Talk:Vietnam War

clarification of "PX" acronym

PX = Post exchange...a base store where stationed troops could presumably buy different objects/merchandise...article is currently locked so I can't edit, but here you go:

source = http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Army-and-Air-Force-Exchange-Service-Company-History.html

128.253.237.160 (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)A random reader128.253.237.160 (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"Result" flaw

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

Signed: DNPickles113 - Aug. 26, 2009 (14:24 EST). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.226.154 (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just wanted to counter your arguement Dunnsworth, if the US signed a cease fire with North Vietnam, then the North breached it. Because part of the cease fire is a cessation of hostilities. This did not happen. The vietcong were still pushing the south. The Americans just wanted a nice and clean exit, something to which they never got. Since we all saw those television broadcasts of the last american troops evacuating off the roof. Don't make me laugh. Don't revise history because the majority of the world believes the US lost the vietnam war. India, China, Russia, Pakistani, Europe, Latin america all have their text books state "Defeat for the US". Please don't try and be George W Bush here. He was the only other white man apart from you to go up against the world. Look where that got him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.98.84 (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reasons for war.

Call me stupid (Many do), but wouldn't it be a nice idea if somewhere in this article there were the reasons given at the time for them fighting the war, from each side? I even had a quick look through wikiquote, but couldn't find any clear, unambiguous reason for why the sides were fighting. -OOPSIE- (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Right at the beginning, the article does mention the causes, namely containment versus communism. But I agree this could be fleshed out a little more. The U.S. feared, and the Soviets hoped, that communist victory in Vietnam might lead to communist takeovers elsewhere. For both sides, South Vietnam was a good place to fight because it was far away from more vital interests. Vietnam arose as an issue soon after the Cuban Missile Crisis, which emphasized both the stakes involved as well as the danger of going for the jugular. Kauffner (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a point to be made, though, that the article gives no clear reason for the motivation of the Vietnamese who opposed French/U.S. policies. The broader Cold War context is mentioned, but I think it betrays our own cold war tinted glasses to think that Vietnamese communists just acted out of a desire to be a tool of Soviet plans for global domination. The situation was far more complex and nuanced than that. This article does not address that. Grog225 (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In a sence it was a nationalist conflict. In a sence an ideological one.[[Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)]]

You know, though, there was more to it than that. This was fallout from World War I; unresolved metastatic issues of imperialism and matters of economics. The communist issues were, in some views, an accelerant. As you'd imagine, there are some who disagree with this idea. There are several theories of why the war began and, it must be noted, there are disagreements as to when exactly it began. This should be illustrated at the beginning of the article. As it stands now one would think it is all very obvious and there are no real historical disagreements or ambiguities. The first part of the article is, I think, the worst part and needs serious revising. Gingermint (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

British Forces

I happen to personally know a British RAF Vietnam War veteran, and yet its not mentioned in many places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.185.163 (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There are persistent rumours of British involvement in Vietnam, but no really hard evidence. We have this http://www.tf116.org/vgallery1.html It looks like an Avro Vulcan. In addition there were relief flights (it appears) using Beverlys to deliver food aid. John Parker's book, SBS: the inside story of the Special Boat Service (London: Headline, 1997) mentioned that SBS personnel were training the Vietnamese Lien Doi Nguoi Nhai (LDNN) (Vietnamese SEALs) alongside with U.S. Navy SEALs advisors. However there is mostly a rather dubious collection of hearsay and rumour. There were certainly personnel attached to the embassy but not in any military role. Moreover your cliam is very much OR now3 if you can provide reliable sources then include your claim in the article.[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)]]

The British Government under Harold Wilson on several occasions declined to become involved in the Vietnam War despite repeated 'pleas' by Lyndon B Johnson. Johnson wanted outside involvement in order to make the war seem more like a UN action rather than simply a US one, and he was also seeking to gain from British experience of successful jungle warfare gained in the Malayan Emergency. The reason for Wilson's refusal was the US's response to the Suez Crisis and Operation Musketeer, in which the US was perceived by the Wilson government as having seriously pissed-on British interests.

