Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Vietnam War. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

POV in favour of official US history

The article is generally POV in favour of the official US position. Which is not surprising since it is generally written by people exposed to the official US point of view over 50 years. There is a tendancy to adopt the official line as true, particularly to assume stated war aims to be actual war aims. An example:

"Rolling Thunder was the code name for a sustained bombing campaign against North Vietnam conducted by United States armed forces during the Vietnam War. Its purpose was to destroy the will of the North Vietnamese to fight, to destroy industrial bases and air defense (surface-to-air missile or SAMs), and to stop the flow of men and supplies down the Hồ Chí Minh Trail." Ww

Yes, it is true that one of the main aims of Rolling Thunder when it began was to boost morale in South Vietnam, and that 'mission creep' set in after that, but beyond that you are incorrect to say that the above aims were false. The entire intellectual underpinning of graduated response was to convince Hanoi to 'call off' the attacks in the South by demonstrating that the U.S. had the capacity to destroy the North, without actually having to go that far. What are the war aims you had in mind that you do not feel are addressed here? Cripipper 21:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is generally POV in favour of the official US position. No, it isn't at all, but thanks for sharing. Haizum 09:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Consider this statement: "The chief cause of the war was the failure of Vietnamese nationalists, in the form of the Viet Minh, to gain control of southern Vietnam both during and after their struggle for independence from France in the First Indochina War of 1946-1954." This is outrageous. If a foreign nation takes a side in a civil war and intervenes, it creates a new definition of the war for itself. This is the influence of celebrationist United States history; the conflict was most certainly an internal one. The United States replaced France as an imperial power believing it had the power to change what, when viewed in retrospect, appears if not inevitable, most plausible. Furthermore, the entering and escalation of the war by the United States is the logical outcome of Cold War foreign policy. This "chief cause" sentence bears little historical accuracy to the nature of society and politics in Vietnam, as well as United States foreign policy. - proud american

You’re right. it's like saying that victorious north Vietnam should have continued and utilize force to occupy and impose their idealogy on the rest of Vietnam , should not have signed the Geneva accord, should not have agree to splitting Vietnam in half nor to hold free election THAN the war would not happen. Even with citation from reliable source this statement cannot be verified. Therefore I will delete it if no one can come up with a better replacement. --Factus 09:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to assume that in 1954 that there were two Vietnams, separate and distinct. There were not. South Vietnam was the creation of Ngo Dinh Diem and his American backers. If the Viet Minh had succeeded in 1954 in ousting the French from the south, there would have been no second war, civil or not. If the elections called for at Geneva had been held, Vietnam would have been united under a communist government. Therein lay the rub. RM Gillespie 13:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

- The UK accord that split Vietnam until the the elections were to be held were broken when the North attacked South Vietnam.....Elementalos 00:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the partition of Vietnam originated long before that. The U.S. and U.K. overthrew the democratic Vietnamese government which the Viet Minh set up after liberating Vietnam from Japanese occupation at the end of World War II, and divided Vietnam into North Vietnam which was given to China, and South Vietnam which was given to England (who later turned it over to France). --PhoenixVTam 12:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

North Korean participation in Vietnam

During the war North Korea sent fighter pilots to Vietnam, I feel we should add them to the official history. Links: N Korea admits Vietnam war role and North Korea fought in Vietnam War Canpark 05:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

it is mentioned now Istanbuljohnm 09:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

My Lai massacre

Why is the My Lai massacre listed under the Nixon administration? March 16, 1968 would have been the LBJ administration.

Because the massacre would take on a great significance when it was descibed in detail in the US newspapers, in 1969, when Nixon was presidentIstanbuljohnm 09:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Because stating the truth would make it on Johnson's (D) watch instead of Nixon's (R). I love how predictable Wikipedia is. Haizum 09:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

To note, and all "liberal bias" comments aside currently neither the words "My Lai" or "Massacre" are mentioned in this article, and quite frankly if you feel it is being misrepresented, then change it. That's what Wikipedia is based around. Haemo 07:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The final sentence, attempting to somehow balanace the cold-blooded murder of civilians by an invading army with unsubstantiated assertions of other cold-blooded murder by the other side, is anot worthy of inclusionw ithout citation. Is this a good place to describe the Pheonix programActio 06:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)actio

