Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 25

17,000 Russian Troops sent to North Vietnam

The article is very leftist and one-sided in nature, as though it were written by commie stooges. Where's the Neutral Point Of View? For instance, why isn't it mentioned that Russia sent 17,000 Russian troops to Vietnam in 1965 to man the SAM missile sites? (It takes 9 months to train a SAM operator). The war was between the USA, Russia and Red China. In fact, Red China caused the Vietnam War when Red China told France it could have Vietnam after WW II if France gave up its territorial claims in China. This article is so lopsided and inaccurate. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The more active you are on Wikipedia the more of a certain bias you notice, true. But the only way to help is if you can provide some reliable sources. Post some here and I will do what I can to add it in. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, to start, there's the Wiki article titled "Surface-to-air missile" where it states that 17,000 Russian troops were sent to North Vietnam in 1965 to man the SAM sites while the North Vietnamese were sent to Russia to study to be SAM operators. In 1965-66 nearly all of the 48 US planes shot down by SAM's were shot down by Russians. Fedor Ilinych is credited with shooting down 13 American planes from his SAM site and Lt. Vadim Petrovich Shcherbakoov is credited with shooting down either 6, 11 or 12 US planes. Since it's a Wiki article it should be acceptable. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, laughably, the article lists Communist forces as far fewer in numbers than American and allied. Yet 1. the "casualties" listed are much higher than their troop count, which is impossible, and 2. their casualty count is far underreported. If you can provide me with some sources I can help improve the page. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

There may be confusion here because the USA would send TDY (temporary duty) troops to Vietnam to bolster our numbers. I recall at one time we were limited to 500,000 troops but we also had 250,000 TDY troops, so we actually had 750,000 troops in Vietnam. Also, we'd kill a lot of North Vietnamese (1.1 million total has been stated) so the number of troops the North Vietnamese could muster at any one time would be less than the total killed throughout the war. Also, you normally have about 3 to 6 times as many wounded as KIA so the North Vietnamese count doesn't make sense unless they had really lousy doctors. --Just some thoughts on how the numbers are portrayed. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

But then the infobox is presenting "Total" numbers on one side and "Snapshot" numbers on the other. Theres not even a mention of that distinction. If you can give me any sources it would help improve the article. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Wish I had some reliable sources but the only numbers I'm sure of are the USA casualty counts. The other numbers seem to be at the whim of whomever's counting and their political bias. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vietnam War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vva.org/TheVeteran/2005_01/feature_numbersGame.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lib.washington.edu/southeastasia/vsg/elist_2007/Newly
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160115205405/https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552494 to http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552494

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath section

There seems to be a dispute about including a mention in this section about Vietnam's alleged direct support for other communist revolutions and forces after the conclusion of the war. On one hand, there are few secondary sources that support the claim. But there are a number of primary sources - such as declassified military documents - as well as sources that are not reliable in and of themselves but cite primary sources (such as this and this. In addition, another user suggested it is not related to the aftermath of the war. However, the claims laid forth by military reports state that the Vietnamese government, after the war, used captured weapons and supplies to send to Communist groups around the world. I think a small mention of this is permissible in the section. It can be worded more neutrally, but I think that inclusion is justified. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

That's interesting info that definitely belongs somewhere, minus the comparisons to Cuba and the "headquarters Soviet communism" parts. But I am not sure that place is here. What's the relevance? What's the special notability of this fact? Lots of things happened after the war, and Vietnam's "revolutionary" shipments of some rifles (allegedly or verifiably), to Latin America of all places, is as irrelevant and unimportant as it gets. If we mention that, we'll be obligated to mention literally every war the US got involved in after Vietnam, anywhere in the world. Maybe stick this in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Vietnam#Soviet_Era , but it will look a bit out of place even there (comprared to wars with China and America). Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2016

Under the section on Casualties add the following: The death and injury toll as a result of the use of aircraft ordinance, particularly cluster bombs, continues to the rise in Laos to the present day. The National Regulatory Authority for Unexploded Ordinance (UXO)/Mine Action in the Lao PDR reports that between 1974 and 2008, over 20,000 people were killed in Laos as a result of post-war UXO accidents.

References

Jenkinsa66 (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Done This edit seems to have already been done. Topher385 (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Please note: it's "ordnance" (military weapons), not "ordinance" (religious/legal rules). Fixed in article. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Infobox: Soviet Union and North Korea - belligerents or supporters?

I note that a recent edit has moved up the People's Republic of China to being a belligerent. Previously the PRC was listed as a supporter, but it was also listed under the Strength section which I would have thought should only relate to belligerents. I also note that the Soviet Union and North Korea are both listed in the Strength section, but are only listed as supporters, not belligerents. If Soviet and North Korean forces did actively participate in the fighting (as I understand it as pilots, SAM operators and other technicians) then shouldn't they also be moved up into the belligerents? I note that on the Korean War page Infobox the Soviet Union is listed as a belligerent presumably because of their MiG-15 pilots who took part in combat. Mztourist (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I would generally agree with this. But this page has seen some battleground behavior in the past from editors who disagree about the nature of the war. I would certainly believe they should be listed as belligerents, since virtually every other article on a war on Wikipedia includes even minor contributions under belligerents. But I would also await a consensus before proceeding. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't care whether or not China and the USSR are listed as belligerents, but....I am strongly against the inclusion of countries such as the UK and Canada in the list of "supporters" of the US and South Vietnam. They were not supporters of South Vietnam. They gave a small amount of non-military aid to South Vietnam, but that's all. Lyndon Johnson begged the Brits to give the US some token military support -- "a bagpipe band" or the like, and the UK declined. Smallchief (talk 08:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I have discussed that issue with you previously and that is not what is being discussed here. If you want to raise it please start a new section Mztourist (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Uhhhh. The title of this section is "belligerents and supporters." You named the section and I am discussing supporters. Smallchief (talk 11:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I have fixed the title to reflect the issue that I raised. Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about North Korea's role, but elevating Soviet military technicians to the level of most other combatants, strikes me as a false equivalence. Combat was not their main role by any stretch of the imagination, even though they might have personally fired some missiles. It is not unheard of for military advisors and technicians to be very closely involved in actual combat, when local forces lack the skills to use the imported equipment. However, soviet pilots did indeed fly a few missions—and that clearly is combat—but we'd need to get some reasonably reliable numbers to gauge the extent. If it's just a few pilots flying a several missions (say less than a few dozen), that is not enough to change the nature of Soviet involvement in my opinion. Which other articles do you have in mind, Dalton Castle? Something like Soviet-Afghan War, where Pakistan is listed as a belligerent? That's a debatable label there too, although "supporter" would not describe its role any better. Pakistan's role was primarily that of "organizer" rather than "supporter", because the actual support came from the US and the Saudis. In the case of the Soviet role in North Vietnam, massive military support arguably was the key factor. Involvement in combat operations had to be be exceptional and clandestine, because the Soviets wanted at all costs to avoid being seen as fighting the war "for" the North Vietnamese. Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The issue, however, is that in many cases they were not simply mechanics or consultants - in many cases they were personnel used in combat roles. DaltonCastle (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Please reread the post. I acknowledge this. Yet we have to consider the issue of due weight.Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand your point of view. But from what I have seen, almost every page about a war includes minor involvements when relevant. And it does not seem right to have a double standard. In the grand scheme its not that serious of an issue. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Well it is the first things people see when they glance at the page. The info-box is there to convey key information. The key thing people should know about the USSR here is that it was a major military (and economic) supporter of Vietnam—that was its basic role in the war. The fact that Soviet pilots flew a few missions and Soviet technicians sometimes operated artillery on the battlefield is of secondary importance. That's why it would be undue in my opinion (for the infobox). I also have not seen any true examples of this "double standard" you mentioned. Where they exist, I'd follow WP:DUE and revise the info-boxes as needed. short story: I can't agree the proposal to list the USSR as a combatant in the info-box, as you've probably figured. I also agree with what smallchief said about the UK and Canada.Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Well if we don't include the Soviet Union as belligerents but only as supporters, then they shouldn't be listed under the Strength heading and their Losses shouldn't be included either. However this [1] appears to be WP:RS justifying inclusion of North Korea as a belligerent at least during 1967 Mztourist (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, I have moved North Korea up to be a combatant and removed the Soviet Union from strength and casualties on the basis they were not combatants. Mztourist (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent trimming: false balance?

Mztourist The reason you gave for your major trimming of RS and notable content was: rmv content as WP:UNDUE; otherwise must include similar level detail of VC/NVA mistreatment of POWs. This is WP:FALSEBALANCE IMO. The example you give—mistreatment of American POW's—is really not a major atrocity. There is no apriori reason to assume that NLF atrocities are as notable—or as extensive—as the American ones. That's pretty much true in every invasion: the atrocities of the invading country make up the bulk of those that go down in history—and most articles on invasions reflect this. Since your edit seems to have been aimed at trimming rather than outright removal (or that's what I saw on first impression—perhaps Dino Nam will disagree), I didn't revert and don't plan to. However, while I have no formula for how long each section should be, the assertion that they must be more or less equal strikes me as kind of facile. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC) PS: the article already goes out of its way in trying racking up Vietcong atrocities, using crap sources and stretching due (though they could theoretically be replaced by better sources). Two of the stories were basically apocryphal propaganda (especially about killing "children for daring to get an education" — originating with the tale of some American general, I believe). I'm referring to Newsweek and Readers Digest, which I've deleted. But take a look also at the Khmer Rouge section. Khmer Rouge "war crimes" supposedly consisted of "torturing Phnom Penh" (where all of Lon Nol's forces were concentrated) by shelling the area during the war and of killing 2 million pf their own people after the war. Do we get to count conventional warfare and peacetime deaths as "war crimes" just because we hate the Khmer Rouge? Probably not. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that "more or less equal", whilst sounding fair, is not the best choice. If we applied it consistently to every war, we'd end up with some pretty peculiar, if not outrageous, results. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Guccisamsclub the "false balance" you refer to comes from User:Dino nam, who has tried to expand the Allied war crimes section apparently to counter documented events such as the Massacre at Hue, which he/she even tried to change to the "alleged" massacre at Hue before it was reverted. I retained any apparently reliably documented investigations into US atrocities, although I haven't really delved into whether or not these really have WP:RS (though I intend to do so), but deleted unverified or lengthy non-notable pieces about how badly the US may or may not have treated PAVN and VC captives or Vietnamese civilians. In relation to the specific issue of WP:UNDUE User:Dino nam has added various information about the tiger cages at Con Son and alleged US mistreatment of prisoners, but hasn't balanced this with more detail of the systemised torture of POWs at North Vietnamese camps, the mistreatment and high mortality rates of POWs and civilians at VC camps, the murder of journalists and POWs by the Khmer Rouge and the unknown treatment by the Pathet Lao (as almost no-one ever returned from Pathet Lao captivity). I have never suggested that the sections should be more or less equal, but recent edits have shown an attempt to greatly expand the US and South Vietnamese sections with no corresponding balance on the PAVN/VC/Khmer Rouge section. Now I could go and add WP:RS information detailing all that on the page, but that would make the whole section undue and make an already long page even longer. I also note that User:Kiwifist removed the subheadings of North Vietnamese and VC war crimes and Khmer Rouge war crimes I inserted, which is fine, but then why should US, South Vietnamese and Korean war crimes each have their own heading? Even the titles and section sizes create an impression that one side committed more crimes than the other. A couple of specific points: (1) I question your analogy of invasions - do you really believe that the US invaded South Vietnam? If so then you are showing a serious POV. (2) the shelling of civilians either in Phnom Penh or fleeing down Route 1 in 1972 is indisputably a war crime. I certainly agree that better sources can and should be found for the war crimes of the PAVN, VC, Khmer Rouge and Pathet Lao.Mztourist (talk) 06:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, not sure if I agree, but sounds reasonable enough. the shelling of civilians either in Phnom Penh or fleeing down Route 1 in 1972 is indisputably a war crime. In that case it should be explained why—if it were I'd have no problem. The KR was fighting the KNAF in and around Phnom Penh. But it is not clear to me how fighting in a war zone is equivalent to perpetrating war crimes or intentional "torture" as the section would have it. This appears to be spin, driven by a double standard. The section then continues by adding the 2 million deaths after 1975 as another war crime by the KR. Just because we hate the KR does not mean we should write stuff like this. Re "invasion": yes I think it was, with the caveat that they were "invited", (like the Soviets in Afghanistan etc). I didn't edit the article to reflect that POV in any way. But I would be concerned if it was edited with the opposite POV (completely partisan in my view): namely that the war was essentially symmetric'—which on first sight seemed to be reflected in your edit summary. In fact for the longest time the article defined the war solely as a Cold War "proxy conflict": just Soviets and Americans fighting through proxies...wait, what? Anyway, I don't want to get into a discussion about the overall POV of the article—just the KR stuff. Guccisamsclub (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Just as a minor factual correction: The section refers to 2 million civilians subjected to shelling in Phnom Penh, not the subsequent genocide.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. Retracting that criticism Guccisamsclub (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Your assertion that the US invaded South Vietnam is a fringe view according to all WP:RS I've ever read. It is of course the view that North Vietnamese propaganda asserted and now Vietnam continues to assert.Mztourist (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I think user:Mztourist has misunderstood the WP:UNDUE regulation when he remove this section: One example cited by Turse is Operation Speedy Express, an operation by the 9th Infantry Division, which was described by John Paul Vann as, in effect, "many My Lais". A report by Newsweek magazine suggested that 5,000 innocent civilians may have been killed by U.S. soldiers in this single operation.. The rule says that we shouldn't install materials that are minority views or fringe theories. So unless there is RS-based proof of a "majority" theory that defies such content, you shouldn't remove it based on WP:UNDUE. For instance, in this particular case, he could only delete the section if he has found a sufficient number of RS which have claimed what Turse says is either biased or incorrect info (by then Turse's ideas would be a minority view). He can't remove the section just because it "hasn't balanced this with more detail of the systemised torture of POWs at North Vietnamese camps". Dino nam (talk) 04:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Its WP:UNDUE because you have already added a lot of detail on US atrocities etc. and if you continue to add material to it then Allied war crimes becomes undue without balancing material about North Vietnamese, Vietcong, Khmer Rouge and Pathet Lao atrocities and mistreatment, so you can either stop expanding the Allied section or I will need to add counterweight information which will make the whole War Crimes section WP:UNDUE in the context of the entire page.Mztourist (talk) 08:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mztourist: No no, that's not what WP:UNDUE is about. It only restricts the addition of minority view, which is something that must be in conflict with a majority one. For instance, you shouldn't write too much about the belief that the Earth is flat, because the majority of views believe that it's not flat. But "US troops committed atrocities" and "Communists committed atrocities" are not contrasting concepts; one doesn't defy the existence of another. So there's no majority-minority relationship here, and you can't resort to WP:UNDUE. If you want to add any info, fine, but deleting the above section isn't appropriate. Dino nam (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

To quote from WP:UNDUE "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." and "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text". Your significant expansion of the Allied war crimes section makes it appear that the Allies committed more war crimes than the North Vietnamese, VC, KR and Pathet Lao which is untrue and therefore WP:UNDUE. You have already quoted from Nick Turse who bases most of his claims and Vann quote on Operation Speedy Express so it doesn't need to be mentioned again. But if you insist on its inclusion then I will go ahead and add more detail on the North Vietnamese, VC, KR and Pathet Lao war crimes. Mztourist (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

You've misintepreted the principle of the rule by cutting off single sentences and elaborating them in your own way (quite a typical WP:WIKILAWYERING). Let me show more coming after that sentence: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." What the rule really means is much different from what you claim it means. Dino nam (talk) 07:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

No you are the one Wikilawyering here. Do you really think that Vietnam War is an "article specifically relating to a minority viewpoint"? You are being UNDUE in trying to emphasise Allied war crimes, while trying to downplay Communist ones. An example being your insertion of "alleged" before massacre at Hue, there is nothing alleged about it, it was widely documented and acknowledged by the North Vietnamese themselves, but you are trying to cast doubt on it, while adding in vague generalisations of purported Allied war crimes. Mztourist (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

First, it's silly to consider an article or a topic a "viewpoint". Second, I must repeat that Turse's view is not a minority view; if you claim otherwise you have to prove it by RS. Third, the article about the massacre at Hue has a whole section describing about views of schoolars who believed that the description of the massacre has been exaggerated or even distorted, in particular the number of victims; that's the reason why I put the word "alleged" there. Dino nam (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I was quoting back UNDUE at you. Turse is a minority view, taking generalisations and opinions and implying a vast number of US US war crimes that are never mentioned in other WP:RS. There is nothing "alleged" about the Hue massacre, the Communists acknowledge they massacred civilians there, the only disagreement is about the actual number of victims.Mztourist (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Turse's view is shared by or similar to many other RS.[2][3][4] These are just some that I can list.
• If you want to prove something a minority view, you must prove the existence of a majority view; that is, there are 'widespread counter-arguments against the former. For instance, you hear one person says that the Earth is spherical, and hundreds of others doesn't say anything about it, doesn't mean that it's a minority view.
• That's the reason why I put the word "alleged" there. And scholars don't just dispute about the number only; in fact, there are theories that South Vietnamese killings and Allied firepower largely contributed to the death toll in Hue, as stated by RS-based points in the article. Btw, it's just the detail, and I don't care if anyone find the word disputable or not. Dino nam (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Providing refs that simply repeat the AP and Newsweek stories is not providing other WP:RS. There is no dispute that the Communists massacred civilians in Hue, trying to blame civilian deaths on US and South Vietnamese firepower is just reverting to the US propaganda at the time. In any event the North Vietnamese taking shelter in the historic centre of Hue and among civilians is arguably a war crime in itself even without considering them massacring civilians. In relation to Speedy Express the reason given by the US was that there was extensive use of nighttime artillery fire and attack helicopters which may have caused civilian deaths, which is why I insist on the inclusion of indiscriminate firepower. But you are now edit-warring here and on Battle of Khe Sanh and i will be filing an edit-warring complaint Mztourist (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• If you say those sources are not RS, then I've nothing else to say but you have to read the regulation again. Moreover, even in case they were not RS, then Newsweek + Turse would be enough, because nothing has defied them yet.
• About the Hue massacre and Operation Speedy Express, provide RS instead of making OR like you're doing. Furthermore, when you said "the reason given by the US", it clearly showed that your point isn't a neutral one. Dino nam (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

References

• A good rebuttal of Turse's position and critique of his methods can be found here: https://cross-currents.berkeley.edu/e-journal/issue-12/zinoman-and-kulik. You'll need to download the review essay, but comes from an academic publication published by one of the leading universities in the U.S. Intothatdarkness 16:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Intothatdarkness: If this is the only one you can find, then this essay itself will be a minority view, as it is not widely supported by other scholars, in contrast with numerous RS that share Turse's view. Moreover, this essay just challenges the methods that Turse used to build up his work; it doesn't particularly discredit the info given by Turse about Operation Speedy Express. Dino nam (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Not the only one I could find, but rather a very high quality critique of his methods by scholars writing for a journal published by a university with a liberal track record AND a world-renowned Southeast Asia studies program. In academia, you discredit a researcher by attacking his methods. The fact that Turse never responded to their critique speaks volumes. Intothatdarkness 17:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

No need for boosterism. At least one of the authors is now a conservative and universities put out approximately 100 tons of print per year. That someone has criticized Turse is something that needs to be known, but it's nothing special. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

No boosterism. And if we're talking RS stuff, a peer-reviewed journal from a major university should carry more weight than a news magazine. Stating the school's credentials is helpful when evaluating the caliber of the source. Intothatdarkness 17:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that essay is an RS, I don't deny. However it still lacks basis to be called a majority view, and moreover, it has little relevance to Operation Speedy Express. Another thing I must add is Kill Anything That Moves is a book; the things Turse writes in the magazine are just part of it. And his info about Operation Speedy Express particularly has been accepted by most other scholars in their books, so I think they do have a counter value. Dino nam (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It clearly does have a "counter value" to some of Turse's claims (as I'm sure you'd agree). But before we descend completely playing into a game of broken telephone and talking in wiki-gibberish, can we at least summarize exactly which one of Turse's claims is the minority view? For starters "“atrocities were committed by members of every infantry, cavalry, and airborne division, and every separate brigade that deployed without the rest of its division—that is, every major army unit in Vietnam” may well be a minority position that is insufficiently grounded in evidence. But the weaker claim that that the killings of civilians by US forces were massive and systemic is miles away from being rebutted, no matter how nice it would be to think otherwise . Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Guccisamsclub "the weaker claim that that the killings of civilians by US forces were massive and systemic is miles away from being rebutted" is simply incorrect. There are very few WP:RS that say any such thing, if there are please provide them. Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't mean to say that few Vietnamese civilians were killed by the US military. So I guess your point is that few operations had the maximization of civilian casualties as their objective. Forces which explicitly set out to kill as many civilians as possible as an end in itself are exceedingly rare, with the most notable case being Nazi Germany. The definition of atrocities and war crimes is much broader than that, as you well know, given that you have have agreed with defining the KR's siege/attack on Phnom Penh as an atrocity. Guccisamsclub (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Guccisamsclub I am saying that few Vietnamese civilians were deliberately killed by US forces. There was no "massive and systemic" killing other than isolated examples such as My Lai. There were obviously civilian casualties in free-fire zones which were deemed to be free of civilians and in situations where the Vietcong or PAVN deliberately sheltered among civilians but unless you can provide some WP:RS providing clear evidence (rather than isolated opinions, innuendo and assumptions) of the "massive and systemic" killing of civilians by US forces this is another fringe/North Vietnamese propaganda POV similar to the US having invaded Vietnam. Mztourist (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion is pointless, but I can't resist... I wonder what would have happened if the US lacked this supposed concern for the lives of civilians. I suppose they could have nuked Hanoi and the rest of the country, though that would have been insane for strategic reasons having nothing to do with any humanitarian concerns. Had they done so, I'm sure some people today would be telling us that it was a necessity move that actually saved lives by shortening the war (like Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Anyway, sorry for soapboxing, but it was irresistible. Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with User:Guccisamsclub. If the essay was cited in another article e.g. an article about Nick Turse or one about his book, then it's something that need serious consideration (although I still retain that this is hardly a majority view). However, it's irrelevant to Operation Speedy Express, which is rarely mentioned in the essay itself. The omission of mention about the operation has already been an RS to prove its irrelevance. Dino nam (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

No, Turse is the minority view because no other WP:RS have been provided that support his findings other than repeats of the AP and Newsweek stories which are themselves full of innuendo and assumptions. Mztourist (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It's quite unhappy to repeat something again and again, but as you did that, I suppose to do it once more (and last time):

• If you claim it's a minority view, provide RS to support your so-called "majority view".
• Imagine you're in a room with 100 people. Only one of them talks to you about astronomy, and he says that the Earth is spherical. 99 others are busy with eating or doing stuff with smartphones, so they have no time to talk to you two a word. Because no other comments "have been provided that support his findings", should you call "the Earth is spherical" is a minority theory, huh?

P/s: First you say that WP:UNDUE is demonstrated through the imbalance between the section about Allied war crimes and that about Communist war crimes. Now you start to say that WP:UNDUE is demonstrated through that Turse's view is a minority one and nobody supports it. And those two has demonstrated that you're having problems with understanding the regulation itself. A sincere advice: read it carefully again. Dino nam (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Wrong again Dino nam. Firstly your expansion of Allied War Crimes makes that section WP:UNDUE and Secondly one of your key sources, Turse is a questionable WP:RS as Intothat has pointed out above, while the AP and Newsweek stories are full of innuendo and assumptions.Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I've already expected that you would come up with the "firstly" and "secondly" idea; btw, it hasn't lost its humor. Dino nam (talk) 07:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

UK

Did the British SAS serve in Vietnam? (217.35.237.126 (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC))

there are various sources (which may not be WP:RS) that a small number of UK SAS were temporarily transferred to the Australian and New Zealand SAS and served in Vietnam. Mztourist (talk) 11:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I have long opined that the UK and several other countries, including Canada, now listed in the article as "supporters" of South Vietnam and the United states were not supporters, I'd like to remove them from the list. Smallchief (talk 11:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Smallchief as you know, I do not agree with you on this point, but you are welcome to raise it separately. I am simply responding her to the question of SAS involvement. Mztourist (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Just putting my two cents into the mix. Smallchief (talk 11:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

If Harold Wilson did send the SAS to Vietnam then the UK must be listed as a supporter of South Vietnam. (217.35.237.126 (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC))

Well in that case you might even have to argue that the UK should be listed as a combatant (depending on what the SAS was doing). But that would be vastly undue. Knowing nothing about the UK's involvement, I'd propose a hypothetical scenario: imagine they sent a dozen SAS personnel down there. Would that be in any way notable? The infobox should convey the major aspects of a given topic, not trivia. WP:DUE is especially important in the infobox—but it seems that the info-box is the only place where this policy and other policies are routinely ignored. Guccisamsclub (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Various sources online say that a small unattached party of British Special Forces operators served with the joint Australian-American Mekong Delta river reinforce. SAS personnel were dispatched to serve alongside the 82nd and 101st Airborne and the Australian and New Zealand SASs, and Royal Marine Commandos and SBS boatmen served with the US Navy Marines. (217.35.237.126 (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC))

There is an interesting video by Robert Fleming posted on National Army Museum website here which might provide some background at least. That said I'd say that we need far stronger sourcing if we were to consider including anything about it, and even then it would need to be minimal not to afford it undue weight etc. Anotherclown (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

At the time Britain was involved in the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation. A 1964 BBC documentary here: [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.150 (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2016

Under the Kennedy section, add after ...address that Kennedy's inaugural address was ghost written by Theodore Sorenson Hankbeek (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source for the changes to be made. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 17:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC).

A brilliant long-term false-flag strategic plan

The following phrase: "The war spread to Laos and Cambodia, where communists organized the Pathet Lao and the Khmer Serei" might be incorrect. According to the Wikipedia, the last mentioned, Khmer Serei was an:

anti-communist and anti-monarchist guerrilla force.

If so, then Cambodian communists organized an anti-communist, self-destructive guerrilla force. What for? 93.73.36.17 (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

What changes are you suggesting to the article? By the way Wikipedia is not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Minor, neutral: "where the local resistance forces soon emerged, the Pathet Lao and the Khmer Serei respectively," without attributing the fact of their establishment to the communists. 93.73.36.17 (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You need as RS for this, but yes if it can be shown the Khmer Serei were not communists then we need to alter the article.Slatersteven (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the articles on Khmer Serei and Son Ngoc Thanh make it clear that the group was opposed to communism (though perhaps more anti-Sihanouk than anything), with the main reference to that fact being Ben Kiernan's book How Pol Pot Came to Power: Colonialism, Nationalism, and Communism in Cambodia, 1930-1975. There's also a good article on the group's history at JSTOR, though it requires a subscription. clpo13_(talk) 20:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Gulf of Tonkin incident was a false flag, U.S. government lie for the military economy

Just like President Bush lied about WMD to get the U.S. into a war against Iraq,the war in Vietnam was no different.
″The first third of the book essentially ends with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which our government portrayed as an unprovoked attack by the North Vietnam government on one of our ships, even though the administration knew that it was anything but unprovoked. President Johnson and McNamara used that incident to get Congress to pass legislation that they then took to give them cart blanche to convert the war to an American war and to send so many of our men to fight and die in the jungles of Vietnam.″-1-
Researchist (talk) 12:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
There is no shortage of information on this topic.

What edit are you suggesting?Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

References

War was extended:

It turns out Nixon helped prolong the war.

" Now, for the first time, the whole story can be told. It begins in the summer of 1968. Nixon feared a breakthrough at the Paris Peace talks designed to find a negotiated settlement to the Vietnam war, and he knew this would derail his campaign. rest Here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21768668

• http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2013/03/nixon-prolonged-vietnam-war-for-political-gain-and-johnson-knew-about-it-newly-unclassified-tapes-suggest/

• http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8d1_1363701663

For first time ? this has been common knowledge for decades ! Where you been bunky ? This is all part of the Kissinger Legacy, a gift from a really nice man 116.231.75.122 (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2016

Date of the end of the Vietnam war is wrong. The war ended on May 7. 1975 by presidential order of Ford. The reason for this is the last combat ships of South Vietnam were being escorted to Subic bay NAval base in the P.I islands. The USS Kirk escorted 34 ships in a combat evacuation of South Vietnam Navy and military units. Before they were allowed to enter the base they had to be surrendered to the USS kirk and re-flagged as United States Ships. On May 7, 1975 they completed the re flagging and on that date South Vietnam no longer existed . How do I know this ? I was on the USS Kirk. Get it right! 50.102.141.170 (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting story and perhaps it should be repeated -- with appropriate sourcing -- in one or another Wikipedia article. However, the US had not been a direct participant in the war since 1973. As the war after 1973 was between North and South Vietnam, the date that South Vietnam as a country ceased to exist for all practical purposes -- April 30, 1975 -- seems the better date. Smallchief (talk

Wrong Again! Until President Ford declared the Vietnam war over US forces were in the South still evacuating High level South Vietnam Officers and politicians who would of been killed on sight if captured. Why do you think Ford waited a week before he declared the war over. It was to safely get out the South Vietnam Navy to Subic bay and finish the evacuation. The last marine from the Embassy is just that the embassy evacuation not the evacuation of the whole country. The whole country was being evacuated up to May 7, 1975 by US forces. As for sources type in SOuth Vietnam navy evacuation escorted by the USS Kirk it all documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.141.170 (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: every source I've ever read, for example: [6], gives 30 Apr 75 as the "official" end date of the Vietnam war. As for Ford, he declared the war ended on 23 Apr 75 at Tulane when he spoke in a speech, "...the Vietnam War is finished as far as America is concerned". You are not the first to dispute the end date, and just as in the case of when the war actually started, all disputes are valid. Sources – reliable sources – are what Wikipedia uses to handle this type of circumstance, and as I noted, reliable sources have settled upon the last day of April as the end of the war. As a fellow veteran who knows how much veterans just L-O-V-E to hear this: Thank you for your service! (heh)  Paine  ^u/c 23:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Not just me. The VFW and the American legion both say May 7,1975 is the end of the Vietnam War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.141.170 (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

As the Mayaguez Incident is regarded as being the last military action of the Vietnam War, 15 May 1975 is arguably the end date, however almost all WP:RS I've ever read refer to 30 April 1975 i.e. the Fall of Saigon as being the end of the war. 50.102.141.170 do you have any WP:RS that shows that "US forces were in the South still evacuating High level South Vietnam Officers and politicians" after 30 April, because I've never seen anything that says that. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

If we looked at the Vietnam War more broadly (and accurately) we would call it the "Indochina War." Considering the war in that wider context, one might also select December 2, 1975 as the end of the war as that was the day that the communist Pathet Lao established their government in Laos -- thus completing their trifecta of conquering all three Indochinese countries which had been supported by the United States. However, I'm content with citing April 30, 1975 as the official end of the Vietnam War. That date saw the end of the US presence in Vietnam and the demise of South Vietnam as a separate country.Smallchief (talk 10:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Smallchief you are absolutely right that the conflict should properly be called the Second Indochina War (the French one being the first), but the Vietnam War is the name that has stuck and which Wikipedia should use. In relation to the end date, various different arguments can be advanced for dates other than 30 April 1975, but all WP:RS agree that that was the end, the Fall of Saigon being the grand finale and subsequent events just being the final fallout. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Smallchief (talk 09:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Since this question has been raised, I searched the web and found two interesting pages. The first is at the Veterans Today website that cites a congressional document, The Veterans’ Benefits Improvement Act of 1996, which states in section 505 that for the purpose of the definition of Vietnam Era Veterans, the end date of the war is indeed May 7, 1975. Is this enough to change the end date in this article? Please help, because I'm not sure that I was correct to deny this edit request.  Paine  ^u/c 04:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It would be extremely US-centric to accept a date set by the US congress for the narrow purpose of determining what government benefits a soldier might receive for his service in or near Vietnam. Five American Presidents, Republican and Democratic, asserted that the US was in the Vietnam War only to assist South Vietnam -- that the war was between South and North Vietnam. Thus, the date the Vietnam War ended was the day that the South Vietnamese government ceased to exist: April 30, 1975. The vast majority of sources accept that date. Smallchief (talk 10:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Smallchief, that would be an entirely US-centric position to adopt and is not supported by numerous WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I knew something was not right about my reasoning, but couldn't quite put my finger on it. Thank you Mztourist and Smallchief for your help on this!  Paine  ^u/c 03:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Umm, of course it is a US-centric position. It was a US war ! US against the Viet Minh. All this crap about Korea Australia Thailand participation as "allies" is as stupid as the Iraq "allies" propaganda. There are no allies. Other countries sent token numbers of soldiers to give the US imperialists the facade of "the Free and Independent West opposing Communism" but without the US ? None of those countries would have sent even a dog-catcher to Vietnam. They only sent token soldiers because otherwise the US would have spanked them in the pocketbook. Someone should wake up around here and face the Truth. 116.231.75.122 (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The war was not over until May 7,1975. I should know I was there during the evacuation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.141.170 (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

50.102.141.170 see the discussion above, the end of the war was 30 April 1975. While personal accounts are not WP:RS, where exactly were you on 7 May 1975 to claim that the evacuation was still ongoing? Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

On the USS Kirk cant you read?

As Smallchief has pointed out above 30 April 1975 is the generally accepted date. Your personal recollection of reflagging of South Vietnamese ships is not WP:RS for an alternative date. Mztourist (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Funny, buncha kids who weren't even a sparkle in their dad's eyes blabbing away pompously about Vietnam. But it was never a war. The US never declared war. Lots of constitutional questions involved here that were never really answered, so the president has continued to wage war illegally ever since. No, not tinfoil helmet talk, I have references, To Chain the Dogs of War, Francis Dunham Wormuth, among others.

Since it was never a war, how could there be an official end date for something that never existed ?

btw, this article is not very good. Too much "communist" this, "communist" that. Someone should read Bernard Fall.116.231.75.122 (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

122mm rockets are not "gunfire"

In the "Women in Vietnam War" section it states that Sharon Ann Lane was killed by enemy "gunfire". She was not. She was killed by a barrage of 122mm rockets launched by the Viet Cong. Rockets are not guns. Also, she did not work 12 hour shifts because they were "short staffed". In Vietnam EVERYBODY worked 12 hours a day, six days a week. Also, Sharon was the ONLY American military woman killed in combat in Vietnam, and I think this should be mentioned. Also, the article states that at the beginning of the Vietnam War it was thought that women had no place in the military. This is outrageous! Women served in WWII and Korea and were an integral part of the military. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you have sources for this?Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

American women who died in combat.

Journalists

Georgette "Dickey" Chappelle

Killed by a mine on patrol with Marines outside Chu Lai, November 4, 1965.

Phillipa Schuyler

Killed in a firefight, Da Nang, May 9, 1966.

    That's some good research.  You should also mention the many women who were killed when the C5A cargo plane they were on evacuating a whole lot of war orphans crashed (Operation Babylift).  But Sharon Ann Lane remains the only female member of the American MILITARY who died in combat.  As such she received the Purple Heart, Bronze Star with Combat "V" and the highest award of the South Vietnamese, the Military Medal, equivalent to our Medal of Honor.

Missionaries

Carolyn Griswald

Killed in a raid on the leprosarium in Ban Me Thuot during Tet 1968.

Janie A. Makil

Shot in an ambush, Dalat, March 4, 1963. Janie was five months old.

Ruth Thompson

Killed in a raid on the leprosarium in Ban Me Thuot, February 1, 1968.

Ruth Wilting

Killed in a raid on the leprosarium in Ban Me Thuot, February 1, 1968.

    ***See above paragraph.   50.202.81.2 (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
   --Here's the particular public law that lifted the 2% maximum enlistment for women and allowed them also to become admirals and generals:  Public Law 90-l30, passed in 1967 during the Vietnam War, so the first female generals were during the Vietnam War in 1970.  So I hardly think women were "oppressed" during the Vietnam War, as the article states. The article needs to be re-written. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)````

OK name one female general who had a command position during in the Vietnam WAR?Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

 --On June 11, 1970 President Nixon promoted Anna Mae Hays to Brigadier General, she was Chief  of the Army Nurse Corps; on the same day Nixon Promoted Elizabeth Paschel Hoisington to Brigadier General, she was Director of the Women's Army Corps.  These were the first two women to become generals.  50.202.81.2 (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

So they did not have combat commands, in t e war zone and commanded female units. Sorry not sure this disproves the idea that women did not enjoy equal rights in the US army during Vietnam.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• • • • All military commands can serve in combat. For instance General Elizabeth Hoisington served in France after D-Day and received the Bronze Star and French Croix de Guerre, and these are war medals. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Which is irrelevant, did they command troops in combat? If not then they had "administrative" command only. In essence this was the start of a long road to equality, to paraphrase Churchill, this was not then end of the beginning, but the beginning of the start. Even today women do not enjoy full equality in the military.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

However what we think is unimportant, do you have any RS saying that women were not oppressed during the war.?Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

   I think you're the victim of the "Feminist False Narrative".  Remember, feminism is communism, it's Cultural Marxism using Critical Theory.  And communists lie.  So feminists lie.  I was in the Vietnam War and women were treated very well, we were governed by the UCMJ.  The military was only 2% women, so they were rare and well treated and protected.  Nowadays, with, I think, 14% of the Army being female, there's all kinds of problems.  Women getting pregnant on aircraft carriers and having to leave ship, drill instructors raping women, etc.  But I don't recall anything like that happening in the 1960's. RS on this I'd have to look around a bit, since it was never a matter for concern in those days.50.202.81.2 (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Well when you have the sources we can discus how to include them.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• • Here's something: General Dwight Eisenhower never served in combat, he has no combat medals. So I guess he falls into the same "administrative" group as female Generals Hoisington and Hays. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.202.81.2 (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • And here's something: I was in the states at a hospital because of a war injury and the head nurse on the ward was a snotty, pushy obnoxious 2nd Lt. that everybody hated. Rather than laud women in the military as perfect angels I think we should look at it realistically, they are just humans and some of them were really ill mannered. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 11:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You have a source for it include it, as to IKe, he commanded combat troops.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• • • I just ran across this interesting tidbit that you've been looking for: Capt. Linda Bray, US Army, was the first woman to lead American troops in combat. It was Panama, Operation Just Cause, in 1989. She captured a dog kennel. True fact! 50.202.81.2 (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Total Army involved from Vietnam War are wrong

The number of army from total China, North Vietnam and Vietcong are only 500,000 but total loss 1,100,000. It must be something wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.137.152.228 (talk) 07:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Source please?Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not a mistake, but it can be confusing. The estimates of soldiers fighting in South Vietnam is calculated at a point in time, e.g. 1968. The casualty estimates cover combat losses over 20 years. Example: 2.5 million US soldiers served in Vietnam; but the maximum number of US soldiers in Vietnam at one time was 500,000 plus. Of those 2.5 million, 58,000 were killed. The table lists maximum number of US soldiers in country; but US casualties for the whole 20 years we were engaged in Vietnam.Smallchief (talk 10:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• • Thanks for jumping in. I should point out that with TDY's the total amount of troops in Vietnam at its highest point was around 750,000. Also, if you include offshore Navy and troops in Thailand the number of Vietnam vets jumps to 3.5 million. Then there's a certain amount of guys who went to Vietnam on special missions where no orders were cut, so they're not annotated as Vietnam vets on the record. I went to Vietnam on SECRET orders and the military still won't acknowledge that I was there, even though they issued me the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry and Vietnam Service Medal. So I'm probably not listed, and there's no way to find out. Also, of the 58,000 Americans who were killed, 10,000 were accidents and 25,000 were the result of mines and booby traps. So the North only killed 25,000 Americans in actual combat. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get your figure of 750,000 from. Peak US strength on the ground in Vietnam was 543,000 in April 1969. Obviously if you count other forces in theatre who were also engaged in the war, Thailand, Gulf of Tonkin, Subic, Guam etc. that takes the figure much higher.Mztourist (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• • The figures you quoted are PCS (Permanent Change of Station) personnel--that's your 543,000 men. But we sent tons of guys to Vietnam on TDY (Temporary Duty) and this causes the numbers to jump up considerably. In a war you move men in a hurry to wherever they're needed. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not supported by any WP:RS I know of. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• • Westmoreland didn't want the public to know the actual number of troops in Vietnam was 750,000 which was well beyond the limit. It was not highly published as I recall. A TDY tour was a "half tour" so the military could add another "half tour" into your overseas duty. If we stayed longer than 60 days TDY they'd take those days off your overseas duty so we had to boogie out of Vietnam after 54 days, so as not to exceed the 60. Then they'd send us to another base in SEA. We went TDY ALL OVER SEA. I'm sure Westmoreland historians have probably read how Westmoreland bolstered troop strength by TDY's in his biographies, so jump in guys. I know that in June 1965, 59% of the Air Force in Thailand were TDY and 30% in South Vietnam were TDY. The USA didn't send its first PCS squadrons to Vietnam until 1965. One of my squadrons, early on in the war in 1965, flew 1500 missions TDY for five months out of Takhli and picked up two Combat "V's" and lost 10 of its 18 aircraft as I recall but wasn't awarded the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry because it was there on secret orders so as not to upset the political regime. So it was never there even though it became the most experienced squadron in the USAF. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC) 50.202.81.2 (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually, the more I look into this TDY business the more I think the article needs a section on TDY's in Vietnam, since they constituted an additional 250,000 military. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 07:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You haven't offered a single WP:RS to support any of this, so unless you do any section you propose will be quickly deleted. Which "One of my squadrons, early on in the war in 1965, flew 1500 missions TDY for five months out of Takhli"? Mztourist (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• • Here's something: "Almost 750,000 U.S. troops were present in the East Asia and Pacific Theater at the height of the Vietnam War". --That's @ www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/maps 50.202.81.2 (talk) 08:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Here's some more: read pages 146 & 147 of Jacob Staaveren's "Gradual Failure: the Air War Over North Vietnam 1965-1966", in which he describes in detail the TDY situation and recounts that the first PCS squadron wasn't until 1965. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • • And I was referring to the 563rd TFS flying F-105's. They were disbanded in 1972 and I was transferred to the 561st TFS, a Wild Weasel Squadron: we sent over 12 planes and 4 of them got shot down, one of them was the last F-105 shot down in the Vietnam War. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 08:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

In which theater was Hawaii? How about Japan or South Korea?Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• • • Here's something: in "Trade and Security: the United States and East Asia, 1961-1969" by Charles M. Dobbs, on page 53 it states "...to a peak of 750,000 Americans on the ground in South Vietnam, on air bases in surroundimg countries or at sea in the region..." 50.202.81.2 (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

   I should point out that 80% of US Air Force strikes in North Vietnam came from Thailand, according to the Wiki article "US Air Force in Thailand".  50.202.81.2 (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• • I was reading some C-130 sites and apparently ALL C-130's in Vietnam were TDY except for the rescue C-130's. President Johnson was getting flak from Congress about the high number of troops in Vietnam so he used TDY troops. A lot of guys who pulled missions in Vietnam TDY had no record of it so they had to use their travel vouchers to prove they were in Vietnam. So TDY troops were used on purpose to cover up the real number of troops in Vietnam. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

50.202.81.2 You said above "total amount of troops in Vietnam at its highest point was around 750,000", however the sources you are quoting state "Almost 750,000 U.S. troops were present in the East Asia and Pacific Theater at the height of the Vietnam War" and "...to a peak of 750,000 Americans on the ground in South Vietnam, on air bases in surroundimg countries or at sea in the region..." both sources are referring to US forces in the Southeast Asia theatre, not on the ground in Vietnam - big difference. Mztourist (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• • I see what you're saying, but these troops pulled TDY's into Vietnam, so that would make them part of the 750,000 "boots on the ground". For example, guys would go from my Wing on Okinawa to Vietnam, come back for two days, then go back to Vietnam at another base. So they were never counted as PCS even though they were in Vietnam the majority of the time. Their PCS base was listed as their home base on Okinawa, not Vietnam. TDY's had to come from another place, obviously, and the TDY's were drawn from bases CLOSE to Vietnam. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

And you need an RS that says this, not your OR anecdotes.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The trouble with your reasoning is that you're proposing to initiate a never ending chain. If you count the AF personnel in Thailand and Okinawa and Hawaii as being included among the "total amount of troops in Vietnam" (your words), then why shouldn't we also count the people who worked in the Pentagon in Washington and any other military people in the US, Germany, or elsewhere who had anything to do with the war?

And if we're going to count everybody on the US side who was involved in on way or another in the Vietnam War, then we would also have to count everybody in North Vietnam who was involved to the war effort -- and that was virtually everybody in North Vietnam.

The simple, straight-forward and comprehensible way to count US military in Vietnam is to count the number of soldiers on the ground in the country. I'm pretty sure that any TDY's who weren't counted in the 543,000 max troop level of the US were few in number. Statistics were kept ad nauseum in Vietnam by the U.S. military, and I seem to recall (from my vantage point) that military personnel were actually moved out of Vietnam early to ensure that the ceiling on personnel was not exceeded by new arrivals. Smallchief (talk 14:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

 * I'm looking at my Secret TDY orders to  Vietnam with the 834th Air Division.  The Air Force refuses to acknowledge that I served with the 834th, even though I worked on their planes 12 hours a day, six days a week.  Everybody from the 374 TAW went TDY to Vietnam, we even had a CIA squadron, the 21st TAS, that would pull Top Secret missions in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia.  These orders were all classified.  But the 374th TAW rotated planes and men continuously in and out of Vietnam.  And that's an entire Wing whose individual members under classified orders  cannot be acknowledged to have been in Vietnam..  50.202.81.2 (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a concrete RS to support a specific change, anything else is pointless. (Hohum ^@) 00:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

To illustrate why, I am looking at my secret communique I just received form the 834th Air Division. saying that Smallchief never served in the USAF, now I cannot talk about this (and should not even have the document still as it is top secret.

This Smallchief is why we do not allow anything that cannot be independently verified, we can all claim to be Vietnam Veterans or Doctors, or Donald Trumps underpants. But that does not make it true, what makes if verifiable is RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Why are you addressing me? I never claimed to serve in the US Air Force - or the 834th. I am merely commenting on an unregistered editor making a claim that the statistics about the number of US troops in Vietnam are understated. I don't think they are -- and I don't know of an RS that says they are. Smallchief (talk 10:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake, the edit by the IP was poorly formatted and I did not pick up it was not you I should have addressed it to 50.202.81.2.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Closing discussion initiated by banned User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The UK should be listed as one of the belligerents as 2,000 British soldiers were allowed to volunteer for service in Vietnam from 1964. (JamesFenner (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)) The problem is they had to resign as I recall from the British forces, thus they did not serves as member of HM armed forces.Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC) I agree with Slatersteven, the UK was not officially a belligerent.Mztourist (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Harold Wilson sent soldiers to Vietnam: http://thevietnamwar.info/united-kingdom-involvement-vietnam-war/ (FarnuBak (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)) The blog you refer to states in the first line: "The U.K., in short, did not officially involve in the Vietnam War", so the UK was not a belligerent. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Wilson still sent soldiers. A small party served wearing Australian SAS uniforms. (FarnuBak (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)) Again the UK was not a belligerent, any more then the USA was during Ww2 in 19840.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC) The US sided with the British Empire from the very beginning of World War II, as it had during World War I. Even the Neutrality Patrol was massively biased in favour of the Royal Navy over the Kriegsmarine. (FarnuBak (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)) Yet is not regarded as a belligerent until December 1941, then we have the Falklands, are the US listed as a belligerent, they aided us.Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC) The US was officially at war with the Axis Powers when Lend-Lease began in March 1941. In the summer of 1941 the US invaded Iceland. (FarnuBak (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)) OK, but not in 1940. Same thing here, the UK was not an official combatant.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC) The UK was not a belligerent in this war. Can anyone explain why that crappy source is used? Beegill1D (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Harold Wilson sent soldiers to Vietnam in 1964. The UK was undeniably a belligerent. We only opened an embassy in South Vietnam and refused to recognise North Vietnam. Churchill said without support from the United States he would have been forced to accept Hitler's offers to end the war in May 1940. (FarnuBak (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)) Germany and Italy could have declared war on the United States in 1940 after the Destroyers for Bases Agreement. (2A00:23C4:638A:5000:25EF:A8EB:8963:F2C5 (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)) LBJ once pleaded with Harold Wilson for the UK to support us in Vietnam -- to send "a bagpipe band" to South Vietnam as a sign of support. The UK declined. Like our other NATO allies, the UK didn't go out of their way to offend us, but they certainly didn't support us in the Vietnam War. Canada and others should also be removed from the list of supporters.Smallchief (talk 12:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC) 2,000 British soldiers still served in Vietnam. (2A00:23C4:638A:5000:8424:11B8:9085:5ECA (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)) The fact that individual British soldiers fought in Vietnam doesnt mean that the UK was a combatant. I know of soldiers from Mexico, Bolivia, and Yugoslavia who served with the US army in Vietnam. Do you therefore believe that those countries were combatants in the Vietnam War?Smallchief (talk 12:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC) Mexico and Bolivia are US client states. A small unattached party of British Special Forces operators served with the joint Australian-American Mekong Delta river reinforce. SAS personnel were dispatched to serve alongside the 82nd and 101st Airborne and the Australian and New Zealand SASs, and Royal Marine Commandos and SBS boatmen served with the US Navy Marines. (2A00:23C4:638A:5000:8424:11B8:9085:5ECA (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)) rs FOR THIS PLEASE.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Definition of belligerent

belligerent bəˈlɪdʒ(ə)r(ə)nt

adjective

a nation or person engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law.

So do we use this, or another definition?Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Britain had entered the earlier Korean War because action there was sanctioned by the United Nations as a result of a UN Resolution. UK involvement in Vietnam OTOH was not authorised by the UN, and any UK involvement would therefore have been illegal under international law.

Britain's 1982 actions during the Falklands War however did not need UN support because as the Falkland Islands were British territory, Britain invoked the 'Self Defence' clause. The same applied to the earlier actions in the Malayan Emergency and what became the Brunei revolt and the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation.

British governments post-1945 were aware of how the ignoring of international law by Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, as well as less-than-enthusiastic support by others, had nullified the League of Nations and they were of the opinion that one couldn't very well expect the new emerging nations to respect the rule of international law as regulated by the UN if the more developed nations didn't. Thus no UN Resolution, no UK involvement in Vietnam. The other reason was US behaviour against Britain during the Suez Crisis.

UK and other foreign citizens resident in the US were liable for call up to US military forces. Thus some British citizens did fight in Vietnam, albeit as a normal part of the US forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.188 (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

US involvement was illegal

Closing discussion initiated by banned User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The lede should mention that US involvement in Vietnam was illegal under international law, as it violated Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. (81.159.6.40 (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)) True. The US presence in Vietnam was more accurately described as an invasion. (FarnuBak (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC))

USSR casualities in Vietnam war: 16 dead (Россия и СССР в войнах XX века. — М.: ОЛМА-ПРЕСС, 2001. — С. 526.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godallah1 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2017

Cite with bad format:

Needs closing before </ref> 85.250.134.218 (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Gulumeemee (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vietnam War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160802134052/http://www.americanwarlibrary.com/vietnam/vwatl.htm to http://www.americanwarlibrary.com/vietnam/vwatl.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110420044800/http://www.lib.washington.edu/southeastasia/vsg/elist_2007/Newly%20released%20documents%20on%20the%20land%20reform%20.html to http://www.lib.washington.edu/southeastasia/vsg/elist_2007/Newly

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

"... known in Vietnam as the Resistance War Against America..."

This should read "... known in North Vietnam as the Resistance War Against America..."

This was obviously not the way it was known in South Vietnam at the time.

alternatively it could read "... known today in Vietnam as the Resistance War Against America ..."

The sentence does not make it clear if it is talking about now, or when the war was being waged.

Contraverse (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Table broke the page format

Can someone please fix the table that is breaking the page format? I suggest simplsplitting it into two tables covering different time periods. When tables are too wide it forces the paged to appear too narrow and makes it unreadable on mobile devices. --71.235.188.9 (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I flipped the rows and columns in the "Military aid given to North Vietnam by the PRC" table to make in narrower in this edit. See if it's fixed now. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thumbs up! Thank you! Even the table looks better now.--71.235.188.9 (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a good thing you pointed this out. I agree the table is actually more useful as well actually readable. Comparing things in the same column is far easier than rows for any table; in this case, comparing Tanks to Phones for the same year (the old table format) is near pointless, but comparing Tanks for different years (new format) tells readers a lot.

In summary to anyone making tables: (1) Don't make tables too wide. (2) Arrange for columns to have useful comparisons. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Vietnam War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140124020810/http://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_wars.pdf to http://www1.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_wars.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110428210157/http://calldp.leavenworth.army.mil/eng_mr/txts/VOL47/00000006/art2.pdf to http://calldp.leavenworth.army.mil/eng_mr/txts/VOL47/00000006/art2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080605195117/http://www.commondreams.org/views/041700-106.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/views/041700-106.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080605195117/http://www.commondreams.org/views/041700-106.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/views/041700-106.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vietnam War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723163835/http://vietnam.vassar.edu/doc6.html to http://vietnam.vassar.edu/doc6.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161019162449/http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/free-fire-zones/ to http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/free-fire-zones/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/children-of-the-vietnam-war0131207347/?no-ist

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Lots of errors that will cause confusion.

There are a lot of times that the article juxtaposed Viet Minh (a man) with Viet Cong (a guerilla army). This is an unacceptable error, as it has definitely been a source of confusion for someone; and will continue to do so until corrected. Since you won't let me fix it, I'm asking you to do it. Fib0nacc11 (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Oops Nvm I'm the dummy :'(. Sorry! Sorry everyone! Fib0nacc11 (talk) 04:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent reverts

Signedzzz: I think the recent edit is definitely undue for the lead. Consensus is achieved by discussion, not voting or edit warring, which you have been warned of many times. I suggest the status quo be restored until then. Kiwifist (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I assume that you are referring to "bordering areas of Laos and Cambodia were used by North Vietnam as supply routes"? It is short and factual and so should stay in. regards Mztourist (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Whilst I agree it should be in the lead (it was after all why the war expanded into those regions) Kiwi is correct that you should not have added it back with out achieving consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Reducing the text of section on American nurses

As part of the objective of reducing this article to a more manageable size, I think the section on American nurses has a lot of detail that need not be in this article.....e.g. the nurses worked 12 hour days and suffered from exhaustion. (Who didn't?). Nor do we need to know in this article that they were "white" and "Catholic or Protestant" (who wasn't?) Likewise much of the verbiage could be deleted which treats women's involvement in the US military as new and controversial ( It wasn't.) Women had served as nurses in large numbers in previous wars -- and often near the front lines.

The contribution of women -- both on the communist and the non-communist side -- should be acknowledged in this article, but I don't think a sociological essay is needed. Smallchief (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed Mztourist (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - maybe put the text in its own article. --Sus scrofa (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Agreed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The American view of the Vietnam War

There is very little about the other side. For example, Le Duan's name is only mentioned once, and nothing about his role in prolonging the war. As to the women section, it was the North that used lots of women, for example to maintain and drive trucks on the Ho Chi Min trail. US women were incidental to the war -- a few nurses, secretaries and go-go girls.

The problem is sources. We can only write about what we are aware of.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

North Vietnam and South vietnam casualties inaccurate

The casualties in the conflict summary box are inaccurate and not even close to the accepted numbers, https://www.britannica.com/event/Vietnam-War 172.97.225.169 (talk) 07:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

the Infobox provides ranges from across multiple WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2018

the links lead to a spam Facebook page, they should be fixed. The link list of vietnam war casualties as well as missing soldiers, possibly others. 50.203.165.214 (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. It is not clear which links you are referring to. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed the link to a website called "gisearch" in the external links section, seems to be what IP was writing about.Sus scrofa (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2018

The war is considered a humiliation for the United States.

I feel this line shouldn't exist in this article. It seems very opinionated and biased. It should have an explaination on why the war would be considered war a humiliation. It could be argued that it wasn't a humiliation because of the United States' Containment policies. Drogge (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The war is indeed considered a humiliation for the United States, it's not only an opinion held by scholars and historians alike, but also one held by the administration. " Marine Lieutenant Philip Caputo recalled, in his book Rumors of War: "when we marched into the rice paddies [in 65] we carried, along with our packs and rifles, the implicit conviction that the Viet Cong would be quickly beaten." Johnson himself called Vietnam "a raggedy-ass fourth-rate country." It seemed hard to believe a nation of people living, in rural areas at least, in grass huts, could defeat the world's most technologically advanced society."

Also, "On April 30, 1975, a Communist tank crashed through the gates of Independence Palace in the southern capital of Saigon, a dramatic and triumphant conclusion to a 30-year-long Vietnamese struggle to achieve national independence and reunification. The blood-soaked American effort to construct a permanent non-Communist nation called South Vietnam ended in humiliating defeat.".

The Pentagon Papers as published by the New York Times (Bantam Books, New York, pp449-54) notes that the administration stated "Once we suffer large casualties, we will have started a well-nigh irreversible process. Our involvement will be so great that we cannot - without national humiliation - stop short of achieving our complete objectives. Of the two possibilities I think humiliation would be more likely than the achievement of our objectives - even after we have paid terrible costs..."Americatcp (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

So should I just leave it how it is? I feel the statement could be better phrased as "According to most high-ranking U.S officials, the war could be classified as a humiliation to the United States." That way, a neutral bias is achieved. Drogge (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I would leave as-is. No one seriously thinks Vietnam was even remotely anything short of catastrophic failure, so many servicemen died for little to zero gain, and American influence on the world stage was diminished.Americatcp (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. feminist (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

References