Small numbers of Special Air Service (and possibly SBS) personnel were operating 'unofficially', i.e., clandestinely, alongside US troops, mainly in training US Special Forces, and in acting as observers reporting back to the UK government. Their observations on the US forces handling of the conflict, re: the likelihood of US success, and of the level of training of the US ground troops, were not of an optimistic nature, and this may have discouraged any later thoughts of joining the war alongside the US after Wilson left office. Another possible reason was the large number of British and Commonwealth reporters present during the war, and the sometimes-graphic news reports by them that were broadcast on the then-three UK TV channels, and on popular documentary programmes such as World in Action - John Pilger was a notable reporter whose reports stirred-up several hornet's nests at the time regarding the US behaviour in Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.20 (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems British personnnel were in Vietnam (and one RAF officer was killed there) but never officially and never as whole units. The SBS may possibly have been there. The SAS definately weren't as they were extremely busy elsewhere. Other personnel would have been on secondment to US and Australian units that were posted to Vietnam and they may have defied orders and gone into battle.

The Britain's Small Wars website, an excellent site for ex-servciemen's stories, has had an appeal out for some time for anyone with any firm information to come forward and no-one has.213.249.162.132 (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ref 'British Forces in Vietnam'. In one murky incident a British Special Air Service member was found murdered in a District of South Vietnam. The Ministry Of Defence in a press statement said he was a 'former member of the Army who appears to have made his own way to Vietnam'. Cannot give exact details here as none were ever given at the time. A few British Merchant Marine Sailors I have spoken to said they carried War Materials for U.S. backed forces in South East Asia on British Merchant Ships, but as usual were vague who they were carrying these supplies to (if they even existed).Johnwrd (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

For some reason there is a rather vocal minority who feel that the UK must be mentioned in practically every Wikipedia article. Gingermint (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That's priceless coming from an American :-) You have made my day! 82.132.136.201 (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Dubious Claims

Notes 48 and 49 only refer to "Pentagon Papers". More specific citations would help to support the claims these are making, which I would call Dubious. I really doubt that the Vietcong murdered schoolteachers and health care workers. These are claims which need much more support than what is given. 142.104.143.199 (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that clear sources wouldn't hurt, do you really put it past militant communists?Prussian725 (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of the serious attrocities during the Vietnam War which haven't been proven to be false accusations after thorough investigations were the responsibility of US and South Vietnamese forces. The Viet Cong and the NVA after all were both originally, predominantly nationalist political organisations with few weapons and even fewer communist ideas. It was only after they had nearly the full weight of the West's energies thrown at them in lead that they turned to the Communism and therefore the USSR.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought they were. They give the book name, Author and page number. Of course publisher and year of publication would be nice, but from the information provided you can find the book in question. [[Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)]]

The article has been evolving, complicating this. Notes 48 and 49 of this version of the article (10:59, March 22, 2009, the same timeframe as the opening of this thread) are numbered 78 and 79 today. They refer, respectively, to "Pentagon Papers Gravel, 335." and "Pentagon Papers Gravel, p. 337." I'm doubtful about whether or not I would be able to verify that easily even if I had a copy of the Pentagon papers handy.

The unsupported remark "I really doubt that the Vietcong murdered schoolteachers and health care workers." strikes me as a bit naive, though. I haven't been able to quickly come up with an on-target refutation of that in the context of the Vietnam war, but War and Public Health, Oxford University Press US, 2007, p. 277, ISBN 9780195311181 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help), speaking of El Salvador in the 1980s, says, "Before the war, 1,000 Salvadoran civilians were 'disappeared' or killed each month—union leaders, student activists, peasant organizers, health care workers, catholic priests, nuns and lay church leaders ...". There are people in the world today who are prepared to kill innocents in order to achieve a political objective; there were in 1980; there were in the 1960s; there were in other eras. When heaven and earth change, Plume, 1990, p. 271, ISBN 9780452271685 might give explicit support in the Vietnam context in the text surrounding the snippet "... it would be obscene to give these people work while 'honest citizens'—the Viet Cong and and North Vietnam army veterans and their supporters—are still waiting for work themselves. Unfortunately, because of their ties with the west a good many of the nation's health care ...", but that surrounding text doesn't seem to be viewable online and I'm just guessing at what it might say. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Massacre at Huế and Dak Son Massacre--Looper5920 (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikepedia is not a reliable source. The Elsalvadorian example refers to pro-govenment activities does it not, so would not give 'explicite' support to the activities of leftist rebles.[[Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)]]

