Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 12

Americancentrism redux

All the Vietnamese people I have met (English speakers included) refer to this war as the American War (because they also fought major wars against the French and Chinese in the last century). This is a matter of record. I supplied a reference for these, now kindly do not delete my update again.

The Sino-Vietnamese war was not a major war.

A shared episode between millions cannot and should not be known only by titles from one perpective (the western one). The western one you spell t wrong. Western terms for this war should not be the automatic default. Mouseydung (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Westerners created wiki so go to hell, we westerners can call these events whatever we want. If you dont like, create your own biased commie encyclopedia and leave us alone.

--Guys I a agree with the poster below, in the quoted sourced encyclopedia it states that the US was 'defeated' 4 times in that whole page. Someone keeps removing the "defeat for the US" from the outcome section of the war. People please remember, the US entered the war claiming that they wanted to prevent the unification of Vietnam under communism. In anyway you want to look at it, NONE OF THE US OBJECTIVES were achieved.Yeah but they did help Southern Vietnamese I.e a defeat, please try and understand this.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.98.84 (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The US was defeated politically in Vietnam, not militarily. Also, while we were there on the ground in Vietnam, most of our objectives were achieved because we won every major battle. It wasnt until years after the US ground forces left that South Vietnam fell to the commies. This is fact not opinion.

Not really. The communists fought a successful campaign of attrition until the US could no longer afford to fight, there was a breakdown in US military discipline (with the Fuck The Army tours for instance) and so on. If the US had stayed they would have lost more and that's why they pulled out. The US had other commitments in Europe, Japan, the arms race in the Cold War against China and the Soviet Union etc, and therefore could not afford to be engaged in a debilitating war in Southeast Asia for decades. Looking at it from a purely military aspect, it is highly irrational to engage in a infantry war when you can just drop nukes on the enemy until you win. But moving an inch or so beyond the military perspective, there are perhaps some other aspects to take in consideration. Politics is after all the continuation of war by other means and the communists inflicted a political defeat against the US by force of arms.--Sus scrofa (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

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. . DHN (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Any talk of the outcome of the war must mention North and South Vietnam first, then United States later, Queanbeyan (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense since the partition itself was phoney. Vietnam was temporarily partitioned at the 17th parallel in 1954 and it was agreed that an election was to be held withing two years. The US blocked the elections since they viewed Ho's inevitable vicory as contrary to their interests.

It was generally conceded that had an election been held, Ho Chi Minh would have been elected Premier. Unhappily, the situation was exacerbated by the almost total lack of leadership displayed by the Vietnamese Chief of State, Bao Dai, who, while nominally the head of that nation, chose to spend the bulk of his time in the spas of Europe rather than in his own land leading his armies against those of Communism. Queanbeyan (talk) 12:34, 10 December 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".

Exactly. The war was not waged between North and South Vietnam, but between Vietnam and USA. South Vietnam "government" was a convenient puppet regime that never gained any legitimacy. The conflict did have elements of proxy war between USA on one and PRC ans USSR on other side, but not as clearly as in the case of Korean War. Wars that preceded it, those that Vietnamese fought for liberation from French, then Japanese, then again French occupation, didn't have virtually any Chinese or Soviet involvement, and Americans just continued lost French battle. (I know this is not very useful for practical improvement of the article....) --bonzi (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Bonzi, it wasn't a war waged between Vietnam and the USA. North Vietnam "government" wasn't exactly a government aswell if you imply that South Vietnam a "non government" with no legitimacy. The war was waged 6 years before the US entered, 3 years after they left. Look at the flags of both parties involved. Who was fighting who? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annhoang (talk • contribs) 04:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

Two points of concern. First,the lead in, or overview, states, "In response to the anti-war movement, the U.S. Congress passed the Case-Church Amendment in June 1973 prohibiting further U.S. military intervention." Is there some source, without bias, that gives the reason for passing the Amendment. I know of none, but that doesn't mean that the legislative history of the amendment may not itself identify the reason. "In response to the anti-war movement..." without evidence is a poor approach to writing history. Could it have also been because an agreement was made between the US and NK for the US to enact legislation, and not because of the anti-war movement? I don't know. Does anyone else?

