• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

40th anniversery of iconic photograph

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Inactive
Reaction score
36
Points
560
Interesting to see how the photo was manipulated over all these years even without Photoshop; look at what the actual photographer had to say:

http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2008/02/the.html

Which of these men did the photographer think was a hero?

Viet_cong

This morning is the fortieth anniversary of one of the iconic images of the Vietnam War. It was taken on 1 February 1968, with the Tet offensive in its early stages. It pictures General Nguyan Ngoc Loan executing a Vietcong prisoner.

It is, no question about it, a terrible image.

This morning, with its admirable instinct for a story, the Today programme told the tale of Eddie Adams's photograph and the impact it made.

Sadly Adams is dead, so the programme featured a different, but also distinguished, war photographer Philip Jones Griffiths. And Jones Griffiths described his feelings about the photo and his own decision to track down and photograph the executed man's widow.

Jones Griffiths had strong views on the photo and gave them to us.

He dismissed the idea that the executed man had been a killer saying both that the idea that the man had just killed others was "kind of propaganda" and that "he wouldn't have been much of a Vietcong soldier" if he hadn't tried to kill people. He clearly viewed the photo's power as being its revelation of the evil of the war and America's involvement.

These were interesting, legitimate, opinions. But it is a shame that it wasn't mentioned that they were not remotely the views held by Eddie Adams of his own photo.

Here's what Eddie Adams had to say about General Loan:

    The guy was a hero.

And - surely an essential point in any proper discussion of the history of the photograph - here's what he had to say in Time magazine about his photograph:

    The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon 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 soldiers?

When Loan died, Adams - who had called him many times to apologise for the damage done to Loan's reputation - sent a bunch of flowers with the inscription:

    I'm sorry. There are tears in my eyes.

Adams wished he had never taken the photo, and whether or not he was right about this I think it should have been mentioned this morning, don't you?

Posted by Daniel Finkelstein on February 1, 2008
 
Of the Vietnam war, I remember a couple of photos to be hard hitting....

- The execution of the Viet Minh prisonner AND
- The Napalm burnt girl running down the road screaming her guts out...
 
The still photo may say 1 000 words, but the footage taken with the video camera directly beside the photographer speaks an entire dictionary.
I'm a fan of good photography, but that picture..... isn't.

Midget
 
I've seen the photo of the execution a hundred times, and it still gives me shivers. I remember there being corresponding video footage of this event too - cut off right when the bullet meets the head.
 
I saw on the Fifth Estate that the "Naplam Girl" is now a Canadian citizen
 
Along with the stills, there is also running footage in colour of both incidents.

War is violent, good and bad are killed, and the word war is truly the worst four lettered word of them all.
 
HFXCrow said:
I saw on the Fifth Estate that the "Naplam Girl" is now a Canadian citizen

Her name is Kim Phuc and she has been in Canada since 1992, and became a Canadian citizen in 1997. She is alive and well and living in Toronto.

Kim Phuc

The image of Kim Phuc running, which was often used to depict the horror of the Vietnam War, changed Kim's life and also formed a bond between her and photographer Nick Ut. He revisited Vietnam during the 25th anniversary of the war's end and this time took pictures of a peaceful country.

In 1992, Kim Phuc came to Canada. In 1997 she took the Canadian citizenship test earning a perfect score. When Canadians found out that the little girl from the 1972 photo was now a Canadian citizen, they raised $30 000 to help her settle in Canada (Quinlan,1999:95). She has been declared a Goodwill Ambassador to UNESCO. In 1997, she established the Kim Foundation, a not-for-profit organization to help children who are the victims of war.
 
Even more on MSM manipulation of events. The AQ and Taliban must be hoping and praying for something similar in Iraq and Afghanistan:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120226056767646059.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

The Lies of Tet
By ARTHUR HERMAN
February 6, 2008

On January 30, 1968, more than a quarter million North Vietnamese soldiers and 100,000 Viet Cong irregulars launched a massive attack on South Vietnam. But the public didn't hear about who had won this most decisive battle of the Vietnam War, the so-called Tet offensive, until much too late.

