The complex developments surrounding internal conflicts within the political system of the Communist Party of Vietnam are revealing a deeply concerning ideological rift.
In a recent incident, VTV1’s “Face-to-Face” program aired an episode but hastily edited out content opposing the so-called “rewriting of history,” in which two military generals publicly condemned the Institute of History’s decision to remove the phrase “puppet army, puppet regime.”
This incident has exposed a fierce clash between the conservative faction—the “Public Opinion Officers,” who are backed by the General Political Department of the Ministry of Defense—and the reformist faction within the Party.
According to Thoibao.de’s investigation, the root cause of this latest upheaval began when the National Television Station aired the opinions of Lieutenant General Nguyen Thanh Tuan and Major General Hoang Kien.
Both generals criticized the 15-volume “History of Vietnam” series for replacing derogatory terms with “the Saigon regime,” viewing this as a manifestation of ideological evolution and “peaceful evolution.”
However, VTV1’s hasty decision to remove the content regarding these remarks shortly afterward inadvertently acknowledged a lack of unity within the Party on political and ideological grounds.
This hesitation put the “conservative” faction—led by the Army’s General Political Department and supported by online commentators—on the defensive, forcing them to demand an official response from those in charge.
According to historical experts, in reality, VTV1’s reaction was not a random decision. As early as December 2017, the Central Propaganda Commission had established a review board for the aforementioned history textbook series, which included representatives from the Propaganda Department under the Ministry of Defense.
The official conclusion affirmed that the change in terminology did not violate any professional, political, or ideological standards, and this report was submitted to the Secretariat and approved.
In fact, even in publications by the People’s Army Publishing House or the National Political Publishing House “Truth”—both under the direction of the Ministry of Defense—the use of the term “Saigon regime” has long been in place.
This contradiction creates an extremely serious political disagreement: If the accusations of “rewriting history” made by former military generals are correct, then the leadership of the Ministry of Defense and the Central Propaganda Commission have been making mistakes for many years.
Moreover, the criticism by some former generals of the statement “Vietnam has several thousand years of history” amounts to a rebuttal of the very first lines of the Preamble to the 2013 Constitution.
This nitpicking over wording suggests that the “conservative” faction within the Party appears to be granting itself the authority to stand above the Central Committee’s supreme legal documents and seeks to challenge Mr. To Lam as well as the reformist faction.
The fact that, in recent times, social media accounts associated with the conservative faction—such as Phan Trung Can’s—have continuously exerted pressure, demanding that the General Political Department intervene and find a solution to end the issue, is a highly risky move.
This incident exposes a highly dangerous reality: the “Public Opinion Officers—AK47” force, originally established to defend the official line, has now turned to publicly questioning and demanding a reevaluation of even the “national reconciliation” policies that General Secretary To Lam is pursuing.
This conflict and the state media’s flustered response show that the reformist faction is facing a conservative faction that is resolutely refusing to back down.
According to international observers, even following the “Chuyện với Thanh” incident and at the National Party Congress on September 3, 2026, the reformist faction is believed to have gained the upper hand over the conservative faction.
However, given the fierce reactions from the “Public Opinion Officers—AK47” group led by the Army’s General Political Department, as described above, Mr. To Lam must exercise the utmost caution.
Tra My – Thoibao.de
