Talk:Vietnam War

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

What was the first Indochina Conflict? GodlessLiberal 15:06, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

That was the war between the French and the Viet Cong that took place in the late 1940s - early 1950s, prior to our involvement.--Conservateur 18:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Unless strong documentation can be provided, I have to support Hojimachong's decision to remove what appears to be odd claims of an imminent North Vietnamese surrender at the time we pulled out. Learn together 15:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

This article is woefully inadequate

A lot of work needs to be done on this topic. There's a great deal of information left out. Also, the U.S. did not lose this war. When the U.S. pulled out S. Vietnam was safe and secure. The VietCong was destroyed and the borders were agreed to by the Paris Peace Accords. It was only after the U.S. was completely out of the region that the North Vietnamese attacked. It was 2 years after the U.S. pulled out that North Vietnam invaded. However, because of communist infiltration of the U.S. govt. and Congressional efforts to squash S. Vietnam and the violation of the SEATO treaty to render air support to the S. Vietnamese, the North felt this was the opportune moment to invade. All this is left out from the article. Scorpio 15:24, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I beleive that outline of telling events is very good. How's this, "Vietnam was lost in a spasm of Congressional irresponsibiltiy after Congress cut off aid to the South Vietnam govt and the hard won peace negotuiations by Henry Kissinger". RobS 22:52, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

About the only thing the Vietname War article does not discuss... is the Vietnam War. But at least we have a list of really hip songs from that era ;-) Learn together 16:17, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, it's not ready to be displayed. I'm going to demote it to a /draft. --Ed Poor 16:23, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

"stated military goals of the Americans were not met".. So basically, you lost the war. Funny way to say it. FreakyM 10:10, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

This site is an embarrassment. I included some of the most accurate statistics in respect to the war and they are deleted. I guess having the U.S.A be part of a war claiming the lives of millions; many of them innocent is just too liberal. I guess that implies the facts themselves are liberal (which obviously cant be allowed) making this site no more than poor propaganda. Wikipedia has a very accurate breakdown of this war, the casualties, who was involved, as well as a very detailed escalation as to the events that occurred right up to the present day. I also find it hilarious that Nixon isn't mentioned once in this whole article.

You may wish to add constructive information about the course of the war, battles, tactics, etc. We are aware this article construction could use assistance as the section title makes apparent. Civilian casualties are largely unknown and guessed at in only the broadest terms. If your edit seems designed to add little except a negative light, then it may well be reverted, as happened here. It would be hoped that in the future you may be able to help to fill in the gaps that we already know exist instead of merely pointing out they are there. Learn together 16:29, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Speculation as to America's failure

The primary reason is probably the total psychological commitment of substantially all North Vietnamese and many South Vietnamese people to reunification of the country.

Whose opinion is that? It doesn't ring true. I was in the army for 5 years (two decades after this war, though). I heard a lot of other reasons. --Ed Poor Talk 21:08, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

It was the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Hitler rose to power with the invasion of Czechoslovakia; Britian went to war with Germany so another Czechoslovakia would not occur; the entire world was engulfed in what became known as World War II so no more Czechoslovakia's would occur; the North Atlantic Alliance was created, with Czechoslovakia in mind, "for the right of self-determination of peoples," which the Czechoslovakia lost after 1938; the policy of Containment, which was basis of US involvement in Korea and Vietnam was to insure no more situations like Czechoslovakia; the US kept 175,000 troops in Europe upto the collapse of the Soviet Union supposedly so tiny nations like Czechoslovakia would not be invaded and made slaves again.
While the hippies rioted in the streets, and while the US (as the article states) was approaching 600,000 men in Vietnam, to contain Soviet expansion, and for the right of self-determination of peoples, the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia. It was pretty obvious at that point, the whole thing was a fraud. That yes, the evil Nazi regime was evil and needed to be destroyed because it invaded Czechoslovakia. But when the godless commies did it 30 years later, what did NATO & the US do? Nothing. Rob Smith 21:44, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
Hitler didn't have nukes. And it was obvious by mid-1939 that Hitler would not stop with Czechoslovakia and Poland. In 1968, we had a reasonable expectation that the Sovs would stop with Czechoslovakia, at least in Europe. Not defending Western inaction, just saying the two situations were different.--Frey 12:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Number of Vietnamese Who Supported Communism

I've read several times that two thirds of the Vietnamese population (both north and south) supported the communist government, and that there were meant to be elections but these were refused. Does anyone else know anything about that, and should it be included in the article?