Institutional Bias

This article serves no purpose for non-US readers. Americans simply cannot understand that humanity witnesses US foreign policy from an objective point of view, and is therefore not impressed with America's attempts to makeover its image. For example, most of the world views the US War on Terrorism as a psychological war aimed at the American public by industrial forces through government and public institutions. Likewise, the war in Vietnam was truthfully an attack by Americans of rural Buddhist peasants who were seeking unified independence from colonial rule. In fact, of all Vietnam deaths, only 1 out of 60 was American, according to figures contained in the article. Most were killed by cowardly means, such as bombs and chemicals. The Vietnam war is therefore technically a massacre. However, these fact are obfuscated. The second sentence of the article clearly exemplifies this:

"By its end in 1975, the Vietnam War had claimed between two and four million lives."

This sort of sentence is offensive to non-US readers and proves Americans are at least conscious of their actions. A mature and secure people would allow these facts to be known without evasive language. However, Americans must live under the shattering psychological effects of American corporate television, and are not allowed to understand the institutions which govern them.

I'm non-US, and struggle to understand how that sentence is offensive or evasive. I am not sure how the Vietnam War, as opposed to any other war, was a massacre. Cripipper 18:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, this article is supposedly written from "mainstream" "scholarly" sources, which simply means US book-writers who formulate opinion within the institutional boundaries which distribute their writings. "Mainstream" is a term used only in America, where political polarization has destroyed the notion of objectivity. It is a marketing term. If this were a reality-based encyclopedia it would be based from actual documents, such as the Pentagon Papers, Nixon and LBJ tapes, which are the richest sources of non-biased material concering the Vietnamese massacre known to humanity. However, these materials are probably not considered "mainstream". In fact, I don't believe any of these resources are even mentioned in the articles. Likewise, you will probably not find any mention of US politicians misleading the public deeper into the war, which was the chief political feature of the war.

Unfortunately you are wrong again, as the use of primary sources would technically be original research and not permissible in Wikipedia. However, as mentioned in the discussion of Chomsky, historians actually do use factual evidence, such as the White House tapes, in their work, and these are the people whose work the article is based on. What revealing insights do you have to share that have been revealed in the Pentagon Papers or White House tapes or anything else documentarily based, that you feel is missing?
Either provide specific examples of where this article is wrong and how it should be improved, or stop patronising the rest of us with your ill-informed comments; believe it or not, some of us actually do know a thing or two about the Vietnam War, and maybe a couple of other things besides. Cripipper 18:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "mainstream" is being used here as a form of censorship and should not be a consideration of wether a source is credible or not. Let the facts speak for themselves. I think that "primary sources" and "original research" are distinct. "primary sources" are the published material as it is before commentators digest it, original research, "is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source" Wether the White house is a reliable source is another matter. Fyntan 07:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

On the whole, Wikipedia does an excellent job of presenting the US Political point of view. It is a great idea-based encyclopedia. For example, the entire article on the Kent State shootings is pasted directly from the Nixon administration's lawyers.

to whomever wrote this...what you wrote is probably one of the truest and most insightful things I have have read on this site. cheersBernardL 21:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are all brainwashed and incapable of original thought. Thank you for being you, and being here and taking the time to let us know. Or another theory one might throw out is don't complain unless you have a solution. If the article needs work or is biased in your most "humble" opinion then contribute and help fix it. Spare us the condescending rants.--Looper5920 22:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a section on the Pentagon Papers anyway.

