Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Nixon's gambit did not result in decrease of support for NVN, quite the opposite, aid increased

Edited Vietnamizations section to rework statement that Nixon's diplomacy caused a reduction in aid to NVN. Quite the contrary, such aid INCREASED as detailed by respected US military historians who themselves served in Vietnam.

in the North. That support continued, enabling the North Vietnamese to mount a full-scale conventional war against the South, complete with tanks, upgraded jet fighters and a modern fuel pipeline snaking through parts of Laos and North Vietnam to the front, to feed the North Vietnamese invasions in 1972 and 1975. The fact that the NVA/PAVN was able to mount such attacks despite massive US bombing indicates that military assistance *INCREASED* not decreased. Nixon's "opening" to China helped pressure North Vietnam back to the bargaining table, allowing America a face saving exit, or "a decent interval" as Kissinger called it. Military writers such as David Palmer ("Summons of the Trumpet") and Harry Summers ("On Strategy") detail the massive influx of material to the NVA/PAVN even after Nixon's diplomatic moves, as well as the continued presence of personnel from other communist countries, including Chinese and Russian troops. Those are the indisputable facts. Enriquecardova 08:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Vietnamese history textbook being used in schools today document a sharp decline in aids from China and an increase in aids from Eastern Europe. Taking into account that both Vietnam & China are running by communist governments, this information is much more trustworthy than some some self proclaimed "military writers".--82.27.205.64 00:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

History textbooks, especially those written in single-party states, tend not to be unbiased versions of history, but rather what the government or school system would like students to believe. So, to state that a textbook is automatically more authoritative than two military historians is not necessarily accurate. Harry G. Summers was a retired military officer at the time he wrote "On Strategy" and Dave R. Palmer has written four other miltary history books since "Summons of the Trumpet", though all on the American Revolutionary period. So, I don't think they are "self-proclaimed" military historians. Now, they may be biased, since they are Americans.

Additionally, I'm not sure why the fact that China is communist has anything to do with the trustworthiness of the information. My understanding is that, despite a shared ideology, Vietnam has always been suspicious of Chinese intentions (not plans, just intentions), which may well include the annexation of Vietnam.

I don't know of a reason that Vietnamese history textbooks would mis-represent the information and they are also far more likely to have access to accurate data, so I suspect you are correct in your assessment of the comparative accuracy of these sources. --Habap 12:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Good points all. Vietnamese History textbooks giving an accurate account of the Vietnam War? Laughable. In fact aid from ALL "fraternal socialist" countries went up after the Americans pulled out. The communist regime has its own reasons for deemphasizing China or deemphasizing Russia. It all depends on the 'party line' at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enriquecardova (talk • contribs)

I don't think you fully understand the relationship between Vietnam & China. It's true, like you said, Vietnameses have always been suspicious of Chineses intentions but it is much more than that, a lot of Vietnameses hate Chineses and you can call that racist (I'm no different as I'm Vietnamese - I'm not proud of being racist, but it is something which has always been there because of thoudsands of years of war with China).

The Vietnamese government is known to be very diplomatic & expert in manipulating public opinion. Remember how they turned the military defeat in Tet 1968 to a stunning PR vitory? And how the U.S lost the war thanks to the great contribution of the anti-war movement? They also able to made the Soviet Union and China working together to support the Vietnam war effort in the middle of the Sino-Soviet split. I talked to a lot of Vietnam war veterans (Vietcong & NVA not U.S) and they told me they never wanted to kill Americans, what they wanted was to injured them so badly they couldn't fight anymore and have to be sent back home therefore achieving 2 objectives: to decrease the number of U.S & allied troops in Vietnam and also to show the U.S public the horror of war and help turned them against the war.

I believe it is much clearer to you now. Like you said, Vietnam has always been suspicious of Chinese intentions and always considered them to be the biggest threat. But since China is now a superpower with nuclear weapons, it will be very hard for Vietnam to fight head on with China both diplomatically and militarily. That why on one hand, they try to satisfy the Chinese government while on another hand, they tried to form close tie with the West, particularly U.S. (closing of the last Russian military base in Vietnam, Vietnamese prime minister & minister of defense visit U.S for the first time). A few years ago, when Jiang Ze Ming was still the president of China, he visited Vietnam and demanded the Vietnamese government to take out part of history books used in school about the war with China in 1979 & skirmishes throughout the 1980s, the Vietnamese government partially accepted that demand. You see, while the Vietnamese government tried not to offense the Chinese government, the Vietnamese people despise the Chineses and most will not hesitate to openly express that feeling whenever they can. The Vietnamese government has always been trying to cool the people down after the Soviet Union ceased to exist, mostly by mean of propaganda. It is easy to see that while the Vietnam war was still going on, the Chineses turned over to U.S - North Vietnam's enemy at that time and sharply decrease aids to North Vietnam will be seen as a betrayal, especially right after the Khmer Rouge took power in Cambodia they started massacring ethnic Vietnameses in Cambodia and started a series of guerrilla raids into South Vietnam with the help of China. As the only legal party in Vietnam, the Communist Party has the power to alter those figures to serve its diplomatic purposes, but they did not, it might be because they see those figures as too trivial. Whatever the reason, one thing is for sure, those figures have not been tampered with by the government and therefore very reliable.--82.27.205.64 16:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You English is quite good, User:82.27.205.64|82.27.205.64, except you kept using words like "Vietnameses" and "Chineses". There are no such words in English anymore than "Frenches" or "Englishes". The plural forms for "Vietnamese" and "Chinese" is the same as the singular. Signed: Bac Ca

Thanks for the little history lesson. I was a Soviet Studies specialist in college and only know bits and pieces about Asia. I am, however, curious how you can be so certain that the figures have never been tampered with. --Habap 17:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I used the wrong word. I don't know for sure, you can not be sure of anything nowadays. However, as I said before, it would be much better for the government if they alter the figures to reflect a continual increase of Chinese aids between 1973 and 1975. I can't think of any reason to do the exact opposite, it would be very unreasonable. Moreover, as Cripipper pointed out, there are also books which further support these figures.--82.27.205.64 04:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Chinese aid increased steadily between the years of 1964 and 1968, then decreased in 1969 and 1970, then increased again between 1971 and 1973, before decreasing again. See Qiang Zhai, China and the Vietnam Wars p. 136; also Chris Connolly, 'The American Factor: Sino-American Rapprochement and China's Attitude to the Vietnam War, 1968-1972' in Cold War History, vol. 5, no. 4 (November 2005); Chen Jian, Mao's China and the Cold War Cripipper 21:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The first Indo Chinese war had civilian casualties on the hundreds of thousands, it then that the Vietnamese won their independence. For purposes of security, not reflecting political sentiments of the populance, the country was divided in two. Ho Chi Mihn allowed this so that Chinese forces (sent in by the allies) would abandon the north. It was done with a promise that the will of the electorate would be heard after two years. Diem was installed in the South without any democratic support, none. This i call the establishment of a proxy US government in South Vietnam. This is a colonial practice. If you want to use today's lingo, it is a neo imperialist practice. The US then sent over a million men to Indochina and proceded to murder millions of peasants. Is anything i am saying untrue?

Yes - you are getting your facts a little confused. Ho permitted the return of the French in 1946 so that the Chinese would leave the northern part of the country, not in 1954. Cripipper 21:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

True, As Ho said, the French can only stay a few years at most, but the Chineses will stay for a thoudsand years.--82.27.205.64 04:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as i understand this is all accepted by the US, i haven't even touched unaccepted truths. The US sent its troops because elections would have proven fatal to the unpopular DIem and the reunification of Viet Nam would have occurred peacefully. This was against US interests.

Erm, not really true either. There were only a couple of hundred U.S. advisers in South Vietnam in 1955-60; combat troops didn't go in until 1965. Sadly you seem to be letting a disregard for the facts get in the way of some potentially valid points. 158.143.8.12 21:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Laos, Cambodia and VIetnam went on to suffer a decade of bombing and poisoning by the US. The US was not invited to Cambodia, it was most certainly not invited to Laos and i can assure you that Diem was hardly representative of the Vietnamese people as he had been instated by the US. That is an invasion, perhaps not quite as honest as that of Claudius in Britain but certainly as desastrous to the native population.

All i ask is a scholarly citation to prove that the past "statistics" are not anything but propaganda. "The Vietnam War did not prove domino theory wrong", please cease to use Cold War dogma in civilized conversation. The world knows of the horrors of the North American Empire. I am merely asking that the North American people finally debunk the propaganda or offer some proof. I am tired of seeing your army of death go into any country it pleases claiming there was a civil war. When the majority fights to obtain its rightful power it isnt a civil war, its democratization.

The "North American Empire"? Are you angry with the Canadians, too? I don't think the Mexican government realizes it is part of an empire either. I also don't think Mexico sent any troops to Viet Nam, but have never checked. My memory is that individual Canadians, but not Canada itself, went to fight in Viet Nam. So, I am confused by the "North American Empire" rhetoric. --Habap 12:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfair picture of war crimes

This page contains a picture of alleged American war crimes. If they are going to be shown there should also be pictures of alleged or confirmed Vietcong or NVR war crimes which are numerous.

Alternate Reality

A Question: If the United States hadn't started Vietnamization and pulled troops out of the country, would Vietnam be a democratic country today?

No. The US defeated the Viet Cong in 1968 but there was no real plan for how to defeat North Vietnam after 1968. Invasion of North Vietnam was unlikely and there were not enough troops or the will to expand the war into southern Laos or Cambodia. North Vietnam could keep sending troops south forever. China and the USSR were willing to pay their bills forever. Unless the war expanded beyond South Vietnam, there was no way to win an outright victory with US troops.

Had the US air war over Vietnam continued, the Vietnamese conventional invasion of 1975 would have probably failed just as their invasion a few years before had failed.

The US army was a spent force in the early 1970s. With or without Vietnamization, the days of the draft-based army were over. In the long run, bringing the army home and reconstructing it from the ground up as a professional force was worth a whole lot more to everyone than any victory in Vietnam would have been.

I concur. The South Vietnamese couldn't win it on their own - they were not ideologically committed, they had no long history as a nation to pull them together and they multiple foreign influences created corrupt and unstable regimes. So, I think Ho's fellas would have won sooner. Perhaps this would have resulted in a more economically viable Vietnam (not as many dead soldiers, not as much destruction), but without Western investment or trade, their agrarian communism wasn't going to work. --Habap 13:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Vietnam would probably now be a Democracy. Be it Communism or Democracy or Socialism or whatever else, the issue of socio-economic ideology was then and remains now a red herring. Its in large part a misnomer for the cultural and economic control frameworks which the US and the USSR each represented. Of course a freer system is naturally preferable, but geography must have played a greater role in Ho's alliance with Sino-Soviet Communist ideology than Western daydreamers and monday-morning quarterbacks like to mention. Think about it: Why align oneself politically with some system and culture from halfway around the world, which, despite its flowery and quotable documents (Ho was an admirer of American Revolution history) in practice seemed no less self-interested than the locals to the north. The reality of proximity meant that Ho needed to be practical in choosing a model of government - whether it was agreeable to Western planners ("geostrategists" apparently) or not.

In any case, totalitarian states seem to flourish in the aftermath of destruction. This was true in Russia, in which case 'destruction' might refer to the damage done by the Revolution. Its easy to understand the desire to overthrow a despot, whether its Russians in Russia overthrowing the Czar or the U.S. selectively 'overthrowing' disagreeable despots in the Middle East. But the implementation of chaos only leads to popular radicalization, and this is typically manifest by one hardline ideology or another: be it socio-economic ideology (ie. "Communist") or religious ideology ("Islamism," etc), hardline nationalism is almost always a response to some kind of chaos and violence. Of course these fringe hardline elements - neocons in the U.S. for example - are always waiting in the wings for the opportunity to either create or exploit chaos - the selfish illusion of attained and retained power always being the driving motive. -Ste|vertigo 10:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Vietnam would be a democratic country today if the US had been helping Chu Tich Ho Chi Minh from the start of the French War. Ionius Mundus 06:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Could use a picture of McNamara? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

It cites no sources. Is the "further reading" lists texts still to be read or have they all been read and incorporated - some clarification as to sources is needed. Minor things like POV linking (America but not USSR and PR of China in the lead) and weird use of headers. Also it is so big (>100kb) that it's a bit much for one person to read through and evaluate every bit - it might be more suited for WP:Peer Review for a longer list of more specific criticism, in order to help improve the article. Poulsen 07:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Minor Typo in Casualties Section

"More than 2 Vietnamese cows and lambs were killed so far by landmines and unexploded ordnance. [6]" If someone knows true number, please fill it in.

Expansion of U.S. Involvement section up to Kennedy paragraph

It seems to me that the 'timelines' of U.S. involvement during the Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy Presidencies (with the exception of the long, exegetical paragraphs immediately after the Kennedy timeline) are very underdeveloped. I added a expansion request as well as a notice here and on the Expansion Request page. Secos5 17:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I would question the whole existance of the timeline sections. They largely duplicate material that can be better covered in either existing sections or additions to existing sections. I've already expanded the original simple-minded timelines but if it goes much further its probably worth creating an entire new page devoted to vietnam timelines. 168.127.0.51 16:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Advisors and book links

I have changed "military advisers" to "military troops" and added one external link tooBharatveer 07:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted to re insert removed external linkBharatveer 11:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

At first glance, Manhattan's book seems to propose a radical new theory for understanding the war. Whether one agrees with him or not, this makes his work non-mainstream. Since we don't list any mainstream books on this page itself, that makes it inappropriate to list his book. I noted this in my edit summary. The other two links don't belong either - one I moved to the Tonkin Gulf Incident page and the other was a link to an entry on Amazon.com (i.e. advertising). If you wish to list his book, try Vietnam War (lists)#External links. --Habap 13:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In reference to the 25,000 advisors, the word describes their task, not their status. They were deployed in small groups (probably from individuals up to a feww dozen) to advise and assist the South Vietnamese. When the Marines landed at Da Nang, they were deployed as combat units, not advisors. While the advisors were in fact soldiers, it is incorrect to describe them as troops, since they would never fight together as a unit. --Habap 13:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added citation needed tag regarding Diem.Bharatveer 13:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Length

This is no article; it's a book!

I propose an agressive plan to shorten the article. "Back home" attitudes should be mentioned, having its own paragraph not pages of text. Move to wikibooks and build a new article from the existing text.

I was just coming here to say the same thing. This article is way, way, way too long. I'm shocked no one seems to have pointed that out before, considering the importance of the topic. See articles like United States or World War II for examples of how large and complex topics can be dealt with within normal Wikipedia lengths, with related articles linked to the main article. Moncrief 22:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The article should not be shortened one bit. Doing so would deprive it of important information. It would make no sense to shorten it. That would only lessen its value. Ionius Mundus 06:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The Vietnam War was not a short, uncomplicated war, but the most important war of the second half of the Twentieth Century. It was the pivotal conflict of the Cold War, which lasted from 1945 to 1989 and involved countries all over the world. The Vietnam War also grew out of the end of Western colonialism and its replacement by various forms of neocolonialism and eventual independence. The conflict was not limited to Vietnam but extended into Laos and Cambodia. Major players in its genesis and resolution were North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, France, Japan, the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, Thailand, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines. starkt 12:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Boy Howdy! Vietnam as the most important military conflict of the second half of the 20th Century? How about WWII, the Chinese Civil War, or Korea? Talk about your skewed perspectives. If there is going to be a paradigm for military conflict during the post-WWII period (the Cold War), it will be the Korean Conflict, for the reasons stated by the author of the above entry. Containment was the name of the game. Same opponents. Almost the same allies. Same goal, except that it worked for the capitalist/Western side. Think about historical perspective for a moment. In 50 to 100 years, when all of the protagonists (and their grinding axes) have all been laid to rest and all of the dust has settled, Vietnam (and the new Iraq "War" for that matter) will be no more historically important than Great Britain's Egyptian Expedition of 1882 - remember that one? 12.152.8.229 16:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, WWII and the Chinese Civil War weren't even in the second half of the 20th century to begin with, and the Korean War was mostly in the first half of the century, too. Important as the war in Korea was, the war in Việtnam lasted much longer, from 1945 to 1979 - thirty-four years. It was also, other than the Korean War, the first time the USA had lost a war. --Ionius Mundus 18:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

While you make some good points, Ionia, the odds probably still are that the VietNam war will, in 100 years or so, be considered a relatively minor skirmish. The major result of the war was to deflate US prestige, more than anything else. Truly, from today's perspective, can it really matter whether VietNam is capitalist or communist? Or rather, whether VietNam is allied with the "West" or "Soviet Bloc," when the USSR is itself a relic of the past? 66.108.144.49 01:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Name in Vietnamese

The Vietnamese Wikipedia titles this page Chiến tranh Việt Nam, whereas this page claims the name is Cuộc chiến Việt Nam. I see references to what is literally the "French War" in the discussion, or the "American War" there and in the first paragraph of the article as well, but neither of these are listed on the page as Vietnamese names of the war. There are some major discrepencies here! 59.112.50.53 21:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Sorry, the first is noted after all, just not bolded. What of the "American War"? 59.112.50.53 21:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

POV

Why does this article only reflect the anti war movements point of view? Why is wikipedia so liberal? Most articles seem to refer to Christianity, Conservatism, ect. as "the bad guy". Many citizens of America supported the war in vietnam. This article makes it seem like noone did. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sunoco (talk • contribs) 17:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

All articles are required by policy and guidelines to be neutral. This means an article needs to have either a completely neutral point of view (this is preferrable) or it needs to present both viewpoints and strike a balance between the two.

If you find this or other articles to be biased, please by all means help it out and either write it neutrally or present the opposing viewpoint. Be bold! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 20:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The Source of all ill will: Unsourced Information

There is a simply massive amount of extremely POV information that fails to cite sources. I propose that we collect uncited POV information into their relevant sections within the article, verify what we can, qualify, quantify, modify, and/or delete what we cannot, and then go through the article in one massive coordinated search and destroy, (or sweep and clear, if you will) making all neccessary changes that have been agreed upon by concensus. Unless there are extremely compelling reasons, I'm going to start a collection of unsourced claims in a few days. --Irongaard 02:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

good link for info

Good idea. A pretty clear one is in the first paragraph: "Enourmous numbers of civilian casualties resulted from the whole war in Vietnam, most of them being inflicted by the North Vietnamese Army (NVA, Viet Cong Socialist forces). "

Additions to Casualty Statistics

Fantastic article - the casualty statistics on the top-right is very useful. However, there were additional casualties from other countries which participated. See the Australian War Memorial website at http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/statistics/vietnam.htm

Chinese spies

The History Channel aired a documentary on spies about 2 years ago. One segment was on the spies China sent into southeast Asia soon after their Communist revolution. It said that one eventually became the head of South Vietnam's Special Forces and to this day, there are no known photographs of the man and nobody knows his real, Chinese, name. The other one mentioned worked his way to the job of Vietnam Buereau Chief for TIME Magazine.

Two excellent positions for making a mess of things. One sends the South's military plans to the North and the other sends propaganda to be published in TIME in the USA.

Other Chinese spies in the same group were trained to work their way into influential government, military and civilian positions as part of a long term plan for an eventual takeover of southeast Asia, much as the USSR was invading and taking over eastern European countries, sometimes adding them to the territory of the Soviet 'Republic', sometimes installing puppet governments taking orders from the Soviet government.

Far as I know, this documentary has only been broadcast once. I've searched the history channel site, but wasn't able to find it.

Just something more to research.

And here's an item that may be in 'urban legend' territory. I've heard that one big USO show in Vietnam had its big stage erected directly above a large underground NVA command center and nobody knew it until years later.

"16" Parallel

February 1946 - The French sign an agreement with China. France gives up its concessions in Shanghai and other Chinese ports. In exchange, China agrees to assist the French in returning to Vietnam north of the 16th parallel.

Wasn't it supposed to be the 17th Parallel?

No. This is a common mistake. The postwar agreements made at Potsdam divided Vietnam into Chinese and British zones at the 16th Parallel. The 1950s division of Vietnam into North and South Vietnam occured at the 17th Parallel.

Canadians in Vietnam

The article states in the "Gulf of Tonkin and the Westmoreland Expansion (1964)" section that 'a few thousand Canadaians' served in Vietnam, however no source is listed. Does anyone know if there is a source for this? I don't believe that any Canadian armed forces served in Vietnam, however I do believe that many dual Canadian/American citizens served in the US military in Vietnam. While these are indeed Canadians in Vietnam, the article makes it sound as though there was participation from the Canadian government, which I don't believe was the case. Burtonpe 17:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the figures offhand, but yes, there were Canadians in the U.S. armed force and in Vietnam. They were not necessarily citizens, nor were they necessarily volunteers. Permanent residents aliens could be, and were, drafted. And no, the Canadian government sent no troops. -- Cecropia 06:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is an interesting page which tries to figure out how many Canadians served in Vietnam by various extrapolations. It would seem the number is somewhere between 3,000-5,000, though it could be more since, as the page author notes, some Canadian volunteers listed a US city near their point of entry as their hometown. "Foreign" soldiers in the U.S. Army had no special identifying features. -- Cecropia 06:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted this sentence: foreign nationals from many countries served in the US Armed Forces during the Vietnam War - there is no reason why Canadians should be singled out for special attention; it also gives the slightly misleading impression that those Canadians were actually sent there by the Canadian government, when in fact Canada was legally obliged to maintain a policy of neutrality due to its position on the ICC, Cripipper 00:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with removing that statement, which is somewhat confusing in context, but what are your referring to with the "ICC" and how does that impact the fact that several thousand canadians served in the U.S. Army? -- Cecropia 02:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent (4 July 06) Page move and reversion

I have left the following message on the user's talk page:

Second Indochina War or whatever - Hi - I think you were a little too bold in your rename. The matter had been discussed quite recently on the talk page (linked to discussion above). You should have discussed further and sought concensus before moving. I appreciate your point about "Off of" but I think Wikipedia:Naming conventions takes precedence and "Vietnam War" is hardly ungrammatical. Please review WP:Bold. I will undo your move, pending further discussion to obtain concensus.

--A Y Arktos\^talk 20:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• I wasn't alluding to grammar. I was making the broader point that commonality does not necessitate correctness. You are right that "Vietnam War" is more common. I have finally come to understand the distinction between a war and a conflict in the United States government. If a war is declared, then it is usually called off in 1-5 years; it is accompanied with massive casualties in a shorter time span than a conflict.--06:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I understood the point was probably not grammatical, but that common terms are not always correct. However, one eidtor's understanding of the distinction between a "war" and a "conflict" is not a justification for a rename and is at any rate perhaps not as widely held a view as the example given of incorrectness.--A Y Arktos\^talk 09:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Subdivisions

I don't think the article should be structured by US presidents; too US-centered. It would be more neutral to subdivide it by occurrences in the war. 24.64.223.203 06:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh I disagree The fact that John Kerry won a purple heart in Vietnam is something the whole world should care about.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myciconia (talk • contribs) 05:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC+10 hours)

• I do not have a problem with the US involvement in the war being broken down by Presidential involvement. If it the content on US involvement was to be divided on occurrences, can an indication/elaboration be given of the schema? An advantage of the US presidential schema is that the chronology is regular. The policy of involvement US involvement was characterised by the US Government, not necessarily by reaction to the actual events in the war - the Government chose how to respond to those events, they did not have to react that way given the war wasn't being fought on their territory. I don't see what Kerry's purple heart has to do with the organisation of the article one way or the other - User:Myciconia appears to have missed the point.--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The president-based chronology section was thrown into the existing article a long time ago. It didn't originally fit well with the rest of the article, but through various repairs it has been improved. I still dont like it. I think its better to cover the history as sets of years that may/may not line up with the terms of US Presidents. I agree about Kerry's purple heart. The article has become a dumping ground for various people's favorite issues with regard to the war. The entire article should be trimmed down to something more focused. 205.188.117.70 00:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think just about any way of dividing up the article would be arbitrary to a certain extent, so I don't object to the president-based chronology. It gives a quick overview of events; the reader can come back later and read other sections of the article for more detail. starkt 12:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

South Vietnamese victories

I've noticed there isn't much about South Vietnamese military victories, its all about American "victories" here. It seems to me that American authors (Both on wikipedia and other sources) try to portray Vietnamese as weaklings by writing about how the Communist always losing, while the ARVN hardly win anything.

If Vietnamese are weak than Americans ain't no hercules either. --Canpark 11:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Canpark--Canpark 11:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What if it is actually true that the Americans won most of the battles? Would you still object to the article's saying so? No one here (so far) is talking about going in the other direction and deleting the part of the war summary at the top of the article that claims that the U.S. lost the war. starkt 12:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In the West, people believe the American version of the events and disregard Vietnamese opinion in the process, what is "fact" if you don't look at both sides? Some American "victories" are disputed in Vietnam and people don't stop to listen, take the Battle of Ia Drang for example, Vietnamese veterans from that battle felt that history was distorted by the movie "We were soldiers" as America claimed to have fought 2,000+ VPA soldiers. America winning battles is true but numbers is a different matter. --Canpark 08:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Canpark

If you have information that contradicts the conventional view (whatever that is), feel free to include it in the article. starkt 08:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Canpark except that Westerner = Western perspective. I have never yet left the West, but I have done a lot of research on modern Vietnamese history, and it seems obvious that the American perspective distorts almost everything while the Vietnamese perspective is generally almost exactly the truth. Unfortunately, it is true that most Westerners are as you described. Just recently another user blocked me from using the term 'puppet administration' to refer to the Southern Goverment, which was effectively both an American puppet and a dictatorship. I also believe that most Americans protesting the war were trying to save American soldiers, not Vietnamese. Ionius Mundus 12:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Your use of the words "the American perspective" implies that there was a monolithic, agreed-upon U.S. point of view regarding the war. In fact, there never was such a point of view. Neither was there a monolithic, agreed-upon Vietnamese point of view. People on all sides of the conflict disagreed with each other. And I doubt that you have the special knowledge or insights that would allow you to confidently state that any one perspective is "almost exactly the truth." At the same time, I would note that Wikipedia's English encyclopedia is mostly written by Westerners, and of the latter, mostly by Americans. So you cannot reasonably expect that the views in this encyclopedia would be representative of views that might be commonly held by government officials in communist Vietnam. Those who wish to find out those views have little choice but to read the literature of communist Vietnam. As for the Americans protesting the war, again we are talking about a diverse group with divergent motives. Your generalizations incline me to believe that you did not live during the period of the Vietnam War and experience the arguments about it in all their complexity during that time. starkt 08:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

While anti-war protesters' motivations were probably all over the spectrum, that would certainly have characterized some protesters. I suspect that it would not explain the motivations of most of the protesters who probably were simply against any kind of violence (and "imperialist aggression"). You may be projecting the current anti-war movements' motivations on the 1960s and 1970s. In the current movement, they seem to simply want to get the Americans home, regardless of the impact on another set of innocent bystanders. --Habap 14:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I am portraying the Vietnam War protests. One example of this is Jane Fonda, who said she cried every day in Vietnam, but not for the Vietnamese, for the Americans. Of course protesters' motivations were all over the spectrum, the majority seem to be represented by this. Ionius Mundus 15:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are accurate about Jane Fonda, but I would contend you are incorrect about the majority protesters of the period. They were probably more interested in saving the Vietnamese than the Americans in uniform, whom they villified. This is in stark contrast to the current protests, which (in reaction to the Vietnam experience) the protesters assert that they support the soldiers, but not the war. It was a far different time and a very idealistic movement. --Habap 15:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You have a point about villification of the soldiers. I do not know much about the protests, so I was judging by what I had heard. Thank you for pointing this out. Ionius Mundus 15:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The best film on the Vietnam War protests now has an article, The War at Home (1979 film). I highly recommend it, though must admit to having only seen it back in 1987 or so (I tooly k HST 3??, Vietnam on Film, twice while I was a student at MSU). --Habap 16:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I will check this out. --Ionius Mundus 16:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend Born on the Fourth of July over "The War Back Home," although the latter is a fine film as well. 66.108.144.49 01:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Oops....wrong film. I was thinking of another "The War Back Home," about the return of a VietNam veteran. Emilio Estevez's sole outing as a director. I haven't seen the documentary to which you refer. 66.108.144.49 01:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Soviet Union Involvement

In this article, there are only two sentences about Soviet involvement. The Vietnam War was one of the theatres of the Cold War. The Cold War included both the US and the USSR. It just seems there's a lot about why the Americans got involved but not much at all as to why the Soviets got involved or how they helped.

Feel free to add information. The article is rather weak, so there is a lot of room for improvement. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Military Defeat?

The U.S. killed millions of Vietnamese and failed to create a stable country friendly to American interests. However, the outcome was certainly not a military defeat, as the box says. There was no intent to invade or occupy, nor was there a forcible withdrawal of the military.

--Tajmahall 04:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, removed. The first line already provides a more accurate summary of what happened regarding the United States. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be listed as an American political defeat and at least a South Vietnamesse military defeat? --Habap 14:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I fixed that earlier, but I just read your message, so that has been changed. --Ionius Mundus 16:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Does the loss of 1,000,000 + lives justify a victory? Would not the side with the least casualties win? The loss of one million is huge! It would have massive future ramifycations- it set back North Veitnam a decade!

Yes- the DRV lost one million soldiers in the war but more soldiers were killed on their way down the Ho Chi Minh Trail as a result of diseases like malaria. And attacks on soldiers by wild animals such as bears and tigers were not uncommon.

In combat the DRV soliders fought not only Americans, but they also fought South Korean, Australian, New Zealand, Thai and Filipino troops as well. Oh, and don't forget the South Vietnamese, the Americans used Vietnamese to kill Vietnamese.

Crediting the the US military for the 1,000,000+ dead DRV soldiers is nothing more than a distortion of history as troops from other nations also took part in combat. --Canpark 08:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Dfrg.msc

The Vietnamese people wanted independence and freedom at all costs. In WWII the Allies lost more than 1,000,000 people, I'm sure. Did the Allies achieve a military victory? Clearly, they did. The side withe the least casualties winning? Certainly nọt The South Vietnamese puppet administration is long gone. How could it have won a military victory? --Ionius Mundus 07:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of the Vietnamese people wanted peace and an end to the war. All most of them got was a wrecked country and a regime that was just a corrupt as South Vietnam. The South Vietnam government is long gone, but so now are the colonial governments that "imperial" Vietnam put in control of Laos and Cambodia. Gone as well is the stupidity and poverty that was Vietnam in the late 1970s and 1980s. After WWII, most of the Allied countries could look forward to a better life. Its difficult for most Vietnamese to idenitfy anything the 1975 "victory" accomplished the country except holding it back economically and politically for the next 20 years. 205.188.117.70 00:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that corruption and economic failure appeared not long after President Hồ Chí Minh's death, and that the Vietnamese people wanted peace and an end to the war. But theay also wanted an end to foreign domination, which is what most saw the Southern puppet administration as. You are wrong that the Liberation of the South held Vietnam back economically and politically. The South was far worse, and at least the North had the memory of Bác Hồ. Furthermore, I don't see what your edit even has to do with this section. By the way, you are being biased by erasing /Liberation. There is citation for the exaggeration of the landlord campaign. If you would like, maybe the landlord campaign section can be split in half, one part representing the opinions of the South and America, and the other with the opinions of the North. With all due respect. --Ionius Mundus 01:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, "liberation" is clear POV. "fall" of Saigon describes the situation in a neutral way while "liberation" is clear attempt to insert a political vietpoint in the article. As far as your views of North Vietnam in the 1950s, you and your sources are simply biased and wrong. No credible historian would claim that only 800 people suffered in the anti-landlord campaign. Neither would a credible source claim that most of the refugees who came south in the 1950s were NLF supporters. Stanley Karnow is a well-respected source politically. Everything that was in the article before your edits can source to his work. Before accepting the views of your sources as superior, your going to have to explain why that should be the case.64.12.116.199 04:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

By 1973 the north vietnamese wanted peace, so they forfeited the war. America and its allies won. It was only the later war that south vietnam lost, america wasnt in that war

Request for stylistic consistency

I have been using "U.S." instead of "US", "adviser" instead of "advisor", and "materiel" instead of material (in the case of military supplies, I believe "materiel" is correct. It was, at any rate, the conventional usage at the time of the Vietnam War)

Can we stick to these conventional usages for consistency's sake? U.S., U.S.A., U.S.S.R., adviser, materiel, communist (not Communist)...We don't say Capitalist, we say capitalist. So I think the lower case is correct for "communist" as well. No disrespect intended. Also, communism in the last two centuries has been an international movement. It is not as though a communist can automatically be identified with a particular locality the way, say, a German can. Also: "the south", not "the South"; "the north", not "the North".

As I see more potential usage conflicts, I will add to this list. In the meantime, a good rule of thumb is simply to be consistent with what is already in the article -- unless it's glaringly incorrect.

By the way, someone besides me will have to put in the correct Vietnamese spellings for such terms as "Ho Chi Minh". starkt 10:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we should be consistent. I would quibble with two of your points, however.

"Communist" refers to a political party and to a world-wide movement, which makes it distinct from "capitalist". Comparisons may be be made to "Catholic" and "Republican", which have a different meanings when capitalized.

The two political entities involved are referred to in short-hand as "the South" and "the North" as opposed to "South Vietnam" and "North Vietnam". If the words were only descriptive of the longitude rather than the political entities, I would agree with not capitalizing them. (I suppose a case-by-case review would be necessary.)

Nonetheless, consistency will help the article tremendously. --Habap 11:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't convert the article to Vietnamese spellings. Use standard English, e.g. Ho Chi Minh is spelled so, without diacritics. Use of Vietnamese diacritics is virtually unknown in English publications. Otherwise I agree with Habap; the South and the North are capitalized when they are shorthand for the two countries. Communist is often capitalized when it refers to a concrete political movement or party. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the use of English spelling. It is the standard to drop diacritics when rendering Vietnamese names into English. Cripipper 21:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with dropping diacritics, as they are the key to pronunciation. If you do drop the diacritics, at least leave them on the first mention of a name for reference. Also, North and South should be capitalized when refering to political entities. --Ionius Mundus 23:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Diacritics are the key to pronunciation if you can read Vietnamese. If you are capable of reading Vietnamese then you are capable of reading the article in Vietnamese from which you will learn the correct pronunciation. Since non-Vietnamese speakers do not understand what the diacritical marks mean they are of no use to them. Cripipper 00:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I, for example, can pronounce written Vietnamese, but I can not read much Vietnamese. The diacritics are as much a part of the name as the letters. Plus, It is annoying to have to look up the proper spelling of a name you don't know. For these reasons we should include diacritics, at least on the first mention of a name.

Your skills in Vietnamese are admirable, but irrelevant. In English these terms are properly and normally spelled without diacritics. Certainly in other places on Wikipedia there have been efforts to reject this convention of standard English writing, but those should be resisted on this important article. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Even a fluent speaker of Vietnamese who does not recognize a name will find it cumbersome to look it up, especially if it does not have a wiki link. Use the diacritics the first time, then I ask for no more. --Ionius Mundus 04:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What does being a speaker of Vietnamese have to do with anything? The article is in ENGLISH. Readers will be helped most if we use standard English spelling. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should follow conventional usage, period. In other words, if books like Stanley Karnow's respected "Vietnam: A History" use "communist" instead of "Communist", "the south" instead of "the South", the spelling of Vietnamese names without diacritics, etc., we should follow that. New York publishers and academic presses are pretty picky -- we don't need to second-guess them. And the word "conventional" in "conventional usage" is telling: it doesn't mean the most correct or best possible usage (over which we can argue forever); rather, it means what IS used by most scholarly and journalistic sources in U.S. English. Conventions, even when they are in some sense wrong, make things easier and more clear both to readers and writers. starkt 08:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the principle, although looking through the relevant books I have on my desk, all five use "North" and "South" to refer to the political entities, so I would continue to say that is the conventional usage. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources

We need to get citations for rather a lot.

Can we begin with this: "On the communist side, even before the Geneva Accords were signed, Ho Chi Minh had prepared to attack South Vietnam in case unification failed to take place through elections. His preparations included communication with thousands of covert communist agents in the south and the hiding of numerous weapons caches."? Cripipper 18:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to see a source for this. starkt 08:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

POV removal of material

Material on human rights in North Vietnam during the 1950s is being repeatedly removed from the page. The reasons given are that is somehow irrelivant. Following this logic, I then removed the corrisponding material about human rights in South Vietnam. These edits were immediately restored. The newer logic offered is that somehow the "vietnam war" isn't about "vietnam" but about South Vietnam and that somehow events in North Vietnam that in this case led to hundreds of thousands of people fleeing south and thousands of political opponents of the regime being rounded up are not relivant to the Vietnam War. I consider the removals of material to be an attempt to introduce POV into the page and unless someone can present some reasonable logic otherwise, the material will continue be restored to the page. 168.127.0.51 19:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, particular POV contributors are deleting legitimate information from Frances Fitzgerald's Fire in the Lake, which has won a number of awards. They claim that only Karnow is legitimate and that anybody who disagree's with him is clearly POV. They will not even allow mention of Fire in the Lake (much like the US government during the war). I will now proceed to revert such a POV edit and will wait for a legitimate response to be given before I allow such a change to be made. --Ionius Mundus 19:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No. To make it clear what was not allowed was your outragous claims that only 800 people had suffered in the anti-landlord campaign and that large numbers of refugees who fled to South Vietnam were actually supporters of North Vietnam. Both of those claims are on their face absurd and disagree with commonly available books on the subject. A source was cited to show you that you were wrong and you refuse to accept it. You have a POV agenda and a set of claims you wish to use the page to make that go against credible sources. As far as "you allowing" anything, you fail to understand how Wikipedia works. Rather than simply make demands, you need to start discussing the subject.

My personal view of "fire in the lake" is that it is a dated political tract written at a time (1972?) before many sources were available to write any kind of history. Especially any history about events in North Vietnam during the 1950s. The author of the book further makes all kinds of statements about Vietnamese that with distance sound condiscending or even worse. When the book starts talking about the Vietnamese mind, its almost embarrasing to read it. Yes, it won awards when it was published. But its a very flawed book. For example, the basis of your claim that only 800 people died in the anti-landlord campaign is that the author's North Vietnamese/NLF friends told the author so. By contrast, Stanley Karnow writing in 1983, was writing in a less hysterical political climate and had access to more material than was available in 1972.

My view of things at this point is that you made a change that I and sources I use disagree with. I then provided source information and extended information to make my case. When I made my case with sources, all the material was simply removed. I could live with mention that Fitzgerald disagrees with Karnow. But it is not acceptable to censor material people have political objections to out of the article and thats where we are now.

205.188.117.70 01:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Cripipper removed your sourced information as well as mine. I simply added my sourced information which you excluded when adding the section again. --Ionius Mundus 02:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is already too long. It is about the history of the Vietnam War, not the history of Vietnam. Oppression of political enemies in the DRV was not a causal factor in the outbreak of the war. The suppression of communists in the South by Diem was. That is why the former needs to be included and the latter not. Cripipper 21:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct. --Ionius Mundus 22:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont find that convincing. You are claiming out of one side of your mouth that material about South Vietnam must be kept, but that material that you have clear political objections to must be removed. Again, this page is not covering the "south vietnam war", but the Vietnam war. Hundreds of thousands of refugees left the for the south. If that is to be mentioned and if oppression in the south is to be mentioned, to refuse to allow any material on North Vietnam to be included amounts to POV censorship on your part. You can't have it both ways. 205.188.117.70 01:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is illogical. The movement of refugees between the North and the South during the period in question was a result of domestic political activity. They did not move south because of the war. It was neither a cause nor a result of the war; therefore it is unnecessary in an already overly-long article on the Vietnam War. The war came to North Vietnam in 1964; refugees moving south at this point would be relevant to the war. I have no objection at all to the inclusion of the anti-landlord campaign in the Vietnamese history article; in fact, it would be a terrible ommission were it not included. It is simply not relevant here. Cripipper 02:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Split Article?

This article is already very long, and there is a fair bit of duplication between the 'From Colonialism to U.S. Intervention' and the subsequent sections on Truman through to Kennedy. It seems to me it might be sensible to move this section to a seperate article called 'The United States and Vietnam, 1945-63' or something similar. ?? Cripipper 19:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should first get a solid article and be over all the sniping at each other before we shorten it. And, just to get things on the right track, can we generally agree that all sides in the conflict were blameworthy? Anyone who sees either North Vietnam or the United States as an innocent party either doesn't know much about the war, or doesn't care to know much about it. starkt 08:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

How is North Vietnam blameworthy? Vietnam belong to all Vietnamese and the Americans were only foreigners, so who is blameworthy?--59.154.152.66 06:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

First, would you register with a username so I am not talking to a number? Second, not all Vietnamese liked Ho Chi Minh, Communism, etc., and many of them fled once North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam. You might call these anti-Ho South Vietnamese imperialist puppets, but the same charge could be made against Ho Chi Minh, who fought a proxy war for his Soviet and Chinese sponsors. North Vietnam was part of the same communist movement that murdered millions of Cambodians, Russians and Chinese. So, yes, there is blameworthiness on all sides. starkt 08:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Seriously, "conquer" is such a strong word--Canpark 05:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ho Chi Minh did not fight a proxy war for the Soviets, and especially not the Chinese, though the Americans, Soviets, and Chinese may have said so. First of all, he was very wary of the Chinese. Next, this was awar for independence and later reunification, NOT for Soviet expansion. Next of all, if Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge were part of the same movement, then why did the former overthrow the latter? You are plainly incorrect. --Ionius Mundus 05:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, people who say things like "You are plainly incorrect" tend not to know what they are talking about, and tend to cherry pick their facts to support preconceived conclusions. Ho Chi Minh, let it not be forgotten, went to Paris in the early part of the last century and declared himself a socialist. Soon after the 1917 Russian Revolution, he went to Moscow and made nice with Lenin et al. Communism was an international movement, self-consciously so. Ho came back to Vietnam to bring communism to that country. In so doing, he was in sync with the founders of Soviet (and later Chinese) communism, who were committed Marxist-Leninists. Of course, as time went on, rivalries developed between various communist factions, different strands of communist ideology took on a life of their own and competed with each other, and different communist countries naturally had disagreements and jealousies over resouces, territory and spheres of influence. The Soviets distrusted the Chinese and vice versa. We see, as you say, that Vietnam invaded Cambodia and overthrew the Khmer Rouge. All of this is besides the main point, which is that communism was always there as the common denominator, and saw itself as a world wide movement that would only fully succeed when everyone was brought on board. So, just as Vietnam was manipulated and victimized by French imperialists, the puppet government installed by those imperialists, and the American supporters of that puppet government, it was also manipulated and victimized by communist ideologues and internationalists. You say that Ho was very wary of the Chinese. No doubt, but that didn't stop him from accepting plenty of help from China in the form both of men and weapons. The same goes for the Soviet Union. It all comes down to the imperial ambitions of the communists versus the imperial ambitions of the capitalist West, with the Vietnam caught in the middle in the same way that Poland was caught in the middle between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union during World War II. starkt 11:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Starkt, it is untrue to say that the Vietnamese communists were fighting for the Soviets and Chinese. All the research of the past 15 years has shown that both the Soviets and Chinese were initially very skeptical and reluctant to back the Vietnamese in their efforts to overthrow the GVN, with the Chinese eventually coming on board in ca. 1962 and the Soviets in late 1964.

But they did come on board, that's what counts. And see above regarding Ho Chi Minh's life history and motivations. starkt 11:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It could be said to be a proxy war because the Soviets and Chinese were partly backing NVN in order to oppose the United States, but it is incorrect to say that Ho was fighting on their behalf.

But given that Ho was a communist, just like the Soviets and Chinese were communists, he was fighting on behalf of a shared ideology. That's close enough to "on their behalf" to me. And, incidentally, I would equally accept the argument that the U.S. was fighting on behalf of French imperialism, even though that "on behalf" was just as indirect -- the French had given up and left, and the U.S. was defending the puppet government that the French had left behind in the South. starkt 11:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a very old fashioned and inaccurate viewpoint to talk of the 'same communist movement' as if communism in the Soviet Union, Vietnam, Cambodia and China was monolithic. For example, this is the same communist movement in the Soviet Union that considered launching a pre-emptive strike against China's nuclear facilities in 1969; the same communist movement that saw the U.S. supported in the Khmer Rouge; the same communist movement that saw Vietnam invading Cambodia and China attacking Vietnam etc. etc. Cripipper 08:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You can always try to find exceptions to blind yourself to a general rule if you want to. The fact remains, communism is a self-consciously trans-national, expansionist ideology. Disagreements between communist regimes, rivalries over land, jealousies, etc., do not alter that fact. Nor do they alter the fact that the Soviet Union and China supported North Vietnam during the Vietnam War, just as the U.S. and its allies supported South Vietnam. If you want to pretend that Ho wasn't fighting on behalf of international communism, fine. I'll equally pretend that South Vietnam was in no sense a puppet regime for Western imperialists. starkt 11:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The facts that wars broke out between the very communist states we are talking about proves the fallacy of the idea that it was a monolithic ideology. If it were, these would never have occured.

More sweeping statements from you. An ideology can be monolithic even though those who subscribe to it quarrel among themselves. You have to do more than simply declare "It is so because I (and my preferred sources) say it is so" in order to win an argument. starkt 08:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The ideology that Ho was fighting on behalf of was Vietnamese nationalism, one which was reinforced by communism.

Sez you. That's what Ho's defenders in the U.S. wanted people to think: "It's not about communism, it's about nationalism." Spouting their propaganda 35 years later doesn't make that propaganda true. Although I'm sure there are plenty of the old-time propagandists staffing our universities now and writing endless "scholarly" nonsense to support their claims. starkt 08:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then. Why did Hồ first seek help from the the West and only turn to Communism when the West ignored him? Or do you (and your preferred sources) not acknowledge that? It was the same kind of thing with Lumumba. Was he a Communist puppet? If you think so, then I consider that an insult to yet another great leader. The US labelled him a Communist puppet and plotted to kill him, only to have the Belgians beat them to it. --Ionius Mundus 21:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ho first sought help from the West after WW I (1918). Ho was already a Communist. Even before the Russian Revolution of 1917, Ho was consorting with future communist leaders as a student in Paris. So his being ignored during the Armistice negotiations didn't cause him to "turn to Communism"; he was already a Communist. Ho sought help from the West again after WW II (1945). He didn't seek help from the Soviet Union, because the West was in the best position to help him. China, the nation given jurisdiction to liberate northern Vietnam at the end of World War II, was not yet a communist country. Great Britain, the nation given jurisdiction to liberate southern Vietnam at the end of World War II, was not a communist country. France, which would put in its claim to keep its Indochinese colonies, was not a communist country. Those were the players Ho had to bargain with. The U.S. had more influence than the Soviet Union over Great Britain, France, and China. The West's alliance with the Soviet Union during WW II had been one of convenience only -- to fight a common enemy, Hitler (who had also enjoyed an alliance of convenience with the U.S.S.R. to destroy Poland) -- and the natural enmity between the capitalist West and the communist Soviet Union was already asserting itself even before the fall of Berlin. In the meantime, Stalin had shown little interest in Indochina. He had bigger fish to fry -- all those countries in Eastern Europe. So, to make a long story short, Ho was just being a good politician when he played the Star Spangled Banner. It all reminds me of North Korean officials who use wind machines to make their flags flutter when they are having news conferences. starkt 08:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

He was already a socialist because he thought that the principles of true socialism matched the principles of the West. He had to turn to Communist aid because the West continually ignored him. He really must have seen asking the Western governments for help as hopeless when he learned the the USA had offered France atomic bombs to drop on Việt Nam. He admired the USA, except for its treatment of African-Americans in particular. Again, he wrote a lot on the subject. You seem to be equating socialism with evil. I suggest that you read a little about Mwalimu Julius Nyerere and then let's see if you still think so. --Ionius Mundus 15:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Mao, for example was very skeptical about Ho Chi Minh's communist credentials, as was Stalin. The Vietnamese communists were not fighting under orders from Moscow or Beijing, quite the opposite - these two power repeatedly tried to get the DRV to cool it in the early days. Once the war escalated both nations, for their own reasons, backed the DRV.

Exactly. They backed the DRV. Differences notwithstanding. And that is what counts. Ho didn't have to accept their help. They didn't have to help Ho. But Ho did accept their help (and the strings that came with it), and they helped Ho in spite of whatever reservations they might have had about him. starkt 08:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

He really had little choice between accepting their help and not accepting it. He had nowhere else to turn. If he didn't he would not be able to win the war and achieve his goal of reunifing the nation. Are you suggesting that he should have tried asking the West for help again? You might have something there (except that the West was fighting him in the first place). --Ionius Mundus 21:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If Ho had only been interested in Vietnam's independence and reunification, without all the communist baggage, I believe he might have gotten the Vietnamese people behind him. And that might have been enough for him to succeed without any outside help. You don't win hearts and minds by terrorizing villagers, whether you are a communist or a capitalist imperialist. Look at Vietnam ever since its reunification. How many Vietnamese fled? How many live in this country? How many of them support Ho Chi Minh? What do you think it meant to be labeled a "counterrevolutionary" in Vietnam? Or in Cambodia? Or in Laos? In Cambodia, it meant that you were tortured and killed. In Vietnam, it meant that you were sent to a reeducation camp and starved. The boat people, who threw themselves on the mercy of pirates and the elements, weren't leaving Vietnam just for the fun of it. Ho did not have all of the Vietnamese people behind him. But he might have had them as a non-communist nationalist. He might even have had them as a socialist. starkt 09:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

He did get the support of the vast majority of the Vietnamese people. American Veterans of the war even report that whole villages were in tears upon learning of his death - North and South. "You don't win hearts and minds by terrorizing villagers, whether you are a communist or a capitalist imperialist." Well, obviously. Those whose fled suffered such things and blindly blamed Hồ Chí Minh while it was the fault of his subordinates. He didn't terrorize people any more than Mahatma Gandhi led the violent incidents in his own struggle. For your information, he died six years before the reunification. "Ho did not have all of the Vietnamese people behind him." Nor did Gandhi have all of the Indian people behind him. "He might even have had them as a socialist." Umm, he WAS a socialist! --Ionius Mundus 15:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"Vast majority"...Do you have a percentage? And what's the source of it? Where did you get the "whole villages were in tears quote from?" John Kerry? The Winter Soldiers investigation? As for not blaming Ho, would you agree that George W. Bush, Alberto Gonzalez and Donald Rumsfeld bear no responsibility for Abu Ghraib? Would you agree that Stalin bears no responsibility for the excesses of the NKVD? That Pol Pot bears no responsibility for the excesses of the Khmer Rouge? That Mao bears no responsibility for the excesses of the Cultural Revolution? Ho was a communist -- a variant of socialism. He wasn't a socialist in the sense of not at all being a communist. starkt 08:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Eisenhower is the source. Numerous veterans who were there at the time have told me so. I have never even heard of the 'Winter Soldiers investigation'. Of course Stalin and Pol Pot were responsible for the most part. As for Bush, I don't know much about him, but judging by the way he's handled Somalia lately I would expect that he is guilty of whatever it is you are accusing him of. Mao Zedong I am still studying. There is no connection. Bush doesn't even call himself a Communist. Hồ Chí Minh was not responsible for these things, he genuinely cared for the Việtnamese people, and you know it. Socialism is the transition to Communism. He was socialist. He was Communist. --Ionius Mundus 03:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

However, the DRV was not fighting for communism

Of COURSE it was fighting for communism. Ho WAS a communist! starkt 08:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

More so nationalism than for Communism. --Ionius Mundus 21:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe more so communism than nationalism. starkt 09:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

it was fighting for the reunification of the country they felt they were cheated out of in 1956.

And for communism. Ho was a communist. starkt 08:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

...because the Communists helped him when the country he looked up to (the USA) turned him down. --Ionius Mundus 21:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

See above. starkt 09:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

See above. --Ionius Mundus 15:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Australia provided support to South Vietnam, does that mean Thieu was fighting on Australia's behalf? I hardly think so.

Australia fought as a U.S. ally, and because it was concerned about the spread of communism in its neck of the woods. No mystery there. Thieu was fighting to preserve a system in South Vietnam that evolved out of French colonialism. He was fighting on behalf of that system. Ho was fighting on behalf of the communist system that he wanted to bring to Vietnam. The U.S. and its allies backed Thieu, the Soviet Union and China backed Ho. "His bread I eat, his song I sing." starkt 08:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Nor is the idea the Thieu was a 'puppet' very impressive either.

Well, Ho's side called him one. And if Thieu was a puppet, Ho was not any less a puppet. starkt 08:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The South, especially Thiệu were in fact American puppets. There is actually some good information out there explaining that Việt Nam, along with Cuba and North Korea, were much less under the influence of the USSR of China, and were relatively on their own. Of course they had Soviet and Chinese aid for the reasons I explained earlier, but were much more independent. Do not forget, based on Việt Nam's long history of foreign aggression, Hồ was very wary of too much foreign influence - especially Chinese. In case you didn't know, Việt Nam was dominated by China for centuries.--Ionius Mundus 21:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The same arguments could be made about South Vietnam and its relationship to the United States. I'm quite sure that the South Vietnamese government took great pains to claim that it was independent of the United States. And there was a lot of truth to that claim. Kennedy didn't sign off on the coup against Diem just for the hell of it. At the same time, the United States didn't want to be thought of as a (de facto) colonizing nation. Thus, all the talk about bringing freedom, democracy and independence to the South Vietnamese. You have to distinguish carefully between political rhetoric and the realities behind the rhetoric. starkt 09:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

All that your post above demonstrates is that you have a rather simplistic mono-causal view of history. Cripipper 16:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it demonstrates that I do not cherry pick facts in order to try to disprove a general rule -- a rule that conforms to common sense. starkt 08:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If you don't "cherry pick facts in order to try to disprove a general rule", then why do you blindly claim that Hồ Chí Minh was not nationalist when all the evidence is right under your nose? Please, use some common sense. --Ionius Mundus 17:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The evidence under my nose is that Ho wanted Vietnam to be independent from the French, from the West generally, but not so much from China and the Soviet Union. He shared the ideology of those countries -- communism -- and accepted their military assistance. Now:::::::::Well, Eisenhower's statement -- if he made it -- certainly deserves to be included in the article. I haven't mixed Lenin up with Stalin. Lenin was guilty of mass murder as well according to Paul Johnson ("Intellectuals"). starkt 08:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we have a good article now, and should talk about shortening it. Or not shortening it, as the case may be. I'm satisfied with its length. There is a lot to cover. We might spin off some material as separate articles with links. But I have no strong feelings either way. starkt 11:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious that there is too much controversy over the subject to only include one side. We should rewrite sections to give the opinions of both sides. --Ionius Mundus 15:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, let's de-Americanise this article and include both sides--Canpark 15:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as you include BOTH sides, and don't say anything that is obviously false, that's fine with me. I'll be keeping an eye on your progress. starkt 08:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I used sources- I don't need to make things up;)--Canpark 06:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)