Talk:Ho Chi Minh/Archive 1

Ho Chi Minh in Brazil
I know it may sound a little odd, but Ho Chi Minh actually was in Brazil in the beggining of the 1920´s and lived here, in Rio de Janeiro, for some months. There are registers of this. What is unknown is why was he here - after all, he was already an employee of the Comintern. The Vietnamese embassy in Brazil is conducting a research in order to make this moment of his life more clear. Therefore, I believe this should be mentioned here.
 * Ho Chi Minh was a ship deckhand and travelled to many places in the Americas, Africa and elsewhere. Kransky (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unlikely - Ho was in France from 1919-1923, when he left Paris and went to Moscow. Cripipper (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Revert 9 Aug 2004
The reason for my recent reversion is explained at User talk:198.26.120.13. Please try to adhere to Neutral point of view. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 21:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is true that many South Vietnamese regarded him as a dictator, but many didnt. There were huge supporters of the communists in the South, and that what made the South with American support lost the war. Please remember that fact. Please dont say something like the South Vietnamese hated him, and the North Vietnames loved him, because its not true!. Some liked him and followed his idea, some didnt, that's all

Uh guys, please... I can find only one mention of the Vietnam/American war in this article. Surely this was an important part of his life? Is this historical short-sightedness or just too controversial for people to agree on?

Photography of Ho Chi Minh
-Ho Chi Minh is a very inspirational leader, noted by some Vietnamese and other Anti-Communist has not a true Nationalist because of his belief in communism.

-Eventhough, his end result was to unite Vietnam, under one government.

-His photographs of him laying in state is very inspirational, and if anyone knows of how the government operates, you can be arrested for taking a photograph. The importance of this is very viable and we here at wikipedia should share this with the the people.

-For Example having a photograph of Lenin or Mao, lying in state would be very inspirational to have here, because they are Icons and the significants to have this leaders photographs shows the humanity and the duration of the life lives on with the connection that tourists, followers or just historians cn view is significant.--Bnguyen 10:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting reasons. I'm personally bias against him because I fought for the United States against North Vietnam from 1968-1970--198 05:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for apologising, but you really shouldn't have been invading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.136.57 (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am also bias against him, though not with the same reasons. I feel that this article is has a lot of BIAS. BIAS. BIAS. Especially the languages he knows of. Sure, he knows quite a few languages, but I feel that it's listed in a way that makes it exaggerated. I believe a lot of the propaganda should be removed. (P.S. Why do people say that he is a multi-lingual man when...there is little known about how he himself had difficulties and spelling mistakes in his first language - Vietnamese?!) 211.30.93.61 09:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Which spelling mistakes are you referring to? Note that at that time, quoc ngu is still new, and that the orthography is still fluid.  Accusing him of spelling mistakes because some of his spellings are not correct in modern Vietnamese is like accusing Shakespeare of not using proper English because he uses Middle English words whose spellings have changed. DHN 15:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems inappropriate to have a photo of Ho Chi Minh dead as the leading picture. There is a picture of Lenin dead in his Wikipedia article, however it is not the first picture shown. &mdash; J3ff 01:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, and feeling bold, I just moved the pictures around. I removed some of the captions to make things fit better, but whoever can improve stuff, feel free ;) Shanes 01:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I also agree, and was going to rearrange the images (stacking all three at the top broke the layout on my browser), but Shanes beat me to it. Every biography article I've read here uses a portrait as the first image if one is available, and I don't see why this one should be an exception. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 01:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Alive should be the leading pic of anyone. In-state should just accompany the 'death/rememberance' section. Niteowlneils 16:50, 10 Feb 2005


 * [[Image:Ho Chi Minh.JPG|right|thumb|170px|Hồ Chí Minh]]

This image was deleted by the OrphanBot app. Anybody know where it came from? What would the proper tag be for an "official" photo of Ho Chi Minh from the government of Vietnam?

DJ Silverfish 19:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Revert 21 March 2005
I reverted User:203.120.68.68 (talk)'s addition of the following text:

''The decision to wage this war was not for the people of Vietnam but to satify the greed of his alliances, Soviet and China. Instead of setting peaceful negotiations he stupidly pursuit war which led to more than 3 million death of Vietnamese people. He made Vietnam and center of entertainment for the whole world enjoy watching and reading news of the war for decades.''

and

'' But the real truth has been revealed, he slept with many women and his real offprings are kept highly secret. Nong Duc Manh has been identified his son which came from the period Ho Chi Minh stayed in tribal villige. Discussion of this will lead to jail for sure.'' --Silas Snider (talk) 04:47, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Instead of setting peaceful negotiations". please state it clearer! Please also show your source of evidence :)

May 2 Quote

 * "In (Lenin's Theses on the National and Colonial Questions) there were political terms that were difficult to understand. But by reading them again and again finally I was able to grasp the essential part. What emotion, enthusiasm, enlightenment and confidence they communicated to me! I wept for joy. Sitting by myself in my room, I would shout as if I were addressing large crowds: "Dear martyr compatriots! This is what we need, this is our path to liberation!" Since then (the 1920s) I had entire confidence in Lenin, in the Third International!"

Can we find and attribution for this? The poster may have known, but is too anonymous to have a user page. The only place I could find the quote on line was here: http://www.lcsc.edu/mlevine/PDF/ehesscbd3.PDF. DJ Silverfish 22:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The quote is from Ho's article "The Path Which Led Me To Leninism" written in 1960 and published for the 90th anniversary of Lenin’s birthday, in April that year. The full article, albeit with a slightly different translation, is posted on line at . William Duiker refers to the quote in his book on Ho. Vichminh 16:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Writing style
chaunpq@netscape.net Who first created this article and is the original source file still in the database? The language in this article makes me feel like it's written by someone who is not very good at English or is written by a child.

The text has been changed many, many times since the article was originally created. The simplistic language is a product of the frequent need to find compromise. DJ Silverfish 18:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Requested move
Ho Chi Minh -> Hồ Chí Minh Cultural imperialism to use German and Polish diacritics and not Vietnamese double diacritics. See also Talk:Ho Chi Minh City


 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~ 


 * Oppose: the diacritics is too clunky and not familiar to most English speakers. Even Ho Chi Minh himself used the non-diacritic version when communicating with English speakers DHN 02:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Diacritics are allowed on Wikipedia, and it's not as if the article is going to change to chinese script or anything. Don't really see a problem with this, a redirect will do. Gryffindor  12:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Undecided: Can you supply a reliable source indicating that those diacritics are what Ho Chi Minh himself used? Otherwise this is original research. --Bk0 13:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose: As no reference has been given, this whole debate is original research. --Bk0 12:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It is clear that the normal Vietnamese representation of his name is Hồ Chí Minh. I don't think there's anything going on here that would fall under Wikipedia's policy on original research. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 16:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not clear, as I (along with most of en's readership) has no idea what proper Vietnamese diacritics are. Therefore a reference is needed. --Bk0 (Talk) 00:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * How about vi:Hồ Chí Minh? Vietnamese should know how to write his name in Vietnamese. Or is that not what you mean? Markussep 09:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * See the linked image in my original vote. DHN 19:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The thing to note on this image is not the typed text but his signature which is presumably the only thing which he wrote. It is comparatively clear and we can see that there definitely is a mark over the o. It is questionable whether there is anything over the i (neither a dot nor a comma), but since the o is clear I think we should support the mark over the i as well. Edinborgarstefan 09:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's actually a cursive o. DHN 19:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Your absolutely right, it's a cursive o, I used to write my cursive o's like that (I don't write cursive anymore). And also it looks like he just connected the i's dot to the h, so Edinborgarstefan reasoning seems quite flawed. Mark 14:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose En:Wikipedia is supposed to be in English. Neither ồ nor í are English characters. --Henrygb 21:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not that I support this proposal necessarily, but your explanation is not a valid justification. There are thousands (perhaps millions) of instances of non-alphabetic characters in the English Wikipedia. Consider all the mathematic and scientific use of Greek letters, for instance, and the aforementioned European diacritics. --Bk0 22:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * My reason is as valid as any. And I am talking about page titles. &alpha; redirects to Alpha (letter), as it should. --Henrygb 23:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is an instance of WP:Point. English usage should prevail; when you have convinced the community of English speakers, WP will change. (For what it's worth, I oppose the impoaition of German and Polish spellings too.) Septentrionalis 22:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Edinborgarstefan 09:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- on the English wikipedia, stick with the spelling most common in English. Jonathunder 14:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose: preposterous. CDThieme 17:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I buy the Polish analogy. Since we have an article at Lech Wałęsa I don't see why we shouldn't have an article at Hồ Chí Minh. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 12:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support as it is a personal name, and not one of the types with traditional English forms (classical authors, biblical figures, saints and European royals). up◦land 09:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Although I'm generally very much in favour of using original spelling, these Vietnamese characters show up as squares on my PC (IE 5.50, Windows NT), no matter which encoding or font I choose. I'll change my vote if there's something simple you can do about this. Markussep 11:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Use English, not a crazy character I can't even see. Via Egnatia
 * Reluctantly oppose, because the characters (especially the doubly accented "o", probably) cause problems for a significant number of readers. If the accents were harmless, I would support the move. Eugene van der Pijll 22:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons given by Markussep and Eugene van der Pijll (and with the same reluctance). --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is how his name is nearly always written in English. – Axman ( ☏ ) 04:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Use English on the English-language Wikipedia, jguk 09:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. What jguk said, with a lot of sympathy for Via Egnatia's point, as well. FWIW, I would oppose Lech Wałęsa over Lech Walesa, Reykjavík over Reykjavik, and most any other use of diacritics, as they are almost NEVER the 'most common' name used by native English speakers. Montreal and Quebec, for example, both lost their diacritics for that reason. Niteowlneils 05:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
Ok enough of this talk. For those of you who doesn't know, it is wrong to consider Ho as a nationalist. Don't just read books from the VCs and watch those movies on Vietnam war on TV, but look for the facts yourself. And by the way, [Nguyen Ai Oc] is not his name. He stold all the credits from a group of people who were really the nationalists in France at the time called "Nguyen Ai Quoc" and named himself. It is an insult to call him by Nguyen the patriot. Oh one more thing if you don't know anything about the comunists or what the Americans did to South Vietnam then don't open your mouth!!!

Read what he himself wrote about his ideology. He wrote that he became a communist in Paris in the 1920s not because he completely understood and accepted communist ideology, but because at that time the communists were the only serious anti-colonialists. His communism is a product of his nationalism. - MHatlie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.47.98.243 (talk) 08:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is very careful to mention (in some detail) the actions of his supporters (calling him "Uncle Ho", mourning him, etc.) and leaves the distinct taste that it is providing only one side of a controversial figure. Where does it provide for the massive criticism Minh has received? You know, Not everybody loved Ho as much as the author of this article wants us to think. Millions of Americans, South Vietnamese, etc. DO regard him as a repressive communist dictator.


 * South Vietnamese regarding Ho Chi Minh as a repressive dictator.... That's funny considering Ho Chi Minh died in 1969, six years before the NVA conquered the South.


 * What is the problem? I think both Stalin and Hitler were repressive dictators without being neither German nor Russian. Prezen 18:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Where will this be mentioned. In the article itself? In a link?

I will not revert the edits you have made YET. I challenge you to balance this thing yourself.
 * ANTI-COMMUNIST, why don't you get a regular username and sign your postings with ~, so others can follow your posts and know who's talking? It would help a lot. Thanks, Cecropia | Talk 19:39, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I have not been an active editor of this article. Actually, I did not add any of the content that the anon is calling into question (hence my removal of the to 172, from anticommunist heading). If he thinks he sees slanted content in the article, it's best to fix it, as opposed to adding yet more slanted content adapted to his ideological comfort zone. 172 04:26, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sympathetic to the technical argument. Hopefully these characters will be more generally accessible in a few years and we can start moving Vietnamese pages en masse :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I bloody well hope not. :-/ Mark 10:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * On my computer at home (Windows XP, IE 6) they show up nicely, but not here at work, where I can't change anything. I guess I'm not the only one. It's not just the Vietnamese characters, also polytonic Greek and the Indic scripts (well, I wouldn't want those in article titles). The Cyrillic, Georgian and Armenian alphabets and Chinese, Japanese and Korean show up nicely, on the other hand. Markussep 11:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That part about "famine struck Vietnam ... while wheat was exported to France out of charge", I think it needs citation, or else we should delete it.


 * it was not wheat that was exported to France, it was rice. Crackyhoss 18:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Add any additional comments

Request not fulfilled due to lack of consensus. Rob Church Talk 12:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Response Do Reeducation Camps starting around 1954 by the Viet Minh support the story of Ho Chi Minh's repressive dictactorship (lets just say "plain evilness")? Refer to http://www.anapi.asso.fr/en_Prisoners-of-the-Vietminh_25.htm. And what about the Massacre at Hue? Where thousands of innocent people were killed by the North Vietnamese Government in 1968? Wasn't Ho responsible for this? People keep refering to My Lai, it was nothing compared to Massacre at Hue. twinqletwinqle (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and Factual Accuracy
"To most scholars, he was an opportunistic communist who seized power, created an authoritarian government, plunged Vietnam into a war that wrecked the country and established economic policies that left Vietnam poor and backward."

