Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents 1 A question has been bugging me 2 Mass Bombings 3 Reverts 3.1 The Resolution an excuse? 4 Changes 4.1 CJK Edit points 4.2 More comments 4.3 Eisenhower 5 Reverts and WP:3RR claims 5.1 Reverts and WP:3RR claims: and one party reports the other 6 "Colonialism" and such 7 History and POV 101 7.1 "I dont understand" 7.2 Epithets 7.3 Wheres the proof? 8 Bias in intro 9 New intro 9.1 Finally a response to the crit 9.1.1 Comparisons etc. 10 Proper-ganda 11 Chinese aid 12 "portrayed" vs "viewed"

A question has been bugging me

From the time the first US military advisors stepped in to Vietnam in the early 60s to the final withdrawal of all US troops in 1973 the USSR and China repeatedly warned Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon NOT to cross the DMZ and directly invade North Vietnam. That seems simple enough that we were not allowed to go in to the North BUT my question is were the South Vietnamese Forces allowed to go on the offensive and invade North Vietnam? Did USSR and China ever warn the South not to invade the North?--Secret Agent Man 18:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Considering the U.S.'s coordination with and funding for ARVN, I'm sure that they would take South Vietnamese ground forces in North Vietnam much the same way they'd take Marines. The only "crossing of the DMZ" that occurred was American bombing raids. J. Parker Stone 02:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Probably not, but it is doubtful that such an operation could have been pulled off. CJK 23 July 2005

It's hard to imagine what further threats the major communist powers could have used to dissuade S.V. from doing anything. But I agree with CJK, the limited competence of the ARVN in offensive operations seems well-established in the historical record, e.g. the offensive in Laos. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:04, 2005 July 24 (UTC)

The forgotten factor in this little chat is the fact that the South and its dissident "South" Vietnamese were often the target of U.S. bombing. Keep in mind that the terms "North" and "South" were circumstantial, and not actually representative of the demographic split. "North and South" often simply repeats the ideological and geographic claims about the nature of the war, which American soldiers, for example, found to be not the reality: Many (perhaps most) people in the "democratic" South were pro-independence, despite the Western-allied/ethnic Catholic elite. Hence any use of "North and South" carries an inherent biased disparity with the facts. -SV|t 19:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. We were discussing whether or not the Soviets or Chinese would react if South Vietnam sent its forces to invade North Vietnam. CJK 24 July 2005

"I dont know what you are talking about." Well, it would really help if you did, wouldnt it? -SV|t 00:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Well maybe you shouldn't bring up unrelated issues in the middle of a specific discussion. CJK 25 July 2005

I'd just like to commend the recent additions to the article. J. Parker Stone 09:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, to my understanding, there were still many rescue raids (of captured POWs) or commando attacks that were conducted by either U.S. commandos or the "Biet Dong Quan" (the ARVN equivalent) against the north during the war. It's an honour to meet celebrities like you, Trey and Parker Stone. I appreciate your criticisms to my editions on the Vietnam War page. - Le Anh-Huy.

well others watching this page are quite capable of RVing Marxist language and POV it seems. J. Parker Stone 20:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

And would RVing 'capitalist language and POV' be ok with you? -SV|t 19:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what "capitalist language" means, but if it existed and was POV then I would have no problems with its reversion. J. Parker Stone 23:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

We were actually talking about a full scale attack by South Vietnam, not a raid. CJK 24 July 2005

Let's assume the South Vietnamese Army, without US troop support, did gather a formidable invasion force and did cross the DMZ in to the North, would the Chinese and/or USSR intervene and play the "defending an ally card" for the North exactly like how we did for the South? --Secret Agent Man 05:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I know this is a hypothetical assumption, but still, it's irrelevant, because the ARVN was never able to operate well without U.S. assistance. So answering your hypothetical, if that did happen active intervention in the form of Chinese or Soviet troops would probably not be necessary given the PAVN's superior capabilities. if we had somehow managed to make the ARVN into a capable offensive force and we were able to take over North Vietnam then yes, I'd expect the PLA (army in China) to intervene just like they had in North Korea. but American goals in the war were always to maintain South Vietnam, not topple the VCP and Uncle Ho in the North. J. Parker Stone 05:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Mass Bombings

We were allowed to mass bomb North Vietnam but was the Red Air Force allowed to mass bomb South Vietnam? IF the Red Air Force (whether it be Chinese or Soviet) did mass bomb the South, what would we have done if anything? --Secret Agent Man 05:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

i don't really understand the purpose of your questions. as we saw from the war the North Vietnamese were able to win with Soviet and Chinese aid but without active Chinese/Soviet intervention. J. Parker Stone 05:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Why would the North want to bomb their own people in the South? -SV|t 01:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

if the North bombed anywhere it would be Saigon and whatever other areas ARVN had under control. J. Parker Stone 02:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It would look bad for the North to be doing the same thing as the Americans. Plus, you risk hitting any hidden VC cells hiding in plain sight in Saigon.

Reverts

While I agree that Le Ahn's edits could have been written better, the removal of those edits claiming POV, was in fact POV. Granted, if one doesnt know how to improve on material, it may be difficult to correct, but I recommend simply using the <!-- comment // hidden material --> format instead. This hides the text while still keeping it on page, allowing for others to come along and work on it. Please make a comment when doing this, separated from the material with a //. -SV|t 19:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that what Le Ahn has said was that the North Vietnamese were more affected (which is untrue), that South Vietnamese leaders experienced little personal loss (which could be applied to every leader in every war), and that South Vietnamese government were "the first to flee" (also pov, they left when the fall of Saigon was imminent and if they had stayed they would almost certainly be killed). CJK 25 July 2005

CJK, thanks for being direct and dealing with the particular points. The point of the above comment was that saying either "North or South" in any discussion is bound to be "untrue." Therefore it will help to add a section which addresses the ambiguity of the terms and the geograophic, political, and ideological borders they claim to represent—in simplistic versions of history anyway. "Flee" is not POV language, though it doesnt seem to fit quite in that section. Likewise I agree that the section overall was problematic, to assert a relativistic difference in "suffering." Maybe that was your point, and thats something I can agree with, but I suggest you make efforts to edit rather than simply censor material which may fit if its better written. --SV|t 00:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

"South Vietnam" is the term commonly used to describe the Republic of Vietnam, including its army. I really don't see any ambiguity, the Republic of Vietnam was the sitting government during the Vietnam War just like the Republic of Korea was a sitting government during the Korean War. There is already a section in the Fall of Saigon which discusses the South Vietnamese leaders "fleeing". While the word itself is not POV to say they were "the FIRST to flee" is because it implies they were so cowardly that they didn't even try to resist the Communist invasion. CJK 26 July 2005

"I really don't see any ambiguity." Well, thats a common problem for newbies and apologists alike. If you can accept this basic, uncontroversial fact you'll be on your way: The war was not a conventional war, in the sense that there were offical "sides." The separation of the "South" from the "North" was largely arbitrary, and did not reflect more important designations such as culture, religion, economics, and political affiliation. Hence the well-known characterisms of the "enemy is everywhere" (GI POV) and "the people were the VietCong" (fmr NVA quote).

What this means (ITSPT) is that "North" was North and much of "South" was North too — so, unless one is specific, one often uses the terms incorrectly. Just as "conventional" definitions didnt apply, conventional military concepts and tactics didnt apply either--that was the "quagmire" aspect. "There is already a section" doesnt mean that such material cant be treated here. There are redundant sections of this article in others as well, for example on the Cold War, etc. Overlap is natural, and desired. "Flee" is not POV, considering by the time of the Fall of Saigon, the South was utterly defeated. -SV|t 02:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, let's assume the Hanoi, Moscow, and antiwar Left POV for a second and say the decision was arbitrary. this doesn't change the fact that after the VCP consolidated power in the DRV they started executing landlords and prohibited religion, causing Catholics and those who weren't impoverished peasants to flee south. there was much more fleeing south than fleeing north because those in the South who supported Hanoi formed the VC, took up arms against Diem and his ARVN successors, and established rural "liberated zones" rather than going north. J. Parker Stone 02:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I really don't want this to degenerate into accusations regarding "apologists". Supposedly I'm apologist just because I didn't see ambiguity. The Vietnamese government south of the 17th parallel was the REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM commonly called SOUTH VIETNAM. It had inhabitants that refused to recognize it as such but that doesn't change the reality. As for the "fleeing" I won't repeat myself. CJK 26 July 2005

I made two general observations of newbie and apologist. I didnt say you were either or the latter in particular. I agree with you that the section was problematic, but not for the same reasons. Were talking past each other a bit, but you say political will of the country "doesnt change the reality." Im sorry, but human political will was the "reality" and the artificially funded and propped-up concept of Southern nationhood was the fabrication. "Flee" you need to read the end of the war section --the fall" was the very last stage of a months-long systematic retreat. At that point, it was "run from the communists" --which most could not do, and in fact most did not have to. At that point, those who had to "run" were a helpless minority, and "flee" is not in anyway POV, nor should it be taken as a perjorative. Sometimes people have to "get out of Dodge." Sinreg, -SV|t 18:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

South of the 17th parallel was a political state known as the Republic of Vietnam which is commonly called South Vietnam. It had an army and a government. "South Vietnamese troops" refers to the Republic of Vietnam's armed forces (RVNAF). The NLF, on the other hand, did not have a political state nor did they claim one. They merely wanted to oust the South Vietnamese government and unite it with North Vietnam. Again, saying they were "THE FIRST TO FLEE" is pov, they did not flee until it was obvious they were all going to be captured and killed. CJK 27 July 2005

OT

Not only was the material POV in the way in which it was presented, and the factual nature of the information is also dubious at best, but certainly there could be some documentation on an addition like this.

Its not the responsibility of other editors to do this kind of background legwork. TDC 20:51, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

N.B. the flight from South Vietnam is already the subject of the next paragraph. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:17, 2005 July 25 (UTC)

In any case, if this user wanted their edits to be taken seriously they could've taken the effort to make them sound NPOV instead of adding and re-adding a rant. J. Parker Stone 23:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Parker: I see,--so, as long as edits sound NPOV, then they will be taken "seriously". These are rather high standards you are advocating. TDC: 'its not my job.' Likewise its not your job to edit an article at all that might requires you do some "legwork", or know what youre editing, either. -SV|t 00:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

feel free to go to work on the article yourself if you can salvage what was a completely random POV tangent -- of course, as CP said, even that may be reverted if this has already been sufficiently covered previously in the article. J. Parker Stone 02:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

US involvement began in 1964 with the Gulf of Tonkin incident and its subsequent Resolution. The French-Vietnamese conflict before that was just a precursor to things to come. -anon

No it did not - that's a very incorrect version of history. U.S. involvement began much earlier, with support for Both Ho Chi Minh and the French (betraying Ho for European France) and after the new "Republic," the U.S. slowly began sending "advisors" since the late 1950s. By late 1962, the U.S. had already had aircraft carriers there, and been flying bombing missions, with disguised planes. Even napalm was used much earlier than in many "official" accounts. 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident was the excuse to publicise what had already been going on. You should read that article, as its fairly clear about who said what. -Ste|vert 18:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The Resolution an excuse?

What do you mean? I'm writing about this in a story and the story doesn't begin until August '64. It should be fairly obvious!

Im sorry if facts present a problem for you. If youre writing for a high school or mass media newspaper, then you perhaps dont need to worry about writing a more correct version of history. If by "story" you mean fiction--then you can write anything you want, and dont have to bother. -St|eve 16:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm writing the facts even though it's fiction because I want to preserve the memories of veterans. The oldest ones are 59 and the youngest 44, so it will only be 21-36 years before they're all gone. By the way, even if the Tonkin incident was invented, three years earlier in Ap Bac the NLF killed three US advisers

Why dont you register, log in, and sign your posts?

"Facts even though its fiction" - quite well put, if you meant it to refer to the general moral ambiguity between facts and the otherwise. "Preserve the memories of veterans?" Only they can do that, and many of them dont want to. Perhaps you mean, 'honor the experiences of veterans?' Do them honor by doing lots of reading and growing up to be a well-informed person. "Even if..?" Well, 'even if' you do your best to write something accurately, it will never be exactly in accord with history or people's selective recollection of it --does this mean that you will not try to be thorough? Best wishes on your research, -St|eve 07:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The Gulf of Tonkin incident was never proven to be a hoax, though there are questions about it.

