Talk:Vietnam War

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Americancentrism redux

Why does the lead always try to emphasize the American aspect? The US withdrew in 1973, and the war ended on April 30, 1975 with the Fall of Saigon and the subsequent dissolution of South Vietnam. Any talk of the outcome of the war must mention North and South Vietnam first, then United States later. DHN (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Your rhetoric is biased. Read and research the war. It is known as the "American War" in Vietnam for a reason(not the South Vietnamese War), the PBS source says "America suffered it's first defeat". The Encyclopedia Britannica source says "America came to terms with its defeat". It goes on and on. Coincidently your rhetoric is American centric in trying to hide the fact that the U.S. was defeated.75.4.3.134 (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not denying that the US lost, but that's like saying "the US lost the 1998 World Cup" in the lead to 1998 FIFA World Cup; of course it did, but isn't it more relevant to mention the two teams in the final? Both of the sources you mention was discussing the war with respect to the US. The PBS source was about "America's longest war", and the EB source was talking about "America and its defeat." DHN (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's known in Vietnam, by the Government as the "American War" because it's political propaganda. Ask the people of Viet Nam what it is called. Those encyclopedias (Britannica... etc )and sources you have mentioned are written by who? Obviously not Vietnamese! Bias?! Even till this day, we are discovering more and more about Wars fought long ago. Britannica couldn't even tell you the full story on the Vietminh, let alone the War. Not only did the US withdrew in 1973 but, the war was being waged for at least 6 years before they even entered. Many US troops had no idea what they were doing in the War. Whilsts the ARVN knew exactly what they were in the war for. I move for this article to reflect the aforementioned, by the person who started this discussion topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.10.204 (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

---

To be neutral, it would probably be called the "Vietnam-American war", like the "Mexican-American war".

If you're living in one of these two countries, then for shorthand, the name of that country can be dropped, because it's understood implicitly.

For this article to present a world view, it would need to have the names of both countries.

What is the naming convention, or historical precedent? It seems to me that wars are named primarily according to who's fighting, much like a sports contest. Battles or conflicts are named by where the conflict occurs, particularly if the conflict, battle or war is not in either country. This is also similar in sports!

Good discussion DHN, et.al.. Mikiemike (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)--

---

Mainly it focuses on teh US because most editors are from teh US, hardly any from VN, and people are using this article as a football for their opinions on foreign policy etc. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not just call it the Vietnam Conflict?Prussian725 (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Which should be that - The term Vietnam Conflict is often used to refer to events THAT took place between 1959 and April 30, 1975

ietnam War, also known as the Second Indochina War, and in Vietnam as the American War, occurred from 1959 to April 30, 1975. The term Vietnam Conflict is often used to refer to events which took place between 1959 and April 30, 1975. The war was fought between the Communist-supported Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the United States supported Republic of Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brw3sbc (talk • contribs) 15:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of image in the article

Hi guys, the image is an orphan and needs to find a home. I'm not sure exactly where it was originally used, but this image is a featured picture and generally cannot continue to be unless it is used in article(s). It has been nominated for delisting as a result. I didn't want to barge in here and insert it somewhere arbitrarily without first mentioning it on the talk page. If one of the regular editors could find a home for it here or elsewhere, that would be appreciated. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

god that guy looks like he's 13!--AtTheAbyss (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions in an Article?

I do not believe the following quote should be found in the 'Fall of Saigon' subsection of the 'End of the War' subsection, it runs counter to the 'don't ask rhetorical questions in the middle of the article without answering them or justifying why they are there' policy of Wikipedia. This might be an intriguing quote, and an interesting conversation piece, but it should not be here.
"Though American equipment still stocked Saigon's markets, the Americans were gone. They counted nearly 60,000 dead and more than 300,000 wounded. It was their first defeat. The promised end of the tunnel had brought not light but a new uncertainty, new questions: what was America's role in the world? What were the lessons of Vietnam?"[109]
70.70.219.180 (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"Result" flaw

on the page it says that the U.S. was defeated and that Vietnam was united under a Communist state. This is wrong, first of all the U.S. signed a cease fire with North Vietnam which ended the war with no winner, second of all Vietnam was united under a single communist state AFTER the war ended, we should fix the Result flaw in the article

Dunnsworth (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, they do teach some stuff in modern American schools don't they. The US was DEFEATED pure and simple. You wouldn't like it if I went round saying that the American War of Independence was a British victory would you? (Trip Johnson (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

It was NOT defeated, a cease fire was signed, and South Vietnam and North Vietnam remained seperate nations. No country was defeated and no country won. What was very ironic was that there was sighns of attack but no one attacked and so this is why Vietnam was separated; it had no straight government! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnsworth (talk • contribs) 16:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

North Vietnam ended up in better position then before (they've occupied northern positions in South Vietnam) while the South ended up in a worse position (the US cut their aid, while USSR and PRC still supplied the North) so the North did win either way. And South lost. Maxim K (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

well i still stand that imformation about the cease fire should be added in the result category and it should be added that the victory was over South Vietnam not the U.S.

User:Dunnsworth  —Preceding comment was added at 01:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 

Why is Canada listed as a belligerent?

