I've read that of the six-member B52 crew, two were killed and the other four were held as POWs and later released. Regarding the memorial, I would think any memorial memorializing the Vietnamese victory would have been equally criticized by Fox News. Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with using the B52 memorial. Might it be uncomfortable for Americans to see? Perhaps. But TAR has shown other nationalistic sites before and other war-related locations before. This one is different because it is related to a war the US lost and the memorial directly reflects our loss. But that was 40 years ago and we have had normalized relations with Vietnam for decades. Moreover, to the Vietnamese the B52 reflects a victory over an invading force who carpet-bombed a civilian population, killing thousands. The US has so rarely been invaded that we may not relate to that experience. So I don't know if the Vietnamese look at the B52 and think of it as a plane with six men aboard or as something much more symbollic. I also wouldn't be surprised if there are local and state monuments around the US at one time that might have been of similar ilk, relating to battles from the Revolutionary War, French and Indian War, War of 1812, Civil War, and the Indian Wars in terms that might be viewed as celebrating victory over an enemy in ways that would be viewed as insensitive. For instance, after the war between the Dakota Souix and the new government of Minnesota, 303 Native Americans were convicted and 38 hanged. A six-foot tall marker was erected as a monument to mark the spot where the bodies were buried in shallow graves and remained until it was stolen 150 years later (a picture is here). Or how about this Spanish-American War monument in Connecticut that is made from a cannon captured from a Spanish war ship? The Iowa statehouse also has a "war trophy" cannon as a monument. Presumably, soldiers died in the battles in which those trophies were captured.