And the war would've started anyway, the Viet Cong wanted to see Vietnam united under Ho and the VCP leadership. J. Parker Stone 07:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Um, even Robert McNamara now says it was a hoax. Ruy Lopez 07:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I've watched the Fog of War and no he doesn't. Nice try, though. J. Parker Stone 08:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This might clarify things a bit. Our own article on it is rather good too. -St|eve 14:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Changes

CJK Edit points

(diff)

• minority government should remain, but link to dominant minority
  • If we get into this we would have to call the North Vietnamese government minority as well. CJK 5 August 2005
    • Very true. In fact that is an important distinction that needs note. Even despite the vast popularity of Ho and even his "communist" reforms", some former South Vietnamese still claim that Ho's conversion to communism was a betrayal. In parallel, both North and South were "guilty" of bringing in outside influence —contrary to independence movement goals. Fears of a "communist" takeover (at the time meaning Soviet control) proved to be unfounded as even China was beaten later. Today, the term "communist takeover" is really just a disguised perjorative.
      • Dude...what are you talking about? Either we call all dictators "minority governments" or we don't. CJK 5 August 2005
        • Dont be silly. "Dictator" is POV, and doesn't explain his power as based in ethnicity. -St|eve 03:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
          • You completely missed the point. What I am saying is that all non-democratic governments would have to be labeled "minority governments" if we are being NPOV. CJK 6 August 2005
• Sometimes is acceptable, but originally refers to older U.S. claims about the nature of its involvement in support of a "democratic" South. Later this would become unmentionable, as hopes for democracy were abolished.
  • The U.S. encouraged democracy, but you are right in saying that "democracy" was wrongly applied in this case. CJK 5 August 2005
    • If by "encouraged" you mean in name only, and at the discretion of other interests, then yes, you are right. Otherwise, the concept "democracy" has little if anything to do with this article other than in rhetoric —which is notable. -St|eve
      • "Encouraged" but could not be accomplished without disposing the RVN. -CJK (I presume)
        • You must mean the ARVN, which is far off topic from the issue of democracy, perhaps belonging under militarism. Armies do what they think they have to inline with what they can. Armies are good at using sledgehammers to break stones, and bad at using sledgehammers at swatting flies. Which again has nothing to do with the issue at hand which was "democracy." -St|eve
          • I said RVN, not ARVN. If the U.S. tried to promote democracy it would have to overthrow the South Vietnamese government. CJK 6 August 2005
• The First Indochina War was the French attempt to restore a "European-oriented" colony. The Second Indochina War was the U.S. (a new superpower) attempt.
  • All I said was that the French Indochina War was fought by the French, not Americans. CJK 5 August 2005
    • You must have misread "Second" to mean "First" and concluded "First" to mean "French." -St|eve
      • That's what I said. You said the U.S. was the main opposer to the Vietminh. CJK 5 August 2005
        • No, it said 'the US took where the French left off.' -St|eve
          • Yes, but the U.S was not colonial like the French. CJK 5 August 2005
            • "Yes, but the U.S. was not colonial like the French" Now thats quotable. Did you mean "the U.S. was not colonial" or did you mean "U.S. colonialism and French colonialism had differences?" -St|eve 03:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
              • The U.S. was not "colonial" in the sense of stealing resources and installing a puppet regime. CJK 6 August 2005
                • That's arguable. The RVN government could in many ways be called a puppet regime, being that it was entirely propped up by U.S. troops and financial aid. FCYTravis 20:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Democratic Republic of Vietnam is correct.
• "Ho's popularity as a national hero and his communist reforms may have been popular" - national hero is correct, but "may have been" is not. Agrarian reform was largely communist in its ideology, and was popular among any anti-elitist people.-St|eve
  • True, many Vietnamese wanted land reform but we can't say that they wanted it done the communist way. CJK 5 August 2005
    • True, but again your using "communism" to refer to ideology, which really didnt mean much at the time. Thats the main thing to be careful with, and the reason why the terms are so improper.
      • What? CJK 5 August 2005
        • Dont confuse "communism" the political designation, political slur, pejorative label, and enemy term, with communism the ideology. -St|eve
          • It is one and the same, buddy. CJK 6 August 2005

• anti-communist might be correct, though the term was simply a poor substitute as "pro-democracy" could not be used. -St|eve
  • At least they corrected the falsification. "Anti-Communist" is more NPOV for this article.CJK 5 August 2005
    • We agree on something, though again, it needs to be qualified, both in relation to democracy and in relation to "communism." -St|eve
      • You're trying to make "democracy" and "Communism" sound like American lies. Maybe the "democracy" (early on) but Communism is indisputable. CJK 5 August 2005
        • Im not trying to do anything. They were rhetorical terms, and almost nothing more at all, unless you include wishful thinking of U.S. policy planners. -St|eve
          • Are you trying to denie North VIetnam was Communist? CJK 6 August 2005

• Most southern Vietnamese were sympathetic toward unification and independence. Even Eisenhower said so. To use Communist in place of independence is POV. Ideology was secondary, or even tertiary to the removal of colonialism, which was the dominant goal of most Vietnamese for most of a century.

-St|eve 22:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but all of Indochina was independent after 1954, so they could not be "pro-independent". CJK 5 August 2005

Was it really? Wherever did you read that a divided country supported militarily and economically by foreign superpowers was "independent?" -St|eve 22:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Um, yes it is possible... please be more specific. CJK 5 August 2005

LOL. OK, I guess my sarcasm wasnt that obvious. -St|eve 22:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Does this mean you inserted sarcasm into the encyclopedia? Your wording is highly confusing. CJK 5 August 2005

Young person, if you cant tell the difference between an article and a talk page, let alone seriousness and sarcasm, I suggest you refrain from making such bold claims and start asking more questions rather than answering ones you cant. -St|eve 23:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Either Indochina was independent after 1954 or it wasn't. Make up your mind. CJK 5 August 2005

TJ can answer that question: Things under Diem deteriorated. U.S. involvement didnt improve the situation. -St|eve 03:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

ZThat answers nothing. THis is a yes or no question. CJK 6 August 2005

Well, communism is an anti-colonialist ideology. This whole argument that the Viet Cong were nationalists before Communists is a tad ridiculous given the dominant role Ho Chi Minh-led communism played in the DRV.

"Even Eisenhower said so" -- Eisenhower was not involved when the war was escalating and in its later stages. I'm not sure where he draws this from. It's true that Diem was unpopular but it's also true that a sizable amount of South Vietnamese were not communist.

"Minority government" -- WTF does this mean? I've never even heard the term before. Catholics were a minority yes, and there were anti-Buddhist measures taken but it wasn't a theocracy or anything like that. Later it was essentially a military government. And it was a democracy, albeit a limited and corrupt one. I believe there was one election (where Nguyen Cao Ky won?) that was deemed relatively fair. Certainly more free politically than the Communist North, although militant groups were suppressed, as were Buddhist factions during Diem. J. Parker Stone 21:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Communism (ideology) cant be equated with "anti-colonialism" (agenda) even if the relationship is strong in this case. Eisenhower was in charge in the 50s, and directed the US to support South Vietnam, and sever ties with Ho Chi Minh. No longer was the US interested in curtailing Japanese, or strengthening independent democratic Vietnam. At his early stage, Eisenhower wrote that 'given democratic elections, the Vietnamese would likely choose communism,' even if that meant no more elections. You say such early recognition of trends by a US president has no bearing? -St|eve 22:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Um, the reason Eisenhower wasn't going to support Ho Chi Minh was that he was an ardent Communist. If Ho had been some kind of democratic nationalist I'm sure Eisenhower would've been happy to support him.

In any case, Eisenhower did not oversee the escalation of troops into Vietnam, and yes there were fears Ho would've won, that does not make the North any more democratic. Elections are not all there is to democracy.

Wrong. Truman supported Ho because Ho was an independence leader and "ardent" supporter of democracy, regardless of his "ardent" communism. After World War II, the Red Scare meant any anti-colonialists who happened to play chess with communists were made out to be "ardent" "communists." Eisenhower was actually wavering for a long time. By "in any case" - do you mean 'regarless of established policy by America's most prominent post-war figure and strategist?' LOL. -St|eve 22:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice LOLing, but i don't see what's so difficult. yes, America supported anti-colonialist movements in Latin America back in the day, but that was when they weren't yet tinged with communism. as for Eisenhower, good job trying to trump up his credentials to suit your own purposes, but while Eisenhower was much beloved for his leadership in WWII that does not make him the U.S.'s "most prominent" postwar strategist or the most intellectual one for that matter.

I have never heard of Truman supporting Ho Chi Minh, i don't know where you're getting your information. Truman intervened on the side of South Korea and sent massive aid to the Greek and Turkish governments while they were fighting Communist insurgencies so him turning around and supporting a Communist movement would be a little odd.

If you expect to be taken seriously, please refrain from using language like "tinged with communism." At least hide your anti-communist (i.e no direct relation to democracy) bias. "I never" : Well, read on. The U.S. had a post-war strategy in Southeast Asia, including Vietnam. This was largely shaped by Japan as the common enemy, and of course by Ho's increased connection with the Soviets and China. Democracy was an issue, but the real issue was material and political support. It bears mentioning that forging alliances with foreign neighbors rather than with foreign states thousands of miles away, can (uncontroversially) be characterized as more practical than ideological. -St|eve 23:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

lol, sorry i didn't realize called a Communist party Communist was "anti-communist bias." did i miss something or was the DRV ruled by the Vietnamese Communist Party?

you are talking about the immediate postwar period, this is irrelevant to the Cold War, the context in which this took place.

"Irrelevant" - Thats your opinion, which happens to be in direct contradiction to the views of absolutely anyone who has researched and written on the subject. No offence. -St|eve 23:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

i'm through with you kiddo, you're impossible on this. J. Parker Stone 23:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Please do some more reading and come back after youve done so. And sign your comments. -St|eve 23:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Looking over your edits more carefully -- this is not an article to voice your opinions on the nature of the conflict, and how "right" each side was. the article needs work but CJK's version was much more objective. J. Parker Stone 21:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Please substantiate your accustation. Where does it mention "right" from "wrong?" -St|eve 22:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Your edits are thinly-veiled editorializing on the side of the North and the Viet Cong. i'm not interesting in arguing this much longer; i assume CJK will remove your POV changes. J. Parker Stone 22:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

POV pro-U.S. nonsense. Ive a good mind to block you for good measure. -St|eve 22:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

not worth a response. nice threat, lol, but i've been blocked before through bias and it didn't work out too well. J. Parker Stone 23:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

"Blocked through bias?" Blocked for pushing bias in articles, you mean. -St|eve 23:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

no, short-blocked by a user who had a vendetta actually, but thanks for guessing. J. Parker Stone 23:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo, quit threatening users. This isn't your soapbox or playground and you don't have the ability to ban users for disagreeing with you. --TJive 23:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

No, of course not. Did I? But IAC, temp removing unhelpful third party commentors can be useful though. -St|eve 23:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Did I? Did you what? Be specific. Did you threaten to block a user? Yes, and now you are attempting to threaten me in couched terms. --TJive 23:54, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I do not "couch terms", nor would I refer to your comments and Trey's unhelpfulness as equivalent. Please forgive any confusion, as will I yours. -St|eve 02:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

More comments

Wherever did you read that a divided country supported militarily and economically by foreign superpowers was "independent?"

If US economic and military support necessitates colonialism and we recognize reciprocal Soviet support then colonialism is also reciprocal and there is no representative Vietnamese "independence" movement irrespective of ideology.

This is a rather convoluted and political way of saying "if we say its OK, then its OK" or "everyone else is doing it, so why cant we?" Better yet, "moral relativism" and "realpolitik" is actually "moral equivalence" and "necessity" if they do it too. -St|eve 00:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually my comments necessitate no view on what policies were and were not "OK", but merely demonstrate that in the terms you yourself have laid out, namely the dominance of and dependence on economic and military support of a foreign power, the supplanting of American "colonialism" on behalf of French colonialism reciprocates the same effort by the USSR and PROC. --TJive 00:22, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. Youre using the term "reciprocation" to mean "justification" and therefore a neutral designation of "colonialism" is somehow rendered POV. -St|eve 00:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually a straightforward designation of "colonialism" is itself POV in this case. However, my point here is to establish that are you constructing terms for discussion that you do not wish to abide by. --TJive 01:00, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

national hero is correct

"National hero" is tendentious POV. Ho Chi Minh created a cult of personality in the explicit mold of his predecessors Stalin and Mao; he also rid himself of non-communist political rivals in order to ensure the dominance of communism in the organizational structure, as well as his own importance.

"Cult of personality?" You must mean 'cult of scary non-English speaking personality.' "Predecessors" is out of the Vietnam context - sorry. "Rid himself" - this is very relevant, and belongs on the Ho Chi Minh article, as well as the History of Vietnam articles. After the issue of Ho's communism and political tactics have been sorted in depth, then it should be referenced here as a footnote. -St|eve 00:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I mean cult of personality. "Predecessors" is in Minh's ideological context; people he idolized and furthermore worked with. --TJive 00:22, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, youre one who likes to selectively jump from political justificationisms / relativisms to a rather odd "ideological" basis for asserting "predecessor[ship]." How... situationalist. -St|eve

A "jump" would be necessitated when the topic shifts to something entirely separate, yes. However, if one is to argue that in this case politics is intertwined with ideological concerns I would not be inclined to disagree. --TJive 01:00, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Glad to find you not altogether disagreeable. -St|eve 01:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Agrarian reform was largely communist in its ideology, and was popular among any anti-elitist people.

Agrarian reform in Vietnam was on the Chinese model and many people died during the terror.

"The terror?" Please explain. -St|eve 00:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The Vietnamese communists set about executing ideological targets (and those labeled as such, e.g. "landlords", though political opponents were caught up as well) en masse, and this was recognized even by strong opponents of US participation in the war, for example Noam Chomsky. --TJive 00:22, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly there was coercion by the North against certain North and South Vietnamese and this needs to be expressed, along with any sources for this information and its actual known proportions. Is should also be appropriate to talk about coercive methods used by the US and the South against South Vietnamese "insurgents" or "freedom fighters", or whatever we might agree to call them. -St|eve

This article is about a coercive method, namely "war". --TJive 01:00, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, now youre just being too specific! ROFL. You went from niggling on exactly how Ho's "communism" was coercively enforced, to "war" is a "coercive method." How clarifying/amusing. BTW I didnt ask about about "war" (ie. against the North) I asked about coercive measures (i.e "war") by the US and the South versus the people of the South. Is that "war" or "coercion"? -St|eve 01:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Specificity is certainly necessary in establishing precisely what is being discussed and included. Ho's communism was enforced, war is coercive, and what you refer to is war and is certainly not ignored here. --TJive 01:29, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

You are being selectively vague in your answers. "Ho's communism was enforced" yet, "what [I] refer to" —namely the South government's measures against the people of the South —"is war." And this "war" is somehow "certainly not ignored here," in spite of the fact that the North's "coercive measures" against northerners were coercive, yet the South's "coercive measures" against the southerners were "war." Its an interesting distinction, in light of the 80 percent figure. Do I misread you correctly? -St|eve 03:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

You misread me perfectly; however I am not sure that is laudable. It is not certain what you are referring to as "coercive" and a "war" that is not covered by the less ambiguous "war" by itself and has a particular bearing on this article which is ignored, unless you are simply arguing that the war itself was a "war on the people", in which case you are certainly representing the pro-North side of the argument unambiguously, but the article should not merely reflect that. --TJive 03:14, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, then you agree that if the North used coercion against its own, then "coercion" is the term to use for coercion by the South against its own. "A war on the people" is not merely a "pro-North" argument, if in fact "drain the swamp" was at the core of U.S. policy —which it was for a time. Now, you can claim that the context of politics supercedes any "activity," anti-people or otherwise, but that too would represent a particularly clinical point of view. Being clinical, detached, or politically abstracted in your writing doesnt make one more neutral —which is more the case (due systemic bias) with this article than the other way around (ie. "pro-North").

(For example, the Irish Potato Famine was at one time unsuitably written with a focus on fungus rather than on the human impact and the human causes —deliberate or otherwise. This clinical and removed style is often simply an aspect of apologism in controversial cases where editor recusal might be a good idea.) I would argue that any pro-human rights position would find escalation ("a novel concept at the time") to be synonymous with "abuse of power" —discussion of this subject has largely sought to claim a universally neutral human rights perspective as being defacto "pro-North", and are otherwise marginalizing such views as mere aspects subordinate to reapolitikal power play. Certainly you seem open to representing the different views on the war, but please remember that clinicalism and segmentalism serve a particular view. -St|eve 07:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

You have not defined the terms of what constitutes "its [the south's] own", so kindly do not attempt to take my words as implied future endorsement for further POV edits you wish to make.

I said it pretty plainly. War is inherently coercive. The government of the south was engaged in a war, with guerrilla fighters and the army of the north. Many of those fighters, naturally, are southerners, and thus the war inherently involves the south engaging in war "against its own people", which is no more or less true than the north and no more or less true regardless because, as you implied elsewhere, "north" and "south" in this case are a complete abstract.

Throwing around "systemic bias" isn't going to get you off POV edits anymore than suggesting that attempting neutrality is a form of apologism. --TJive 07:34, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Is all coercion inherently "war?" How do you support an apparent distinction (by ommission) between North and South forms of "coercion," while offering no comparison between them - other than "which is no more or less true than the north...because...north" and "south" in this case are a complete abstract." Given U.S. and Diem (and successor) government methods of coersion against "the South's own people" (translation: "people living in the South"), Ho could have been worse than Stalin and still would have won a popular vote. In fact Ho was not 'worse than Stalin,' and your fine issue assertion can objectively be seen as a POV attempt to emphasise a negative quality over the basic fact that Ho was, ultimately popular. If you want to argue that his popularity was based more in "but them gooks was ignorant" and "they didn't know whats they is doing," we can do that too. The issue you raise, by mentioning Ho's repression, requires a comparison between Ho's and U.S./South methods of "coersion" against "their own", (ie. people under the supposed protection of the South government).

You wrote: "Many of those fighters, naturally, are southerners, and thus the war inherently involves the south engaging in war "against its own people" I did not say that interpretation should echo the dissidence and discoherence of the time, nor did I say that such dissidence was equivalent —that North and South were equal (or even comparable) in terms of their local insurgents (thats clearly a counterfactual POV assertion, anyway). I merely said that we need to be careful in our use of the terms North and South, and to qualify and define each context. The purpose of that would be to clarify the difference between the sides: one which "inherently involve(d) engaging in war 'against its own people," and the other which remained popular in both North and South despite "brutal repression of some of its citizens."

Certainly you could misconstrue my caution about terms, and argue that "their own" cannot be determined by geography, (alone) but by other factors, etc., rendering any distinction irrelevant. But your attempting to selectively switch the context between "it was every man for himself" on the one hand, and "North communist versus South anti-communist" on the other. And yes, "anti-communist," can indeed appear to be a perjorative, given any objective comparison with the "democracy" claim, which Diem (and policy in his support) rendered laughable.

And likewise calling my edits "POV" does nothing to help your claim that a clinical detached and politicalist writing style is somehow inherently "neutral." "Institutional," certainly, but not "netural." Sinreg, -St|eve 16:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Your method of arguing is comical. In no place did I assert that all coercion was war and yet you have inferred this by my simple statement of fact that war itself is a coercive method and it was what the south was engaging in. Otherwise you have still simply refused to define or qualify your terms. A war against what people? Those who were "liberating" the country (i.e. engaging in arms with the state on behalf of the northern government)? Dissidents, the kind who have no bearing on the period in question when a "South" as such did not exist while the de facto "North" was committing these atrocities? You wish to ideologically slur all these events together to create a comic book version of events; that you believe your own assertions in admitted POV to be inherently neutral is of absolutely no consequence here. --TJive 00:00, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Eisenhower wrote that 'given democratic elections, the Vietnamese would likely choose communism,' even if that meant no more elections.

Can you provide the direct and full quote please?

It was in the article until it was edited out. Will dig it up shortly. -St|eve

I will await this. --TJive 00:22, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Here it is: "I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held at the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the communist Ho Chi Minh." [1]

No comment? -St|eve

Continued at 1

this proves that Diem was unpopular and that Ho was a popular nationalist figure, it does not prove that 80% (and the way you quoted it sounds like he was just speculating in terms of percent) of the Vietnamese were communists despite the fact that the ruling VCP was. J. Parker Stone 01:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

After World War II, the Red Scare meant any anti-colonialists who happened to play chess with communists were made out to be "ardent" "communists."

The term "Red Scare" in historical terms (as opposed to ideological) refers to an earlier period in U.S. history after the Bolshevik coup in Russia, not to post-WWII, so the polemical point is ill-judged and would prove nothing were it even accurate. --TJive 23:52, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

"The term "Red Scare" has been applied to two distinct periods of intense anti-Communism in United States history: first from 1917 to 1920, and second from the late 1940s through the mid-1950s." -St|eve 00:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

"Red Scare" in the context of the post-WWII era is a partisan term which has no certain or distinct applicability. Most refer to "McCarthyism", which naturally may only apply to the period where McCarthy was a PSI investigator and a public figure. HUAC and loyalty oaths came before this. Truman considered investigations into communist spies as a red herring. He also initiated anti-communist policies for his own part. Eisenhower didn't like McCarthy, so was hardly influenced by any hysteria in his views, which you were earlier attempting to recommend. So of what real factual relevance is this? --TJive 00:22, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Well, certainly its not just my mistake if the article itself refers to it. More importantly you chose to ignore the substance and respond to the terms instead, which Im not really interested in ATP. Maybe later. -St|eve

Wikipedia is user-driven, and so will reflect any "mistake" of its editors. In this instance the article section itself is shrift and imprecise. However I never disputed that the term "Red Scare" is a broad partisan and ideological term meant to diffuse any critical view of communists or communism, just that the term as you apply it to history is not valid and that the relation to policy is dubious, as I certainly outlined and did not ignore. --TJive 01:00, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but in this case you refer to an article which has seen review dozens of times over, and yet you claim the term is wrong. And IAC, you avoided the actual point in favor of niggling on the terminology. -St|eve 01:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I addressed the point already, please reread my comments. --TJive 01:29, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Eisenhower

Continued from 1:  I do have a comment, thanks. It might serve our purposes better, for starters, to quite Eisenhower in context.

I am convinced that the French could not win the war because the internal political situation in Vietnam, weak and confused, badly weakened their military position. I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader rather than Chief of State Bao Dai. Indeed, the lack of leadership and drive on the part of Bao Dai was a factor in the feeling prevalent among Vietnamese that they had nothing to fight for. As one Frenchman said to me, "What Vietnam needs is another Syngman Rhee, regardless of all the difficulties the presence of such a personality would entail."

Great. Ive added it to q:Dwight D. Eisenhower. Eisenhower's reference to "Syngman Rhee," I take it was an early expression of the sought after but elusive authoritative ethnic-national yet Western-sympathetic ideological conservative which U.S. planners regularly daydreamed about.-St|eve 02:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it's in reference to a leader which is an incorruptible nationalist; strongly anti-communist, independent in course but hopefully (if not entirely) sympathetic to U.S. goals. Recall that the U.S. even made overtures (and more) to such as Tito, Mao, and Ceauseascu when they broke in different measures from the communist bloc line. You are attempting to insert a perspective of ideological terms ("conservative") which has little to no relevance in this period. --TJive 02:36, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

"Conservative....irrelevant in this period." You're right. I meant "a professed Christian...conservative, anti-Communist..." And likewise "daydream" might be better put as "pipedream."-St|eve 02:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

PS: "Incorruptible nationalist" is somehow equivalent to "anti-communist?" I hope you dont try to stand by this. Arafat for example was the quintessential "incorruptible nationalist" (heck he didnt even have a state) and likewise a fine "communist" (aka Islamist) to boot. -St|eve

I never suggested that nationalism and communism were mutually exclusive; that is your own inference. I simply described the ideal of U.S. policy-makers. --TJive 03:42, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. And its my job to qualify that simple description in some context. -St|eve

You have characterized this quote thusly:

Most southern Vietnamese were sympathetic toward unification and independence. Even Eisenhower said so.

Eisenhower's quote does not even qualify what "unification and independence" means, much less what percentage of Vietnamese held towards it, much less southern Vietnamese specifically.

