Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 5

The famous Jim Morrison line

Let me put it this way, I've been a real sucker for this. I'm not particularly interested in your opinion. If you want to ride herd on this article I'll leave it to you (although it does not look like you are doing any writing in it at all) and get back to business as usual. Sayonara! RM Gillespie 23:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove the redirect to this page from Second Indochina War. A working article with that title now exists. RM Gillespie 21:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Choppers

What about the use of Helicopters in the conflict? See UH-1 Iroquois#Vietnam era usage. Should we merge, create a link, or create a subsection? User:Dfrg.msc User talk:Dfrg.msc 09:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Vietnam era usage The UH-1 has long become a symbol of US involvement in South East Asia. In Vietnam, the Huey was used for various purposes and various terms for each task abounded. Hueys tasked with an attack role were outfitted with rocket launchers, grenade launchers, and/or machine guns were often called "Hogs" or "Frogs". Hueys used for troop transports were often called "Slicks" due to the absence of weapons pods. Slicks did have door gunners, but for the most part they were strictly troop carriers and medevacs. In the US Navy and USMC the difference between gunships and troop carrying UH-1s was split between the terms "Sharks" and "Dolphins." UH-1s also flew hunter-killer teams with "Loach" observation helicopters, namely the Bell OH-58 Kiowa and the Hughes OH-6 Cayuse Towards the end of the conflict, Hueys were tested with TOW missiles, and two UH-1B helicopters equipped with the XM26 Armament Subsystem were deployed to help counter the 1972 Easter Invasion.

Helicopters played an integral part in the U.S military's land and air operations.

The three basic missions of the helicopter in Vietnam were troop transport, reconnaissance, and attack. The troop transports were designated by "Blue" teams, hence the nickname for troops carried in by these Hueys as "Blues". The reconnaissance or observation teams were "White" teams. The attack ships were called "Red" teams. Over the duration of the conflict the tactics used by the military evolved and teams were mixed for more effective results. "Purple" teams with one or two "Blue" slicks dropping off the troops, while a "Red" attack team provided protection until the troops could defend themselves. Another highly effective team was the "Pink" Recon/Attack team, which offered the capability of carrying out assaults upon areas where the enemy was known to be present but could not be pinpointed.

During the course of the war, the Huey went through several upgrades. The UH-1A, B, and C models (short fuselage, Bell 204) and the UH-1D and H models (stretched-fuselage, Bell 205) each had improved performance and load-carrying capabilities. The UH-1B and C performed the gunship and some of the transport duties until 1967, when the new AH-1 Cobra arrived on the scene. The newer Cobra, a purpose-designed attack helicopter based on the Huey, was faster, sleeker, harder to hit, and could carry more ordnance. Devotees of the UH-1 in the gunship role cited its proven history and its ability to act as an impromptu dustoff if the need arose. Another important fact was, a four-member Huey crew could effectively observe the front, sides, and rear of the helicopter, and the door gunners could continue to fire on a target even after the completion of a gun-run, which the two-man Cobra could not. After Vietnam the Cobra was adopted as the Army's main attack helicopter.

USAF Lieutenant James P. Fleming piloted a UH-1F on a 26 November 1968 mission that won him the Medal of Honor.

I know the article is long already, but this is important material. I would add this to the article for now. Later, we can spin off separate articles if necessary. starkt 23:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes i feel that someone might be able to add references to iconic military (air,sea and land) vehicles . And the usage of napalm during the war.

Put a Link. This article is long enough already.

Discuss military history in Wikipedia at Society for Military History meeting 2007

The Society for Military History is considering a session on Wikipedia at its annual meeting (Frederick Maryland, April 19-22, 2007). Any active editor who would like to be a panelist please contact rjensen@uic.edu Thanks Rjensen 00:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandals: How do we get rid of them?

I've had to correct the same errors two or three times: the use of "offical" for "official"; "In spite the United States" for "In spite of the United States"; and the incorrect mixing of tenses in a sentence ("having" and "had"). If you don't know basic English, don't edit here. Others have also intervened to correct these errors, which have then been deliberately repeated. Not to mention the introduction of material such as "So and so is gay" in the middle of the article, and someone writing that millions of Americans and Australians died in the war.

I consider the above vandalism. Is there a quick procedure for reporting the offenders and getting them banned? I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and don't know all the ins and outs. Of course, I will look at the info on this site about vandals and see what it says. starkt 10:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

VPA v. North Vietnamese army

It is not incorrect to use the phrase North Vietnamese army - it is a statement of fact, i.e. the army from North Vietnam. It would be incorrect to write North Vietnamese Army, because that is not what the VPA/PAVN is called. It is no more incorrect to refer to the PAVN rather than VPA than it is to refer to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), when it is officially the CPC. I notice someone has changed all references to the North Vietnamese army to Vietnam People's Army; this is both ludicrous and inconsistent - references to the American army and South Vietnamese army are abundant. Furthermore, it could be confusing for a lay reader who may not know to whom the Vietnam People's Army refers. Unless there are major objections I intend to revert VPA mentions to that of North Vietnamese army or PAVN, which are far more familiar, and no less accurate terms. Cripipper 17:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I replaced "North Vietnamese Army". It is not incorrect to use North Vietnamese army, but I didn't change that. --Ionius Mundus 23:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct or not, it is just simpler to type VPA than PAVN. Since readers are international, I just tend to use VPA because that is what the Vietnamese called their army. I'm not saying that it is a POV thing, its just that it is more accurate to the people who might have fought in it. Granted, it can become redundant, so I use North Vietnamese (without the army) to break things up. RM Gillespie 21:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

NVA vs VC

Google seems to clear this up:

• 161,000 hits for National Liberation Front
• 4,320,000 hits for Vietcong

and since Google's results might be skewed by the popular game, I ran one in Google Books:

• 14,700 hits for National Liberation Front
• 21,000 hits for Vietcong

Seems to me that VC is the more commonly used description. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The people who worked and/or fought for the organization called it the National Liberation Front. Their blood and suffering, not yours. I'm willing to grant them that. Or would you preffer the Yankee army, you know, the one that fought against the Confederate States Army? RM Gillespie 21:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Việt Cộng

'Việt Cộng' meaning 'Việtnamese Communists' was a propaganda term used by the Americans and the Southern dictatorship. Not everyone in the NLF were Communist. We should change the term 'Việt Cộng' to 'National Liberation Front' or 'NLF', as that was the official name. Upon the first mention of the term, we can add "(often known to Westerners as the Việt Cộng)". --Ionius Mundus 21:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the view that Viet Cong was a term created by the Americans which shouldnt be used. Something like what you suggest about "known to westerners as" at the first mention is good also 125.162.10.11 07:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Footnote Citation Problem

Guys, in the Kennedy section I've included a couple of General Taylor's quotes from a biog of RFK. Unfortunately I think I've got the 'ref' coding wrong, hence it is recording the citation as 2 footnotes instead of one. I've tried to change it but to no avail. Could a more experience Wiki editor take a look and change it as necessary, please. Much obliged, Iamlondon 03:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a technical problem, it should be fixed soon enough or you can fix it on any specific page by adding "&action=purge" to the end of the URL and reloading. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

DRV troop numbers

The 420k that is currently listed for DRV/NLF/PRC strength presumably doesn't include the ca. 100k Chinese who were serving in the DRV at the time. If we accept China as a combatant surely this number needs to be increased by the same figure.? Cripipper 17:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Linebacker II and Peace Accords

It seems to me that to seperate the election, the agreement and Linebacker is rather pointless, and misleading even, since these issues were inseperable. I suggest that these two sections be joined. Cripipper 20:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Omitted relevant data

Discussion of failure of Vietnam war can't be complete without reference to Nixon's intentional sabotage of Paris Peace Talks (for which there is no article and hardly any mention) through the agency of [Anna Chen Chennault] (no mention of this incident) and the GOP mole in the Paris Peace talks [Henry Kissinger]. (Googling "Chennault Nixon Thieu" gives a few hundred references, or just read her autobiography or Kissinger's.)

There's also a bunch of crap in the "Tet Offensive" section talking about Communist Propaganda front, etc. I.e. "There is no reasoned opposition to GOP goals, only communism".

The fundamental failure of analysis as covered here really comes down not considering this simple truism: "Military interventions to overthrow repressive governments (as with Hitler, Saddam, etc.) can generate popular support or at least acquiesence; Military interventions to overthrow popular uprisings against repressive regimes (as with Thieu's Vietnam, Iran, etc.) usually generate increased popular resistance: they can be crushed by overwhelming military force but only at the cost of establishing a perpetual and unstable police state." This is not rocket science.

