Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CourseAfter the Geneva Agreements of 1954, Vietnam was split at the 17th parallel. In the North, Ho Chi Minh led the Democratic Republic of Vietnam from the capital, Hanoi. It was a Communist government, and the Communist Party held all the real power. The government controlled newspapers and radio, and opponents could not speak out freely.
Key terms:
The biggest change in the North was land reform. Most people were poor peasants, and many had rented land from landlords for years. From 1953 to 1956 the government took land from landlords and rich peasants and gave it to poor and landless peasants. This was welcome to many poor families because it gave them land of their own.
But the campaign was harsh. Each village was expected to find 'landlords'. People's courts tried them in front of the village, and some were executed. Many people were wrongly labelled as landlords, including families who had supported the Vietminh (the Communist-led independence movement that fought the French). Estimates of the number killed vary a great deal, but it was thousands. In August 1956 Ho Chi Minh publicly admitted that errors had been made, and some people were released and given their property back. The government kept firm control, but the land reform had cost it support in parts of the countryside.
In the South, Ngo Dinh Diem became president of the Republic of Vietnam in 1955. He was a Catholic and a strong opponent of Communism, and the USA backed him with money and advisers. In practice his government was not a free democracy. Diem trusted his own family more than anyone else. His brother Ngo Dinh Nhu ran the secret police, and another brother, Ngo Dinh Can, controlled the central region around Hue.
Key terms:
Diem put relatives and trusted supporters in key posts. He arrested opponents, and in 1959 Law 10/59 set up military courts that could sentence suspected Communists to death. In 1956 he ended elected village councils and replaced them with officials he chose. In 1960 a group of respected South Vietnamese, known as the Caravelle group, called for reforms. Diem did not act on their call.
In 1956 Diem limited landlords to 100 hectares each. This was a very large limit, so landlords kept a great deal and many peasants still did not get land of their own. From 1959 he moved peasants into new settlements called 'agrovilles' and made them help to build them. Many disliked leaving their family land and the graves of their ancestors.
Most people in South Vietnam were Buddhists, but Catholics, a small minority, were favoured for jobs and promotion. Buddhists complained of discrimination. A law from the French period, known as Decree 10, treated Buddhist groups like any other association, while Catholic missions were promised a special status.
The anger boiled over in Hue in May 1963. The government enforced a ban on flying religious flags, and Buddhists were ordered to take down their flags just before the celebration of Buddha's birthday. On the evening of 8 May a large crowd of Buddhists had gathered at the radio station to protest. Government forces opened fire, and nine people were killed. The government blamed the Vietcong (Communist guerrillas fighting Diem's government), but few people believed this. On 10 May Buddhist leaders put forward five demands: freedom to fly the Buddhist flag, equal treatment with Catholics, an end to arrests, freedom to practise their religion, and compensation for the dead. Diem would not accept that his government was responsible, and the protests spread. How this led to Diem's overthrow is covered in a later lesson, Strategic Hamlets, the Fall of Diem and the Gulf of Tonkin.
Study Sources A and B.
Source A: From the manifesto of Buddhist leaders in Hue, South Vietnam, 10 May 1963 (translated).
'From these actions we can perceive the bad intention of the authorities. They even have smashed the most sacred symbol of the Buddhists by taking down the International Buddhist flag. This decision is contrary to the Constitution and brazenly violates the freedom of religious worship.'
Source B: From a telegram by Frederick Nolting, the American ambassador in Saigon, to the US State Department, 18 May 1963. ('GVN' means the government of South Vietnam.)
'Apparent that original riot in Hue evolved from series of errors of omission and commission on both sides. Since then, GVN has been slow to make amends and accept responsibility for actions its own officials even where these actions clearly more extreme than situation demanded.'
How far does Source A support the evidence of Source B about the way the South Vietnamese government treated Buddhists? Explain your answer. [8 marks]
Source A supports Source B because both say that the government acted wrongly towards the Buddhists. Source A says the authorities showed 'bad intention' and that taking down the flag was 'contrary to the Constitution'. Source B says some of the government's actions were 'clearly more extreme than situation demanded'.
However, the sources differ about who was to blame. Source A puts the blame on the government, whose actions show 'bad intention'. Source B is less one-sided: it says the riot came from 'errors of omission and commission on both sides', so it does not say that the government meant harm. Source B also criticises the government's later failure to 'accept responsibility', while Source A is about the flag order, which came before the shootings.
Overall, Source A supports Source B to a large extent on the main point that the government treated Buddhists badly, but only partly on the reasons, because A claims deliberate ill will and B blames mistakes on both sides.
What lifts it to the top level: it gives both support and difference, backs each with short quotations from both sources, and ends with a judgement on how far A supports B.
Look for the points where the sources agree and the points where they differ, and quote both sources each time. In this question you are marked on comparing what the sources say, so you do not need to add your own knowledge. End with a judgement such as 'to a large extent' or 'only partly'.