Jump to content

Talk:Vietnam War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kensai Max (talk | contribs) at 03:56, 12 November 2007 (→Casualties). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Ngo Dinh Diem

The following section is not neutral, and should therefore not stand in an encyclopedia. "Diem was an unlikely prospect to lead the Vietnamese people. A devout Roman Catholic, he was aloof, closed-minded, and trusted only the members of his immediate family. For the U.S., however, he was a godsend."

Diem was an unlikely prospect to lead the Vietnamese people? He was aloof and closedminded? Most south vietnamese i have spoken to revere him as uncomprimising.a man with dignity and a good leader. many american history books are clearly biased concerning diem. we south vietnamese were the ones that lived under his rule. we are the ones who should be judging if he was a good leader or not. Tridungvo 13:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the South Vietnamese you have talked to? And who are they? What positions did they hold in Vietnamese society 30-40 years ago. Were they the Bhuddists that he and his brother persecuted? Were they members of the the Cao Dai sect? Were they NLF cadres murdered for calling for elections? He was indeed the Catholic dictator of a nation that was predominantly Bhuddist (which gained him hundreds of thousands of ardent anti-communist supporters). He refused to redistribute land to the peasants at the expense of the landlord class (which benefited the NLF insurgency). If he was such a good leader, why did the majority of his own military high command (albeit with U.S. government approval) acquiesce in his murder? RM Gillespie 06:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They not only spoke on their own behalf, but on the behalf of the people of South Vietnam. I can guarantee you that if you did a survey on the South Vietnamese people living under Diem, and they had freedom of speak (not risking persecution afterwards as they do in Vietnam today), most would say he was a good leader and a better one than anyone after him. Diem did use measures considered cruel in the eyes of westernes, but they were nothing but appropiate considering the cruelty of the enemy he faced and the hard times he was in. Communists sources say they were severely weakened during his rule. The so-called 'Buddhists' he persecuted during his time were Communist guerillas working undercover. We can know this as after he attacked the religious groups, Communist guerilla activities were dramatically reduced.
However, most American history books fail to accept that Diem was a good leader, because the American CIA was largely responsible for the murder of Diem. They cannot accept that under hard times, there is a need for strict and hard measures. The books fail to realise that if Diem had not been murdered, the arrival of mass scale U.S. troops would never have been necessary. The South Vietnamese people had never been in better times before his rule, and they suffered much more in the crippling civil war during the chaotic times after his assassination. Tridungvo 12:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can guarantee you that the majority of Vietnamese are Buddhists and they consider him to be a crook. Apart from the ruling class and Catholics, nobody likes him. Having said that, most people would agree that those who came after him were more corrupt, although not as anti-Buddhist. And no, Buddhists /= Communists. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in the last years of his goverment, assassinations of govt officials by VC tripled, and his Catholic general Huynh Van Cao who was promoted for political reasons and not competence was routed at the Battle of Ap Bac despite having ten times as many men, as well as having helicopters. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The South Vietnamese people had never been in better times before his rule"
So you think that Vietnamese people would rate him above the Trung sisters, Le Loi or Quang Trung? 70% land taxes?? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The communists were being routed under Diem? Man, I think you had better find yourself a basic history of Vietnam describing the collapse of the ARVN under his rule. The "communist" Bhuddists? Well, you have to hand it to them for dedication. I personally have never seen a communist set himself alight in the streets to promote his cause. Sounds like Madame Ngu to me. RM Gillespie 04:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Pony Express

How come no one has written this article yet? I know WP:BOLD and all, and I would create it myself, but with wikipedias coverage of the Vietnam war being as extensive as it is, yet this article remaining uncreated, I assume there must be a particular reason why? If not, then I'll have a go at it. Seems to be related to the ferrying of American combat troops into Cambodia and/or Laos from what I have read so far. Someone fill me in! SGGH speak! 18:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not written simply because there is no such critter. Pony Express was the nickname of a U.S. Air Force HH-53 helicopter squadron stationed at Nakhon Phanom Air Base, Thailand. The unit did indeed ferry highly-classified SOG recon team and agent personnel into eastern Laos and North Vietnam. It also transported CIA-backed Laotian tribal mercenaries in the secret war in that country. See SOG and Operation Barrel Roll RM Gillespie 04:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military Superiority

