Jump to content

Talk:Vietnam War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RayTayMiht (talk | contribs) at 08:18, 27 August 2012 (→Name of the war in Vietnamese). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Former good article nomineeVietnam War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 6, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed


Nobody Won, Nobody Lost

I think the confusion about who won in the Vietnam War can be explained: there was no surrender document, just the peace treaty, the Paris Peace Accord. All the participating countries were still extant when the US pulled out of Vietnam. The Japs signed a surrender document in WWII, so they obviously lost. In Vietnam nobody lost. So everybody's all trying to figure out who won. 108.237.241.88 (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know if it serves any purpose to get into semantics. WW I ended with an armistice between the Allies and Germany, though not technically a surrender, most everyone agreed it represented a clear defeat for Germany.72.197.57.247 (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We go with what the bulk of RS say, and they say the north won, and the USA lost.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The USA brought North Vietnam to its knees with the Christmas bombing and forced the North to sign the Paris Peace Accords, thus ending the war for the USA, so I don't think anybody can claim the USA lost. Three years after the USA left Vietnam the South lost. And I think we can say that Laos and Cambodia lost although it was a very confusing situation. The Viet Cong certainly lost since they were mostly wiped out. 108.237.241.88 (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you just look at the wikipedia page for Linebacker II you'll see that North Vietnam wasn't "brought to his knees". The terms of the Paris Peace Accords were the ones already agreed on in October, all new US proposals (the reasons of the breakdown of the talks and of the bombing campaign) were cancelled. No removal of North Vietnamese troops from South Vietnam, no recognition of the DMZ as the actual border, no all indochina wide ceasefire. The idea the bombing succeded to bring the North Vietnamese to the diplomatic table was just a spinning story of the Nixon government to avoid telling the Nation that, after years of war, billions spent and the death of thousands of American young men, the US were going to sign a treaty hugely favourably to North Vietnam and that everybody knew was a death sentence for South Vietnam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.244.86.34 (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a susgerstion that NV allowed the USA to make this claim because the Paris accord so favourd them that they wanted to save the US's face to make it more likely the US legialature would find it acceptable.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, USA have lost, and I will tell you why. The objective of this war was to prolong the exsitence of South Vietnam, which was almost overrun before the USA involvment. America had withdrawl from the war - whatever the reason was it is irrelevant, they have simply lost the political will to fight. After that North conquered South, and of the story. So, was the objective achieved? No. Had the USA retreated? Yes. I believe that the current section of war result is a proper one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.2.148 (talk) 06:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the USA lost. It is clear the North won but not at a complete victory. USA losing is no different than saying Germany lost during WWI. USA withdraw at a time when it believed it was not going to win, S. Vietnam lost at there own accord. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.194.1 (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about this persistent and recurring question as to whether or not the U.S. lost the war. Perhaps we can refer back to Carl von Clauswitz who argued that war must necessarily serve a political purpose, and say that in the United States the military serves under civilian political leaders, because fighting and war must necessarily serve a political purpose, for war without a political objective would be irrational; it would simply be war for war’s sake, and therefore utterly senseless. Once the political goals are achieved there is obviously no longer any rational purpose in continuing with the fighting. It is for the political leaders to determine when the political objectives have been achieved, or when victory is no longer attainable, and it is for these leaders to decide when hostilities are to cease. I contend that the U.S. did determine that victory was no longer attainable, and though this might not be construed as a clear defeat, it was certainly something less than victory.72.197.86.130 (talk) 05
39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The claims that the USA did not lose are pure semantics. North Vietnam, throughout, aimed to hurt the Americans until they agreed to leave, then defeat the South Vietnamese, and that's exactly what happened. America aimed to preserve the capitalist nation of South Vietnam. Blaming the South Vietnamese is clearly unfair when you remember that the Paris Peace Accord allowed North Vietnamese soldiers to stay in South Vietnam, on the grounds that the North Vietnamese did not accept it was not their country. That had been the sticking point in the negotiations for years, and it was the Americans who were forced to concede the point. Mankytoes (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The US never went to war with North Vietnam, and the Paris treaty fulfilled most of its demands for a withdrawal from Vietnam. Yet 2 months after the US withdrew the North violated the ceasefire and invaded the South once again, a tactic that was very reminiscent of what they did to the French backed treaty. The US intervention was successful in bringing about the desired result that US sets out to do, get a ceasefire between North and South, stabilize the region, and enforce the French treaty, but a new war broke out as soon the US left.

There are two ways of looking at the war(s) in Vietnam. As a single war, or a series of wars. I belive a single war viewpoint is very flawed because it involved a series of peace treaties, multiple countries, and stretched from since before WW2 to the 1980s.


From the Us standpoint, Vietnam was a victory. Yet the victory was not lasting because North Vietnam's violations which can easily be seen as a calculated manipulation, relaunched the war soon after the US withdrew and over-ran the South 3 years later. Yet the insurgency of the South lasted for quite some time, resulting in North Vietnam invading Cambodia and China intervening. The situation is infinitely more complicated and confusing if one views it as a single war, rather than a series of wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The US went to war in South Vietnam to remove North Vietnamese forces and remove comunist influence, the Paris accords allowed for both. Also the P{aris accors required US intervention if NV violated them, the US did not intrevene again. At best the Paris accords put the conflict into the saem status it has been before US ground intervention, at worst it gave NV everything they coud want and the US a few months in which to save faceSlatersteven (talk) 10:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources?

Although I expect that it was not an easy or painless business, I am not sure that the casualty figures quoted here for the immediate aftermath of the Vietminh takeover in North Vietnam are based on reliable sources. The references quoted seem like a scrappy and difficult to read sheet of figures, or a broken link, or what form its title looks like a rather partisan source. PatGallacher (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just added Turner's Vietnamese Communism, RAND's "On the Question of Communist Reprisals in Vietnam," Lam Thanh Liem, and the US government's "Human Cost of Communism in Vietnam." Thank you for pointing out that the Radio Free Asia link was broken; I have fixed it. I think Steve Rosefielde does qualify as a reliable source, although I don't know for sure.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hoang Van Chi could be another source, if anyone has read From Colonialism to Communism. Or Tongas, if anyone can read French.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that the estimates cited here vary widely because there were several different "reforms" in the fifties (often modeled on those of China, such as Mao's "Hundred Flowers" campaign): "Rent reduction," "political struggle," and "land reform." There were several rebellions suppressed, along with camps, slave labor, executions, famine, ect. Not all estimates cover the same time period or causes. And then there's the fact that the numbers were manipulated for partisan reasons by those who supported and by those who opposed US involvement in Indochina. President Nixon even claimed that half a million people died in concentration camps from 1953 to 1956--whereas Rummel put the figure at a conservative 24,000.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canada?

This page is in the category 'wars involving Canada', but wasn't Canada very pointedly neutral in this conflict? 94.193.234.10 (talk) 02:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're included because of their involvement with the International Control Commission. Don't know how justified it is to have that category though, since they didn't actually fight in it.--Sus scrofa (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Third parties" are relatively common in the post 1945 environment. I would suggest discussing this at WP:MILHIST's talk page as a matter of policy formation? Fifelfoo (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5 Million dead and RJ Rummell?

First of all why was there a removal of the AFP source that said there were 5 million dead? Agence France Presse was also cited online (that online citation is also cited in this and other articles). AFP said that there were 2 million civilians killed in both North and South making the civilian toll 4 million in addition to the 1.1 million military deaths.

The other issue is regarding RJ Rummell; his estimates on Vietnam have not been cited anywhere outside of this article making it an issue of WP:Undue; his estimates are very low considering most low estimates put total Vietnamese dead at about one million, not in the tens of thousands. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grover Furr is not an adequate archivist or translator of AFP news wires. AFP may be adequate (if the original is located, or reported in an appropriate newspaper) if it is accurate to what the government of Vietnam reported. The government of Vietnam's opinion is of course relevant, and AFP is an adequate source regarding the Government of Vietnam's opinion, if such an AFP wire existed. Regarding Rummel's adequacy, Rummel does not publish his death estimates in a peer reviewed forum. I would suggest you take Rummel's estimates to the reliable sources noticeboard and follow their question format guide. The reliable sources noticeboard is good at answering complex sourcing questions regarding potentially scholarly sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CartoonDiablo, the source you provided is a self-published website that uses a "rough translation" to denounce "US imperialism" and mourn "5,000,000 Vietnamese workers". It's a blatantly unreliable source. As I mentioned before, reputable outlets like The New York Times translated the figure as 2 million civilians. To my knowledge, the claim of 2 million in the north and another 2 million in the south is widely known to be a mistranslation popularized by a random guy on the Internet. Certainly, the source provided doesn't inspire confidence. You can add a higher total if you have a better source. Rummel's sources vary in credibility, but his estimate of 1.7 million deaths in the war isn't out of the ordinary. Off topic: CD, could you comment here and explain where the source you added to Rudolph Rummel originates, and if it was ever published?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5 million?! That's too high of a death toll. I remembered the death toll in the war, and only the war (excluding those killed in North VN land reform and purges of reactionaries and South VN purges of communists), North to South, was around 2 - 3 million, including foreign troops. Rummel's claim of 1.7 million is more realistic, however I believe its slightly higher than that. Don't use blogs for sources please, usually they're biased onto one side. Statistics from the communist Vietnamese government is NOT reliable at all, as with other communist sources and stats and info from communist governments, they often downplay or exaggerate actual events and facts to their benefit, and don't often publicize the true reality. In this case, exaggerating the death toll to 4 million from the actual 2 million benefits the communist regime in blaming America for a war they claimed is made by America, of which they called the ""American" War", which they blamed kill many people. Nguyen1310 (talk) 08:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Vietnamese government is probably not a reliable source in the sense of being trustworthy, but most editors seem to agree that its POV merits inclusion here. I'm just surprised that Hanoi's official estimate wasn't high enough for some people, so they decided to double it using a mistranslation. It's not as though 3 million soldiers/civilians isn't tragic enough, or even 1 or 2 million. Blogs are frowned upon for many reasons, and you don't need to remind us of the problems they tend to have.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please go read WP:V and WP:IRS Nguyen1310. Your assessment of reliability differs radically and fundamentally from Wikipedia's consensus, and is not the way forward here. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nguyen1310 certainly doesn't hide his POV. He should be careful not to let it prejudice his edits.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good advice, however, that advice should be addressed to most WP editors. Meanwhile, the work cited by CartoonDiablo (Charles Hirschman, Samuel Preston and Vu Manh Loi) looks quite reliable. It was published in a Population Council journal, and this publication has been cited 38 times. Interestingly, the figures provided there do not contradict to Nguyen1310's assertion that the number of 1.7 million is reasonable. Therefore, Nguyen1310's "non-neutral" views seem to be closer to what reliable sources say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Siebert, I completely agree that Nguyen1310's number is a sound estimate--I was the one that first mentioned the estimate! And most of his edits have been, I believe, helpful. I just wanted to reprimand him less harshly than Fifelfoo did. On your other point: CartoonDiablo didn't add Hirschman. Again, I added Hirschman to this article (about 2 years ago). His estimate is actually far lower than Rummel's. Population and Development Review estimated that fewer than one million Vietnamese soldiers/civilians died in the war. Currently, that is mentioned in the lede as a low estimate. The high estimate of over 3 million is the Vietnamese government estimate. CartoonDiablo tried to add a blog that mistranslated the Vietnamese estimate as 5 million, and I reverted.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember very well that a former editor by the name of "YellowMonkey" deleted this low estimate as "right-wing POV pushing". He had a real vendetta with me. He got banned for other reasons, but I was blocked for a week after edit warring with the guy.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Paul Siebert above, as most people have their own POVs, its just a matter of of being more milder or stronger than others, and how much it impacts you, and yes we should not let our views go to our edits, so I wish to thank Paul for that. Yes I have my own POV, but I don't try to let it get to me, and the content I add into articles are true, and whenever I can, add proper citations for it. Oh yes, YellowMonkey often came into conflict with me a few years ago for trying to make Vietnam War articles more one-sided (you can see their POV on their user page, that says in Vietnamese, to "not listen to what reactionaries [overseas] say", with a hammer-and-sickle sign under it). I remembered that Rosefielde of Uni. of North Carolina said it was 2 - 3 million for a death toll in the war, that I read on the web a while back, so I'll try to find that back and add the link here. And to Fifelfoo, you need to address that message to blatantly pro-communist editors that Ive seen on Wiki, there's 2 of them and I'm watching them, as I caught them adding their POV into articles and blanking whole sections of things that they just didn't like, which are things that I DON'T do. Nguyen1310 (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a warning regarding Battleground. It is not appropriate to claim that other editors are "blatantly pro-communist." I don't need to address anything other than ensuring historical articles are written out of scholarly historical sources. You seem to believe that you have a personal and extraordinary capacity to evaluate the worthiness of scholarly history based on what you believe to be its political content. You don't. We write based on the preponderance of academic sources in wikipedia's voice, and we note the existence of scholarly positions as well. We exclude opinion and fact drawn from unreliable sources, or sources which are not scholarly. This is all we do. If the historical scholarship becomes RVN revanchevist over night, and all historians agree this is the truth, then this is what we write. If all historians become US nationalists over night, and all historians agree this is the truth, then this is what we write. If all historians lionise the DRVN, then guess what wikipedia does? We don't make decisions about neutrality—neutrality is representing what the common scholarly opinion is. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm sorry if I'm being harsh. It is incredibly frustrating to have people attempt to relive tired political debates, over and over again. We don't do that. We're an encyclopaedia. We report what the experts agree on, and when experts disagree. Experts agree that the Vietnamese Government's opinion regarding mortality attributable to the US phase of the wars in Vietnam is notable. If they discuss it at depth then we probably need an article on Estimates of deaths during the Vietnam War where we discuss how experts agree that one source is good, and another bad, or disagree about a third source. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, YellowMonkey concentrated strongly on the history of the RVN, and edited primarily "admirable" RVN figures and dissidents. YellowMonkey did not concentrate on DRVN or NFL figures. It is curious to accuse him of having edited with an anti-RVN bias. YM edited based on broad and deep reading of reliable sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying the 5 million and Rummell

