Talk:Massacre at Huế

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Contents

[edit] Archive

  • /Archive 1

[edit] Protected

I have protected this page following a request by user:209.86.1.9 at WP:RFPP. Thryduulf 16:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battle or Occupation

The specifics of this massacre have to do with the events of the occupation and not the battle, which should be dealt with in a nother article, not this one.

A number of US and South Vietnamese authorities contended the discoveries were proof that a premeditated, large-scale communist atrocity had been carried out during Hue's occupation. Other authorities contended a 'massacre' never occured, and the numbers and circumstances of the casualties were exaggerated or fabricated for war propaganda reasons.

This is factualy incorrect as well as POV. Other sources besides South vietnames and US have argued that this was a premeditated slaughter. The other authorities who defend the NVA should be specificly named.

Those in the Saigon-based government police apparatus at all levels were to be rounded up and held outside the city. High civilian and military officials were also removed from the city, both to await study of their individual cases. Ordinary civil servants working for "the Saigon enemy" out of necessity, but did not oppose the revolution, were destined for reeducation and later employment. Low-level civil servants who had at some point been involved in paramilitary activities were to be held for reeducation, but not employed.

Hanoi's version bieng presented as fact, needs re wording with qualifiers.

It is probable that the remaining captives were to be re-educated and returned to Hue,

Hanoi's version bieng presented as fact, needs re wording with qualifiers. And sources. TDC 19:53, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

You can not completely seperate the specifics of the battle from the specifics of the occupation, since the battle was ongoing throughout the occupation of Hue. To attempt to say, "No, no, this article should focus on the brutal executions and not the other casualties of the conflict" would be a misrepresentation. Since the earliest reports of mass grave discoveries were publicized, there was concern that the numbers being generated were being inflated by misrepresentation of casualties caused by battle or other non-execution related deaths.
I have no issue with mentioning, and giving a brief account of the battle in its relationship with the NVA’s purge but you are attempting to confuse the two main battles and the events of the occupation. The two are separate and distinct; casualties and collateral damage during the capture and then counter attack (two separate and distinct operations) and the purge which took place in the middle and towards the end of the NVA’s occupation. The article should not blur the two and should rightly focus on the purge. If you want to discuss the civilian casualties that occurred as a result of the battle, there is a place in the article for it, but not the opening paragraph.TDC 15:07, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
I don't see that anyone is attempting to confuse battle casualties, collateral casualties and execution casualties in the main article -- but it has long been contended that such confusion was indeed perpetuated when the reports were first being generated. By claiming in the introductory paragraph that a couple thousand civilians were summarily executed, as part of a premeditated "purge," as if it were documented fact, without mentioning that such allegations are highly contested (and even disproven in some instances) -- THAT is confusing the issue. You also seem to be confused about when the witnessed executions (yes, actual executions happened, as that was a terror tactic known to be used to sway the masses) occured. First hand accounts by eye-witness residents prove there were executions of high-profile individuals from the very first day of occupation (not just "middle and towards the end" as you contend). The anti-communist police chief of Hue tallied the total executions at 200, and the total civilian casualties as close to 4000. Reporters that personally viewed the mass graves and observed the exhumations cited not many thousands of executions, but numbers in the low hundreds. And those aren't "Hanoi's version of the facts," those are American and British journalists. Hanoi's version (yes, documented) is that they mass-buried 2000 civilians that were killed by American bombing and artillery.
The opening paragraph should stick with the undisputed facts, and leave the allegations, disputes, suspicions, and perceived propaganda to the body of the article for further discussion. The facts are that thousands of civilians perished, at least a couple hundred by intentional and selective execution. If you want to inflate premeditated executions into the thousands, that should be done in subsequent sections, as there is weighty evidence to the contrary. If you want to blame the NVA instead of the NLF for executions, that too appears to be a popular line to blur, and should be attempted later in the article. If you wish to blur the distinction between the initial show-executions in Hue of "enemies of the people" during the first days of occupation with the subsequent hasty elimination of captives as the remaining forces fled ... this too is material for presentation later in the article. 209.86.1.123 22:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Can you not read your opening paragraph and the differences between the two?:
  • The Massacre at Hue was the name given to describe the civilian casualties that occurred during North Vietnam's capture and occupation of the city of Hue during the Tet Offensive, considered one of the longest and bloodiest battles of the Vietnam War. The civilians killed during the battle can be broadly categorized as: 1) those killed as a result of the battle itself, and 2) those killed as a result of summary executions committed by communist cadres. The Massacre at Hue focuses on the latter category, though estimates vary greatly from a few hundred to several thousand executed. ... A number of US and South Vietnamese authorities contended the discoveries were proof that a premeditated, large-scale communist atrocity had been carried out during Hue's occupation. Other authorities contended a 'massacre' never occured, and the numbers and circumstances of the casualties were exaggerated or fabricated for war propaganda reasons.
  • The Massacre at Hue is the name given to describe the summary executions or mass killings that occurred during North Vietnam's capture and occupation of the city of Hue during the Tet Offensive, considered one of the longest and bloodiest battles of the Vietnam War.
These are the undisputed facts, there were mass killings and executions (even by yuor own admission), and that is the subject of the article, not civilian casualties, which as you can see is described by wikipedia as something compeltely different.
As far as the numbers go, once again, it is open to dispute, but the proponents of the few hundred are drastically drowned out by the proponents of the few thousand. But the facts remain, thousands of civilians perished, and thousands were disappeared by the NVA, never to bee seen again. TDC 00:03, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
You left out a relevant portion of the present opening paragraph, so I added it above for clarity. Can you not read the opening paragraph? It clearly indicates the FACT that many civilians died (even by your own admission), and also clearly indicates this article focuses on which of those casualties were (proven or alleged) executions. As for the term civilian casualties, it appears to support your view more than others, in that you seem to contend the executions were part of the planned direct military action rather than the result of revenge, rage or panic killings by a lunatic fringe subset.
You think the "proponents of the few hundred are drastically drowned out by the proponents of the few thousand?" I'm sure with a little digging, I could come up with at least two leftist windbags for each proponent you could cite. As it stands now, most of your proponents just paraphrase and recite Pike's hypothesis. It was Pike that said about the analysts and pundits, looking back 30 years, "...none of us had it right back then. Fifty years from now, we’ll probably see the issues clearly. But we still won’t know the truth." 209.86.1.200 18:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
If as your own version contends: The Massacre at Hue focuses on the latter category, why exactly does the opening line mention only the former?
It doesn't (and it's not my version, the "2 catagories" is a Michaels thing). You'd best read the first 2 sentences again.
Well, let us delete the "two sentences" and modify the first. TDC 17:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
As for other verification of what happened, independent of Pike, lets hear from the VC:
The accounts I read of Hue’s experience with revolutionary rule, were unsettling to say the least.
Large numbers of people had been executed, most of them associated with the government or opposed to the revolution. But others had been killed as well, including some captured American soldiers, and other foreigners who were non combatants. I had questioned Huynh Tan Phat in private about these atrocities. He had expressed his sorrow and disappointment at what happened, and explained that discipline in Hue had been seriously inadequate. Fanatic young soldiers had shot people and angry local citizens sympathetic to the cause had taken justice into their own hands.
Troung Nhu Tang- A Vietcong Memoir
Or from Don Oberdorfer
Dr. Horst Gunther Krainick was a German pediatrician and professor of internal medicine who had worked for seven years with teams of Germans and Vietnamese to establish a medical school at Hue University. Krainick stayed in his university apartment after the fall of the city, believing he and his wife would not be harmed. Unknown to them, they were on the original target list. On the fifth day of the occupation, an armed squad arrived and put the Krainicks and two other German doctors into a commandeered Volks-wagen bus. Their bodies were found later in a potato field, all victims of an executioner's bullets.
The same day, North Vietnamese troops came in force to the Roman Catholic cathedral, where many people had taken refuge from the fighting. Four hundred men were ordered out, some by name and others apparently because they were of military age or prosperous appearance. When the group was assembled, the political officer on the scene told people not to fear; the men were merely being taken away temporarily for political indoctrination. Nineteen months later, three defectors led U.S. soldiers to a creekbed in a double canopy jungle ten miles from Hue where the skulls and bones of those who had been taken away had lain ever since. Those killed included South Vietnamese servicemen, civil servants, students, and ordinary citizens. The skulls revealed they had been shot or brained with blunt instruments.
After Hue was retaken, the South Vietnamese authorities were reported to be guilty of some of the same practices. I learned from a U.S. team that "black teams" of South Vietnamese assassins were sent in to eliminate those who were believed to have aided the enemy during the occupation. On March 14, three weeks after South Vietnam regained control, more than twenty prisoners, including some women and schoolboys, were brought to provincial military headquarters with burlap bags covering their heads and hands tightly wired behind their backs. After being taken into a stone building that was reputed to be a place of execution, all the prisoners disappeared.