Vietnam Peace Negotiations

I don't agree fully with the above appraisal, but a major lapse in this article is the lack of discussion of the course of the peace negotiations from 1968 to 1973; ultimately this could, and probably should, be spun off into a seperate article. Cripipper 10:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Kennedy and containment

The two sections on Kennedy are, imho, rather disparate; the content of the first section doesn't bear a great deal of relation with its content. If it is about containment then there needs to be discussion of Kennan, the theoretical underpinnings of containment and its misapplication in Asia, Gaddis would surely have a look in. The closing quote leaves the impression that the consensus is that JKF would have sent in trrops as LBJ did; this is then flatly contradicted in the following section. There is no discussion at all of the huge increase in 'advisers' under Kennedy, etc...Cripipper 15:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, i've copied info about Green Berets from timeline into main section; and tidied up the section a little. The quote from Kennedy is a general comment about the importance of the Vietnam situation, maybe implying but certainly not stating directly that he believed in 1961 that the US should send in troops. Also there is a link now to the article on containment. Istanbuljohnm 07:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Istanbuljohnm, I saw what you did here and I liked it, so I felt motivated to add the bit about NSAM 52 which is a key document in the chronicles of the Kennedy administrations's Vietnam policy. After adding the new material, it appeared to me that a re-ordering of the paragraphs was appropriate to give a better chronological sense. I also changed the term "Cold War policy" to "anti-Communist policy" so as to not give the misleading sense that the U.S.'s involvement in Vietnam was wholely driven by concerns about the Soviet Union, as contrasted with Communism in general. Finally, the new material is impeccably sourced and I would like to cite it (especially since the lead-in is more-or-less a verbatim quote from the source) -- however I haven't yet learned how to properly cite material that can't be hyper-linked (e.g. books, etc.) If somebody reading this could send me a pointer on my talk page I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. Dasondas 08:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Beginning date

Why is the start of the war given as 1957, while most other sources I have read place it in 1954? Lesgles (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That is a good question; 1957 is by far the least common date attributed to the start of the Vietnam War. Some date it to 1954, others to 1959 (for example Britannica goes for the former and Encarta the latter.) There is however, a reasonable argument for 1957, on the basis of new research from the past decade or so. My own personal preference is for 1959, since it was in that year that the Hanoi Politburo decided to move to a war situation in the South; personally I think 1954 is the weakest candidate of the three since it strikes me as being an overly deterministic starting-point somewhat akin to dating the start of WWII to 1918. Cripipper 12:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have left this hanging for a while, but no-one has responded/seems to care. On that basis I propose changing the date of the beginning of the war to 1959. The Hanoi politburo decided to go to war in the South in 1959, so I can see no real reason why we should be dating it as having started five years earlier. Cripipper 17:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

i agree Istanbuljohnm 16:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of flags

Personally I think the use of the flags makes the infobox look less cluttered and easier to read. You would have to be exceptionally stupid not to work out which country the flag belongs to given that they are listed directly above with the country name beside them. As for a screen reader, I would have thought that the addition of the words 'image' and 'flag of' before the casualty figures wouldn't be an insurmountable obstacle to comprehension. I'd be interested in hearing what other editors think. Cripipper 19:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The infobox looks just fine Istanbuljohnm 09:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Which war is it?

