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

Entry: Vietnam: America's Mistake - A687071
Author: Me, Myself, I, The Old Coot In My Closet, And The Incomparable Id [Call me "Id" for short.] - U187415

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A687071

Well, this is the term paper I just finished writing for my Vietnam history course. It's basically about how America misunderstood and screwed up right and left through out the war. This is a very loaded topic, keep in mind that I don't mean to offend.

I'm looking forward to hearing what you guys have to say.


Id

Looking good. You may want to mention that the Vietnamese people call it The American War, not The Vietnam War.

Your links will look prettier if you use the following. I have used the BBC site as an example.

<Click here

And it will display the text from the TITLE attribute in the referenced sites section.

A687071

Two quick points

1: This article will be read by people all over the world perhaps at someplace in the article you could make reference to the proper name of the conflict that involved the USA in Vietnam (i.e. “The Second Indochina War).

2: Perhaps just a quick mention of the French & there role in Vietnam in the First Indochina War at the beginning of your article?

I was wondering where to put that tidbit in, myself, but there doesn't seem to be a place. The paper is more about the American side of it than the Vietnamese side. What do you think?

I'm leaving the confusing format stuff up to the nice editor folks . . . they do a very pretty job and I never have anything to complain about.

Thanks for commenting.

Id
p.s. I like Hobbits better than Orcs.

Hi Happy Dude . . .

I see your point. Again, though, where should I mention it? At the beginning, I guess. Maybe as an intro sort of thing before the actual paper?


Id

I have a little bit of a problem with the heading. How about Vietnam: An American Mistake.

I think most people would agree that America has made more than one mistake...

Here's an easier way to tidy up your links.

...

for external links, then the 'title' text is displayed in the right-hand box (eg 'The BBC' in my earlier example). If you leave out the TITLE attribute, then the text between the LINK tags is displayed (which is what currently happens).

The begining in an Introductory stage setting paragraph would probally be the best place

Since the entry is hidden at the moment, all I can comment on is the title. Perhaps you would consider changing it to "Vietnam: yet another of America's mistakes".

There is already a recommended entry
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A664058
on War and Protest; The United States in Vietnam.

That is a huge entry written by Constructively Banned (formerly known as Not Banned Yet). I think he put a lot of research, time and effort into it, and his Edited entries were always very good.

How much of this new entry is already covered in the recommended one?

Azara

Azara, one of the features of the new system introduced on Monday is that you can now put A numbers into postings without all the http and // and the system will convert them into links. Like this. A664058.

Anyone know why it wuz hidden

Wow . . . this is what I get for sleeping at night. Thanks for the comments everybody . . .

The article was hidden because of broken link problems, similar to the ones I had last time with my Concorde entry. I'm working on fixing them . . . I may resort to taking them out completely. I don't know yet.

About the title . . . I meant it more to say that the Vietnam War was America's fault. I'm not opposed to a title change, I came up with that title on the spur of the moment the night before the paper was due at school.

As to the similar article that someone mentioned . . . I took a peek at it, it seems to be a good, comprehensive history of the war. My paper doesn't focus so much on the history as on the reasons why America made certain mistakes concerning the war. Similar topics, but not the same. I rather think the two articles would make a nice pair in the guide . . . but that could just be my ego talking again.

Did I forget anything? Let's post this much and go check . . .


Id

IMO the penultimate paragraph of the post, dealing with the Military side of Vietnam is faulty IMO.

Contrary to Popular belief, the US Armed Forces did not lose one battle against the VC. And IIRC not one battle against the NVA.

The VC, whilst being indistungishable from the local population werent as effective as they should have been. In conventional warfare, as in the Tet Offensive, the VC after making a bit of ground, had their ass handed back to them, badly. It was the same with the NVA. The NVA whilst outnumbering the Forces in Vietnam, just could not hope to match the Superiorty in training and firepower that the US and Aussies had.

America Politics werent right, and America Hearts and Minds Policy in the countryside was almost non-exsistant, but Militaryily, there were AFAIK no defeats. Of course that easy if you are fighting a third world country. War and Politics is indistugnishable. If there isnt the will, then their cant be a way.

Alright, point conceeded that the US forces did not technically lose battles. My point is that the guerilla tactics of the VC often 'got' to the American soldiers. By 'got' I mean had a psychological effect. It's much harder to fight an enemy who dissappears and pops up out of nowhere. There were serious morale problems within the US forces present in-country, partially because of this recurring difficulty and its demoralizing effects.

Id

Morale of the Soldiers?

This could be put down to many things.

1. Conscription. Wasnt exactly popular. People unwilling conscripted into Military life, are not going to like it. Morale would plummet. Especially in a foreign country were they dont see a reason to be there. Contrast this to conscripts of European nations. Lots dont like conscription, but at least they know they are to be kept in their country.

2. Vietnam itself. Tropical and all things that come with it. Malaria, bugs, heat, humidity, VD, hard Physical work.

Guerrilla warfare tends not to have an overly great effect on troops themselves. Look at Britians expreince. Northern Ireland, Malaya, Oman.

Now granted all except Malaya, the troops invovled are all professional. But so were alot of the Troops in Vietnam. Having conversations with veterans who were there, seems that they didnt seem to midn it half as much as you would think. Hell, to most people, it was a war, and what they joined up for.

There are alot of factors contributing to the morale, or supposed lack of it that was rife in the American forces in Vietnam, just to tie it down to the VC.

Take WWII for instance. D-Day, just before Omaha beach. In your mind, whose Morale would be higher? A GI on Omaha Beach, or a GI in Vietnam? Intresting question dont you think?