Canada did not send any troops. Some Canadians fought, but did so of their own volition, not under the auspices of the Canadian government. Josh (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Also curious about this. Canada should be removed from the list of "anti-Communist forces." If anything, Canada's stance against participation in the war (as it is with the present Iraq conflict) is seen as a stark difference in foreign policy and philosophy with the United States by Canadians. I am removing Canada from the list of belligerents.Wyldkat

if you look at the Canada and the Vietnam War article, Canada was a major supplier of weapons to the U.S during the war & 30,000 (estimated) Canadians went south to serve in the U.S military (110 died in Vietnam), also Canada's foreign policy during the war was not anti war, however I agree that Canada shouldn't be listed since the direct involvement is limited to a small contingent of gatekeepers in 1973. Thisglad (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

The info box on the right places the Communist Forces at 520,000. It then places the casualties at 560,000 dead/missing, with 600,000+ wounded (just from the NFL) and a further 5646 in dead/wounded from the PRC. While these figures already fail to match up, the total casualty figures denote severe mathematical failings by placing the number of dead at over 1,000,000 and the total of wounded at 604,000. To have twice as many casualties as you have soldiers seems remarkably odd. Perhaps this section should be clarified. It was also noted by von Clausewitz that in most engagements there is usually a ratio of around 1:4 in terms of dead:wounded, a figure which is not represented here. While of course this is not fact and mere hypothesis, it is relatively "traditional" to have higher numbers of wounded than dead. Would someone be able to clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.72.110.11 (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

the Strength at any given time is difficult to assess because the communist forces recruitment would make up for any casualties, the north Vietnamese army was one of the largest in the world by the mid 1970s Thisglad (talk) 06:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the number of U.S. military casualties in this article.Originalname37 (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Was US forign policy defeated?

Is this true? For example Noam Chomsky's view is that the US scored a victory by destroying South Vietnamese nationalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Noam_Chomsky#Opposition_to_the_Vietnam_War

Twotdot24334 (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky isn't someone whose opinion can be trusted, to put it diplomatically... Maxim K (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Maxim, the academic world disagrees with you somewhat about Chomsky, where his contributions in the fields of linguistics, cognitive psychology and politics are very highly regarded. This is the main reason why he is the world's most cited living author. Paulzon (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, linguistics and cognitive psycology, perhaps, but his political views are bit umm... strange: he, for example, tried to whitewash Cambodian Khmer Rouge, and claimed to have disliked Stalinism but admired the Stalinist North Vietnam. In general he appears to like the less developed anti-western regiemes, even some rather atrocious ones, but accuses the US and to a lesser extent USSR of being terrorists in cases where their violence is much more limited. He also occasionally claimed that US media was/is very propagandistic (which is perhaps true) but didn't seem too bothered by the much more propaganda in the media of, say, North Vietnam again. Many of my profs were a bit suspicious of him, and some didn't like him at all, so I'm guessing "the academic world" is not homogeneous when it comes to it's view of Chomsky, especially his politics.

"Chomsky isn't someone whose opinion can be trusted, to put it diplomatically... " that does not really address the argument.Twotdot24334 (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, given Chomsky's opposition to the US involvement in Vietnam, I wonder if he really did call it a victory...

Maxim K (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A cease fire was negotiated and South Vietnam was still in existance with the terms of the treaty, so I'd say that the U.S. Foreign Policy suceeded —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnsworth (talk • contribs) 01:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I honestly doubt that the US policy was to sacrifice 58000 Americans (not to mention money and equipment) just to buy South Vietnam a few more years of existance, but if it was, it was obviously successful. A bit like a suicidal kid is successful in killing himself... When the goal is really stupid, it may be better if it fails. Maxim K (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Maxim K, Hi think you've misunderstood Chomsky's argument. He argues that the primary goal of US foreign policy was to destroy the nationalist ambitions of South-Vietnamese peasants rather than to ensure the maintenance of the south-Vietnamese government which was a secondary aim. The US did this by saturation bombing, driving the rural population into camps etc. He argues that despite the victory of the North-Vietnamese military the US policy was successful because south Vietnamese society was destroyed. To be sure if the US had wanted to defeat North Vietnam it could have done, it was after all the greatest military power in the world. It seems to me a convincing argument which at least casts some doubt on the notion that American policy was defeated. Twotdot24334 (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I still fail to see what was the policy that was successful, sure enouth South Vietnamese nationalism was crushed, to be replaced with Communist North Vietnamese nationalism, how does it help the US, and again, if they did want to destroy South Vietnam, why didn't they just let the NVA do it? What did the US do to South Vietnam that the Communists whouldn't have? And why would they prefer Communist Nationalism to a Capitalist one? As for US being unable to defeat Vietnam despite being greatest military power, they can't defeat the Taliban either (who now control most of Afghani territory) or Al Sadr, and he is just cleric with a private army, for crying out loud. It seems the Americans tend to um, overestimate their war-making capability, they are good at killing a lot of people, but not neccessarily in a strtegically useful ways, and it was as true in Vietnam as it is now. Maxim K (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't deny that the U.S. was defeated in Vietnam, but the war did successfully divert Soviet resources from other projects. The Vietcong got along with very limited supplies, but the Hochiminh Trail really ground the stuff up. For every ton of supplies the Vietcong recieved, 100 tons had to be sent through Haiphong. The communists could have done worse things. Che Guevara had tons of explosives he wanted to blow up around New York City. Vietnam didn't have much strategic value, certainly not compared to the oil fields of Indonesia, which also considered as a target for communist subversion.Kauffner (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It also diverted massive US resources, and it could be argued far more (especially in terms of manpower) then the Soviet Union. Indeed the US was strategically massively overstretched by Vietnam, in a way the Soviets were not. Moreover the conflict was a major political disaster for US foreign policy. Not only (and as early as 1968) did it alter people’s perception of the US (abroad) but also saw the dissolution of SEATO (at least in part due to the ‘un-declared’ nature of the war). As well as the major political impact in the US (which the Soviets would have to wait until Afghanistan to see). Both in terms of undermining peoples confidence and respect in their leaders but also in undermining 40 years of stated US policy. It is true that the political question within the US is complicated by other factors (such as the civil rights and female emancipation questions) but Vietnam (especially after the ending of drafts deferments, not I suspect entirely coincidental) made those who traditional supported without question those in power to question them. [[Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)]]

Yes, the U.S. was defeated in Vietnam, no denying that. But if the U.S. hadn't fought, the Soviets would put their resources into some other project. That project would have diverted U.S. resources as well. Do you think that the communists cared about Vietnamese unity or about the peasants of South Vietnam? The point was to make trouble for the U.S.

