The Vietnam War, also known as the 2nd Indochina War or Resistance War Against America in Vietnam, is a bloody conflict that lasted 19 years, 5 months, 4 weeks and 1 day. It began on 1st November 1955 with the French withdrawal led to direct US involvement in Vietnam and ended with the Fall of Saigon on 30th April 1975 with the victory of the North-backed Vietnamese National Liberation Front (Viet Cong).\r\n\r\nThe War is a continuity of a period of massive convulsion and western intervention in Vietnamese history, which dated back to the French Colonists\u2019 invasion of the Empire of Dai Nam under Nguyen Dynasty in 1861. During World War II, Vietnam was occupied by the Japanese Empire in September 1940 and was established as a Nipponese puppet state under the regime of the Empire of Vietnam. Acknowledging the inevitable collapse of the Axis power, from 1941 to 1945, the Viet Minh had fought against the Japanese forces. Eventually, the Viet Minh under the lead of Ho Chi Minh organized the resistance movement called August Revolution, effectively overthrown the Empire of Vietnam\u2019s government and removing the power of foreign forces for the first time in nearly one century. This communist force then proclaimed independence from both Japan and France and established the Democratic Republic of Vietnam on 2nd September 1945 on all territory of Vietnam. Having received decent support from the Office of Strategic Service of CIA, Ho Chi Minh believed in the prospect of \u201cfull cooperation with the U.S.\u201d to seek for long-term independence of the Vietnamese people from the inevitable comeback of French colonialists and sent a series of eight letters to President Truman. (\u201cHo\u2019s Letter to President Truman\u201d). To appeal to America, in the Declaration of Independence that established the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh began his speech with the words that familiar to every American: \u201cAll men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness\u201d (Lindsay). However, he received no response from the U.S. and therefore, must seek help from China and the Soviet Union.\r\n\r\nAfter WWII ended, the French quickly reinvaded and regained most of Vietnam in 1946 and set up the State of Vietnam government which existed until its defeat in Dien Bien Phu in 1954. This event ended the Indochina War and followed with the Geneva Accords, which regained the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (established in 1945) the territory above the 17th parallel north (DMZ) and ruled that the State of Vietnam under French protection (established in 1946) would be reduced to the Southern part of the DMZ. The accord also promised that a general election would be held in 1956 to \u201creunify the country.\u201d Despite its history as an oppressed British colony and controversy over supporting a colonial power, \u201cthe U.S. began to support the French in Vietnam. Washington aided the French during their war with the Viet Minh, investing almost $3 billion in the years before 1954\u201d to \u201c\u2018saving\u2019 Indochina from the specter of communism\u201d (Llewellyn). Therefore, U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower realized that "if the elections had been held in 1956, Ho Chi Minh would have won 80 percent of the vote\u201d and would establish a Communist state in Vietnam (Eisenhower 337-338). Therefore, the United States, despite being pledged to honor the agreements, fearing the Domino Theory of Communism in Asia, decided to violate the Geneva Accords and held a fraud-ridden referendum vote to dismiss Chief of State Bao Dai of the State of Vietnam and establish Ngo Dinh Diem as the 1st President of the Republic of Vietnam to establish a strong foundation for direct American intervention. In the 1955 referendum, Diem received 98.2% vote and in some places, such as the Capital Saigon, it was reported that his credited votes were even higher than the actual number of people registered on the electoral roll (Karnow\u201d 223-224). Since the establishment of the Republic of Vietnam, the United States has the morale justification of preventing Communism takeover of South Vietnam and bogged down in a brutal war that caused the 4th most casualties in American history (just below the Civil War and the two World Wars) and costed a hefty estimation of $168 billion ($950 billion in 2011 dollars) (Rohn).