Become a Member for $9.99/month

Saigon falls, the United States withdraws, and the country reunifies. For the next several decades, Vietnam will have to deal with the political and social divisions caused by the war, while the rest of the world broadcasts a one-sided story. Today, these divisions remain, and a peace beyond the end of the conflict still seems a distant goal.

April 30, 1975, marks an indelible date in Vietnamese history: a North Vietnamese tank smashed through the gate of the Presidential Palace in Saigon, capital of South Vietnam, decreeing its fall and marking the reunification of the country under a single government led by Tôn Đức Thắng. Images of U.S. helicopters evacuating diplomats and refugees from the roof of the U.S. Embassy, broadcast on televisions around the world, became a global symbol of the failure of U.S. policy in Southeast Asia.

For North Vietnam, the fall of Saigon in 1975 symbolized “liberation” and national unification, a goal pursued since the partition of Vietnam in 1954, sanctioned by the Geneva Accords. The country was separated along the 17th parallel into two entities: Communist North Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh and U.S.-backed South Vietnam ruled by Ngo Dinh Diem. The agreements called for reunification through elections in 1956. Still, these were not held, as the US and South Vietnam, fearing Communist manipulation by North Vietnam’s regime, which could leverage Ho Chi Minh’s popularity and authoritarian control, blocked the process, following a decade-long conflict that culminated in the North's victory.

For many in the South, however, 1975 began a period of exile, pain and reflection. Fifty years later, this anniversary provides an opportunity to understand how the memory of that day and the war that preceded it continues to shape collective memory, society, and Vietnamese politics, as deep wounds and unfinished reconciliation remain behind Vietnam's progress today, especially among the Vietnamese themselves.

To better understand this event, we interviewed Dr. Mai Nguyen , an award-winning expert based in the Netherlands. She is known for her contribution to peacebuilding projects that integrate neuroscience into strategies to bridge social divides.

Among Vietnamese readers, known as Nguyễn Phương Mai , she is the author of several best-selling books and a leading commentator. Her reflections offer a unique perspective on collective memory and the challenges of national reconciliation. Her analyses, rooted in a deep commitment to healing the wounds of the past, illuminate Vietnam's complex path to unity, beginning with that crucial day of April 30, 1975.

1) How is April 30, 1975, remembered in the collective Vietnamese memory today, 50 years after the fall of Saigon and the reunification of the country?

This largely depends on whom you ask. An elderly veteran from the winning side might remember that day as a joyful end to a painful period in national history. Conversely, someone from the other side may see it as a turning point where they would gradually lose everything: home, property, family and future. Many Vietnamese abroad still refer to it as "Black April" or "Ngày Quốc hận" (national day of grudge and grievance). While the younger generation often celebrates it as the day Vietnam was united, many do question whether this "unification" truly represents the "liberation" of the South from its “puppet government controlled by the American master.” At the same time, I cannot overlook the reality that a considerable number of Vietnamese no longer place much importance on the political significance of April 30. For them, the focus has shifted to planning holiday destinations during their time off from work.

2) Did or do you have relatives that directly or indirectly experienced the effects of the war? If so, how did this experience influence their lifestyle?

It is rare to find a family in Vietnam that has not been directly or indirectly affected by the war. Many families from both sides carry scars of the conflict, and these wounds are passed down through generations. My father passed away due to a disease believed to be related to Agent Orange. My 86-year-old mother frequently reminisces about the war, often sharing how she never had the chance to know her parents' faces because they both died of starvation. My 60-year-old sister still vividly recalls the pain of losing touch with our mother after nine years of forced migration. Back then, my parents had to separate, each carrying one of the children to increase the chance of survival.

As someone born after the war, I am constantly reminded that much of our family trauma is rooted in that tumultuous period. During my 25 years living abroad, I lost count of how many times Vietnamese overseas judged me or held biases against me simply because I speak with a Hanoian accent, or how they jumped to unfair conclusions when they learned that my parents have a Northern military background. It often takes considerable time for me to prove my good intentions and to persuade them that I have an open mind, that I'm not willing to pass similar judgments on anyone, regardless of their attitudes toward our shared history.

3) What have been the most significant changes in Vietnam in the past 50 years, socially, economically and culturally, since the end of the conflict?