WP:RS rules don't apply to informal discussions on article talk pages. Also, I didn't ring in the Salvadoran example as a cite in the article; I had it in mind that such things do happen in guerella conflicts when I mentioned it here. The incident at issue is supported by a Pentagon Papers cite which I haven't seen. assuming good faith, I presumed that the cited source does in fact support the assertion in the article. Since you ask again, I dug up another supporting source: Ayon kay Anthony James Joes (2001), The war for South Viet Nam, 1954-1975, Greenwood Publishing Group, p. 50, ISBN 780275968069 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help), "The Viet Cong boasted of their terror tactics; when, for example, in 1966, terrorists opened fire with mortars on the main market center of Saigon, killing and maiming many, the Viet Cong radio called the attack 'a resounding exploit.' Sometimes the Viet Cong would kill the entire family of an official or schoolteacher, just to make their point more effectively. ...".

(OK, that doesn't explicitly say that the VC killed schoolteachers as a terror tactic, just that they sometimes killed the families of schoolteachers.) -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS may not apply to talk pages, but I would have to say that as we are discussing how to improve the sources for the claim about killing school teachers (ect) I would have though that we should only be looking for sources that meet WP:RS. As to the El Salvadorian example, we are discussing to actions of the Guerrillas, not government forces as such it can only be used as an example of what government forces do in such wars and therefore is invalid. As is the fact that because one thing happens in a war (the Nazis gassed 11 million people) does not mean it happens in another war (by inference the US must be gassing millions in Iraq). I never challenged the source; in fact if you look I said there is no issue with them. But I also believe that if we are to discus better sourcing for the claim we should at least try and make the sources better. I would also sugest checking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines it states that WP:V (and by extension WP:RS) applies to talk pages. [[Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)]]

OK, I oversimplified. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines says that WP:V and WP:RS apply to talk pages, but not to the same extent that they apply to articles. It goes on to say "There is of course some reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation", and remarks, "it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements."

I am physically located on a small island in the Philippines, and my facilities for searching out supporting sources are limited. I did find an item which explicitly supports the assertion that the VC killed teachers, but I haven't been able to nail down citation information for it. One (apparently incomplete) copy of the document is located here in the Texas Tech University Vietnam Center and Archive. Explicit support for the assertion that the VC killed schoolteachers can be found in incident descriptions for July 26, 1961 (p.60), April 3, 1963 (p.62), September 12, 1963 (p.62), February 6, 1967 (p.69), August 5, 1967 (p.71). Support for the assertion that the VC killed medical workers can be found in a May 11, 1967 (p.70) incident. This google book search turns up a hit with the exact wording of the February 6, 1967 incident in United States, United States. Embassy (Vietnam) (1967), Viet Cong use of terror: a study, but Google Books doesn't support preview of that item.

I assert that the point that the VC killed teachers has met Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines policy requirements re WP:V and WP:RS and that the assertion that the VC did not kill teachers has not met those policy requirements. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

By you own admission "it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements.". your Tech University source does not actualy have the pages that you assert support the claim, so cannot be verified thus is OR. Google Books doesn't support preview of that item, so again cannot be verified. In fact that whole of your book search suffers from this problom.

Viet Cong did not kill teachers. http://books.google.com/books?id=2bzVAAAAIAAJ&q=%22viet+cong%22+did+not+kill+teachers&dq=%22viet+cong%22+did+not+kill+teachers&pgis=1 But you might like to look at http://books.google.com/books?id=OBC7yHS10AQC&pg=PA648&dq=%22vietcong%22+did+not+kill+teachers#PPA648,M1 (foot note 12). As I have said I do not dispute the claim (and have no issues with the sources as they stand) I just do not feel that dodgey sources or OR is a good way to go about proving the point. Also the Free world forces killed teachers too. http://books.google.com/books?id=mFiBAAAAMAAJ&q=%22vietcong%22+did+kill+teachers&dq=%22vietcong%22+did+kill+teachers&pgis=1 and http://books.google.com/books?id=KAXFjbOZriUC&pg=PA21&dq=%22vietcong%22+did+kill+teachers [[Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)]]

The VC did 18,000 assassinations in 1966-69.[1] You are claiming that none of these were teachers? The VC would pull the pin out of a grenade, give it to a student and say, "Give this to your teacher." At this time, China in the throws of the Cultural Revolution and teachers were the enemy. I recommend reading one of Douglas Pike's books on this subject. Kauffner (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me but the source you provide does not mention (or claim) anything about teachers in this context, therefore I do not have to refute something it does not say. Please provide me with the title of a Douglas Pike book about Vietnam and I will try to find it. But as we are not talking about I shall not bother to read a book on an unrelated subject. By the way did you actually bother to read http://books.google.com/books?id=OBC7yHS10AQC&pg=PA648&dq=%22vietcong%22+did+not+kill+teachers#PPA648,M1 (foot note 12). Perhaps I need to try harder lets try this one [2] or this [3] or this [4] well that’s three and I think that should be enough. [[Slatersteven (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)]]

