Saigon execution: Murder of a Vietcong by Saigon Police Chief, 1968

By RHP | Posted on: May 13, 2014 | Updated on: August 21, 2014
South Vietnamese Gen. Nguyen Ngoc Loan, chief of the national police, shoots Vietcong officer Nguyen Van Lem, also known as Bay Lop, on a Saigon street on Feb. 1, 1968.

South Vietnamese Gen. Nguyen Ngoc Loan, chief of the national police, shoots Vietcong officer Nguyen Van Lem, also known as Bay Lop, on a Saigon street on Feb. 1, 1968.

After Nguyen Ngoc Loan raised his sidearm and shot Vietcong operative Nguyen Van Lem in the head he walked over to the reporters and told them that, “These guys kill a lot of our people, and I think Buddha will forgive me.” Captured on NBC TV cameras and by AP photographer Eddie Adams, the picture and film footage flashed around the world and quickly became a symbol of the Vietnam War’s brutality. Eddie Adams’ picture was especially striking, as the moment frozen is one almost at the instant of death. Taken a split second after the trigger was pulled, Lem’s final expression is one of pain as the bullet rips through his head. A closer look of the photo actually reveals the bullet exiting his skull. The gif from the execution (graphic images!).

“Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world,” AP photojournalist Eddie Adams once wrote. A fitting quote for Adams, because his 1968 photograph of an officer shooting a handcuffed prisoner in the head at point-blank range not only earned him a Pulitzer Prize in 1969, but also went a long way toward souring Americans’ attitudes about the Vietnam War. For all the image’s political impact, though, the situation wasn’t as black-and-white as it’s rendered. What Adams’ photograph doesn’t reveal is that the man being shot (named Nguyen Van Lem) was the captain of a Vietcong “revenge squad” that had executed dozens of unarmed civilians earlier the same day. Regardless, it instantly became an icon of the war’s savagery and made the official pulling the trigger – General Nguyen Ngoc Loan – its iconic villain.

Vietcong officer Nguyen Van Lem minutes prior his execution.

Vietcong officer Nguyen Van Lem minutes prior his execution.

Vietcong officer Nguyen Van Lem under arrest.

Vietcong officer Nguyen Van Lem under arrest.

South Vietnamese sources said that Lém commanded a Vietcong death squad, which on that day had targeted South Vietnamese National Police officers, or in their stead, the police officers’ families. Corroborating this, Lém was captured at the site of a mass grave that included the bodies of at least seven police family members. Photographer Adams confirmed the South Vietnamese account, although he was only present for the execution. Lem was the leader of a Vietcong death squad who was captured after killing a SVN General and his family that morning, among others. He was brought to Loan who questioned him briefly then using his personal .38 revolver, executed Lém in front of AP photographer Eddie Adams and NBC television cameraman Vo Suu.

Photographer said he had a lot of sympathy for the shooter and wished he had never published. Adams felt so bad for Loan that he apologized for having taken the photo at all, admitting, “The general killed the Vietcong; I killed the general with my camera.”On Nguyen Ngoc Loan and his famous photograph, Adams wrote in Time in 1998:

Two people died in that photograph: the recipient of the bullet and General Nguyen Ngoc Loan. The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapons 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 people?’…. This picture really messed up his life. He never blamed me. He told me if I hadn’t taken the picture, someone else would have, but I’ve felt bad for him and his family for a long time. … I sent flowers when I heard that he had died and wrote, “I’m sorry. There are tears in my eyes.”

Adams later apologized in person to General Nguyen and his family for the irreparable damage it did to the General’s honor while he was alive. When Nguyen died, Adams praised him as a “hero” of a “just cause”.

  • What happened to General Nguyen Ngoc Loan after the war?