You talk about loss of respect, but that would have been even more true if the U.S. had let South Vietnam fall without a fight. A major motive for intervening in Vietnam was the feeling that we hadn't done enough to help the Hungarians back in 1956. Anti-Americanism isn't all about Vietnam. Nixon was attacked by a rock throwing mob in Venezuela in 1958. The main reason foreigners resent the U.S. is because we're No. 1 and they're not.

The response of the U.S. public opinion to war generally follows the same pattern as in Vietnam: broad initial support followed by gradually declining support. Soon after World War I, the U.S. public came to believe that it was all a big mistake, even though we had won the war. Vietnam was our longest war, so the full cycle of support and rejection happened while the war was still going on. The enemy was able to continue fighting for at least a little longer than the U.S. public was willing to. Kauffner (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course the aim objective was to draw the US into a protracted and bloody conflict, and in this they succeed. Far better then the US succeeded in its aim.

I do not agree that the US would have lost respect anyway. Venezuela had problems of it’s own (as did the whole of Latin America) which were separate from Vietnam. So to with France (going back to before the end of WW2). but the Vietnam war exported this dislike of US policy to countries that had been far less critical of US policy to this date. [[Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)]]

Average of Vietnamese fatalities

Are there any reliable estimates for the average age of Vietnamese fatalities? This would include, naturally, civilians. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cronkite "Contribution"

It seems to me that Walter Cronkites "Stalemate" broadcast is a glaring omission from this article, given the impact it had on the outcome of the conflict. Hopefully someone more astute than myself will be able to shed some light on this.Adventurous63 (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Cronkite's televised editorial of the 1968 Tet offensive significantly discouraged the American public regarding continued support of the South Vietnamese in the Second Indochina War. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that the sight of NLF sappers assaulting the American Embassy in Saigon, for example, might not have had something to do with it? Cripipper (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

While it certainly should be mentioned, I don't think Cronkrite's broadcast really had a significant impact on the outcome of the war. If you go by opinion polls, opposition to the war rose gradually the longer it continued. There was no major opinion shift in response to Cronkrite, Tet, or any other particular event. Years after Cronkrite's broadcast, Nixon was still committed to winning the war. The anti-war movement wasn't in a position to make policy until after the 1972 congressional election.Kauffner (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Cronkite's report on the tet offensive is often considered the turning point in public opinion of the Vietnam War. This is the time when the American people see a credibility cap between what is happening over in Vietnam, and what the pentagon is telling them. At this point, there was a shift in anti-war sentiment in main-stream America. While you can argue that there was no big shift in the opinion polls right after the speech, you do see his opinion propagated among antiwar protesters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.185.7 (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No matter when or why someone really changed his mind about the war, the easy, respectable answer was "Cronkite." We know that the anti-war movement swelled right after Nixon was elected president, but almost no one will admit to switching sides on the basis of sheer partisan politics. IMO, the 1972 election was the turning point. Even though McGovern lost, he got the Democrat Party to commit itself to defeatism. Kauffner (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Anti-American Bias

The article claims a defeat of American Forces, but U.S. Forces were pulled out of Vietnam as a result of a Cease Fire, not because of a defeat. Later, however, South Vietnam was defeated but it is outright anti-American bias to say the U.S. was defeated. Dunnsworth (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

They didn't achieve their objectives and had to do a backflip, therefore they were defeated. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that meeting their objectives was hard to do, since the obstacles were so ill-defined, especially at the Washington command level? The most succinct statement of irrational objectives available online probably is http://vietnam.vassar.edu/ladrang03.html; the comment about the Chinese ignores quite a bit of history, going back to the first century or so. Shall we say that the Two Trung Ladies were not exactly Chinese cheerleaders?

In print, the best reference I know on internal objectives and decisionmaking is H. R. McMaster's Dereliction of Duty. This is worth reading even if you have gone, page by page, through the Pentagon Papers. McMaster, an Army officer, got some interviews and documents that had not been available before. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Their object was to defend South Vietnam, and while they were part of the war and imediatley after they left, South Vietnam remained seperate from the North, so they succeeded. Dunnsworth (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

hahaahah. What do they teach nowadays. The U.S was defeated, plain and simple. If you study carefully you'll see that they let the North Vietnamese soldiers sleep in the backyard of the South Vietnamese soldiers. That is not a successful objective.71.156.48.219 (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not anti-American bias when the U.S. was clearly defeated.71.156.48.219 (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The United States was defeated. The United States lost the Vietnam War. It was our show, and we blew it. The one who retreated lost. The communists took the field. And they won militarily, eroding and finally breaking their enemy's will to fight by constant pressure and harrassment. No, they didn't crush our forces, but they achieved their objectives. That is called victory. (By the way, we can't learn from mistakes unless we first admit they were mistakes. Re-read the "Effect on the United States" part.) --Milkbreath (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The Battle of Khe Sahn was a huge defeat for the NVA, after which the U.S. had a clear path through Laos and the DMZ; had the U.S. government been fully committed to actually beating the Communists instead of "containing" them the Vietnamese Communists would have been severely crushed. More specifically, had our bombers had unrestricted targeting liberties, the NVA's capacity for warfare would have been critically reduced. If there is any reason the U.S. "appeared" to have "lost" the blame is squarely at the feet of the politicians in Washington. Our forces in Vietnam were vastly superior to our Communist opponents'. If anyone cares to study Khe Sanh, read Voices of Courage. 4-25-08

OK, you do hear yourself, right?—"had the U.S. government been", "Communists would have been...crushed", "had our bombers had", "would have been...reduced", "If"—the makings of a good alternate history, but not useful in this article. Don't get me wrong, I think the U.S. mission was right, but it did fail. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Battle of Khe Sanh can't be considered in isolation. In terms of damage to the NVA, it was a tactical victory, but, in terms of the way it diverted attention from the plans for the Tet Offensive, it contributed to strategic failure. By strategic failure, I refer to substantial changes in U.S. domestic opinion, as a result of the apparent inability to stop attacks on cities. One could also argue that Khe Sanh and Tet contributed to a strategic failure for the National Liberation Front, as their casualties were greater than that of the NVA and the NLF did not, subsequently, have the same influence. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the U.S. failed it's mission but it wasn't the military's fault; it was Washington's. I do not want an injustice done to the men in uniform who faught over there. 4-25-08

This is POV statement and as such must not influence the article in any way. It also does not matter whether the government or military lost the war, the country of America lost - must have if the North Vietnamese won. With respect, justice to soldiers form either side has nothing to do with this article. Fremte (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. But the article needs to just keep it in a more general sense, like saying that "America lost" or something like that because this is what happens when you get into specifics about things like this. 4-25-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. What sentences in the article need work in that regard? --Milkbreath (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, even though I agree with the section "Effect on the United States" in the "Aftermath" section, it might lead to more dispute. I think that we should wait and see if it brings up a lot of controversy and then decide whether or not to edit it. On another note, perhaps a short synopsis of the Battle of Khe Sahn should be included. I know this is considered original research but it is my understanding that that battle was the turning point in the war for U.S. forces. What do you think?

I'm no expert on the War. I just came here recently to copyedit because there was a bad line someone brought to my attention. I'm here to tidy up the formatting and the English (which was pretty good already). I think the article has a long way to go in many respects, but that additional detail about particular battles is not good, because the article would get too long. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I see your point. Well, thanks for being civil in this talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Right back atcha. It's easy to get emotional about this one. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Canada was Involved

I believe Canada should be in the infobox because like werent Canadian troops involved. Canada sent forces to Vietnam to help the Americans.

Nope. Canada did not. Did give sanctuary to war resisters - it was the only involvement Canada had. Fremte (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Strong sourcing needs to be established before putting Canada as a belligerent in the infobox. The Canadian role in Vietnam itself was neutral by definition, as a member of the ICC. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Average age of US fatalities, 19?

The following was my posting from last month:

"Are there any reliable estimates for the average age of Vietnamese fatalities? This would include, naturally, civilians. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)"

I heard nothing back on that and would particularly welcome any numbers any editors may know and have sources for.

As for US fatalities, I had found sources that the commonly stated view that the average age of a US Vietnam fatality is false. I had inserted the following text based on sources:

"The average U.S. serviceman was twenty-two years old (and not nineteen years old as is often believed, particularly given the popularity of a pop song called 19 by Paul Hardcastle). This compares with twenty-six years of age for those who participated in World War II. Soldiers served a one year tour of duty. The average age of the US Military men who died in Vietnam was 22.8 years old."

• Source 1: - Vietnam Helicopter Flight Crew Network Website;
• Source 2: - Vietnam: Looking Back - At the Facts - by K. G. Sears, Ph.D.

This was reverted to state that the average age was nineteen. The statement that the average was nineteen is not backed up by sources. I will reinsert my text which should remain unless there are more reliable sources that indicate the average age was nineteen? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Genuine fact could be hard to come by. If you google the string "Assuming KIAs accurately represented" the 351 hits suggest a lot of cutting-&-pasting, without much hope of getting to an original source. I supplied the cite from Dave Grossman, who at least is an original author, and an authority on military deaths. DavidOaks (talk) 04:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I just recently watched a history channel show on vietnam and the average age of nineteen was used SubaruSVX (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

'Vietnam'

In the section concerning the terminology of the war, wouldn't a note concerning the use of simply the word 'Vietnam' to refer to the war be relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.168.93 (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding redirects (originally posted elsewhere)

Currently our article about the Vietnam War is at Vietnam War. If you think it should be moved to "Second Indochina War", you can raise that proposal at Talk:Vietnam War. In the meantime, Second Indochina War merely redirects to Vietnam War, so, under our policy of avoiding redirects, changing the wikilink as you did here and elsewhere is inappropriate. JamesMLane t c 15:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Second Indochina War or "Vietnam"

James, Thanks for your input and note re. redirects. The term "Vietnam War", or "Vietnam" is a distinctly provincial U.S. perspective of that era of the Second Indochina War and the Cold War. The French, and most of Europe are more familiar with the First and Second wars in "Indochina". Some Vietnamese refer to the later as the "American War". Part of the problem people have in understanding the history of that war is that many Americans persist in using the U.S.A.-centric term that's primarily based upon years of daily televised news coverage that norrowly focused on U.S. participation in the "conflict" in Viet Nam. Thanks again. Keep up the great work! Best regards, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You make an interesting argument. My point is that you should make the argument here, in support of an explicit proposal to move this article, rather than just changing links unilaterally. If you want to pursue a move, the steps are outlined at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves. My own reaction is that what the French think doesn't matter here; this is the English-language Wikipedia, and the article should be where most English-speaking readers would look for it, which is probably Vietnam War, even if some Britons would use the other term. JamesMLane t c 16:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Addendum: I was going to edit my comment to add that, in light of the point you make, the phrase "Second Indochina War" should be included in this article, but I see it's already there. I'm not arguing that it should be removed -- just that it shouldn't be linked to unless and until there's a consensus to move the article to that title. JamesMLane t c 17:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I question the use of the term European in this context. IN Britian it is known widley as the Vietnam war. This may be the case in other English speaking parts of Europe. Most Britons I doubt have eve heard of Indo-china. [[Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)]]

In Australia, whose citizens fought in the war, it's also called the "Vietnam War" as in The Australian Vietnam War Veterans Association. [1] I must say it's been a pain going back through all the links where "Second Indochina War" was substituted for "Vietnam War". I've reverted a few, but in case anyone else wants to pitch in, you can find the "what links here" page here: Special:WhatLinksHere/Second_Indochina_War

I can see using the former in articles that predate significant US military involvement, say early 1960s (of course, that demarcation is subject to debate), but in articles specifically about US military units, veterans, operations, technology, etc., the latter should be used. Alcarillo (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Popular Culture section is not objective, US-centric

Popular culture section is US-centric, not objective:

"The Vietnam War has been featured heavily in television and films. The war also influenced a generation of musicians and songwriters."

A more objective phrasing would be:

"The Vietnam War has been featured heavily in many US television shows and films. The war also influenced a generation of US musicians and songwriters." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom0063 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And Donavn [[Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)]]

The US-centric aspect is true to an extent however, it is undenied that other nations who served in the Vietnam war shaped their own popular culture because of this. --Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.220.125 (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Donovan (Donovan Phillips Leitch, Maryhill, Glasgow), is a Scottish singer-songwriter and guitarist. Emerging from the British folk scene. Hardley American.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)]]

Taiwan

I've just removed the 'Taiwan' section as it appears to be a clear hoax. AFAIK, neither the US or South Vietnam invited Taiwan to participate in the war, and if they did this offer was not taken up. The RoCAF certainly didn't fly air strikes against North Vietnam as the article was claiming. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Defeat and withdrawal?

There is a little war going on about the wording in the infobox under "Result". As someone who has weighed in on the question of whether the US lost, I want to toss in my two cents about it. Yes, the US lost. The result of the war was a U.S. defeat, and they withdrew, but it is just stupid to put both words there. The result was a defeat. Of course the U.S. withdrew. Does anybody think they could have been defeated and stay? Or that they were wiped out to a man? Might as well say "defeat and withdrawal and sailed home and put their gear away and had a shower and...." As if the nonsensicality wasn't enough, "defeat and withdrawal" implies that they were actually driven out militarily, which is not what happened. The U.S. didn't get its ass handed to it like France did, the U.S. just quit. Come to think of it, the line should be deleted completely, because "Communist forces victory" says it all already. It is redundant (and seemingly POV) to mention that the other side lost. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This comes up again, and again, and again. Can I suggest that we follow the chronology and keep it as simple as possible:

1) U.S. withdrawal

2) Communist victory

3) Invasion of... etc.

4) As is

So it says very clearly the Americans withdrew, and the Communists won, but if people still want to interpret that as meaning America didn't lose then they are free to do so. Cripipper (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

But America was defeated. They were driven out militarly, consequences on the ground force people on top to ultimately pull the plug. You can't say "communist forces" won and at the same time break up the non communist forces saying who lost or not. You can't have it both ways. It should say "North Vietnamese Victory" Their allies are listed for the reader.Webster121 (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's how the current state of things appears to me: it is undisputed that American forces withdrew; it is also undisputed that the outcome is widely regarded as an American defeat. That's what the infobox reflects. I'm thinking in terms of what an encyclopedia is for -- imagine someone too young to remember this war, trying to get an understanding of it. I think she or he will be served best by being told the facts, including the facts about the state of a question that turns out to be thornier than some of us might initially have thought (I found the discussion of the War of 1812 illuminating in this regard -- it is certainly NOT (generally) taught as a loss to American schoolchildren, but it's been made very clear that it is so understood elsewhere, and that there are sound reasons for viewing it in that way). An encyclopedia must deal in facts, and where the facts are in dispute, it must report the dispute. I myself find it hard to see how it could be regarded as other than a loss, but I understand that to be a debate about interpretation of a category ("defeat") which is part of the social world of historiography, rather than a dispute about a factual claim like whether Canada had troops present. DavidOaks (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

About what cripipper said I would just omit step 2 altogether. When the U.S. signed the cease-fire with North Vietnam, the U.S. was not beaten into signing it. It was a foolish deception that the Communists would back down because they signed a simple treaty. Once the U.S. left, there was nothing stopping the NVA, so they invaded. If you are going to say it was a military defeat, then list some of the battles that turned the tide against the U.S. Oh, the Tet Offensive was an American victory by the way (Voices of Courage); the media made it look like we got chewed.Prussian725 (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no way you could call the Vietnam War an American defeat. If we pulled our troops out of Iraq now, and the Iraqis lost the war would we call it an American defeat? When we pulled our final troops out of Vietnam, the South Vietnamese were put in control of themselves. When Saigon fell to North Vietnamese, the American troops were no longer present. We withdrew, were not defeated. InColor 32 (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. We were not beaten, we quit. There's a difference. But alas, some people hate the U.S. so much that they are willing to distort history in order to make us look bad because they don't have the balls to take us on like men.Prussian725 (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Paris Peace Accord

In it, were provisions for the United States to leave Vietnam completely and for the North Vietnamese Soldiers to stay and hold their territorial gains in the south, a victory for the North Vietnamese and defeat for the United States. The inclusion of this provision was a victory for the communist side of the negotiations by allowing that the war was not a foreign aggression against South Vietnam.71.156.53.226 (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ho Chi Minh famously returned Johnson's peace proposals unopened. Having to recognize Thieu's government and sign an agreement with it was a lot of crow for the communists to eat. The reason they signed anyway is because they got a bloody nose during the Easter Offensive in 1972. Nowadays, the communists see the peace treaty as an embarassment, since it shows they can't be trusted. North Vietnam was very proud of keeping the Geneva Accord. Le Duc Tho never became a hero in Vietnam.Kauffner (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Commanders of Communist forces

Was Truong Nhu Tang really a commander of communist forces? (Correct me if I'm mistaken) Article on himself states that he was the founders of the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (NLF) and Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam. There is no indication that he fought for communist forces, where as other entries on commanders clearly stated that they were commanders of communist party and had actively participated in this war.--NAHID 10:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you that Truong Nhu Tang and Duong Van Nhut were both low-ranking commanders. Duong Van Nhut was only a major general. So, I will correct that mistake for wiki Kenshin top (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Vietcong flags for Trà and Hùng?

Shouldn't the Vietcong commanders, Trần Văn Trà and Phạm Hùng, get Vietcong as opposed to North Vietnamese flags? Of course, they were North Vietnamese commanders as well. But I think the idea of the flags is the emphasize distinctions. Perhaps they can get both flags next to their names. Kauffner (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph

I think it might be a good idea to mention that America did not "officially" declared war in Vietnam in the first paragraph, instead of when you start talking about America. I find it slightly misleading. Also in the first paragraph, make sure that the reader knows that the debate of whether or not the Vietnam War was a victory or defeat is still debated today. Possibly mention the popular view that America did not lose the war militarily, but lost it politically. Again, just some suggestions. Something needs to be done though about

"The war was fought between the communist Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and its communist allies and the US-supported Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam). It concluded with the defeat of the United States, the dissolution of South Vietnam, and the failure of United States foreign policy in Vietnam." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.185.7 (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I was going to bring this up as well. Sure, every kid knows we "lost" the war, but the US withdrew with a cease-fire, hardly "losing" in the proper sense of the word; we can afford to draw the distinction, after all, the same sentence points out the failure of the foreign policy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bumping this, because apparently people just revert; yes, there will be sources that say "defeat", but we should be technically accurate; the US withdrew active combat forces as part of a pact with the North, and they continued to supply the South with materials, etc., but we never "surrendered" and were thus defeated in that sense. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The US failed to achieve most of the reasons it stated were its aims upon intervention. Its ‘pact’ (an inaccurate term) with North Vietnam gave away many concessions that the US had lost 50 odd thousand men trying to achieve (and can be seen as a repudiation of 20 years of American foreign policy), in this respect it can be seen as a defeat. Moreover almost as soon as the ceasefire (not pact) was signed the NVA launched a series of highly unsuccessful attacks, which the US did not respond to, thereby signalling that they were not willing (or politically able) to back the South in any meaningful way, this can be seen as a surrender, at least in kind, after all they were not willing (or able) to meet their part of the ceasefire agreement with regards to Communist breaches of it. Indeed it could be said that there was no cease fire between 1973/75 just a scaling down of the conflict, as both sides (but especially the North) re-built themselves for the next phase. The 1973 ceasefire paved the way for the 1975 offensive that ultimately destroyed the South, and forced America into a humiliating evacuation (which in itself can be seen as a defeat, and certainly as a rout, as well as a surrender (remember that the Saigon embassy was US sovereign territory, that the US was forced to abandon)).[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)]]

Issues

The infobox says the war started in 1959, while the first paragraph says it started in 1956. Which is right? I understand that it's sometimes difficult to tell when wars actually begin, but these two dates should agree.
The fifth paragraph states that North Vietnam and China recognized each other diplomatically and "the Soviet Union followed suit". By doing what? Recognizing both countries? If so, the article needs to state as much. "Followed suit" could mean that it recognized either country or both countries.
I've learned next to nothing about this conflict in school, and wanted to read this article to get some understanding of what happened. The first five paragraphs did nothing but raise more questions for me, and I stopped reading. — MusicMaker5376 20:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Vietcong started a campaign of assasination and terror in 1957 and first instance of large military unit combat was in late 1959. I don't what know what the basis for the 1956 date might be. Kauffner (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

US-centric lead material

I agree with Blnguyen that this material is too US-centric, and is written from a specifically American perspective, and so is not appropriate here. Furthermore, the specific casualty figures for just one of the many combatants is information too specific for the lead. I have removed it again. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it's kind of written from a western perspective, by which I don't mean biased, but theres less attention to the south vietnamese army and war crimes commited by north-vietnamese troops, because war crimes by the us have become most famous. Interesting is the Vietnamese wikipedia on the war[2]. Previously many more south viatnamese commanders were listed, let's not forget that many more south vietnamese people fought against the communists then american soldiers.

Another interesting thing is they have a picture up of the Massacre at Huế commited by communist forces. While on this page there's a picture up of the my lai massacre, the massacre at hué doesn't have one. It deserves a picture+description too per wp:npov, especially since the casualty count was much much higher than the my lai massacre.- PietervHuis (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well it's true that focusing on one country doesn't make it POV, it just makes the article more like United States in the Vietnam War. Yes, unfortunately this article is usually populated by people, usually Americans, who are interested in either bagging their foreign policy, or saying that the US didn't lose, and aren't actually concerned too much about the actual war. In any case, the lead that I reverted was mostly about US public opinion and not the actual war. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User Binguyen, You have deleted the complete edit which was supported by a neutral reference. Why? there is no history between 1945 (japan's defeat ) to 1950???????. The use of a single word "freedom fighter" will not make the edit "POV" . Please note that this is from a source which can be considered as neutrale. The sources used in this article , like pentagon papers are not RS and there is no reason why a WP article should look like a US army history book. -Bharatveer (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Because he has a way he thinks the article should be and by golly he's gonna keep it that way.(sarcasm)Prussian725 (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Imperialism and Colonialism

In the dictionary, it states that imperialism is the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies and colonialism is the control or governing influence of a nation over a dependent country, territory, or people. Using these definitons it can be assumed that the Vietnam War was a war of imperialism and colonialism because the country was torn into two parts, (North Vietnam and South Vietnam) and they were being aided by the Chinese and the United States. The civil war that was about to break out in Vietnam soon became a war that some of the world was thrust into.

The war of imperialism and colonialism dates back to the Chinese who had ruled Ancient Vietnam and to this day, they have never really left the Vietnamese to do what they liked as the years went on. This could be one of the reasons why there are so many ties to the Chinese culture that stands with the Vietnamese. After the Chinese had lessoned there grip on Vietnam the French broke through and established the French Indochina. This would also leave Vietnam with strong ties to France and these ties would be shown in the culture and everyday lifestyles of the Vietnamese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimprincess419 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

main picture

I'm just curious, was the new main picture just put up by someone because they felt like it or was it discussed and then put up?Prussian725 (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I put it there, in response to 1) discussion of the picture on this page (it's a featured picture, it's relevant if American-centric), and 2) the removal of a previous picture with murky permission. Naturally, any editor who has a better picture, or wishes to argue that no picture at all is better than this one, can and should go ahead and change it. DavidOaks (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I was just wondering if some one person decided that he would put it there because he felt like it. Thanks!Prussian725 (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like this choice of photo, as it's too US-centric (eg, as it shows a scared looking young Marine on arrival in Vietnam, it only represents the US experiance of the war). I don't know what a better choice would be though... Nick Dowling (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's an arresting image and that's certainly a big point in its favor. But he could be anywhere. Without the caption, you wouldn't know he was in Vietnam. "American-centric" -- the war was all about the U.S., that's reality. The communists wanted to make trouble for the U.S. and that's what it was all about. In communist propaganda, it's the "Anti-American Resitance War." There was a civil war in the Congo that killed more people. But that didn't involve America, so no one cares. Kauffner (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That might be news for the Vietnamase: the goal of the war for the North Vietnamese was to unite the country under their rule, and it started before there was any significant US involvement. The great majority of combatants, and casualties, were Vietnamese. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask you this: why in Hades would the Communists give squat about the unity of Vietnam? Ho Chi Mihn was nothing but another Asian sock-puppet with a Russian hand up his back. It was nothing but the Soviets creating another satellite nation to spit in the face of the U.S. The Cold War was about the U.S. spreading Democracy and the Commies spreading Communism. Oh, and what are you trying to say when you say "majority of combatants...were Vietnamese"?Prussian725 (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

was'nt Hoe initialy backed by the OSS?[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)]]

Ho became a full-time communist back in the 1920s. The OSS just wanted his help rescuing downed U.S. pilots. Did you know that Stalin and Hitler were allies for several years? I hope such complexities of history are not too much for you. Kauffner (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. A lot of times in war, things that are not immediately pressing are put aside for a greater cause, i.e. Stalin and Hitler as well as Stalin being an Ally.Prussian725 (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware I had had said that things were even that simplistic, I just pointed out that in war and politics alliances, and affiliations change. That at one time Ho and the US had been allies (no matter how unwilingly). But it is indead true that The US's involvment in Vietnam was often as venal and self serving as that of the Russians.[[Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)]]

Hella typo

yeah in the casualties section it says like "two doazen" instead of two dozen someone fix this, i can't because the page is protected you see —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.173.252 (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Results"

How about this for the results:

• North Vietnamese/Communist takeover of RVN
• Communist takeover of Laos and Cambodia
• U.S. withdrawal

? Does anybody have any objections to this?Prussian725 (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

How about:

• Communist takeover of South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.
• North Vietnam and South Vietnam are unified

The phrase "U.S. withdrawal" is I assume watered down from "U.S. defeated." But the underlying problem is still the same. Why not "South Korean withdrawal" or "Australian withdrawal"? It makes it sound like only the U.S. lost and that no one else had a stake in the outcome. If you say that the communists won, that should be enough -- it's implied that the other side lost. The infobox for WWII doesn't say anything equivalent to "Germany defeated" or "Japan defeated." Kauffner (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure that works.Prussian725 (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

US lost is specifically in there because US was the biggest supporter with around 500,000 soldiers. South korea had some 50,00 or some small number. The reason is the impact of US in this war and the huge role it played and that can not be understated 71.237.70.49 (talk)

This is not a hard topic to understand. Ultimately North Vietnam "won" and South Vietnam and US "lost." Simple as that. You have to use the term "victory" and "defeat." Every war template in wikipedia uses "victory" and "defeat." This is not that damn hard to understand. Americans get over the fact that you lost and ran like chicken. Who told you to go in there and lose your damn 50,000 soldiers. It is your loss. Get over the fact that you got "defeated." North vietnam won and "US" lost. This was a huge US operation. 500,000 soldiers involved. Half a million soldiers. Australia had some 6,000. US played huge role in this. So this is not some minor defeat.71.237.70.49 (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What other info box uses "vistory" and "defeat"? I haven't found any. The box for the Austro-Prussian War just says "Prusso-Italian victory." Nothing about Austria being defeated. Franco-Prussian War: "Decisive Prussian and German victory; Treaty of Frankfurt." Again, no "France defeated." Kauffner (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If "U.S. Defeated" is even in the box, it is just someone making a political statement. If everyone can agree on the info boxes on all those other wars (To add, no "Germany Defeated" or "Japan Defeated" in the WWII box), then the only reason for "U.S. Defeated" is for somebody to try to exert their opinion about the war. There are many conflicting opinions about the Vietnam War, so let's just revert to tha norm for info boxes...unless somebody wants it to say that the U.S. was defeated.Prussian725 (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"US is defeated" is already changed to "US withdrawed." Game over and let's move on. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Latest Summary Box Picture

Ok I've noticed those pictures had been changed several times this week, but each time it becomes more ridiculous. The image is either about dead Vietnamese or American soldiers. Whoever load up those pictures must be obsessed with images of dead Vietnamese. Canpark

The guy calls it a "panoramic view of the war." He apparently has no idea that showing a stack of fresh corpses is any different than showing fire or helicopters. I think of the Palestinians whooping it up when they see pictures of dead Jews. Kauffner (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Photo Caption

Whoevever added those photos needs to caption them, and if they have no idea of their origins please remove them. 69.18.107.13 (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That collage is way too controversial. It's showing pictures of the Mai Lai massacre, but not massacres commited by communist forces. On top of that it's not very good looking in general (the cropping is done really bad). I'll change it back to something else (temporarely). Before someone starts adding dead babies in the infobox, ask the others first. - Pieter_v (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This infobox is used in Wiki-es, Wiki-fr and Wiki-pt, Wikipedia is not censored. This is a panomaric view of the war. American war genocides hurts you? MachoCarioca (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And this collage stayed here for months, before user Kauffner changed it by himself. MachoCarioca (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't what you're talking about. I had a helicopter picture up before you came along, not that that matters. What does matters is that this point, you're clearly in the minority. Two of the pictures are duds, so the graphic doesn't work just an artistic level. Now that you're admitting its POV, perhaps it could be balenced with pictures of Massacre of Huế. Kauffner (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"American war genocides hurts you?" thank you for admitting your biased view. Anyway there is already pictures of the mai lai massacre in the article. Same goes for the Massacre at Hué now. This article is about the Vietnam War, not about either massacres, so its best to insert simply pictures of actual battle or troops, just like most war pages do. - Pieter_v (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Best would probably to have an image of North-Vietnamese forces, since the war was their victory. The tank picture was pretty dull though. - Pieter_v (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, Green Berets. "This article is about the Vietnam War, not about either massacres". And isn't it part of the war? The infobox is an overview about that. MachoCarioca (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people edit this article and no one cares about that but you, Green Beret. You're the minority here, not me, have you ever heard about 'silent majority'? Cheers!MachoCarioca (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Or just a map of the country?[[Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)]]

Mistake

Here's a mistake in section "Escalation and ground war". It says: "In May, Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) forces suffered heavy losses at the Battle of Binh Gia", though actually Binh Gia battle happened in December 1964, while in May 1965 there was Song Be battle. Could someone correct it? 195.248.189.182 (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why

Is the US listed as "American defeat/ strategic failure and withdrawal." when they won just about every single military operation while in the "Soviet war in Afghanistan" article the Russians are simply listed as "Soviet withdrawal" when every single battle that is listed as a defeat and their withdrawal from the conflict have over 500 KIA. So is this bias or what?--66.229.12.186 (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

US casulaties in Vietnam were rather more then 500 (how many MIAs are there?). But you do have a valid point. If the US lost in Vietnam Russia lost in Afganistan, but the reverse is also true. If the US withdrew from Vietnam then the Soviots withdrew from Afganistan. But in one repest I disagree with you. The US may not have lost any battles, but that does not mean they did not lose the war the two do are not the same. The Uinited States of America is not the United States Army. [[Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)]]

I was referencing too when the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan that were the 500 KIA came from. and Thank you anyways. --66.229.12.186 (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You should be happy that the article is stated "American withdrawal" instead of "American defeat," which it was. It should be stated "American defeat." If North Vietnam won, someone must've lost. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. was certainly defeated in Vietnam. But if you look at the info boxes for other wars, say the Franco-Prussian War, Napoleonic Wars, or the Spanish-American War, they don't say that anyone was defeated. If you say that one side won, then obviously the other side lost and it is unnecessary to write anything more. Kauffner (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Look I'm saying the US pullout like the Russians way before the war actually ended. South Vietnam fought off both forces for 3 years with out US ground support. If the US was still in vietnam till the very end of the war. Yeah that sounds like a defeat. The other war you were talking about Kaullner is bettwen 2 Nations. The Vietnam war and Afghan wars are two very different type of wars. --66.229.12.186 (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

USAF 67-113 - flew the last F-111 combat mission of the war on April 17, 1973, and is credited with having flown the last combat mission on a Cambodian target four months later.

Both of these after the signing of the peace accords, so the US was still militarily involved in the war after the signing of the Paris peace accords. But I note that you do in fact say ground forces. Unfortunately a nations involvement is not just determined by the presence of one service.

Last US ground forces death’s o 29 April 1975-US Marine Embassy Guards McMahon and Judge killed. {Corporal Charles McMahon & Lance Corporal Darwin L. Judge} o 12–30 May 1975—41 US servicemen killed and 41 servicemen wounded during the "Mayaguez Incident" in "Democratic Kampuch Between 1973 and 1973 around 500 (plus) US servicemen lost their lives.[[Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)]]

The peace treaty was a big nothing. Everyone knew the fighting would continue, treaty or no treaty. I would the put the end of U.S. military involvement as Aug. 15, 1973, the deadline set by the Case-Church Amendment. Without U.S. bombers tearing up the Hochiminh Trail, it was only a matter a time before South Vietnam collapsed. The Democratic congress that passed Case-Church understood this and thought that defeat in Vietnam was a great way to discredit Nixon and the Republicans. So there was never any question of the U.S. marching out victoriously. Kauffner (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the person. Make it just say "North Vietnamese victory." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.70.49 (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is this article referencing boxed DVD sets and PBS TV programs rather than decent academic sources?

For example the current estimate of civilian casualties is much lower than it was a few months ago and much lower than estimates I've seen in books I've read on the war. Compare to the article on Vietnamese wikipedia. Looks like this article has gone down hillDomminico (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, why not incorporate your sources? Also, if the casualties are in dispute, just say so and say who says what. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No U.S. Marine Barracks at Pleiku in March 1965

There was no U.S. Marine Barracks at Pleiku in March 1965. There was A MAAG compound of Army Soldiers and some civilian contractors at the Pleiku Citadel (VN III Corps HQ, and a part of a U.S. Army Aviation Battalion at Camp Holloway across the town from the MAAG Compound. Both of these US Activities were attacked by the Viet Cong at 2 AM on 7 February 1965. There were no U.S. Marines in Pleiku or the entire province. I was assinged to the MAAG Compound from November 1964 until May 1965. (Oldarlprohist (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)) W. Horn, 08-28-08

Nobody cares. I bet it will never be corrected. This page seems to exist only for a quarrel about "does America lost the war" question. 195.248.189.182 (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)