I don't understand what you're claiming. The VC assassinated tens of thousands of South Vietnamese government employees and also killed thousands of civilians in random attacks: grenades were thrown into cafes, AK-47s used against the patrons in bars, mines planted on civilian highways (thus blowing up a busful of schoolchildren on one occassion). But somehow, miraculously, none of the people killed were teachers? Douglas Pike has all the gory details in Viet Cong: The Organization and Techniques of the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (M.I.T. Press, 1966) Kauffner (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am claiming that a source has to actuly state what you say it states, not what you infer it states. I would also ask you to actualy read my sources please. As I have said (more then once) I do not dispute the fact (nor beleive that the origionaol point was valid) I am just not happy with the quality of sources that have been provided by other editors, none of which can be either verified or support the claim (from WP:OR "Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited.", & "conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source.". Also (on the same page) "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources.". Ot to put it another way it does not matter how many wars people have killed teachers in (or hop many communists states), nor how many civilains were murderd by the VC, your sources have to state that teachers were actualy killed (see sources in my last post, please).[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)]]

Slatersteven, I think that the source titled Viet Cong use of terror: a study which I titled above amply supports this. The source itself is not at all dodgy. What is dodgy is that I have not personally verified the content I spoke of above in a copy of the source, but only in snippets from the source which I have found online. I am trying to further verify this source (difficult for me because of my location), and I will add it to the article if and when I am able to do that. In the meantime, I note that in the source above where you spoke of footnote 12, footnote 13 on the same page speaks of teachers being attacked in the Viet Cong assassination campaign. I've also found another verifiable and reliable supporting source which explicitly supports the assertion about the VC having killed schoolteachers, and I've added a cite for that into the article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Which means that you have not verified it, which means you cannot say what it says, just what you think it says (OR). Odd about the foot note I thought is was not 12 tghat said teachers were killed (hense "But you might like to look at" which was meant to convey that it was a refutation of the rather dodgey source before it (designed to convey the idea that just doing word searches in Goggle book search is not reliable)). I shall obviousley have to be more specific now and point out I have never questioned the fact, just asked that sources be provided that can be verified (do look at the sources in my last reply to of 18th) in oder to oithe question at the start, which is 'these are dodgy sources can we remove this section'.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)]]

It took me a while, but I have now to nailed down an online verifiable copy of this source. See part 1 and part 2. Explicit support for the assertion that the VC killed schoolteachers can be found in incident descriptions for July 26, 1961 (p.60), April 3, 1963 (p.62), September 12, 1963 (p.62), February 6, 1967 (p.69), August 5, 1967 (p.71). Support for the assertion that the VC killed medical workers can be found in a May 11, 1967 (p.70) incident. I will be adding a citation to this document to the article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for those they prety much back up the sources I provided.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)]]

See Karnow in the are about pp 260-280. It's in there. Kill public servants. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Page 260 - 262 describe the Battle of Ap BAc in December of 1962, it makes no mention of Teachers. 262- 264 describe F Noltings early experiences in Saigon in the same period, and an attempt to assassinate Diem by SVAF pilots, again no mention of teachers. 265-267 describes his attitude to Nhu, still no mention of those teachers. In fact there is no mention of attacks on civilians between pages 260 And 269. 269-276 are photos, none of which feature dead teachers. Page 277 is about Diems assassination, I don’t believe he was a teacher. Page 278-280 describes the events leading up to this (mainly the Buddhist crisis), it does mention the machine-gunning by RVN armoured cars of Buddhists (page 279, sources should list the actually page, though there may be problems in the way with my sources above). These are the only civilian deaths mentioned on these pages, please could you be more explicate as I may have missed the line that claims the VC killed teachers.[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)]]