Sadly, the photograph’s legacy would haunt Loan for the rest of his life. A few months after the execution picture was taken, Loan was seriously wounded by machine gun fire that led to the amputation of his leg. Following the war, he was reviled where ever he went. After an Australian hospital refused to treat him, he was transferred to the United States, where he was met with a massive (though unsuccessful) campaign to deport him. He opened a pizza restaurant in the Washington, D.C. suburb of Burke, Virginia at Rolling Valley Mall called “Les Trois Continents.” In 1991, he was forced into retirement when he was recognized and his identity publicly disclosed. Photographer Eddie Adams recalled that on his last visit to the pizza parlor, he had seen written on a toilet wall, “We know who you are, fucker”. Nguyễn Ngọc Loan died of cancer on 14 July 1998, aged 67, in Burke, Virginia.

  • Did Loan’s action violate the Geneva Conventions for treatment of prisoners of war?

He executed the partisan after he had stumbled upon the bodies of his men and even their families that were killed by Viet Cong. The Vietcong were indiscriminately killing people. Summary execution of partisans is allowable under Geneva.

According to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, irregular forces are entitled to prisoner of war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. If they do not do meet all of these, they may be considered francs-tireurs (in the original sense of “illegal combatant”) and punished as criminals in a military jurisdiction, which may include summary execution. The guy shot was an “illegal Combatant”, a francs-tireurs. Soldiers who are wearing uniforms of the opposing army after the start of combat may be considered illegal combatants and subject to summary execution.

However, if soldiers remove their disguises and put on proper insignia before the start of combat in such an operation, they are considered legal combatants and must be treated as prisoners-of-war if captured. This distinction was settled in the post-WWII trial of Otto Skorzeny, who led Operation Greif, an infiltration mission in which German commandos wore US uniforms to infiltrate US lines but removed them before actual combat.

35 thoughts on “Saigon execution: Murder of a Vietcong by Saigon Police Chief, 1968

  1. Ruff Petty

    The VC had just planted a bomb that killed a lot of innocent civilians. The police chief had a young boy who was a victim of the blast die in his arms. What you don’t see in the still photograph is the VC laughing that he would like to kill more. The VC got what he deserved. He was the murderer and the police chief my hero. If you ever get to see a color movie of the affair you can see the boys blood on the chiefs shirt.

    Reply
    1. Hougi

      And may be the VC believed that the killed people got what they deserved, because they served a puppet goverment who killed a lot of VNmese people by napalm bombs, assault helicopters, tanks, machine guns, dioxine… and many other things.

      You hate the VC because he killed the general’s family, but can the Vietcong hate you because you people bombed their villages, burned whole families to ashes, and supported a puppet goverment (at least it’s what they believed) which commit terrible crimes against any people they suspected as “Vietcong” ? (sorry pal but the Saigon goverment did quite a number of terrible things, especially under the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem)

      In a war, people became animals. Both sides. So don’t surprise.

      Reply
      1. George

        Well I agree both sides were responsible but the USA were always the victims why was the NVA not held accountable for the massacre of 5000 civilians in the tet offensive? In hue, not even a slap on the wrist! Villages being bombed is part of war, executing families isn’t should the officer of shot the vc officer? That’s not for me to decide! Both sides were equally responsible for war crimes but the VC an NVA did a lot worse in my opinion from everything I have read an studied.

        Reply
      2. stevengregg

        The difference is that the North was invading the South and, therefore, were the aggressors. This wasn’t the first time they targeted civilians. The North had a strategy of killing mayors, school teachers, and tax collectors in every southern village they could reach. Your claim that both sides are guilty is false. Without the aggression of North Vietnam, there would be no Vietnam War and no terror.

        Reply
        1. jt

          Actually the historical narrative is the Viet Minh and later the Viet Cong were popular uprisings.
          The North were merely assisting their southern (Viet Cong) brothers.
          Just like the “free world” forces were assisting the ARVN.

          Ultimately we were weaker than the North and they won.

          Which does not bode well for the situation in Iraq or Afghanistan.
          Light at the end if the tunnel, Vietnamization, limited post ground troop assistance when the ill trained and motivated troops fail…

          The one difference that may stiffen our resolve this time is the fact the GWOT has on a couple of occasions been fought on our territory.