Secondly, and this discussion seems to be under several headings, a debate is on over the US losing the war, or the combatants agreeing to withdraw without decision. The answer is simple historically, if one sticks to what has happened and I won't lay it out here as it is clear as to what happend. Since the end of fighting is abundantly clear, those looking for defeat of the U.S. (perhaps some with the anti-war bias I just addressed above), slide into the disingenuous fall back saying that it is the goals of the engagement that determine victory or defeat. That is historically incorrect and abundantly clear. Policy can be defeated without a military defeat and policy can win without a military victory. One small example and I'll leave this. Winston Churchill went to war to defeat Germany, and ALSO to defeat communism. His problem was that his ally was communism. The Allies defeated Germany (no agreement to withdraw)and then Churchill sought to go to war with Russia and destroy communism. He didn't lose a war,but the Americans, British, and Russians (the listing you should note is strictly alphabetical)agreed to the spheres of influence for each. Churchill's policy was defeated without defeating Russia.Asvrc100 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a major flaw in your argumentation, which is that Churchill did not go to war, it was Neville Chamberlain. Cripipper (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not the only flaw evident in this line of reasoning. First and foremost, Britain did not enter a war against the Soviet Union. Winston Churchill may have personally wanted to defeat the Soviet Union militarily, but that was never a British government goal from the invasion of Poland on. So to compare Churchill's personal desires with the objectives of US foreign policy is a poor analogy. The clear, overriding objective of British policy was the defeat of Nazi Germany. That was accomplished. The clear, overriding objective of American policy vis-a-vis Vietnam was the establishment of a pro-Western, anti-communist regime in South Vietnam. That objective failed. To say that we pulled out before the end so it doesn't count as a loss is disingenuous. The US pulled out because it determined it could not win. The US objectives in Vietnam failed utterly in the narrow sense of failure. In another part of this discussion, there is talk of Chomsky's view that US policy was a success in broad sense that communism was successfully contained, it did not spread throughout SE Asia, which was the fear.Grog225 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Case-Church co-author Frank Church was a famously anti-war senator. The legislation was originally introduced in 1972 and only narrowly defeated, months before the peace treaty. When the Amendment was passed in 1973, "Nixon and Kissinger frantically lobbied to have the ban extended" (Karnow, p. 671), so it certainly wasn't part of the peace agreement. This article by Tom Hayden gives the anti-war movement credit for Case-Church. Kauffner (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You addressed my tounge-in-cheek question but didn't answer it. You failed to address my concern that there is no evidence offered to attribute 'the anti- war movement' with a cause and effect evidence for the amendment. Let's see, you say "Case-Church co-author Frank Church was a famously anti-war senator". But being anti-war does not give evidence to the 'anti-war movement' assertion. You say, "The legislation was originally introduced in 1972 and only narrowly defeated, months before the peace treaty." That doesn't prove anything on behalf of defending the statement that the 'anti-war movement' caused the amendment. You say, "When the Amendment was passed in 1973, "Nixon and Kissinger frantically lobbied to have the ban extended" (Karnow, p. 671), so it certainly wasn't part of the peace agreement." That may be interesting, but is certainly naive to think that politicians don't do one thing and mean and say another. None of the foregoing you present amounts to any evidence tor the "anti-war movement" assertion in the article, and certainly is insufficient for a scholarly history. You conclude, "This article by Tom Hayden gives the anti-war movement credit for Case-Church." And that is certainly not a disinterested source but can convincingly be said to be a biased source.

No, it is is not scholarly history, nor even substance to the point. It appears as though it is someone whose personal life and belief is enhanced by believing they had some part in history. Anti-war activities are a big part of US hisroty but Wiki does not have to write history where there is no proof and no reason. This type of history just reduces Wiki credibility. 69.41.137.111 (talk) 23:19, 11 September 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)

Environmental Movement?