Sorry for not being a part of the discussion for a while but let me clarify; looking back the figure is closer to 4 million. As far as I can tell, there is no archived AFP release for that day that indicates that number, most casualty figures (including those by Chomsky) are lower. The best highest estimates are by Tucker (>3,100,000) and Obermeyer (3,812,000).

By that same token however, the Rummell figures are self-published and not peer-reviewed. The best lowest estimate of the war is by the Correlates of War Project which put it at 1,021,442.

Anyways I hope that helped clear things up as this requires attention for the article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're not using Rummel for the low figure. His figure is around the average. The low figure is from Population and Development Review. Thank you for pointing out these sources for higher estimates. This article's current high is somehow even higher.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on the spelling of Vietnamese names

RfC: Should the spelling of Vietnamese names follow the general usage of English-language reliable sources? Examples: Ngo Dinh Diem, Ho Chi Minh, and Saigon, or Ngô Đình Diệm, Hồ Chí Minh, and Sài Gòn. The RfC is here. Kauffner (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what does the MOS say on this point? Fifelfoo (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of discussion doesn't belong here, but at the talk page of WP:Naming conventions (Vietnamese), which I linked to above. But since you asked, here are the guidelines:
  • "For foreign names, phrases, and words generally, adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article, unless those spellings are idiosyncratic or obsolete. " (MOS:FOREIGN)
  • "Spell a name consistently in the title and the text of an article." (MOS:FOREIGN)
  • "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works)" (WP:DIACRITICS) Kauffner (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Error in data table

The western ally forces had South Korean soldiers, but in data table there is an error that shows 50k North Koreans fought for them. It should be change to South Koreans. North Koreans fought for communists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.125.249.166 (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I'll change it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edit history, this was actually fixed by one editor but I reverted it thinking he'd changed "South" to "North". I dun goofed. Sorry, Eper1709.--Sus scrofa (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons table wrong

There are few errors in weapons table for NVA and Viet Cong. BTR-60 and BMP-1 were introduced in Vietnamese army post-war in late 1970's. There are no Chinese-made weapons listed, as Type 59 MBT, Type 62 light tank, Type 63 APC and S-75 Divna (SA-2) SAM is wrongly put as air-to-surface missile. That should be corrected.--Kos93 (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about less detail here and more summary style in the Weapons section with the Weapons of the Vietnam War article specified as {{main|Weapons of the Vietnam War}}? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf of Tonkin resolution - date is wrong

Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution on 7 August, 1964 - not 4 August as indicated in the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.119.190 (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yep looks like an error http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=98Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the date, conforming info here with info in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution article, citing the supporting source cited there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the war in Vietnamese

In Vietnamese, the usual name of the war is Chiến tranh Việt Nam (Vietnam War). My English-Vietnamese dictionary gives this translation and only this translation. Kháng chiến chống Mỹ (Resist America war) is a propaganda name. Chiến tranh cứu nước (war of national salavation) is far less commonly used than either of the others and is more a description than a name. The "Names for the War" section gives a pretty good explanation. There is no reason for the footnote in the opening sentence, which should be uncluttered. So I have removed it. Kauffner (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that putting that that information doesn't need to be in a footnote (it seems to me that this is just a way of mimicking "real" academic writing that puts large chunks if text in footnotes for editorial reasons that don't apply to us) I would like to remind editors not to edit war but work out a consensus on the talk page first.--Sus scrofa (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where was this English/veitnamese doctionary published?
Ho Chi Minh City. This is the Lac Viet dictionary. Kauffner (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While working in Hanoi for 3 years, in every reference and discussion with both government persons and ordinary individuals, the war was referred to as The American War. There are countless books referring to it either as The American War or one of the more formal names used above. I will find some references next time I am there.RayTayMiht (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vietnam_War&oldid=509389846"