Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 7

message: That is obviously in error.  It was a political loss, but militarily the US won every single major engagement during the Viet Nam war, so why in the world is this labeled a defeat?  That needs to be corrected.(Username?)
I agree in the sense there was no defeat, the aim was to prevent a reunified Vietnam as a model of Third World development, like China and the USSR were as alternatives to the US. The declassified record shows 'concern' about 'radical nationalism' and 'economic nationalism'. A 'viris' that 'might infect others'. So yes there was a victory, Vietnam and indeed the region is a wreck. Not a model of development. User:Green01 11:16, 16 Dec. 2006 (UTC).
If we won militarily, why in 1973 did the PAVN still controll all of NVN, the DMZ, much of the country immediately south of the DMZ (including Khe Sanh), Tchepone, the Laos infiltration routes south from Tchepone, the A Shau Valley (site of the Hamburger Hill battles of 1969), the Cambodia sanctuaries, much of the SVN areas adjacent to Cambodia. AND have enough military power and logistics to send 20 divisions into RVN in 1974-75? We did not stem the Red tide in SE Asia, we only delayed it 10 years. That is not a victory, and not a stalemate. What's left? ~~ Troy
"We did not stem the Red tide in SE Asia, we only delayed it 10 years. That is not a victory" No because it has nothing to do with US aims, or the aims of any state. The US was not opposed to Marxist-Leninist regirmes. It supported Pol Pot and Romania's regime. The region is a wreck, so it was a victory for the US. Largely a military defeat because of violent rebellion by South Vietnamese. User:Green01 6:15. Dec. 18 2006 (UTC).
::The larger picture is that Communism was rolled back in Indonesia but gained in Vietnam (and temporarily in Laos, Cambodia). China broke with Vietnam and became much friendlier to US, as did Russia. All in all a mixed bag generally favorable to US. Rjensen 12:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The "roll back" of communism in Indonesia had peculiarly little to do with the United States, and the Vietnam War made Sino-American rapprochement more, not less, difficult.  It would be more accurate to say that the long-term outcome was generally favourable to the U.S. despite the Vietnam War, not because of it (although one could argue that the weakening of America's global position that occurred as a result of Vietnam and the emboldened Soviet foreign policy of the late 1970s led to the U.S.S.R.'s own foreign misadventure in Afghanistan, which in itself played no small part in the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union). Cripipper 17:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *How can you have a study on the collapse of communism in Indonesia and not examine the role of the United States? Cripipper 23:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it is not an error.  You are correct in noting that they US won every major engagement over the course of the war.  Those are tactical enagagements.  However, the outcome of the war was directly contradictory to the strategic goals the US laid out for itself when it went in, so the conflict as a whole is labeled a strategic defeat.  It is important to keep these two terms separate when considering military-historical information.  Haemo 07:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: So presumably every war which has ended up with the opposite situation to that wished by one of its participants should be described as "satisfying a strategic goal", as long as it delayed the failure to achieve its aims? Were the Vietnamese better off in the years before the war was lost by the West because communism was not yet victorious? I would say not, because the civilian death toll and the obliteration of the Vietnamese economy was, on balance, worse even than living in a communist regime. One has to be careful not to start with a premise such as "our political leaders are supermen who never make strategic blunders or fail" and twist historical facts to suit this viewpoint in any way possible. The war was a tragedy for Vietnam. The fact that the country became a communist regime was a different sort of tragedy which it is not clear could have been avoided due to the nature of the enemy. In my opinion, both have been bad for Vietnam and can only be viewed a historical tragedy with very little positive to be found in it beyond the experience to avoid similar things happening again. It would be beneficial if current political leaders studied history with a view to avoiding similar mistakes. 82.21.244.172 17:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategic Military defeat for the US?! 

message: While this work undoubtedly qualifies as "revisionist," I question the summary of its primary contentions in the bibliographical material. IMO, Moyar's principal arguments involve: 1) an attempt to in part rehabilitate Diem and view his removal as the turning point to eventual defeat; 2) an attempt to discredit certain of the on-site reporting of David Halberstam and Neil Sheehan and stress its importance in driving events; and 3) arguing for the importance of two Kennedy decisions--the failure to use early military force in Laos and the appointment of Henry Cabot Lodge Jr.
Hoya1 00:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characterization of Moyar book 

message: I just created a template for linking together articles involving America's internal and external wars and conflicts. If you want to toss in Template:American conflicts, I leave it up to you guys. Cwolfsheep 07:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template to add? 

message: This page has been sprotected for over 2 months.  Have there been chronic vandalism problems in the past, or does the block need to be removed? CalebNoble 11:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prior to protection this page did see a large amount of vandalism. However it was nothing that careful watching could not deal with. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this page semi-protected? 

