imported>Richard Jensen |
|
| (265 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{subpages}} | | {{subpages}} |
| This badly needs copyediting. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 10:02, 15 September
| | {{Box|See [[Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 1|Talk Archives One]] or [[Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 2|Talk Archives Two]] for earlier talk.}} |
| 2007 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| =Article= | | == OK, where do we go from here? == |
|
| |
|
| '''Vietnam War''', also known as the II Indochina War or United State War (in Vietnam), was a conflict which lasted from 1956 to 1975. It saw [[Republic of Vietnam|South Vietnam]] and a multinational task force led by the [[United States of America]] with support coming from [[Republic of Korea]]<ref name="linea">[[Jonathan Schell|Shell, Jonathan]], En primera líena, [[Galaxia Gutenberg]], [[Barcelona]], [[1988]], ISBN 84-8109-600-8</ref>, [[Australia]], [[Philiphinas]], [[New Zeland]], [[Thailand]], [[Taiwan]] and [[Spain]]<ref name="spain1">Ministerio de Defensa of Spain, http://www.mde.es/contenido.jsp?id_nodo=4400&&&keyword=&auditoria=F, last visit 2007/12/9</ref> and fighting and defeated by [[National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam]], also known as Viet Cong, and [[Democratic Republic of Vietnam|North Vietnam]].
| | Oh Brave New World after the archiving, which has such wondrous things in it. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 21:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC) |
| | :keep reading friend. |
|
| |
|
| ==Origins== | | ==Green Box== |
| North Vietnam and South Vietnam were parts of [[French Indochina]]. In 1957 they won their independence from the [[French Union]] after the [[Indochina War]] which culminated in the french defeat in the [[Battle of Diem Bien Phu]].
| | The green box at the top of the article adds some necessary context to this article, but there is a chronological gaffe. The box says "[[Indochinese revolution|First Indochina War]] covers closely the anticolonial war against France, with interruptions for the events of the Second World War." But the First Indochina War starts ''after'' World War II. So how is that an "interruption?" Please fix. |
|
| |
|
| In the late 50's, many new Asian countries won their independence from european colonial powers. At the same time the [[Cold War]] began and the United States didn't want to lose influence in the World.
| | Regarding the remainder of the box, isn't it possible to discuss these ''related articles'' on the [[Vietnam War/Related Articles|Related Articles]] page? I think that it would make more sense. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 21:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| In the 1954 Geneva Conference, both Vietnams summoned a referendum in July of 1956 to determine if the people of Vietnam wanted to reform into one country. [[Vgo Dinh Diem]], president of South Vietnam, knew that to win that referendum would be very difficult because, and this is a key to understand this war for writers like Jonathan Schell, vietnam people wanted to be a one country<ref name="linea"/>.
| | {|border="1" |
| | |style="background:lightgreen"|''This is a major second-level article for numerous articles about an extremely complex situation from 1962 to 1975. [[Vietnam wars]] covers the context of conflict between 1868 and 1999; there are separate articles on earlier history. There was anti-French activity, but the main [[First Indochina War]] came after [[Indochina and the Second World War|the Second World War]]. This ends in 1975 with the fall of South Vietnam, but other wars continue in the [[Vietnam wars]] article.'' |
| | |}'' |
|
| |
|
| As a result of [[War World II]], when Nazi Germany wasn't contained early in its expansionistic political regime, a political class of citizens in the United States developed that was concerned that history could repeat itself, this time with the Soviet Union and the communism expansion<ref name="linea"/>. It was the described as the [[Domino theory]].
| | ==Headings== |
| | I'm going to recommend also that the heading "Regional activity before South Vietnamese independence" find a shorter title so that the TOC isn't so wide. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 21:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| ==Military history== | | == First Section == |
| This war had four phases.
| |
|
| |
|
| From 1956 to 1965 when fighting vitnamits against vietnaminits, but in 1959 died two firsth assesors from United States in Bien Hoa Base.
