Talk:Fall of Saigon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fall of Saigon article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): Southeast Asian military history task force United States military history task force Vietnam Portal This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Confusing Part of Article 2 EXPLANATION OF MY EDITS 3 (2005) 4 Remaining issues 5 Accuracy and POV 6 Image Caption 7 No mention of Văn Tiến Dũng? 8 Liberation 9 Plan 10 VPA 11 Time 12 Ambassador Martin

[edit] Confusing Part of Article

The entire section: Political movements and attempts at a negotiated solution is unclear and confusing in the extreme.

Any attempt to discuss the political movements and negotiated solution needs to provide some context. The Paris Peace Accords were already negotiated and signed in Jan of 1973. That might be the logical place to begin this discussion.

The article states: As the North Vietnamese chipped away more and more of South Vietnam, internal opposition to President Thieu went on accumulating. For instance, in early April, the Senate which Senate? USA or Vietnamese. Unclear from reading.

The article Continues: " unanimously voted through a call for new leadership, and some top military commanders were pressing for a coup. In response to this pressure, Thieu made some changes to his cabinet, and Prime Minister Tran Thien Khiem resigned.[23] This did little to reduce the opposition to Thieu. On 8 April a South Vietnamese pilot bombed the presidential palace and then flew to an PAVN-controlled airstrip; Thieu was not hurt."

Again, no context here. A attempted assassination is not usually considered a "political movement or negotiated solution" so perhaps a seperate section should be created on this.

The article continues: "Many in the American mission—Martin in particular—along with some key figures in Washington believed that negotiations with the Communists were possible, especially if Saigon could stabilize the military situation."

Discussion of negotiated settlements would do well to start with basic information about the Paris Peace Accords, which were designed to let the South vote on their future. These accords were violated by the Vietnamese and America ignored the violations. The Wikipedia article on "Paris Peace Accords" is a fine place to get a write up of this. (The following 4 paragraphs are taken from that article)

In December 1974, North Vietnamese military forces attacked Phuoc Long Province in South Vietnam, in violation of the peace treaty. The President of South Vietnam has been forced to resign accusing the United States of betrayal. In a TV and radio address, outgoing President Nguyen Van Thieu said his forces had failed to stop the advance of the Vietcong because of lack of funds promised to him by the Americans.

In a scathing attack on the US, he suggested US Secretary of State Dr Henry Kissinger had tricked him into signing the Paris peace agreement two years ago, promising military aid which then failed to materialise.

"At the time of the peace agreement the United States agreed to replace equipment on a one-by-one basis," he said. "But the United States did not keep its word. Is an American's word reliable these days?" He continued, "The United States did not keep its promise to help us fight for freedom and it was in the same fight that the United States lost 50,000 of its young men." [2]

On December 13, 1974 North Vietnam violated the Paris peace treaty and tested the United States resolve by attacking Phuoc Long Province in South Vietnam. The U.S. promised Thieu that he would use airpower to support his government. On January 14, 1975 Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger states that the U.S. is not living up to its promise that it would retaliate in the event North Vietnam violated the Paris peace treaty. In the most serious violation of the Agreement, more than 30,000 North Vietnamese army personnel are known to have continued moving into South Vietnam after the cease-fire on January 27. These combat replacements have greatly increased the capability of North Vietnamese army units in the south.

My criticisms continues:

Also, the fact that the USA, led by the Democratic congress in the wake of the post-Watergate election sweep, had cut off funding and support for the South is a critical component in the story, is it not? Yet it is not mentioned in the article. That is a large oversight. Certainly, as the quotes above demonstrate the leaders of South Vietnam thought it was.

At some point I'll try to get back in and fix these things if no one else does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.253.17 (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EXPLANATION OF MY EDITS

My name is Mr. Talley Griffith. I am the cousin of Ambassador Graham Martin (deceased) and the family representative concerning his legacy and history (and the holder of many of his papers). I spent many years talking with Graham about the "Fall" and living at his residence. I have interviews with him never before published, and represent him (and his story) within contexts of the media and relative to his point of view in historical record. I am also a published author and screenwriter; and a musician who has recently retired from the field of government/military intelligence.

I apologize for my lack of "Wikification" if I have committed any formatting errors in my edit. However, as is necessary to give a complete perspective on the events, I have injected the Ambassador's points of view where applicable. Feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss these. I have a great deal of documentation along with my personal accounts directly from Graham's mouth. Another source is from my friend, Ambassador Ken Moorefield - the U.S. Ambassador to Gabon (recently retired who at the time was an assistant to Graham during the evacuation).

