Talk:Cambodian campaign/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV

I'll get back to this later, but as it stands, this article fails entirely to take on the Cambodian perspective on this conflict. It fails to mention the 300,000-600,000 Cambodian deaths estimated from the bombing campaign nor the more recently revealed number of 230,516 sorties over Cambodia. This article also suggests that the US mercilessly left Cambodia in the hands of a communist Vietnam. However, recent analysis suggests that the Khmer Rouge actually rose to power as a direct result of the widespread civilian deaths from the bombing campaign and were previously a ragtag group of 1-5k members. Check out this article from the Yale Genocide Project. http://www.taylorowen.com/Articles/Walrus_CambodiaBombing_OCT06.pdf

Additionally, the language suggests "success" is based on circumstances favorable to the American administration. -Ben Rassbach

• You seem to be getting a little ahead of yourself here. The bombing campaign that you mention as to total tonnages, deaths, etc... (see Operation Freedom Deal) only just began at the end of this time period. They did not occur (at least in the main) during Operation Menu or during the Cambodian Campaign itself. During this period, U.S. bombing was usually limited to the sparsely inhabited border areas, where the communist sanctuaries were located. Post the incursion, the close air support campaign became an interdiction effort, attempting to halt PAVN forces from returning to its sanctuaries. During 1972 - 1973, however, the bombing became much more widespread, reaching into the heavily populated interior in an attempt to support Khmer Republican forces against PAVN and the Khmer Rouge.

As to the "suggestion" of the article, if you look at the sources, it is difficult to come to any other conclusion than the one you stated above. The only interest that the U.S. and South Vietnam had in Cambodia was to occupy and destroy as many communists as possible, not for the sake of Cambodia, but only as concomitant to the situation in South Vietnam. There is nothing "recent" in the suggestion that the bombing actually expanded Khmer Rouge influence or its ranks (which reached ~12,000 men during 1970). See Cambodian Civil War. As to the "success" of the campaign, since the U.S. was the principal progenitor of the operation, it seems logical to grant the term (or "failure", if it had come to that) to that nation. You might also want to get yourself an address if you wish to be taken more seriously. RM Gillespie 12:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Base Areas

Capital B, capital A - do these really need capitalisation? Are they genuinely proper nouns in this context? If so, I suggest the first appearance really justifies a link (even a red one) so that their definition can be explained. (Will make more suggestions as I copyedit further) Kim dent brown 19:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, they really do need capitalizations. Military stuff. RM Gillespie 04:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• • In which case an explanation of the technical, 'military stuff' use of the term would be warranted. Maybe you could add one? Kim dent brown 21:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting reversions

Congratulations on geting your A-rating, very well deserved. I made a few copy-edits and you reverted several - I should perhaps have given my reasons, and I'm not going to undo your reversions! But one phrase in particular I'd suggest thinking about. You wrote: "The U.S. government was cognizant of these activities in Cambodia", which I changed to "The U.S. government knew about these activities in Cambodia". I did so because I always think simpler (usually Anglo-Saxon!) language is more appropriate, unless a particular technical use is being made of a Latinate term. "Knew about" is much clearer and less pretentious than "was cognizant of" and I stick by my recommendation. Kim dent brown 21:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Your copyediting is appreciated and surely helped the article. My revision to the term cognizant (as opposed to "knew about") is a little difficult to explain. I gave it some thought today and remembered what it was like to discover the English language as a child. I would browse dictionaries and encylopedias (don't really know why) and discovered a whole realm of information on words and their usage. If I did not know what they were, I looked them up, and then moved from there to others, gaining knowledge with each exploration. If I were a kid and read this article (and I would have) and encountered a term which was unfamiliar, I would have looked it up in a dictionary. The author of such an article, therefore, killed two birds with one stone, spreading information not only on the subject matter, but on the language itself. The "pretentiousness" of words? Maybe it is the simplicity (although accurate) of your revision that bothered me. I always believed that variety was the spice of life (and language). The simplification of our language to its lowest common denominator seems to be the way of the future, but it is a path I fear to tread. Rather old school I guess. RM Gillespie 05:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Small Point

