Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 10

Ngo Dinh Diem

The following section is not neutral, and should therefore not stand in an encyclopedia. "Diem was an unlikely prospect to lead the Vietnamese people. A devout Roman Catholic, he was aloof, closed-minded, and trusted only the members of his immediate family. For the U.S., however, he was a godsend."

Diem was an unlikely prospect to lead the Vietnamese people. He was a little weird and closedminded. Most south vietnamese i have spoken to revere him as uncomprimising.a man with dignity and a good leader. many american history books are clearly biased concerning diem. we south vietnamese were the ones that lived under his rule. we are the ones who should be judging if he was a good leader or not. Tridungvo 13:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the South Vietnamese you have talked to? And who are they? What positions did they hold in Vietnamese society 30-40 years ago. Were they the Bhuddists that he and his brother persecuted? Were they members of the the Cao Dai sect? Were they NFL cadres murdered for calling for elections? He was indeed the Catholic dictator of a nation that was predominantly Bhuddist (which gained him hundreds of thousands of ardent anti-communist supporters). He refused to redistribute land to the peasants at the expense of the landlord class (which benefited the NLF insurgency). If he was such a good leader, why did the majority of his own military high command (albeit with U.S. government approval) acquiesce in his murder? RM Gillespie 06:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They not only spoke on their own behalf, but on the behalf of the people of South Vietnam. I can guarantee you that if you did a survey on the South Vietnamese people living under Diem, and they had freedom of speak (not risking persecution afterwards as they do in Vietnam today), most would say he was a good leader and a better one than anyone after him. Diem did use measures considered cruel in the eyes of westernes, but they were nothing but appropiate considering the cruelty of the enemy he faced and the hard times he was in. Communists sources say they were severely weakened during his rule. The so-called 'Buddhists' he persecuted during his time were Communist guerillas working undercover. We can know this as after he attacked the religious groups, Communist guerilla activities were dramatically reduced.

However, most American history books fail to accept that Diem was a good leader, because the American CIA was largely responsible for the murder of Diem. They cannot accept that under hard times, there is a need for strict and hard measures. The books fail to realise that if Diem had not been murdered, the arrival of mass scale U.S. troops would never have been necessary. The South Vietnamese people had never been in better times before his rule, and they suffered much more in the crippling civil war during the chaotic times after his assassination. Tridungvo 12:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can guarantee you that the majority of Vietnamese are Buddhists and they consider him to be a crook. Apart from the ruling class and Catholics, nobody likes him. Having said that, most people would agree that those who came after him were more corrupt, although not as anti-Buddhist. And no, Buddhists /= Communists. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And in the last years of his goverment, assassinations of govt officials by VC tripled, and his Catholic general Huynh Van Cao who was promoted for political reasons and not competence was routed at the Battle of Ap Bac despite having ten times as many men, as well as having helicopters. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The South Vietnamese people had never been in better times before his rule"

So you think that Vietnamese people would rate him above the Trung sisters, Le Loi or Quang Trung? 70% land taxes?? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The communists were being routed under Diem? Man, I think you had better find yourself a basic history of Vietnam describing the collapse of the ARVN under his rule. The "communist" Bhuddists? Well, you have to hand it to them for dedication. I personally have never seen a communist set himself alight in the streets to promote his cause. Sounds like Madame Ngu to me. RM Gillespie 04:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Madame Ngu eh? In Vietnamese, Ngu (no diacrtics) means stupid. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Pony Express

How come no one has written this article yet? I know WP:BOLD and all, and I would create it myself, but with wikipedias coverage of the Vietnam war being as extensive as it is, yet this article remaining uncreated, I assume there must be a particular reason why? If not, then I'll have a go at it. Seems to be related to the ferrying of American combat troops into Cambodia and/or Laos from what I have read so far. Someone fill me in! SGGH ^speak! 18:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not written simply because there is no such critter. Pony Express was the nickname of a U.S. Air Force HH-53 helicopter squadron stationed at Nakhon Phanom Air Base, Thailand. The unit did indeed ferry highly-classified SOG recon team and agent personnel into eastern Laos and North Vietnam. It also transported CIA-backed Laotian tribal mercenaries in the secret war in that country. See SOG and Operation Barrel Roll RM Gillespie 04:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military Superiority

One of the most startling revelations of the Vietnam War was the lopsided death count. Many civilian died as a result of the sustained U.S. bombing. Civilians dying in war is an uncomfortable reality. Uncomfortable or not, however, it is a vital part of the picture of Vietnam. The reason for this lopsided result must be explained. Vietnamese civilians died in such large numbers because of the complete dominance of U.S. technology. You complain about the comparison of military and civilian deaths. What are we supposed to compare Vietnamese civilian deaths with? Would you prefer that the sentence read "2 and 5.1 milliom Vietnamese, a large number of whom were civilians and 0 American civilians?" --Hughstew 05:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is unquestionable that the US was far superior militarily. My point is that it could be better worded if we compared actual combatant deaths for both sides. Approximately 60k Americans vs. 600k Vietnemese would better illustrate the military picture (superiority), than millions of unintentional civilian deaths. 24.68.249.197 09:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how relevant any of this is unless it is to support a sub-text that the Vietnamese won a pyrrhic victory or that somehow the wrong people lost. It's a very unsatisfactory note on which to end the introduction and I suggest it is replaced with something altogether more NPOV. ROGER ^TALK 13:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem using the military casualty figures, as long as civilians are included. Like all wars, they were the first to suffer. Hanoi hid the casualty figures during the war, but since the cat is out of the bag these people deserve to be remembered.--219.79.112.194 10:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pls understand that when the term "military superiority" is used by historians it means superior firepower and nothing else. Service members use the same language.--Hughstew 10:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, using the respective butchers' bills is irrelevant. The comparison should be purely in terms of matériel. ROGER ^TALK 13:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Roger. There must be a load of examples that would prove US military superiority that don't involve the respective death tolls. 24.68.249.197 22:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also strikes me that technological superiority and military superiority aren't at all the same thing. ROGER ^TALK 09:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Roger, whilst US might clearly have had superior technology, the VC compensated by using huge numbers of infantry. Same tactic was used by the Chinese forces in the Korean War to great affect against the once again superior technology of the US. Just because the North lost more troops that doesn't mean that they were militarily inferior, it just reflects a different way of fighting. Unlike the US, there was little political cost for the VC in losing men - hence Ho Chi Minh's statement to a French official "you can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours, but even at those odds, you will lose and I will win." Using body count is a completely biased measure. Carl weathers bicep 09:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you Google "military superiority."--Hughstew 07:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those angels and pinheads issues really. At Agincourt, fr'instance, who were militarily superior? The French who were numerically superior? Or the English who were technologically superior? ROGER ^TALK 08:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google it and then tell me what you think. The term means superior firepower, dominance of the battlefield through firepower, technological superiority and the ability to deliver it. It is a commonly used term, which I think you've misunderstood. But have a look. Thanks for the ref clean up. I still don't get why there is this big gap at the start of the article. It didn't used to be there. As far as the body count (civilian) goes, I still think those people deserve a mention. Sometimes that is the job of an historian. To make sure that victims have the justice that they didn't have in life, at least given to them in death. --219.78.179.36 10:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it that amongst military historian's the term 'military superiority' means 'technological superiority', however wiki is designed for general readers, not specialists. If the term is used as you wish it to be, then it should only be so with a disclaimer explaining the distinction. Given that that would probably appear unnecessarily detailed for a page about the Vietnam War, I think the more precise 'technologically superior' would be preferable.?.

As for the post directly above this one, it just repeats the same mistake already identified - collating 'superior firepower', 'dominance of the battlefield through firepower', 'technological superiority' and 'ability to deliver it' as all one and the same. In Vietnam the VC troops fought the US force to a standstill, if only because their guerrilla tactics meant the US troops couldn't find them (ironically the same tactics the US used against the 'technologically superior' British army during the War of Independence). 'Dominance of the battlefield through firepower' etc is inherently biased towards a modern US style of fighting, whilst the guerrilla tactics of the VC would have completely different criteria for success - both can achieve military success though Carl weathers bicep 12:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>219.78.179.36 Please don't assume that I misunderstand simply because I disagree your take in this context. I offered Agincourt as an example where both sides could claim military superiority. As for the clean up, my pleasure. ROGER ^TALK 13:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, military superiority? You mean numbers? The hugh numbers of troops the communists utilized? Human wave attacks? I suggest you read some basic military texts on the conflict (the U.S. Army's are excellent) and discover that in almost every confrontation (until the last, Vietnamese phase of the war) PAVN/NLF forces were outnumbered by their allied opponents. RM Gillespie 05:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About China

Before 1971, China is internationally recognized as the Republic of China(ROC), which is Taiwan. So what i'm suggesting is that someone should change the name China(with five star flag) to the People's Republic of China. 203.198.165.29 02:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ROGER ^TALK 10:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could this also be done for the flag of the People's Republic of China (Right-hand side)? Ld80061 16:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

First of all, 1.1 million dead or missing is the official figure now. If you think some guy's estimate from 1985 is more reliable, you are being just plain silly.

Second, add the POWs (including most of ARViNs in 1975, I guess). --HanzoHattori 13:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've upped the US casualty figures, by the way. It seems they were seriously understated. ROGER ^TALK 10:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the "official" communist figures? You do understand that they include the combined casualties of North and South Vietnam? RM Gillespie 05:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. I brought that up on the Casualties of the Vietnam War page a while back. Kensai Max 22:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

templates

Is there any way to get the templates at the right not to push the text down so you have to scroll down a couple of pages before you get to the article? Chris 17:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I follow you - if by 'article' you mean from the first line 'The Vietnam War (also known as the Second Indochina War, the American War....' - then its at the top where it should be, if its appearing differently on yours it presumably an issue with your browser. Then again I may be completely misunderstanding you Carl weathers bicep 11:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm seeing the same problem with the display of text. I tried moving the Campaignbox templates to other locations, but that just moves the problem elsewhere -- although it does help out in terms of the Intro. Come to think of it, I'm going to save that change -- at least it's an improvement for the time being. Meanwhile, I've already posted a request for help on this issue over at Template talk:Campaignbox Vietnam War. Hopefully that will get results. Cgingold 16:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam WikiProject

Hoping there may be interest, I have posted a proposal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Vietnam_WikiProject Chris 17:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, join us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Vietnam! Chris 04:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montage

Corresponding to the American Civil War, Russo-Japanese War,World War I,World War II, and the Korean War. Feel free to add suggestions.Kfc1864 13:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the montage should be made with mostly color images unless it is a particularly iconic B/W image, here are some in no particular order, all free of copyright

[[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]], [[11]], [[12]], [[13]],

and these are pictures of war protesters, should have at least one image of war protesters [[14]] [[15]] Bleh999 01:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try Anything.Kfc1864 04:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5 images in the most.Kfc1864 04:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup/expand on My Lai Massacre requested

See the talk page for details. --HanzoHattori 14:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hughstew

Paris Peace Accords did NOT end the war (fall of Saigon 2 years later did, and related 'domino' in Cambodia and Laos). What are you, stuck in 1973? U.S. withdrawal was not result of the fall of Saigon, it was a cause.

"guerilla warfare" or "insurgency" was TACTICS not the casus belli. What does it even suppose to mean? Vietcong sez: we'll start our guerilla warfare because of the guerilla warfare? --HanzoHattori 04:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HanzoHattori

That is a fair comment and I accept part of your argument. However, what about the footnote? That is referenced material from the U.S. Army, Henry Kissinger and Robert McNamara. You should not remove referenced material. Who won and who lost the war is crucial information. Are you saying that the United States did not lose the Vietnam War? --Hughstew 01:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define lose? How would they won? Conquer North Vietnam? They never tried. They forced the communists to the peace talks and the peace accord, and this ended THEIR war (something Vietnamese call the "American war"). They quit "with honor". In 1975 Saigon lost theirs - after Hanoi and Washington betrayed them, respectively. (thus Americans losing... said "honor", not the war, because they didn't fight.) If there was air support (any support really) - see the results of the 1972 offensive. --HanzoHattori 01:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, you can use this footnote anywhere in the article (I don't even know what is this really). It's just wrong to say the war ending violently in 1975 ended with the peace agreement of 1973. The article define the war to include 1975, not the American intervention in Vietnam. --HanzoHattori 02:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: please link to X article

{{editprotected}} The "The Diem era, 1955–1963" section refers to the "X" article, but doesn't have a link to the WP article on the subject. Please change the text to a link: "X" article 71.41.210.146 02:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I linked it, but in general semiprotected articles don't need admin assistance, since they can be edited by any username 4 days old or older. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Facts" vs "Myths"?

Does this [16] differ because the 'facts' are wrong or because the 'facts' are inaccurate representation of the sources? Or, are the Wiki's facts are wrong? Brian Pearson 07:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Errors found, corrections requested

As the page cannot be edited, I note the following and request others to amend the page. I would invite other readers to add to this numbered list (in sequence) so that the "senior editors" may keep track of changes to be made.

1. Australia did not exit the war in 1971, as currently stated, but merely decided to scale back troops deployed in that year, cf.

Throughout 1971 and 1972 the reduction of Australia's forces continued under the administration of Prime Minister McMahon. By the end of 1971 the Australian Army presence had been reduced to 2300 personnel. By mid-1972 less than 200 Australian personnel remained and in December 1972 Prime Minister Whitlam announced the withdrawal of the final contingent. On 26 February 1973 Prime Minister Whitlam announced the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North) while retaining diplomatic recognition for the Republic of Vietnam (South). The last elements of the Australian Army left Vietnam in June 1973.

[17] Source: Ashley Ekins Official History Unit Australian War Memorial

2. The omission of Laos and Cambodia in the list of "combatants" is absurd --in the case of Laos, more than one faction must be listed (RLG vs. PL, etc.).

Technically, neither Laos nor Cambodia were conmbatants in the Vietnam War (eg. Laotian forces did not fight in either Cambodia or the Vietnams. Cambodian troops fought in neither Vietnams nor in Laos). The were participants in the larger Second Indochina War or are generally referred to as the Laotian Civil War and Cambodian Civil War. RM Gillespie 16:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. The list of names for the war omits one of the most obvious and important, namely The American War, as it is known throughout South-East Asia.

4. The war in Vietnam actually started in 1956 when the Geneva Convention of 1954 was broken. The Convention in 1954 stated that the North and South peoples of Vietnam would be given the right to vote for unification. The United States and the puppet government of South Vietnam would not allow such a vote. Thus the start of the war was in 1956. First American dead was in 1959 as depicted on the wall. This is history someone please get it right!!!

Comment on #4 - wasn't Viet Minh controlled North Vietnam by 1956 engaging in a large scale social revolution, as had occurred in China after 1949? With village based "people's trials" of landlords and summary executions? Weren't tens of thousands of the "landlord class" being executed by 1956? How could such a society have had a democratic vote with political parties competing in an open arena? The South Vietnamese government - - which should not be called a puppet government, by the way - - was wise to not agree to nationwide elections on these terms. Such nationwide elections would have been a complete sham. Douglas Hawes, 3/7/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.15.244 (talk) 06:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Letters of 1967 between LB Johnson and Ho Chi Minh

I found this links to text of letters between the 2 leaders and wondered if someone with the knowledge would want to add this in a appropriate spot. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1967-vietnam-letters1.html Please have a look and comment or edit and insert. Fremte 18:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. material losses

I think its important to get the American material losses in this conflict as they are rather substantial. For example 5.086 helicopters where lost of 11.827 possible which illustrate the danger of being an American helicopter pilot.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.73.56.50 (talk)

Pictures

Is there a reason the pictures are so small they can barely be seen? Perspicacite 04:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can click on them to enlarge them Bleh999 17:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we including the whole war?

The Vietnam War was fought in neighboring Laos and Cambodia as well. Why are the factions involved in those theatres of the conflict not listed in the infobox? --Kudzu1 07:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because it was fought in rather than against? Not sure but that might be my guess SGGH ^speak! 17:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above explination under Errors Found. RM Gillespie 16:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names for the conflict...

Are the highly subjective interpretations, also lacking any kind of source or reference, really necessary for the names for the conflict? I completely disagree with two of the interpretations, but that's not really the point. The point is, given how obviously subjective these interpretations of the names of the conflict are, and also given how amazingly irrelevant the interpretations are for the purposes of a historical account of the conflict, it would be best if they were just completely removed and simply stated the names and the origin.

Firebrand24 19:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more confused as to how "Vietnam War" suggests a locational exclusivity, rather than being suggestive of the people involved. It's entirely ignorant to claim the name fails to recognize context and/or the general idea simply from a title. --BeggarEthics 06:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

This section doesn't make any sense. It says "below are three references..." and just stops there without providing any references. Not to mention the whole paragraph (save the last sentence) is uncited, which is pretty bad for something that's supposed to have statistics.-Wafulz 02:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who inserted the original para (which quoted three separate sources for comparison). You can only blame shitty editing for the current result. RM Gillespie 16:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casus Belli

In the info box, the Casus Belli for USA being in the war is listed as "containment policy and domino theory"... Forgive me if I am wrong, but by my understanding "Casus Belli" is basically the EXCUSE for a nation to go to war... while containment theory WAS the reason, the EXCUSE or JUSTIFICATION and therefore Casus Belli (i would have thought) should then be the Gulf of Tonkin incident, no?? 124.176.5.47 10:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right in principle that the Casus Belli is the proffered reason for going to war, not necessarily the real reason for going to war. However, you are wrong because it is generally considered that the Vietnam War began in 1959. This is perhaps a somewhat arbitrary date (read the section of this article entitled "Violence Begins 1956-1960". The key turning point would seem to have been "the north's Central Committee issued a secret resolution authorizing an armed struggle." Note that, at this point, the U.S. is not fully in the war. However, the war has started between the North and the South i.e. it's no longer just an insurgency by the Viet Cong (NLF).

The next inflection point is Kennedy's insertion of "military advisors". The one after that is the escalation of the war by LBJ following the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Thus, the Gulf of Tonkin incident happened more than five years after the start of the war and thus cannot have been the Casus Belli for the war between the North and the South. Perhaps it could be argued that it was the Casus Belli for the U.S. entry into the war.:--Richard 20:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, two wrongs do make a right? The origin lies in Ngo Dinh Diem's attacks on Viet Minh/communist cadres proslytizing for the promised reunification elections. Requests for northern support prompted the Central Committee of the Lao Dong Party to pass the resolution granting permission for the armed struggle in the south to begin. RM Gillespie 16:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typo: USS Madox

"On August 2, 1964, the U.S.S. Madox was attacked by torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin. The destroyer was on an intelligence mission along North Vietnam's coast. A second attack was reported two days later on the U.S.S. Turner Joy and U.S.S Maddox in the same area. "

Please fix that obvious typo. Thanks.

Czecho-Slovak propaganda postcard "Nam Dinh /1970/"

Vietnam for Vietnamese - Americans out from Vietnam, Solidarity with heroic Vietnamese people - Nam Dinh must live

here: http://brod.webpark.cz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.85.189.75 (talk) 20:18, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Under the section dedicated to Australian and New Zealand involvement, it is in serious need of sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.51.102.165 (talk) 10:09, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Use of Napalm

Reading through the article, I have been startled to note that none of it speaks about Napalm. The Vietnam war is known to be one of the main large-scale conflict involving such weapons. I'm not confident enough in my English to write it myself, that's why I'm submitting the topic here. 195.25.91.230 08:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the Vietnam War comes up last on a list of three conflicts for usage of Dow Chemical's potent mixture. The Second World War (the Pacific Theater) and the Korean War are numbers one and two. RM Gillespie 16:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why it would have to be in the top two to get a mention. The image of Kim Phuc that resulted from napalm coming into contact with civilians is one of the best known of the war and was of great significance in the international perception of the war. William Avery 21:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Kim Phuc, the famous image of the little girl hit by napalm. My understanding is this episode occurred after South Vietnamese fighter bombers hit the village, during the Easter Offensive of 1972. These fighter bombers were supporting ARVN ground forces trying to drive NVA forces out of the village, located not too far from An Lac - - the location for some of the heaviest ground fighting during the Easter Offensive. This ground fighting involved almost exclusively NVA and ARVN personnel, as large scale American assistance was limited to air support. And yet the hugely successful anti-war film "Hearts and Minds" portrayed this episode as an example of the devastating and horrific impact of American air power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.15.244 (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian involvement

In the top info box it has India on the side of the North Vietnamese. Is this accurate? In the article body the only other reference is to India's part in the Control Commission. --maxrspct ping me 01:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum number of U.S. troops in Vietnam -- not mentioned?

Here's one citation for 500,000 between 1965-1969: [18]

Fairly key statistic...why isn't it mentioned here?

Lies about JFK

Article states that "President John F. Kennedy increased America's troop numbers from 500 to 16,000." This is a blatant lie. The day JFK was murdered there were only 1,500 troops in Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lottery0101 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--71.42.142.238 14:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That number depends on how you count American troops. If you're talking about the number of American troops who were actually in regular combat on November 22, 1963, then the number is probably around 1,500. If you include all U.S. military personnel who did not actually participate in combat but were operating in direct support and even in operational command of South Vietnamese operations, then the number is definitely around 16,000. 137.165.208.48 (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]