Jump to content

Talk:First Indochina War/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Soviet war in Afghanistan

funny yet not surprising to point out the USA are mentioned in the combattant list in the Soviet war in Afghanistan with a custom "supported by". supported by? what did the US and chinese in indochina if not supporting their respective allies?! they even came into field action at dien bien phu. i still suggest to add the us and chinese as supporters, to keep not doing so per censorship (actually by shame) is ridiculous. strangely the us were on the "victor" side in afghanistan, surprised er? Paris By Night 17:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well not really suprising, Soviet Withdrawal was the aim of the US when they gave weapons to the guerillas. It depends on your definition of "being involved". The Mozambican War of Independence for example doesn't list the Soviet Union as a combatant because troops did not officially take part (although there may have been advisors, and there were certainly weapons) however China was very muc involved in the First Indochina War in terms of supplying weapons and/or training staff, and the USA did the same to the French, but on a lesser scale. The Americans were reluctant to get involved in comparison to their early 1960s involvement, even being reluctant to provide aircrews for Dien Bien Phu at many stages ofthe siege, and advisors were always assessing the reliability of the French position there. However, I have never read anything that said they took part in fighting in IndoChina officially, rather than advisors being caught in firefights when they aren't supposed to. Why not open it to a vote below? SGGH speak! 17:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Operation Camargue‎

I have written the above article about one of the largest operations of the conflict to drive Reg. 95 out of RC1. I am hoping to FAC it sometime soon, and would appreciate comments at its peer review and/or helpful edits to the article! Thanks SGGH speak! 17:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed uncited statement until cite is found

I have removed the following from the "war crimes" section:

Viet Minh artillery assaults on sanitory aerial convoys and medical centers at Dien Bien Phu.

I'm not quite sure what a sanitory aerial convoy is... if it is a reference to planes that, while landing at Dien Bien Phu with red crosses marked on them, were shelled by the surrounding Viet-Minh artillery, then I don't think we can have that uncited in a war crimes section unless:

  • It is cited to a acceptable, reliable source that specifically speaks of it as a war crime, or refers to the popular belief that it was a war crime.
  • Mention is made of the delivery of arms and soliders that were, on occasions, either made in these red cross aircraft or at least believed to be by the Viet-Minh (ref: Martin Windrow, The Last Valley, or any other reliable source)

If the statement refers to the attack on the medical sections of convoys (and notable the destruction of GM 100 or GM 42, where, according to Bernard Fall, the doctor was taken to a camp along with the wounded but not allowed to operate on them, which meant they died) then this needs to be explained more fully, and also needs to be cited. I believe care is to be taken to ensure that these uncited events that are under a section called "war crimes" are there because RSs have said they were so, rather than a passionate-about-the-topic wiki-user saying they were so. SGGH speak! 17:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Stalin's organs

Someone put this "Stalin's organs were successfully used against the outpost. Together with China, the Soviet Union sent 2,000 military advisors to train the Viet Minh guerrilla and turn it into a fully organized army". Here, "Stalin's organs" refers to Katuysha rockets and linked to the page about the rocket. I understand that a lot of people don't like Stalin but this kind of wording is just unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.58.85 (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a commonly used nickname, so I don't think there is any POV to it, however I agree that they proper term ought to be used for the sake of professionalism. SGGH speak! 11:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Operation Camargue

The above contains my old transplated section on the background of the First Indochina War, which any user may feel free to borrow from if they find anything that might go well in the background section of this article, which needs a little bit of work. I'd hate to walk all over someone else's efforts, so I'll leave it for others to pick at. In fact, here it is below:

French Indochina had been absorbed into the French Empire in stages from the mid to late 18th century. Vietnamese anti-colonial resistance surfaced shortly after, and grew notably in 1905 under the leadership of Phan Boi Chau. Chau was deported several times, and placed under house arrest until his death in 1940, at which time Japan launched the invasion of French Indochina. Vichy French forces defended the colony in the French-Thai War from late 1940 until May 1941, which ended with territorial concessions to Thailand.[1] Resistance to the Japanese occupation increased with growing popularity of the Viet Minh, who had provided food during the famine of 1945. At this time, Japan launched the Second French Indochina Campaign, ousted the Vichy government, and installed Bảo Đại as the leader of the Empire of Vietnam. The empire only survived until the August Revolution of August 16 1945 when the Viet Minh rose against Bảo Đại, abandoned by the Japanese since surrendering Vietnam, and ousted him in favor of a government centered in Hanoi, which later declared independence. After a brief interlude where a joint French-British task force was stationed in Saigon, the French General Philippe Leclerc de Hauteclocque arrived in Vietnam to reassert French governance over the Viet Minh.[1]

The First Indochina War had raged, as guerrilla warfare, since December 19, 1946. From 1949, it evolved into conventional warfare, due largely to the victory of the communists in the Chinese Civil War.[2] The Viet Minh soon established close ties with the PRC, who provided much needed matériel and strategical planning support.[2] Benefitting from the difficult terrain, and the flow of arms across the nearby border with the People's Republic of China ("PRC"),[3] the Viet Minh succeeded in turning a "clandestine guerrilla movement into a powerful conventional army" able, for the first time, to confront a western army.[4] Following a PRC-developed dual strategy, the Viet Minh operated guerrilla cells in the French-controlled areas and fielded conventional divisional-sized units in the "liberated zones" to the north.[5][6] Throughout, the Viet Minh were assisted by PRC military advisers, seconded at battalion, regiment and divisional level.[7]

Against this, a French strategy of dispersing "forces in thousands of posts and garrisons scattered on all fronts to cope with [Viet Minh] guerrilla activity", particularly along the Vietnamese-Chinese border, proved ineffective.[8] The French Expeditionary Corps was composed not only of French soldiers, but also of African forces (particularly from Morocco) and many pro-French Vietnamese, who freed up regular French forces from jungle garrison duty.[9] Hand-in-hand with their troop build-up, the French sought aid from the United States to offset the increasingly crippling costs of the war. In March 1950, US president, Harry S. Truman, released US$15 million in aid.[10] From then on, US aid (provided under the Mutual Defense Assistance Act) rapidly increased, amounting to US$2.7 billion by the conclusion of hostilities in 1954.[10] Of this, about half (US$1.3 billion) was allocated to military equipment, sent in twice-weekly shipments to Saigon, with US$773 million expended in the four fiscal years of 1950–1953.[10] Additionally, a further US$1.29 billion was provided by the US Direct Forces Support Program, and spent on purchasing arms and equipment within France for shipment to Indochina.[10] By June 1953, "the United States had sent: 1,224 tanks and combat vehicles; 120,792 rifles and machineguns; more than 200 million rifle and machinegun cartridges; more than five million artillery projectiles; 302 boats and 304 aircraft".[10]

Since 1951, British and American advisory units in Saigon had recommended a move away from the dispersed forces strategy but the French high command was reluctant to change.[11] In an escalation of hostilities during 1952, Viet Minh attacks that had originally remained around the Red River Delta moved into the Thai Highlands.[12] It was only in December 1952, after victory at the battle of Na San, that the French high command become convinced that a new strategy – of strong ground bases, a versatile French Air Force and a model based on the British Burma campaign – would defeat the Viet Minh insurgents. The Viet Minh, however, remained unbeatable in the highland regions of Vietnam,[13] and the French "could not offset the fundamental disadvantages of a road bound army facing a hill and forest army in a country, which had few roads but a great many hills and forests".[14] In May 1953, with full US support, General Henri Navarre arrived to take command of the French forces, replacing General Raoul Salan.[15] Navarre spoke of a new offensive spirit in Indochina, based on very strong, fast-moving mobile forces,[8] and the media quickly took Operation Camargue to be a "practical realization" of that.[16] At about the same time, reinforcements from "France, West Germany, North Africa and Korea were rushed to the Indochina front".[8]

