Talk:Tet Offensive/Archive 2

Naming

Why is this article named "Te>'t Offensive"? The name is a foreign construction, not a Vietnamese one, so it should be named "Tet Offensive". In Vietnamese the word "Te>'t" is not mentioned, but rather the name of that year, Ma>-.u Thân. DHN 18:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Should be "Tet" and have changed it. All those Vietnamese accents should be changed in other names as they've never been used in English texts. --Mkeroppi 22:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

POV weasel words

Many people, both at the time and in retrospect, have criticized the U.S. media 71.202.20.91 02:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC) dongo

I've added a source for the general comment, as well as a footnote with some additional sources who express this opinion. KarlBunker 14:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This piece has been through an extensive review and is still slanted to the imperialist POV? Almost amazing. It's like the interested parties just can't stop fighting their propaganda war, no matter what. Maybe they're old generals or something. It must be because they cannot see the bias, no matter what.

Listen guys (and guys you must be): either Wikipedia disappears into the Memory Hole and it won't matter in the end; or this piece, and all the others more-or-less targetted for pro-imperialist slant, will become exquisitely "fair and balanced". You can't fight entropy, no matter how dogged you are. Give it up. You didn't actually win the Cold War. No one did.

Pazouzou 14:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Generalized comments like this are not useful. If you have specific comments about specific elements of the content, make them. It is also unhelpful and contrary to WP policy to comment on contributors rather than content. This includes describing your imaginings as to the politics of contributors. KarlBunker 14:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hear, hear! RM Gillespie 18:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Poor sentence structure that needs to be fixed.

Someone should rewrite this sentence, located just under "Effect on the United States":

"That the Communists were able to mount a major, country-wide assault at all was a blow to U.S. hopes of winning the war rapidly, and starkly called into question General Westmoreland's now-infamous public reports of the previous progress in the War."

It is a poorly written sentence, which can be very confusing. (October 22, 2006. 17:07 EST.)

• Nothing wrong with the sentence. RM Gillespie 18:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• That sentence is complicated but it makes perfect sense to me. On the other hand, there are some sentences at the beginning of the article that seem to me to be jarringly inconsistent:

"The Tet Offensive can be considered a military defeat for the Communist forces, as neither the Viet Cong nor the North Vietnamese army achieved their tactical goals."

At least in common usage a military "defeat" is unrelated to achieving tactical goals. For example, the US military has so far failed to capture Bin Laden but very few people would say that Bin Laden has "defeated" the US military. It might be more accurate to say that it was a military "failure".

"The Tet Offensive is frequently seen as an example of the value of propaganda, media influence and popular opinion in the pursuit of military objectives."

The only propaganda that the rest of the article talks about is the US government propaganda. In this case, the Tet Offensive would most accurately be seen as an example of the weakness of propaganda. That is, propaganda that is discredited by actual events can backfire and do more harm than good. If this sentence is left in, it should be qualified by specifying which groups of people specifically have this view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.97.129 (talk • contribs)

Hm. I tentatively disagree with your first point. It seems to me that when an army mounts an attack with certain tactical goals and is beaten back without those goals being achieved, that fits the definition of a defeat. Bin Laden would be stretching that definition, since no "beating back" was involved; just successful "running and hiding."

I agree with your second point. I think "media influence" and "popular opinion" were the operative influences, and not propaganda. KarlBunker 18:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

casualty figures

I'm having difficulty finding a citable source for casualty figures and confirming the figures that are already in this article. I've seen a couple of sources that confirm the article's numbers with regard to Communist force casualties, but not so with ARVN (South Vietnamese Army) casualties. James Arnold in The Tet Offensive gives ARVN figures of 4,000-8,000 dead, with no estimate of wounded. This is far different from the 2,788 dead, 8,299 wounded shown in the article. I've also been unable to find a good source for US (and Australian/Korean) casualties. I'm curious where the highly detailed figures shown in the Military Conflict Infobox came from. Any thoughts, anyone? KarlBunker 16:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...looking through the history, it looks like they first entered in this diff. The editor (implicitly, it seems) cited this site of more or less dubious value. It would be nice to get a good source for those figures. Deleuze 18:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