I'm a bit confused. I expected this article to be about the whole Vietnam War, in other words the firtst and second indochina war. The intro should be a bigt clearer about this. I added a bit, but some more clarification would be a good idea. I susp[ect this was written mostly by US citizens, who assume too much background knowledge on the part of the reader, but the intro should never do that. Also, this naming isn't entirely logical. The French Wikipedia also reserves the name for the second war, but the Dutch article says that in Vietnmam it is used for both the French War and the American War. I'm not sure where this should be added. This is the English Wikipedia, so it makes some sense for it to focus on the pov of English speaking contries. But English is also the world's lingua franca, so shouldn't it reflect as neutral a pov? I'm often confused by this. Is there no Wikirule on this? DirkvdM 05:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• The intro now clearly states that there are two articles, one for each stage of the conflict. To me this makes good sense editorially as merging the two would be a very, very long entry. Istanbuljohnm 06:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Considering the length of the article, the intro is extremely short. An intro should give a short overview for those who know (next to) nothing about the subject. I've added a bit, giving the roughest of overviews of the causes of the war, but it needs much more work. How much and especially what should be added is a balancing act and I've seen intros get way out of hand (eg WWII, although that looks ok right now), so this is a delicate subject. And subject to pov, because who decides what is important? I have based my edit largely on other language articles, which should assure some neutrality. DirkvdM 06:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• The intro seems pretty comprehensiver now. Istanbuljohnm 06:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• I couldn't agree more. There is an entire background section detailing how the war came about. What is written now is factually incorrect and grossly oversimplified. Also, as has been pointed out, this is the English-language Wikipedia. In English the Vietnam War very specifically refers to the conflict which mainly took place between 1959 and 1975. The war previous to this is the First Indochina War, or the Franco-Vietnamese War. It is not the Vietnam War. Cripipper 17:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless in as the war recedes into history both conflicts may come be seen as part of the process leading from French colonialism to the establishment of the state of Vietnam we have today. The background describes this as you say, all that's needed is a little note in the introduction sign-posting that history, in order to help people evaluate the background properly - I have restored one. Istanbuljohnm 16:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

In the above I meant disagree more. Of course the two wars were part of the same historical process, however they were most categorically and emphatically neither the same war nor the same conflict. We cannot speculate what historians in the future may come to say. Historians do not view these two conflicts as being one and the same. Cripipper 16:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I tend to agree more with Cripipper on this point. I've always viewed the "First" Indochina war as an indigenous struggle against the post-WWII vestiges of French colonialism and the "Second" as a civil war (or, perhaps a "reverse" civil war) that despite the srong outside patronage was essentially a fight to define an internal national identity. Having said this, however, I think that even as we focus here on the post-1959 conflict it is still important that we properly document the strong US involvement (primarily economic, but also limited strategic and even tactical) in the French efforts to re-establish dominance between 1945-1954. It also wouldn't be out of place, IMO to maintain some limited discussion of the effects that French colonial history had on the ascension of Ho Chi Minh and the political and military development of the Vietnamese communist party and its associated military and revolutionary organs. Dasondas 16:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• But we are talking about the introduction here! There is a background section, which mentions the rise of HCM and the role of the U.S. in the French war, and also links to the History of Vietnam and First Indochina War. I have added another sentence in the background section highlighting the American role. Cripipper 22:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Main Image

Could somebody with the right software and knowledge make a collage of famous and important Vietnam War images like the WWII collage shown File:WW2 TitlePicture For Wikipedia Article.jpg

South Korea: The current section on South Korea is almost unreadable, it was clearly written by someone with poor knowledge of English and doesn't seem to be NPOV. Could somebody who knows what they are talking about fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.107.244 (talk • contribs)

Related to images: Under the subheading "Search and Destroy" is an image captioned "American troops sweep through a paddy", but the image does not match the description. 203.129.57.3 14:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Chemical Warfare

In the section "War legacy - Contamination from US chemicals" there is a sentence that reads: 'The use of Agent Orange may have been contrary to international rules of war at the time'. This statement is vague and, I think, misleading. The 1925 Geneva Protocol banned the use of chemical and biological weapons. The fact that the USA did not ratify this until 1975 is beside the point - many other members of the international community had. Moreover, in 1966 the USA may have tried to present Agent Orange as nothing more than a non-toxic chemical herbicide before the UN General Assembly, however, the fact is that Orange contains dioxins that are harmful to human beings. In any case the legality of the USA's Herbicidal Warfare program needs a more detailed and clear treatment than what appears in the article at present. Someone within the Wikipedia community better qualified than myself may want to take up the challenge. Alexandert14 13:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Iran in the Vietnam War

Didnt Iran have a couple thousands soldiers in Vietnam during the war? My parents had a neighbor back in Iran who served in Vietnam during the war. I believe the Iranian units were there as peace keepers or something. I dont know exactly, sources are rare. Does anyone have any information?Khosrow II 17:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism again...

We spend too much time reverting vandalism from high school students. I propose getting another lock for non-registered users put on. (I've only just noticed some sneaky vandalism that has been there for over a week...) Cripipper 18:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Now {{sprotected}} is added, there'd still be vandalism in the future... until disruption is seldom occurred. --Gh87 08:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Paris Peace Accords

The article weasels a lot about Paris Peace Accords without addressing the substance. For example, the article says "The peace agreement, in the meantime, did not last.", but fails to explain why did it not last. The commonly-known answer is that the Soviet Union never intended to honor the provisions of the peace accords and used them only to get the US out of Lebanon and resupply the North Vietnamese army. I can only wonder why the article is silent about it. Beit Or 17:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The only problem with that theory is that the Soviet Union was not a signatory to the Paris Peace Accords, and therefore had no provisions to honour. Cripipper 21:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

North Vietnam, however, was and it was entirely dependent upon the Soviet aid with the result that its policies were largely determined in Moscow. Beit Or 21:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that almost all the scholarship of the past twenty years on North Vietnam and the Soviet Union has shown that not to be the case. See for example, Ilya V. Gaiduk, The Soviet Union and the Vietnam War or Ang Cheng Guan, Ending the Vietnam War. Cripipper 00:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

vietnam war

when was the vietnam war?

1959 – April 30, 1975--Johnston49er 07:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Use of language

Wikipedia policies are against using euphemisms to minimise deaths. Hence I changed mass liquidation of class enemies' to 'mass killing of perceived "class enemies"'. In an article like this we should be careful with language.

Draft Dodgers

What do people think of the draft dodgers? People have said that they got in the way of the country doing it's job, whilst others feel that they were brave for standing up for what they beleive in. I personally beleive in the last. But i am interested in different views.I think Draft Dodgers are retarted and should have never been used in Vietnam war and I also think that the Vietnam war was stupid too because how are you just gonna bomb some likke niggers that didn't do anything to you

Unless it directly relates to the content of the article this is not the place to have this discussion. Please see WP:TPG. Cripipper 03:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This does relate to the article as the Vietnam War was where draft dodgers were first really in effect. so i want to gether peoples ideas in the issue.

If you intend to write a section on this topic then the more appropriate article is The United States and the Vietnam War; however, and no offence is intended, you do not go about writing it by asking other editors' opinions, you read appropriate citable literature on the topic. Cripipper 01:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

VPA vs PAVN

Been a whole lotta changin' goin on. Evidently someone likes the inaccurate title PAVN (first used by the US military during the conflict). Well lemme tell ya, the US Army has changed its tune. Just check out the first two volumes of their official history of the conflict - The United States Army in Vietnam: Combat Operations Washington DC: Center of Military History, 1998 & 2000. All North Vietnamese regular army units are given the designation Vietnam People's Army (VPA). Who am I to argue with the US government or the United States Army. They should know. RM Gillespie 22:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

For starters, there is nothing inaccurate about the translation People's Army of Vietnam for Quân Đội Nhân Dân Việt Nam. In fact, it is a more accurate translation than Vietnam People's Army, which doesn't actually even make sense in English. But that is by the by, VPA is how somebody mistranslated it back in the 1940s. PAVN is the standard, and it is what was agreed upon. I am not particularly interested in what the U.S. military call them one way or another. I am interested in what is the convention in academic writing, and that is PAVN. If and when a time comes that VPA is the norm and easily recognized by a casual reader then we'll run with that; but until such times it is not the place of wikipedia to attempt to change naming conventions. Cripipper 09:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent editing

For whoever the individual was who replaced the previous talk page, I will leave it to you to answer the three questions posed by commentators since I last edited it. Most of the questions concerning article content (except those dealing with POV) have been answered in or merged into the article. If you are one of the three with questions, go to the history page and find your answers. I guess someone did not appreciate the combing and editing. It was done so that it might be easier for commentators on the new edit to be recognized on a talk page that is almost as long as the article itself. Thats OK, I just won't come back to this talk again. Might have been the guy who wanted to know when the Vietnam War occurred. RM Gillespie 21:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It was me who restored it. If you want to tidy up the discussion page, archive it, don't delete its contents. Cripipper 09:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Cripipper tried to move the timeline down but ended up deleting it. It is difficult to cut and paste (the sections on Kennedy, containment, and the coup, into the upper body with the timeline in the way. Why not place it at the bottom of the section dealing with Kennedy? Just trying to keep the article's integrity in line. RM Gillespie 22:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we not eliminate these massive timelines? They are redundant, occupy large amounts of space and would be better suited in article on the individual presidents (whose foreign policies they tend to reflect). They also make it more difficult to edit pieces of the article into a coherent whole. RM Gillespie 15:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be against it, as I think they help to strike the balance between the indigenous origins of the conflict, and the early origins of American involvement: the text focuses on Vietnamese developments, but the timelines provide relief of what the U.S. was up to. I wouldn't worry too much about trying to make all the sections collectively sing - somebody will be along to edit them in a day or two anyway. Good work though! Cripipper 16:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I didnt know where else to add this so I I will put it here.

North Vietnam followed up its southern victory by first making Laos a virtual puppet state. Socialist fraternalism did not last long. The Khmer Rouge, who had historical territorial ambitions in Vietnam, began a series of border incursions that finally led to a Vietnamese invasion. The VPA onslaught overthrew Pol Pot's murderous regime and a pro-Vietnamese government was installed (see Third Indochina War. Ironically, the US did not recognise the new government of Cambodia, and, along with the United Nations, continued to consider the Khmer Rouge (perpetrators of the greatest genocide since the Second world War) as their ally. And the ironies just kept on coming. In 1979 the Chinese, furious with the Vietnamese for eliminating their Khmer Rouge allies, launched an invasion of Vietnam's northern provinces. After fighting to a stalemate, the Chinese withdrew. So much for expansive, Moscow-dominated communism. The domino principle, the original pretext for US involvement in Southeast Asia, had been stood upon its head.

There is to much POV and downright ridiculous statements in that paragraph. Since when does an encyclopedia note "ironies?" It reads like a POV essay from a Chomsky type or something. I think some revision is needed.128.138.26.42 00:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree. POV language is strong in this section and citations are weak. Revision is definitely needed. gwlucca 02:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky's view

"The leading dissident scholar of the war is Noam Chomsky who was a prominant opponent of the war from the early 1960s. He believes the war is misdescribed by western historians as an unsuccessful defence of South Vietnam against North Vietnam aggression by the US and it's allies. He regards the war as a success for the US. In his view the US goal was the destruction of the indiginous nationalist movement amoung the peasentry - largely in the south. This movement was a threat to US interests not least because if successful there was the risk it would spread: "the domino effect." He views this period as critical, "The real invasion of South Vietnam was directed largely against the rural society and began in 1962 after many years of working through mercenaries and client groups. That fact simply does not exist in official American history."^[1]"

Discuss. Cripipper 15:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, this isn't even accurate. You would struggle to find a mainstream historian who depicts the Vietnam War as "an unsuccessful defence of South Vietnam against North Vietnam aggression by the US and it's allies". This was how it was depicted in the 1960s, not today. Cripipper 16:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

- You are correct to say that Chomsky is nowhere in the mainstream - I think he'd agree that amoungst _western intellectual_ opinion he is in a small minority. The accuracy or importance of a point of view is not determined by the views of western intellectuals. Western intellectuals once believed the earth was the centre of the Universe- they were wrong. Nevertheless, putting the accuracy of his position to one side it is a disgrace that the article doesnt contain a summary of the argument of the leading American dissident who has written volumes on the topic and wrote the forward to the proceedings of the Bertrand Russell War Crimes Tribunal.

I therefore propose that the above paragraph or some summary of the various strands of anti-war opinion including Chomsky be instated in the article.WW

Can you tell me where he is considered in the mainstream, because he is not taken seriously in Asian intellectual circles either. Unfortunately for Chomsky, practically no-one takes him seriously on South East Asia as a result of his defence of the Pol Pot regime and decades spent denying the genocide in Cambodia. Just because he is prominent doesn't make his views correct. Chomsky is an opinion-giver not a historian - big on theory and poor on fact. He and President Bush share something in common - a love for 'truthiness'. The reason one struggles to find mention of his position is not because of some big theory, but because it was wrong. The article you cite is simply a later rehash of his early 1960s views; by claiming that the U.S. was successful in suppressing an indigenous revolt by 1963 he sought to draw attention away from the fact that contrary to what he spent most of the 1960s denying, Hanoi was largely in control of the NLF. That said, there is certainly a place for Chomsky's views - perhaps in a section on the anti-war movement, which to be fair this article is lacking. IMHO it does not belong in a section on Kennedy. Cripipper 16:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by mainstream? He is widely considered one of the foremost philosophers of the century. Your description of Chomsky is 100% POV. If you think that Chomsky is an "opinion giver" rather than an empericist I suggest you correct your misapprention by reading some of his work. It is extremely well referenced. Moreover he is distinguished on the left by his consistant appeal to empirical evidence rather than political theory. I have never seen any evidence that Chomsky denied the genocide in Cambodia. I suggest you supply some or remove this allegation. Otherwise agreed - a section on the antiwar movement and its various strands would be welcome. There are I conceed at least two strands: the liberal "terrible blunder" strand and the Chomsky strand both of which deserve a description. If a better citation is sort for the Chomsky strand I will seek out a summary from his "American Power and the New Mandarins" which is a good well referenced work published just after the war. WW

I have read plenty of Chomsky thanks. Unfortunately being a good linguistic theorist does not make you a good historian. I didn't feel the need to quote anything about Cambodia as Chomsky's attempts to malign those who attempted to bring to the attention of the world the horrors of the Pol Pot regime are so well known that I didn't think I needed to. If you have the time and access to it, begin with the Nation review he wrote of Francois Ponchaud's Cambodia: Year Zero or get a copy of After the Cataclysm; alternatively try doing an internet search for 'Noam Chomsky deny Cambodia genocide' and I am sure you will find plenty of information. Of course my description of Chomsky is 100% POV - it is an opinion. All opinions are 100% POV: yours is no different, nor is Chomsky's. That is my point - Chomsky is not a historian, he is an opinion-giver. Cripipper 17:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The point of US policy in SE Asia was mainly to prevent Communism from encroaching on the key states in the region (Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines). This goal was achieved. But these nations were secure by 1966 and the war dragged on years longer. Overall the war was a terrible blow to US goals. U.S. weakness, and the fact that the anti-Vietnam sentiment prevented substantial support to other regimes in the immediate aftermath, permitted a wave of African and Latin American countries to fall to Communism -- Ethiopia, Benin Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Angola; Grenada, and Nicaragua. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Up to a point, but US policy was, on the whole, to prevent the spread of communism PERIOD. All Presidents had inhereted an unenviable legacy from Truman that made it a personal and national necessity to contain communism wherever it surfaced. Eisenhower earned his credibility in Korea, Kennedy did it during the Missile Crisis. It is arguable whether 'national interest' demanded the defence of SVN; unfortunately Johnson felt national credibility (something all Presidents associate with their personal credibility) required it. Cripipper 19:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• OK, First things first Mr. Ww. Please sign your posts with the use of 4 tildas, and please stop going back and entering text into previous discussions, so that there exists an accurate record of the discussion. To answer your points below:

Putting aside questions of Chomsky's character; he is unquestionably the most mainstream intellectual alive. He has greater name-recognition and popularity than all other living intellectuals. Wouldn't you agree that makes him 'mainstream'? Perhaps he isn't 'apple pie', but to assume that he is therefore not mainstream simply shows you do not understand the world beyond your nationalist point of view. In other words, you do not see humanity through the eyes of a human, but through the artificial conceptual framework of the institutions which govern you. This is known as institutional bias, and it is imposed upon you by school, work, family, media, and government, which are all dominant social institutions. It takes a very brave and mature person to grow beyond this immature point of view unless a nurturing environment is provided. This is why Wikipedia will never become a reality-based encyclopedia, based on documents and figures instead of political opinion. If objective data were published, it would foster an environment where readers are encouraged to think critically of the US, which means thinking beyond patriotic bias, or, learning to 'hate America' as it is commonly known among US television viewers.

• Oh, I see. I 'do not understand the world beyond your nationalist point of view. In other words, you do not see humanity through the eyes of a human, but through the artificial conceptual framework of the institutions which govern you.' Only problem with that is that 1) I am not American; 2)my school was not American; 3) I don't live in America 3)my family is not American; 4)I read mostly non-US media in several different languages; 5)I have lived under a variety of different governments in countries with different social systems, and none of them was America. Please do not lecture me, who you do not know from Adam, on what biases I may or may not have. Cripipper 18:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen Chomsky's supposed denials of Cambodian genocide, mostly because I assumed they were bullsh*t. I came to this conclusion after first exploring his supposed denial of the Nazi genocide, which was purely a waste of my time. Perhaps if someone were actually brave enough to step forward and provide links to his supposed denial of Cambodian genocide I would gladly have a look. Genocide is evil, such as the genocide of the Americans by European invaders. However, this genocide is gladly denied by those who committed it. Its funny how our institutional bias allows us to deny some genocides.

• If you had bothered to read my post above, I directed you straight to where you can read about Chomsky and Cambodia.Cripipper 18:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Cripper, I have tried to follow your directions for finding evidence that Chomsky denies the genocide in Cambodia and I havent been able to. I did the google search that you reccomended but not one of the articles the I read provided a quote attributed to Chomsky in which he denies that genocide has occured there. If you could provide a link to quotations from Chomsky, or just put the quotation here with a reference, that would be helpful. I think this is a huge claim to make about a respected scientist and I think it is strange that if there is any truth in it, that I, non sub-rock dweller should not have heard of it. Surely it would be as big a scandal as Gunther Grass being in the SS?

--- This is a long ass article article and I have read all of it before. If you still doubt Chomsky isnt biased as hell and continues to net are not taken seriously by historians.

If you dont read that and you want a direct quotation that shows he was 100% wrong about the Khmer Rouge I will be happy to supply it128.138.26.42 00:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have followed up a few huge accusations about contentious people through links provided and it always turns out to be a waste of time, reading windy trash that isnt scholarly or referenced(i.e.no quotes, just general opinions). Thanks for the offer to provide the direct quotation and save me wading, I would be grateful. Fyntan 07:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Mr. WW - PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS WITH THE USE OF FOUR TILDAS. THANK YOU!

Beyond that, I couldn't be more clearer in my earlier posts: read Francois Ponchaud's Cambodia: Year Zero, and then read Chomsky's review of it in The Nation, and then read After the Cataclysm. I have not read the article linked to above, but having skimmed it it appears to be extremely well researched, referenced and foot-noted, and appears to contain all the information you are looking for. Regards. Cripipper 09:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The "long ass article" contains everything you say, research, footnotes etc, etc, but not one single qoute in which Chomsky denies the cambodian genocide. Because he never did. Before anyone else wastes their time on the "long ass article" here is the general feel of it. "The question of whether or not Noam Chomsky supported the Khmer Rouge is not as clear as either his critics or his defenders would like to pretend...blah blah blah... conveniently ignoring the overall theme of his articles....." Their argument is that his tone doesn't give as much weight to the genocide as they feel is appropriate to the topic, therefore he is effectively denying it. If you dont like Chomsky that's cool but you need to find some other way to express thisFyntan 11:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Alas were it only that simple. The point is that Chomsky derided Francois Ponchaud's work, which has stood the test of time, as American propaganda and compared it very unfavourably to Gareth Porter's rather glowing accounts of the Khmer Rouge regime. It speaks volumes that you choose to discourage people from reading a lengthy and detailed discussion of the issue rather than let them make up their own minds. I would go beyond that, and as I have said before, go and read Ponchaud's Cambodia Year Zero and then see what Chomsky had to say about it. Let's just say that it was not his finest hour... Cripipper 11:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky and Herman did not deride Ponchaud's work, they were ambivalent about it. They said it was "serious and worth reading" and "Ponchaud's account seems at best careless, sometimes in rather significant ways. Nevertheless, the book is a serious work, however much the press has distorted it." The errors that C&H pointed out were actual errors. However Ponchaud's work was only one element of the review that was concerned more with distortions of Ponchaud's work by Jean Lacouture which were amplified and spread by the media. Once again, it is notable that the errors that C&H indicated were actual errors; it is interesting that their critics rarely discuss the actual distortions that C&H revealed, instead they tend to employ slurring tactics from a perspective of 20/20 hindsight. The recent revelations concerning how the American bombing of Cambodia was far far greater than previously believed supports C&H's original position, although the critics have not yet been honest enough to make a reassessment. Don't hold your breath.BernardL 17:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I take note of the above comment; but I havent read the homework Cripper set me. Even if Chomsky disagrees with an account of the genocide, that is not the same as him denying the cambodian genocide "for decades" as cripper claims he did. If his dispute over Ponchaud's work is all that those claims boil down to, then there needs to be some exceptional argument for how this amounts to denying genocide. Please, cripper, tell me what it is, give me the quote, don't keep giving me a reading list. I checked out the "long ass article" in good faith and it was a waste of time. The point of this section is to discuss whether his views on the vietnam war should be included in this article, and how to include them. This page is a completely lame duck without his views, he is the most important voice to dissent from the US view of the war which at present this page reflects very wellFyntan 09:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)