Hope someone could use. SGGH ping! 17:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Paxton (2001: 82-91).
  2. ^ a b Chen Jian (1993: 85–87).
  3. ^ Fall (1994: 17).
  4. ^ Windrow (2004: 41–42).
  5. ^ Windrow (2004: 93).
  6. ^ Windrow (2004: 153-159).
  7. ^ Chen Jian (1993: 91).
  8. ^ a b c Giap (1971: 119).
  9. ^ Windrow (2004: 166-168).
  10. ^ a b c d e Cogan (2000: 61–62).
  11. ^ Windrow (2004: 178).
  12. ^ Windrow (2004: 56).
  13. ^ Windrow (2004: 121).
  14. ^ Windrow (2004: 129).
  15. ^ Chen Jian (1993: 98–99).
  16. ^ Cite error: The named reference times1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Dirty War

Could somebody source this please? I have heard it refered to in French as 'sale guerre', but that actually means bloody war (in the BE expletative sense), or stupid/annoying war, not dirty. For Dirty War, it would have to be Guerre Sale. Hrcolyer (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

sounds more like a reference to the Algerian one SGGH speak! 12:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The "dirty war" expression was indeed used by opponents to the war (mainly French communists and assorted sympathizers, although the term was originally used in a Le Monde editorial). It was actually "la sale guerre", as adjectives can be sometimes put in that order in French, depending on the context (the expression "guerre sale" exists in French, but here it was "sale guerre"; both expressions can be used to mean either "ugly/bloody/annoying war", or "dirty war"). The expression was used for both conflicts. Take note, however, that the Indochina war never raised the same level of opposition in France as the Algerian war did, as there were far fewer French civilians involved. JJ Georges (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

SKZ

The article mentioned a Chinese artillery battalion sent to Vietnam which operated SKZ recoilless rifles. It also said China supported the Viet Minh with SKZs and ammo. This is highly improbable since SKZ was invented and produced by the Viet Minh themselves. In fact it was invented by Dr. Tran Dai Nghia, a Vietnamese scientist. The name of the weapon itself came from "Sung Khong Zat" which is the exact Vietnamese phrase for "recoilless rifle". I followed the citation mark and found another piece of crap: it says the information comes from "Chinese General Hoang Minh Thao and Colonel Hoang Minh Phuong quoted by Pierre Journoud". I laughed, because Hoang Minh Thao and Hoang Minh Phuong were both Viet Minh officers. Now if no one objects to this I will delete all references of China supporting SKZ to the Viet Minh.Hawkie (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

the chinese operated stalin organs (aka katyusha) at dien bien phu in the last days of the siege (may 1954), will you claim the viet minh invented the katyusha as well ? maybe the viet minh also have invented the hundreds soviet-built GAZ trucks which were used by them to bring the heavy artillery uphill? communist propaganda said they used bicycles, bicycles?! they were pretty heavy four-wheel motorized bicycles then. Cliché Online (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

false list about french union

i've corrected the infobox's false combatant list: INDEPENDENT cambodia and laos fight with france and state of vietnam against communists from 1953 to 1954, and state of vietnam (said independent associated state with the french union) is created in 1949. but cambodia and laos are not colonies, protectorates or else, they are independent countries since 1953. from 1953 its no more colonization war but cold war (hence us support and chinese). Cliché Online (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

secret us-french war (1954-1956)

the SDECE and CIA fought a secret war between the geneva cease fire in 1954 and the actual departure of the french expeditionary corps in 1956. GCMA commandos are involved as well as corsican mafia and opium. the saigon battle of 1955 is a result of this secret war. Cliché Online (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

GCMA did probably scrap it out in the jungle until they were slaughtered, following the departure of the French forces. In fact it is almost certain seeing as radio transmissions were picked up from them. However, as for CIA theories, you might want to find a source. SGGH ping! 13:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Operations

I've continued my work on writing articles for the operations and battles of the conflict. Here's a quick update.

There is a transplanted background section on the talk page of Camargue which may be useful when working on the background section of this article, feel free to use anything that is useful. SGGH ping! 14:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Operation D (aka Operation Condor these intelligence service guys are tricky). Cliché Online (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Only four redlinks left. SGGH ping! 13:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Casualties and losses --

Under Casualties and losses, the article cites “French Union: 75,581 dead.” As I have written in my recent book, Crucible Vietnam: “During the more than seven years that the French had been fighting in Vietnam, French Union Forces (made up of Frenchmen, French Foreign Legionnaires, and French Colonial troops from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Senegal, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) suffered more than 74,000 deaths, of which 20,685 were Frenchmen.” Source: A. T. Lawrence, author of Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173, p. 16. [Footnoted source: Micheal Clodfelter, Vietnam in Military Statistics: A History of the Indochina Wars, 1772 – 1991. (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 1995), p. 33.]. I have seen reputable sources citing figures of French Union Forces totaling between 74,000 and 76,000, so it appears there may be some dispute, however Micheal Clodfelter is the only source I have found who has cited the number of Frenchmen who died (20,685), which does not include Foreign Legion deaths. Consequently Frenchmen comprised more than 25% of total French Union Forces deaths. I feel the article would be more informative if Wikipedia, in citing French Union deaths, additionally note that this includes 20,685 Frenchmen, in order that readers will have a broader understanding of deaths incurred among French Union Forces. A. T. Lawrence72.197.84.216 (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV removed

I've removed the NPOV template, please use {{POV-statement}} for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - RoyBoy 01:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Confusion with numbers

In the information box, it seems that the number of casualties for both sides is greater than the number of combatants. How is this possible (with civilian deaths mentioned separately), or is this because the number of combatants given that of the number at some given time? Will someone please explain or correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whipster (talk • contribs) 00:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 August 2012

The result of the Indochina War article is completely wrong. The Indochina War was obviously a Vietminh victory and a defeat for the French. There a couple reasons for this the French was crushed and annihilated at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu by the Vietminh which forced them to surrender and withdraw from Indochina. The second reason is that the French were determine to reclaim its old colony but miserably failed. The last reason that proves the Indochina War article result should be a Vietminh victory is that every history textbook, website, video and even history itself clearly states that the Indochina War ended in Vietminh victory or French defeat. I promise you if you check any other website or Wikipedia article relating to Indochina War it will say Indochina war ended in French defeat. I really would appreciate it if you can change the result of this article to a Vietminh victory or Vietminh defeat French. Thank you very much! Vietnamisthebest (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 August 2012

The result of the Indochina War article is completely wrong. The Indochina War was obviously a Vietminh victory and a defeat for the French. There a couple reasons for this the French was crushed and annihilated at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu by the Vietminh which forced them to surrender and withdraw from Indochina. The second reason is that the French were determine to reclaim its old colony but miserably failed. The last reason that proves the Indochina War article result should be a Vietminh victory is that every history textbook, website, video and even history itself clearly states that the Indochina War ended in Vietminh victory or French defeat. I promise you if you check any other website or Wikipedia article relating to Indochina War it will say Indochina war ended in French defeat. I really would appreciate it if you can change the result of this article to a Vietminh victory or Vietminh defeat French. Thank you very much! Vietnamisthebest (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Dien Bien Phu was a clear and decisive Viet Minh battlefield victory, but it wasn't the end of the war and it didn't lead to communist rule over all of Indochina, only over North Vietnam Mztourist (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 August 2012

I totally agree with Vietnamisthebest the Indochina War article result should be a Vietminh victory because the Vietnamese clearly drove the French out of Indochina and Laos and Cambodia were both Independent from the French after the war! The war ended when the French got defeated in 1954 everybody knew this. I think someone should change the result back to what it was before which is Vietminh victory. Christiano riley (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 October 2012

Obviously the result is Vietminh victory, Vietminh may just controlled North Vietnam only but they have achieved significant victonify the victories include defeat France out of Vietnam and an election would be held to unify the country in the later years Trần Ái Quốc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sounds like POV pushing to me. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Strenght and Casualties?