For the time being I changed the figures to ones that I could find good sources for, and added citations. If anyone finds different figures from a better, more reliable-looking source, they can plug them in. KarlBunker 20:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am the editor who put those figures in. Those are the official figures claimed by the vietnam veterans' association, so I am reverting the edit (I would think that they are a "reputable" source http://www.ktroop.com/HonorRoll/casualty.pdf) In this particular document there's a tendency to lump SKOR and AUS casualties into US casualties, but I have seen them desegregated in some other material they have put out. I've done some snooping around as to where these figures came from, and supposedly the data is cited from the Combat Area Casualty File of 11/93 and The Adjutant General's Center (TAGCEN) file of 1981. I haven't changed the citation yet, though I'll try to get my hands on the relevant material in my spare time so that I can give it a proper one. --3 30, November 2006.

Update: well, scratch that idea. Turns out that I'll be down more than a hundred bucks trying to order the CACCF from the department of defense. http://www.archives.gov/research/electronic-records/defense-dept.html Since this file is commonly accepted in the Veteran press, I've decided to go ahead and cite it. If anyone has a copy, please provide the page numbers and any other relevant citation info. --3 30 November 2006.

Another Update: KarlBunker, the figures you cite with 2-3x the number of AVRN fatalities may have very well been likely. The official government records have at various points been accused of lowballing and outright lying about the number of fatalities. http://www.usvetdsp.com/casual.htm Do you know where Arnold got his estimates? --3, 30 November 2006.

The 2005 reprint of Arnold's Tet Offensive gives ARVN casualties at 4954 killed, 15,097 wounded, 926 missing (p 90) He adds that unofficial estimates are at least double these numbers. The above remarks looks to me to be original research using primary sources, better I think, to stick with secondary sources such as Arnold. KAM 11:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Decisive Communist Strategic Victory?

I don't think that's really accurate, strategically it was a disaster for the Communists, it took years for the Viet Cong (by their own admission) to reassert themselves as a truly major force. Pyschologically there is no denying its effect, but it was hardly a military victory, tactical or strategic for the Communists.

I think your analysis is more true of the operational level instead of the strategic. The psychological had a very central role during Vietnam. Deleuze 16:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The pyschological factor was crucial, but a pyschological victory is not a strategic one, a strategic victory implies accomplishment of the broader strategic military objective for the campaign, which was not acheived in the Tet Offensive. The Viet Cong's goal was not to cause dissent amongst the American people, their goal was to launch a massive populist uprising against the South Vietnamese government, at which they failed miserably while suffering crippling losses. Pyschologically, the battle of Khe Sanh was terrible for the morale of American troops, but that does not mean it was a Viet Cong military victory in any sense, the same is true of the Tet Offensive.

Since the overall goal of the communists was to reunify the country under Communist control, and since the Tet offensive brought them a great deal closer to that goal, I think that makes it correct to describe it as a strategic victory as well as a pyschological victory. Also, the fact that Tet was devastating for the Viet Cong doesn't seem to have had any significant effect on the Communists' (considered as a whole) ability to wage war, so I don't think it's correct to say it was "strategically it was a disaster for the Communists". KarlBunker 00:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The Tet Offensive did not bring them any closer to the goal of reunification, even the wikipedia article on the Vietnam War admits the Tet Offensive galvanized many previously apathetic South Vietnamese to fight for the government, it was a major pyschological blow to the US war effort, but that was never the goal of the campaign. It did have an effect on the Communist's ability to wage war, the few major battles started after and during the final stages of Tet, (Firebase Ripcord and Hamburger Hill)were fought by the PAVN, not the Viet Cong. The last important contribution the Viet Cong made was in Cambodia, using the only units they had left, those that hadn't been involved in Tet. The almost total destruction of the guerialla forces in the South was still a disaster for the Communist war effort, even if it didn't lose them the war, it was still a strategic defeat. The Communist 1972 Easter Offensive might have had a lot more success if the Viet Cong had been available to support the war effort, instead of having been thrown away at Tet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.218.240.80 (talk • contribs)

Tet had a lot to do with the US ultimately withdrawing from VietNam. Whether or not that was an intended result, and regardless of all other factors, that made it a strategic victory. KarlBunker 11:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What historians did or did not consider tet to be a strategic victory? A good cross section of referances is needed. KAM 12:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The Tet Offensive did not on its own cause the withdrawal of US forces, who would be in the country until 1973 and US forces were only withdrawn by the time, nor did it accomplish, or contribute anything towards accomplishing the whole objective of the Viet Cong and North Vietnam in the Vietnam War, which was not to defeat America but to unify Vietnam under a Communist government. It was a pyschological, but certainly not a strategic victory, and certainly not the decisive one that this article claims it to be. The battle of Thermoplyae for instance, could be considered a major pyschological victory for the Greeks in their resistance to Persia which did much to rally and cement the Greeks determination, but to claim it as a decisive strategic victory for that reason would be absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.227.64.164 (talk • contribs)

217.227.64.164, you seem to have web access that changes your IP address each time you log on. This makes it hard to see which comments are yours. Please either sign your comments with a name or get a Wikipedia account so your comments are identifiable.

You are entirely welcome to believe that Tet was not a strategic victory. However, Wikipedia policy is to take its facts from recognized scholars in the field, and as far as I know, there is no scholar of the Vietnam War or the Tet offensive who agrees with you on this point. Tet is universally considered a turning point in the war, and that makes it a strategic victory. As a small example of the opinion of scholars that Tet was a turning point in the war, consider the titles of the following books:

• Tet Offensive 1968: Turning Point in Vietnam by James Arnold
• Tet!: The Turning Point in the Vietnam War by Don Oberdorfer
• The TET Offensive: Turning Point of the Vietnam War by Dale Anderson
• The Tet Offensive (Turning Points in American History Series) by Charles Wills
• Tet 1968: The Communist offensive that marked the beginning of America's defeat in Vietnam by Văn SÆ¡n PhaÌ£m

And the following chapter titles from histories of the war:

• The "Cross-Over Point" (1967-1968), from Vietnam Wars 1945-1990 by Marilyn Young
• Johnson's War, IV: The Turning Year, 1968, from America's War in Vietnam: by Larry H. Addington

KarlBunker 16:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The are two different views, one that the U.S. was winning the war and the the "media influnce" resulted in eventual withdrawal. The other view is that the goverment was misleading the American people and that Tet opened their eyes. This line strongly implies the first view.;"The Tet Offensive is frequently seen as an example of the value of media influence and popular opinion in the pursuit of military objectives." Here, for example, Dr. Chet Richards has the second view "our population came to believe that their government was not telling the truth about either the goals or the progress of the war (which is why our tactical victory in the 1968 Tet offensive resulted in a grand strategic defeat.)" [1] KAM 17:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

KAM, I agree with you that there are two different opinions on that count. But I don't agree that the text you quote favors either opinion. "Media influence" applies whether you believe the media was honestly revealing the truth or was dishonest and biased. And "popular opinion" applies whether you believe that the weight of that opinion was correct and enlightened or incorrect and misguided. (And for that matter, from the sentence of Richards that you quote, I can't tell which "side" he's on--it could apply to either view.) KarlBunker 18:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point about the text in the article and I almost agree. My view is that the language used "Media influence" and "popular opinion" implies that the views are incorrect and misguided but I would be hard pressed to prove it. I think that the article would be improved if it was clearly stated that there is two distinct view points. As it is written it is not clear. KAM 19:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that would be a very good addition. It would require some research to come up with the names of a few reputable sources on both sides, and quotes from 1 or 2 of those sources on each side. Probably the "Media impact" section would be a good place to put this. Would you like to do this? If not, I'll probably get to it eventually. KarlBunker 19:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time to start thinking about making a new article by splitting this one military/political KAM 21:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

References

"Although US public opinion polls continued to show a majority supporting involvement in the war, this support continued to deteriorate and the nation became increasingly polarized over the war." - I may be missing something but I don't see where the source provided shows this. KAM 02:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right; that does look like a lousy reference. I'll look for something that's correct. KarlBunker 13:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"President Lyndon Johnson saw his popularity fall sharply after the Offensive, and he withdrew as a candidate for re-election in March of 1968." No source is given for this. A case could be made that Johnson withdrawal as a candidate caused a dropoff in support for the war. It might be hard to make a case for the war when the leader quits. KAM 02:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That's two unconnected points, right? (Or am I missing something?) Re. the first, this seems to me to be something that's so well documented and commonly known that it doesn't require a reference, like "President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963." The "reference" is any newspaper from the period or any book about the period. KarlBunker 13:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if Johnson lost popular support or if he lost political support or both because of Tet. The general trend in the polls at the time was a steady decline for support for the war. After Tet there was a a slight uptick in support.[2][3]] At Lyndon Johnson it says "his reelection bid in 1968 collapsed as a result of turmoil in his party." (also unsupported). I suggest we move as much as possible about politics from the first paragraph to the media section. KAM 14:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I guess there should be a reference and perhaps more careful language) about how Tet effected Johnson's popularity. I'm not so sure about separating out the discussion of politics, though. The major significance of Tet was its political/psychological effect, so I don't think all discussion of that should be squeezed into one section. KarlBunker 14:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well my remarks are not clear, I think lost political support may be better. As to the format I suggest making the second section a summary. As it stands it seems to be a article about a military action but perhaps the greater interest is the political. A second paragraph that summarizes the military action and political fallout in a paragraph or two? KAM 14:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Tet and the Media

I think this section needs to be expanded some. "Many people have blamed the U.S media for the negative light" is watered down when some conservertives and some in the military blame the media for losing the war. Also it is difficult to sort out claims of loss of popular support etc. The polls seem to show an increase of support during tet and then a return to a steady decline. It seems to me many have picked out two points of the steady decline to show that tet caused a loss of support. The results of the primary are also used to support the claim that Americans had turned anti-war when in fact it was "anyone but Johnson" as the hawks lost faith in his polices. Also not mentioned is McNamara's resignation the the advice of the "wise men" Darley says that the leadership gave up on the war. KAM 13:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

anti-war doesn't seem like the right word to me. KAM 23:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is no reference to what Walter Cronkite allowed here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colt AR-15 (talk • contribs)

There's a paragraph on Cronkite, beginning with the sentence "Probably the most well-known example of an anti-war statement in the press is Walter Cronkite's special report on the war of February 27, 1968." Your edit, in which you give Cronkite full responsibility for the end of the Vietnam war, isn't supported by the view of historians. See Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Attribution for information on how such edits have to be supported. KarlBunker 21:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The Cronkite reference keeps being deleted. Did you live that time? I sure did as I missed going by one year. Cronkite aided the antiwar effort in the extreme by improperly reporting on Tet. He most certainly does belong in the opening commentary. One could argue that he gave such resolve to the anti-war movement that he gave the North the willingness to hold on, which they have admitted to.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Colt AR-15 (talk • contribs)

Now I understand why my daughter is at UNC Chapel Hill and has been told "DO NOT QUOTE WIKIPEDIA AS IT IS NOT A SCHOLARLY WORK". You can't even read what I posted properly. I did not lay "full responsibility" on Cronkite. But he was a pivotal player in nthe ant-war effort. YOU don't know your history. What are you doing editing it then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colt AR-15 (talk • contribs)

Personal attacks aren't allowed on Wikipedia. And you aren't signing your comments correctly. Do this by typing 4 tildes, like this ~~~~ KarlBunker 21:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Truth is a defense. I have not insulted you. I have stated the facts of the matter. I DID NOT lay "full responsibility" upon Cronkite in any way, shape, or form. He never had such power. But he lent credence to the anti-war movement.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Colt AR-15 (talk • contribs)

Hold down the shift key, then press the "~" key 4 times. You don't have to type anything else; your signature and a date stamp will be inserted when the edit is saved. Use the "Show preview" button to see if you got it right.

You're correct that I overstated your edit. However, you haven't presented any argument or citation that shows that placing a quote from Cronkite in the first paragraph is justified. There were many other factors that contributed to the psychological impact of Tet on the U.S. public. KarlBunker 00:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

psychological effect

"The Communist high command did not anticipate the psychological effect the Tet Offensive would have on America." Shouldn't this be at least reworded? Like did not fully anticipate? This may be more recent material then some. "We did not know then—and only learned with publication in 1988 of historical documents in Hanoi—that the North Vietnamese Politburo had decided as early as June 1967 to aim for a decisive battlefield victory in 1968, a U.S. presidential election year." [4] From the same source: "North Vietnamese Communist Party chief Le Duan had forecast in a letter to his southern fighters, to "shake the aggressive will of U.S. imperialism, compel it to change its strategy and de-escalate the war."

Given the timing of the Offensive (Presidential Election year and the launch date), I daresay that the Communist High Command did in fact have a very good idea what the political and psychological ramifications would be. Le Duan and the VC High Command may have been cold, cruel, vicious and vindictive, but one thing they were not is stupid. I suspect that the psychological damage they did was a secondary objective, not the side effect it seems to be.

Yes, we beat them back, and "won" on the ground, but lost in the final reckoning, five years later.

65.96.138.187 16:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)BlackSpartan

VC defections following Tet (morale breakdown)

Why not discussed in the article? --HanzoHattori 08:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wording of First Paragraph

That it "inflicted severe damage on American civilian morale" is the viewpoint of Westmoreland in his 1969 memoirs and of some American political conservatives today. It is is not supported by most historians today or by the polls at the time. KAM 22:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a graph of polls asking "In view of developments since we entered the fighting in Vietnam, do you think the U.S. made a mistake sending troops to fight in Vietnam?" (Gallup) [[5]] KAM 22:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

We've been through something like this issue before. The poll you cite asks a very narrow question that doesn't necessarily give a good overall impression of American morale as a whole. As I noted above in this Talk page (under my previous account name of KarlBunker) Tet is unquestionably considered a "turning point" in the Vietnam war. Note the list of book and chapter titles under the section "Decisive Communist Strategic Victory?" above. It certainly wasn't a "turning point" because of any military success on the part of the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese. It was a turning point because of the psychological effect of Tet on Americans. RedSpruce 00:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

First, there is no dispute that Tet is widely considered to be the turning point. The text in question said: "and is widely seen as the turning point of the war that contributed to the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces. It is frequently claimed that the Offensive was a victory for the United States that became a political and psychological defeat largely because of media coverage.[1] Is this (sourced) sentence untrue?

There are two basic views, the Vietnam historian view (scholars such as George Donelson Moss, Chester Pach, William Hammond, and Daniel Hallin,) here [[6]]and then the views of Westmorland in his memoirs which is shared by the some of the political right in the U.S. today, for example Oliver North here [[7]]. As it stands the article reflects the second view. KAM 12:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

At present the article says "it inflicted severe damage on American civilian morale" But Stanley Karnow, Vietnam: A History (8-26-05) says "the momentous Tet episode scarcely altered American attitudes toward the war." - this view point is not represented. KAM 15:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

polls

"Although US public opinion polls continued to show a majority supporting involvement in the war, this support continued to deteriorate and the nation became increasingly polarized over the war." I have pointed out that this is not supported by the reference. I edited it with sources, now it has been reverted. The source shows no polls after 1967, before the T.O. KAM 18:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Two views

That there are two main views of The Tet Offensive is illustrated by the remarks recently made by President Bush regarding Iraq. Here the San Francisco Chronicle seems to assume that Bush views Iraq as failing here [8]. Here Juan Cole points out the confusion between what was understood and what was meant [9] and here DAVID F. SCHMITZ says " "Contrary to the myths that surround Tet, public approval did not suddenly erode in the wake of the attacks due to the media's coverage of the battles. Support, similar to the war in Iraq, was high in 1965 and gradually declined over the next two years to where, prior to Tet, a plurality saw the war as a mistake.

If it was not a dramatic change in public opinion due to Tet that changed the course of the war, then what did lead to Johnson's decision to cap escalation, halt the bombing of the North and announce he would not seek re-election?

The carnage of the Tet Offensive, combined with declining public support, opened up political space for different and dissenting views to be heard. Also similar, officials turned to former policymakers -- the so-called Wise Men under Johnson and the current Iraq Study Group -- for fresh examinations of policy. " [10]

Just a personel note for anyone who may be interested...I had a 30 day leave to visit my wife in Switzerland, from Vietnam in May of 69....during trip I had a 2 day layover in the states...what I saw in the reporting of the war at that time had no connection to what I had seen and experienced...it was obvious to me that we had won the battle of tet, but was being portrayed that we had lost...seemed most of the news reports were concentrating on the attack on the embassy and what was happening in siagon..think the news reporters looked out their windows out of the hotel in saigon where they mostly stayed and when they saw fighting outside their windows...felt that if military could not protect them, then we must be losing....once they started reporting that we were losing they seemed to not be able to retract what they had started...in Switzerland the news reports were accurate..stated the north vietnam had definitely lost and probably would negotiate end of war at peace table...I feel the same thing is happening in iraq...you may notice that the majority of the reporting is about what is happening in baghdad...where most of the reporters stay...have heard they are afraid to travel anywhere outside of their area...and if they do travel they do so surrounded by armed guards....how can they report accurately under those conditions...??....the deaths of reporters who have tried to move around without guards I believe have scared them ...I believe it is mostly for these reporters that there is so much bombings and trouble in baghdad...they know what manipulated reporting has done in the past to get america out of wars and are trying to do the same thing....sorry for the rant.. <grin>....and posting what is probably inappropriate hereSno2 02:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

50,000+ Allies?

More like 500,000, am I rite? (Communist strenght higher too, I guess,) --HanzoHattori 00:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Citations

To this day, worldwide military institutions use the Tet Offensive as an example of psychological operations in disinformation campaigns and propaganda.- This statement should not be in the article without a source.

Is there any support from other other editors to change the style of citations? I agree with this: "while other editors find them annoying, particularly when used inline in the text, because they make the text harder to read in edit mode and therefore harder to edit." , from Wikipedia:Citing sources I find it difficult to edit with this style of citations.

A large section of text the "Strategic context" has been deleted. - I thought it was too long should it go back in? KAM 14:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Effect on the United States

I think perhaps the controversy section should be moved to the effect on the United States. Then the bulk of that section (Effect in U.S.) should be moved to its own article. KAM 11:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Too One-sided?

There is plenty of information in this article about the American side of things but wouldn't it be more balanced to have more details of the North Vietnamese reunification forces' players, strategies, etc. For example, Vo Nguyen Giap is mentioned in this article, as is the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, but General Vo's involvement in both the Tet Offensive, especially re. Khe San, and the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in the First Indochina War could be given more extensive treatment. CWPappas 06:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I think part of the problem is sources. My guess is that N. Vietnamese sources would largely be propaganda. KAM 13:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks KAM for your input. I didn't mean that the additional information should necessarily be from Vietnamese sources, just more detailed historically-factual accounts of how the North Vietnamese reunification forces strategised and fought, their objectives, etc. After all, the predominantly-American forces faced strong resistance — so strong, in fact, that the North Vietnamese reunification forces won the war.

Isn't how the victors won at least as important as how the losing side fought? I'm Canadian so I've heard much more over the past four decades of how the war was fought from the American perspective, but little about how the North Vietnamese fought.

Having Vietnamese sources would not be a bad idea in and of itself...we'd be getting the info straight from the horse's mouth. POV in the form of propaganda should, of course, be filtered out no matter what the source. CWPappas 05:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is "The War Politburo: North Vietnam's Diplomatic and Political Road to the Têt Offensive" by Liên-Hang T. Nguyen [11]- if thats not enough there is a list of recomended reading. KAM 12:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivial info or not?

In 1967, North Vietnam promulgated a new lunar calendar, using Hanoi time (UTC+7) as base instead of Beijing time (UTC+8) as used in the South. It so happens that due to the rules of the Chinese calendar, the Tet from the North differ from Tet in the South in 1968 (this only happens once every 20 or so years) - with the North celebrating it a day earlier. Thus the order to "attack on the morning of Tet" has different meanings in the North and the South. As a result, some Viet Cong in regions with regular contacts with the North attacked a day early. DHN 01:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)