And have the Watergate tapes revealed anything about Vietnam?, take that evidence, put it under your nose, and continue to try and ignore it. starkt 09:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Việt Nam was ruled by the Chinese for centuries! He could not just forget that! He would never allow Chinese domination of Việt Nam. He was very wary of foreign domination, and this is a known fact. The Soviet Union did not even recognize the Democratic Republic of Việt Nam until 1950, six years after he proclaimed it! The Soviet Union did not support his numerous attempts to get Việt Nam into the UN in the 50's. He was very wary of both of them. --Ionius Mundus 15:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If Ho felt threatened by China and forsaken by the Soviet Union, how does that square with his dependence on them to fight against the U.S. and South Vietnam? It doesn't, and you know it. His wariness of China became much less marked when China became communist, and his disappointment in the Soviet Union, if any, ended when that country gave him weapons and material to fight his war. starkt 08:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It waas either get their help or fail, unless of course you think that he still should have taken a shot with asking the West. By the way, I think I can decide what I know and what I don't know for myself, thanks. --Ionius Mundus 03:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Vietnam was not fighting on behalf of the Soviets and Chinese and neither was the US fighting on behalf of French imperialism. They had similar goals to those which you claim they were fighting on behalf of had had (in one respect), but were NOT fighting for them. -Ionius Mundus 13:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine. As long as you concede that the goals were similar, that's good enough for me. And I still maintain that Vietnam was a battleground for outsiders trying to achieve their ends with little regard for the well-being of the Vietnamese. Both sides were guilty in this regard. As were the Vietnamese leaders on both sides who accepted the help of those outsiders and the strings that came with that help. starkt 08:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not concede anything. It is rather obvious that the goals were similar in one respect. But Chủ Tịch Hồ Chí Minh did genuinely care for the Vietnamese people. Read Bác Hồ's "The Path Which Led Me To Leninism". Don't worry, it is short and easy to find. Then let's see what you have to say. --Ionius Mundus 21:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you say that it is rather obvious that the goals were similar in one respect, then you are conceding something. Ho Chi Minh might have cared for the Vietnamese people, but it seems that many Vietnamese didn't care for him and still don't. I've read twenty to thirty books on the Vietnam War, from a variety of perspectives. I hope that "The Path Which Led Me to Leninism" isn't the only book you've read. And, incidentally, anyone who admires Lenin -- a mass murderer -- does not any earn points in my book. The book might as well have a flashing sign on the cover, saying "Nonsense herein". starkt 08:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay... First of all, even Eisenhower conceeded that Hồ Chí Minh had the support of 80% of Vietnamese. Show one politician who has actually gained 100% support. And no, you can't use Diệm (who apparently got 150% of the votes in Sài Gòn) as an example. Second of all you have basically said that you have not read Bác Hồ's "The Path Which Led Me To Leninism", as it is not even a book at all, and is merely a few paragraphs. Lenin was not a mass murderer, you have mixed him up with Stalin. And, no, I have actually read some books on Việt Nam aside from those few paragraphs which you unknowingly called a book. --Ionius Mundus 15:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to complain about institutional bias, why don't you take a look at Wikipedia? Haizum 09:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

US Centric

This article reads like it's about "Foreign policy of the United States during its war in Vietnam", rather than the Vietnam War. Most of the action took place in South Vietnam, yet hardly anything is said about the social, economic, and political situation there (how did Thieu gain power? what was his rule like? what was the mood of civilian Vietnamese?) while minute details about the situation in faraway USA are discussed at length (Robbie Kennedy's candidacy, some guy's primary election fortunes in some tiny state, protests in a college in Ohio, US foreign policies post-Vietnam, etc.) This article needs a serious rewrite, and needs to focus on where the action is. 207.178.224.50 22:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. A more appropriate title would be "U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War". Beit Or 17:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There may indeed be important omissions and unnecessary inclusions. However, if the USA features highly in this article overall, it is because of its crucial role in the war. US policy in relation to Vietnam, the way it was formulated and implemented, parallels in importance any of the political, sociological or economic conditions/events within Vietnam itself. Rewriting this article with less emphasis on US involvement will not only obscure the facts and events presented but also mislead the reader.Alexandert14 12:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"A more appropriate title would be 'U.S involvement in the Vietnam War'" Do we say the same as the French in Algera? No, we say it occupied Algeria. In regard to Vietnam, acted to re-conquer Vietnam and the rest of Indochina. So a 'more appropriate' description could be US Occupation War, Diem was clarly a Viceroy(unelected and supported by the SV landed-Gentry. The UK Consul-General Kenneth Blackwell in Hanoi described the aim as "To occupy the country indefinitely as the Americans seem prepared to do" on the 23rd of May 1962. User:Green01 8:06, Jan 04 2006 (UTC).

You are right, but a lot of that talk about US politics is because the US government views it as their fight against the Communists, not as a Vietnamese civil conflict. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Is it possible that one day, the USA will apologize to the people of Vietnam for the rape of the people and their land? The USA expects apologies from a minor-despot like Gaddafi while it ignores its own behavior.

American Defeat?

I notice the article once said 'political defeat' and now 'Political and military' defeat in the war box, US won every single engagement of the war apart from the earlier Vietcong vicotories that fueled the US intervention.

Every single engagement of the war? Perhaps you have never heard of the fall of the Ashau SF border camp? Or the loss of Kham Duc - the largest American defeat of the conflict? RM Gillespie 01:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It was most certainly a political defeat, but military also? As for failure to defend south vietnam didnt that responsibility lie with South vietnam?

The changes here are applicable to the Soivet war in Afghanistan page aswell as both were interventions in other countries by the two cold war super powers, Hence if this is a US military and political defeat, Afghanistan is likewise for the Soviet union.

Lets hope we can clear this up. S Seagal 03:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot win a war with your military and later pull out because of that, then its a military defeat. Israel did a lot of damage and killing during the recent war in Lebanon, yet Hezbullah still came out the victor. Its the same thing. It doesnt matter how many battles you win or people you kill, its about whether you accomplish your objective or not.Khosrow II 00:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The DRV and NLF succeeded in uniting Vietnam under a Communist flag. This is argubably the outcome expected in the early sixties during Diem's presidency. So, all that the USA's involvement achieved was to delay this event by more than a decade and at the expense of millions of lives, entire ecosystems and incalculable sums of money. Some might call that a defeat and others would call it a shameful tragedy.Alexandert14 13:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Seem like a military defeat to me; America might have won a most of the battles, but they surely lost the war. Kind of like Iraq right now. 24.222.8.32 05:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

An old saying "You might had won every single battle, but still lost the war." In which the Americans didnt suffered many serious defeat but politically they didnt achieve their goals to defeat Communism. Ho Chi Minh said that "For every ten men you killed ours, we will kill one of yours, in the end we will still win." Basically just because that side had huge casualties or lost many bases, as long as their leader or ideology still survive for another day, they are not defeated yet and can fight for another day. Just my two cent for this discussion about America defeat. Hanchi 3December 2006

I think there has to be some mention on an American Strategic Defeat. There is simply no question that the US Military was unable to handle the situation, for whatever reason. Take the Suez Crisis, for example. It was inarguably a Anglo-French/Israeli defeat, but it was still a stunning military campaign on the part of those powers. It was the politics, ie American and Soviet pressure, that lost the British Suez, not any lack of military victory. Still, Suez goes down in the history books as a mangling defeat for the UK. Vietnam was not only dodgy militarily, but was also untenable politically, and therefore must be considered a defeat for the Americans. I am amending the battlebox accordingly. Psidogretro 19:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A military defeat would have meant that the US Military Forces would have been annihilated or surrendered. They were withdrawn as a result of Congress pulling the funding for them. This is not a Military Defeat, but a political one. I have corrected the battlebox.Corporaljohnny 19:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

U.S. troops were not withdrawn because of Congress pulling the funding for them. They were withdrawn as part of Nixon's 'Vietnamization' plan. Cripipper 16:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Congress withdrew funding because everyone had realized that the war was a stalemate, and that the US wasn't winning. Consensus has already been reached on this issue; the war was a strategic defeat as well. I have corrected the battlebox to the status of the war that we agreed on back in December. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Nevermind, someone else has already fixed it. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Everyone realized? Sounds like POV and weasly words to me. Show me some proof that everyone realized it was a stalemate and that the war could not have been won had congress continued to fund the troops.Corporaljohnny 16:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 16:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Cripipper, the article cleary states the withdrawl was because of a bill that congress passed... In December 1974, the Democratic majority in Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, which cut off all military funding to the South Vietnamese government and made unenforceable the peace terms negotiated by Nixon. Nixon, threatened with impeachment because of Watergate, had resigned his office. Gerald R. Ford, Nixon's vice-president stepped in to finish his term. The new president voted the Foreign Assistance Act, but his veto was overridden by Congress.Corporaljohnny 20:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the article clearly says that funds for the South Vietnamese government were cut off by Congress; by December there were no U.S. troops left in Indochina to fund. By the summer of 1972 there were fewer than 25,000 U.S. combat troops left in the country. By the time of the signing of the Paris agreements in January 1973 there were practically none. All advisers officially left before the end of March 1973 (though many stayed on in different guises). Cripipper 00:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Phillipine Involvement

Theirs not so much mention of the phillipine involvment! I want info on that!--Johnston49er 07:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Political defeat for US(?)

