Thuý Mùi wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on February 28, 2025. Đàm Vĩnh Hằng translated it into English for The Vietnamese Magazine.
As spaces that preserve collective memory, history museums inherently function as political institutions where power, ideology, and authority shape the narrative. In Việt Nam, recent studies show that the Party and State have carefully operated this “memory machine,” using significant resources to construct a historical discourse that legitimizes their rule. This process involves filtering out narratives that challenge official histories and marginalizing perspectives that question the nature of the nation’s military “victories.”
The new Việt Nam People’s Army History Museum (VPAHM), opened in Hà Nội in early 2024, serves as a prime example of this strategy. A large-scale expansion of its predecessor, it houses over 150,000 artifacts, including four designated national treasures. The museum’s expansion is a key part of a broader state strategy to build national identity and promote a “rising Việt Nam.” However, this identity-building process appears disconnected from a more holistic development framework—one that balances economic, social, and environmental sustainability as outlined in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), to which Việt Nam has committed.
A Selective Historical Narrative
The dominant discourse at the VPAHM celebrates military victory while carefully curating its historical narrative. While cultural symbols of peace and postwar rebirth are selectively showcased, the tremendous human costs of war, such as collective trauma, are largely omitted. Similarly absent are themes related to the UN’s SDGs, like reconciliation, environmental responsibility, and inclusive historical dialogue. The museum appears designed primarily to foster national pride in past achievements rather than to engage with the more complex and painful aspects of Việt Nam’s history.
Behind the Project: Structure and Politics
The structure of Việt Nam’s national museum system reflects the state’s governance priorities. The General Political Department manages the VPAHM under the Ministry of Defense, whereas the National Museum of History falls under the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism. This bureaucratic distinction has tangible effects: the National History Museum’s expansion, initiated in 2006, remains incomplete, while the Army Museum’s overhaul was fast-tracked and finished in just six years to align with the 80th anniversary of the Việt Nam People’s Army.
The project’s international connections also raise questions about its selective narrative. Although designed by the Japanese firm Nikken Sekkei with an investment of 2.5 trillion đồng (approximately $ 100 million), the project is curiously absent from the firm’s official website. Furthermore, Japan’s historical role in Việt Nam, particularly during World War II, is conspicuously absent from the museum’s exhibits, which continue to focus exclusively on French colonialism and American imperialism.
Constructing the Narrative
The VPAHM’s historical discourse is constructed primarily through curated exhibits and mass media. The development of these elements was led by investors, designers, and contractors, with little substantive input from historians, anthropologists, or Việt Nam studies scholars. In effect, architects were tasked with the responsibility of shaping “national identity.”
In the media, the museum is uniformly praised as a symbol of modernity and patriotism, designed to “ignite national pride and the love of country.” This narrative is reinforced by presenting veterans as “agents of remembrance” and has been largely supported by social scientists and journalists, some of whom nominated the museum as the “cultural event of the year.”
Aesthetic Conflicts
Despite shared goals, stakeholders differ in their aesthetic preferences for the VPAHM. A prime example is the museum’s colonnade. Museum managers describe it as representing bamboo groves—a symbol of Vietnamese resilience that echoes the language of the late General Secretary Nguyễn Phú Trọng. In contrast, the chief designer interprets the columns as waves of soldiers heading into battle, a more romantic, revolutionary vision. These competing interpretations reveal deeper tensions and highlight a fundamental disagreement among stakeholders: the Defense Ministry aimed to project military strength, while the designers hoped to showcase the creative potential of Việt Nam’s architecture industry.
A Declaration of Victory at What Cost?
The central theme of the VPAHM remains Việt Nam’s military triumphs over foreign invaders across the centuries. This one-sided narrative, however, fails to engage with the difficult questions and tragedies of war, such as civilian casualties, the North-South divide, or social disintegration. This shallow approach appears rooted in a reliance on outdated historical sources that ignore newer, more collaborative scholarship.
The iconic MiG-21 fighter jet exhibit serves as a prime example. It is displayed as a national treasure symbolizing victory but is presented without deeper context—no mention of operational strategies, pilot testimonies, or contrasting international perspectives. U.S. military historians, for example, have noted that Việt Nam’s air force often prioritized disrupting bombing raids over direct confrontation. This lack of nuance is especially striking given that recent Vietnamese-led efforts, including films and books, have begun exploring these more complex air combat histories. The museum’s other major exhibits, such as those on Điện Biên Phủ, suffer from a similar lack of critical depth.
National Pride vs. Sustainable Development
When measured against international standards for museums, such as UNESCO’s guidelines on sustainable development, the VPAHM’s shortcomings become clear. While the museum presents an image of modernity, there is no public data on its environmental impact or energy consumption, nor is it listed among Việt Nam’s “green buildings.” This stands in stark contrast to institutions like Canada’s War Museum, which transparently reports its sustainability metrics, including reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Socially, the museum also misses key opportunities. Built on land in Đại Mỗ village, it overlooks the area’s own local history, which is absent from the museum’s materials. There is no assessment of whether local communities benefit economically from the museum as a tourism draw, and it offers little in the way of robust research or creative programming, leaving its library sparse.
Economically, the museum’s long-term viability is a major concern. No operational plan has been publicly disclosed, even as a second construction phase is underway. Without a clear strategy, the VPAHM risks becoming financially unsustainable, a fate that has befallen other state-run memory institutions in Việt Nam, like the Điện Biên Phủ Victory Museum.
Nation-building through historical discourse is a common practice worldwide. But for it to be truly sustainable, it must be guided by a long-term vision that includes environmental, social, and economic development. The hope is that future phases of the Việt Nam People’s Army History Museum will integrate these elements, adopting UNESCO’s guidelines to ensure the museum not only preserves a curated past but also serves the holistic needs of future generations.