This is neither neutral nor factually accurate, nor does it cite its sources. - FrancisTyers · 19:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"During this period, the History Channel reports that a team of American paramedics rescued him from a certain death (due to illness and hunger. Famine struck Vietnam and caused the death of about two million Vietnamese, while wheat was exported to France out of charge.)"

Is the History Channel a reliable source? - FrancisTyers · 19:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt it. There are also no links to show what exactly it's siting. I could just as easily write "According to the History Channel the moon is made of blue cheese and Nixon was a robot built by ancient Egyptian space aliens." RyanEberhart 18:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You are certainly correct that the quote at the top is completely biased and not the slightest bit accurate. I have reverted it along with a large amount of other vandalism, including downright nonsense with some vandal messing up the names of the villages in which Uncle Ho grew up. I believe that some bot editing was also disposed of, so that should be re-added. Ionius Mundus 01:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As a European I do not think the whole story is neutral. It wears too much the effects of a nation (US) losing a war. What I am missing is for instance the Geneva convention of 21 July 1954, in which the fighting parties were held amongst an artificial line (degree of latitude), what only later became the frontier line. Revise please! 194.109.220.2 08:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Much is mentioned about the deaths caused by the Viet Minh, while the cause isn't quite recognized. The South had a "puppet" (Which is how it is discussed IN Viet Nam (Two Words)) government which served to divide the Vietnamese people, and rationalizes the deaths. Without this rationalization, Ho is made out to be bloodthirsty, while one must realize that the culture of the Vietnamese people is live and let live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.143.162.185 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The deaths caused by Ho Chi Minh, while certainly documented, could be put into better perspective if the mass slaughter of political dissidents under Diem were also stated. Here is a quote from Diem's page, "Diem was also passionately anti-Communist. Tortures and killings of "communist suspects" were committed on a daily basis. The death toll was put at around 50,000 with 75,000 imprisonments, and Diem's effort extended beyond communists to anti-communist dissidents and anti-corruption whistleblowers.[26]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.7.144.62 (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Land reform
By the communist party's own admission, many of those branded "landlords" (not "counterrevolutionaries") and publicly killed were innocent farmers. Many others were also killed in the purge that followed the disastrous reforms. DHN 22:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Might it be mentioned that besides the killings, the Land Reform did help a large amount of poor peasants to at least have some land, which is critically important to their agricultural career? And why is it always about Ho Chi Minh himself: he started the Reform, but who carried it out in detail? His cadres and his supporters! Can he sit in his chair and control all the communists in Vietnam? To my knowledge, the un-educated communists are often extremeist, so I think the mass killing was due to the unability of Ho Chi Minh and his cadres to control the Reform. I'm not a communist but I respect Ho Chi Minh as the best communist leader ever since (I'm not saying he's the best leader but the best communist leader, apart from other more cruel dictators).Hawkie 17:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that he couldn't have controlled every Communist in Việtnam. Not even Mahatma Gandhi could control his supporters like all the time.  Plus, the campaign was due to Chinese pressure in the first place.  --Ionius Mundus 19:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This website has pictures of the Land Reform that took place during Ho 's regime in 1955.http://perso.orange.fr/charite/caicachruongdat/001caicachruongdat.htm

[i]Even a Soviet study of September 1957 conceded that before North Vietnamese land reform the average landlord in North Vietnam owned less than 0.65 hectares of rice land, or less than two acres. For the crime of owning such tiny holdings, thousands of North Vietnamese were denounced and shot.[/i] ([i]Vietnam: The Necessary War[/i], Michael Lind, p.153; See also: [i]Last Reflections on a War[/i], Bernard Fall p.94). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.232.146 (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it thousands or hundreds of thousands (as the current article says) who were killed in the land reform? Big difference!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.205.239 (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In Vietnam Revisited, David Dellinger writes, "For years the U.S. has claimed that 700,000 landlords were killed by the communists during the land reform act. It turned out that the figure came from Hoang Van Chi, a Vietnamese refugee who had lived in a village where 10 people had died during the years of the land reform-only one at the hands of angry peasants, the other nine from other causes, including starvation (undoubtedly not landlords). Since ten deaths constituted 5 percent of the population of Chi's village, he wrote, in a book that is generally believed to have been subsidized by the CIA, of 'the massacre of about 5 percent of the total population in North Vietnam,' or about seven hundred thousand.  This estimate, which bore no relationship to reality, was given wide publicity by the U.S. National Security Council-and later, in even more exaggerated form, by President Nixon." Dellinger notes that the more disinterested scholar, Gabriel Kolko provides a "severe estimate" of 5000 to 15000 landowners killed by peasant courts with 20,000 imprisoned.

In The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism, by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, footnote 168 explains that estimates of 50,000 and 500,000 dead appear to have found their geneses through Hoang Van Chi (See my directly preceding comment). The larger figure came directly from Chi. The smaller figure came from Bernard Fall as intermediate source, using Chi's data. So, if there is any evidence of such large numbers that is not tainted by Chi, it should be offered on this discussion page. If there is not, then the editors should take notice and alter the article. I don't see how locking this article has helped the collective access the truth. http://books.google.com/books?id=lWjLdLahLToC&pg=PA432&lpg=PA432&dq=chomsky+ho's+land+reforms&source=bl&ots=_QjJ2Plzle&sig=steotTa8syvdLR3D_In2iEfKbac&hl=en&ei=3XWJSu2nG4eMtgfflNjnDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false (page 432). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik.mears (talk • contribs) 15:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Much is mentioned about the deaths caused by the Viet Minh, while the cause isn't quite recognized. The South had a "puppet" (Which is how it is discussed IN Viet Nam (Two Words)) government which served to divide the Vietnamese people, and rationalizes the deaths. Without this rationalization, Ho is made out to be bloodthirsty, while one must realize that the culture of the Vietnamese people is live and let live.

Citation needed
This quotation was largely propaganda to influence western public opinion  since Ho's Stalinist regime  allowed no more freedom than the Communist Soviet Union did.

We'll need a citation for this. - FrancisTyers · 23:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * None of that paragraph is cited, should it be removed? As for that specific sentence plucked out, it is self-evident that North Vietnam was not a democracy and did not in reality embrace any of the principles in the quote. Since it is not true, it is thus propaganda and has been cited by many as the "evidence" that Ho was some sort of democrat. CJK 23:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:V and WP:CITE. - FrancisTyers · 23:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

When you revert, please stop including BS like "counter-revolutionaries were killed". CJK 23:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Does my cite satisfy you? CJK 00:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this paragraph is misleading since I've read the speech. In it Ho doesn't quote the American constitution as an inspiration or example to be emulated but as an beginning of an attack on US policies which would according to him not reflect the constitution. If this is contested I can see if I can find it again. Prezen 16:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Almost like I remembered it, the speech was an attack on French policies:


 * "All men are created equal; they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."


 * This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free.


 * The Declaration of The French Revolution made in 1791 on the Rights of Man and the Citizen also states: "All men are born free and with equal rights, and must always remain free and have equal rights."


 * Those are undeniable truths.


 * Nevertheless, for more than eighty years, the French imperialists, abusing the standard of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, have violated our Fatherland and oppressed our fellow citizens. The have acted contrary to the ideals of humanity and justice.


 * In the field of politics, they have deprived our people of every democratic liberty. Prezen 14:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Phan Boi Chau
There are allegations that he was the one who notified the French of Phan Boi Chau's whereabouts in Shanghai for a reward amount, allowing him to be arrested. DHN 20:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not true, and I can get you citation if you would so desire. --Ionius Mundus 20:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that there are allegations is not true? I can cite at least one source that made this allegation: Mạc Định Hoàng Văn Chí, Từ Thực Dân Đến Cộng Sản (From colonialism to communism), nxb Chân Trời Mới, Sài Gòn, 1964. DHN 00:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. There are allegations, but they are not true. --Ionius Mundus 00:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Death date
Ho Chi Minh died on September 2, 1969. The government initially covered it up (as well as his will) because that date was the same as the National Day now celebrated in Vietnam. They have recently admitted his death date is September 2. See, for example. DHN 18:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Marriage
There is no concrete evidence (in the form of a certificate of marriage) to prove that Ho Chi Minh ever married. He was married to the cause of removing the French colonial government from Vietnam. It is widely accepted, however, that he did have a relationship with a Chinese woman (identity unknown); she was either his wife or his concubine. Crackyhoss 18:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There is indeed no such evidence to prove a real marriage of Ho Chi Minh. But there are several letters or papers showing that he was married to some women, most clearly among them is a Chinese woman who was a secret communist agent and his comrade/partner/assistant during his stay in Hongkong. Of course at that time he used a different name, possibly Nguyen Ai Quoc. However I think it is likely that this was just for a legal cover, not a real marriage. Although the Vietnam government officially claims that Ho Chi Minh was single till his death, many detractors argue that he had several wives and loves with various women, French, Chinese, Vietnamese, and had several children, most noticeably among them is Nong Duc Manh, the current General Secretary of the CPV. However all these lack concrete evidences, most of them appeared to be derived from various unreliable sources such as a letter claimed by detractors to be written by Ho Chi Minh to his Chinese wife, or memoirs of people who claimed to have met and worked with Ho Chi Minh during his stay in France. It's really confusing since it was long time ago and no official investigation has been made. Still, most of his supporters believe that he devoted all his life for the sake of the country, since he is being made nearly an absolute perfect charismatic leader in Vietnam by the government and media. Honestly,he has earned significant respect both inside and outside Vietnam.Hawkie 04:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

A 'wife' in their culture is the same sense as in the French word 'femme' meaning 'woman, wife'. A 'wife' (in their culture) is any woman whom a man has sexual relations with, termed in English as the common-law wife. No 'legal' documentation is required.

Is that woman Tang Tuyet Minh? Do we need to have an article of her? Newone (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Ho Chi Minh
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards,  Durova  17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

In the USA
I've removed the text below from the article, which was in a subsection under "Early life" titled "In the USA".


 * It is believed that he even travelled to the United States, Boston first, then New York City, where he worked as a dishwasher in Chinatown. In the United States, he was astonished by the civil liberties enjoyed by immigrants, the type of liberties he was denied in his home country under the colonial rule.

If this is true, this is an important insight into his life, and his relationship with the USA; but I cannot find any evidence that it is true, so I've moved it here. Can anyone find a cite to support this? -- Karada 11:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a reasonable body of evidence to support the contention that Ho visited the USA at some point in the period 1912-1918. I don't have a reference at hand but will provide one later.  I added the need for the citation, but it was in reference to his 'astonishment at the civil liberties enjoyed by immigrants' as opposed to the fact he visited America. Cripipper 13:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * According to Karnow it was astonishment at the civil liberties enjoyed by African-Americans. Prezen 15:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A rather more revealing statement on many levels. Cripipper 15:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Presuming that he was a baker at Boston's Parker House, he was there. I would also not consider "baker at the Parker House" a menial job, since its primary claim to fame is its baked goods. This would have followed his pastry chef training under Escoffier. This also with the presumption that it is accurate. It is mentioned in the bio for Escoffier. I haven't found a primary source. Poochner 17:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Birth of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam Requires Editing
I am not commenting about facts, but about the wording and style which is far from the level it should be at (e.g. "Before this speech, both the new Vietnamese anthem (Tiên Quân Ca) written by Văn Cao and the American anthem (the Star-Spangled Banner) were played. Before the speech, he had tried unsuccessfully...", and the history channel reference). Moshe Gordon 19:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

His language skill
Should it be change to state that he was knownledgeabe in some of the mentioned languages and not fluent? There's no evidence that suggest he was actually "fluent" in all those languages. Besides Vietnamese, it was common knownledge that he spoke French as a second language, like most educated people of French Indochina did, but to state that he was also "fluent" in three other languages including several dialects of Chinese is too much of a stretch. It's a blatant exaggeration of his real lingustic skills. Again, there is no evidence that proves he was educated enough in those languages to be considered "fluent", such as educational records. I've never heard of an instance where Ho Chi Minh fluently converse in a intelligent conversation with languages other that Vietnamese and French that was clearly understadable. For example how did Ho Chi Minh Came became fluent in German as a native of Germany would be? When and where was he educated in it? Was he self taught, if so how? These are questions that must be answered. After all Wikipedia must be as neutral as possible, if not it will lose it's credibilty as unbiase source of information. If anyone can prove the disputed statement to be true, please do. In the mean time I'll insert (disputed) into the statement. LOC85 05:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since there is no page reference in the citation I have removed the word "fluent". And while I don't know about German, Ho spent 20 years living variously in England, France, China and Russia.  He spoke good Chinese, both Mandarin and Cantonese, and given he spent five years in the Soviet Union, I would be very surprised if he didn't speak reasonable Russian as well. Cripipper 04:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He never need a translator when communicating in English as well as Russian. He also wrote some poems in Chinese and learned in French when he was young, write newspaper articles in French, Russian and Chinese. He is definitely fluent in English, several dialects of Chinese, French and Russian. Not sure about German though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.27.201.179 (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