A small thing I noticed, the term "Viet Cong" was not derogatory, it was simply an abbreviation of vietnamese communist. It seems that the phrasing has little purpose in this article other than to backdoor a POV. 69.120.227.56 (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• The use of the term Viet Cong, is (and was) indeed derogatory. It was cooked up by the USIA for use by president Ngo Dinh Diem. It was meant as a replacement for the term Viet Minh (and all of the historical connotations that went with it), which was the popular title for the guerrillas in use in South Vietnam during his tenure. It was also adopted in usage by the American military, which preferred it to NLF, a title which tended to lend legitamacy to the Front. For the same reason, NVA was adopted by the U.S. military as a title, obviating the usage of "People's" Army of Vietnam and any "confusion" that might arise over that moniker by the population (American or South Vietnamese).RM Gillespie (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Repercussions

RMGillespie excised the following sentence from the repercussions section, saying he thinks it is redundant:

"The student strike spread nationwide, involving more than four million students and 450 universities, colleges and high schools in mostly peaceful protests and walkouts."

I disagree with his assertion that the information is included elsewhere in the article and believe there are compelling reasons that the sentence (and the link it contains) should be retained. While a number of incidents and protests are, in fact, listed in this section, the fact that it lead to a student strike is not. Nor is the extent of the student strike. The "Student Strike of 1970" was a significant event. The linked article is a new one and the link between the Cambodia Campaign and the student strike is direct and relevant.

I don't want to re-revert this myself and engage in a personal conflict here, but the writing and factual issues seem clear. Roregan (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reinserted the sentence and expanded the section a bit.Roregan (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Legality

The legality or illegality of the Cambodian Incursion should be discussed in the article. Badagnani (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

A Class

This article has already passed an A class review and has three A class ratings. Why is it nominated for a GA? Outdawg (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review and A-class review are different review processes. It is OK for an article to go for both reviews and also OK to pass both reviews, so an article can be a GA and A-class at the same time. Also, a GA review is useful if you ever want to go for FA. --Kaypoh (talk) 02:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

• Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?

• If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?

• Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

GA=Pass

Good work!

One of the few comments that I would have is to rename the "Treasure Trove" section. It may just be my opinion, but I personally think that that doesn't fit. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 02:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Major correction is needed re combat in Cambodia

The present article states: "The 3rd Brigade, of the 1st Air Cavalry Division, opened the second phase of the division's operations (Operation Toan Thang 45) against Base Areas 350 and 351, along the northern borders of South Vietnam's Binh Long and Phuoc Long Provinces from 6 May till 25 June. Once again, there was little opposition. All of the U.S. units ordered into Cambodia after the initial operations in the Fishhook were disappointed by the lack of enemy contact and the shortage of time. “

This is 180 degrees off from reality and gives a terribly wrong impression. I was sent into Cambodia with A 1/7 1st Cavalry Division as a replacement. Since entering Cambodia, my battalion had been in fierce contact with the NVA (North Vietnamese Army). Casualties had been heavy and by then, we were well under strength. Many of us were replacements for men who had already been wounded or killed. By the time we exited Cambodia on June 30, 1970, even with many replacements for men who had left the field the hard way, we were way below strength. The NVA were strong, we were in their back yard, and we clashed fiercely.