Total Forces for the Northvietnamese Side is 450.000 but casualties are up to 500.000? In that Case the strenght had to be far over 500.000 since there is no war/battle in which every soldier dies.

Greetings and sorry for bad english -- Kilon22 (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  • The VietMinh were able to keep recruiting throughout the war, so their peak strength may have been 450,000 but over the course of the war they could have suffered more casualties than thatMztourist (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Titles listed in the first sentence

I arrived here because of a redirect called French War. The titles for the war listed at the start of the article should be those names used for the war in reliable English language sources. I can not see names such as the "Anti-French War" being amongst them as nearly ever continental European war the English have fought has been an Anti-French War. To quote Robert Graves in Good-Bye to All That written shortly after World War I "Some undergraduates even insisted that we had been fighting on the wrong side: our natural enemies were the French".[1] So please clean up the lead and list only those names used in reliable English language sources, and footnote any common names translated or transliterated from foreign languages making sure that the language of origin is made clear. -- PBS (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Vietminh victory

Isn't it extremely dubious to say there was a Vietminh victory since 3 of the components of Indochina (Laos, Cambodia and South Vietnam) were controlled by French Allies and fighting alongside them. Obviously it wasn't a French victory since they left but the Vietminh only controlled North Vietnam. Surely the result must be changed. Stumink (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The situation was too complex to say a single side achieved their aims to the point of victory. Anotherclown (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Also agree, victory is too simplistic and inaccurate. Various factions in various countries improved their position, notably the VietMinh in North Vietnam, but to summarise it as a VietMinh victory is misleading and imprecise. I have reverted the result in the infobox. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I also agree, summarising as "VietMinh victory" is too simplistic. I support the infobox as it stands with this diff [2]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course this was a Viet Minh victory. Stating anything else does not just contradict all serious history writers, but also the facts on the ground. The Viet Minh didn't just control the north; They controlled vast areas all across Vietnam, and it's negotiators were deeply disappointed by the Geneva Conference because it meant mutual withdrawals. Our job is to make history avilable, not judge it. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Waffen SS involvement

I have heard of Waffen-SS troops fighting in the French Foreign Leion against the Communists. Is there any validity to this? And if so, could something be added? 76.250.191.28 (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There were indeed former German soldiers fighting in the foreign legion. It is often (or was often) thought that Dien Bien Phu was a German battle as the majority of troops were German foreign legion (though this is not in fact the case). I suspect there were former SS troopers among them, though I suspect such information would belong in the article on the Foreign Legion rather than on this article in order to avoid adding undue weight to the fact that SS troops fought alongside the French so soon after WWII. SGGH ping! 14:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
this is either communist propaganda to discredit the french effort or a remote us perspective, first there were other units than foreign legion at dien bien phu (a simple check at the french union order of battle will prove this: airforce, naval aviation), airborne, cavalry, artillery, services) and there was the vietnamese national army too (TDND5 aka 5e BPVN/bawaouan airborne and 301st infantry battalion). also don't forget there were vichy french who fought as SS on the russian front, they would likely join the legion after wwii under a fake identity (that's the rule) to evade court. there were also other europeans in the legion like poles. besides the legion there were troops from senegal, algeria, morroco and indochina locals (including 2 Thai battalions) and laotian allies. plus the metropolitan french ("colonials" included )! seeing dbp as a ss-vietminh battle is pure fantasy. Cliché Online (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
not the waffen-ss but former members of waffen-ss/regular-ss/sa/wehrmacht/... as members of the french foreign legion46.5.184.215 (talk) 10:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The German article claims 35000 Germans, not just ex SS but also ex Wehrmacht, to have fought in Vietnam. If this is credible it should at least be mentioned in the article since this number, while not being a majority of the troops, is still pretty massive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.53.210.99 (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Quote from p. 450 of Hell in Very Small Place:
Lastly there is the myth of Dien Bien Phu as a "German Battle," in which the Germans were said to have "indeed made up nearly half the French forces [Fall cites this quote as coming from Edgar O'Ballance's book The Indo-China War 1945-1954, Faber & Faber (1964) on p 237]."The statistical appendix will lay this to rest for good. On March 12, 1954 - the day before the battle began in earnest - there were a total of 2,969 Foreign Legionnaires in the fortress, out of a garrison of 10,814. Of the almost 4,300 parachuted reinforcements, a total of 962 belonged to the Foreign Legion. Even if one wrongly assumes (there were important Spanish and Eastern European elements among the Legionnaires at Dien Bien Phu) that 50 percent of the Legionnaires were German, then only 1900 men out of more than 15,000 who participated in the battle could have been of German origin. But old myths, particularly when reinforced by prejudice, die hard.
Quote from p. 453:
Ten years later, Col. Bigeard still believed that with the same number of troops that were available at Dien Bien Phu, but of first-class quality, the French could have survived the battle. "If you had given me 10,000 SS troopers," said Bigeard to this writer ten years after the battle, "we'd have held out." Mztourist (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Result summary

Currently there appears to be some disagreement over the result summary in the infobox. As such, can those that want to insert "Democratic Republic of Vietnam victory" in the infobox please provide some sources for this? If you can list some WP:RS sources that mention this, then it would make it easier to establish a consensus to keep that information. Without sources, the information seems controversial, which is why it has been removed a number of times. I, for one, would be more than happy to keep the information if it could be backed up with reliable sources and I'm sure that that goes for the others that have been reverting this addition. However, unless sources are provided, the result should contain less potentially controversial wording. Please take this opportunity to discuss your sources and concerns. Regards,AustralianRupert (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Some sources I found:

History is a weapon by Howard Zinn, "In 1954, the French, having been unable to win Vietnamese popular support, which was overwhelmingly behind Ho Chi Minh and the revolutionary movement, had to withdraw" http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnimvivi18.html

Vietnam and the Indochina Conflict by John Wood, page 64 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=hdZLAcJjbx8C&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=First+Indochina+War&source=bl&ots=TNkTbnbNyG&sig=QbwRCAgu3S-Dl-7l2DDtK0AaLXk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wPh7UP-dNoy0iQe2xICQCQ&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=V

Vietnam 1946: How the War Began by Stein Tønnesson "In the end, however, it was the communists who triumphed" page 228, http://books.google.com.au/books?id=1I4HOcmE4XQC&pg=PP7&lpg=PP1&ots=YRswylAfhK&dq=First+Indochina+War#v=onepage&q&f=false

Victory in Vietnam: The Official History of the People's Army of Vietnam by William Duiker http://www.amazon.com/Victory-Vietnam-Official-History-Peoples/dp/0700611754