I personally met the author of Le Gulag Vietnamien (The Vietnamese Gulag), when he first immigrated to the US and was looking for a translator and a publisher. "Support" of a totalitarian regime is enforced by draconian government measures (to say the least).
When has any Communist dictatorship held a plebiscite on whether Communism should continue (or be replaced by democracy)? The only dictator I know of, who voluntarily stepped down after a successful coup, is Augusto Pinochet. (Leftists hate to mention this, preferring to smear him with accusations of mass murder while whitewashing Che Guevara, Ho Chi Minh, and so on. --Ed Poor Talk 07:25, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Is cite for rewrite still needed?

This page is cited for rewrite due to not giving "the origin of the war, what it was fought about, and what the sides were", but all this is basically mentioned. I will remove it if no objections.Daniel1212 19:26, 21 November 2009 (EST)

On My Changes

An administrator named TK asks me: "Usually editors post on the article's talk page before revamping the entire article, so I need to ask you what direction are you going? I take it you saw the proposed changes page?"

I don't think I've revamped the entire article, though I have expanded on it. I'll let my changes speak for themselves, though I'd be happy to respond if there are any objections.User:JakeRMurrin

"An administrator named TK" Yes, that is indeed me, and you most certainly are not at Wikipedia, Jake. Respond where you are questioned, please, and drop the attitude. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:49, 5 September 2010 (EDT)
TK, although Jake's changes are sweeping, he's new here. Please be gentle, since you are (in fact) a gentleman. --Ed Poor Talk 09:18, 7 September 2010 (EDT)
On the other hand, I could not very the quote from the Vietnamese general, supposedly published in the Wall Street Journal. Snopes calls it an urban legend. So let's be careful with this extensive rewrite, both in terms of getting the sources and references straightened out, and also in terms of appreciating efforts by a new contributor. --Ed Poor Talk 09:29, 7 September 2010 (EDT)
No attitude was intended, TK.User:JakeRMurrin
Snopes does not call it an urban legend. It debunks claims of an imminent North Vietnamese surrender in 1968 falsely attributed to General Giap, and then notes that the apocryphal quote may be based on the sentiments expressed by Bui Tin in the WSJ. It implicitly endorses the WSJ interview, although it notes that Bui Tin (according to the article) had expressed "disillusionment with the fruits of Vietnamese Communism," adding that “it’s possible" "his changed outlook" "influenced" the opinions he expressed to the WSJ in the piece.


Well, I couldn't find the quote online anywhere. In such a case, I'd like the article say that "so and so" says the quote appeared in the WSJ, but with a note that we could not verify that. Unless you want to go to the library and dig up a copy of the paper? --Ed Poor Talk 15:50, 9 September 2010 (EDT)
Sorry I haven't responded sooner. Feel free to add whatever you have in mind.User:JakeRMurrin


The citation referenced said:

"Finally, I can calculate the overall democide of Vietnam in the post-Vietnam War period (lines 762 to 764). This amounts to 346,000 to 2,438,000 Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians, probably about 1,040,000."

--ṬK/Admin/Talk 20:53, 19 September 2010 (EDT)

Rummel estimates the total democide by Communist Vietnam as approaching 1.8 million, with nearly 800,000 North Vietnamese slaughtered by the state. Of that 1,000,000 figure; only about half a million were killed in South Vietnam, the rest in Laos and Cambodia by Vietnam (i.e., Rummel blames Vietnam for 2/3 of the deaths under Samrin's regime in Cambodia, because they installed him). However, that figure does not include war-related deaths or the boat people. Rummel estimates that roughly 500,000 boat people died from all of Indochina, with 1/2 of those being counted as democidal. Adding them in, roughly a million were killed in South Vietnam. If we were to take Rummel's numbers, only 150,000 were killed in the renewed Communist offensive from 75 on (see here:

On Cambodia, at least 1.1 million were executed and 1-2 million worked or starved to death by the Khmer Rouge (we know because we've counted 1.1 million bodies identified as "victims of execution"). Although some believe that executions alone could have reached 1.5 million, the 1.39 million figure comes from Wikipedia. Because the Documentation Center of Cambodia is still conducting studies, I assumed that the 1.39 million figure was a revised execution estimate. However, I've been unable to assess the veracity of the claim, and I'm not sure where the number comes from (Wikipedia has no source).User: JakeRMurrin

I can agree to accept that, but your edit that I reversed doesn't seem to reflect what you are saying here.... --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:54, 20 September 2010 (EDT)
I made three changes. One, I lowered the number of Indochinese killed in the ongoing war after US withdrawal, because the current number is legitimately too high. I raised Laos to 100-200,000 killed (from "over 100,000"), and I got rid of the 1.39 million figure for executions under the Khmer Rouge. Although that number most surely does fall within the accepted range of estimates, the number itself has no clear source. Which of these do you you have a problem with?User: JakeRMurrin
Everyone gets upset when discussing genocide, Holocausts, and mass murder. The main point that conservatives want to bring out - and which liberals, contrariwise, want to suppress, is that Communist dictators have murdered huge numbers of people in the name of Communism; and that this is because Communism is an evil, anti-human ideology (even though it masquerades or camouflages itself in the mantle of "humanism"). I daresay that anything atheistic is bound to turn out badly, despite the existence of the odd "ethical" humanist among their ranks. --Ed Poor Talk 22:02, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

Avoiding bias

Jake, are you trying to paint the worst possible picture of US intervention? From what I've just begun to read, America sounds like the biggest scoundrel and worst bad guy. --Ed Poor Talk 20:04, 30 October 2010 (EDT)

You might get some perspective by reading this encyclopedia article.

Are you serious? Out of all the possible criticisms that might be levied against my additions; this is one charge that I would never have imagined anyone would make. I'm baffled as to what exactly struck you as being in any way sympathetic to the Communist cause.JakeRMurrin 23:00, 30 October 2010 (EDT)
I would appreciate a response! My best guess is that you misread the prelude section:

Neither side respected the legitimacy of the other; as a consequence, the division was widely regarded as temporary. A British diplomat suggested that free elections be held in the North and South to determine the future of a unified Vietnam. Contrary to commonly repeated myths; it was North Vietnam, not South Vietnam, that was the most extreme and steadfast in its efforts to prevent any such election from taking place. Nevertheless, it is true that South Vietnam consistently opposed all such arguments, claiming that the majority of South Vietnamese wanted independence, but that those North Vietnamese who wanted conquest should not be allowed to veto their just demands. The United States was willing to accept free elections and a reunified Vietnam, Communist-led and hostile to China. Indeed, US officials favored such a default outcome; they listed it in secret communications never intended for public consumption (but released in the Pentagon Papers) under the heading "advantages."[2] The US gradually intervened, due to the insistence of the North on a campaign of military aggression, as part of its wider Cold War strategy of containment.

Unwilling to accept or even consider free elections, and with the South's economy growing rapidly and its prospects looking brighter by the day, Ho Chi Minh was up against a wall. A unity government was established in Laos, and the US was firmly committed to defending South Vietnam from conquest. Huge numbers of North Vietnamese desperately fled to the South for freedom. Cambodia was neutral and united behind the rule of Sihanouk. Despite repeated diplomatic efforts by the US to bring about a peaceful regional settlement; Hanoi became increasingly convinced that the revolution could be spread throughout Indochina only by force. .... In 1958, North Vietnam launched an invasion of Laos.[41]

In 1959, by its own admission, North Vietnam decided on war in South Vietnam. North Vietnam created the Viet Cong and sent 20,000 men to attack the South. In 1961, North Vietnam used 30,000 troops to build invasion routes via Laos and Cambodia. North Vietnam later admitted that it “played a decisive role” in bringing to power the Pathet Lao in Laos and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.[42]

As every serious historian of the time knows, it simply is not true that free elections were ever "scheduled" for Vietnamese reunification. On the contrary, the Communists established a totalitarian dictatorship that made free elections impossible in the North after seizing power through mass murder and genocide! Far from mandating free elections, a British diplomat at the Geneva conference, noting that the odds of a non-violent solution seemed hopeless in the face of North Vietnam's intransigent refusal to accept the sovereignty of the South, pleaded for an election to settle the question. He had no illusions that this was anything but a pipe dream.JakeRMurrin 22:32, 3 November 2010 (EDT)