I notice this article refers to the war as being a "political defeat" for the U.S. A number of commentators these days refer to the U.S. defeat as "political," and not military as well. I do not believe this is the case. Make no mistake, this war was a military defeat for the U.S. Just because the VC didn't follow the Western "rules" of classic military conflict doesn't mean that they didn't prevail militarily. Guerrilla warfare is every bit as valid a form of war as any classic Western military doctrine.

However, because of jingoism and general ignorance of VC military methods, U.S. writers have long denigrated what the VC accomplished militarily. For example, U.S. soldiers and military analysts have often referred to what they saw as "chaos," in Vietnam during the war. It may well have been "chaos," seen through the eyes of the U.S. military----but the VC side knew exactly what was going on. Keeping one's enemy confused and in the dark is a key tactic of guerrilla warfare in any case. Just because the VC didn't follow what American military leaders would call classic military doctrine doesn't mean that the VC didn't prevail militarily. In the real world, you don't get extra points on the battlefield for following "classic rules of war."

Additionally, if you're going to label this war as a "political," and not military defeat for the U.S., then you could really say the same for many other wars throughout history. For example, you could say that the German defeat in World War I was a "political" defeat (as strikes and political turbulence on their homefront played a major role in their defeat). Same thing goes for World War II. If Hitler had simply allowed his generals to run the war and had not meddled, then the Germans would have probably prevailed.

---You are absolutely correct: will anyone review this position? (signed) Dan4J 20:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

-- "...Make no mistake, this war was a military defeat for the U.S. Just because the VC didn't follow the Western "rules" of classic military conflict doesn't mean that they didn't prevail militarily. Guerrilla warfare is every bit as valid a form of war as any classic Western military doctrine....."

We were winning when I left - bwmoll3

No matter what you do, no matter how you want to lable it, when you leave, you lose. Period. If not emotionally attached, it should not be a difficult concept to understand. --Factus 09:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like somebody to change the following line, then, as it seems strangely out of place: "Although the U.S. and South Vietnamese were initially surprised by the scale and scope of the offensive, they responded quickly and devastated the ranks of the NLF. Despite its tactical failure, however, the Tet Offensive effectively ended the political career of President Johnson, who refused to run for reelection and spent the rest of his term working for peace in Vietnam." This makes it sound like they lost, but we lost too many men defending, marking a phyrric victory for the US, but that does not seem to have been what has historically occurred. Sim 15:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the Tet Offensive is that it was not how many men the Americans lost, but rather that the communist forces were able to launch an offensive at all when Westmoreland and others were seeing the "light at the end of the tunnel" and expected the end of the war soon. That's why Tet was a political defeat, because it showed that the US was no closer to victory than it had been 5 years earlier.

The analogy to World War I above is incorrect. German leaders in the inter-war years labelled the war as a political, but not military defeat, but they were wrong. To quote from the Wikipedia article, in discussing Allied victory in 1918:

By the start of October, it was evident that Germany could no longer mount a successful defense, let alone a counterattack. Numerically on the frontline they were increasingly outnumbered, with the few new recruits too young or too old to be of much help. Rations were cut for men and horses because the food supply was critical. Ludendorff had decided, by 1 October, that Germany had two ways out of the War—total annihilation or an armistice. He recommended the latter to senior German officials at a summit on that very same day. During October, the Allied pressure did not let up until the end of the war.

So, Germany was militarily defeated, but the politicians had to figure out how to end it and THEN home front problems began. During the Viet Nam War, home front problems began despite continuing tactical military victories. Thus, despite the great losses faced by the Vietnamese in the Tet Offensive, it achieved it's strategic goal of ending American involvement. --Habap 15:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Typo

under his leadership. In his exultant speech before a hugh audience in Hanoi, he

should read: before a huge audience in Hanoi, he

Typo

e with the insurgency with the aid of U.S. materiel and advisers

Fixed. Cripipper 15:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Should read: e with the insurgency with the aid of U.S. material and advisers

Materiel (materiél) is the correct word. Cripipper 15:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

>> Hey, Cripipper...if you're fixing typos, pleeeeaase see my post. Dan4J 20:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Helicopter Evacuating Vietnamese Civilians from roof of US Embassy.