One of the most startling revelations of the Vietnam War was the lopsided death count. Many civilian died as a result of the sustained U.S. bombing. Civilians dying in war is an uncomfortable reality. Uncomfortable or not, however, it is a vital part of the picture of Vietnam. The reason for this lopsided result must be explained. Vietnamese civilians died in such large numbers because of the complete dominance of U.S. technology. You complain about the comparison of military and civilian deaths. What are we supposed to compare Vietnamese civilian deaths with? Would you prefer that the sentence read "2 and 5.1 milliom Vietnamese, a large number of whom were civilians and 0 American civilians?" --Hughstew 05:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is unquestionable that the US was far superior militarily. My point is that it could be better worded if we compared actual combatant deaths for both sides. Approximately 60k Americans vs. 600k Vietnemese would better illustrate the military picture (superiority), than millions of unintentional civilian deaths. 24.68.249.197 09:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how relevant any of this is unless it is to support a sub-text that the Vietnamese won a pyrrhic victory or that somehow the wrong people lost. It's a very unsatisfactory note on which to end the introduction and I suggest it is replaced with something altogether more NPOV. ROGER TALK 13:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem using the military casualty figures, as long as civilians are included. Like all wars, they were the first to suffer. Hanoi hid the casualty figures during the war, but since the cat is out of the bag these people deserve to be remembered.--219.79.112.194 10:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pls understand that when the term "military superiority" is used by historians it means superior firepower and nothing else. Service members use the same language.--Hughstew 10:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, using the respective butchers' bills is irrelevant. The comparison should be purely in terms of matériel. ROGER TALK 13:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Roger. There must be a load of examples that would prove US military superiority that don't involve the respective death tolls. 24.68.249.197 22:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It also strikes me that technological superiority and military superiority aren't at all the same thing. ROGER TALK 09:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Roger, whilst US might clearly have had superior technology, the VC compensated by using huge numbers of infantry. Same tactic was used by the Chinese forces in the Korean War to great affect against the once again superior technology of the US. Just because the North lost more troops that doesn't mean that they were militarily inferior, it just reflects a different way of fighting. Unlike the US, there was little political cost for the VC in losing men - hence Ho Chi Minh's statement to a French official "you can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours, but even at those odds, you will lose and I will win." Using body count is a completely biased measure. Carl weathers bicep 09:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you Google "military superiority."--Hughstew 07:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those angels and pinheads issues really. At Agincourt, fr'instance, who were militarily superior? The French who were numerically superior? Or the English who were technologically superior? ROGER TALK 08:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google it and then tell me what you think. The term means superior firepower, dominance of the battlefield through firepower, technological superiority and the ability to deliver it. It is a commonly used term, which I think you've misunderstood. But have a look. Thanks for the ref clean up. I still don't get why there is this big gap at the start of the article. It didn't used to be there. As far as the body count (civilian) goes, I still think those people deserve a mention. Sometimes that is the job of an historian. To make sure that victims have the justice that they didn't have in life, at least given to them in death. --219.78.179.36 10:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it that amongst military historian's the term 'military superiority' means 'technological superiority', however wiki is designed for general readers, not specialists. If the term is used as you wish it to be, then it should only be so with a disclaimer explaining the distinction. Given that that would probably appear unnecessarily detailed for a page about the Vietnam War, I think the more precise 'technologically superior' would be preferable.?.

As for the post directly above this one, it just repeats the same mistake already identified - collating 'superior firepower', 'dominance of the battlefield through firepower', 'technological superiority' and 'ability to deliver it' as all one and the same. In Vietnam the VC troops fought the US force to a standstill, if only because their guerrilla tactics meant the US troops couldn't find them (ironically the same tactics the US used against the 'technologically superior' British army during the War of Independence). 'Dominance of the battlefield through firepower' etc is inherently biased towards a modern US style of fighting, whilst the guerrilla tactics of the VC would have completely different criteria for success - both can achieve military success though Carl weathers bicep 12:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>219.78.179.36 Please don't assume that I misunderstand simply because I disagree your take in this context. I offered Agincourt as an example where both sides could claim military superiority. As for the clean up, my pleasure. ROGER TALK 13:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, military superiority? You mean numbers? The hugh numbers of troops the communists utilized? Human wave attacks? I suggest you read some basic military texts on the conflict (the U.S. Army's are excellent) and discover that in almost every confrontation (until the last, Vietnamese phase of the war) PAVN/NLF forces were outnumbered by their allied opponents. RM Gillespie 05:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About China