Two additional points: 1. Frank Snepp, the CIA Analyst/Officer in Saigon (and his book) have been proven extensively to contain many factual errors and outright fabrications. Snepp had personal axes to grind with many at the Saigon Mission, and Snepp is known as a callous and self-involved promoter of all things Snepp. So much so that he was involved in several lawsuits concerning his books. These are easily identified from a basic Google search about Snepp. According to Graham, Snepp's accounting of the "Fall" was written from the p.o.v. that only Snepp himself could have won the Vietnam War(!). Thus, although his book IS a source...it is not definitive and many (including two sitting Ambassadors) consider Snepp's reccollections as inaccurate.

• Oh no, not another "Frank Snepp was a self-serving liar" jibes. Yes, Snepp did lose a court case with the CIA over the publication of his book, but that was over the legality of violating his secrecy agreement, not over the legitimicy of his claims. RM Gillespie 18:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

2. The BEST and most authoritative resource for what really happened during the "Fall" is best gathered from a video that was produced by/for the Discovery Channel. Titled "The Fall of Saigon", it contains interviews and perspectives from all key players in the final days. It even contains Snepp, Pres. Ford, Kissinger, Gerry Berry (the pilot), and many NVA officials. I worked with the producer's to offer Graham's perspective. I have it on video, but I imagine it is still available for purchase from Discovery or the History Channel. I advise it as the ultimate source and stand by its declarations as a testament to history.

I have MANY photos of Graham, before - during - and after the Fall of Saigon. Including many of his own personal photos (along with media photos). If anyone is interested in posting these, please advise and I'll email them to you at an appropriate email address.

SHOULD ANYONE desire to contact me, please do so at the following email address: milspook at yahoo dot com (which I hope you can figure out - trying not to set myself up for "death by spamming"). Again, that's Talley Griffith - milspook at yahoo dot com.

Also, someone may wish to LINK Graham's name (properly formatted) to the single entry for Graham Martin on Wikipedia. He has a short blurb, but no link back to the "Fall" page. Again, my apologies for not being a professional Wiki person. I appreciate the hard work and great job you folks do to present truth and history as accurately as possible. If I may be of any help, let me know. Thank you again, and best wishes to each of you. I would "sign" this post if I knew how (lol). (Vaproman 23:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC))

[edit] (2005)

As I learned from what I read and information from my family members who fought in the war (I'm Vietnamese by the way), it looked a lot more like 'liberation' instead of 'fall', even though my family has been in the south for generations. Just an opinion

---

I was just wondering if anyone knew how many people died in the 'Fall' or 'Liberation' of Saigon.

The Fall of Saigon does not seem to be a neutral term. Did the north not regard the "fall" as a liberation? SV|t|add 18:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia should definitely include mention of what the event is called by different parties in different languages. But whatever the term preferred by the north, it has not popularized it in English-speaking countries; the "Fall of Saigon" would seem to be the most common name in not just the U.S. but the UK (and The Independent is not known for its sympathy for U.S. military adventures), Australia, and New Zealand. "Saigon Giai Phong" meaning "Saigon Liberation" does appear to be a term used in Vietnam. -choster 05:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remaining issues

This article has a number of problems, one of which is the idea that people were falling out of American helicopters. The Frequent Wind helicopter evacuation was a very rapidly implemented airevac, but I unaware of any source claiming people fell out of copters. Moreover, this evacuation was for the remaining Embassy personnel and other Americans. The White Christmas song was a code for remaining Americans to get to the US Embassy for evacuation, not the entire population of Saigon. There was never any intent to evacuate the city by helicopter (a physically impossible feat). Moreover, the C-130 airlift that preceeded the helicopter evacuation and ended on April 29th did not evacuate all Vietnamese seeking departure from Vietnam. This airlift was restricted to certain Vietnamese and others who had been helpful to the US (such as local base and embassy personnel). There was a also a Vietnamese evacuation using VNAF aircraft, and some people may have fallen from those. Businessdr 04:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy and POV

This article seems like it was written by the US State Dept and Voice of America. Is there evidence of massive killing of civilians by NVA and VC forces as the article claims? is this the fall or liberation? this article needs serious work--even the title is debatable. EdwinHJ | Talk 07:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

An American documentary I've seen on the subject claims "[the residents of Sàigòn] had expected a bloodbath but ... not a shot was fired that day, and not a drop of blood spilled", with regard to the day after the Liberation. --Ionius Mundus 03:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"Fall" is neutral in that obviously both sides recognize that the city was taken over. "Liberation" is POV in that the word makes a political judgement about one side in the conflict. 64.12.116.72 04:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Fall and Liberation depends on the person you talk to. I'm sure all the refugees that moved to other countries after the war don't consider Vietnam liberated. 4.233.125.20 07:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Caption

Said "iconic image" in the article speaks of U.S. Civilans being airlifted out of South Vietnam. However, during reseach for a paper on Vietnam I came across an article by the photographer. While only being able to read the byline (it was a guest editorial for the New York Times, but only available to Times Select subscribers) I did read that according to the photographer, those were not civilians, but American intelligence (I believe CIA was named) personnel. Does anyone know any more about this? Might be worth looking into.--Nate 10:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoever they worked for, they are civilians in that they did not work for the military or wear uniforms. There were a variety of people in the embassy and in Vietnam at the end. It would be wrong to label everyone in the photo as CIA or intelligence.64.12.116.72 04:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The photo caption says "US Navy" chopper, however isn't the chopper in fact a CIA Air America chopper? From the Air America page on Wikipedia: The photo that most people relate as the end of the US involvement in the Vietnam war, showing a white helicopter taking people off of the CIA apartment bulding, was actually an Air America aircraft. First in and last out in many cases. Also I remember seeing a interview of the Air America pilot who was flying that mission that that photo was in fact of a CIA and not US Navy chopper, also the photographer interviewed in the article http://www.mishalov.com/Vietnam_finalescape.html states it was an Air America not a US navy chopper. I have changed the caption. Limitedexpresstrain 21:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of Văn Tiến Dũng?

This article is flawed. It is not NPOV - and not because it is biased - but because there is little mention of how the North Vietnamese took Sài Gòn.

One starting point is to bump up Văn Tiến Dũng's role in the thing. As commander of the North Vietnamese troops, he needs some mention, at least. Frank Snepp (who wrote Decent Interval about the event, and was actually present) based a lot of his work on Văn Tiến Dũng's Great Spring Victory.

--Tphcm 04:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liberation

I doubt most people in Siagon viewed the entry of the communist army as a liberation. Sagon was mostly anti-communists -- plus, thousands were either executed or sent to reeducation camps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.186.128 (talk • contribs) 25 July 2006

A majority in Sàigòn viewed the liberation as a loss, as they had had American influence and propaganda exerted on them for so long. But, remember, many closest to the Americans were evacuated. Most Vietnamese in all, at least 80% viewed it as a Liberation, at least at the time. It would be biased only to say "Fall of Sàigòn", as many, including myself, recognize it as a liberation. It is only sad that the government would wander so far from Hồ Chí Minh Thought, and still claim to follow it. --Ionius Mundus 03:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the addition of "liberation" to the title. The historical context of the Fall of Saigon is the loss of the south vietnamese capital. Sorta like the fall of the berlin wall wouldn't be called the liberation of berlin, it was the collapse one one item and the beginning of another, or the fall of the soviet union, the liberation of the russian federation. By all means one can certainly say that "the fall of saigon" led to the unification of vietnam under communist rule. But the title context is the "fall of saigon" in my opinion. If we were to go by wikipedia google test of popular useage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Google_test and do a rough scan, the "fall of saigon" entered into google yeilded 265,000 results, while the of "liberation of saigon" yeilded 693 results.Limitedexpresstrain 21:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Try searching for the Liberation of Saigon in Vietnamese. "Sài Gòn Giải Phóng" returns 363,000 results. It would be POV to erase it. I don't think they use 'Fall of Saigon' in Việt Nam. Again review my above comment. --Ionius Mundus 23:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Liberation or loss depends on the point of view. Saigon was under anti-communist government for over a decade, not to mention many people living in Saigon at that time were South Vietnam's personnel and/or their relatives. That could explain the term of "loss". But in spite of that, many others are pro-communist or just spolied by the corrupted government of South Vietnam, so they can see the fall as liberation. Anyway I agree with Ionius Mundus about what the communists did in South Vietnam after the fall of Saigon. Ho Chi Minh's ideas were great, but his cadres made it all wrong, ever since the Land Reform which left a deep wound. Luckily things are changing now, with the new leaders of the CPV and the government.Hawkie 16:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You're certainly right. --Ionius Mundus 20:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Sài Gòn Giải Phóng" means Liberated Saigon and is the name of a newspaper published there, hence the overabundance of results. The event itself is called by most Vietnamese speakers as "April 30". Other less common names are "Giải Phóng" (Liberation) and "Sài Gòn sụp đổ" or "Sài Gòn thất thủ" (Fall of Saigon). The "Fall" here refers to the fall of the Saigon government, which is a fact, and is not viewed as POV in Vietnamese. DHN 02:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Find me an example of a Việtnamese Communist who does not call the Liberation of Sàigòn as such. --Ionius Mundus 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well Ionius, not ALL Vietnamese (even nowadays) are communists. But since the government uses the term "Liberation of Saigon" or "The day of Unification" so much (propaganda or not I don't care) it has become widely accepted in Vietnam, especially among the youth. It's no harm to refer to it as "the Fall of Saigon" but I think it should be "Saigon" in the sense as a government, not a city (sorry if my English is bad). Oh and about the "Sai Gon Giai Phong" or whatever, it is actually a common newspaper so the fact that Google returns more results doesn't mean much here.(anyone teach me how to sign I don't know how)Hawkie 16:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sign with four tildes (~). I am perfectly aware that not all Việtnamese are Communists. You don't need to point that out, as it is quite obvious. The point is that it is used by a significant number of people. Not all Việtnamese are non-Communists. --Ionius Mundus 08:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh thanks Ionius, now I can have a name. Anyway friend, I'm discussing about the term "liberation" or "fall". To me "fall" is neutral enough, as Saigon appears in this article as a government, not a city. As for the significant of number, I agree, but this is a free encyclopedia which everyone around the world can read, so it should sould reflect the most common term used universally, not only in Vietnam. For me, I agree to keep it as the "fall". Yes not a shot was fired and not a drop of blood when they take over the country, but the aftermath.Hawkie 08:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly a number of people outside Việtnam also use the term 'Liberation of Sàigòn'. If only people inside Việtnam did, we wouldn't be having this debate. --Ionius Mundus 17:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I certainly know that. But you know, the Vietnamese exile comunnity, especially those of close relation to the South Vietnam government even call this day what means "the day of national resentment" in Vietnamese. So Ionius if you want to change it into "Liberation of Saigon" then some will want to change it into "Loss of Saigon" or something worse. So to me "Fall of Saigon" is a reasonably neutral enough. Personally I prefer "Liberation of Saigon" but that would be POV in my opinion.Hawkie 18:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Though I use 'Liberation of Sàigòn', I think we should change it to the more neutral 'Fall/Liberation of Saigon', not 'Liberation of Sàigòn'. --Ionius Mundus 19:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia call the Soviet defeat of German troops in Eastern Europe, and these nations absorption into the communist polity, a liberation? --

[edit] Plan

A general plan for this article:

1. North Vietnamese approach to the city
2. Evacuation of Saigon
3. Attempts at a negotiated solution
4. Last days
   1. Operation Frequent Wind
   2. Capitulation of South Vietnam
5. Aftermath
   1. North Vietnamese takeover
   2. American and world reaction

Christopher Parham (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Two things:

1/ I am the author of Butler, David; The Fall of Saigon, Scenes from the Sudden End of a Long War; Simon & Schuster, 1985.

2/ I have been unable to create an account. Are there rules for styles of User ID and Password? I tried to use the ones I prefer and the system didn't accept them, or close variations.

In other words, what are the rules for creating an account? Thanks, David Butler in Bangkok.58.9.71.165 12:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

To prevent "imposter" accounts, the system won't allow you to create usernames that are similar to an existing username. Combined with the fact that 2 million accounts have already been created, a lot of usernames are already taken up. Sorry about that, but hopefully this inconvenience won't stop you from contributing to Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is David Butler in Bangkok again. Sign-in problem is now solved. Thanks.

When I mentioned my book in my first message, I forgot to say that I hope it can be included in the bibliography for this article. I realize that this may not happen until I add something to the article.

Is that the case?Davidvbutler 06:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would make more sense to add your book if you were citing a specific fact to it. Feel free to add material to the article, some sections are in definite need of expansion. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VPA

The Vietnam People's Army had an acronym of NVA. I changed it to what it should be VPA.... I don't know why it was NVA. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.193.221 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 5 April 2007

• The correct title is People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) RM Gillespie 18:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time

According to Bui Quang Than, the man who raised the NLF flag above Independence Palace, the flag was raised at 10:30 a.m. However, since at the time North Vietnam uses GMT+7 timezone while the South uses GMT+8. The time should have been 11:30 a.m, not 12:15 p.m.--lt2hieu2004 14:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ambassador Martin

I would like to insert the following, probably without reference to my name:

Some analysts, including David Butler, argue that Martin's insistence to the end that all was normal helped prevent the murderous mayhem that had occurred in Hue and Danang from recurring in Saigon.

If this sentence is included in some form, I would then greatly appreciate it if my book was included in the bibliography:

The Fall of Saigon, David Butler, Simon and Schuster 1985Davidvbutler (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)