My Grandfather's sister was a teacher, she was killed by North Vietnam in 1968. Do you need an (English) article for that? Because you're gonna be hard pressed to find one, considering that my Grandfather is gone and that the North Vietnamese killed South Vietnamese families, so we couldn't speak. This is a problem with articles relating to the Vietnam War, on the one hand we have the Communists who have won (and we know what they're like with freedom of information) and the U.S. which had their own agendas covering up the fact that they betrayed the Republic Of Vietnam. The people of South Vietnam have either been killed, or don't have the appropriate media outlets. I know many of them, considering my Father is one of them, they don't have the English skills, so many of the texts are written in Vietnamese. How many of you are going to read Vietnamese - let alone people who are going to translate them? twinqletwinqle (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Vietnamese books are allowed. And there's plenty of historiuans with all types of views. You can find a cite for anything really YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have provided a few sources which back up the claim I have neverf challenged. I was pointing out that the other 'sources' did not backi up the claim.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)]]

The Vietcong committed atrocities on a regular basis. Better support should be provided in this article for this and, indeed, this should not be difficult as it is an easily supportable issue. Gingermint (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Start date of war

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

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

How did the Vietnam War start.

I don't have clear answers and I need some please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironclad 16 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Chemical Warfare?

The title of this section seems rather misleading. While the use of these chemicals is well documented, it is my understanding that the immediate goal was not to inflict harm upon the populace, but rather to defoliate the area. Under most definitions of chemical warfare, I do not believe this qualifies. Suggest relabeling to something more neutral, such as "Chemical Defoliation" 173.66.16.240 (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Excellent idea, 173! Thank you very much!

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  08:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the label fits as 40% of the herbicides used were dropped on food crops. Clearly an instant of chemical warfare.--Sus scrofa (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam on 29 October 1963

Group patrol engaged in combat operations in Thoi Binh District, An Xuyen Province, Republic of Vietnam on 29 October 1963, Captain Versace and the CIDG assault force were caught in an ambush from intense mortar, automatic weapons, and small arms f ire from elements of a reinforced enemy Main Force battalion. As the battle raged, Captain Versace fought valiantly and encouraged his CIDG patrol to return fire against overwhelming enemy forces. He provided covering fire from an exposed position to enable friendly forces to withdraw from the killing zone when it was apparent that their position would be overrun, and was severely wounded in the knee and back from automatic weapons fire and shrapnel. He stubbornly resisted capture with the last full measure of his strength and ammunition. Taken prisoner by the Viet Cong, he demonstrated exceptional leadership and resolute adherence to the tenets of the Code of Conduct from the time he entered into a prisoner of war status. Captain Versace assumed command of his fellow American prisoners, and despite being kept locked in irons in an isolation box, raised their morale by singing messages to popular songs of the day, and leaving inspiring messages at the latrine. Within three weeks of captivity, and despite the severity of his untreated wounds, he attempted the first of four escape attempts by dragging himself on his hands and knees out of the camp through dense swamp and forbidding vegetation to freedom. Crawling at a very slow pace due to his weakened condition, the guards quickly discovered him outside the camp and recaptured him. Captain Versace scorned the enemy's exhaustive interrogation and indoctrination efforts, and inspired his fellow prisoners to resist to the best of their ability. When he used his Vietnamese language skills to protest improper treatment of the American prisoners by the guards, he was put into leg irons and gagged to keep his protestations out of earshot of the other American prisoners in the camp. The last time that any of his fellow prisoners heard from him, Captain Versace was singing God Bless America at the top of his voice from his isolation box. Unable to break his indomitable will, his faith in God, and his trust in the United States of America and his fellow prisoners, Captain Versace was executed by the Viet Cong on 26 September 1965. Captain Versace's extraordinary heroism, self-sacrifice, and personal bravery involving conspicuous risk of life above and beyond the call of duty were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Army, and reflect great credit to himself and the U.S. Armed Forces —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.51.213.12 (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

First Photo Caption

"A South Vietnamese air force UH-1 "Huey" helicopter over the Mekong Delta in 1970" If it's South Vietnamese, then why does it have a U.S. star and stripes aircraft marking? I get that they were U.S. allies. But, didn't they have their own markings? 68.55.199.40 (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

{{UNdone}} Just a bit of "test editing" <g> Good catch, 68!

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  22:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

OOPS. I was wrong, 68. Those are South Vietnamese troops in that chopper. That was probably a "loaner", and it would be correct to call it a S. Vietnamese AF Huey. Click the image...