message: Once more someone puts the clear POV that the US fought in South Vietnam because the Pres. and co. thought there was a "worldwide communist conspiracy". This I just outlined was not true in the earlier post in this Discussion Page in reference to the Pentagon Papers. User:Green01 7:45, Jan. 04 2007 (UTC).
I have just edited the relevant sentance again. User:Green01 9:08, Jan. 04 2007 (UTC).
I issue a warning against Cripipper not to insert any more POV edits into this page. If he can't prove what he writes(I doubt one can disprove the Pentagon Papers then he should restrain his imagination about Washington's perceptions in the 1950's and '60's. User:Green01 2:38, 5 Jan. 2006 (UTC).
:I suggest you be a bit more careful about your warnings:
*"American thinking and policy-making was dominated by the tendency to view communism in monolithic terms. The Viet Minh was, therefore, seen as part of the Southeast Asia manifestation of the world-wide communist expansionary movement. French resistance to Ho Chi Minh, in turn, was thought to be a crucial link in the containment of communism. This strategic perception of the communist threat was supported by the espousal of the domino principle: the loss of a single nation in Southeast Asia to communism would inexorably lead to the other nations of the area falling under communist control. The domino principle, which probably had its origin at the time of the Nationalist withdrawal from mainland China, was at the root of U.S. policy. Although elements of a domino-like theory could be found in NSC papers before the start of the Korean War, the Chinese intervention in Korea was thought to be an ominous confirmation of its validity. The possibility of a large-scale Chinese intervention in Indochina, similar to that in Korea, was feared, especially after the armistice in Korea." (Pentagon Papers, Chapter 2, p. 54) Cripipper 15:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exit of the French POV Again 

message: I think the section on “Total U.S. withdrawal” is factually inaccurate.
First, Gerald Ford did not veto the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974. You can find Gerald Ford’s signing statement for Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=4660. 
If you go to the Library of Congress Bill Summary and Status search for the 93rd Congress(http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/93search.html), change the search from ‘word/phrase’ to ‘bill number’ and enter ‘S.3394’, then click on ‘Major Congressional Actions’ link, it will show you that this bill was passed in the Senate on 12/4/1974, passed in the house on 12/11/1974 and signed by the president (Ford) on 12/30/1974.
If you go to the CRS summary link in Library of Congress search on this bill, you will see that the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 “Provides that after June 30, 1976, no military assistance shall be furnished to South Vietnam unless authorized under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or the Foreign Military Sales Act.”  I could not find the full text of this bill online, but this summary indicates that the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 did not “cut off” military assistance until June 1976, more than 1 year after the collapse of South Vietnam, and furthermore, it only says that military assistance after that date must be approved by Congress.
It looks to me like the characterization of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 is factually inaccurate, and statements like “By 1975, the South Vietnamese Army stood alone against the well-organized, highly determined, and foreign-funded North Vietnamese,” are not accurate either. 
Mikeca42 19:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total U.S. withdrawal section appears factually inaccurate 

message: Maybe I'm just misreading this passage from the Aftermath section:
North Vietnam followed up its southern victory by making Laos a virtual puppet state. Socialist fraternalism did not last long. The Khmer Rouge, who had historical territorial ambitions in Vietnam, began a series of border incursions that finally led to a Vietnamese invasion. The VPA onslaught overthrew Pol Pot's murderous regime and a pro-Vietnamese government was installed (see Third Indochina War). The U.S. did not recognise the new government of Cambodia, and, along with the United Nations, continued to consider the Khmer Rouge (perpetrators of the greatest genocide since the Second world War) as their ally.
Is this meaning to say that the United States and the United Nations (!) considered themselves to be "allied" with the Khmer Rouge?  If so, I think this requires a citation quoting an acknowledgement of this alliance by, at least, an official of the United States government of the day.  Otherwise it's a rather controversial assertion that probably shouldn't be there...  On the other hand, if I am indeed simply misreading this passage, please excuse me. --Hiddekel 20:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are reading it absolutely correctly. Throughout the 1980s the United States refused to recognise the Vietnam-installed government in Phnom Penh and afforded diplomatic recognition to the Khmer Rouge regime, which retained Democratic Kampuchea's seat at the UN because that organisation refused to recognise a government installed by a foreign power after an invasion. 'Alliance' would be putting it a little strongly though.  Cripipper 21:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Allies"? 

