Talk:Vietnam stab-in-the-back myth

Antisemitism & German comparison
I added a "dubious tag" to the line: "Unlike the German myth, the American variant lacks an antisemitic undercurrent." While the focus of this myth is often not Jews, that depends on which advocates of the myth we are talking about. A recent book by Katherine Belew, Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America, argues that a combination of the Vietnam stab-in-the-back myth and paramilitarism were foundation to were foundational to post-1975 white nationalism. She provides numerous examples of antisemitic renditions of the myth, while not claiming that either the myth or believers in it were uniformly antisemitic. It's worth incorporating this information into this article.--Carwil (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That book doesn't use the term "stab in the back", so it is probably WP:OR to include here. Also, three of the four proponents of the myth mentioned in this article were Jews. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The German version of the myth was not necessarily exclusively antisemitic. The Social Democrats and Communists were blamed, but antisemitic conspiracy theories of the time often wilfully conflated whatever group was being blamed for the failure of reactionary forces, with the Jews. So that communists became conflated utterly conflated with the Jews and the two concepts became interchangeable. A similar process often occurred in early antisemitic conspiracy theories, like conspiracies that blamed the Illuminati or Freemasons for the French revolution, got conflated with conspiracies that blamed the Jews, and eventually the Jews began to be treated in conspiratorial imagination as a Freemasons like secret society. In fact often in conspiratorial thinking, Illuminati, Masons, and Jews become indistinguishable terms, Mason becomes a code word for Jews in certain antisemitic conspiratorial thought. Since the Communists were a close knit society of "professional revolutionaries", it was very easy to repeat the process once again and conflate the Communists with Jews as some united concept, the Communists became just another front for the Jews in this imagination. While American right wing conspiracy theories tend to heavily suppress explicit antisemitic elements, they use a similar thought process, and frequently reference supposed nefarious evil combinations (like the New World Order) that can be seen as coded dog whistles. And in general, in whatever time, the further to the right you go, the less it becomes about whatever the bete noir of the time is, and the more the object of fixation for hatred becomes the Jews. So in the cold war, the further to the right you went, the less it became about Communists and the more it became about the Jews. And in the modern era, the further you go to the right the more Muslims and Islamophobia tend to get deemphasized in favor of the Jews. And between these two positions is a hazy mesh of hatreds in which the two are ever more clearly intermixed without quite going out there and saying "the Jews".


 * Like the spectacle of Jewish billionaire George Soros supposedly being the sole motivating force behind all the Muslim immigration to europe suddenly in the imagination of many. The surface scapegoat and hatred, that is Muslims, becomes subtlely linked to a Jewish figure, without explicitly of course expressly blaming the Jews collectively. And then this is spread quickly and focused on with extreme intensity and anger that betrays the conviction in the obsessed that some deeper and vaster evil is at play. In the Chan community this is the process described as becoming "red pilled", the most minimally red pulled position is being against the right wing bete noir of the time, the maximally "red pilled" position in basically all instances is becoming antisemitic and coming to the belief that the an illuminati like mental phantom of Jewish conspiracy is behind it all. Or, as Hitler admitted he believed privately, that the Jews have some inherent unfixable racial essence that causes them to spontaneously act as such. They never describe their belief in such publicly, this is a private conception in they're part they believe makes them "clever". In public they rant about ridiculous things they knew to be false, like Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and laugh internally as their enemies fixate all their efforts on disproving that, they consider that this makes their enemies foolish, wasting all their effort disproving something so obviously false. While internally the antisemite smugly consists himself so clever for actually just blindly holding to some belief in an inherent evil essence they attach to some infinitely othered group, and hysterically blame for all the setbacks of their reactionary ideology, an ever useful add immensely satisfying omniscapegoat for all their incompetence and their sides setbacks. They consider their internal conception so clever and original when really they just came up with the same idea as Hitler all over again, and are just destructive liars who refuse to accept responsibility, and who sow chaos and murder within their society based on feelings and delusions they refuse to be honest about, because admitting their actual internal motivation, just the mindless thrashing of a thoughtless animal which has nothing to do with reason, justice, and truth, would leave that open, and vulnerable. While they are shielded with lies and irony, they are invulnerable. 2601:140:8900:61D0:E4A1:4D7B:5560:678E (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