"Momentum from the protest organizations became a main force for the growth of an environmental movement in the United States." -- Is that statement from the article original research, or is it drawn from somewhere that needs to be cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.119.251 (talk) 09:57, 8 December 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 bithches rule this world"[109]
70.70.219.180 (talk) 08:43, 21 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)

The info box lists the North Vietnamese dead number as 3 million, referring to the Casualties page. On that page, this number was said to origin from this document at Vietnam War Virtual Archive: [1]. However, what actually was put forth in that document was "two milion Vietnamese civilians" without breaking down to North/South subtotals. I corrected the Casualties page, and am going to do the same with the figues in the infobox. Altus Quansuvn (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2009 (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)

If their objective was to defend South Vietnam why did the USA drop more bombs on South Vietnam then North Vietnam? Why was South Vietnam in a higher state of disrepair then North Vietnam at the end of the war despite the 'communists' not using heavy weaponry? Why was the main target of consistent US assaults the only viable political force in South Vietnam (The NLF?).--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC):::

The US droped more bombs in the south because that is where they were supporting their groound forces, not subtle tactics but very America. Also there is the fact that the US did not alow the bombing of politicaly dangerous targets in the North (such as Haphong) for much of the war. Actualy the NVA did use heavy weapons, inclu7ding tanks and artillery up to 130mm and Rockets up to 122mm hardley small arms.[[Slatersteven (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)]]

And whats your source for that unsubstantiated claim? I've seen sources that contradict this. Sources which saw first hand the targets of many of the attacks. There were even entire operations revealed later in the Pentagon Papers which showed the USA had a policy of destroying the rural way of life in the South as well as in Laos and Cambodia. Is your source more trustworthy then leaked government planning documents or civilian eye witness accounts? Also by heavy weapons I was referring directly the Viet Cong and the NLF who primarily used small arms, crew served weapons and occasionally used some light vehicles. Are you sure you can attribute the devastation in South Vietnam of rural civilian infrastructure to them when in most cases the damage was done by large bombs dropped innaccurately on 'hostile' regions?--Senor Freebie (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we see theses sources then, can you provide were they were published or were they are available on line?

Source for UASF supporting ground forces.

War in Peace, Orbis 1981, page 204/205

Source for restriction placed on the bombing of the North.

Vietnam at War, Sidgewick & Jackson 1989, page 339,341.

Can we see theses sources then, can you provide were they were published or were they are available on line?

Source for UASF supporting ground forces.

War in Peace, Orbis 1981, page 204/205

Source for restriction placed on the bombing of the North.

Vietnam at War, Sidgewick & Jackson 1989, page 339,341.

The NVA were involved in combat in the South, so it does not matter how lightly armed the VC were. I am not claiming that they did all the damage, or even most of it. But it is not true to say that all infrastructure damage was caused by the US. Nor is it true that the communists (not just the VC, they were not alone) had no heavy weapons. As you have not challenged that the NVA used heavy weapons I shall not provide a source proving a point you agree with.

The NVA were involved in combat in the South, so it does not matter how lightly armed the VC were. I am not claiming that they did all the damage, or even most of it. But it is not true to say that all infrastructure damage was caused by the US. Nor is it true that the communists (not just the VC, they were not alone) had no heavy weapons. As you have not challenged that the NVA used heavy weapons I shall not provide a source proving a point you agree with. [[Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2009 (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)

The point above is often missed. The NVA and NLF were not always of the same mind. Already there was jockeying for position of controlling the South in the post-war Vietnam. Northern interests dominated after the NLF was substantially demolished during Tet. Stratigically, the whole thing worked in the NVA's favor. Revisionists like to say that Tet was a huge defeat for North Vietnam, but it wasn't in many ways. There was the obvious political impact, but there was also the expansion of NVA control in rural areas (see Kolko's Anatomy of a War).163.41.11.23 (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2009 (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)

To clarify, as there is a disparity between the title of this section and what is being discussed here: the pop song did not suggest that the average age of fatalities was nineteen, but rather that 19 was the average age of those who volunteered or were drafted. Anarchangel (talk) 04:07, 20 November 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. [2] 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)

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)