There are evidence in history books in Australian librabries, I'll try to find some more later — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trần Ái Quốc (talk • contribs) 01:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Trần Ái Quốc asserts that the entire Indochina War was a Viet Minh victory which is plainly incorrect. Under the Geneva Conference the Viet Minh took control of north Vietnam, a French and later American backed government took control in south Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia acheived nominal independence. If this had been a Viet Minh victory as asserted there would have been no Vietnam War as the Viet Minh/Communists would have been in power in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos since 1954 Mztourist (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Mztourist you are worng at 2 points. First Vietminh just aimed to defeat France and gain independence for Vietnam, not for Cambodia and Laos. Independence of Laos and Cambodia was under responsibility of Pathet Lao and Khmer Issara. Second Geneva accord confirmed a national election to be held in 1956 to unify Vietnam and this was what Vietminh wanted because they could eventually gain control of the whole Vietnam, however USA and Republic of Vietnam violated the accord and this was another issue. Besides you mentioned the occur of Vietnam War was an evidence of Vietminh's failure, which is totally wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trần Ái Quốc (talk • contribs) 08:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The article is called First Indochina War and so the outcome in Cambodia and Laos is relevant. While Dien Bien Phu was a clear Viet Minh victory, that didn't mark the end of the war. The war was settled at the Geneva Conference (rather than through a clear WWII style victory) which led to French withdrawal from North Vietnam and the partition into North and South, if this had been a Viet Minh victory there would have been no partition, rather the Viet Minh would have been given control of all of Vietnam. Its true that the US and RVN ignored the obligation to hold an election in 1956, but also irrelevant. If there had been a Viet Minh Victory in 1954 as claimed there would have been no election in 1956, no Diem and no Vietnam War. Mztourist (talk) 05:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Uh, RVN and the US were never signatories to Geneva, only observers, so they were never obligated to follow the terms of Geneva...For example, can someone be obligated to follow the terms of something from someone if they didn't agree to it or sign it? No. Nguyen1310 (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Ted Morgan's Valley of Death ISBN 978-1-4000-6664-3 has an extensive analysis of the negotiations at Geneva, it also contains the following quote from a CIA report at p 624 "The events of 1953 and 1954 had an influence on the attitude of Ho Chi Minh and his principal lieutenants... they realized that they had been induced by Moscow and Peking to stop half-way to a total victory." I have also looked through Fall's Hell in a Very Small Place and Street Without Joy and Windrow's The Last Valley and can't find any statement acknowledging the Indochina War as a Viet Minh victory, all the statements are far more nuanced. Mztourist (talk) 11:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Mztourist. your argument focused too much on Geneva accords while ignoring the larger extent of First Indochina War. The partition of Vietnam was just temporary, it allows the departure of French forces to occur more easily. It didn't aim to maintain 2 separate governments. If the Geneva accord didn't state anything about national election, then surely Vietminh would not accept that accord. Besides you requested me to find a clear statement that says Vietminh victory, then can you find in any sources I gave you that said "it was not the Vietminh victory"?? I don't know where you get all the information about Geneva accord from Trần Ái Quốc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Mztourist In addition you gave a quote from a CIA report which is obviously not neutral at all. CIA is the intelligence of USA so CIA report surely could not be used as a credited source. Here is the video about First Indochina War, by George C. Herring, professor of history at the University of Kentucky https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqhGgMBgtV4

please watch at 41:55 Trần Ái Quốc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