Before 1971, China is internationally recognized as the Republic of China(ROC), which is Taiwan. So what i'm suggesting is that someone should change the name China(with five star flag) to the People's Republic of China. 203.198.165.29 02:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ROGER TALK 10:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could this also be done for the flag of the People's Republic of China (Right-hand side)? Ld80061 16:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

First of all, 1.1 million dead or missing is the official figure now. If you think some guy's estimate from 1985 is more reliable, you are being just plain silly.

Second, add the POWs (including most of ARViNs in 1975, I guess). --HanzoHattori 13:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've upped the US casualty figures, by the way. It seems they were seriously understated. ROGER TALK 10:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. I brought that up on the Casualties of the Vietnam War page a while back. Kensai Max 22:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

templates

Is there any way to get the templates at the right not to push the text down so you have to scroll down a couple of pages before you get to the article? Chris 17:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I follow you - if by 'article' you mean from the first line 'The Vietnam War (also known as the Second Indochina War, the American War....' - then its at the top where it should be, if its appearing differently on yours it presumably an issue with your browser. Then again I may be completely misunderstanding you Carl weathers bicep 11:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm seeing the same problem with the display of text. I tried moving the Campaignbox templates to other locations, but that just moves the problem elsewhere -- although it does help out in terms of the Intro. Come to think of it, I'm going to save that change -- at least it's an improvement for the time being. Meanwhile, I've already posted a request for help on this issue over at Template talk:Campaignbox Vietnam War. Hopefully that will get results. Cgingold 16:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam WikiProject

Hoping there may be interest, I have posted a proposal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Vietnam_WikiProject Chris 17:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, join us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Vietnam! Chris 04:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montage

Corresponding to the American Civil War, Russo-Japanese War,World War I,World War II, and the Korean War. Feel free to add suggestions.Kfc1864 13:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the montage should be made with mostly color images unless it is a particularly iconic B/W image, here are some in no particular order, all free of copyright

[[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]], [[11]], [[12]], [[13]],

and these are pictures of war protesters, should have at least one image of war protesters [[14]] [[15]] Bleh999 01:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try Anything.Kfc1864 04:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5 images in the most.Kfc1864 04:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup/expand on My Lai Massacre requested

See the talk page for details. --HanzoHattori 14:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hughstew

Paris Peace Accords did NOT end the war (fall of Saigon 2 years later did, and related 'domino' in Cambodia and Laos). What are you, stuck in 1973? U.S. withdrawal was not result of the fall of Saigon, it was a cause.

"guerilla warfare" or "insurgency" was TACTICS not the casus belli. What does it even suppose to mean? Vietcong sez: we'll start our guerilla warfare because of the guerilla warfare? --HanzoHattori 04:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HanzoHattori

That is a fair comment and I accept part of your argument. However, what about the footnote? That is referenced material from the U.S. Army, Henry Kissinger and Robert McNamara. You should not remove referenced material. Who won and who lost the war is crucial information. Are you saying that the United States did not lose the Vietnam War? --Hughstew 01:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define lose? How would they won? Conquer North Vietnam? They never tried. They forced the communists to the peace talks and the peace accord, and this ended THEIR war (something Vietnamese call the "American war"). They quit "with honor". In 1975 Saigon lost theirs - after Hanoi and Washington betrayed them, respectively. (thus Americans losing... said "honor", not the war, because they didn't fight.) If there was air support (any support really) - see the results of the 1972 offensive. --HanzoHattori 01:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, you can use this footnote anywhere in the article (I don't even know what is this really). It's just wrong to say the war ending violently in 1975 ended with the peace agreement of 1973. The article define the war to include 1975, not the American intervention in Vietnam. --HanzoHattori 02:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: please link to X article

{{editprotected}} The "The Diem era, 1955–1963" section refers to the "X" article, but doesn't have a link to the WP article on the subject. Please change the text to a link: "X" article 71.41.210.146 02:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I linked it, but in general semiprotected articles don't need admin assistance, since they can be edited by any username 4 days old or older. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Facts" vs "Myths"?