          Reply
      3. BrianLW

        To Hougi –

        You mentioned that “may be the VC believed that the killed people got what they deserved, because they served a puppet government” and “(sorry pal but the Saigon goverment did quite a number of terrible things, especially under the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem)”

        I seem to remember a group that formed in 1968 as an offshoot of the Vietnam People’s Army from North Vietnam. It was called the Communist Party of Kampuchea in Cambodia. Better known as the “Khmer Rouge” that was led by Pol Pot.

        I also remember that the Khmer Rouge orchestrated the Cambodian Genocide. This offshoot of the Vietnam People’s Army from North Vietnam killed about 25% of the Cambodian population, or about 2,000,000 (which is probably underestimated).

        The wonderful North Vietnamese government supported the Khmer Rouge. So, in fact, they supported the execution of 2,000,000 people.

        So tell me what the South Vietnamese government supported that led to a comparable number of executions. How about something the South Vietnamese government did that led to 10% of the number of executions that the Vietnam People’s Army from North Vietnam supported? How about 1%?

        Hougi, are you saying that you support a government that supported the killing of 2,000,000 people? Or that you want to make excuses for their actions?

        Sorry Pal – but you need to compare the Saigon government to other governments in the area at the time and not “the perfect government”. In this case both sides did wrong doings, but one side was absolutely appalling!

        Reply
        1. RKH

          “The wonderful North Vietnamese government supported the Khmer Rouge. So, in fact, they supported the execution of 2,000,000 people.”

          Bro, get your fact straight. You seems to be a total idiot here.

          1. Of course, NVA support Cambodia communist regime, they were both communist remember? Do you think the Ho Chi Minh trail just accidentally crossed Cambodia without their knowledge? They had the same ideology, that’s why they support each other. Just like US support South Korea or South Vietnam. In war, you must find your allies.

          2. Being allies has no relevant to the Khmer Roughe’s genocide. If you say so, does US hold responsibilities for the massacre of Islamic States because they once allies? Does the whole pack of Korea, England, Canada, West Germany…were also responsible of South Vietnam and US’s army massacre many unarmed civilians in Vietnam? (Check My Lai Massacre). China supporting North Korea, are they criminal because NK also killed people? Of course not, so you say NVA support the execution is totally bullshit.

          3. By the way, Khmer Rouge murdered 3000 civilians in Vietnam border, only 2 survived. Also anyone with Vietnamese origin living in cambodia also got killed during their regime. So why do you think NVA support the killing of their own people. If they support? Why did not any large massacre is Sai Gon, in South? Why did NVA had to invade Cambodia in 1978.

          Also further more, Khmer Rouge got tons of support from US (CIA) and China, and they still screwed up, so you are blaming NVA now? What a joke.

          Sorry but it seems to be you have been filled with anti-communist thought. Open up, you see the wider picture.

          Reply
      4. Icorps 1970

        Just to set the tone here the communists caused every death in the VN War. They were the reason the South’s leadership did many of the things they did. SO these crimes are on them as well. Its illegal under international law to conduct military operations in civilian clothing and summary execution is legal under international law. People that operate in this manner have no rights on the battlefield. This commie getting shot is one of my favorite photos of the VN war. How is it that people’s children “deserve to die”? But then the Commie was the cutting edge of the most murderous ideology of the 20th C so we could expect no less I suppose. Various commie Gov’ts murdered (really murdered not killed on the battlefield) 100s of millions of their own innocent citizens. Look it up. The only mistake we made in VN was in only killing a million communists. BTW the commies had armed a lot of small children in Saigon during Tet 68 and Americans and others had to come to grips with killing kids because they were shooting AK47s at them….. Commies are such wonderful people, all they wanted to do was force their extreme misery on the whole planet. So far as burning people to ashes. First off the responsible party was the Communist North and by extension the commie govt’s world wide that supported them. EVERY DEATH in VN related to the war was a result of THEIR determination to force brutal, murderous communism on the South. Many, many of the “VC” were actually NVA that infiltrated the South as early as the late 1950s then became “VC” by discarding their uniforms. The US had SF teams watching them in Laos in 1961. Whole regiments marching south though “neutral” Laos and Cambodia. So don’t try a guilt trip on me I know better. Communist aggression made my life miserable for a tour in the Infantry in VN. No I did not shoot civilians, or burn villages. Where I patrolled it ALL NVA with nice uniforms and newer weapons that I carried. So go take a flying f#ck and rolling donut you commie apologist.

