The Land Reform program launched by the Vietnam Workers’ Party in North Việt Nam eventually escalated into what many described as a “bloodbath.” Radicalized peasants perpetrated acts of violence that led to widespread injustice and wrongful convictions. As detailed in Alex Thái Võ’s study “Nguyen Thi Nam and the Land Reform in North Vietnam, 1953,” the issue of Hồ Chí Minh’s responsibility is acutely visible in the tragic case of Cát Hanh Long Nguyễn Thị Năm, a major benefactor of the party.
Originally from Hà Nội, Nguyễn Thị Năm relocated to Hải Phòng following her marriage. When her husband’s previously wealthy family fell into financial ruin, she became solely responsible for providing for them. Her entrepreneurial journey began with a small dog-meat noodle shop, eventually transitioning into the scrap iron trade once the Hải Phòng Cement Factory commenced operations.
Proving herself to be a highly talented businesswoman, Nguyễn Thị Năm established a series of successful enterprises. She progressed to importing steel directly from France and founded a company named Cát Hanh Long, combining the names of her sons, Nguyễn Hanh and Nguyễn Cát. While both sons would later become targets of the Land Reform, they ultimately escaped execution. The prominence of her company led to her becoming widely known by the moniker Cát Hanh Long.
Three Times Accused as a “Cruel Landlord”
As her wealth grew, Nguyễn Thị Năm purchased significant tracts of land, reportedly totaling 1,283 mẫu. She used her resources philanthropically during the 1945 famine by providing relief to starving locals. Furthermore, she cleared forest land for sugarcane cultivation and imported French machinery to build the region’s first sugar mill.
Her financial contributions to the revolution were vast. Records indicate that she donated hundreds taels of gold during the Việt Minh’s “Gold Week” and also supplied essential goods such as rice, cloth, and typewriters.
She helped establish the Women’s Association and served as the chairwoman of the Vietnam Women’s Union in Thái Nguyên Province. Most notably, during the resistance war, she sheltered nearly the entire Vietnam Workers’ Party leadership—including Hồ Chí Minh, Võ Nguyên Giáp, Nguyễn Chí Thanh, Trường Chinh, Phạm Văn Đồng, Lê Thanh Nghị, Lê Giản, and Hoàng Quốc Việt—at her properties in Thái Nguyên.
Despite this immense support, when the Land Reform reached Thái Nguyên, Nguyễn Thị Năm was branded a landlord and forced to endure three public denunciation sessions. The final session lasted entirely through the day on May 22, 1953. She was sentenced to death alongside her assistant, Lê Đình Hàm, while her two sons—both serving as Việt Minh officers—were imprisoned.
Because landlords were officially granted time to request clemency, the execution was nominally delayed. A July 14, 1953, report by Hoàng Quốc Việt, head of the pilot Land Reform Steering Committee, confirmed her death sentence but left her current status unclear. However, three days later on July 17, 1953, a report by Trần Đức Thịnh of the National Peasants’ Liaison Committee explicitly listed Nguyễn Thị Năm among those already executed.
According to an RFA article by J.B. Nguyễn Hữu Vinh, who interviewed Lê Đình Hàm’s son, Lê Đình Phúc, the execution of his father and Nguyễn Thị Năm actually occurred on July 9, 1953 (the 29th day of the fifth lunar month).
Hồ Chí Minh Could Have Prevented the Execution
Assigning blame for the Land Reform’s atrocities has historically taken several paths. Because Chinese advisers aided the campaign, many attribute the responsibility entirely to them. In Mặt Thật (“The Real Face”), Bùi Tín noted that Hoàng Quốc Việt called these advisers “heaven-sent gentlemen, Mao Zedong’s special envoys.” [1]
When Hoàng Quốc Việt relayed the advisers’ recommendation to target Nguyễn Thị Năm, Hồ Chí Minh reportedly responded:
“This is not right. We cannot begin the campaign by opening fire on a woman, especially one who once sheltered communist cadres and is the mother of a currently serving political commissar in the People’s Army.”
He allegedly promised to intervene.
Alternative theories shift the blame elsewhere. Some hold local cadres accountable, attributing the abuses to “leftist deviation” at the commune level—an explanation that formed the basis for the subsequent “Rectification of Errors” campaign. Others point to party hardliners, specifically General Secretary Trường Chinh.
Historians such as William Duiker, David Marr, and Lien-Hang Nguyen have theorized that Hồ Chí Minh functioned largely as a symbolic figurehead during this era, leaving operational responsibility to Trường Chinh.
Alex Thái Võ, however, arrives at the opposite conclusion, arguing that Hồ Chí Minh bore direct responsibility for both the campaign and Nguyễn Thị Năm’s specific fate. Võ poses a critical question:
“What could the Chinese advisers have done if Hồ Chí Minh, as leader of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, had opposed their decision or proposed another landlord who was more culpable?”
It is highly improbable that foreign advisers would have openly defied the party chairman and head of state.
Furthermore, research by Alex Thái Võ demonstrates that Hồ Chí Minh was deeply involved in the operational logistics. He personally launched the campaign, attended planning meetings, appointed key officials, and signed Decree 151/SL, which formalized 14 categories of punishment for landlords.
In the specific case of Nguyễn Thị Năm, she retained the right to seek clemency during the two months between her final denunciation in May 1953 and her execution in July 1953. Alex Thái Võ documents numerous clemency petitions submitted directly to President Hồ Chí Minh on her behalf. Concurrently, her case was discussed in at least three separate Land Reform reports.
This indicates that Hồ Chí Minh possessed the authority and opportunity to grant clemency at any point yet chose not to.
Simultaneously, state media was weaponized against her. General Secretary Trường Chinh directed journalist Trần Đĩnh to closely cover the case of Nguyễn Thị Năm, resulting in four articles in Nhân Dân.
Following this series, on July 21, 1953, Nhân Dân (The People) newspaper published an article titled “What a Wicked Landlord” (Địa chủ ác ghê). It was penned by C.B.—one of Hồ Chí Minh’s 66 known pseudonyms—and aggressively denounced Nguyễn Thị Năm (Cát Hanh Long) using the exact rhetoric found in the public denunciation sessions.
Key Dates in the 1953 Land Reform Campaign and the Nguyễn Thị Năm Case
| Date | Event |
| Jan. 16, 1950 | China appointed Luo Guibo as head of its advisory mission in Việt Nam. |
| August 1952 | The party issued the “Directive of the Central Committee on the Party’s Land Policy.” |
| Sept. 3, 1952 | Luo Guibo submitted recommendations to Trường Chinh and Hồ Chí Minh, later recorded in “Preliminary Opinions of Comrade Luo Guibo (Chinese Adviser) on Mass Mobilization in 1953.” Hồ Chí Minh was then traveling in China and the Soviet Union. |
| Oct. 9, 1952 | Trường Chinh forwarded Luo Guibo’s proposal to Hồ Chí Minh in Moscow. |
| Oct. 17, 1952 | Hồ Chí Minh wrote to Stalin requesting a meeting regarding conditions in Việt Nam and asked that Liu Shaoqi participate. Stalin agreed. |
| Oct. 28, 1952 | Hồ Chí Minh and Liu Shaoqi met with Stalin. |
| Oct. 30–31, 1952 | Hồ Chí Minh sent two letters to Stalin concerning Việt Nam’s Land Reform policy. |
| Nov. 15, 1952 | Nguyễn Thị Năm (Cát Hanh Long) was first tried during the rent- and interest-reduction campaign. |
| Dec. 20, 1952 | Nguyễn Thị Năm was tried a second time. |
| Early 1953 | China dispatched Zhong Dequn and 42 additional Land Reform specialists to Việt Nam. |
| March 1, 1953 | Nhân Dân published “The Cát Hanh Long Case: Mobilizing Peasants for Struggle” by N.D. |
| April 14, 1953 | Hồ Chí Minh and the party launched the pilot phase of Land Reform. |
| May 22, 1953 | Nguyễn Thị Năm was tried a third time and sentenced to death. |
| July 6, 1953 | Nhân Dân published “Peasants’ Struggle Congress” by T.Đ. concerning Nguyễn Thị Năm’s case. |
| July 14–17, 1953 | Nguyễn Thị Năm was executed. |
| July 21, 1953 | Nhân Dân published “What a Wicked Landlord” by C.B., condemning Cát Hanh Long. “C.B.” was one of Hồ Chí Minh’s pen names. |
| Nov. 19, 1953 | Hồ Chí Minh sent a telegram to Stalin reaffirming his commitment to rural reform. |
| October 1956 | At a Central Committee conference, Hồ Chí Minh removed Trường Chinh as General Secretary because of mistakes in Land Reform. |
| October 1956 | Võ Nguyên Giáp, on behalf of Hồ Chí Minh, delivered a public speech acknowledging errors in Land Reform. |
| December 1956 | Hồ Chí Minh publicly wept and admitted shortcomings in Land Reform. |
Why did Hồ Chí Minh fail to intervene to prevent Nguyễn Thị Năm’s execution or halt the widespread “leftist deviation” that characterized the campaign?
The most likely answer is that the true objective of the Land Reform was to solidify the party’s control over the countryside, prioritizing the consolidation of political power above all else.
Even before Alex Thái Võ’s research, several prominent voices challenged the narrative of Hồ Chí Minh’s innocence in this matter. In his memoir Đêm giữa ban ngày (“Night in the Middle of the Day”), Vũ Thư Hiên asserted that a single command from Hồ Chí Minh could have saved Nguyễn Thị Năm, along with thousands of others who were persecuted and wrongfully killed. [2]
Bùi Tín echoed this sentiment in Mặt Thật, arguing that Hồ Chí Minh bore partial responsibility regardless of whether he knew the specifics.
But if he did know that Nguyễn Thị Năm had been unjustly condemned and nevertheless remained silent, was that not itself an act of irresponsibility?
Furthermore, Bùi Tín posited that if the president was aware of Nguyễn Thị Năm’s unjust condemnation and chose to remain silent, that silence was in itself an act of gross irresponsibility.
Nevertheless, Alex Thái Võ concludes that the persecution and execution of Nguyễn Thị Năm symbolize the authoritarianism of both the national leadership and the local officials who carried out the Land Reform. This absolute concentration of power birthed a level of violence and injustice that remains impossible to fully quantify today.
Vũ Quí Hạo Nhiên wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on March 14, 2024. Đàm Vĩnh Hằng translated it into English for The Vietnamese Magazine.