And the Official History of the People's Army of Vietnam is a neutral source? I don't think so. I have never heard of Stein Tonneson or John Wood as well regarded scholars of the Indochina War like the sources that I have cited, none of which say that this was an unequivocal Viet Minh victory. The fact is that the Indochina War didn't end in a clear victory, the French were exhausted and politically divided and so the Geneva Conference gave them an exit while maintaining pro-Western governments in South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Yet you still miss the point, the Viet Minh won a battle (Dien Bien Phu), but they didn't win the war, the war was decided at Geneva and the Viet Minh wanted all of Vietnam, but they were forced to settle at Geneva for North Vietnam and the promise of the elections in 1956Mztourist (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
G'day, thank you both for sharing your sources. In my opinion, this is the reason why the result summary in this article should be neutrally worded. There is too much disagreement about how the result should be characterised and as such, the infobox summary (due to its prominence at the top of the article) should be something everyone agrees with. As far as I can tell (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), no one disputes any of these points as being results of the conflict: "State of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia gain official independence; Geneva Conference occurs; Evacuation of the French from Indochina; Vietnam is partitioned between North (controlled by the Vietminh) and South (controlled by the State of Vietnam)". All of those seem like historical facts. The point about whether it was or it wasn't a Vietminh victory is a matter of interpretation, though, and is not a clear historical fact. Some scholars probably characterise it as a victory, and others probably don't. As such, Wikipedia should stick to the clear facts and let the reader decide if it was a "victory" or not. It would probably be fine, though, IMO, to include a paragraph in the article that discusses how the result has been characterised, so long as it is balanced, discusses both sides with a neutral point of view and doesn't engage in synthesis or original research. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I fully agree with AR's comments above. There is no compelling evidence to support summarising it as a "Viet Minh Victory" as the consequences of the conflict were far more complex than that. The current infobox sticks to the undisputed facts as referenced by reliable sources and is sufficient. This matter has been discussed ad nauseam and other than the unsupported drive by comments of anonymous IPs and single issue accounts the result has always been the same. Anotherclown (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with AustralianRupert and Anotherclown Mztourist (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
AustralianRupert, Anotherclown and Mztourist: I appreciate your time for this discussion and I respect your opinion. However I am sure that all Vietnamese, including me, will never agree with this result summary. Maybe you still don't want to see the wars with perspectives from the other side, but from Western perspective only. Anyway, articles from all other languages still maintain the true outcome of First Indochina War. I will not discuss this topic anymore. Thank you very much for your consideration Trần Ái Quốc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
There were Vietnamese on both sides. Indeed I went to a RUSI lecture the other day by a former South Vietnamese army officer who would probably disagree with most of the points you have raised above. Is his interpretation of these events, and those of the later conflict in the 1960s and 1970s, any less valid than yours (as someone who is also Vietnamese)? Anotherclown (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
It's true that there were some Vietnamese collaborate with French and American, the same as French who collaborate with German during World War II. That South Vietnamese officer obviously will defend his old regime and USA. My grandad was South Vietnamese but he did fight against American during Vietnam War. But most of Vietnamese people will not collaborate with foreign to invade their own country Trần Ái Quốc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Trần Ái Quốc you reveal your POV with words like "collaborate", "regime" and "invade". There were millions of Vietnamese who did not want Communist rule and accepted help from France, the US, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand and others to try to prevent it.Mztourist (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Mztourist: it's just the way I use English because I am not an english-born person. You said there were millions of people who were against communist!!!!! Please cite a credited source to prove your point. Besides this topic focused on First Indochina War, not Vietnam War so please to not disturb the topic. If you are really excited in discussion about Vietnam's topics, please go to other forums on the internet. You can keep your point of view and I will keep my point of view. I just want to inform you that I have been living in Vietnam for more than 15 years and in Australia for more than 4 years and I understand what Vietnamese people are thinking. Trần Ái Quốc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
See Operation Passage to Freedom up to 1m Vietnamese left the North before the Communists took over while very few Vietnamese moved North. You say that I confuse topics yet you are the one who raises collaboration and cited your grandfather in the Vietnam War. The fact that you are Vietnamese doesn't mean you are an expert on the topic or "understand what Vietnamese people are thinking" Mztourist (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I never knew there was a 'consensus' that overruled for cited & sourced material. Is this a new procedure for this type pf page?ChrisWet 19:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristiaandeWet (talk • contribs)
The consensus is that describing the outcome of the war as a Viet Minh victory was too simplistic - the Viet Minh had several significant victories in specific battles in 1954 such as Dien Bien Phu and Mang Yang Pass, but equating this with an overall Viet Minh military victory was incorrect as there were multiple outcomes. As I have noted earlier, if this had been a clear Viet Minh victory , there would have been no Vietnam War as the Viet Minh would already have gained control of all of Vietnam in 1954. Mztourist (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Hence why it was labeled as a military victory not decisive and political. As Fall and Windrow quite rightly put in the cited material I added. These are the best and most respected academic historians on this subject and I am inclined to trust these two men rather than other wikipeadians consensus. ChrisWet (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Christiaan, regardless of the provision of citations the standard procedure for content disputes has always been to establish consensus through discussion, so it is hardly a new procedure. As far as I can tell neither Fall or Windrow describe it in quite so uncertain terms (i.e. "Viet Minh victory"), so it still seems a judgement call to me as to how much weight is placed on them (even if they are undoubtably reliable sources) and therefore should be discussed. Currently the consensus above is to describe the results of the conflict (which are established facts) and leave the rest to the reader to decide for themselves. The arguments presented so far do not change my opinion that this is the most appropriate way of dealing with this issue, although if a consensus developed to the contrary then of course I would spt the change. Anotherclown (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Christiaan, Dien Bien Phu and Mang Yang Pass are correctly described as victories, but they were individual battles, the overall outcome of the war was determined politically, not militarily and so to descibe the entire war as a Viet Minh military victory is incorrect. Mztourist (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes even though quoted and cited by Fall and Windrow your opinion is highly regarded above those academic historians.Fall, Bernard, Street Without Joy, p. 17 and it was lost militarily as of 1953 Windrow pg 45 The more we read about the French Indo china war the more struck we must be by the perfect combination of factors which coincided to give Giap his eventual victory ChrisWet (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
It is not simply my opinion, it is the consensus. You are extrapolating a simplistic Viet Minh victory from 2 quotes Mztourist (talk) 10:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
This contradicts all serious historians. NO ONE with a serious reputation claims the First Indochinese War resulted in anything else than a French defeat and their subsequent retreat from the region, with their former colony gaining their independence. The partitioning of Vietnam was a result of negotiations at Geneva (proposed by Zhou Enlai), not the facts on the ground. Please don't ruin Wikipedia's reputation and stop being judges. Let the historians decide who won. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
It does not contradict "all serious historians" as you claim, the result was far more nuanced. The French remained influential in South Vietnam until the late 1950s and in Cambodia into the 1960s. If you bothered to read any of the previous dicussion you would realise that calling the result a "Viet Minh Victory" is a gross over-simplification - if the Viet Minh had won there would have been no Vietnam (American) WarMztourist (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Will you cut out those cheap speculations and let history speak for itself? Had the French won, there would have been no North Vietnam. The partitioning of the country had nothing to do with the realities on the ground, but the Geneva Accords (which was in fact far more unfavorable than the Viet Minh had expected). The normal interpretation is that the Viet Minh defeated the French, but didn't achieve all their political aims and thus had to fight another round. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
What cheap speculation? The Indochina War was settled in Geneva, not on the battlefield. The Viet Minh didn't capture Hanoi and Saigon like Berlin 1945! Yes the Viet Minh were pressured by the Soviets and Chinese to settle for less than they wanted at Geneva, those are the facts, but calling this a Viet Minh victory across all of Indochina is a gross overstatement. Mztourist (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I did put this into perspective and even quoted reliable sources on a Viet Minh military victory and that there is no doubt. Since they are sources and cited as such they overrule any consensus. Therefore I shall restore this in the next few days once it is made clear here on discussion page. ChrisWet (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
You gave two quotes, Fall's is ambiguous - saying the war was lost militarily as of 1953 does not mean the same as saying the Viet Minh won the war. I have looked through all my reference books and other than Windrow I can't find other unambiguous statements that this was a Viet Minh victory. Mztourist (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I repeat my earlier quote from Ted Morgan, Valley of Death 978-1400066643 page 624 "in a CIA study later commissioned by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, entitled "Asian Communist Employment of Negotiations as a Political Tactic," there was one interesting remark: "The events of 1953 and 1954 had an influence on the attitude of Ho Chi Minh and his principal lieutenants regarding the war. They realized that they had been induced by Moscow and Peking [at Geneva] to stop half-way to a total victory...It is impossible to overestimate the impact of this historical lesson on Ho Chi Minh. he was [thereafter] hostile to any suggestion that he stop half-way on the road to total control of all Vietnam."" Morgan does not make any statement that the War ended in a Viet Minh victory. Mztourist (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
You keep claiming there is too much disagreements regarding the outcome of the war to draw any conclusions. In real life, however, there isn't really much disagreement on who prevailed and who lost. The argument you keep repeating about the Vietnam war is doubtful and irrelevant, as it is entirely based on your own speculations (i.o.w original research). Unless you can provide valid evidence that this was anything else than a Viet Minh victory, I suggest we end this here and now. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
And where is the research or citations to back your assertions? Mztourist (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Everyone agreed on this until you arrived. Unless you can provide valid evidence that all serious historians (who has by the way been mentioned by other users) are wrong, you will find your edit being reverted very soon. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Err, no, everyone did not agree on this, which is why this topic was created on the talk page (not by me). Present several reliable sources that state the Indochina War ended in a clear Viet Minh victory and I'll happily accept the change. Mztourist (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
As for your argument about the outcome in neighbouring Cambodia and Laos: Khmer Issarak, supported by the Viet Minh, controlled vast tracks of Cambodia and contributed to the French exit from the country. As for Laos, the war continued until the kingdom was eventually overthrown in 1975. In other words, your argument is based on a wrong assumption and is therefore invalid. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
the Khmer Issarak did not control "vast tracts" of Cambodia, nor did they "contribute to the French exist from the country", they were a tiny fringe element until the North Vietnamese took control of eastern Cambodia in the mid-1960s. Where are your sources to back these dubious claims? Mztourist (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The United Issarak Front was absolutely not a "tiny fringe element". See this link. And as I mentioned, the war in Laos went on until Pathet Lao eventually won in 1975, so claiming the Viet Minh suffered anything that even resembe a defeat in Laos and Cambodia is outright counterfactual. They won there as well as in Vietnam itself. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you read Elisabeth Becker's book When the War was Over which provides a detailed analaysis of the Communists' path to power in Cambodia. The Khmer Issarak were a fringe group, the Viet Minh controlled Cambodian territory just as the North Vietnamese later did in the Vietnam war. History shows that the Khmer Issarak did not take power in Cambodia, Prince Sihanouk did and he remained closely allied with the French well into the 1960s. Mztourist (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe I am having this conversation I am quoting two of the most trusted and reliable historians of the first Indo china war. Fall is a Frenchman who states that the war was lost militarily as of 1953 which in other words clearly is a Viet Minh military victory. To say Fall is ambiguous is confusing if he is then why did he say those words, there is no point trying to mince them. Windrow who has done an exhaustive effort to bring out what happened in the end quote: The more we read about the French Indo china war the more struck we must be by the perfect combination of factors which coincided to give Giap his eventual victory. My opinion is irrelevant but the sources are not. There really is no argument. ChrisWet (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
If Fall thought the Viet Minh had won an umabiguous military victory he would have said so, but he didn't, instead he said the war was lost militarily, i.e. unwinnable by the French, not that the Viet Minh were victorious. Windrow by his own admission is not a Vietnam expert so not a "most trusted and reliable historian" as you claim and that single quote overstates the situation, reading it out of context the victory referred to could be Dien Bien Phu rather than the entire Indochina War. If you can provide some more reliable sources stating an unambigous Viet Minh victory then fine, we can change then Infobox then Mztourist (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
And again, you ignore evidence and make dubious speculations. If you seriously believe the Viet Minh did not win this war, you should provide sources that at least slightly indicate something like that. My impression, however, is that you are just strongly biased towards the French. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based on verifiable information from reliable sources, you haven't presented any. I have read all the books I have on the topic and they basically say what's currently in the infobox, not that the war ended in a Viet Minh Victory. Mztourist (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I have stated reliable sources with quotes and they state the matter as such. These citations are even questioned by an interpretation despite the obvious. ChrisWet (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
No, you haven't. The Fall quote says the war was militarily unwinnable by the French, not that it was a Viet Minh victory. The Windrow quote I read as referring to Giap's victory at Dien Bien Phu, not a Viet Minh Victory in the Indochina War. You will have to provide unambiguous quotes (from reliable sources) you want to change the Infobox 10:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I have and I stick by them, Windrow states the French Indo china war NOT Dien Bien Phu in that quote. I have found no sources which state the war was NOT won by the Viet Minh. ChrisWet (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Viet Minh victory