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  22:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was mistaken. Refer to "Image Caption" above, on this discussion page. A note could be made that in black and white the Vietnamese marking looks very similar to the U.S. marking, so there's no more confusion. 68.55.199.40 (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done.  —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  04:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Loas

As far as I war aware tjhe US backed a secret army in Loas, they were not actualy backing the government of loas (and the governemtn of laos never backed the US).Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Gulf of Tonken was real US involvement

Though , North Vietnameses aided and sometimes were involeved in fightin with Viet Cong in South Vietnam.The False "attack" by North Vietmanese gunboats on US Navy Ships in the Gulf of Toneke was of course the "lie" that really involved the United sates in the war. The so called "Dominno Theory "where one country would fall to Communists then another was not mentioned in article.Present day Afganistan and our troop surges are an example of how Guerrila armies can keep at bay large coneventional armies. Perhaps we'll learn?merci' Thanks!(datedWaronVietnam,Sn.AMSept.20,200921stcent.Dr.Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC>)ANDREMOI (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course there is doubt as to the veracity of the Gulf of Tonken incident. There are some who doubt it ever even happened. Gingermint (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Link to "U.S. news media and the Vietnam War" Shown Twice

See Also

...

• Military Assistance Command, Vietnam Studies and Observations Group
• News media and the Vietnam War
• North Vietnamese invasion of Laos

...

• United States Army Special Forces in popular culture
• U.S. news media and the Vietnam War
• Vietnam People's Army

...

---

In the "See Also" section of this page both of these links refer to the same page. | U.S. news media and the Vietnam War

Can someone change this please? Thank you.

-David

Contribution of Spain in Vietnam War

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

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

I have a source (In the attic at the moment) that mentions them as being a medical unit. Perhaps a very slight mention might be in order.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

List of allied military operations of the Vietnam War

Everybody please help expand this article. 207.233.71.247 (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Is our focus to narrow?

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

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

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

'Revisionist' historians

Considering there are a small but passionate and well-researched group of historians; as well as veterans and political commentators; who have a sharply different view of almost all aspects of the Vietnam War, including disputing much of what the mainstream considers 'settled', shouldn't there be a separate section along the lines of 'Revisionist History'? It's a red-hot, current, controversial issue, it should be on there. Farawaychris (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Which ones are the revisionists?Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If you mean a section describing how the scholars are fighting, then there would need to be an extra article to explain the paradigm. Among revisionists, Lewis Sorley, Mark Moyar and Guenther Lewy and probably more. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 22:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Is Guenther Lewy a revisionist given that he wrote in 1978? Moreover whilst Mark Moyar's say hes a revisionist there is no source for this, so can we have a few sources that these writers are?Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Lewy still is, and Moyar styles himself as such in the intro of his book, as well as identifying Lewy as being a leading revisionist YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 00:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

number of GI missing

According to this source Chapter 28 of THE U.S ARMY IN VIETNAM - American Military History it states that there are in total 1,761 GIs MIA as of 27 April 2001.

Ben1941 (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

just found a better source to verify the number of GIs missing from the vietnam war as of 9th Dec 2009 The Personnel Missing - Southeast Asia (PMSEA) Database from Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personal Office (DPMO) According to DPMO, there are still 1724 GIs missing.

Ben1941 (talk) 08:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Great find. I've updated the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Q re photo

File:TrangBang.jpg is perhaps, the iconic picture from the Vietnam War. It has a fair use rationale for this article, but is not being used. I believe that it should appear in the article. Mjroots (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent reversion re "civil war" characterization

In this edit I reverted a change which would have characterized this conflict as a civil war. I fumble-fingered saving that edit and it has only a partial edit summary. Having come to the talk page to explain, I'll be more verbose than I would have been in an edit summary.

A civil war is a war between organized groups within a single nation state. It was not the intent of the 1954 Geneva Accords to partition Vietnam into separate countries, but that was the de-facto effect. North and South Vietnam were separately recognized in various countries as separate governments. There may be room for argument about whether such recognitions made either or both governments legitimate sovereign states, but I doubt that there is much support in reliable sources for the assertion that the Second Indochina War was a civil war. An assertion to this effect should to cite supporting sources. If such a cite-supported assertion is made, WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE probably come into play. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Why?