\r\n\r\nDespite its superior advantages in warfare logistics and weapons, as well as copious funding powered by the steadfast determination in preventing the spread of communism in Asia, the United States was bitterly defeated. Although mentally, it is a stereotypical belief that the Viet Cong forces had stronger spirit than that of American and its allies' troops, the major causes for American loss in the war lied on strategy and political affairs. Strategically, the American government was unprepared in advocating an effective total war against North Vietnam. Politically, the U.S. has established a South Vietnamese government that was exceedingly corrupted, unstable and overdependent.\r\n\r\nIt is a common stereotypical notion among both American soldiers and the Vietnamese people that the Viet Cong forces possessed spectacular nerves of steel and greater motivation than that of American and its allies\u2019 troops.\r\n\r\nFirstly, located in one of the uttermost strategically important locations in the region, Vietnam has a great potential for economic, political and military development and traditionally became a prominent target for major imperialist powers. For most of their four-thousand-year history dated back to the Hong Bang Dynasty in 2879 BC (Pelley\u201d 151), the Vietnamese people have found themselves stuck in wars and conflicts with tremendous involvement of foreign powers, notably the Chinese dynasties, Mongol Empire, French Empire, Japanese Empire and the United States (Vietnam History Timeline). In the war of the Dai Viet Kingdom against the second Mongol invasion in the 13th century, after being captured by the army of the Yuan Dynasty (which was then a satellite state of the Mongol), general Tran Binh Trong rejected the proposal of the Mongolian to surrender in exchange for a minister position in China. Upon getting executed, it is documented that he was saying \u201cI prefer to be a ghost in the South [Dai Viet] than a King in the North [Yuan Dynasty]\u201d (Chapuis 83). The above story is just among a myriad of lessons and propaganda being used for centuries in the Vietnamese\u2019 Taoism- and Confucianism-based education to instill and kindle a sense of independence and patriotism among Vietnamese people. It is reasonable to perceive that due to this historical background of constant oppression, the Vietnamese people have a very stubborn desire for independence and a galvanizing sense of nationalism.\r\n\r\nSecondly, many Vietnamese saw the Vietnam War less of a civil war between the North and the South but more of a resistance war against the American forces. This was due to the very fundamental of the establishment of South Vietnam government \u2013 a successor of the State of Vietnam, which was a puppet state of France after its comeback in 1946; therefore, the people from both the North and the South regard the U.S. not as an ally but just another ruler like France. The last President of South Vietnam \u2013 Mr. Duong Van Minh himself, just a few days before the Fall of Saigon rejected the proposition of French spy Francois Vanuss\u00e8me in which China would attack North Vietnam to save the inevitable fall of South Vietnam. But he replied to Vanuss\u00e8me \u201cI appreciate your goodwill, but for my whole life, I have been the henchman for France, for America. That was enough. I can no longer be the henchman for China (Nguyen).\u201d The Vietnam War was, de facto, a civil war or a revolution within South Vietnam, since the majority of combats and bombing missions were operated inside the territory of the South between the ARVN (backed up by America) and the South Vietnamese people (backed by Viet Cong forces and the North) (Thomas). The U.S., in fact, dropped four times as many bombs on the South \u2013 the ally it was defending, than on the North (Kiernan). And these bombs carried the notorious Agent Orange that was technically a chemical weapon causing tremendous disabilities, cancers and disorders for generations of the Southern people. Ironically, the spraying of Agent Orange stopped at the DMZ (17th parallel north), which was the border between North and South Vietnam (Aerial Herbicide spray missions). This fact, along with tremendous propaganda of the North and popularity of Ho Chi Minh, upheld the notion among South Vietnamese civilians that the enemy of the U.S. on the war was the South and therefore, the people must follow communism to resist to \u201cliberate\u201d the South and unify the nation. The Viet Cong forces, despite being regarded as a major belligerent were technically South Vietnamese civilians who followed and received aid from the Communist North to fight