Talk:Vietnam War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Vietnam War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
April 6, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
edit · history · watch · refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Vietnam War:
  • Edit down individual sections into separate articles to reduce the size of this article.
  • Add section on Kissinger's secret negotiations.
  • Add a timeline on the start of American involvement, including troop levels, especially during major increases in troops. It is not clear how involvement started or escalated.
  • Add totally absent section on the actual warfare and walktrough of major battles and also details of the war such as the Viet Cong's vast tunnel systems.


War was extended:[edit]

It turns out Nixon helped prolong the war.

" Now, for the first time, the whole story can be told. It begins in the summer of 1968. Nixon feared a breakthrough at the Paris Peace talks designed to find a negotiated settlement to the Vietnam war, and he knew this would derail his campaign. rest Here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21768668

Allies of South Vietnam[edit]

It seems silly to list Canada, United Kingdom, West Germany, Spain and possibly some others as allies of South Vietnam -- and if I were a citizen of one of those countries I would be offended to be considered an ally of South Vietnam. Sending a medical team or something similar to South Vietnam is not being an ally in a war. If we're going to list these countries as allies of South Vietnam, then we should list Sweden as an ally of North Vietnam as it had aid programs there.

Illustrating the lack of support of the United Kingdom for the war, I recall the story of Lyndon Johnson begging the UK to send troops -- "even a bagpipe band" -- to South Vietnam as a show of support. The Brits turned him down. I propose these countries be omitted from the list of allies.Smallchief (talk 20:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Excellent catch, and I couldn't agree more. Jusdafax 23:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Just wondering, why is it offensive to be a South Vietnamese ally? The Philippines and Taiwan apparently sent a little bit of troops. Canada is also mentioned in the article. 30 Spaniards are also mentioned composing around 30 Free World Military Forces, and the source also mentions Spain composing up the FWMF too. I don't know about the others though. I never heard about Sweden taking a side, other than they were neutral or opposed to the war. Kiwifist (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose. The infobox doesn't need to be changed at all, it clearly distinguishes between "anti-communist forces" (i.e. those that were direct belligerents) and "supported by" (i.e those nations that provided non-combat support).That said, I think its arguable to what extent those countries listed under "supported by" actually supported the South Vietnamese war effort as opposed to maintaining diplomatic relations with and providing aid to South Vietnam, though at the time one was probably indistinguishable from the other. Smallchief your opinion that "if I were a citizen of one of those countries I would be offended to be considered an ally of South Vietnam" is just that, your opinion.Mztourist (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Very well, then. I will add Sweden to the list of supporters of North Vietnam. The Swedes gave more aid to North Vietnam than did any of the supposed West European supporters gave to South Vietnam.

If I were a Brit or a Canadian I would be offended to be considered a supporter of the war in South Vietnam because the majority of the people of those countries were opposed to the U.S. war. The Canadians were rigorously neutral throughout the war, serving on the neutral commission to supervise the Geneva Accord. To call them an "supporter" of the US side in the Vietnam war is a misrepresentation of their status.

The U.S. on occasion during the Cold War provided humanitarian aid to communist countries. That didn't make us a supporter of communism and the governments of those countries. Ditto humanitarian aid to South Vietnam. Smallchief (talk 10:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to get into an argument over this, but saying "the majority of the people of those countries were opposed to the U.S. war" is unproven. As far as I am aware there was never any vote in the UK or Canadian parliaments nor any referendum in either country on participation in the Vietnam War. Rather I assume that support among the population for the war in each country essentially followed the same course as in the US, general vague support of opposing perceived communist agression in the early phases of the war, later moving to general vague opposition to the war. In relation to Canada's role in serving on the "neutral commission to supervise the Geneva Accord", it was not a "neutral commission" as the "force comprised troops and officers from Canada, Poland, and India representing the non-communist, communist, and non-aligned blocs respectively." as stated on the International Control Commission page.Mztourist (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Likewise, I don't want to get into an argument over this -- but the supposed support of many countries to South Vietnam was token and humanitarian. I continue to believe that it is misleading to list countries such as the UK and Canada as "supporters" of South Vietnam. However, using the present criteria for "supporters" I've added Sweden to the list of supporters of North Vietnam and I'm considering adding Denmark which gave diplomatic recognition to North Vietnam in 1971. Also, the reference alleging that the UK, Canada, etc. were supporters of South Vietnam is a blog which is not usually considered a reliable source. Smallchief (talk 12:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
As I said earlier maintaining diplomatic relations with and providing aid to South Vietnam at the time was probably indistinguishable from supporting them in the Vietnam War. One salient fact is that in April 1975 the UK evacuated their embassy in Saigon, if they had not supported South Vietnam would this have been necessary? I certainly agree that the sole reference does not not meet WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
(1) "maintaining diplomatic relations with and providing aid to South Vietnam at the time was probably indistinguishable from supporting them in the Vietnam War"—source needed. (2) "One salient fact is that in April 1975 the UK evacuated their embassy in Saigon, if they had not supported South Vietnam would this have been necessary?"—what on earth does this mean? 81.168.45.105 (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The UK probably evacuated their Embassy because of fears for the safety of their personnel. The US evacuated its Embassy in Afghanistan in 1991 when the Russians pulled out. That doesn't imply that we supported the Russian's war in Afghanistan. Smallchief (talk 10:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
User:81.168.45.105, I thought it was clear that this was my opinion, not something that I need to cite references for. The UK presumably perceived that they would be seen as an ally of the US/South Vietnam and there would be repercussions to this, despite the UK not having provided any combat support. Smallchief the Soviets pulled out in 1989, the Soviet-backed government in Kabul fell in 1991. Mztourist (talk) 05:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The UK's involvement in Vietnam ended when they handed Vietnam back to the French in 1945. This they had been legally obliged to do as France had been the legitimate governing power before the war with Japan occurred. With the ending of the war the previous status quo was required to be restored to a pre-war situation. This was one of the principles on which the war had been fought by the Allies, that no-one should gain from the Axis' aggression. Whether Vietnam then subsequently gained independence from the French was then their own business and not any responsibility of the UK.
After 1945 the situation within Vietnam could be seen to be slowly degenerating into what would effectively become a civil war, and this was one of reasons - amongst others - that the UK remained strictly neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.20 (talk) 10:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The UK did not participate in the Indochina War or the Vietnam War, but that does not mean they were "strictly neutral". The UK was part of the western alliance and provided at least tacit support to the French and later the Americans. The British gave counterinsurgency advice to the US forces in the early stages of the Vietnam War and maintained diplomatic relations only with South Vietnam. If any western nation could be said to have been "strictly neutral" during the Vietnam War it was France which maintained diplomatic relations with both North and South Vietnam. Mztourist (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm mostly neutral on this. I can probably see how Canada or the UK could be removed, but the Philippines and Taiwan, for example, should stay. Kiwifist (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm from Spain, and I'm ashamed about the suport Spain gave to South Vietnam. But we were under Francisco Franco's rule, so we hadn't had the chance of voting. Thank you "democracies" for suporting us during those times, by the way. --Gerhidt (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong link on the word cadres[edit]

In the sentence beginning with "The Viet Minh left roughly 5,000 to 10,000 cadres in the south.." the word "cadres" linkes to the wrong page. It now links here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism#The_vanguard_party

but the right link should be to here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadre_%28military%29

I can not edit this article, so can someone able to correct this error?

Thanks /Mr T

PhotoboyX (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Changed it to Cadre (politics), which I think is what is meant by the source.--Sus scrofa (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2016[edit]

Please add Hungary Hungary[1] and Poland Poland[2] in support of communist forces. LionofGod12 (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/JCWS_a_00050?journalCode=jcws#.Vp_ybulFA5s
  2. ^ http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=36539&st=15 (in Polish)
  • The Hungarian source establishes Hungary as an intermediary and hints at participation which may stop well short of being combatants.
  • The Polish source is in Polish. I've requested assistance at WT:WikiProject Poland. Bazj (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Bazj: Polish source quickfail: it's an Internet forum, i.e. not a reliable source. User:LionofGod12, please provide a source that is better, and then we can review it. (Btw, the forum does contain a reprint of an article, among other things, but since you didn't format the ref, we can't know if this is what you had in mind). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done for the reasons explained above - No reliable sources - Arjayay (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Rename article to British-American invasion of Vietnam[edit]

The French Indochina Wars, including the 1964 war joined by the Americans were promoted by the British, and their cliaim to sovereignty eas the fact that afyer the war (World War II), they 'owned France' (in transcript, "we own the French"). -Stevertigo. p.h.s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mordoralpha (talk • contribs) 02:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:COMMONNAME. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
You should provide some references, anyway. --Gerhidt (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
An absolutely ridiculous suggestion. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
It was not a USA invasion of Vietnam. It certainly wasn't a British invasion - there were never any British troops there.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2016[edit]

Add on Kyle822 (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. /wiae /tlk 02:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Vietnam War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2016[edit]

Calculation of years since event is wrong. According to the page the event ended 19 years ago, when it should be 41 years Shredallfear (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The article does not give the time from the end of the conflict to the present day. It gives the time from the beginning of the conflict to its end. Documentation at neither Template:Infobox military conflict nor WP:MILMOS tells us if this is an acceptable use. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Although the original poster was answered, I'd like to know why we give the time of the conflict. Opinions? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

"South Vietnamese Civil War"[edit]

Without regards to the popular term, can we call it "South Vietnamese Civil War"? Because the war is mainly the conflict between the National Liberation Front(Vietcong) and South Vietnamese Government forces occured predominantly in South Vietnam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertpda (talk • contribs) 05:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The popular term is preferred precisely because it's the common term for the conflict. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
That isn't technically correct. The major players on the Communist side were always the NVA, not the Vietcong.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

UK[edit]

There were rumors British SAS soldiers served in Vietnam wearing Australian SAS uniforms. (86.142.36.109 (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC))

Infobox inaccuracies[edit]

So, for "Strength" it lists the Communist side as under 500,000 and yet within "Casualties" very clearly depicts military deaths alone into the millions. The Strength section is understated then. Does someone know the exact number? DaltonCastle (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

North Vietnam and the Viet Cong constantly replenished their numbers by sending more soldiers south or recruiting for fighters among the South Vietnamese. The number given is the maximum strength for Communist forces in South Vietnam. Similarly, the United States had a maximum number of soldiers in South Vietnam of about 540,000 -- but about 2.5 million Americans served in Vietnam over a 12 or so year period.
However, I think this number should distinguish between Viet Cong (mostly Southerners) and North Vietnamese regular army troops. I'll look into that. Smallchief (talk 20:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Because currently it looks like it shows the total forces for the anti-communists, but only a snapshot of communist forces. If there's any way I can help feel free to ping me. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The stats shown are estimates of the maximum numbers of US, South Vietnamese, and Communist forces in South Vietnam at one time. In other words, you had about 1.5 million allies fighting against 500,000 communists at the height of the war in 1968. Smallchief (talk 20:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't the stats be of total forces used by both sides throughout the entire conflict? DaltonCastle (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Although I will accede that you have superior expertise in the history of the Vietnam War, my understanding is that in most conflict articles total figures are used. That said, policies were made more as guidelines, if its better to report it as the '68 snapshot. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I tried to change the article to show that the numbers given for "strength" were "peak strength." For whatever technical reason, it didn't work. Smallchief (talk 23:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Odd. Let me take a look. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Foreign support[edit]

Poland also supported Vietnam with small arms, trucks, artillery tractors and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.96.239.59 (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting. Any sources we can use to add it to the page? DaltonCastle (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
http://www.vietnamembassy-poland.org/en/nr070521165956/news_object_view?newsPath=/vnemb.vn/cn_vakv/euro/nr040819110934/ns070919142436 - nothing about military aids, only "great contributions". http://historia.focus.pl/swiat/jozef-conrad-ofiara-wietnamu-1280 - this article tells a story about Polish cargo ship m/s Józef Conrad, bobmbed by US planes in Hai Phong in 1972. Military aid (AKM rifles, Star 660 and GAZ-63 trucks) is mentioned.

https://books.google.pl/books?id=rr7Ur3P1mNMC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=polish+helmet+vietnam&source=bl&ots=NVCAUl4kx3&sig=vDH-yxy-5lgIkmQCbpuW8JL60hE&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRzuGeveDLAhUDuRoKHej0BSk4ChDoAQgaMAA#v=onepage&q=polish%20&f=false - about Polish helmets of the NVA. Also some Polish tracked artillery vehicles (50 pcs) were delivered, but cannot find any photo nor referenc now. I think that all Warsaw Pact countries were obliged to help Vietnam (as well as Egypt, Syria, and others USSR-friendly countries) with (unoficially) military aids, and since Polish People's Republic got one of the largest arms industry during Cold War (among the Warsaw Pact countries, 3rd after USSR and Czechoslovakia) it's rather obiviou that was one of the suppliers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.96.239.59 (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous US propaganda nonsense[edit]

"In the 2003 documentary The Fog of War, the former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara admitted that the August 2 USS Maddox attack happened with no Defense Department response, but the August 4 Gulf of Tonkin attack never happened"

Why is this not mentioned and why is the introduction just total US propaganda pretending the false flag invasion by the US was something it wasn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:2843:9F00:CC3C:DDAE:166:E318 (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vietnam_War&oldid=714277061"