NPOV: The article is completely one sided
This article is almost completely one sided. I'm surprised that it passed a DYK nomination. "Right wing war hawks"? Who is to say what is "myth" and what is not? Why isn't Johnson, a Democrat who was fundamental in getting the United States into that war, referred to as a "war hawk?? There is next to no all around perspective covered in this article.  I was no big fan of the Vietnam war and felt, and feel, that American troops should only be employed in the defense of their country, but I indeed witnessed how the media was fundamental in skewing the coverage of that war, to the point where returning veterans were virtually spit on, called "baby killers" etc, by the naive and obsessed 'friends of America' crowd, foreign and donestic. Having said that, the coverage of this article is lopsided, and seems like an advocacy article for Jeffrey Kimball who is mentioned by name in the lede and elsewhere in the narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The concept that returning veterans were abused, spit on, called baby killers, is literally part of the myth, there is no actual evidence such behavior was widespread. The fact that you can blithely mention such things, unsourced, on the assumption everyone knows it, is actually precisely a sign of how utterly pervasive the myth is and riddled with falsehoods. In particular this myth had a large effect on how the Iraq War would play out, a preemptive anti anti war movement would emerge in which any opposing force was cowed into submission and often threatened, creating an obsequious, servile media that refused to question Bush seriously because it wanted to prove how "serious" it was and "not like those soft hippies". Only a token opposition was allowed, always making sure to spend about half their energy making sure to eagerly salute the troops the whole time to try and prove how no real were patriotic this time we're not like the guys who Rambo told me about who spit on the troops which totally happened right, all the while being bashed and called troop haters just the same. Hell in 2004 the Democrats were so eager to prove their patriotism they ran a troop, who of course was immediately being libeled as a coward.


 * This resulted in critiscism of the war being suppressed heavily, ultimately causing us to fall into an even bigger and longer lasting disaster now that the hated liberals who supposedly had betrayed our troops and caused us to lose Vietnam were defanged, and nothing but a token opposition could be mounted. Resulting in the country being allowed to sink much much more into what really was after all just another quagmire we would've been better off leaving as soon as possible. Really there should have been a more serious acknowledgement of just how much quagmire wars like this could damage us. Didn't we literally go out of our way to engineer a war in Afghanistan for the Soviets knowing it could be they're Vietnam and take them down? And it did. But somehow after that we contented ourselves with the notion that really we were different and totally could've won that disastrous quagmire without those evil librulz providing unneeded critiscism and opposition to our disastrous policies. Such foolishness.2601:140:8900:61D0:E4A1:4D7B:5560:678E (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd agree - the term "war hawk" is pejorative in nature and shouldn't be used in an encyclopedia. This topic should be subject to further investigation, and definitely isn't done justice by a Start-class article (even this arguably counts for a stub considering the complete and utter disregard for encyclopedic convention and neutral information. ASide8 (talk) 05:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree, I'm surprised that this could be a DYK.Mztourist (talk) 09:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, this stuck out like a sore thumb on the main page. It is obviously a WP:POVFORK of opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War which was no myth but massive, prolonged and decisive.  I suggest merger. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

"The concept that returning veterans were abused, spit on, called baby killers, is literally part of the myth" Yeah, we're aware that you're pushing that as a "myth". "there is no actual evidence such behavior was widespread" Right, so now we go from "no evidence that it occurred" to "no evidence that it was widespread", whatever the fuck that means. "In particular this myth had a large effect on how the Iraq War would play out" I'm sure you're putting your claim here through the same rigorous requirements for evidence as the stab in the back "myth"? "nothing but a token opposition could be mounted" Lol, "token opposition"? We were all alive during these wars you clown, the large scale entertainment media (which people pay more attention to than the news), was vehemently anti-war and anti-Bush.