against the South Vietnam government. Although the notion of a stronger motivation and mentality of the Vietnamese people can be used to explain the eventual defeat of the American forces in Vietnam War, it does not sufficiently reflect the whole picture of the fundamental reasons behind the victory of the Viet Cong. For example, if we acknowledge that the Vietnamese superiority in mentality was the utmost important reason for the North\u2019s victory, then one could argue that the South must have won the war since statistically, the South Vietnamese army population as of 1975 was around 1.5 million Vietnamese, nearly doubled that of the North and the Viet Cong combined (Le Gro 28; Pribbenow 211). Therefore, there must be some other pieces of the bigger picture contributing to the defeat of U.S. in this war, and that were the advantages in strategic and political affairs of the North over the South and the U.S.\r\n\r\nStrategically, although the Republic of Vietnam was constantly claiming their \u201cnorthward\u201d missions, the U.S. never actually operated an effective and total war against North Vietnam.\r\n\r\nFirstly, most of the missions of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) and American forces\u2019 operation were, as aforementioned, taken place in Southern territory (Thomas). Notably, the two biggest warfare missions in the Vietnam War, \u201cStaley-Taylor Plan\u201d (1961-1963) and \u201cJoint Warfare in South Vietnam\u201d (1963-1969), never saw the North as a target but aimed to \u201cstabilize South Vietnam\u201d and \u201ccounterinsurgency\u201d within the South territory (Phillips). The ultimate goal of the two missions was to squeeze the willingness of the communist forces to riot and force the Democratic Republic of Vietnam to negotiate in a peace agreement or at least, an armistice agreement that recognized the Republic of Vietnam like what being done in the Korean War. Furthermore, the nature of the Vietnam War was arguably a civil uprising inside the South and therefore, despite having superiority in manpower and firepower, most of these resources were focused on preventing an overthrown of the Republic of Vietnam government by the South Vietnamese guerrilla organizations backed by Communist North. The U.S. dropped over 5 million tons of bombs on Vietnam during the war\u2014more than double the 2.1 million tons dropped on Europe and Asia during all of World War II, and nearly eight times the amount dropped by the U.S. during the Korean War (Armstrong; Kiernan) but most of them were operated on the South Vietnamese territory. The reason behind American reluctance in launching a total war to invade the North and end the Vietnam War was due to the complication of the situation at that time: taken place in the Cold War period, the war witnessed a subsequent involvement of major global powers. As President Johnson acknowledge, since the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was allied with the Soviet Union and China, an invasion of the North will provoke the two nations to stage a full-scale military intervention similar to that of the earlier Korean War (Hilsman). Although there were some suggestions on the possibility of a nuclear war on the North, this concept was later deemed as unrealistic and dangerous by the U.S. government (\u201cRelease of Vietnam nuclear\u201d). Contrary to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII, during the Vietnam War, the Soviet Union had already achieved parity in terms of nuclear technology with the United States. A nuclear attack on the North would unmistakably trigger retaliation from the Soviet and likely to cause a catastrophic nuclear war.\r\n\r\nSecondly, the welfare tactics of the U.S. and South Vietnam were inferior to that of the Viet Cong in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. Despite having much smaller military personnel, the Viet Cong had taken advantage of their compact and flexibility. They were South Vietnamese ordinary people who had very normal jobs, families and came from every walks of life in the South society but secretly helped the North through spying, transportation of welfare equipment or guerilla operations. Since they were de jure civilians and could easily blend in every corner of the South, it gives the Viet Cong great control over important frontiers, from a myriad of small murders of American soldiers to a few primary offensive missions. Setting up \u201ckill zone\u201d ambushes in very ordinary places such as the jungles or rice paddy fields, NFL guerrilla fighters would \u201csneak up\u201d on unaware U.S. and South Vietnamese troops, attack them then leave and go back to their daily life as if nothing had happened, waiting for the next missions (Burns & Novick; McDaniel). Although the Viet Cong guerilla was killed more than American soldiers in these operations, it shaped a psychological crisis among Americans. \u201cYou will kill ten of us, we will kill one of you, but in the end, you will tire of it first.