Vietnam: 1965 – 1975

Introduction | Atrocities | Fatalities | Ending | Coding | Works Cited | Notes

Introduction

The Vietnam War began in 1959-60, as an insurgency of Communist forces in South Vietnam, the Vietcong, against the government of South Vietnam. Although the United States supported the leadership of the South, advising President Ngo Dinh Diem as well as supplying military and financial aid, the scope of American involvement was relatively limited at this point. As the Southern government teetered towards on the verge of collapse, the U.S. intervened on its behalf, increasing its support over time, with massive commitment starting in 1965.

U.S. support changed fundamentally following the Gulf of Tonkin Incident (July 1964), where US military sources claimed they had been fired on by North Vietnamese torpedoes—claims later contradicted when previously classified materials were leaked to the public.[i] Prior to the Gulf of Tonkin, most civilian deaths were the result of attempts by governments in the North and South to consolidate power in a newly divided Vietnam.[ii]

In response to the alleged events in the Gulf of Tonkin, Congress gave a blank check to Pres. Johnson, allowing the administration to go on the offensive and “bring the war north.”[iii] The war involved regular armed forces of South Vietnam and the U.S. against the North Vietnamese Army and the Vietcong. American escalation included increasing the number of troops, mounting significant offensives and deploying large-scale aerial bombardment including use of napalm over both North and South Vietnam.[iv] This military activity led to an increased number of civilian deaths. Violence escalated between 1965 and 1975, peaked in 1968 and then decreased until 1973 when a cease-fire was signed between Hanoi and the United States. Civil war continued until 1975, when North Vietnam defeated the South, taking the capital Saigon in April 1975.

Atrocities

The war had few regular battles and no fixed front lines, but rather occurred in hundreds of small, geographically defuse actions designed to assert control of villages and their populations. Stathis Kalyvas and Matthew Kocher[v] argue that violence against civilians during the conflict was both selective (that is, targeted at the individual level) and indiscriminate (a result of widespread bombing or other attacks). They note that the Vietcong had established strong intelligence networks in the South and tended to target individuals, with the goal of “eliminating opponents and intimidating neutrals.”[vi] They further note that “while selective, Vietcong violence was also massive,” drawing on Lowy’s numbers to estimate that the Vietcong assassinated 36,725 persons.[vii]

The US and South Vietnamese bombing sorties, they note, tended to occur in Vietcong strongholds. On the ground, U.S. General Westmoreland pursued a war that sought to inflict as many casualties as possible on the DRV and Vietcong forces. As part of this strategy, American and ARVN forces carried out search and destroy missions in an effort to clear villages of guerilla fighters. As the name indicates, this was highly destructive policy with the sole goal to “find, fix, fight and destroy” enemy forces. While effective at clearing villages, the success was only temporary. Once American forces moved out, communist forces could easily reclaim the previously cleared village.[viii] Because these tactics seemed to be yielding high enemy deaths, Washington continued to support the war of attrition and statistics of enemy dead were accepted and reported to the public without much question.

United States Military Personnel in Vietnam[ix]

1965 184,000
1966 389,000
1967 463,000
1968 495,000

In addition to a dramatic increase in U.S. personnel and ground troops illustrated above, the United States began launching offensive air raids on North Vietnam.[x] The first of these air campaigns, Rolling Thunder, was waged between March 2, 1965 and October 31, 1968. The primary objectives of Rolling Thunder were to end the infiltration of men and supplies into South Vietnam and force Hanoi to peace negotiations.[xi] Military, industrial, and civilian targets were hit as Rolling Thunder moved further north. In an effort to maximize the destruction of the air war, American officials also lifted the restrictions on the type of weapons used in the air war. Beginning in the fall of 1965, the U.S. used napalm, white phosphorus and cluster bombs.[xii] Even with this unquestionable technological superiority, the United States was not making the progress it had been promising the public.

The disconnect between the reported success and actual progress of the war of attrition became painfully clear to the American public in January 1968 when communist forces launched a coordinated, national attack: the Tet Offensive. Since 1964 Americans had been promised a swift victory in Vietnam and the statistics from Westmoreland’s war of attrition had largely supported that premise. Yet, the Tet Offensive, despite resulting in heavy Vietcong casualties, illustrated that the Vietcong remained strong and able to coordinate a sophisticated, national attack.[xiii] In many ways the Tet Offensive signaled a turning point in America’s war in Vietnam, as 1968 and 1969 were the peak years of American in activity in Vietnam. In this two-year period, the U.S. had the largest number of troops on the ground. Furthermore, the data on civilian causalities illustrate that 1968 experienced the highest casualty rates.