Does this [16] differ because the 'facts' are wrong or because the 'facts' are inaccurate representation of the sources? Or, are the Wiki's facts are wrong? Brian Pearson 07:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Errors found, corrections requested

As the page cannot be edited, I note the following and request others to amend the page. I would invite other readers to add to this numbered list (in sequence) so that the "senior editors" may keep track of changes to be made.

1. Australia did not exit the war in 1971, as currently stated, but merely decided to scale back troops deployed in that year, cf.

Throughout 1971 and 1972 the reduction of Australia's forces continued under the administration of Prime Minister McMahon. By the end of 1971 the Australian Army presence had been reduced to 2300 personnel. By mid-1972 less than 200 Australian personnel remained and in December 1972 Prime Minister Whitlam announced the withdrawal of the final contingent. On 26 February 1973 Prime Minister Whitlam announced the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North) while retaining diplomatic recognition for the Republic of Vietnam (South). The last elements of the Australian Army left Vietnam in June 1973.

[17] Source: Ashley Ekins Official History Unit Australian War Memorial

2. The omission of Laos and Cambodia in the list of "combatants" is absurd --in the case of Laos, more than one faction must be listed (RLG vs. PL, etc.).

3. The list of names for the war omits one of the most obvious and important, namely The American War, as it is known throughout South-East Asia.

Letters of 1967 between LB Johnson and Ho Chi Minh

I found this links to text of letters between the 2 leaders and wondered if someone with the knowledge would want to add this in a appropriate spot. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1967-vietnam-letters1.html Please have a look and comment or edit and insert. Fremte 18:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. material losses

I think its important to get the American material losses in this conflict as they are rather substantial. For example 5.086 helicopters where lost of 11.827 possible which illustrate the danger of being an American helicopter pilot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.73.56.50 (talk)

Pictures

Is there a reason the pictures are so small they can barely be seen? Perspicacite 04:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can click on them to enlarge them Bleh999 17:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we including the whole war?

The Vietnam War was fought in neighboring Laos and Cambodia as well. Why are the factions involved in those theatres of the conflict not listed in the infobox? --Kudzu1 07:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because it was fought in rather than against? Not sure but that might be my guess SGGH speak! 17:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names for the conflict...

Are the highly subjective interpretations, also lacking any kind of source or reference, really necessary for the names for the conflict? I completely disagree with two of the interpretations, but that's not really the point. The point is, given how obviously subjective these interpretations of the names of the conflict are, and also given how amazingly irrelevant the interpretations are for the purposes of a historical account of the conflict, it would be best if they were just completely removed and simply stated the names and the origin.

Firebrand24 19:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more confused as to how "Vietnam War" suggests a locational exclusivity, rather than being suggestive of the people involved. It's entirely ignorant to claim the name fails to recognize context and/or the general idea simply from a title. --BeggarEthics 06:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

This section doesn't make any sense. It says "below are three references..." and just stops there without providing any references. Not to mention the whole paragraph (save the last sentence) is uncited, which is pretty bad for something that's supposed to have statistics.-Wafulz 02:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casus Belli

In the info box, the Casus Belli for USA being in the war is listed as "containment policy and domino theory"... Forgive me if I am wrong, but by my understanding "Casus Belli" is basically the EXCUSE for a nation to go to war... while containment theory WAS the reason, the EXCUSE or JUSTIFICATION and therefore Casus Belli (i would have thought) should then be the Gulf of Tonkin incident, no?? 124.176.5.47 10:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right in principle that the Casus Belli is the proffered reason for going to war, not necessarily the real reason for going to war. However, you are wrong because it is generally considered that the Vietnam War began in 1959. This is perhaps a somewhat arbitrary date (read the section of this article entitled "Violence Begins 1956-1960". The key turning point would seem to have been "the north's Central Committee issued a secret resolution authorizing an armed struggle." Note that, at this point, the U.S. is not fully in the war. However, the war has started between the North and the South i.e. it's no longer just an insurgency by the Viet Cong (NLF).
The next inflection point is Kennedy's insertion of "military advisors". The one after that is the escalation of the war by LBJ following the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Thus, the Gulf of Tonkin incident happened more than five years after the start of the war and thus cannot have been the Casus Belli for the war between the North and the South. Perhaps it could be argued that it was the Casus Belli for the U.S. entry into the war.:--Richard 20:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, two wrongs do make a right? The origin lies in Ngo Dinh Diem's attacks on Viet Minh/communist cadres proslytizing for the promised reunification elections. Requests for northern support prompted the Central Committee of the Lao Dong Party to pass the resolution granting permission for the armed struggle in the south to begin. RM Gillespie 16:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typo: USS Madox