True, it doesnt have that kind of foresight. But at that time, in the context of "foresight," the Red Scare began to dominate, and clouded the judgement (and daydreams) of U.S. policy planners. We can stick to what was said, and thus know what was known, thought, and believed. But we cant presume to mix authoritative "80 would have" with other more speculative (and fearfulistic) "foresight." -St|eve 02:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

What is foresight to do with it? You said yourself that most Vietnamese for the entire century sought after this "unification and independence" and culled Eisenhower in support of it (or rather your own qualification of its meaning). Rather, he does not even discuss it. The "Red Scare" and more pertinently its irrelevance to Eisenhower was already discussed. --TJive 02:36, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ah I see. You're talking about "independence" as a tenuous issue, rather than a foundational principle of Ho's agenda, and hence any reference to Ho. This kind of confusion of context (both yours and mine) is the consequece of past decades of propagandist association of Ho with "communism", and disassociation with "independence." The real issue is outside influence, and thus, which outside influence was more or less in violation of public opinion. Certainly 80%, is not an Iraqi landslide, but its certainly a strong majority, even if its only speculation by "[anyone] knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs" which Eisenhower (a prominent U.S. politician of the era) "talked or corresponded with." You're right, we shouldnt read too much into Eisenhower. -St|eve 03:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not see where I have anywhere confused the context of the quote. It does not concern "independence" as either a primary political concern or as a "tenuous issue". It strictly discusses the hypothetical vote between two specific individuals in a hypothetical election, in that way emphasizing the point about the desperation in the country at a certain period of time (one in which the U.S. was not nearly as relevant in setting a policy course). You intended to use this to raise a broader point about either the legitimacy of the southern government or an overt admission of hypocrisy on the part of American leadership, when in fact it represents neither. --TJive 03:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I see. So an "80%" should be interpreted in context as "desperation" and relative to Bao Dai, rather than as any kind of endorsement of Ho. I did not raise it as either of your cases. Its an important quote, by an official in charge of setting the direction of U.S. policy in the region. Curiously enough, that policy would later be anti-democratic (aka "anti-communist), yet, according to your segmentalist distinctions, this anti-democracy policy should not be misconstrued as bearing on the issue of the North's popularity of the time. Which, as you say, was based largely in either "early" and untested post-Colonial enthusiasm for Ho, or otherwise the extreme dispopularity of Bao Dai. My answer to this would be that the specific characters (real people) were not particularly relevant to U.S. policy —one that simply daydreamed about "a professed Christian...conservative, anti-Communist" like "a Syngman Rhee." Do I get your gist? -St|eve 03:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

No, "'80%' should be interpreted in context" as a statement of Eisenhower's belief that Ho Chi Minh would have beaten Bao Dai in an election held "as of the time of the fighting"; "desperation" is an evaluative interpretation of what Eisenhower is saying about the Vietnamese people and their sentiment, that they were not motivated to fight on the behalf of Bao Dai but were hardly enthusiastic communist revolutionaries.

Unfortunately it seems that you refuse to allow yourself to separate the two instances, as well as to see that "anti-communist" is ineffective as a pejorative, has specific connotations in a situation which involves real and avowed communists and a Communist Party, rather that "democracy" and "communism" are not instead synonyms, and that your personal characterizations of policy aren't appropriately encyclopedic. Apparently to which it must be added that you have no qualms about breaking and threatening to break policy if your opinion is at all perturbed. --TJive 04:02, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Granted, the situations between Ho v. Bao Dai and Ho v. Diem are different, but how different is a matter of interpretation. Certainly you must see this goes both ways, and by "separate" your're asserting a disconnection between instances which better suits your preference for narrowing context, rather than general context of policy. AIUI, Bao Dai quickly became an afterthought, and thus I would naturally minimise him. Can the quote be interpreted in a later context? I think so, although not of course in relation to Diem, but in relation to policy trends. "Hardly enthusiastic about communist revolutionaries" needs some explanation in each particular context. Certainly any qualms about "communist revolutionaries" became moot after U.S. forces started targeting "insurgents" in the South, in addition to bombing targets in the North.-St|eve 04:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

My "preference" is to let the actual context of the small remark you inserted to speak for itself, rather than set a conclusionary premise and discover that, in point of fact, my tendentious claims are not even backed up by what I set forth as evidence. Which quite clearly is what you have done. --TJive 04:27, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, and certainly a good use of such quotes and information would be to describe both general and specific contexts. I appreciate the care with which you give your answers, and apologise if (in the "context" of getting my editorial toes stepped on by four others) I have been rude or hasty in my comments. Sinreg, -St|eve 04:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

"At his early stage, Eisenhower wrote that 'given democratic elections, the Vietnamese would likely choose communism,' even if that meant no more elections:"

It would be more accurate to say, "Eisenhower wrote that, at an early stage...." Eisenhower is referring to a purely theoretical election, "as of the time of the fighting" (i.e. before the proposed 1956 election stipulated in the Geneva Accords signed by France and the Viet Minh), of Ho Chi Minh against Bao Dai, who was widely considered a corrupt French puppet. Between 1954 and 1956 the situation of North and South changed drastically. The North implemented radical land reforms which resulted in food shortages and a refugee crisis. The same Pentagon Papers you reference conclude about this quote (vol. 1, p. 246):

Insert: "purely theoretical" is problematic. The entire basis and premise for the war was based in "purely theoretical" notions of "domino effect," etc. Would it be fair to say that food shortages were among the motivations for the North's seeking to (re)claim the South? "Widely considered" and "corrupt French puppet" seem accurate as does the converse "Frenchmen with money" reference to U.S. GI's. Was not Diem seen as a "corrupt American puppet" -St|eve

"Purely theoretical" is not in the sense you allude to but is in the context of there being a real election, i.e. for 1956, one that did not take place - the basis for the claim that the US was worried about Minh's "popularity", which is rather not what Eisenhower is arguing. --TJive 02:36, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

"It is almost certain that by 1956 the proportion which might have voted for Ho — in a free election against [Ngo Dinh] Diem — would have been much smaller than eighty percent. Diem's success in the South had been far greater than anyone could have foreseen, while the North Vietnamese regime had been suffering from food scarcity, and low public morale stemming from inept imitation of Chinese communism."

The South in fact held an election of Diem against Bao Dai which the former won. The result was disputed, though generally no one contests a preference over Bao Dai. Meanwhile, the North held its own elections after the Geneva Accords, in which Ho Chi Minh, rather than capturing a mere 80% of the vote, claimed 99.91% of it.

What this quote serves to prove, then, is that there was in American leadership an ambiguity in its early Vietnamese policy which was always disdainful of French colonialism and its effects but certainly did not compromise on the question of communist aid or leadership for and among the Viet Minh. Eisenhower is expressing his opinion that the Vietnamese were stuck between two awful positions during the French war and desired an authentic nationalist equidistant from subserviance to colonialism and allegiance to the communist bloc, his preferred example being Syngman Rhee, another non-communist, nationalist leader supported by the American government during Korea's post-Japanese colonial days in which there was also reciprocal American/Soviet-Chinese intervention. --TJive 01:29, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I'll be reading them more thoroughly in a bit. -St|eve 02:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Reverts and WP:3RR claims

While its true that Ive reverted some edits, its also true that those edits were complete or mass-reverts. Wheras my edits were mostly agreeable constructive changes, the reverts were simple mechanical destructions. In cases where specific edits were made, I made a good faith effort to answer each point on the talk page. CJK had made some valid criticisms on the talk, but few of these were materialized in acceptable edits on the article. Finally TJive, while commenting "concise, npov intro", merely reverted the intro to an older state. I naturally reverted his edits as well. -St|eve 00:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

No, you were mass-reverting while not even bothering to consider talk objections. And it was sneaky of you to request protection on this page. CJK 5 August 2005

I requested protection for the work ive done on it when it became clear that you were motivated by POV reasons to undo all or most of the changes. I could have simply done it myself, but I answered you point by point, and you agreed with most of those. Of the ones you did not, most were not provided constructive alternatives. After that, you sought to add several weasel terms and I removed those, (evaluating each) and most were either unncessary or incorrect. -St|eve 00:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo, there is a dispute over content. Simply characterizing the edits of those you disagree with as "mechanical destructions" does not lend you justification for breaking policy. --TJive 00:11, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

True, but dont claim to be helping matters, or to be on firm policy grounds. I was one of the first to support 3RR back when it was a failing proposal, and I know its merits as well as its shortcomings. It would appear that you and CJK have conspired to revert the article and to label my unreverts as violation of policy. -St|eve 00:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not conspiring with anyone; I came to this article independent of CJK. Furthermore, an "unrevert" is nothing but a revert to your preferred version, which is no more or less legitimate a move than any others'. --TJive 00:40, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Glad you cleared this up. Then how would by reverts of you be any "less legitimate" than my reverts of CJK? -St|eve 01:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

"Legitimacy" in this context is taken in reference to applicable policy, i.e. the 3RR, which I am not in violation of. --TJive 01:31, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I applaud TJive for having much more patience than me on this article. The additions were entirely POV and as such impossible to compromise. J. Parker Stone 01:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

If patience is a virtue you lack, how do you presume to know which is correct, and how should I be expected to think you have the patience know the difference? -St|eve

None of your reverts are legit, Stevertigo, because you do not attempt to respond to many of the above points. CJK 6 August 2005

Ive responded to every single point raised by you, Trey, and now TJive, and you say "none of [my] reverts are legit" ?? [Personal insult removed]. Sinreg, -St|eve 01:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

so ok, you've "responded to every single point" and this means...? J. Parker Stone 01:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Is this a joke? You have not responded to any of my responses that are above. You just abandoned it. CJK 6 August 2005

Yes I did. If you added new ones while I was busy with TJive then thats not an issue to pick. Ive just responded now.-St|eve 03:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Why couldn't you have left a perfectly concise and accurate intro alone? The intro is not the place to go into criticizing Diem, calling him European-aligned, saying the U.S. is a superpower, etc., etc. The fact that an admin editted in this POV nonsense is particularly disturbing. J. Parker Stone 07:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Reverts and WP:3RR claims: and one party reports the other

Merits of the debate aside, I find it disturbing that CJK, who reported Stevertigo at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Stevertigo for 3RR and got him blocked, dared to do so in spite of CJK's own breaking the 3RR violation with a good margin (6 reverts in 4 hours) as clear from below.

• 22:02, August 5, 2005 by CJK (see talk)
• 22:19, August 5, 2005 by CJK (Devious? You still have not responded to all of my points.)
• 22:47, August 5, 2005 by CJK (making dubious rv)
• 23:05, August 5, 2005 by CJK (rving pending consensus in talk)
• 01:22, August 6, 2005 by CJK (rv to TJive)
• 02:05, August 6, 2005 by CJK (rv)

No one (including Steve) went ahead with trying to have CJK blocked because sides felt the ongoing discussion might benefit the article, even with technical violation of the policy by more than a sinlge party. Than one of the violating parties chooses to report the other. I call on everyone to stop the win/loose games and accept some compromises. --Irpen 20:24, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, the 3rd, 4th, and 5th are different than the first three, so don't make this accusation. CJK 6 August 2005

The policy says: Don't revert any single page more than three times within a period of 24 hours. It doesn't say that only reverts to one and the same version are counted. How does it imply so? --Irpen 21:17, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

3RR is explicitly designed to stop edit wars, for instance the one taking place on this article. The fact that CJK was also guilty isn't relevant to Steve's position, but CJK apparently hasn't been reported; looks like his lucky day. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:36, 2005 August 6 (UTC)

I always assumed that the policy meant the same three reverts, but apparently I'm wrong. I guess the 3RR cops are just going to have to block me. Nevertheless, an admin. should have known better. CJK 6 August 2005

I suggest you just take it easy and not be so combative. We had a reasonable discussion at a different page. Just assume good faith. Oh, and nothing prevents you to self-impose a 3RR block (just kidding). --Irpen 21:51, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Its hard to "assume good faith" when somebody is making claims of "American Colonialism" in a major article. CJK 6 August 2005

Just give it a try (to assume). Rereard the assume good faith guideline. And check the history of contrubutions of the editors before making judgements. Assuming good faith on everyone's side will actually help the article. --Irpen 22:43, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo should not even be here. He was blocked twice by separate users and unblocked himself both times. Not only has he threatened to block users but he blocked an anonymous IP for weeks simply for reverting him, which he "unreverted" after page protection that he requested. He's only digging himself a hole. --TJive 00:24, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

CJK is blocked now. Wikipedia:Three-revert rule states: "In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally." Since Stevertigo got blocked, the only acceptable way to handle this is for CJK to be blocked as well, especially considering that CJK reported Stevertigo. --Michael Snow 03:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

"Colonialism" and such

What this dispute seems to be revolving around is whether or not to apply the label of "pro-independence" to North Vietnam while saying the U.S. was simply taking the place of France as an imperialist power. To state this as fact is unbelievably POV. Whether you like it or not Stevertigo, South Vietnam was just as "independent" as North Vietnam. Yes, it was created by the French but most of those officials had been ousted by Diem. The U.S. controlled virtually nothing with regards to South Vietnamese policy besides advising them. And to say it was "a minority government" because it was not elected is unfair considering North Vietnam had no "free elections" either and therefore must be made up of a "minority" as well. This, along with the earlier "democracy" label does not belong in the intro in any event. Instead the intro should flatly state that it was a Cold War conflict between Communist North Vietnam and the NLF vs. non-Communist South Vietnam and United States.