We used to say that compared to Cambodia, Vietnam was a Boy Scout camp. I remember talking to one person in another company who said that of all the men in his company who had entered Cambodia on May 1, 1970, he was one of only nine who walked out on June 30. Here’s what another source (http://www.history.army.mil/books/Vietnam/Airmobility/airmobility-ch11.html) says: “On 24 June, while extracting Fire Support Base BRONCHO, one aircraft was downed and five others were hit. At the same time the fire support base was taking indirect fire regularly throughout the day. Using all possible suppressive fires from the armed helicopters, Fire Support Base BRONCHO was extracted at last light.” I was there and can personally attest to the severity of the punishment the NVA inflicted on us that day. Quite a few men were wounded, fortunately nobody killed that particular day. (Note: Correct firebase name was Bronco, not Broncho)

We did not leave Cambodia until June 30. In fact, my company actually crossed the river back into Vietnam late on June 29 and started to set up for the night. Then we were ordered to recross the river back into Cambodia and spend the night there so we would not leave prior to June 30!

Cambodia was a very bad place. Somewhere around 350 men were killed and thousands wounded. The Cambodian incursion must be represented as such, not dismissed as a minor, casual event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moldsen (talk • contribs) 16:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

Just because someone says so, doesn't make it true. Re-write in a neutral manner, if you are able. The article should not copy and paste text written by Shawcross as fact -- TheTimesAreAChanging 17:19, 15 November 2010

The passage you keep removing contains several references including one by Lieutenant General Sak Sutsakhan, Colonel Perry Lamy and your favorite person William Shawcross. Are you saying that all three authors are wrong? -- Esemono (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Years??

1. In the introduction: "during mid-1970". What is this?? According to the infobox this took place in 1970. 2. Missing years: introdcution talks about events happening on a certain day and month. Buth which year? Introductory "during mid-1970" does not really help here.--Nedergard (talk) 10:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

To Anyone Concerned With the Historical Truth

"Cambodia (like neighboring Laos) would be sacrificed for the withdrawal of the Americans and the future existence of the Republic of Vietnam.[78] Millions of Cambodians would pay the ultimate price as a result of those decisions.[79]"

This statement is completely false propaganda regurgitated as unquestioned fact.

In their 1993 study, modeling "the highest mortality [they] can justify," Judith Banister and Paige Johnson estimated 275,000 deaths during the 1970-1975 period. Marek Sliwinski carried out a demographic study where he arrives at a comparable estimate of 240,000 war deaths out of which there were 40,000 deaths as a result of American bombings. Heuveline, Kiernan, and Etcheson all give roughly identical estimates (the highest is 300,000, from Kiernan). The 600,000 figure may have been invented by Pol Pot himself, and is 2 to 3 times the actual number of war-related deaths. Of the 40,000 deaths caused by American bombing, the vast majority were combatants; the number of civilians killed might be put conservatively at 10,000.

As scholar of Cambodia and Pol Pot’s biographer David Chandler points out, the bombing campaign "had the effect the Americans wanted – it broke the Communist encirclement of Phnom Penh. The war was to drag on for two more years." Had the bombing campaign not have occurred, Pol Pot would gained power earlier than he had done. A more accurate answer as to what was responsible for bringing the Khmer Rouge to power was provided by Timothy Carney and published in Karl D. Jackson’s superb book on the Khmer Rouge. He provides five reasons why Pol Pot won the war (support from Sihanouk, massive supplies of military aid from North Vietnam, government corruption, the U.S. cut-off in air support after Watergate, and the determination of the Cambodian Communists). Not one of them is the U.S. bombing. Michael Lind, in his book on the Vietnam War, notes: "In 1970, the Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars complained that the U.S. military effort was preventing the Khmer Rouge, with Sihanouk as a figurehead, from coming to power; after 1974-1975, most on the left floated a new story – the U.S. military effort had caused the Khmer Rouge to come to power." Vietnam even admitted that it "played a decisive role" in bringing the Khmer Rouge to power (Washington Post, April 23, 1985).

The claim that the bombing or incursion had any such effect is so absurd as to boggle the mind. As Henry Kissinger points out, the Menu bombings went no further than ten miles into Cambodia, where there was hardly any population at all.