        Reply
  2. G-LC

    interesting how all the excuses for the murder are different. In some he was an executioner, in some he was a bomber, in some he was a torturer, in some he was a commander. A few say the generals family died, others dont. the truth is nobody knows, precisely because the guy just shot him on the spot.

    Reply
    1. stevengregg

      If you read Eddie Adams book, you’ll find that they caught this murderer in the act, standing over a pit with 38 dead Vietnamese in it. The truth is that they knew enough on the spot to execute him. They had no time to waste, since Saigon was full of commie infiltrators just like him that needed to be stopped.

      Reply
  3. Ted Noland

    A war criminal is a war criminal. No ifs and or buts! Summary execution of a prisoner is a war crime.

    Reply
    1. MrKrayos

      You say a war criminal is a war criminal but if you weren’t there you shouldn’t say anything. I watched many die over there and for no reason. I took life’s in name of surviving, most of the ground troops didn’t want anything other than to get the hell out of that place. Let me tell you about a little story that’s not in History books but only in the minds of those who were there. Feb 26th 1970 in Binh Duong Province, South Vietnam it was getting dusk to dark and we hadn’t seen any movement for days and then like all hell broke loose. A wave of Charlies came across a field like nothing we had seen in several days, there were mortar rounds going off, grenades being thrown while half of the company was trying to get out of the holes and ditches. It was too dark to see from far away so we just opened fire on anything that moved. We lost a lot of good men all for nothing, they lost we lost. I shot a young kid at point blank range as he tried to stick me with a knife, I see him everyday somewhere. So before you call some one a criminal you need to get in their shoes and see what they see, it’s different back home in your warm and dry home while others are in the jungles and deserts of this planet doing what is asked of them.

      Reply
      1. gene clark

        Doing what’s asked of them? Like the SS and Wehrmacht in Germany in the 1930s and 40s? Like Lt. Calley and his men? Maybe you should do what’s right instead of what’s “asked” of you.

        Reply
      2. Slaggingham

        People who aren’t very bright always confuse “I don’t like it” with “it’s illegal,”

        Reply
      3. Brian

        All I can say is that I hope you are able to live your life the way you want. I can’t imagine how it would affect me to go through such a terrible thing.

        Reply
    2. dave

      taken from the article above:

      “He executed the partisan after he had stumbled upon the bodies of his men and even their families that were killed by ” The Vietcong were indiscriminately killing people. Summary execution of partisans is allowable under Geneva.

      According to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, irregular forces are entitled to prisoner of war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. If they do not do meet all of these, they may be considered francs-tireurs (in the original sense of “illegal combatant”) and punished as criminals in a military jurisdiction, which may include summary execution. The guy shot was an “illegal Combatant”, a francs-tireurs. Soldiers who are wearing uniforms of the opposing army after the start of combat may be considered illegal combatants and subject to summary execution.”

      Reply
  4. David

    If you actually think the Saigon Chief of Police “murdered” that war criminal, then you have no interest in humanity. You hate people. You hate women and you love to see children killed. The war criminal was committing the most heinous war crime anyone could ever commit. And I’m not talking about bombs or guns. It has nothing to do with whom he may or may not have killed that day. It has nothing to do with what his alleged mission might have been. No, his crime was even worse – and you can see it plainly in the picture. If you can’t spot it immediately, then you need to start studying the international law of war and its origins – why it was created and what it was intended to prevent.

    Reply
    1. jt

      David if you think that execution of a prisoner on the spot is acceptable then you have no interest in humanity.
      Regardless if what the VC officer did, the police chief murdered him.

      If you accept the execution as legitimate then you have to accept that any one with a gun should be able to kill anyone else whenever they feel it is appropriate.