In the 5th paragraph in the opening section there is "The war exacted a huge human cost in terms of fatalities (See: Vietnam War casualties), including 3 to 4 million Vietnamese from both sides, 1.5 to 2 million Laotians and Cambodians, and 58,159 U.S. soldiers" - why is it necessary to state there that 58,159 American soldiers were killed? How does that compare in any way to the 3-4 million Vietnamese and 2 million Laotians and Cambodians? If you're going to include a figure there then maybe you could give the number of deaths for all other countries rather than continuing with yet another Americanization of a Wikipedia article.--Xania ^talk 22:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Because the United States was a major combatant for nearly a decade. Certainly that would be enough justification to mention the number of American deaths. Andy120290 (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Andy - in many ways the war came to be seen as an 'American' war, even if that was clearly too simplistic given the large number of other nations that were combatants. Anotherclown (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

But I think what is being asked is does this make the number of American deaths a "huge human cost " in terms of numbers. The American dead amount to about 10% of total US forces allocated, harldey huge losses (and that is without asking how does this loss compare to the US population as a whole). How does this compare to other US wars, WW2 418,500 four times as many, WW1 117,465 twice as many, Only Korea (and the US's current wars) are lower. So it is hard to see how this was a huge human cost to the US. As such perhaps it should be re-worded. Although its difficult to see how without seeming to say that 3 million vietnames is about the same value as 58,000 Americans.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree with Andy. Also, I note that the cited supporting source speaks only to the U.S. casualty figure. The article would be better off with the mention of the US casualty figure removed from this paragraph and with sources cited to support the other mentioned casualty figures amounting to millions of persons. The article's infobox gives casualty figures (most with supporting sources, some without) for most participants. The infobox might be improved, IMHO, by the addition or clarification of civilian vs. military casualty numbers.

Perhaps, considering the purportedly large numbers of civilian casualties, this closing sentence of the lead section should say something like, "In addition to military casualties, the war resulted in an estimated N1 to N2 civilian deaths in North and South Vietnam, and N3 to N4 deaths in Laos and Cambodia between the years of 19XX and 19YY (for further info see the Vietnam War casualties article)". (of course, the N1-N4 figures should agree between the articles and should be cite-supported. FWIW, I'm an American and spent the years '64–'72 in Vietnam working as a US Govt contractor. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Xania and Slatersteven in questioning why the US military casualties are equated with the colossal civilian casualties in Vietnam and Cambodia. Izzedine 11:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

most recent edit

I think whomever made the most recent edit concerning the Tet Offensive has confused the language. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that when the offensive is spoken of as a victory or failure depends on whether we are talking about the US or NV. I think the language of the paragraph needs to be examined and discussed before altering words that shift the meaning of the paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prussian725 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that sentence is a bit unclear on whose failure and whose victory it was. Maybe change it to something like: "although a military failure for the Communist side, the Tet offensive became a political failure for the US"?--Sus scrofa (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I would susgest (given its impact on the war) "whilst tacticly a military success for the SVN and its allies, the Tet offensive became a stratgegic victory for the communists".Slatersteven (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps a military victory for the US but a political victory for the NVA?Prussian725 (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Link in note 108

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

Image in Infobox

Like many other war articles, I suppose we use this Image:VietnamMural.jpg back to the infobox to replace the current one. 71.107.193.35 (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

== I'm a Vietnam Veteran (1968-72) and Here's the Scoop: ==

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

OR at its worst. I think this soapboxing should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC) The references were cited: "Eyewitness Vietnam" and "The Vietnam War Experience", which contain primary, secondary and tertiary sources.209.77.231.183 (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Problem With "Original Research" Concept

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

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

I would also be wary of using OR, for other reasons as well. We tend to look at the past thru a prism and thus recollection may be coloured by things such as survivor guilt or self-justification. Also studies have shown that witness groups do not always see the same event in quite the same way. Moreover how can we verify OR, anyone can claim to be a witness (after all disasters there are fake survivors who would be considered eye witness until found out). Then we have opinion, this creeps into eyewitness accounts, so will we restrict their use to only those areas they did actually witness.

One last point At the battle of the little Big Horn there were some Indians, what’s odd (unless you are willing to have a whole new idea about the battle) is that many of the eye witness statements from them have different chronologies (in the sense that different events happen at different times). There is a reason for this, and it cultural, as such I would argue that to use OR when witnesses are from different cultures (and thus may have different perspective of what’s important) is fraught with potential pitfalls.