message: Re Beebob excision Jan.29: Someone more familiar with the subject may want to have a look at this ... cutout without statement. Since it's been filled in with more opinion. Twang 08:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Aftermath" expurgation 

message: Caption under image included in the section "Return to Paris" currently states "Le Duc Tho and Henry Kissinger (third and fourth from the left respectively)".  Unless I am mistaken, Dr. Kissinger is actually shown fifth from the left (and I suspect Le Duc Tho is shown forth from the left).
144.189.5.201 23:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I have changed it for now. Kissenger certainly wasn't fourth from the left that's for sure. SGGH 19:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect pic caption

message: It'd be useful for readers to be able to skip right to the Pentagon Papers article when it shows up in the references section as well as the one time it shows up in the text.  ~ Syrae Faileas - «Talk» 00:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to [[Pentagon Papers]] 

message: Citing some US guy from 1985 of 666;) thousands and ignoring Northern 1995 official figures of 1.1 million? This including 300,000 MIA, but some  say practically all of dead are now "missing". --HanzoHattori 03:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crazy sourcing 

message: In one place (Tonkin Resolution) the number of advisors is supposed to have been around 21 000 just before the resolution; way further down it is said that there had been 16 000 in 1964.GabrielMo 16:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sorted. Cripipper 18:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradictory counts of number of military advisors in 1964 

message: Someone should add the number of US POWs held in NV. I thin its vital information and its missing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.212.75.164 (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably more appropriate for The United States and the Vietnam War. Cripipper 17:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POWs 

message: :Image:Pentagon vietnam protests.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.207.206.69 (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pentagon Protest 

message: Over the past few weeks, I have been slowly revising this article because of its enormous size; I have now finished two sections, and have another section in my User:Ahudson/Sandbox for review. Please leave comments on my progress, I haven't gotten any input so far. Ahudson 17:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To put it bluntly: this is the stuff I'm taking out. You're looking at the sections I haven't done yet. :-). There is a portion of that on my sandbox that I've been playing with, please take a look. Ahudson 18:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ahudson, I hope you've seen the input you've received already, #Article Reduction in Progress. I see you just ignored the concern and posted your version anyway. -Will Beback · † · 23:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears you are the one not paying attention. Will Beback, I have read and re-read every single criticism that has been made in that section; however, as I stated in my posts, the only response I got was that it didn't need to be done, which is a matter of opinion anyway. Stop trying to impede the progress of an article unless you have a concrete problem with the version I have posted. Ahudson 18:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is meant in the nicest possible way, but the biggest critique of the revisions being made is that you don't appear to have a great deal of knowledge on the subject, meaning that you are not really adequately qualified on the subject to decide what is important and what is not.  To be perfectly frank, the versions you have produced thus far were riddled with factual inaccuracies and errors (which I corrected while keeping the integrity of your text), and the latest one in your sandbox is no different.  I strongly oppose your introducing it into the main body text. The end result is also an unnecessary over-simplification to a standard not befitting an encyclopedia entry.  What this article really needs is references! Cripipper 20:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally, some actual criticism! I would like to point out, though, that all of the infromation is what was already there; I didn't change any of it, although there may have been a copy error or two. So in terms of factual inaccuracies, that's not my fault, although I would be willing to help go back and check everything with the other Vietnam articles. Refrences, though, may be an easy thing to fix after all; I'm sure we can find relevant refrences in the main and related articles for each section. Thanks for the input, though; I'll try to be more careful and copy-edit the remaining sections to death before I post them. Ahudson 22:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately it's not just copy errors.  Because you don't appear to have any specialist knowledge of the subject beyond what is written in this article, you make factual errors when summarizing the information because you are not aware of the nuances which might superficially seem quite trivial but which are actually, historically, quite important.  I am absolutely and totally opposed to your current version - there is some room to perhaps abbreviate the section to 1949, however the section on the Exit of the French, and the Diem era, are vital.  I suggest you do not replace the current section with your version until someone else has had a chance to work on it. Cripipper 12:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I understand. However, keep in mind that if I didn't pick these nuances up after reading lots of wikipedia articles on the Vietnam War, then it's likely many others won't as well; so what I'm doing still shouldn't change the validity of the content. I am, however, open to any further revisions you might want to make. Go ahead and edit my sandbox, that's why its there. Ahudson 16:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing Revision 

message: It is like,  so perfect,  it's  simple, a soldier with a burning  jungle hut in  the background, even there's no explosions or  anything, it just feels so destructive. one of the few perfect battle box pics of any conflict. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.72.32.95 (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  there's obviously lots of editing attention to this article lately,  but please NEVER  change the main  pic 