| | The last sentence in the first paragraph should wrap up the lede, to wit, it should explain why the topic ends in 1975 (i.e., south vietnamese surrender). I'd also like to drop the reference to the first century conflict with China; it's just too far removed in time to be relevant. It could probably be mentioned paranthetically: "... but to a long history of Chinese attempts to control the region (going back to the first century)." "This article focuses on ..." I'm not a fan of self-referentiality. The famous photograph of the helicopter on the roof during the evacuation in 1975, I've heard was ''not'' the U.S. embassy itself. The paragraph dealing with weather is really out of place here. It's interesting and important information, but it seems out of place here. |
| | Last, the first section should also mention that the Vietnamese call this the "American War." |
| | [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 21:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| From 1965 to 1968 when South Vietnam Army (ARNV) and United States won in land and they recover area.
| | :Yes, I too read the other day that the evacuation was from a neighboring building. Maybe in an obit of the guy who took the photo? I think that's the source.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 21:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| From 1968 to 1973 when the War was very unpopular in United States and in the rest of the World (speciali afther the [[Battle of Khe Sanh]] and the [[Tet Offensive]]).
| | ::We're all correct about the helicopters. Indeed, the most commonly used photograph is from a nearby CIA building, but there was also desperation at the Embassy and elsewhere. |
|
| |
|
| From 1973 to 1975 when South Vietnam fought alone against NFL and principally North Vietnam Army (NVA).
| | ::Let me think about China; some reference is important. |
|
| |
|
| | ::I moved the weather to the beginning of large-scale combat. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 22:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| '''Work in Progress'''
| | :::Long time coming.... I've reworked this whole section into a lede and an "overview" section. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 21:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC) |
| | |
| ==References==
| |
| <references/>
| |
| <!--
| |
| [[Category:CZ Live]]
| |
| [[Category:History Workgroup]]
| |
| [[Category:Military Workgroup]]
| |
| -->
| |
| | |
| =Further comment=
| |
| ==Why the article was moved==
| |
| The article above was moved by request of Richard Jensen, history editor, because it needs considerable work and probably cannot be improved, at least not in its present form. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:10, 2 October 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ==Bibliography: Additions==
| |
| | |
| Herr, Michael. ''Dispatches'' (London: Picador, 1977). Isn't this a relevant book? It's one of the great books, anyway. It's also a U.K. edition, because I live there.[[User:Jeffrey Scott Bernstein|Jeffrey Scott Bernstein]] 04:00, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
| |
| ::yes, it's very well done. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 04:20, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Opening paragraph ==
| |
| Needs and opening paragraph or two, in accordance with [[CZ:Article Mechanics]], that gives the dates, casualty figures, outcome, etc.--basic facts about the war. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 11:31, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :: How about this for a start?
| |
| | |
| The Vietnam War, a military conflict in which the United States joined forces with the South Vietnamese Army against the Communist North Vietnamese, lasted from 1959 to 1975. The war cost the lives of over 58,000 Americans, with a further 304,000 wounded, and ended with the United States abandoning its goal to keep a divided Vietnam from reunifying under Communist control, which took place in 1975-1976.[[User:Jeffrey Scott Bernstein|Jeffrey Scott Bernstein]] 11:53, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::OK but too US-centric? I'll work on it some more. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 17:08, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::I have several concerns here, which, I suspect, may be coming out of Cold War thinking, where nationalism was rarely considered if there was any Communist involvement. When speaking of the division, should there not be at least some mention of Diem preventing the referendum on reunification, agreed upon in 1954 at the Geneva Conference, and scheduled for 1956? Somewhere in this area, if it doesn't exist, is when the North Vietnamese party decided on a military solution, with the formation of the 559 Transportation Group (i.e., May 1959), which set up the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
| |
| | |
| :::"Vietnam War" isn't the greatest of names, but "Second Indochina War" isn't greatly better. Again, come back to Cold War policy, where the U.S. supported the restoral of French colonial authority after the Japanese mission, ironically when Ho was asking the OSS mission under MAJ Archimedes Patti for a copy of the U.S. Declaration of Independence to use as a model for declaring Vietnamese independence. See Archimedes L.A. Patti, ''Why Viet Nam?: Prelude to America's albatross'', http://www.amazon.com/Why-Viet-Nam-Americas-albatross/dp/0520041569
| |
| | |
| :::"the United States abandoning its goals" -- this needs to be very carefully sourced, and can be challenged. For example, the most telling statement of goals inside the Johnson Administration was the memo from Assistant Secretary of Defense (International Security Affairs) McNaughton to SecDef McNamara, http://vietnam.vassar.edu/ladrang03.html Also see COL H.R. McMaster's book, ''Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam'' http://www.amazon.com/Dereliction-Duty-Johnson-McNamara-Vietnam/dp/0060929081/ref=sr_1_1/105-4759583-4530845?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185120160&sr=1-1
| |
| :::{{unsigned|Howard C. Berkowitz}}
| |
| ::::the 1956 elections were pretty much a red herring, and not very relevant to the military history. Neither North nor South wanted them--neither could tolerate a free election in their own territory. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 17:23, 12 May 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::::Diem certainly did not, although I've seen various analyses of Ho's position. I'm not suggesting the elections would have been terribly honest had they been held, but, if they were held, I suspect Ho would have won. He would have won from a combination of ruthlessness, ideology, but also being perceived as a Vietnamese nationalist, where Diem was perceived as a Catholic mandarin.
