else. CJK 00:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The UNHCR uses as its source literature written in the 1980s before access to the documentary evidence was available. The numbers are broken down very precisely - he is clearly not plucking them out of thin air.  I am sure if you email him he will provide you with the appropriate citations to calm your conspiratorial nerves. You seem rather intent in proving that a million fled communist persecution, to the extent of calling into question the professional credibility of a distinguished historian in the field.  Smacks a little of POV, don't you think? Cripipper 00:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

amount of dead american soliders
the article lists more than 50,000 dead us soliders. Tuchman's book march of folly says 45,000 dead and 300,000 wounded


 * I am not sure where Barbara Tuchman gets here figures from. The Vietnam memorial wall lists 58,249 names; this is the official death toll. Cripipper 19:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

living POWs
Is their an article on the POW hoaxes of the 1980s? Where people created photos and testimonies of POWs still held prisoners to collect money to try and release them? Let me know at my talk page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Editorial suggestion on wording
The last sentence of the first paragraph kills me. It states, "As a result of this it is therefore often considered part of the Cold War." Ouch. It should read either "As a result of this it is often considered..." or "It is therefore often considered..." Please think about making this change. Thanks, from Grammar Nut, aka Salsera Aimee 18:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Living Room War
Vietnam was known as the "Living Room War" because of the massive effects the media had. People would literally watch footage of the war with their families or while in bed. Just thought it would be a good thing to put in there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.255.158.68 (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Other countries: Spain
Other countries sent help to USA. Spain send 13 military doctor or Germany send supplies etc. Noviscum 00:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reference for this? Cripipper 12:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Commanders
I am removing the commanders list from the infobox. It was a bizarre, incomplete mix of political and military leaders with no clear basis for who was included and who was not. I would argue that over 20 years of war, with dozens of distinct parties involved, to distill "commanders" to a few links in an infobox is deceptive and facile and ought to be avoided. However, we should definitely have a standard for inclusion that makes sense. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The list was neither bizarre nor incomplete: Johnson and Nixon were C-in-C of U.S. forces; Johnson in particular micromanaged the selection of bombing targets, while Westmoreland and Abrams were the commanders on the ground. Vo Nguyen Giap, Nguyen Chi Thanh, Van Tien Dung, and Tran Van Tra were the main generals for the D.R.V.  I had a few reservations about the inclusion of Ho Chi Minh, but since he was chair of the CMC he is as good a 'figure-head' for this body as any.  Until such times as you document your particular objections to these commanders, or can suggest others whom you think are absent, I am reinstating them. Cripipper 11:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * All the South Vietnamese commanders in chief would suggest themselves, if we are going to include their American counterparts. JFK, as another commander in chief of U.S. forces who initiated U.S. involvement. The rest of the DRV chiefs, e.g. Le Duan, whom we might as well include if we are going to add American presidents. The leaders of the NLF and PRG. Further, if we are going to include Westmoreland and Abrams, its unclear why we aren't including all the commanders of the ARVN, which was of course far larger than the American presence. And if Tra Van Tra is in there, you might as well include the rest of his counterparts in the PAVN, ARVN and U.S. forces. Personally I don't believe that adding two dozen 'commanders' on each side makes a lot of sense, nor that an infobox is well-suited to presenting this sort of information. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not meant to be an exhaustive list - it is meant to be those who made the most significant contributions to the conduct and outcome of the war.
 * There were no U.S. combat troops in SVN while JFK was President, nor Ford.
 * I mentioned the problem of the collective nature of DRV decision making above - that is why Ho is there, but I am completely open to the argument that he should be replaced by Le Duan, although it should be noted that he, unlike POTUS, was not commander-in-chief.
 * No NLF and PRG leaders were as significant military commanders as those already named.
 * Tran Van Tra is included because of his role in the Ho Chi Minh Campaign that brought the war to a conclusion - that is what makes him more significant than his counterparts in the ARVN.
 * None of the SVN commanders, Thieu aside, were as responsible for the conduct of the war than Westmoreland in particular, but also Abrams.


 * I completely agree that there is no point in having a list of a dozen commanders on each side - that is why it only includes the most significant ones. My basis for inclusion was significance: I don't think there are any individuals who are more significant and need to be included - but that is what the talk section is for.  Cripipper 15:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I am the one who included Ho Chi Minh and Ngo Dinh Diem. It surprises me that the inclusion of Ho is a subject at all. During the war (even after his death), he was the figure-head of the communists of Vietnam. We should include the leaders who had the most impact of how the war was fought on either side. That's the main criteria. However I would suggest the list of commanders to be non-exhaustible, with a maximum of 6 names on both sides. In fact, I think it is fine as it is. If it should be cutted down to fewer commanders, I would suggest: US/ARVN: Nixon, Johnson, Thieu, Diem. NVA/VC: Ho, Giap, Le Duan. Tridungvo 22:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Vietnam War?
I fail to see the reasoning behind the continued use of the present title of the article. Since the vast majority of the information regarding U.S. involvement has been removed, why has the mistitle been retained? Shouldn't it be renamed the "Vietnamese Civil War"? The direct U.S. involvement in 1965 (which prompted the "war" description) has been removed to "American participation", a separate article, has it not?

I have always opposed the "Vietnam War" moniker, since Congress did not declare act of war (the Southeast Asia Resolution was not the same thing, as Congress came to regret). Oh, I know, readers of Wiki should be able to find an article by its popular name, so who cares that the U.S. has not been at war since 1945? And the article remains mistitled regardless of the fact that Wiki, an encyclopedia (which purports to uphold scholarly, or at least knowledgeable accuracy) perpetuates a historical untruth.

Yes, a declaration of war by Congress is just a legalism, but a great many of the difficulties faced by the U.S during the last 50 years or so have hinged on just that legalism (and as we have come again to realize). Well, I cannot say that I am surprised by the present state of the article, it looks even worse than when I abandoned it. Too hot a topic with too many whackos trying to get their 1/8th of a cent in. I'll just fill in the blanks elsewhere. RM Gillespie 04:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So you think that an act of the US Congress is needed for it to be called a War? What do you think the vast majority of the participants call it? It's a war that occurred in Vietnam.  Calling it the "Vietnamese Civil War" is not very POV, since the communists don't see it as such, and neither is calling it "US-Vietnam War", since the South Vietnamese don't see it as such. DHN 03:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what the other participants call it. This one calls it the by its correct title - the Vietnam Conflict. If you are an American, yes, it is not a war unless Congress declares it to be so. Or did you miss the point of the above? I'm sure the guys who fought in the Philippine Insurrection thought of that as a war too, but it was not and is not refferred to as being a war now. Its a moot point anyway. In another 20-50 years it will receive it correct designation, or will be seen as part of the larger Second Indochina War. RM Gillespie 00:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Since it was basically a Vietnamese civil war, I think "Vietnam War" is quite apt. The US forces, while substantial, were always outnumbered by South Vietnamese forces. Grant | Talk 02:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I also think the current title is not accurate, but I am not going to change it since "the vietnam war" is how most english speakers recognise it and that's where people who don't know anything about it will look. I think it would be grossly innaccurate to call it a vietnamese civil war. In Vietnam it is referred to as the war of independance, and it is referred to as a revolution. I am going to make some minor edits to reflect this in the start of the article. Fyntan 03:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fall of Saigon
Is it just me or is the wording used to describe the fall of Saigon a bit zealous? It is an opinion to say that the flag waived "victoriously", and there are also unsubstantiated claims of conversation between leaders. Can someone help me check this out? It struck me as a little odd. Blaiseball 03:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That section has other problems, mainly that the first paragraph has no chronological structure. The conversation presented is possibly apocryphal, but frequently described in the literature. It probably isn't worth including here, however. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)