\u201d And this guerrilla tactics proved to be extremely effective in disturbing mentality and willingness to fight of U.S. troops. "In Vietnam, there were no front lines to advance. [\u2026] An apparently benign peasant could be a guerilla, a pretty prostitute a clandestine agent, the kid who delivered the laundry a secret informer, flooded rice fields concealed spikes, booby traps permeated jungles, and barracks were vulnerable to terrorist attacks\u201d (Karnow). This was, once again, illustrated in the Tet Offensive in 1968, one of the most important events shaping the outcome of the war. As aforementioned, the North had a wide range of loyalists in every walks of life of the South society, including many spies in the elite class, such as the Pham Xuan An, who played a key role in the Offensive. Mr. Pham was a correspondent for Time magazine and a spy for the North Vietnamese communist intelligence services. This 1968 offensive, despite being regarded as a failure in military affairs since the \u201cNational Liberation Front lost half of their 80,000 fighters and secured none of their targets\u201d, was actually a \u201cpsychological victory.\u201d Events like the Hue Massacre or the occupation of the U.S. Embassy by communists sparked the \u201cfirestorm of antiwar protest\u201d across America, and the request for two hundred thousand additional U.S. troops was denied. Mr. Pham not only recommended the Viet Cong targets to be attacked in Sai Gon but also did he manipulate the news reporting these attacks and convincingly twisted the defeat of the Viet Cong into a victory (Bass).\r\n\r\nPolitically, the South Vietnamese government of the Republic of Vietnam backed by America was a complete disaster of instability, corruption and overdependence.\r\n\r\nFirstly, despite presenting to the world as a Western-modeled democracy, South Vietnam was de facto \u201canti-democratic, autocratic, corrupt and nepotistic\u201d (Llewellyn et al.). Freedom of speech, religion, human rights, etc. \u2013 the major tenets of a democracy, were being tremendously violated under the South Vietnamese government, especially under the Diem regime. The curtailment of freedom of the press was imminent since \u201cwriting or protesting against the government could end in a prison sentence, or worse\u201d (Llewellyn et al.). Furthermore, since 1955, Di\u1ec7m and his brother Nhu launched the "Denounce the Communists" campaign, to locate, arrest, imprison, torture and execute suspected communists, sympathizers and anti-government elements (which were his political enemies in fact). Diem issued the Law 10\/59 to legalize the death penalty against any activity deemed as communism, and approximately 12,000 suspected opponents were killed between 1955 and 1957 and 40,000 political prisoners had been jailed (\u201cOrigins of the Insurgency\u201d). Moreover, having extreme favoritism towards Roman Catholics in a nation that Buddhist was followed by three-quarters of the population, Diem violated the freedom of religion with the notorious Buddhism Crisis in South Vietnam (Llewellyn et al.). Promotion of public servants and military officers, granting of government contracts and US aid, concessions of tax were based on religious preferences (Tucker 291). High ranking military leaders, governmental officials, business executives were overwhelmingly Catholic, to the point that Buddhism must convert to Catholicism to have better treatment and regime\u2019s favor. He executed a decree banning the display of the Buddhist flag in public just shortly before the celebration of Buddha\u2019s birthday. The protest of Hue Buddhists in response was brutally oppressed using tear gas and pouring battery acid on the heads of seated Buddhists and eight civilians were killed by the government forces (Roberts 250). These brutal and cruel treatments of the South Vietnamese government allowed Hanoi to propagate Saigon government as the enemy of the people and attract more civilians to \u201ctho\u00e1t ly\u201d (join) the Viet Cong. In fact, this had been a