| |
| | |
| :::::You make a point, though, that I think is relevant. The fact that neither side wanted a free election does not speak well to them as states that would not have had an [[insurgency]]. The North indeed was a police state, but it was more homogeneous a state than the South. I'm not suggesting a strict Confucian ethos, but there was a clear authority in the North. In the South, even after the VNQDD and KMT were insignificant, there still was Buddhist vs. Catholic, Hoa Hao, Cao Dai, mountain people vs. lowlanders, and, in general, no sense of national identity.
| |
| | |
| :::::I compliment you, Sir, in the elegance of bringing the Red Herring Scare into a discussion in which Communism was a factor. Perhaps in another universe, Joe McCarthy was a fishmonger. It was with some metaphorical shock when I confronted the array of colors of herring at a Scandinavian buffet, there presumably being some political allegory therein. :-)
| |
| :::::{{unsigned|Howard C. Berkowitz}}
| |
| ::::::well to nibble a bit more: the 1956 election topic was raised by antiwar Americans years later to argue that NVN was really democratic because it would have won an election that was never held. The French agreed to this election, then left. SVN and the US rejected the Geneva accords, of course. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 03:11, 13 May 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::::::I'd never dream of saying either Diem or Ho were democrats, which has never been a prerequisite for winning elections. I'm from New Jersey, where the motto was "vote early and often." NVN would have won, as Ho, at the least, tried to project an image of being of the people. Diem had a chance of winning only if Catholic loyalists voted. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:42, 30 June 2008 (CDT)
| |
| ::::::::the point is that Communism would collapse if it allowed free elections, so they were not allowed. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 20:52, 30 June 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::::::::I have no doubt that Ho would have never permitted a second election had he won the first, but Communism in 1956 would no more have collapsed than did that of the Soviet Union. Ho would have made use of elections; Diem didn't want them, because he would certainly have lost the first and only election. Neither had clean hands. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:59, 30 June 2008 (CDT)
| |
| :::::::::to allow democracy means to give up total rule by the party. No FIRST election is possible. Single elections did indeed overthrow Communism in Poland, USSR and Nicaragua (years later of course). Ho would like elections in the South, but not the North. Vice versa for Diem. The French, who inserted those terms, were long gone. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 21:20, 30 June 2008 (CDT)
| |
| ===Holding elections is not equivalent to allowing democracy===
| |
| Your words above, I believe, were:
| |
| <blockquote>the 1956 election topic was raised by antiwar Americans years later to argue that NVN was really democratic because it would have won an election that was never held.</blockquote>
| |
| | |
| I don't see that saying, anywhere, that Ho would permit democracy, nor did I say that. What I did say, as did many other students of the period, is that Ho had the popularity to win an election over Diem.
| |
| | |
| Ho was capable of working in coalitions, and did so in the late 40s with the VNQDD, Vietnamese KMT, Cao Dai, etc. I do not disagree that his eventual goal, at which he'd probably succeeed, was to put his Lao Dong Party in control. He was, in no way, a democrat.
| |
| | |
| For tactical reasons, however, he had every reason to participate in elections were they held in 1956. Diem's 1955 or so election were hardly an exercise in Jeffersonian democracy with the integrity of the ballot held sacred.