The article that states that the US Military was evacuating from the US Embassy is false. The helicopter is a "civilian" helicopter (Air America), and they were evacuating from an apartment building.

"The picture of a Huey helicopter evacuating people from the top of what was billed as being the U.S. Embassy in Saigon during the last week of April 1975 during the fall of Saigon helped to establish this myth.

This famous picture is the property of Corbus-Bettman Archives. It was originally a UPI photograph that was taken by an Englishman, Mr. Hugh Van Ess. Here are some facts to clear up that poor job of reporting by the news media.

Facts about the fall of Saigon

It was a "civilian" (Air America) Huey not Army or Marines. It was NOT the U.S. Embassy. The building is the Pittman Apartments. The U.S. Embassy and its helipad were much larger. The evacuees were Vietnamese not American military. The person that can be seen aiding the refugees is Mr. O.B. Harnage. He was a CIA case officer and now retired in Arizona."

Here is your source.

http://www.vhcma.org/fact.html

I ask that you would change this to the facts, not popular speculation. Students use wikipedia as a resource, and false information does not need to be given.

70.61.253.210 16:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Tabitha70.61.253.210 16:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Typographical Errors, Punctuation, Phrasing

Notably worse in this article than typical, I'm afraid. With all the discussion about content, organization, and subjectivity, this should not be pushed aside.

If anyone with authority wants a list of typos etc, I'd be happy to provide one. (e.g. "hugh" io huge under Laos) Breaking with good sense and suggested rules, I can even provide an email address if you want. Or just leave word on my Home page (Dan4J).

I'm not familiar with "Editprotected", but willing to use if it can be explained simply and it's OK.

Dan4J 22:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Article is locked so I can't correct it, so someone please do so: "the precursor of theCentral Intelligence Agency" There is no space after "the".

--Derrill 08:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Official Communist losses were 1,100,000 dead

Why it's "600,000"? Civilian dead were some 900,000, not 1,000,000 (mostly South Vietnamese). --HanzoHattori 13:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A lot of vandalism like this seems to occur. Numbers that have been considered facts for decades are changed, to more properly represent a politically correct view of a given war. It also happened in various WW2 articles, such as Stalingrad, where they up the casualties for the Germans, and reduce the casualties of Russia.

Possibly inflating civilian casaulties is okay for me (no one knows the exact number anyway, and probably never will). Almost halving the Communist dead is not. --HanzoHattori 18:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see no one will correct this? Not important, I guess. --HanzoHattori 17:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The official US estamation of Vietnamese(North and South) dead is 2 million isn't it? User:Green01 3:12, Nov. 30 2006 (UTC).

2 million dead is US estimates,they might have exaggerated it, however hanoi officially claims total communist dead is 1.1 million so whoever put the death toll of 600000 must be a complete retard. I wouldn't say this, if the report was untrue, but it's obviously not even the current vietnamese government officially put the figure at 1.1 mil dead, not more, not less.

XXXXXXXXX 4:12, Nov. 31 2006 (UTC).

Putting aside all political bias, the communist estimate of 1.1 million communist dead is greater than the double the strength of the enemy combatants. Please, revise the strength figure to at least 1 million, 111 thousand, as that is the sum of the minimal estimates.

199.120.31.20 17:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

And is this the 1968 avarage? South Vietnam counts only. --HanzoHattori 19:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How large was the Vietnamese population during the Vietnam war?

I would have thought that it would be interesting to know, so one could understand how big a percentage of the population was affected.

Such demographics would ease understanding and wikis value and usage for educational purposes I would imagine.

85.112.144.50 22:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Vietnamese population around 1965 - 1975

Wartime Population

South VietNam had a population of about 16,000,000 and North VietNam about 19,000,000.

Operation Bolo

i have just created a new article about an air operation for the US that went perfectly 7:0 7 MIG-21s, 0 F-4 phantoms it is called operation Bolo and i would like you guys to see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Operation_Bolo Tu-49 01:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The article needs some serious work. More details in the relevant discussion page.Alexandert14 12:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)