Or from first hand accounts from US armed forces:
Sargent Dye was standing in front of a pit in an area recaptured by the 2/5. Other grunts stood by muttering “Jesus Christ”. An incredible stench rose from it, a stomach turning putrid smell, that seemed to press down on them all the more with all the clouds and drizzle. There below their boots were hundreds of bodies. They were South Vietnamese civilians, all tangled and twisted, as if they clung to each other when the machine guns were turned on them. Dye had heard the rumors of Communists massacring civilians in Hue- but he had never expected to see anything like this.
It was a scene Dye never forgot, and he though about it one year later when the My Lai killings hit the paper. It was incredible he thought that the press made such a fuss about My Lai, but never said much about the NVA massacre in Hue.
Battle for Hue : Tet 1968 by Keith Nolan
Pike also confirms this account, with North Vietnamese sources:
The official Communist view of the killing in Hue was contained in a book written and published in Hanoi: "Actively combining their efforts with those of the PLAF and population, other self-defence and armed units of the city (of Hue) arrested and called to surrender the surviving functionaries of the puppet administration and officers and men of the puppet army who were skulking. Die-hard cruel agents were punished."

Viet Cong Strategy of Terror, Douglas Pike

According to this, Hanoi knew what was going on and ordered the PLAF to facilitate local VC death squads.
Interestingly enough, I doubt you will be able to come up with even one “left wing windbag” who can produce anything but bluster and ad hominems to refute this statement.
TDC 20:02, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my assertions. As I noted above, most of your citations will just rehash Pike's report. You prove this by citing Oberdorfer. Go ahead and compare what you pasted here with what Pike reported. Much of it is identical. You quoted Tang, who corroborates the execution of prominent political enemies - never a disputed fact. In fact, at least a couple hundred were tried and executed publically ... truly an atrocity. You quote someone from the U.S. Armed Forces that verified the discovery of mass graves - this also was never contested. Are you trying to make my points for me? 209.86.1.200 20:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Neither Tang nor Nolan cite Pike's study. Nolan does not cite Pike in his work, it is based off of interviews with veterans. So that would mean it is "independent corroboration not connected with Pike’s work". Tang also only mentions "executions", not "trials and executions". Just because Tang and Nolan's work mathces that of Pike's does not mean Try again. TDC 17:04, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
These are not simply “rehashes” of Pike’s report, unless by rehash you mean independent corroboration not connected with Pike’s work. Earlier you claimed that “As it stands now, most of your proponents just paraphrase and recite Pike's hypothesis.”, but clearly these are independent and separate from Pike’s work. The fact that they converge on the same findings is most telling. You, however, are going to have a hard time finding people that do not reference the pseudo-academic work of Gareth “I never found a commie I could not apologize for” Porter.
You are correct, I meant independent corroboration. Tang, Oberdorfer and the exerpts from Nolan's book, as you have quoted above, all corroborate my assertions. (Oberdorfer's book came out in 1971, AFTER Pike's report, and even cites Pike.) Can you find even a single source that can independently support Pike's hypothesis, without merely parroting Pike? 165.247.212.52 08:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Once again, Neither Tang nor Nolan cite Pike's study. TDC 17:04, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Once again, that may be true. And both support my assertions completely. 209.86.4.174 18:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Your assertion: “As I noted above, most of your citations will just rehash Pike's report”. Neither Nolan nor Tang rehash Pike’s work, the three are (say it loudly me with so you can understand this concept) “completely independent”. The fact that Nolan and Tang do not cite Pike’s work is not an issue that may be true, it is completely verifiable with no ambiguity about it. Unless, that is, you can come up with something to counter this. So your "assertion" has been show to be completely groundless. TDC 18:39, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Wrong assertion, TDC. My assertion: Mass graves were indeed examined, and many civilians (at least a couple hundred) were executed. What you quoted from Tang and Nolan supports this. What you quoted from Tang and Nolan does not refute my assertions. (reading comprehension, remember?) 209.86.3.116 00:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Dont play games little man: Thank you for supporting my assertions. As I noted above, most of your citations will just rehash Pike's report. You prove this by citing Oberdorfer.. And they did not rehash pike, independent corroboration. Game, set, and match. But if your assertion was that only a "few hundred" were found, perhaps I can read you some more from Tang and Nolan, no? TDC 02:22, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
I fixed your misquote, little girl. Oberdorfer did indeed rehash Pike. Game, set and match. Now would you like to move along to my actual quote about Tang and Nolan? You quoted Tang, who corroborates the execution of prominent political enemies - never a disputed fact. In fact, at least a couple hundred were tried and executed publically ... truly an atrocity. You quote someone from the U.S. Armed Forces that verified the discovery of mass graves - this also was never contested. Are you trying to make my points for me? Read much? No? It kind of sucks trying to prove your point by misquoting a person when the accurate, complete quote is just inches above in the very same page, eh? Gee, maybe next you'll try to secretly delete my posts, and claim I never made any assertions? 209.86.3.213 10:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Care to move on to your proposed introduction paragraphs, or do you want to lose another match? 209.86.3.213 10:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
You prove this by citing Oberdorfer.
I proved nothing by citing him. You were the one apparently trying to prove something, I just cited him for fun. His citation of Pike's work was the only relevant proof here. 165.247.212.55 17:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
After initially looking into Oberdorfer, I was under the impression that his estimation of what happened in Hue was based off of Pike’s work, but it now turns out it was only based in part on Pikes work. It seems that some of Oberdorfer account is based on Pike, but the vast majority is based off of interview he conducted and a Rand study by Stephen Hosmer. And then again, there are the others which you continue to ignore, and if you want to work him into the article, you left out some relevant info from your cut and paste job:
Hue was occupied for twenty-five days before the North Vietnamese were ousted. During that time, the troops and the political officers who came with them ruled over large parts of the city. One of the central objectives of the occupation, according to a written plan prepared in advance, was to "destroy and disorganize" the administrative machinery that the South Vietnamese regime had established since Vietnam was divided by international agreement in 1954. The effort to root out "enemy" functionaries, according to the plan, was to extend "from the province and district levels to city wards, streets and wharves." The political officers arrived with a carefully prepared "target list" of 196 places, organized on a block-by-block basis, to be given priority attention, including U.S. and South Vietnamese offices and the homes of the officials who worked there, as well as the homes of those who were deemed to be leading or cooperating with their efforts, including foreigners. Once in charge, the occupation forces set about expanding its target lists with the assistance of local sympathizers
The same day, North Vietnamese troops came in force to the Roman Catholic cathedral, where many people had taken refuge from the fighting. Four hundred men were ordered out, some by name and others apparently because they were of military age or prosperous appearance. When the group was assembled, the political officer on the scene told people not to fear; the men were merely being taken away temporarily for political indoctrination. Nineteen months later, three defectors led U.S. soldiers to a creekbed in a double canopy jungle ten miles from Hue where the skulls and bones of those who had been taken away had lain ever since. Those killed included South Vietnamese servicemen, civil servants, students, and ordinary citizens. The skulls revealed they had been shot or brained with blunt instruments.
And then there is also this from Oberdorfer
Two American graduate students, one who had previously live in Hue, and visited there after the battle, wrote that the killings in the Gai Hoi area “were not the result of a policy of the victorious VC government, but rather the revenge of the NVA in retreat”.
You like digging holes for yourself, don’t you?
I'm sorry, you lost me. What is it you are trying to prove now? 165.247.212.55 17:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
You quoted Tang, who corroborates the execution of prominent political enemies - never a disputed fact. In fact, at least a couple hundred were tried and executed publicly
But from Tang
Large numbers of people had been executed, most of them associated with the government or opposed to the revolution. But others had been killed as well, including some captured American soldiers, and other foreigners who were non combatants.
Tang cites people “associated with the government or opposed to the revolution” as well as civilians, not “prominent political enemies”. He also credits the NVA for this, not just the VC, and he most certainly never mentions trials.
You quote someone from the U.S. Armed Forces that verified the discovery of mass graves - this also was never contested. Are you trying to make my points for me
Mass graves of Civilians, not South Vietnams governmental officials, as you continue to claim. TDC 16:44, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
I consider government officials to be civilians too, don't you? I'd also be willing to wager that political enemies of Hanoi would qualify as 'opposed to the revolution.' Once again, you've lost me... 165.247.212.55 17:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Good luck trying though, you will need it. TDC 20:40, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
You have stated, "This is factualy incorrect as well as POV. Other sources besides South vietnames and US have argued that this was a premeditated slaughter. The other authorities who defend the NVA should be specificly named." Actually, all sources should be named, whether they defend Saigon or not, as a general rule of good editing practice. And the line you quoted is more than POV, it is double-POV. It establishes both of the predominant points of view regarding what is being called the massacre. If you consider the line "incorrect" because it attributes one of those views primarily to "US and South Vietnamese authorites," then perhaps we should reword the line to be less specific: Some authorities contend (one view). Other authorities contend (opposing view). Simple enough, but not as informative to the reader, in my opinion.
Once again, no one outside of the North Vietnamese and Gareth Porter, are arguing that a wide scale and planned purge of civilians took place. One statement is attributed and another is not.
I'll assume you meant to say, "...aren't arguing that a wide scale..."
Obviously false. Even Pike, in his report, acknowledges that several other explanations for the killings are frequently heard, although he personally disagrees with them. Mind you, this was before Porter's examination of Pike's analysis. You also fail to mention Ackland, though you might consider him and Porter to be partners in crime. Young, mentioned above, has more neutral conclusions, but then she has access to evidence that wasn't yet available to either Porter or Pike during their writings. And there are more. You should also keep in mind, much of Pike's presentation is mere hypothesis, and he warns the reader of such within his writings. Some of his assertions are presented in the wiki-article as facts when they aren't. 209.86.1.123 22:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
The mass graves within Hue itself were largely of those who had been picked up and executed for various "enemy of the people" offenses. There is some doubt that the NVA/VC had planned all these executions beforehand but unquestionably it was the largest communist purge of the war.
Nicely sourced by the way. [1] TDC 15:07, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
I checked the link you provided. There are no sources at that link. Oversight? 209.86.1.123 22:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the other exerpts you cited above, you state they "Present Hanoi's version as fact?" Can you direct me to a Hanoi source that presents these facts, or are you just making an assumption? The information you cited comes from Pike, by the way, (that the captives were to be re-educated and returned was his own conclusion, in fact - see his Da Mai Creek expln.) but if you have a Hanoi source for the same thing, perhaps that should be covered in the article as well. 209.86.0.73 16:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uwe Siemon-Netto

"Having covered the Viet Nam war over a period of five years for West German publications, I am now haunted by the role we journalists have played over there. Those of us who had wanted to find out knew of the evil nature of the Hanoi regime. We knew that, in 1956, close to 50,000 peasants were executed in North Vietnam. [As Nguyen Manh Tuong stated at the 1956 National Congress in Hanoi: 'It is better to kill 10 innocent people then let one enemy escape.'] We knew that after the division of the country nearly 1 million North Vietnamese had fled to the South.

"Many of us have seen the tortured and carved-up bodies of men, women and children executed by the Viet Cong in the early phases of the war. And many of us saw, in 1968, the mass graves of Hue, saw [take note, Mr. Patterson] the corpses of thousands of civilians still festively dressed for Tet, the Vietnamese New Year. Why, for Heavens sake, did we not report these expressions of deliberate North Vietnamese strategy at least as extensively as of the Mai Lai massacre and other such isolated incidents that were definitely not part of the U.S. policy in Viet Nam?

"What prompted us to make our readers believe that the Communists, once in power in all of Viet Nam, would behave benignly? What made us, first and foremost Anthony Lewis, belittle warnings by U.S. officials that a Communist victory would result in a massacre? Why did we ignore the fact that the man responsible for the executions of 50,000 peasants, Truong Chinh, was — and still is — one of the most powerful figures in Hanoi? What made us think that he and his comrades would have mercy for the vanquished South Vietnamese? What compelled, for example, Anthony Lewis shortly after the fall of Saigon to pat himself on the shoulder and write, "so much for the talk of a massacre?' True, no Cambodian-style massacre took place in Vietnam. It's just that Hanoi coolly drives its ethnic Chinese opponents into the sea. That's what Nasser threatened to do to the Israelis, no massacre intended, of course.

"Are we journalists not in part responsible for the death of the tens of thousands who drowned? And are we not in part responsible for the hostile reception accorded to those who survive? Did we not turn public opinion against them, portraying them, as one singularly ignoble cartoon did in the United States, as a bunch of pimps, whores, war profiteers, corrupt generals or, at best, outright reactionaries?

"Considering that today's Vietnam tragedy may have a lot to do with the way we reported yesterday's Vietnam tragedy; considering that we journalists might have our fair share of guilt for the inhuman way the world treats those who are being expelled by an inhuman regime which some of us had pictured as heroic, I think at least a little humility would be in order for us old Viet Nam hands, Mr. Lewis included. And if I did not strongly believe in everybody's right of free expression at any time, I would even admonish him to keep quiet about Indo-China, at least for a while".

How can this be worked into the article? TDC 19:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection

User:TDC has enquired on my user page whether I am considering unprotecting this article. If others agree that this would not result in a resumption of the editing behaviour that got the article protected then please make a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP. Thryduulf 14:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The "behavior" in question is not mine, and I, once again, find it deplorable that you would reward the anon's 15 reverts by protecting his version of the article. TDC 18:22, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Following the questions on my talk page:

  • Can you take a look at the Discussion Page and give me your opinion on whether "discussion has died down" or not?
  • Can you verify for us if you Page Protect an article version preferred by you, or do you do as most Admins do and protect the disputed page as you find it, regardless of your personal point of view?
    • I protected this page on the version I found it at, as per Wikipedia:Protection policy. I do not have a personal point of view on this article, while my interests are wide ranging, wars in general and the Vietnam war in particular, are not amoungst them (for the record I am British and was born in 1980). Contrast this to this diff, because in that situation I have a personal preference and as such I feel it would be impropper for me to protect the article on any version.
  • Can you verify whether you consider it acceptable Wiki-practice to come to your User Talk page and stealthily delete someone else's comments addressed to you, such as was done [on your talk page] [2]?
    • This is very bad ettiquete indeed, thank you for bringing it to my attention. Thryduulf 21:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda?

I object to this article's contention that "others" believe that the number of victims in the massacre was exaggerated for "propaganda" purposes because the government never used it as a major rallying point for the war. In fact it should probably be mentioned how underreported the incident was in comparison to My Lai. If the government did use the incident in a manner that roused public opinion, please correct me. The same could be more aptly applied to My Lai by saying "some believe the anti-war left exaggerated the number of victims for propaganda purposes during major anti-war rallies". I also think it is wrong to state the number of victims ranged from hundreds to thousands because the generally accepted historical figure has been 3,000, again correct me if I'm mistaken. CJK 26 July 2005

You object that the article notes the view that numbers were exaggerated for propaganda purposes? Objections or not, that doesn't change the fact that the contention exists, and is well sourced. That is why it is in the article. Please note that nowhere in the article is it stated that the propaganda was successful. Just out of curiosity, where do you suppose the "generally accepted figure of 3,000" came from? 165.247.212.52 08:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Well sourced? Please give me this mysterious source as I failed to find it, or at least say how this "propaganda" was conducted. CJK 27 July 2005
You want sources that contention exists? Besides Ackland, Pike, Young, Porter and (if I understand TDC's allegations) the whole Hanoi government? You are joking, right? Very plainly: Conflicting views of the numbers and nature of the deaths have been expressed since the very first grave mass grave was examined. You object to the "others" views being mentioned in the article. Object away, they are going to be mentioned anyway, as long as they are established enough to warrant inclusion in the article. I'm also interested in your opinion on where this 3,000 figure came from 209.86.4.174 18:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Once again, you are deliberately confusing the question posed by CJK: please find one instance where the government used the massacre as propaganda, dont just parrot someone who "thinks" it did and who provides no example themselves. TDC 18:10, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Once again, your reading comprehension has failed you. No one "confused the question," it was completely ignored. There is no question that several sources assert that the numbers and causes of death were misrepresented. (Note: I did not say "several sources PROVE the numbers...", I merely said the assertions exist. We can deal with proofs down the line.) 209.86.4.174 18:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

"No one "confused the question," it was completely ignored." Well that clears things up. "...whole Hanoi government..." The Hanoi government is cited as a viable source? Okay... "You object to the "others" views being mentioned in the article." "Others" believe the Holocaust never happened too. "I'm also interested in your opinion on where this 3,000 figure came from" The book Vietnam: A History which is a highly respected work cites 3,000 along with The Atlas of American military history. You still have not cited a confirmed incident where the government deliberately exaggerated the claim or used the massacre for recruitment or in rallies. CJK 28 July 2005

"The Hanoi government is cited as a viable source? Okay..."
Good. I'm glad we are finally in agreement. (And as a clarification, I never said other views were "viable" or not, I only said they will be mentioned in the article if they are well established opposing views.) 209.86.3.116 01:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Again, some people believe that the Holocaust was an allied propaganda invention against the Nazis. Views that aren't backed up by reality should not be in an encyclopedia. CJK 29 July 2005
Yup, no argument there. 165.247.212.55 17:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
"The book Vietnam: A History which is a highly respected work cites 3,000..."
From the "Notes on Sources" in that highly respected work, page 738, "Apart from my own notes, I have relied on two outstanding books on this period: Don Oberdorfer, Tet! and Herbert Schandler, The Unmaking of a President." And from the Acknowledgements section on page 742, "The views expressed in this book are mine. However, I could not have completed a work of such magnitude without the help of many people, including those who assisted me in years past. ... I also owe particular thanks to ... Douglas Pike..." I asked for your opinion on where the 3,000 figure came from, not for a list of subsequent publications that parrot the "generally accepted historical figure" of 3,000. 209.86.4.211 15:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
And do you have a "better" source in mind? Is Pike's estimate somehow "flawed"?CJK 30 July 2005
Do you have an opinion on where this 3,000 figure came from? 209.86.4.211 21:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I just want to know what is so wrong about Pike's study. But a compromise could be 400-5800 which is what Encyclopedia Encarta claims in addition to 2,000 missing, which would replace the vague "few hundred to several thousand". Where exactly is the study that estimated only a "few hundred" by the way? My points about the propaganda still stand. CJK 30 July 2005
Do you have an opinion on where this 3,000 figure came from? I can't find it in your last several responses. 209.86.4.211 23:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
It came from a study which you claim was from Pike and others. I'm not sure if I'm grasping your point. Are you asking for the specific study? I don't have an opinion where the figure came from besides that and some publications. CJK 30 July 2005
The point being made was that most western accounts (including fine works like the afore mentioned Atlas and Karnow's work) cite Pike, or can be traced ultimately back to Pike. The problem is, Pike isn't a "source." Pike relied on information given to him second hand by the Saigon government officials. In addition, most of the numbers obtained by Pike were rough estimates, and furthermore, Pike even notes in his monograph that the cause of death could not be ascertained for a great many of those numbers. You speak of "generally accepted figures," but I'd like to track this back to actual sources - for the sake of accuracy. 209.86.1.211 04:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Proposed Introduction

The Massacre at Hue is the name given to describe the summary executions and mass killings that occurred during North Vietnam's capture, occupation and withdrawal from the city of Hue during the Tet Offensive, considered one of the longest and bloodiest battles of the Vietnam War. During the months that followed the battle, dozens of mass graves were discovered in and around Hue containing nearly 3000 civilians. In some of the mass graves victims were found bound together; some appeared tortured; others were even reported to have appeared buried alive. Estimates vary on the number executed, with a low of a couple hundred to a high of several thousand.

A number of US and South Vietnamese authorities took the discoveries, along with other evidence, as proof that a large-scale communist atrocity had been carried out in and around Hue during its four-week occupation. Some of these same sources also contended these killings were premeditated, and part of a large-scale purge of a whole social stratum. Other authorities contended a 'massacre' never occurred, and the numbers and circumstances of the casualties were exaggerated or fabricated for war propaganda reasons.

I've slightly modified your proposed two paragraph intro above. Here is my reasoning behind the changes. Paragraph one:
  • changed or to and -- more accurate; use of 'or' might lead reader to assume only mass killings, and not actual executions, occured
  • changed discovered to unearthed and examined -- since "discovered" implies graves were hidden, when most were not, although some have conjectured that the couple sites located in dense jungle were chosen to prevent discovery
Most were not hidden, that is true, but some of the largest, namely Da Mai Creek and the Sand Dunes were done in locations as seclude an inaccessible as possible
Actually, the largest was within Hue itself. Do you have a source (other than hypothesis) that supports those graves were intentially hidden? Regardless, I'll leave it as it stands now ... but I'd like to see your sources.
No the largest single finds were the sand dunes (about 15 miles from Hue) at 809, and Da Mai creek (10 miles south of Hue) at 428.
  • changed were found were to were found -- somehow an extra 'were' slipped in there
  • changed number to number executed to differentiate from the number of overall civilian casualties, about which estimates don't vary all that much
  • changed few hundred to couple hundred to represent Police Chief Lap's estimate of 200 executed
The Doan Cong Lap initial estimate for civilian executions in Hue, is for one aree, Gai Hoi, found immediately after the NVA were driven from Hue.
Paragraph two:
  • changed These same sources contended the discoveries were evidence that a premeditated, large-scale communist atrocity and purge had been carried out during Hue's occupation. to Some of these same sources also contended these killings were premeditated, and part of a large-scale purge of a whole social stratum. to clarify contention and eliminate redundancies
Please let me know if the changes I've made are acceptible. Also, I noticed you omitted this info from the intro paragraph: For example, forty percent of the city was destroyed during 26 days of intense combat, and 116,000 of the Hue's 140,000 population were left homeless. The U.S. and South Vietnamese forces claimed over 5000 communist forces were killed within the city, and another 3000 in the immediately surrounding area. Would you have any objection to that information appearing in the "Background" section of the article? 209.86.4.174 18:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
No comment? 165.247.212.55 17:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps, one issue at a time. TDC 15:00, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oberdorfer Redux

It would appear that I was completely wrong in my prior assessment of Oberdorfer’s work on Hue. Oberdorfer made three visits to Hue-one during the battle, another just after, and a third in December 1969. While there he examined graves, spoke with relatives of the victims, city officials (those who survived), church leaders, and captured VC. His work on Hue was not drawn from Pike in any way shape or form, and is in fact an independent corroboration of Pike’s assessment. TDC 16:25, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

It pains me to interrupt while you are babbling on about how wrong you are, but unfortunately I must. From Oberdorfer's book, Tet!: The Turning Point in the Vietnam War, in his source material citations:
  • "...Bernard-Joseph Cabanes of Agence France-Presse, Donald Rochlen of the U. S. Information Agency, William Bundy, Wilfred Burchett, Sven Kramer, Douglas Pike, Frank Sieverts, and to the two former Viet Cong officers, Colonel Tran Van Dac and Ba Tra.
  • "...Viet Cong Plans for 1967-1968 Winter-Spring Campaign," February 13, 1968. The Liberation Army Order of the Day was published in Douglas Pike's paper, "The 1968 Viet Cong Lunar New Year Offensive in South Vietnam," distributed by the U. S. Mission, Saigon, February ..."
  • "... Viet Cong target lists and other documents, and Donald Rochlen was invaluable, as ever, in obtaining and declassifying them. Douglas Pike's monograph, The Viet Cong Strategy of Terror, privately published in Saigon in February 1970, contained important data on the Hue Massacre ..."
  • "...on pp. 21 and 28-29. The Phu Cam story was told by residents of the area. An account is published in Pike's The Viet Cong Strategy of Terror, PP- 49-50 (215) The story of Father Buu Dong and a copy of his three ..."
(the bold emphasis is mine) You know, Pike is even among the initial reviewers of Oberdorfer's book before its first publishing. It's not difficult to actually open the damn book and scan for footnotes, TDC. If you don't have a copy, any reasonably stocked library should have a copy. It's been reprinted several times. 209.86.4.17 03:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I am speaking of a series of articles he wrote for the Washington Post in 1968 and 1969 on Hue, not his book Tet. TDC 14:30, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Also please provide a page# for the following:
There is considerable doubt that the NVA/VC had planned these executions beforehandTDC 16:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Subsection Brakdown

I suggest breaking down the new subsection into three additional subsections along Pike's study and differentiation of the three major finds of graves. TDC 16:28, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

The first part states that: The NLF set up provisional authorities shortly after capturing Hue, and was charged with removing the existing government administration from power within the city and replacing it with a revolutionary administration. Working from lists of "cruel tyrants and reactionary elements" previously developed by VC intelligence officers, many people were to be rounded up following the initial hours of the attack.

and the las part states: There is considerable doubt that the NVA/VC had planned these executions beforehand.

How could there be such a large amount of pre-occupation planning of punitive actions taking place against citizens in Hue, and doubt that the executions were pre-planned?

You are absolutely correct. So you caught me before morning coffee, don't let it go to your head. 165.247.213.27 17:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions on insertions

You added the following content, "Philip W. Manhard, US province senior advisor in Hue, was taken to a POW camp by the NVA held until 1973. Manhard recounted that during the NVA withdrawal from Hue the NVA summarily executing anyone in their custody who resisted being taken out of the city or who was too old, too young, or two frail to make the journey to the camp." Since I know at least some of this to be true, I won't remove it for now, but may I have a source citation please? (Also, I see several typos... two -> too, executing -> executed, NVA held -> NVA and held) 165.247.213.27 18:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Foreign Affairs Oral History Project (Georgetown University) - 1974 interview TDC 18:43, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Oberdorfer info: Washington Post; Dec 4 1969 A21, Dec 7 1969 A13

I've moved the following exerpt here for verification: "The mass graves within Hue itself were largely of those who had been picked up and executed for various "enemy of the people" offenses, or resisted the occupation."

  • Pikes statement seems to refute that, "The other nearly 600 (bodies found in Hue) bore wound marks but there was no way of determining whether they died by firing squad or incidental to the battle."
  • Burchett's report in the Dec 6 Guardian seems to refute that too, citing the NLF claims that 2,000 victims of the American bombardment were buried in mass graves.
What page is the Pike citation from. And you must mean KGB agent Burchett. Considering his Burchett's credentials, I think we can safely dismiss his comtributions. TDC 18:12, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

The Pike citation is from the page where he discusses the initial mass grave that was examined, the one in Hue containing almost 1200 bodies. As for "considering Burchett's credentials," I don't. I only consider facts, as should you. If a talking dog says, "John Smith claims Bush is President," you should not dismiss what John Smith says, nor should you discount the alleged fact that Bush is president, simply because you have issues with talking dogs. 165.247.200.210 19:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice strawman, but unfortunately it does not apply. TDC 19:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oberdorfer account

What is your source for this account? It differs greatly from mine, including the quotes? My insertion is based off of two articles he wrote for the Post on December 4th and 7th of 1969, and the quotes are direct, are there two versions of the story, and if not what is your source for the change of material. TDC 15:24, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

My source is pages photocopied directly from the Post's archives, at a cost of $3.95 per article -- but hey, no price too high for accuracy. I replaced your quote with an exact word for word transcription. 165.247.204.125 18:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Thats funny, because I got mine on microfische over at the library, is there a revision # on the Post archive? TDC 18:12, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Strange indeed. Why not hop over to washingpost.com, click on "Archives" and request copies for comparison? That way you can eliminate the chance of errors as you attempt to transcribe from microfiche to paper to wiki-article. 165.247.200.210 19:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Because I am not going to pay $4 for the copy. but as I asked earlier, was there a re# or correction notice on your copy from the Post? TDC 19:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source for Paragraph

It was determined by piecing together bits of information from several sources that a large number of people had taken sanctuary from the battle in a local church. Several hundred of these people were ordered out to undergo indoctrination in the "liberated area," and told afterwards they would be allowed to return home. After marching the group south 9 kilometers, 20 of the people were seperated, tried, found guilty, executed and buried. The others were taken across the river and turned over to a local communist unit in an exchange that even included written receipts. It is probable that the remaining captives were to be re-educated and returned to Hue, but many were apparently shot days later when American or ARVN units came too close.

I have not found this in Pike’s study. TDC

Check pages 28-29 of his report and hypothesis to the US Mission in Saigon. 165.247.204.125 18:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Text as it appears in the article
  • Several hundred of these people were ordered out to undergo indoctrination in the "liberated area," and told afterwards they would be allowed to return home. After marching the group south 9 kilometers, 20 of the people were separated, tried, found guilty, executed and buried. The others were taken across the river and turned over to a local communist unit in an exchange that even included written receipts. It is probable that the remaining captives were to be re-educated and returned to Hue, but many were apparently shot days later when American or ARVN units came too close. Local authorities later released a list of 428 names of people they claimed were identified from the bones found over a 100 yard area of the Da Mai creek bed.
Now for what Pike actually wrote.
  • They were marched nine kilometres south to a pagoda where the Communists had established a headquarters. There 20 were called out from the group, assembled before a drumhead court, tried, found guilty, executed and buried in the pagoda yard. The remainder were taken across the river and turned over to a local Communist unit in an exchange that even involved banding the political commissar a receipt. 'It is probable that the commissar intended that their prisoners should be re-educated and returned, but with the turnover, matters passed from his control.
  • During the next several days, exactly how many is not known, both captive and captor wandered the countryside. At some point the local Communists decided to eliminate witnesses: Their captives were led through six kilometres of some of the most rugged terrain in Central Vietnam, to Da Mai Creek. There they were shot or brained and their bodies left to wash in the running stream.
This is one of the grossest misrepresentations of a source I have ever seen. Pike mentions nothing about the victims bieng shot “when American or ARVN units came too close”. I don’t know where this particular phrase came from, but you cannot mix an match sources like this without indicating so. Also, it is disingenuous, at best, to use some of Pike’s work, while failing to include the most important and relevant sections. TDC 18:37, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


These individuals, according to VC documents captured during and after the seige, were to be taken out of the city and held and punished for their crimes against the Vietnamese people. The disposition of those who were previously in control of the city was carefully laid out, and the lists were detailed and extensive. Those in the Saigon-based government police apparatus at all levels were to be rounded up and held outside the city. High civilian and military officials were also removed from the city, both to await study of their individual cases. Ordinary civil servants working for "the Saigon enemy" out of necessity, but did not oppose the revolution, were destined for reeducation and later employment. Low-level civil servants who had at some point been involved in paramilitary activities were to be held for reeducation, but not employed.

I have also not found a source for this. TDC 15:42, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

from the Rochlen papers, and also referenced by Young, Oberdorfer and others 165.247.204.125 18:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
More specific please. TDC 18:35, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Huê

Please be serious and rigourous in Political Sciences of Military and Strategic Studies and take the "Military Review. Us Army" as a reference work.

The Têt Offensive deployed in 3 Battles: Battle of Khê Sanh, Battle of Saigon and Battle of Huê. Go to the French version where I've put down all these.

Takima 21:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hard to Read

These sections are bundled into really long paragraphs loaded with long sentences, many of the sentences containing two or three separate points. It all needs to be seriously revamped and broken up for ease of reading.

[edit] Image

I recently added an image to this article that keeps getting removed by a user, supposedly because "its caption can not be verified". The image description clearly links to the Library of Congress Country Study: Vietnam page. The picture is in the "Second Indochina War" section (can not be linked directly because it is a temporary link). DHN 18:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could this article be any more vague?

So who are the aggressors who killed the people of Huế? Or their identify a matter of dispute?

Who and what are the authorities that contend a massacre never occurred? They aren't identified in the article. There's one name, Gareth Porter, uncited, and it is the one place where the phrase propaganda and exaggeration are repeated. What are Porter's sources? However, the article text itself contradicts the suggestion made in the opening paragraph: the Porter doesn't have evidence there were fewer deaths than reported, or that the deaths were combat-related. So this first paragraph claim is unsupported. It's a mess. patsw 00:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] accent in Hue

I'm pretty sure it's commonly referred as Hue not Huế in English, and for certain that at least one of the references listed is titled with "Hue" instead of "Huế", but listed as such in the section. Therefore, I think this is incorrect in general.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/s/Talk%7EMassacre_at_Hu%E1%BA%BF_1db3.html"