Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 3
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The article should identify points of view. The talk page should not be a battleground between contributors trying to prove one or another POV to be true.
- Why is "proxy war" in quotes? I don't think the person who did it was intending to be ironic as the definition of proxy war was linked, and they seem to realy be saying that it is a proxy war. This appears to be sloppy usage. Even if intended, irony is out of place in an international encyclopedia as it is easilly misunderstood.
- First image in the article has a caption that says "Vietnamese village after an attack" but the file name is Burning_Viet_Cong_base_camp.jpg. Which is it, a village or VC base camp? Who set it on fire? Attackers or retreating defendrers to deny the asset to the enemy, Was it an abandoned position that was burned to prevent it from being reoccupied? Most likely it was the person who named the file who was most familure with what it represents.
- Kim Phuc caption: "ARVN napalm attack on villages suspected of harboring NLF fighters in June 1972". "Suspected of harboring" implies a planned attack. Wasn't this a hot battle with troops from both sides engaged in combat in Trang Bang (singular village not plural). Wasn't the group of villagers fleeing the VC attack mistaken for soldiers by an VNAF (not ARVN) pilot and engaged? No one suspected Trang Bang of harboring the VC; the VC were attacking ARVN lines through the village. This caption seems wrong on every single point.
- I'm not going to edit but someone with more practice writing NPOV should look into this and correct. 12.10.223.247 16:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Shouldn't it be mentioned that the Gulf of Tonkin incident probably never occured? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.42.9.102 (talk • contribs)
- The Wikipedia article on the Gulf of Tonkin Incident is indeed very revealing. However, stating that it "probably never occured [sic]" is misleading. From that article, it seems that there is agreement that the attack on 2 August did occur, but that the "attack" on 4 August was merely excited young sailors firing at shadows. Any way you look at it, though, I think that the incident was a flimsy excuse for getting involved. --Habap 22:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
It was the view of the North that its military campaign was justified on the grounds that it was opposing Western colonialism. Neither the article nor this talk page need be concerned with whether this POV was correct.
I regard attempts to draw other contributors into arguments about the rightness or wrongness of Communist or anti-Communist POV, as "disruptive" - in the sense of, it is against policy to disrupt Wikipedia. Do not disrupt the workings of Wikipedia, or I will block your account (users) or request de-opping (admins). Uncle Ed 18:00, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
- I think thats WP:NOT and WP:Civility thats at stake, not NPOV (for talk pages anyway). --Tznkai 18:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- I have tried to get at this before with Stevertigo; the polemical arguments are (mostly) irrelevant and not conducive for the ostensible purposes of either this page or the site in general. It appears he has backed down from what earlier seemed to be rather bombastic threats of assertion regarding a "human rights perspective" being pro-North and a barrage of "-isms" to objections. Regardless threats to block in this context are premature, and de-opping is in this case relevant only to one user over secondary issues which everyone here is already aware of. --TJive 18:13, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with the general tenor of Ed's message. In this case, however, systemic pro-U.S. bias means an automatic deference to U.S.-formed opinions and concepts regarding the war. These are naturally detached from the facts about how the war actually came to be, how it was claimed to be representative of human interest, and how its prosecution violated every single principle of man since the Golden Rule. Given that the Golden Rule and related notions supercede the local contexts of U.S. law and U.S. interpretation of history, its fair to define the conflict as it is most universally understood —as an abuse of power, based in a fear (rational or irrational) of competition in hegemony. How is that anything but NPOV? In fact the U.S. POV, which has been the default dominant view, is based in a value judgement (ie. POV) towards communist hegemony as being worse than capitalist hegemony. Because, as the record shows, that was not at all true in the Vietnam War context, the contradiction between the POV value judgement and the facts, as we know them now, must be addressed. Addressing the nature of early U.S. ambivalence toward later hardline policy is, I agree, a central thread --from the political context. But as the war is universally regarded as a "tragedy," its important to note what that term means in this context and not simply continue to treat it like an elephant. That said, I am quite happy with the work we've done so far on the intro, and hope to find consensus with you all regarding how to qualify relevant passages with footnotes related to the above issues.-St|eve 20:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- It was a tragedy for the innocent conscripts the US sent to fight the war and for the vietnamese because the American's didn't win, as amply demonstrated by the aftermath of the war. The communist regime is the type of government that gives colonialism a good name.--Silverback 18:57, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
- IIRC - the Vietnamese did win--the majority of them, anyway --i.e. the ones who (for whatever reasons) felt better represented by the North than the South, and fought both the South government and the U.S. in the South. Now, if the Southern government couldnt even gain or maintain the support of its own people and relied on U.S. force to bomb the opposition into submission, I would call that a failure, not a tragedy. The tragedy, as I define it was in using force to cause perhaps 60 Vietnamese deaths for every American death. That's a fairly agreeable way of defining "tragedy." -St|eve 01:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yes part of the failure was losing the propaganda and terrorism war for the hearts and minds of the people, and that war was probably the failure to confront marxism in the European universities that were so influential among world-wide third world intellectuals. Freedom was defended in largely apologetic instead of positive terms until the advent and von Hayek and Rand. It took another generation before their influence was filtered into the universities. Thus a coercive European ideology was imposed upon the Vietnamese that had no moral qualms about using coercion, deception and terrorism.--Silverback 08:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- IIRC - the Vietnamese did win--the majority of them, anyway --i.e. the ones who (for whatever reasons) felt better represented by the North than the South, and fought both the South government and the U.S. in the South. Now, if the Southern government couldnt even gain or maintain the support of its own people and relied on U.S. force to bomb the opposition into submission, I would call that a failure, not a tragedy. The tragedy, as I define it was in using force to cause perhaps 60 Vietnamese deaths for every American death. That's a fairly agreeable way of defining "tragedy." -St|eve 01:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- It was a tragedy for the innocent conscripts the US sent to fight the war and for the vietnamese because the American's didn't win, as amply demonstrated by the aftermath of the war. The communist regime is the type of government that gives colonialism a good name.--Silverback 18:57, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with the general tenor of Ed's message. In this case, however, systemic pro-U.S. bias means an automatic deference to U.S.-formed opinions and concepts regarding the war. These are naturally detached from the facts about how the war actually came to be, how it was claimed to be representative of human interest, and how its prosecution violated every single principle of man since the Golden Rule. Given that the Golden Rule and related notions supercede the local contexts of U.S. law and U.S. interpretation of history, its fair to define the conflict as it is most universally understood —as an abuse of power, based in a fear (rational or irrational) of competition in hegemony. How is that anything but NPOV? In fact the U.S. POV, which has been the default dominant view, is based in a value judgement (ie. POV) towards communist hegemony as being worse than capitalist hegemony. Because, as the record shows, that was not at all true in the Vietnam War context, the contradiction between the POV value judgement and the facts, as we know them now, must be addressed. Addressing the nature of early U.S. ambivalence toward later hardline policy is, I agree, a central thread --from the political context. But as the war is universally regarded as a "tragedy," its important to note what that term means in this context and not simply continue to treat it like an elephant. That said, I am quite happy with the work we've done so far on the intro, and hope to find consensus with you all regarding how to qualify relevant passages with footnotes related to the above issues.-St|eve 20:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- I have tried to get at this before with Stevertigo; the polemical arguments are (mostly) irrelevant and not conducive for the ostensible purposes of either this page or the site in general. It appears he has backed down from what earlier seemed to be rather bombastic threats of assertion regarding a "human rights perspective" being pro-North and a barrage of "-isms" to objections. Regardless threats to block in this context are premature, and de-opping is in this case relevant only to one user over secondary issues which everyone here is already aware of. --TJive 18:13, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
- "Propaganda and terrorism war for the hearts and minds of the people" - hearts and minds needs to be in "scare quotes" - as it was propaganda, and was never intended to be a serious campaign. "Propaganda and terrorism" are accurate, but most U.S. propaganda was aimed at America, not at SEA —important distinction. "Failure to confront Marxism" has lots of problems. If by confrontation, you mean engagement, dialogue, and idea exchange rather than fear and scapegoating, then yes that's fair. "Thus a coercive European ideology was imposed upon the Vietnamese that had no moral qualms about using coercion, deception and terrorism." This is about as accurate as anything others have written here, though the claim that this was due to sophical splits is a bit overstated. Anything under the category of ideology is low in importance compared to other things — ultimately the main consideration with ideology is that any differences were exacerbated by the normal cultural and language barriers which existed at that time. Where any cultural divides exists, a political split will also exist. von Hayek and Rand - a bit overstated. Bakunin was around sixty years earlier, and likewise emphasised freedom concepts over state control concepts. His lack of resonance might just as well be attributed to language and book distribution issues than the popularity of his ideas. The cultural alliance of U.S. England could have been attributed as much to language, military history, and religious convergences as it could to economic ideology. The U.S. wanted a European-based world economy while others naturally disagreed —that was the bottom line. "Freedom was defended" also has problems. Do you mean freedom as a principle and concept, or "freedom" as a elite-social byproduct of dominant wealth and control? They are two different things. -St|eve 15:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- I mean freedom as non-coercion, of course, both sides in the conflict had some level of coercion. As I mentioned, the US was engaged in conscription. However, your attempt to invoke moral and cultural relativism cannot obscure real differences in the levels of coercion for the populaces that would have resulted from either sides victory. If the US had won, there would have been no re-education camps or need to escape in crowded boats. However, the senseless commie idealogues, might well have continued an insurgency in an attempt to deny the liberated population the benefits of freedom and democracy.