So I see a bit of an edit war over this, question is why? After all, the Viet Minh did win. "Following the Viet Minh victory" Inside the VC and the NVA p119 Darkness Shines (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Darkness Shines; most mainstream sources would seem to treat the war as a Viet Minh victory, despite the fact that the Geneva Accords divided Vietnam.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
See discussion above under Result Summary. This wasn't a Viet Minh victory as the Viet Minh did not acheive all their war aims. Mztourist (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
They won. You got a source saying they lost? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Countries often fail to achieve all their war aims. Trần Ái Quốc, above, listed numerous sources describing the victory, which you refuted with original research. You need to demonstrate a broad scholarly consensus which I doubt exists.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The sources quoted by Trần Ái Quốc were not WP:RS as they are Vietnamee POV. I checked all my available Vietnam books and could not find any which said this was a Viet Minh victory. Consensus was reached on this issue some months ago, unless you or Darkness Shines can present a number of reliable sources saying this was a Viet Minh victory I don't see why authors should be expected to have to reargue this issue again. Mztourist (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Your "consensus" doesn't exist. Mikrobølgeovn, ChrisWet, and Trần Ái Quốc simply tired of arguing with you. There is not even a single source that states "There was no Viet Minh victory" or "The Viet Minh lost"; instead, you have argued over interpretation like a Wikilawyer, and dismissed more equivocal sources as POV.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you read AustralianRupert and Anotherclown's comments above. Mztourist (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I did, but all I see is their reasoning, no sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
China and the First Indo-China War, The China Quarterly, No. 133, March 1993, pg. 105, says "By the afternoon of 7th May, French troops had neither the ability nor the willingness to fight and announced surrender. The Dien Bien Phu campaign ended with a glorious victory for the Vietnamese communists." You can't get anymore clear-cut than that.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
And there is your flawed logic - no-one is disputing that the battle of Dien Bien Phu ended in an unequivocal Viet Minh victory, however you and others seem to automatically equate that to a Viet Minh victory in the entire Indochina War (i.e. Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos), when that clearly was not the case. Mztourist (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I already gave a source, in my first post. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't have access to that book and the quote lacks context. Please provide the full quote. Mztourist (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
"Support from China to the Viet Minh began in 1950 with the transfer of weapons and equipment captured in Korea. According to the renowned Indochina observer Bernard Fall enough US weapons to arm several Viet Minh divisions had been captured by the Chinese in Korea by October 1950. This support of arms and supplies continued after the conclusion of the Korean war to aid the Viet Minh against the French in the First Indochina War. Following the Viet Minh victory, the PRC continued aid to a total of more than S670 million during the decade before 1965" Darkness Shines (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
It's hardly a detailed analysis of the end of the Indochina War is it? Its just shorthand by the authors to refer to the post-1954 situation and so I don't feel it carries any weight as WP:RS on this issue Mztourist (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, you are more than welcome to argue at the reliable sources noticeboard that a book from Texas A & M University Press does not meet the RS requirements, or that a published expert in the field is not RS. It is RS, so I figure I will add that the VM won, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you reread WP:RS, particularly Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Context matters. The publisher is reliable, but the authors do not appear to be experts on the First Indochina War and they are not addressing the specific issue. Experts such as Bernard Fall take a much more nuanced view of the outcome of the war. You can change it to Viet Minh victory if you wish, but it will be reverted by me or another user. Mztourist (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Again, try try RSN board, you figure Michael Lee Lanning does not know what he is talking about? Fuck off, course he does. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
He is certainly RS for the Vietnam War, but not for the First Indochina War. Mztourist (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

(out)Take it to the RSN board, I figure the source is solid. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Added two more refs, and as you figure Fall is good enough I used him as well. Street Without Joy Bernard B. Fall p63 Darkness Shines (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Lanning isn't RS as he isn't an expert on the First Indochina War and his out of context statement carries little value. What is Crozier's quote? Fall says that the French lost militarily, he doesn't say the war ended in a Viet Minh victory. I have changed the outcome to French defeat and we will see what other users have to say. If you persist with Viet Minh victory it will have to go to RSN Mztourist (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Lanning is a military historian, so he is RS, as is Crozier and the source you say is fine and dandy, all three say the Viet Ming won. Stop messing about. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Lanning is a miliatry historian of the Vietnam War, that doesn't make him RS on the Indochina War. What is Crozier's quote and what are you quoting from Fall? Mztourist (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
(ec)Street Without Joy p63, "The Viet Minh, having seen the possibilities and limitations of French heavy equipment during the battles around the Red River Delta, now had decided on the final course which was to brig it eventual victory" Darkness Shines (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Political Victory: The Elusive Prize Of Military Wars p47 "Ho Chi Minh and his communist government, as the clear victors in the first Vietnam war, had grounds to claim that the whole of Vietnam should now be brought under communist rule" Darkness Shines (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Not clear what the context of Fall's quote is, what is the chapter called? It sounds like he could be referring to Dien Bien Phu. Crozier's quote directly contradicts the CIA as quoted in Ted Morgan's Valley of Death ISBN 978-1-4000-6664-3 at p 624 Mztourist (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I have referred this issue to dispute resolution. Mztourist (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
A direct quote from a primary source is a waste of time. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
As advised by User:TransporterMan in the DRN discussion, your options are to drop this point or "to file a RFC at the article talk page to try to bring other editors from the community into the discussion" until then the previous consensus applies. I will delete Viet Minh victory once again, if you revert the change I will go to ANI Mztourist (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

So Mztourist, please explain why you keep removing reliably sourced content from the infobox? You say in the edit summary, per DRN, there are no consensus at DRN to remove this content at all, you alos say per previous consensus, there are none in this section that I can see. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Because they are not RS and they conflict with other work by RS authors. The DRN advice was that you should raise an RFC here Mztourist (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
One (well researched) source is entirely sufficient for a non-contentious assertion. Mztourist - if you believe that this is contentious then, as a first step, you will need to provide a source which says that the war WAS NOT a Viet Minh victory. ChrisWet (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Umm, no, there was an existing consensus which people seek to change using non-RS sources Mztourist (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Wrong - the only consensus came from yourself and yet you have provided no sources which state your side of the argument. ChrisWet (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
But let us go with what the sources say, some more. By 1954 the Viet Minh had won the war By this fellow, obviously RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:RS states that "self-published media... are largely not acceptable...Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." I don't see that Edwin Moise is an expert on the First Indochina War, so no, its not RS. I would note that he talks only about the situation in Vietnam and not Indochina as a whole Mztourist (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Another which was misinterpreted: Martin Windrow - The Last Valley, pg. 45 - The more we read about the French Indo china war the more struck we must be by the perfect combination of factors which coincided to give Giap his eventual victory Note he says the war as a whole NOT Dien Bien Phu. ChrisWet (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
As previously discussed with you in February the quote is ambiguous as it is not clear if he is referring just to Dien Bien Phu (the subject of the book) or to the war as a whole.Mztourist (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
You really saying that the guy who teaches history at Clemson University is not RS? Get real. More than enough sources have been provided which state the VM won the bloody war, this is just getting tendentious. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Read WP:RS properly - just because someone is a university history professor doesn't mean they're an expert on this particular topic. You have presented a few sources by non-experts that adopt an abbreviated summary of the war, ignoring experts who do not take such simplistic views of the outcome Mztourist (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
A professor of military history is RS for anything on military history. Every source given here is RS, and I am not going to argue with you further. I see three guys here saying the sources are sound, only you say they are not, hence the consensus here is the VM won, and that goes into the infobox cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
So just by being a military history professor that makes him an expert on every aspect of military history? Get real.Mztourist (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, a professor in history is vital to historical articles on wiki and what's more - the importance of citations on these kind of subjects. Your argument by saying this person or that person is not an expert on this subject is complete fabrication from your POV. Who are you to judge an expert/historian on this subject? If you think that they are not an expert then who allowed them to publish/print the book(s) in the first place and then on top of this get heaps of praise from other historians? ChrisWet (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
None of these supposed RS' provided by Darkness Shines is written on the topic of the Indochina War and its outcome. Most of them are just part of brief summaries of the background to the Vietnam War and focussed exclusively on the result in Vietnam. Let me point out yet again, this page is called First Indochina War, the Viet Minh did not acheive victory in Cambodia or Laos and were forced to settle for less than their war aims in Vietnam, so the infobox cannot state that the result of the war was a Viet Minh victory. Mztourist (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
And as soon as you have a source which says they did not win we can revisit this, for now the obvious consensus per editors here & along with the policies of WP:V & WP:NOR the infobox stays as is. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
No, its with DRN and if that doesn't resolve it, I will refer this to ANI Mztourist (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It is well known that this page is the First Indochina War and yet again using your opinion is not going to get you anywhere. Repeating myself again, you will need to provide a source which says that the war WAS NOT a Viet Minh victory in order to obtain at least some kind of contention. ChrisWet (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
and yet you still completely miss the point, there was no Viet Minh victory in Cambodia and Laos; its not a matter of opinion what Indochina means. No I don't have to find sources saying that this wasn't a Viet Minh victory, you have to provide WP:RS saying that the Indochina War (i.e. all the fighting in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos) resulted in Viet Minh victory Mztourist (talk) 06:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Quoting from Embers of War p 596: speaking of a meeting on 3-5 July 1954 "...recently released Vietnamese and Chinese documents make clear...much of the first day was devoted to consideration of the military situation on the ground, with Vo Nguyen Giap sketching out the big picture. Dien Bien Phu had represented a colossal defeat for France, he began, but she was far from defeated. She retained a superiority in numbers - some 470,000 troops, roughly half of them Vietnamese, versus 310,000 on the Viet Minh side as well as control of Vietnam's major cities (hanoi, Saigon, hue, Tourane). A fundamental alteration of the balance of forces had thus yet to occur, Giap continued, despite Dien Bien Phu, at which point Wei Guoqing, the chief Chinese military adviser to the Viet minh spoke up to say he agreed. "If the U.S. does not interfere," Zhou asked, "and assuming France will dispatch more troops, how long will it take for us to seize the whole of Indochina?" In the best-case scenario, Giap replied, full victory could be acheived in two to three years. Worst case? Three to five years." ...That afternoon Zhou offered a lengthy exposition on the massive international reach of the Indochina conflict...and on the imperative of preventing an American intervention in the war. Given Washington's intense hostility to the Chinese Revolution, and given the ominous words in Vice-President Richard Nixon's April 16 speech, one must assume that the current administration would not stand idly by if the Viet Minh sought to win complete victory. Consequently, "if we ask too much at Geneva and peace is not acheived, it is certain that the U.S. will intervene, providing Cambodia, Laos and Bao Dai with weapons and ammunition, helping them train military personnel, and establishing military bases there."

p 597: "the central issue," Zhou told Ho, is "to prevent America's intervention" and "to acheive a peaceful settlement." Laos and Cambodia would have to be treated differently and allowed to pursue their own paths, provided they did not join a military alliance or permit foreign bases on their territory. The Mendes France government, having vowed to acheive a negotiated solution, must be supported, lest it fall and be replaced by one committed to continuing the war... the full examination of Viet Minh options occurred a few days later at the party's Sixth Central Committee plenum. A remarkable session it was, as Ho Chi minh and General Secretary Truong Chinh took turns articulating the need for an early political settlement so as to prevent a military intervention by the United States, now the "main and direct enemy" of Vietnam. "in the new situation we cannot follow the old program." Ho declared. "before, our motto was, "war of resistance until victory." Now, in view of the new situation, we should uphold a new motto: peace, unification, independence, and democracy." A spirit of compromise would be required by both sides to make the negotiations succeed, and there could be no more talk of wiping out and annihilating all the French troops. A demarcation line allowing the temporary regroupment of both sides would be necessary." p598: "The plenum endorsed Ho's analysis, passing a resolution supporting a compromise settlement to end the fighting. But Ho and Truong Chinh plainly worried that following such an agreement at Geneva, there would be internal discontent and "leftist deviation" and in particular that analysts would fail to see the complexity of the situation and underestimate the power of the American and French adversaries. They accordingly reminded their colleagues that france would retain control of a large part of the country, and that people living in this area might be confused, alienated and vulnerable to enemy manipulations. "We have to make it clear to our people," Ho said, that "in the interest of the whole country, for the sake of long-term interest, they must accept this, because it is a glorious thing and the whole country is grateful for that. We must not let people have pessimistic and negative thinking; instead, we must encourage the people to continue the struggle for the withdrawal of French troops and ensure our independence." Accordingly the war did not end in a Viet Minh victory as proposed, I will amend the infobox to be partial Viet Minh victory. Mztourist (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC) P620: "Most of all, for Ho Chi Minh, there was no getting around the fact that his victory, however unprecedented and stunning was incomplete and perhaps temporary. The vision that had always driven him on, that of a "great union" of all vVietnamese, had flickered into view for a fleeting moment in 1945-6, then had been lost in the subsequent war. now, despite vanquishing teh French military, the dream remained unrealized..."

For crying out loud, stop already. The VM won the war. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines are you wilfully blind? P 596 of Embers of War contains a statement from General Giap, leader of the Viet Minh, in July 1954 saying that they still needed 2-5 years to acheive full victory over the French. Reliable Sources such as Logevall, Morgan and Fall who give detailed analysis of Geneva do not say the war ended in a Viet Minh victory, only authors who haven't analysed the war and its conclusion in any detail say that it ended in Viet Minh victory. Mztourist (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

War crimes in the lead

Please do not duplicate the same debate across multiple pages

Hi, This article has a section on war crimes, and there is evidence that war crimes were committed by both sides. Accordingly, I propose that a single sentence be added to the lead: "War crimes were committed by both sides."OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

War crimes are commited in every war. And can you please keep this discussion in one place? Keep in mind that this is already being discussed here, here, here and here. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
My interest in having the lead mention war crimes covers several wars. I cannot get feedback and viewpoints about the First Indochina War by having a talk page discussion solely on the Vietnam War talk page, or on my own user talk page.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
But only after I pointed out that war crimes are commmited in every war, and none of them were in the lead. When you were only on the Vietnam War at first. Personally, I support your proposed sentence of "War crimes were committed by both sides" being added to *World War II*, but that's it. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
War crimes occurred, but should not be covered in the lede, since they did not define this war. As I stated elsewhere in this scattered discussion, if you can find WP:RSs that support war crimes as defining a war, fine. Without those, we cannot put it in the lede, per WP:UNDUE. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There is an RfC underway at Vietnam War: Should the lead state "War crimes were committed by both sides"? Please comment there. Alsee (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Offensive terms

Does this article have to use the word "coolies" repeatedly as if it is an acceptable descriptive term? Jeffwinchell (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Indochina War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Weapons

I was wondering about the weapons of the first Indochina war but I can't find anything on Wikipedia, could somebody please either add a section on weapons or even make a different article about it? It would be greatly appreciated. I know that the French used The mas 36 rifle, the Mas 38 SMG, The Mat 48 SMG, and the FM 24/29 LMG, (Probably among others). And the Viet Mihn used Captured French weapons, Captured Japanese Weapons, Airdropped US weapons (airdropped during WW2), and probably Chinese weapons, My only sources are wikipedia articles on the French weapons, This Article, a videogame mentioned in the "In Popular Culture Section", and the Deadliest Warrior Episode: Waffen SS vs. Viet Cong (The Viet Cong Use the Mat 48, presumably left over from this war), once again, please and thank you to anyone who does this, also please reply if you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolo McSwagginz93 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested Edit: July 2016

In the film "We Were Soldiers" which is about the Vietnam War, the opening battle takes place during the First Indochina War, with a French Convoy Being slaughtered by Viet Mihn and a horn shown later in the movie being captured, I believe it is also mentioned later when one general is all "Blah blah blah, we should send armed forces, blah blah blah" and another general is all like "Blah blah blah, didn't you see the French?, Blah blah blah, We wouldn't stand a chance, Blah blah blah", I feel this should be included in the "In Popular Culture Section", but I suck at links and references, if someone could help out that would be great. Yolo McSwagginz93 (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC) Also a bunch of References I didn't add apeared, strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolo McSwagginz93 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested Edit: July 2016

In the film "We Were Soldiers" which is about the Vietnam War, the opening battle takes place during the First Indochina War, with a French Convoy Being slaughtered by Viet Mihn and a horn shown later in the movie being captured, I believe it is also mentioned later when one general is all "Blah blah blah, we should send armed forces, blah blah blah" and another general is all like "Blah blah blah, didn't you see the French?, Blah blah blah, We wouldn't stand a chance, Blah blah blah", I feel this should be included in the "In Popular Culture Section", but I suck at links and references, if someone could help out that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolo McSwagginz93 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Why are there two of these? I think I might've broke it when I clicked save then hit stop loading, whoops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolo McSwagginz93 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Indochina War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Tonkin

In the first paragraph is this sentence "Most of the fighting took place in Tonkin in Southern Vietnam". I don't think that Tonkin can be considered Southern by any means. Is there any other Tonkin? Correct me if I'm wrong. Also correct the article if it's wrong. - 9 June 2017

Corrected, it is in northern Vietnam. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The British War

A little known historical fact regarding Vietnam is that there were actually THREE Vietnam Wars (excluding the sinoVietnamese War of 1979). The first was the British War which lasted from 1945-1946. This was followed by the French Indochina war (1945-1954 and ultimately the US Vietnam War. What is fascinating about the FIRST Vietnam War is that the Japanese troops fought alongside the British, and ultimately under British Command, against the fledging Communist guerilla movement headed up by Ho Chi Minh. In fact, in March 1945, the Japanese (who had coexisted with the Vichy French army in Vietnam throughout the course of WWII) eventually disarmed and interred the French and awaited the arrival of the British Army. After the Viet Minh were silenced, the Japanese soldiers were repatriated to Japan.

To save their own colonies of "English Indo-China" of Malays and Burma, the Brits helped the French de reconquer Indochina and the Dutch to recover the Dutch East Indies.

In fact the First Indochina started in 1945 in the South with the Leclerc detachment in the luggage (impedimenta) of geral Gracey Indian Division. In 1945-1949, the French fought in Indochina with the british military and diplomatic help. The military hardware came from Singapore http://www.troopsoutmovement.com/oliversarmychap5.htm

Takima (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

In 1945-46 Britain was under an obligation under International law to restore the legal government that had existed prior to the Japanese aggression in 1941, and as the legitimate government of French Indo-China had previously been France that is exactly what Britain did. What the French, and Vietnamese people did afterwards, as regards independence, was their concern, and none of HMG's business.
This also applied to the areas of the Dutch East Indies, which had been under Dutch administration prior to 1941. Possible Independence was a matter for the people concerned, and not any business of the British. These were both correct and proper examples of "Not interfering in a country's internal affairs".
The British went there to restore/maintain law and order and once this had been done they handed over administration to the 'proper' legal government, and then left. What occurred after was, quite rightly, none of their concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.247 (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The restoration of legitimate pre-war governments was one of the requirements and war aims of the Atlantic Charter which Roosevelt had also signed, in addition to Churchill.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.41 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Ho Chi Minh

This section seems mostly unnecessary or redundant.

The paragraphs about Ho Chi Minh's life in the 1920s-1930s hardly apply to this war fought in the 1940s-1950s. They are more fully and accurately covered in the Ho Chi Minh biographical article, while adding nothing directly relevant here. I will delete the paragraphs about the 1920s and 1930s.

The rest of this section is (with minor exceptions) not actually about Ho Chi Minh, and mostly repeats what has been said elsewhere in this article. I urge that any events or details accurately described in this section, but not elsewhere, be moved to the appropriate chronological section of this article; purely repetitive content should simply be deleted.

— Zulu Kane (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I have made these changes (summarized above). What little remains of this section should probably be deleted.

— Zulu Kane (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on First Indochina War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on First Indochina War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Cat Bay and Cau Hoa massacres

I can't find any English source for these massacres nor are they on the List of massacres in Vietnam. I am unable to read the original sources. Can anybody confirm these massacres occurred? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.80.239.97 (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree, a single Vietnamese source for each purported massacre. The story about Cat Bay was published in 2013 about an event in 1951 (so at least 62 years after the purported massacre) and based on an interview with a single person. I can't access the story about Cau Hoa. They're likely WP:HOAX or at least WP:Propaganda. I'm deleting them. Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Forgotten Saigon Commune massacre in 1945

https://www.workersliberty.org/story/2005/09/12/forgotten-massacre-vietnamese-trotskyists

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/revhist/backiss/vol3/no4/letblick.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:E37F:FFF1:D4D2:C153:CE69:226D (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't regard either of those sites as WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes. But there are reliable sources on the topic, for instance: [3]. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Provided its entirely supported by RS then obviously the detail can go in.Mztourist (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Chu Văn Tấn

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

General Chu Văn Tấn is listed twice in this article's infobox. I am unsure whether this is a mistake or a misspelling of another name, so I didn't make an edit. I just wanted to bring it up to those who are more educated on the topic.

Thanks! Nkstevens1 (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Coverage of racism

@Bumbubookworm: and also @Laska666:, In response to these edits, and to a lesser extend these comments on Laska666' talk page about this edit, I don't think that this section was adding undue weight by covering racism during this period, especially since some scholars agree that racism is often discussed in the context of this war ("McHale concludes racial violence and race issues during the First Indochina War which often seen as marginal, outside the mainstream scholarship"). The comment "This section was even longer the Geneva Conference section" isn't an argument for full exclusion either, the section itself can be made appropriately short and the rest could be migrated to the article "Racism in Vietnam".

For this reason I decided to restore the first paragraph and restore the stuff you removed to the "Racism in Vietnam" article together with the racist South Vietnamese government policies, a lot has been written about the topic of racism in Vietnam and unfortunately not that much is covered on Wikipedia, but while I agree that that section was too long there, I don't think that the whole section should be removed purely because of either its length or the topic involved, especially since there's discussion about the topic by scholars both inside and outside of Vietnam. --Donald Trung (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought I wrote this down here, but I've noticed a weird trend where some editors claim that "Undue weight" means including a large amount of content that is well established and covered off-wiki but that here after its inclusion becomes longer than other sections, the Geneva Conference has its own Wikipedia article and it wouldn't make sense to add a very long section here on a topic that already has its own article at the English-language Wikipedia, also it makes even less sense to then remove the entire section rather than condensing it or re-writing it to only stick to the relevant points. If our standard of including new content on Wikipedia is "Does it already have an existing Wikipedia article?" Then we'd never be able to add anything. And the reason why the "Racism" section was now moved to the "French Union" section is because "the abbreviated version" excludes a lot of the more nuanced subtleties of the racism debate about this war and only mentions outright xenophobia. This doesn't really benefit the readers at all. In the earlier version the section at least linked to more context and subtleties, now it's essentially only about Vietnamese xenophobia, that is almost an entirely different (sub-)topic that rather than provides a wider context narrows the debate down to only one small aspect of it.
If you feel that a topic is "Undue weight" because of its size it is wiser to simply cut the parts that make it "too detailed" to make it shorter and only include "the relevant parts", but cutting out a section in its entirety (as the editor in question seems to do wherever they can if they perceive something as "Undue weight") doesn't benefit anyone, it cuts relevant content for the sake of lending prominence to subject matters already discussed by excluding all other relevant aspects of the same topic. --Donald Trung (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Not exactly a new problem for Wikipedia. "Undue weight" has also been used to censor entire aspects of an individual's life and career from his/her article, and to remove widely known minority views from the descriptions of various topics. Dimadick (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Black africans?

My g, im pretty sure the averge person probably knows that most Africans are black 2603:8000:6C03:E638:3C09:2D26:EA8:5B00 (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_Indochina_War/Archive_2&oldid=1257977740"