      I have little doubt that the VC officer was a war criminal by a all standards, legal and moral.

      But the same was true for the general, the moment he executed the VC.

      Knowing what had happened to the general’s colleagues, friends, family etc before he event is of no more importance than what might have happened to the VC officer’s family in the years before the day.

      For all we know the VC officer’s sister might have been executed by ARVN, U.S. or other forces the day before.

      I think the VC probably got what he deserved, but I think the general is guilty of war crimes as well.
      I sympathise with the general and in the same position I can see myself doing the exact same thing too. But I’d accept, as I think the general accepted, that what I had done was just as wrong from a moral and legal point.
      And a humanitarian or humanist point.

      Reply
      1. Nord Land

        Your equivocating comment includes logical fallacies of the false analogy and false equivalency types, along with an argument to moderation.

        Accepting the legitimacy of a wartime execution of an illegal insurgent combatant who was guilty of murdering civilians does not in any way compel the notion that one must also accept that anyone with a gun should be able to kill anyone else whenever they feel it is appropriate. That is absurd.

        The General was a legitimate soldier in his nation’s armed forces. The VC was the equivalent of a terrorist who was captured red-handed. The General had the legal and moral authority to execute his prisoner, which was also an act specifically excluded from the definition of a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. The circumstances and facts are completely distinguishable from the situation where a person randomly kills someone else on a whim, which is the claim you make. Obviously, upon scrutiny your position is untenable.

        “I think the VC probably got what he deserved, but I think the general is guilty of war crimes as well. I sympathise with the general and in the same position I can see myself doing the exact same thing too. But I’d accept, as I think the general accepted, that what I had done was just as wrong from a moral and legal point. And a humanitarian or humanist point.”

        That’s just false equivalency and arguing for the middle. In this situation the VC had killed several innocent children, women and men who had nothing to do with the war being waged between the two Vietnams. The General was acting well within his authority during a time of combat, and if summary execution makes you uncomfortable, be glad that there are people who can assist and facilitate an execution of a convicted criminal for you.

        The General did not deserve the public calumniation he received for doing his duty.

        May he rest in peace, and may the honor of his good name be restored someday.

        Reply
        1. jt

          Nordland – I’m not arguing for the middle and my equivalency is not false.
          I’m capable of assessing the facts of the matter or what I know of them, with what I know of the law of land warfare – as taught to me in my basic and trade training as a member of the Australian Regular Army and what I later learned of legal reasoning in Legal Studies.

          But I’ve also been an amateur military historian for most of my life and remember the cameraderie and the strength of the psychological bonding of members of arms corps – I understand what the common experiences, both the training and the battlefield does to a person.
          And I know my own psychology and values well enough to know that I probably would have ignored the laws or land warfare and done the same thing.

          It’s possible to know that something you are going to do is wrong and do it anyway.
          It’s possible to talk about the abstract, legalistics rights and wrongs of something and to know that you would not obey those laws in some situation.

          That’s called honesty.

          I’m not equivocating. I’m making two very clear statements.
          1) The execution was murder.
          2) I would likely have done the same.

          You’ll have to explain the logical fallacies, and explain what you think any analogy I have made is false, then you’ll have to say which one and again explain why.

          You’ve made some leaps in logic yourself and some false claims.

          That the VC may have been guilty of a war crime but it is impossible to know.
          You can’t know until the facts have been established by a duly constituted court.
          Until that point, the VC was at best accused.
          The fact that someone is accused of a crime does not give anyone with a gun an arbitrary right to execute them.

          Further more there’s a possibility VC may have been found to be an unlawful combatant if he had of been taken before a competent tribunal.
          But he was not found to be so by a competent tribunal which is the standard required under law.
          Some arbitary person can not just make that judgement and act upon it, least of all a senior officer acting on his own on the battlefield – for moral as well as legal reasons.

          Until a competent tribunal makes that judgement the combatant must be treated as a prisoner of war. That means you can’t shoot him, after he was stopped shooting at you. Again if you’ve seen any of the movie footage you’ll know the VC was unarmed and not resisting or attacking the party who shot him.