Richard Nixon was elected in the fall 1968, in large part due to his promises of peace and the withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam. Efforts to meet this objective began in 1969 with the introduction of Vietnamization, in which ARVN forces would gradually take over ground military operations as American forces left the country. While the Nixon administration successfully began decreasing the number of troops, this should not be understood as a de-escalation of the war effort. Nixon and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger insisted that the war needed to be expanded before it could end and increased bombing of neighboring Cambodia and Laos.[xiv] Under this “madmen” policy, Nixon wanted to send 150,000 American ground forces into Cambodia, however, an increasingly hostile American public resulted in increased Congressional restrictions on troops involvement.

Nixon’s Vietnamization was demonstrated to be a failure in March 30, 1972 after a NLF tanks crossed the DMZ and easily swept by ARVN forces. In the face of the inability of ARVN to successfully deter NLF forces, coupled with increasing restrictions on American troop activity, the Nixon administration increased bombing of North Vietnam.[xv] Three different bombing campaigns followed in an effort to cripple the North’s effort and force them to the negotiating table. The first, Freedom Trail (April 1972), targeted civilian vulnerabilities and did little to coerce Hanoi. However, the next two campaigns were more successful. Linebacker I (5/1072) and Linebacker II (10/18/72-10/29/72) largely concentrated on Hanoi’s military capabilities and were important in reinvigorating peace talks between Hanoi and Washington.[xvi] Support for the conflict withered in the US as even positive momentum did not seem to create conditions for victory. A 1972 report by the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee noted, the war was not only “far from won, but far from over.”[xvii]

Fatalities: 1965-1975

The number of civilian deaths in the peak years of American involvement continues to be a highly contentious and politicized topic. To complicate matters further, reliable data is extremely difficult to find and scholars have often had to employ rather creative methods in order to calculate civilian deaths. It is therefore useful to outline some of the more important studies, before analyzing and coding the dynamics of violence in this period.

Charles Hirschman, Samuel Preston, and Vu Manh Loi’s “Vietnamese Casualties During the American War: A New Estimate.”

  • “Absolute estimate” 1,050,000 war-related deaths, from 1965-1965
  • 791,000 to 1,141,000 estimated war deaths between 1965-1975
  • Midpoint of 966,000 +/- 175,000[xviii]

Hischman, Preston, and Loi’s impressive study represents one of the most creative and recent quantitative studies of Vietnamese deaths between 1965 and 1975. In a self-proclaimed “modern demography” the authors analyze the 1991 Vietnam Life History Survey (VLHS) to determine war-related mortality during the peak of violence. The VLHS was a small sample survey conducted in four representative locations in Vietnam that included questions regarding the survival status of parents and siblings, as well as the birthdates, year of death, and cause of death of parents and sibling.[xix] After evaluating the quality of the VLHS, Hirschman et al use the data to assess the American War’s impact on Vietnamese mortality.

“Estimates of Vietnamese war-related deaths, ages 15 and older, by age and sex, 1965-75”[xx]

Age & Sex

All Deaths(1)

(Death rates per 1000)*

Non-War deaths(2)

(Death rates per 1000)

Ratio (3)

(3)=(2)/(1)

Population 1970* (4) Annual War Deaths (5) Estimated Deaths

1965-1975 (6)=(5)x11

Men
15-29 10.9 1.5 7.11 4,681,000 43,861 482, 471
30-44 7.2 2.9 2.46 3,124,000 13,315 146, 469
45-59 7.6 6.5 1.17 2,234,000 2,410 26,510
60+ 31.7 31.7 1.00 1,232,000 0 0
Total 10.9 5.5 1.99 11,271,000 59,586 655, 440
Women
15-29 1.1 0.8 1.39 5,045,000 1,624 17,868
30-44 4.3 3.2 1.35 3,721,000 4,156 45, 718
45-59 8.8 6.8 1.29 2,376,000 4,755 52, 301
60+ 36.1 34.6 1.04 1,600,000 2,471 27, 183
Total 6.4 5.4 1.19 12, 742,000 13,006 143, 070

*From the adjusted VLHS data on siblings and parents. **From United Nations 1994: 834

On the basis of the VLHS data, Hirschman and his team estimate that 655,000 men, 143,000 females, and 84,000 children were killed as a result of the American War for a total of 882,000 war deaths.[xxi] However, as the authors point out, this estimate is potentially low because the VLHS weighed urban and rural death rates equally. Vietnam’s population was 80 percent rural and 20 percent urban and when the data is adjusted for this, the number of war-deaths increases by 19 percent to give a total of 1,050,000. Using the range created by the differing weighing schemes, the authors add the standard deviation of 91,000, to give the final range of 791,000 to 1,141,000.[xxii]

For the purposes of this report, Hirschman’s study is useful because it provides a thorough demographic analysis of potential war deaths in the American War. Unlike many other studies of this period, Hirschman and his team are not concerned with the political motivations or impacts of American involvement in Vietnam. Instead, they offer a plausible estimate of the human cost of the war based on new sources and careful demography.

Unfortunately, their estimate does not differentiate civilian from military deaths, nor make any indication of how the death occurred (as a result of ARVN, US, or DRV action). However, it does offer a useful starting point for assessing Vietnamese loses in the peak years of their long war for independence.

Guenter Lewy’s America in Vietnam (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978).

  • 250,000 South Vietnamese civilian killed as a result of military operations
  • 39,000 civilians “assassinated” by communist forces
  • 65,000 North Vietnamese civilians killed by American bombing[xxiii]

Lewy’s book represents one of the earliest scholarly efforts to account for the number of Vietnamese killed during American military action in Vietnam. Published in 1978, Lewy’s estimates are largely based on figures provided by the U.S. Department Defense and have been increasingly questioned as new data comes to light. For instance, the figure of 65,000 North Vietnamese civilians killed by American bombings between 1965 and 1975 is based on the U.S. National Security Council estimate that 52,000 North Vietnamese civilians were killed as a result of American airstrikes form 1965-1969.[xxiv] Although American airstrikes continued, especially in the South, after 1969 they tended to occur further away from population centers and hit regions in Cambodia and Laos with greater frequency, making it extremely difficult if not impossible to determine an accurate number of Vietnamese killed as a result.[xxv] Because many of the figures Lewy provides are extrapolations based on estimates from American officials and government councils, one must keep in mind that he was working with incomplete data.

That being said, Lewy’s estimate of 1.2 million total Vietnamese losses in this period is not drastically different from the figures later advanced by Hirschman, Preston, and Loi. Furthermore, unlike many scholars Lewy attempts to differentiate the type of civilian death based on region and potential perpetrator, which is helpful as we seek to analyze the political and military climate that surrounded peak years of violence.

Thomas C. Thayer, War Without Fronts: The American Experience in Vietnam (Boulder: Westview Press, 1985).

Thayer’s account takes yet another approach to evaluating civilian causalities in the American War by analyzing hospital admission data compiled from participating South Vietnamese and American military hospitals. He largely combines this somewhat simple reconstruction of data with estimates of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Refugees and Escapes findings, offering a more robust estimate of civilian casualties during American involvement in Vietnam.[xxvi] Thayer’s account is particularly useful for the purposes of this study, because he attempts to provide a yearly breakdown of civilian casualties.

Recognizing the obvious shortcomings of this dataset, Thayer concludes that there were over one million civilian casualties in the South alone by the end of American involvement. In this case, a casualty is used to denote any war-related injuries and Thayer places a more conservative estimate of approximately 200,000 civilian deaths in South Vietnam during this period.

“Civilian War Causalities”[xxvii] *from Senate findings

Year GVN Hospitals U.S. Military Hospitals Total
1967 46,783 1,951 48,734
1968 76,702 7,790 84,492
1969 59,223 8,544 67,767
1970 46,247 4,6355 50,882
1971 38,318 1,077 39,395

As Thayer is clear to point out, the above figures do not include civilian casualties in the North, those never admitted to hospitals, or those admitted to institutions run by private charities or religious organizations.[xxviii] In an effort to move beyond the raw hospital data Thayer explores different government accounts and investigations that attempt to include unreported civilian casualties. While there are several different methods used to yield a more complete estimate, Thayer maintains that the most plausible estimates range from 1,225,000 to 1,350,000 civilian casualties.[xxix].

Thayer presents two different estimates on civilian deaths, one based USAID’s Public Health Division reports and supported by military casualty data, and the other advanced by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee. The first estimate contends that hospital admissions data only accounts for half of all wounded Vietnamese civilians and uses a process of complicated and seemingly random calculations to yield a total of 195,000 South Vietnamese civilians deaths. The Senate Subcommittee, on the other hand, estimates a much higher civilian death count of 415,000.[xxx] Unfortunately, Thayer does not provide a discussion of how the committee reached that figure, and it is difficult to independently verify the calculated figures.

The last important addition that Thayer’s research makes is his effort to differentiate the perpetrators of violence in this period. Once again taking a more narrow window of time, Thayer analyzes they types of injuries reported in hospital admission from 1967 to 1970.

Shelling and Bombing as a Cause of Civil Casualties[xxxi]

Year Mine & Mortar Gun/Grenade Shelling & Bombing Total
1967 15,235 9,785 18,811 43,849
1968 31,244 15,107 28,052 74,403
1969 24, 648 11,814 16,183 52,645
1970 22,049 7,650 8,697 38,306

In his report Thayer makes the admittedly crude argument that injures from mines and mortars were largely inflicted by the communists, those from guns and grenades could be from other sides, while bombing and artillery related injuries and death were the result of the “allies” (US, ARVN, third nation forces). Although recognizing that Americans were responsible for a large portion of civilian deaths, Thayer is adamant the ratio of American responsibility is not as high as many expect and in fact decreased as the war winds down.[xxxii] This trend makes sense, as the United States began withdrawing troops in 1971 and increasingly bombed areas further away from population centers and as discussed above.

Endings

As the war dragged on, several factors crystallized American opposition to the war: the massacre at My Lai (1969) where up to 500 civilians were killed by US forces; expansion of the war to Cambodia (1970); and leak of the Pentagon papers (1971) revealing considerable discrepancies between government actions and public statements. As a result of increasing American public pressure on the U.S. and military pressure on the North, the parties to the conflict began negotiations that resulted in the Paris Peace Accords in January 1973, which governed U.S. withdrawal. Fighting continued between Vietnamese forces, with North Vietnamese forces gaining ground. They took the capitol, Saigon, on April 30, 1975, marking the definitive end to the war and the period of mass atrocities.

Coding

We coded this case as ending when domestic insurgents and North Vietnam defeated South Vietnamese and U.S. forces; hence we also code for a withdrawal of international forces. To account for the targeting of civilians on all sides, we code for multiple victim groups.

Works Cited

Gibson, James William. 1986. The Perfect War: Technowar in Vietnam. Boston: The Atlantic Monthly Press.

Hirschman, Charles, and Samuel Preston, and Vu Manh Loi. 1995. “Vietnamese Casualties During the American War: A new Estimate.” Population and Development Review, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Dec): 783-812.

Kalyvas, Stathis N. and Matthew Adam Kocher. 2009. “The Dynamics of Violence in Vietnam: An Analysis of the Hamlet Evalusation System (HES)” Journal of Peace Research 46:3, 335 – 355.

Kolko, Gabriel. 1985. Anatomy of a War: Vietnam, the United States and the Modern Historical Experience. New York: The New Press.

Pape, Robert Jr. 1990. “Coercive Air Power in the Vietnam War,” International Security, 15:2, 104-05.

Lewey, Guenter. 1985. American in Vietnam. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sorley, Lewis. 1999. A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America’s Last Years in Vietnam. New York: Harcourt.

Thayer, Thomas C. 1985. War Without Fronts: The American Experience in Vietnam. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Young, Marilyn B. 1991. The Vietnam Wars: 1945-1990. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Notes

[i] There were two incidents, in August 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin. The first occurred on August 2, 1965 when apparently the US fired first on a North Vietnamese ship as it appeared to be approaching and the Vietnamese ship returned fire; the fact that the US fired first was not made public. The second incident was on August 4, when a US ship claimed that it encountered a North Vietnamese ship and fired on it.

[ii] Young 1991, 50, 57.

[iii] Young 1991, 117, 122.

[iv] Kolko 1985, 147, 167; and Young 1991, 129.

[v] Kalyvas and Kocher 2009.

[vi] Kalyvas and Kocher 2009, 338.

[vii] Kalyvas and Kocher, 2009, 338. The numbers they draw are on from Lowy 1978, 454.

[viii] Young 1991, 162.

[ix] Gibson 1986, 95.

[x] Kolko 1985, 164-67.

[xi] Pape 1990.

[xii] Young 1991, 129.

[xiii] Gibson 1986, 164-68.

[xiv] Young 1991, 235-45.

[xv] Young 1991, 269.

[xvi] Pape 1990, 105.

[xvii] Quoted in Sorley 1999, 170.

[xviii] Hirschman, Preston, and Loi 1995, 807.

[xix] Hirschman, Preston, and Loi 1995, 784.

[xx] Hirschman, Preston, and Loi 1995, 805.

[xxi] The data/calculations for child deaths were not shown in this article.

[xxii] Hirschman, Preston, and Loi 1995, 807.

[xxiii] Lewy 1985, 450-453.

[xxiv] Hirschman, Preston, and Loi 1995, 791.

[xxv] Thayer 1985, 131-33, and Young 1991, 235-51.

[xxvi] Thayer 1985, 127-29.

[xxvii] Thayer 1985, 126.

[xxviii] Thayer 1985, 125-26.

[xxix] Thayer 1985, 128.

[xxx] Thayer 1985, 128-29.

[xxxi] Thayer 1985, 130.

[xxxii] Thayer 1985, 129.

Posted in Asia, Defeat | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Indochina: First Indochina War

Introduction | Atrocities | Fatalities | Ending | Coding | Works Cited | Notes

Introduction

During World War II, Japanese occupation—whose policies, it must be noted in this study of the impacts of violence on civilian groups, resulted in a devastating famine in 1945[i]— effectively ended French Colonial administration of the area known as Indochina, which included present-day Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Various Vietnamese actors contributed to establishing an independent Vietnam, unifying the country and seizing control of the capitol Hanoi. On September 2, 1945, the Vietminh (established in 1941, the Indochinese Communist Party), headed by the charismatic leader, Ho Chi Minh, declared Viet Nam’s independence, provocatively borrowing the language of the U.S. declaration of independence in an effort to appeal to Western powers.[ii] The Emperor Bao Dai abdicated, transferring national legitimacy to the new government.[iii]

Following the conclusion of World War II, however, France sought to re-establish its colonial administration. British forces accepted the Japanese surrender south of the 16th parallel and Chinese forces did so north of the line. The post-war transition was managed to allow the French to re-establish control and use force to dislodge the new nationalist government.[iv] Vietminh forces responded with an assault on Cite Herault on July 24, 1945, and killed “scores” of French and Eurasian civilians.[v] From this point on, violent struggles between and amongst Vietnamese groups, whether VietMinh or nationalists, and outside forces, the French, Chinese and later Americans, were set into motion. Over the course of several months armed confrontations broke out across the south, dating 1946 as the beginning of the conflict. 

While talks continued, the key players shifted towards hardline stances. De Gaulle’s France took an uncompromising posture and the VietMinh did likewise (various narratives apportion blame differently). An agreement between Ho and French negotiators of March 6, 1946 articulated an idea of shared sovereignty, but was vague and impractical.[vi] Both sides prepared for military action.

Atrocities, 1945 – 1955

Fighting in 1946 developed as a series of skirmishes, escalating in November with a full-scale French assault on the city of Haiphong, where an undetermined number of civilians were killed.[vii] Hanoi, the capital, witnessed fighting in mid-December. In 1947, the French battled to retake control of major cities, forcing Ho Chi Minh’s forces into the jungle.[viii] The Vietminh then resorted to guerilla tactics, avoiding direct confrontations with the better-armed French military. As they sought to control rural areas, the Vietminh tried to rely on indoctrination and education programs, but where support faltered, they resorted to coercion and assassination. [ix] The French sought to establish a pro-French Vietnamese administration, but offered their allies uncertain political concessions in return and only late in the conflict raised a Vietnamese Army.

In the favor of the Vietminh were the strong nationalist and anti-colonialist sentiments of the population. Further, as the Vietminh hid amongst the population, French use of torture, napalm and attacks that often killed civilians, fueled insurgent recruitment.[x] The conflict ground to an unwinnable status: neither side able to defeat the other. A turning point came in 1948 when Mao Zedong’s forces gained ground in neighboring China. By 1949, The US decided to back France and the Vietminh received support from China. Both sides were now better armed than previously and the scale of battles increased. With new Vietminh victories, the French began arming a national army, and undertook ‘cleansing operations’ to root out opponents in rural areas. The Vietminh used terrorist tactics to strike within French-held territory.[xi]

In April 1952, Vietminh invaded Laos, adding to fears in the US that if Vietnam fell to the communists that the wider region would soon thereafter fall as well. The US aggressively urged its French allies to adhere to the war effort rather than seek a negotiated solution. 1953 brought continued stalemate, despite ongoing fighting.

The French attempted to progress further in the north, designating Dien Bien Phu as the center of operations to be defended at all costs.[xii] The Vietminh launched an attack against the French stronghold on March 13, 1954, among the few set battles of the conflict. The Vietminh, although suffering considerable casualties, achieved an inconceivable (at least to the French) defeat of the French forces. After cutting off the French base from re-supply, the Vietminh continued to bombard the fortress until May 7, when the French surrendered. Dien Bien Phu was a humiliating and debilitating loss that cost the French 1,500 men, leaving another 3,000 to 4,000 wounded and the remaining 10,000 taken prisoner.[xiii] Of these, only 3,900 were handed back to French officials in March 1955, POWs were treated with callous unconcern for their lives.[xiv] Despite the amount of support being given to the French from the United States[xv] the First Indochina War ended when Vietnamese forces defeated the French.

With this decisive victory, new impetus was given to negotiations in Geneva. In attendance, were representatives of the Bao Dai government, the VietMinh leadership, Soviet and Chinese officials, and the French, British and the United States.

Subsequent Atrocities, 1955-1959

Unfortunately for the Vietnamese, the end of the First Indochina War did not signal the end of civilian deaths. The Geneva Accords, which established a cease-fire between France and the Viet Minh, also set the conditions of peace. Vietnam was divided along the 17th parallel, Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh were to govern the North, while the American backed Ngo Dinh Diem was appointed Prime Minister of the South.[xvi] Under this agreement, it was intended that Vietnam would hold free, national elections on reunification in July of 1956.[xvii] Although these elections did not occur due to suspicions and questions over international oversight, governments in both regions sought to consolidate power in the aftermath of the peace accords.

The violence in the North largely occurred as a result of the land reform policies implemented by the communists. Land reform had been a key component of Vietnamese Communists plans, as their prospects rose in the war, particularly with increased aid from Chinese communists and Soviet support, they began to slowly implement land policies.[xviii] Training cadres were sent to villages with the goal of indoctrinating peasants, who would further expand the reach of indoctrination plans. The population of a village would be classified and landowners identified. Based on their conduct during mobilization campaigns, landowners deemed “traitorous, reactionary, and cruel” put on trial and some of whom were executed.[xix] However, it is not presently possible to accurately enumerate how many were executed. The ranges that currently exist tend to reflect political preferences of either the government of North Vietnam or its opponents, particularly the United States.[xx]

In the South, Diem alienated the majority of his citizens due to his strict anti-Communist and anti-French position. When appointed Prime Minister, Diem faced large cohorts that had fought for the French and remained sympathetic to their former colonial power. Diem’s highly repressive regime was composed of family members and corrupt officials that terrorized South Vietnam in an effort to eradicate pro-French and pro-Communist supporters.

In the instances of early rural violence in South Vietnam, data is once again difficult to find and verify, however, it is clear that wholesale policies of persecution were implemented as early as 1955.[xxi] At this time Diem’s regime in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN), began confiscating huge swaths of formerly French land and replaced local officials with those loyal to the government. This quest for political consolidation resulted in the indiscriminate arrest, intimidation, and in some instances execution or “disappearance” of supposed communist members/sympathizers.[xxii] Due to the intentionally ambiguous nature of these “disappearances,” there do not appear to be reliable figures regarding civilian deaths during this time.

A legal apparatus of repression was formally created in 1956 with Ordinance 47, which was then strengthened with Law 10/59 in May 1959.[xxiii] Under these laws working with a communist or worse yet, being a communist, was a capital offense, while showing any pro-French sympathies were also grounds for arrest and potential execution. Furthermore, there was no ability to appeal as the cases were tried within three days before a military tribunal.[xxiv] As a result, Diem’s government imprisoned and executed tens of thousands of people in an effort to consolidate power. However, these estimates combine the number of arrested with those executed and there is no consensus on the numbers of people executed. While dramatic public displays of authority, including a guillotine that accompanied special mobile military tribunals, continued into 1959, the scale and intensity of the South Vietnamese government’s anti-Communist repression seems to have peaked by 1958.[xxv]

Fatalities

We adopt a rough minimum estimate of 175,000 civilians killed.

Data is exceptionally poor for this conflict even in terms of statistics on the number of soldiers killed or the sum total people killed—let alone any assessment that disaggregates civilian deaths.[xxvi] According to the University of Montreal’s research project The Indochina War 1945-1956: An Interdisciplinary Tool, the French government proposed a rough figure of 500,000 Vietnamese (presumptively includes both civilian and combatant) killed during the conflict. Lacina and Gledtich put forward a different number, but do not cite a source nor explain it: 365,000 killed in battle.[xxvii] Michael Clodfelter estimates that 125,000 civilians were killed, and that on the Vietminh side that an estimated 175,000 soldiers were killed and 300,000 were wounded during the war.[xxviii] Again, the numbers are not explained.

French historian Yves Gras, writes[xxix]: “Exact numbers are not known, but it is reasonable to estimate 500,000 deaths, of which 100,000 to 150,000 were assassinated by the Viet-minh.” He posits 59,745 killed or disappeared from the French expeditionary Corps, of whom 2,005 were French officers, 26,923 were Vietnamese soldiers, 12,997 were non-commissioned officers and soldiers, and 17,810 were legionnaires from Africa and North Africa. He further estimated 58,877 were killed or disappeared from Vietnamese armed forces. This would leave a rough estimate of 280,00 – 230,000 civilians killed.

Stein Tonnesson writes that the war cost 40,000 lives on the French side, 200,000 on the Vietminh side, including 125,000 civilians. [xxx]

For the post-War period:

The post-war violence likely did exceed 5,000 civilians annually in both north and south Vietnam, but did not reach the 50,000 point under a new perpetrator which would qualify as a new episode in this project, until the Vietnam War began in 1965.

North

Today, conservative estimates range between 3,000 and 15,000 civilians killed from 1955 to 1957 when the Communist party became increasingly concerned with strengthening political and military support in the south.[xxxi] However, the full range of estimates is significantly wider. The North Vietnamese government produced a number of 800 – 2,500 people killed, whereas U.S. President Nixon cited 1 million, which should be viewed skeptically given their many efforts to undermine the Communist government.[xxxii] Scholars have relied on sources that reflect the biases of governments, but have tried to probe their limits: Bernard Fall suggests close to 50,000 people died; Gerard Tongas argues that as many as 100,000 died and Gareth Porter places the number as 1,500 executions.[xxxiii]

South

Scholar Ed Miller addresses the question of competing estimate of fatalities in the post-war South:

“A 1960 RVN report put the number of communists arrested since 1954 at 
48,200, while a 1961 publication suggested that the combined total of arrests and deaths at the hands of security forces was above 60,000; see Georges Chaffard, Indochine: Dix ans d’independence (Paris: Calmann-Lévy, 1964), 168–169; and Seven Years of the Ngo Dinh Diem Administration, 1954–1961 (Saigon: Information Printing Office, 1961), 182–185. Such figures seem roughly consistent with information collected by USOM police advisors, who found in 1963 that suspected communists made up about 70 percent of the nearly thirty thousand people held in South Vietnamese prisons; see USOM Public Safety Division, “The Rehabilitation System of Vietnam: A Report,” 1 Oct 1963 (Microfilming Corp. of America, 1976), 15–16.”[xxxiv]

Others have attempted to quantify the numbers, suggesting a range of 12,000-15,000 executed between 1955-1957[xxxv] These numbers, like most for this conflict, are disputed. Without the quantitative data, what does become clear is that Diem’s efforts to consolidate power fueled the popular discontent and alienation that led to his overthrow.

Endings

When evaluating dynamics surrounding civilian deaths during the post-conflict period it is important to note that both the RVN and Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) sought to consolidate power and used force to do so. In both cases as well, state-sponsored executions of political opponents were official state policy. Ho, realizing that his land reform was fueling resentment, released some prisoners from jail and dissolved the Peoples Agricultural Reform tribunals in 1956, when his government also issued an apology for “excesses.” For the North, the peak periods for land reform-related violence occurred between 1955-1958.[xxxvi] After this time the DRV’s goals were largely achieved making more killing unnecessary and unsustainable.

In the South, violence against civilians began to temporarily subside by 1958-9, as the Diem government cracked down on Communist sympathizers. Until 1960, Diem appeared to be winning the battle against communism in the Southern countryside.[xxxvii] Although Diem’s policies undoubtedly fractured the communist party in the south, it by no means destroyed it. In fact, his oppressive policies terrorized the countryside and exacerbated the very problem they were intended to solve.[xxxviii]

For the North, the growing anti-Diem hostility served as an irresistible opportunity. Initially, the party in the North sought to pursue political efforts in the South in preparation for the elections that were supposed to be held in 1956. However, as Diem’s totalitarian rule increased in brutality, and fearful of a “spontaneous peasant movement” the DRV announced the creation of the National Liberation Army (NLF) in 1960 and began an increasingly militarized effort against the RVN. By the end of 1960 the NLF had a main force of 5,500 and roughly 30,000 guerillas and became increasingly successful at cultivating popular support.[xxxix] 1960 therefore marks an important turning point for both governments. Increased militarization of peasants against Diem increased support for the DRV, and pushed Diem’s regime into a downward spiral until it was overthrown.

In both the north and south, atrocities appear to have declined in 1959. Though the years between 1960 and 1963 were marked by increased skirmishes in the countryside, and a series of coups in Saigon, it appears that the number of civilian deaths was below 5,000 per year. This is the only period of time between 1945 and 1975 where that is the case.

Coding

We code this case  based on the targeting of civilians during the armed conflict, since that is the primary cause of civilian deaths. Hence, it is coded as ending through a defeat of perpetrators by domestic forces and the withdrawal of international forces. We also note that there were multiple victim groups and that the initiator, the Vietnamese forces, were not the primary perpetrator. Violence during the post-war period occurred under two new regimes, and diminishing through a process of normalization as the regimes consolidated power, but remains under our threshold.

We further note that some may view the French military defeat as partial, contributing to a process through which it decided to make a strategic shift. We address this view in a secondary coding.

A subsequent case begins in 1965 with the Vietnam War.

