Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 9

Comparisons to Iraq War

Hey guys:

Look -- I'm not here to try to start a controversy. But there is something to the idea that the general sense of things in the United States is one of discontent. Given this fact, it might be instructive to look at the public sentiment during the Vietnam War, here in America. The other thing that might be helpful would be to know whether there were periods of "optimism" on the behalf of the commanders on the ground during the 1964-1968 escalation period. Knowing more about this might help us to see better whether the optimism shared by today's commanders in Iraq amounts to anything.

If I knew where to look for the articles that I have suggested that people find, I would find them my self. Maybe some people who regularly visit this web site, who might have lived through the 1960s, might have some magazine articles on-hand that they might be able to use. If so, I hope that you will. We all need to get a better idea of where things are going. The only thing that I AM suggesting is that, although we don't have a crystal ball, we can look to past events. Those events can sometimes shed light on present and future eventualities.

During the 1950s, like today, there were people for and against various American wars. We must learn from that time, and apply those lessons to the current state of affairs. The greatest lesson is that any attempt by our government, to try to quell opposition to its operations, is doomed. Unless, of course, you are talking about guys with shoulder-fired rockets in Anbar province. And even that is disputable.

Thank you.

SammyJames 23:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)SammyJames[reply]

Though a noble thought, wikipedia is not supposed to channel any sort of world view or political ideas here (although you see it all the time). There is in fact very little from both wars that seem to be the same as opossed to what pundits may usually say(different times, different places, different political situations, different kind of warfare, etc, etc). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.168.240 (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have to agree with 201 here. Wikipedia is not the place for original research comparing the two wars.

Interestingly, I think you will find that US commanders during the Viet Nam War were always optimistic. There was always a light at the end of the tunnel and we were always getting closer. I think there has been far more introspection in this war, because of that experience.

I'm sure that you could go to your local library and find a book that is an overview of the Viet Nam War which would help you to draw your own conclusions. You could look for Vietnam: A History by Stanley Karnow, The 25-year war: America's military role in Vietnam by Bruce Palmer or even The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Vietnam War by Timothy P. Maga. I found those just by looking at lists people made on Amazon.com - [http://amazon.com/Vietnam-A-War/lm/1GWFUOOQ8FRLX/ref=cm_lmt_srch_f_3_rsrsrs0/002-4534509-4716825 Jerald Lovell's] has useful comments, so was the best of the three I glanced at. --Habap 13:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are basically the same. The details (place, time, combat methodd, etc.) may differ, butin oth, America went into someplace they did not belong to get rid of what they considered injustice (although the natives seemed fine) and wound up causing a civil war and many more deaths, Americans and naitves.

Take a closer look. Vietnam was a country just coming out of the grip of a colonial empire, separated into two portions with differing political opinions spurring conflict. Iraq was under the control of a ruthless dictator that kept control by restricting the supply of food such as the UN oil-for-food shipments and kept control through sheer military power, until we invaded and destroyed his military thoroughly. This gave rise to a rather disjointed guerrilla movement which has since been replaced in large part by members of Al-Qaeda. In Vietnam, the war started off with a well-supplied guerrilla movement, which gradually progressed until the Tet Offensive, at which point the guerrilla movement was utterly destroyed and replaced with a competent conventional military power. Also, Vietnam and Iraq were fought in completely different environments, a jungle and a desert respectively. And to top this off, in my observations I have noticed that the thinking of the protesters of the Vietnam generation influenced the thinking of the current generation. Many of the so-called "hippie ideals" were passed from parent to child, as evidenced by the similarity of ideas, and the hippie behaviors that have become almost commonplace now, as their practitioners passed them to generations following themselves. This can hardly be considered a similarity between the two if the ideas of one were simply passed into the minds of the next, influencing their opinion.--LWF 01:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just some advice about the Vietnam "War"

The U.S. never officially declared war. About the closest thing you can point to is the "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" passed in August 1964, which gave President Johnson free reign to escalate the war in Vietnam. U.S. military advisors had been training & advising the South Vietnamese Army since 1955. So in otherwords the offical name of it is the Vietnam Conflict. (Daniel Cudzilo, 04/12/2007)

Daniel, please get a screen name (takes all of about a minute).
A civil war existed within Vietnam at the time. A de facto state of war was where our troops were placed.
Since the end of World War II after world war 1, the President has been authorized in varying conflicts to use force as he deems necessary. At the end of WWII, MacArthur kept forces in Japan to pacify it and get their government/society back up and running. The Supreme Court ruled that, while a de jure state of war did not exist between Japan and the US, a de facto state of war was existent (troops were needed until the government could stand on its feet). As the conquering/occupying force, we were obliged by the Geneva conventions to provide this service. There was no state of war, but conflict within the country seemed probable, though it later turned out to be fortuitous for Korea to have US troops close by.
When the Korean War kicked off, Truman sent forces there as a "police action" and Congress authorized funds for it. This was again a de facto state of war, though not de jure.
The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution authorized troops again as a police action. This was again a de facto state of war, though not de jure.
Modern American History (since WWII) shows that a war need not be actually declared by Congress to have a war. As such the title should remain as is.

It doesn't matter what the Americans call it. They were not the primary participants. DHN 22:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the article be called anything but "Vietnam War?" Robbskey 23:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Vietnam War" is U.S.-centric. Titling the article either "Second Indochina War" or "American War in Vietnam" would present a more worldwide view. Neitherday 23:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do most people in Australia, New Zealand and South Korea call the war? I'm curious to find out what other anti-Communist forces called it. Robbskey 21:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should technically rename this article Vietnam Conflict as it was never a war, even though people died! Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 15:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Does anyone know how many Soviet and North Korean troops were killed in the vietnam war please ? Cliché Online 04:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None, they weren't involved by doing any more than supplying arms to the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese. User:Green01 6:50, May 25th 2007 (UTC).

Yea right. The Russians built and manned the SAM sites and flew the MiGs. 69.19.14.29 16:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC) The God's Honest Truth[reply]

The outcome was not simply "Defeat for the US and Allies"

As much as I like to avoid massive debacles over semantics on the internet, this one I can't let go simply on the basis that it's just not right to call the vietnam war an "overall defeat" for the United States and its allies.

Largely politically, yes, the United States and its allies lost favor with the people, and South Vietnam was left prematurely; before the provincial governments had truly united behind one South Vietnamese state. This allowed for the crumbling of the governmental structure and ultimately a North Vietnamese invasion that was met unopposed by a united communist North Vietnam.

Don't forget, however, that the US forces were not present in the numbers they had been before 1973. Before that point, the US was scoring overwhelming tactical victories across the board.

Take for example the bombing of Hanoi...originally the shots were being called from the pentagon, so the B-52 bombers were flying nuclear bombing patterns with conventional weapons...makes sense for a nuclear bomber thinks the pentagon, politically sound to send a message to the North Vietnamese. SAC, Strategic Air Command, put up with only a short time of their B-52s getting shot down by SAMs when the masks were defeated in steep 45 degree turns, so they changed to an Arclight technique of 3 ship formations hitting the city every 15 minutes. Hanoi was in ruins, SAMs couldn't find or see the bombers, and pretty much the only part of the city not pounded into oblivion was the POW camp.

Another example is the 'Tet Offensive'. Many see this as the turning point in the great military defeat of the US. Most people don't know that for every 1 allied servicemember killed, 40 North Vietnamese militants were killed. The Tet Offensive overwhelmingly was a FAILURE for the north vietnamese. That one picture of the South Vietnamese official executing a known 'North Vietnamese Soldier' did far more for the North Vietnamese communists than any number of guns on the ground.

There's plenty more, and I hate to cut my explanation short because I'm sure there's plenty of you out there who are content to reason that the US lost outright the Vietnam war, but I put it to you and everyone that it was a political defeat, but not a military one. Tactics, strategies, insurgency combating techniques, and overwhelming use of Airpower to ensure dominance emerged during this war. Notice that 'the overall loss' of the United States didn't actually happen until AFTER US military disengagement.

When it comes down to it, you have to consider: What was our objective in Vietnam? Our objective was to stop the spread of communism, and when we satisfactorily completed our objectives, we DISENGAGED. Victory is completing your objectives, which we did militarily.

And what is the difference between military defeat and political defeat? The purpose of military force is to serve political ends. Whether South Vietnam fell because of the generals or politicians is irrelevant; in the end NVA tanks were still rolling through Saigon. Calling it a "tactical" victory may let you pat yourself on the back for a job well done but it's irrelevant if it fails to uphold our strategic aims - which it did. --Mmx1 01:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military objectives are not always the same as political ones. Our far reaching political objective was the securing of the area to stem the spread of communism. The military objective of the Vietnam war was to stop the North Vietnamese forces from overrunning South Vietnam. The military objectives were on a tactical and strategic level, and once completed, were counted successful. Tactically, we were successful until we felt it no longer necessary to hold a military presence. There's no rationale to suggest that the military was anything but successful until the disengagement; the point at which it was determined the objectives were met. By the logic in the last paragraph, the US lost world war I because we did not politically create stability in Germany. I stand on land 02:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say we lost the war due to ignorance and social unrest at home, rather than military failure in Vietnam. The casualty figures speak for themselves. I think it was a defeat for the American people, but it was a victory for the American military. Take the Tet offensive for example. We eliminated the Viet Cong as a military force, and slaughtered the PAVN; the people at home decided (with complete ignorance) that the word 'offensive' is synomonous with the phrase 'the USA is going to lose the war'. Then look at the Ardennes offensive of world war II; the Germans accomplished more militarily then than the communists in Tet, yet it served only to make public resolve stronger. The commanders viewed it as an opportunity, and used it to eliminate most of Germany's strategic military reserve. It's all about the public and how it views current events. I guess my point is this: if you want to call it a defeat for America then go ahead, but don't call it a defeat for the American military. --MKnight9989 12:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The casualty figures tell us *roughly* how many on each side died - it doesn't tell us anything about who won or lost the war. US casualties might have been 1/10th those of the Viet Cong, but then Viet Cong expenses on the war were probably 1/1000th those of the US. You could use any one of a number of factors on which to base 'military victory' - what about territory controlled and lost? Some factors might give US forces the edge, others the VC forces.

Point is, 'military victory' is entirely meaningless term if you divorce it from political victory. No doubt in every asymmetrical war fought in modern, post colonial, times - including the first and second Indochina Wars, the USSR in Afghanistan, and the current Iraq conflict - the technologically superior, foreign force has inflicted greater losses on the native forces than they have received. In all of these conflicts however the foreign force has ultimately lost (Iraq possibly excluded). Carl weathers bicep 13:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Pretty much the same thing happened during World War II, when Russian casualty figures were much higher than German ones, reflecting disparities in quality of matériel. ROGER ^TALK 15:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early History

The Vietnamese history section of the article reflects the Vietnamese government's interpretation of history that does not reflect historical fact. The Vietnamese were historically a small group of Viet-Muong tribes along the Red River that includes the area of Ha Noi, today. Over the 2,000 years from the first conquest by the Han Chinese in 206 B.C.E. to modern times, the country actually expanded as an empire, conquering several small kingdoms and liquidating their populations, and even seeking to expand into China (under Ly Thuong Kiet in the 12th century). The policy of imperial expansion into the south, "nam tien", has been a recurrent historical theme and such expansion led to the conquest of the Cham empire (now considered the area of "Central Vietnam" but at times extending close to the Red River, and the area of "South Vietnam" that was land taken from the Khmer Angkorian empire. This expansion and the underlying cultural differences need to be understood as part of the context of the war and of the geopolitical expansion of Vietnam into much of what now remains of Cambodia and Laos, in the 19th century. 81.183.152.79 11:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)David Lempert June 5, 2007[reply]

"neglected to cultivate the loyalty and support of the Vietnamese people"

never heard about Bao Dai's Vietnamese National Army (so have a look at the French Defense archives) and the GCMA. No need to mention the French Communist Party's role through stunning examples such as the Henri Martin Affair. Ever dreamed to lead a war against communists with communist ministers in your own government? With the Communist as the first political party in your country? The French did it in 1946, thanks to Ho Chi Minh who implanted the FCP in 1921. This statement used in the current article about the reasons of the French departure from Vietnam is a far, oriented, naive, POV, not a fact. Things are not as easy. The French did not sent their conscrit army like the Americans did or like they did themselves few month later in the Algerian War. There must be a reason why an expeditionary corps made of colonial troops was sent with the interdiction to send metropolitan troops. This reason is called politics. The US veterans would get what I mean. Correct phrase would be neglected to cultivate the loyalty and support of the French people. Paris By Night 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Pony Express

I have begun the above article but it requires attention as at the moment it is merely building blocks and needs the help of experts in the subject. SGGH ^speak! 17:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military Superiority Statement in the Intro

The last paragraph of the intro states "The Vietnam War concluded on 30 April 1975, with the Fall of Saigon. The war claimed 60,000 U.S. combat dead and missing[5] and the lives of between 2 and 5.1 million Vietnamese,[6] a large number of whom were civilians.[7] Although exact numbers are difficult to verify, the disparity in deaths illustrated the overwhelming superiority of U.S. military technology ".

Comparing US combatant deaths to Vietnamese civilian deaths hardly seems demonstrative of military technology superiority. When looking at actual military death/wounded figures, the battle seems much more even. Although I don't dispute that the US was more superior in regards to Military technology, this is an inappropriate place to state it, and rational to justify it.

Could we change this final line of the intro to something more just?

24.68.249.197 20:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "overwhelming superiority" to "indiscriminate use" is closer to the truth. ROGER ^TALK 08:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think one would agree that the military that was more superior would be able to reduce/eliminate civilian deaths. 24.68.249.197 09:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned ibids and refs tidy up

Could an editor who is more familiar with the sources than I tidy up the refs please? About twenty ibids have become detached from their source and others cross-refer to numbers. ROGER ^TALK 10:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ibids and Refs, Intro and Spacing

You made the changes, so you clean it up the reference section. It is the responsibility of all editors to deal with the large issues and the boring little details as well. The fact that you are unfamiliar with the sources speaks volumes. Return to previous versions of the article to see where the Ibids were. Please also fix the last sentence of the introduction. You can't have a one sentence paragraph. As well, the spacing in the introduction is rather strange. Is there a reason for it?--Hughstew 00:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not guilty, I didn't break them. The article history shows that messy references are a longstanding problem. Use of ibid is specifically deprecated because of the ease with which they lose context in the hands of different editors.
The fact that you are unfamiliar with the sources speaks volumes you write. Odd (unnecessarily pointed) remark. The fact I don't have them all on my bookshelves attests to merely to the fact that I can't check them if I work on them.
I don't mind the occasional one-line paragraph. Why can't we have them?
I can't see a problem with intro spacing. Can you explain please?

ROGER ^TALK 14:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath for Vietnamese people

This is rather an odd addition. Why isn't it part of the main AFTERMATH section? Should a balancing remark about the political impact of losing for the US be added? ROGER ^TALK 10:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section is the biggest problem with the page. Its blatantly US focused. The section should be divided into 'Aftermath for Vietnam', 'Aftermath for USA' and 'Aftermath for Region' or something similar. Unfortunately I don't have the expertise to add more about the aftermath for Vietnam, but if no one has a problem with this I will edit the sections along the suggested guidelines above, and leave it to someone more knowledgeable to fill in the gaps. Carl weathers bicep 09:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be easier and more coherent if added to main aftermath section. Some of the section needs to be cited or deleted. --Hughstew 02:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This also avoids the need to create umpteens Aftermaths. I'll look at it later. ROGER ^TALK 08:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible Carl weathers bicep 12:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went on the Vietnamese version of the page to ask if anyone could lend their expertise regarding the impact on Vietnam, I've been informed however by one English speaker that "there are two camps fighting bitterly over words, pictures and external links". Guess the issue remains pretty contentious.... Carl weathers bicep 12:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this more closely, the Vietnamese Aftermath closely echoes the third paragraph of the main aftermath section, which is also unreferenced. ROGER ^TALK 13:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]