Isn't this something that some writer just recently made up?
Though there have been frequent references to a "stab in the back theory" in Germany between the World Wars, I have yet to have seen the term used in any work about the Vietnam War. I am surprised this wasn't picked up on.Foofbun (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War with Vietnam stab-in-the-back myth
This is a WP:POVFORK of opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War, which was no myth. As that article is much larger and better developed, the myth of a myth would be better placed in context there. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I am leaning towards oppose. At a first glance, I notice that it was covered by a source focused solely on the subject, published in 1988. The subject has also been described in other sources as well.--- C &amp; C ( Coffeeandcrumbs ) 14:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per C&C -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  15:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article is not about the opposition movement. Proponents of this myth allege that the media, government, Congress, and others who supported the war (just not enthusiastically enough) contributed to defeat. (t · c)  buidhe  16:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose In fact, the article should be completely rewritten, and balanced and objective coverage is introduced to this political hit piece. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , before engaging in a personal attack against the primary author (i.e. "political hit piece"), please provide what sources are available to "balance" this article. Otherwise, you are advocating for a WP:FALSEBALANCE. --- C &amp; C ( Coffeeandcrumbs ) 19:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That was not a "personal attack" on the person, but all things considered, a called for criticism of the work, IMO. Though the Vietnam war is 'ancient history', if I may, it would be unfair to say the myth is "dead" because it had no basis whatsoeever, which is an opinion and the general perspective of this article.  The article doesn't mention that while Kennedy increased the number of military advisors it was the Democrat Johnson Administration that turned our limited capacity in Vietnam into an all-out war. When Nixon assumed office, a slow withdrawal of troops finally began. So who are the "war hawks" here?  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * According to a reliable source quoted in the article, Johnson administration promoted a version of the myth. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet Johnson is not referred to as a "war hawk". The lede in this article says, "Proponents of the myth, typically right-wing war hawks, blame the defeat on various American groups, such as civilian policymakers, the media, anti-war protestors, United States Congress, political liberals, and/or the Democratic Party". Johnson, and his "great society" was consider a "liberal" by any standard. Yet according to the lede, proponents of the myth blame the liberals and the Democrats -- Johnson was both. That is yet another inconsistency with this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, according to Kimball the myth was promoted by war hawks, especially those from the right wing ("war hawks" I understand as a descriptive term for someone who supports a particular war) and the various groups blamed may include any of the named groups. That's not an inconsistency. I understand Johnson was opposed to anti-war protests and disliked the media coverage of the war. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, according to Kimbal, who seems to be the central figure behind the coverage here, is mentioned by name three times in this article, including the lede. Again, Johnson, who disliked the anti-war protests and disliked media coverage, is not considered a "war hawk". That Johnson, the President who escalated that war, found exception to media coverage, gives much credence to the idea that the media was fundamental in pressuring elected officials, and others, to treat the war with kid gloves and prolong that war to the point of self defeat. Given Johnson's escalation of US involvement in Vietnam along with his contentions against media coverage, this seems to fit the POV profile of "war hawks" more than most other so labeled individuals. Imo, that is a glaring inconsistency with this seemingly advocacy article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources? Clearly you don't like Kimball, but the other reliable sources I've found don't criticize his concept of "stab-in-the-back" and find it useful for analysis. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * His analysis has over looked people like Johnson and seems to assume the media had no influence on elected officials and others. Even Johnson didn't like the media's overall coverage, all the while people like Jane Fonda were doing all they could to sway public opinion which in effect helped to hobble the effort in Vietnam. Also, the NPOV tag is not about a dispute over sources, but rather that there is a neutrality dispute still in progress. You must know an article can invoke NPOV issues regardless of what sources are used to effect this. Again, the coverage is one sided and overlooks central figures like Johnson. Until this sort of issue is adequately addressed and remedied, the tag should remain, which is reasonable. Please don't engage in a slow-mo edit war over this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers, please keep in mind that your personal conjecture and original research have no bearing whatsoever on Wikipedia's content policies. Your criticism of Kimball will be noted once it has been published by a reliable academic press, not before.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose a distinct phenomenon covered by reliable sources. ——  Serial  13:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No one has claimed that the phenomenon is not real, or that the sources are not reliable, but that the article is one sided, esp in its coverage of Johnson, who by the article's standard is also a "war hawk". This needs to be dealt with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers, you are commenting in the wrong thread. This thread is discussing a merge of the article content to a different article. Those that oppose such a merge have argued that the "stab-in-the-back" myth is a distinct topic from general opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and hence merits a standalone article. Your advocacy for an NPOV tag belongs in the separate thread on that topic. There is no need to WP:BLUDGEON this thread by repeating yourself here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please -- I was responding to your comment, also in this section. The topics are now overlapping, so let's not digress into this sort of snipping which also involves the proposed merge, and stick to the greater issue of how this topic is being covered, with albeit reliable sources, but in a capacity that we are ignoring Johnson who fits the bill of "war hawks", far more than many of those "right wingers" that some individuals seem to love to hate. Once again, it is possible to present a one-sided account using reliable sources. As an experienced editor I'm a bit surprised that such a common affair here at WP escapes you. The coverage of Johnson here is a definitive example of such an affair. Again, Johnson, who escalated the war and who criticized media coverage, while Nixon gradually withdrew U.S. forces and ultimately got the U.S. out of Vietnam seems to be a classic example of this affair. Who in reality were the "war hawks"? History is filled with examples of ones who scheme and then lay blame on the other opposing party. Or are you assuming that the idea of betrayal, or being stabbed in the back, per the likes of Jane Fonda who was coddled by much of the media, was just spun out of thin air with zero facts to support that premise? To her credit, Fonda later apologized for her naive and divisive remarks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose the two are completely different topics. The myth does exist and is supported by revisionist history about the war (e.g. Lewis Sorley's A Better War, Mark Woodruff's Unheralded Victory and others) and so this page should be retained.Mztourist (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, a topic discussed separately in sources. Hog Farm Bacon 19:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

