Talk:Massacre at Hue/Archive 1

What are the sources for this page? If I understand correctly, all we know about the "Hue massacre" is derived from a single intercepted report that does not mention executions. A certain term was translated as "executed" by the US intelligence services, yet turned out to be highly ambiguous. Is there any material evidence or postwar scholarship? How come the massacre was completely unknown to the US army?

Is the picture from Hue, or does it depict a victim elsewhere?

Harald

The 2/5th Marines took back Hue in February 1968, thats why the army had so little involvement in it. The picture was sent to me by someone in the 2/5th who took the photo. There are large volumes of information on what happened at Hue, although I think it is safe to say that there is no single concise source for what happened at Hue the way that there are many books about Mai Lai. TDC 22:38, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Hue did not recieve much press attention at the time, and even less over the years. If you want to find out more, there are a few good books on the Tet Offensive, which I would recomend.

The Battle for Hue: Tet 1968 by Keith Nolan, has a fair ammount of information on what happened to the civilians at Hue that the NVA killed, including many first hand accounts of what the 2/5th saw.

Gareth Porter did a hatchet piece on Hue, in which he basicaly calls it a lie, but he himself has quite a bit of reason to lie about it. TDC 22:46, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

No serious history of the Vietnam war considers the "Massacre at Hue" to be anything but a propaganda stunt by the US and their South Vietnamese puppet regime (the number of people executed was much lower). This page should be changed to reflect that. --Sus scrofa 16:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First of all what exactly constitutes a “serious history”? What happened at Hue is overshadowed by two things. It took place when the north occupied the city and therefore press access was non existent. It also took place around the time of Mi Lai, and was therefore overshadowed by the massive media attention around that. No “serious” source on what happened at Hue will deny that a massacre of several thousand took place. Former Vietcong Troung Nhu Tang admits to as much in his memoirs. Nolan’s book about Tet also provides a first hand account of what the 2/5th ran into when they took back Hue.

This whole incident should not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with NVA tactics. In December of 1967 the NVA wiped out the Degar of Dak Sok killing several hundred villagers.

Porter is a lying piece of shit apologist for any shade of Maoist under the sun, and seeing as how what happened at Hue during Tet demanded that the anti-war left needed someone to admonish the North Vietnamese, porters hatchet job fit nicely in with that. I doubt that even Porter would dismiss the meat of this article today. TDC June 28, 2005 16:24 (UTC)

Documentary?

Where can I find particulars about this 1974 South Vietnamese documentary that was shown at Fort Benning? TIA.

History vs. the Left's "history" of disinformation at Hue, Tet, 1968

The massacre at Hue, Tet, 1968 was all too real. It is a point of contention due to the disinformation promulgated by the Left, D. Gareth Porter leading the charge for that camp, as he was to do later in his and George C. Hildebrand's apology for Pot Pot's Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia. Vietnam is fraught with disinformation, the Left has devoted a considerable disinformation effort in the direction of Hue, 1968.

D. Gareth Porter was a long time sympathizer and apologist for North Vietnam's regime. To place this in perspective consider that it was D. Gareth Porter and George C. Hildebrand who wrote the initial set of apologies even for Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge regime in the mid to late 70's. Sophal Ear, a native Cambodian writing his thesis from the University of California, Berkeley, debunked the apologies of Porter and Hildebrand (among others), this thesis can be found here, a pdf version here. This places D. Gareth Porter within the ideological landscape, as does the fact Porter has a long association with the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), one of the oldest left wing think tanks in the country, Discover The Networks overview of the IPS is here. This is not to impugn a guilt by association, only to place D. Gareth Porter within an obvious and blatant ideological frame. Further, some of the same techniques used by Porter and Hildebrand in their apology for the Khmer Rouge genocide were used in Porter's deflection of blame for Hue, 1968, away from the North Vietnamese regime.

Time magazine's writeup of Hue can be found here.

A more detailed review can be found here. Another reference can be found here.

Porter's and Hildebrand's apology for Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge regime was published under the name "Cambodia: Starvation and Revolution" (1976), it was a sophisticated deflection of guilt away from the Khmer Rouge regime (though Chomsky and Herman subsequently outdid this level of sophistication with their set of apologies). Very much the same for Porter's deflection of blame away from the Viet Cong and the human tragedy that occurred at Hue. A few thousand civilians were killed at Hue during a single incident, compared to estimates ranging over two million for the Khmer Rouge's regime over several years, this is one reason Porter's Hue apology is easier to coverup than his vastly more notorious apology for the Khmer Rough regime.

Resumé of this talk page

TDC: there was a massacre in Hue.
All the others: there is no proof, the only source is the South Vietnam government.
TDC: All the others are lying leftist pieces of shit.

It is disputed. GhePeU 16:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Walter Duranty, NYT reporter, Pulitzer Prize winner, c. 1934, reporting on Stalin's crimes: disputed

D. Gareth Porter, one of a number of academic apologists for Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge regime, in print, testifying before congress, in academic circles, always and consistently indicated: disputed

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., historian, c. 1981: "[T]hose in the United States who think the Soviet Union is on the verge of economic and social collapse [are] wishful thinkers who are only kidding themselves." I.e.: disputed

Paul Samuelson, Nobel laureate, economics, c. 1985: "What counts is results, and there can be no doubt that the Soviet planning system has been a powerful engine for economic growth?The Soviet model has surely demonstrated that a command economy is capable of mobilizing resources for rapid growth." I.e.: disputed

Lester Thurow, MIT economist, 1989: "Today the Soviet Union is a country whose economic achievements bear comparison with those of the United States." I.e.: disputed

GhePeu, of Hanoi's crimes at Hue, 1968: disputed

J. Michaels

---

What is the relation between this useless comment and the factual accuracy of this "massacre at Hue"? No trolling here, please. GhePeU 20:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

---

You're the one using descriptions such as "useless," "trolling," "All the others [say there is no proof]," and attributing "All the others are lying leftist pieces of shit" to someone else - so you're the one who's trolling and distorting what others are saying. The quotes and references are there to note the difference between genuine disputes and "disputes" which proved to be no such thing but were labeled disputes by leftists or those who called themselves "liberals". Anyone can label anything a "dispute" but it's another thing to discuss it more intelligently. I've discussed in person, Hue, 1968 with a Vietnamese national who knew people killed at Hue by Hanoi's regime, an informal and one-on-one brief discussion that cannot be referenced here, obviously. Have also read of similar accounts. Discussion points are not "useless" simply because they don't support your statements.

Discuss intelligently. Don't troll and don't distort what others are saying.

J. Michaels

More than one source: Vietnamese themselves

The notion there is but one source could be forwarded, c. 1974, when D. Gareth Porter wrote his deflection of blame for Hue, 1968 away from the North Vietnamese regime. This is no longer viable as residents of Hue themselves, largely Buddhist, continue to commemorate this and other tragedies Hue was subjected to. This article, by an indigenous Vietnamese publication and nationalist party, reflects precisely that, an excerpt follows:

"The 1968 massacre in Hue brought a sharp turn in the common attitude toward the war. A great number of the pre-'68 fence sitters, anti-war activists, and even pro-Communist people, took side with the South Vietnamese government after the horrible events. [...]

"Since April 1975, the Vietnamese Communist regime deliberately moved many families of the 68-massacre victims out of Hue City. People in the city however, still commemorate them every year. Because the people are mingling the rites with Tet celebrations, Communist local authorities have no reason to forbid them."

Ironically, those arguing there is but one source of the information typically cite only one source themselves, D. Gareth Porter, while ignoring evidence from Vietnamese nationals other than members of the Stalinist regime in Hanoi.

Not a different source, sentences of the wikipedia article are copied from that page or from someone who cited that page literally. GhePeU 09:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of what the Wikipedia article quotes from, the cited article above concerns an indigenous Vietnamese account after D. Gareth Porter's citing the SVN as the "only source." You need to establish your own sources as well by the way and make your argument much more explicitly. For example, citing specific passages from Porter's account, Pike's account, etc. to support your claims. Be more specific and argue more intelligibly and provide specific cites, links and references. Otherwise it's nothing more than a drive-by.

Citing from the site you linked, "the elite VNQDD fighters in many provincial Popular Forces in South Vietnam during the war (1955-1975) especially in Central Vietnam, were fighting the anti-Communist war bravely and caused heavy losses to the enemy". So they're not a different sources. GhePeU 14:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

What does that quote have to do with Hue, Tet, 1968? Also, that some aspects of the site are quoted herein hardly indicates the entirety of that site relies solely upon information your own source(s) deems to be false. The fact is it's an indigenous Vietnamese source and site.

And again, for a second time, establish your own source(s). For example is D. Gareth Porter your only source? Or do you have other sources yourself? Establish your sources and quit presuming to play god. Stop the drive-bys, argue responsibly, provide links.

(1) This article use SVN as his only source.

(2) The page you linked include sentences that are exactly alike the ones you can read in this article.

Conclusion: that page and this article are based on the same source, ergo you can't use that page as a confirmation. Alternatively, this wikipedia article is based on that page, but this doesn't change anything. Besides, the source is a party that fought with the SVN, so it is not a neutral indigenous source. GhePeU 15:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

For the thrid time, establish your own source(s) and provide links. Support your statements with links as well, you make several statements yet support none of them.

For the third time, this talk page doesn't show a consensus on the factual accuracy of the subject and now you're using a page deriving from the same source of the article (or maybe the initial source of the article) to confirm the article itself. This "new indigenous account" is the same source that had been disputed, so this article stays disputed. GhePeU 16:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

For the fourth time, name and cite your own sources. Simply labeling something a "dispute" does not make it so. What are your own sources? Provide substantiating links.

Gareth Porter's account of Hue, as well as his general scholarship on Southeast Asia during the 60's and 70's has been widely discredited, especialy his work on Cambodia that Noam Chomsky so glowingly refered to when making his own feeble defense of the KR). I might also remind you that Porter's work is the basis for all other commentary on Hue that denies what took place there.

As for non South Vietnamese sources, I provided one earlier: The Battle for Hue: Tet 1968 by Keith Nolan. In it there are many first hand recolections from the Marines involved in the re taking of Hue. TDC 19:37, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Authoritative sources?

I count two users (TDC and J Michaels) who want to make this out as a major signifying event of the 1968 Tet offensive. Unless they can provide references to at least one major authoritative study of these events the factual accuracy of the article can safely be regarded as disputed. --213.54.219.53 15:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

For the fifth time now, you need to name and document the source of your dispute. Links have already been supplied to document what was perpetrated at Hue, 1968, by Hanoi's regime. Document your own dispute with authoritative sources or stop the drive bys. J. Michaels

The source of my dispute? This dispute started before I even arrived here. If you would take the effort of compiling a comprehensive list of the sources you or others who argue your case use, I expect it will become quite apparent even to newcomers to this topic that they are biased. I can only ask you not to confuse a body of literature (coming entirely from a former party in the conflict, no less) with actual established facts. --213.54.211.70 19:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Once again, the only source who denies that nothing happened is Gareth Porter, whose scholarship on the subject has been discredited, to say the least. To be quite honest, I do not know if even he will still stand by his story. TDC 19:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Right, this is where the confusion part comes in: you say "only G. Porter denies this". We do not even know what he denies, i.e. what kind of agency conducted the fact-finding, what did they find, what methods did they use? This is where the deficiencies in the present article are. Every argument beyond that is purely secondary at this stage. --213.54.215.17 20:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, SVN government and US soldiers. During the First World War, British sources reported that the Germans were boiling down the bodies of their dead soldiers to make soap and other products. Newspapers published this story, people believed it for years, but this wasn't true. A party in conflict is not a reliable source. GhePeU 23:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Stop the vandalism and drive bys. For the sixth time substantiate your claims of a dispute, no one has done so to this point, or stop the drive bys.

Sources substantiating Hue have been listed above, additionally I already noted above I've talked with a Vietnamese national who personally indicated he knew people who were eliminated at Hue. J. Michaels

A closer look at the sources

Willbanks, one of your sources, makes the following statement about the massacre:

"Nearly 3,000 corpses were found in mass graves most shot, bludgeoned to death, or buried alive, almost all with their hands tied behind their backs." (p. 149)

Note that he explicitly refers to Shulimson et al. as backup. There the account goes as follows:

"After the recapture of Hue, South Vietnamese authorities exhumed some 3,000 bodies thrown into hastily dug graves. In all probability, these were the victims of the Communist roundups. Although the North Vietnamese admitted the tracking down and punishing of 'hoodlum ringleaders,' they claimed most of the reported civilian deaths were the result of happenstance, exaggerations by the South Vietnamese, or caused by the allies." (p. 214)

See any difference? --213.54.215.213 15:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Ok, so at least you've finally indicated the North Vietnam Politburo is your source. However, if that is your source, your citation is arguing over numbers of victims, not whether there were any victims or not. No one has been saying they know the exact numbers killed. Additionally, Shulimson himself, the author you cite as identifying the North Vietnamese's story, is not saying he agrees, he's only indicating what they said. For example, their Politburo (the official cadres at the head of North Vietnam's formal hierarchy) also said that Tet, 1968, was not initiated by the VC/NVA but was simply a popular uprising. So are you going to "dispute" the historical facts of Tet, '68, simply because the North Vietnamese Politburo says so? You're relying upon the perpetrators themselves as your source.

At least you finally cited your source, but the North Vietnamese Politburo cannot be regarded seriously, nor are they as a sole source (the same one D. Gareth Porter relies upon) by any serious historian.

See also here.

May I remind you that the work by Shulimson et al. is part of the official Marine Corps History series on the Vietnam War? Now the massacre is certainly not a main focus of this work, but it certainly says enough for me to regard this matter as unresolved or lacking sufficient exploration. See also the footnote two pages further on, where it becomes quite obvious that there does indeed exist a level of doubt (at least at the time of writing, the book was published in 1997). --213.54.212.130 06:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

5th point of view - Observations on all of the preceeding comments

"The 2/5th Marines took back Hue in February 1968, thats why the army had so little involvement in it."

False. I'm sure the 1st and 7th Cavalry divisions and the 2nd Battalion of the 501st Infantry would love to debate that with you.

"The picture was sent to me by someone in the 2/5th who took the photo."

Doubtful. That same picture can be found at numerous websites, some describing, ironically enough, South Vietnamese attrocities. Would it be possible to have this "someone in the 2/5th" verify that he took the photo, and more importantly, describe when and where it was taken? I won't hold my breath.

"Gareth Porter did a hatchet piece on Hue, in which he basically calls it a lie, but he himself has quite a bit of reason to lie about it."

Interesting opinion. But wait, no actual specifics about what Porter may have lied about? Of course not.

"It also took place around the time of Mi Lai, and was therefore overshadowed by the massive media attention around that."

Ridiculous. While both events did happen within months of each other, Mi Lai (or as the rest of us refer to it, My Lai) was successfully covered up for more than a year before it became a media event, while the details (facts as well as propaganda) of the battles of Tet went to press almost immediately, including the discovery of "mass graves" and "executed individuals." Nice try, though.

"No “serious” source on what happened at Hue will deny that a massacre of several thousand took place. Former Vietcong Troung Nhu Tang admits to as much in his memoirs."

Good ol' Troung Nhu Tang. Perhaps we should look at the memoirs of his 2nd cousin, Truong Nhu Tang, where we see that he acknowledges that "some" locals were executed, and "thousands died" during the seige of the city, but not once does he suggest that "thousands were executed." In fact, he also notes the horrible damage and death caused by bombing and close air support. This "Troung" guy you mention sounds like an interesting character, however - can you quote him directly?

"This whole incident should not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with NVA tactics. In December of 1967 the NVA wiped out the Degar of Dak Sok killing several hundred villagers."

Anyone can play this game. Is it my turn? This whole incident should not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with American tactics. In March of 1968 the USA wiped out the hamlets of My Lai killing several hundred villagers. Your turn!

(Question: Where exactly is Dak Sok? Is it near Dak Sak, by chance?)

"Porter is a lying piece of shit apologist for any shade of Maoist under the sun...yada yada yada..."

Again, you slam a source, while carefully avoiding addressing the actual information. Need you be reminded that a fact is a fact, regardless of how you feel about the person presenting that fact? Try confronting the information, not the person and his biases, and explain why you feel that information is inaccurate or incomplete. You'll note that much of what Porter says in his "hatchet piece" is actually relayed information from numerous other sources, and not of his own creation.

"Where can I find particulars about this 1974 South Vietnamese documentary that was shown at Fort Benning? TIA."

Inquiring minds want to know. It is not surprising that this question has been totally ignored. Anyone have the particulars? Again, I won't hold my breath.

"History vs. the Left's "history" of disinformation at Hue, Tet, 1968"

What follows this header are several humorous paragraphs where the editor rambles on about Porter's biases, and the scholarship of Porter's work regarding the unrelated topic of the Khmer Rouge -- again, without daring to touch the actual information presented by Porter regarding Hue. I found it difficult to maintain a straight face once he cited right-wingnut David Horowitz's Discover The Network [1]. Yes, grasshoppah, your biased google is very strong, but my biased google is strongah! What a riot.

"Stop the drive-bys..."

J. Michaels drives by several times to remind other editors not to "drive by." I couldn't discern much more of this editor's postition, except that he feels information from the North must be biased, while information from the South couldn't possibly be biased. After all, 20-20 hindsight has shown us all that the both the South Vietnamese government as well as the U.S. backing government are pristine examples of forthright and transparent governments that wouldn't dare stoop to propagandizing an event such as the Tet Offensives toward their favor. Editor Michaels also appears to be fond of mischaracterising Porter as "your only source," when Porter isn't the source at all - just another editor. Most of the actual sources are listed at the end of Porter's piece:

1 For a study of the earlier underpinnings of this strategy, see D. Gareth Porter, "Bloodbath; Myth or Reality?" Indochina Chronicle No. 19, September 15, 1973.

2 Joseph Dees, "Survivors Relate Communist Mass Murders of 1,000 in Hue," IPS (USIS) dispatch, April 23, 1968.

3 New York Times, May 1, 1968; Washington Post, May 1, 1968.

4 Vietnam Press, May 1, 1968. The UPI story on the report indicated that it was based solely on information supplied by the police, failing to mention the role of the Political Warfare Battalion. Washington Post, May 1, 1968. The New York Times did not mention the source of the information. It is safe to say, therefore, that no American newspaper reader learned that the ARVN Tenth Political Warfare Battalion played the key role in compiling the story.

5 New York Times, February 29, 1968.

6 Le Monde, April 13, 1968.

7 "Chronology of Graves Discovered, Vicinity of Hue (Civilian Deaths in Tet 1968)," obtained from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, February 1970.

8 New York Times, March 28, 1968.

9 "Chronology of Graves Discovered."

10 New York Times, March 28, 1968.

11 Vu Cuong Sat cua Viet Cong tai Co Do Hue (Communist Murder in Hue), Tenth Political Warfare Battalion of ARVN, 1968, p.13.

12 Alje Vennema, "The Tragedy of Hue," unpublished manuscript, 1968, pp. 19-23.

13 "Chronology of Graves Discovered," site 22.

14 "Villagers Returning to Hue," UPI, in San Francisco Chronicle, December 8, 1968; "South Vietnamese Farmer Stoically Works Fields," Washington Post, January 4, 1970.

15 "Chronology of Graves Discovered," sites 21, 13 and 14.

16 Tien Tuyen, January 27, 1969.

17 Tien Tuyen, May 3, 1969.

18 Ibid.

19 Vietnam Press, April 12, 1969.

20 Washington Post, May 5, 1969.

21 "Chronology of Graves Discovered," site 25.

22 Douglas Pike, The Viet-Cong Strategy of Terror (Saigon: U.S. Mission, Vietnam, 1970), p. 29.

23 Baltimore Sun, October 12, 1969.

24 Tien Tuyen, October 17, 1969.

25 Pike, op. cit., pp. 28-29.

26 "Chronology of Graves Discovered."

27 Embassy of Viet-Nam, Washington, D.C., Vietnam Bulletin, Viet- Nam Information Series, No. 28, April, 1970, p. 6.

28 Agence France-Presse dispatch, February 15, 1968, in L'Heure Decisive (Paris: Dossiers AFP-Laffont, 1968), p. 153.

29 Ibid.

30 Vietnam Bulletin, loc. cit.

31 This is what Pike told Benedict Stavis of Cornell University in an interview on September 10, 1973. Letter from Stavis to the author, September 10, 1973.

32 Washington Post, November 25, 1969.

33 Christian Science Monitor, December 1, 1969.

34 "Tien Chien Thang Hue tu Ngay 31.1, 23.3" (Information on the Victory in Hue from January 31 to March 23), xerox copy obtained from the Combined Documents Exploitation Center, Saigon. The document, it should be noted, is far from being a high-level report or analysis of the Tet Offensive in Hue. It is handwritten, sketchy, and clearly done at the local level for local consumption.

35 Nhan Dan, February 28, 1968.

36 Tu Dien Tieng Viet (Vietnamese Language Dictionary) (Hanoi: Nha Xuat Ban Khoa Hoc, 1967), p. 927.

37 Los Angeles Times, November 20, 1969; Washington Daily News, November 25, 1969.

38 Pike, op. cit., p. 16; news articles cited above.

39 The paragraph immediately preceding Pike's mention of the document refers to a whole class of villagers being "wiped out," op. cit.

40 "15 Tieu Chuan Cuu Tap" (Fifteen Criteria for Investigation), xerox copy obtained from U.S. Embassy, Saigon. This document is reproduced in Viet-Nam Documents and Research Notes, Document No. 97, August 1971, Part II.

41 "Repressing Counterrevolutionaries: The Viet Cong System of Punishment," Viet-Nam Documents and Research Notes, Document No. 5, October 1967.

42 Washington Daily News, November 5, 1969. Chuyen gave the figure of three million in the Los Angeles Times, November 20, 1969.

43 In the report on the interrogation of Chuyen, the interrogator pointedly put question marks after the rank and past assignments in the VPA claimed by Chuyen. U.S. State Department, Captured Documents and Interrogation Reports (1968), item no. 55, "Interrogation of Le Xuan Chuyen."

44 Ibid.

45 Speech by Tran Van Do, Troi Nam, No. 3, 1967, p. 13.

46 Vo Van Chan, The Policy of Greater Unity of the People (Saigon: Minister of Chieu Hoi, Republic of Vietnam, 1971), p. 19.

47 See Pike, op. cit., p. 18; Sir Robert Thompson, "Communist Atrocities in Vietnam," New York Times, June 15, 1972.

48 "Letter from Vietnam," The New Yorker, March 23, 1968.

49 Washington Daily News, March 1, 1968.

50 "Status of Refugees," official report by Office of Refugees, U.S. Agency for International Development, May 2, 1968.

51 Saigon Post, March 17, 1968.

52 VC Carnage in Hue, Tenth Political Warfare Battalion, 1968, p. 8.

53 Pike, op. cit., pp. 30-31.

54 Saigon Post, March 17, 1968.

55 Pike, op. cit., pp. 30-31.

56 "Information on the Victory in Hue."

57 Len Ackland and D. Gareth Porter, "The Bloodbath Argument," Christian Century, November 5, 1969. Reprinted in Paul Menzel, ed., Moral Argument and the War in Vietnam (Nashville: Aurora Publishers, 1971), pp. 141-46.

58 "Ban Ke Hoach Con Kich va Khoi Nghia cua Mu A" (Plan for an Offensive and General Uprising of Mui A), xerox copy obtained from Office of Special Projects, JUSPAO, Saigon, June, 1971.

59 Len Ackland, "Resist and They Die," unpublished manuscript, 1968, pp. 5-6.

60 Ibid., pp. 15-19; Washington Post, December 7, 1969; and Don Oberdorfer, Tet (New York, Avon Books, 1971), pp. 216-53.

61 Pike, War, Peace and the Viet Cong (Cambridge, MIT Press, 1969.

62 Ackland, op. cit., p. 8; Christian Science Monitor, May 8, 1968; Vennema, op. cit., p. 10; notes from interviews in Hue by Francois Sully of Newsweek, March, 1968.

63 Ackland and Porter, op. cit., p. 145.

64 Agence France-Presse dispatch, March 3, 1968, in Vietnam Press Special Reports, March 5, 1968.

65 Vennema, op. cit., p. 26.

66 Vu Cuong Sat cua Viet Cong tai Co Do Hue, pp. 2, 18-21.

67 The Chinese communists faced a similar situation in 1947, when they occupied a county seat and their shadow government and officials surfaced for the first time. David Gulala tells of asking the political commissar what would happen when the Red Army had to leave the town. "They will leave, too, and resume their clandestine work," he replied. "Are you not afraid that they will lose their value now that they have revealed themselves?" Gulala asked. The commissar said, "We have secret agents in this town who did not come out when we took it. We don't even know who they are. They will still be here when we go." Galula, Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice (New York: Praeger, 1964), pp. 56-57. [2]

The wiki-article as it now stands appears to be direct summary of Pike's analysis of the Hue battle, and lists very little in the way of sources ... with the exception of Pike himself. While J. Michaels does acknowledge that the folks from Hanoi hold a differing opinion, he poo-poos it as an acceptable addition to the wiki-article. At the very least, both positions should be expressed, regardless of which you believe. Until this is done, the NPOV status of that article can most certainly be challenged. Another fact that is overlooked in the wiki-article is that "mass graves" were commonplace in the battle zones of Vietnam, as the push and pull of troop movement prevented proper ceremonial individual burials, and religious superstition prevented the leaving of bodies where they fell. While you are busy demonizing Porter for his analysis of the Hue battle, you overlook a few important points:

• Porter never claims there were no executions at all in Hue
• Porter never claims that thousands didn't die during the battle for Hue
• Porter specifically concludes, "The issue which historians must weigh in the NLF occupation of Hue is not whether executions took place but whether they were indiscriminate or the result of a prearranged "purge" of whole strata of society, as charged by political warfare specialists of the Saigon and U.S. governments. Equally important is the question of whether it was the NLF or U.S. bombing and artillery which caused the deaths of several thousand Hue civilians during the battle for the city.

The fact that there is a differing opinion needs to be in the article, regardless of whom the most vocal proponent of that opinion is -- especially if no one has stepped up to show that opinion to be unfounded. 209.86.3.248 21:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

---

No, D. Gareth Porter is not a reliable source as has already been demonstrated, he has long been an apologist for Hanoi. Porter, as far as I know, has yet to even deny his culpability in apologizing for Pol Pot's reign of terror and genocide. Additionally, no one said he claimed there were no executions or that he claimed thousands did not die in the battle per se, those are red herrings, much as cutting/pasting his entire set of references is a red herring. Additionally the ad hominem attacks against Horowitz, Pike, etc. are entirely beside the point (as indicated, an "interesting opinion" only) unless and until they are backed up, the bio on Porter at Discover the Networds is in fact accurate, if you want to dispute that bio, do so, but merely dismissing it out of hand is not a dispute, it's simply a statement or opinion. Similarly, Pike's own bona fides can be found in this HistoryNet review, here. A differing opinion is not the same thing as a reasoned dispute backed up with a more solid argument. Similarly, as regards Hanoi's regime as representing the source, I didn't simply pooh-pooh the notion, I noted the perpetrators of the crime cannot be the witness against that crime, as noted it would be like taking the regime at face value when they similarly assert Tet, 1968 was simply a popular uprising by the people in the South, itself a patently absurd statement. If you're going to challenge, you have to find a source independent of Hanoi or Porter, the latter having been shown to be an apologist for Hanoi as well as the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot. Finally, listing Porter's entire set of references does nothing to indicate which specific references he's using to indicate the NVA/VC did not commit the crime at Hue, '68. Finally, like other ad hominem attacks, the "grasshoppa" and other forms of mere dismissiveness do not represent an argument nor do they reflect what was previously indicated. Argue more intelligently and cease with the personal attacks and inferences. J. Michaels

"Cease with the personal attacks," you instruct, as you make personal attacks of your own. "Argue more intelligently," you pronounce, while you ramble on for a full paragraph without even addressing the only outstanding argument. The only thing missing is the admonition to not "drive by." Your whole preceeding paragraph is completely lost on me. 209.86.3.248 03:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

(As posted above, and reiterated here for the benefit of Michaels) The fact that there is a differing opinion needs to be in the article, regardless of whom the most vocal proponent of that opinion is -- especially if no one has stepped up to show that opinion to be unfounded. 209.86.3.248 21:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The Round-Up

The following section was in the main article:

The first thing they did was call all South Vietnamese soldiers, civil servants of all services, political party members, and college students, to report to the "revolutionary people's committee." Those who reported to the Communist-run committee were registered in control books and then released with promise of safety.

After a few days, they were called to report again, then all were sent home safe. During three weeks under NVA units' occupation, they were ordered to report to the communist committee three or four times.

I don't doubt this happened, since it sounds like their MO -- but can we have a source for this? Also, it doesn't quite mesh smoothly with the sentence that follows:

During the Marine and ARVN attack, North Vietnam's forces rounded up those individuals whose names it had previously collected and had them executed or sent North for re-education.

The Marines and ARVN were attacking the whole three weeks, so when exactly were people executed or sent north if they were gathered and sent home "three or four times" during those 3 weeks? Just a little confusing. 165.247.214.231 19:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

---

It's not clear why that would be confusing, are you saying only one thing could be happening during that period (defending the city) and therefore they wouldn't be able to execute people during a three or four week period? That's confusing as well. However a reference by a Vietnamese source can be found here.

I'm saying the way it was worded is confusing. I am also asking for a source reference. 165.247.214.231 00:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Bibliography of First Hand Accounts

Following is partial listing of references recording first hand accounts of the Battle of Hue, including accounts of the civilian massacre of Hue by the VC/NVA forces of Hanoi. These include military and reporter accounts.

Bullington, James R. "And Here, See Hue," Foreign Service Journal, November 1968. Christmas, G. R. "A Company Commander Reflects on Operation Hue City," Marine Corps Gazette, April 1971. see also, "A Company Commander Remembers the Battle for Hue," Marine Corps Gazette, February 1977. Davidson, Phillip B. Vietnam at War: The History, 1946-1975. Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1988. Secrets of the Vietnam War. Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1990. Hammel, Eric. Fire in the Streets: The Battle for Hue, Tet 1968. Chicago: Contemporary Books, 1991. Harkanson, John, and Charles McMahon. "USMC & Tet ’68: There’s a Little Trouble in Hue …," Vietnam Combat, Winter 1985. "Tet ’68/USMC in Hue: The Grunts’ War," Vietnam Combat, Spring 1986. "Tet ’68/USMC in Hue: The Second Week," Vietnam Combat, Summer 1986. "The Last Days of Tet ’68: Hard, Hungry, Horrible," Vietnam Combat, Winter 1986. Nolan, Keith William. Battle for Hue: Tet 1968. Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1983. Oberdorfer, Don. Tet!: The Turning Point in the Vietnam War. New York: Doubleday & Company, 1971. Palmer, Dave Richard. Summons of the Trumpet: U.S.-Vietnam in Perspective. Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1978. Phan Van Son. The Viet Cong Tet Offensive (1968). Saigon: Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces, 1969. Pike, Douglas. PAVN: People’s Army of Vietnam. Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1986. Smith, Captain George W., USA. "The Battle of Hue," Infantry, July-August 1968. Stanton, Shelby L. Anatomy of a Division: 1st Cav in Vietnam. Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1987. Vietnam Order of Battle. New York: U.S. News and World Report, Inc., 1981. Tolson, Major General John J., 3rd. Airmobility: 1961-1971. Washington, D.C.: Department of the Army, 1973. Truong Sinh. "The Fight to Liberate the City of Hue During Mau Than Tet (1969)," Hoc Tap, December 1974.

I'm sure the above is just a fraction of the accounts that are available in print. Even so, it appears in the article as a convoluted mess. Perhaps trim it down to 2 or 3 significant entries under a "Further reading" catagory? 165.247.214.231 00:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It is a fraction which has already been trimmed down. J. Michaels

The Bibliography or Further Reading section is the least of the troublesome problems with the present article - we can trim it in due time. More importantly is the fact that the article is treading in Copyvio territory, with much of it having been obviously cut-n-pasted from here. I'd like to work to keep the same general content and information, without having it be a verbatim rip-off. 165.247.214.231 02:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to compromise to a significant degree, but D. Gareth Porter is not going to be unqualified in the links section, nor should he.

Your personal problems with Porter, whatever they may be, aren't part of the topic under discussion in this article. Feel free to do whatever "qualifying" of Porter you wish in an article dedicated to Porter. Pike, or Porter, or Karnow, or Minh can be 3-headed lepper pig farmers, but that is not our concern here, as long as the facts derived from their ramblings are substantiated. Keep the article factual, well sourced and neutral, and it may yet be salvageable. 165.247.214.231 02:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Back at you with the same sermon. I have no personal problems with Porter nor did I indicate such, the problems I have with him are factual/historical problems related to his willingness to serve as apologist for Hanoi's and Pol Pot's regimes. But the primary subject is not D. Gareth Porter, it's Hue. If I had wanted to elaborate even further on Porter's apologies for Hanoi's regime either during the 50's, 60's or 70's I could have added a few thousand words but again, the subject is Hue so I've minimized discussion of D. Gareth Porter per se. I will be adding Wikipedia articles on D. Gareth Porter and a few other apologists in the future, but not within this attempt at a discussion and article concerning Hue. Keep your insinuations to yourself, such as my alleged "personal" problems with Porter, it would help keep the article and discussion more factual and neutral. Additionally, listing Porter's references does not substantiate his claims anymore than the references listed in formal reproductions of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" substantiate the claims in that piece of sophistry. So any notion that his "ramblings" have been "substantiated" simply because you've provided his references is a claim which has yet to be proven. J. Michaels

Latest Corrections/Changes

The latest set of corrections and changes largely concern references and presumptions associated with Douglas Pike's account of the Massacre at Hue. The assumption seems to be, from various editors, that Pike's account has been proven to be historically inaccurate by D. Gareth Porter. Such is not the case. Porter certainly questions Pike's motives (Pike was an FSO at the time of his account of Hue) and facts, but he has not disproven Pike's account. Simply citing D. Gareth Porter, who has been widely discussed and very much questioned himself, is not proof of disproof. Various editors need to entertain the idea that Porter just may be an apologist and propagandist himself. Further, for emphasis, simply listing all of D. Gareth Porter's references does not serve to authenticate Porter's account vs. Pike's account or the account of others beyond Porter or Pike.

I can't speak for the other editors, but I haven't tried to show "that Pike's account has been proven to be historically inaccurate by D. Gareth Porter." In fact, I haven't even mentioned Porter once, nor have I quoted him. With the exception of the link to an essay of Porter's, all references to Porter in the main article appear to have come from J. Michaels. As for "Porter just may be an apologist," what is your point? Who better to provide an opposing view, counter-point information and critical examination than an apologist from the other side of the issue? As pointed out above, facts will stand on their own (or be disproven) regardless of who presents them, be it a Saigon apologist, Hanoi Apologist or U.S. apologist. Methinks you spend too much time and sweat trying to defame some messengers, and applauding other messengers, rather than concentrating on what actually matters: the message itself. 209.86.1.9 20:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Additionally what comprises the Massacre at Hue was clarified. The massacre, or mass killings, concerns the summary executions, the primary source of contention. Conflating these with the casualties which occurred as a result of the military conflict per se serves to confuse the issue and in fact is one of the ploys used by D. Gareth Porter to further obfuscate what is at issue - the massacre itself in terms of the summary executions perpetrated by the communist cadres.

What is uncontested is that there were many non-combatant casualties, some executions did indeed occur, and a disconcerting number of bodies were indeed found in mass graves. However, you seem to be trying to morph "mass casualties" and "some executions" into "mass executions," in the opening paragraph, and that is under contention. 209.86.1.9 20:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

A large part of what is forwarded by D. Gareth Porter amounts to little more than defaming Douglas Pike's account of Hue via insinuations and skewing information. One example follows. Porter, in mentioning reporter Stewart Harris of the London Times, alludes to some limitations placed on Harris by So. Vietnamese authorities on the scene (Harris arrived belatedly on the scene, approximately two months after the fighting and intial investigation had commenced). What Porter fails to mention as regards Harris is Harris nonetheless reported the following in his London Times report: "The North Vietnamese army and the Viet Cong executed many Vietnamese, some Americans and a few other foreigners during the fighting in and around Hue. I am sure of this after spending several days in Hue investigating allegations of killings and torture. I saw and photographed a lot for myself, but inevitably I relied on many civilians and soldiers, Vietnamese, Americans, Australians and others. All seemed honest witnesses, telling the truth as they believed it." Additionally, Porter fails to mention Harris was one of many reporters who opposed U.S. policy in Vietnam, thus lending additional credibility to Harris's reported account. Again, this is merely one example of Porter's skewing.

What Porter actually says, is:

Stewart Harris of the _London Times_ was in Hue to do a story on the alleged mass executions in late March, just at the time when, according to the official chronology, some 400 bodies were being uncovered in the area of the imperial tombs south of Hue. But instead of taking him to that site, the American political warfare officer took Harris to a village where there no mass graves, while the Vietnamese political warfare officer took him to a grave site in Gia Hoi district, where the bodies had long since been reburied. So he had to depend on the word of the Vietnamese and American officials concerning what was to be found at the grave sites.

Moreover, ARVN'S Political Warfare Department issued contradictory reports on how many bodies were actually uncovered. At the Gia Hoi High School sites, for example, the official American report, based on information furnished by the Tenth Political Warfare Battalion, gave a total of 22 mass graves and 200 bodies, for an average of nine bodies per grave. But when Stewart Harris was taken to the site, he was told by his Vietnamese escort officer that each of the 22 graves held from three to seven bodies, which would have put the total somewhere between 66 and 150.10 At about the same time, the Tenth Political Warfare Battalion published a pamphlet for Vietnamese consumption which said there were 14 graves at the high school instead of 22, which would have reduced the total still further.

Now please point out exactly what you refer to when you claim, "this is merely one example of Porter's skewing." I don't see it. 209.86.1.9 20:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Another example of Porter's skewing is his framing of Canadian doctor Alje Vennema's account of the victims found in the initial mass graves at Gia Hoi High School, where the first set of victims were discovered. He notes Vennema agreed there were fourteen grave sites but very much mitigated the numbers at the High School compared to the official So. Vietnamese numbers. What Porter fails to mention however is Vennema, in his fuller account, indicates Communist Viet Cong massacred "a thousand or more South Vietnamese civilians". (Alje Vennema, Viet Cong Massacre at Hue, (New York: Vantage Press, 1976), 136, 152.) Hence where Vennema's own account indicates a minimum of a thousand, Porter uses Vennema's account of the Gia Hoi High School alone and then essentially extrapolates from that in order to mitigate the overall numbers. Porter's carefully worded locutions as pertains to Vennema's account, similar to his framing of Harris's account, is revealing of Porter's skewing, which always skews in favor of an apology for the communist/NLF forces.

"What Porter fails to mention however is Vennema, in his fuller account ..." published in 1976, years AFTER Porter's examination was published. Darn that Porter for skewing Vennema's account by not including what Venemma might say several years into the future. Strike two.

Yet another revealing account of D. Gareth Porter's is his telling of the bodies found at a remote location known as Da Mai Creek. This account is particularly revealing of Porter's willingness to twist the record. Porter correctly notes Pike indicates a number of 428 bodies found in this area. However Porter then talks about a single defector "produced by Saigon" concerning this "alleged" massacre site. Douglas Pike however very specifically mentions three (3) "Communist defectors [who] told intelligence officers of the 101st Airborne Brigade that they had witnessed the killing of several hundred people at Da Mai Creek, about 10 miles south of Hue". Porter never so much as alludes to a single defector who was an eye witness, instead he uses the locution of Saigon "producing" this defector, as if there's little more than a kangaroo show trial occurring. Porter then indicates his lone defector tells two different stories across a span of only a few days, one day talking of 600 who had been turned over to communist sympathizers to be killed - yet then in just a few days talking of 500, not to be killed but to be reformed in re-education camps. But the number descrepancy aside, Pike's own account notes that at one point a communist political commisar indicated "they were going to the "liberated area" for three days of indoctrination, after which each could return home." In other words to help ensure they would be cooperative, and only later were they executed. Hence the numbers (500 vs. 600) are certainly inconsistent, but the stories per se (being told they were being "liberated" vs. later being killed) are not inconsistent. Certainly there remains uncertainty in terms of the exact chain of events, due to the "fog of war," propaganda eminating from both sides, differecnt recollections, etc. However, Porter's skewings are always and consistently in favor of the communist cadres of that era, without a one solitary exception.

The whole essay of Porter's to which you refer is a critical study of Pike's evaluation of the battle of Hue -- of course Porter's findings that conflict with Pike's are going to frequently benefit the NV perspective. Why would you expect anything else? You have yet to demonstrate one instance of "skewings." Pike says 3 defectors told the 101st Airborn they witnessed killings. Porter focuses on the single one that Saigon produced that would testify. Are you implying there is a conflict there? And if so, exactly which change in text of the main article are you saying this supports? Please be specific, thanks. 209.86.1.9 20:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Your statements don't follow as specific counters, more specifics please, thanks.

I've been subbing for my husband for a bit, but will explain further. No morphing has occurred, mass killings doesn't imply any specific minimum number beyond a very small number. Your "strike two" is a non sequitur, Porter has never corrected himself. Similarly your final comment is a non sequitur, the point is to reply more specifically, not simply make a general statement.

D. Gareth Porter: a biblical source?

One or more editors herein need to quit treating D. Gareth Porter's account as a biblical source, it is not. It needs to be defended, much as other accounts need to be defended within the overall discussion. The massacre at Hue has pertained, since the initial set of reports, to the massacre per se, not the various other casualties (civilian and military) which resulted from the military battle per se. That was true of the "Katyn Massacre" during WWII and was true of the "My Lai Massacre" on the other side of the Vietnam conflict as well. The attempt to portray the Hue Massacre in a manner which conflates both the military/battle deaths, civilian and otherwise, with those deaths resulting from the massacre per se (the summary executions) has been a ploy since D. Gareth Porter's account. However, since the earliest accounts, the initial So. Vietnam military account and the more widely dessimanated Douglas Pike account, the massacre has, like the Katyn Massacre and the My Lai Massacre, pertained to the massacre per se.

Captured Documents

The segregation of "enemies of the people" are from several documents referenced by both Pike and Porter, and I don't think they have been proven non-authentic (please correct me if I am wrong). The primary source is "Tien Chien Thang Hue tu Ngay 31.1, 23.3" obtained from the Combined Documents Exploitation Center, Saigon. Porter does attempt to qualify the document as "handwritten, sketchy, and clearly done at the local level for local consumption." You can find the full transcripts of the documents reproduced and translated in the Viet-Nam Documents and Research Notes, Documents No. 95-98, August 1971. I believe they are also referenced, but only summarized, by M. Young, The Vietnam Wars, 1945-1990, page 218. The LA Times, 11-20-69 might also have segments, but I'm still trying to verify that. 209.86.1.9 22:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Latest Reversions Documented

Editor removes and edits substantial portions of text yet only cites "expanded Pike's intro" along with two minor edits, another minor comment on the film previously cited and removing a link. In fact much more substantial edits were made and the link, while a general description, nonetheless provides suitable and warranted context for these types of contentious discussions relative to Vietnam. J. Michaels

I'll assume the above was entered by J. Michaels? As I am sure you are aware, the Edit Summary is a very small field. It is generally good Wiki-practice to enter in some description of the edits being made, but please don't assume that an editor is required to squeeze in complete sourcing, citations and full quotes into such a confined space. That most certainly is not the requirement -- and that is precisely what the discussion page is for. If you observe an edit with which you disagree, or one for which you would like to see additional source material, by all means raise the issue here on the Discussion page. But please do not expect me to come running to this page prior to each and every edit I make with an essay explaining what I am doing.

I see you have a very short edit history. If you are a new editor, I apologize if I'm coming off a little harsh with you. You are astute is deducing that I am "not God" (thank you, by the way). I too would like to get along, but I'll settle for you just following basic wiki-etiquette. As I look at the repetitive reverts you are doing, I see you trashing edits that don't belong to either of us. I also see you deleting the "disputed" tag, when the accuracy of the article is obviously still under dispute (your first clue should be the simple fact that we are still aguing over it...duh). I also see you twisting simple facts to suit your purpose, such as changing the number "100" to "200" after it has been corrected and cited. You trash reasonable edits like the removal of "html" that was (for some silly reason) tagged on to one link description, but not to any of the other links. The list goes on.

Again, I reiterate - if you see an edit with which you have issues, bring it up here and we'll hash it out. Even in the paragraph you just entered above, you don't cite any editing issues. Give it a try. 209.86.1.9 01:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Lead by example and perhaps I'll be more likely to follow. J. Michaels

Concerning your "duh" comment (poor example of your etiquette btw) about the disputed tag. At this time virtually everything has a caveat or counter opinion associated with it. So given that property of this discussion, are the caveats and counter opinions being disputed as well? Though I do appreciate your superior tone for what it merits. J. Michaels

I'm not sure what you are asking. It is certainly possible to have an article that accurately presents all valid views and counter opinions, without needing to present just one view as the "correct" one. In such a situation, the Dispute-Tag should be removed. As for "superior tones," I knew you could appreciate that... Mr. "Don't Drive By"  ;) 209.86.1.9 02:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Lol, it wasn't an appreciation, though your interpretation of it as such is not surprising. J. Michaels

You were brave enough to broach the "Dispute-Tag" issue that I mentioned above. Can we agree to let it remain so tagged ... at least until we hammer out any remaining controversial issues? Or do we still have disagreement on this? If we can agree, will you be moving on to the my next mention above, regarding you inflating 100 deaths to 200 deaths without explanation? (Only 27 more similar edits of yours among your rampant revert spree...) 209.86.1.9 03:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Yea, but that attitude is all you've got, and it shows. I've come to realize what a loser you are, likely not a Nam vet either. You can have Wikipedia, I have rather more interesting things to attend to right now.

And this from a person that spent all day (according to the edit history) mindlessly reverting an article that several other people were editing? Heh, good one. 209.86.2.115 08:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Psychological effects

I see you removed the following text from the main article without giving a reason why:

Commonly referred to as the Tet Offensive, this period of several weeks is generally regarded as a military failure, but a psychological victory for the Northern forces, as this marked a sharp turning point in American sentiment and support for the war effort.

You suggest placing it in the Tet Offensive article, but I'm sure it is already there. May I ask what your objections are to having this in the Massacre at Hue article? 165.247.208.72 19:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The wording, emphases and various aspects can be variously and heatedly debated. --J Michaels 20:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's debate it then. With what, exactly, do you find disagreement? I feel it has been proven fairly conclusively that the major offensive was a military defeat. Sure, the North Vietnamese may have nominally gained territory in the south for what...? A few days at most? Even the much sensationalized breach of the US Embassy in Saigon was turned back in short order. If you disagree that the NV offensive was a failure, please explain why. Do you disagree that American public sentiment shifted considerably immediately following the Tet Offensive? I feel it has been proven fairly conclusively that support for the war effort dropped sharply. A significant contributor to the shift was the medias focus, not on the military failure of the North and the decimation of the Vietcong, but on the fact that North Vietnam was still escalating the battle. If you disagree there was a drop in American public support because of and immediately following this event, please explain why. 165.247.208.72 21:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

If we're to make any progress perhaps it would be more fruitful to discuss/change one thing at a time. In that respect discussing the concept of the massacre per se, as is noted in a section above (see "Katyn Massacre," etc.) is even more fundamental.

Re, the Tet military victory for the ARVN/US forces, yes, but the wording and that emphasis can be variously debated within Wikipedia's Tet Offensive page. There are many aspects to the including Cronkite, et al., the Western Left, the Western MSM's take and spin and many other aspect still. It's an extensive and heated debate and since it's potentially quite lengthy as well, the Hue Massacre per se is what needs to be emphasized herein, not aspects of the much broader Tet Offensive. --J Michaels 21:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

That is exactly why I didn't introduce any debateable points. Just the proven facts militarily the north suffered and lost, but they did gain psychological leverage with the American public. That is also why it is under "background" and not the meat of the article. Another psychological aspect of the event that I intend to touch upon is the confidence the North forces had in sparking a popular uprising in the south ... something that never came to pass, and amounted to a costly miscalculation by the communists. So I ask again, do you debate or challenge the factualness of the following sentence? 165.247.208.72 21:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Commonly referred to as the Tet Offensive, this period of several weeks is generally regarded as a military failure, but a psychological victory for the Northern forces, as this marked a sharp turning point in American sentiment and support for the war effort.

Good. Reinserting this background information in the main article then. 209.86.2.115 06:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Massacre's per se

"If we're to make any progress perhaps it would be more fruitful to discuss/change one thing at a time. In that respect discussing the concept of the massacre per se, as is noted in a section above (see "Katyn Massacre," etc.) is even more fundamental." -quoted from J. Michaels above.

I'm not sure what Katyn Massacre has to do with this, but I see it in only one paragraph above. In that paragraph, you say that the Massacre at Hue deals with the civilian executions. Fine, and...? Can you be more specific about what changes you wish to discuss? 165.247.208.72 21:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The emphasis, of the massacre per se, concerns the summary executions/mass killings, not those who were killed, incidental to the military battle per se - similar to Katyn which serves as analog in that respect. Can you explain why you've attempted to subvert that absolutely fundamental and in fact pivotal fact, which is the central and salient fact of the massacre per se? Diluting or otherwise subverting this aspect of the Hue Massacre per se, the summary executions/mass killings, has a long and storied past among Hanoi defenders and apologists. --J Michaels 22:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood the question per se. We want to know per se what changes you think should be made to the introductory paragraph per se. If, per se, you could transcribe the words or sentences that concern you here per se, perhaps we could discuss them and modify them per se, to something mutually acceptable. 209.86.2.115 08:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

I have returned to this article to find the last 6 edits were made by a user J. Michaels, beginning with a massive revert that deleted the contributions of several editors. As I normally operate under the assumption of good faith, I figured this could have been an accident. Upon closer examination of the changes made by these edits, I have to conclude it was vandalism. The damaging edits are too numerous to list here, but include:

• You removed the wiki-link from the Vietnamese NLF and stealthily replaced it with a link to a general page describing various other national liberation fronts.
• You removed the word "estimated" from after several instances of numeric information, and replaced it with the vague abreviation: "est." (more commonly intended to mean 'Established')
• You edited the lead paragraph that previously summarized both major points of view (Mass premeditated execution of civilians -vs- propaganda built on a fraction of the casualties and fabricated circumstances) and completely deleted the opposing view summary. Nice POV there.
• You rearranged paragraphs, putting conclusions under "Background," putting statistics under "Aftermath," and completely deleting the statistics header altogether.
• Etc., etc.

There is a lengthy list of general article [style] violations implemented by these edits as well. "(See link)" has been inserted many times - the reader knows there is a link section. Silly assumptions like "two minutes or more to download" are inserted after external links (It takes me 6 seconds, by the way, and may take others 30 minutes...) The editor seems fond of inserting complimentary mini-biographies ("...he was also a widely recognized scholar, holding positions as the Univ. of California at Berkeley and Texas Tech, who "produced an extensive body of writings about Communist doctrine, strategies and tactics in Vietnam" (see link).") with every mention of sources he finds compatible with his POV, and derogatory insertions with every source not in alignment with his POV. Spelling errors that were previously corrected, he has re-mispelled. Formatting and spacing that was previously corrected has been screwed up. And the list goes on. The vandalism is being reverted. 209.86.2.115 08:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Mysterious Links

The following link Liberation of Giai Phong Dan Toi from Communist Viet Cong by Army of the Republic of Vietnam: Photos has me a little curious. My Vietnamese is a bit rusty, but I believe Giai Phong means "liberation," so the description is a little redundant. Can someone tell me exactly where this "Dan Toi" is, and what is its relationship to the Massacre at Hue? Thanks, 209.86.2.115 09:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The title is meant to be ironic. "Giải phóng dân tôi" literally means "Liberate my people". "Liberation" is what the communist forces have always promised. Thus the page meant to imply this is what communist "liberation" means. DHN 02:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)