At Geneva, Hanoi had attempted to secure a Khmer Viet Minh "zone" in northeastern Cambodia that would have been modeled on the Pathet Lao zone they secured in Laos. This amounted to an attempt to divide Cambodia into Communist and non-Communist halves, like Vietnam. By 1968, the Khmer Krahom had 14-15,000 fighters, while the KVM had 12,000. North Vietnam had invaded and occupied large chunks of Cambodia. Nearly half of the country was faced with North Vietnamese or other Communist occupation. The Viet Cong was active in the country with about 30,000 troops, and worked with the KVM to launch invasions of Cambodia from North Vietnam. The North Vietnamese had 60,000 troops on Cambodian soil. This would be the equivalent in the United States of nearly 4 million armed and organized troops from Mexico and Canada overrunning most of the country. These figures are from 10 months prior to the start of any U.S. bombing. By 1970, North Vietnam had the supply lines, troops, and logistical support necessary to force the collapse of Cambodia. Sihanouk had long done little to disguise his support for the North Vietnamese Communists, but now he grew afraid. "Hanoi," he said, "could easily force the collapse of both Cambodia and what is left of Laos if it was not faced with American opposition."

The U.S. incursion, simply put, was the American troops following the North Vietnamese as they broke away from their "sanctuaries" to surround Phnom Penh (as they fought side-by-side with the Cambodian Communists). Documents uncovered from the Soviet archives after 1991 reveal that the North Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in 1970 was launched at the explicit request of the Khmer Rouge and negotiated by Pol Pot's then second in command, Nuon Chea (Dmitry Mosyakov, “The Khmer Rouge and the Vietnamese Communists: A History of Their Relations as Told in the Soviet Archives,” in Susan E. Cook, ed., Genocide in Cambodia and Rwanda (Yale Genocide Studies Program Monograph Series No. 1, 2004), p54ff).

The U.S. did not resume the bombing until the capital was under siege in 1973. It was only at this point that the bombing extended deeper than ten miles into the country. The US Seventh Air Force argued that the bombing prevented the fall of Phnom Penh in 1973 by killing 16,000 of 25,500 Khmer Rouge fighters besieging the city.

I'm not aware of any serious scholar besides Shawcross (or Kiernan, I suppose) who honestly accepts the thesis that American intervention caused the genocide--although it has been repeated so frequently that most people just assume it must be true. And even Shawcross seems to have backed down quite a bit from many of the more absolutist claims he made in Sideshow.

As it stands, the Cambodian incursion, far from killing millions, actually saved millions of lives. But even if it had boosted the Khmer Rouge, to suggest that it directly "caused" the genocide--and not that the policies of the Khmer Rouge directly caused the genocide--is obvious POV propaganda. This statement has to be removed or re-written to suggest it is a matter of opinion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Talk about your propaganda. "The US did not resume the bombing until 1973"? The bombing never stopped post the incursion. Perhaps your memory is slipping. Check out Operation Freedom Deal. "Millions of Cambodians died in the bombing campaigns." The article does not state that. Millions would perish as an outcome resulting from the expansion and popularization of the KR. "Millions were saved as a result of the incursion?" Make that statement in any marketplace in Cambodia and see what it gets you. 74.177.113.228 (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• I just noticed this anonymous statement. Let me tell you, the Cambodian people are renowned for their pro-Americanism, and the Cambodian-American community is a staunchly Republican voting bloc. Unfortunately, your only knowledge of Cambodia comes from comrade Chomsky, thus you "know" all sorts of things about the country that are not true. If only you could understand that there is a reason Pol Pot is regarded in such infamy even today in Cambodia, and it's not because the Western media brainwashed ordinary Cambodians into overlooking (imaginary) "comparable" American crimes.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not obvious POV propaganda, in part because your presentation of the issue is unreadable, and in part your argument that the article does not represent the scholarly consensus (and should therefore be modified on that point) in no way indicates that the article is currently POV propaganda. It means Perry Lamy's scholarship is from a minority scholarly tradition and should be weighted down. Your argument would be better served by highly structured text instead of 5000 bytes of unstructured text with copy pasted slab quotes with no slab quotation indication. For example, your argument can be reduced to:

• • Currently Perry Lamy's opinion in Barrel Roll 1995 is cited to justify the opinion, "Millions of Cambodians would pay the ultimate price as a result of those decisions".
  • This opinion is opposed by:
    1. foo in Miskatonic UP
    2. bar in J. Camb. Stud.' etc.
• The clarity of highly structured texts is very useful for presenting editorial arguments. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The material above was partly copied-and-pasted from what I wrote on a different talk page.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The initial phrases quoted by TheTimesAreAChanging are definitely inconsistent with NPOV and must be fixed. Agree. How exactly? Not like that, obviously.Biophys (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I also thought the final paragraphs read as highly unusual variations from wikipedia POV convention, and came to this talk page to see if it had been brought up. At a minimum, the accusatory tone needs to be remedied. As for the Shawcross book Sideshow, the bibliography gives a publishing date of 1979 but the citation says 1972. I don't know which is correct, but surely a 1972 account is far too early to even assess this matter in any reasonable historical perspective. --CAVincent (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sideshow came out in 1979. I admire Shawcross, but his view is not the only one possible. And here is Shawcross (with co-writer Peter Rodman) in 2007:

The 1975 Communist victory in Indochina led to horrors that engulfed the region. The victorious Khmer Rouge killed one to two million of their fellow Cambodians in a genocidal, ideological rampage. In Vietnam and Laos, cruel gulags and "re-education" camps enforced repression. Millions of people fled, mostly by boat, with thousands dying in the attempt. .... Despite the defeat in 1975, America's 10 years in Indochina had positive effects. Lee Kuan Yew, then prime minister of Singapore, has well articulated how the consequences would have been worse if the United States had not made the effort in Indochina. "Had there been no U.S. intervention," he argues, the will of non-communist countries to resist communist revolution in the 1960s "would have melted and Southeast Asia would most likely have gone communist." The domino theory would have proved correct. ...The likely human and strategic costs [of defeat in Iraq] are appalling to contemplate.

Defeat's Killing Fields

• The main problem with your contention is that the domino principle was proved to be fallacious. Yes, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos became socialist states, dominated by the North Vietnamese. But North Vietnamese regionalism does not translate into expansionism. If anything, it imploded upon itself. The nationalistic Khmer Rouge carried out incursions into Vietnam. The Vietnamese responded with an invasion of their own. Big daddy China responded by invading Vietnam. Where is the domino principle here? Oh, you will undoubtedly respond by claiming that US intervention precluded an expansion akin to that propounded by the principle. Then why didn't the North Vietnamese simply topple the Lao government (as they could have at any point during the conflict) and move into northern Thailand? All of this discussion revolves around political, not human, consequences. Were the effects of the American intervention in 1964 worth the human cost? Would the death toll have been as high if the South Vietnamese government had been abandoned under the Diem regime? If the US had not intervened, the Indo-Chinese peninsula would indeed have "gone commie" (to some degree or another). And millions of southeast asians might not have had to die (much less the 55,000 Americans who perished) in the process.74.177.113.228 (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Rather different in tone, isn't it?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Main problem here is discussion of the question "what if?" ("Had there been no U.S. intervention"). Such questions should only be discussed in a separate section, at the bottom of the article, and certainly not in the summary. Focus on factual events, per sources. If there were camps, describe those camps.Biophys (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

US military was responsible for all B-52 bombings

In 1969, President Richard Nixon and his National Security Advisor, Henry A. Kissinger, unleashed B-52 carpet bombing for over fourteen months against a people who still tilled the soil with water buffalo. The 3,500 bombing sorties resulted in 600,000 deaths. The American bombing of Cambodia was a closely guarded secret primarily because the U.S. was not at war with Cambodia.