NPOV
The NPOV tag was just removed on the basis that there was no consensus. Given the divisive language the article employs, and the advocacy given, i.e. "Jeffrey Kimball wrote..." and "According to Lien-Hang T. Nguyen...", with no other perspective that this "myth" has some basis in reality, it would seem the NPOV tag is called for until (much) more balance and objectivity is brought to the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: the article accurately summarizes what reliable sources say about the subject and correctly attributes opinions according to WP:NPOV. Quoting from a recent peer-reviewed paper which devotes a couple pages of analysis to the myth: (t · c)  buidhe  19:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Moyar’s critique shows that a line of argument that Jeffrey Kimball long ago called the 'stab-in-the-back legend' remains alive and well. The stab-in-the-back legend displays classic characteristics of what psychologists call in-group/out-group bias, in which every action by an in-group is rationalized and justified whereas every action by an out-group is criticized and seen as inspired by perverse motives. Through this pattern of thought, the 'stab-in-the-back' interpretation externalizes blame for U.S. defeat entirely to civilian policymakers. A virtuous and effective military had its hands tied by villainous civilians who, pandering to base political instincts, betrayed the soldiers (and eventually South Vietnam) by failing to allow them to do what was needed to win." (t · c)  buidhe  19:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A peer reviewed source by itself doesn't establish the idea that the article is neutral. The article overall is still is focused on one POV. The language by itself more than substantiates this idea. Are you saying there are no other RS that present a different view? We still have an advocacy issue that also needs to be addressed. -- Also, a NPOV tag doesn't say the article is in fact 'not neutral', it only says that the neutrality is being "disputed", which is clearly the case.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not find any reliable sources which discussed "stab-in-the-back" theories with regards to Vietnam and stated that they are accurate, i.e. not a myth. In order to substantiate the view that this article is not NPOV, you would need to find such sources. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Remove the tag – Unless one or two reliable sources can be presented to "fix" the alleged imbalance. Even then, the tag should be removed once content drawn from these hypothetical sources has been added to the article. Any change in title should be proposed in an RM. --- C &amp; C ( Coffeeandcrumbs ) 20:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The idea of 'Myth' is still given much more coverage, even advocacy, than the idea that some members of Congress and much of the media worked earnestly to impede the effort in Vietnam. I am not very familiar with all the sources and public figures involved, but I do know that war could have been won in a year or two and many lives saved in the long run -- the US certainly had the means to do so, while the media was largely responsible for the "war hawks" and "baby killer" school of thought that returning vets had to deal with upon their arrival home. Are we to believe there are no RS whatsoever that cover that perspective? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Such sources would have to directly address the idea of "stab-in-the-back" to avoid being WP:OR, and be of comparable quality to the sources already cited in the article (or else we would be dealing with WP:FALSEBALANCE, as C&C states above). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Let's be mindful that this could easily become a contest over sources, with each side claiming that their sources are the most reliable. In such cases the coverage should be neutral. e.g. 'Smith' said this, however, 'Jones' said that – without drawing any conclusions of our own.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I do not see any basis for an NPOV tag; this article appears to reflect the best scholarship on the topic, and Gwillhickers has yet to substantiate his objections by reference to a single reliable source. Wikipedia is not required to present a WP:FALSEBALANCE. "I do know that war could have been won in a year or two and many lives saved in the long run ... " That is your own original research and is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia's content policies.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again, the fact that Johnson, who was not "right wing" and who escalated the war, while finding fault with the media's coverage, yet is not referred to as a "war hawk", is reason enough for the NPOV tag. It is possible to present a one-sided POV using reliable sources and that seems to be the case here. Also, the apparent assumption that the media played no role in swaying political and public opinion and effecting war time policy decisions by elected officials, always weary about how the media will portray them, is a bit naive. However, finding sources that outline this has admittedly been very difficult, which is why I've made no edits to this effect in the article. On Talk pages, however, editors are permitted to voice their opinions in the hopes that it will lead to balanced article coverage by those more familiar with this highly opinionated topic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * While you're right about the fact that Johnson wasn't right wing, he really didn't escalate the war either. Ho Chi Minh and his communist supporters did that. He relied on the media condemning the actions of U.S. forces as well as the South Vietnamese government. Reportedly, he knew he lost the Tet Offensive, but wanted to wait until international news reports of the battle played out to the rest of the world, and then was convinced he won. You could probably get any news report from the war after 1965 as a source. One notable example is a CBS report by Dan Rather condemning the execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém by General Nguyễn Ngọc Loan during Tet. Rather does the usual smear narration of the general being some sadistic bastard plucking some innocent Vietnamese out of nowhere and unjustly executing him, and then condemns his fellow officers for giving him a medal, when in reality Nguyễn Văn Lém was a Vietcong sniper who frequently killed South Vietnamese cops and their entire families. -User:DanTD (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Text on Spitting Image
I tried to alter this text: "In his 1998 book, The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam, Jerry Lembcke compared the stab-in-the-back myth with the myth that returning veterans were spat upon by and insulted by anti-war protesters (no spitting incident has ever been proven to have occurred).".