"On August 2, 1964, the U.S.S. Madox was attacked by torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin. The destroyer was on an intelligence mission along North Vietnam's coast. A second attack was reported two days later on the U.S.S. Turner Joy and U.S.S Maddox in the same area. "

Please fix that obvious typo. Thanks.


Czecho-Slovak propaganda postcard "Nam Dinh /1970/"

Vietnam for Vietnamese - Americans out from Vietnam, Solidarity with heroic Vietnamese people - Nam Dinh must live

here: http://brod.webpark.cz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.85.189.75 (talk) 20:18, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Under the section dedicated to Australian and New Zealand involvement, it is in serious need of sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.51.102.165 (talk) 10:09, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Use of Napalm

Reading through the article, I have been startled to note that none of it speaks about Napalm. The Vietnam war is known to be one of the main large-scale conflict involving such weapons. I'm not confident enough in my English to write it myself, that's why I'm submitting the topic here. 195.25.91.230 08:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, but the Vietnam War comes up last on a list of three conflicts for usage of Dow Chemical's potent mixture. The Second World War (the Pacific Theater) and the Korean War are numbers one and two. RM Gillespie 16:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see why it would have to be in the top two to get a mention. The image of Kim Phuc that resulted from napalm coming into contact with civilians is one of the best known of the war and was of great significance in the international perception of the war. William Avery 21:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian involvement

In the top info box it has India on the side of the North Vietnamese. Is this accurate? In the article body the only other reference is to India's part in the Control Commission. --maxrspct ping me 01:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum number of U.S. troops in Vietnam -- not mentioned?

Here's one citation for 500,000 between 1965-1969: [18]

Fairly key statistic...why isn't it mentioned here?

Lies about JFK

Article states that "President John F. Kennedy increased America's troop numbers from 500 to 16,000." This is a blatant lie. The day JFK was murdered there were only 1,500 troops in Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lottery0101 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--71.42.142.238 14:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Liberal Article

The article is completely wrong. It put 3 wars together when there was really The first one which France lost, the second one where U.S. forces won and the third war where North Vietnam finally won.I suggest 3 articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.10.251.170 (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even if you put it that way, North Vietnamese still won all of those conflicts. At the end of the "American phase" of the war the peace agreement was favorable to the North as they kept all territories they've conquered, and while the US basically cut the ties with South Vietnam, the North was rearmed by the Soviets. These advantages directly led to their ultimate victory and reunification of Vietnam under the North's regime.Maxim K 19:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The US won in 1973? If so, why by late 1972 was PAVN holding the entire DMZ, Khe Sanh (site of the 1967-1968 siege) and the Route 9 corridor, the mountainous hinterlands above Hue and Danang, including the A Shau valley (site of the Hamburger Hill battles of 1969), the triborder area and the border areas to the west of Dak To, Kontum ("Rocket Ridge"), the Ia Drang valley (site of the early 1965 battle), etc. etc. all the way down to the U Minh forest areas on the Ca Mau peninsula?
The only thing clear is that the US certainly won its war against the VC, and major NV combat units actively operating in the south.
Unfortunately, as Col Harry Summers described in his book On Strategy, it is impossible to actually "win" such a conflict when one fights offensively only on the tactical, but not strategic levels. Strategically, PAVN was in a much stronger position in 1973 than it was in 1965, while, strategically, the US was much weaker in 1973 than it was starting out. By 1971 our draftee Army was largely in tatters due to the great burdens of grinding counter-insurgency / tropical jungle warfare placed upon it . Morale was still high in the USAF, but even so by 1972 NV was holding a sufficient number of captured airmen as hostage (in inhumane conditions) to (IMHO) force us to agree to remove our airpower from the conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.101.161 (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was not one of the stated US aims the driving out of PAVN forces from the South? In this they failed. In could be argued that the only success the US achived was by a differnt criteria then they one they set in 1965. [[Slatersteven 20:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:New Zealand forces with Viet Cong prisoners during the Vietnam War.jpg