--Silverback 16:29, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Relativism isnt so much my point as much as that cultural factors where the real foundation of the ideological divergence between "communism" and "capitalism." Hence referring to ideology alone is out of context, which has been a thread through all the recent talk here. "If the U.S." - the U.S. knew it was unwinnable from the get go. As Hitchens and others have pointed out, a democratically elected Ho government, despite his communist ties, would have been far less repressive than it was after a long war. Long conflicts and bloodshed make for bitter recriminations and "re-eductation" camps —not mere ideology. Violence begets violence —South government were unrealistic and undemocratic in hold to its means to power. By comparison to the brutalities of the war, the aftermath was reasonably minor from an objective view. -St|eve 18:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- I mean freedom as non-coercion, of course, both sides in the conflict had some level of coercion. As I mentioned, the US was engaged in conscription. However, your attempt to invoke moral and cultural relativism cannot obscure real differences in the levels of coercion for the populaces that would have resulted from either sides victory. If the US had won, there would have been no re-education camps or need to escape in crowded boats. However, the senseless commie idealogues, might well have continued an insurgency in an attempt to deny the liberated population the benefits of freedom and democracy.--Silverback 16:29, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- "Propaganda and terrorism war for the hearts and minds of the people" - hearts and minds needs to be in "scare quotes" - as it was propaganda, and was never intended to be a serious campaign. "Propaganda and terrorism" are accurate, but most U.S. propaganda was aimed at America, not at SEA —important distinction. "Failure to confront Marxism" has lots of problems. If by confrontation, you mean engagement, dialogue, and idea exchange rather than fear and scapegoating, then yes that's fair. "Thus a coercive European ideology was imposed upon the Vietnamese that had no moral qualms about using coercion, deception and terrorism." This is about as accurate as anything others have written here, though the claim that this was due to sophical splits is a bit overstated. Anything under the category of ideology is low in importance compared to other things — ultimately the main consideration with ideology is that any differences were exacerbated by the normal cultural and language barriers which existed at that time. Where any cultural divides exists, a political split will also exist. von Hayek and Rand - a bit overstated. Bakunin was around sixty years earlier, and likewise emphasised freedom concepts over state control concepts. His lack of resonance might just as well be attributed to language and book distribution issues than the popularity of his ideas. The cultural alliance of U.S. England could have been attributed as much to language, military history, and religious convergences as it could to economic ideology. The U.S. wanted a European-based world economy while others naturally disagreed —that was the bottom line. "Freedom was defended" also has problems. Do you mean freedom as a principle and concept, or "freedom" as a elite-social byproduct of dominant wealth and control? They are two different things. -St|eve 15:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Stalin, Mao, and Castro all turned their countries into repressive gulags that shot people trying to escape/emmigrate and were unable to tolerate intellectuals or entrepreneurs with ideas of their own. Ho would not have been any different. Mao loved children, yet allowed the cultural revolution, he apparently did not love adults. Even with captive slave labor that they could exploit for below market rates, these regimes achieved nothing. Whether the factors were cultural or ideological, does not alter the fact that one sides culture/ideal was limited government, and the other sides wasn't.--Silverback 06:16, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
- "Ho would not have been any different" has the difficulty of being nothing but partisan speculation. It also does'nt really define the period —early post-independence victory' Ho, or the later (disappointed, bitter) 'fighting the democratic-but-not-that-democratic Americans for several years' Ho? Had elections been held when they were agreed to in the Geneva Accords, fighting would likely have relegated to the realm of internal politics rather than the fighting. Oppressive regimes - again, out of context, and attributing repression to ideology alone. Communism alone does not equate to authoritarian as much as does hostile internal or external attempts to topple government (communist or otherwise). Due to such (ie. U.S.-South gov. attempts to topple North, and North and South attempts to topple South gov.) the North and the South became somewhat mirrored in their repression, with the small but noticeable difference in that the U.S. South repression was on a much wider scale. -St|eve 01:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- All this amounts to is, "my view is superior and furthermore neutral; why can't you see that? Very well then, I'll concede the possibility of wrong views for the sake of compromise." It looks rather juvenile, to put it no higher. --TJive 03:04, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
- I see, not only are my edits (aka views) representing a "North," "Marxist," "communist," view, but a "juvenile" one as well. How... enlightening. -St|eve 05:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- That you are representing a pro-North argument is self-evident, as well as self-admitted. Marxist was never I believe on my lips but others' though implicit in "Trotskyite" which does in fact resemble your view and which you did not directly respond to. "Juvenile" has no bearing on your views merit but your conceit (to put it lightly) in airing at as not only infallible but the only one logically attainable. This, too, is nearly self-evident. --TJive 07:21, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Again, you are resorting to an accusation of bias —and a rather crude one, considering that the "North" is not the issue, nor even a definitive descriptor for the majority of the Vietnamese people. Again, "North and South" (indisputably) were US-POV desginations to assert an ideological difference between two sides, for the purpose of keeping a population divided. The population was united on most every basis except political geographic boundaries, made under terms which were violated. Again, that's not at all controversial, though it apparently needs some explanation, given the rather common views on the subject. By "pro-North," you must mean my pro-democracy, pro-independence, anti-colonialist militarism, anti-genocide, pro-human rights view. How out of line one must be to push such "POV." IIRC even Madame Nhu —the great Northern sympathist —once remarked, "Whoever has the Americans as allies does not need enemies". Suppose her view was "pro-North" too? -St|eve 06:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- "North" is a rather uncontroversial geographic approximation which you are attempting to tie down into a[n ideological] semantic quibble that I am rather not concerned with. "Pro-North" is rather an anti-septic description of what could very easily (and plainly) be categorized more pejoratively, i.e. "pro-communist", "pro-Hanoi", "pro-Soviet", and so on. That you choose (again) to assert this not only in terms which happily qualify your views quite positively but which in fact deny ability of reason and sanity to those who disagree demonstrates your feigned concern for a neutral treatment of the subject to be quite farcical, as in fact this page has already demonstrated.
- even Madame Nhu.... You mean the sister-in-law of Diem, remarking right after the coup that deposed him? I wonder what reason she might have to speak that way. --TJive 15:39, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Again, you are resorting to an accusation of bias —and a rather crude one, considering that the "North" is not the issue, nor even a definitive descriptor for the majority of the Vietnamese people. Again, "North and South" (indisputably) were US-POV desginations to assert an ideological difference between two sides, for the purpose of keeping a population divided. The population was united on most every basis except political geographic boundaries, made under terms which were violated. Again, that's not at all controversial, though it apparently needs some explanation, given the rather common views on the subject. By "pro-North," you must mean my pro-democracy, pro-independence, anti-colonialist militarism, anti-genocide, pro-human rights view. How out of line one must be to push such "POV." IIRC even Madame Nhu —the great Northern sympathist —once remarked, "Whoever has the Americans as allies does not need enemies". Suppose her view was "pro-North" too? -St|eve 06:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- That you are representing a pro-North argument is self-evident, as well as self-admitted. Marxist was never I believe on my lips but others' though implicit in "Trotskyite" which does in fact resemble your view and which you did not directly respond to. "Juvenile" has no bearing on your views merit but your conceit (to put it lightly) in airing at as not only infallible but the only one logically attainable. This, too, is nearly self-evident. --TJive 07:21, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
- I see, not only are my edits (aka views) representing a "North," "Marxist," "communist," view, but a "juvenile" one as well. How... enlightening. -St|eve 05:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- All this amounts to is, "my view is superior and furthermore neutral; why can't you see that? Very well then, I'll concede the possibility of wrong views for the sake of compromise." It looks rather juvenile, to put it no higher. --TJive 03:04, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Frankly, I think your ability to think clearly must be called into question if you think Ho Chi Minh & co. as "pro-democratic" "pro-human rights" and "anti-genocide". CJK 13:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- North Vietnam and U.S both fought and ended two genocidal campaigns in the 20th century. Care to name them? -St|eve 18:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- This is irrelevant, in fact the relationship between Vietnam and the KR was close until the massacres of Vietnamese, their pro-Chinese stance, and border raids convinced them to install a puppet regime. The point is that by your logic "independence"=Communism, "Democracy"=one party state "human rights"=torture, and "anti-genocide"=conducting ethnic massacres. CJK 19:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- The relationship between Vietnam and the KR was close until the KR took power in Cambodia NOT until the massacres of Vietnamese. The first thing the KR did when they took power in Cambodia was to invade some islands in South Vietnam. Btw, apart from independence, I don't care about democracy, the so called "western democracy" is no more than a channel of propaganda for politicians who promises much much more than what they actually do. As long as Vietnam is in good shape and I am, as a Vietnamese, can live happily then that's way way better than living under the threat of terrorism like in the U.S or under the threat of starvation like in democratic countries with 50% of the population living in poverty like Bangladesh. After all, the goal of democracy is to give the people a better life which it failed to fulfill in a lot of democratic countries. Leaving to Vietnam & China, 2 communist countries to have the fastest growth in GDP. I'm living in London (used to live in New Zealand & Vietnam) and in my opinion, I had a way better life when I was in Vietnam. Regarding human rights abuse, that's what I heard from HRW and other western organisations & governments but I didn't see any abuse of human rights while I was in Vietnam and as I said, as long as the people can have a good life, besides in my opinion these "human rights issues" are just yet another propaganda from the West.--82.27.205.64 00:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- There were contradictions all around. -St|eve 15:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- This is irrelevant, in fact the relationship between Vietnam and the KR was close until the massacres of Vietnamese, their pro-Chinese stance, and border raids convinced them to install a puppet regime. The point is that by your logic "independence"=Communism, "Democracy"=one party state "human rights"=torture, and "anti-genocide"=conducting ethnic massacres. CJK 19:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Its mighty contradictory. CJK 17:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a "Warning: U.S. Propaganda" sign at the top of this article?
Lines that misrepresent the issue
Quote - The U.S. involvement in the conflict is less distinct. The United States had supported Vietnamese guerrillas against the Japanese during World War II, and provided aid to the French in the early 1950s.
The United States helped the French in Vietnam, President Truman doing so for the sake of the fight against communism in Europe and in Indochina. Much of France's efforts to overthrow Ho Chi Minh's government in Vietnam was being financed by the United States, and around 1950 the Viet Minh began to benefit from the coming to power of the communists in China. After North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950, Secretary of State Dean Acheson persuaded Truman to increase U.S. assistance to the French, and the United States recognized France's puppet king in Vietnam, Bao Dai. After Eisenhower took office in 1952, U.S. aid to the French effort in Vietnam increased, and by 1954, U.S. aid amounted to 80 percent of the costs of the French effort.
the United States supported the French was effort, channeling funds to France through a secret fund earmarked for Indo-China. By 1954, 80 to 90 percent of the French war was being paid for by the United States.
This article has many omissions. I understand that there is a strong pull to follow the United States propaganda line, but there isn't a lack of evidence.
Let's at least get right what's available in the Pentagon Papers
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon/pent1.html
For the link that expresses the United States paying for France's war..
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon/pent5.htm
- This just has to be changed. This isn't even a question, can we have a vote?
- The article completely misrepresents the idea. We should care strongly about being factually accurate.
Missing Information
Can someone add the names of the two congressmen who discovered the tiger cages in '70?--HistoricalPisces 19:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
- See Con Son Island (also: tiger cages, a redirect there). Their names are probably not important enough to be mentioned in the main article; they aren't even the ones remembered for the discovery. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:16, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
- What's the relevance? The U.S. didn't agree to pay reparations, indeed it deliberately refused to do so; why would Vietnam get them? On the second point, Vietnam agreed to the 1993 deal because it was necessary to gain loans from the IMF. Whether this was a good choice for Vietnam, I don't know, but the importance of the accepting these debts pales next to the importance of the other basic requirements of the IMF, e.g. liberalization and market reforms. It certainly had nothing to do with war reparations. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:16, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
Probably a small point but in the 'background' stuff, nearly in the end, some guy 'Diem' and some other guy 'Ho' are mentionend. Who are they? They are not as far as I know intoduced (at least not by that name) in the part before it, nor is there a link to them. Ho is probabky 'Ho Chi Minh' but who is 'Diem'? Im just your average European reader and I dont know. Don't have a user account hope you dont mind the question. 2005 December 9
- Ngo Dinh Diem and Ho Chi Minh respectively. El_C 09:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be no mention of The Ravens, nor of the predeccessors The Butterflies at all. Since it is officcially out with the book The Ravens as well as other literary works. The discovery channel even did a documentary entitled The Ravens: Covert War in Laos.
Western-centric view
This war is named the Vietnam War, yet its content is very concentrated on the involvement of foreigners. For example, the casualties section formerly only lists US dead and wounded for the anti-communist side when much of the casualties was taken by South Vietnam. Its effects on American culture is extensively discussed, yet only one small section is devoted to its effect on Vietnam (which I added) - more than a million Vietnamese civilians lost their lives. Also, while called the "Vietnam War" by Westerners, it should be noted at the beginning that there were numerous wars that occurred in Vietnam and most Vietnamese do not refer to it as such. DHN 04:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, its Western-centric, and theres plenty of work to be done. Representation of Vietnamese pov (both Vietnamese and ethnic diaspora) is quite welcome —particularly from those who are reasonable and interested in NPOV. -St|eve 17:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- I wouldn't really expect most Vietnamese to refer to it as the Vietnam War, given that they probably don't speak English. But your other points are of course accurate. A lack of interested contributors and unavailability of good references on those subjects to most Wikipedians creates this problem. Solving those issues is a key step to improving the balance of the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- I wouldn't really expect most Vietnamese to refer to it as the Vietnam War" —thats the nature of any exonym, but there seems to be something interesting going on where the U.S./foreign term "Vietnam War" is used by English-speaking diaspora, which has traveled back to the homeland. From the Vietnam POV, it might indeed be best characterized as "the Vietnam Civil War", but with the dominance of the American element it took on an anti-invasion/anti-colonialist character, perhaps best called the "United States-Vietnam War." The naming issue is no doubt interesting. -St|
- I wouldn't really expect most Vietnamese to refer to it as the Vietnam War, given that they probably don't speak English. But your other points are of course accurate. A lack of interested contributors and unavailability of good references on those subjects to most Wikipedians creates this problem. Solving those issues is a key step to improving the balance of the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
eve 20:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The usage of the term "war" (although touiched upon in the article) is perhaps one that is undergoing a total transformation for Americans. In the past, US historians have favored the use of the term only in its legalistic context. After all, the US has not been at "war" since 1945. In recent times, historians have reverted to the term when discussing the Korean Conflict, abandoning the older reference for the new. At least Operation Desert Storm was, and still is, referred to by its proper title. Now we are faced by the newer Afghan War and the Iraq War. Perhaps it is the pervading influence by the electronic media, but I cringe when I see or hear it elsewhere. But, perhaps I am being a bit of a naif. After all, it has been two hundred years and Americans have still not settled satisfactorily on a title for the military and political episode that settled the issues of union and emancipation. 12.152.8.229 15:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Name change?
To encourage a NPOV, I suggest we move the article to Second Indochina War, which is the term we are using in our history lectures to describe the conflict. Brisvegas 08:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- This topic gets a huge amount of discussion in English and 99% of it uses the term Vietnam War. Recognizing that any term probably contains a POV, we might as well use the common-use term. I would oppose any page move. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- It would not be too controversial to rename it as the Vietnam-American War, as this follows standard protocol, and indeed lists the major parties, without any leanings toward ideology of North/South. (see comment above at #Western-centric view) -St|eve 21:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Are you kidding? That would be a gigantically controversial move (or at least, I'd bet a great deal that it would be), especially since it recasts the war as one between Vietnam and America. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- "Recasts?" Are you kidding? What else was it? Where do you' draw the line between a "civil war" and a "colonialist-ideologically driven and foreign-power dominated 'battle' within the larger Cold War?" -St|eve 21:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- I absolutely don't care to get involved in this argument, but there you go. Controversy already, and we're still just thinking about suggesting a move. The point is, don't move the page without discussion. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Fair enough. :) But at least we were able to weed out and shoot down objection 1 to the move, which you restated quite well. I'm not deferential to consensus inasmuch as I'm deferential to reason --reasoned consensus of course is ideal. I hope you agree that RC surpasses mere C. ;)-St|eve 18:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Although it was as big as a war, the vietnam conflict WAS NOT technically a war. There were war-like casualties but OFFICIALLY it was only a police action, so I suggest this article be moved to something like "Vietnam conflict" 64.251.182.80 23:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Although it's rare that I would criticize a view on this talk page for being American-centered, this is one of those times. Congress doesn't have to sign off on something for it to be a war. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- What do you think it was for the people most affected by it, the Vietnamese? A "police action"? DHN 06:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the name change, what about Ango-American focus, and writing for the enemy. After travelling to Vietnam, I found it weird when they called it the French War and the American War. Obviously these are POV also, but whether it's the English wiki or the Vietnamese wiki they should both be NPOV. - Spaceriqui 22:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- In English the common name for the war is overwhelmingly "Vietnam War." Re: writing for the enemy, it would seem that regardless of what POV you are writing for, if you are writing English to an English audience you would call this the Vietnam War. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- The French War, and the American War actually make the most sense. That being said, I most often hear it called the "Indochina Wars". From our point of view, that name makes the most sense.
- Seeing how Wikipedia has no problem with plagairism, how about 'The 10000 Day War'? 04:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- The name "Vietnam Conflict" was not made up by me. I met two Jehovah's Witnesses in 1999 who blasted the United States government vehemently for calling it a "conflict." At that time, I didn't know that the United States Congress hadn't declared a war; thus, I thought there was some sort of conspiracy by the government to sugar-coat armed struggles until my U.S. history teacher explained this to me.--Patchouli 20:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Nobody has suggested you have made up the name "Vietnam Conflict". What has been suggested is that the page be named in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions. It is much more commonly known as the Vietnam War than the Vietnam Conflict when referred to in the English language - Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity. It is my belief that many people would have to think what conflict, what are they talking about? They would know about the war. A Google search on "Vietnam War" brings up about 30.4 million hits. A similar search on "Vietnam conflict" brings up 574,000 - no comparison I am afraid.--A Y Arktos\talk 21:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Chaging the name is pointless euphemism. We all know that it's know and forever will be known as the vietnam war in the english speaking world. This is the english wikipedia. I have no interest if it's called the 3rd world war or second indochina war in other wikis. DerMeister 18:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Targetted killings
Somebody removed the assertion of "targetted killings" during the war, claiming that it's "nonsense". The Vietcong assassinated 36,725 people and abducted 58,499 people that they can't intimidate between 1957 and 1972[1][2]. Or did you remove it because you assumed that it's implicating the US? This reminds me of a brouhaha within the overseas Vietnamese community when Paris by Night staged a bombing scene in one of its music videos. DHN 02:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
From Phoenix Program:
- The Phoenix Program was an "assassination campaign" and has received much criticism as an example of human rights atrocities committed by the CIA and the organizations it supports. Indeed, faulty intelligence often led to the murder of innocent civilians, in contravention to the Geneva Conventions. American statistics showed 19,534 members of the Viet Cong “neutralized” during 1969 — 6,187 murdered, 8,515 captured, and 4,832 defected to the South Vietnamese side. --User talk:Calton | Talk 03:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- That was my mistake, I thought it was in reference to North Vietnam (or at least it had been before). Sorry. CJK 19:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Replacing use of 'American', 'America' etc.
I intend to remove all the incorrect usage of the word American from this article. As far as I'm aware the only troops from America involved in the Vietnam war were from the USA - no other American countries were involved. Markb 10:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Done.Markb 13:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- About 20,000 Canadians volunteered to serve in the US armed forces during the Vietnam era. Ellsworth 23:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- I don't doubt it, Ellsworth , but AFAIK Canada as a country was not involved in the war? Markb 09:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. Also changing references to "America" and "American" to refer to the USA is in line with approved style. Ellsworth 01:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- There is not and never has been such a policy that I'm aware of. Where have you seen that? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Gulf of Tonkin papers
Should mention of the papers released in 2003 go in the Gulf of Tonkin section here or remain in any discussion of the Gulf of Tonkin 'incident' in general? Jachra 22:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
American Promise to the Vietnamese
i think i more in a wrong place than right. but i will try. I am writing a paper on the Vietnam War. My topic question is : "During the Vietnam War, did the American make any promise to the Vietnamese (both NORTH or South). If yes, what did they promise? Did they break that promise?" Please state some dependable source for this. if neccesary, please reply to me at my email: Latieungao@gmail.com THank so much.
- I'm not entirely certain what you mean by a "promise." Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon may have made "promises" of the rhetorical political sort, but these don't have the power of national or international law. There were treaties between the U.S. and the South Vietnamese and there was the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), one of the "an attack on one is an attack on all" type treaties that involved other countries such as Australia and South Korea in the conflict.
- It might be more useful to consider what the U.S. wasn't involved in and the ways that no legal "promise" was ever made. For one thing, the U.S. was not signatory to the peace treaty that ended the Indo-China War in 1953 that led to the partition of Viet Nam. France was the western signatory and the obligant to the terms of the treaty that were never carried out, such as the holding of elections in both Viet Nams. But France more or less abandoned its political interest in Viet Nam after their defeat in the war.
- Another significant "lack of promise" is the fact that the war was never declared, as required by the Hague Convention, by any of the combatants. That is one reason why it was referred to contemporaneously as "the Vietnam Conflict," rather than the "Vietnam War." The U.S., most aggressively under Lyndon Johnson, "escalated" its way into a conflict of limited goals.
- As to the overall concept of "promise," there were lots of "promises" made during that war. Famously, President Johnson campaigned in 1964 saying "We are not going to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves." He lied. -- Cecropia | [[User talk:Cecropia|''explains it all'' ®]] 05:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
There was a promise to give humanitarian aid to both Vietnam's if they would follow the Paris Peace agreement, which was aborted by North Vietnamese violations. Also, Nixon had personally promised South Vietnam an American re-entry if they were threatened, which also never came about. CJK 20:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, the Americans never wanted to fulfill that promise. They were the one who advised Ngo Dinh Diem to not hold election. That was the first violation, the North Vietnamese violations only came afterward as they saw the only way to unify Vietnam was war.--82.27.205.64 00:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm trying to understand the intent of the question. Writing a paper on the Vietnam War and asking if America broke promises? To what end? I was/am opposed to the U.S. involvement there, but is this a simply new way to make accusations against the U.S.?
Although the answer above is historically correct, I believe that really wasn't the issue that was brought up here. When asking if America broke promises, I believe the question was, "Did America act morally?" If one was to review the conversation between Nixon and his cronies earlier presented in this discussion section concerning the bombing of civilian superstructures and populations, one can easily answer that question. Personally, it makes one ashamed to be American, and more, a human being.
- Thq question was: "During the Vietnam War, did the American make any promise to the Vietnamese (both NORTH or South). If yes, what did they promise? Did they break that promise?" Whether the U.S. "acted morally" is a much broader question of which "promises" are a small component. War is a particular and ancient institution in which it is not so easy to separate the morality of one side or the other from the morality of war itself. We are begging the question that if the U.S. acted immorally (by whose subjective standard?) than the other side must have been the moral one.
- I don't often ask this, but how old are you? From what sources do you get your conceptions of morality and war in general and this war in particular? Why do you emphasize Nixon and his "cronies" when the war was Lyndon Johnson's show in which Nixon was a late actor? I was drafted for that war, was opposed to the war before, during and after, and was hardly the only one so situated, but it does not make me ashamed to be an American or a human being. If internalizing your country's errors and evils makes one ashamed to be a human, there is an awful lot of the entire world that should be ashamed. -- Cecropia 22:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
MIA reference to WWI and WWII?
I removed the information on on WW I and WW II MIA remains. That information seems better suited for the respective articles for those wars rather than here. - Bellhalla 06:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
August 4 1964
New information (is to be expected) on what happened on August 4 1964. Washington Post on August 4 1964--Brz7 13:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Airwar Vietnam
Contrary to the impression left here, it wasn't limited to a handful of named operations, it was continuous, & the article completely omits this. (I'd fix it, but I don't know enough.) A couple of facts: first MiG kills in 'Nam, 2 MiG-17s on 17 June 1965, were by Commander L.C. Page/RIO Lt J.C. Smith off Midway; first MiG by a Spad, also off Midway, was by Lt C.B. Johnson & Lt S.W. Hartman, 20 June 1965. Trekphiler 08:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Updated Photo
I updated the demostration photo to have more detail.
Please look at the photos used in this article. Not the politician photos in the beginning but everything starting with the Young Marine photo. If you scrolled down and only looked at them they portray a slanted view. 1) Picture of a young, dazed Marine, 2) US Bombing, 3} Kids after a napalm attack, 4) An execution, 5)Anti War Protest, 6) My Lai and finally the photo of the final Americans withdrawing.
If I had asked someone to compile a list of every bad thing that happened during the war I believe that all of these might appear. Would anyone be opposed to other pictures being added to this photo. Nothing crazy, just 1 or 2 pictures of some actual fighting. Just something that doesn't portray every negative that occurred. Interested to hear any thoughts--Looper5920 12:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I would have to agree with you Looper. Too many views on one side would make this article way too pointed. There was another side to the war besides the anti-war, pro=communism movement.--hvn73 15:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Napalm?
The current page makes no reference to the use of Napalm. Surely it deserves to be mentioned, right? 213.140.21.231 10:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- The first use of Napalm? Yeah, I'd say it warrents mention.
- Since the first use of Napalm was in World War I....
however a lot of Napalm was used, and Napalm and Vietnam are connected in the public imagination.
Exile 12:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
atrociously POV picture?
What exactly was wrong with it? --James Bond 05:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the picture shows US GI's burning villages...that in itself is very one-sided and not a very neutral representation of the Vietnam War. Secondly, that type of image might be put in a different section to illustrate maybe the My Lai massacre or anti-war sentiment. It is not an appropriate image for the facts column for the Vietnam War. --hvn73 11:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wait a minute here. I happen to find it appropriate and relevant for an entry on a particular war that there is a picture showing acts of that war - preferably acts that in some way typefied that war. I think objectively, it can be said to typefy that war, as, correct me if I am wrong, the war had millions of victims, most of whom noncombatants, so a picture that illustrates the side of the war that inflicted the most casualties doing their job of inflicting such casualties is fitting. I know many americans will find the picture embarassing, but we have to acknowledge that as an anglosaxon bias to be dealt with.
- In your statement, you say this photo "typified" the war. That in itself is pointed. This is a Western-centric anti-war point of view brought on by a liberal media during that era. We are to present an unbiased view of the war with both sides. I am not saying your picture should not be in this article, it should just be in the appropriate area. The war was much more complex than to be simplified by having a photo in the main facts column no less that says the the Vietnam War was simply the US burning down villages. This is one sided. On the same note, it would not be fair to post a picture of Communist war attrocities in the main facts column. It's not an embarassing picture, like I said, if you feel it is necessary to include in the article, go further down to the other sections where it would be more appropriate to place the photo. The number of casualties civilian and military is already posted at the bottom of the column.--hvn73 20:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- "Liberal media"? Oh God... not that old chestnut. Go and look up what the word liberal means before you use cliched, hysterical phrases of little value. If you mean left-wing biased media then say so.
- Failing that, you're right having only photos showing one perspective could be construed as biased. That's not an argument to censor them, though. You need to find photos showing similar attrocities (and I'm sure there are many of them) by the National Front for the Liberation of Vietnam Coricus 15:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, bvn73's error is saying "liberal media" instead of "Liberal media." "Liberal " has political meaning in the U.S. that does not comport directly to the generic meanings of liberal, just as a Republican in the U.S. is not descriptive of an anti-royalist. As to the pictures, it is more than a little ingenuous to say that you should post embarassing pictures of what the NLF or PAVN did without suggesting a source. If these gentlemen photographed the execution of village mayors, the building of tiger pits or the torture of prisoners, their national archives hasn't been sharing with us. -- Cecropia 17:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- U.S. specific terms of description for media are not necessarily helpful on a World Wide data source such as Wikipedia but that's neither here nor there -- I'm fully aware that within the U.S. the term liberal media (regardless of capitalization) is widely used. Unfortunately, it is almost always pejorative and overwhelmingly trotted out by one side in the political debate when choosing to vilify the other.
- In addition to instantly labelling anyone who uses it by showing their true political colors, it is debatable in its accuracy. Left-wing media is better. On the flip side of your comment, Republican media is clearly different in a U.S. specific context as it is readily identifiable as being linked with a specific U.S. political party without having more widely entered the cultural consciousness as having instantly negative connotations. (There is a temptation in some circles to instantly denigrate any argument read or seen in U.S. media as "Oh that's just the Liberal media" without discussing the per se merits of the issue). As a result, it is tired and clichéd.
- To get to the substance of your argument: it is neither ingenuous nor disingenuous to suggest that it is inappropriate to omit certain information just because one is too ignorant/ lazy/ unable find photographic evidence to bolster the case for the opposing argument. Nor is it naive for me to not suggest sources for such information (why should I do your work for you?). However, might I suggest (in the interests of Wikilove and because I believe that "Liberal media" aside, Hvn73 has an excellent point) that a place to enquire for such photos might be the Centre Historique des Archives Nationales in Paris (who may well have photographic evidence of atrocities and possibly even of the military aftermath of events at Dien Bien Phu...) or the National Archives of Australia?
- Not everything can be solved in 30 seconds with a quick click on the Internet and it remains the case that just because we can't find photos to back up Hvn73 that the others should go... Coricus 17:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Who votes to have the picture restored?
- I do Jens Nielsen 19:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Who agreed to have a vote?
- See above. --hvn73 21:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Vote here for various minor edits
In this section you can discuss and vote on various minor edits up to a single sentence.
- Issue 1: 'perceived' (from introduction)
current text: "Being Western-oriented and perceived as less popular than Hồ Chí Minh's northern government, the South Vietnam government [...]" proposed text:"Being Western-oriented and far less popular than Hồ Chí Minh's northern government, the South Vietnam government [...]"
Argument: "perceived" adds no information, as it is is not attributed to a particular side. The obvious attribution would be to the people of Vietnam, in which case 'perceived less popular' would be logically equivalent to is less popular, except that "perceived" now appears a sneaky attempt at casting doubt on the popularity. If such doubt exists please refer to information to back up your case and we will settle that question first.
Counterarguments: There is no proof that most Vietnamese would elect Ho over Diem. No one has conducted a study and both men had serious flaws. Perhaps you're right, but it can't be stated as if we can make predictions here. CJK 21:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- To my knowledge practically everybody, and particularly american planners considered it a fact.Jens Nielsen 21:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with CJK. Perceived is correct in that elections never took place and it was "guessed" or "estimated" that Ho would win. It is a presumption therefore "perceived". --hvn73 21:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- 'perceived' remains a sneaky way of casting doubt of the factual issue. Since none of us seem to believe that Ho Chi Minh was less popular, I will suggest a compromise: replace 'perceived' with 'widely believed', which should be uncontested. Jens Nielsen 11:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Votes:
- I vote in favour of the proposed text replacing 'perceived' with 'far less', because i consider the latter more informative, and more correct. Jens Nielsen 20:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Issue 2: Page Protection
Argument: I move to have this page protected from unregistered users being that this is a higly controversial subject and there is non-stop vandalism. Constant vandalism from unregistered users are working Wikipedians tirelessly reverting them. --hvn73 22:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- I am in favour. It is too much work Jens Nielsen 14:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Minor Change: It was Walt Rostow, not General Westmoreland who said that there was 'light at the end of the tunnel' Correct?
- I believe it was Westmoreland. Here's an article in the Washington Post that refers to it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/18/AR2005071801713.html --hvn73 05:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The 1969 Draft Lottery
The current text is substantially, but I imagine unintentionally, misleading:
- "The first draft lottery since World War II in the United States was held on 1 December 1969, and was met with large protests and a great deal of controversy; statistical analysis indicated that the methodology of the lotteries unintentionally disadvantaged men with late year birthdays."
In the first place, this gives the impression that the draft began in 1969 and that this caused large protests. In point of fact, the draft had been in existence continually since 1940, with the exception of a lapse in 1947-1948. Tens of thousands were conscripted for the Vietnam War before the Draft Lottery. The purpose of the draft lottery was manifold: (1) to reduce the abuses of the local Draft Boards, many of which corruptly picked and chose who would be drafted and who was "deferred"; (2) to give more certainty to young men who were subject to the draft, but postponed career decisions because of the uncertainty of service; and (3) maybe most importantly but not put forward openly by the Nixon Administration, to divide youth opposition. Nixon correctly figured that, once a good half of the eligibles were, in effect, exempted from the draft, they would no longer be so interested in protest. And he was right. This gave Nixon the time to wind down the war on his own timetable. -- Cheers (from one who caught cold from the Draft) Cecropia 08:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I too was caught up in the draft--my birthdate was lottery #19 for men registering in 1965. I agree with the above critique, altho IMHO the lottery had less to do with "corrupt" boards than with a public perception that student deferments favored an "elite". A peacetime draft (universal military service) was simply a fact of life for young men in the 50's and 60's. Remember, Elvis was drafted. Buckboard 07:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
"More than 2 Vietnamese cows and lambs were killed so far by landmines and unexploded ordnance. [6]"?????
"Light at the end of the tunnel"
This is an old phrase used in many contexts. I can find no evidence that Westmoreland was the first to use it in the context of Vietnam. Note that the Washington Post article cited above remarks that Westmoreland repeated the words of others at a press conference, not that they were originally his.
The first reference I can find to the use of the phrase was by David Halberstam in a New York Times article: VIEW IN SAIGON: Tactics of Enemy and Political Pressures on Army Pose Major Problems Oct 27, 1963: "If, as they say, there is a light at the end of the tunnel, then it is hard to tell from this end whether it has been turned on yet."
Then Lyndon Johnson in 1966 said this "I urge you to remember that Americans often grow impatient when they can't see the light at the end of the tunnel[...]" Decline of President in Polls Is Linked to Growth of 'Hawks', Jun 10, 1966
Then in the Times for Dec. 17, 1967, writer Don Oberdorfer in The 'Wobble' On the War On Capitol Hill remarked that "Johnson has seemed to forecast light at the end of the tunnel [...]" -- Cecropia 00:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- The apparent first use of the phrase occurs in a TIME magazine cover story (September 28, 1953) on the latest French general in Indochina, Henri Navarre. It closes with these words:
- Henri Navarre himself is confident of ultimate victory, and he has communicated this to many of those who are counting on him. Said one of them last week: "A year ago none of us could see victory. There wasn't a prayer. Now we can see it clearly- like light at the end of the tunnel."
- Of course, shortly afterwards, Navarre launched the airdrop on Dien Bien Phu, and we all know how that turned out.
- Some have credited Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker for being the first policymaker to use the phrase, but the quotes you cited indicate that probably he was not. Supposedly, some on Westmoreland's staff didn't like the phrase and wondered where it came from (though they were reporting this later, after it was clear there was no "light"). Certainly, one has to wonder whether those who spoke it were aware of its origins, and the irony of it. --Groggy Dice 20:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Newer version
Hi Folks.
This newer version is much more decent than the former piece of war propaganda, after 25-30 years of Vietnam reunification and the wounds healed. Vets and Protesters are now aging and retired. Here comes the time for History and deeper thougts.
Takima 16:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
last death in 81?
http://www.vvmf.org/index.cfm?SectionID=110&Wall_Id_No=50152.0
- The soldier died in 1981 from injuries suufered in 1969. -- Cecropia 17:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Civilian Casualties Controversy
Under casualties it says there are some estimates pklacing the nuumber of casualties as high as 4 million. We need a non-WWW source to back this up please. We've been through this controversy before. I quote from Wikiwatch:
- "On Sept. 2, 2002, Wikipedia's article on the Vietnam War declared that the government of Vietnam "released figures on April 3, 1995 that a total of one million Vietnamese combatants and four million civilians were killed in the war." On Sept. 3, 2002, someone added "The accuracy of these figures has generally not been challenged," just in case we considered doubting them."
- "Unfortunately, the figures released by Vietnam in 1995 really said that 2 million civilians were killed in the North and South (altogether), which somebody misinterpreted as 2 million in the North and 2 million in the South. Anyone familiar with the war should have immediately suspected some sort of mistake. After all, how could a war fought almost entirely in the South have killed an equal number of innocent bystanders in the North? The only possible explanations could be A) it didn't, or B) the American bombing of the North was a holocaust. Naturally, many commentators have used these mistaken numbers to prove Point B."
- "I challenged these unchallenged figures on Nov. 5, 2004. I even announced the mistake on my web site on Dec. 22, 2004."
- "The mistake was finally (after over 1,500 revisions to the article as a whole) corrected on April 8, 2005 -- just barely missing the tenth anniversary of Vietnam's official announcement. Wikipedia, however, still assures us -- without a trace of irony -- that "The accuracy of these figures has generally not been challenged." I'm sure that when someone challenges these numbers, they will continue to assure us that these numbers have not been challenged."
- "Meanwhile, in the 2 years, 7 months and 6 days that Wikipedia assured us that 4 million civilians were killed, the mistake has spread to 455 different sites across the web. Prediction: Because the mistaken death toll of 4 million civilians has become so widely reported, the sheer pervasiveness of it gives it authority, and at some point in the future, Wikipedia will change back to it."
- "Prediction: Because the mistaken death toll of 4 million civilians has become so widely reported, the sheer pervasiveness of it gives it authority, and at some point in the future, Wikipedia will change back to it."
This error is now so pervasively engrained on the WWW that we need either to take out the 4 million figure or have a non-web based source citing it. Coricus 10:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- "Robert McNamara, in his regretful memoir of the war, references a figure of 3.2 million." Relatively minor nit to pick here, but this could use clarification: Was McNamara referring to civilian casualties only in the U.S. portion of the war, or to the 1954-to-Fall-of-Saigon time frame referenced immediately above the McNamara reference? LareM 21:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC) LareM
Vietnam War and Heroin Use/Smuggling/Mafia, etc.
This subject obviously warrants exploration, but its previous placement between a U.S. withdrawal increment and the 1972 U.S. presidential election was bizarre at best. Since the author app. really wants this included, and spoke about it again under social impact in the U.S., and named the same source again, I moved the two paragraphs intact to the impact location and incorporated it there, eliminating only redundant language. Buckboard 06:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- With the huge ammount of ommission and misinformation I beileve this is the last thing we should be concerned with. Only after all the mistakes are corrected can we deal with those issues.
Statistics about the Vietnam War
"No event in American history is more misunderstood than the Vietnam War. It was misreported then, and it is misremembered now. Rarely have so many people been so wrong about so much. Never have the consequences of their misunderstanding been so tragic." [Nixon]
The Vietnam War has been the subject of thousands of newspaper and magazine articles, hundreds of books, and scores of movies and television documentaries. The great majority of these efforts have erroneously portrayed many myths about the Vietnam War as being facts. [Nixon]
Myth: Most American soldiers were addicted to drugs, guilt-ridden about their role in the war, and deliberately used cruel and inhumane tactics.
The facts are:
91% of Vietnam Veterans say they are glad they served [Westmoreland]
74% said they would serve again even knowing the outcome [Westmoreland]
There is no difference in drug usage between Vietnam Veterans and non veterans of the same age group (from a Veterans Administration study) [Westmoreland]
Isolated atrocities committed by American soldiers produced torrents of outrage from antiwar critics and the news media while Communist atrocities were so common that they received hardly any attention at all. The United States sought to minimize and prevent attacks on civilians while North Vietnam made attacks on civilians a centerpiece of its strategy. Americans who deliberately killed civilians received prison sentences while Communists who did so received commendations. From 1957 to 1973, the National Liberation Front assassinated 36,725 South Vietnamese and abducted another 58,499. The death squads focused on leaders at the village level and on anyone who improved the lives of the peasants such as medical personnel, social workers, and schoolteachers. [Nixon] Atrocities - every war has atrocities. War is brutal and not fair. Innocent people get killed.
Vietnam Veterans are less likely to be in prison - only 1/2 of one percent of Vietnam Veterans have been jailed for crimes. [Westmoreland]
97% were discharged under honorable conditions; the same percentage of honorable discharges as ten years prior to Vietnam [Westmoreland]
85% of Vietnam Veterans made a successful transition to civilian life. [McCaffrey]
Vietnam veterans' personal income exceeds that of our non-veteran age group by more than 18 percent. [McCaffrey]
Vietnam veterans have a lower unemployment rate than our non-vet age group. [McCaffrey]
87% of the American people hold Vietnam Vets in high esteem. [McCaffrey]
Myth: Most Vietnam veterans were drafted.
2/3 of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers. 2/3 of the men who served in World War II were drafted. [Westmoreland] Approximately 70% of those killed were volunteers. [McCaffrey]
Myth: The media have reported that suicides among Vietnam veterans range from 50,000 to 100,000 - 6 to 11 times the non-Vietnam veteran population.
Mortality studies show that 9,000 is a better estimate. "The CDC Vietnam Experience Study Mortality Assessment showed that during the first 5 years after discharge, deaths from suicide were 1.7 times more likely among Vietnam veterans than non-Vietnam veterans. After that initial post-service period, Vietnam veterans were no more likely to die from suicide than non-Vietnam veterans. In fact, after the 5-year post-service period, the rate of suicides is less in the Vietnam veterans' group." [Houk]
POV problem with the 'media' - if 2/3 of the men were volunteers and 2/3 of the men were drafted that makes 4/3. subotai
Myth: A disproportionate number of blacks were killed in the Vietnam War.
86% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasians, 12.5% were black, 1.2% were other races. (CACF and Westmoreland)
Sociologists Charles C. Moskos and John Sibley Butler, in their recently published book "All That We Can Be," said they analyzed the claim that blacks were used like cannon fodder during Vietnam "and can report definitely that this charge is untrue. Black fatalities amounted to 12 percent of all Americans killed in Southeast Asia - a figure proportional to the number of blacks in the U.S. population at the time and slightly lower than the proportion of blacks in the Army at the close of the war." [All That We Can Be]
Myth: The war was fought largely by the poor and uneducated.
Servicemen who went to Vietnam from well-to-do areas had a slightly elevated risk of dying because they were more likely to be pilots or infantry officers.
Vietnam Veterans were the best educated forces our nation had ever sent into combat. 79% had a high school education or better. [McCaffrey]
Here are statistics from the Combat Area Casualty File (CACF) as of November 1993. The CACF is the basis for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (The Wall):
Average age of 58,148 killed in Vietnam was 23.11 years. (Although 58,169 names are in the Nov. 93 database, only 58,148 have both event date and birth date. Event date is used instead of declared dead date for some of those who were listed as missing in action) [CACF]
Deaths Average Age
Total 58,148 23.11 years
Enlisted 50,274 22.37 years
Officers 6,598 28.43 years
Warrants 1,276 24.73 years
E1 525 20.34 years
11B MOS 18,465 22.55 years
Five men killed in Vietnam were only 16 years old. [CACF]
The oldest man killed was 62 years old. [CACF]
11,465 KIAs were less than 20 years old. [CACF]
Nice use of numbers. Now consider that those most likely to be killed were infantry officers or NCOs or helo crewmen. Then factor in the millions of men who were not killed between 1965 and 1973. The average age was of a combat infantryman was 19. RM Gillespie 14:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hear, hear. The statistics in this entire silly "myth" section are ludicrous. They are an excellent example of how statistics can be maufactured to prove almost anything. I found most of the claims absurd, on their face alone. 66.108.144.49 01:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth
Myth: The average age of an infantryman fighting in Vietnam was 19.
Assuming KIAs accurately represented age groups serving in Vietnam, the average age of an infantryman (MOS 11B) serving in Vietnam to be 19 years old is a myth, it is actually 22. None of the enlisted grades have an average age of less than 20. [CACF] The average man who fought in World War II was 26 years of age. [Westmoreland]
You know what they say about assumptions.
Myth: The domino theory was proved false.
The domino theory was accurate. The ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand stayed free of Communism because of the U.S. commitment to Vietnam. The Indonesians threw the Soviets out in 1966 because of America's commitment in Vietnam. Without that commitment, Communism would have swept all the way to the Malacca Straits that is south of Singapore and of great strategic importance to the free world. If you ask people who live in these countries that won the war in Vietnam, they have a different opinion from the American news media. The Vietnam War was the turning point for Communism. [Westmoreland]
- That is entirely conjecture and counter-factual. The massacre of the PKI in Indonesia in 1965 had nothing to do with the American presence in Vietnam. Cripipper 21:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The ultimate irony of Vietnam was that the assumption under which the US committed itself to SEA (containment [which its author, George Keenan, stated only applied to Europe] and the Domino Principle) was eventually stood upon its head. The united Vietnam invaded its Communist neighbor, Democratic Kampuchea (an aggressive and genocidal regime of the old school) and was heartily condemned by the US for doing so. Vietnam was, in turn, invaded by its former ally, the People's Republic of China, who supported the Khmer Rouge regime of Pol Pot. So much for Moscow dominated Communism. John Foster Dulles must have been spinning around in his grave like a top!RM Gillespie 14:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Democracy Catching On - In the wake of the Cold War, democracies are flourishing, with 179 of the world's 192 sovereign states (93%) now electing their legislators, according to the Geneva-based Inter-Parliamentary Union. In the last decade, 69 nations have held multi-party elections for the first time in their histories. Three of the five newest democracies are former Soviet republics: Belarus (where elections were first held in November 1995), Armenia (July 1995) and Kyrgyzstan (February 1995). And two are in Africa: Tanzania (October 1995) and Guinea (June 1995). [Parade Magazine]
- This is completely inaccurate. The only reasons that socialism spread to Laos were because of the US establishment of the southern puppet state and the American betrayal of its former ally, Chu Tich Ho Chi Minh.
- (P.S. You call Belarus a democracy?! I really don't know what to say.... Ionius Mundus 06:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Myth: The fighting in Vietnam was not as intense as in World War II.
The average infantryman in the South Pacific during World War II saw about 40 days of combat in four years. The average infantryman in Vietnam saw about 240 days of combat in one year thanks to the mobility of the helicopter.
One out of every 10 Americans who served in Vietnam was a casualty. 58,169 were killed and 304,000 wounded out of 2.59 million who served. Although the percent who died is similar to other wars, amputations or crippling wounds were 300 percent higher than in World War II. 75,000 Vietnam veterans are severely disabled. [McCaffrey]
MEDEVAC helicopters flew nearly 500,000 missions. Over 900,000 patients were airlifted (nearly half were American). The average time lapse between wounding to hospitalization was less than one hour. As a result, less than one percent of all Americans wounded who survived the first 24 hours died. [VHPA 1993]
The helicopter provided unprecedented mobility. Without the helicopter it would have taken three times as many troops to secure the 800 mile border with Cambodia and Laos (the politicians thought the Geneva Conventions of 1954 and the Geneva Accords or 1962 would secure the border) [Westmoreland]
More helicopter facts:
Approximately 12,000 helicopters saw action in Vietnam (all services). [VHPA databases]
Army UH-1's totaled 7,531,955 flight hours in Vietnam between October 1966 and the end of 1975. [VHPA databases]
Army AH-1G's totaled 1,038,969 flight hours in Vietnam. [VHPA databases]
Myth: Air America, the airline operated by the CIA in Southeast Asia, and its pilots were involved in drug trafficking.
The 1990 unsuccessful movie "Air America" helped to establish the myth of a connection between Air America, the CIA, and the Laotian drug trade. The movie and a book the movie was based on contend that the CIA condoned a drug trade conducted by a Laotian client; both agree that Air America provided the essential transportation for the trade; and both view the pilots with sympathetic understanding. American-owned airlines never knowingly transported opium in or out of Laos, nor did their American pilots ever profit from its transport. Yet undoubtedly every plane in Laos carried opium at some time, unknown to the pilot and his superiors. For more information see http://www.air-america.org
Lets face it, the CIA supported clandestine army of Vang Pao could not have survived, economically or militarily, without the income generated by the sale of its annual opium crops. Whether Air America/Bird/CAT pilots or crewmembers knew that they were transporting (and I find it difficult to believe that they would not know) opium is irrevelent. It was done. 12.152.8.229 15:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Myth: The American military was running for their lives during the fall of Saigon in April 1975.
The picture of a Huey helicopter evacuating people from the top of what was billed as being the U.S. Embassy in Saigon during the last week of April 1975 during the fall of Saigon helped to establish this myth.
This famous picture is the property of Corbus-Bettman Archives. It was originally a UPI photograph that was taken by an Englishman, Hugh Van Ess.
Here are some facts to clear up that poor job of reporting by the news media.
Facts about the fall of Saigon
It was a "civilian" (Air America) Huey not Army or Marines.
It was NOT the U.S. Embassy. The building is the Pittman Apartments. The U.S. Embassy and its helipad were much larger.
The evacuees were Vietnamese not American military.
The person that can be seen aiding the refugees is Mr. O.B. Harnage. He was a CIA case officer and now retired in Arizona.
Another famous picture.
Myth: Kim Phuc, the little nine year old Vietnamese girl running naked from the napalm strike near Trang Bang on 8 June 1972, was burned by Americans bombing Trang Bang.
No American had involvement in this incident near Trang Bang that burned Phan Thi Kim Phuc. The planes doing the bombing near the village were VNAF (Vietnam Air Force) and were being flown by Vietnamese pilots in support of South Vietnamese troops on the ground. The Vietnamese pilot who dropped the napalm in error is currently living in the United States. Even the AP photographer, Nick Ut, who took the picture was Vietnamese. The incident in the photo took place on the second day of a three day battle between the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) who occupied the village of Trang Bang and the ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam) who were trying to force the NVA out of the village. Recent reports in the news media that an American commander ordered the air strike that burned Kim Phuc are incorrect. There were no Americans involved in any capacity. "We (Americans) had nothing to do with controlling VNAF," according to Lieutenant General (Ret) James F. Hollingsworth, the Commanding General of TRAC at that time. Also, it has been incorrectly reported that two of Kim Phuc's brothers were killed in this incident. They were Kim's cousins not her brothers.
Myth: The United States lost the war in Vietnam.
The American military was not defeated in Vietnam. The American military did not lose a battle of any consequence. From a military standpoint, it was almost an unprecedented performance. (Westmoreland quoting Douglas Pike, a professor at the University of California, Berkley a renowned expert on the Vietnam War) [Westmoreland] This included Tet 68, which was a major military defeat for the VC and NVA.
THE UNITED STATES DID NOT LOSE THE WAR IN VIETNAM, THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE DID.
Oh Boy, here we go again. How long is it going to take for Americans to figure out that the winning or losing of battles was irrevelant to the outcome of the conflict? The Hanoi regime and the NLF continuously stated that the war was both political and military in its essential nature. The US military and the politicos at the time always knew about the stated policies of their enemies, yet continuously failed (as so many continue to to do) to understand them. They just considered these statements of essential strategy to be so much propaganda. The US failed in its goal of establishing a stable and viable regime in Saigon that was capable of defending itself after eight years of effort. Its strategy of attrition (and the too little, too late "One War" concept) failed miserably. So, although the US military did "win" most (but not all) of its battles, that fact is irrelevent to the outcome of the conflict. RM Gillespie 15:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Facts about the end of the war:
The fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years AFTER the American military left Vietnam. The last American troops departed in their entirety 29 March 1973. How could we lose a war we had already stopped fighting? We fought to an agreed stalemate. The peace settlement was signed in Paris on 27 January 1973. It called for release of all U.S. prisoners, withdrawal of U.S. forces, limitation of both sides' forces inside South Vietnam and a commitment to peaceful reunification. [1996 Information Please Almanac]
The 140,000 evacuees in April 1975 during the fall of Saigon consisted almost entirely of civilians and Vietnamese military, NOT American military running for their lives. [1996 Information Please Almanac]
There were almost twice as many casualties in Southeast Asia (primarily Cambodia) the first two years after the fall of Saigon in 1975 then there were during the ten years the U.S. was involved in Vietnam. [1996 Information Please Almanac]
The US and their allies went into South Vietnam to stop the Communist insurgency. They failed, and quite miseralbly. Tch, some people can never accept that the Allies lost the Vietnam war. Get over it.
- It is obvious that the Americans lost the war, though perhaps not militarily. The Southern dictatorship was an American marionette. Its defeat was only another American defeat. The Americans were not directly militarily overpowered, but they were pretty much forced to succumb to the determination of the Vietnamese people and to the fierce critisism from all around the world. The fact is that Vietnam won and America lost. Ionius Mundus 06:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- I would suggest that marionette implies more control than the Americans actually had. My impression is that the puppet government was basically run by thugs, con-men and opportunists whom the Americans tried to control, but only with a certain level of success. Of course, I am only speculating, based on what I read 20 years ago when studying this. --Habap 14:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I would agree. However, even you confirm that it was a puppet government, correct? Ionius Mundus 15:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Concur. While it may at some point have seemed legitimate (not sure about the initial years of the government) it was certainly a puppet government. When I read your initial inclusion of the term, I thought it was POV, but it was probably the context. The South Vietnamese governments literally lived and died based upon whether it was perceived that they had full US support. --Habap 16:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this is correct. Unfortunately, another user is blocking the use of the word 'puppet' in reference to the Southern regime. Ionius Mundus 16:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
POW-MIA Issue (unaccounted-for versus missing in action)
Politics & People, On Vietnam, Clinton Should Follow a Hero's Advice, Sen. John Kerrey is quoted as saying about Vietnam, there has been "the most extensive accounting in the history of human warfare" of those missing in action. While there are still officially more than 2,200 cases, there now are only 55 incidents of American servicemen who were last seen alive but aren't accounted for. By contrast, there still are 78,000 unaccounted-for Americans from World War II and 8,100 from the Korean conflict. "The problem is that those who think the Vietnamese haven't cooperated sufficiently think there is some central repository with answers to all the lingering questions," notes Gen. John Vessey, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Reagan and Bush administration's designated representative in MIA negotiations. "In all the years we've been working on this we have found that's not the case." [The Wall Street Journal]
More realities about war: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) - it was not invented or unique to Vietnam Veterans. It was called "shell shock" and other names in previous wars. An automobile accident or other traumatic event also can cause it. It does not have to be war related. The Vietnam War helped medical progress in this area.
Myth: Agent Orange poisoned millions of Vietnam veterans.
Over the ten years of the war, Operation Ranch Hand sprayed about eleven million gallons of Agent Orange on the South Vietnamese landscape. (the herbicide was called "orange" in Vietnam, not Agent Orange. That sinister-sounding term was coined after the war) Orange was sprayed at three gallons per acre that was the equivalent of .009 of an ounce per square foot. When sprayed on dense jungle foliage, less that 6 percent ever reached the ground. Ground troops typically did not enter a sprayed area until four to six weeks after being sprayed. Most Agent Orange contained .0002 of 1 percent of dioxin. Scientific research has shown that dioxin degrades in sunlight after 48 to 72 hours; therefore, troops exposure to dioxin was infinitesimal. [Burkett]
Agent Orange doesn't poison, it contaminates —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.16.225.80 (talk • contribs) .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restraining the military in Vietnam in hindsight probably prevented a nuclear war with China or Russia. The Vietnam War was shortly after China got involved in the Korean war, the time of the Cuban missile crisis, Soviet aggression in Eastern Europe and the proliferation of nuclear bombs. In all, a very scary time for our country.
Whose country is that then? Wikipedia is a worldwide project as far as I know. The USA is some 4% of the world's population NOT the world. What 'Soviet agression in Eastern Europe'? The Eastern Bloc stuck to the border agreements made in Yalta in 1945. They supressed freedom movements in Eastern Europe but never realistically threatened Western Europe.SmokeyTheFatCat 22:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- You're not really replying to his comments, Smokey. He never claimed that Western Europe was threatened. However, Berlin certainly was, and President Kennedy had Berlin at the back of his mind constantly, especially during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I think the previous User is suggesting--correctly--that in order to understand the many different aspects of the VietNam conflict, one must examine the background against which the decision makers made their fatal, poor judgments. I've never heard his thought expressed with regard to the VietNam war, but it was certainly true that Kennedy's restraining of the US Military during the Cuban Missile Crisis was the greatest hour of his career. They would likely have risked precipitating nuclear war, when the wiser route was diplomacy, but finely nuanced yet firm diplomacy. When he uses the words "Soviet aggression" he's referring to Stalin's violation of the agreements to hold free elections in all the (former) Warsaw Pact nations, and he's correct on that one too. 66.108.144.49 01:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth
SOURCES
[Nixon] No More Vietnams by Richard Nixon
[Parade Magazine] August 18, 1996 page 10.
[CACF] (Combat Area Casualty File) November 1993. (The CACF is the basis for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, i.e. The Wall), Center for Electronic Records, National Archives, Washington, DC
[All That We Can Be] All That We Can Be by Charles C. Moskos and John Sibley Butler
[Westmoreland] Speech by General William C. Westmoreland before the Third Annual Reunion of the Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association (VHPA) at the Washington, DC Hilton Hotel on July 5th, 1986 (reproduced in a Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association Historical Reference Directory Volume 2A)
[McCaffrey] Speech by Lt. Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, (reproduced in the Pentagram, June 4, 1993) assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to Vietnam veterans and visitors gathered at "The Wall", Memorial Day 1993.
[Houk] Testimony by Dr. Houk, Oversight on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, 14 July 1988 page 17, Hearing before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs United States Senate one hundredth Congress second session. Also "Estimating the Number of Suicides Among Vietnam Veterans" (Am J Psychiatry 147, 6 June 1990 pages 772-776)
[The Wall Street Journal] The Wall Street Journal, 1 June 1996 page A15.
[VHPA 1993] Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association 1993 Membership Directory page 130.
[VHPA Databases] Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association Databases.
[1996 Information Please Almanac] 1995 Information Please Almanac Atlas & Yearbook 49th edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston & New York 1996, pages 117, 161 and 292.
[Burkett] Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation was Robbed of its Heroes and its History by B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley, Verity Press, Inc., Dallas, TX, 1998. Book review.
Gary Roush
242 ASHC Muleskinners
Information by:Webmaster@VHPA.Org
I am trying to find some scholarly resources and instead i find a guy quoting Westmoreland and Nixon and Parade Magazine. Please correct me if i am wrong, but there is no evidence of "Communist" attrocities anywhere aproximating the standard treatment of US/South Viet Nam forces against innocent peasants. My Lai and Song My are but two examples of the attrocities commited. Note that even if the US had acted according to international law in its campaigns, the unprovoked invasion of a foreign country is still (as defined in the Geneva Convention) considered the highest crime of international law. I would still like a scholarly reference; the overwhelming majority of the contributors seem untouched by the scandalous propositions of this supposed statistics. I have a feeling POV is too deep rooted to understand what a war of independence against a colonial power means. Kobaincito 05/12/06.
- Kobaincito, I am not a supporter, in fact I was (and am) an opponent of the Vietnam War. but, as biased as some of the "myth" exposures are, you also seem rather blinded by modern popular sentiment. First, the VC and NVA committed many atrocities, though more often of a small but persistent scale. This included the murder of those they viewed as collaborators, especially petty officials in villages that offered opposition. Your bias shows in phrases such as "anywhere approximating the 'standard' treament of the US" and "My Lai and Song My are but two examples..." As wrong as I feel the US involvement was, the US didn't "invade" Vietnam. It was invited in by the recognized (even if not by you) government of South Vietnam. The US was not the "colonial power" in Vietnam, the French were; it was the French (not the US) that signed the accords following Dien Bien Phu, and who were responsible for its implementation, but they (the French) simply washed their hands of it. You should also at least give a nod to the fact that the Vietnamese were hardly universal in love for Uncle Ho. General history (and this article) make short shrift of the Catholic-Buddhist tension. Anyone other than me remember Madame Nhu? Or her vivid phrase "Monk Barbecues"? It's just so much easier to assume the US is the root of all evil. -- Cecropia 21:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you that atrocities were committed by both sides of the war. But I don't agree with the rest. Firstly, it's true that the U.S was invited to Vietnam to fight for the South Vietnam government but who created the South Vietnam government in the first place? It was no more than a puppet state of the U.S and so its decisions were grealy influenced by the U.S government. You said the French signed the accords following Dien Bien Phu and that U.S was not the "colonial power"? Partly true. Who funded 80% of the French war effort between 1945 and 1954? Who offered the French two nuclear bombs to nuke Vietnam in April 1954? Btw, for your information, the French signed the accords in which election would be held in 1956 for the unification of Vietnam under one government but the Americans along with Ngo Dinh Diem are responsible for abandoning the election fearing Ho Chi Minh would win. Do you know why the North Vietnam declined all offer of troops from China & the USSR and limit the number of advisors to a very small number? Because Vietnamese regarded all foreign forces on Vietnamese soil are invaders, the South Vietnamese government went against this and so created hostility within its own country. You can't really blame them for this mindset after nearly 2000 years of near-continuous war with China, Mongolia, Cambodia, France, Japan & U.S. So, the Americans might not think it was an invasion, but the Vietnamese saw it as just another effort to take over Vietnam. "You should also at least give a nod to the fact that the Vietnamese were hardly universal in love for Uncle Ho" --> this is very funny, who has ever been universally loved? Even God is not universally loved let alone a great & influential politician on one side of the war. Maybe the Neo-Fascists are pissing on Eisenhower and Winston Churchill's portrait right now.
- I agree with this. Ionius Mundus 06:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)