The South Vietnamese who fled the fall of Saigon – and those who returned
More than 120,000 people fled Vietnam after the North Vietnamese captured Saigon on April 30, 1975.
This chaotic evacuation has been captured in iconic photos, documentary films and oral histories. How did the Vietnamese seeking safety actually get from small boats or rooftop helicopters to the United States?
First, they went to Guam.
In response to the emergency, the U.S. military established a refugee camp on this small island in the Pacific. On Guam, the U.S. government planned to assess the crisis and process individuals while preparing camps on the mainland for the incoming Vietnamese. However, approximately 1,500 Vietnamese had another idea – refusing resettlement in the U.S. and returning home.
I first learned of these events when I discovered images of the repatriates in the U.S. National Archives and found 'Ship of Fate,' the memoir of a South Vietnamese naval officer, Tran Dinh Tru. His story and that of other repatriates shows the real risks of repatriation if there are no guarantees of protection. This is an important lesson today given the U.S. government's current steps to make it harder for refugees to enter the country.
Tru was a respected career South Vietnamese naval officer. In the chaos of April 1975, Tru evacuated with other naval officers, and he organized for a ship to save his wife, who was stranded far outside Saigon. However, the ship failed to rescue his wife. Like many family members across South Vietnam, she was left behind with their three children to navigate the new political landscape.
Waiting on Guam alone, Tru despaired that he would never see his family again.
Tru was one of more than 1,500 Vietnamese on Guam who did not want to resettle in America. They called themselves the repatriates, and they wanted to return to Vietnam for a range of reasons.
Many were young South Vietnamese sailors who were aboard South Vietnamese ships as the North Vietnamese advanced on Saigon, and their captains had directed the ships out to sea and never returned to port. These young men did not see themselves as refugees.
In other cases, older men and women decided they did not have the stamina to start again in America. Others, like Tru, had family members who had missed connections, and they faced indefinite separation.
The repatriates turned to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the U.S. government and the Guamanian public to make the case that they should be allowed to return to Vietnam. They wrote letters to the Guam newspaper and built massive billboards within the camp demanding their return. The UNHCR and the U.S. could not guarantee their safety on return, and so they made no plans for their repatriation. Frustrated with the lack of action, many of the repatriates escalated their protests.
The repatriates built a makeshift stage. Men shaved their heads in front of a banner that proclaimed boldly in English, 'Thirty-Six Hours, Hunger Sit-In, Quiet, Hair Shaving Off, To Pray for a Soon Repatriation.' The repatriates also organized hunger strikes, militant marches through the streets of Guam and eventually set fire to buildings in the refugee camp.
This was a situation no one had anticipated. The repatriates did not want to go to the United States, the Guamanian government did not want them to stay on Guam and the U.S. government did not know what to do. Notably, the new Vietnamese government did not want them back.
In the end, the U.S. government granted the Vietnamese a commercial ship, the Viet Nam Thuong Tin, to return home. Tru agreed to be the captain due to his experience and skill. The Vietnamese repatriates knew the communist government saw them as hostile interlopers, traitors and possible CIA plants, but they still felt strongly that they must return.
The voyage took roughly two weeks, and the atmosphere on the ship was tense and cautious.
When the ship arrived in Vung Tau, a southern Vietnamese port, the Vietnamese government saw Tru as suspect and counterrevolutionary. They ignored his repeated wishes to reunite with his family, and the government imprisoned Tru in its network of 'reeducation camps,' where he suffered for 13 years. These camps punished South Vietnamese men who had fought against North Vietnam and allied themselves with South Vietnam and the United States. They combined prison labor and forced ideological training. They were marked by hunger, indefinite detention, and ongoing physical and psychological hardship.
My research into the limited reports of these events shows that the repatriates' sentences ranged from months to many years. As captain, Tru suffered their arbitrary brutality the longest.
Tru eventually resettled in the United States with his family in 1991.
It's worth noting that Tru's long voyage is unusual. Most of the more than 120,000 Vietnamese who fled Vietnam sought and soon gained resettlement in the United States. President Gerald Ford's administration allowed them to enter as 'parolees' – a loophole in U.S. immigration policy, which did not make provisions for refugees at that time.
However, by the time Tru was released and decided to immigrate to the United States, he was able to do so through the U.S. Humanitarian Operation program. The U.S. government designed this program for South Vietnamese officers and reeducation camp survivors in the late 1980s, and it expedited immigration processes for this population who had suffered directly because of their affiliations with the United States. The U.S. accepted over 70,000 Vietnamese who had been imprisoned in Vietnam.
In my view, the Vietnamese repatriates' story challenges us to recognize the risks and fears individuals face in moments of crisis, and ponder the difficult decisions that must be made at the end of a war.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Jana Lipman, Tulane University
Read more:
Vietnam War: Who was right about what went wrong – and why it matters in Afghanistan
During Vietnam War, music spoke to both sides of a divided nation
How Vietnam dramatically changed our views on honor and war
Jana Lipman received funding from the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation Research Travel Grant in 2011 and the General and Mrs. Matthew B. Ridgway Military History Research Grant from the US Army Military History Institute in 2010.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Safe transport of dangerous goods starts with packaging
The safe transport of hazardous materials—commonly referred to as hazmat—relies heavily on the integrity and compliance of their packaging. Whether it's flammable liquids, corrosive substances, or toxic chemicals, appropriate hazmat packaging is essential to protect people, property, and the environment. In the UK and globally, strict regulations govern how dangerous goods are packaged, labelled, and handled. Hazmat packaging must meet rigorous international standards to ensure safety during transit. The United Nations (UN) has established a classification system that dictates how hazardous materials are packaged, labelled, and transported. Each substance is assigned a hazard class (e.g., Class 3 for flammable liquids, Class 6.1 for toxic substances) and a packing group (I, II, or III) based on the level of danger. In the UK, the Carriage of Dangerous Goods Regulations align with international frameworks such as ADR (road), RID (rail), and IMDG (sea), requiring that all dangerous goods be contained in UN-certified packaging. This packaging must undergo rigorous testing—including drop, pressure, and leakproofness tests—to ensure it can withstand the rigours of transport. UN-approved packaging is marked with specific codes indicating the type of container, material, and the level of hazard it can safely contain. For instance, a code beginning with "1A1" denotes a non-removable head steel drum suitable for liquids, while "X," "Y," or "Z" indicates the packing group level the container is certified for. Selecting the appropriate packaging depends on the nature of the hazardous material. Common types include: Drums: Available in steel, plastic, or fibreboard, drums are widely used for transporting liquids and powders. Steel drums are ideal for flammable or volatile substances due to their durability and ability to be grounded, reducing static discharge risks. Intermediate Bulk Containers (IBCs): These are large, reusable containers, typically holding up to 1,000 litres. Made from high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and often encased in a metal cage, IBCs are suitable for bulk transport of liquids and are designed for easy handling with forklifts. Jerrycans: Smaller containers, usually up to 25 litres, made from metal or plastic. They are commonly used for transporting smaller quantities of hazardous liquids and are valued for their portability and resistance to corrosion. Salvage Drums: These are overpack containers used to contain leaking, damaged, or non-compliant drums. The "T" Salvage Drum, for example, meets stringent UN requirements for the safe recovery and transport of compromised hazardous material containers. The choice of packaging must also consider compatibility with the contents to prevent reactions that could compromise the container's integrity. For example, certain chemicals may corrode plastic, necessitating the use of metal containers. Ensuring safety in the handling and transport of hazardous materials extends beyond selecting the right container. Key best practices include: Proper Labelling: All hazmat packages must be clearly labelled with the appropriate hazard symbols, UN numbers, and handling instructions. This ensures that handlers and emergency responders are aware of the contents and associated risks. Employee Training: Personnel involved in the packaging and transport of hazardous materials must receive comprehensive training. This includes understanding the properties of the materials, packaging requirements, and emergency response procedures. Regular Inspections: Packaging should be routinely inspected for signs of wear, corrosion, or damage. Any compromised containers should be replaced or repackaged in salvage drums to prevent leaks or spills. Record Keeping: Maintaining detailed records of hazardous material shipments, including the types of packaging used and compliance with regulations, is essential for accountability and traceability. Adhering to these practices not only ensures compliance with legal requirements but also significantly reduces the risk of accidents during the transport of hazardous materials. Hazmat packaging is a critical component in the safe and compliant transport of dangerous goods. By understanding the regulations, selecting appropriate packaging, and implementing best practices, businesses can effectively mitigate risks associated with hazardous materials. As industries continue to evolve and new materials are developed, staying informed and proactive in hazmat packaging strategies remains essential for safety and environmental protection. "Safe transport of dangerous goods starts with packaging" was originally created and published by Packaging Gateway, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
UN says most flour delivered in Gaza looted or taken by starving people
By Michelle Nichols UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) -The United Nations said on Monday that it has only been able to bring minimal flour into Gaza since Israel lifted an aid blockade three weeks ago and that has mostly been looted by armed gangs or taken by starving Palestinians. The organization has transported 4,600 metric tonnes of wheat flour into Gaza via the Kerem Shalom crossing, the only entry point Israel allows it to use, Deputy U.N. spokesperson Fahan Haq told reporters. Haq said aid groups in Gaza estimate that between 8,000 and 10,000 metric tonnes of wheat flour were needed to give each family in Gaza a bag of flour and "ease the pressure on markets and reduce desperation." "Most of it was taken by desperate, starving people before the supplies reached their destinations. In some cases, the supplies were looted by armed gangs," Haq said. According to World Food Programme guidelines, 4,600 metric tonnes of flour would provide roughly eight days' worth of bread for Gaza's 2 million residents, based on a standard daily ration of 300 grams per person. Haq called for Israel to let in far more aid via multiple crossings and routes. The U.N. has mostly delivered flour along with limited medical and nutrition items since Israel lifted the 11-week blockade in mid-May. Experts warn Gaza is at risk of famine, with the rate of young children suffering acute malnutrition nearly tripling. Israel and the United States want the U.N. to work through the controversial new Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, but the U.N. has refused, questioning its neutrality and accusing the distribution model of militarizing aid and forcing displacement. Israel and the United States have accused Hamas of stealing aid from the U.N.-led operations, which the militants deny. The GHF uses private U.S. security and logistics firms to operate. It began operations in Gaza on May 26 and said on Monday so far it has given out 11.4 million meals. Israel makes the U.N. offload aid on the Palestinian side of the Kerem Shalom crossing, where it then has to be picked by the U.N. and aid groups already in Gaza. The U.N. has accused Israel of regularly denying access requests.


New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Story of Vietnamese orphans who resettled here 50 years ago proves there are greater things than politics
Fifty years ago, near the end of the Vietnam War, as North Vietnamese troops headed south, the director of the Cam Ranh Christian Orphanage, Pastor Nguyen Xuan Ha — known to everyone as Mr. Ha —decided it was time to escape to somewhere safe. Mr. Ha put 85 children and staff on two buses and headed for Saigon where he hoped they could flee to safety. One of the buses was shot at by a North Vietnamese soldier and the buses separated. Somehow they re-united in Saigon. After renting a boat and getting some distance from shore, the engine quit. For five days they drifted before a Thailand tanker approached. The captain refused to help, but later changed his mind, turned around and towed them for a while. After cutting the tow line, a group of fishermen towed them toward Singapore. Soldiers refused to let them ashore. Mr. Ha wrote a name on a piece of paper and asked a soldier if he could locate a missionary named Ralph Neighbour to help. Dr. Neighbour (now 96), newly arrived in Singapore, was miraculously found. He picks up the story from there in an email to me: 'Singapore government kept them out on St. John's Island. Our missionary team took clothes and food out. USA embassy contacted Swiss United Nations Refugee Center. Special flight arrived. Children whisked thru Singapore on bus with windows covered. Government feared losing neutrality during war. No official record they were there.' I knew Dr. Neighbour from when he was a pastor in Houston where I worked at a local TV station. He called and asked if I could help get the orphans and staff to the United States and find temporary housing for them. I contacted some Washington officials I knew and permission for them to enter the country was granted. When they arrived in Houston, a church couple with a large ranch offered them shelter and food until the Buckner Children and Family Services in Dallas could assist with processing and adoptions. I interviewed the youngest, oldest and one in between who made the anniversary trip. Sam Schrade, who was a baby when he was rescued from the streets of Saigon, is 51 and owns a successful media business in Houston. How would his life have been different had he stayed in Vietnam? He says the fact that he is of 'mixed race' (American-Asian) would make it 'doubly hard' because native Vietnamese 'look down upon such people. I have been told by many people I would not have had a good life here because of the race issue and a government that didn't want me.' Kelli St. German, now 56, thinks she might have been growing coffee beans and doing hard labor had she not come to America. She also believes she would not have developed a strong faith because of the state's antipathy toward religion. 'I became a teacher for 30 years.' Thomas Ho, the oldest orphan, now 76, was 25 when he left Vietnam. He helped organize the evacuation and prepared small amounts of food for the children. In America he became a chef and then studied to become an engineer. He says if he had stayed in Vietnam, 'I might not have survived, especially at my age now. Life here is very difficult. A lot of the food is not very healthy.' Reuniting with these adults, many of whom I met when they were children, is a reminder that there are things far greater than politics, celebrities and the petty jealousies that are the focus of too many of us. There are few greater blessings than to have had a role in changing these lives for the better. These former orphans are blessed. So am I. Cal Thomas is a veteran political commentator, columnist and author.