Another thing: Stevertigo has said in the notes that the U.S. had labeled the "pro-independence" movement "communist". I can't seriously believe that Stevertigo would think that the "communist" label was a mere American invention rather than a blindingly obvious fact, so I would appreciate to know why this was inserted. CJK 6 August 2005

I greatly appreciate this summary of the issues, and think your focus is largely good. However, I disagree with virtually every point —particularly your characterization of virtually any language other than yours as "POV." You also persist in claiming that "communist" is somehow much more definitive in comparison to "independence," and your even more vague "non-communist" distinction (obviously to make good black-and-white contrast with "communist") is likewise ridiculous. It should be hard for anyone to find any meaningful difference between your use of "communism" as a (claimed) meaningful descriptor, and any reactionary political use of "communism" as a pejorative. -St|eve 18:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not the North Vietnamese were more oriented toward independence or communism (and after 1954 I would argue strongly that the answer would be communism, as independence was more or less in the bank) it's clear that "communism" is a meaningful descriptor of the North Vietnamese regime and the Vietcong. Stalinist ideology was central to the North Vietnamese governing pattern. The term "non-communist" is hardly vague; it stands for the collected group of noncommunists of various stripes with whom the U.S. attempted to ally against the communist forces of the North Vietnamese regime and the Vietcong. The idea that the portrayal of the North Vietnamese as communists was some kind of U.S. propaganda is absurd -- effectively the entire slate of leaders on that side of the war were self-avowed Communists. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:39, 2005 August 6 (UTC)

This seems to be a common argument that Ho, despite decades of leading an "independence campaign," against "French colonialism" (not disputed), was ultimately "tainted by communism," (paraphrasing Trey) and thereafter "communism" became the dominant issue. "Independence" therefore, must be relegated (according to the above view) to only the French context, and even the later context of ICW III vs "communist" China, but not to the inbetween context of U.S./dictators/puppets. That particular conflict was "communism." The "independence" term also implies "American colonialism," which of course "was never a motive at all" (according to the forementioned common view) —though curiously this contradicts any reasonable interpretation of policies later disclosed regarding the need to dominate states that (according to the above view) would fall to communism. Which the unified Vietnam sucessfully repelled, when the Chinese tried it. Am I missing something? -St|eve 20:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why you are bringing up the Third Indochina War, but that was caused by the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia. As for the characterization of "communist" vs. "independence" you are confusing the 1st and 2nd Wars, the First was Ho's communist and independence movement, the second communist aggression against South Vietnam which WAS independent and not an American puppet. Therefore, the North COULD NOT BE FIGHTING FOR INDEPENDENCE ALREADY ACHIEVED. I'm not sure where you got the "need to dominate states that would fall to communism" line. CJK 6 August 2005

• What you're missing is that once French supremacy in Indochina was clearly defeated, the United States didn't challenge the independence of South Vietnam, or North Vietnam for that matter. It's indisputable, on the other hand, that while the French continued to fight the U.S. stood largely against an independent Vietnam. However, this was more or less over by the mid-1950s. The primary issue in the U.S. phase of the war was the disposition of South Vietnam -- whether it would remain as an independent non-communist state, or as part of a unified state, perhaps neutralist (at least this hope existed early on) but in all likelihood communist. The independence of Vietnam was not at issue.
• If the fact that the South Vietnamese government could not exist without U.S. support makes it an American colony, then by the same token North Vietnam was a colony of the Communist powers, which underwrote and subsidized that regime. The great powers on both sides attempted to control and dominate their client states; this was standard practice and certainly doesn't proscribe the independence of those client states. Both North and South Vietnam were quite aggressive and successful, in comparison to other Soviet and American client states, in shrugging off that domination when it suited them. I suppose it's possible to recast the war as one to decide whether South Vietnam would be an American or Communist colony, but this doesn't seem a very realistic understanding.
• Are you denying that Ho was a strong communist? That claim seems highly unreasonable given his membership in various communist parties, training in Mao's revolution, etc. Nobody's denying that when Vietnam was seeking independence, i.e. prior to 1954, Ho's movement was an independence movement -- a movement for an independent, communist Vietnam. Once Vietnam had independence, establishing communism became the primary theme. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:29, 2005 August 6 (UTC)

Its hard to respond to most of the above claims. How can a teacher teach algebra, for example, to students whose understanding of the material, as well as their reading, writing, reasoning, and knowledge is only at an elementary school level? That said, I will respond again to each comment and do so point by point. Shortly. -St|eve 23:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

So much for that good faith, eh, Irpen? Not only are we "institutional", "clinical" "apologists", we are now equivalent to elementary school students. --TJive 00:08, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I would hope you regarded your views as better stated enough to not qualify for a comparison. Perhaps your'e relating on political terms, rather than the terms I was commenting on. -St|eve 00:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

At issue, as CJK did correctly pointed out above, is the terminology. Just as "independence" implies a conflict over the status of a country as being autonomous and ruled by its own people, "communism" implies the war was rooted in a conflict over ideology —which wasnt the substantive reason for the conflict. The United States decided after WW II that it would pursue a leadership role in global affairs, and that cousin societies in Europe would be the natural limbs of this power system. IAC, the use of the term "communism" generally refers to a difference in economic ideology between capitalism and communism/socialism. In the article is use largely echoed the popular pejorative tendency to use "communism" as a political label, rather than a meaninful description. The English lagnuage, extensible as it is, provides for other descriptive words to choose from, and among those is "independence." The latter term applies unambigously to the French issue, and likewise to the Chinese issue. Why, after all did a communist nation invade another communist nation, which itself happened to be forging closer ties to the largest communist nation? Certainly bringing up the later event makes the case for "independence" stronger, but in any case, the "Indochina Wars" has (unambigiously) a single thread, namely the status of the Indochina people as either self-governed or governed by outsiders. That established, it might be prudent to look into the notion that the South wasnt exactly "free", "independent" or "autonomous" — general critieria for "independence." Lacking those, its clear enough to say that the South was not, and therefore any campaign by the north to "liberate" the people in the South (North and South people being somewhat related) from government, occupation, whatever-you-call-it.. that was not exactly "free" or "independent."

The decision to single out Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc. or Palestine, Iran, Iraq, etc. lies not with the fact that these hold or held differing ideology, but that such ideology meant in practical terms a separation, autonomy, and independence from the established channels of Western power, finance, and politics. While theres a big difference between "independence" and "subordination", there is little difference between "independence" under Communist "imperialism" or independence under U.S./Western "expansionism." Given that these are equal, the terms "communism" and "anti-communism" are largely irrelevant (just like promises of "freedom and democracy" are materially irrelevant). Any war against an ideology doesnt so much seek to fight the ideology, as it seeks to make disagreeing parties submit to agreement, on the terms of the conqueror. "Independence" from the French came with Dein Bien Phu, but it could reasonably be argued that Vietnam lost its independence Geneva Conference (1954), only months later. The North didnt seek a complete takeover then, because it had defeated the French colonialists. Under the promise of a democratic elections, Ho had no need to go to war against a lame duck Bao Dai in the South —democracy and freedom would (without any outside interference) naturally have lead to Ho's presidency and a unified, independent state.

Just how much of a hand the U.S. had in effecting the decision to reject elections (aka. "democracy") is somwhat "unclear," but it is clear that by not supporting democracy, its fair to assume (not even looking at the PPs) that the U.S. supported something else. And its doubtful that that something else (if youve read anything about the nature of the occupation) can be in any way called "independence." -St|eve 00:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparently you write under the delusion that there does not exist more qualified quasi-Trotskyite-cum-half-anarchist polemics on 20th century history and American imperialism. You are not repeating anything nearly verbatim that has not been said before. The point here is that this perspective is not appropriate in editing an article to merely reflect, which you have as much as admitted, for the same reasons that everyone here is forced to repeat and hammer into the ground until it becomes almost as an automated response. --TJive 00:58, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo, you are merely making a series of assumptions that by into "America wants to take over the world" Communist propaganda. It just can't be clearer. You have once again made the allegation that the South was not independent and the North somehow was, without evidence. If you want to be taken seriously SAY EXACTLY HOW SOUTH VIETNAM WAS NOT INDEPENDENT. CJK 7 August 2005

History and POV 101

I understand that some of the comments above merit point responses (again). Please accept my apologies for expressing my frustration at the repetitive nature of the questions and feeling ganged on. But for the moment, I want to drop a few citations from a Jan. 2005 column by Christopher Hitchens called Beating a Dead Parrot: Why Iraq and Vietnam have nothing whatsoever in common. [2]. In the article the citations listed below are the top half of a point by point contrast with the Iraq situation.

ICYDN, Hitchens is referred to these days as a kind of sharp witted ex-lefty pro-Iraq War guy. The choice of Hitchens is just coincidental to what Ive been reading, but it seemed like he might not be regarded as either a Westmoreland or a Chomsky, and therefore might get past the reactionary POV immune system (the one which no doubt resists "infection" by "communism"). He had recently commented at book appearance something like "in case theres any confusion about what the Vietnam War was really about, it was ultimately about continuing what French colonialism had begun..." etc. which led me to take a little more interest in his take on things. Talk amongst your selfs. St|eve 05:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

(Hidden numbers relate to original order):

• "Vietnam had been undergoing a protracted struggle for independence since before World War II and had sustained this struggle militarily and politically against the French empire, the Japanese empire, and then after 1945 the French empire again.

• "By 1954, at the epic battle of Dien Bien Phu, the forces of Ho Chi Minh and Gen. Giap had effectively decided matters on the battlefield, and President Eisenhower himself had conceded that Ho would have won any possible all-Vietnamese election.

• "The distortions of the Cold War led the United States to take over where French colonialism had left off, to assist in partitioning the country, and to undertake a war that had already been lost.

• "Whatever the monstrosities of Asian communism may have been, Ho Chi Minh based his declaration of Vietnamese independence on a direct emulation of the words of Thomas Jefferson and was able to attract many non-Marxist nationalists to his camp. He had, moreover, been an ally of the West in the war against Japan.

• "Vietnam as a state had not invaded any neighbor (even if it did infringe the neutrality of Cambodia) and did not do so until after the withdrawal of the United States when, with at least some claim to self-defense, it overthrew the Khmer Rouge regime.

• "Vietnam had not languished under international sanctions for its brazen contempt for international law, nor for its building or acquisition, let alone its use of, weapons of mass destruction.

• "Vietnam had never attempted, in whole or in part, to commit genocide

• "In Vietnam the deep-rooted Communist Party was against the partition of the country and against the American intervention. It called for a boycott of any election that was not an all-Vietnam affair. (In Iraq, the deep-rooted Communist Party is in favor of the regime change and has been an enthusiastic participant in the elections as well as an opponent of any attempt to divide the country on ethnic or confessional lines.)

• "American generals and policymakers could never agree as to whether the guerrillas in Vietnam were self-supporting or were sustained from the outside (namely the northern half of their own country). However one may now view that debate, it was certainly true that Hanoi, and the southern rebels, were regularly resupplied not by minor regional potentates but by serious superpowers such as the Warsaw Pact and China, and were able to challenge American forces in battlefield order.

• "The option of accepting a unified and Communist Vietnam, which would have evolved toward some form of market liberalism even faster than China has since done, always existed. It was not until President Kennedy decided to make a stand there, in revenge for the reverses he had suffered in Cuba and Berlin, that quagmire became inevitable.

• "In Vietnam, the most appalling excesses were committed by U.S. forces. Not all of these can be blamed on the conduct of bored, resentful, frightened conscripts. The worst atrocities—free-fire zones, carpet-bombing, forced relocation, and chemical defoliation—were committed as a direct consequence of orders from above.

• "In Vietnam, the United States relied too much on a pre-existing military caste that often changed the local administration by means of a few tanks around the presidential palace.

• "In Vietnam, the policy of the United States was—especially during the Kennedy years—a sectarian one that favored the Roman Catholic minority. (all: Hitchens, Jan. 2005)

I don't quite understand what your point is. I am somewhat of a regular reader of Christopher Hitchens and came across this article long ago. The purpose of it, as you hint towards, is much more in asserting a lack of legitimate comparison of the Iraq war to Vietnam than any significant commentary on the point of relevant history here. You will notice, incidentally, that he repeats an incorrect inference regarding the same Eisenhower quote already discussed at some length on this page.

In the context of our purposes however it is clearly a notable opinion on how American foreign policy with regards to the war may be viewed, but it is not either shared universally nor objective fact. That is the problem with your edits. Not only does it cover material which is developed just as well and essentially more neutrally within the overview and body of the article (and thus it becomes redundant), but it is specifically structured so that the article is framed within the perspective of "colonialism", which is the tendentious POV of yourself, Hitchens, and many other notable persons but is not an objective and encylopedic assertion. For these reasons, the prior concise introduction is preferable as it introduces the subject, subsequently expounded upon, in a manner which neither repeats, distorts, or ideologically frames what follows. Yours does, and you have resisted rather fiercely (and I might say somewhat childishly) the slightest attempts even to modify language amidst what you have inserted. Should this page become unprotected I will hold to my view of the material and introduction as they stand. --TJive 06:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

"I dont understand"

"I don't quite understand what your point is." - The point is to use a series of succinct statements by reasonably authoriative source as a basis for point by point discussion --to compare these points to both my claims about what a neutral tone for the article means, as well as your particuarl claims. CJK and Trey can benefit also.

Hitchens is not a scholar, he's a polemicist, and nothing he has written is anything that I have not heard before (which I may also state quite literally as I have read this article). --TJive 03:27, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

"I am somewhat of a regular reader of Christopher Hitchens and came across this article long ago." - Glad to hear. Then Ill assume you dont object to borrowing his points.

I don't object to utilizing it for the purposes of discussion but as I said I don't quite see what your point it. It's not a necessary citation or even a worthwhile digression in the article; it simply represents a particular viewpoint in how the conflict is viewed that you happen to share. --TJive 03:27, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

"The purpose of it, as you hint towards, is much more in asserting a lack of legitimate comparison of the Iraq war to Vietnam than any significant commentary on the point of relevant history here." No, I didnt hint - I stated it. I used them because they are succinctly put. Are you claiming that somehow these points, taken by themselves, are somehow out of context? You might also consider that Hitchens isnt stupid: His new post-911 former leftist clothes allow him to gain voice on issues which conservatives typically cover their ears to. Conservative vocum on the earlier war is still replete with gross propaganda and ommissions, which Hitchens while fulminating with American patriotism (ie. the current war) is grounded enough in reality to educate his less-so right wing readership regarding the crapulous nature of their oft-repeated mantras (ie. the past war). After 30 years, even those people can start to discuss the issue with some depth.

You are caricaturing Hitchens. He has not once renounced the political positions he took during either the Vietnam era or on any other point of conflict during the Cold War. Great pains are taken in his work to emphasize that he believes rather than that he has abandoned the left that it has betrayed its own principles and that U.S. foreign policy at present (as opposed quite distinctly from two decades ago) is the most progressive actor on the world stage. All of this is quite beside the point. --TJive 03:27, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

"You will notice, incidentally, that he repeats an incorrect inference regarding the same Eisenhower quote already discussed at some length on this page." Well, if Hitchens makes the same "incorrect inference" then I would think its at least sourced, if not somewhat more authoritative than your tidy conceptual segretation --again, which we have debated. Did we not agree that both specific and general meaning can legitimately be drawn from that quote?

It can be sourced, just as incorrectly, in many other instances. What of it? And no I did not agree that your tendentious, conclusionary premise was appropriate in either paraphrasing or inadequately quoting the particular passage. --TJive 03:27, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

"In the context of our purposes however it is clearly a notable opinion on how American foreign policy with regards to the war may be viewed, but it is not either shared universally nor objective fact." We disagree. You claim that Eisenhowers views were merely a POV of the formative period, while I (and others apparently) feel that the quote can be taken as a basis for the formation of policy that would effect the next twenty years.

Hence a conclusionary premise. --TJive 03:27, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

"That is the problem with your edits. Not only does it cover material which is developed just as well and essentially more neutrally within the overview and body of the article (and thus it becomes redundant), but it is specifically structured so that the article is framed within the perspective of "colonialism", which is the tendentious POV of yourself, Hitchens, and many other notable persons but is not an objective and encylopedic assertion. " I see, and agree somewhat to the gist of your criticism. Certainly, the term "colonialism" needs to be represented early, thus framing a general path of interpretation --but it should not, as you have said, color all possible paths of interpretation in the article. We should certainly qualify the term with some general attribution, if you like. But, just out of curiosity, if your actual point was the reasonable one just stated, how did you come to align yourself with the act of outright reverting by less qualified editors? There seems to be quite a difference in "tone", IMHO.

I reverted because your edits were hopeless and you weren't even leaving the possibility of modifying your own text. I do not wish to revisit it again. As for colonialism, my introduction takes this view into account with necessarily framing events in this ideological context, as in your attempt. --TJive 03:27, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

"For these reasons, the prior concise introduction is preferable as it introduces the subject, subsequently expounded upon, in a manner which neither repeats, distorts, or ideologically frames what follows." We respectfully disagree with regard to the definition, meaning, and value of "concise introduction." "Concise," while in the domain of writing style, is often a measure by which neutrality and balance are shifted to unncessary clinicism, and terms used only by afficionados of politicism. As Ive stated for years in many other contexts, Wikipedia is not geared for either novice or specialist use --its writing must be as universalist as possible.

Your "-ism" barrage strikes me as quite vulgar. Concision is necessary for the very fact that is an introduction which merely summates material that follows in the body of the article. My attempt was to construct this in a manner that is neutral rather than guiding the reader towards any particular conclusion; irrespective of audience it is not in accordance with Wikipedia norms to do the opposite. --TJive 03:27, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

"Yours does, and you have resisted rather fiercely (and I might say somewhat childishly) the slightest attempts even to modify language amidst what you have inserted. Should this page become unprotected I will hold to my view of the material and introduction as they stand." This is completely incorrect, respectfully. I have resisted attempts to revert it. Forgive me if I had no way of knowing originally that you were of communicable stature, and for having assumed that you were of the unreasonable revertist-deletionist variety (through guilt by association). You perhaps likewise assumed that because the reverts were done inline with your general views, that they therefore amounted to the same quality of editing. I hope you see the difference. -St|eve 20:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree (somewhat naturally) that the quality of my editing is superior to the version that preceded it, but I do not hold that attempts to work within the parameters of your own version without the ideological phraseology was crude but rather a genuine attempt by CJK to compromise, to which you overreacted (and I am hardly the only person to notice this overreaction). --TJive 03:27, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Epithets

As well, your repetitive usage of political epithets and more generic insults does not escape my notice and only serves to highlight the aggressive ideological intention in your words and actions and further undermines any effort whatever at civil compromise or conclusion on these questions. Please stop. --TJive 06:23, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

"reactionary POV immune system," hahaha. J. Parker Stone 08:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

My "use of political ephithets?" While not wanting to compare you with your partners in POV there, youve used a few yourself, havent you? -St|eve 20:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Not particularly; I labeled your brief screed on 20th century history in a manner where it rightfully infers particular worldviews (to which you did not respond) but it was not with any particular intention of insult, as opposed to bare pejoratives like "reactionary". --TJive 03:28, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Wheres the proof?

This doesn't really prove anything with regard to South Vietnam being a "colony" besides saying that the Americans took up where the French left off. This is true to a certain extent, but it does not prove that South Vietnam was a colony, only that Americans were fighting communists after the French were beaten by them. CJK 20:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Nothing "really prove[s] anything" to anyone who doesnt wish to acknowledge whats being presented. But I wil take "this is true to a certain extent" as substantial progress in your education. I never said the South was "a colony." I said the U.S. motives and modus operandi in the South were colonialist in nature and origin. See the difference? -St|eve 20:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

So you are freely acknowledging the independence of South Vietnam? I think that's progress... I mean, if it is not a colony how can U.S. moves be "colonial" in the first place? CJK 20:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not a difficult point. I am merely asking for factual data that indicates U.S. motives were "colonial" unless you definition of "colonial" differs from mine. CJK 21:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I am, like you, free to acknowledge anything, whether it is true or not. Your question about how "U.S. moves" can be "colonial," would indeed be a good one if you did not assume that the term "independent" means in fact independence, that "not a colony" means not colonial, and that we can revisionistically rewrite what factually happened "in the first place," based on our choice of words here. By "factual data" do you mean Hi-definition video, photographs, or would mere spoken/written testimony do? All that said, I think you and I have made enough good progress for one day. -St|eve 21:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Steve's using the Marxist definition of colonial -- i.e., any Third World country that is willing to cooperate with First World capitalist oppressors. This, of course, was also the view expounded by the Soviet Union when it described the revolutions it funded in independent third-world countries as anti-imperialist or anti-colonial. At least that's how it appears. Without contending that the U.S. was intending to create colonial territory or that it was defending colonies, I don't see how its motives can be described as colonial; imperialist is certainly the more common term in this framework. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:29, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

"Steve's using the Marxist definition of colonial." Im sorry but (again) this belongs under the Epithets section. -St|eve 21:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but that seems to be the interpretation your position leans toward. See Imperialism#Marxist_theory_of_Imperialism. I don't see why you interpret that as an insult, but if you do that's unfortunate. If your position differs from the Marxist view, please clarify the differences. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:00, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

BTW, I apologize for my somewhat caustic description of the Marxist position above...although that's certainly how *I* interpret it I don't mean to dismiss it as unworthy of consideration. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:54, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

Um, yeah, I assume "independence" to mean "independent". And by "factual data" I'm asking for specific instances in which the U.S. acted in a "colonial" way. CJK 21:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, I know what the "proof" is going to be--more ravings against the capitalist RVN government which allowed their country to be consumed by evil American imperialists. The truth is, you don't have any proof to show South Vietnam as "not-independent". You just assume a country is not independent because of the so-called "exploitation of the proletariat" which is exactly as Christopher Parham has shown to be solely a Marxist definition. CJK 22:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me, I'm not really versed in Marxist concepts as some of you here have claimed, but by "exploitation of the proletariat" do you mean "fascilitation of occupation from native collaborators of minority ethnic and political associations?" If so, I would say this isnt so much a Marxist concept, but a truism of all occupations (colonialism, whatever) since the beginning of history. I would not attach a modern eponym to it (even if Marxism/Trotskyism (whatever) has seen some of revival in academic stature -at least its abstracted concepts. Perhaps attributable to the hyerpconnectivity and availablity and discussion and material, which serves to counter ignorant views (both left and right) about the ideology.) IAC, the terms, as Chrisparham is honest enough to admit to, often carry vexatious connotations, which IMHO belie the basic goal of finding some neutrality. -St|eve 01:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You're not fooling anyone. "Colonialism" necessitates the existence of a colony, regardless of whether or not it is a base of extension for even further hegemony - i.e. the North (in which case we easily see the U.S., far from attempting to conquer or invade (as in Korea) was tepid in its military response for fear of much more direct Soviet and Chinese intervention (as was always threatened). Even within the parameters you briefly have laid out around this page you accepted that the same conditions apply to the north in its relation to the powers of the USSR and PROC; yet instead of describing this as a "colonial" position you rather justified it and described it as being the only pro-"independence" position (amid other charming phrases). Rather than attempting to play out decades-old disputes on "morality" you should rather recognize that there exist widely opposed viewpoints on the question. --TJive 03:35, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wouldnt want to. "Colonialism" was the prime modality of imperialism before dollar diplomacy. Dollar diplomacy is likewise rightly referred to within the sphere of imperialism. Does imperialism require an empire, and does empire refer to only older systems? The democratic character of internal U.S. politics naturally colors the view of external U.S. history, but that doesnt change the fact that such policies have had a character inline more with earlier foreign hegemony and imperialism, (gunboat diplomacy, etc) than with democracy, etc. Granted, the point of the war was not to "colonize" Vietnam, but rather to destroy any and all opposition to the colonization of Vietnam's government. -St|eve 03:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Bias in intro

The first sentence:

The Vietnam War was fought from 1957 to 1975 between Soviet and Chinese-supported Vietnamese nationalist and Communist forces and an array of Western and pro-Western forces, most notably the United States.

This is an assertion that the war was merely (or mostly) a proxy war and glosses over the conflict between the two countries most intimately involved: North Vietnam and South Vietnam. Which is at odds with the taxobox or infobox on the right.

Why are North Vietnam and South Vietnam not considered parties to the conflict? Is this a majority view, or what? It's certainly a POV, and as such readers should be informed as to whose Wikipedia:POV it is - instead of being simply informed authoritatively that it is so. Uncle Ed 13:51, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to sort it out - but not by removing the last 500 edits. Dan100 (Talk) 14:48, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Done. But I still feel The propaganda campaign needs amplification. In some ways it was the key aspect of the war. North Vietnam's successful propaganda compaign convinced Americans that they were morally wrong to support the South or to fight against the North (or the insurgents). Is there a sidebar article which goes into this? Uncle Ed 15:23, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it. Little of the Vietnamese side of the war -- e.g. the rapid South Vietnamese changes in government in the mid-1960s, the North's efforts to undermine U.S. support for the war, Vietnamese popular feeling about the war -- are well covered. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:09, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

Translations: "rapid South Vietnamese changes in government" means "several U.S.-supported military coup de etats." "North efforts to undermine U.S. support for the war" has so many inherently contradictory gems in it to make this statement a work of art —best left to personal interpretation assisted by contraband pharmaceuticals. "Vietnamese popular feeling about the war" is a bit confusing. I could assume that "popular feeling" was "the war was bad," and that those who "supported the war" were also somewhat bad. -St|eve 21:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

(1) I'm not sure of the relevance of that, but there were changes of government both American-supported and not, both violent and peaceful.

(2) Undermining American support for the war was a specific and explicit policy point of the Northern Politburo. If their strategy was contradictory, blame the Communist Party leaders.

(3) It's quite likely that the people did oppose it. But given the notable lack of opinion polls, etc. it's difficult to assess Southern opinion about the war, and for obvious reasons the opinion of Northerners about their government's involvement is even more difficult to assess.

How any of these issues are relevant to the topic of this section is difficult to understand. The point is that these issues are not covered in detail. It's hardly worth arguing for your POV when the article doesn't exist yet. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:08, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

(1) Just as a matter of coincidence, were any of those "changes" "democratic"? -St|eve 23:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

(2) It was also "a specific and explicit policy" of the U.S. to target any "infrastructure targets" (ie. people in the north with government jobs). Mentioning such "explicit" detail is, as in my example, out of place in a discussion about the general issues.

(3) "Quite likely"? Even "extremely likeley" would be a humourous understatement. Perhaps your'e considering the positive benefits of inviting in foreign invaders to "ravage" and "pacify" one's own country?

(4) Its relevant because these are the misconceptions you are operating under, and I dont consider you to be unworthy of correction. -St|eve 23:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Nguyen Cao Ky was elected democratically, as for the rest of your posts, as said before this is not the place to push your views on how much the Americans were disliked in the South. J. Parker Stone 01:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

New intro

This is the introduction I have written, in case it gets reverted to Stevertigo's version:

The Vietnam War or Second Indochina War (in Vietnam, the American War (Vietnamese Chiến Tranh Chống Mỹ Cứu Nước, "War Against the Americans to Save the Nation.")) was a 1957 to 1975 conflict primarily between the Communist Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRVN) and the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) that directly involved an array of pro-North and pro-South forces, most notably the National Liberation Front (NLF, or "Viet Cong") as well as the United States.

The war was fought to determine the status of the Vietnam, whether it would unite under a Communist government or would remain indefinitely partitioned into separate, independent countries (as was the outcome of the Korean War). In this respect the conflict has largely been viewed as a proxy war between the larger powers of the Soviet Union and United States during the Cold War. The Southern government and its supporters, such as the U.S. and allied governments like South Korea and Australia, viewed the conflict as a war to deter aggression by communist forces not only in Vietnam but elsewhere in Indochina and South East Asia. The Northern government and its supporters, such as the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, viewed the conflict as the continuation of a struggle against colonialism for which the U.S. and non-communist governments had taken the place of direct French rule over the peninsula. The war gradually spilled over into the neighboring Indochinese countries of Cambodia and Laos. Direct U.S. military involvement lessened significantly by 1973 with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords but the conflict continued, until in 1975 the North directly invaded the South, ending in a general Communist victory and the unification of Vietnam under a government controlled by the Communist Party of Vietnam, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV).

No digressions, no scare quotes. Succinct and neutral. Thoughts? --TJive 15:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Perfect. I will revert any changes which damage its integrity. Uncle Ed 16:03, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

This is very good, I made a few very minor changes, thank you. CJK 16:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

It's a great introduction. It sumarizes the conflict and the issues behind it. We really need that.--HistoricalPisces 17:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

As much as I understand the tendency for third parties to view their first, late efforts as "perfect," the section above repeats the two glaring issues which were problematic with the older pre-Stevertigo version. Again, the term "communism" is not altogether meaningful and is given far too much weight. The basic problem is that "communism" and "anti-communism," aside from being simplistic and prejudicial, cast the nature of the war in an ideological light. Certainly nobody here will attempt to argue that the U.S./South side in the war was based in "principle."

By arguing that the war was by nature ideological, this is (as it was in that era) a schmaltzy political way of pushing an association fallacy between the U.S.-South "cause" and "principle," even when the politics, the goals, the nature, and the conduct of such "ideological" war were in complete violation of "principle." OTOH, causes associated with "the North" such as unification (which the U.S. & South opposed) and "interfering with U.S. support" (ie. repelling another local-assisted foreign invasion) can be said to have been based in "principle," such as those modelled on Jeffersonian writings during the American Revolution.

Given that the above is true, the term "communist" is at best a political label (as it is used), and needs to be qualified in the manner which existed in my version. I note also that current version has ommitted those footnotes intended to qualify the issue. Certainly a subject such as this requires substantial footnotes. -St|eve 22:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is. "Communist" is what we are describing the North Vietnamese/Viet Cong political structure. I certainly hope you are not trying to deny that. The reason the war was started was because Communist Vietnamese wanted all of Vietnam to be communist, and hence "independent" in their words. Are you denying that basic fact? CJK 23:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Certainly I understand that you may be "not sure," while still understanding that others here know how to read, and use that ability. You may benefit from knowing that your above expressed view on the nature of the topic is one-sided, highly simplistic, and incorrect. At best.-St|eve 23:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

And its highly simplistic of you to dismiss the obvious as "simplistic". I'm sorry I'm not worthy of your incredible insights of "Colonialism", which apparently all U.S. foreign interventions are based on. I'm also sorry it is so difficult for you to understand the basic idea that the North Vietnamese were Communists who wanted to take over South Vietnam because it was not Communist and hence "not-independent". I should have known better. CJK 23:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's avoid sarcasm. Each side had its real reasons (known presumably only to them) and their stated reasons. First let's try to nail down the stated reasons. Uncle Ed 00:05, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

There are no "sides" here (the war is over in case you hadnt noticed) —there is only neutrality in representing the material. And its hard to avoid sarcasm when its so appropriate and, IIMSS, useful. At the very least, if its well done it has some humor value. Which can be soothing. -St|eve 01:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The "stated reason" is that Stevertigo is trying to insert claims of "American colonialism" in this article even though he has absolutely no proof apart from theoretical viewpoints that insist America wants to take over the world. CJK 00:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The version is a little lengthy for my tastes but it is infinitely better than what it was being changed to before. J. Parker Stone 00:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Finally a response to the crit

The preferred ideology of the government of the North, and thus the primary point of conflict among Vietnamese themselves, was communism, and the [big 'C'] Communist Party is inextricable from the point of the political leadership (and autocratic rule, and policies) of that government. You're engaging in more than a bit of circular logic here - that the U.S. is in a colonialist position by virtue of its opposition to the North while the North proves its desire for independence by attempting to eliminate the South.

While the U.S. certainly extended much influence (sometimes hastily and unduly I would argue) within the South Vietnamese government it can not be said for this fact that the South was in a "colonial" position with or without respect paid to the North's own necessary influences, which have far less to do with public allusions to Jefferson (certainly not when the same and repeated allusions of directed ideological inspiration are given explicitly by name to Stalin and Mao) as to what precisely the political makeup and social result of the Northern government was--something much more closely resembling the contemporary results of Stalin and Mao than the liberal democratic naivete you intend to impose upon a longtime Comintern agent and his fellow autocrats in arms. Beyond that, it also begs the question of what precisely the intent of this "colonialism" is in the first place.

Certainly very few could or have credibly argued the Americans were interested in prestige, or that this was a reasonable expectation in attaining from participating in/engendering the conflict. Similarly, not many have asserted this sacrifice was for imperial spoils in the resources of Vietnam, as most rightly recognized in this situation as well as in Latin America during the coming decade that most of the involved countries could disappear from the map without even a slight dent or care for the American economy.

Rather the conflict is with a necessary ideological dimension that most do not ignore, though they qualify it differently; for Northern supporters "communism" was either not pejorative or simply existed beside their own generally positive assessments of North Vietnam, even self-proclaimed "anarchists". --TJive 03:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the very thoughtful response, and agree that the "ideological dimension" merits inclusion. But I disagree that just because the Cold War redefined what "colonialism" means in this context, that its therefore by default in the ideological domain. One could argue that the war was just as much in the realm of utopianist fantasy and egotistical insanity as in notions of ideology. But "ideology" naturally has resonance in politics and academia, and comes close to sounding like "principle" to make people feel all fuzzy inside and forget the actual facts and material.

Thus asserting something like 'JFK's cortisol pills had something to do with his decision' (to make a big deal out of a rather small country) is considered far more speculative, and less glamourous and honorable, even if such an odd thing actually was catalytic in its effects. But we'll never know, and we seem to be left with the former. In any case, I think Ive made my case well enough that "ideology" is a smelly enough turd in this context to require special enough treatment with the gloves. -St|eve 09:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, American foreign policy was centered around Cold War politics, which included resisting the expansion of communism. Why? Because Communist nations were linked to the Soviet Union, which was the main country the United States was concerned about. Therefore, ideology is directly linked to the international situation in the Cold War years. Now, Stevertigo here wants to support a conspiracy theory in which America is trying to take over the world. OK, that's fine, but the evidence beyond "theoretical" ideas about "Western control" and "colonialism" should at least be backed up and even then it is merely one (possibly) legitimate point of view.

The idea that South Vietnam was controlled by the U.S. or wasn't independent is somewhat odd. Before 1965 there were few American troops in South Vietnam and therefore it would have been impossible to impose their will on the South Vietnamese government even if they tried. Yes, the government was backed up by the U.S., but so was the North by the USSR. You can also argue that the only reason North Vietnam came into existance was by "foreign interference", aid by the Chinese and Russians during the French Indochina War. And saying the U.S. had "colonial motives" is also somewhat illogical if South Vietnam was not a "colony" in the first place. The North Vietnamese always said that South Vietnam was not "independent", but what they say should not be taken into an encyclopedia as factual. CJK 16:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

(I liked your edits, BTW and appreciate not being outright reverted, as I spent a little time on rewriting and condensing it.) All you say above is true, and yet its not the whole truth —so were feeling around for the important elements and how best to stack them without giving undue emphasis to one over the other. Theres a difference between a major foreign occupation and continued arms shipments across conflicts. The latter suggests loyalty, while the former suggests that force was needed to maintain the appearance of unity. "Colonialism" is not necessary to push here as a major point, as its not really well-defined in the Cold War context. In retrospect however, as many have sought to characterize the very nature of the Cold War relative to other conflicts, the U.S. Soviet conflict could best be described as competing colonialist systems. Certainly we make a value judgement between them, and certainly that necessary. The VW seemed to be an enormous and visible example of how U.S. "expansionism" (since its mainland expansionism ran out of room) was largely colonialist in character. I dont think that's really debatable —that the Vietnam War was a mass-scale reincarnation of the Spanish-American and Phillipine-American wars (without WR Hearst to promote it, and Mark Twain to properly characterize it, though they did have their descendants), which ATT was not unlike the Trail of Tears (only with ships instead of wagons). Regards, -St|eve 16:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it is "debatable" to compare the Philippines to Vietnam. The former was an outright annexation with American troops, the latter was the assistance of an independent government which had been established without foreign presence. The only thing I'm asking is proof South Vietnam was controlled by the United States. I don't understand why that is so difficult. You have insisted South Vietnam was the product of American occupation--yet there were no U.S. forces in South Vietnam when it was established. Once again you have advanced a sinister picture of the U.S. wanting to take over the world because it had "run out of space" at home, even though the proof is more theoretical than rational. If you now think its fine to castigate both the US and USSR as "colonialists" that's OK, but do not include nations that have independent leadership. There are hundreds of books and documents that have been written about the Vietnam War, and little evidence has been put forward to suggest the RVN leadership were American stooges. CJK 18:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have a good grasp, and your request for "proof" is valid. But ATT this has mostly been a discussion about tone for the intro, and your binary choice of either "under U.S. control" or "independent" leaves no ground inbetween. Granted, its a highly controversial issue, and one rooted in an understanding of the dispute between Europeanized and Asianized ethnic groups. But its a good idea to have an understanding of how any general disputes between a disenfranchised majority and a dominant minority are formed and often escalate into conflict. Aristocrats versus proletariat, plantation owners versus slaves, or fatcat CEOs versus underpaid workers, —these are common internal debates which often have roots in ethnicity and class. OToH, you have a majority-backed cause, and OTOH, you have a minority backed cause. Without U.S. intervention, the minority would have simply had to submit to the majority. True, its civil war, but its also a democratic issue of people sorting things out for themselves. You can argue that in such a context, the "defense" of the minority was a "humanitarian" thing to do, as would have been the basis for intervention against majority-on-minority genocide in Rwanda, for example, or in East Timor. But that doesnt seem to be the case in Vietnam however, and instead the decision to "support" the minority (in the face of democratic consensus) was empowered (and as we can infer, motivated) far more by foreign interest than by the local interest, and far more by strategic interest than humanitarian interest. There are no real degrees there. Foreign agenda, colonial agenda, colonialism —whatever. -St|eve 18:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You mean like the "minority" who ruled North Vietnam as well? They are just as "minority" as the South considering they were too afraid to hold their own free elections. Again, we would have to apply "minority" to all un-elected governments who the people (obviously) dislike. CJK 19:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Im talking about that likely 80% of the democratic vote "minority" government in the North. -St|eve 20:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... more misquotings of Eisenhower, who was referring to Ho vs. Bao Dai. You already discussed this with TJive, let's not discuss it again. I find it interesting that this "majority government" would go on to have bogus elections in their own country if they were so confident that "80% would approve". CJK 21:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

"Misquotings" - Bao Dai was a minor factor in that reference, while Ho (the focus) would still be alive until 1969. Would George Washington have been expected to lose a fair election against George III? Of course not, hence the notion of "free elections" was not on the agenda of those in the South with the suits and the limos. What North election are you talking about? I'm only somewhat familiar with the dubious 1971 South election and the coups before that. Even Thieu, IIRC, got only 38% percent of the vote.

Its extremely odd that given a choice between a deposed monarch, and an leader of the independence movement (who happens to wear olive greens), that people such as yourself would find it surprising that a democratic election would favor the latter. Ultimately your claim (and others') that the 80% figure of Eisenhower confidantes (not the only figure or estimate, but reasonably telling if not authoritative) seems to be based somehow in either 'it has nothing to do with Ho himself in any other context' or because (conveniently) 'there never was an actual election.' Why was there never an election? Why didnt the U.S. and South want one? Why was the U.S.-led ground war fought almost entirely in the South against Southern locals, and not fought in the North, with the aid of Northerners who must have been eager to free their country from "communism"? Were Southern "insurgents" all dupes of "communist propaganda"? Please enlighten us. -St|eve 01:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Comparisons etc.

You have already been admonished to refrain from polemical arguments on the rightness and wrongness of actual policy here; some extent for the purposes of establishing material is reasonable but it appears to be your primary purpose. It has already been explained to you that not only does the quote refer to a specific period of time in reference to the corrupt monarch but that the political situation in both the north and south made it so that the outcome of any genuinely free national election was uncertain and neither side actually wished for it; the feeling in the south was that the north's local commissions (as called for by the insistence of communist delegates to the Geneva Accords) would simply rig the votes and that the body charged with oversight would be tepid with the ability of communist Poland and then quite communist-sympathetic India to veto objections. So the north had their "9x.xx%" mandate "elections" while Diem overthrew Dai with a more genuine but still farcically high number. One quote and the public "Uncle Ho" propaganda of a Stalinist regime does not an eternal mandate make. --TJive 05:26, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Once again you resort to the ad hominen of the accusation of polemical arguments, as well as using the unqulified term of "Stalinist." CJK responded with repetitions of some very one-sided notions —some of which you would no doubt disagree with if you were not trying to make this an issue of sides. As CJK was rather forceful in expressing those views, and further declaring that his views should be regarded as neutral, I simply put his claims in some context, with some explanations, and some questions (the answers I may have some general idea about).

I debated not responding, as this chat is getting somewhat old, but clearly its not simply argumentative to challenge assumptions and claims which are demonstrably false on their surface. As you concede, the more general interpretation of the Eisenhower quote is not mine alone. And even if we limited its interpretation to your particular contexts, it still exposes a contradiction to the view that the U.S. cause was egalitarian. Sadly, thats the way the war is cast. Even when the details of realpolitik are treated like the gospels, these glaring contradictions between the policy and the rhetoric are interesting to people, and therefore necessary to explain in more than simple deference to common wisdom (local only to the U.S.) regarding the nature of the Cold War. -St|eve 07:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

That's not ad hominem. I am not simply addressing you as a means to argue; I'm saying the argument itself is not conducive or particularly appropriate. --TJive 07:59, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

And your comparisons to George Washington are facile because Washington stood for two perfectly free elections, refused power that might otherwise have been bestowed upon him, and was not in the business of killing off and jailing all opponents and dissidents. --TJive 05:29, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly we might find some Canadians who would disagree with your Saintly view of the honored First President.-St|eve 07:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

My view is not "saintly" and they are free to; comparing Ho Chi Minh to Washington, however, effects little but a slur on the latter. --TJive 07:59, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I agree completely that "Washington stood for two perfectly free elections, refused power that might otherwise have been bestowed upon him, and was not in the business of killing off and jailing all opponents and dissidents." However it would appear from the record that methods mentioned, while unsuitable to General Washington, were not unsuitable for certain agencies grown in the habit of 'abusing their trusted powers' in the Southeast Asia region. I am fully in agreement with your view on Washington. I'll take your claim that a comparison is a "slur" to indicate your particular pov, and not as something meaningful. -St|eve 19:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo, the Eisenhower quote is obviously in reference to Ho vs. Bao Dai and not Ho vs. Diem. I don't see any other way to interpret it. And dismissing the arguement as a "contradiction" that is overlooked by us "ignorant Americans" is also wrong. We have well established that South Vietnam was not a democracy or North Vietnam for that matter. Therefore, even if you were right in you misquotes it still doesn't change the fact that the North did not hold free elections and therefore is a "minority government" un-elected by the people. If you somehow think Ho would suddenly get all democratic if the U.S. and South Vietnamese approved free elections, that is your problem and not others. There were (well founded) concerns that the North would not conduct elections fairly in the first place, therefore even if everyone in the South voted against Ho they would still lose because the North had a greater population.

By the way, the 38% vote that occured in the "dubious" South Vietnamese elections was in 1967. In 1971, the government approval was 70%+ although I doubt that minor detail would trouble you much. If I had to I could pull out a list of quotes that insist the South would have won "free elections" in the early 1970s, that doesn't make it any more true that the South was not a dictatorship. As for your comparison between Ho and George Washington it is so detatched from reality I will not even bother to respond. CJK 14:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Does Stevertigo know that Diem was a democratic nationalist?--HistoricalPisces 17:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

That's one way of putting it, and may have even been on his letterhead. But its not the view of most, however, including others involved in this discussion. -St|eve 19:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Proper-ganda

Uncle Ed wrote:

"North Vietnam's successful propaganda compaign convinced Americans that they were morally wrong to support the South or to fight against the North (or the insurgents)."

Certainly a propaganda campaign conducted by a foreign government of a relatively small country, in broken English, was far more influential in "convinc[ing] Americans" about issues of "moral wrongness," than anything like My Lai, etc. etc. Certainly it was not the facts or the immorality that eventually and slowly brought the "moral majority" to its moral objection —it must have been the "[k]ommunist propaganda." -St|eve 01:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Steve, that's not my point. I'm only asking that we report what the North and its allies said to justify their position regarding the war: how they characterized the motives and conduct of their opponents, as well as their own war aims. Plus the same for the South side. Let's not get bogged down in an argument between us contributors about which side was really right. Or else I'll have to zap you with my patented s.m.o.o.t.h. vibe :-) Uncle Ed 03:26, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

In fact this isn't at all the place to be engaging in arguments over the rightness of the war, which I am not sure is truly understood by all involved. Incidentally, I recall "moral majority" as being a term associated with evangelicals in a period (and context) completely unrelated to the war and that if we are referring to a "silent majority" of those who supported Vietnamese policies this did in fact exist until the effects of Watergate brought in "Nixon's Democrats" who promptly revoked any meaningful assurances and aid to the non-communist governments still embattled. By this time, for all intents and purposes of the general American public, the war was practically over. Meanwhile the peoples of the involved countries had no such luxury of self-delusion. --TJive 03:53, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Ed, but thats the way it read. In this context, I was compelled to respond. (Smoothvibe™ is not for offensive purposes). "Moral majority"(™) true, was a neologism of a particular era. But it nevertheless embodies a concept of religious and moral nationhood which did exist at that time (and had something to do with the "founding of our country" according to certain people). Regardless of the morality of the "moral majority," the immorality of warfare acts abroad was curiously ignored by many (but not all) clergy. (Quakers seem to have been rather consistent, morally speaking). "Nixon Democrats, who promptly revoked any meaningful assurances and aid to the non-communist governments still embattled" - You make it sound like getting out of an unwinnable war was a crime. -St|eve 04:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I was mistaken then; its purpose was merely to deride a particular view. --TJive 04:30, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Well, "deride" doesnt do the critique justice, keeping in mind that I'm dealing with four different people pushing similar "views". I prefer the term "correction," and "correcting" the common-but-incorrect and flimsy views of those in the discussion is a good thing to do. It's not a wasted effort, because making them (you) think about the particular issues a bit more will soon improve their (your) conceptual shape of the subject, and even if I dont touch the article for a while, those improvements (in you) will soon enough show up in the article. All that's required is that the parties be receptive, and that each of us formulate our views succinctly and rationally.

I'll admit to being frustrated with some of the other editors, and their diligent lack of diligence in crafting responses, etc., and my sarcasm seems to be a natural response. Why argue with what works --sarcasm can quickly put into perspective how ridiculous a "particular view" can be. As long as they (you) havent invested a lifetime into such views, separating themselves (you) from ridiculousness is not difficult. Those otherwise invested all bear the marks of uncivil unreceptiveness. Sinreg, -St|eve 08:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

...we done yet J. Parker Stone 10:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Chinese aid

Responding to User:Le Anh-Huy--

Chinese aid to Vietnam lasted well through 1973. See any good source, but e.g. [3]:

Drawing on Railway Administration archives, Li Danhui, of the Contemporary China Institute, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, suggested any such delays were bureaucratic rather than political in nature. She also pointed out that, although China pressured Vietnam to make a peace settlement in the 1969-1973 period, Chinese aid to Vietnam simultaneously increased, in the expectation that this would facilitate a later North Vietnamese takeover of the south.

China DID, by the end of the war, withdraw its soldiers from North Vietnam. If you want to add something about Chinese troops in North Vietnam feel free. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:38, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

"portrayed" vs "viewed"

Certainly the US portrayed the war as being for individual freedom and against communism, but perhaps "viewed" is also supportable, because they actually believed that was their goal. If is belied of course, by their use of slave/conscripts to fight the war. If they were fighting for individual freedom, they were obviously fighting the wrong government. Thank goodness our latest Iraqi war is are most moral, and sacrificially noble to date. --Silverback 13:05, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Well, youre right, though I cant think of a meaningful difference between claimed and portrayed except that portrayed seems a bit more theatrical. Slave/conscripts: "All are free to serve." ;) -St|eve 16:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The distinction is not between claimed and portrayed, but between viewed and portrayed. Portrayed is more about their explanation or spin, "viewed" implies knowledge of what they really beleived about the situation. Communists, especially are famous for their double speak and their cooptation of words like democracy and freedom. The claim "freedom" even when people are willing to risk being shot trying to escape. Presumably, someone in their midst with the ability to rise to leadership, knows exactly what they are doing when they make up this crap.--Silverback 07:11, August 10, 2005 (UTC)