Image:New Zealand forces with Viet Cong prisoners during the Vietnam War.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with commanders in the infobox

Hi all, just noticed that a lot of the commanders have crosses behind their names implying they are casualties of the conflict. When I checked out the crosses I found that all of them died during the conflict. However only 1 (Ngo Dinh Diem) or possibly 2 (not sure about Nguyen Chi Thanh) died as a consequence of the fighing all others died from disease, old age, or home assassination (Kennedy). I think we should clearly decide what we want to depict by the crosses. (1) Casualties of war; i.e. the actual act of war, (2) Commanders who died during the war for whatever reason (IMHO this is weird, look what it would do to commanders of e.g. the 100 years' war) (3) Commanders who are now dead (this makes no sense because this would clutter all oder war boxes because everybody will die). This article has now adopted my 2nd option and ends up with a fairly cluttered commander box. I would suggest to change it for option 1 and only use the cross to denote a commander dying as a consequence of the war. Arnoutf 13:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet casualties

Fewer than a dozen Soviet citizens lost their lives in this conflict.

Acoording to official Russian data, there were 16 deaths among Soviet military personnel in North Vietnam. Also there were casualties among civilian personnel (figure unknown). 195.248.189.182 20:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

America was defeated

Why isn't that plainly stated in the battle box's result? It's POV to use euphemisms like "America withdrawal". Malamockq 22:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because the end of the war was due to opposition of the public in America, the defeat was due to low tech tactics versus American technology, e.g. bombing, and because the war has been re-imaged as something noble in the USA. Along with ideas that the USA army could have won if the public had supported it. It also impacts today on the "support the troops" rhetoric "even if you don't like the war". It's politics. Fremte 21:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what is meant by POV surely. [[Slatersteven 21:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

The RVN fell 3 years after the US removed most major units from vietnam. So the result was not American withdrawal OR American defeat. It was the reunification of Vietnam. --MKnight9989 12:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the US was trying to stop the reunification of a vietnam under communist control would that not define the result as a defeat foe the US (or at least it's foreign policy)?. [[Slatersteven 11:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

But like I said RVN fell THREE years (approximately) after the US left. Therefore the US should not (and is not) in the results section of the infobox. --MKnight9989 12:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion, if the United States is mentioned as one of the combatants, and given the fact that it was a very active player in the conflict it maybe useful to mention it in the "Result" box. It could be something like "South Vietnamese defeat, following the US withdrawl", or such. It would describe the situation more or less acurately, as the Northern victory was enebled largely by the US withdrawl (as the Americans thwarted previous NVA offensives). Maxim K 00:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)~== shs ==

hey jake this is not usefuoll


But the USA did fail in it's aims. South East Asia did fall the the communists. The US was forced out (for whatever reason). [[Slatersteven 13:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Well, those who really don't want to admit a "defeat" could try to argue that failure and defeat are different things, because in "classical defeat" one of the armies gets routed or surrenders, which did not happen to the US forces. I mean, to me that seems like a pitiful attempt to save one's wounded national pride when it's pretty obvious to everyone that the US failed and lost in Vietnam, because they've wasted enormous resources and many lives without getting any success while antagonising the world and incurring international humiliation when the Communists finally did take over despite everything, but to be objective one has to consider the difference between military defeat and a strategic failure. Maxim K 22:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problom is that America was not defeated on the battle field, but in the political arena. Moreover The US cut and run (I can see it in no other terms) before actual millitary defeat occured (which given the vertual abandonment of the South by the US seems to be the case, ignoring as they did constant cease fire vilolations by the North). So in a sence the US lost and in a snece they drew. [[Slatersteven 11:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Well, political arena and battlefield are not that far removed, the reason why America's political position (and will to fight) was going downhill was largely due the situation on the ground. If the Vietnamese did not resist as they have the outcome may've been different. But as far as the "defeat" vs "withdrawl" is concerned, I don't think either describes what happened accurately enough, because it wasn't a "normal" war whith two armies each attempting to destroy another and capture some land. It seems that according to statements made by Ho Chi Minh and various US Presidents, the US wanted to crush the Communist war machine and break their will to fight, the Communists wanted the US out so that they can invade South Vietnam in peace, so to speak. So NVA never intended to obliterate the US forces, just outlast them; while the US never meant to stay in Vietnam forever. And in short term the Americans did manage to protect South Vietnam for a time and they quit while ahead, sort of (just stopped the easter offensive, Linebacker 2 and all that), that's why it may seem to some that the US didn't lose, but jumping out of a burning house in time does not mean that you beat the fire Maxim K 08:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could also be said that as the US failed to destroy the Communist forces i the field, by the criteria used by US forces, te US failed to achive its main tactical aim (and by extension their stratigic aim). [[Slatersteven 17:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Withdrawal is just another word for defeat. So is failure to establish tactical aims. The hard fact is that the US military intervention was unsuccessful. Interestingly, no one is arguing that France "successfully withdrew". Codik 00:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or that USSR successfuly withdrew from Afghanistan, or that North Korea withdrew from the South... I don't think that a war can be a "draw" because of the resources and lives that have to be expanded to launch a campaign, so if you simply withdraw without getting anything out of it, you loose. But, of course, that's my humble opinion, others may see it differently, though American defeat in Viet Nam is only controversial in highly extremest circles in the US, everyone else, in or out of United States, knows the score... Maxim K 21:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-America was handed their first defeat. The defeat was so obvious and undeniable. It is a serious matter and many if not all historians as well as unbiased Vietnam historians use the word defeat, not withdrawal. More importantly this article is filled with the term insurgents, which I think shouldn't be used, Vietnam was a conventional war for more than half of its duration. Lastly, the Americans left prior to the fall of Saigon because their objectives were not being met. They loss. It doesnt matter when or how you're defeated, as long as you lose, a defeat is a defeat. It is sound and logical.--CompScientist 01:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary box picture

I would like to thank whoever made the effort of making that new summary box picture, but apart from showing a handful of dead Vietnamese civilians at My Lai, theres only pictures of American troops. Why is is so bias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canpark (talk • contribs) 06:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was only an american troops image before. I think this new box picture is an upgrade, a good summary effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.42.222 (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only American was fighting ?

New picture of the Infobox show me 3 pictures about American was fighting and 1 pictures about Vietnamese civilian o.O . Where is others ? Vietcong ? Republic of Vietnam ? North Vietnam ? Magnifier 19:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I first saw the infobox pictures I was under the impression that the maker is trying to glorify the American side of the war at the expense of dead Vietnamese. As a Vietnamese myself I feel very insultedCanpark 14:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Picture does seem one-sided, it only shows American military and (dead) Vietnamese civilians. I don't know if it is meant to glamourize the US or make them look like civilian-murdering monsters, but it seems strange that there is no VPA or NLF soldiers in this murial. I don't know how copyrights work exactly, but there are many photos on the internet that depict them (ex.: http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-enemy/vietnam.htm, http://www.pixelpress.org/pixelpicks/picks20.html, http://www.photius.com/countries/vietnam/national_security/vietnam_national_security_the_armed_forces.html, http://wind.prohosting.com/flyaces/usr/home/web/f/flyaces/acesandeightsjetengineaces_northvietnameseaces.htm) Maxim K 21:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

The references aren't displaying properly. Anyone know how to fix this? 58.173.50.235 02:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"United States-supported Republic of Vietnam"

If the article is going to include support from 3rd-party nations in the conflict, why is only the US mentioned? Should not the USSR and China be mentioned in the lead as supporters of North Vietnam? —divus 20:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The support given by the US was rather more direct then Russia or China. [[Slatersteven 14:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Correction needed for JFK/LBJ NSA

In the subsection "Us Goes To War. End of 1963-1968" the name of the National Security Advisor for JFK and LBJ is erroneously stated to be "George McBundy". The correct name is "McGeorge Bundy".

Sunfighter54 00:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)sunfighter54 (Tom Campbell), 07-NOV-2007[reply]


Help please!

I know the Americans used a thing called "Search and Destroy" and i know the Vietnamese had a similar version too it but what was it called?

PoliceMadJack

Geographical or grammatical error?

This quote from the article just isn't right, 'Major allies, however, notably European nations, Canada and Great Britain, declined Washington's troop requests'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the libery to alter it to NATO nations (I suspect that was what was meant). [[Slatersteven 17:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vietnam_War&oldid=170894798"