Talk:Canada and the Vietnam War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
MILHIST 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Removed One of the most visible expressions of this was at Expo '67. President Johnson was visiting for the opening of the American pavilion, which would involve a large American flag being unfurled. The FLQ secretly informed the government that anyone who tried to raise the flag would be shot. The original government plan was to use a Boy Scout to raise it, under the assumption the FLQ would not assassinate a child, but this idea was rejected and an extremely nervous scout leader wearing a bullet proof vest did so. While he was not shot it was discovered upon the unfurling of the flag that the canton with the stars had been cut out by a protester.

I can't find any references for this happening, and am sure I would have heard of it if it were the case. (I'm Canadian, btw) If anybody can point to a reference, I'd be happy to see it reinstated, but otherwise I feel it should remain out. Sherurcij 00:08, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

It is from a 2004 CBC documentary titled EXPO 67: Back to the Future. - SimonP 00:16, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


I'm removign the claim of 40,000 put in by an anonymous IP address unless it's sourced Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 15:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Even the CBC reference of 30,000 'Canadians' volunteering is proving hard to substantiate. Does anyone know where the CBC sourced this number?

I suppose the CBC would probably be the best people to answer that question. =) - TheMightyQuill 01:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel that Canada's position vis a vis the Commonwealth should also be mentioned. I have put in a short paragraph about this. Canada's position would not be purely influenced by the USA, but also by the UK (non-participant), and Australia + New Zealand (participants). --MacRusgail 16:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

A user has assumed I was referring to pre-Statute of Westminster Commonwealth law. This was not what was implied at all, rather that the Commonwealth at the time was still an influence on Canada, and is to a minor extent today. Canada's position on Vietnam cannot be looked at purely through its relations with the USA. --MacRusgail 15:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that the Commonwealth was influential, merely that this situation was unusual. What's your logic? HistoryBA 23:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
"Unusual" is probably the wrong term here. However, I still think Canada's attitude towards US militarism is well contrasted with A-NZ and the UK here. --MacRusgail 16:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The picture

The evidence that this picture was taken at the 1965 meeting is derived from connecting the ID number associated with the photo (PA117602) as seen here with the description in the National Archives of Canada seen here. The date matches the date of Pearson's visit to Johnson's ranch in January, 1965. Fishhead64 23:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, except that's not the meeting where Johnson berated Pearson. HistoryBA 12:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Pearson made two trips to the LBJ Ranch within three months in 65? Something's wrong here. Fishhead64 16:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I suspect the April trip wasn't a planned one. He was invited to the ranch after giving the speech at Temple University. Pearson's memoirs make it clear that the berating took place in April. In any case, I don't think there were any photographers for the April trip, given how it is described in the memoirs. HistoryBA 16:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Non-participant" as against "neutral"

I think that some explanation is needed for why Canada was "non-participant", rather than "neutral", and what exactly the former entails, given that "non-participant" (unlike "neutral") lacks a commonly understood meaning. Although anyone can guess more or less what it means, its use instead of "neutral" suggests that it has some precise meaning, perhaps in diplomatic jargon, and perhaps hairsplittingly different from "neutral", which is not familiar to an average reader. Is this a distinction without a difference, perhaps -- just two ways of expressing the same thing? By whose officialdom and by whose way of classifying states in relation to a war was Canada "non-participant"? What, if anything, is the effective difference between that and neutrality? Also, is "non-participant" rightly an adjective, or should that be "a non-participant"?
-- Lonewolf BC 05:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an important distinction in the world of international relations, where the word neutral has a very specific meaning. Canada was not neutral in the war, it actively supported and hoped that one side would prevail; however, it did not participate directly in the conflict. - SimonP 06:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Well enough (and much as I'd guessed), but the term and distinction need to be explained in the article, whereas they seem to be matters of the field's specialised jargon. At the least there must be a link to an article on "non-participant", if such exists within WP. That's really what I was saying in my last comment, as against asking for an explanation to be given here on the talk-page. It might be just as well to avoid using the jargon altogether.
What about "non-participant" versus "a non-participant"?
-- Lonewolf BC 08:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Accuracy of "Assistance to the Americans"

Can someone explain what is in dispute here, or can I remove the tag? - TheMightyQuill 04:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that section is fine. The dispute was over some inane comments by Ann Coulter, and has hopefully blown over.- SimonP 11:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not "Asylum"

Several articles that link here use the term asylum. There was no special status given by Immigration Canada to draft *evaders* & deserters - though they did not extradite them. The article needs to include explanation of WHY Canada would extradite NEITHER evaders NOR deserters. As I recall, Trudeau gov't at one point announced they would not co-operate with US in pursuing such people, nor would it count against them when trying to obtain landed immigrancy or citizenship. RCMP did continue to interview (sometimes just by phone) such people & passed info along to FBI. See: http://archives.cbc.ca/IDCC-1-71-348-1937/conflict_war/draft_dodgers/ http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-71-348-1928/conflict_war/draft_dodgers/clip5 Details STILL needed. --JimWae (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)