Works Cited

Banens, Mak. 2000. Vietnam: A Reconstitution of its 20th Century Population History (Tokyo: Asian Historical Statistics (AHSTAT) COE Project, Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo, January.

Barbieri, Magali. 2007. “De l’utilité des statistiques démographiques de l’Indochine française (1862-1954).”  Annales de démographie historique 1: 113, 85-126.

Clodfelter, Michael. 1995. Vietnam in Military Statistics: A History of the Indochina Wars 1772 – 1991. North Carolina: MacFarland and Co.

Demeny, Paul. 1967. “Final Report: A Population Survey in Vietnam.” Report by Simulatics Submitted to the Advanced Research Project Agency. Cambridge, MA.

Dommen, Arthure J. 2001. The Indochinese Experience of the French and the Americans: Nationalism and Communism in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Gibson, James William. 1986. The Perfect War: Technowar in Vietnam. Boston: The Atlantic Monthly Press.

Gras, Yves. 1979. Histoire de la guerre d’Indochine. France: Librairie Plan.

Harrison, James P. 1989. The Endless War: Vietnam’s Struggle for Independence. New York: Columbia University Press.

Kolko, Gabriel. 1994. Anatomy of a War. New York: The New Press.

Lacina, Bethany and Nils Petter Gleditsch. 2005. “Monitoring Trends in Global Combat: A New Dataset of Battle Deaths.” European Journal of Population 21: 2, 145–166,

Logevall, Frederik. 2012. Embers of War: The Fall of an Empire and the Making of America’s Vietnam. New York: Random House.

Miller, Edward. 2013. Misalliance: Ngo Dinh Diem, the Untied States and the Fate of South Vietnam. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tønnesson, Stein. 2009. Vietnam 1946: How the War Began. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Vo, Alex-Thai D. 2015. “Nguyên Thi Năm and the Land Reform in North Vietnam, 1953.” Journal of Vietnamese Studies 10:1, 1 – 62.

Young, Marilyn. 1991. The Vietnam Wars 1940-1990. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

The Indochina War 1945-1956: An Interdisciplinary Tool. “Casualties, Indochina War.” Université du Québec à Montréal. Available at: http://indochine.uqam.ca/en/historical-dictionary/223-casualties-indochina-war.html Accessed January 14, 2017.

Notes

[i] Logevall 2012, 81. He estimates that between 300,00 – 1 million people died in the famine; a range that testifies to the poor quality of the data.

[ii] Young 1991, 10-14.

[iii] Dommen 2001, 112.

[iv] Logevall 2012, 113.

[v] Logevall 2012, 115.

[vi] Dommen 2001, 148-151.

[vii] Dommen 2001, 157.

[viii] Logevall 2012,167.

[ix] Dommen 2001; Gibson 1986; Young, 1991.

[x] Logevall 2012, 177 – 176, and 270-271.

[xi] Logevall 2012, 255, 275, 294.

[xii] Logevall 2012, 392.

[xiii] Gibson 1986, 64.

[xiv] Logevall 2012, 541.

[xv] Young 1991, 22; Gibson 1986, 59-68

[xvi] Kolko 1994, 82-83.

[xvii] Young 1991, 41.

[xviii] Vo 2015, 17.

[xix] Vo 2015, 27.

[xx] Young 1991, 50.

[xxi] Kolko 1994, 95.

[xxii] Kolko 1994, 95.

[xxiii] Young 1991, 62.

[xxiv] Young 1991, 62.

[xxv] Miller 2013, 198.

[xxvi] As Shawn McHale explained (email to Bridget Conley-Zilkic May 28, 2015), French colonial demographic data was inconsistent. See also Barbieri 2007, which looks at the manner in which colonial era population statistics were compiled;  and Banens 2000, which models and reconstitutes population, projecting back from 1989 census. Also of use is Demeny 1967, which explores the weakness of pre-1960s demographic data.

[xxvii] Lacina and Gleditsch 2005,154.

[xxviii] Clodfelter 1995, 33.

[xxix] Gras, Yves 1979; Dommen 2001, 252.

[xxx] Tønnesson 2009, 1.

[xxxi] Young 1991, 50; and Kolko 1994, 103-05. Clodfleter 1995, 34 – 35.

[xxxii] Vo 2015, 6.

[xxxiii] Vo 2015, 4 – 8.

[xxxiv] Miller 2013, 378, footnote 39.

[xxxv] Kolko 1994, 89; Young 1991, 61-63.

[xxxvi] Young 1991, 50.

[xxxvii] Harrison 1989, 217.

[xxxviii] Kolko 1994, 92-6.

[xxxix] Kolko 1994, 105.

Posted in Asia, Defeat | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment