Talk:Land reform in North Vietnam

Title
Why is "The" in the title? Badagnani 05:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
This article badly needs to be reworked for compliance with Wikipedia's core policy on the neutral point of view. As it stands now it is full of controversial interpretation and opinion, and was clearly written in order to advance a particular view of the history it describes. -- Rbellin|Talk 19:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to have gone from right-wing propaganda to cold war debate. Radically different views are cited, and the reader has no way of figuring out what actually happened. Better than nothing, but clearly not something you'd find in a normal encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.151.180.207 (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

dabconcept what?
I don't understand the "dabconcept" note in the head of the article. Can you please explain in other words? --Erel Segal (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Changed "Official Sources"
Original read 172,000 "executed" without providing a page number. Digging around, I tracked down multiple Vietnamese discussions of the source. It is crystal clear that the source talks about CLASSIFICATION, NOT EXECUTION! All we need now is a page number for these figures from 'The History of the Vietnamese Economy (2005)'. If anyone has access to the book please add a page number.

I just want to mention that this is an example for an absolutely outrageous error that would not have occurred had the NPOV policy been followed throughout the article. Sadly it is reflective of wikipedia's standards on lesser know Communist regimes, where quality scholarship is not easily available. Moral of the story: think twice, and check your sources before typing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.151.180.196 (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Lam Thanh Liem "interviews" and misrepresented source
To say that "a major authority" Lam Thanh Liem who "conducted multiple interviews" is an embellishment. In actuality Lam Thanh broached the topic of repression with TWO communist cadres, who then reportedly gave him the estimates. Why not just state the facts as Lam Thanh presents them? Of course "multiple interviews" makes the source sound more authoritative. If you do have a source for the "multiple interviews", you need to cite it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.109.16.154 (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Dubious?: Lam Thanh Lem also does not seem like the most reliable source either. Here's a verifiable assertion from Liem: "Vo Nhan Tri, at the request of the Hanoi government, wrote a book, Croissance économique de la Répubique démocratique du Vietnam (Economic Growth in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam). Having been given this task, the author was allowed to access the documents in the Prime Minister’s archives, where he “found and read a top-secret report on the number of communist cadres falsely accused and executed: 15,000.” Ho Chí Minh, in an attempt to hide the truth, reduced this number to 10,000 when he addressed an assembly of Party members, confessing to having killed a number of “innocent victims.” “Of course, this number of so-called ‘innocent victims’ would be much greater,” according to Vo Nhan Trí."

Vo Nhan Tri's [https://books.google.com/books?id=Y7htC9I_J34C&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Nh%C3%A2n+Tr%C3%AD+V%C3%B5%22&hl=en&sa=X&output=reader&pg=GBS.PA44.w.1.1.0 Vietnam's Econ. Pol. since 1975], discusses this document at some length and clearly states that it refers to the total number of "innocent victims" executed. Never is there even a hint about them being party members. Vo Nhan Tri's Croissance économique de la Répubique démocratique du Vietnam was published by Éditions en langues étrangères:Hanoi in 1967 (the author worked as an economist for and in the DRV during the 1960's). Hanoi would not have subsidized the leaking of damaging classified documents, so this volume cannot possibly contain the above claim.

There is a huge difference between 15,000 innocent party members and 15,000 innocent people, but Liem does not seem to care enough to check. The former claim apparently sounded better to Liem (and to his editor, Frech conservative ideologue J F Revel). So that's one verifiable claim from Liem. What of his non-verifiable claims? I think a dubious tag is warranted, and perhaps an eventual replacemnent an analogous claim (example: Arthur Dommen's refrence to 32,000 executions from a "former cadre" (p.340) sourced to "Land Reform, Rectification of Errors and Intellectual Dissent in North Viet nam, 1954–56,” Saigon Embassy to State, Airgram A-268, November 21, 1973, RG 59, NARA." Of course the source is Saigon and this must be clearly stated (need to be fair: would we trust Hanoi on the topic of human rights violation in the South?), but at least it's not outlandish and is cited in a notable work. Guccisamsclub (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Need feedback on this, since we appear to be the only editors remaining.
 * First of all, I don't get any of your pings unless you sign your comments. As I said before, I believe that the 15,000 figure likely refers to communist cadre rather than the total number of wrongly executed victims, based on the ratio of communist cadre to overall victims discussed in numerous sources as well as the fact that the 15,000 were reportedly given proper funerals during the "Rectification of Errors" campaign. Beyond that, I don't feel I have much to add at this time, except that Liem's comment is slightly ambiguous, in that he may not necessarily be quoting Croissance when discussing the internal report.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you read any of the relevant sources ? Let's see:
 * Gittinger, 118 channeling Time:  "The regime admitted that 30 percent of the persons convicted as landlords were erroneously condemned.[32] The appalling human cost of the land reform can only be guessed. One Hanoi magazine admitted, "people were arrested, jailed, interrogated, and cruelly tor- tured; people were executed or shot out of hand and their property confiscated. Innocent children of parents wrongly classified as landlords were starved to death."[33] Another publication reported, "the countryside was full of altars and mourning widows wearing white turbans around their heads." Some 12,000 "falsely accused" peasants were freed, and an estimated 15,000 men who had been killed were offered decent graves and public funerals.[34] But these figures represent only those later adjudged to have been victims of error; how many "landlords" were killed but not regretted is not known. {Citations: [32] Nhan Dan, August 13, 1957. [33] Nhan Van (Hanoi), November 5, 1956. [34] Quoted in Time (Pacific Edition), July 1, 1957, p. 13.}"
 * Time channeling itself:  "Righting the Wrongs. Reviewing the disaster, Hanoi newspapers confessed: "We have killed friends, struck comrades. The countryside was full of funeral altars and mourning widows wearing white turbans around their heads." Twelve thousand "falsely accused" peasants were freed; rehabilitated landlords were promised their land back. For some 15,000 men who had been tortured and flung into common graves, the regime offered decent graves and public funerals. Comrades executed by "mistake" were posthumously declared "national heroes." {Citations: none} 
 * Dommen, channeling Saigon communique: 12,000 party members and 20,000 others killed. If anything, you can start musing about the supposed similarities Dommen/Saigon's 12,000 and Gittinger/Nhan Dan's "12,000 "falsely accused" peasants were freed"


 * So you can plainly see that the estimated 15,000 figure from Time, if you take it seriously, is exactly the same as Vo Nhan Tri's (VietEconPolSince1975), who again says nothing about "15,000 innocent party members". Croissance almost certainly does not contain the claim, since it's a book published by Hanoi at a time of war. It may well be an honest publication, but not to point of leaking classified documents implying a large scale bloodbath. According to all available evidence, Lam Thanh Liem is brazenly misrepresenting his source - he even quotes "innocent victims" - to imply far higher death tolls.


 * It's really comical, all those duplicate and fraudulent citations in this article after the "30% dead comrades" claim. In reality, it all boils down to Dommen/Saigon (NOT Gittinger/Nhan Danh) . Final input?Guccisamsclub (talk) 04:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Readers Digest Article
The Reader's Digest piece cites no sources relevant to this page. Furthermore, it is heavily propagandistic in tone and published in the American mass media at the height of the war. Naturally the article does not discuss the human rights violations by the US and its allies. Due to the availability of scholarly sources, I see no reason to cite Reader's Digest. One might as well cite Russia Today to get "the real facts" about Ukraine. This is clearly in violation of Wikipedia's policy on sources. Let's discuss this, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.109.16.154 (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

good job
removing the few citation needed, page number needed, dubious source tags. Who needs scholarship when youre writing a propaganda puff piece, masquerading as an encyclopedia article. Also who cares than Dang Phong's book never stated that 170,000 were executed, only that they were classified as landlords. Just make sure to nobody corrects the glaring error and you have your "communist bloodbath" wrapped up and ready for public consumption. This is where wikipedia breaks down entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:190:4000:8100:981F:5E3D:DD86:16C3 (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The "official 172,008 executions" claim
Sigh. Do we have to go through all this to delete an unsourced claim? To put it in meme-speak: 'One does not simply claim that 172,008 people were executed'. To so by misrepresenting the source ( Economic History of Vietnam, edited by Dang Phong) is to lose credibility for all eternity. I will delete all mentions of this canard and move them to the talk page for future reference.

So just how ridiculous is this claim?

—

We are to take it on faith that (a) Dang Phong's book contains this claim and (b) Dang Phong's book endorses this claim as correct. Whoever injected this story into the article did not provide a page number, and it seems like its more than an "oops, i forgot'. It is very likely that the story is simply gleaned from the numerous websites run by Vietnamese exiles, all of which simply repeat the claim without proving that it can be sourced to Dang Phong's book. It is difficult to get a hold of Dang Phong's book and the claim is discussed in exactly 0 scholarly journal published in english. So at the moment the "official 172,008 executions" can only be attributed to some anti-communist bloggers. Now let's back up and think about what the claim means. It means that:

(a) the number of executions is much higher than most previous scholarly estimates as well as the cold war estimates of the CIA and the South Vitnamese government, which were responsible for playing up the bloodbath story in the first place.

(b) the Vietnamese government has freely admitted to being little better than Pol Pot. 172,000 out 14,000,000 = 1.2% executed. This is one of the highest internal execution rates in all of human history. Much higher than Stalin's Great Purge and about 10 times higher than the Chinese land Reform. So this is a claim that strains rational belief and threfore requires exceptionally stong evidence. No such evidence has been provided, but this is apparently no problem for the ever credulous wikipedians.

—

Now lets take the look at some of the anti-communist websites that make the claim.

[A] Here is the only the only english article i could find that actually discusses how it arrives at the claim. Read this very carefully:

''"The government of the SRV [Socialist Republic of Vietnam], however, does not provide the complete statistical information, including the actual number of executions, and it is likely that this number will never be known accurately. Nevertheless, the government of the SRV provides statistics regarding the landowners and the classification. According to data provided by the government of the SRV, the total number of landowners was 172,008 of which 123,266 were wrongly treated (“bị oan”) (Đặng 2005, 85). Although the government of the SRV never states whether the number 172,008 represents the total number of landowners or the total number of executed landowners, it is clear that the number 172,008 is the total number of executed landowners. This is because the total number of landowners was much higher than 172,008 based on calculations from the information provided by the government of the SRV. There are 3,314 villages with 10 million people (ibid.). During the rectification of errors, the government of the SRV admitted that they set the percentage of landowners to be 5.68% of the local population (ibid.). Accordingly, with a population of 10 million, 5.68% would equal 568,000 landowners. Since it is clear that there were 568,000 landowners as set by the government, the number 172,008 cannot be the total number of landowners; therefore, the number 172,008 has to be the total number of executed landowners. This number is also consistent with the number 170,000"''

--So there you have it. I'm pretty sure that if the 'official Vietnamese' source wanted to say that "172,008 were executed" it would have said so. It is still unclear exactly what the Vietnamese source says, but you can always use boneheaded logic to make the source "confess".

[B] Here's another article, this time from the Vietnamese 'vanews.org'. The source repeats the wilder bloodbath estimates, but I helpfully discusses Dang Phong and even provides a scanned copy of the page:

''Recently Deng Feng, editor of the book History of Vietnam Economy from 1945 to 2000, giving statistics are 172 008 people with local regulations Home or rich peasants, including 26 453 who were landowners strengthen their oppressors. The landlords who allegedly strengthen their oppressors were executed. Thus at least 26 453 people have been executed.'' [Google Translate]

[C] Here's another web article this ["the numbers speak" ] that purports to "prove" the claim:

Official statistics state posted in the economic history of Vietnam'' set two said that 172 008 people have been provided to the landlord and rich peasant, who is classified as an enemy of the people, was "digging roots, grub them take root" means not being shot on the spot, was also sentenced to prison and die in prison. [...]

''1956 was also the year that Mr Ho Chi Minh and the Labour party publicly recognized flaws in the process of implementing the land reform, and made ​​some disciplinary action and carry out corrective. The inventory Official said that the number of 172 008 people were provided as landlords and rich peasants in agrarian reform, the 123 266 people were provided false, ie being unfairly. Prorata is 71.66%. Perhaps there never was and where the ratio between the number of petitioners and the victims were high coming back like that. [...]

''Communist poet To Huu then it was propaganda chief of the central committee later recalled had to say: "I can not even describe the tragic scenes that people falsely accused of landlords, bad publicity (which in fact middle peasants) suffered in these places has been launched." [...]

According to the book History of Vietnam Economy 1945-2000 episode 2, written in the period from 1955 to 1975, published in Hanoi in 2004 (document new communist state of Vietnam) said the land reform 5th tranche (1955- 1956) was performed in 3.563 communes, around 10 million people, and the total number of people killed in this round of land reform to 172.008 people, of which 123.266 people (71.66%) were later confirmed killed Petitioners. (Google Translate)

--This author does not seem to know where to have it. Were 172,008 people "officially" executed, imprisoned, slandered or what? But the author is still claims elsewhere that Ho Chi Minh is worse than Hitler. Enough said.

—

'''So from the above, all we know for sure is that Dang Phong's book contains the claim that it was "172,000 something", but we don't seem know exactly what that something is. We will if we get to the source. Whatever the number represents, there is no evidence for it being the number of executions. The fact that this outrageous canard has remained on this page for so long truly says something about the quality of wikipedia. When it comes to the undisputed crimes/excesses/blunders of lesser known Communist Regimes, wikipedia's approach is to take the most outragious number availiable with no questions asked, all other scholarship be damned. I've already had to edit two other articles for this exact reason, replacing them with careful estimates by respected scholars. This is a very serious credibility issue.'''

Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Former North Vietnamese official Nguyen Minh Can told RFA that the figure referred to executions. This seems worthy of mention, as he would have been in a position to know. The lower conventional estimates ranging from 8,000-60,000 are also cited.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * When it comes to lesser-known Commie "bloodbaths", any claim will stick apparently, even after being proven wrong. Also your range of the "lower conventional estimates" includes some of the higher estimates produced during the cold war, including those of the US govt. This remains the range of reasonable estimates. But the first half of the article says "whatever, the range is actually 50-200 thousand". Apparently Fall's problematically deduced 50,000 (accepted by Nixon) is now considered DRV apologia. And we are already seeing an "at least 172,008" emerge. The larger point is wikipedia has become a warehouse for extreme claims not fit to be published in any scholarly journal. Unless you have something more constructive, I don't plan on discussing this further. The the case for rewriting the article is overwhelming and I will do so if I get the time. I will certainly delete the false claim I discussed. Anyhow, see my analysis of the RFA source below if you're interested — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guccisamsclub (talk • contribs) 05:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

172,008, again (RFA source fakery)
What exactly is so difficult to understand? The "official" source (Dang Phong) does not contain the claim that 172,008 were executed. All references to the source from anti-DRV websites prove that the source contains no such claim (btw, did you ever read the evidence I presented? Did you read part B?). When you cite a passage from a book you cite that actual passage, not sombody's opinion about that passage. This is doubly true if you are citing an "offical source". There is no ambiguity here.

Now lets turn to the very source you mention, RFA. The RFA series consists of an introduction in English and the main "expose" in Vietnamese. The introduction was NOT written by Nguyen Minh Can, only the multipart expose is. Nguyen Minh Can defected and naturally has an axe to grind. But lets's hear him (or rather his source) out:

""''1.Ngay 10,12.2005: On Announcement Topic No. 197 (May 11.2005), Vo Xuan Minh has discovered a remarkable thing, but we want to put, no comment, for your reference:

''In "Vietnam Economic History 1945-2000" by the Vietnam Economic Institute published, I wrote about the stage set 1945-1954 (662 pages thick), vol II, the period 1955-1975 (177 pages), (Volume III not out), have made the most obvious figure ever: there are 172 008 people are punished in land reform, of which 123 266 people were later officially confirmed that petitioners (accounting for 71.6% ). Yes it is in the book did not specify the numbers 172 008 people are killed or trial.

''Vo Xuan Minh to make assumptions that he believes are unfounded: numbers 172 008 people were murdered in land reform. He argues that: the book mentioned above have been made that land reform in 3563 commune with a population of 10 million, that percentage is specified prior landlord is 5.68% (page 85, volume II), and the Group Land reform and the team are trying to speed up rate coercion landlords to 5% as a prescribed mandatory (page 86, volume II), so the total number of landowners who are considered to be on trial is over 500,000 people, not 172,008. So to understand that numbers 172 008 people are killed in the more than 500,000 were on trial.

''Vo Xuan Minh also pointed out that among 172,008 victims given in the table, there are statistics indicate 586 people belonging to the resistance, if compared with the report of the politburo, the party members "were management" up up to 84,000 people, so obviously the numbers 586 people belonging to the Resistance is the number killed, and 172 008 people figures presented in statistical tables are also some people killed. Political Department report confirmed: "thousands of party members have made great contributions was treated unfairly, have a very cruel punishment barbaric".

''Statistical tables given in "Vietnam Economic History 1945-2000" specify: 172 008 victims of the evil landlord bullies - 26 453 people, including 20 493 who were unjustly (77.4%) landlords often - 82 777 people, including 51 480 who were unjustly (62.1%) landowner resistance - 586 people, 290 people were unjustly (49.4%), rich peasants - 62 192 people, including 51 003 who were unfairly (82 %)

Total: 172 008 victims, including 123 266 people suffering from injustice (71.6%)." 1

Now hopefully this footnote settles once and for all that Dang Phong's "official" volume contains no claim that 170,008 were executed. But here we have the origin of the whole claim, which is very interesting.

Note that this footnote does not contain Nguyen Minh Can's own analysis, so his authority cannot be invoked. What we have here is, if I am not mistaken, Nguyen Minh Can reproducing the original author's (????) discussion of a certain Vo Xuan Minh's "reinterpretation" of the original analysis and data, which is then spun in RFA's introduction as "over 170,000 killed". The original author (???) does not appear to endorse this "reinterpretation" of his data. It's hard to tell, but I certainly don't see any endorsement. If this emphatically unofficial reinterpretation of the the original source is correct, then the official source is wrong. One can't have it both ways. If you read closely however, you will find that this "reinterpretation" (attributable only to Vo Xuan Minh, whoever he is) engages in truly staggering leaps of logic. (Example: every single landowner was on trial ... ok, if you say so.) Vo Xuan Minh's claim is truly extraordinary (I've already discussed why) and it needs stronger evidence, as well as at least some elaboration and debate, before it can be regarded as anything other than a fringe hypothesis.

'''===RE: Vo Xuan Minh. Quite probably (according to Bing Translate) he is just some guy who wrote a comment to Nguyen Minh Can's own article, and Ngyen is reproducing its main points. If that's the case, wow what a joke. You can check Ngyen's website for another copy of this footnote here'''

As for the actual RFA intro, it wastes no time on examining sources and magically tranforms "classified" into "killed": "It [Dang Phong ed.] says 71.66 percent of victims were wrongly classified."

"More than 172,000 people died during the North Vietnam campaign after being classified as landowners and wealthy farmers, official records of the time show."

"Unofficial estimates range from 200,000 to 900,000" 2

Elsewhere on RFA (if you do a search for 172,008) you can find gems like this, which again puncture the "executed" myth: "Official statistics indicated that among 172 008 or be branded as landlords and rich peasants in agrarian reform, the 123 266 people who were prescribed the wrong, which is suffering from injustice." 3

I've wasted enough time wading though the mountains of crap articles making this claim. Everytime they discussed it in detail they admitted that the claim had no "official" standing. It's even worse than Rummell's numbers because at least Rummel does not falsely claim that his numbers are "official". Anythow, people are always entitled to their own facts, but they are not entitled post them to wikipedia. As it stands this wiki article is about as scholarly as flame war on reddit. But some people will mistake it for an encyclopedia article and become terribly misinformed. Guccisamsclub (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Consolidate referencences in a reflist?
The article has a very large concentration of references. Some of these are quite long. I would like to start consolidating these into a reflist, because reading the markup in its current form is very painful. Any objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guccisamsclub (talk • contribs) 23:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Other victims of repression
Naturally, execution does not exhaust the topic of repression. Substantive discussion from credible and non-hysterical sources about the victims of harsh imprisonment, isolation, humiliation, suicide etc. needs to be added. Of course many were rehabilitated, but some never lived to see the day or had their lives irreperably damaged.Guccisamsclub (talk) 05:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

causes and effects of land reform
Land reform affected the livelihoods of millions of poor and middle peasants. How does their position before and after land reforms compare? How did village life and society change? What were the driving factors of the reform? The article has nothing to say about any of this (an accurate title for the current article would be "Numbers executed during land reform").Guccisamsclub (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi ! I welcome your contributions. This article would benefit from some Vietnamese sources. Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to delete article
The main article Land reform in Vietnam covers the same ground at this article -- and better. I would propose that this article be deleted. I don't know how to delete an article, but perhaps somebody could look into it? Smallchief (talk 14:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I'm resposible for most of the recent edits on this page and I think the article should instead be moved to a sandbox. I don't care where the article ends up, but I think it'd be wise to preserve it for future reference. The article's history and talk page contain valuable info about which sources NOT to use and why. It is likely that new editors - unaware of the previous disputes and consensus - will come along and try to insert the same fraudulent and/or fringe claims into the new article. And, as the edit history shows, there is no shortage of fringe claims and fanatical editors on this topic. So this article and its talk page may prove handy in resolving future disputes. The current version also contains some sources which may be useful for the new article (e.g. Vo Nhan Tri). consult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Moving_a_page to see how/if it can be done. I can't help you with the move myslef as I've forefeited my editing privileges for a few months to take a break from wikipedia. Technically I shouldn't even be posting here, but can't help myself. Cheers! 200.74.242.202 (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would disagree that the topic of the North Vietnamese land reform is not independently notable. I also believe that your article is a whitewash relying on official communist propaganda statistics, and that higher estimates of 30,000-60,000 killed are supported by reliable academic sources and not debunked by said communist propaganda. The admission that 5.68% of the population was classified as landlords confirms the basic accuracy of Turner's account, and even if (testimony of former North Vietnamese official Nguyen Minh Can notwithstanding) the 172,000 figure from The History of the Vietnamese Economy refers to the total number of landlords persecuted rather than executed it does more to undermine the apologists than support them. The fact that 14,000 people were targeted for execution during the start of the "rent reduction" does not allow Moise to simply repeatedly revise his original estimate upwards and then act as though 13,500 is the maximum, rather than the absolute bare minimum supported entirely on wishful thinking, for the whole campaign. North Vietnam publicly admitted to carrying out 50,000 executions at the time, when Nhan Dan stated that 15,000 individuals were wrongfully executed and that this number constituted only 30% of the the total. Balazs Szalontai theorizes that the North Vietnamese authorities inflated the death toll to obscure the "disproportionately high percentage [of wrongful executions]", which he puts at over 70% of the total (citing History of the Vietnamese Economy, even though our friend above, Guccisamsclub editing as an IP, simultaneously argues that the figures in the book have nothing to do with executions), and which "would have damaged the regime's legitimacy to an even greater extent than a high absolute number of unjust executions." However, the limited and fragmentary evidence available is consistent with the notion that both figures from Nhan Dan are correct, do not contradict Dang Phong, and that "innocent victims" is likely a euphemism for the "accidental" execution of communist cadre (which Turner and others suggest was really a calculated purge to rid the party of populist elements it had acquired during the war with France). Of course, one could also assume that Nhan Dan was acting as an apologist, and that the real figures for executions, innocent victims, and the percentage of wrongful executions were all far higher than admitted at the time. Either way, you have no consensus to sweep this under the rug.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a few comments: Turner was writing in the 1970s when info about Vietnam, pro or anti communist, was highly politicized with little reliable information. Moreover, he worked for the Hoover Institution which was (and perhaps still is) very anti-communist.  Thus, I think his biases need to be considered when assessing his reliability. Similarly, there are leftist sources such as Porter who to my mind have little or no credibility.
 * Secondly, you cite Szalontai as supporting your position. That's incorrect. Szalontai says: "These data seem to refute the statements which estimate the total number of victims at 50,000 (or even higher).  Instead, they support the claims of Moise" -- Moise being the source of the lower estimate of less than 15,000 executions.  Moise seems to be stating what is the consensus of reliable authorities about the victims of land reform -- as opposed to earlier and wilder claims on both sides of the ideological fence.
 * For those who support the "bloodbath" thesis regarding North Vietnamese land reform, an estimate of 13,500 executions is sufficient to justify the characterization of "bloodbath." There is no need to exaggerate. 13,500 deaths is a damning statistic -- not a whitewash. Smallchief (talk  01:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Our old friend TTAAC's intervention is indeed a good illustration for why some record of the article should be kept. Perhaps he does have a point about the Cold War narrative being underrepresented in your article. We could (er... I can't, but you can) mention the famous 50,000 figure from Bernard Fall by way of compromise. I wouldn't go further that. But mainly, TTAAC shows that the old errors - for which he was in no small part responsible - persist with a vengeance. He brings up the 172,000 kill count, which an earlier version of this article claimed was an "official admission" by Dang Phong. This was a flat out fabrication, coming from people who never bothered to read or even investigate the purported "source". I put a lot of effort into debunking this idiocy and it's kinda galling to see it dredged up again. And again,  it 's not "Nguyen Minh Can's testimony". It was some random dude who commented on some article by  Nguyen Minh Can. Nguyen Minh Can simply republished this worthless comment "without comment" and the claim then percolated down to dozens of crackpot blogs run by Vietnamese exiles. All this has been amply documented. Some sources indeed.  Next, TTAAC asserts that the DRV "admitted to 50,000" land reform executions. This is the figure from Bernard Fall, Richard Nixon and Robert Turner, based on refugee interviews conducted in South Vietnam. So this is outlandish nonsense. The only official admission came from Ho Chi Minh, who estimated 10,000 executions in an interview (see Vo Nhan Tri's footnote, first chapter). Next, 15,000 executions is NOT NHAN DANH - IT IS TIME MAGAZINE's ARTICLE "LAND OF THE WEEPING WIDOWS"... SEE THE TALK PAGE... HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO GO OVER THIS? TTAAC, read the sources before typing. Next, TTAAC states that "wrongful executions were only 30% of the total" without mentioning the source because again ... there isn't one. The closest one is a Saigon communique that reports that 12,000 out of 30,000 executed were party members. But there is a source on wrongful convictions (which may be broader than just imprisonment and execution - I can't read Vietnamese) and it comes from Dang Phong and is corroborated by Szalontai's research: over 70% of all convictions were erroneous. Again, you have a computer, so read the damn sources. Finally TTAAC, who is a flaming cold warrior (a fact, not an insult), indulges in some McCarthyism, labeling any documentary evidence he dislikes "communist propaganda". TTAAc, you've been pushing same silliness over at Talk:Cambodian Genocide Denial (and I am sure a dozen other pages), labelling genocide scholars whom you dislike "communists". This says more about you than it does about the people you're red-baiting. In any case it carries no weight whatsoever. I also had an exchange with Szalontai over at his talk page, which TTAAC does not represent accurately.


 * So to sum up, I don't see why TTAAC's opinion here should be taken into consideration. Yes, he was involved with the article previously. So was some some flaming Vietnamese exile editor who had South Vietnamese flags plastered all over his userpage. Both have been responsible for spewing sloppy and unsourced propaganda all over this page, in varying degrees. TAAC, you certainly know a lot about Indochina. Problem is that you only know what you want to know and - as your post amply demonstrates - a lot of it ain't so.  Gucci@31.130.204.145 (talk) 03:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Er...no...the 30% figure is from Nhan Dan, August 13, 1957, as cited in Gittinger, "Communist land policy in Vietnam". Ho Chi Minh's estimate was only for the fraction of executions that were of "innocent victims"/party cadre, as you well know. Nguyen Minh Can was interviewed by Radio Free Asia. Ect.
 * @Smallchief: Read more carefully. I was challenging an argument Szalontai made on the talk page of his Wikipedia account (User:Hungarian historian), which I provided a link to so you could look into the matter more closely.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

. Read over this carefully and save yorself some grief. I already got carpal tunnel and have nothign to lose.

TTAAC is correct that there does exist a “30% wrongly convicted as landlords” figure and it comes from Nhan Dan, August 13, 1957. We’ve discussed this before, on Szalotai’s page but I had somehow forgotten about it. I and Szalontai had agreed that this figure was almost certainly an understatement. Subsequent evidence from Dang Phong and the Hungarian archives (all this is in print, in reliable sources) indicates that the true figure is over 70%. Contrary to TTAAC, Szalotai does NOT cite Dang Phong, he relies on independent Hungarian archival evidence. The reason TTAAC harps on about the 30% is that it can be used to imply a higher kill count if the number of innocent victims is known. I should also note that TTAAC consistently muddles the distinction between “innocent victims” and “party members”, which is reflective of his sloppiness with source material. The same goes for his musings about Dang Phong. Infuriating sloppiness. But since this is all OR, it's best left to the experts. The opinions of random Wikipedians carry no weight whatsoever. It’s a side note anyway.

Everything else was and remains wrong:


 * First the claim that Nhan Dan admitted “15,000” innocent deaths.” is a flat out falsehood. Gittinger states:
 * The appalling human cost of the land reform can only be guessed. One Hanoi magazine admitted, "people were arrested, jailed, interrogated, and cruelly tor- tured; people were executed or shot out of hand and their property confiscated. Innocent children of parents wrongly classified as landlords were starved to death."33 Another publication reported, "the countryside was full of altars and mourning widows wearing white turbans around their heads." Some 12,000 "falsely accused" peasants were freed, and an estimated 15,000 men who had been killed were offered decent graves and public funerals.34 But these figures represent only those later adjudged to have been victims of error; how many "landlords" were killed but not regretted is not known. Footnotes: 34 Quoted in Time (Pacific Edition), July 1, 1957, p. 13.
 * Gitinger’s source is Land of the Mourning Widows, Time 1957:
 * Righting the Wrongs. Reviewing the disaster, Hanoi newspapers confessed: "We have killed friends, struck comrades. The countryside was full of funeral altars and mourning widows wearing white turbans around their heads." Twelve thousand "falsely accused" peasants were freed; rehabilitated landlords were promised their land back. For some 15,000 men who had been tortured and flung into common graves, the regime offered decent graves and public funerals. Comrades executed by "mistake" were posthumously declared "national heroes."
 * So first of all, there is only one clear-cut source for the claim and that's Time. Second, the Time piece cites no sources for the "15,000 dead innocents", and TTAAC has no right to assume that it comes from Vietnamese officials just because there is a quote from the party newspaper close to it. All this has already been discussed.


 * Next, TTAAC asserts that “Ho Chi Minh's estimate was only for the fraction of executions that were of "innocent victims"/party cadre”. A nice conflation of innocents/party cadres again. I don’t know how he keeps coming with this stuff. This is what Ho Chi minh actually said in an interview with Ernst Utrecht in March 1959 :
 * I asked Paman He what he thought of the news in the Western press telling the world that land reform in both the People's Republic of China and Vietnam was carried out with much bloodshed. Paman He got a bit excited and warned me not to be trapped by vulgar anti-communist propaganda. "It is true that between 1953 and 1957 quite a number of people were killed, perhaps 10,000 persons. But these were ruthless landlords, diehards whom we had kindly requested, at the first stage of the implementation of the land reform regulations, to give up voluntarily their surplus land. […]


 * TTAAC just won’t let the “172,000 dead” nonsense go. I won't let it slide either. There is no there there. This is what Can told the RFA:
 * “Suddenly they implemented a land reform by sending groups of officials to the countryside, and giving them the freedom to classify and accuse people as landowners at will. An additional number of 172,000 people became victims,” he said.
 * "I am talking about the number of wrongly tried victims that were seriously depressed and furious to the extent that they had to commit suicide. This number was in fact not small. In my opinion this consequence was very serious. It has given a terrible fright to the people," Can added.
 * He might be implying that each of these 172,000 "victims" had been killed or had committed suicide. But he doesn’t say anything of the kind directly. A victim can be a lot of things. If we just take what he says at face value, he’s just repeating the total number of “victims” given by Dang Phong, who is the authoritative source for this number and – for the millionth’s damn time - says nothing about executions.
 * Whatever goes on Nguyen Minh Can’s head (and who really cares?), one thing is absolutely clear: Can is not the ultimate source for the “172,000 dead”. The ultimate source for that is Vo Xuan Minh, who is just a random Vietnamese exile. Vo Xuan Minh saw 172,000 in Dang Phong’s well-known book, decided that it was the number killed and wrote a comment to one of Nguyen Minh Can’s articles. Nguyen Minh Cahn read this comment and though “maybe he has a point” let me republish his comment as a footnote in my article at RFA, without comment. Yeah, that’s some first rate scholarship! Nguyen Minh Cahn did not add anything to this claim. This is emphatically not a case of “defector reveals shocking secrets”. More like “defector heard about some shocking secrets from his bartender”. Of course the claim that any government would admit to having murdered such a huge number of largely innocent people (relative to population) is on the face of completely ludicrous. It's like 911 conspiracy theories: the evidence better be good. "Some guy says so" doesn't cut it.


 * Other silliness by TTAAC in this thread: the DRV “admitted 50,000 executions” during land reform. I don’t know how anyone remotely aware of the topic can write such nonsense.


 * As far as the thread on Szalontai’s page goes, go ahead and read that exchange. It follows the same pattern: TTAAC barges in and starts an argument with people who have carefully studied the sources. He himself either did not read or misinterpreted the crucial source material. For instance, he confidently asserted that Vo Nhan Tri referred to 15,000 executed innocent party members. It did not matter that I had read the source and he hadn't. Or that the the source actually said "15,000 innocent people", which is a major difference.

I don't know how it's even possible to cram such a large number of errors into a single post, but TTAAC does not disappoint. Just about every verifiable claim is false. What's truly bizarre is the sheer hubris and tenacity with which TTAAC pushes his line. It's a pattern with him. He can't be bothered to carefully review the sources and and the factual mistakes pile up. But it doesn't matter, because he's always right and everyone else is a commie, including professional scholars. Look I don't care who you are politically, but if you lack an elementary level of humility and are incapable of examining the evidence, you are just trolling.

And of course the accusation that Moise (or Michael Lind and numerous others, all well-known commies) is trying to sweep the bloodbath under the rug is idiotic. 13,500 killed (though its not the last word by any means) is bloody enough for me thanks very much. However people who wish to justify the American intervention in Indochina and the millions of corpses it left behind need far higher numbers. That's the dynamic of modern atrocity propaganda that started with WWI. What's interesting is how many corpses are considered "enough". For example for Stalin, 15,000,000 excess deaths is considered "apologetics" by many. For Mao, some will not be satisfied with anything less than 70 million. What, 40,000,000? How dare you say Mao was a harmless teddy bear? The bloodthirstiness is pretty amazing. But when you have plenty of skeletons in your own closet, the knowledge that your neighbor might have far more can be very comforting. Gucci@ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.171.57.74 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've called no-one a commie. I've said that Moise relies on official communist sources, which he claims are reliable.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "I also believe that your article is a whitewash relying on official communist propaganda statistics, and that higher estimates of 30,000-60,000 killed are supported by reliable academic sources and not debunked by said communist propaganda." Well, at least the "propaganda" that the new article cites actually exists! In a previous exchange, you called the Cambodian genocide a fabrication by "communist scholars". And this was in reference to scholarship that documents Khmer Rouge atrocities, but does not meet your stringent ideological criteria. Look, there is no use denying that you have tendency to engage in red-baiting, which you often push to absurd extremes, as a way of dismissing valid sources and points of view that rub you the wrong way. Once you veer in that direction, you shut off any possibility of constructive dialogue based on the the evidence. Gucci@81.171.75.149 (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

On the limitations of Moise's methods and argument
See Alex Thai-Vo's Nguyễn Thị Năm and the Land Reform in North Vietnam, 1953—a horrifying account of the barbaric show trial and execution of the "Mother of the Resistance" on completely fictional charges, and Ho Chi Minh's direct complicity in the same—which notes that Moise's treatment of the Chinese land reform is far more rigorous than his analysis of its Vietnamese counterpart: "Relying on the "errors and deviations" paradigm put forward by the VWP leaders and in Trần Phương's examination of the land reform, Moise suggested that the Party did not advocate the widespread killing, and that the radicalization of the campaign resulted from the undisciplined reform cadres who acted on their own and against the wishes of the Party. ... [Moise] did not take into account the significant influence of the 1950-1952 Party reorganization campaign [chỉnh đảng] or the 1953 political consolidation of the army campaign [chỉnh quân], whereby the Party, under the guidance of Chinese advisers, carried out sweeping campaigns of criticism [phê bình] and self-criticism [tựphê bình] to purify both the Party and the army. These purification campaigns were meant to reeducate [cảitạo] and channel the thoughts of officers and soldiers along the Party line to prepare for the land reform that the Party planned to carry out in the winter of 1952–1953. During these campaigns and throughout the land reform period, party officials, soldiers, and reform cadres were regularly provided with directives, orders, lessons, songs, poems, and stories to foster class consciousness and instill in them hatred for the landowner class. Considering the propaganda effects of these campaigns, it is thus difficult to conclude that the excesses and errors committed during land reform stemmed from miscommunication and misinterpretation alone. ... although Moise's study on the Chinese reform program used a range of sources in several languages, his study of Vietnam relied on only sixteen Vietnamese sources—especially Trần Phương's—all of which were Party-sponsored. ... He even cited aspects of the justification promoted by Hồ Chí Minh and the VWP leaders, which placed the blame for the errors committed during land reform on deviations between policies and implementation." Although the author does not offer his own estimate of the death toll (and is guilty of perpetuating a misrepresentation of President Nixon's estimate, caused by the addition of an extra zero to the transcript of one of Nixon's speeches by The New York Times), he does note that "more than two thousand document files and three hundred booklets on the land reform are housed in the Vietnam National Archive III and the Vietnam National Library," thus "without intensively probing this information, it is difficult—even irresponsible—for anyone to make a definite claim." In the footnotes, we learn that "In a recent exchange with the author of this article ... Moise acknowledged the limitation of his sources and argument, particularly [given] the violent and costly nature of the campaign, and suggested that further research should be done to better understand North Vietnam's land reform."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've skimmed this article before and it's pretty good. But I'm curious where you found mention of "Ho Chi Minh's direct complicity". Though he seems to have voted for it, Ho Chi Minh had protested against the decision, repeatedly and vehemently. The reason he voted for it is made quite explicit:"“I will follow the majority, but I still think it is not right.” If that statement seems bizarre, you might want to read up on what "voting" meant under so-called democratic centralism. I also don't know where you got the idea that the charges against the "Mother of the Resistance" were completely fictitious. Do we even know what the charges were exactly? (again, I've only skimmed the paper you linked) Note that this is separate from the question of whether or not she deserved the punishment, or of whether the trial itself was worthy of the name. One can assume that all trials in communist countries were copies of the Moscow trials -- but somebody else might like to assume that "at the root of every great fortune is a crime".
 * Of course you are probably the impression that Ho Chi Minh was another Stalin, who could pardon or liquidate at the stroke of a pen. I don't think there is any evidence to support that view, and plenty of evidence to show that Uncle Ho was not at all the "director" of the land reform campaign. Indeed Moise is incorrect on the question of foreign influence, though I don't have access to his book and can't quote him directly. The influence of the Chinese comrades was so strong, that even their 1:1000 execution quota was copied down to the decimal point. How it was applied in practice is another matter, naturally. And as far as we know, the Vietnamese experience was considerably less bloody than the Chinese one in relative terms (in China the 1:1000 ratio did not cover all or even most of the executions and reprisals).
 * Lastly, we are not relying on Moise only: Szalontai, Porter, Politburo Directive of '53, Ho Chi Minh's testimony, and even Saigon (as quoted in Dommen) all support the view that the number of executions was far less than the largely baseless estimates of 50,000-100,000-500,000-700,000-900,00 bandied about by American propagandists and/or some Vietnamese exiles.Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * + The criticisms of Moise are basically valid. Relying on on on official sources obviously presents a problem. But it is preferable to relying on no sources or relying on individual "eye-witnesses" to make quantitative claims. So the article you linked correctly identifies the problem, but notes that there is no easy solution.Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears you only skimmed the parts where the author summarizes your view, while ignoring the bits where he refutes it. Vo's thesis is that Ho Chi Minh's alleged "protests" against the execution (including your cherry-picked quote) are likely fictitious, apocryphal, and an attempt to preserve his saintly image in Vietnamese propaganda: "Considering the legal documents issued and communications exchanged during the land reform, if Hồ Chí Minh had overseen the development of policies in those secret Politburo meetings, chosen the cadres to carry out the pilot program, and read the declaration to commence the campaign, would he not have been able to choose who to execute and who not to? Simply put, if he could not save Nguyễn Thị Năm, who could have?" Indeed, "Uncle Ho" wrote an editorial denouncing Nam shortly after her execution, and may even have attended her trial! (Nam was accused of murdering hundreds of peasants and collaborating with the French and Japanese imperialists, charges that appear to have no connection to reality whatsoever.)
 * "The Vietnamese experience was considerably less bloody than the Chinese one in relative terms." Perhaps, but here's another of Vo's comments that you might have overlooked: "Once the head of a land-owning family was arrested, the cadres would fabricate accusations to pressure the family, primarily to extort money and jewelry. In addition to losing property and enduring humiliation and mistreatment, the land-owners' family members were also isolated from everyone. Since they were prohibited from working outside the house, many died of starvation." According to Hoang Van Chi, this "policy of isolation" accounts for approximately 90% of the death toll: I wouldn't call Chi's estimate of 500,000 deaths particularly credible without hard evidence that is unlikely ever to emerge, because people don't just drop dead like flies, but you should at least know what it is based on. The "bloodbath" proponents never conceded that executions were the leading cause of death.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "It appears you only skimmed the parts where the author summarizes your view." — point taken.
 * "Chi's estimate of 500,000 ... but you should at least know what it is based on" — I do, but thanks for the note.Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * —Just FYI, I will re-expand the paragraph you trimmed—the one dealing with the derivation of the most recent estimate. Don't have time to do it now, but it will be along the following lines.
 * There is no need to rely so much on Vu's forum post. Hocombe contains the info you're looking for: he proposes 8,000 for the rent-reduction campaign by taking the population of the targeted areas from Moise and multiplying it by the "quota". Hocombe goes on to add that he suspects a higher ratio to have obtained in the latter phase, with another hypothetical quota being employed. Vu also wrote a book, where he he compared Vietnamese and Chinese experiences, citing Moise's unpublished paper for the former and one extremely outdated source for the latter (which lowballs the number substantially). Why he chose that source for China I have no idea—seems kind of careless... but anyway, that might be another citation.
 * The document with the execution quota is a nice find and more or less falls in line with the latest stuff from Moise and Szalontai, but as always there's wrench in the works. That document is from May 4th of '53, drafted before anyone had a clear idea about how things would play out and therefore contained all those "nice caveats" and hedges. But there is evidence from August of the same year that indicates a possible retreat from this quota and an attempt to contain the repressive apparatus:"Political Bureau decided in August 1953 to "narrow the attack." Specifically, each village was permitted to bring no more than three landlords before such denunciation sessions. The other landlords accused of crimes were to be allowed to undergo self-criticism before the Province Administrative Committee and then to admit their mistakes before the village Congress of Peasants' Representatives." (from Porter's "Myth of the Bloodbath"). Clearly, the excessive number of denunciations alarmed the Party leadership early on because it threatened their control over the process. Porter cites one or two other pieces of evidence that point in the same direction. But since the conclusions he draws about the total number repressed are erroneous, I'd have to reread Moise to figure out what Porter's data means. All this is potentially worth mentioning in the article, in modified form and without OR.
 * As I recall(!), Szalontai's article also casts doubt on the thesis that the latter radical phases were necessarily and uniformly more bloody. Reasons for that may include growing alarm at the top and the implementation of the Geneva Accord. After all they knew what was going on and—with the exception of Truong Chinh who had no concerns other than ramming his program through—didn't like some of what that they saw. Nonetheless, I know there is evidence—not just conventional wisdom—on the other side out there, but I don't seem to have it on hand.
 * So yeah, I'd have to carefully reread all these sources before adding content, since the lines here are very fine indeed. I do however think that your reliance on one forum post unduly oversimplifies the issue. You may wish to browse this material too if you plan to preempt/fill-in any of my blanks. (you can find everything on scihub)Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Land reform in North Vietnam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151120174444/http://123.30.190.43:8080/tiengviet/tulieuvankien/tulieuvedang/details.asp?topic=168&subtopic=463&leader_topic=981&id=BT19121236285 to http://123.30.190.43:8080/tiengviet/tulieuvankien/tulieuvedang/details.asp?topic=168&subtopic=463&leader_topic=981&id=BT19121236285

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of Hoang Van Chi as a source
After reading Gareth Porter’s 1973 article “The Myth of the bloodbath: North Vietnam's land reform reconsidered”, I reckon that anything sourced from Chi should be replaced or reviewed, since his background as a landlord plus the fact that he was a preschool teacher (not a DRV member as mentioned in the current article) before fleeing south seriously diminishes the reliability of his claims about the DRV’s activities. For one, he claimed a wholesale policy of terror was indiscriminately adopted against landlords, with the quote “Better kill ten innocent people than let one enemy escape.“ (which later turned out to have originated from Saigon) being used as evidence to show a bloodbath. This was not reflected in party policy, since in 1953 a Nhan Dan article had already stated: “The object of the struggle is not all the landowners but only those who refuse to abide by the policy, who refuse to reduce rents and debts," while those who essentially abided by the law, it added, "even though they have a few shortcomings," would be "pardoned.”

Adding to this, he also blatantly manipulated his information: most notably, when translating Giap’s acknowledgement of reform issues, he translates “the unjust disciplining of innocent people” as “executed too many honest people”, “repressive measures” as “terror”, and “coercive methods” as “torture” - significantly altering the meaning of the speech, especially when he adds that these methods “came to be regarded as normal practice during party reorganisation”, something Giap never said. This, plus his involvement in the Diem government’s psychological warfare activities makes his book untrustworthy.

He is to the subject of DRV land reform what David Irving is to the subject of the Holocaust: almost totally unreliable as a source. Portwineconsumer (talk) 10:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)