message: The link provided in the article (which can only be accessed through the internet archive) claims that 800,000 Vietnamese were transported south, of them about 450,000 civilians and 190,000 French soldiers. However the Pentagon Papers claim that 900,000 civilians left in addition to the 190,000 French. Why is there a discrepancy and who should we trust? CJK 00:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the answer is fairly obvious from the opening line of John Prados's article - "One old chestnut of Vietnam lore is that following the 1954 Geneva agreements a million civilians fled what became North Vietnam to seek safety in the South."  The Pentagon Papers repeat this lore; Prados offers a scholarly analysis of the actual 'numbers game'. Cripipper 07:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No, the Pentagon Papers simply perpetuated the old chestnut.  There is, after all, no evidence offered in the Pentagon Papers either to support the higher number claim.   I am certain John Prados is not making these numbers up (!), and as an analyst at the National Security Archive, an organisation dedicated to securing the declassification and public dissemination of documents relating to U.S. foreign policy, he is uniquely placed to have access to the documentary evidence.  It is rather unfortunate that the VVA article contains no footnotes, but I would trust Prados's scholarship over the Pentagon Papers.  Cripipper 10:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The UNHCR uses as its source literature written in the 1980s before access to the documentary evidence was available.  The numbers are broken down very precisely - he is clearly not plucking them out of thin air.  I am sure if you email him he will provide you with the appropriate citations to calm your conspiratorial nerves. You seem rather intent in proving that a million fled communist persecution, to the extent of calling into question the professional credibility of a distinguished historian in the field.  Smacks a little of POV, don't you think? Cripipper 00:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The numbers game 

message: the article lists more than 50,000 dead us soliders. Tuchman's book march of folly says 45,000 dead and 300,000 wounded
:I am not sure where Barbara Tuchman gets here figures from.  The Vietnam memorial wall lists 58,249 names; this is the official death toll. Cripipper 19:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  amount of dead american soliders

message: Is their an article on the POW hoaxes of the 1980s? Where people created photos and testimonies of POWs still held prisoners to collect money to try and release them? Let me know at my talk page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: living POWs

message: The last sentence of the first paragraph kills me.  It states, "As a result of this it is therefore often considered part of the Cold War."  Ouch.  It should read either "As a result of this it is often considered..." or "It is therefore often considered..."  Please think about making this change.  Thanks, from Grammar Nut, aka Salsera Aimee 18:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial suggestion on wording 

message: Vietnam was known as the "Living Room War" because of the massive effects the media had.  People would literally watch footage of the war with their families or while in bed.  Just thought it would be a good thing to put in there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.255.158.68 (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Living Room War 

message: Other countries sent help to USA. Spain send 13 military doctor or Germany send supplies etc. Noviscum 00:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reference for this? Cripipper 12:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other countries: Spain 

message: I fail to see the reasoning behind the continued use of the present title of the article. Since the vast majority of the information regarding U.S. involvement has been removed, why has the mistitle been retained? Shouldn't it be renamed the "Vietnamese Civil War"? The direct U.S. involvement in 1965 (which prompted the "war" description) has been removed to "American participation", a separate article, has it not?
I have always opposed the "Vietnam War" moniker, since Congress did not declare act of war (the Southeast Asia Resolution was not the same thing, as Congress came to regret). Oh, I know, readers of Wiki should be able to find an article by its popular name, so who cares that the U.S. has not been at war since 1945? And the article remains mistitled regardless of the fact that Wiki, an encyclopedia (which purports to uphold scholarly, or at least knowledgeable accuracy) perpetuates a historical untruth.
Yes, a declaration of war by Congress is just a legalism, but a great many of the difficulties faced by the U.S during the last 50 years or so have hinged on just that legalism (and as we have come again to realize). Well, I cannot say that I am surprised by the present state of the article, it looks even worse than when I abandoned it. Too hot a topic with too many whackos trying to get their 1/8th of a cent in. I'll just fill in the blanks elsewhere. RM Gillespie 04:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you think that an act of the US Congress is needed for it to be called a War?  What do you think the vast majority of the participants call it? It's a war that occurred in Vietnam.  Calling it the "Vietnamese Civil War" is not very POV, since the communists don't see it as such, and neither is calling it "US-Vietnam War", since the South Vietnamese don't see it as such. DHN 03:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Since it was basically a Vietnamese civil war, I think "Vietnam War" is quite apt. The US forces, while substantial, were always outnumbered by South Vietnamese forces. Grant | Talk 02:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vietnam War?

message: Is it just me or is the wording used to describe the fall of Saigon a bit zealous? It is an opinion to say that the flag waived "victoriously", and there are also unsubstantiated claims of conversation between leaders. Can someone help me check this out? It struck me as a little odd. Blaiseball 03:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fall of Saigon