I instead wanted to say: "In his 1998 book, The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam, Jerry Lembcke compared the stab-in-the-back myth with the myth that returning veterans were spat upon by and insulted by anti-war protesters (he claims no spitting incident has ever been proven to have occurred).".

I think it's important to note that difference....or at least elaborate a bit further. Lembcke's research has been challenged on this point. In his (and his supporters) response they have (in part) replied that that no one ever claimed it never happened. Just it's frequency (and by who) is in doubt. For us to say "no spitting incident has ever been proven to have occurred" when Lembcke has acknowledged the stories presented to him are not fakes.....makes no sense. And furthermore, his claims have been challenged by Vets in RS.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * MOS:CLAIM is not acceptable language to use. Yes, there are reports, but AFAIK none of them has been conclusively proven to be real. In order to contradict Lembcke you would need an equally reliable source which says that some of them have been proven. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Proven to be real according to Lembcke. The accounts are there in RS. If he himself says in reply to the accounts (paraphrasing here) "I never said it never happened" and indeed his own book says that.....to me, that means our text as it stands now is a issue.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, what it states in the article isn't that it's proven that no spitting incident ever occurred (it's often impossible to prove a negative), but that no spitting incident has been proven to have occurred. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well this may be headed towards a RFC. The standard of proof here is resting on Lembcke's judgement. And that has proven more and more questionable over time. He also claimed in this same book that no protester called Vets "baby killer". And in Ken Burns docu on Vietnam (among other sources), a number of vets said it happened to them but (more importantly) also a notable anti-war activist (i.e. Nancy Biberman) admitted to doing it. So giving Lembcke's claims this much weight seems a problem.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) Yes, as buidhe states, a more accurate paraphrase of Lembcke's argument is that "I cannot prove a negative," which does not seem to contradict the statement that no incidents were ever conclusively proven. "The accounts are there in RS." For clarification, which RS do you have in mind? I don't think anyone would assert that Lembcke has the final word on this matter, but we would want to rely on academic sources rather than anecdotes reported in the popular press to avoid WP:SYNTH or WP:FALSEBALANCE. On a side note, if it is necessary to attribute to Lembcke, which I don't think has been established, it would be preferable to use "Lembcke states" rather than "Lembcke claims."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I am thinking of accounts in "popular press"....but some of these outlets are RS. And media outlets were the largely the basis for Lembcke's research on this particular claim in the first place. Furthermore we are going in circles here. To say "no spitting incident has ever been proven to have occurred" keeps coming back to the standard of proof being Lembcke's judgement. That's not NPOV. There is a alternative POV (in RS) on this point and to give him the final (in fact, the only) word on this point is not NPOV. It is not FALSEBALANCE to simply attribute this to him (in whatever way is deemed best) without even mentioning the debate (which is available on the book's page).Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Oliver North
In his Congressional testimony during the Iran-Contra hearings North said that he believed America could have won the war in Vietnam but lost the war at home, or words to that affect. As part of his rationalisation of his actions. And I'm pretty sure others in the administration felt the same way. Should this be included if we can get a source? LamontCranston (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)