h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

First impression -- This may be such a broad topic that they'll want it done as a University project.

====
Clarification. These sentences confused me a little bit: "In August 1955, Diem issued a statement formally refusing to participate in consultations with the DRV, which had been called for by the Geneva Agreement to prepare for national elections. On October 26, 1955, he easily defeated his only opponent, Bao Dai, and became president of the new Republic of Vietnam."

Maybe it was the length of that first sentence that made it unclear, but when I first read it, it sounded like Diem defeated Bao Dai in the national election mandated by the Geneva Agreement. This seems like an important point because it reveals how the US was more concerned with controlling Asia than with democracy. If you had given me a quiz straight out of high school (class of 1990) asking true or false, Did the Vietnamese communists agree to a national election to be held in 1956? Did the US support a government which refused to participate in national elections? --then I would have answered incorrectly. Most Americans today would probably answer incorrectly, because they would think that US has always stood up for democracy.

Anyhow, all I'm suggesting is some kind of clarification to show that Diem defeated Bao Dai in an election for the Associated State of Vietnam/Republic of Vietnam, not the national election mandated by the Geneva Agreement.

===
"If I was going to get out, I'd get the same crowd that got rid of Diem to get rid of these people and get some fellow in there that said he wished we would get out. That would give us a good excuse for getting out...."

Wow. What we really need is a dictator who will ask us to bow out. Scary.

====
As I understand it, the South Vietnamese guerillas fighting in support of the Viet Minh called themselves the "National Liberation Front" or "the People's Liberation Armed Forces" (or a bunch of other division and party names?) while their opponents called them "Viet Cong." I'm not sure if there was a pejorative element to the contraction "Viet Cong," but it seems a little like the problem with terms like "eskimo" applied to Inuits, or "negro" applied to African-Americans, Blacks, people of color. If we can't even agree on what name to use when addressing a person or group, it's hard to claim that we know or understand them.
====

Woodstock in 1968?
====

...I'm up to 1969, but have to get up early for work tomorrow (at 11 instead of noon). So far, it's a great read. Not sure where it could be broken up to make it more palatable for the Edited Guide, but it's a great piece whether they think so or not.

I wonder if it could be parsed into a University Project?

It could be a Uni project... I've been told that before, when I mentioned to people how big it got. Thing is, out of seven entries I've submitted and had reccomended, all but one were improved by the peer review process.

I suppose I could request an informal peer review here, involving a few more people.

Subcom, I've noted your comments on the content and will take a look at making some improvements, especially where the message is unclear.

I considered including Woodstock and decided against it. Woodstock wasn't so much a protest as it was, well, a concert. A lot of performers there had something to say about the war, but that really wasn't the driving force for the half milion people who attended, or tried to attend but couldn't get past everyone else trying to attend.

Besides, Woodstock really deserves its own entry, which would be better written by someone who was there. I was old enough to *want* to go, but young enough to be unable to go without parental permission and a ride, neither of which were forthcoming.

Two Bit, I'm really glad to see you commenting here. I'd appreciate it if you took a fairly close look at this when you have the time. I lack the military perspective, and would like to hear any suggestions you have. While I was first toying with the idea of making this a Uni project, you were close to the top of the list of people I'd want to have involved.

NBY

I'll try. I'm not really up on Vietnam. I don't know so much about what was done. I have read up on the lessons learned by the military, and how those lessons have made the miltiary what it is today. Vietnam was an all time low of r the military, but it lead to us being at the top of our form for the Gulf War. Aside from the size of the military, we're probably better off now than any military in history.

Peer review does help a lot. I tried suggesting that University projects go through peer review to invite comment, but that they would already be pre-selected. It wasn't a popular idea. I think peer review is invaluable. I just sub-editted a project, and it was a real pain because you're all alone in trying to ferrit everything out. Peer review is a real boon for the subs because its already half done for you.

MODERATED!!!

Looks like somebody found something to camplain about in it. Now I get to wait for it to reappear before working on it more....

"Anyhow, all I'm suggesting is some kind of clarification to show that Diem defeated Bao Dai in an election for the Associated State of Vietnam/Republic of Vietnam, not the national election mandated by the Geneva Agreement."

Valid point. I've reworded it.

"If I was going to get out, I'd get the same crowd that got rid of Diem to get rid of these people and get some fellow in there that said he wished we would get out. That would give us a good excuse for getting out...."

"Wow. What we really need is a dictator who will ask us to bow out. Scary."

Especially when you consider that the crowd that got rid if Diem is generally accepted to have been the CIA.

The phrase "Viet Cong" was first used by Diem, as an abbreviation for Vietnamese Communist. It was generally accepted to mean both the NLF and the PALF, but your point is taken. I've made the change.

I've also added some links, with more to come. Gotta keep those moderators busy!

So what was the offending bit that brought down moderation? I haven't finished reading it all past 1969 -- did you have something defamatory like "Nixon was a lying poophead" further down in the article?

RE: CIA involvement in Diem coup. Everything I've read (admittedly some of it is leftist, but also some mainstream sources) has said that US Ambassador knew about the coup against Diem and approved of it, as well as approving or disapproving other coups that it knew ahead of time.

I feel a little embarassed to mention this source, but I've been reading "The Pictorial History of the Vietnam War," a big coffee-table book with more photos than text. My father was in the Navy during 1971-1972, but stationed in the US. He passed away in 1990, and I've been curious lately how he would have felt about the assessments of Vietnam by Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn. So I was looking through to see if he left any notes in this book, but all I've found were some notes about planes incorrectly identified in the captions.

Anyhow, here's another funny/tragic bit that stands out in it. Around 1964, General Maxwell Taylor took over the position of US ambassador from Henry Cabot Lodge. After a series of successful and unsuccessful coups that year, in which the same players Nguyen Kahn and "Big" Minh kept taking power, then resigning, then pulling off another coup, Taylor gathered Kahn and his henchmen and "gave them a tongue-lashing worthy or a high-school coach. 'I told you all clearly we Americans were tired of coups. Apparently I wasted my words. Now you have made a real mess. We cannot carry you forever if you do things like this.'"

So one coup seemed acceptable, or maybe two or three if you spread them apart a few years. Too many coups in one year upset the US leadership, not because coups are anti-democratic, but because they would show the American people that we'd been supporting a series of dictators.

Hey NBY, this does not look so long in here! I think I'm going to read this as it appears here, and then comment! I don't know much about the facts of the matter, so all I can give are comments based on the impression I get.

Not a hint why it was down. Guess it wasn't a real problem, since it went "pending" then came back, with no email notification and no changes. I must have managed to sneak something in that *someone* found offensive.

On coups, what can I say? So many coups, so little time.... Maybe Taylor didn't want the American public the impression that we'd support *just anybody* in South Vietnam.

That'll be great, Willem!

I'm polishing and adding links right now, so what you read half an hour ago might not be what you'd read now.

My point re: Woodstock was not whether it should be mentioned here, but didn't it take place in 1969? You gave the date as 1968.

I tried a search on google for "woodstock 1968" and it comes back with 35 hits, many of which include discussions of Bob Dylan and musicians who recorded with him (because Dylan lived there before the festival?). Whereas on the big commerical website celebrating recent and distant Woodstock festivals, they list '69, '94 and '99, but no '68. I looked around their links but couldn't find anything that mentioned the original festival taking place in 1968.

This circumstantial evidence does not prove you wrong, but I could have *sworn* everyone puts it at 1969.

But since you brought it up, I agree with your choice not to go into full detail on Woodstock. It ought to have its own entry, though it would be good to link your "War and Protest" to a Woodstock entry if one gets written.

====
Section on the Weathermen. Did a person from Wisconsin, USA actually use the word "a**eholes"? Is this a censoring error in which an extra letter "e" was added? I would think "a**holes" would be more likely from a Yank.

====
"One rumor held that the Guardsmen were told the same night that they would never be prosecuted by the state of Ohio."

Would be better to simply state that the Guardsmen were never prosecuted by the state of Ohio. Otherwise it seems like you're giving some credence to the rumor.

====
In the section about April 1970, you wrote that "the United States military suspended the use of Agent Orange." Later you wrote, "The spraying of Agent Orange in South Vietnam was discontinued in 1971."

Does that mean that they claimed they would stop in April 1970, but didn't stop until 1971? Or that they announced in April 1970 that they would eventually stop, and finally did stop in 1971? A little confusing.

====
Not sure if you'll want to mention this, but I've read many articles trying to downplay the US involvement in the napalm dropped on Kim Phuc. First, because it was supposedly a South Vietnamese Air Force strike that had dropped the napalm. Secondly, there's some minor controversy about a US vet who claimed he had "ordered" the strike that fell on Kim Phuc and directly apologized to her in a publicized ceremony at the Vietnam Wall Memorial in 1996. The general who commanded that vet later said that even a general could not have given this kind of "order" to the South Vietnamese Air Force. (For more info search on Google for keywords "kim phuc napalm photo south vietnamese".)

Your account of the incident is accurate, but some people claim that the photo misled Americans into thinking that she had been directly attacked by a US pilot. (Of course, the plane and weapons were supplied by Americans, and the South Vietnamese pilot was probably trained by Americans.)

I'm not saying your article would be lacking without this info, but you might consider whether some of this should be mentioned.

====
last note. I hate to tempt you with anything that might lengthen this piece even further, but have you heard the accusations about Nixon secretly contacting the South Vietnamese in 1968, claiming he could get them a better deal than the Democrats could, if they withdrew from the peace talks, thereby helping him get elected. Sounds like a wacky conspiracy, but there appears to be some solid evidence in the Feb 2001 Harper's magazine (an article on Kissinger) and also in a book called "The Arrogance of Power: The Secret World of Richard Nixon" by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan. Reviews of "Arrogance of Power" make it sound like a real mudslinging tell-all, but if this thing is true, then it means the Vietnam war was extended an extra 4 years just to help Nixon get elected.

(Maybe mentioning this would be just like that rumor above that I thought shouldn't be included. Oh well.)

====
Thanks for writing this article. I hadn't heard about the protesters shot at Jackson State College, and that quote from the aid to President Thieu is a perfect representation of the whole US attitude to the war. If two Asian groups engaged in a civil war want to engage in peace talks, they better be able to read English.

Okay, I'll reread ... did yous catch my other recent message to yous??

I haven't really been anywhere but here lately, so I haven't caught it yet, but I will.

In the Weathermen section, is that supposed to be 'war-monguls' or 'war mongers'?

I went back and checked my source material, Two Bit. The quotation I find really is 'war-monguls'. I'm not sure what a war-mongul is either...

Re: Woodstock - 1969 is right. I've fixed it. That'll teach me not to try to rely on my memory for anything that happened in the late 60's or early 70's. "Memory" and that time period just don't go together.

Re: A**eholes vs A**holes - Since it was a spoken comment, rather than a document produced by the kid, from which the quotation was pulled, I'm content to use the British spelling. If I was quoting a written analysis, I'd have stuck to the original text.

Re: Rumors - I agree. I've taken out the rumor about the National Guardsmen at Kent State being told that they wouldn't be prosecuted, and have not added the rumor you provided on Nixon advising the South Vietnamese to pull out of the peace talks talks.

Re: Agent Orange - Good catch! Use of Agent Orange was suspended in 1970. Use of herbicides in general was terminated in 1971. I've made that correction.

Re: Kim Phuc - Right now, I'm inclined to leave that section as it stands. The impact of the photo on the American public was real, regardless of who actually dropped that particular napalm bomb. I reserve the right to change my mind at some point in the future.

I appreciate the "preliminary peer review" you're giving this, and I'm adding you as one of the researchers.

Subcom,

Since the email I got from the Eds addressed both of us in the opening paragraph, I'm assuming that you got it, too.

I've provided the requested info, and don't think there's a problem.

NBY

Hi NBY,

Thanks for adding my name to the written & researched list , but I didn't really contribute that much to it! Hope this doesn't count as breaking my pledge to not write any more guide entries until restrictions are removed.

Too bad there's not a way for the entry to show your name under "Written & Researched" and also under "Edited by."

I rec'd the email from the eds, but I just told them to ask you about the phone conversation quote.

Re: war-mongols. I noticed that when I read it, but assumed that it was just a malapropism by the young guy who was quoted. The thing that makes it difficult is that the speaker could have said it incorrectly, or he could have been misquoted by the reporter. Hard to tell at this late date.