Soapboxing" About the Vietnam War

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

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

History vs Mythology

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

So why do we need OR when we (and you) can (and have) used RS? As to victory or loss. America's aim was a SV free from communist influence, the Paris peace accords not only force SV to recogonise the communist (and allow them to stand in ellections) but also allowed NV forces to remain in country. A situation that was actualy worse then in 1965. Moreover America was supposed to come to SV aid in the event that NV broke the cease fire, in the end they did not. Its true that NV did not millitarily defeat the USA, they defeated it politicaly. The USA failed in its stated reason for going to war, how can that be anything but a deafeat.Slatersteven (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

More on Vietnam; We Won the Chess Game; How Many Vietnam Vets Were There and How Many Are Still Alive?

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

Actually it was congress that passed a law in August of 1974. Vietnam is still ruled by the communist party, so the US did not keep it free from communism.

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

Should We Include North Vietnamese Historical Assessment?

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

I think we should end the discusion about wikipedias policies here. I think this is the best place for what has become rather long [[6]] or [[7]]. As to NV sources. I would agree that as long as we attribute them thier inclusion would benifit the article.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Name of the war(s)

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

Johnson's Refusal to commit more Troops representing Culmination?

{{editsemiprotected}} In the Article, under the Tet offensive section, the second to last sentence states : "His refusal to send more U.S. troops to Vietnam was Johnson's admission that the war was lost." This is not cited and I have reasoning to believe it is incorrect. In the Article "Strategic Reassessment in Vietnam: The Westmoreland "Alternate Strategy" of 1967-1968" Brigadier General [Then Colonel] Charles F. Brower IV., U.S. Army alludes to the sensitivity of implementing politically dangerous mobilization (i.e. Troop Escalations of up to an "optimum level" 300,000 for operations in Laos or Cambodia, and a possible North Vietnam invasion.) in the face of an approaching election year.

This does not mean that he thought the war was a failure at the end of his term of office. More likely, it means that he was wary that increased mobilization and pursuing alternate strategies would be admitting that his attrition strategy had failed, and would thus be political suicide. Furthermore, he did increase Troop levels by 55,000, far short of Westmoreland's requests, but against McNamara's established 470,000 troop ceiling.

Please Remove the passage: "His refusal to send more U.S. troops to Vietnam was Johnson's admission that the war was lost."

It has no factual grounding.

 Done —Ms2ger (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree, with the qualification that although it has many and varied bases in fact, it can never be more than a wide sweeping generalization with that wording, and is removable for that reason alone. A suitable replacement or replacements must be inserted in its place. Anarchangel (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Johnson's troop decision was election year politics motivated by his poor showing in the New Hampshire primary. It had nothing to do with Tet or the military situation in Vietnam. There's no reason to think Eugene McCarthy voters were more dovish than Johnson voters. Eugene was an unknown at the time and many voters assumed that he was related to Joe McCarthy. Kauffner (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

A good case for the argument that "His refusal to send more U.S. troops to Vietnam indicated Johnson's understanding that the war was unpopular." Your second sentence, in the light of the first third and fourth, is tantamount to saying that he stood at his window, looking out on the demonstrators across the White House lawn from him, and just chose at random to not do something, because his poll numbers were low, and the random choice happened to be not sending in troops. Anarchangel (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Johnson's poor showing was because of the Vietnam War. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sending in more troops would have been a negative politically because it would been interpreted as a confession that existing U.S. strategy wasn't working. The pattern of Johnson's poll numbers suggest that the urban race riots had a much bigger influence on his popularity than Vietnam did. Kauffner (talk) 05:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that you know a great deal about this subject, but you really have to stop taking wild and original stabs in the research dark and claiming it is the true course of events. First the above contradiction, then, you can't tell if Johnson lost votes from hawkish voters. Only you try and say it as though not knowing means that VN war wasn't a factor. Then you puncture your own argument by saying McCarthy's unfortunate name was to blame for his poor showing. If that is so, then McCarthy stops being a factor over and above VN. Now it's race riots. Or are you just musing out loud? I feel it would be best to treat it as such. Anarchangel (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I never meant to imply that McCarthy's name had a significant impact on the vote in New Hampshire. I was just trying illustrate how unknown he was at the time. People were voting for or against Johnson and McCarthy's anti-war agenda was either irrelevant or unknown to the vast majority. The race riots gave many Americans the sense that the country was unraveling, which is why Johnson's poll numbers fell and why people in New Hampshire might think that it was time for new leadership. Kauffner (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

But the press at the time did portray Johnsons decision as an admision that the war was unwinable.[[Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)]]