Not only did Nixon and Kissinger not seek the necessary approval from Congress to bomb Cambodia, they tried to conceal the bombing not only from the American public but Congress as well" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:8500:982:3888:7BC5:6B75:540B (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Help with stub: Kingdom of Cambodia (1975-76)

Hello, I noticed there was a gap in the former states of Cambodia so I created Kingdom of Cambodia (1975-76); any help in expanding this stub would be much appreciated. Cheers, ^walk victor falk ^talk 04:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Referencing

G'day, currently this article is listed as a Milhist A-class article / Good article; however, currently there are quite a few areas of the article that appear to be unreferenced. I have marked where I believe citations are needed to meet the Military History project's current standard for referencing for A-class articles with a "citation needed" tag. Is anyone able to help add these citations? If not, unfortunately, I feel the article may have to go through an A-class re-appraisal to see if it still meets the project's criteria. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I've done some work on it and will try to ref the remaining missing refs. I agree that it presently doesn't meet GA. Mztourist (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mztourist: G'day, I hope you are well. I realise this has been several years since I raised this concern, and I have probably dropped the ball on following this up. I see you have done some work over the intervening years and wouldn't want to go nominating it for an A-class re-appraisal without giving you a chance to discuss first. From what I can see, there are still quite a few places needing citations. Do you think you will be able to achieve this? Or should I nominate it for a re-appraisal, which will likely (but not definately) lead to a demotion from A-class? Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: I'll take a look at it, but as I don't have access to most of the reference materials used, not sure how much progress I'll make. I'm not really bothered whether or not it gets reappraised. Mztourist (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

G'day, thanks, I will look to nominate it shortly for a re-appraisal. I will also try to find some more refs, but unfortunately this isn't an a topic I have much knowledge of. Hopefully, the re-appraisal might bring some more editors who might have access to the necessary sources. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I've searched my bookshelf and found I do have a few relevant books that seem to have been the basis for some of this page, so have added them in. I'll take a look at some online ACMH materials tomorrow and see what else is there. regards Mztourist (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this, great work! I have found a couple more refs and added them to one of the paragraphs. I will hold off on the re-appraisal nom given the progress you've made and will keep looking for some refs to deal with the remaining tags. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: Thanks. Having looked at Tran's The Cambodian Incursion (ref 2), I can see that there's a lot more to the campaign than what is currently here. As currently drafted its very much a US-centric view when the ARVN stayed in much longer and arguably achieved more, particularly in rescuing the FANK forces cut off in Ratanakiri Province. Accordingly I'll try to expand it over the next few days. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be fantastic. I will try to get the Shaw and Truong Tang references from my local library, as they might rectify the last couple cn tags. Not sure if they will have either of them, but I will do a search tomorrow. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: What do you think of the TIME coverage? All the links appear to be dead and are probably behind a paywall. I'm inclined to torch the lot of them. Mztourist (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

G'day, I found a small amount of at least one of the TIME articles through the Wayback Machine: [1] (although it is only an abstract or something similar). That said, the list is essentially a large list of works that aren't cited, and that potentially all portray a single view of the campaign, so I don't mind either way if they are kept or removed. Regarding the Shaw and Truong works, I had a look at my local library and unfortunately they don't have either of them. Regards, 07:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Noted thanks, I've nuked them and I'm done. Mztourist (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Merger Proposal October 2018

The introduction and Background sections of Escape of the Provisional Revolutionary Government are already covered in great detail in Cambodian Campaign#Preliminaries. All of Escape of the Provisional Revolutionary Government#Escape to Kratie is now covered under Cambodian Campaign#Escape of the Provisional Revolutionary Government, so I have effectively merged all relevant detail already. The page is an unnecessary fork and frankly provides very little tangible detail. In addition I have no idea what battle is being referred to here: " 9th Division had fought and won in a battle near the city of Krek, Cambodia against ARVN forces." Mztourist (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, as this attracted no comments, I have gone and done the merge and Escape of the Provisional Revolutionary Government now redirects to the relevant section of this page. Mztourist (talk) 08:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)