On the Question of Communist Reprisals in Vietnam

by A. L. Nutt


Full Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 1 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.


Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price Price
Add to Cart Paperback15 pages $20.00 $16.00 20% Web Discount

Sixteen years after the Geneva Agreement ending the first Indochina war, the extent of Communist reprisals against Vietnamese who supported the French is still unresolved — and still very much a live issue because of its implications today. In this paper, the author reminds us that many who rebut allegations of mass reprisals cite as "evidence" the reports of the International Control Commission, which are misleading. They fail to account for the North's efforts to camouflage massacres of political opponents under the guise of land reform. Concludes the author in this look behind the reports: legal maneuvering by the DRV took advantage of the way the Geneva Agreement was worded, frustrating not only ICC efforts to investigate charges of reprisals, but even efforts to place those charges on the record.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation Paper series. The paper was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review.

Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.