If these comments are indicative of the populace at large, it looks like Burns and Novick's goal of thinking this is a good time to revisit the Vietnam question will just reopen the same issues, questions, and wounds so many of us had then and still have.
In referring to America's leaders, Ms. Novick says "They lied, they lied. That's true, but what we really want to do is show what was really going on."
What was really going on was that they lied. Her statement seems like a Trumpism: meaningless use of language. That certainly raises a red flag for me.
As does Mr. Burns' defense of the narration saying that "the war was begun in good faith, by decent people." He claims that that wording is meant to reflect the intentions of those who fought the war, but that's disingenuous, since those who fought are precisely not the ones who began it.
What was really going on was that they lied. Her statement seems like a Trumpism: meaningless use of language. That certainly raises a red flag for me.
As does Mr. Burns' defense of the narration saying that "the war was begun in good faith, by decent people." He claims that that wording is meant to reflect the intentions of those who fought the war, but that's disingenuous, since those who fought are precisely not the ones who began it.
4
Transcript of JFK Nov. 4th 1963 regarding assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem (three weeks before JFK's own assassination):
"I feel that we must bear a good deal of responsibility for it"
"Over a ten year period, he'd [Diem] held his country together, maintained it's independence under very adverse conditions. The way he was killed made it particularly abhorrent."
Listen at link below. Note the eerie and poignant cameo of JFK's young son, John John.
https://youtu.be/hPy1LkB1dRA
Also, a declassified program for the play:
"Cast of Characters" (from The Kennedy Library)
http://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB444/docs/diem18.pdf
"I feel that we must bear a good deal of responsibility for it"
"Over a ten year period, he'd [Diem] held his country together, maintained it's independence under very adverse conditions. The way he was killed made it particularly abhorrent."
Listen at link below. Note the eerie and poignant cameo of JFK's young son, John John.
https://youtu.be/hPy1LkB1dRA
Also, a declassified program for the play:
"Cast of Characters" (from The Kennedy Library)
http://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB444/docs/diem18.pdf
The Vietnam War was criminally wrong from beginning to end. Ignited by a fictional attack on a U.S. Naval vessel (the Gulf of Tonkin incident), our government piled lie upon lie, year after year, to justify the carnage both in Southeast Asia and here at home. Many advocated for a just peace, while others politely sat on their hands and draft deferments. Still others brought down self-righteous anger and violence upon their sons and daughters who believed in the democratic principles American schools had taught them. It is true that these divisions continue to exist today, exacerbated by racism and a delusional government focused solely on making the rich richer and maintaining the one percent power structure. Little wonder that statements coming out of the Oval Office indicate the time for talk with North Korea is over. Unless reason prevails, mothers and fathers should prepare to sacrifice their sons and daughters for yet another noble, yet profitable lie. Let us not forget, war is very good for business.
2
The Vietnam War was decidedly NOT (sorry for the capitalization, but there is no italics option in the NYT) "criminally wrong". You may lob every invective against the USA (I would probably join you in almost all of them) at that horrendous conflict. But "criminal" is going way -- far, far -- beyond any international legal interpretation.
Also, blaming the conflict on "racism" is a tough position to argue. I seriously doubt you can win a free and fair debate on that with anyone. But I have no doubt, also, that you will continue to try.
Finally, IMO (of course! this is just my personal opinion -- but your remarks more or less compel me to reply) conflating Vietnam with the horrendous regime in North Korea, which threatens millions and has absolutely no grounds whatsoever for support (Hello Beijing, where are you? Are you there? Hello? Hello? Beijing are you paying attention? Or do the tunnels that Kim Jong-un has drilled to escape into China when war breaks out so very deep you know your surrogates on the Korean peninsula will survive? )
P.S. Brucer, have you gone to South Korea? Or the DMZ? Do you read? Do you think that people living south of the DMZ should be subjected to the regime in the north?
I wonder, Brucer, just what on Earth you are really saying. Are you arguing that the government south of the DMZ is bad and that the evil, murderous dictatorship north of the line are good guys.
Gosh. I am seriously perplexed.
Also, blaming the conflict on "racism" is a tough position to argue. I seriously doubt you can win a free and fair debate on that with anyone. But I have no doubt, also, that you will continue to try.
Finally, IMO (of course! this is just my personal opinion -- but your remarks more or less compel me to reply) conflating Vietnam with the horrendous regime in North Korea, which threatens millions and has absolutely no grounds whatsoever for support (Hello Beijing, where are you? Are you there? Hello? Hello? Beijing are you paying attention? Or do the tunnels that Kim Jong-un has drilled to escape into China when war breaks out so very deep you know your surrogates on the Korean peninsula will survive? )
P.S. Brucer, have you gone to South Korea? Or the DMZ? Do you read? Do you think that people living south of the DMZ should be subjected to the regime in the north?
I wonder, Brucer, just what on Earth you are really saying. Are you arguing that the government south of the DMZ is bad and that the evil, murderous dictatorship north of the line are good guys.
Gosh. I am seriously perplexed.
I was at Stony Brook U., 1968-72, along with a few thousand other "1960s radicals". Being "radical" was nearly the path of least resistance, and the omnipresence of the draft strongly suggested motivations other than unalloyed altruism. Still, we ended the war.
Tom Brokaw wrote of The Greatest Generation. I thought that was going to be us, but he was writing about our parents. We have hardly lived up to our early promise. Not many baby boomers would boycott a grape today, but enough have voted for a Reagan or a Bush or a Worse.
I expect this documentary will show how the kids and the freaks ended the war thru protest and resistance, thru song and love. It's too much to ask that it might show us, in the last reel, what happened to the values that spawned The Movement.
Tom Brokaw wrote of The Greatest Generation. I thought that was going to be us, but he was writing about our parents. We have hardly lived up to our early promise. Not many baby boomers would boycott a grape today, but enough have voted for a Reagan or a Bush or a Worse.
I expect this documentary will show how the kids and the freaks ended the war thru protest and resistance, thru song and love. It's too much to ask that it might show us, in the last reel, what happened to the values that spawned The Movement.
1
Ken Burns has no particularly special insight (I am 100% certain of that) about what happened to the values that spawned "The Movement".
You and I -- without any doubt -- have more definitive explanations.
The only difference between you and I, and Ken, is that you and I don't have a direct access into the PBS fundraising executive suite, like Ken does.
He earned it with his Civil War series.
You and I -- without any doubt -- have more definitive explanations.
The only difference between you and I, and Ken, is that you and I don't have a direct access into the PBS fundraising executive suite, like Ken does.
He earned it with his Civil War series.
Hah, the Radicals weren't anti-War, they were anti-Me going to war.
2
I served in the evacuation and the Mayaguez operation. I hope they gave adequate coverage to both of those episodes.
Watching the cruel futility of a jungle war may finally stop some of the bellicose conversations about Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and now North Korea. 15 years in the Middle East and no results and little hope for the future. Tell the generals to just sit down and shut up. They have no solutions.
3
I lived through those times and a bias was formed then that is admittedly deep in my bones...at seemingly every turn we are the Ugly American and this gets us and the world in a lot of trouble. When was the Ugly American born? I want to see that documentary.
2
Allow me to amend...only referring to politicians, lobbyists, and a cultural bent. NOT the fighting soldiers of this country.
3
No matter the lens that a person looks through, the Viet Nam conflict did indeed set the stage for the deep divisions that plague America to this day. That is my primary regret.
A reminder to all who were too young, or yet unborn to recall the USA's Viet Nam adventure spanning 1964 - 1975:
We served our country then, without regard for the intricacies of global politics. I don't remember more than benign conversations about America's involvement during high school.
The Draft was simply a fact of life. If you or your Daddy wasn't "special", you would be drafted into the Army. Period.
Thus, most of my pals who chose to roll the dice became Army veterans, and felt that having only two years active duty was a benefit of being drafted.
One friend used to take pride in his Army service number beginning with "US" (instead of "RA"), designating that he was not a "Lifer".
The rest of us voluntarily joined other branches of USA military, which meant six years service - 3 or 4 years active duty.
I was proud to serve, and earned commendations and promotions for my efforts.
That stated, the guys who were in combat are the real heroes of Viet Nam. Particularly the 58, 220 whose names are on The Wall.
A reminder to all who were too young, or yet unborn to recall the USA's Viet Nam adventure spanning 1964 - 1975:
We served our country then, without regard for the intricacies of global politics. I don't remember more than benign conversations about America's involvement during high school.
The Draft was simply a fact of life. If you or your Daddy wasn't "special", you would be drafted into the Army. Period.
Thus, most of my pals who chose to roll the dice became Army veterans, and felt that having only two years active duty was a benefit of being drafted.
One friend used to take pride in his Army service number beginning with "US" (instead of "RA"), designating that he was not a "Lifer".
The rest of us voluntarily joined other branches of USA military, which meant six years service - 3 or 4 years active duty.
I was proud to serve, and earned commendations and promotions for my efforts.
That stated, the guys who were in combat are the real heroes of Viet Nam. Particularly the 58, 220 whose names are on The Wall.
9
Yes, those on The Wall are heroes. I knew two of them.
So, too, are all those who put their livelihoods and their families' respect and their principles on the line (including those of us in high school at the time) by taking a public stand against the war.
So, too, are all those who put their livelihoods and their families' respect and their principles on the line (including those of us in high school at the time) by taking a public stand against the war.
7
And the additional 300,000 who survived and are living with horrible PTSD, war wounds, missing limbs and Agent Orange complications. Let us also apologize for our gung ho folk who bombed and starved and killed without compunction over 2 million civilians as well as leaving Cambodia and Laos a total shambles. War is not pretty nor does it efficiently change anything. As the old 60's song says, "When will they ever learn?"
6
This could be an interesting series. My service was August 1967-August 1968. This is the 50th anniversary of my, and many others, tour of duty. I'm not sure how it will be to relive this. I did not know many people who had read much about the history of Vietnam from pre-WW2 French colonial days, Japan's occupation during WW2, to the the French return after WW2 thru the early history of our presence there. World War 2 histories, along with Bernard Fall's "Hell in a Very Small Place"about the Battle of Dien Bien Phu and "Street Without Joy" were among the books I read. It's sort of like Afghanistan--foreign powers trying to have their way with societies that would prefer, for better or worse, to run the country themselves. I don't regret my service there, but I'm not sure reliving it thru the Ken Burns production will be of much help.
3
I am sure, speaking strictly for myself, that reliving the Vietnam war through Ken Burns' production will be of absolutely no help, and I don't intend to try.
P.S. I don't think Vietnam is anything at all like Afghanistan. We in New York City were attacked and killed, and we went after the aggressors and killers in Kabul.
That's a good thing, no?
P.S. I don't think Vietnam is anything at all like Afghanistan. We in New York City were attacked and killed, and we went after the aggressors and killers in Kabul.
That's a good thing, no?
Weren't the aggressors from Saudi Arabia?
4
Holed up in Kabul.
Already in 1961, French journalist Bernard Fall, in the wake of the disastrous French campaign to reclaim Indo-China, saw the quagmire into which the Americans would step. La Rue Sans Joie (Street Without Joy) "offered a clear warning about what American forces would face in the jungles of Southeast Asia: a costly and protracted revolutionary war fought without fronts against a mobile enemy. In harrowing detail, Fall describes the brutality and frustrations of the Indochina War, the savage eight-year conflict-ending in 1954 after the fall of Dien Bien Phu-in which French forces suffered a staggering defeat at the hands of Communist-led Vietnamese nationalists. With its frontline perspective, vivid reporting, and careful analysis, Street without Joy was required reading for policymakers in Washington and GIs in the field and is now considered a classic." (Amazon blurb). Pity the policy-makers in DC only paraded the book. 58,000 Americans made the ultimate sacrifice for their (fill in your own expletive) hubris.
3
Very proud of my fellow Hampshire College classmate, Ken Burns, and his colleague, Lynn Novick, for their latest in a series of superb historic documentaries.
I taught a course on the 1960's to a group of college students in the late 70's. I then taught an abbreviated version of it to a group of elementary school students in 2013. In both cases, one theme was clear: When you mention "the sixties" to people it's almost ineluctable that strong opinions will be voiced, often leading to a shouting argument---no matter how many years have passed.
I've seen these arguments occur so many times over the past 45 years, even among those who weren't alive at the time! The 60's brings with it a set of impressions, preconceptions, memories and ideas that still touch on people's most sensitive beliefs and their own self-identified value systems.
So I almost think it's inevitable that despite what will undoubtedly be another diligent, brilliant and thoroughly accurate film documentary examining a seminal event in US history, Burns and Novick will inevitably face a barrage of hate and deeply personal invective from those who disagree, egged on by the likes of Fox "News" and other right-wing blowhards who----like the extremists of Weimar Germany---continue to blame "traitors" and "those people" for "causing our country to lose that war!"
I only hope that the large majority of my fellow citizens will ignore such bitter and vicious screeds and view this film with an open mind.
I taught a course on the 1960's to a group of college students in the late 70's. I then taught an abbreviated version of it to a group of elementary school students in 2013. In both cases, one theme was clear: When you mention "the sixties" to people it's almost ineluctable that strong opinions will be voiced, often leading to a shouting argument---no matter how many years have passed.
I've seen these arguments occur so many times over the past 45 years, even among those who weren't alive at the time! The 60's brings with it a set of impressions, preconceptions, memories and ideas that still touch on people's most sensitive beliefs and their own self-identified value systems.
So I almost think it's inevitable that despite what will undoubtedly be another diligent, brilliant and thoroughly accurate film documentary examining a seminal event in US history, Burns and Novick will inevitably face a barrage of hate and deeply personal invective from those who disagree, egged on by the likes of Fox "News" and other right-wing blowhards who----like the extremists of Weimar Germany---continue to blame "traitors" and "those people" for "causing our country to lose that war!"
I only hope that the large majority of my fellow citizens will ignore such bitter and vicious screeds and view this film with an open mind.
7
I hope this series will be available to international viewers.
2
I hope Ken Burns & Co live long enough to document US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan; I hope I live long enough to watch it.
6
"No historians or other expert talking heads. No onscreen interviews with polarizing boldfaced names". Too bad. Real expertise being sacrificed in order to avoid offending someone. Now we have to settle for only Burns' and Novick's interpretation of the history - they certainly can't make a successful series just by showing individual (non expert) personal statements and war footage alone.
You don't, nor do we, have to settle for "only" Burns' and Novick's interpretation. There have been at least five or six fabulous written accounts and the same number of films about the Vietnam war.
This PBS series is, at this time, merely a contender for similar acclaim.
Incidentally, this is the way PBS is touting Burns and Novick commentary. Sounds like it might be a musical treat, like Burns' Civil War series was!
"THE VIETNAM WAR features new, original music written and recorded by Academy Award-winning composers Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. The film also features new music arranged and performed by Grammy Award-winning cellist Yo-Yo Ma and The Silk Road Ensemble. ...
"The series also features more than 120 popular songs that define the era, including tracks from The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, Simon & Garfunkel, Janis Joplin, Ben E. King, Phil Ochs, Donovan, Johnny Cash, Barry McGuire, Buffalo Springfield, The Byrds, Otis Redding, Santana, Joni Mitchell, Nina Simone, The Temptations, Booker T. and the M.G.s, Pete Seeger and more."
Cool, man.
This PBS series is, at this time, merely a contender for similar acclaim.
Incidentally, this is the way PBS is touting Burns and Novick commentary. Sounds like it might be a musical treat, like Burns' Civil War series was!
"THE VIETNAM WAR features new, original music written and recorded by Academy Award-winning composers Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. The film also features new music arranged and performed by Grammy Award-winning cellist Yo-Yo Ma and The Silk Road Ensemble. ...
"The series also features more than 120 popular songs that define the era, including tracks from The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, Simon & Garfunkel, Janis Joplin, Ben E. King, Phil Ochs, Donovan, Johnny Cash, Barry McGuire, Buffalo Springfield, The Byrds, Otis Redding, Santana, Joni Mitchell, Nina Simone, The Temptations, Booker T. and the M.G.s, Pete Seeger and more."
Cool, man.
2
The fact that the production values are high does not suggest the product will only be slick.
You are right, however, that no one has to "settle" for just Burns and Novick. There's plenty more out there, and this series is going to spawn still more.
You are right, however, that no one has to "settle" for just Burns and Novick. There's plenty more out there, and this series is going to spawn still more.
1
My best friend died in Viet Nam while I was fighting Gen. Hershey and Ramsey Clark for a conscientious objector claim. I became a Presbyterian minister and used the film Hearts and Minds (1974), not mentioned here, to engage supporters of the war. Nothing Ever Dies: Vietnam and the Memory of War (2016) by Viet Thanh Nguyen is the most illuminating commentary on the country, our war there, and our inability to see what we did there. I am sure that I will learn something from the series, but it will be hard to overcome the idea that there were no good intentions at its beginning. The war in Vietnam is a scab on the soul of America. Every time we pick at it, we bleed.
4
The Phoenix Program was designed, coordinated, and executed by the CIA with the assistance of US special operations forces and US Army intelligence collection units. The CIA described it as "a set of programs that sought to attack and destroy the political infrastructure of the Viet Cong." The two major components of the program were Provincial Reconnaissance Units (PRUs) and regional interrogation centers. PRUs would kill or capture suspected Viet Cong members and civilians who were thought to have information on Viet Cong activities. Those captured were taken to interrogation centers and tortured in an attempt to gain intelligence on Viet Cong activities. Methods of torture inflicted upon captured women included rape and rape followed by murder [conduct later attributed to the East Area Rapist-Golden State Killer in California. This serial rapist and killer of 12 people has never been identified. Some individuals believe that Law Enforcement is refusing to investigate the possibility that this criminal psychopath was a former member of this CIA operation.] Phoenix Program personnel killed between 26,000 and 41,000 suspected Viet Cong operatives, informants and supporters. (Source: Wikipedia)
If Ken Burns' television series on the Vietnam War does not cover this topic, it will be a failure to justice in America and history.
If Ken Burns' television series on the Vietnam War does not cover this topic, it will be a failure to justice in America and history.
4
The only significant difference is between Americans who still try to justify "defense" as invading a nation the other side of the globe - and history's cumulative condemnation of imperialism whatever the flavor and rationales.
Nitpicking conservatives whining over Kerry and McCain are just more backwards political nonsense. The stuff of wardheelers and True Believers.
Nitpicking conservatives whining over Kerry and McCain are just more backwards political nonsense. The stuff of wardheelers and True Believers.
2
I'll be interested in seeing the coverage of the open racist behaviors of the U.S. Military among our own, and the Vietnamese. They did cover that conflict that endured the entire "police action" didn't they? And someone please explain again to Burns et al the falsity of "the second Gulf of Tonkin Incident" that Johnson couldn't bear to admit. Hence tens of thousands, hundreds of times over losing their lives. A shameful, shameful American escapade that greased the skids for incursion into Iraq, so Georgie boy could right the perceived wrong Hussein did to GW's father. How small a great country can be when led by the immature.............
2
Ken Burns. Nothing more needs to be said.
1
Right now I am reading "Hue 1968." Probably the best book I have read so far about the Vietnam War, or War in Vietnam. Also one of the best books I have ever read. It puts the reader right into the action. So far "Hue 1968" has given me a greater understanding of the combat side of Vietnam AND the Nationalistic fervor of the NVA and VC, than I have ever had.
There is a lot of great literature and media about Vietnam and American involvement there. Maybe there will be more than about WWII. Who is to say about Afghanistan?
I heartily look forward to the Burns/Novick series this Autumn.
There is a lot of great literature and media about Vietnam and American involvement there. Maybe there will be more than about WWII. Who is to say about Afghanistan?
I heartily look forward to the Burns/Novick series this Autumn.
4
I'm with you. Ken Burns and Lynn Novick are no run-of-the-mill documentarians. I've seen every film they've produced, and I've bought about a dozen of them. They are all worthy of watching more than just once. They are truly spectacular, intelligent film makers!
I am very anxiously awaiting September 17th, and will be glued to the screen.
I am very anxiously awaiting September 17th, and will be glued to the screen.
4
Watch, "Fog of War" with Robert McNamara. He relates a story at the end of the documentary where he goes back to Vietnam to meet with former high ranking officials. One of the Vietnamese officials says to McNamara, "Haven't you ever read a history book? We've been fighting the Chinese for 1000 years. We would have fought to the last man"
On a recent radio interview, I heard retired General Merrill Anthony "Tony" McPeak actually say that America backed the wrong side. No one even asked him, what was the right side? I guess McPeak doesn't like to read history either.
Top American field commanders would go to Pentagon briefings and tell war planners that we were losing, while the planners would insist that the U.S was winning based on arbitrary statistics. The U.S. idea of victory was completely incongruent with the Vietnamese concept of defeat. The U.S. was fighting the cold war, while Vietnam was fighting a civil war.
https://youtu.be/h8ZhIi57x-4?t=1h2m46s
On a recent radio interview, I heard retired General Merrill Anthony "Tony" McPeak actually say that America backed the wrong side. No one even asked him, what was the right side? I guess McPeak doesn't like to read history either.
Top American field commanders would go to Pentagon briefings and tell war planners that we were losing, while the planners would insist that the U.S was winning based on arbitrary statistics. The U.S. idea of victory was completely incongruent with the Vietnamese concept of defeat. The U.S. was fighting the cold war, while Vietnam was fighting a civil war.
https://youtu.be/h8ZhIi57x-4?t=1h2m46s
5
Ouch! John Kerry and John McCain, 2 Vietnam Veterans, are polarizing figures? Were they polarizing in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, or 1990s? It might have been interesting to point out that the same people attacked and questioned the service of both these war veterans, people who themselves had never served. To comment any further would be seen as political.
I look forward to this series, as I have lived through this history, having been born in 1952
I look forward to this series, as I have lived through this history, having been born in 1952
5
John Kerry (Vietnam War Veteran??) was in the field for less than 3 months, then dissed everything and everyone he had come in contact with.
A sorry footnote.
A sorry footnote.
2
SW: "John Kerry and John McCain, 2 Vietnam Veterans, are polarizing figures?"
SW: "... people who themselves had never served."
Your comment perfectly illustrates the polarization, because you are separating people into two poles -- those who "served" and those who did not.
BTW, during the 2004 presidential campaign, Kerry was viciously attacked by other veterans. Google: "swift boat kerry".
McCain has also been criticized by veterans:
McCain and veterans groups aren’t always on the same page
By Karoun Demirjian
The Washington Post
August 5, 2016
"To comment any further would be seen as political."
The moment you mentioned "people who themselves had never served", you entered the political arena.
SW: "... people who themselves had never served."
Your comment perfectly illustrates the polarization, because you are separating people into two poles -- those who "served" and those who did not.
BTW, during the 2004 presidential campaign, Kerry was viciously attacked by other veterans. Google: "swift boat kerry".
McCain has also been criticized by veterans:
McCain and veterans groups aren’t always on the same page
By Karoun Demirjian
The Washington Post
August 5, 2016
"To comment any further would be seen as political."
The moment you mentioned "people who themselves had never served", you entered the political arena.
5
Dear JCK:
Then how to explain moi. I served and was as anti-war as anyone short of being a member of the SDS Weather Underground, a group which post-Vietnam I became friends with.
What bothers me about he young today is that there is no need to serve your country in any capacity. The Armed Forces is verboten. left for someone else to bear any burden, pay any price. We now have a professional mercenary force, not a good thing. When we had draftees and enlistees like myself who did not want to be there, I saw some of the finest serve, some highly educated who hated and questioned what they did but who did it better than later volunteers who were joining for other reasons then serving and willing to sacrifice their lives for a country who left them hanging out to dry. If what is going on in the Mideast, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria was subject to a draft of folks like Romney's five sons, Trump's sons and now even his precious daughter, see how they'd explain why their progeny were too valuable to serve their country though Princes William and Harry did for theirs.
DD
Manhattan
Then how to explain moi. I served and was as anti-war as anyone short of being a member of the SDS Weather Underground, a group which post-Vietnam I became friends with.
What bothers me about he young today is that there is no need to serve your country in any capacity. The Armed Forces is verboten. left for someone else to bear any burden, pay any price. We now have a professional mercenary force, not a good thing. When we had draftees and enlistees like myself who did not want to be there, I saw some of the finest serve, some highly educated who hated and questioned what they did but who did it better than later volunteers who were joining for other reasons then serving and willing to sacrifice their lives for a country who left them hanging out to dry. If what is going on in the Mideast, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria was subject to a draft of folks like Romney's five sons, Trump's sons and now even his precious daughter, see how they'd explain why their progeny were too valuable to serve their country though Princes William and Harry did for theirs.
DD
Manhattan
2
I'm a Vietnam vet 11/67 to 11/68. Fifty eight thousand dead Americans, two to three million dead Vietnamese. Like every war we live with the unintended consequences. The end of the military draft, a sixteen year old foreign war with no end in sight. Military budgets that stagger the imagination, and an equal staggering distrust of government. Mr. Burns, it would seem, has made a serious attempt to provide some clarity and understanding. Thank you.
20
As a Vietnam Veteran, I want (and need) to see this documentary. I still struggle to understand the political forces that sent me there in 1968. I was 20 years old and that experience would forever defined my life.
Every test I was to face after it would be measured by that yardstick, that perspective would be my guide throughout my life, even to this day. Thank you, Mr. Burns. To the 58,000 soldiers who came home in body bags. Lest we forget.
Every test I was to face after it would be measured by that yardstick, that perspective would be my guide throughout my life, even to this day. Thank you, Mr. Burns. To the 58,000 soldiers who came home in body bags. Lest we forget.
22
Burns needs to cover the decision by JFK to support the coup against President Diem. Once Diem was removed and killed there never was a President of South Vietnam that the people could get behind and support. That is one of the key failures in the USA involvement in the Vietnam War.
7
Did either Ken Burns or Lynn Novick serve in Vietnam? My father did, and exposure to Agent Orange changed his health in a very negative way. I remember, I was 10 when he returned from his last tour of duty. He was distant, tired, and not the same, and this I felt as a child. My father was career military and he would never watch movies or documentaries about wars, he always said those films did not show the truth about war. War, is not at any point, entertainment.
3
It is irrelevant whether Burns or Novice served during the Vietnam War. They are among the best American documentarians currently working. They are raging centrists in that they work VERY hard to examine all points of view dispassionately. To me, this effort speaks to their well-deserved credibility and sense of fairness. With this topic in particular, a calm, detailed look at the facts can start a healing process that has yet to begin in the U.S.
By the way. I served.
By the way. I served.
15
Maybe we should wait and watch it. Pablum is not that exciting.
I'm still waiting for Ken Burns to put his magical historical touch on the American ( world -wide) Depression. My parents, married in 1936, were effected in many subtle ways by the depression their entire married life, and as a generation once removed from the Depression, so were myself and my sister in many ways.
8
My parents, especially my mother, never got past the Great Depression. Both become very very successful but lived in fear of going through another economic disaster.
5
The Ken Burns documentary "The Dust Bowl" covers that period well. And Burns' documentary on the Roosevelts digs even deeper into that time period! It's a fascinating look at all three Roosevelt -- Teddy, Franklin and Eleanor. Well worth watching, especially for those interested in the Great Depression.
1
You have to admire Ken Burns, if only for his incredible ability to make his certain kind of documentary popular and fashionable, and eminently fundable within the particular world of PBS. The problem is, as some have noted, he may have peaked early. It's not that the unsurpassable "The Civil War" sprang whole from Zeus's head. Mr. Burns's earlier more modest efforts such as "The Statue of Liberty" and "Brooklyn Bridge" were far more concise, and equally brilliant. Still, "The Civil War" was the apotheosis. Since then, it seems to me, Burns has attempted to shoehorn virtually every subject into his original template. Even when afforded plenty of sound footage in later projects, there's a familiar feel to the style of narration, the approach to talking heads, the studied use of easel shots. So, even though there will definitely be enlightenment in the new information offered, there's a kind of numbing sameness in the approach. It would be hard to imagine a major filmmaker of, either docs or fiction films, who wouldn't just naturally reconsider his/her approach from project to project.
1
With all due respect, Randy, he would not be Ken Burns if he did as you suggested. A "Ken Burns Film" has a very definitely look, feel and pace that works quite well. If it works well, why change it? His production style is so simple that it never interferes with the content which is rich an detailed, nor, like the clown Michael Moore, are his films about himself.
Ken Burns can't be all things to all people. It's ironic that his work is so good and even-handed that everyone wants him to satisfy all demands. It can't be done. I am eager to see this next series. And, again respectfully, let's wait until Mr. Burns has made his last film before we select his apotheosis.
Ken Burns can't be all things to all people. It's ironic that his work is so good and even-handed that everyone wants him to satisfy all demands. It can't be done. I am eager to see this next series. And, again respectfully, let's wait until Mr. Burns has made his last film before we select his apotheosis.
2
It sounds to me like you've never seen "Baseball", "Jazz" or "The National Parks." If you had, I don't think you'd be saying any of this.
2
People should also watch Errol Morris' The Fog of War.
14
Milton Berle once quipped, "I feel like Zsa Zsa Gabor's sixth husband, I know what I'm supposed to do, but I don't know how to make it interesting." I bet Ken Burns felt the same way when he was planning this maxi-mini- series on the Vietnam War. What is he going to say, what idea is he going to explore, what is he going to film that hasn't already been wrung out in hundreds of books, essays, television specials, speeches, memoirs, and movies?
I've seen the PBS preview, and what I gleaned from it is off-putting. In his heady attempt to take the high ground of Vietnam history Burns sinks to the lowest common denominator: tug at the heartstrings! So instead of penetrating analysis we have a grunt saying "This is who we are, this is what we do." I'm sure those words were heartfelt to the soldier who said them, but in plumbing the souls of those wretched conscripts, Burns is doing the same thing to them that the leaders of the war did: he’s using them for his own selfish purposes.
I’ve been a big fan of Burns over the years, but I think he’s suffered from the “one-hit wonder” syndrome. “The Civil War” was so stupendous, so well-crafted that ever since it’s been foolish to think anyone, Burns included, could top it. What he does with film is way better than anyone else, but it always shrinks in comparison to “The Civil War.” Now this new venture will have to survive comparison with the myriad other paeans to the Vietnam War. I’m not planning to watch it.
I've seen the PBS preview, and what I gleaned from it is off-putting. In his heady attempt to take the high ground of Vietnam history Burns sinks to the lowest common denominator: tug at the heartstrings! So instead of penetrating analysis we have a grunt saying "This is who we are, this is what we do." I'm sure those words were heartfelt to the soldier who said them, but in plumbing the souls of those wretched conscripts, Burns is doing the same thing to them that the leaders of the war did: he’s using them for his own selfish purposes.
I’ve been a big fan of Burns over the years, but I think he’s suffered from the “one-hit wonder” syndrome. “The Civil War” was so stupendous, so well-crafted that ever since it’s been foolish to think anyone, Burns included, could top it. What he does with film is way better than anyone else, but it always shrinks in comparison to “The Civil War.” Now this new venture will have to survive comparison with the myriad other paeans to the Vietnam War. I’m not planning to watch it.
2
Why judge before you see the actual show? I say watch, and if you dont enjoy it, drop it. You might be surprised and enlightened.
3
It would nice to say the US learned an enduring lesson from Vietnam, but sadly we did not. We still suffer from the same hubris, the same military industrial complex that requires war, the same failure of leadership, the same ignorance of facts, the same inability to envision unintended consequences, the same fears, and the same macho culture that drove us to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. I expect this series to be compelling viewing, but it will not change the underlying dynamics that will produce, again and again, personal and cultural tragedy for America. I will watch it with great interest, but to really understand the dynamic that drive these tragedies, you're better off reading a book like "The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam" by Barbara Tuchman.
27
The opportunity to learn an enduring lesson from Vietnam disappeared with the draft. We managed to keep our swords sheathed, more or less, for 15 years. Then came Cheney.
Graham Greene's The Quiet American says it all and it was published in 1955.
8
My darling brother, Charles survived Vietnam...then. However he now battles his 3rd and final bout of cancer as a result of spraying Agent Orange as a member of the 101st Airborne troops working against the "enemy."
He regrets his participation, as do I, and yet we are both STILL bewildered. 50 years later. I weep as I write this.
He regrets his participation, as do I, and yet we are both STILL bewildered. 50 years later. I weep as I write this.
29
"... as a member of the 101st Airborne ..."
How did your brother end up in the 101st Airborne?
"He regrets his participation ..."
Is his regret due to his exposure to Agent Orange, or are there other reasons?
How did your brother end up in the 101st Airborne?
"He regrets his participation ..."
Is his regret due to his exposure to Agent Orange, or are there other reasons?
1
His original American Civil War was remarkable, as much for its simple yet powerful and compelling construction of readings of letters and /or speeches over still photographs and simple instrumentation.Sadly his films since have simply not approached the emotion or power of Civil War. His series on Jazz was poor and incomplete,displaying an alarming ack of understanding in the subject The baseball series was just as poor and frankly clumsy.His Second World War paled into insignificance when compared to the far superior and frankly astonishing 1973 British series,World at War with Laurence Olivier's unforgettable narration.
Burns made the mistake of assuming the success of his first series could be repeated simply by mining other significant American events or cultures from history.For all his effort,his subsequent films have simply never achieved the power of his first.
Burns made the mistake of assuming the success of his first series could be repeated simply by mining other significant American events or cultures from history.For all his effort,his subsequent films have simply never achieved the power of his first.
2
Ken Burns has made Americans aware of the REAL history of this country. I never liked history in school,but Burns and Novick have made it interesting and accesible.I lived through the Vietnam war and knew young men drafted as well as draft dodgers who didn't want to participate in what they thought was an immoral war.Some of those drafted came back with PTSD and addicted to drugs which were very easy to come by there. I attended anti-war protests with my daughter's still in strollers.I watched terrifying news clips on the nightly news and counts of Americans who died there.It was a very tumultuous time in this country. I look forward to watching this series that might at long last heal some of the wounds suffered by people here and in Vietnam
11
It looks like you didn't take to writing or spelling classes either.
I hope this new series also get's people to watch Karnow’s “Vietnam: A Television History again. It was powerful, informative, and an an amazing documentary of what one historian called the US "March of Folly." Maybe we can finally learn something... But after the Iraq and Afghan War fiascos, and our ongoing, self-defeating military policies, I, sadly, doubt it
10
I doubt if anyone who was involved with the war is "looking forward" to seeing this.
3
Disgraceful saying the war was started with "good intentions"
Another phony look at Vietnam .
Can see where Burn's allegiances lie !!
Another phony look at Vietnam .
Can see where Burn's allegiances lie !!
5
Mr. Thor, you condemn this film without having seen it. How can I possibly take your criticism seriously?
4
ET: "Can see where Burn's allegiances lie !!"
Are you going to share your insights, or do you expect everyone to read your mind?
Are you going to share your insights, or do you expect everyone to read your mind?
1
Seriously? The article mentions repeatedly how even handed Burns attempts to be and how fairly he treats the subject matter. He apparently doesn't pick sides. Perhaps you should watch and open your mind. I will.
2
Who will make the movie on the war in Afghanistan? Ken Burns will be long gone by the time the fourth or fifth US President makes up his mind on to end this abomination.
9
I agree....it seems that the U.S. has reached a political and economic need to be perpetually in a state of war.
1
In this day and age of guerrilla warfare, wars are unwinable unless the leadership is willing to commit to indiscriminate and widespread killing of combatants and civilians alike and/or permanent occupation.
1
Well, judging from the comments here, this will be conversation starter series for Burns. Not sure we should get distracted from our current massive Washington DC oil slick, but maybe talking about issues from long ago might bring some clarity to policy conversations re: North Korea.
7
Will this serve as a allegory for the current war in Iraq and Afghanistan? I hope so.
If Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, and Kissinger were war criminals, is Bush 43? I think so.
If America had to exit the Vietnam War without winning, will we do the same in Iraq and Afghanistan? I pray so.
If Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, and Kissinger were war criminals, is Bush 43? I think so.
If America had to exit the Vietnam War without winning, will we do the same in Iraq and Afghanistan? I pray so.
14
In support of Ken Burns' approach to a centrist balance to history there is this: "You can't say history teaches us this or that; it gives us more questions than answers, and many answers to every question." --Amin Maalouf
7
When you consider our military involvement in other countries since the end of World War II, exactly what have we gotten right?
11
Indeed, when exactly was the last war the US won?
1
Reading this article and the comments, I fail to understand all the enthusiasm, as well as the mildly suggested criticisms, of the upcoming TV series by Ken Burns. Well, no. That isn't true. I can understand "some" of the criticism since in my opinion of Burns' work, such as his error-ridden, nearly laughable series on baseball, for example, is on the whole less than stellar.
But the point I want to make here is this: The commotion is mainly driven by PR by PBS and on behalf of PBS devotees.
Why so?
There have been great books (just for example, Dispatches, The Best and the Brightest, Fire in the Lake, a Rumor of War) and any number of documentaries (just for example, Vietnam: A Television History, Hearts and Minds, and the Fog of War) to fill up an entire year's worth of time ordinary people have to read and watch documentaries. They occupy the field. From top to bottom, and from left to right.
My bias (I confess!) comes from having lived in Burns' home state, and less than 45 miles as the bird flies from WGBH in Boston.
Ken's "Civil War" was such a spectacular money-maker, he could film travels from a farmstead to buy a quart of milk at the store in Walpole center and garner another article in the NYT.
But the point I want to make here is this: The commotion is mainly driven by PR by PBS and on behalf of PBS devotees.
Why so?
There have been great books (just for example, Dispatches, The Best and the Brightest, Fire in the Lake, a Rumor of War) and any number of documentaries (just for example, Vietnam: A Television History, Hearts and Minds, and the Fog of War) to fill up an entire year's worth of time ordinary people have to read and watch documentaries. They occupy the field. From top to bottom, and from left to right.
My bias (I confess!) comes from having lived in Burns' home state, and less than 45 miles as the bird flies from WGBH in Boston.
Ken's "Civil War" was such a spectacular money-maker, he could film travels from a farmstead to buy a quart of milk at the store in Walpole center and garner another article in the NYT.
I have a great idea, why don't you try a crack at doing what ken burns does, and Burns will continue to do what he does, far, far, better than you ever could.
6
But of course. Naturally! If Ken Burns tried to do what I do, my effort would be far, far better than his.
Just 10 years after we destroyed Korea in a pointless "action", losing 30-thousand-plus Americans, and killing many more Korean civilians, it's kinda hard to buy the decency and good faith argument. Like MacArthur in Korea, the Johnson Administration believed what it wanted to believe. From the Gulf of Tonkin through "lights at the end of the tunnel" and "we have not attacked Cambodia" this "action" was a string of falsehoods that resulted in millions of deaths. And sometimes it seems the only lesson we learned was "a draft is the one sure way to build strong opposition to a war." Yes, it's a minor whitewash, but it's a whitewash all the same.
9
Rod, the implications of your first sentence are historically misguided. "We" saved South Korea from a Russian-instigated and Soviet backed invasion (and to be perfectly correct, "we" were a multi-nation UN force -- but I don't want to get into that argument here). Then we held the line against Red Army soldiers from China who fought against "us" on North Korea's side.
Today, you can easily see whether "our" action on the Korean peninsula was "pointless". It shouldn't be very hard to tell, even if you never go there to take a look yourself.
Today, you can easily see whether "our" action on the Korean peninsula was "pointless". It shouldn't be very hard to tell, even if you never go there to take a look yourself.
5
I so agree, that Korea was an intervention worth undertaking by us and the UN. Look at the Republic of Korea today, healthy economy and thriving (if, as all are, sometimes troubled) and a vibrant free people. Then look 40 miles to the north, which would be all of the Korean peninsula if we had not acted. Korean "action" resulted in stalemate, but that's far better than complete devastation and failure.
7
I have been told by persons who have previewed the film that a lot of people won't be happy with it. To me that translates to the idea that this must be an excellent, truthful production.
That they eschewed using "talking heads" and all the usual suspect "experts", choosing instead to talk to the real experts, the soldiers on either side who were actually doing the fighting gives hope to the real story of that awful, destructive war.
That they eschewed using "talking heads" and all the usual suspect "experts", choosing instead to talk to the real experts, the soldiers on either side who were actually doing the fighting gives hope to the real story of that awful, destructive war.
16
As well as those fighting to end an immoral war...
1
@Aaron Taylor: I appreciate your reading my comment and offering your opinion although it seems harsh. I grew up with the draft, born 1950, so there was no alternative in the 60's when I turned 18. I had no intention of serving during the Vietnam and ultimately had a high lottery number and deferments. I welcomed the idea of voluntary military service when I was younger but later came to feel that it was a bad idea for the reasons mentioned-which had nothing to do with me personally. If the draft had continued I think our military involvements around the world would have been more limited and young people would have seen the world and other Americans differently. In Palo Alto, which is a very upscale town, I don't know a single person who has served in the military under age 60 and my son did not have to consider that choice. So the burden of death and disability is falling on other families.
32
My experience, and current thoughts, completely.
4
@Paul R: Could not agree more. If we are to constantly involve ourselves in world conflicts, everyone should have to serve. A mandatory draft would most likely make us pressure our leaders to deliberate long and hard about how to deploy our troops, and a draft would extend across all class lines.
Deferrments need to be restricted as well, with people like Dick Cheney and Donald Trump Exhibit A as to why.
Deferrments need to be restricted as well, with people like Dick Cheney and Donald Trump Exhibit A as to why.
15
I couldn't agree more. The writer could have been me except my draft lottery number was 37. I admire the bravery and loyalty of the Americans who served and were in many cases scared forever from their service.
I feel that our current voluntary military is a disservice to those serving. Without their own children and friends having to serve I see it far too easy for the "chicken hawks " and cowboy wannabes to rush into conflicts and make policy decisions which will be someone else's risk to implement.
I think that anytime we get involved in a conflict over a certain size lasting for an extended period, the draft should be implemented with few deferments for anyone. Let the policy makers make their decisions when their own families are at risk
I feel that our current voluntary military is a disservice to those serving. Without their own children and friends having to serve I see it far too easy for the "chicken hawks " and cowboy wannabes to rush into conflicts and make policy decisions which will be someone else's risk to implement.
I think that anytime we get involved in a conflict over a certain size lasting for an extended period, the draft should be implemented with few deferments for anyone. Let the policy makers make their decisions when their own families are at risk
6
"It also offers an uncannily well-timed reflection of our current societal fractures..."
The similarities berween social rift now and those of the late 60's and early 70's, especially since he law and order and patriotic themes are very familiar. Fresh from high school, I was set upon because I had an American flag patch sewn to my jeans (hair bekow my shoulders didn't help).
The similarities berween social rift now and those of the late 60's and early 70's, especially since he law and order and patriotic themes are very familiar. Fresh from high school, I was set upon because I had an American flag patch sewn to my jeans (hair bekow my shoulders didn't help).
1
It is different in the sense that dice no draft is ongoing, you don't see the protests that you did in the Vietnam area. If a draft were ongoing for the last 14 years let's say, more of these trump supporters would feel a whole lot different.
7
Trump didn't start the war - Bush did-I have always believed that if draft was in place Iraq would have never occurred. What a mess-didn't anyone with sense know that destroying Iraq would only embolden Iran and others. The American public would have never allowed it if all our sons and daughters would've been involved instead of an all voluntary military (thank you all that serve),and this drawn out mess we have now would be ended.
1
While in basic training at Fort Leonard Wood in 1967 the drill sergeant informed us we were not there because the Army wants us there; we are there because our friends and neighbors want us there. Later I realized half my friends and neighbors were not subject to the draft and still do not need to register. Progress?
14
Please, none of that pretty string music that Burns used in his ridiculously elegiac Civil War series.
5
Surely the soundtrack to Vietnam, from the American side, is period rock and soul music?
8
My wife works for PBS and has screened it. All of the music is from the period with nothing played before it's timeline.Brilliant soundtrack.
10
almost 2500 us service persons lives later and 16 years later, the United States has failed to end the conflict in Afghanistan. Perhaps it is because there is not an active draft that the citizens of this nation have not ended this war and it seems it will go on forever. what a waste when there has never been an answer to the question "WHY"?
27
Why would you assume that a resumption of the military draft would have prevented a war in Afghanistan? If anything, the exact opposite would be more likely.
The sons and daughters of the ruling elite, from US Senators to Corporation CEO's, would NEVER find themselves on the front lines, or any lines, even if there were a new draft. Undoubtedly they would find a way to evade service, or make sure they were placed in some plum, and safe, job somewhere far from real danger.
Please rethink this assumption about a new military draft. It would be a disaster, denying young people the freedom to do as they choose at a very young age, and making it far easier for demagogic politicians to have the means at their disposal to use their bodies for any little whim of a war they chose to wage.
The sons and daughters of the ruling elite, from US Senators to Corporation CEO's, would NEVER find themselves on the front lines, or any lines, even if there were a new draft. Undoubtedly they would find a way to evade service, or make sure they were placed in some plum, and safe, job somewhere far from real danger.
Please rethink this assumption about a new military draft. It would be a disaster, denying young people the freedom to do as they choose at a very young age, and making it far easier for demagogic politicians to have the means at their disposal to use their bodies for any little whim of a war they chose to wage.
My same argument applies as in your previous comment. With a draft, parents of potential draftees will not re-elect their representatives who support conflicts that are being promoted by Washington lobbyists. The outcry will be enormous.
1
Truth: We did not win in Vietnam. The other side won. In any competition, game, battle, war, etc, when one side wins and the other loses, the losing side is "defeated". We have to get used to the d-word because it is what we are seeing in Afghanistan and Iraq. Ken Burns sure made it look like the South did not think that they were defeated in the Civil War. Here were a bunch of "gentlemen" just fighting a battle for "state" rights. As a result we have Southern whites still fighting the battle against equality for all Americans. Same goes to the apologists who keep thinking that Vietnam was a "failure". Ken Burns who notoriously created one false reality, is perched to create another. I have not seen his "documentary" yet, but I dread to see what it potentially holds.
3
Don't watch if you dread to see what it offers.
I can tell you with all respect and with total honesty, I won't watch a single second of it; and if you paid me to, I wouldn't.
Hah! Obviously, I am not a Ken Burns fan, nor am I a WGBH Boston employee. So I have nothing to gain from turning Ken into an iconic, PBS fund-raiser.
I can tell you with all respect and with total honesty, I won't watch a single second of it; and if you paid me to, I wouldn't.
Hah! Obviously, I am not a Ken Burns fan, nor am I a WGBH Boston employee. So I have nothing to gain from turning Ken into an iconic, PBS fund-raiser.
As recent events have shown, we are still fighting the Civil War 27 years after Burns' magnificent documentary. I suspect that, decades from now, Americans will still be arguing about Vietnam. Of course, by then most Americans with first hand recollections of that war will have died from old age or just be too old to fight about anything. But that's kind of the point. Ken Burns and Lynn Novick are creating their films so that future generations can understand significant moments in American history long after those with bitter feelings about those moments have passed from the scene. Mr. Burns and Ms. Novick are making a priceless contribution to our nation and they do so with great artistry. I'm looking forward to their latest gift.
11
I registered for the draft in 1976 when I turned eighteen. I was never drafted or even considered because the war ended the prior year. But I do remember the news every night and the coffins, the coffins coming back presumably with dead soldiers inside. That was impressive. I want to watch Mr. Burn's documentary because it will give a different perspective and on I am sure will be balanced, about the war. History is important, and we must learn from it. Let us not judge until we watch it and draw our own conclusions. Mr. Burns has impressed me as being fair and not biased in his past documentaries and I have no reason to believe he will deviate from this approach in this new film.
4
I lived through this debacle of a war caused by prideful politicians and ambitious military leaders. There was no reason for it except hegemony and arrogance. Truman started it by funding French colonialism. Eisenhower kept the spark alive. Kennedy turned a blind eye but sent special forces "trainers." Johnson and MacNamara and Westmoreland compounded the problem. Nixon delayed our extraction. Lots of people died for nothing and our crippled are still paying the price. It was activist U.S. citizens, most of them young and rebellious, who finally got us out of that swamp. And now Clinton, Obama and Trump have enslaved us in Afghanistan. Will it ever end? Not likely. It's too profitable politically and to the military establishment and defense contractors. Americans love a war - if we are winning and it doesn't affect us directly
23
If people hated wars, they would cease and disappear. People enjoy conflict, e.g., contact sports like football, boxing, wrestling, rugby, and rioting afterwards, win or lose.
Interesting that you left Bush out of your list of those to blame. Not forgiving any of the others, just wanting to be inclusive.
14
The narrative that it was the protests that ended the war is popular on the right and the left. The right wing uses it to show that it was 'traitors at home' who lost Vietnam by eroding our will to fight and win. On the left it seems to demonstrate that activism is powerful and effective. The reality is that the government pursued the war with very little regard to our democracy or to activism of any kind. The same principle applies to all of our military adventures since then.
3
Those uncertain about how our involvement in Vietnam started and what went on might try reading the now declassified Pentagon Papers, posted at http://www.history.com/news/pentagon-papers-fully-declassified-on-famous... . All 7,000 pages of them.
10
I spent my 23rd year in Vietnam (April 67-April 68). Whenever I hear the term 'defeat' tossed around, I quickly dismiss it as ignorant and/or tendentious. We were never 'defeated' any time, any place, but 'failure' may well be a more correct term. In any case, I salute Mr. Burn's efforts even though he will probably wind up another blind man trying to describe the elephant.
9
I was very disappointed to seek Vietnamese "refugee" Viet Dinh, a Bush DOJ official, together with John Yoo, Korean immigrant Bush DOJ official, argue for a very weak definition of torture and that the United States Constitution allows the President to authorize torture without a Declaration of War.
If these men are the representatives of their immigrant cohort, we made a big mistake offering them "refuge". They are more like fugitives than refugees, and their attempts to undermine our sovereign Constitution and redefine it in barbaric terms have grossly harmed the US.
Their behavior suggest the US does not have careful enough definition and standard for immigration based on "refugee" or "asylee" status. If your ideology is a prime cause of the war, you are not a refugee. If you have done nothing to verbalize legitimate reform, you are not an asylee.
The overpopulation and excessive family size in the entire South and East Asia area is appalling. Its effects are as likely to incite the region to violence today as in the 50s or 60s.
I'd like to see Dinh and Yoo schooled more properly in the concept of a sovereign constitution, with basic rights and responsibilities held in person/citizen, not in "Divine Rights of Man", whether Catholic or Communist. They must show competence in this to retain their law licenses in the US. Then they need to do work in their home counties to deal with developing better conflict resolution in the tinderbox Asiatic region.
If these men are the representatives of their immigrant cohort, we made a big mistake offering them "refuge". They are more like fugitives than refugees, and their attempts to undermine our sovereign Constitution and redefine it in barbaric terms have grossly harmed the US.
Their behavior suggest the US does not have careful enough definition and standard for immigration based on "refugee" or "asylee" status. If your ideology is a prime cause of the war, you are not a refugee. If you have done nothing to verbalize legitimate reform, you are not an asylee.
The overpopulation and excessive family size in the entire South and East Asia area is appalling. Its effects are as likely to incite the region to violence today as in the 50s or 60s.
I'd like to see Dinh and Yoo schooled more properly in the concept of a sovereign constitution, with basic rights and responsibilities held in person/citizen, not in "Divine Rights of Man", whether Catholic or Communist. They must show competence in this to retain their law licenses in the US. Then they need to do work in their home counties to deal with developing better conflict resolution in the tinderbox Asiatic region.
7
You know, supposedly, when there were only four people in the world, one brother killed the other out of jealousy and greed. Poetic truth?
1
Well, this is a new one. The horrific and unconstitutional excesses of the GWB administration were the fault of... two Asian immigrants and their barbaric foreign ideas? You get points for originality, if nothing else.
1
Mournful Appalachian music, numbing length and the moldering corpse of Garrison Keilor live!
3
Remember who started this war: the communist parties of Vietnam, China, and the Soviet Union. It was their callous, unprovoked, irresponsible use of military force to take over Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia which led to the death and destruction.
Even more galling is that it was all for naught: all the communist parties, including the Vietnamese, have since realized that socialism has been a failure and a terrible mistake, even if they won't publicly admit it, and they are quickly moving back towards a market economy.
Those long years of revolution were a complete waste of life, time, and treasure. Think where Vietnam would be today if the revolution had not happened and they had been allowed to develop their culture and economy in peace. Contrast Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, the Phillipines, and South Korea as they are now with where Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia are. What a tragic shame. What a waste.
The US and its allies were at least able to prevent such destructive idiocy from spreading to Thailand, Burma, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, and eastern India, all of which were targets of Chinese expansionism under Mao and Lin Piao, and many of which had developing armed revolutionary groups at the time. The US should be thanked, not attacked, for accomplishing that.
Even more galling is that it was all for naught: all the communist parties, including the Vietnamese, have since realized that socialism has been a failure and a terrible mistake, even if they won't publicly admit it, and they are quickly moving back towards a market economy.
Those long years of revolution were a complete waste of life, time, and treasure. Think where Vietnam would be today if the revolution had not happened and they had been allowed to develop their culture and economy in peace. Contrast Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, the Phillipines, and South Korea as they are now with where Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia are. What a tragic shame. What a waste.
The US and its allies were at least able to prevent such destructive idiocy from spreading to Thailand, Burma, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, and eastern India, all of which were targets of Chinese expansionism under Mao and Lin Piao, and many of which had developing armed revolutionary groups at the time. The US should be thanked, not attacked, for accomplishing that.
5
yeh they developed their cultures under considerable pressure and money provided by the United States and Europe and the UK that's why they dress like that part of the world instead of their native cultures. it is still a form of domination.
1
Charles: Yeah, well, I think you better watch the series. You seem to have a very selective knowledge of events on the ground.
1
Perhaps, since these wars are not winnable we should not fight socialism but let it burn out on its own.
1
Wonderful postings..to add to my previous comment..We, who are left behind, have the assigned burden of revisiting & rethinking Vietnam..we live in modern Greek Tragedy.. hopefully we will learn something from this documentary
5
Tho I was too young to fully understand Vietnam in the 1960s, I sensed the awfulness of the war & couldn't understand the great numbers of Americans killed(let alone the numbers on the other side that our country seemed to be gleeful about).Fifty years later, Vietnam is still an open sore, confusing..I almost think that we, who "survived" are not the lucky ones.we will constantly have to rethink &revisit Vietnam like Groundhog Day- our first war that wasn't black& white..good v evil? Many of us thought "never again" would this happen ..but now look at Iraq & Afghanistan.We, who end up fighting the wars, aren't organized to stop the Military/Industrial/Political complex from putting us in this position over & over again.
7
The war was begun by rigid ideologues, continued by military and political mediocrities who refused to admit failure while the U.S. tore itself apart, and it ended in defeat. I have no interest in Mr. Burns high-minded, genteel version of the war for the chattering class.
5
How old are you? This war began in the late 50s during the height of the cold war. This Country was terrified of Communism and what was happening in Vietnam seemed to be the tip of the iceberg. It is easy to sit back now and second guess the decisions of leaders who are long dead. Was it a bad idea?Yes. Were they naïve? Yes. Did they believe that they were doing "the right thing"? Yes. In the early days of the conflict, most Americans were supportive. If find it somewhat amusing that many of may age group (I'm 68) who were rapidly anti-war, anti-establishment, and anti-capitalistic are today pro-gun, pro-military, and preach patriotism.
18
Yes and I feel the same about Charlton Heston's Tv "reply" mentioned in the article which I have seen - which like The Green Beret (1968) wasn't "for the chattering class" either.
5
You mean RABIDLY, not RAPIDLY. And you're not really "somewhat amused", are you? Knowing you are correct about many "1960s radicals", I am "somewhat discouraged."
The moral compass of our generation seems to have been largely found due to the threat of the draft. But tell me, Janette, what changed for the girls?
The moral compass of our generation seems to have been largely found due to the threat of the draft. But tell me, Janette, what changed for the girls?
You have to ask yourself why Burns et al are doing this? What's the point of turning Vietnam into home entertainment? Sure, we'll all be able to shake our heads at the horror and pointlessness of war. And then we'll be able to go to the refrigerator and get a beer while we wait for next week. All the protests in the world about learning from history, etc., won't erase the fact that people almost never learn from history and more to the point, that they watch tv only so long as what they watch entertains them. You could make a case that this series will be as sincerely and ghoulishly entertaining as they get.
7
Comments like this are why I think this country is sliding into an abyss. Just awful.
7
Yes, thank you. Let us ignore history. That is what this series is about. The purpose of it should not be questioned by one who has not seen it.
6
Learning something new is entertaining for some of us.
2
Our favorite Yanqee propagandist is at it again.
3
Spent a year in Vietnam. I don't think Vietnam matters much. I would like to see Ken Burns look into Afghanistan and Iraq, although I know it is a bit early. I think those efforts have far more significance to American and world history than Vietnam ever had.
5
In 1972 I arrived in Vietnam and was shocked to find myself in the middle of a tank battle -- with most of the tanks driven by NVA soldiers and all of their tanks being supplied by the Soviet Union principally T-54 MBTs. Unless this documentary addresses the immense involvement of the Soviet Union and the immense forces deployed by the North Vietnamese, the documentary's a fraud ... a lot like the fraud committed by those who failed to report the nature of the enemy throughout the war. This fraud that left Haiphong Harbor unmined for years while young Americans were killed by Soviet supplied weapons. If South Vietnam allegedly couldn't cope with a "local" insurgency why were North Vietnamese troops in the ten of thousands armed with Soviet tanks and artillery needed to invade the South in 1972 and 1975 ... never mine their early involvement with Tet and other incursions.
4
I immigrated to the US from Canada to go to grad school at Purdue. I was required to register for the draft and received a draft notice within weeks, but obtained a student deferment. What I didn't know was that made me liable for induction until age 35, rather than 25.
My first job after completing my schooling at age 24 was military communications research with Westinghouse Space and Defense Center, and they obtained a deferment. Six years later in 1968, two of us left to form a software R&D house, our first contract with the Westinghouse we’d left. Within weeks, I received a draft notice, and soon found myself in a room with so 20 others going through the whole drill, including, at the end, an interview with a psychologist who looked at my age, 30, my PhD, and exclaimed, "What are you doing here?!?" My response: "It's not my idea!"
The final item was the induction ceremony. We were all to raise our hands and swear allegiance. I said I could not; I was a citizen of Canada. The sergeant was furious, made threats . . . finally an "intelligence" staff member was brought to interview me, but had nothing useful to say.
I found my way home, called Westinghouse and asked what they could do. A deferment was obtained.
I watched Stone's "Platoon" the day it came out. It opens with a night jungle scene of American troops, fearfully trying to not be spotted. The caption at the bottom: "1968".
I had to leave the theater for a few minutes to compose myself.
My first job after completing my schooling at age 24 was military communications research with Westinghouse Space and Defense Center, and they obtained a deferment. Six years later in 1968, two of us left to form a software R&D house, our first contract with the Westinghouse we’d left. Within weeks, I received a draft notice, and soon found myself in a room with so 20 others going through the whole drill, including, at the end, an interview with a psychologist who looked at my age, 30, my PhD, and exclaimed, "What are you doing here?!?" My response: "It's not my idea!"
The final item was the induction ceremony. We were all to raise our hands and swear allegiance. I said I could not; I was a citizen of Canada. The sergeant was furious, made threats . . . finally an "intelligence" staff member was brought to interview me, but had nothing useful to say.
I found my way home, called Westinghouse and asked what they could do. A deferment was obtained.
I watched Stone's "Platoon" the day it came out. It opens with a night jungle scene of American troops, fearfully trying to not be spotted. The caption at the bottom: "1968".
I had to leave the theater for a few minutes to compose myself.
20
So you have ptsd from watching a movie about a war you did not fight in?
2
Was there in 69. Drafted at age 25. Not sure I can watch this, even as much as I admire Ken Burns. And my tour was not as bad as others. Not sure why the whole subject is depressing.
The South Vietnamese I met were not fans of U. S. troops. They considered us to be too loud, overbearing, and arrogant.
The army did let us out when we returned if we had five or less months. They realized that we had bad attitudes (-:
The South Vietnamese I met were not fans of U. S. troops. They considered us to be too loud, overbearing, and arrogant.
The army did let us out when we returned if we had five or less months. They realized that we had bad attitudes (-:
6
America's downfall began with the murder of JFK. I was 16. The downfall continued with the murders of MLK and RFK and the escalation of the utterly unnecessary war in Vietnam. I was sitting at my desk in a barracks at Lackland Air Force Base on May 4, 1970: Kent State, four dead in O-hi-o. That was the end of my allegiance to the federal government, a government which in no way stands for the ideal we call America. April, 1972: I attended the anti-war march in Washington DC. July, 1972: Discharge: Other Than Honorable. Take-home lesson from the Sixties Revolution: Question Authority. Homework: ask your Congressmen and Senators if their Wall Street stock portfolios include defense industry investments. "War will end when it is no longer profitable."
80
Nice article, Jennifer Schuessler. I can't wait to see this. It's been a long time coming.
10
The idea of a "balanced" documentary on the Vietnam war boggles the mind. Is the jury still out on the morality of that war? If, as one commenter suggests, Watergate was the other crucial event of the era, what about a "balanced" documentary on that? President Nixon had the purest of intentions; he felt he needed those documents from the Democratic offices in the Watergate in order to realize his vision of a great America. Something like that? The Karnow Vietnam documentary from the 1980s is a masterpiece.
8
Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon and Kissinger were all responsible for this unnecessary war.
Only one of these men is living today.
Kissinger is a war criminal, and should be tried for his crimes.
Only one of these men is living today.
Kissinger is a war criminal, and should be tried for his crimes.
38
Kennedy responsible? Please: absolutely no way 550,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam had he lived. Plenty of evidence backing up my point (McNamara). Kennedy haters, always based on jealousy, antiCatholicism, probably chicken hawk Trump supporters too. I've won many barroom brawls on this subject.
7
Watch the film before being so sure about JFK and Vietnam.
2
Sean: There were detailed documents up at the DoD web site some years ago, can't find them now, that described Kennedy's initiating role in and continuing acceleration of our involvement in Vietnam. Johnson inherited the mess that Kennedy created and, having no aptitude or experience in foreign affairs and adventures, he simply trusted people like Westmoreland and Kissinger, it destroyed him.
3
For all those who feel that the Vietnam War was such a worthwhile endeavor, I have yet to find a single soul who argues that the United States should re-invade Vietnam. Not one.
If the cause was so just and righteous, surely such a cause remains so today. After all, we were told that if we did not stop them in Vietnam, they would soon be in San Francisco.
What a waste.
If the cause was so just and righteous, surely such a cause remains so today. After all, we were told that if we did not stop them in Vietnam, they would soon be in San Francisco.
What a waste.
9
Narrated by Peter Coyote. I'll miss David McCullough, who was absolutely the perfect narrator for "The Civil War." And every other documentary he's done.
And I thought "Vietnam: A Television History" was splendid. Burns and Novick apparently have given us a different approach in their version. Can't wait.
And I thought "Vietnam: A Television History" was splendid. Burns and Novick apparently have given us a different approach in their version. Can't wait.
5
Not a word in the article about McCullough's and Burn's foray into
'video' politics in support of Clinton in the last election. Started a website to showcase anti-Trump dignitaries blasting everything he ever stood for, and now stands for in the oval office. With the country exactly polarized, was a very stupid thing for both of them to do.
But the NYTimes nicely forgets about it.
'video' politics in support of Clinton in the last election. Started a website to showcase anti-Trump dignitaries blasting everything he ever stood for, and now stands for in the oval office. With the country exactly polarized, was a very stupid thing for both of them to do.
But the NYTimes nicely forgets about it.
Is it bad for me to say I'm really, really excited for this documentary? I understand the series will be contentious. We've entered a very contentious part of living history. I'm sorry to say but many Ken Burns films, while always dramatic, are not usually controversial. Outside academia, there's little debate over the substance and presentation of his films. The general public rarely argues about the history of baseball for instance. Vietnam is different.
When I was young, the war was still too close to home for them to even bother teaching the subject in school. You were left to anecdotal encounters and a disorganized mass of accidental information. Researching the subject independently was even more confusing initially. There wasn't an accessible history of the Vietnam War at the time. Meanwhile reading, "The Things They Carried" or "Fields of Fire" is only so effectual when your introduction to the topic consists of "Rambo" the movie and "Tour of Duty" reruns.
My point is this: A fair and cohesive narrative of the war is long over due. My only concern is that Mr. Burns and Ms. Novick might prove a little too conservative in their presentation of events. The emotion is obviously still raw on all sides. I can only hope the film does justice to the memory.
When I was young, the war was still too close to home for them to even bother teaching the subject in school. You were left to anecdotal encounters and a disorganized mass of accidental information. Researching the subject independently was even more confusing initially. There wasn't an accessible history of the Vietnam War at the time. Meanwhile reading, "The Things They Carried" or "Fields of Fire" is only so effectual when your introduction to the topic consists of "Rambo" the movie and "Tour of Duty" reruns.
My point is this: A fair and cohesive narrative of the war is long over due. My only concern is that Mr. Burns and Ms. Novick might prove a little too conservative in their presentation of events. The emotion is obviously still raw on all sides. I can only hope the film does justice to the memory.
9
As a Vietnam vet, I, of course, want to see it. I want to know why we were there, what we did, and why. I know a little, but not much.
On the other hand, I don't want to see it, and probably don't want to know the answers to my questions. I'm old now, why pick off that huge scab? I have enough nightmares, thank you.
Damn, four years of my life, for what?
Now they're happily, I guess, communist, enjoying Most Favored Nation status. Millions died for this denouement. What a world, what a script, what a mess!
On the other hand, I don't want to see it, and probably don't want to know the answers to my questions. I'm old now, why pick off that huge scab? I have enough nightmares, thank you.
Damn, four years of my life, for what?
Now they're happily, I guess, communist, enjoying Most Favored Nation status. Millions died for this denouement. What a world, what a script, what a mess!
8
Thankfully you're still with us, Jim. I lost my best friend over there, and I still ask your question: For what?
Since I was safe and warm in the Navy back then, I have no right to question any feelings you might have about that time and place, and never will. But time and my distance from that "conflict" (the most tragic and ironic euphemism ever) has given me - and I hope I'm right - this simple perspective: All Ho wanted to do was reunite his divided nation.
In this he was very much like a 19th Century American hero who paid for the same conviction with his life.
To the end of their days, my friend's parents believed he had given his life for the right cause. I think they felt that way to keep from going insane.
Since I was safe and warm in the Navy back then, I have no right to question any feelings you might have about that time and place, and never will. But time and my distance from that "conflict" (the most tragic and ironic euphemism ever) has given me - and I hope I'm right - this simple perspective: All Ho wanted to do was reunite his divided nation.
In this he was very much like a 19th Century American hero who paid for the same conviction with his life.
To the end of their days, my friend's parents believed he had given his life for the right cause. I think they felt that way to keep from going insane.
4
The Vietnam War was pure US aggression against an agrarian country which had just liberated itself from French colonial rule.
10
Another Ken Burns home slide show?
1
Wars never really "go away" or are "resolved". The pain, the loss and what turns out to be an ephemeral "glory", simply go underground and wreak havoc there.
I know that personally, because as an immediate postwar German, my dark legacy and the visible remnants (rubble and one-legged veterans) that surrounded me, always reminded me of some unspeakable shame, something even the "innocent" offspring can have.
I protested the Vietnam War in 1968 in Germany. It was one of the biggest and most violent protest marches I've ever seen (and I saw a lot). When I did research for my book "What did you do in the War, Daddy? Growing up German" http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00HD0EDJY I became very aware of another, this time, American generation that would - 2 decades later - asked THEIR fathers who fought in Vietnam what they had done. I learned that -
just like the German Dads - almost all American fathers didn't want to talk about it. The scars, the wounds, invisible or visible, that wars inflict - are universal and unfortunately render most participants mute. Which doubles the tragedy.
I know that personally, because as an immediate postwar German, my dark legacy and the visible remnants (rubble and one-legged veterans) that surrounded me, always reminded me of some unspeakable shame, something even the "innocent" offspring can have.
I protested the Vietnam War in 1968 in Germany. It was one of the biggest and most violent protest marches I've ever seen (and I saw a lot). When I did research for my book "What did you do in the War, Daddy? Growing up German" http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00HD0EDJY I became very aware of another, this time, American generation that would - 2 decades later - asked THEIR fathers who fought in Vietnam what they had done. I learned that -
just like the German Dads - almost all American fathers didn't want to talk about it. The scars, the wounds, invisible or visible, that wars inflict - are universal and unfortunately render most participants mute. Which doubles the tragedy.
26
"Today we suffer from too much certainty." I love it! It is more complicated than we thought. Funny where did I just hear that? Looking forward to the series.
2
If Hillary was President, and our politics, place in the world and future somewhat normal, I would be looking forward to another Burns oeuvre (I'm a special fan of his series "The Civil War" and "Baseball"). But with our country in continual deep crisis because of that fool in the WH, his vast ignorance, and his many cruelties, I'm not sure I can handle looking back at another period of national tragedy, when the lives of so many ordinary people were held hostage by and sacrificed willy nilly to the gods of hardline ideology.
14
27 years after the brilliant documentary Ken Burns Civil War, we're still arguing bitterly about Confederate statues, even coming to blows. So I'm doubtful Americans will find much closure from the Vietnam film. Nevertheless, one is always guaranteed a fantastic history lesson with this wonderful filmmaker.
14
If you watch this series, ask yourself 'what the hell are we doing in the Middle East--Syria, Libya/Iraq/Afghanistan?' I mean, what is the point?
8
Reading that the opening prologue of Ken Burns' "The Vietnam War" states that the war “was begun in good faith, by decent people” leads me to conclude that this is another one of Ken Burns' "folksy" middle-of-the-road docs that I'd just as soon forego. Then, as now, we know that U.S. involvement in Vietnam was begun with lies and in very bad faith by some very bad people, and Burns' willingness to accept money from any and all - including David Koch! - in getting this on to the screen tells me that this film will ring as true as the dyed hair in Ken Burns' "signature bowl haircut."
9
In a now removed PBS trailer, a guy speaks about the hearts and minds of Americans based on the evolving draft situation. To say he was wrong and telling a gross lie is an understatement. If the rest of the project is like this, it will do a great disservice to all Americans.
As a seven year old boy who watched the evening news each night, I can remember thinking to myself, after the daily body count, that we must certainly be winning, since there shouldn't be anymore of "them" left to fight soon. Everyday, we'd lose 2-4 Americans and 1-2,000 Vietnamese or Viet Cong were reported dead.
I used to have nightmares of being in a swampy rice paddy up to my chest in water holding an M-16 overhead. I couldn't remember a time when there was no war.
This is going to be a hard show to watch, and I wasn't even a soldier.
I used to have nightmares of being in a swampy rice paddy up to my chest in water holding an M-16 overhead. I couldn't remember a time when there was no war.
This is going to be a hard show to watch, and I wasn't even a soldier.
14
Karnow's documentary series was very good, as I remember. I've thought about rewatching it several times over the last couple years. I learned many things I hadn't known before. I highly recommend it.
2
"eventually claiming more than 58,000 American and more than three million Vietnamese military and civilian lives" - 52:1. That says it for me. This doesn't take account of the ecological,the environmental catastrophe or the generation of infants, children with genetic damage. I don't think I need a documentary with the core message: a war "begun in good faith, by decent people". The Vietnam War was a crime against humanity and our generation and generations to come should make reparations to Vietnam (and Laos, Cambodia as well).
7
I think you are missing the point. Burns doesn't take a side in his films. He attempts to describe what happened.
The Cuban missile crisis had just concluded. US defense and intelligence were acutely seeking to protect our country. I think it is reasonable to think that these agents were acting in good faith. That the whole thing went sideways from the start is just how it went. No one planned for such a cluster. It just happened.
The Cuban missile crisis had just concluded. US defense and intelligence were acutely seeking to protect our country. I think it is reasonable to think that these agents were acting in good faith. That the whole thing went sideways from the start is just how it went. No one planned for such a cluster. It just happened.
2
I took a physical in August 1971. I cant remember if it one was drafted first and then took a physical or vice versa, but by then, very few young men wanted to go to Vietnam. But when I entered college in 1967, the anti-war movement, while growing, did not have the support of most Americans. And earlier than that, say 1965, the anti-war movement was quite small.
Frankly, not until those who lived, fought, demonstrated, and were injured in that war pass away, will Americans be able to look back with objectivity. Burns documentary will not help.
For instance, I felt the draft was a good thing because it forced us to think about the decisions our leaders were making. My father, a WW2 vet, badly wounded in Europe criticized the war from the outset. My grandparents
Became Democrats. I realized it was impossible to win a guerilla war if there were sanctuaries and support from local people. Look at what is happening in Afghanistan where our professional military slogs on, large numbers of people in the countryside support the Taliban, and the leadership have sanctuaries in Pakistan. What would have happened had
our soldiers been draftees? What if the leadership in Afghanistan been comprised of men who fought the Vietcong and whose ranking been determined by their ability to argue against conflict rather than their performance in unwinnable ones?
Frankly, not until those who lived, fought, demonstrated, and were injured in that war pass away, will Americans be able to look back with objectivity. Burns documentary will not help.
For instance, I felt the draft was a good thing because it forced us to think about the decisions our leaders were making. My father, a WW2 vet, badly wounded in Europe criticized the war from the outset. My grandparents
Became Democrats. I realized it was impossible to win a guerilla war if there were sanctuaries and support from local people. Look at what is happening in Afghanistan where our professional military slogs on, large numbers of people in the countryside support the Taliban, and the leadership have sanctuaries in Pakistan. What would have happened had
our soldiers been draftees? What if the leadership in Afghanistan been comprised of men who fought the Vietcong and whose ranking been determined by their ability to argue against conflict rather than their performance in unwinnable ones?
8
The war at first seemed to mirror the Korean war of communist aggression and the US acted accordingly. But Pols micro managed the war which produced losing rules of engagement i.e. letting SAM sited be completed before attacking , Letting Migs rise off airfields before you could attack them et al. The war drifted therefore into stalemate yet finally Nixon allowed the military their wish of blockading of the North in 1972 which cut off the supplies of war and brought them to the peace table; something that could have been done years before if the pols had not intervened. That is the enduring lesson of the war...........
1
18 hours? Mr. Burns must have become stuck in that past that he likes to document so much if he thinks many people younger than 60 are going to devote themselves to this piece. If PBS is really attempting to broaden its appeal to the millennials, this is a curious way to do it.
1
You mean like a Vietnam war video game or Vietnam app?
Not everything needs to appeal to "millennials." Give it a rest.
Not everything needs to appeal to "millennials." Give it a rest.
27
Oh no! 18 hours... now I'll be late for my nap.
Seriously. School starts in September. If I were a history teacher, maybe I'd suggest to my high school classes that they find some time (if not all) to watch. All they have to do is watch. geez!
Seriously. School starts in September. If I were a history teacher, maybe I'd suggest to my high school classes that they find some time (if not all) to watch. All they have to do is watch. geez!
I hope the series is a well balanced as this article. As expected many NY Times readers commenting show that they are too biased to consider any perspective other than their own. Hopefully those who watch the series will see enough to make them understand why others have a different perspective. I was too young to be directly involved during the war period - but old enough to spend my summers in Southern California working in factories where nearly everyone else on the line was a Vietnam refugee (these refugees were not involved in the military or government of south Vietnam and having been surrounded by liberals I was surprised to hear it wasn't one big block party celebration of reunification when North Vietnam rolled through South Vietnam - plenty of ugliness and a sad period).
2
I can only hope and pray to God that the lessons we should have learned from Vietnam have been absorbed by our military leaders at the highest levels. The timing of this series, given our present position in the world, couldn't be more appropriate and meaningful.
12
The PBS series comes too late. The die has been cast. It's too late for France, too late for America to atone for bringing war, with all its destruction and death to the former French Indochina. It was an American defeat, a French defeat, not a "failure." The Vietnamese outsmarted two world powers. It's ironic that this series will be broadcast during the presidency of Donald Trump, who evaded the military draft, thus avoiding going to South Vietnam in the 1960s.
30
Donald Trump evaded the draft during the Vietnamese war by having a doctor write a letter to his draft board claiming he had a bone spur in his foot. The draft board did not require further documentation. This was Trump's first felony.
1
I hope they go into Johnson's deceit in the Gulf of Tonkin incident, as well as Nixon's actions to sabotage Johnson's peace talk efforts, in order to sink the Democrats' presidential bid.
Any historian with perspective could have foretold the US debacle in Vietnam, for reasons not entirely dissimilar to what we're experienced in Afghanistan. Ideology, hubris and political incentives pushed us further into both conflicts. I'd like to think we can learn from the past. Maybe this documentary will help open eyes.
Any historian with perspective could have foretold the US debacle in Vietnam, for reasons not entirely dissimilar to what we're experienced in Afghanistan. Ideology, hubris and political incentives pushed us further into both conflicts. I'd like to think we can learn from the past. Maybe this documentary will help open eyes.
39
I am very much looking forward to Mr. Burns's and Ms. Novick's Vietnam documentary, not simply because I am a Vietnam vet, but because of the insights it may provide from many sides and the inclusion of everyday grunts like myself in the interviews. I am curious as to why prominent historians are not interviewed. I thought doing such with "The Civil War" was very helpful in that excellent documentary. Scholars of history are generally not partisan, so I think it would be most valuable to include them. I am not interested in hearing what various generals said. They lied to us and were always out for themselves. It's the grunts who know the truth and can tell the real story, often at the cost of their sanity, their very lives.
18
I actively opposed the Vietnam War in the courts. As a draft and military lawyer, I kept hundreds of young men from waging an unpopular and unnecessary war that was essentially a civil war. I'm proud of my accomplishment.
Eventually, the opposition forced the U.S. to withdraw with its tail between its legs. Tragically, way too many Americans and Vietnamese died. Nixon and Kissinger were the war criminals who prolonged this senseless bloodbath.
No doubt many soldiers believed in America's misbegotten cause. Fortunately, they lost regardless of their bravery.
It's past time to rein in the American military that carries on its wars and misleads its citizens. Will they ever learn?
Eventually, the opposition forced the U.S. to withdraw with its tail between its legs. Tragically, way too many Americans and Vietnamese died. Nixon and Kissinger were the war criminals who prolonged this senseless bloodbath.
No doubt many soldiers believed in America's misbegotten cause. Fortunately, they lost regardless of their bravery.
It's past time to rein in the American military that carries on its wars and misleads its citizens. Will they ever learn?
60
Yeah, it was a "civil war" - a US puppet government against all of Vietnam. It was an invasion of Vietnam, the ultimate war crime and it occasioned numerous other, ghastly war crimes.
Everything else you wrote is accurate.
Everything else you wrote is accurate.
3
What should we now learn about being mislead by our military? ............with NK Nukes pointing at SK, J and US ?
Is there an answer short of war? The military thinks of only one thing...waging war. Kim is making one point: negotiate. He's not crazy. He wants to be taken seriously on the world stage. He's a politician. Talking is paramount.
From the article: "Mr. Burns said the film takes an 'equal opportunity' approach to the inhumanity of the war. It’s the kind of resolutely centrist balance that may not sit well with partisan viewers, but so be it."
Looking forward to seeing this impartial approach on screen...hope it addresses the war's entirety and sticks to historical accuracy. Topics such as draft evasion/dodging remain quite sensitive and relevant.
"The Fog of War" is another interesting documentary covering this time period.
www.thewaryouknow.com
Looking forward to seeing this impartial approach on screen...hope it addresses the war's entirety and sticks to historical accuracy. Topics such as draft evasion/dodging remain quite sensitive and relevant.
"The Fog of War" is another interesting documentary covering this time period.
www.thewaryouknow.com
8
But what does "centrist" mean? And who has the authority to define it?
As a survivor of one tour in Vietnam (Co B, 1st Battalion, 503rd Infantry, 173d Airborne Brigade) I am happy that Ken Burns has approached this subject. There is so much documentary junk out there; it will be good to see it treated as it should be, respectfully but with wide open eyes.
I am waiting with bated breath.
I am waiting with bated breath.
6
TO us, growing up during that time, the war was all about america taking over the heroin trade in Vietnam. In war, no matter what the cover story is, its advisable to follow the money.
3
...and the moon landing was all staged, too?
“'It’s very reductive to say ‘They lied, they lied,’” Ms. Novick said. “That’s true, but what we really want to do is show what was really going on.”' Just as I feared, PBS will acknowledge that Johnson & McNamara were"just lying about the war from the start" but then claim that their cascade of official deception "was not an important part of what was really going on." I must dissent from this cover-up. LBJ's cascade of never-ending lies was the core of what was going on in that, without the lies the war would have ended and nothing would have been going on,
14
The series, which I've seen in preview, somehow manages to be simultaneously anti-war and anti-war movement. There's lots of legitimate criticisms that can be made about the anti-war movement, particularly its youthful cohort, of which I was part. But the fact remains that if Lyndon Johnson had responded to the first mass demonstrations against the war in 1967, 50 years ago, and said, "Oh my gosh, they're right," and ended the war immediately, tens of thousands of Americans, and millions of Vietnamese would not have died for no reason. No Tet Offensive, no My Lai massacre, no Kent State shootings, no Christmas bombing of Hanoi -- and on, and on.
37
I remember seeing Alan Ginsberg, probably in 1969. He quoted some think-tank type who stated: "We're in it too deep to pull out."
Ginsberg: "Waiting for an orgasm?"
Johnson DID know we were right. He agonized over a war he couldn't see a way to end. His frustration, and possibly an awareness of guilt, may have shortened his life.
Not having seen this documentary yet my comment is maybe a bit unfair. I have no doubt that Ken Burns makes important historical documents, but I'm afraid that they are better suited to go into the Smithsonian directly than interest a large part of the population. Because of trying to be reasonable and trying to be objective his documentaries lack passion. To engage people on television nowadays you not only have to state the facts but also light the watcher's fire. The careful way that Ken Burns steers around facts and opinions is very clinical, sometimes it is just better to stomp on things to try and getting a message across. It's probably that lack of message that is the reason I find his documentaries so boring. Btw, PBS itself has been steering itself also in an as much as possible non-controversial role, catering to its rapidly aging core viewers. That has turned PBS into a stuffy dinosaur where Ken Burns documentaries unfortunately fit well in.
2
Really? You thought 'The Civil War' was boring? It's a masterpiece. If only Canadians had such a passionate filmmaker producing equivalent content for Canadian TV audiences.
8
The ancient Greek philosopher, Heraclitus, wrote:
“War is the father and king of all: some he has made gods, and some men; some slaves and some free.”
Whatever someone that came of age during the Vietnam era did in response to that war, it placed an indelible stamp on him for the rest of his life. It has determined how I judge myself, other men of my generation, and my government. I doubt if watching this film will do much to change this.
“War is the father and king of all: some he has made gods, and some men; some slaves and some free.”
Whatever someone that came of age during the Vietnam era did in response to that war, it placed an indelible stamp on him for the rest of his life. It has determined how I judge myself, other men of my generation, and my government. I doubt if watching this film will do much to change this.
17
I lived through it and I'm not interested in living through it again at the length of 16 hours. For younger people who don't know the story and war mongers who like to forget it, the film may be of value.
4
Reality artfully reordered for PBS does make for nice entertainment, but since the filmmakers announce from the outset, by proclamation, that that the war “was begun in good faith, by decent people” (has Burns not yet heard whispers among the graves of a million Iraqis that just maybe American foreign policy is neither virtuous nor selfless?) and with "sponsors including the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and David H. Koch", anyone more interested in truth than TV might want to look elsewhere.
A good place to start is a consideration of this movie by someone who actually knows something about Vietnam and American policy there:
-- http://www.thomasbass.com/_america_s_amnesia__132981.htm
A good place to start is a consideration of this movie by someone who actually knows something about Vietnam and American policy there:
-- http://www.thomasbass.com/_america_s_amnesia__132981.htm
12
"Everything wrong with the new ten-part PBS documentary on the Vietnam War is apparent in the first five minutes.
A voice from nowhere intones about a war 'begun in good faith” that somehow ran off the rails and killed millions of people.
The even-handedness, the flag-draped history, bittersweet narrative, redemptive homecomings and the urge toward “healing” rather than truth are [what] we have come to expect from Ken Burns and Lynn Novice..."
See: http://www.thomasbass.com/_america_s_amnesia__132981.htm
Thanks jrd for supplying the link to Thomas Bass who illuminates Ken Burns' Original Sin: shredding ugly truths of US wars against Vietnam (and Cambodia and Laos) under the pretext of healing America. The Burns brand (formula) grabs more money and fame but, hey, it's peanuts compared to the war contractors and the politicians who serve them.
St. Ronny Reagan will smile to see the final annihilation of the toxic Vietnam Syndrome (reluctance to wage land war casually and endlessly). Even he will marvel that what inflicted such horrors on Americans, Asians, and the World is now on the brink of being sanctified even beyond the Civil War! Say hallelujah! And "bring 'em on!
A voice from nowhere intones about a war 'begun in good faith” that somehow ran off the rails and killed millions of people.
The even-handedness, the flag-draped history, bittersweet narrative, redemptive homecomings and the urge toward “healing” rather than truth are [what] we have come to expect from Ken Burns and Lynn Novice..."
See: http://www.thomasbass.com/_america_s_amnesia__132981.htm
Thanks jrd for supplying the link to Thomas Bass who illuminates Ken Burns' Original Sin: shredding ugly truths of US wars against Vietnam (and Cambodia and Laos) under the pretext of healing America. The Burns brand (formula) grabs more money and fame but, hey, it's peanuts compared to the war contractors and the politicians who serve them.
St. Ronny Reagan will smile to see the final annihilation of the toxic Vietnam Syndrome (reluctance to wage land war casually and endlessly). Even he will marvel that what inflicted such horrors on Americans, Asians, and the World is now on the brink of being sanctified even beyond the Civil War! Say hallelujah! And "bring 'em on!
2
Not sure what the controversy is, at least about the facts.
The United States invaded a small agrarian nation thousands of miles away in an effort at brutal imperial conquest, killed millions of people, and, in the end, lost the war in a humiliating defeat.
I guess you could examine the moral depravity of the venture, why no one in political or military leadership positions was locked up for war crimes, and why the US learned nothing from the blood-drenched fiasco, repeating it again in Iraq.
The United States invaded a small agrarian nation thousands of miles away in an effort at brutal imperial conquest, killed millions of people, and, in the end, lost the war in a humiliating defeat.
I guess you could examine the moral depravity of the venture, why no one in political or military leadership positions was locked up for war crimes, and why the US learned nothing from the blood-drenched fiasco, repeating it again in Iraq.
52
Absolutely! But as one of the pawns in that game, I would love to see it treated from a neutral perspective, rather than the normal points of view, which are far to left or right.
7
not true
unless you ignore the french play in that area for almost 100 yrs
unless you ignore the french play in that area for almost 100 yrs
Best Vietnam Documentary: Hearts and Minds (1974).
8
To get from the Newhallville section of New Haven to the Draft Board you walked along Prospect Street by the Draft Counseling Service building on the Yale campus. There, a team of lawyers helped the Yalies, as we called them, with legal methods to avoid the draft. My friend Paul who lived a few doors down on Winchester Avenue, helped to support his separated mother and his younger sisters. When he was classified 1A, his mother and my mother went to the Draft Board to see if he could get an exemption from the draft so he could continue to work and provide support . Within a year, Paul, my older brother and I were in Vietnam or over it. We all survived the war so I cannot complain, but I hope Mr. Burns spends some time describing how the elites and working class folks fared differently during that war.
61
absolutely, one was unlikely to serve if one knew the way. One might inquire of past and present presidents and those who hoped to be.
5
Thank you for your considered review of this American tragedy. I'm a Vet and didn't go to Nam. But remember seeing 18 year old's who were clueless going from Basic to Advanced Infantry Training the summer of '68. Wonder if they made it, while I sat out my tour in central Texas.
2
Most did. Some certainly did not.
It's not just going from boot camp to AIT then to an infantry unit in VN.
We had kids straight out of USMC Boot Camp then AIT then straight to VN then as they walk off the plane in Danang to vol and be accepted into a USMC reconnaissance unit as a small team operator.
Today it could take many years, if ever, for a Marine or Doc to make it onto a team
It's not just going from boot camp to AIT then to an infantry unit in VN.
We had kids straight out of USMC Boot Camp then AIT then straight to VN then as they walk off the plane in Danang to vol and be accepted into a USMC reconnaissance unit as a small team operator.
Today it could take many years, if ever, for a Marine or Doc to make it onto a team
“Today, we suffer from too much certainty,” he said. “I like the middle, the uncertainty of things. I think that’s where all the progress, all the healing, takes place. If some people believe one thing and other people believe something else, the truth is almost never in the middle. The say that the war was embarked upon by decent people is a red herring: is there a single militarist who would say he has bad intentions? They all, every one who has ever sent a credulous young man-- or thousands of them-- to his death, have "good intentions".
13
It seems so foolish for people to project opinions about this documentary before it has even aired, which shows the partisanship and polarization that still exists regarding the subject. Thus far, the only fact that we know will be in the series is the comment that the war "was begun in good faith, by decent people", which has already been attacked by commenters. I am not taking one side or the other on that comment, but, in the sense of perspective of the times, would recommend reading "Kennedy, Johnson, and the Nonaligned World" by Robert B. Rakove. The subject of how the U.S. approached the entire difficult issue of dealing with nonaligned countries after WWII, or more specifically, after the Korean War, is one that is almost totally ignored or misunderstood. And yet, that understanding is needed and is core to what followed as our most divisive act - the conflict in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. The book will not give anyone any answers, nor is it intended to do so; rather, it will give perspective...a better understanding of actions and decisions, both leading up to and at the time they occurred. Nothing is as simple as the two sides - pro and con regarding the war in Vietnam - would like everyone else to believe. And no-one who really tries to comprehend what happens, and objectively absorbs all that led up to that disastrous time, would ever be so firmly planted in one belief or the other. This is not condoning the war, but asking for true retrospection.
9
A book? How can I point and click on anything in a book? Oh, there's a digital edition. Whew!
1
You seem to assume that anyone with clear views on the subject must not be well-informed. I would suggest that the opposite is true. That is precisely the fault with attempts to be "even handed". American foreign policy in the 1950's and 1960's had a clear, conscious, calculated purpose, and that purpose was not honorable no matter how patriotic it's adherents believed they were.
3
Well said Mr. Taylor.
Given the polarized times in which we live I do hope that this documentary is not used as a reason for further cuts to PBS funding. Given the jingoistic leanings of certain members of the House and Senate they'll be crying "treason" for anything that doesn't look like a recruiting film.
6
The Vietnam War was one of the two seminal events of modern times (the other being the Watergate scandal) which greatly corroded Americans' trust in their own government. Imagine being a young man of draft-eligible age at that time, faced with essentially forced conscription, and the accompanying risk of being killed at pretty much any time, into a war for which the government was not only unable to make a convincing case for our involvement but was lying about the state of the war to present a rosier picture than the facts warranted. Given these circumstances, I don't blame people of that era for protesting, nor can I blame those who fled the country to avoid the draft.
12
Rick - we must remember that there were ways of getting out of being drafted. College deferments, (so-called) medical deferments, etc.
That's the biggest problem with a draft that supporters don't seem to consider: there are too many loopholes to make it a fair experience for all. That's why in the drafts of the '60s the majority of soldiers were from the lower economic classes. The upper class could more easily get out of going.
I hope to see that discussed in the TV series.
That's the biggest problem with a draft that supporters don't seem to consider: there are too many loopholes to make it a fair experience for all. That's why in the drafts of the '60s the majority of soldiers were from the lower economic classes. The upper class could more easily get out of going.
I hope to see that discussed in the TV series.
6
As a guy who dealt with the issue at the time, I'd say Rick's description is pretty on-point for me. Even though I rejected the political arguments that supported US involvement in the conflict I still suffered bouts of guilt, feeling that I was managing to avoid service when people I knew from high school were killed or maimed. How could that be fair? Does "fair" actually mean anything when dealing with moral risk? A confusing and confused time . . .
1
I expect this will be Mr. Burns' and Ms. Novicks' magnum opus.
What an extraordinary undertaking.
It's a shame that more Americans don't see PBS as central to the preservation of our democracy.
Those that don't support public television and don't tune in regularly have no idea how much they are missing.
What an extraordinary undertaking.
It's a shame that more Americans don't see PBS as central to the preservation of our democracy.
Those that don't support public television and don't tune in regularly have no idea how much they are missing.
124
Well, I could do without Matt Schlapp on The News Hour.
1
I totally agree!!!!
I agree with you -- "Two Cents" -- remark about PBS.
Except Mr. Burns and Ms. Novick have no unusual or particular lock and hold on the history of the Vietnam War. There a at least 1/2 dozen books and films that have already dealt with this, and which are all highly acclaimed (including by the NYT!).
If Ken and Lynn can do even 1/2 as well as these other renditions of the war, I will be pleasantly surprised.
Wait! No. I won't. Because I have no intention whatsoever of watching what Ken has to say about the Vietnam War.
He wasn't able to render the "history" of baseball in the USA without a zillion mistakes.
Except Mr. Burns and Ms. Novick have no unusual or particular lock and hold on the history of the Vietnam War. There a at least 1/2 dozen books and films that have already dealt with this, and which are all highly acclaimed (including by the NYT!).
If Ken and Lynn can do even 1/2 as well as these other renditions of the war, I will be pleasantly surprised.
Wait! No. I won't. Because I have no intention whatsoever of watching what Ken has to say about the Vietnam War.
He wasn't able to render the "history" of baseball in the USA without a zillion mistakes.
Our country still grapples with the Vietnam war, not just because of the high human cost, but because of what the war represented: young Americans sent to wage death and destruction upon a people halfway around the world while being unclear and confused as to why they were forced to do so in the first place.
War is hell, to be waged only as THE last resort. Any commander-in-chief or lawmaker had better understand that. The generals do. I hope.
War is hell, to be waged only as THE last resort. Any commander-in-chief or lawmaker had better understand that. The generals do. I hope.
10
Maybe this time he'll include something about Latino soldier, unlike his WWII doc.
1
I look forward to this series. I hope it is more in line with "The Civil War" than "The War," the narration in the former is stellar, the latter not as much particularly that off-putting woman with the Southern accent and inane commentary.
I know this is blasphemous in this instant-gratification, feed-me, digital word, but reading Neil Sheehan's `A Bright Shining Lie' would be my recommendation for anyone interested in `tackling' the Vietnam War.
9
It's unlikely that anyone other than Baby Boomers will take the time to watch this film. Further, based on the network's fundraising programs and personalities, I doubt that anyone under 50 watches PBS anymore. The network has done little to grow its audience and this expensive project will not help it do so.
3
PBS has been so unbelievably dumbed down. There are baby boomers who remember when it was thoughtful and insightful, with excellent drama and comedies to watch week in and week out. Now - dreadful re-runs of Pledge Week reunion concerts and sales pitches by those who sell a 'lifestyle' to stay young. Total drivel....
6
"Frontline" is still extraordinary.
1
I can't imagine many Baby Boomers taking any time to watch this film. We lived through the whole ordeal. No need to listen to Ken Burns' take on it.
One aside about Burns: We used to play a game during his series about baseball: How many errors and mistakes can you find? I can't remember the final tally, but it was in the double-digits.
One aside about Burns: We used to play a game during his series about baseball: How many errors and mistakes can you find? I can't remember the final tally, but it was in the double-digits.
1
If we could ask someone who fought in the Civil War if they would want to watch the Ken Burn's documentary, they would probably say no.
5
Vietnam, for many of us, remains the single most defining time of our lives. This film has the potential to provide another piece of healing for veterans such as myself.
9
I was a war protester and in the first group of 18 year olds in the draft lottery-never served. I think 50 years is a good time to look back at the war to better understand what happened then and how that can-and is-happening now. Curiously, it is hard to find someone my age who was a supporter of the war but a majority of people supported it in 1966.
After our defeat I was convinced that we would not engage in any more "stupid wars" but here we are in Afghanistan and the Mid-East in a similar quagmire. So I hope this expansive documentary gives us an opportunity to see ourselves in the mirror so the public, our politicians and military can reflect on our thoughts and decisions then and now.
I was, perhaps somewhat selfishly, against the draft but have realized for many years that a draft has 2 vital functions: 1. it protects us from involvements like Iraq/Afghanistan because middle/upper class parents wouldn't allow their children to go to war without clear cause and goal; 2. it provides mixing of a large population of young people and development of better understanding and trust among people of different color and background.
After our defeat I was convinced that we would not engage in any more "stupid wars" but here we are in Afghanistan and the Mid-East in a similar quagmire. So I hope this expansive documentary gives us an opportunity to see ourselves in the mirror so the public, our politicians and military can reflect on our thoughts and decisions then and now.
I was, perhaps somewhat selfishly, against the draft but have realized for many years that a draft has 2 vital functions: 1. it protects us from involvements like Iraq/Afghanistan because middle/upper class parents wouldn't allow their children to go to war without clear cause and goal; 2. it provides mixing of a large population of young people and development of better understanding and trust among people of different color and background.
14
@Paul: This is not meant as an "attack" on your decision at the time, but your ending comments seem so contradictory to your beginning statement. With stating that you opposed the draft when it applied to you, at the end you point out the "positive" aspects of having a draft, which would expressly show that people must actively participate in the draft for those positive aspects to be realized. In other words, you have said that the draft was not good for you as far as you were concerned, but it is a very good thing for everyone else - that 1) we should now have a draft to get us out of Afghanistan (it being to late to keep us from getting in there); and 2) it's a great 'leveler', a great social experience (for everyone but yourself).
Interesting.
Interesting.
3
I don't see Paul R's ending comments as contradictory. He's simply saying he grew up to see things less selfishly, though his overall judgment of the war has not changed. The Vietnam era draft forced choices and, eventually, mobilized opposition to the war. Today, we have no draft, few are forced to tough choices, and we, the population, seem unable to resist war anywhere. The war in Afghanistan has already lasted longer than Vietnam, and it shows no signs of going away. Under Trump, our presence there is again increasing. His teleprompter speech vaguely announcing that fact was a string of implausibilities echoing all the implausibilities of Johnson and Nixon. More will die so that those who have died will not have died in vain. It is too dangerous for us to withdraw. We will settle for nothing less than victory and peace. But we have already forgotten the nonsense Trump read, on to other excitements of the moment, while our troops get new assignments. We have become a nation permanently at war.
5
I always find it ironic when pacifists and anti-war types advocate for military conscription, which leads to *bigger* militaries instead of smaller ones.
PR: "1. it [the draft] protects us from involvements like Iraq/Afghanistan because middle/upper class parents wouldn't allow their children to go to war without clear cause and goal;"
Conscription *enables* wars -- see Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, for just two examples. You have it backwards on US involvement in "Iraq/Afghanistan". Troop numbers have been MUCH smaller with an all-volunteer force than they were with conscription during the Vietnam war, where there were 543,000 troops in April 1969. (per Wikipedia)
PR: "2. it [the draft] provides mixing of a large population of young people and development of better understanding and trust among people of different color and background."
That's called social engineering in an authoritarian environment. If you want "mixing", advocate for college scholarships and other financial aid for "people of different color and background".
PR: "1. it [the draft] protects us from involvements like Iraq/Afghanistan because middle/upper class parents wouldn't allow their children to go to war without clear cause and goal;"
Conscription *enables* wars -- see Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, for just two examples. You have it backwards on US involvement in "Iraq/Afghanistan". Troop numbers have been MUCH smaller with an all-volunteer force than they were with conscription during the Vietnam war, where there were 543,000 troops in April 1969. (per Wikipedia)
PR: "2. it [the draft] provides mixing of a large population of young people and development of better understanding and trust among people of different color and background."
That's called social engineering in an authoritarian environment. If you want "mixing", advocate for college scholarships and other financial aid for "people of different color and background".
Mr Burns and Ms. Novick are to be praised for bringing yet another important segment of American life to TV, as they have done with the Civil War and other subjects. Perhaps our citizens, and especially the younger ones, will see the folly of not just war but the concept that we need to police the world. The war in Vietnam was by any measure a failure as was the venture into Iraq, and maybe this film series will finally turn the tide on the thinking that America knows what's best for others.
6
As my father, WW2 veteran of the south Pacific in Saipan, told me that wars are only about killing your fellow man, the only heroism is had by protecting your brother from death.
12
I belong to the last age cohort to register for the Vietnam era draft. For those like me, the war was the dark cloud blotting out our adolescent horizon, past which we could not see, but which miraculously dissipated as we reached it. I look forward to watching Burns and Novick's recounting. I'd suggest arguing about the war rather than arguing about the film series as a proxy for arguing about the war, but it sounds like it's too late for that. Culturally, we seem to have reached the point of pure childishness where everyone throws a temper tantrum when not spoon fed an exclusive diet of their own views. Worse, everyone imagines themselves an apparatchik in some Ministry of Propaganda, up in arms about what the masses else will see and hear. Crude "you are what you eat" notions of intellectual and cultural consumption are assumed everywhere. Left, right and center all have their own politically correct agenda. I'm sorry, I still like things that are not good for me, whatever you think that is. I can still chew. I don't have to swallow everything whole. I can still appreciate a creative act, an argument, a tough narrative on a tough topic without demanding it be done as I would have done it. Because I haven't, I won't, and honestly can't. Please, a little less rampant narcissism and a little more civil adult discussion.
64
@RRI: An excellent comment overall and very commendable points made. One can only wish more people had such perspective and just plain common sense. Thank you for stating what you did.
3
RRI - I too, am glad of what you wrote. But I feel like civil discussion on almost any topic outside of the weather will soon end. Why must we be so polarized on so many subjects? Why can't we and the Congress critters we elect just work together, neither getting exactly what we want, but what the American citizen needs?
3
A masterfully crafted message.
2
I only hope that Mr. Burns' Vietnam War series is more accurate than were his ones on baseball and the Civil War.
2
"Can an 18-hour documentary help put the demons of that era — and of our own — to rest?"
That's a funny question to ask. Documentaries don't change history- they just try to explain it. Ken Burns' Civil War film certainly didn't "put the demons of that era — and of our own — to rest." The recent events in Charlottesville and throughout the South make it clear that the "demons" are very much still with us.
Likewise, no film about Viet Nam will bring innocent civilians and Kent State students back to life, or make Robert McNamara more human. Before there was Rumsfeld, there was McNamara. The personality type echoes down through the corridors of history: the "smartest man in the room," but in reality one who knows distressingly little about so much, and whose essential lack of humanity results in countless deaths, always of others, of course.
It also seems odd that Burns has chosen not to interview "historians or ...with polarizing boldfaced names ... or anyone with 'an interest in having history break the way they want it to break.'" In real history, of course, everyone gets to speak. Who you believe depends upon what you've learned along the way.
Imagine passing up the chance to ask Robert E. Lee why he resigned his US commission to fight for Virginia! That interview alone would tell us more about the roots of war than a thousand "ordinary" soldiers ever could. Sherman told us "War is hell." That insight and economy of words has yet to be surpassed.
That's a funny question to ask. Documentaries don't change history- they just try to explain it. Ken Burns' Civil War film certainly didn't "put the demons of that era — and of our own — to rest." The recent events in Charlottesville and throughout the South make it clear that the "demons" are very much still with us.
Likewise, no film about Viet Nam will bring innocent civilians and Kent State students back to life, or make Robert McNamara more human. Before there was Rumsfeld, there was McNamara. The personality type echoes down through the corridors of history: the "smartest man in the room," but in reality one who knows distressingly little about so much, and whose essential lack of humanity results in countless deaths, always of others, of course.
It also seems odd that Burns has chosen not to interview "historians or ...with polarizing boldfaced names ... or anyone with 'an interest in having history break the way they want it to break.'" In real history, of course, everyone gets to speak. Who you believe depends upon what you've learned along the way.
Imagine passing up the chance to ask Robert E. Lee why he resigned his US commission to fight for Virginia! That interview alone would tell us more about the roots of war than a thousand "ordinary" soldiers ever could. Sherman told us "War is hell." That insight and economy of words has yet to be surpassed.
18
At this late date, hearing from the usual gasbags, even via old footage (as most of them are deceased)----McNamara, the Rostows, Westmoreland, the SDSers--what a bore that would be. What's described here seems like an attempt to make the war fresh for those of us old enough to remember it and the younger folks who are perhaps sick of hearing about it in much the way we were tired of hearing about WWII or the Great Depression. General Lee might tell us something about elite opinion about the Civil War but little about the day-to-day experience of the war.
3
Alexander, your comments are wise and terribly well-written. Your focus on the Civil War tie-in is, unfortunately, on-the money.
Perhaps the two documentarians will some day respond to your challenge about not including the biggest players, as if the boldfacing of their names was already too much ink. I wish they had allowed Kissinger a last, defining moment of reputational self-immolation.
As for Sherman's insight and economy, how about Herman Melville (poem: "Shiloh") --
"(What like a bullet can undeceive!)"
Perhaps the two documentarians will some day respond to your challenge about not including the biggest players, as if the boldfacing of their names was already too much ink. I wish they had allowed Kissinger a last, defining moment of reputational self-immolation.
As for Sherman's insight and economy, how about Herman Melville (poem: "Shiloh") --
"(What like a bullet can undeceive!)"
The US War Against Vietnam was an act of national madness, inexcusable, and galactic ignorance and ISIS like terrorism. We dropped more ordinance on Vietnam than all of the belligerents dropped on each other in WW II combined. We used Agent Orange and Napalm against its civilians and carpet bombed its cities. And for what? Vietnam endured 30 years of war for national independence against the Japanese, the French and the US with a 10 year respite between Dien Bien Phu and the Gulf of Tonkin called by Bao Ninh, the author of "The Sorrows of War" "the happiest ten years in modern Vietnamese history."
Finally, it is immaterial to talk about the US War Against Vietnam in terms of winning. As history has already established, Vietnam became united, the nation became independent, it began to meet the challenges of modernization and established diplomatic relations with the United States, all of which, including the Baskin Robbins that stood in the center of Hanoi when I visited it in 1997 could have occurred in 1954 after the French were defeated.
I believe Ken Burns and Lynn Novick to be national treasures and I look forward to seeing their film. However, the goal of such an enterprise is to pave a long and winding road to the truth. To occupy the "middle ground", to not interview historians as they did for their masterpiece "The Civil War", is to risk getting entangled in strategic, moral, historical and military equivalencies that could render the enterprise irrelevant.
Finally, it is immaterial to talk about the US War Against Vietnam in terms of winning. As history has already established, Vietnam became united, the nation became independent, it began to meet the challenges of modernization and established diplomatic relations with the United States, all of which, including the Baskin Robbins that stood in the center of Hanoi when I visited it in 1997 could have occurred in 1954 after the French were defeated.
I believe Ken Burns and Lynn Novick to be national treasures and I look forward to seeing their film. However, the goal of such an enterprise is to pave a long and winding road to the truth. To occupy the "middle ground", to not interview historians as they did for their masterpiece "The Civil War", is to risk getting entangled in strategic, moral, historical and military equivalencies that could render the enterprise irrelevant.
27
The parallels between Vietnam and our current situation in Afghanistan are close. Fortunately we had the wisdom in the 1970's to cut our losses and get out of Vietnam in shorter time than we have done so in Afghanistan.
Unfortunately our current leadership apparently hasn't read or can't understood history.
Unfortunately our current leadership apparently hasn't read or can't understood history.
4
I have no doubt this series will be great. I am just not sure how I will handle it.
Vietnam for me has two major begining and ending memories.
The first is in June 1965 finding out I would go over on a troop transport ship rather than fly like most of my classmates did.
I feared it might be over before I arrived. And man was I so excited to get there.
Then there was writing my death letter to be delivered to my parents upon my death. At that time I had two weeks left in country. We were doing the recon work for Operation Hastings ( and changing the rest of war for the 3rd Marine Division in a major way)
There is nothing I have ever participated in so wrong, so wasteful, so useless, and so very hard, ugly, and terrfying------and there is not a day now that goes by, as anti war as i can be----that I miss hearing those words----"lock and load"
I miss it so. You never feel so alive and so special than going out on a 4 man team chasing an enemy as good and as fearsome as they were.
A tip of tha hat to them and us
S/F
Vietnam for me has two major begining and ending memories.
The first is in June 1965 finding out I would go over on a troop transport ship rather than fly like most of my classmates did.
I feared it might be over before I arrived. And man was I so excited to get there.
Then there was writing my death letter to be delivered to my parents upon my death. At that time I had two weeks left in country. We were doing the recon work for Operation Hastings ( and changing the rest of war for the 3rd Marine Division in a major way)
There is nothing I have ever participated in so wrong, so wasteful, so useless, and so very hard, ugly, and terrfying------and there is not a day now that goes by, as anti war as i can be----that I miss hearing those words----"lock and load"
I miss it so. You never feel so alive and so special than going out on a 4 man team chasing an enemy as good and as fearsome as they were.
A tip of tha hat to them and us
S/F
77
Alpha - what stunning writing that was. The thinking that you had on the boat reminds me of the thinking about the Civil War and WW I. Before the fighting had begun in both of those many people also thought that the fighting wouldn't last long. Hubris? Maybe. Naive optimistic thinking of own who hopes the war will be over soon? Probably.
The adrenaline rush you felt as you ventured out on your hunt is very understandable, and is also what the commanders hope that you and your comrades feel. The esprit de corps I believe it's called. That's the feeling you miss, and that's the feeling that those like myself who are half-blind will never feel or understand.
Tip of my hat to you, sir.
The adrenaline rush you felt as you ventured out on your hunt is very understandable, and is also what the commanders hope that you and your comrades feel. The esprit de corps I believe it's called. That's the feeling you miss, and that's the feeling that those like myself who are half-blind will never feel or understand.
Tip of my hat to you, sir.
6
For me, fifty years is still too short a time to objectively view the Vietnam War. Like Iraq, we should never have been there. So many lives destroyed. It is too painful to review those years, even through Ken Burns' marvelous lens and judgement
3
I hope Nixon's newly revealed sabotaging of the peace talks while he was a candidate is examined.
30
I do hope the film includes coverage of the fact that some women, today, in Vietnam, are giving birth to deformed babies due to the residual Agent Orange we placed there and did not, subsequent to the war, remove.
11
One reason the car in Mr. Burn's analogy kept going toward the bridge was that President Johnson and many congressional Democrats at that time were more fearful of how the right would respond to a withdrawal from Vietnam than what the left felt, at least until early 1968. They were still haunted by the fallout from the debate over "who lost China" that began in 1949 and lasted well into the 1950's--the "soft on communism" charges, Joe McCarthy, and the political defeat, careers ended and blacklists, that ensued.
15
Good point. You must be older than the rest of us.
I wonder, if LBJ paid a price for the military incursion into the Dominican Republic, would he have moved at all leftward on foreign policy?
I wonder, if LBJ paid a price for the military incursion into the Dominican Republic, would he have moved at all leftward on foreign policy?
"...the war “was begun in good faith, by decent people" - who apparently felt that it was okay to invade, and pretty much destroy, a country for the purpose of preventing a reunification of that country necessitated by decades of brutal colonial oppression and exploitation.
In my book, that disqualifies them from the descriptive, "decent people".
In my book, that disqualifies them from the descriptive, "decent people".
45
The United Sates never invaded North Vietnam. The Republic of South Vietnam asked for U.S. military assistance. The Republic of Vietnam was a state governing the southern half of the current Socialist Republic of Vietnam from 1955 to 1975. It received international recognition in 1949 as the "State of Vietnam" and later as the "Republic of Vietnam" (1955–75). Its sovereignty was recognized by the United States and eighty-seven other nations.
4
"The United Sates never invaded North Vietnam." Yes, that's a fact, a pretty spurious one, considering how thoroughly we bombed it. The political recognition of South Vietnam as a separate sovereign nation is a fact of history, not a fact of nature. It's part of the complex story to be told, not in the least solid ground on which to rest final judgement. And in case you did not notice, that political partition of Vietnam did not work out so well nor, in the scheme of things, last that long.
6
"South Vietnam" was an imaginary country created for purposes of convenience by the United States.
3
Burns is no doubt very accomplished. Reality is of course, Americans are fully aware we haven't won a war since WW 2. Were always at war, marketed as protecting our interest. Look at the absolute mess of invading Iraq and continuing to plow old ground in the Empires graveyard, Afghanistan . Our own civil war marketed as ending slavery was in reality to keep the country together. That war as John Adams predicted was inevitable long before it actually started. Any day with the Military influence now in Washington we could get re-involved in the Middle east or god forbid eastern Europe. The Chinese and their puppet NK are working to get us out of Asia.Which could lead to another NK war.Folks like Burns and his counterpart will never run out of material.
3
It wasn't the military who initially wanted large involvement in Vietnam. It was the best and brightest civilians of the Kennedy then Johnson administration that were responsible for the American involvement. It was the North Vietnamese Communist who were ultimately responsible for the war as the were the aggressors.
3
Looking forward to this series, Ken Burns and Lynn Novick are masters at presenting history in a straightforward way without, as stated in the article, having "an axe to grind." Too bad all historians, especially those teaching in the colleges and universities today, can not be so objective. History must be presented in an unbiased factual and chronological context, from which the student can decide its moral and ethical implications. Toxic opinion must be kept to one's self. Thank you, Mr. Burns and Ms. Novick, for you objectivity. The nation and the world needs more of it.
3
I was 18 in 1966 when the full importance of the Vietnam war struck me, as the first person from my high school was killed, never to return to our hometown and the parties, trips to the beach, get togethers to find out what we were all experiencing now that we'd graduated. It was reality hitting us in the face. Over the next four years as draft numbers determined whether or not someone was going to go to college or tech school or the military. Whether they would even consider getting married yet, or leaving school. Young men I knew either went begrudgingly, or signed up with bravado and pride to serve their country. It was a tough time, personally, to come of age. It has been difficult for me to see recreations of what life was back then, and not think of those young men who didn't come back. My own son joined the Marines in 2002. Now I know what those mothers went through, but I also know the training and strong bonds that the service builds into young men so that they can do the jobs they must, at their government's bidding. You can't know these things at 18. It doesn't make the "choices" any easier, even when you do.
8
For many of us north of 50 who remember the war, what is said in the soliloquy of Chris Taylor (played by Charlie Sheen) at the end of Platoon still rings true:
"I think now, looking back, we did not fight the enemy; we fought ourselves. And the enemy was in us. The war is over for me now, but it will always be there, the rest of my days as I'm sure Elias will be, fighting with Barnes for what Rhah called possession of my soul. There are times since, I've felt like the child born of those two fathers. But, be that as it may, those of us who did make it have an obligation to build again, to teach to others what we know, and to try with what's left of our lives to find a goodness and a meaning to this life."
"I think now, looking back, we did not fight the enemy; we fought ourselves. And the enemy was in us. The war is over for me now, but it will always be there, the rest of my days as I'm sure Elias will be, fighting with Barnes for what Rhah called possession of my soul. There are times since, I've felt like the child born of those two fathers. But, be that as it may, those of us who did make it have an obligation to build again, to teach to others what we know, and to try with what's left of our lives to find a goodness and a meaning to this life."
26
I was an anti-war activist college student, constantly threatened by the draft, when the Vietnam war was ongoing. My pertinent comment about the victims and supporters among the fighting age Americans is that were all kids, with all the inane things that young men do at that age. Everybody on every side of the American intervention was wrong to some extent. The passion, from what I observe, has not really dissipated in the last forty five years. If anything the injury has festered and been root basis for our current political hide bound cultural split.
President Johnson, a brilliant politician by all accounts, worshiped at the feet of FDR thought his "Great Society" programs were his poverty ending programs as were Rosevelt's policies that dealt with the Great Depression and Vietnam was his WWII. Neither was the case. Johnson and his generals are all dead now and veterans are old men. For the sake of the country we have to put that war behind us but that may well not happen. The most devastating war in our country's history was the civil war and forty years after it was over confederate and union soldiers were holding joint reunions on old battlefields. Could we do the same?
President Johnson, a brilliant politician by all accounts, worshiped at the feet of FDR thought his "Great Society" programs were his poverty ending programs as were Rosevelt's policies that dealt with the Great Depression and Vietnam was his WWII. Neither was the case. Johnson and his generals are all dead now and veterans are old men. For the sake of the country we have to put that war behind us but that may well not happen. The most devastating war in our country's history was the civil war and forty years after it was over confederate and union soldiers were holding joint reunions on old battlefields. Could we do the same?
1
Mr. Burns narration of the Civil War; with the "Ashokan Farewell" playing in the background is an absolute genius. Through the lives of the soldiers, his portrayal of the Civil War is deeply compassionate and humane. I have watched it again and again. It has immensely increased my understanding of history, of human frailty, and resilience.
I would eagerly wait for his comeback. I would also want to know about the background music, if any, that he would bring to the narration. After all, the "Ashokan Farewell", composed in the style of a Scottish lament, is a marvel in itself. His narration and the music were complimentary; they both enhanced the impact on the viewer.
Mr. Burn's "The Civil War" is a masterpiece.
I would eagerly wait for his comeback. I would also want to know about the background music, if any, that he would bring to the narration. After all, the "Ashokan Farewell", composed in the style of a Scottish lament, is a marvel in itself. His narration and the music were complimentary; they both enhanced the impact on the viewer.
Mr. Burn's "The Civil War" is a masterpiece.
39
"Mr. Burn's "The Civil War" is a masterpiece."
Indeed it is a great piece of filmmaking and a masterful historical overview which
should be part of the curricula for every US schoolchild.
Indeed it is a great piece of filmmaking and a masterful historical overview which
should be part of the curricula for every US schoolchild.
1
Apparently the historian David McCollough was the narrator. I just rewatched the series. It resonated even more in our current divided state than when it first aired. And oh, the leadership!
1
I read elsewhere that Trent Reznor was working on the soundtrack to Burns' Vietnam documentary.
No one is still divided. It was a horrible idea, period.
9
I'm so tired of every piece of media produced in this day and age being prejudged before we experience it. Let's just watch and come to our conclusions after it is released.
86
William - and in today's "information age" they can condemn it so much quicker! Aren't we lucky? There many and varied bad aspects to the speed of information.
3
I will watch it and the interviews with participants sounds interesting, especially those from the Vietnamese side, but come on-- this notion that the architects of the war had good intentions is an explicitly political one. Virtually every leader of every country throughout history with the possible exception of fictional cartoonish sociopaths like Cersei Lannister sees himself or herself as having good intentions. The filmmakers sound like people with an agenda-- they want to bridge our cultural divide, which is laudable, but not at the expense of whitewashing our reasons for intervention in countless countries around the globe.
33
I don't think the good intention were found in the politicians, but in the young boys of that time. I turned 18 in Feb 65 and signed for the draft and by August we had bombed Hiphong Harbor which began our slippery slide into hell.
4
It's almost obscene to describe the American war in Vietnam as having been "begun in good faith." After all we know about the lies that got us into the war and sustained our participation! It's nearly irrelevant how some of the soldiers who fought felt at the time. Their opinions weren't sought or considered. They were just the tools of cowardly and corrupt men who pursued the war and in the process committed America to a vast war crime. And although we were ultimately defeated, the devastation we brought to Vietnam and to a generation of Americans is an ongoing tragedy. To sugarcoat those truths in any way for the sake of even-handedness is an indication that Burns is more concerned about endangering his funding than about exploring our history in a way that would help prevent making similar costly mistakes in the future.
68
J. - I agree with you that our (US) participation was in no way begun in good faith, if we're talking about the real participation after the so-called "Gulf of Tonkin" incident.
I further agree with you when you discuss our participation in activities that still effect the Vietnamese public today.
One issue that I must point out is your statement about the opinion of soldiers. Since when, in any war, are soldier's opinions considered by the commanders?
The soldier, who has a limited view of the action, must defer to those who have bigger views of the action. To do anything but defer and obey will bring wrath upon those decide they know more and decide to act like it. Common sense in any armed force.
I further agree with you when you discuss our participation in activities that still effect the Vietnamese public today.
One issue that I must point out is your statement about the opinion of soldiers. Since when, in any war, are soldier's opinions considered by the commanders?
The soldier, who has a limited view of the action, must defer to those who have bigger views of the action. To do anything but defer and obey will bring wrath upon those decide they know more and decide to act like it. Common sense in any armed force.
No wanting to inject what Ken Burns seeks to avoid--certainty-- in one's own position, but I heartily disagree with the point of view expressed above. Many good, intelligent and morally clear-thinking people living in the 1950's, including my parents, were very much afraid of the possible expansion of a form of government that was antithetical to democracy. American democracy was then, and still is, a flawed system. But as Pres Obama has frequently noted, this experiment with universal suffrage, evolving now some 250 years toward "a more perfect union," is respected around the world as a shining beacon of hope. And no, we ain't there yet.
I would posit that American democracy was most certainly under threat in the 1950's, and the overwhelming majority of people recognized this. Many politicians--McCarthy, Nixon, and others--exploited this threat with blatantly self-serving fear-mongering tactics that led to all kinds of political witch hunts, blacklists and more. But the threat of Russian political expansion was very much there, as it has been throughout its long and troubled political history. And that possibility, complete with the buildup of a potent nuclear arsenal, it seems to me, was very much part of the rationale for making the attempt to contain or constrain Russian influence and expansion in Asian countries, especially Vietnam. To that end, the buildup toward war in Vietnam, as disastrous as it turned out, seems a worthy effort.
That said, war is Hell.
I would posit that American democracy was most certainly under threat in the 1950's, and the overwhelming majority of people recognized this. Many politicians--McCarthy, Nixon, and others--exploited this threat with blatantly self-serving fear-mongering tactics that led to all kinds of political witch hunts, blacklists and more. But the threat of Russian political expansion was very much there, as it has been throughout its long and troubled political history. And that possibility, complete with the buildup of a potent nuclear arsenal, it seems to me, was very much part of the rationale for making the attempt to contain or constrain Russian influence and expansion in Asian countries, especially Vietnam. To that end, the buildup toward war in Vietnam, as disastrous as it turned out, seems a worthy effort.
That said, war is Hell.
1
And confirmed by "No historians or other expert talking heads. No onscreen interviews with polarizing boldfaced names" - no expertise will be allowed to offend any viewpoint.
I look forward to this series and hope it may serve to remind Americans of the
the folly of imposing our systems and institutions of governance upon peoples
who have not survived the crucible of self-determination and those countries who are neither willing or able to maintain independent and sound branches of government.
the folly of imposing our systems and institutions of governance upon peoples
who have not survived the crucible of self-determination and those countries who are neither willing or able to maintain independent and sound branches of government.
12
I wish the series dealt with the horrible betrayal of US POWs by their own government. Washington denied the existence of living POWs until Marine Bobby Garwood emerged after 14 years as a prisoner of the North Vietnamese and was immediately subject to a bogus court martial on charges of being a traitor. Those charges were all thrown out based on the obviously fabricated evidence used by the prosecution who, to this day, continue their character assassination of a true hero. Read "Kiss the Boys Goodbye" and "Spite House" to understand the full extent of this betrayal.
19
Ken Burns could not make a film without old footage. Now he's resurrected the Vietnam war that has been televised and re-televised to death over the years. When I first got into documentary film-making using old footage was an excuse for not doing something more creative. It's a cheat, a bit like patriotism, the last resort of a scoundrel as I believe Dr. Johnson put it. Burns' old footage films are boring. The vast amount of publicity paid for his civil War epic by FORD created the impression that it was valuable in the absence of anything else, an impression that is not merited by his work. Doesn't PBS have anything better to do than throw more Ken Burns at us? Let's hope they find a new person-subject infatuation somewhere else.
3
How do you make a documentary film about a fifty-year-old war without using old footage?
11
Totally disagree. I don't care about technique, but content and learning something. Let's watch it before pannng it or glorifying it.
2
How about you just watch it first? You might actually be surprised or learn something...
2
I'll withhold judgement until after the film airs. But this Marine with two infantry tours in RVN is skeptical. And none of the veterans I know were contacted or even aware of the project. Hope they did not cherry-pick.
6
Your hope is echoed with me. But unfortunately that's how histories are written. Through known biases or unknown, versions of histories enter our culture. Any massive historical subject (almost any war, a political administration, etc.,) will reflect in the author thoughts in what s/he decides to include in their discussion.
We, the people who read or view the author's end product, can decide for ourselves if s/he included enough of the facts we believe are important, or conversely, missed too many of those we feel shouldn't be left out to make it a balanced story.
John - I am a contemporary of yours without the benefit of your experiences. I was in the last draft with a very high number. But I was old enough to be sensitive to what I saw in the media of that time. I remember Walter Cronkite, in effect, signing off on the war after the (failed!) Tet offensive.
I believe in the integrity of Florentine Films and hope their careful handling of this massive and emotionally-fraught subject will satisfy those looking for clarity.
We, the people who read or view the author's end product, can decide for ourselves if s/he included enough of the facts we believe are important, or conversely, missed too many of those we feel shouldn't be left out to make it a balanced story.
John - I am a contemporary of yours without the benefit of your experiences. I was in the last draft with a very high number. But I was old enough to be sensitive to what I saw in the media of that time. I remember Walter Cronkite, in effect, signing off on the war after the (failed!) Tet offensive.
I believe in the integrity of Florentine Films and hope their careful handling of this massive and emotionally-fraught subject will satisfy those looking for clarity.
3
The point I want to make is in regard to the revisionist rehabilitation of Western troops who went to Vietnam and came back saying, effectively, that they were only following orders.
In every army, but especially a "citizen army" like the draftee armies that went to Vietnam, being a citizen is the primary obligation, not being a soldier.
Too many men went to Vietnam not knowing or caring if the war was lawful, just or honourable. To those men I say you deserve everything that happened to you - and more.
If you just go along with a process that is designed to end in you killing people, and you're not man enough or decent enough to decide for yourself if you think you should participate, then you don't get to make excuses later.
The only brave men during Vietnam were the ones who made a decision exercising personal responsibility to either fight or refuse to fight, all the rest were just sheep, and that's why the war was such a moral catastrophe.
I believe the war was always wrong, but when millions were marching in the streets calling for it to be stopped, then if you just went because you were too much of a fool or a coward to make a principled decision, then you really were as bad as the baby killers.
And that's still the case. If you participated in the criminal - and criminally stupid - invasion of Iraq, you deserve whatever you got.
"Just following orders" didn't absolve Nazis, it doesn't absolve you.