          The VC was not a convicted criminal. He had not been tried, convicted or sentenced.
          He’d been captured bound and shot.
          That’s what makes the execution a murder. The fact he had not been tried or sentenced by a court.
          No officer has the legal power to execute anybody without trial.

          The VC officer qualified for the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
          You note the VC officer was detained (unarmed, bound, outnumbered by armed guards and complying with their instructions. (see (1) below)
          And by all the accounts I have read he was not tried by a duly constituted court. (see (d) below).

          Because the VC was not tried, and there was no sentence, he was in law executed on a whim.
          The only authority the general had to kill that VC officer was that he had a gun in his hand and the VC no longer did.

          Unless you can offer evidence that the General had legal authority to try, judge, sentence and execute the VC, then your position is untenable.

          The relevant passage of international law is quoted below along with a link to the authority:
          https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/375-590006?OpenDocument

          In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

          (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ‘ hors de combat ‘ by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
          To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

          (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

          (b) taking of hostages;

          (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

          (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

          Reply
    2. Kim N

      VC did the same thing in many places around, pal. But they not doing that in front of the idiot camera men, who likes the fame more than the truth of war.

      Reply
  5. Anthony

    No matter what the Vc has done or just did, the chief of police at that time shoul ‘ nt killed him in front of the repoters and camera. Its was a fatal mistake by the general.
    Because the photo is a bad image for the South Army of Vn .and will haunt him the rest of his life

    Reply
  6. Mark

    This is war. Summary executions of Lem for being an illegal combatant is allowed under the rules of war. Its photographing may have though to be a deterrent to others. It did not work. People were sickened at the sight of real war in their living room. The purpose of an Army is to kill people and break things. If you don’t like that then don’t go to war. Soldiers hate wars. The stress on our soldiers of being involved in the killing causes PTSD in our soldiers and veterans is leading to daily suicides.

    Reply
  7. Bydand

    If EXECUTING THAT VC WAS A WAR CRIME, then shooting the guards at Dachau, Treblinka, Buchenwald, Sachenhausen, and Oranienberg was also a war crime? That VC had just murdered an innocent family!

    Reply
  8. Kim N

    My Lai village’s women and children, in VN. also !!! Why US media kept quiet at those murders were let free when back to US ?

    Reply
    1. Icorps 1970

      My Lai was a setup. Higher command was tired of the enemy operating there. They had been taking a lot of casualties around the complex and the EMs were tired of it as well. Next the troops were set up for the kill before the mission started by higher command through the briefing the grunts were given. The company commander shot civilians but was not tried. They used Cally and the others as pawns and Calley was the fall guy. The BN Commander and the Company CO should have been tried as well. There was a serious leadership break down. I am not condoning what was done, I am saying more officers should have done jail time. I am just glad that in my time in VN I never did any patrols in or even near any villages. Where I was the war was just the NVA invaders and the US Army.

      Reply
  9. armando

    That guy was executed because he was a serial killer who had just been captured and there was no time for a trial … the war was only blocks away ….

    Reply
  10. Brian

    For myself there are two words that describe General Loan best. Life saver!

    Reply
  11. Icorps 1970

    This was not murder. It is perfectly legal under the Geneva Convention. He was conducting military operations in civilian clothing. MURDERING women and children of the shooters staff officerc. Summary execution is perfectly legal. The officer who pulled the trigger had far too many serious problems at the time to tie up men securing a murdering terrorist. So he shot the VC. The VC then immediately became a good communist and was then no longer a threat. Problem solved.

    Reply
  12. Ådne

    The image of the execution have haunted me since childhood.Now i have made sure i will take it to the grave.Thank you,i guess.

    Reply
  13. Carl Marchts

    “Murdered”? He was a miserable terrorist who couldn’t even articulate why he was fighting if asked. He was shot on the spot as he should have been. After the war, the commies, who the vc thought were going to be their savior, ended up being much more cruel than the South Vietnamese gov ever was. They prevented all former vc from participating in govt, and sent most of them to reeducation camps! The thanks you get from a commie.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *