.jpg)
Photo credit: Eddie Adams (AP)
(This is the first of a multi-part series debunking liberal media myths about the Vietnam War.)
The Photo That Lost the War?
It’s one of the most famous images of the 20th century. Eddie Adams’ Pulitzer Prize winning 1968 photograph of an execution on a Vietnam street has been reprinted and reenacted countless times. In the film Stardust Memories, Woody Allen’s depressed character decorates his kitchen with a colossal mural of the image, to illustrate his angst. A post-modern artist recreated the iconic image in Lego.
However, few know the true story behind the photograph, which some cultural critics claim, then and now, “helped America lose the war.”
While lecturing on college campuses to promote his book Stalking the Vietnam Myth, author H. Bruce Franklin discovered that most students “were convinced the original photo depicted a North Vietnamese or communist officer executing a South Vietnamese civilian prisoner.”
However, the executioner was the chief of the South Vietnamese Police -- an American ally. The victim was a captured Vietcong insurgent whose comrades in arms had themselves been summarily executing anyone associated with the South Vietnamese and the Americans.
After killing the captured prisoner, the police chief told journalists, “Many Americans have been killed these last few days and many of my best Vietnamese friends. Now do you understand? Buddha will understand.”
The photograph helped make Eddie Adams famous, but he wished he’d never taken it. Due to its notoriety, the photo ruined the police chief’s life, turning him into an internationally hated (and misunderstood) villain for all time. Adams never forgave himself.
As Eddie Adams once wrote in Time magazine,
“The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them, but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths. What the photograph didn't say was, 'What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American soldiers?'"
The Girl In The Picture
An equally infamous photograph snapped during the Vietnam War depicts a little girl running, naked and terrified, from her bombed out village, her clothing burned from her body in the blast.
Most people believe her village was attacked by Americans. It was not.
In fact, the village was accidentally bombed by the Vietnamese Air Force, who were nearby targeting communist North Vietnamese fortifications. In other words, this was an “all-Vietnamese” fight. Even the photographer was Vietnamese. No Americans were involved.
Adding to the confusion: in 1996, a Methodist minister publicly approached Kim Phuc, the “girl in the picture” and asked her forgiveness for ordering the strike. The trouble is: this man had nothing to do with the bombing. He was a lowly soldier stationed miles away.
Whie such stories of reconciliation are undeniably moving, Kim’s public "forgiveness" of this confused man, “must be viewed with the realization that while she is free to insinuate anything she pleases about the countries which give her refuge and support, she cannot freely criticize the Communist government of her former homeland. Although a political refugee in Canada, her relatives still live in Viet Nam.”
The minister's motives are less clear or noble, but seem to be a blend of self-loathing and self-promotion.
These and other phony tales of American “atrocities” mar the image of the United States at home and abroad. Since the Vietnam War is constantly held up by the anti-war Left as an example of a failed, “racist,” “imperialist” conflict which only ended thanks to the “peaceful” protests of “courageous” hippies, getting the facts right is tremendously important.
Stay tuned for the next installments in this series.
Comments
I’m not convinced that the facts of these photographs alter our current-day perception of the Vietnam War. After all, these facts have been known for a while. Nor am I convinced that the “anti-war Left” believes it to have been a “racist, imperialist conflict, which only ended thanks to the peaceful protests of courageous hippies.” I believe that we’ve achieved sufficient distance from the event to look at it a little less subjectively than we did when we first saw the photographs.
I don’t believe that it adds anything to the on-going debate over the issues and decisions made regarding the conflict to characterize it as a battle of perception between the “anti-war Left” and what? The Pro-war Right? Nice of you to sling derogatory characterizations at people who don’t think the way you do, but spare us the patronizing tone. Objections to government policies are rooted in our history and reactionary conservative thought has as many flaws as reactionary liberal thought. You want to debate, bring it on. You want to make snide remarks and proceed from the assumption that only your agenda has value, go back to kindergarten and fight with children.
<i>reactionary conservative thought has as many flaws as reactionary liberal thought</i>
List please.
But my agenda is the only one that has value, 'Skip'. You feel the same way about your agenda. I'm not interested in debates. I'm right.
If you don't believe the anti-war Left thinks xyz, read the last 10 speeches and public statements you can find by Bill Ayers, get your hands on back issues of Ramparts...
Or ask me: I was on the anti-war Left for years.
The leftist commies distorting historical facts, taking partial quotes from Lincoln, Jefferson etc. to push their agenda, say-it-aint so. No news here, thanks to the liberal academia in the west.
Thanks. I knew the history of these photos, but it is surprising how many people have it backwards as you stated.
BTW, another of the misconceptions is that the NVA "won" the '68 Tet Offensive. Ask anyone, they'll tell you. The truth is that it was a massive military defeat for the NVA. They lost almost everything. They weren't able to recoup until late '72 or so. Had the press told the truth, we probably could have pressed to victory.
Well, there you have it. . in a nutshell. Only her agenda has value. She doesn't want to expose her views to debate because she's right and that's all there is to it. Contrary to what she finds convenient to believe, I do not feel that way about my agenda. I don't proceed from an "I'm right and everybody else is just wrong" point of view. I proceed from the assumption that consensus and common ground is attainable, but nobody, least of all conservative bloggers, talk show hosts, political candidates or special interest groups wants to watch a civilized discussion that acknowledges ambiguity and complexity. They become successful by reducing debates to the level of shouted rage. Nothing gets solved, but we're all entertained.
Kathy, when i lived in Toronto i used to frequent a Vietnamese/ Chinese food restaurant on Queen st.right across from the old police station just before the Dufferin bridge, on the north side.In that eatery, i saw a huge blown up photo of the little girl in that iconic picture.The owner and cook at that place was the photographer.I also believe that the girl lives in T.O. as well.
Kathy, when i lived in Toronto i used to frequent a Vietnamese/ Chinese food restaurant on Queen st.right across from the old police station just before the Dufferin bridge, on the north side.In that eatery, i saw a huge blown up photo of the little girl in that iconic picture.The owner and cook at that place was the photographer.I also believe that the girl lives in T.O. as well.
Kathy,
I was in Saigon during Tet of 1968. I saw what the NVA and VC did to civilian non-combatants.
The Vietnamese General who shot the VC had just had enough of the butchery. Maybe summary execution wasn't what most Americans find justifiable, but the general's actions are certainly more understandable and justifiable than the mass murders committed by the NVA and VC during their failed offensive.
Skip, "common ground" isn't always attainable, or desirable. There's no need for the guy who claims that 2+2=4 to come to an understanding with the guy who claims that 2+2=6. Really what you mean (I think) is that nothing is serious enough to be taken seriously. In that kind of a world, why bother taking the time to mull over "ambiguity and complexity"? - unless those are code words for "nothing to see here, folks". And "civilized discussion" doesn't have to mean "discussion about stuff nobody really feels strongly about" - not even in Canada.
And what do you mean "she doesn't want to expose her views to debate"? Try stopping her!
"I proceed from the assumption that consensus and common ground is attainable"
Stop kidding yourself, dude. No one could be that delusional. This process focused notion of "consensus" is just a means for gutless pseudo-intellectuals to cave. Nothing gets accomplished and usually common sense gets ignored.
Idon't know how true it is but this page details the unknown oil deposits that had a lot to do with why we went to war in Vietnam.
here is an excerpt to wet your apetite.
"
Oil companies from 12 countries put in bids. Norway's Statoil, British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell, even Russia, Germany and Australia all put in bids. But when those countries drilled in their oil lots they all came up with dry holes. Only the "American" company had gushers and since 1990 has pulled billions of dollars out of their Golden Dragon, Blue Lotus, and White Tiger oil fields in the South China Sea off Viet Nam. Coincidence? Were they just lucky? Or did they know something those other oil companies didn’t?
wwwdotbrojondotorg/frontpage/bj050701-3.html
"the process-focused notion of consensus is just a means for gutless pseudo-intellectuals to cave."
Hmm. . .interesting notion. Makes you wonder why language was invented at all.
I suppose to give other pseudo-intellectuals the weapons necessary to blast everyone's views but their own out of the water.
And as for Black Mamba: Never said she didn't want to expose her views. She, like everyone else, has that right. I said she didn't want to debate those views. Fine. Let her be the shepherd. The sheep are sure to follow.
The Vietnamese struggle to throw off foreign domination can be followed as far back into history as you care to go...The American involvement in Vietnam could be characterized as Cold War era moves on the chessboard of a broader struggle for global power. But it was an intervention that was a terrible waste of men and treasure that was unwise at best, and criminal at worst. The American taxpayer should have hung the politicians by the score for that debacle. The American Liberal Left are as eager today to be mobilized and manipulated by those who would do harm to America's interests as they were during the era of Vietnam and the global decolonization period of the 60's and 70's, when Nation States vied with each other for control of natural resources, peoples, and other strategic interests. All of course with the ultimate goal of weakening America, and making America into a debtor nation once again. The Politicians who took America into Vietnam were too stupid to see that Intervention for what it really was. Their "realpolitik" and dereliction of duty have become a rallying point today for all of those who rejoice at America the weak; America the indecisive; America the apologetic; America the merciful; America the generous; America the caring; America the multicultural and politically correct; America the sensitive and non-offending; America the financially insolvent; America the country that sells its industry to the highest bidder; America who does not build things; America who has sold its soul for cheap junk from China; America who is more interested in eating fried chicken and macaroni and cheese and watching American Idol than they are with voting and being responsible citizens; America the unprotected who cannot secure their own borders. Yes, those politicians of the Vietnam era have much to answer for, don't they?
In the weeks right after the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975, the communist forces held several street executions preceded by 'people's courts' which called for death, aided apparently by provacteurs in the crowds. The intent was to help get control of the city, just as the police chief in 1968 was trying to do in the chaos of the Tet Offensive which purposely brought the war to civilian areas. No western journalists were around to photograph those killings in 1975. Even if they had the new regime would not have allowed the photos to be sent out. Images do lie and this one taken by Eddie Adams was of great help to the communist effort to gain world-wide legitimacy and undermine that of South Vietnam.
In the weeks right after the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975, the communist forces held several street executions preceded by 'people's courts' which called for death, aided apparently by provacteurs in the crowds. The intent was to help get control of the city, just as the police chief in 1968 was trying to do in the chaos of the Tet Offensive which purposely brought the war to civilian areas. No western journalists were around to photograph those killings in 1975. Even if they had the new regime would not have allowed the photos to be sent out. Images do lie and this one taken by Eddie Adams was of great help to the communist effort to gain world-wide legitimacy and undermine that of South Vietnam.
I still firmly believe that had this conflict involved Germans trying to annex France then the entire masturbationgeneration of boomers wouldn't have even blinked. The problem and genesis of the resistance to American involvement was based solely on the fact that these were dark-skinned, little people with funny eyes and that nice Presbyterians shouldn't get involved.
I guess when you're talking to a guy named Skip you have to speak very very slowly:
Facts. Are. Not. Debatable.
This article is about how the facts behind these two photos have been hidden or twisted by people with -- wait for it -- agendas!
People on YOUR side of the political aisle.
I see why you're flustered and defensive about this turn of events, but don't make a further fool of yourself by sticking with the faux outrage and cheap moral posturing.
Yes, Kim lives in Ontario now.
There's lots of problems with the Vietnam war in modern memory, and I'm glad you're doing this. However, the general shooting the VC picture is always ID'd for what it is. The Viet girl running picture doesn't lose much of its power when you know it was RVN and not American aircraft that bombed her town. The RVN were America's allies. These were "atrocities" at arm's length. But I would agree that the general had the right to shoot the VC. He was an unlawful combatant out of uniform under the Geneva Convention.
The Boomers undermined the Vietnam War because of the draft. Quite simply, serving in the military for two years was not part of their self-satisfying consumer culture. Notice that when the war was over, so was all that hippy crap, peace and free love buncombe, though many of the hard-cores drifted into academia or became school teachers and have instilled their self-serving pap into new generations.
1. So it is OK to kill prisoners on a hot day? May be it explained why there were so many killing in Iraq.
2. It was a fighter jet flew by a SVN pilot, but who supplied the planes and the napalm bombs?
OMG
Doug, I guess its not PC to care if the victims or white or Christian. We all have been taught about the holocaust over and over, seen movies, books, museums have been built etc.. But how many books, movies, museums have we seen about the tens of millions of Christians murdered, and tortured in Soviet gulags from 1917-1945.
There is truth in the claim that what many Americans "know" of the Vietnam War is wrong. It is myths told and retold over and over the years and the many myths become "truth".
I guess when you're addressing someone named Shady (oops, sorry. . Shaidle, but one pointless off-hand remark about someone's name deserves another), you have to keep repeating yourself. I don't dispute the facts, I dispute your patronizing tone and debatable contentions about my making a fool of myself with 'faux outrage' and 'cheap moral posturing.' They both sound like sub-titles to your own posts.
Forget it, Shady. . .arguing with you is like trying to talk to my dog about peeing outdoors. . pointless. And helping you rack up 'views' is not on my agenda
No matter how sad we feel about being limited in having a mere three million Vietnamese die during their American War, we can celebrate the fact that some of the megatons of bombs and tons of Agent Orange we dropped will be killing and maiming Vietnamese children well into 22nd century. Let the world know the punishment for opposing Christian civilization.
So Tom, how do you feel about the American POW's brutalized and tortured by the Japanese in WWII, or by the NVA in the Vietnam War.
Nam, when that 'soldier' was killed by the police general, he had taken off his uniform to better blend in with the civilians he used as cover to kill them and American soldiers, as well as SVA troops.
He well deserved the quick dispatch, as he was not covered under the Geneva conventions, fighting as a non uniformed combatant.
Skip, when someone can't ignore or refute actual facts, they always criticize "tone".
Thanks for proving that FACT once again for us all! :-)
Good stuff, Kathy, as evidenced by the miserable ObamaTrolls who oozed in to lie and criticize.
Truth terrifies them.
Kursk: You are pulling the trigger too fast. Here is from wiki related to "unlawful combatant":
The Geneva Conventions apply in wars between two or more states. Article 5 of the GCIII states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal."
Until such time, he is to be treated as a prisoner of war.
After a "competent tribunal" has determined his status, the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a POW, as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial."
i am a heron. i ahev a long neck and i pick fish out of the water w/ my beak. if you dont repost this comment on 10 other pages i will fly into your kitchen tonight and make a mess of your pots and pans
While the USA and it's allies openly stated that they would adhere to the Geneva Conventions with regard to warfare, North Vietnam and the Viet Cong openly stated that they would NOT adhere to the Geneva Conventions and WOULD use terror, force, and intimidation to achieve their political and war goals.
That being said, in any war, you will find individuals and groups of individuals who behave in a criminal manner no matter how just their cause is. This is inclusive of American armed forces in Vietnam who were, in general, supported by the South Vietnamese who wished to escape communist tyranny as witnessed by the dramatic and tragic aftermath of the fall of South Vietnam to the Stalinist communists and the terrible human holocaust that swept South East Asia subsequent to the communist onslaught.
I served with the US Army;4th Inf. Div.;2/8th Inf.; Republic of Vietnam 1969-1970.
You guys are all retarded. The point of these pictures is not "America Bad", it's "war bad". I can't believe you guys would look at a picture of a fellow human being in pain or even about to die and think about anything other than how stupid we are about this kind of stuff.
If it was up to Gandhi we would never punish anybody. Hey Gandhi if someone brutally murdered your family or child, would it be wrong to want to see them in pain, or about to die.
simply... yes.
To elaborate, when someone has hurt your family members or done wrong to you I understand the feeling of wanting to hurt the person who did it. But what is the purpose of that feeling? Vengeance. Justice. Reparations. Payback. But why? What does this feeling of vengeance wreak in our souls? We become swallowed in this feeling of hate and anger and debase ourselves to the criminal's level and commit crimes in the name of justice. I had a family member who was murdered when I was twelve and I was angry for a long time. Especially since the murderer was seventeen at the time and got three years in jail for the gang murder of my cousin (ten guys on one and four of them were cop's sons) but I have come to realize that even if justice was meted out "properly"- long prison sentence, maybe even the death penalty- would accomplish nothing but furthering the hate and anger that led the criminal to commit the crime in the first place. The injustices that happen in the world cannot be ended until we jam the wheels of retribution and stop greasing them with each others blood.
Peace Love and all that other bullshit that we need so desperately to you all.
America's strategy for the Vietnam War was to never, ever, under any circumstances advance upon the enemy. Dumbest strategy ever. Don't need to be a "peaceful protester" or "courageous hippie" or even Richard Nixon to see that this was a failure.
Vietnam is a prime example of what happens when the media conscience politicians run a war instead of letting the generals run it. A by the way here. Hold on to your hats when Obama and his buds start to do it in Afghanistan.
While Kim Phuc ran naked, terrified, and in excruciating pain down that dirt road, I'm sure she was happy that the Americans were only indirectly related to the attack.
Kathy Shaidle: Thank for your valuable article. It is amazing to know a person like you who know a lot of details about the Vietnam War than many other journalists, who used to be there, didn’t.
You write: "The victim was a captured Viet Cong insurgent whose comrades in arms had themselves been summarily executing anyone associated with the South Vietnamese and the Americans..."
I translate an article related to the story into English so that your readers could learn more.
“According to Dr. C.M. Lai’s document, at 4:30 in the morning, captain Lem van Nguyen lead a special unit of Viet Cong, followed tanks and attacked Phu Dong armored Camp belonged to South Vietnam soldier.
It was the New Year Day, most south VN soldiers went home to celebrate the holiday season lasting three days with their family, and there were not much of them stationed in the camp as usual. Captain Lem Van Nguyen and his unit took over the camp after a fierce combat. He then arrested a south Vietnamese lieutenant colonel Tuan Nguyen and his family. The captain ordered the lieutenant colonel to instruct his unit how to drive and use the U.S. tank. When the lieutenant colonel refused to do that, captain Lem Van Nguyen killed the lieutenant colonel and all of his family members, included his 80 year old mother, his wife, and three children. Fortunately, his ten years old boy got serious injuries but later was saved. (please see the six coffins)
Captain Lem Van Nguyen and his unit then moved toward another area inside the center of Saigon. He would execute anyone associated with the South Vietnamese and the Americans in this area. During the clash, he also pushed innocent children in front as a shield so that he and his comrades could fire the marines and the police officers.
He was arrested by a South Vietnamese Marine unit near a hole burying 34 Vietnamese civilians. When asked, the captain answered that he and his comrades killed them, that he was proud to do so, and that he completed his tasks over the operation. When being arrested, he still had his revolver covered under his shirt.
Brigadier general Nguyen Ngoc Loan had been reported over story about the captain Viet Cong Lem van Nguyen’s cruel for the last twos days, so when his men brought the captain to him, the general immediately shot the captain on street.
The pictures depicting the story is here:
blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-pbqpS1c_c6fk.xGveDaG3bKIf0XggSY-?cq=1&p=908
*source of the picture is also in here:
Vietnam, A Chronicle of the War, Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers, Inc. 2003, pg.478
I thought the point of the story was that "The Vietnam War: everything you know is wrong (Part One)" and that it was NOT a North Vietnamese operative that shot the prisoner (contrary to wideheld beliefs). Not that shooting prisoners was good or bad...stay on point!
My question is:
Do you really get whats going on here?
I'm katshade and I'm underneath the wing shadow of the kitchen-mussing heron and I'm kingfisher-calling mad about that vandal wader crapping all over the rest of those 40 yr old WaPo copies I found underneath the kitchen linoleum. Because I believe these revisionist fantasies disguise the fact that a beyond-parody far-right Canadian GOP-bandwagoner is now entirely irrelevant. And just for that, I'll be steaming in through the pantry window right behind big bird himself and I'm going to break all your crayons.
What a powerful picture by Eddie Adams execution on a North Vietnam prisoner. Check out this tshirt i found online "make peace not war" www.con-trau.com
The commie creep shot in the photo had just murdered a lieutenant and close family friend of the Saigon Police Chief. The commie had gone into the kitchen and sliced up the lietenant's kids, wife and the officer. The Chief found the mutilated bodies in a ditch in the garden. I would have shot the VC bastard myself. No, really. Colonel Neville. My take from an old post. colonelrobertneville.blogspot.com/2007/11/saigon-police-chief-mean-to-vc-mass.html
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!