| |
| | |
| The U.S. wanted an anticommunist client in the fifties; whether it was democratic was irrelevant to John Foster Dulles. Why should Southeast Asia be different than South America?
| |
| | |
| My personal opinion, which I know I cannot prove, is that had Ho been elected, he would have built a nationalistic Communist state, somewhat analogous to Yugoslavia under Tito. On Ho's death, however, while Vietnam certainly had its ethnic conflicts, they were not remotely on the scale of those in the Balkans, and I suspect Vietnam, much like other former Soviet clients, would move to a form of culturally appropriate democracy. Can't know, of course, and no, I don't think of kindly Uncle Ho, or even Nguyen Ai Quoc. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 21:56, 30 June 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 21:56, 30 June 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Weaknesses of South Vietnam?==
| |
| | |
| Excuse me, where is the source for this section. It sounds as if, the person that wrote this part, is trying to avoid the fact that the US were responsible for betraying the South Vietnamese government after the Paris Peace Accord, and not supplying them with ammunition and military aid . I know ARVN officers personally, and they literally ran out of bullets on the frontline. Why would the ARVN sell (corruption) ammunition, when their lives depended on it. In fact, how many South Vietnamese soldiers died in the war? Over 1 million. Vietnamese people lacked Patriotism?! That is obsurd. The national anthem's lyrics alone would contest that. Third-world? South Vietnam was NOT third-world. during that time. I've got photos to prove this fact. I'm deleting this section.
| |
| [[User:Ann Hoang|Ann Hoang]] 22:14, 9 March 2008 (CDT)
| |
| ::We don't delete sections. If you have some documented evidence otherwise let's please ADD it. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 22:36, 9 March 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| You may want to read this: http://www.vietamericanvets.com/Page-Records-HeroicAllies.htm. I will soon change the article to reflect this point of view, let me know if there are any objections. [[User:Ann Hoang|Ann Hoang]] 06:55, 1 May 2008 (CDT)
| |
| ::yes there are objections indeed. The article blames the US --wjen in fact the US had left Vietnam. The link at http://www.vietamericanvets.com/Page-Records-HeroicAllies.htm assumes the Saigon government was totally incompetent--Saigon refused to buy batterioes, Saigon refused to allow planes be cannibalized for spare parts. Saigon waited for American B-52 bombers instead of sending up its own planes. The article falsely assumes that the North was getting vast subsidies. It never tells what Saigon did with the billions of dollars of US aid it received. It says that only one or two brave units performed well. It does not even mention the vast air force the south had. Anyone serious about the South Vietnamese military has to do better and there are many books and articles listed at [http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/vietnam.html Vietnam War Bibliography]. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 17:25, 1 May 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| Your Bibliography is missing Robert K. Brigham's book http://www.amazon.com/ARVN-Death-Vietnamese-Modern-Studies/dp/0700614338. [[User:Ann Hoang|Ann Hoang]] 07:34, 6 May 2008 (CDT)
| |
| ::thanks for catching that--I saw it at the Society for Military History meeting last year and meant to include it.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 08:36, 6 May 2008 (CDT)
| |
| == Bibliography ==
| |
| | |
| people looking for online sources might want to start with [http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/vietnam.html Vietnam War Bibliography by Richard Jensen] [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 22:45, 9 March 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Baffling, in Washington and elsewhere ==
| |
| | |
| I will reiterate that the Johnson Administration leadership was baffled. Remember that serious U.S. involvement in the region began in 1959-1961 in Laos, and I suspect Simons and Heintges had a thought or two. They were in regular communications with people like Bernard Fall.
| |
| | |
| While I can't speak from personal knowledge until 1966 or so, the Pentagon Papers do give indications that there were people, outside top circles, that certainly understood some of the dynamics in the country. Lansdale was shunted aside, but Roger Hilsman, with WWII guerilla experience, did have some insights. Unfortunately, he was too low in the food chain.
| |
| | |
| By 1966, I was working with first the Center for Research in Social Systems at American University, and then the Human Resources Research Organization at George Washington University. CRESS (formerly the Special Operations Research Office) was doing some quite insightful studies of attitudes in the countryside; I watched analyses going back and forth to the Special Warfare Center at Fort Bragg. Unfortunately, things that might be clear to a [[United States Army Special Forces]] major seemed to disappear somewhere before reaching McNamara's offices in Pentagon room 3E880. CIA was also producing serious analysis.
| |
| | |
| At HumRRO, while some of the research tools were awkward, our staff was sending Vietnamese-speaking analysts into villages. The MACV weekly Lessons Learned series spread useful knowledge within the command, but not above it, or apparently even in its senior headquarters.
| |
| | |
| Oh -- between the two jobs, I worked on tactical sensors and remote sensors for the McNamara line. The "people sniffer" actually worked, although it did result in quite a few water buffalo being bombed. The best sensor that came out of the Night Vision Laboratory, however, was rejected. It had a species of bedbug, exquisitely sensitive to human scent, glued to a microphone that would be dropped over the Ho Chi Minh trail. When porters passed, the excited bedbug would set off a transmitter, and call down bombs on its own position...brave bedbug. A general rejected the idea of using them, because he told the NWL that he refused to put any veteran in the position of answering "what did you do in the war, daddy" with "I was a bedbug wrangler."
| |
| | |
| McNamara and Johnson each brought their unique talents at bafflement to the situation. McNamara was convinced that the Lao Dong Party thought just as did his Harvard colleagues, and would realize, from a cost-effectiveness standpoint, they were beaten. He also developed a "signaling" system, "sending the message" that when the North Vietnamese set up [[S-75 Dvina]]/[[SA-2 GUIDELINE]] [[surface-to-air missile]] batteries, that the U.S. refrained from bombing the batteries "clearly" sent a message to the Politburo that it should reciprocate the retraint by not firing the missiles. Postwar interviews indicated that this had not even occurred to the North Vietnamese.
| |
| | |
| Johnson, meanwhile, chose to micromanage the bombing campaigns at his Tuesday lunches, which had no Air Force or Navy air warfare people in attendance, and only occasionally Max Taylor, a conventional land commander. No one there had any unconventional warfare experience, but they still seemed to feel qualified to tell whether a 500 or 750 pound bomb should be dropped on a given target. Given this hubris, given Johnson's ego, and given his Senate-bred belief everything was negotiable, why should it have been expected the Administration would make rational decisions.
| |
| | |
| Data were there; some passed across my desk. Unfortunately, it either never got to Robert Strange McNamara, or was rejected out of hand. How dare mere soldiers and area specialists tell statisticians, lawyers, and economists how things worked?
| |
| | |
| <code>For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";</code>
| |
| | |
| <code>But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,</code>
| |
| | |
| <code>The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,</code>
| |
| | |
| <code>O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.</code>
| |
| | |
| [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:38, 30 June 2008 (CDT) | |
| ::yes but the army, navy, air force, CIA and Congress were also baffled, as was RAND and Harvard, so suggesting that it was only McNamara and LBJ is not true. The Kennedy's were baffled too, I might add, along with Ike. But they all agreed on containing Communist expansion--the alternatives were unthinkable at the time. Once containment was dropped by Nixon, entirely new approaches opened up (ie US-China and US-USSR deals squeezing out the North)[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 21:25, 30 June 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::Sorry, but I was seeing, at the time, Army Special Forces and other groups, military and intelligence. Aside from USAJFKSWC, there was good stuff coming out of 5SFG and Marine CAP. I didn't see MACV-SOG at the time, but that and other SACSA material that's come out shows some reasonability. As far as the Air Force, Edwin Lansdale immediately comes to mind, but I can also dig up some references online.
| |
| | |
| :::Where the Kennedys may themselves have been confused, McNamara could confuse at intercontinental ranges. LBJ preferred to deliver up-close-and-personal confusion, as when commanding staff audiences from the Presidential Porcelain Throne. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 21:45, 30 June 2008 (CDT)
| |
| :::"being there" doesn't quite do the job when we are talking about the highest levels. The point is that the chiefs of staff were all pretty baffled, as the Pentagon Papers show. CZ must avoid blaming everything on McNamara. The line of argument in the article is that the US was trapped because of multiple conflicting goals. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]]
| |