continuity of puppet states in the South, dated back to the predecessor of the Republic of Vietnam. After the visit to Vietnam, in a broadcast on 15 November 1951, Congressman John F. Kennedy himself perceived that \u201cThe [State of Vietnam] [is a] puppet state [\u2026] In Indochina [the U.S. has] allied [itself] to the desperate effort of a French regime to hang on to the remnants of empire. There is no broad, general support of the native Vietnam Government among the people of that area\u2026\u201d (Bostdorff; Goldzwig). The South, through their brutal hostilities to its citizens, was unable to kindle a century-instilled sense of patriotism and collective power of the Vietnamese people in the South to protect their regime and were instead perceived them as \u201cVi\u1ec7t gian\u201d (\u201cVietnamese traitors\u201d) or \u201cAmerican Imperialism Puppets\u201d by many Vietnamese civilians (Elliott 52; Becker).\r\n\r\nSecondly, the Republic of Vietnam was exceedingly dependent on the United States of America from the economy to the military. The declassified documents of Pentagon implied that without the aid of U.S., Diem would never be able to rule South Vietnam and suggested that the Republic of Vietnam was technically a creation of the U.S. (Patti 398). In fact, just more than two years after U.S. withdrawal of South Vietnam and restricted aids, South Vietnamese government collapsed bitterly in all frontiers, despite still possessing the 4th strongest army in the world (John). Moreover, in 1973, South Vietnam officials were very reluctant and resisted to sign the Paris Peace Accords, which was basically the death penalty for their regime since the terms of the accords were extremely detrimental to the South. But President Nguyen Van Thieu of South Vietnam they were forced to sign it by a threatening call of U.S. President Nixon that Thieu would have the same consequences as Ngo Dinh Diem if he did not obey (Kissinger). In the other hands, North Vietnam autonomously and independently negotiated with the United States regarding the terms of the Accords, despite pressure from the Soviets and Chinese. In fact, the main negotiators were North Vietnamese Communist Party Politburo Member L\u00ea \u0110\u1ee9c Th\u1ecd and US National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger and were awarded the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize for their great contributions to the Accords (although Th\u1ecd refused to accept it, claiming that peace had not yet been established) (Flora).\r\n\r\nIn conclusion, the Vietnam War proved that superior logistical advantages do not necessarily mean victory in a war. History has shown that the Vietnamese people have a great desire for independence and galvanizing patriotism, but this was not the main reason behind the victory of the North and the NLF over the South. The Republic of Vietnam and the United States, despite the aforementioned superiority, was bitterly defeated due to its fundamental inferiority in political and strategic affairs.\r\n<p style="text-align: right;"><strong>Nguyen Le Dong Hai "DoHa"<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nWorks Cited:\r\n\r\nBass, Thomas A. \u201cThe Journalist-Viet Cong Spy Who Changed the Course of the Vietnam War.\u201d\u00a0<em>The Daily Beast<\/em>, The Daily Beast Company, 10 Feb. 2018, www.thedailybeast.com\/the-journalist-spy-who-changed-the-course-of-the-vietnam-war.\r\n\r\nBecker, Richard. \u201cHow Vietnam Defeated U.S. Imperialism.\u201d\u00a0<em>Liberation School<\/em>, Liberation School, liberationschool.org\/how-vietnam-defeated-u-s-imperialism\/.\r\n\r\nHuu Thai Nguyen.\u00a0<em>Biography: Duong Van Minh and Me<\/em>. 2008.\r\n\r\nCooper Thomas. \u201cBombing Missions of the Vietnam War.\u201d\u00a0<em>Esri<\/em>, storymaps.esri.com\/stories\/2017\/vietnam-bombing\/index.html.\r\n\r\nAdam Roberts.\u00a0<em>Buddhism and Politics in South Vietnam<\/em>. 6th ed., vol. 21, Royal Institute of International Affairs London, 1965.\r\n\r\nRufus Phillips. \u201cCounterinsurgency in Vietnam: Lessons for Today.\u201d\u00a0<em>The Foreign Service Journal<\/em>, The Foreign Service Journal, 2014, www.afsa.org\/counterinsurgency-vietnam-lessons-today.\r\n\r\nEisenhower, Dwight David.\u00a0<em>The White House Years<\/em>. 1965.\r\n\r\nEisenhower, Dwight D.\u00a0<em>Mandate for Change, 1953-1956<\/em>. Doubleday & Co, Inc, 1963.\r\n\r\nElliott, David D.W.\u00a0<em>The Vietnamese War: Revolution and Social Change in the Mekong Delta, 1930-1975<\/em>. East Gate.\r\n\r\nJohn Pilger.