Media misreporting of Tet passed into our collective memory. That picture gave antiwar activism an unwarranted credibility that persists today in Congress, and in the media reaction to the war in Iraq. The Tet experience provides a narrative model for those who wish to see all U.S. military successes -- such as the Petraeus surge -- minimized and glossed over.

In truth, the war in Vietnam was lost on the propaganda front, in great measure due to the press's pervasive misreporting of the clear U.S. victory at Tet as a defeat. Forty years is long past time to set the historical record straight.

The Tet offensive came at the end of a long string of communist setbacks. By 1967 their insurgent army in the South, the Viet Cong, had proved increasingly ineffective, both as a military and political force. Once American combat troops began arriving in the summer of 1965, the communists were mauled in one battle after another, despite massive Hanoi support for the southern insurgency with soldiers and arms. By 1967 the VC had lost control over areas like the Mekong Delta -- ironically, the very place where reporters David Halberstam and Neil Sheehan had first diagnosed a Vietnam "quagmire" that never existed.

The Tet offensive was Hanoi's desperate throw of the dice to seize South Vietnam's northern provinces using conventional armies, while simultaneously triggering a popular uprising in support of the Viet Cong. Both failed. Americans and South Vietnamese soon put down the attacks, which began under cover of a cease-fire to celebrate the Tet lunar new year. By March 2, when U.S. Marines crushed the last North Vietnamese pockets of resistance in the northern city of Hue, the VC had lost 80,000-100,000 killed or wounded without capturing a single province.

Tet was a particularly crushing defeat for the VC. It had not only failed to trigger any uprising but also cost them "our best people," as former Viet Cong doctor Duong Quyunh Hoa later admitted to reporter Stanley Karnow. Yet the very fact of the U.S. military victory -- "The North Vietnamese," noted National Security official William Bundy at the time, "fought to the last Viet Cong" -- was spun otherwise by most of the U.S. press.

As the Washington Post's Saigon bureau chief Peter Braestrup documented in his 1977 book, "The Big Story," the desperate fury of the communist attacks including on Saigon, where most reporters lived and worked, caught the press by surprise. (Not the military: It had been expecting an attack and had been on full alert since Jan. 24.) It also put many reporters in physical danger for the first time. Braestrup, a former Marine, calculated that only 40 of 354 print and TV journalists covering the war at the time had seen any real fighting. Their own panic deeply colored their reportage, suggesting that the communist assault had flung Vietnam into chaos.

Their editors at home, like CBS's Walter Cronkite, seized on the distorted reporting to discredit the military's version of events. The Viet Cong insurgency was in its death throes, just as U.S. military officials assured the American people at the time. Yet the press version painted a different picture.

To quote Braestrup, "the media tended to leave the shock and confusion of early February, as then perceived, fixed as the final impression of Tet" and of Vietnam generally. "Drama was perpetuated at the expense of information," and "the negative trend" of media reporting "added to the distortion of the real situation on the ground in Vietnam."

The North Vietnamese were delighted. On the heels of their devastating defeat, Hanoi increasingly shifted its propaganda efforts toward the media and the antiwar movement. Causing American (not South Vietnamese) casualties, even at heavy cost, became a battlefield objective in order to reinforce the American media's narrative of a failing policy in Vietnam.

Yet thanks to the success of Tet, the numbers of Americans dying in Vietnam steadily declined -- from almost 15,000 in 1968 to 9,414 in 1969 and 4,221 in 1970 -- by which time the Viet Cong had ceased to exist as a viable fighting force. One Vietnamese province after another witnessed new peace and stability. By the end of 1969 over 70% of South Vietnam's population was under government control, compared to 42% at the beginning of 1968. In 1970 and 1971, American ambassador Ellsworth Bunker estimated that 90% of Vietnamese lived in zones under government control.

However, all this went unnoticed because misreporting about Tet had left the image of Vietnam as a botched counterinsurgency -- an image nearly half a decade out of date. The failure of the North's next massive invasion over Easter 1972, which cost the North Vietnamese army another 100,000 men and half their tanks and artillery, finally forced it to sign the peace accords in Paris and formally to recognize the Republic of South Vietnam. By August 1972 there were no U.S. combat forces left in Vietnam, precisely because, contrary to the overwhelming mass of press reports, American policy there had been a success.