Economically, Vietnam adopted a Marxist-Leninist approach after the fall of Saigon, which resulted in a market collapse and persistent poverty. The country struggled until the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Left to its own devices, the Vietnamese Communist Party gradually embarked on an extraordinary process of redefining socialism and opening the country to free market principles. "Đổi Mới" (renewal) has undoubtedly become the most significant achievement Vietnam has made since the war's end.

Many other significant changes in Vietnam have arisen due to this economic liberation. As the country opened its doors to the world, knowledge, culture, and investment began to flow in. Vietnam transformed for the better, recognizing its own strength, cultural power, and identity. For instance, "Paris By Night," once a major source of entertainment featuring Vietnamese artists overseas, is now challenged by a domestic show business that rivals and even outperforms its former dominance.

4) We could say that the 50th anniversary coincides with a time of Vietnam's economic growth and international openness. Do you think the memory of the war still influences how the country relates to the world, particularly the United States?

I disagree. Among the Vietnamese, the legacy of the war now pertains more to the internal and domestic landscape of Vietnam than to its relationship with the U.S. The majority of Vietnamese people do not harbor grudges or view the U.S. as an enemy. Quite the opposite; the U.S. is seen as a strong partner, a cultural force, and an interesting country with often peculiar (political) situations.

I have interviewed nearly 100 Vietnamese people on the topic of reconciliation, and hardly anyone mentioned the U.S. If they did, it was not hatred. In contrast, many admitted that we tend to struggle finding peace among our own compatriots while we have forgiven the foreign "invaders." Reconciliation among the Vietnamese from both sides of the battle remains a thorny issue in the hearts and minds of many people, affecting the national policies towards a large and diverse community of Vietnamese diasporas abroad.

5) The narrative of the Vietnam War is often dominated by the American perspective. As a Vietnamese journalist, what aspects of the story do you feel have been neglected or misunderstood internationally?

That is a good observation. The Vietnam War is often portrayed as a conflict dominated by the role of the United States. Much of the discussion in academia and popular media has centered on understanding how the world's most powerful army could suffer such a failure.

However, the experiences of the Vietnamese people on all sides of the battle have often been overlooked. For many of us, those who fought and suffered were, and remain, primarily Vietnamese.

This conflict was not just a proxy war of ideology (cuộc chiến ủy nhiệm dựa trên ý thức hệ) or a struggle against American interventionism (kháng chiến chống Mỹ); it also encompassed elements of a civil war, where brothers and sisters shed each other's blood. For example, it is disheartening to browse the list of films about the Vietnam War, as most titles have little to do with our actual experiences. When it comes to this war, Vietnam has become an instrument for the U.S. to (re)identify, (re)define, and reflect on its own essence and image.

6) Is the legacy of the war still visible in contemporary Vietnam, for example through the environmental scars of Agent Orange or social and political divisions? How do you think the country has dealt with these wounds?

The legacy of the Vietnam War runs deeper than what meets the eye. When Agent Orange or political divisions are among the first legacies mentioned, it reveals how the Vietnam War is often perceived predominantly through the lens of the U.S. as the principal character, with ideological struggle as the main reason for the conflict. While this perspective contains elements of truth, it fails to capture the full reality of the situation.

The most significant legacy of the war is the establishment of Marxist-Leninist ideology as the sole path forward for the country. The prevailing narrative posits that the Communist Party derived its legitimacy from its leadership in resisting U.S. intervention, liberating the nation from foreign influence, uniting the North and the South, and ensuring its constitutional role as the leading party of Vietnam. This has led to a totalitarian power structure that eliminates political dissent and enforces a rigid framework for economics, education, culture, and foreign policy.

For instance, consider the realm of education: the war with China in 1979 was omitted from history textbooks until very recently, and when mentioned, it consists of only a few brief lines. China has always played a complex role in Vietnam, a frenemy that creates a strained dynamic between the government and its citizens. Although both share a common ideology and China supported the Vietnamese Communist Party during the war, the 1979 conflict was merely one of many instances in which this "comrade" invaded Vietnam.

Another significant event involving China was its takeover of the Paracel Islands (Hoàng Sa) from the South Vietnamese government, resulting in the deaths of 74 South Vietnamese soldiers during the confrontation on January 19, 1974. Recognizing this history implies acknowledging the South as a legitimate government that fought for Vietnamese sovereignty against its arch-enemy. This is a narrative that contrasts sharply with the depiction of the South as a mere pawn of the U.S.

To this day, this dilemma remains unresolved. Protests against China, whether on the streets or in social media, have become a sensitive issue as the government seeks to balance public outrage with the necessity of maintaining diplomatic relations with China. This is an ongoing legacy of the war that continues to shape Vietnam’s socio-political landscape.

7) What role does the Vietnamese media play in narrating the war and the national reconstruction process? Are there generational differences in how today's journalists deal with this issue compared to those of the time?

The media in Vietnam has very limited power regarding freedom of the press. This is indirectly the legacy of the war, as the Communist Party tightly controls the media landscape, and independent reporters and bloggers often face the risk of imprisonment. According to Reporters Without Borders, the country ranks 174th out of 180 countries regarding press freedom. Compared to the early period of Đổi Mới, the situation has seen little change, if any, if not deterioration.

In the past, newspapers were encouraged to combat corruption; however, today, major corruption cases that come to light are frequently the result of internal investigations and political maneuvers, often referred to as the "burning furnace" (đốt lò), initiated by the late General Secretary Nguyễn Phú Trọng, rather than the diligent work of journalists. While this may suggest that the government is effectively addressing the moral degradation that erodes public trust in the party, it simultaneously risks undermining the media's power and citizens' voices.

8) If you could send a message to international audiences through your work on this anniversary, what would it be?

My work on the reconciliation commemorating the 50th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War has taught me that there is much still to be done. I wish the international community would shift its focus from the role of the U.S. in this conflict and instead pay closer attention to the enduring legacy of the war among the Vietnamese people.

Vietnam has yet to achieve the reconciliation process it truly deserves, especially considering the immense scale of the damage caused. According to the United Nations’ framework, reconciliation must provide four essential rights: truth, justice, reparation, and guarantees of non-recurrence. Utilizing this framework opens up a multitude of questions that beg for answers.

For instance, when we consider truth: Is there a truth and reconciliation committee in place? Have we heard the voices of Vietnamese individuals from all sides of the war, especially the Vietnamese diaspora? Are they receiving the necessary support to recognize that truth-telling is a vital component of healing, despite the pain that may initially accompany it? Are they being aided in revisiting those painful memories as part of their recovery? Can they connect their past experiences to their current realities? Do they have a legitimate forum in which to express their thoughts? Are their voices acknowledged or censored by the state?

Moving on to justice: Have any individuals or institutions ever offered apologies for their wrongdoings?

On the part of the Vietnamese government, has there been acknowledgement of the negative impacts of policies that led to economic collapse, indirectly forcing millions of refugees to risk their lives in search of safety, many of whom faced robbery, sexual assault, or even death at sea? What about the so-called “capitalists” whose properties were confiscated by the state, many of whom had to relocate and suffered harsh conditions in new economic zones? What about the Southern veterans who lost their freedom in re-education camps? Can we put aside hatred to locate the remains of both Northern and Southern soldiers who died during the war? True reconciliation necessitates restoring honor to these individuals, who were often labeled through war propaganda as lazy, cowardly, greedy, traitorous, and even sub-human.

Reparation is a critical component of reconciliation. One of the most challenging issues, as I learned through my interviews, is the legacy of land reform (cải cách ruộng đất) and the campaign against capitalists (đánh tư sản). Hundreds of thousands were executed or imprisoned, many of whom had been supporters of the Communist Party and the revolution but were then re-labeled as enemies because they owned lands and had money. Decades later, their families are still awaiting restitution for properties that were wrongly expropriated or for appropriate compensation. My godfather, a lifelong Communist, was one such individual. Until his death, he fought tirelessly to reclaim a family mansion seized by the government, while his family of four endured life in a cramped 25-square-meter home, hoping for a day when they could live in comfort once more.

Lastly, the right to guarantees of non-recurrence encompasses a wide array of potential policies to foster a strong democracy and economy. I must recognize the Vietnamese government's efforts in the latter, perhaps essential for maintaining legitimacy and building trust to reconcile with the past.

Most significantly, General Secretary Tô Lâm has recently stated that “the private sector must be the pioneering force in the new era.” This marks a revolutionary shift, given that centrally planned economies have long been viewed as the backbone of our system. The dismantling of this ideological foundation of Marxist-Leninist economic thought should be seen as a milestone in Vietnam’s journey forward.