He write many poems in Chinese, and many of them are very good, my friend. He translate communist books from Russian to Vietnamese, too. Enough evidence??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.168.194 (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hu Zhiming
As far as I know, Ho Chi Minh is not a birth name, but a name he took in 1943 when he was in China.--Niohe 01:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In 1943, Pinyin did not exist. All version of his pseudonymn written with the Roman alphabet used the Vietnamese spelling. Please cite a contemporary source that used "Hu Zhiming". DHN 02:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever, we can delete pinyin for every single name prior to 1958 if you want to.--Niohe 02:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's necessary. If the person/concept is Chinese, pinyin should probably be used to show how the term is Romanized.  Otherwise there's no point in trying to Romanize something that's already been Romanized.  DHN 02:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, but there are a number of articles on foreigners that spent a considerable time in China and their names are often romanized in pinyin. And Ho Chi Minh wrote things in Chinese using this name when he lived in China, wasn't his prison diary in Chinese? It's not a big deal for me, it's just that I don't see this brick wall separating different cultures and languages.--Niohe 02:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Firstly, he is Vietnamese, not Chinese, therefore any Chinese translation of his name is irrelevant. Secondly, this is an English wikipedia, not a Chinese one. Thirdly, people who visit this wikipedia want to read English, if they want to read Chinese so much, they would've visited the Chinese wikipedia instead.--lt2hieu2004 03:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Quotes
No one would happen to have a translation of the first quote in Vietnamese? I remember seeing it everywhere, above the doors of houses etc, when I was in Vietnam - at least they told me that was what it was! AlenWatters 23:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Không có gì quý hơn độc lập tự do! DHN 02:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

At least one of these quotes ("Two, Three, Many Vietnams") belongs to Che Guevara not Ho Chi Minh, could someone have a look over the quote lsit to see if anyone else has snuck in some quotes from other Communist/Socialist Revolutionaries

Demise and Legacy
I heard that during his final hours, there was a nurse by his side. When he died, she sang a song for him. Recently, there was a national song about her and this very moment. Who was she? What did she sing to him? What was the recent song about her?

Wikidrunk! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.121.8.12 (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC).


 * There was indeed a song about that moment. The nurse sang 2 songs: A Hue (where he attend high school and started his political career) and a Nghe An (where he was born) folk song. I don't know if it is true though. That song is available here--lt2hieu2004 03:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

1956 elections
Could User:Prezen please stop inserting POV speculation and uncited guesswork into the body of the text relating to this article. You reworded my cited text, making it say something that my sources do not say. They do not say that Ike was misquoted, and they do say that all observers reckon Ho would have got 80% of the vote in 1955-6. They make no mention of it being a reflection on Bao Dai rather than Diem. If you have verifiable sources for making these claims please include them, otherwise leave the citations as they are. Furthermore, you keep trying to assert that it was Diem's concerns over free elections that prevented him from holding national elections in 1956. There is no serious historian who believes that Diem had any intention of holding any election that he thought he might lose. The man was hardly a devotee to open and transparent democracy - 200,000 more people in Saigon voted for him in the 1955 referendum than were on the electoral register, and he won with a rather suspicious 98% of the vote. There is an enormous body of scholarship by historians such as David Anderson and Mark Lawrence that shows the priority for both the U.S. and Diem was to prevent a communist victory at any cost.

Oh, and btw - 'warmonger'? What are you on...? Cripipper 20:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Could Cripipper please misrepresenting my views and edits like this.
 * I have introduced Diem's objections against the elections as per what Stephen Karnow in Vietnam a History and the Pentagon Papers say, if they are not represented in your sources I'd say that it makes me wonder about the validity of them. I also note that one of them can't be found on Amazon.
 * Whether Diem was a democrat or not is irrelevant since I've never tried to make him look like one. The relevant fact is Diem's criticism against the freedom for the electorate to vote for other candidates than Ho.
 * Re the Eisenhower quote referring to Bao Dai it is taken directly from the |Pentagon Papers say:"President Eisenhower is widely quoted to the effect that in 1954 as many as 80% of the Vietnamese people would have voted for Ho Chi Minh, as the popular hero of their liberation, in an election against Bao Dai. In October 1955, Diem ran against Bao Dai in a referendum and won--by a dubiously overwhelming vote, but he plainly won nevertheless. It is almost certain that by 1956 the proportion which might have voted for Ho--in a free election against Diem--would have been much smaller than 80%. Diem's success in the South had been far greater than anyone could have foreseen, while the North Vietnamese regime had been suffering from food scarcity, and low public morale stemming from inept imitation of Chinese Communism-including a harsh agrarian program that reportedly led to the killing of over 50,000 small-scale 'landlords.'" As can be seen, the Eisenhower quote is directly connected to Bao Dai as an alternative. I am amazed that you maintain the felictious contention that my edit was unsupported by this source. It continues later:
 * "That circumstances in North Vietnam were serious enough to warrant Giap's confiteor (sic) was proved by insurrection among Catholic peasants in Noember 1956, within two weeks of his speech, in which thousands more lives were lost. But the uprisings, though then and since used to validate the U.S.-backed GVN stand, were not foreseen in 1955 or 1956; the basis for the policy of both nations in rejecting the Geneva elections was, rather, convictions that Hanoi would not permit 'free general elections by secret ballot,' and that the ICC would be impotent in supervising the elections in any case. (my emphasis)"


 * No one was called a warmonger, I distinctly stated that I didn't want warmongering propaganda inserted, which the Eisenhower misquote represents, since it was the staple of communist propaganda justifying their war to unite Vietnam. A war that killed millions of Indochinese. Prezen 20:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Military training?
The article contains these entries:

[In Moscow, Ho was] ..the principal theorist on colonial warfare.

''In 1923, Ho moved to Guangzhou, China, where he .. gave lectures at the Whampoa Military Academy''

This is very odd, since, according to the article, prior to this time, HCM's only military background was as US Navy cook.

Request clarification please!

--Philopedia 23:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The article does not say that Ho was ever a U.S. Navy cook; it says he was a cook on a ship that at one point traveled to the United States. I am not sure the origin of the statement that he was the principle theorist on colonial warfare (he was certainly a theorist on the topic though), but being a theorist does not necessarily mean that he had any formal military training prior to this.  His lectures on the Whampoa Academy were on the "revolutionary situation in Indochina"; once again this does not mean he was lecturing in military theory. Cripipper 02:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Virgin Mary
What has the holy mother gotta do with it??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.194.29.140 (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Chữ nho
I removed the "Chữ nho" translation of Ho Chi Minh since it's nothing more than Chinese. As I've said before, Chinese translation shouldn't be included here (see past discussions on this matter above). Some people argued that because Vietnamese writing at the time of Ho Chi Minh's birth is based on the ancient Chinese, Chinese translation should be included. This is absurd, if anybody want to add translations to this page, please add "Chữ Nôm" translations, not Chinese translations and tag them as "Chữ nho".--lt2hieu2004 01:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In case you're not aware, "chu Nom" only applies to native Vietnamese words. Ho Chi Minh's name is fully Sino-Vietnamese, so the "chu Nom" is the same as "chu nho". I doubt he knew how to read chu Nom anyways.  DHN 01:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand "chu Nom", however I can understand Chinese to some extent (Mandarin). On my laptop running FC6, the Chinese translation doesn't show up correctly, however, I presume the translation is written in Simplified Chinese as it had been done so many time before in this page and other pages relating to Vietnam. AFAIK, Simplified Chinese was only really invented and promoted in the 1950s (however, some work had been done on Simplified Chinese before the 1950s), it has no connection with Vietnamese or chu Nom. Chu Nom is much more closely related to Cantonese than Mandarin. Moreover, correct me if I'm wrong but chu Nom is based on ancient Chinese so I presume it would be very different to modern Mandarin.--lt2hieu2004 18:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

section on becoming president.
Is that true about Ngo Dinh Diem? Anyway is it relevent?

23.02 22.05.07. Walsall, England.

82.37.183.66 22:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
Recent edits have a decidedly non-NPOV tone; some of this, however, might be accommodated with a "legacy' section, or something similar. Rmasbury 02:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * At the moment it seems to miss mention of any bad decisions.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 01:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The land reform section is decidedly devoid of any mention of the mistakes made...he and other leaders even acknowledged it. DHN 05:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ho chi Minh Date of Death
Is the date of death for Ho Chi Minh, 2nd of September 1969, correct as some sources seem tosho he died on the 3ed of September 1969?

Watchful gary&#39;s eye 20:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He died on the 2nd, but that date coincided with the commemoration of his declaration of independence on September 2, 1945, now National Day in Vietnam. The authorities used the September 3rd death day until recently, when they switched to the correct date. DHN 20:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ho Chi Minh in Crouch End
I added a people from Crouch End Category tag which was removed despite the article itself detailing his time in Crouch End. If you want to remove again, please explain why. hjuk (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ho Chi Minh Picture with Vo Nguyen Giap
The picture in the post was noted incorrect, Ho was standing on the right and Vo was n the left while the picture was noted  wrongly.[User:sharshot|sharshot]] (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Reeducation Camps
Something should be mentioned of Ho's involvement in reeducation camps. Refer http://www.anapi.asso.fr/en_Prisoners-of-the-Vietminh_25.htm. His involvement with the Massacre at Hue in 1968. Refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_Hue. It would definitely paint a better picture of his history, policies and the legacy he left behind. Those in the Party, followed the same policies with the Reeducation Camps after The Fall of Saigon. twinqletwinqle (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He did not know anything about the Tet offensive before it occurred. In fact, he was recuperating in Beijing when he heard about it.  By that time he was serving as a purely symbolic figure and Le Duan was the one in charge.  DHN (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Quotes
While the quote is not that well translated...yet. I think it will be easier to translate almost words-to-words(with correct grammar, of course)from Vietnamese to English. Then put a note, explain why is it famous, or put a line mentioned "due to the different in language and culture, these quotes may not be well interpreted". Just joined so haven't known all the functions in wikipedia yet(to start editing). But for example the quotes about how he rather burnt the whole Truong Son Mountain Range; in Vietnamese it was understood as "the rare chance to take control is coming, so even if we have to do impossible things (as burning the whole mountain range), we still have to try and do it". If i read the English version, it would sound more like "sacrifice the mountain to gain independence" Risingstar3110 (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ho Chi Minh's perspective
In his years at sea, Ho read widely--Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Marx, Zola. He was even then, according to later accounts, an ascetic and something of a puritan, who was offended when prostitutes clambered aboard his ship in Marseilles. "Why don't the French civilize their own people before they pretend to civilize us?" he is said to have remarked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.220.125 (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

vandalism
this article has obviously been vandalized and should be corrected. ho chi minh was not a homosexual, he fathered at least one known child and was married to women at least twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foduck (talk • contribs) 19:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you guys know what did he do to vietnam ??????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.134.59 (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Prime Minister & President at the Same Time?
Was he the prime minister and the president at the same time from 1946-1955? The first paragraph seems to give this impression:-

Hồ Chí Minh listen (help·info) (name pronounced [hò̤ tɕǐmɪ̄ɲ]) (May 19, 1890 – September 2, 1969) was a Vietnamese revolutionary and statesman, who later became prime minister (1946–1955) and president (1946–1969) of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam).

Gantzerpm (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Geneva Accords
"The 1954 Geneva Accords required that a national election would be held in 1956 to reunite Vietnam under one government."

It's a bit jarring to see the word "reunite" when there has been no mention of the partition. I'm not that familiar with the history. Could somebody insert a brief mention of how and when the country was partitioned, and what role (if any) Ho Chi Mihn played in this? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Totalitarian"
"However the totalitarian government of North Vietnam could never tolerate the free press and free organization of opposition groups required by a free election."

This dubious sentence is placed just as the NV government is being formed. It's clearly somebody's opinion, but it doesn't say whose opinion, and the cited source gives no date, either of the book, or the original source. (I hope the sources isn't some US politicians of the era. That would hardly be reliable.) It sounds like anti-communist propaganda. It's a bit early to call a newly-formed government "Totalitarian," and anyway, to use the word is to draw a conclusion. The article should present the facts and let the readers draw their own conclusions. Both the North and the south were accused of using draconian measures to maintain control, But this sentence presents the North as the evil side and implies the South's blocking the elections was a defiance of tyranny. Let's please stop fighting the Vietnam war and try sticking to NPOV —MiguelMunoz (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * the Communists formed their government in 1946, and since then have never held any elections. I added some cites. Rjensen (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we dispense with phrases like "The Communists"? It sounds like you're still fighting the cold war. And Hong Kong didn't hold any elections for decades, but nobody called them totalitarian. And the "Communists" were at war with the French from 1946 to 1954, which was hardly conducive to holding free and open elections. My point still stands. The sentence represents somebody's opinion, not a statement of fact. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's move past the 70's here. There is no need for communist and Vietnam-bashing here. The sentence is not neutral at all and is obvious propaganda. It has not place in a neutral encyclopedia. I will remove it. Erik the  Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 01:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Let the facts speak for themselves, especially when there are numerous citations to scholarly sources. People want to know about elections in Vietnam, or absence thereof. It was Ho who called himself a Communist, not his enemies. Even Ho's friends agree he created a totalitarian one-party system and never tolerated opposition newspapers nor allowed his opponents to organize (unlike Hong Kong). Suppressing hostile true information is exactly what totalitarian governments do--they take "total" control of all economic and political aspects of the country. Rjensen (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ho's government might have been totalitarian. However, the sentence was in violation of NOPV. Judging for ourselves whether or not Ho's government was totalitarian or not is a violation of WP:OR. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 02:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * NPOV says that all points of view should be represented. We don't erase one viewpoint to get NPOV, we ADD opposing viepoints. if there is some reliable expert who says his government was NOT totalitarian--please cite that person. I doubt such an expert exists. Ho is usually called a Stalinist (indeed he worked for Stalin in 1920s and 1930s). Rjensen (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * RJensen: Nobody was saying Ho didn't believe in communism. Nobody is saying his regime was a paragon of freedom. We're saying you can present information accurately without taking sides in the dispute. If I found the statement that Hitler was an evil man, I'd remove it from the article even though I agree with it completely. The point isn't to censor a point of view, the point is to present points of view as points of view, rather than facts, even if we agree with them. To say that the United States government didn't trust Ho Chi Minh because of his ideology is a statement of fact. To say that he couldn't be trusted is to present your opinion as fact, when it's just your opinion, even if you're correct. Also, when you start a sentence with "The Communists", you're using a very broad phrase that refers as much to the leaders of Mongolia as it does to Ho Chi Minh, even though Mongolia wasn't a party to the dispute. You end up sounding like the opening line of Woody Allen's "Don't Drink the Water," where the ambassador says "Jesus! Look at all those communists." —MiguelMunoz (talk) 05:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "totalitarian" is a technical term commonly used in political science to mean a government that has total rule over alldimensions of a country. Webster's Third Unabridged dictionary gives: " of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy: asuthoritarian; dictatorial; "totalitarian theory and practice are solidly opposed to any institutional division of power C.J.Friedrich); : of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures (as censorship)." In terms of elections that means NOT allowing opposition parties to exist, to spread their newspapers, to run their candidates, to see the votes counted. Now was Ho's North Vietnam like this? I think everyone here agrees it was totalitarian in the sense used by the dictionary and scholars. Lots of countries were like that in the 20th century and readers should know that. Rjensen (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * RJensen, nobody is disputing the facts! Can you please explain what your post has to do with the question of NPOV? I don't see your point. I'm not sure you have the faintest idea what my point is. Do you even understand, for example, why I would take out the hypothetical sentence about Hitler? Did you even try to understand my point there?—MiguelMunoz (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * the fact is that Ho was totalitarian and the article should say so. It's a technical word that describes how a government operates. NPOV policy requires that well-sourced facts must be included--and also to be included are well-sourced rebuttals from reliable sources that say Ho was not totalitarian, but no one has found one.  MiguelMunoz has tossed in some misleading information--a few lines above he says "To say that he couldn't be trusted" but nobody said anything like that. Indeed, I think he could be trusted. The phrase "The Communists" used in an article on Ho obviously refers to the Communists in Vietnam he controlled, not those in some other country. Rjensen (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Rjensen, the disputed sentence in the article is saying he couldn't be trusted to hold free elections. (I was paraphrasing.) The problem is that NPOV requires it also tell us who made that judgment. I'm NOT disputing the history here. Can you please tell us, with a proper citation, who made that judgment back in 1956?

For starters the source of Robert Brigham, p.6, says no such thing. This sentence is both speculative and POV. In fact, what Brigham actually says on p.6 is that the US tapped up Diem "to prevent a Communist victory through all Vietnam elections." That sentence needs to go. I have no objection to mentioning that Ho ran a totalitarian state, but this sentence on 1965 is not the place to do it. And also for the information of Kauffner, South Vietnam was not formed in 1949-50, but de facto at Geneva 1954. Cripipper (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Cripipper: Thanks for checking the reference. It sounds like the US was afraid of any election, free and open or not. RJensen: if you'd like to add a section detailing the repressive policies of Ho's government, with proper citations, I would support you completely, although I would discourage you from using the anti-communist jargon of the 60s. I just don't like that one sentence in it's current form. The new section should be fairly brief, since this article is about Ho Chi Mihn, not his government, although a longer version would be welcome in an article about North Vietnam. (I haven't looked at that article to see if it needs one.) And while I'm on the subject, a brief paragraph describing the repressive policies of Diem's government, another one that fits the definition of "totalitarian," might also be welcome, although that one would be better suited to an article on South Vietnam.—MiguelMunoz (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * as far as free elections are concerned, that was an impossibility then and now. To suggest that free elections were possible under Ho is to seriously misstate his political philosophy -- he believed only the Communist party could rule, and that the opposition parties were enemies of the people. They still think that way in Hanoi (and in Beijing for that matter). Would Ho have won a free election--probably yes. But for him to sponsor such an election would destroy his basic beliefs, and he was too honest to do that. Rjensen (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * All very nice, but entirely speculative. You have read sufficient history to know that Hanoi intended the 1956 elections to proceed. Cripipper (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not true. The Vietnamese documents show that in 1955 the militant southerners led by Le Duan demanded aggressive military action and Ho gave in to them; they soon took away his power. That is, the decision made in Hanoi in 1955 was for war, not elections. Rjensen (talk) 11:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you care to reference that? Because, as I am sure you know, Resolution 15, which was passed under pressure from Le Duan and elevated armed struggle in South Vietnam to equal status with political struggle, was not passed until early 1959.  To quote two of the leading scholars on the period: "ROBERT BRIGHAM: From our limited access to Vietnamese documents from that period, it seems that the government in the North actively sought not to deploy any forces in the South. That seems to have been confirmed at a Politburo meeting in April 1956.  LUU DOAN HUYNH: Yes, you see, in 1956 the Politburo still wanted to pursue the political path to reunification. Of course, some others, especially in the South, had some different ideas, that's true." (Source: Robert McNamara, James Blight, Robert Brigham et al. eds., Argument Without End, p.92) Cripipper (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What does that have to do with the question of NPOV? And why do you always type one more colon than you need? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 05:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Re rules on NPOV --I have tried repeatedly to explain them above. MiguelMunoz should reread them carefully before citing them again.Rjensen (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * RJensen, That point about Le Duan is exactly the kind of NPOV detail that we're looking for. It's a historical detail that allows people to draw their own conclusions, rather than being a conclusion in itself. It's based on fact, rather than being ideologically driven. Here's why the current sentence isn't NPOV. It's taking sides in a different debate than the one you're arguing. The debate isn't about whether or not NV was a totalitarian state, the debate was what the US and/or SV should do about it. One side argued for war. The other side argued that Diem's government was equally undemocratic, and for that matter, also totalitarian, and the US would be wise not to get involved. Your sentence takes sides on that question by applying the T label to the North, but not to the South. In fact, that debate doesn't even belong in an article on Ho, it belongs to the article on the war itself. On the other hand, your sentence above on Le Duan is the kind of detail that, if accurate, simply presents a fact without passing judgment or taking sides in the debate. It's the kind of detail the article needs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiguelMunoz (talk • contribs) 16:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * All well and good, however, as I pointed out above, the sentence is also factually incorrect. I disagree, however, that there is no place in this article for mention of the fact that Ho established a totalitarian state. In fact, a section on Ho's ideology, giving coverage to the enduring 'nationalist or communist first?' debate, would be most welcome. Cripipper (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The North Vietnamese didn't need permission from the South to hold an election. South Korea went ahead with an international supervised election without North Korean participation when faced with similar circumstances in 1948. After the end of 1955, the election idea was just dead. It isn't in the NLF (Vietcong) manifesto and it wasn't brought up at the Paris Peace Conference. After successfully dodging the bullet, the communists had no interest in reviving this issue.
 * Even though Ho won the 1945 election, he started purging non-communists from from parliament right at the beginning of the first session. This suggests he just didn't believe in parliaments, oppositions, and multiparty elections, not even when he was popular and could command a majority. North Vietnam was in famine in 1955-56. The South Vietnamese democratic opposition led by Phan Quang Dan might have won the unheld elections, something neither the communists nor the Diemist wanted.
 * Cripipper: The French created the State of Vietnam in Saigon with former emperor Bao Dai as head of state in 1949. The U.S. and other governments extended diplomatic recognition in early 1950. Bao Dai sent his own delegation to Geneva, separate from the French. After North Vietnam was set up in 1954, it became logical to call the Saigon government "South Vietnam." But there was no change in the government's legal status at that time. The official name was changed to "Republic of Vietnam" when Diem ousted Bao Dai in 1955. Diem was appointed prime minister by Bao Dai in 1954, probably because of his ties with the U.S. But it's not as if the U.S. picked him.


 * You are ignoring the evidence (e.g. as presented above) which indicates that Hanoi was set on the elections in 1956. The issue is not whether Ho believed in multi-party democracy (of course he didn't - he was a Marxist!) What references are you using to latch on to the "end of 1955"? Whether or not they were raised by the NLF in 1960 or 1972 for that matter is irrelevant to the point under discussion, which is 1956.
 * I am well aware that the State of Vietnam was created in 1949, but until Vietnam was (temporarily) partitioned in 1954 there existed two governments claiming to be the government of the whole country. It is illogical to claim that South Vietnam was established in 1949, but North Vietnam in 1954. They were both created in 1954, when the two competing claimants to the government of Vietnam were allocated territory on the basis of a North-South division.Cripipper (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * RJensen: The Communist Party didn't make a clear cut decision for war until January 1959 (at the 15th Plenary Session, chaired by Ho). The Politburo waited until March to implement this decision. Of course, by this time the South was already suffering a near-war level of violence. Perhaps we can think of Duan and the hawks taking matters into their own hands while Ho and the official party decision-making apparatus played catch up. Duan was appointed acting party boss at the end of 1956 and the Vietcong uprising started in April 1957. Kauffner (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * in response to Kauffner. I agree that Hanoi made a form decision for war in 1959. However by 1955 it decided to use violence instead of elections--they used small units to assassinate some 8000 local officials, priests, landlords and political opponents in the South. A war would involve use of much larger armed units. Rjensen (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, RJensen, instead of using vague words like Totalitarian, you could put those kinds of details, properly cited, into the article. "Totalitarian" is the kind of ideological word that we would be wise to avoid. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again these details are unfortunately incorrect, and ignore most of the historical evidence, e.g. "The Politburo convened a meeting on 8-9 June 1956 and subsequently issued a directive on 19 June that clarified the roles and responsibilities of the southern cadres in the revolutionary struggle. According to the directive, the struggle at that time was necessarily a political and not a military one.  Therefore, they should resort to arms only in circumstances that called for self-defence." (Ang Cheng Guan, The Vietnam War from the Other Side, p. 17). Cripipper (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah the devil is in the details--the shift in strategy came later in 1956 (in december--reversing the directive of 19 June 1956. In late 1956 VWP [Communist party] "leaders reassessed their strategy and allowed for a measured shift of emphasis from political to military struggle. This reversal was chiefly the result of the effort of Le Duan, the highest-ranking VWP official in the South, who presented a stinging critique of the party's Southern strategy to the VWP Central Committee on the eve of its Eleventh Plenum in December 1956. Entitled "De cuong cach mang mien Nam" (Directions of the Southern Revolution), Le Duan's report urged the abandonment of the "Geneva line" and the gradual resumption of armed struggle in light of the mounting setbacks to the revolution in the South. After lengthy deliberations, the VWP Central Committee approved a limited escalation of violent action in the South, and the Politburo soon ratified the decision, thus effectively jettisoning the effort to achieve reunification through a purely political, non-violent struggle. The escalation had to be gradual, however, because the DRVN was still frail and the VWP could not afford to give the Americans a pretext to attack." Pierre Asselin - Choosing Peace: Hanoi and the Geneva Agreement on Vietnam, 1954-1955 - Journal of Cold War Studies 9:2 2 (2007) 95-126, quoting p 123. Rjensen (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, precisely - the devil is indeed in the details, and you skirt over those that don't suit your 1970s worldview. I am sure that it has not escaped your attention that this "measured shift" (in which military was still subordinate to the political struggle) came after the deadline for the proposed elections had passed, and not that "the decision made in Hanoi in 1955 was for war" as you earlier asserted. The 'Geneva Line' was abandoned after the provisions for the peaceful reunification of the country through elections were ignored by Saigon, with American support. Cripipper (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Saigon did not ignore the Geneva accords between paris and Hanoi--it rejected them, as did the US. Rjensen (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The U.S. didn't actually reject the agreements, it pledged "not to disturb" them, and that it would be "gravely concerned" at any resumption of violence in violation of them. You can't be gravely concerned about the violation of an agreement you have pledged not to disturb, and reject it. Cripipper (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So the U.S. obligation was to be gravely concerned? That doesn't amount to much. As far as the December 1956 VWP decision goes, "armed propaganda" was authorized, but I don't think this should be viewed as a decision for war. In January 1957, the official line was still "peace coexistance" and the National Assembly resolved to demobilize another 80,000 troops. Truong Chinh, who favored a "North first" strategy, was still ranked No. 2 (after Ho) in the 1957 May Day parade. Duan was ranked No. 2 in the 1958 parade, so he was appearently in the driver's seat by that time. Kauffner (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * please don't erase well-sourced informnation even if you think Wiki readers should not know about it. The NPOV policy says that a counter-statement, with reliable sources, should be incldued instead, if it exists. So far no one has found ststement that Ho wanted democratic elections anywhere. Exactly when did Ho lost power? It came in stages in the late 1950s, rather than all at once. Rjensen (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The first source (Brigham) says nothing of the sort, which brings into question the validity of the others. The problem with the statement is that by extension it implies that Diem's South Vietnam was open to free and democratic elections, something that even Mark Moyar rejects. Cripipper (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Diem and South Vietnam have their own articles. This article is about Ho. Certainly Diem didn't want to hold elections. But if the communists were more believable as democrats, international opinion might have required him to do so. Kauffner (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Brigham clearly states that Communists never expected to hold elections.Rjensen (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The only references to elections on p.6 of Guerrilla Diplomacy are these:

"Sensing the emperor's political weakness, the astute Diem maneuvered the United States into supporting his own candidacy for the presidency of the Republic of Viet Nam. Buoyed by the fact that Washington wanted to 'prevent a Communist victory through all Vietnamese elections,' Diem in years ahead secured massive military and economic aid from his new partner.  Pointing to alleged DRV truce violations to justify their actions, American officials created a regional defense organisation, SEATO, to repel any Communist aggression in the area.  Claiming he was under attack from without, Diem with U.S. backing suspended the 1956 elections and presided over the birth of the Republic of Viet Nam, a counterrevolutionary alternative to the Lao Dong and the North.¶ Once he consolidated power, Diem attacked the Fatherland Front.  As early as August 1955 he launched a major drive against the various mass organizations that made up the Front... These political sweeps were some of the darkest days for the Party, and membership in the South dropped off significantly. Once it became clear that national elections would not take place so long as Diem was in power, several southerners urged the Party's Central Committee to reevaluate the political struggle movement... Indeed, the Central Committee felt enormous pressure to launch retaliatory military strikes."


 * Brigham, in fact, says the opposite to your claim, which does rather raise doubts about the accuracy of the other references you have provided. Hanoi abandoned the hope for elections when it became clear that Diem would not hold them, according to this source you yourself (mis)quoted. Cripipper (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This whole section needs a thorough clean-up, since very little of it relates to Ho and him becoming President of the DRV. I propose going back to first principles and writing about the man himself, rather than getting bogged down in history of Vietnam; leave that to the articles by that name. Cripipper (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Error in Time Line
While reading this article I noticed an error in the facts or statements on his history. It claims that he heard Malcolm X speak in NY in 1918. However, Malcolm X was not born until 1925. so there is a issue with this statement and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.32.192.33 (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

word missing
In the "quotes" section, in the last quote, the word "Vietnam" is missing after the word "prosperous." The entire quote constitutes the last clause of his testament. Source: http://www.cpv.org.vn/english/archives/details.asp?topic=14&subtopic=99&leader_topic=39&id=BT2750372107 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.22.229 (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Spelling Error in Article Needs to be Corrected
The text as written reads:

"By July, 1967, Hồ and most of the Pollitiboro of North Vietnam met in a high-level conference where they concluded that the was was not going well for them..."

The context of this sentence suggests that the first "was" should be changed to "war" so that the text, as corrected, should read:

"By July, 1967, Hồ and most of the Pollitiboro of North Vietnam met in a high-level conference where they concluded that the war was not going well for them..."

76.20.217.254 (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Chessapprentice

Ho Chi Minh Suicide?
http://www.france24.com/en/20090122-ho-chi-minh-history-vietnam-duong-thu-huong
 * http://blog.vietnam-aujourdhui.info/post/2009/01/22/Dissident-writer-reveals-Ho-Chi-Minh-s-tragic-love-secret

Takima (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC).

Did Hô Chi Minh commit suicide? That's the theory put forward by Duong Thu Huong - a leading dissident writer on the Vietnamese icon, who died in 1969 at 79. An incendiary novel by Vietnam's most popular dissident writer takes on the mythical figure of Ho Chi Minh, claiming the "Father of the Nation" had a secret lover half his age -- and that she was raped and murdered by his own Communist comrades. Interviewed in Paris, where she lives in exile and where the book was released this month, 61-year-old Duong Thu Huong claims the Vietnamese regime has suppressed the story of the national hero's twilight years.

Like her previous works "The Zenith" - which casts Ho Chi Minh as "The President" - is banned from Vietnamese bookshops, but it has been released on the Internet, drawing close to 100,000 readers and wide critical interest. Based on 15 years of research, Huong claims the ageing leader fell in love in the 1950s with a woman 40 years his junior, who bore him two children and was assassinated in 1957 at the party's orders to stop them from marrying. His companions were terrified it would damage his saint-like image. In the West, people worship youth. But in Asia, it is the opposite, we venerate old people. He was not allowed to be a lover and a husband, to waste his energy with a woman of flesh and blood. Huong claims his young lover, Xuan, was clubbed to death and her body dumped on a road to disguise the murder as a traffic accident, and that party officials erased all trace of the romance from the public record. Ho Chi Minh carried the secret of her death to the grave, Huong claims, when he died in September 1969 on the anniversary of Vietnamese independence. He was nearly 80 years old, weak and ill, when, according to the writer, he hastened his own death by pulling out an intravenous drip from his body on September 2, choosing the symbolic date in a final act of defiance against the Party, to cast a curse on the corrupt regime. His criminal comrades understood that he chose the date to signify the coming destruction of the regime. So they falsified the facts and dated his death September 3rd.

One of the 20th century's most influential Communist leaders, Ho Chi Minh steered the Vietnamese nationalist movement for close to three decades and was president of North Vietnam from 1945 until his death. Huong admits taking liberties with historical fact in her tale of thwarted love, political intrigue and treachery, but she stands by the account of Ho Chi Minh's murdered companion and the circumstances of his death.

"[…] The people must understand. They have been manipulated, humiliated, and deceived by their leaders."

A former hero of the Vietnam war who turned against the Communist regime in the 1980s, Huong was imprisoned for eight months for her writings in 1991, and finally left the country in 2006 for a life in exile in Paris.

Takima (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Basic edit
Under the heading of his death I believe that in the phrase "Ho Chi Minh's embalmed body is on display in a granite Ho Chi Minh Mausoleum modeled after Lenin's Tomb in Moscow." that the bolded 'a' should be 'the'. (Blahmos (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

Henri Poincaré?
In the section "Political education in France", the article mistakingly refers to Henri Poincaré as president in 1922, a mathematician and theoretical physicist that died on 17 July, 1912. His brother, Raymond Poincaré, was president of France from 18 February 1913 to 18 February 1920, and prime minister from 15 January 1922 to 8 June 1924. If the article is indeed referring to the president of France during 1922 and not the prime minister, then, according to the article on Wikipedia and http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/382848/Alexandre-Millerand, the text should be changed to refer to Alexandre Millerand. (Bluepickaxe (talk) 5:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it's Raymond. I fixed it already. Kauffner (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Phan Boi Chau was not a member of a rival revolutionary party as such. Phan Boi Chau was a Vietnamese Nationalist not a Communist and Ho's mentor who he lured to a meeting then betrayed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.182.54 (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out a contradiction about Ho Chi Minh's death.
The introduction states that he died on September 3, 1969. However, the infobox and the section about his death, the death date is stated as September 2, 1969. Also, his death is registered on the September 2 page on wikipedia. I have gone through internet sources, and there is a fair mix of reports of him dying on both days. I wanted to point that out, and I will say that I won't make any edits to the article concerning this dilemma. I don't know if this has been previously discussed, but that contradiction is something that should be attended to soon. Thank you. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 20:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The September 3 date is wrong. His death was reported on September 3 because September 2 is also National Day, and the authorities didn't want to use that date.  More recent Vietnamese sources have begun to use the correct date.  I think it's mentioned in Duiker's bio. DHN (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

His Names
Where did we get the claim that Ho Chi Minh means 'He Who Enlightens'? That isn't accurate. It doesn't really--Bnguyen 10:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) "mean" anything at all, any more than Lyndon Johnson means 'linden tree whose father was named John'. Shorne 03:20, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Ho Chi Minh more accurately means "Ho who enlightens." Since it is an alias, I think Ho must have chosen it for its meaning.  Also, Vietnamese names often have clear meaning, and parents who name their kids usually name them in the hope that their children will embody the characteristics described in the names. DHN 07:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) I, Vietnamese, absolutely agree with you, DHN. 216.249.144.14 (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

While Ho used various pseudonyms, his original name, according to the Vietnamese government was Nguyen Ai Quoc.--Sentience 03:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Nguy&#7877;n Ái Qu&#7889;c was most likely a pseudonym. It means "Nguy&#7877;n the patriot".  The Encyclopedia Britannica said that his original name was Nguy&#7877;n Sinh Cung. DHN 03:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know the translation of the "Five rules of Bac Ho", which are taught to every child in Viet Nam?
 * I can translate roughly as "Five things Uncle Ho tell the children":

"Love our country, love our fellow-citizen Study hard, work hard Be united, be self-disciplined ensure personal hygiene Modesty, sincerity, bravery" He always make it short and simple for every body to understand an remember ok so he changed his name after he went to china. i can understand how his new name has meaning to what he stands for, but why did he change his surname also? the surname really has no meaning.
 * He wants to pose as a Chinese person. While Ho is a common Chinese surname, Nguyen is obviously not. DHN 21:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Was he born Nguyen Tat Thanh or Nguyen Sinh Cung? Are these the same name? Is there a preferred way of transliterating Vietnamese? Help! Mswake 13:40 Sep 10, 2002 (UTC) No, they're not the same name. He was orignally named Nguyen Sinh Cung; Nguyen Tat Thanh, Nguyen Ai Quoc, Ly Thuy, and Ho Chi Minh are aliases that he, like any good communist, used. The Vietnamese language uses the Latin alphabet, so there's no need for any system to tranliterate names, all you need is to remove the diacritical marks. 128.195.100.178 02:38, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC) -actually, its not a communist thing. its a chinese thing. if u look at fidel castro, he only goes by fidel castro (he is communist by the way). its quite common for a chinese person to have several names. its also quite common for a chinese person to give himself a name, which ho chi min did. chinese also have honourary names and so on.

I am not positive, but I believe Ho is the surname of a very good Chinese friend of his. Through some circumstance he adopted the surname as part of his new name. By the way Nguyen is a Chinese surname, cognate to Ruan(阮). Both Korean and Vietnamese names are based on the Chinese naming system of an originally Chinese clan name and a given name (which says nothing about these groups' respective ethnic origins). Notably however, Ruan is quite rare in China so people with the surname Nguyen in Vietnam are more likely to be ethnic Vietnamese rather than Chinese who have emigrated to Vietnam and changed their names to the local pronunciation. Prouddemocrat 11:46, 15 March 2006 (EST)

If he wanted it to be Chinese, why is it pronounced 'Ho' and not 'Fu' or 'Vu'? There is the Cantonese surname transliterated as 'Ho' (He in Mandarin), which is not the Vietnamese 'Ho'.
 * A little thing to mention, actually to make it clear


 * Nguyen Sinh Cung is his birth name, considering his father's name Nguyen Sinh Sac (similar surname I guess). Nguyen Tat Thanh is the name he received in a traditional Confucian fashion promoting a boy to an adult. Nguyen Ai Quoc is the name he used whilst oversea. Ly Thuy and Ho Quang are the names he used whilst staying in China (I'm not too sure about this), can anyone make it right?Hawkie 17:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Methinks the opening paragraph needeth cleaning - could his many names not be presented in a slightly more elegant way? elvenscout742 20:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. You're right. We'll take it out for now and introduce them later in relevant topics. --Factus 07:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of names, the article is quite confusing at the moment in that it constantly switches between different names for him; in one paragraph he's referred to as Cung in one sentence and Ho in the next -- switching from the second half (!) of his original given name to the surname he adopted later in life, for apparently no reason. Surely there's a style guide this should be following? 68.33.168.195 (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the article does follow some logic. It first uses his original name, and every time he uses a new name, it uses that name. DHN (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Anti-revisionist
HCM was an anti-revisionist, added by. The source don't say anything about that.--Tranletuhan (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Short forms of Vietnamese names
Ho Chi Minh should not be referred as "Nguyễn" and this change needs to be reverted. Vietnamese are normally referred to by their given name, i.e. by the last syllable of their name. The name "Ho Chi Minh" is an exception to this rule for whatever reason, and it gets shortened to "Ho". But when Ho is referred by one his other names, such as Nguyen Ai Quoc, the normal rule applies. In other words, Nguyen Ai Quoc is shortened to "Quoc". Forty percent of Vietnamese use "Nguyen" as their family name. If you shortened all their names to Nguyen, a text on Vietnam would be all about Nguyen doing this and Nguyen doing that and there would be no way to figure out who was who. Kauffner (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
I have read this article in vietnamese and saw severals differences with another languages including english. Please correct this article in vietnamese to have the neutral point of view. (The Engel)07:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Fake picture !
This is totally fake. I'm a Vietnamese, growing up learning about this all my life. I have seen his picture all my life and i can recognize his face no matter what. I can't tell who is he in that picture. And here is the evidence in 1929 Ho Chi Minh was at Siam Empire (old name for Thailand). The end of 1929, he went to China. There is no way he can be somewhere close in Moscow. Anyone who live in Vietnam can tell this is a fake picture by looking at the picture and with strong facts. So therefore i'm going to remove it.Trongphu (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The source is Yonhap, the South Korean news agency, but Yonhap does not give the 1929 date. Ho studied in Moscow in 1923-1924, so this date is almost certainly wrong. Aside from that, I don't see any problem with the photo or reason to think it is fake. Kauffner (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * South Korea was American Alliance. Americans supported the South in the Vietnam war, the North Vietnam won. So you think South Korea is a friendly friend of Vietnam? Propaganda is pretty common, made fake stuffs on purpose. Whoever put this picture in the article obviously did not understand anything about this person, the strongest evidence is even the year is wrong so bad. What is my other strongest evidence? I can look at the picture and i can tell you that none of the people in the picture is Ho Chi Minh. Prove to me that picture is real with solid evidence, fact, can you? You welcome to come to Vietnamese Wikipedia and testify the picture there and let people who grow up seeing Ho Chi Minh's pictures all their lives tell you that he indeed was not in the picture.Trongphu (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and North Vietnam was so diligent in reporting truths about him, such as the date of his death. And whoever made a mention of Tang Tuyet Minh is a damned liar who made it all up, never mind all the hard evidence still there in the French archives. DHN (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't talking off topic man. This has nothing to do with the picture we are talking about. Did i ever say North Vietnam is always right? With experience growing up and go to school, studied about Vietnam War in Vietnam and America, i think i got a pretty good view of neutral. Please don't make assumption and talking off topic. I don't deny or claim anything about Ho Chi Minh beside the fact that picture is FAKE.174.20.81.218 (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgot to log in haa.Trongphu (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your claim that the picture is fake is based solely on "I'm a Vietnamese, growing up learning about this all my life. I have seen his picture all my life and i can recognize his face no matter what. I can't tell who is he in that picture." You can say the same about Tang Tuyet Minh.  I'm not saying that the picture is fake or not, I'm just saying that your reasoning for saying it is fake is not credible. DHN (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all that was not only my claims. My another claim is the year is obviously wrong. HCM was not in Russia in 1929. Plus i think the Vietnamese government has no reason to hide this picture from Vietnamese people. Plus it's not like this picture is going to harm Ho Chi Minh's reputation. And as i said before we can always ask for more people who actually know a lot of Vietnam war to decide whether or not this picture is fake. You welcome to bring it to Vietnamese wikipedia community or whatever you decide.174.20.81.218 (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

And yep this is the first time i saw this picture in my life. With majority of my life living in Vietnam. I'm confident to tell you that i have seen all of Ho Chi Minh's pictures. There aren't actually not that many of his pictures.Trongphu (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No original research, Neutral point of view, Verifiability
The offensive was a huge tactical failure which resulted in the destruction of whole units of Viet Cong as well as a fundamental change in the attitudes of people in the South. Up until Tet, they had generally favored the Viet Cong; in the wake of mass executions conducted during the Offensive, popular support shifted to the government. It appeared to Hồ and to the rest of his government that the war was indeed lost, until it became clear from news coverage that the scope of the action had shocked an American public that up until then had been assured that the Communists were "on the ropes." Ironically, at the moment that they genuinely were struggling, the overly positive spin that the U.S. military had offered for years came crashing down. The bombing of North Vietnam was halted, and negotiations with U.S. officials opened to discuss how to end the war. From that moment on, Hồ and his government realized that while defeat of the U.S. military in battle was impossible, merely prolonging the conflict would lead to eventual acceptance of the terms that Hanoi wanted.

The paragraph above does not respect any of Wikipedia's three core content policies.

First of all, the following sentence: "The offensive was a huge tactical failure" has a totally partial tone. Since, Tet Offensive shocked American public and the entire world and also affected irreversibly the moral of the American soldiers, you cannot say that it was a huge tactical failure.

Secondly, the following sentence : "...fundamental change in the attitudes of people in the South. Up until Tet, they had generally favored the Viet Cong; in the wake of mass executions conducted during the Offensive, popular support shifted to the government." lacks verifiability. It expresses only your own view and cannot be taken as a historical fact. It is recorded, in the world history, that most of the massacres executed from the other side, i.e. South Vietnam, USA and their allies. For a quick confirmation of that, you can visit the list of massacres published in Wikipedia.

Finally, the sentence: "Ironically, at the moment that they genuinely were struggling, the overly positive spin that the U.S. military had offered for years came crashing down. The bombing of North Vietnam was halted, and negotiations with U.S. officials opened to discuss how to end the war." can be seen at least as provocative and anti-humanistic. Maybe, you would prefer the war to be continued and two million more casualties to be there so as USA to finally win a poor, technologically degraded country. Indeed, the spin that the USA army offered was positive; the greatest war machine of that time could not defeat a small, poor country that was fighting for independence against USA's regime in South territory. So, according to your point of view, it was pity that the bombing halted and the negotiations with U.S. officials opened to discuss how to end the war.

Concluding, this paragraphs violates the third core content policy of Wikipedia, which is "No original research". It is a paragraph that concentrates the last and most significant years of Vietnam War, without using any citations. I would recommend you either to change this paragraph entirely (so as to respect the core values of Wikipedia articles) or to remove it from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.47.8 (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Duh lol? Propaganda is freaking prevail. I'm a Vietnamese, grew up in Vietnam. Currently i'm living in the United States. I have learned the Vietnam War in both sides well enough to proudly say i'm a neutral guy. To be honest, the exact truth will never be known. What's right and wrong? Which side's right and wrong? Which side is better for the common people? It's extremely easy to argue. You can argue forever and almost certainly you can't convince someone to change their view because it's totally opposite. I have to say that both the US and Vietnam governments have had use very strong propaganda. Only mention and teach the good things they did and hide the bad stuffs they did. Both sides have indeed done many bad things and terrible decisions. The question is which side has done more bad stuffs? I don't want to take side here but it's certainly obvious. You can find out if you want by searching massacre of innocent people, who were unarmed and worst of all they were mostly women and kids. Let see who committed more massacre that has strong evidence supported and has been published. Americans and the South or the Communists of the North? Who did more terrible tortures? You decide by searching out. It won't be easy though, shame on people who held respond for writing history. Their jobs were to completely honest to write everything that happened and don't hide anything. If i ever did anything bad, i would proudly admit to someone else not to avoid it and pretend like i didn't do it. It's just terrible deception to hide people from the truths and tricked people into thinking they were heroes and turn out they are freaking cowards, who can't say the truths. Anyway by hard i mean if you live in the United States, it would be hard for you to find any sources that write bad stuffs about the US and the same thing apply to if you live in Vietnam. Ok the general concept is the truth has been distorted by both sides. It also has to do a lot with your religion, nationality, where you from... Even if you do know the truths doesn't mean you will support the right side. An good example for that is you lost your dad or a close relative in Vietnam War then you will probably think the North was evil as hell no matter what.Trongphu (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I totally agreed with the IP above as he pointed out some pretty obviously wrong sentences that if you know enough about Vietnam War no matter what side are you in. You can tell easily it's WRONG. The Tet offensive was totally a victory for the communists on term of spirit of the war. It eliminate all Americans hope of ending the war soon because before the Tet Offensive, Americans thought the communists were not that strong. It severed the world support for Americans as the world saw it a bloody useless war. In other word in damage Americans' reputation. American government lost trust over their own people. It forced America to start compromise. And yep in term of loss, the Communists lost the huge amount of soldiers and it took them until 1970 to recover and while they were recovering. The Americans and the South were using Phoenix Program. And yep the majority (by majority i mean more than half) of Vietnamese people were supporting Communists for many reasons and mainly because they don't trust Westerners. That the only reason why American government didn't want a fair nation election that suppose to happen in 1956. Basically just let the majority people to decide which type of government they want. Anyway i know i have been getting pretty far of topic but well it's a general idea on how controversial these stuffs are. I don't expect Wikipedia to has a completely unbiased because it's hard and maybe impossible but just don't put something that obviously lies. Again to confirm my intention, i did not say which side was better nor did i favor any particular side, you choose.Trongphu (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the content. If anyone want to revert it back, please let me know first, or I would edited it back Zeraful —Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC).

Lost in power?
It's an so insulting statement. That statement sounds like someone overthrew him and took his power then keep him visible as a puppet since he got support from a lot of people. He never lost his power not in a second. Everyone (North people) loves him. Since around 1960's until his death in 1969. He was getting old and as an obvious result. Old people can't handle the work as they used to before they got old. He just got sick really bad. He started to give away power to his closely colleagues but his voice still has the final decision when he wants to. Since his health doesn't allow him to involve much in the war decisions anymore but he can always decide things when he wants to. Basically he still has a power but due to his health he didn't use it and rely it on his trusted friends.Trongphu (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the spelling of Vietnamese names
RfC: Should the spelling of Vietnamese names follow the general usage of English-language reliable sources? Examples: Ngo Dinh Diem, Ho Chi Minh, and Saigon, or Ngô Đình Diệm, Hồ Chí Minh, and Sài Gòn. The RfC is here. Kauffner (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

In general usage, use the English version of Vietnamese nouns, hence this is English Wikipedia. Yes it might be better to use the indigenous Vietnamese naming of things, but it may be unfair to other articles in English Wiki that concern things from other countries that use non-Latin-alphabet writing systems, like not referring to Chang Kai-Shek to his Chinese character name. Nguyen1310 (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This type of comment belongs in RfC here: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese)

It is also worth noted that, some users without the Vietnamese font will only see the word as small squares--113.190.22.10 (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguity in Lead
The lead talks about the war with the French and then goes on to say that "After the war, Saigon, capital of the Republic of Vietnam, was renamed Hồ Chí Minh City" which is rather confusing. Shouldn't it say "After the Vietnam War, Saigon, capital of the Republic of Vietnam, was renamed Hồ Chí Minh City"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.54.142 (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think people would be confused the First Indochina War with the Vietnam War--Zeraful (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

An ambiguity that changes the meaning
The following fragment in the article

"In June 1925, Hoang Van Chi claimed Nguyễn (Ho) betrayed Phan Boi Chau, the head of a rival revolutionary faction, to French police in Shanghai for 100,000 piastres.[11] Nguyễn (Ho) later claimed he did it because he expected Chau's trial to stir up anti-French resentment, and because he needed the money to establish a communist organization.[11]"

should be corrected to

"Hoang Van Chi claimed that, in June 1925, Nguyễn (Ho) betrayed Phan Boi Chau, the head of a rival revolutionary faction, to French police in Shanghai for 100,000 piastres.[11] According to Hoang Van Chi, Nguyễn (Ho) later claimed he did it because he expected Chau's trial to stir up anti-French resentment, and because he needed the money to establish a communist organization.[11]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by NguyenAL (talk • contribs) 20:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Stalinist or Marxist-Leninist.
A user has repeatedly changed the intro to state that HCM was a Stalinist rather than a Marxist-Leninist. I've put it back to Marxist-Leninist for now for the following reasons... I really don't care which one ends up in the intro, but we'll need to agree on one or the other. I'm not voting either way, just starting the discussion.--Dmol (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Marxist-Leninist has been in the article for a long time so consensus will be needed for change.
 * The article is part of the Marxist-Leninist portal.
 * The changes were made without adequate explanation. Recent reverts have only referred to the user's edit summary which read in part, "People were massacred en masse, and wide persecution & killing of people, not part of Marx". This does not sufficiently explain nor does it justify, a change.
 * The page has again been changed by the same user. I have given a 3RR warning.--Dmol (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Ho is a Stalinist, not Marxist. Stalinism is described as an authoritarian form of communism where power's entirely in the hands of the Communist Party, with the leader portrayed & propagandised as a selfless, pure, charitable person, who gave "birth" to the nation. Ho Chi Minh is all these things - all government power in N Viet Nam are firmly in the Vietnam Worker's Party's hands, with all forms of opposition, even from democracy-supporting revolutionaries formerly part of the Viet Minh, is prohibited, and anyone opposing the regime would be imprisoned in gulags or killed, like in the Nhan Van-Giai Pham incident in the North in the late 50s. Ho Chi MInh is portrayed as a selfless, pure, charitable leader, with the communist regime constantly portraying his celibacy (even though he had intimate relationships with a Chinese lady and a Hill Tribe lady, the latter with whom he had a son and the lady being suspected to be killed to keep the relationship a secret). You can see that in this article (i forgot the hill tribe lady's name, i think she's Hmong). Ho Chi Minh is portrayed as the "Father of Vietnam" by communists. Stalinism also dictates that all agriculture is collectivized, which did happen under Ho, where thousands of people, even peasants, were executed as they were branded as "landlords" (see Land reform in Vietnam), even though many executed were just poor peasants opposing the regime's appropriation of their land, like in Nghe An province. Marxism, on the other hand, only demanded an end to capitalism, end to private ownership & business, and a sharing of all resources amongst all members of society, with the ones needing more, ad working more, to be entitled to more support. It also demands for free, popular elections of government officials & representatives, which is a democratic element. Under Ho, even until now, all government people & representatives are all from, or affiliated with, the Communist Party, all must be approved by the regime prior to running in elections. This is not exactly in line with Marxism, as Marxism advocates that the people choose whoever that best represents them, regardless if communist or not. Marxism also never advocated for the mass persecutions and executions of people, like of intellectuals, middle-/upper-class citizens, democracy activists and government opposers, which is characteristic of Stalinism, of which Ho Chi Minh's government conducted. Up to an estimated half million Northerners were slaughtered under Ho, from the ongoing persecution of dissidents, from Nhan Van-Giai Pham, and many from the land reform. I find it absurd that Ho Chi Minh is noted to be "concerned" of the mass killings of people, and how he abruptly demanded that the mass killings to end, on Radio Hanoi, about 3 to 4 years after the mass persecutions began. Ho Chi Minh is the paramount figure in the Communist Party, even though he might not be directly responsible for the day-to-day governance of the North, he would still have a very strong influence and say in the government, and if he truly wanted to end the mass slaughter of "reactionaries" and "landlords", he would have ordered an end to such practices when the mass persecutions just began. Ho, as the head of NVN, would know about what goes on in his country via reports from advisors. He called for an end to such mass persecutions long after it began, because it was only at that point that the regime realized that fear and anger was simmering in the Northern populace due to the intense persecutions and oppression that occurred, and they feared of a general revolt & uprising, the same way that they were brought to power. Somehow people think that Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese communists were better to their people than other communists like in China and the USSR, but no they are not, and in fact all communists have committed similar atrocities against their people, like during land reforms, oppression of the populace against all forms of opposition, collection of and persecution of dissidents in society (like in Nhan Van and in Mao Zedong's 100 Flowers Campaign), party purges etc. Westerners know less about the atrocities of the Vietnamese Communists than they know of the atrocities committed against the Russian, Chinese, and North Korean people, since North VN's atrocities received far less media attention and publicity than those other communist nations. And excuse me Dmol, i should explain my reversion before such warnings are given. Nguyen1310 (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lenin killed over 4 million people. What exactly is the difference between Leninism and Stalinism?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you taking the time to make your case. The problem is that it remains your case, without reference to any authority than yourself. There is an article on Stalinism that deals with Stalin's policies and international influence. As the article mentions and cites, though, Stalin never personally identified himself or anyone else as a "Stalinist." So trying to categorize this person or that person as a "Stalinist" gets tangled very quickly in editors' own political and historical opinions about what Communism is, or what it should be.


 * Regarding your specific reasons: Collective agriculture is not a Stalinist invention, but an Agrarianist one that Stalin carried out. Glorifying the leader and persecuting dissidents or the old order are not merely Stalinist tendencies; they are revolutionary and wartime tendencies. Contemporary Communists all over the world, and in Vietnam, considered Ho one of them. You've made it clear that you despise him. That is your right, but it doesn't make him a Stalinist, nor less of a Communist in the politics of his time. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Using the term "Stalinist" to describe anything other than the policies of Joseph Stalin as implemented in the Soviet Union is highly dubious, and in this case it's original research. The term seems to be, like "Fascist", a derogatory epithet rather than a meaningful descriptor. Shrigley (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

There are a few things problematic with your argument. Since I've read the biography of Ho Chi Mihn by Pierre Broqcheu (that's probably not the proper spelling of his name, ah well)

"Ho is a Stalinist, not Marxist. Stalinism is described as an authoritarian form of communism where power's entirely in the hands of the Communist Party, with the leader portrayed & propagandised as a selfless, pure, charitable person, who gave "birth" to the nation. Ho Chi Minh is all these things - all government power in N Viet Nam are firmly in the Vietnam Worker's Party's hands, with all forms of opposition, even from democracy-supporting revolutionaries formerly part of the Viet Minh, is prohibited, and anyone opposing the regime would be imprisoned in gulags or killed."

The cult of personality that surrounds Ho Chi Mihn largely arose after his death, largely after the fall of the Soviet Union when the Communist Party replaced many core tenets of it's idealogy with "Ho Chi Mihn thought" even though Ho Chi Mihn's writings only consisted of journalistic pieces he had written for various French newspapers about colonialism and the fact that most of his military tactics were largely derived from Mao.

Additionally, under Ho Chi Mihn there was a multi-party election in 1945 despite the fact that the country side was still ravaged by war and a famine had killed 1.5 million people only a short while before the election. To put this in the context of western democracy, The United States of America didn't have an election until five years after the revolution and even still some states weren't able to vote in those elections. Even before the elections, he appointed 1/3 of all political positions to the nationalists even though the nationalist sporadically engaged the North Vietnamese government in armed skirmishes and collaborated with the efforts of the Chinese Nationalists to occupy Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh also made a point of appointing woman and members of various ethnic minority communities to government positions. The very reason for the war against the south was the fact that the South Vietnamese government didn't want nation wide elections because they knew Ho Chi Minh would win. Sure, there weren't any elections during the war, but that's perfectly understandable because how the heck could they have held elections while they were being bombed to smithereens?

Stalinism also dictates that all agriculture is collectivized, which did happen under Ho, where thousands of people, even peasants, were executed as they were branded as "landlords" (see Land reform in Vietnam), even though many executed were just poor peasants opposing the regime's appropriation of their land, like in Nghe An province. Marxism, on the other hand, only demanded an end to capitalism, end to private ownership & business, and a sharing of all resources amongst all members of society, with the ones needing more, ad working more, to be entitled to more support.

Ho Chi Minh originally opposed land reform which brought him a poor reputation in the communist east which was dominated by Stalinist ideology. There is story; when Ho Chi Minh went to Moscow to ask the Soviet Government for aid, Stalin and Mao meet him and set up two chairs, one, Stalin said, was the set of the peasantry, the other was the set of the landlord.

Yes, this does not justify collectivization. However it's important to show that the land reform in Vietnam was not ideologically motivated but rather a result of realpolitik. There's also a small amount of evidence that Ho Chi Minh was indifferent to Marxism and was only attracted to communist organisations because of Lenin's stance on imperialism so your accusations of non-marxism aren't that far off.

"It also demands for free, popular elections of government officials & representatives, which is a democratic element. Under Ho, even until now, all government people & representatives are all from, or affiliated with, the Communist Party, all must be approved by the regime prior to running in elections."

I've already discussed the false nature of this claim. But I also wanted to note that Ho Chi Minh died before the fall of Saigon and didn't participate in the formation of the united Vietnamese government. Considering his actions in the late 40's, I'd probably guess that Vietnam would have probably ended up a bit more democratic than Tito's Yugoslavia. But of course that's just guess work. The difference between my guess work and yours is that mine is based on his actual actions while he governed the north. Either way a good guess has no place in an enclopedia.

"Up to an estimated half million Northerners were slaughtered under Ho, from the ongoing persecution of dissidents, from Nhan Van-Giai Pham, and many from the land reform."

People die, that's how history works. While we should always critize human rights abuses we should never let them get in the way of looking at history from an objective viewpoint. Yes Stalin was "bad, and Ho Chi Minh's crimes were "bad". But that doesn't make Ho a Stalinist because evil has existed long before Communism and quite frankly to define Communism and Fascism as solely evil idealogies neglects all of the human rights abuses committed by basically every other form of government that has ever existed. Should I point you to a list of Britian and America's acts of Genocide or would you simply say those are justified because they had good progressive intentions?

"What exactly is the difference between Leninism and Stalinism?"

Lenin was fighting a civil war and killed far fewer people than Stalin did during peace time. Additionally Lenin espoused a democratic ideology in his State and Revolution while Stalin thought that the Vanguard party was the sole leader of Soviet Soviet and was responsible for abolishing bourgeois ideology through the use of physical force. Human right's abuses are bad but they don't charctize regimes and ideologies. Because if you want to insist that Leninism and Stalinism are synonymous with political repression and the murder of politcal opponents then I'd have to point you to the long list of human rights violations that the Union was responsible for during the American Civil War. By your definition of Leninism being wartime human rights abuses, would it be not be more accurate to refer to it as Marxist-Lincolnism since he clearly pioneered it before Lenin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onthehook (talk • contribs) 13:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That implies that Lincoln invented human rights violations or wartime abuses, which is clearly false. I wasn't counting civil war deaths.  Stalin fought WW2.  Perhaps you should consider Lenin's actual rhetoric:

- V. I. Lenin, quoted in Michael Ellman, "The Role of Leadership Perceptions and of Intent in the Soviet Famine of 1931-1934," Europe-Asia Studies, September 2005, p. 823
 * "By destroying the peasant economy and driving the peasant from the country to the town, the famine creates a proletariat... Furthermore the famine can and should be a progressive factor not only economically. It will force the peasant to reflect on the bases of the capitalist system, demolish faith in the tsar and tsarism, and consequently in due course make the victory of the revolution easier... Psychologically all this talk about feeding the starving and so on essentially reflects the usual sugary sentimentality of our intelligentsia."

- Lenin, "Tasks of Revolutionary Army Contingents," Collected Works, Vol. 9, pp. 420-4
 * "[Use] rifles, revolvers, bombs, knives, knuckle-dusters, sticks, rags soaked in kerosene for starting fires... barbed wire, nails [against cavalry]… or acids to be poured on the police... The killing of spies, policemen, gendarmes, the blowing up of police stations... [must start] at a moment’s notice."

- Lenin, "Lessons of the Moscow Uprising," Collected Works, Vol. 11, p. 174
 * "We would be deceiving both ourselves and the people if we concealed from the masses the necessity of a desperate, bloody war of extermination, as the immediate task of the coming revolutionary action."

- Lenin, "Lessons of the Commune," Collected Works, Vol. 13, p. 478
 * "... there are times when the interests of the proletariat call for ruthless extermination of its enemies in open armed clashes."

- Lenin, "How to Organise Competition?" Collected Works, Vol. 26, pp. 411, 414
 * "War to the death against the rich and their hangers-on, the bourgeois intellectuals... ‘He who does not work, neither shall he eat’ – this is the practical commandment of socialism... [Our] common aim [is] to clean the land of Russia of all vermin, of fleas – the rogues, of bugs – the rich, and so on and so forth."

- Lenin, "Report on the Activities of the Council of People’s Commissars," Collected Works, Vol. 26, pp. 459
 * "Not a single problem of the class struggle has ever been solved in history except by violence."

- Lenin, "Meeting of the Presidium of the Petrograd Soviet With Delegates From the Food Supply Organisations," Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 501
 * "We can’t expect to get anywhere unless we resort to terrorism: speculators must be shot on the spot. Moreover, bandits must be dealt with just as resolutely: they must be shot on the spot."

- Lenin, quoted in George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police Clarendon Press, 1981, p. 57
 * "Surely you do not imagine that we shall be victorious without applying the most cruel revolutionary terror?"

- Lenin, ibid., p. 103
 * "... carry out merciless mass terror against the kulaks, priests and White Guards; unreliable elements to be locked up in a concentration camp outside the town."

- Lenin, "Speech to the All-Russia Extraordinary Commission Staff," Collected Works, Vol. 28, pp. 169-70
 * "... when people charge us with harshness we wonder how they can forget the rudiments of Marxism."

- Lenin, quoted in Richard Pipes, ed., The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archive, Yale University Press, 1996, pp. 152-4
 * "It is precisely now and only now, when in the starving regions people are eating human flesh, and hundreds if not thousands of corpses are littering the roads, that we can (and therefore must) carry out the confiscation of church valuables... I come to the categorical conclusion that precisely at this moment we must give battle to the Black Hundred clergy in the most decisive and merciless manner and crush its resistance with such brutality that it will not forget it for decades to come… The greater the number of representatives of the reactionary clergy and reactionary bourgeoisie we succeed in executing for this reason, the better."
 * I know that this is OR and that this page isn't the ideal place for such a discussion, but that sounds pretty Stalinist to me.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

"The very reason for the war against the south was the fact that the South Vietnamese government didn't want nation wide elections because they knew Ho Chi Minh would win." I know its not really relevant but I hope you don't think that postponing elections justifies the North Vietnamese attempts to topple the authoritarian regimes of Cambodia, Laos and South Vietnam and replace them with totalitarian communist tyrannies whilst constantly targeting civilians. Also I was always thought it was strange that people thought Ho would win the election. I mean he may have been a hero in the war against the french but he did deliberately killed hundred of thousands directly prior to the election and far more people fled to the South (with many apparently forced to stay behind) than to the North directly prior to the election. Anyway don't need to answer its not really relevant to whether or not he was a Leninist or a Stalinist. Peronally I think both are pretty insulting and its not like human right violations are what defines whether or not you are a Leninist or Stalinist. Stumink (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with TheTimesAreAChanging and still believe Ho's Stalinist, based on his actions. Now addressing Stumink's position on this, Ho, regardless of whether he wanted land reform or not, it was still carried out and he didn't stop it, regardless, so the land reform was still partly of Ho's responsibility. Yes, people get killed in all political systems, but, Fascism and Communism have each killed far more people than democracies or monarchies or constitutional monarchies. I would also like to add to the problem Stumink outlined about 1945 Northern elections: in many districts in the North, there was only 1 parliamentary candidate nominated in those districts, who was part of the Viet Minh, and, "free and fair" elections cannot happen in the North, as there will be coercion of voters to vote for Viet Minh candidates, there will be reprisals of voters voting for other non-Viet Minh candidates, and I guarantee that there will be vote rigging. Communist nations never allow free and fair elections, we've seen this in all other communist nations (except for those elections held in Eastern Bloc nations after massive demonstrations were held demanding for free and fair multi-party elections between 1898 and 1991). If the Viet Minh can't tolerate Northerners, esp. in inland areas, from trying to leave and flee the North to the South in 1954 (during the 300-day period for freedom of relocation of people to their desired zones), and preventing Northerners from leaving against their will (Canadian observers witnessed this), the notion of "free" and "fair" elections is impossible. Even a free and fair election held in the South is more feasible (despite the electoral fraud, there wouldn't be coercion of voters). Nguyen1310 (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This sort of discussion, "I believe Ho's actions demonstrate so-and-so," is not going to lead to any change in the article. If Ho had said publicly "I am a Stalinist" or "the party is a Stalinist party" like Castro said "I am a Marxist-Leninist", then the article could easily declare him a Stalinist. Without that, all you have is a subjective opinion that he was like Stalin in ways that you consider significant. That is not enough, no matter how elaborate your argument. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Nguyen1310, please don't claim that there has been discussion and agreement on a change when there has not. If you read the "Legacy" section, you'll see that the negative view of Ho is mentioned there. If you think the article should say more, you can add it there, working from the direct claims of published sources and not your own opinions. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

24.22.217.162, there HAS been a discussion on this on this talk page, as you can clearly see above, however, no official consensus or agreement has been made, and that's why i never claimed "consensus". What i did say however is that it seems settled on dictator (as in for now), as the progression of the discussion, again as you can see above, has been tilting in favor of dictator from the middle to end. Nguyen1310 (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I searched the whole talk page for the word "dictator", and I only see it used by you in the post that I am replying to. Shrigley (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Look again, its implying on dictator, and Stalinist. Nguyen1310 (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The controversal views on Ho Chi Minh is appeared to be a by-product of the Vietnam War. While the sources of him are numerous, some of them were utilized by people with anti-communistic views, which is not always considered neutral. So I suggest we stick to the mainstream academic consensus found in reliable sources, that he is a nationalist who dedicated his life toward his country's independence. It might be that the view that Ho was a ruthless Stalinist is a significant minority view among the academia, and then that view can get its own section, but shouldn't be included in the article proper. Notable, non-academic opinion can be mentioned, but should be clearly marked as not coming from experts. We base our edits on reliable sources, or otherwise we'd have to include all sorts of wild ideas (such as the John Birch society's idea that Vietnam was so badly handled that it had to be started by secret Communist agents in the US government to promote Communism).--Zeraful (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And since when did academics agree, and the vast majority of the critically-thinking public for that matter, consider communists to be neutral, huh Zeraful? Communists are known for fabricating things, lying, distorting, and malicious and Machiavellian doings. Ho Chi Minh a nationialist? HA! Ho Chi Minh didn't die for his country or devote his life for benefitting his country and people, he made his country die for him and he exploited his country for his own evil selfish benefit, like Mao and Stalin and Kin Jong Il and his father did. Ho Chi Minh was such a nationalist that he deliberately fooled intellectuals and democrats in N Vietnam to criticize the regime in the Nhan Van-Giai Pham affair, so he could identify pro-democracy, pro-human rights Northerners to arrest, execute and imprison them. That was reminicent to Mao's Hundred Flowers Campaign. He was such a nationalist that he turned around and persecuted other fellow nationalist revolutionaries like the Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang to secure political power in communist hands. He even informed the French into arresting hero and revolutionary Phan Boi Chau! Ah yes, and the land reform, he deliberately ordered and allowed the persecution of his perceived "class enemies", demographics he considered to be a threat to his grip on power. Ho also went on to persecute his own communist party and military members as well, like what Mao did in the Cultural Revolution and what Stalin did in his Great Purges. Ho also idolized himself as a god, his temple is that Ho Chi Minh Mausoleum in Hanoi, and Ho Chi Min temples are springing up across VN, like in Can Tho. Oh, not to mention, he started a war that killed millions of his countrymen and countrywomen, north to south, in a long war, and caused 1,500,000 to 3,000,000 Boat People refugees to flee their homeland. Oh, Bac Ho is such a nationalist who loved his country! Yes, Bac Ho muon nam! By the way, communists like Jane Fonda and Noam Chomsky did do their part in America to pressure it to withdraw from South VN, while not demanding the VC and the communist North to lay their guns down. Nguyen1310 (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, someone getting quite emotional there. May I suggest you give some SOURCES to back up what you said?--Zeraful (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, may i suggest that you look up the wiki LINKS that i've added first. Also, search up Tang Tuyet Minh. Nguyen1310 (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And did your links and Tang Tuyet Minh's account of Ho Chi Minh got accepted by the global academic community.--Zeraful (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, he wasn't "accepted" by the academic world, he was known in the academic world, and considered controversial (even Wikipedia made a notice about this at the top of the talk page). He was praised by left-wing/socialist biased "academics" like Gareth Porter and Noam Chomsky, and criticized by many others like Bernard Fall, Mark Moyar, Hoang Van Chi. Many academics don't know very well of the political and economic events that really went on in the North, because the foreign media was restricted access to the North, and the North only allowed the media on guided tours to set-up propaganda places, and allowed pro-communist, anti-war activists like Jane Fonda, again on guided tours. Obviously in guided tours, (which is what NVN's sister country North Korea is doing), no one can see the truth of what's really happening in the lives of ordinary northerners. We know the truth of what's really happening in N Korea, China, Vietnam because we have the technology to discretely capture and record footage (the tiny secret camera), which didn't exist before, so today we know the horrible truth of N Korea, but not of N VN. Also, some info on North VN & Ho came from covert VC agents who frequented around foreign journalists to give "information" that's heavily biased, one-sided and laden with propaganda, that nieve western journalists believe, then in turn report on this and shift public opinion back in the West. This is what happened with Ngo Dinh Diem in the media. Some of the leading media correspondents in S VN during Diem's presidency, from NBC and New York Times, got most of their info from 2 covert VC people (i forgot their names but one of the agents has an article on here). And no surprise, Diem's image in the media is heavily one-sided and negative. If HCM was so nationalist and humanitarian, why did ~1,000,000 Northerners flee the North and sought asylum in Diem's South? (and no there can't be that many "landlords" fleeing from there out of a total population of 10 - 14 million). Oh, did i mention, Ho had affairs with a Hmong woman and Tang Tuyet Minh, he conceived a son with the Hmong lady and later had her killed in attempt to hide the reality that he was a adulterous pervert rather than a puritan and celibate as he portrayed himself to be. You cannot fool your fellow Vietnamese with your communist propaganda, we came from Vietnam and we know the truth. You can fool some nieve, hyper youth (especially from the North), but not anyone else. Also, have you heard of China's "50 Cent Party"? Guess what, Vietnam is doing the same thing, infiltrating in social networking websites, online forums, and even on here! You can read more about this here:     . And this will happen in Vietnam when the communist regime falls and a democracy is established: [] Nguyen1310 (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @Zeraful: Ho's marriage with Tang Tuyet Minh is a matter of fact and you'd be hard-pressed to find an academic outside of Vietnam who would deny this. Duiker (American), Brocheux (French), Quinn-Judge (American), and Huang (Chinese) are all historians who have done extensive research on Vietnam and whose works on Ho are regarded as authoritative both inside and outside Vietnam, all of their works acknowledged Ho's marriage with Tang. DHN (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @DHN: I already know that, but does Tang Tuyet Minh got anything to do with Ho being a Stalinist or Marxist-Leninist, as Nguyen1310 started a editwar for?--Zeraful (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * @Zera-ful: Look who's talking, the one who re-initiated the edit war, trying to deny that Ho was a communist and trying to glorify "thang Ho". You are one of the Hanoi communist regime's chuyen gia but chien, aren't you not one of the regime's lowly hired online propaganda propagators and informants? Search that up, and search up China's 50 Cent Party. Nguyen1310 (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, am I suppose to take this as an personal offence?. But still, as a fellow user I suggest you get an eye examination, since the whole talk page about Ho being a Stalinist was conducted by you and other people, not me. And if I remember correctly, it's already over so feel free to ask whether those users IPs and mine are the same or not. I can't figure a better way to make yourself look more idiotic than you already did.--Zeraful (talk) 09:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You cannot deny the truth, can't you? I believe you need to reread my response, as this whole discussion ended in the middle of last year, and you reignited it this year. Did i ever directly or implicitly connect you with the list of IP editors on this article and others? No, i haven't. You, my friend, has once again proved your lack of intelligence, lack of education, lack of honesty and trustworthiness, lack of good intentions, and denial of reality, as you've demonstrated in past edit wars you sparked throughout 2011 and 2012. Nguyen1310 (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Grammar corrections*****
A lot of the Hồ Chí Minh article is nearly unreadable. Can someone please proof read this? Check out the "Birth of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam" section. I don't think this section was written by a native English speaker. Please correct this. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorharry (talk • contribs) 12:51, 28 January 2012‎ (UTC)

Bad citation?
"From 1912–13, he lived in New York (Harlem) and Boston, where he worked as a baker at the Parker House Hotel. Among a series of menial jobs, he claimed to have worked for a wealthy family in Brooklyn between 1917–18, and for General Motors as a line manager."

"Quinn-Judge, Sophie. Hồ Chí Minh: The Missing Years" is sited as the source. I have the book and can not find a reference to Nguyễn Sinh Cung living in Boston or working for General Motors. While there is poor documentation about his life at this time the book cited does not seem to corroborate the claims. Also nothing appears in a Google Books search at http://books.google.com/books?id=XPMt03ckruUC.

Can someone confirm this and/or cite anything to support the claims that Nguyễn Sinh Cung lived in Boston or worked for GM? Thanks. 66.189.84.45 (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Could someone please confirm the above? I don't want to make such a major edit without someone agreeing with me. Thank You. BrianBeeler (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

"Nguyễn the Patriot” versus "Nguyễn who loves his country"
Doesn't Nguyễn Ái Quốc better translate to "Nguyễn who loves his country" better than "Nguyễn the Patriot?” I know this is small but it seems to be a better fit. A native speaker would be very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.84.45 (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Both of those mean the same thing. DHN (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Loving your country is the meaning of patriotism right? Nguyen1310 (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Translation is a tricky thing but Nguyen1310 has resolved it for me. Thank you for your input. One could argue there is a difference much as one could argue there is basically no difference. Seeing both started me on this question. Again, thank you for resolving it. BrianBeeler (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

CHORH4167324352
KJPOKNNIIK OI INK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.17.237 (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Expand!
This article is way too short for a such an important historical figure. It really should provide more info on his time as a guerrilla leader, his leadership of North Vietnam, and his role in the Vietnam War. After all, entire books, documentaries, and lectures have been done on him! Charles Essie (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Tang Tuyet Minh
About Tang Tuyet Minh, so far I have not seen any opposing views given in this article. Are there a scholar who claim that "Tang Tuyet Minh is not Ho Chi Minh's wife"? Are there officials who deny this statement? In contrast, in article Tang Tuyet Minh, there are at least 4 reputable scholars with their research works have mentioned this information. Then we can confirm that "Tang Tuyet Minh is Ho Chi Minh's wife".101.99.1.10 (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm wrong! Although there are scholars' research works that claim that Ho Chi Minh married Tang Tuyet Minh, but the most important thing - legal evidence - is exist! Ho Chi Minh himself states many times that he had no wife. Then this infomation is disputed! We can mention it in the artile, but we shouldn't put it in infobook! Sorry again, I will delete this infomation!101.99.1.10 (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ho Chi Minh City which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)