To Congress and the public, however, the war had been nothing but a debacle. And by withdrawing American troops, President Nixon gave up any U.S. political or military leverage on Vietnam's future. With U.S. military might out of the equation, the North quickly cheated on the Paris accords. When its re-equipped army launched a massive attack in 1975, Congress refused to redeem Nixon's pledges of military support for the South. Instead, President Gerald Ford bowed to what the media had convinced the American public was inevitable: the fall of Vietnam.

The collapse of South Vietnam's neighbor, Cambodia, soon followed. Southeast Asia entered the era of the "killing fields," exterminating in a brief few years an estimated two million people -- 30% of the Cambodian population. American military policy has borne the scars of Vietnam ever since.

It had all been preventable -- but for the lies of Tet.

Mr. Herman is the author of "Gandhi and Churchill: The Epic Rivalry That Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age," to be published by Bantam Dell in April.
 
Wesley  Down Under said:
War is violent, good and bad are killed, and the word war is truly the worst four lettered word of them all.

+1
 
Woman in iconic Vietnam War photo to be honoured Friday

The Canadian Press
08 June 2012
copy at: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120608/vietnam-photo-napalm-honoured-120608/

TORONTO — A woman who came to symbolize the horrors of the Vietnam War is being honoured Friday on the 40th anniversary of the photo that made her famous.

Kim Phuc Phan Thi was only a child when she was photographed fleeing a napalm strike on her village in South Vietnam on June 8, 1972.

The image of her running naked down a road captured worldwide attention and later won a Pulitzer Prize.

She now lives in the Toronto area and is set to spend today's milestone looking back at how the iconic photo changed her life.

She'll share the stage at a special event tonight with Nick Ut, the award-winning photographer behind the image, and others who helped her survive the conflict.

The event's organizer says the woman who garnered worldwide fame "can't even describe the emotions" stirred up by the anniversary.



 
I'm glad somebody has posted about this.  Thanks, old medic.  It's good to see the pic of the photographer as well, in the CTV link. 

The CBC link adds a bit about Kim Phuc's subsequent charitable work as well.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/06/08/vietnam-war-photo-.html

Five years later, she founded the Kim Foundation International, which provides free medical assistance to children who are victims of war and terrorism.

She is also a goodwill ambassador for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO.

That picture continues to be just... arresting.   
 
A very interestig look at the circumstances surrounding the photograph. Context is bery important, and as we have seen over and over again, photos and video is often manipulated by separating the image from the context, changing the meaning of the image:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/forty-years-later-kim-phuc-and-her-north-vietnamese-enemies/?singlepage=true

Forty Years Later: Kim Phuc and Her North Vietnamese Enemies
Meet the girl in the picture considered iconic for all the wrong reasons.
by
JEAN KAUFMAN
June 7, 2012 - 12:00 am
     
If you are of a certain age, you almost certainly remember Kim Phuc vividly, even though you may not know her name. She was the nine-year-old South Vietnamese girl who was burned by napalm on June 8, 1972, and whose image in a prize-winning photo taken by South Vietnamese AP photographer Nick Ut became an iconic and influential force that helped end the war.

The picture of Kim running down a road near the village of Trang Bang screaming in agony and terror, her clothes torn off and her body badly burned, shocked and outraged an America that had become profoundly weary of the war and its horrors. The photo was Picasso’s Guernica come to life, even more horrific because it was not just an artist’s imaginative and stylized rendition of the bombing’s effects, but the real thing.

As familiar as the photo has become, the story behind it is less so. For example, if the introductory paragraph of this essay had read: “She was the nine-year-old girl who was burned by napalm dropped by American forces in South Vietnam,” how many readers would have caught the error?

In fact, it was the South Vietnamese who were doing the bombing, but the idea that Kim was burned at the hands of Americans persists. That is only one of several common misconceptions about the attack, because the incident has been widely misrepresented and misunderstood through errors of omission and commission.

In many accounts — up to and including this recent AP story in honor of the photo’s 40th anniversary — the crucial role of the North Vietnamese is downplayed. The AP article’s only mention of their role in the battle is in a sentence that states Kim and her family had taken shelter in a temple for three days “as north and south Vietnamese forces fought for control of their village.”

The phrase almost makes it sound as though the claims of the two sides were about equal. But in reality those North Vietnamese forces were invading the South Vietnamese village of Trang Bang that Kim and her family called home, and the South Vietnamese forces were defending it from them (by 1972, the vast majority of Communist forces fighting in the South were Northerners).

What happened that June day 40 years ago was depicted in this original report on the incident. It was filed by Christopher Wain, a British journalist on the scene who witnessed the battle, the airstrike, the napalming of Kim and the others, and who also assisted her in getting help afterward.

Wain described a firefight between South Vietnamese forces and the North Vietnamese infantry who were dug into bunkers on the outskirts of the village. Because the white markers that the South Vietnamese had dropped to indicate the Northern positions had been dissipated in the rain, the South Vietnamese airplanes made the error of dropping bombs near their own forces instead. Some South Vietnamese infantry (ARVN) ran from the temple to escape the sudden danger, along with a group of civilians (including Kim) caught in the crossfire whom the ARVN forces were waving to safety. Another South Vietnamese plane came by, and according to Wain:

I suppose all the pilot could see was figures running, which is what he would expect the North Vietnamese to be doing. You cannot identify people when you are 100 feet up and flying at 300 miles per hour, so he flew in and dropped four canisters of napalm on top of them …

As this report points out, the fleeing ARVN members were armed and running with the civilians toward the regular ARVN units, a situation that contributed to the pilot’s perception that they were the Northern enemy determined to attack the Southern positions. The ARVN soldiers carrying their weapons can clearly be seen in Ut’s photo, behind the burned children.

Once the setting and protagonists are understood, the situation becomes apparent: a tragic case of friendly fire and civilian casualties in a war in which the Northern enemy counted on the fact that civilians and children would be hurt and killed, Pulitzer Prize-winning photographs would be taken, and the American public would shrink even further from a conflict in which the lines between combatants and civilians could rarely be cleanly drawn and these horrific errors were inevitable.

And that was the way it played out, with the cooperation of a large segment of the Western press. By the time of the incident and the photograph, American active forces had largely been withdrawn from South Vietnam (only two American advisers were involved that day, neither with any command authority). That is another fact that has been widely forgotten, and although it meant that the picture’s notoriety could not have been especially instrumental in the withdrawal of American forces, the photo did have the effect of contributing to the public’s support for Congress’s later cutoff of financial aid to the ARVN, which brought on the war’s final tragic chapters.

There is a bitter irony in all this, because the photo ended up ultimately facilitating the takeover of Kim’s village — as well as all of South Vietnam — by those Northerners the South had fought so long and hard to repel, and who had started the battle by attacking Trang Bang. In addition, the withdrawal of funds occurred at a time when some experts maintain that the tide had turned in favor of the South.

The Northern takeover caused renewed suffering for Kim herself. It was only after the North took over that she began to have trouble getting medical help for her continued pain. It was only after the North took over that she was pulled from college and used as a propaganda tool, “trotted out to meet foreign journalists” and forced to tell them what the authorities told her to say.

Kim’s life finally improved after many years. The Vietnamese prime minister arranged for her to study in Cuba, where she met her husband-to-be. They traveled to Moscow for their honeymoon, and when their flight stopped in Canada on the way back to Cuba they seized the opportunity to defect. These days she travels frequently to speak to the public, and she has now accepted the photo as a “powerful gift” in her life.

It is wonderful that Kim’s existence has become so much happier. But it is up to us to draw the correct conclusions from her story: what was the real atrocity here, and who were the perpetrators?

Kim is glad to be alive now, but she describes her attitude growing up in Communist-dominated Vietnam this way:

I got burned by napalm, and I became a victim of war … but growing up then, I became another kind of victim. … I wished I died in that attack with my cousin, with my south Vietnamese soldiers.

From her telling phrase “my south Vietnamese soldiers,” it is clear that Kim does not see them as the villains of the piece.

Jean Kaufman is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at neo-neocon.
 
Another interesting viewpoint.

I never thought the Americans had dropped the napalm in that particular case.  Maybe that misconception was more common a while back. 
 
Back
Top