Talk:Tet Offensive/Archive 2

message: Why is this article named "Te>'t Offensive"?  The name is a foreign construction, not a Vietnamese one, so it should be named "Tet Offensive".  In Vietnamese the word "Te>'t" is not mentioned, but rather the name of that year, Ma>-.u Thân. DHN 18:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be "Tet" and have changed it. All those Vietnamese accents should be changed in other names as they've never been used in English texts. --Mkeroppi 22:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: "Although US public opinion polls continued to show a majority supporting involvement in the war, this support continued to deteriorate and the nation became increasingly polarized over the war." - I may be missing something but I don't see where the source provided shows this. KAM 02:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right; that does look like a lousy reference. I'll look for something that's correct. KarlBunker 13:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That's two unconnected points, right? (Or am I missing something?) Re. the first, this seems to me to be something that's so well documented and commonly known that it doesn't require a reference, like "President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963." The "reference" is any newspaper from the period or any book about the period. KarlBunker 13:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if Johnson lost popular support or if he lost political support or both because of Tet. The general trend in the polls at the time was a steady decline for support for the war. After Tet there was a a slight uptick in support.] At Lyndon Johnson it says "his reelection bid in 1968 collapsed as a result of turmoil in his party." (also unsupported).  I suggest we move as much as possible about politics from the first paragraph to the media section. KAM 14:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected. I guess there should be a reference and perhaps more careful language) about how Tet effected Johnson's popularity. I'm not so sure about separating out the discussion of politics, though. The major significance of Tet was its political/psychological effect, so I don't think all discussion of that should be squeezed into one section. KarlBunker 14:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: "The Communist high command did not anticipate the psychological effect the Tet Offensive would have on America." Shouldn't this be at least reworded? Like did not fully anticipate? This may be more recent material then some. "We did not know then—and only learned with publication in 1988 of historical documents in Hanoi—that the North Vietnamese Politburo had decided as early as June 1967 to aim for a decisive battlefield victory in 1968, a U.S. presidential election year." 
From the same source: "North Vietnamese Communist Party chief Le Duan had forecast in a letter to his southern fighters, to "shake the aggressive will of U.S. imperialism, compel it to change its strategy and de-escalate the war."
Given the timing of the Offensive (Presidential Election year and the launch date), I daresay that the Communist High Command did in fact have a very good idea what the political and psychological ramifications would be. Le Duan and the VC High Command may have been cold, cruel, vicious and vindictive, but one thing they were not is stupid. I suspect that the psychological damage they did was a secondary objective, not the side effect it seems to be.
Yes, we beat them back, and "won" on the ground, but lost in the final reckoning, five years later.
65.96.138.187 16:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: psychological effect

message: Why not discussed in the article? --HanzoHattori 08:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VC defections following Tet (morale breakdown) 

message: "Although US public opinion polls continued to show a majority supporting involvement in the war, this support continued to deteriorate and the nation became increasingly polarized over the war." I have pointed out that this is not supported by the reference. I edited it with sources, now it has been reverted. The source shows no polls after 1967, before the T.O. KAM 18:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: polls

message: That there are two main views of The Tet Offensive is illustrated by the remarks recently made by President Bush regarding Iraq. Here the San Francisco Chronicle seems to assume that Bush views Iraq as failing here . Here Juan Cole points out the confusion between what was understood and what was meant  and here DAVID F. SCHMITZ says " "Contrary to the myths that surround Tet, public approval did not suddenly erode in the wake of the attacks due to the media's coverage of the battles. Support, similar to the war in Iraq, was high in 1965 and gradually declined over the next two years to where, prior to Tet, a plurality saw the war as a mistake.
If it was not a dramatic change in public opinion due to Tet that changed the course of the war, then what did lead to Johnson's decision to cap escalation, halt the bombing of the North and announce he would not seek re-election?
The carnage of the Tet Offensive, combined with declining public support, opened up political space for different and dissenting views to be heard. Also similar, officials turned to former policymakers -- the so-called Wise Men under Johnson and the current Iraq Study Group -- for fresh examinations of policy. " 
Just a personel note for anyone who may be interested...I had a 30 day leave to visit my wife in Switzerland, from Vietnam in May of 69....during trip I had a 2 day layover in the states...what I saw in the reporting of the war at that time had no connection to what I had seen and experienced...it was obvious to me that we had won the battle of tet, but was being portrayed that we had lost...seemed most of the news reports were concentrating on the attack on the embassy and what was happening in siagon..think the news reporters looked out their windows out of the hotel in saigon where they mostly stayed and when they saw fighting outside their windows...felt that if military could not protect them, then we must be losing....once they started reporting that we were losing they seemed to not be able to retract what they had started...in Switzerland the news reports were accurate..stated the north vietnam had definitely lost and probably would negotiate end of war at peace table...I feel the same thing is happening in iraq...you may notice that the majority of the reporting is about what is happening in baghdad...where most of the reporters stay...have heard they are afraid to travel anywhere outside of their area...and if they do travel they do so surrounded by armed guards....how can they report accurately under those conditions...??....the deaths of reporters who have tried to move around without guards I believe have scared them ...I believe it is mostly for these reporters that there is so much bombings and trouble in baghdad...they know what manipulated reporting has done in the past to get america out of wars and are trying to do the same thing....sorry for the rant.. <grin>....and posting what is probably inappropriate hereSno2 02:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two views

message: More like 500,000, am I rite? (Communist strenght higher too, I guess,) --HanzoHattori 00:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  50,000+ Allies? 

message: To this day, worldwide military institutions use the Tet Offensive as an example of psychological operations in disinformation campaigns and propaganda.- This statement should not be in the article without a source. 
Is there any support from other other editors to change the style of citations? I agree with this: "while other editors find them annoying, particularly when used inline in the text, because they make the text harder to read in edit mode and therefore harder to edit." , from Wikipedia:Citing sources I find it difficult to edit with this style of citations. 
A large section of text the "Strategic context" has been deleted. - I thought it was too long should it go back in? KAM 14:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: I think perhaps the controversy section should be moved to the effect on the United States. Then the bulk of that section (Effect in U.S.)  should be moved to its own article. KAM 11:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Effect on the United States

message: There is plenty of information in this article about the American side of things but wouldn't it be more balanced to have more details of the North Vietnamese reunification forces' players, strategies, etc. For example, Vo Nguyen Giap is mentioned in this article, as is the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, but General Vo's involvement in both the Tet Offensive, especially re. Khe San, and the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in the First Indochina War could be given more extensive treatment. CWPappas 06:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I think part of the problem is sources. My guess is that N. Vietnamese sources would largely be propaganda. KAM 13:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is "The War Politburo: North Vietnam's Diplomatic and Political Road to the Têt Offensive" by Liên-Hang T. Nguyen - if thats not enough there is a list of recomended reading. KAM 12:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too One-sided?

message: In 1967, North Vietnam promulgated a new lunar calendar, using Hanoi time (UTC+7) as base instead of Beijing time (UTC+8) as used in the South.  It so happens that due to the rules of the Chinese calendar, the Tet from the North differ from Tet in the South in 1968 (this only happens once every 20 or so years) - with the North celebrating it a day earlier.  Thus the order to "attack on the morning of Tet" has different meanings in the North and the South.  As a result, some Viet Cong in regions with regular contacts with the North attacked a day early. DHN 01:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivial info or not?