\u00a0<em>Heroes<\/em>. South End Press, 2001.\r\n\r\nHilsman, Roger. \u201cMust We Invade the North?\u201d\u00a0<em>Foreign Affairs<\/em>, Foreign Affairs Magazine, 28 Jan. 2009, www.foreignaffairs.com\/articles\/asia\/1968-04-01\/must-we-invade-north.\r\n\r\nHoskins, Janet Allison.\u00a0<em>What Are Vietnam's Indigenous Religions?\u00a0<\/em>Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University, 2012.\r\n\r\n\u201cHow Much Did The Vietnam War Cost?\u201d\u00a0<em>The Vietnam War<\/em>, 5 Apr. 2016, thevietnamwar.info\/how-much-vietnam-war-cost\/.\r\n\r\n\u201cHo\u2019s Letter to President Truman in February 1946.\u201d\u00a0<em>Major Events of the Vietnam War<\/em>, University of Massachusetts Boston, 2002, vietnamwar.lib.umb.edu\/enemy\/docs\/Ho_letter_to_Truman_Feb_46.html.\r\n\r\nDenise Bostdorff, and Steven Goldzwig. \u201cIdealism and Pragmatism in American Foreign Policy Rhetoric: The Case of John F. Kennedy and Vietnam .\u201d\u00a0<em>Presidential Studies Quarterly<\/em>, Marquette University, 1994, mcadams.posc.mu.edu\/goldzwig.htm.\r\n\r\nJacobs, Col. Jack. \u201cReturn to Vietnam: Meeting a Formerly Faceless Foe.\u201d\u00a0<em>NBCNews.com<\/em>, NBCUniversal News Group, 16 June 2011, www.nbcnews.com\/id\/43155385\/ns\/nbc_nightly_news_with_brian_williams\/t\/return-vietnam-meeting-formerly-faceless-foe\/#.XHm2ouj0kow.\r\n\r\nKarnow, Stanley. \u201cHo Chi Minh.\u201d\u00a0<em>Time<\/em>, Time Inc., 13 Apr. 1998, content.time.com\/time\/magazine\/article\/0,9171,988162,00.html.\r\n\r\nLe Gro, William E.\u00a0<em>Vietnam Combat Operations 1972 - 1975<\/em>. 2013.\r\n\r\n\u201cLetters from Ho Chi Minh to President Truman.\u201d\u00a0<em>National Archives and Records Administration<\/em>, National Archives and Records Administration, catalog.archives.gov\/id\/305263.\r\n\r\nLindsay, James M. \u201cThe Vietnam War in Forty Quotes.\u201d\u00a0<em>Council on Foreign Relations<\/em>, Council on Foreign Relations, www.cfr.org\/blog\/vietnam-war-forty-quotes.\r\n\r\nLindsay, James M. \u201cRemembering Ho Chi Minh's 1945 Declaration of Vietnam's Independence.\u201d\u00a0<em>Council on Foreign Relations<\/em>, Council on Foreign Relations, www.cfr.org\/blog\/remembering-ho-chi-minhs-1945-declaration-vietnams-independence.\r\n\r\nBen Kiernan, and Taylor Owen.\u00a0<em>"Making More Enemies than We Kill? Calculating U.S. Bomb Tonnages Dropped on Laos and Cambodia, and Weighing Their Implications"<\/em>. The Asia-Pacific Journal, 2015.\r\n\r\n\u201cOrigins of the Insurgency in South Vietnam, 1954-1960.\u201d\u00a0<em>The Pentagon Papers<\/em>, Beacon Press, 1971, www.mtholyoke.edu\/acad\/intrel\/pentagon\/pent14.htm.\r\n\r\nPatti, Archimedes L.A.\u00a0<em>Why Viet Nam?: Prelude to America's Albatross<\/em>. University of California Press, 1982.\r\n\r\nPelley, Patricia M.\u00a0<em>Postcolonial Vietnam: New Histories of the National Past<\/em>. 2002.\r\n\r\n\u201cRelease of Vietnam Nuclear Weapons Report.\u201d\u00a0<em>Federation of American Scientists<\/em>, Federation of American Scientists, 2003, fas.org\/sgp\/congress\/2003\/s031003.html.\r\n\r\nLlewellyn. \u201cSouth Vietnam under Ngo Dinh Diem.\u201d\u00a0<em>Alpha History<\/em>, Alpha History, 12 June 2018, alphahistory.com\/vietnamwar\/south-vietnam\/.\r\n\r\nKen Burns and Lynn Novick, directors.\u00a0<em>The Vietnam War<\/em>.\u00a0<em>The Vietnam War<\/em>, Netflix, 2017, www.netflix.com\/title\/80997770.\r\n\r\nAdam McDaniel, and Matt Manning. \u201cThe Vietnam War and the Controversy Surrounding It.\u201d\u00a0<em>Sutori<\/em>, Sutori, www.sutori.com\/story\/the-vietnam-war-and-the-controversy-surrounding-it--64SeU78GhZyWXAqAbzyiA9pj.\r\n\r\nLewis Flora. \u201cTho Rejects Nobel Prize, Citing Vietnam Situation.\u201d\u00a0<em>The New York Times<\/em>, 24 Oct. 1973.\r\n\r\nTran, Hao Thi.\u00a0<em>Une Introduction \u00e0 La Connaissance Du Vietnam (in French). Editions L'Harmattan.<\/em>Translated by Oscar Chapuis, Editions L'Harmattan, 1995.\r\n\r\nLlewellyn. \u201cUS Involvement in Vietnam.\u201d\u00a0<em>US Involvement in Vietnam<\/em>, 19 Feb. 2019, alphahistory.com\/vietnamwar\/us-involvement-in-vietnam.\r\n\r\nMerle Pribbenow.\u00a0<em>Victory in Vietnam: The Official History of the People's Army of Vietnam, 1954-1975<\/em>. University of Kansas Press, 2002.\r\n\r\n\u201cVietnam.\u201d\u00a0<em>Ducksters Educational Site<\/em>, Technological Solutions, Inc., www.ducksters.com\/geography\/country\/vietnam_history_timeline.php.\r\n\r\nStanley Karnow.\u00a0<em>Vietnam: A History<\/em>. Penguin Books, 1997.