I preferred Canadian Michael Maclear's "Vietnam: The Ten Thousand Day War" for its fact filled, time line based view of the war. Though definitely focused on the American side of the carnage, with few interviews with those from the opposing side, it was an articulate "no holds barred" presentation.
I wish I could say the same of the Burns/Novick effort. It starts with the completely false premise that good people were trying to do good things for the people of Vietnam. Utter nonsense. The international buzzards were circling that colonial outpost of France from the beginning. The motive was universal greed.
Funded primarily by the Bank of America and David Koch, Burns/Novick cherry pick facts to suit their view. But, they aren't all the facts. Without all the facts, one cannot claim that this is an exploration of the real reasons we got into Vietnam.
I give this documentary a D. This is glossed over version, not an historically accurate investigation. It shouldn't be the "go to" for why we fought a war that cost everyone billions of dollars, paid with millions of deaths, disabled thousands with Agent Orange and, ultimately, had us negotiating after the war with Vietnam for the prizes over which we fought that war; the area for its drugs, the country for its natural gas, copper, tin, zirconium, and finally, the oil in the South China Sea.
10
Wish we could learn history this way as children. I'm 55 and fairly confident in my general knowledge of all things American; but I couldn't have pointed to anything or anyone involved in the whole South Vietnam coup, or even the burning monk(s), or how important that was in our deepening involvement. Thank you (again) , Ken Burns et al, for many things; one of which is keeping the argument alive that PBS is viable and rational in our society.
3
In the last episode I watched, McNamara exited. He was the one who managed the war quantitatively, through body counts. If you recall, when the right number of enemy were killed, victory was ours. The superstition that reality can be grasped through measurement is called the McNamara fallacy: The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. This is okay as far as it goes. The second step is to disregard that which cannot be measured or give it an arbitrary quantitative value. This is artificial and misleading. The third step is to presume that which cannot be measured easily is not really very important. This is blindness. The fourth step is to say what cannot be measured really does not exist. This is suicide [quoted in Hayes, 1974].
Daly, Herman E. Steady-State Economics: Second Edition With New Essays (p. 145). Island Press. Kindle Edition.
Our modern world is increasingly determined by quantitative relations. We think it’s scientific and gives us a firmer grasp on reality. This is an illusion. The absurdity of the way the Vietnam War was managed and its disastrous failure makes this clear. Hopefully Vietnam teach us something of value about the insanity of our modern, scientific and technological minds.
6
Ken Burns’s Vietnam series repeated the well-worn contention that Johnson’s need to pay for the war in Vietnam meant that he had to cut back on the “Great Society.” I have heard this many times so, once again, I checked the numbers. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in constant 2009 dollars, from 1960 to 1975, total US defense spending increased from $305b to $351b, 15%. Over the same timeframe, total federal spending increased 90%; federal spending on health, welfare, and education increased from $190b to $644b, an increase of 240%.
4
I thought the first two episodes where fantastic. I think it those episodes would be a terrific educational tool. I don't think many Americans realize the Vietnamese were looking towards the United Sates after WW2 to support their hopes to be their own independent country.
The experiences told by the veterans themselves are incredibly heart wrenching. What an impossible situation for those young people to be in fighting in Vietnam.
5
As I am now in my late 60s, I, too, have often wondered why was the Vietnam War "our" war? Why was that war my generation's war? Other than watching it on TV every night during the news, as a teen, I didn't exactly research it... I had no idea that the Ho Chi Minh Trail was named for an actual man, I just thought like my parents thought, it came down into South Vietnam from China, and that our boys over there were really fighting the Chinese. I promise. Our family always thought that. That was how there could be so many of them... So I was very happy to learn the long history of our country's involvement in Vietnam, and how this war really was as many before have said, unfinished business, which if you look hard enough, extends back to the end of World War II. As a woman in my 20s, I met young men who had fought in Vietnam, and if the mood was right, you could get them to talk about it, sort of... I heard stories of being outnumbered in almost every battle; submerging themselves in the mud as the VC walked over and through them... Now, thanks to Ken Burns and Lynn Novick and hundreds of others, it all makes sense. It doesn't take away the pain our guys suffered, but at least a person can see "why" it happened... and rightly or wrongly, why it was the way it was... I truly appreciate this PBS series, and will be watching the whole thing. I appreciate all our soldiers... I went to school with some, knew others from my work at small newspapers... God bless you all!
3
Excellent so far (through 1965). I especially appreciate the recognition and acknowledgment that the Republic of Vietnam a.k.a. South Vietnam existed as an independent country, like South Korea. Several of the "talking heads" so far have been former citizens and soldiers of that now-vanished country. Fascinating to hear their viewpoints. The prevailing orthodoxy holds that we Americans waged war against the whole Vietnamese people. I also value the presence of North Vietnamese voices. And the Americans, of course -- my exact contemporaries, both soldiers and protesters.
This series is a little like a terrible accident on the interstate with injured people trapped in a smoking hulk of a car. You can't help looking at it, but it is so awful that you have to look away. I remember all of it--the demonstrations, the military funerals, the leeches, the rice paddies, the sound of the Hueys coing to pick you up, or disappearing after they insert you. Seeing it again, in large doses is emotional. I've turned it off, only to come back. I was overwhelmed by the video of John McCain's capture and hospital interview. Ken Burns did not mention that the the North Vietnamese offered to release McCain, and he chose to remain with his fellow captives. And Candidate Trump, who admittedly spent the war years womanizing, dared to question this man's courage? I have not agreed with everything Senator McCain has advocated over the years, but if anyone in my presence disparages his courage, they will have an angry, 70-year-old veteran to contend with.
17
Eugene Phillips
Hear! Hear! Eugene. Hear! Hear! Right there with you.
I grew up hunting Black Tail deer in Western Washington in thick forest full of autumn cover.
In Vietnam the deer hunted us while we hunted them. They knew the ground. They knew the language. They knew the streams, the folds, the swells, where the hamlets were and how to get in without being detected and how to get out without being seen and who they could rely on and who they couldn't.
I suspect I will go to my grave never being able to convey to any other single human being, but Vietnam war combat veterans, why I start and my knees bend at loud sounds; why helicopters automatically evoke the feeling of what the sound of approaching gunships means to an infantry company pinned down tens of kilometers from the nearest American unit.
I quit hunting when I came home. And I almost can't watch this Burns/Novick production, and have fellow combat veteran friends who won't. But I am watching it, recorded, when I'm alone. I just wish it would affect those who need to be affected. But I don't think it will.
Thanks for your comment.
15
Eugene Phillips - Your comments resonate in me as this film goes on, the birds shuttling us wherever, the smells of jungle and rice paddies and the foulest of the foul. I flew many CA's during a 12-month tour, 23rd Inf, 198 LIB, Recon, and the Burns and Novick account gets real close to the realities. I should add, the irreal experience when the sun went down, digging fighting positions on a tiny stretch of jungle near a cliff. It was so dark, one barely could see to fill mags with 5.56. It was the season of rain, rain, and more rain; until poncho over me in the hole, about 2:00 am, my arms and legs felt so heavy. So squatting in the hole, lit a cigarette under the pancho, and there I saw the matter. The rain drove the leeches upon me, all over, no matter where I touched. I knew at that moment the reality was never leaving that space in the jungle, I would be in that hole like that to the end of me. The film brings these irreal things to the surface of my nerve endings. John McCain knows very well of these things, and I share your sentiment.
6
Tough to say anything without seeing the whole product. I will say that it has the problem that many American histories of this war have, and that is that they are more focused on the United States than they are on Vietnam. Vietnam suffered in ways that we cannot even imagine and I just don't get the feeling from what I have seen so far that their suffering is being given the weight it deserves. We lost just under 59,000 men, they lost somewhere between 3 and 4 million men, women and children, not to be dismissive of our enormous loss, but is a rounding error in comparison with their losses.
3
I think Burns is careful to include Vietnamese suffering and courage. Certainly the numbers differ. But that doesn't make it less painful for survivors and families on both sides. John McBride, as a kid, I wondered why WWII veterans fed songbirds and didn't talk about the war--a sure indication that they were in it.
1
Granted, statistically, the Vietnamese had the "full-on war experience," it was, after all, in their country. And granted, somehow, they never fully accepted or understood the "help" we thought we were bringing them... But I do believe that Burns and Novick chose representative Vietnamese and former VC fighters to state their feelings about the war. I appreciate hearing it, but I think in the interest of time, they found a good balance between us and them....
1
The series highlights the central role of McNamara. It should have filled in his bio. McNamara came to speak at Carnegie Mellon in the mid eighties. McNamara would take written questions but not about Vietnam. His peformance was a revelation; pregnant with loathing, I felt the charm. This guy could birth a war and call it a baby. Halberstam’s The Reckoning, featuring McNamara in a dark-star turn about Ford and Nissan, had recently issued. McNamara, and this is the part not emphasized enough in the Vietnam of Burns and Novick, had been a whiz with statistics as part of his service in WWII. He believed in the safety of numbers, to freshen the phrase. My question was the only needle available.
Moderator “David Halberstam in his recent book The Reckoning respectfully vilified you in your role at Ford. How do you plead? “
McNamara “Ha ha , not so respectfully! First, when I got to Ford. I went to the accounting department and asked about their accounting processes, in particular accounts payable. They showed me how they took a stack of invoices and weighed them. That’s how they were accounting when I arrived. Second, in the fifties people would buy anything, any junk you made. Third, we noticed that there were these little cars showing up, Volkswagens, and we wanted to know who the hell was buying these things. So I commissioned a study and the answer was clear. The buyers were highly educated. We could ignore them. “ Not guilty. Too bad Shakespeare is dead.
Moderator “David Halberstam in his recent book The Reckoning respectfully vilified you in your role at Ford. How do you plead? “
McNamara “Ha ha , not so respectfully! First, when I got to Ford. I went to the accounting department and asked about their accounting processes, in particular accounts payable. They showed me how they took a stack of invoices and weighed them. That’s how they were accounting when I arrived. Second, in the fifties people would buy anything, any junk you made. Third, we noticed that there were these little cars showing up, Volkswagens, and we wanted to know who the hell was buying these things. So I commissioned a study and the answer was clear. The buyers were highly educated. We could ignore them. “ Not guilty. Too bad Shakespeare is dead.
I recall seing a film of LTC McNamara with his charts of fire-bomb damage on Toyko briefing General LeMay in 1945. McNamara was just warming up.
1
There will be many critics of Burn's production. But one thing is clear: America never seems to learn from it's history, and that leadership is more concerned about their egos and political future than the welfare of their societies. Firstly, America sided with the colonists, against the very core of the independence that gave our country birth. Next, the unfounded almost pathologic fear of Communist domination; Vietnam is now united and Communist and the world hasn't changed. We repeated it by supporting the Mujahadin in Afghanistan which gave birth to the Taliban and on to Al Queda and our eventual war with Iraq and still in Afghanistan: with all the same arguments. With all of the objective and wise signs that said we shouldn't get involved in Vietnam, we did. And with the classic definition of stupidity, we continued doing the same things even if it wasn't working. Millions of people dead, many lives and families' lives ruined, people still suffering, and our country still gets teary-eyed when we play the Star Spangled banner and say 'thank you for your service'.....but allow the sending of more money and men to idiotic wars. As a Vietnam veteran who now suffers cancer from Agent Orange, and who lost many friends in that war, I have lost hope that our country will ever be the shining light it purporsts itself to be; and that the people of our country will be forever highly educated but unenlightened idiots.
16
Mr. Gonzalez, those tankers who suffered from depleted unranium and the engineers who disposed of chemical weapons in Desert Storm, experienced the same stonewalling that Vietnam veterans encountered with Agent Orange. One of my friends in the 1st Cav died of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma before treatment was approved by the VA. Good luck with your treatment and recovery.
7
My response to this series is the corruption and stupidity of our politicians. They cared more about their re-election than our young men fighting and struggling and dying. Nearly 5 presidents were involved in this war. Couldn't we see what happened to the French? Do we ever learn from history? The loss of our young people and the courage and determination of the North Vietnamese really affected me. We should never have been there. And I don't stand for the pledge of allegiance or the anthem anymore. I've seen too much corruption and venality.
5
I would like to point out several shortcomings of the documentary film:
Could you provide the audience of any document relating to Ho Chi Minh's so-called "true name" of Nguyen Tat Thanh?
Did you know that the Communist Chinese generals Chen Geng and Wei Guo-qing personally commanded the major battles from 1950 to 1954?
Who is "No DinhDiem?"
What were the roles of the Catholics in the period from 1847 to 1975?
I do not want to be critical. But, as a Comparative World History student, I would like the younger generations to read or watch a more truthful account of the Vietnam wars.
4
As to the 'true name,' you may consult: Glimpses Childhood; Bac Hoi thoi nien thieu (Hanoi: Su that, n.d.); Duc Vuong, Qua trinh hinh thanh tu tuong yeu nuoc cua Ho Chi Minh [The process of formation of Ho Chi Minh's patriotic thought] (Hanoi: Chinh tri Quoc gia, 1993); Nguyen Dac Xuan, Bac Ho thoi thanh nien o Hue (Ho Chi Minh City: Tre, 1999); and Di tich Kim Lien que huong Bac Ho (Nghe Tinh: n.p., 1985.). Also source documents as cited in Duiker, William Duiker, Ho Chi Minh, (Hyperion, 77 West 66th Street, New York, 10023-6298, pp. 1 - 45), 2000. Please note I omit diacritical marks in the above citations as a means to reduce distraction for those not conversant in the language.
Therefore, the true name used in the documentary film is correct, it is not a shortcoming. However, the true name as used in the documentary film was not his birth name. You do understand that scholars since have noted that the person given the birth name, later on used as many as 75 different alieses, don't you?
1
Sorry, but save for William Duiker, whose 2000 biographical work is excellent, don't trust the semi-official biographies produced in Viet Nam. Have you consulted an archival document relating to the young Ho Chi Minh's admission to the National School for Western language [i.e., French] on August 7, 1908? See Vu Ngu Chieu & Hoang Do Vu, Han Nhuc Bien Dong Nam A: Kien hay Khong Kien?, 3 vols (Fputain Valley, CA: Hop Luu, 2015-2016), vol 3, p 15 [Amazon.com] Although this work concentrates on the Chinese territorial ambitions in the Southeast Asia Sea, the authors publicize a number of valuable archival documents about Viet Nam and Ho Chi Minh.
I can't believe that the documentary did not mention "Project 100,000" in relation to the inequities in the draft. I went in on November 10, 1966 just as the project that allowed 100,000 under-qualified mean to be drafted in order to compensate for those receiving deferments.
5
I am finding it very objective, with insight from many sides. I would imagine those still thinking the war was justified or are bitter towards those who did not serve in Vietnam may have a completely different reaction. One thing I keep hearing throughout the series is that the presidents and principals knew they were on a slippery, unwinnable slope but kept the war going for political and egotistical purposes.
5
I see Vietnam as someone who served. While I've only seen the first 4 episodes, I feel as if Mr. Burns has glossed over the most important part of the experience, that of the Americans who were asked to go, and did. Anyone who was there can tell you that the experience differed significantly with branch of service, the time period during which one was there, duty assignment and geographical location. People who were there in 1964-1965 had a markedly different experience (and attitude) than those who came after Tet of 1968. Although he has limited time to explore a host of different experiences, I feel that his interviews with actual combatants could, and should have been broader and more varied, e.g. grunts had a different war than tankers, who had a different war from pilots, etc. Each of these experiences are important, and sadly few of them are a part of the public record because people didn't want to hear about them. I do not think that Mr. Burns understands or appreciates the sacrifices made by thousands of young Americans who went simply because they were asked to by their fellow citizens, then bore the blame for the failure of the war itself even though we were not defeated militarily.
6
"...not defeated militarily." Hmmm, it surely wasn't an orderly advance in retrograde. We didn't learn from the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu...the field tactics of the Viet Minh and we surely have not learned from the total military history of Afghanistan...a rag tag highly motivated army bereft of an air force and heavy artillery. Seventeen years and counting. Oh, just an aside. Absolutely no resolution will occur in the Mideast until the Palestinian question is resolved beneficial to all parties.
6
The parts I object to the most are that Mr. Burns only highlights battles in which the enemy did better than usual (Ap Bac, Ia Drang, etc.) and never gives more than a glancing reference the majority of fights where we won conclusively. The other part he misses was that our mission was to protect the Vietnamese people, not to gain and hold ground. Different kind of war. We knew that it was going to take time and it was going to take suffering but we did it.
I also seriously doubt that Mr. Burns will give the slightest discussion of the "antiwar" movement's long-standing connections to Hanoi during our war.
I also seriously doubt that Mr. Burns will give the slightest discussion of the "antiwar" movement's long-standing connections to Hanoi during our war.
1
all of the writers have heartfelt comments with which I completely agree - I especially think of how I reluctantly (as John Musgrave in Episode 4) I began to oppose a war because I always thought our Government would "never lie".....
One topic that so far the series (I've seen through Episode 5 via streaming) neglects is the omnipresence of marijuana ... I think that was probably good thing (not the ignoring its existence but that it was there in such quantities - both from locals and all over the countryside ...to provide a balm for what must have been not the 3rd Circle of Hell (as Lt Col Harrison says) but the 99th Circle of Hell.
Second, whether or not the reasons for going into this debacle were sincere (decisions of decent people) apparently we NEVER learn from history. (Welcome to Afghanistan.)
Third, because I've only seen half..I wonder if any of the well-intentioned young men and women (few of those as mostly we didn't serve) still feel it was worthwhile. When certain politicians who clearly suffered as POWs say that it could have been won - is that political palaver or sincere feeling.
2
As an old man who fought the Vietnam war for twelve years and who spent all of his childhood as a victim of another Vietnam war, from 1945 to 1963, my only hope is that the producers will provide to the younger generations a reliable account of the very compticated wars in Indochina. For instance, the audience should be told about the native political actors on either side of the so-called "triangular wars."
Honestly, I'm not satisfied of the first three episodes. Archival documents of France, China, Russia and Vietnam are very superficial.
6
Chinh Dao
With all respect to your position, and understanding your point of view, that this production doesn't provide sufficient historical detail, or correct me if I misunderstand, I don't think that Burns/Novick set out to achieve the most desirable, academic, historically detailed end that would satisfy you, and others of us as well. I believe that with the limited resources allotted to privately funded and produced ventures of this kind, they designed a production that attempts also to be in part "entertainment" wrapped historical perspective. You appear to have alternative resources, as do I and others watching this production. I believe that Burns/Novick presume, probably hope, that their audience will do individual research and learn more, but know that most won't.
I was born in 1949 and grew up in the shadow of the withdrawal to Formosa by Chiang Kai Shek with the Nationalist forces, then the battle for the offshore islands, such as Quemoy and Matsu. Most of the audience doesn't know, let alone remember, any of that history, nor much other history for that matter. You are an exception in knowing even to use the proper terminology "Indochina" to describe the former French possession. I avoid using it because I've learned most Americans have no idea where the modern countries are, let alone that history.
I understand your dissatisfaction but hope you will bear with this production as it is for what can be gained by you from it.
1
Thanks for your scholarly kindness. To tell the truth, and only the truths, have been my efforts during the past forty-two years in the States. The most horrible thing is the producers have used the Communist Vietnamese propaganda as "the other sides of the wars.
The scenes regarding the Dien Bien Phu, or on the morning of April 30, 1975 are the most typical.
The producers should have known that the true name of Ho Chi Minh is Nguyen Sinh Con (1892-1969). Nguyen Tat Thanh was simply one among dozens of Con's revolutionary aliases, which was listed in Con's short-cut applications for a seat at the French Paris-based Colonial School on September 15, 1911. The Communist Vietnamese invented for Con the full name of Nguyen Sinh Cung, born on May 19, 1890, which was fallen down from the sky.
There are still a lot of errors and shortcoming from the producers.
PBS should have cancelled this third rate propaganda.
3
Chinh Dao
In regard to Dien Bien Phu this production also omits the incredibly brutal treatment of French survivors following the garrison commander's surrender. Fall's novel, "Hell in a Very Small Place," is aptly titled.
Still, why I sympathize with your emotion, I wouldn't characterize this as propaganda. I believe that Burns and Novick are attempting to produce in 18 hours as balanced a non-historical film as even a public television audience will tolerate and endure.
Americans are not alone in emotionally turning off from works of this kind. Audiences world wide will watch, enraptured, for season after season, fictional characters in fictional settings living fictional histories, such as those in "Downton Abbey" or, "Mash" many years ago, in the U.S.. They have very little tolerance for works such as this one.
How many Americans have watched "Army of Shadows," "Au Revoir Les Enfants," "Night and Fog," "The Sorrow and The Pity?" How many nations outside the U.S. even attempt works such as this? Has the Taiwanese government allowed a critical, academic production of a history of Taiwan from 1949 to current times? Has Vietnam produced one examining treatment of Montagnard and Lao cultures and populations?
I agree with criticism of this production, but I didn't approach it expecting non-bias and irreproachable accuracy. I think that 'propaganda' is far too strong a characterization in light of the clear attempt to interview participants of most parties in the war.
3
I have visited VN twice in the recent past, and to my surprise found the people warm and welcoming to me, a American. I was somewhat interested in watching Ken Burns' documentary, but found after a couple of hours I could NOT watch any more. I lived through LBJ making horrible decisions regarding this war, and to watch again him making horrible decisions? Enough.
1
The documentary shows that many Americans, Kennedy and Johnson among them, were clear sighted about the war and it’s moral failures. But pursued it anyway. That oddity is inadequately explored. The real reasons why men of principle buckled are not laid before us.
5
I watched the Ken Burns TV series, and think they are a good, and bitter, summary of the cause and development of the (American) Vietnam War. I would have just a couple of remarks:
First, there could have been more time and material on the end of WWII, i.e. the years 1945-1948, when there was an opportunity, after Japanese capitulation and end of WWII, to induce France to give back independence to its Indochina colonies (Vietnam, Cambodia, laos), with no further ado. The US could have played a decisive and positive role in this transition, but, mostly because of the competitive 'Cold War' context with the USSR, US Administrations decided to support France and its continued military presence in Indochina to oppose the 'Vietminh' independence movement, from which the American war was ultimately born, after French defeat in 1954.
Second, I would have liked to see more interviews with Vietnamese civilians who suffered the war and managed to survive through it, whether from the North or the South. There are some good books written by Vietnamese authors on the war and its sequel, such as 'The Sorrow of War' by Bao Ninh, 'Novel Without a Name' by Duong Thu Huong, 'The Unwanted' by Ken Nguyen and 'The Eaves of Heaven' by Andrew X. Pham, to name but a few of those published in English.
. I found it problematic to heart the songs and music along the cruel and violent images of war, even while understanding that they were part of the atmosphere and Western culture of these years.
1
Excellent comment - Voyageur of Bayonne. I agree with you and your comments. We never learn, do we??
We really need this documentary in this moment. When I was in junior high an Air Force Pilot brought slides of the war. I started reading about Vietnam, including a history that covered the French Colonial Period. By the following summer I was opposed to the war. I had a cousin in Vietnam whose life was saved when a bullet struck a can of cling peaches in his backpack. While he survived the war he contracted malaria, was wounded and exposed to Agent Orange which left him with serious and severe health problems shortly after he came home. What angers me so much is the way our leaders thought privately that the war was unwinnable and lied to all of us. Such a sad, unnecessary war viewed through a cold war lens rather than recognizing that Vietnam was another example of the dying embers of colonialism. And now we are in the 17th year of a Middle East War, with frequent redeployments for our volunteer Armed Services. The French finally left Vietnam. The English and The Russians withdrew from Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden. What is our goal and our mission in this country? Why can't we spend our treasure and human resources on affordable providing health care for every American, rebuilding our infrastructure and utilizing renewable resources to mitigate the calamitous effects of climate change that we are now experiencing?
5
There are great similarities between the Vietnam adventure and that of Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush invaded Iraq based on a false premiss like the Gulf of Tonkin incident. After 14 years, the government of Iraq is as unstable and corrupt as that of Saigon in the 1960's. At least there is a concept of a central government in Iraq, unlike that in Afghanistan, which consists of feudal war lords. More wasted American lives and resources, and Trump wants to obliterate North Korea.
3
I've watched the first three episodes. And so far, Ken Burns is to be commended for a faithful retelling of how we got there. And, of the many missed opportunities which would have avoided at least some of the tragic results. He shows how the fear of political consequences, ignorance of Vietnamese culture, no understanding of guerrilla warfare, a devotion to thoughtless body-count statistics, and no concern for the human costs of decisions, all came together to create the perfect quagmire.
6
I suppose I'll have to watch it, although I often find Ken Burns' style to be cloying. I can't really make myself re-watch his WWII series, or the Civil War one for that matter. Sorry, Ken.
There was another Vietnam War documentary series once - 'Vietnam: A Television History' was produced by WGBH in Boston in 1983, the New York Times described the series as "determinedly even-handed" and "delicately balanced"; it concluded that the production was "a landmark in television journalism". (wikipedia) I recall it as being quite thorough and exceptionally revealing. Yet now it's hard to find any reference anywhere to that "landmark in television journalism", it's been totally eclipsed by Ken Burns. I would love to hear critics start comparing the two series. Anyway I hope this new series goes easy on the sentimentality.
I have seen five episodes so far -- I have been particularly struck by one particular insight the series has offered: that a conflict the U.S. saw entirely through the lens of the Cold War was, for the Vietnamese, had nothing at all to do with the Cold War, but for them was about independence and the end of colonialism. I mean, I guess I sort of knew that on some level, but had never heard it articulated quite so clearly.
I began to think about how that this same Cold War lens -- which might just as aptly be described as a fun house mirror -- came to distort so much of this country's foreign policy during the latter half of the 20th century. It made me think of what a sad irony it is that a country that was itself founded on the right of a people to determine their own form of government came to be so single minded in its determination to prevent other peoples from making that vert determination for themselves. This single-minded obsession (which consumed both political parties, btw) led this country down some very dark paths in other parts of the world, too, such as in Iran in 1953, as well as driving covert actions in numerous countries in Central and South America. And in every case, we've lived to regret it -- or at least, we've lived to regret the long-term consequences. One wonders how different the world today might be if we had spent more tune and money and resources on leading by example, and less on trying to impose our will across the world.
13
Last week, NYT published an op-ed by Sabrina Tavernise, “When History’s Losers Write the Story” about how the defenders of Confederate statues white-washed slavery. Whatever merits Ken Burns’ documentary has, it is a story written by and for one of history’s losers—contemporary Americans. Burns calls the war a tragedy. I call it a crime. Burns seems to think it’s something we stumbled into. I think it was more a matter of sheer willfulness on the part of our leaders. (Recall William Fulbright’s phrase: The Arrogance of Power.) Burns tries to draw all kinds of parallels between now and the Vietnam era in the tensions that divide Americans. His is the grandiose objective of easing those tensions therapeutically, by healing: If we can only learn to love the Vietnam vets all will be well. However, the only continuity I see between the Vietnam era and the present is the continued willfulness and arrogance of those in power. Many people of good will think a reconciliation with the people of Vietnam is possible. This is impossible. Why? Because of our massive bombing program, the countryside of that entire region has been utterly destroyed. Imagine. We destroyed a country and didn’t even win. Defenders of Confederate statues are not the only ones with a tendency to white-wash things. To repeat: Vietnam was not a tragedy. It was a crime
9
James Eric
Becoming conscious of complicity, or even suspecting complicity, compounds one of the guilts felt by some of us who were in the war, Mr. Eric. Survivor's guilt, moral guilt, the guilt of failing to do enough, the guilt of not doing more... There's a scene in Michael Shaara's novel "The Killer Angels" that best describes the human predicament, because at least in the case of Southeast Asia there is plenty of criminal behavior to go around; it abounded with killer angels:
"Chamberlain had a speech memorized from Shakespeare and gave it proudly, the old man listening but not looking, and Chamberlain remembered it still: 'What a piece of work is man...in action how like an angel!' And the old man, grinning, had scratched his head and then said stiffly, 'Well, boy, if he's an angel, he's sure a murderin' angel.' And Chamberlain had gone on to school to make an oration on the subject: Man, the Killer Angel."
If I have a problem with the Burns/Novick production, and I do, it's my growing inability to protect myself from guilt I successfully ameliorated over decades. I don't object to your objective assessment that the war was criminal, but I hope you make that charge humbly and without rancor because I assure you that as a member of the human race, and perhaps an American, you reside with the rest of us in what Yeats best described as the rag and bone shop of the heart, and there aren't any ladders for any of us to climb out on.
11
Over 3,000,000 Vietnamese killed, over 58,000 Americans killed, that is a tragedy. To go in knowingly that there would be no win for either side, that is a crime. For us seemingly not to have learned anything from it, that is another tragedy. To quote Loren Eiseley from the "Immense Journey," "The need is not really for more brains, the need is for a gentler, a more tolerant people than those who won for us against the ice, the tiger, and the bear. The hand that hefted the ax, out of some blind allegiance to the past, fondles the machine gun as lovingly, but the roots go very deep." I'm old now. I've done my time. I no longer need to seek hope for anything better.
3
I share some of your emotions. I have watched the first three episodes and half of episode four. I had to turn it off. I have had thoughts over the years about my own participation--maybe I shouldn't have gone. But the reality is, we had no choice, or the choices were unacceptable--go to Canada or go to jail. I was not inclined to either. Nor I did I have a rich dad to get me out of the draft, and I wouldn't have accepted that if it were offered. The fact is, I didn't start that war, and soldiers don't get to pick and choose which wars they would fight. One effect of the Burns' series is, the production is showing what those who participated experienced. It is educating the public that it is not "dulce et decorum" to die for your country. There was no doubt that the young man in the 101st was going to die, and his story and his family's story was repeated 58,000 times in an experience that actually accomplished nothing.
10
Blame for that war can be spread around. We spent a month in Northern and Southern Viet Nam last year. Our conclusion was thst 3,000,000 Vietnamese and Americans died so that one repressve, corrupt government could be relac3d by an equally repressive and corrupt government.
2
Had we done the right thing and helped the Vietnamese people win their independence from their colonial masters when the time was right for that, do you REALLY think they would have ended up with a repressive and corrupt government? I do not. Ho Chi Minh wanted to found a government based on our own constitutional ideals, as our friend; instead we forced him into the clutches of the world's Communist regimes. At the very least, when the Vietnamese beat the French fair and square, we should have tried to do the right thing and just let go.
4
Enjoying the program so far. It is very informative, esp. regarding the pre-'60s.
I wish they would stick to a defined timeline, however, They put some items out of the time slot and it's rather disconcerting. Also, there are no black voices up till now.
The series is excellent so far. When you realize what our leaders did, making decisons about our soldiers lives based on when presidential elections were being held (Kennedy and Johnson), I have lost a lot of respect for either. The leadership of several presidenicies continued to lie to the American people while sending our troops over there to be put in danger. When the South Vietnamese government changed 8 times (or was it 9) between 1964 and 1965, that should have been a clue to get out. To what end was this supposed to have? What end is our involvement in Afghanistan?
2
The things I carried then -
-Youth, innocence, naiveté, obliviousness.
-Older brothers guided to National Guard and Peace Corp, by father, WWII Naval Officer
-Prom date, killed on battlefield
-Optimism and belief in contributing to making a better world.
-Friends who died on the battlefield, and friends (whom I joined) who protested
The things I carry now:
-Grief, and the shock of the many deaths of young - men.
-Overwhelming sense of the task the young soldiers, and older soldiers had at that time.
-Disbelief that US was caught up in spending our federal budgets on defending the world against Communism, the Cold War.
-Disbelief the US took on, and then escalated our involvement in a completely no-win situation.
-Anger and fear that this is what George W did in Iraq, and what Trump might do. And what we have done as a country repeatedly last 70 years.
-Anger and fear that we've spent 70 years draining the US federal budget on world wide lost cause military involvements, while domestically - the coffers of our educational system, health system, infrastructure system, and all the rest are starved of funds.
-Understanding how French, as colonist for 100 years, didn't want to spend money on defending against Communism, a losing battle there. Understanding that the French have had all inclusive health, education and all the rest for citizens last 70 years.
-No will at all - for underwriting on our own dime, and not the dime of Europe and others - global peace.
I
6
I'm extending my observations here:
What I see now:
- Spending a lot of time at US Ivy League institutions, and living in the Northeast- the grandchildren of the Chinese and Asian Communists, whom are themselves the children of the Chinese and Asian Oligarchs, have streamed into the American Ivy Leagues in droves in recent years. These same individuals are buying up our prime real estate also.
- Where are the grandchildren and children of our own- American soldiers, from Vietnam? What is their legacy? How have they been provided for? And from other wars?
- Why does NYT reader malign middle America? And not grasp, the complex twists and turns.
-
2
It appears that our leaders had an irrational fear of communism. What I've decided after watching the first three episodes is that the sooner we extricate ourselves from Afghanistan and Iraq the better and we should stay out of Venezuela.
5
It appears from the series that our "leaders" were more afraid of communists than they were of black men, women, atheists, or unionists. Is capitalism so frail it needs a major world world to defend it? Is "free enterprise" so impotent it has to attack its own consumers?
1
I've not seen the entire series, but judging from the comments it focuses on those who served (on both sides) and those who protested, including some, like John Kerry, who did both. There was, or course, a third group, men of draft age who may have supported the war effort or denounced the protesters or criticized our government from not being tough enough and yet found ways not to serve. Every draft deferment, merited or not, meant someone else had to step forward and many of them wound up with their names on the Wall.
6
From 1971 to 1974 I served as an officer in Army JAG. I was not assigned to Vietnam. Having watched the first three episodes of the Burns documentary I think it is a very good portrayal of the events that happened under Kennedy and LBJ as well as the French involvement beforehand.I note that many of the comment writers are in their 60s and 70s (as am I) and in addition many are veterans of the war. Yesterday I had occasion to meet with a group of 30 college graduate students. The subject of the PBS series came up and only two had watched any of the broadcasts to date (one of whom was a Marine veteran). I recognize my personal observation may not reflect the make up of the actual viewership; however I express concern and regret that a younger generation is not watching and learning of the history, turmoil and suffering associated with this time in our nation's history. Such could be beneficial in considering the problems confronting the country internationally today. I suspect it would be too much to hope that politicians (as well as their staffs and speech writers) might also watch this documentary.
9
More may be watching than what we may think... Also, it is ever true you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink! Your concerns are shared by many of us... You have a perfect forum for encouraging younger people to watch... so that this is not repeated again....
1
As a young man, enlisting in my senior year, I was inspired by the words of JFK. Later on when I volunteered for Vietnam, I knew nothing about the conflict or the country and culture. How this documentary has taught me after all these years is remarkable. I like others came home and disappeared from society (other than going to work everyday). This series has opened up my eyes to so much I did not know, and made me feel more complete. Thank you.
4
An important aspect of the war in Vietnam is the fact that it was primarily fought by draftees and those who enlisted because of the draft. Today's volunteer force is made up primarily of blue collar Americans and minorities with fewer economic options than the middle class. The public is far less concerned over combat casualties that it was 50 years ago, and we have very fewer members of Congress who served in combat than probably any time in American History. This makes it a easier for the President and Congress to sustain military adventures like that of Iraq and Afghanistan.
8
You are incorrect regarding your understanding of what percentage of U.S. forces were draftees. The correct figure is 25%.
Sgt. Rock
APO 96250
1
The series reveals for everyone what many have always known; the Vietnam war should never have been fought as an American mission. Diplomacy and leadership, both political mad military, failed.
Additionally, the series presents a much truer picture of the Vietnam veteran. For decades we have too often been portrayed as angry, damaged, drug-addled and self-pitying. The Vietnam War shows American veterans who, though they often opposed the war, nevertheless remain proud that they did what was asked of them; fight and sometimes die in honorable defense of each other.
5
Watching this I was reminded again how "The Best and the Brightest" kept getting us deeper and deeper into this mess.
The one big takeaway from this series is the revelation that politicians of both parties were so willing to sacrifice American lives to further their own goals.
In 1965, when our Vietnam casualties totaled around 2,200, Defense Secretary McNamara went on record saying that the Vietnam War was unwinnable.
A frustrated LBJ agreed, rueing his decision to send more of "our boys" into the conflict. But send them he did, again...and again...and again; as did his successor, Nixon.
Of course U.S. casualties eventually increased to nearly 58,000 by our withdrawal in 1975. Yet despite their early misgivings and realization that the war was a horrible failure, none among those men had the courage to end it.
Unfortunately, current events and attitudes indicate that little has changed as we again relive that same level of self-serving leadership.
5
So far, I have found the series to be even handed in the approach it has taken, interviewing both American and North Vietnamese/Vietcong soldiers. Although I was and am a critic of the United State's involvement in this war, I feel that the series could discuss in more depth the atrocities committed by the Communist side against those who they felt were not on their side.
My main complaint against the series is that, as do all war films, neglect the activities of the 90 percent of troops who are not on the front line, but instead work in support activities such as supply, etc.
2
Well done. I didn't go to Vietnam. But I'm now well read on the history. So far the film is accurate, compelling and very interesting. While watching I occasionally feel my stomach tighten and churn at the ghastly waste, and lies. I encourage everyone to find the DVD documentary "Fog of War". Watch it as a companion to this.
4
Why is Ken Burns such a darling of the Left? Am I missing something?
From north of the border, I have always found Ken Burn's work to be a thoughtful projection of how you, our neighbours, view yourselves.
1
Hmmm, can you elaborate? Your insight from north of the border would be fascinating...
After two episodes, I'd like to see more of Karl Marlantes, who wrote "Matterhorn" about his experiences in horror and futility.
I considered myself a fairly knowledgeable military buff until the second episode of Ken Burns' Vietnam. The detailed history of our involvement in Vietnam, going back to the OSS in World War II, and the subsequent misguided and misrepresented actions/inactions of our government were mind-blowing.
The "Best and the Brightest" performed at their worst - ethically, morally and militarily. I cried watching the loss of America's values and the Fires of Hell that were unleashed upon a peasant population in the name of freedom.
7
wasn't the Gulf of Tonkim incident a fraud perpetrated by the LBJ administration and how come Ken Burns doesn't mention it?
1
He did - in Episode 3 that aired Tuesday night.
The series examines the Gulf of Tonkin situation in great detail
In “Riding the Tiger”—episode two of the Ken Burns documentary—President John F. Kennedy confides to a friend in April 1963 that, “Those people hate us. They are going to throw our asses out of there at any point. But I can’t give up that territory to the communists and get the American people to re-elect me.” This confirms what I thought as a soldier serving with 101st Airborne Division in the mountains of South Vietnam’s northernmost province. The politicians sent us to fight and die in a hopeless war to improve their chance of being elected or reelected. We were victims of the political war between Democrats and Republicans, not the war between capitalists and communists. Each party thought it has to look tougher than the other on communism.
Do I think U.S. politicians would be so heartless as to sacrifice 58,209 American soldiers just to get themselves elected or hold onto power? That’s exactly what I think.
14
I agree with you Mr. Case. As a Vietnam veteran myself (67 - 68, USAF, Mekong Delta) I think that's exactly what they did. Sacrified thousands of US lives and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese lives (Millions, actually) to insure their own political hides.
In the grand scheme of things, sodiers, sailors, and airman are expendable. The lives of 'statesmen' like LBJ, JFK, RMN are much more important than any mere grunt's life. If you can't detect the sarcasm in my tone, I'm sorry. As some writer fellow once said, you can't express sarcasm effectively.
The concept of 'Limited War' is where the fault in our stars lay. We fought a limite war, the Viet Cong and the North Vietnames fought an unlimited war. The outcome was inevitable.
MAC-V Rules of engagement: I will not fire my weapon unless fired upon first by a hostile person or persons.
Can you imagine any nonsese like that at Anzio or Omaha Beach? At Iwo Jima or Tarawa?
1
Yes, and whether the rallying cry is "Communism" or " Terrorism" - sending in US Military support, with soldiers, arms, aid, finances is the game played by US politicians. In recent years, Bush on Iraq for instance. The hawks are largely Republicans.
The Military Industrial Complex accounts for a manufacturing sector in the US that is 10% of the US production output.
This manufacturing could be redirected to sustainable energies manufacturing and other sectors.
In the final analysis of the Vietnam War - so very many American men, whether enlisted or drafted - took up a cause, on behalf of their country. On behalf of all of - us.
These men were brave, resourceful, intelligent, creative - responding continuously and without relief to unpredictable, unwinnable conditions. The enemy, had so many advantages, including Russian and Chinese support.
I am very grateful to these men for all that they did, and for their extraordinary efforts on behalf of all of us. I pray daily that we ratchet back our military industrial complex, and redirect American dollars and will and vision to leadership in market sectors of sustainability, health, education, infrastructure, construction and others.
Urgent. I just sent in a response but see it's under my wife's name. Please correct if you decide to post it. Should be Lary Bloom. (I've written for the '67 site before). Sorry for the confusion.
Reflexive tears in my eyes the the moment Dylan's Hard Rain started with names on The Wall being shown. Wonderment as the silver-haired North Vietnamese former soldier spoke of war. Further understanding when listening to the short history of Ho Chi Minh, including his time spent in the US and his use of Thomas Jefferson's words. Heartbreak when seeing the scenes of suffering and death. Although my Air Force service during the conflict only involved providing support from a distance, Burns' film feels like a pulsating connection to the place where those often denigrated members of my generation, embodied in people such as neighborhood friend David Terry and cousin Nick Ullrich, did the heavy lifting in a soon to be lost cause. Bravo!
4
My eyes teared up with "We're on the verge of destruction." For some reason, that song has been bouncing in my brain for a month or so.
After watching episode 3 last night, and learning that Johnson secretly conducted a build up of troops in hopes of seeing a turn of events on the ground to boost his political ambitions, was an eye opener for me. That was not how I remembered those years. Then to hear that the president and his team knew by 1965, after the election, that Vietnam was unwinnable, is truly both heartbreaking and unconscionable. It's clear now why he chose not to run in 1968. The anti-war movement that arose from those terrible decisions and political calculations, was justified. Nixon's further secrecy in conducting bombing raids in Cambodia during his administration shows even more unethical behavior and corrupt political ambition. American lives did not matter to both presidents, but power did. Responsibility for the carnage and waste of lives and treasure needs to be placed squarely at the feet of our leaders. Responsibility for electing those leaders is placed squarely on us, the voters. What have our elected officials learned from Vietnam since then? Are they repeating the same mistakes? Are we educating ourselves and holding them responsible? Many thanks to Ken Burns and all involved in this project and giving me a different perspective on the war. In my opinion, it should be mandatory viewing for all Americans, especially our politicians and generals if we are to move beyond this already. VIGILANCE, folks !!
12
Burns and Novick have done a good job capturing the emotions of that period. But as history they still have an obligation to access the meaning of facts, not just telling us what happened, but why.
Without this sense of perspective the study or portrayal of history through film has no purpose. And there I find its weakness. From the Vietnamese perspective their national liberation movement actually begins in 1941 when Ho begins organizing a guerrilla movement to throw out the Japanese. At the end of WWII he actually contacts the US for aide citing our own Declaration of Independence as the driving force behind that struggle.
We responded by supporting the French re-occupation. To be sure Ho was a dedicated communist even then. Whether a communist Vietnam would have emerged before Mao's China and whether it would have been different we will never know. But we do know the road to ten years of war in Vietnam began in 1946.
A worthy comment on the flim was also offered by Andrew Basivitch in the recent edition of the Nation. I highly recommend it. He asks what lessons does the film offers about that period and finds Burns and Novick's answers wanting.
They do capture how the war took on a life and momentum of its own, all out of proportion to logic and reason. But they never tell us how this could have happened in a democracy? The answer to that question is with us today as we go into year 17 of our current war.
1
I disagree that Burns and Novick should provide "meaning" behind the facts. The "why" behind those events becomes pretty clear to the astute observer. As reporters fifty years after the fact, their duty was to present not interpret. That challenge is better left to us and to historians to undertake.
1
I was there in 1967, during the build up. Those of us in my unit, most young men (our commander and sergeant major were WWII vets) had no clue about the history that brought us there. This film gives context from both sides. It's a brilliant piece of work.
8
I'm watching through a combination of streaming and conventional ho hum wait for PBS to air it locally. No surprises so far. The draft itself hasn't been covered, not in any real detail. A subject I've some experience with. Signed.. Vietnam-era inductee/veteran.
At 68, I would never watch Vietnam anything. I graduated high school in 1967. I did watch movies but once and never again. I am the oldest of 5 girls and I wrote to my cousins who served in every military branch. There are no deaths. Many purple hearts. Many changed young men in my close knit family. One cousin is a retired lifer who served 4 turns in Vietnam. The one thing about it, you served your 13 months and that's it unless you chose to stay. Not like today which seems to be never ending. Then, again, Vietnam had the draft.
Soon as the show aired, Sunday, the names started to roll off my tongue. Saigon, Hanoi, Da Nang, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, North Vietnam. Ho Chi Mien. The series is riveting. Riveting to the pint, I watch them twice. Now, I await what will happen to Mr. Crocker. Morley Safer in the heart of it all. Watching news reporters in the thick of the war, helping in the thick of the war(I am laughing as I write this one). Yet, though long ago, I cried for the lost reporters. I believe it is why I cannot denigrate our press.
I AM angry to find out we could have averted it all. BEFORE boots on the ground other than advisors, could have been ended. What in the world? I cannot wait for the rest.
2
I have watched many documentaries about Vietnam and yet I have already learned more from these first 3 episodes. As a kid I watched the war on the nightly news and was horrified as any kid would be. When I was in the fifth grade my teacher, a nun, showed us a film about what was going on in Vietnam and that solidified my obsession with that awful war. I believed it then as I believe it now - all of those 61,000 young Americans died for nothing. What a waste of young lives. We should not have gone there. Kennedy got us in there for fear of the Communist domino theory (reasonable fear at the time) and Johnson so he could be re-elected. This war deeply divided our country and now we are deeply divided again.
3
These first episodes have stirred emotions that I assume were long buried. I was in college from 1965 to 1969; I suppose being on a college campus allowed me to hide in a cocoon, never having to really worry about what was going on in the broader world. There were the stirrings of the anti-war movement where I was, but most of that didn't really get going until after I had graduated - and gone on to enlist so I could have (I thought) more control over things than simply being drafted.
I have been amazed at how much deceit and outright lying was going on in Washington, DC as I dutifully enlisted. I am left to wonder if those who have gone off to Afghanistan and Iraq will have the same revelations 50 years after they went off to do their duty.
US Army 1969 - 1972
6
Vietnam was a very bad war, for all the wrong reasons, the main reason was that it was a Revolution against a century of French rule and had nothing to do with Communism. Our Government's naivety and dishonesty to the American public was breathtaking, this alone needs a strong debate. Was the Fourth Estate vocal enough or too encompassed by the military? Certainly, Westmoreland was engulfed in his own Peter's principle to see this war clearly. Certainly, the Generals did not have the answers.
The most heartbreaking is the silence of the American public in 2017 compared to the 1960's, when many Americans demanded the end of this senseless war. It is crucial for the American public to demand answers from our Government. Our Government has forgotten how to represent "we the people". The stunning revelation is that there are no good wars, between human blood and ridiculous cost. Thanks to Ken Burns and Lynn Novick, maybe we can begin a dialogue about America's role in the world and today is not too late.
6
Ken Burn's Vietnam War account must have been produced to create a feel-good reaction among Americans. Foreigners will not react the same way. Unlike his earlier films, this film takes sides in the "Vietnam" arguments between pro and anti-war folks. The major difference in military strategy in Vietnam and Europe is that the US carpet and fire bombed German cities that contained the enemy. In Vietnam, we carpet bombed the locals, most of whom we wanted to convert to democracy.
The Vietnam war was an unnecessary war, just like later wars in the Middle East have been/are. The legacy we are leaving to history will not feature the growth of democracy; it is a legacy of destruction and lives lost due to American hubris.
1
Are we watching the same show? What about this can possibly make Americans feel good about themselves? From a distance, the whole war seems an exercise in idiocy.
3
So far I've seen up to episode 5 (you can view the first 5 episodes on pbs.org). Episode 4 and 5 are the best. I'd still be watching if episode 6 were available. I hope people don't give up after episode 3 because I think 4 and 5 are so far the most revealing about how futile the war was.
So far the documentary’s been surprisingly good. What has struck me most is that the Vietnamese appear as real people, not caricatures, subjects and not merely objects of history, with their own concerns and their own judgments, especially concerning the Americans.
4
The Burns & Novick series illustrates the tremendous danger of America seeing itself as exceptional, always acting on the best of motives, and never wrong. Although we do have a lot to be proud of, when pride becomes a koolaid that blinds us to unethical and intolerant attitudes and behaviors we should not be proud of It makes us a danger not only to others—many feel we are the greatest danger to the world, the greatest contributor to climate change and a nuclear power capable of bringing about Armageddon—but also to ourselves. Hyper-nationalism and the demonizing and scapegoating of other peoples allows corrupt politicians to con, divide and manipulate us, and our government to lie to us.
Those who fought in the Vietnam war were brave and honorable. So were Americans who opposed the war. It was our so-called leaders in government who were dishonorable and the cowards.
Obama worked as hard as he was able to make American better by diminishing our the dangers of our exceptionalism and belligerence by promoting diplomacy, fairness and right over might, while Trump and his supporters are doing their best not to make American great again, but to take us back to our worst!
6
I have watched the first three episodes, which have surfaced some repressed emotions. It's an amazing series-particularly the interviews, film clips and recordings of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. I commented in an earlier post that the war in the delta was essentially won. I need to revise that. The US 9th Infantry Division wiped out VC cadres and combat organizations when they emerged from the jungle in the 1968 Tet Offensive. In the year I spent in the delta, there was an ineffective VC presence--squads and perhaps platoons that were not well organized. The advisory effort under Mr. Vann was working, in spite of GVN corruption and ineffective political leadership. To my knowledge, there were no NVA regulars in the delta--at least I never saw them. Militarily, the VC had been defeated. One issue that is well documented in this series is the North Vietnamese determination. From 1960 through 1972, the US spent over 58,000 lives and huge amounts of money unsuccessfully "nation building". Ultimately, the will of the North Vietnamese leadership and population eclipsed that of the Saigon government, NVA conventional forces, led by Russian tanks, routed the ARVN when officers of all grades deserted their commands. It remains to be seen that our present effort of "nation building" in Iraq and Afghanistan will be any more successful than that of Vietnam. Perhaps another Ken Burns project is waiting in ten or fifteen years.
3
In 1970-71, I was the Lt in an Army Capt-Lt MACV advisory team attached to the 44th Special Tactical Zone, in the Delta, assigned to support the 41st ARVN Ranger Battalion, which patrolled the supposedly "pacified" region. While our contacts with known VC were largely (but not entirely) light, the area was far from pacified.
This was the “Vietnamization” phase of the war, when American fighting units were withdrawing and turning over front-line responsibility to the ARVN. The US 9th Division was long gone from the Delta, but Army units like mine, select fire base and chopper units, Navy “riverine” bases, and some scattered Special Forces personnel were much in evidence, as was the huge support complex in Can Tho. It was an anxious, watchful time.
As I watched Episode 4 last night, I had this startling thought about my tour 46 years ago: we were watching, but so of course was the enemy. They could see the obvious, that the US was leaving, so why engage, and why not conserve to be ready for the ultimate strike time? Why not do what VC do best - keep a low profile and prepare. Let others call it “pacification,” “Vietnamization,” whatever. It was just another term. The VC focus was simply on victory, and indeed it came.
This thought of mine, fresh or recalled I can’t be sure, is like others I’m having as I watch “The Vietnam War” documentary and reckon anew with myself, hopefully better informed and a little wiser, and deeply grateful for the opportunity.
I have watched the first three episodes of this PBS series and through it all I see the war again. As if paging through old photo albums, I measure the landscapes. Searching the Marines' faces I try to see if there is one I recognize.
Fifty years later I find myself talking to their ghosts, our conversations as real as anything that has ever happened to me.
3
I enjoy and learn from Ken Burns and his team.
In terms of history, the Civil War was much less than 80 years from when I was born, and Burns' Civil War series haunted me, if only because Burns did such an excellent job making it raw and real.
I am glad that Burns has undertaken a project on the Vietnam War; as he says, it is a conversation long overdue. It does feel, however, so raw and so close that I wonder if it is still "too recent." That said, I need to watch it. I only wonder how historians 100 years from now will portray the Vietnam War, and how they will characterize it. So far, I think Burns has it right.
4
I'm watching this with a man who was born the year (1967) I returned from Vietnam. Though a graduate of an excellent liberal arts college, Tim had little interest in such history until now. He pummels me with questions about the war, and seems surprised when images in the documentary appear and I recognize the people and the territory before narrator Peter Coyote identifies them. We are both stunned that the country, and the war, is so close to my bones that I know them as if I never left the place. Yet Burns, who no doubt will take heat for not getting everything right in a war that remains inscrutable, has taught me much.
4
My professional work environment is replete with sensitive, intelligent, service-oriented fine folks but precious few veterans and, of course, even fewer Vietnam Vets. The VietNam documentary has caused more personal, meaningful and professional interactions amongst my colleagues than ever before in my 50 years of legal service in our city. Some real poignant conversations promoting understanding, warmth and mutual respect are the result. No 'fake news' pejoratives but simple kindness and mutual respect have
predominated. Media at its best.
With thanks, Walter Mack, Captain-USMC Ret.; 1st & 3rd Mar Div; RVN, 67-68.
9
Vietnam is the most significant experience in my life though I served in the USN, at sea, at the end of the war. It still is the number one interest in life after my professional education and Global Heating.
The first few episodes were really illuminating, with many parts I never knew.
Its amazing that after 50 years the series brings up emotions I never really thought I had. ( and I never went to Nam, along with the 90% who didn't ). I am waiting to see how they handle 1968, the crucible year in the war and on the home front.
USMC 1971-73
3
Vietnam always has been difficult for me. My now-deceased husband was a US Navy river patrol boat captain who patrolled the Mekong River with his crew in 1970. They were attacked during the Tet offensive that year and barely escaped with their lives; in fact, he received a Bronze Star for his actions one night in February 1970. When I met him for R&R in July, he recounted the details of that evening with stark, blunted affect - so unlike him.
Both he and I were strongly opposed to the war - both prior to and after his participation in it. At the same time, I always had a lingering gut instinct that there was so much more to the story of Vietnam's history and America's involvement in it that I didn't know or understand and that had contributed to my generation's lack of belief in our government and its decisions. Burns' and Novick's documentary is helping to answer the long-held questions and pain that so many of us who experienced the war have retained.
I also am appreciative of the references that the NYT is providing to other sources who have written about the war. One of the important things that the documentary emphasizes is the role of journalists in trying to clarify the situation from those on the ground in Vietnam - those who understood first-hand what was happening. The skulduggery practiced by Nixon in the thwarted peace process for his own political expediency is reminiscent of what appears to be Trump's practice of the same in a different arena. May we learn.
15
I so agree with you Jackie and thank you for your comments!
1
I am no expert on Vietnam, nor the war. I graduated from high school in 1971, and my memories are related to violent protests on the news, the protest music, and the man I dated after he returned from 'Nam in the summer of '72 who put a gun to his head and shot himself shortly after his arrival back. Something deeply jarring at such a young age, and something I've always wanted to understand better.
I share that because I am deeply appreciative that this series was made - I knew so little of the history. I didn't know that the problems went back decades, who the players were, how Kennedy had a huge impact on what was to come, or the Vietnamese perspective on what was happening in their own country. While no film of this depth is perfect, and I'm sure things are missed, this fills in a hole in the history of my life beyond just watching Platoon, Apocalypse, or other movies that came out after the war. This gives me context, and breadth, historical facts and an opportunity to learn more if I so choose. I will definitely be reading more of David Halberstam's work now, for example, and I didn't know the role Morley Safer played in reporting on the Vietnam War. All I can say is thank you for creating this PBS series with such passion and regard for seeing events through many different perspectives. While it can be a bit confusing in parts, and I've had to watch it twice, that's a small price to pay for the new found knowledge and insight.
22
COMING HOME is a movie for you
1
Thank you. I think I watched it many years ago (Jon Voight, right?), but it would have much more significance now that I understand more. My high school friend who killed himself was our school's #1 all-around gymnast and an extraordinary young man. He came back from 'Nam bursting with rage, but never spoke about it. We were young, and we ladies had other interests on our minds at 17 and 18 so I didn't understand where all the anger was coming from, but my shock and sadness at hearing of his death has haunted me all these years.
I'm reviewing each episode of THE VIETNAM WAR on Tom RIcks blog. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/09/19/vietnam-episode-3-casting-the-die/
2
Some young men went to a foreim country and began killing men women and children. Some older men directed and supported these activities.
The mation that sent the young men abroad paid them through levies raised against many citizen's will.
Some of those directly involved in murder and rape didn't care what happened. Others did.
The General in charge of these massive campaigns grew more and more confused. His nation lost its bearings. Language became increasingly corrupt. It was as though the gods fought among themselves, and their blood spilled from heaven, poisoning everything it touched.
The pornographers of violence created images of atrocity.
Later, the words honor and glory were found in the ruins of the country.
Efforts were made to clean and restore them.
Meanwhile, plans were made to send another generation of trained killers off to the place called "enemy" populated by people called "nobody".
The gods began to argue among themselves again.
We will not deserve the name human until we retire murder as sanctioned foreign policy. Any goal requiring murder for its accomplishment makes heroes of killers and killers of doubters and criminals of objectors. Take sides, call names. Ignore the simple truth of wrong action, and you have a million friends.
Say "stop" and you become a tiny, but very foreign, nation.
5
I lived in Vietnam, sounds strange, doesn't it?
I was an advisor to a South Vietnamese Air Mobile Battalion from August 1969 to July 1970.
I lived in Hamlets most of the time as part of a 5 man team. We patrolled with 2 Americans and anywhere from 60 to 240 Vietnamese soldiers.
John Paul Vann, featured in episode 2 and likely to be seen more of as a civilian Foreign Service Officer, was my boss (OK, 5 levels up) but he knew most of the advisors in the delta.
So far, the documentary looks like a PR piece for Uncle Ho. He wasn't just anti-colonialist, he was a died in the wool communist and he lead a cruel and vicious regime...hmmm, just like Diem.
Can't wait to see if the atrocities committed by the VC and NVA are shown.
Too bad that McNamara did not understand the geo-politics of the region. He would not have feared a Chinese invasion as Uncle Ho disliked the Chinese more than
1
I haven't stopped thinking about the Vietnam War since I dropped out of college in 1965 and joined the Army. I spent my first year in the Army in training and spent most of 1967 in Vietnam as a Combat Medic with a rifle company of straight-leg grunts, more than half had been drafted. It was my honor and privilege to have served with them under some of the best platoon and company leadership I ever had. Some of my comrades-in-arms died and some were seriously wounded. It was war up close personal and ugly. When I joined the Army it was "my country right or wrong." I am a second generation American and my father served during WWII. Vietnam was my time to serve and I did. That said, I wasn't in Vietnam more than two months when it became clear to me that we would never defeat our designated enemy. It seemed obvious to me that we were on the losing side. For the last 50 years I have been a student of everything Vietnam and nothing I have seen or read so far has shown me that our involvement was anything but a mistake. I am hoping that I will see something in this series to show that I was wrong. I am two episodes in and it still looks like a failed endeavor. To name my feeling while watching so far, "numb!."
30
Jim Rothblatt
Hear! Hear! Jim. Hear, hear!
3
Hear, hear. Echoes
Jim Rothblatt, I am obsessed with the Vietnam War. I watched it on the nightly news when I was a kid and I will never forget what I saw. I cry while watching this new program. Thank you for your service and I'm happy you made it home.
2
As a nonviolent "Catholic peace activist" during late Sixties/early Seventies, I found this first episode so painful to watch that I didn't. Turned off 1/2 hour in.Will try again, but it'll be because I owe it to the men and women who served. But it will be hard.
2
Please do watch the first episode all the way through... It connects the past history of our nation and the world to this one tiny country a long, long, long way away from us. But then, it makes sense. It wasn't some fluke that my generation got sent to Vietnam to do battle with Viet Cong .... originally considered to be Communist betrayers of the Vietnamese... that definition changed. You will see that it fell to the next generation to tie up this loose end... I who suffered with vets from Vietnam who were having problems could then say, "Oh...." You will be so happy to understand.
As a waiting wife of a career soldier I will not watch this series. I was very much against this conflict. However, my husband said very plainly that this was his job and he was right - it was his job. Being left 7 months pregnant with no support from the military and having no family during this time was difficult. At first I would watch the evening news eagerly to try and see him. But all I saw were pans of dead service members. So I looked for him there. After a while I could not look any longer. A series covering that time brings anger to the surface thus is not productive for me. My brave, dedicated soldier had to fly in civilian clothes due to persons in uniform being assaulted or having feces hurled at them. I wasn't even officially serving. It is sad to admit these things but that is how it is.
4
The second episode featured John Paul Vann and the battle at Ap Bac. Vann left the Army pretty soon after that experience and worked his way up in the Foreign Service. I was a LT in the 82d Airborne Division and not particularly happy. I went to Army Personnel in Washington and volunteered for Vietnamese Language School and the military advisor course at Ft. Bragg. I ended up in one of Vann's programs in the Mekong Delta. By 1971, Vann was the equivalent of a Major General and commander of MR IV formerly IV Corps. Army Infantry units had left the delta, and the war there consisted of advisory teams and the 21st ARVN Div. When I left in 1972, the war in the delta was essentially won, but government corruption was widespread. The residents of the delta did not particularly identify with the Saigon government. My job was to go into popular force outposts with a Vietnamese team, evaluate security, teach and execute night ambushes. I recall one outpost where the PF soldiers only had one magazine of ammo becuse they had to trade chickens to the district chief to get ammunition. I reported the district chief, but nothing happened. Within a week or two, the entire outpost defected to the VC along with their weapons. Most of the PF outposts I visited barely had enough to eat in the most fertile farm land on the planet. They wanted to protect their families and otherwise be left alone. Vann left the delta to command MRII in 1972 and was killed flying a Cobra against Russian Tanks.
7
Ken Burns' documentary is exactly the superficial restatement of the orthodox narrative that I expected. Focusing on the supposed incompetence of Diem, Burns says nothing about JFK's 1962 Geneva Accords, which served as Saigon's death warrant. Laos was not "neutralized" in 1962 but occupied by the NVA, which as of 1962 controlled some 700 miles of border through which they were able to move nearly one million men and supplies into South Vietnam freely for the next 15 years. JFK, in effect, agreed to host a guerilla war in the South, as both Roger Hillsman and Maxwell Taylor expressly stated in their books. Burns also ignores Pham Xuan An, the Communist agent who formed a central figure in what Halberstam called "a first rate intelligence network" of which they were all a part-- an intelligence network run from Hanoi. They shared all of their inside information with him, then repeated and reported as "news" whatever An told them was true. And of course, Burns would never note that the Communists were giddy over the murder of Diem, whom they called "one of the strongest individuals resisting the people and communism." Ho Chi Minh said it all when he said of Diem's overthrow "I can scarcely believe that the Americans would be so stupid." Who do you think was the better judge of Diem's worth as an ally? Halberstam and Sheehan or Ho Chi Minh? Avoiding an examination of these crucial events, Burns analysis will build toward the predictable conclusion that the war was “unwinnable.”
6
For me one of the most telling reasons why the war was not winnable is below. Clark Clifford had just replaced McNamara as Secretary of Defense.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/series/pt_06.html
"CLARK CLIFFORD: I know for three full days I spent down in the tank with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, where you sit with all of the communications devices that go all over the world. We had long talks. How long would it take? They didn't know. How many more troops would it take? They didn't know. Would 206,000 answer the demand? They didn't know. Might there be more? Yes, there might be more. So, when it was all over, I said, "What is the plan to win the war in Vietnam?" Well, the only plan is that ultimately the attrition will wear down the North Vietnamese and they will have had enough. Is there any indication that we've reached that point? No, there isn't.
As a result of that kind of interview, and that kind of information, before the final examination was over and we submitted our reports to President Johnson, I had turned against the war."
22
"And of course, Burns would never note that the Communists were giddy over the murder of Diem, whom they called "one of the strongest individuals resisting the people and communism."
This was made very clear. I guess you are not watching it.
3
Diem was a Catholic francophile in a Buddist nation, rounding up Buddists.
His support was limited to Saigon, Hue and other French urban areas. The countryside was Buddist and susceptible to Ho's populist anti-colonial appeals.
The war was unwinnable, and JFK, who read Halberstam and Sheehan daily, and trusted their reporting better than the CIA/military reports he received, planned to leave after the 1964 election. That may be why he was killed. He signed an order to withdraw 1,000 of the 17,000 advisors in November, 1963. LBJ rescinded the order on his first day in the White House.
Had he announced plans to leave in 1963, Goldwater and the Republicans would have pounced and called him a "pinko/fellow traveler" who "lost Asia."
Barry Goldwater would have been your president on 1/20/65.
This would have ended much worse than it already did.
1
A solid recitation of history.
2
Thought it was excellent . Sad that we didn't examine the situation more deeply before committing so many young Americans to do battle there.
10
The film so far seems to be a fair narrative. It isn't afraid to call out American leadership from their mistakes. It does, however refrain from insinuating that anyone but the most obvious sociopaths were evil or nefarious. The only criticism I've seen so far comes from ideologues who can't stand the Cold War U.S. from being portrayed as anything but malevolent.
1
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/09/19/vietnam-episode-3-casting-the-die/
I'm commenting about each episode of THE VIETNAM WAR, based on my experiences in Vietnam and thoughts afterward. The link above is my commentary on the third episode. I was invited to post comments by Tom Ricks, but the opinions (often biased, I admit) are mine alone. For example the narrator, Peter Coyote, admits to wanting to overthrow in the government in The Week magazine. And I'm rather ticked when General McPeak says we were fighting on the wrong side. etc
The documentary is chilling. I both look forward to and dread seeing later episodes that will be poignant. It is a mistake ascribe ill intent, not a mistake to criticize ill conceived decisions.
The initial 2 episodes dramatically explained the drive to escape French colonial rule (Gelb interview), followed by a dictatorship (last president Nguyen van Thieu a dictator) sadly - not in exchange for freedoms - but an oppressive Communist regime. It didn't help the dictators were hugely corrupt (Burns). That the Vietnamese people never experienced government control by the people - the Communist model of control by a few - is tragic. For Viet-Nam to have freedoms and government by the people would have been a win in a world dominantly populated by authoritarian governments.
1
As was inevitable, some parts of the series are better than others. The best parts I have seen so far dealt with the beginning of friction between American journalists and the American military command late in 1962 (Episode 2), and the very important Battle of Binh Gia stretching from the end of 1964 into the first days of 1965 (Episode 3).
The worst problem I have seen is that the discussion of the First Indochina War in Episode 1 omits many of the issues that would have been most important for showing the connections between that war and the later one in which the US fought. No hint about who controlled what areas in mid-1954 in what was about to become South Vietnam. No mention, as far as I can recall, of the "Vietnamese National Army," which fought for the French in the First Indochina War, and which later became the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN).
2
I plan to record the series and "binge watch" till 1968, at which time I will stop watching. I've seen that movie too many times...
USN 1967 - 71
Viet Nam 1968
1
I just returned from my 50th high school reunion and there were about 20 Nam era vets in attendance. The dominant attitude about the war reminds me of the conversation between Westmorland and Giap when they met after the war. "You never defeated us on the Battlefield" West said. Giap replied, "That it true but it is also irrelevant". Nothing is going to change the sense of victimization that so many Nam vets have. Burn's will reinforce it as much as Obama did with his remarks about how badly we were treated when we came home. You know who treated me badly when I came home? Right wingers who thought we were lightweights because we didn't mop the floor with those Vietnamese. I used to care and I used to argue with people that the war was stupid, the deaths meaningless and it was right for fight to end it. Now I just don't care.
10
I have commented before as to my time in Vietnam as Strategic Air command combat Pilot. I have watched the 1st 2 Chapters of the Documentary. In some respect in chapter 2 they introduce film, (at the end of the chapter U.S. Navy A04s taking off from Aircraft Carriers circa 1967. SAC was flying B-52 Missions in Vietnam in 1966. I must state CLEARLY - the Strategic Air Commands PRIMARY IISSION was to ENSURE that the USSR WOULD NEVER USE THEIR NUCLEAR WEAPONS AGAINST THE U.S..Suddenly that becomes just a side note to Sacs Flying Combat Missions in Southeast Asia, - NOT ALL MISSIONS WERE FLOWN IN JUST NORTH AND SOUTH VIETNNAM - 1/3rd of my Missions were flown In Laos - like most in North Vietnam ALMOST ALWAYS AT NIGHT. SAC was not quite like the Navy and Marine Corps Tactical Air. From back to General Curtis Lemays time as Commander of SAC it was never much interested in ever taking Center stage - it became clear that the was the same message in their Combat Operations in Vietnam. Headlines in the Major News Papers would have a Headline - B-52s LAUNCH BIG STRIKE with a story written by a Reporter who stood on a Mountain along with Army or Marine infantry troops to watch the Show., Only on Rare Occasion would SAC give a followup - it wasn't in their DNA. Bomber Generals did however of ten lobby the Congress for more FUNDS for follow on Air Craft to new weapon Systems etc. But the real story of SAC is that Americans at home could SLEEP UNDER THE BLANKETS OF FREEDOM.
I'm sure as this show unrolls over the next several nights the nay sayers will begin to chime in.
Are there errors? I don't pretend to know, but what I do know about the Washington side of this is so far spot on.
Burns & Co. did a great service with the early back story. I thought I knew it pretty well, but I learned in that first episode.
One thing you are starting to hear as a mantra is, "We really believed in the threat of Communism and the red menace". Well, we DID and it was REAL. I, too, stood at Checkpoint Charlie before the wall went up and saw the savage brutality exhibited by the Vopos as people risked life and limb to escape.
I spent a lot of time in East Germany and the fear and depression weighed on everyone like a shroud. I cannot describe it, the pure breath of evil.
Yes, we believed. Today I listen to chump pols and other know-nothings throw the word "communist" around and they have not a clue what that word means...but in their lifetime Putin is going to show them. Believe it.
3
But is Putin a "communist?" Or is Putin a Russian authoritarian running an economy based on crony capitalism?
So far so good. I've enjoyed the first two installments. Confirmed much of what I knew already, but I did not know of Lt. Col. A. Peter Dewey, killed in (supposedly mistaken) ambush in 1945. What a man! I was in the 1st Infantry Division in the Fall of 1969 when Uncle Ho died. After initial elation, things got back to humdrum/terrifying normal. Ho was an incredible man as well. How the Best and Brighest of several administrations managed to create this monstrosity of a war and ignore the advice of allies and obvious fallacy remains a great tragedy.
5
For starters, episodes one and two begin painting Uncle Ho as benevolently focused on freedom and liberty for the people. But there was more to him than this. It will be interesting to see whether the documentary will bring up his support of brutal local cadre whose members persuaded local village folks to join the collectives, through kidnapping, rape, murder, and terrorism generally. It didn't work so well at first, indeed it collapsed, so he took his hat and went back to Russia for another dose of violent Marxist ideologies. He must have been at heart a Trotskyite. I am watching and will have more to say on this site.
Vietnam Combat Vet
5th/46th 198th
B Co
Pepper
Let let us not forget that President Trump did not serve because of a spur on his ankle,,!, rich kids never served because of educational deferments including former President Clinton. The war was fought by the poor.
15
Clinton got deferments, but was no "rich kid" by any standard.
For those who do not have the time or desire to wade through the "Best and the Brightest" and "Derlection of Duty", Ken Burns synthesized the motives of the Kennedy Administration toward Vietnam in the second episode. Kennedy had to deal with cold war politics complete with falling dominos, nukes in Cuba, containment, communists, etc. Kennedy thought that we could not prevail in South Vietnam because its leaders were corrupt and aloof. He also thought that he could not get reelected if he lost South Vietnam! So he propped up South Vietnam with thousands of "advisors" and the rest is history.
Ken Burns also personalized that era with war stories from those who were there in the early 1960's and that helped show how the policies set forth in Washington impacted the Vietnamese and our "advisors". He implies that in the early 1960's, our government perfected the art of lying to the American people about our foreign policy.
7
If the rest of the film like the first two parts it will be great. One area that I thought was not touched enough upon was how the "loss of China" (as if it were ours to lose) and the resultant period of McCarthyism hung like a pall over our politicians, especially Democrats, and was a cause of many wrong and fateful decisions. We were too scared to see the truth of what was going to happen. To go deeper into this read "Best and the Brightest" by David Halberstram. (It is a shame he died before this film. His insight would have been fascinating)
6
Yes, I agree. "Best and Brightest" is a great book! Sheehan's book on John Paul Vann is also good.
The first segment passed my primary veracity test: it admitted that the 1954 Geneva Peace Accord did indeed call for free elections throughout the country, to be held by July of 1956. and that the US established a separate Republic of Vietnam under Diem to block them. The narrator also mentioned that everyone knew that Ho would have won had the elections been held. A big plus for the series' honesty and candor.
7
So far I think PBS's American Experience Series: Vietnam A History is better.
It really has me thinking! I was 12 and in Catholic school when it started. Kennedy was one step below God. Now I realize that politics have always been crooked; goals were get reelected, don't tell the whole story, journalism that preferred to white wash the facts! Back before the internet it was easier for them to keep the American public in the dark. I did not know one person in the Peace Corps, maybe because I was so young then.
1
The Vietnam War goes on, with over 100,000 people killed and maimed since combat ended. This will be covered in a new book, "Scofflaw: International Law and America's Deadly Weapons in Vietnam," by Ariel Garfinkel, a young Columbia University scholar ([email protected]). Our generation (I'm 76) only thought the war ended.
2
I am not a veteran nor a scholar and bow to those who are in their comments. I am a student of the Vietnam War and our unusual culture of military intervention. This series begins with a history of colonialism and capitalist exploitation. How surprising! The flash forwards to the heavy American involvement in the 1960s are tragic postcards, and are enhanced by the absurd notion of a domino theory. We are at the brink of a greater tragedy by Trump's threat today to incinerate 25 millions humans in North Korea. Sad! The fates have a dark furture in store for our beloved country.
7
The domino theory was not so absurd after the Korean conflict. I would even suggest that it was accurate and that U.S. involvement in Vietnam helped stop other communist takeovers. We just didn't do what we had to do quickly enough and depart.
I served in a Special Operations unit (56th Air Commando Wing) in Thailand in 1966-68 with all our missions into Laos. Ours was a "secret war" the missions against the Ho Chi Minh Trail and other ground targets, supported the Hmong Army under General Vang Pao
I will reserve my opinion o the series until I can see if it features more than a glancing look at this....incidentally we dropped 2 million tons of ordinance on Laos.
3
Those who accuse the "Pentagon" of championing a losing Vietnam strategy, not doing enough, failing the troops, etc. need to read:
"The day it became the longest war"--LtGen Charles G Cooper, USMC
http://thebutter-cutter.com/First_Day_Of_The_Longest_W_.php
1
I think Episode 1 should have been a very straight chronological telling of the French Colonialization of Vietnam; that there should have been no film of American soldiers there in the late 1960's. It was jarring to jump around like that. I spoke with a friend of mine, and this editorial cuteness just confused him.
BTW, I am a Vietnam vet, having done tours 66-67 and 68-69. I liked that John Paul Vann is being recognized; a "true believer", but deadly wrong because he thought we could win. He was there from the very beginning until killed there.
4
I've watched them all so far. I was a teenager back in the 60s and came to oppose the War.
Watching tonight brought it all back to me or I feel like I was transported back to those times. I don't know if that's good or bad but it was pretty emotional. I have a pit in my stomach right now. Didn't know I had these feelings.
5
I have watched the first 3 episodes, and I do not doubt that I will watch the whole series. I have been waiting for this documentary from the first moment months ago that I knew it was being prepared. It is so relevant for Americans who lived through it and those who aren't that old but are the products of the history. It is too soon for me to sort out my conclusions, but I know for certain that I'm glad they gave it their best shot. And, I believe they really tried to do right by it.
3
Watched the first 15 minutes then went to bed. Probably won't watch any of the rest of the series. I left a wife, 3 year old son, and an infant daughter. Was a pilot who saw very little "action". It was late in the war, nearly 11 months of 1972. Our commitment was nearly over as we transitioned to turning over the war to the VNAF and ARVN. In August of that year one of our squadrons of aircraft (and corresponding missions) were turned over to the VNAF. Within one week the VNAF was down to supporting one mission (out of 8 daily). They couldn't keep the airplanes (maintaining them) in the air! That's when I knew it was a loss (not a waste of time) for us. The series would be hard to see from that standpoint (knowing the futility of it).
I am reluctant to watch. Married a nuclear sub officer in 1968. His USNA classmates were casualties in Viet Nam. My best friend/Cousin was in Viet Nam as a draftee. My dorm sent him peanut butter and socks. Grace, a Chinese student whose father had been posted to Viet Nam earlier, included origami in our care packages. Art died of early rapid onset Alzheimers two years ago. None of his siblings knew that he'd been on the front lines, running with radios, (legs of steel from years with a 250 client paper route from the age of 10), under-fire helping transfer wounded from helicopters to mash units. He was a wonderful man. We talked every day. He helped me deal with my sisters early death. I cannot believe that his experience in Nam did not contribute to his death. So many of the people my spouse and I knew loved gone. I don't think I can watch this as art. I will never forgive Kissinger, Nixon, the cabal of liars. I thought our marches, voter registrations, education initiatives would inoculate us from another debacle. But W gave us Iraq. Now we have Trump. I want to plant one perfect garden before I die.
25
I served as an adviser to the VNAF in 1965-66 and B-57 Navigator in all phases of the war for 206 combat missions. I went on to study the war since then as both a student and college professor, and, was pleasantly surprised at the depth Ken Burns & company went into to help America understand what and why the war went the way it did. After just two chapters I can unhesitantly recommend the series.
25
Peter Lorenzo
I haven't seen reference to the B-57 since 1969. They flew bombing missions for us when needed in Long Khanh province. Whether out of the Aussie / New Zealand base, or Bien Hoa, I never knew. Remarkable aircraft, that. Thanks.
I think that NASA has a couple of them.
I watched the first episode, and except for the fact there is a bridge in Hanoi designed by Eiffel there wasn't anything I had not seen in other documentaries or had already read. I do intend to watch the entire series. I was born in 1956, and watched the Vietnam War on TV, along with other surreal viewing, e.g., Hogan's Heroes,Green Acres. Our parents allowed us to watch everything on TV about the war--everything. TV coverage of Vietnam was far more graphic than the mild stuff shown on TV today when it comes to war. I vividly remember scenes from Tet, Jan 1968, like it was yesterday. I also remember Kent State, 1970.
The lesson I took from Vietnam is that most wars are not "good" wars, but rather most wars are "bad" and do not achieve their intended purposes; also, even "good" wars are horribly destructive. We now know that as many as 3 million Vietnamese were killed in the Vietnam war. While I see military men on TV speak of how the post-Vietnam syndrome made America too timid, there was no evidence of that when we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. And, you would have thought we would have re-learned a bit of the Vietnam lesson from our adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq before we deposed Gaddafi and disrupted Libya--but no.
While the country was divided over the Vietnam War, compared to the level of vitriol and hatred which permeates today's society when it comes to politics, I feel like we were at least one people back then as compared to now.
8
The country was not always divided over the war. That is why LBJ was elected in 1968.
I meant to say 1964 not 1968. Please feel free to edit.
Fantastic film. At 68 years old, it brings back many memories, good and bad. Poignant, well-balanced and , sadly, all to relevant.
5
This is my wife's account. My name is Joe Bilby. I served in Vietnam with the 1st Infantry Division in 1966-67 as a lieutenant. I have since authored a number of books, mostly on New Jersey and military history, but never on the Vietnam War. Five guys I knew from college ROTC never came back.I believed the war was a disastrous quagmire, but I do not regret my service. I grew up in a blue collar world where all the adults had survived the Depression and WWII, and had a sense of duty and community.
I watched the first two episodes of the Burns series and felt it was spot on. When I went to Vietnam I had read a lot about the French era, and they told that tale well, and in an objective manner. They continued that same excellent work in the second episode and I look forward to the rest of the series, especially the part that deals with my time in the country. Many of those sniping and quibbling are looking for some way to justify their preconceived opinions. If they are so great, they should do a similar series.
6
As the young daughter of a U.S. naval aviator, I only knew that Viet Nam claimed my father for much of my childhood. He would return with gifts from Hawaii and Japan, but often minus the young pilots who were under his command, or his peers. The reality of what the war was about, who the Vietnamese people were, what they wanted enough to fight so tenaciously for was never discussed. Not at home, not at school or at any of the funerals we attended. Only years later, when I read my father's War College dissertation about that newly ended debacle, did I have a window into the conflict a career military officer who loved both history sand his country could bring to a war he believed to be pointless, hopeless and wrong. And worse, a betrayal of all of our stated values as a nation. I hope this long needed series will allow us to revisit that history, evaluate the attitudes and beliefs that led us down that seemingly inevitable path and divided us as a nation in ways we have yet to recover from. Applying that same insight to our current wars, which we have been in for far longer, and with even less justification may allow us for once to exercise the discipline to admit out mistakes, try to correct the damage we have done and avoid plunging headlong into the next debacle. As Pogo, the cartoon character who so incisively observed our country from his own swamp, "We have met the enemy, and he is us!"
14
Amen ...
Rarely do we see a presentation where the producers pull no punches. Sadly, this is a whitewash. It is an example of an equally rare phenomenon. It pulls all punches. It doesn't deserve the publicity.
2
What do you mean?
5
I agree that it is too soon to make definitive comments without seeing the series in its entirety. However, a huge red flag went up for me when I heard the opening comment that "the Vietnam War was begun in good faith by decent people." Ken Burns is doing a huge and damaging disservice to his viewers by saying this at the beginning. If you believe this, then any attempt at an honest understanding and appraisal of history will be based on a fallacy. The people responsible for the increased American involvement and escalation of the Vietnam war were acting for any number of reasons, but "good faith" was not one of them, and they could hardly be characterized as decent since their actions, in pursuit of American dominance, led to a horrible genocide engulfing Vietnam and Cambodia.
22
I agree with this statement wholeheartedly! Even in the documentary, Kennedy keeps talking about how if he doesn't do this or that, he will not be reelected.
8
Yes -- but there is a difference between "BEGUN in good faith" and "increased . . . and escalat[ed] involvement." Once the involvement is begun, "events are in the saddle" to a (perhaps confusing, surely dangereous) degree. Rina, Presidents may want to be elected in part for selfish reasons, but they may also genuinely believe that they can manage the ongoing war more wisely and "humanely" than the other guy would.
2
David, As they say, "Two wrongs don't make a right." Kennedy knew that the way we were involved in Vietnam was wrong. Johnson downright lied to the American people. This is why I agree that it is wrong to say that our involvement in Vietnam was "begun in good faith by decent people." If the US had taken the time to understand what Vietnam was all about, and respected them as an independent nation, instead of a pawn in the cold war, we might have been able to work with them to get the results we wanted. But as usual, this was approached as the US always approaches everything, the American Way is the way. Remember, Ho Chi Minh, came into power in North Vietnam with the blessing of the US after WWII.
2
I really thought that this documentary would provide more information about Vietnam's history and culture and make a stronger statement about the politics behind the war. Even Americans who fought there have never had any idea about who the Vietnamese people are or what their culture is about. Vietnamese civilization has been traced to 2000 BC. There have been so many outside influences on the Vietnamese, yet they have always prevailed. No wonder US efforts there came to nothing. The US did not even try to know or understand the Vietnamese. The whole thing was about politics. In the 10th century the Lac Viet or Vietnamese won independence from China. In 1471 the Vietnamese conquered Champa which was influenced by India and the Hindu religion and also had Islamic influences. French Jesuits became involved in the 1600's and "Romanized" the alphabet to teach Catholicism. When France was occupied by the Germans in WWII, their allies, the Japanese, occupied Vietnam. Through all these influences, the Vietnamese always held strong in the end. It is heartbreaking that the US and Vietnam had to suffer so much because of ignorance and politics. Here we are over 50 years later and my husband has cancer due to exposure to Agent Orange and still Americans don't think about how many Vietnamese and their descendants suffer from those same effects. We still don't know what Vietnam is about, not as a country or as a phenomenon.
7
The intro of "Deja Vu" set the historical perspective in its proper context. Max Cleland quoting Victor Frankel in his book Man's Search for Meaning: "To live is to suffer, to survive is to find meaning in suffering." Max's went on in his own words.." And to those of us who suffer, because of Vietnam, that has been our quest ever since."
While the film doesn't show it, Max was a triple amputee as a result of his sacrifice in Vietnam. Max, if you are reading this. I first met you you as a young college student applying for a job on Walter Mondale's Senate Staff in the fall of 1975. You were in a wheelchair going up the elevator in the Russell Senate Office Building. I walked into the elevator and you smiled and asked me what floor I was going to and you pushed the button. I never met a triple amputee before. I have never met, since that day, a more engaging and courageous person. At the time I learned you worked for Senator Nunn. You want on to become a US Senator. Tears came to my eyes as I watched you speaking of searching for meaning in your life.
And I too am searching for meaning but never suffered the loss you have endured for your fellow countrymen.
Perhaps we can all reflect on the meaning of Vietnam on how we treat one another at home and abroad to make this world a better place. My heart goes out to the people of Vietnam because they never deserved the decades of suffering and death from foreign aggression.
History is unkind, hopefully we will learn.
21
I have seen episodes 1 and 2 and have been happy with the show so far. I was in the Army Infantry from July 1969-July 1970 in a mechanized unit in what we called "Northern I Corps" hard along the DMZ. Fortunately for me personally I saw limited action. My company and others in my battalion saw much more in November 1969 that due to circumstances I was able to avoid directly. I do recall at least one group effort with other companies in the battalion when we were headed to Laos even bringing along a portable bridge for crossing areas that were impassable for our Personnel Carriers, although a mechanical breakdown prevented that foray. We spent time in the DMZ and we patrolled a large swath of the country from the Gulf of Tonkin to the Annamite Mountains.
I have seen some disparaging comments on other sites made by those who were never in Viet Nam and had no understanding of what we went through. You cannot understand the experience, no matter how compassionate you may be, unless you lived it. My local station has be preceding the show with locally produced shows (perhaps they are on nationally?) and one so far was about PTSD and combat veterans personal experiences and how each of us has our own issues. I have been very fortunate in not having anything unusual going on in my head (at least as far as I can tell) I know of others who went through far worse situations than I who most definitely did and still do experience things.
Thank you Ken Burns and Lynn Novick. Bravo!
5
So far, so good. A history I'm sure not many veterans knew.
3
Peter Coyote's narration includes, "It was a war begun in good faith by decent people out of fateful misunderstandings, American overconfidence, and Cold War miscalculations." Then people on every side got trapped in the events already begun and in their reactions to what was happening. Yes, there was perfidy and there were atrocities. But even as they took part in a war that would have been better not begun at all, many participants on every side displayed heroism. In the aftermath, there is kindness.
2
After I returned from Vietnam in June, 1970, finishing a 14 month tour, I began, slowly, to seek to understand what had just happened to me, and what I'd done. I began with Bernard Fall's "Street Without Joy" and "Hell in a Very Small Place." When it was published in 1983 I devoured Stanley Karnow's "Vietnam: A History." Others followed, augmented by film works such as PBS's "Vietnam: A Televsion History," also in 1983.
Burns' and Novick's production achieves an end I've not experienced before, that being that I feel those being interviewed giving voice to my own thoughts and observations, arrived at and accumulated over 47 years since I came home. I find myself crying from time to time, as suddenly and unexpectedly as I used to in the field, in Vietnam, when on rare occasions my emotionally cold, detached barriers would fail me. There I always succeeded in hiding it. Watching Ken Burns' and Lynn Novick's series I no longer care if I do.
The cost will be that a very complex, old wound is reopened. But I learned over the years that admitting and confronting pain is better than trying to escape from or hide it.
I suspect that not enough, and probably not the right, people are watching. That saddens me. We as a society, culture and nation made a horrible, tragic mistake in dealing with the Vietnamese. We're needlessly participated in millions of deaths. Sin's only value is confronting, admitting, and resolving not to commit it again, otherwise it becomes mortal.
36
Thank you for that comment and thank you for your service. I never had to experience Vietnam. For that I'm grateful - high lottery numbers. But, I've tried to understand it over the years.
I don't think any normal human can watch this series without both crying at the tragic loses both American and Vietnam people suffered and yelling in anger at the abject stupidity and mendacity of our leaders.
1
Bravo John McBride! I lost a special friend to the war and after 50 years am just being able to let my own wounds be opened up enough to heal. I often wonder what my friend whose last name was also McBride would be like today if he'd survived Operation Buffalo at Con Thien. I like to think he'd be doing what you are--- trying to make sense of his experience and heal from the trauma by allowing the pain. Your wisdom is appreciated!
1
Thank you. You speak for me and it is much appreciated.....
1
I think Burns is a treasure. He produces work for adults. It is as circumspect, meticulous, in-depth, and thought provoking as anything on television
4
The first episode was by far the best thing I've ever seen on the Vietnam War. For the first time, the historical background was fleshed out:
The Vietnamese have successfully resisted invasion and occupation for centuries, including against much larger forces. Their equipment and hardware was enough to chase out the Japanese and the French, their tactics were often innovative, and they took major losses and kept fighting.
We were never going to win a stalemate, since our war aims were muddled and abstract, causing thinking people here to be wary of the enterprise from the beginning.
Ho Chi Minh was a visionary, completely devoted to his country and beloved by his people.
These points were barely covered by our media companies, while outlets like Time Magazine waved the flag and celebrated our troops landing on the beach near Danang- unopposed. The Vietnamese were, as always, patient and determined. We should not have waited 50 years for Burns to point these things out, with persuasive film making and quality analysis.
Those who are stepping up to dispute the above points are the same ones who were wrong when we revved up the war in 1965. It's called "sunk costs", or, in poker, getting married to a bad hand. Tragically, most of us from that time, including me, lost friends, our innocence, or both. Let's honor them instead, by shrinking our military and getting out of the invasion business.
34
I am a combat veteran who served with the Marines from '66-'67 in Vietnam and so far, I haven't seen anything that hasn't been in a number of other documentaries, despite the hype. I see the usual bias: the emphasis on the circuitous way we became involved in Vietnam rather than showing the atrocities committed by the Viet Minh/Viet Cong against the South, or discussing the critical position of Vietnam athwart the Straits of Malacca, or the massive Soviet and Chinese support to the enemy. Instead we have the phrase "reuniting Vietnam" as the enemy's objective - when Vietnam was never a single country before and over a million Vietnamese fled from the North.
I'm not going to hold my breath that Ken Burns will show how good and effective we were in Vietnam or how we took great care to protect the South Vietnamese civilians.
Vietnam was the locus of the "National Liberation War" - the Soviet tactic of externally assisted civil war and we had only two choices: fight or let it all collapse. We chose to fight - at least men like me and my friends did - and for eight long years we held on. I strongly suspect that the view of how we "weak and comfortable Americans" carried on despite the best the enemy could throw at us and despite having our own country turn on us gave us an edge when the negotiations to end the Cold War finally came about.
I didn't have high hopes that an avowed liberal like Ken Burns would take a fresh approach to the subject and he didn't.
2
To your examples of bias -- Were the Viet Minh/Viet Cong and their supporters not a majority of the people in the South, despite having no voice in its government? Has a united Vietnam done harm in the Straits of Malacca since 1975? How does Soviet/Chinese help to "the enemy" compare to the amount of support we gave our South Vietnamese government, and which began earlier?
Of course up to 1 million of the 35 million people in Vietnam moved south, to what was supposed to be a temporary end-of-war enclave, when their French colonizers left the north. They were primarily French-speaking, Westernized Vietnamese who were (or might be seen as) collaborators with the French. We have already seen a spokeswoman from one such family, a good (if divided) family. After 1781, many American Tories moved to Canada or England, not expecting to be welcomed into the new nation they had attempted to prevent. What 19th-century colonial possession was "a single country" prior to its domination by Europeans? Germany was not "a single country" until 1871. There was some doubt about OUR unity until May of 1865.
4
independent
Possibly I'm seeing moments in this production that you aren't, and hearing testimony you've missed the opportunity to listen to: I've heard a lot about Viet Minh and National Liberation Front atrocities, including from members, and former members of them who objected, some to the point of switching sides.
Are you sure the bias is in Burns and Novick and not one you harbor that requires that only the horrendous and negative characteristics of the enemy be exposed and discussed?
Objectivity requires open and honest discussion of all aspects of the subject.
16
Like one your other commenters, it may be too early to respond. In 1965 I read Graham Greene's The Quiet American, published in 1955. I was in Vietnam in 1967-68. I was close to several of the scenes in the novel. I came home one month after the TET Offensive of 1968. Ever since, I believe that Greene has prophesied exactly what would happen to the US in Vietnam. I was, therefore, disappointed that the novel wasn't mentioned.
I have not been a scholar about Vietnam since coming home. I did experience discrimination and until the last 10 years of my career, I did not have my veteran status on my resume.
I also saw tremendous patriotism from our Mexican-American brothers (Hispanic) in south Texas. When we buried our comrades in arms, Dr. Garcia and The GI Forum would line the road, both sides, with American flags from the airport in Corpus Christi to the funeral home in Alice, roughly 50 miles away. To this day it makes me cry in pride. I hope that spirit received attention from Burns.
3
I was a translator stationed in III Corps, outside Saigon. My perspective was a confluence of how the Vietnamese perceived their civil war, and how we Americans saw the war as a distant battle at the edge of the civilized world. Viewing the superb documentary, my heart ached anew. We lost 58,000. They lost so many more. For me, the Missing-in-Action include my Vietnamese friends who were likely purged in the aftermath.
7
I served in Vietnam in 68 and 69 and have since done a ton of reading about it. I believe it was in the Pentagon Papers that I read about a survey done near the end of the Eisenhower administration asking the South Vietnamese who they would vote for if a national free election were held. 85% said Ho Chi Minh. It appears that we were on the wrong side if that's true. It seems to me that if we had "won" the war we would still be there as an occupying force and still losing troops to guerrilla warfare. The way that things have turned out, Vietnam is a free and prosperous country and an important trading partner of the USA.
18
I believe you are mis-remembering a statement by President Eisenhower that he believed that if a vote had been taken around 1954, up to 80 percent would have voted for Ho. This was not based on any actual survey, and it was for Vietnam as a whole, not South Vietnam specifically.
As I recall, that was when the vote was supposed to be held ('53 or '54); and we (the US) made sure it was cancelled because Ho Chi Minh absolutely would have won!
The series is fantastic in my opinion. It's so powerful to get each side's perspective. As a former Marine, I'm so proud of the Marines who served there. How profound is the monk who lights himself on fire and does not even twitch - I think there is a message there.
4
I was wondering how 'The Vietnam War' would be received. I am not surprised by the responses. There are those still fighting the Civil War, which ended in 1865 some 212 years ago.
It's been only 42 years since the end of the Vietnam War. By my count the Vietnam War will be still a subject of discussion 170 years from now. I served in Vietnam with the 1st Marine Division 1968 - 1969. I was impressed by the first episode and am anxious to see the entire series.
20
I was born at the end of the war, but my mother told me stories. I've always had a soft spot/respect for those who served during this time and this documentary has enabled me to have a more nuanced understanding of the complexity of this war. The first episode alone blew me away the amount of information.
1
I am a Vietnam veteran who flew helicopters during the war, in 1970. I am learning so many new things about our history leading up to our long involvement. Things I previously did not know or understand. This is a very important documentary which I greatly appreciate.
29
Interesting history pieces I didn't knowin the 1st episode.
I saw the first two episodes, and was pretty impressed (except for the reverse frame sequence, which I didn't like) but I think it might be too early to comment on the series, especially since the vast majority of it hasn't aired yet. It would be great if we were given another opportunity in a week or so.
5
If you go to the PBS website you can watch them online. The first 4 are available. Some of this I knew, much of it I didn't. You never get the genuine emotion you get from actual people that lived it by just reading about it.
Learned some history I didn't know despite traveling to Vietnam 7 times. Have only watched 1st show. Was engaged with it. My husband, a 18-year old Marine there in 1967, was glad there are no commercials. Will watch episode 2 tonight while recording episode. My thoughts on Vietnam stem from first husband, a F105 pilot over North Vietnam, while my present husband was a very young Marine on the ground near Cam Ranh Bay. at almost the same time. He has gone back and loves the country. Ex-husband doesn't even talk about the experience.
1
Some of us know just how brutal the French had treated the Vietnamese people, and one of the major players was the Catholic church.
But Saigon was praised in western culture for its westernized feel and food. It was regarded as a fun place to go, part of that being the easy access to sex, in particular young Vietnamese girls. No questions were asked about their conditions or how they came to be in those brothels, the church did not seem to care abut that.
One missing link, is the involvement of the Dulles Brother, Alan at the CIA, and John Foster at State. They were both responsible for America's political views about South East Asia and communism. We the public were constantly warned about what a disaster it would be if those countries feel into the hands of the communist, and yet we treated their populations in a manner that guaranteed they would.
We saw how Hi Chi Min lobbied for independence and denied ti to the country, instead we and the western power supported a corrupt and brutal occupation of an ancient country due to a fallacious ideology. They could have been our friends, we created enemies.
We are seeing the same thing play out again. Mr. Obama was working to gain friends, tRump is working to destroy that simply because of a personal vendetta. But the rest of teh workd will not ollow us this time.
19
Imagine if the Versailles (Paris) Peace Conference (1919) had approved US President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, that French Indo China got the independence that Ho so diligently lobbied for and that Ho was not reduced to going to the nascent USSR to be heard...
To read Points 5 - 13 of Wilson's 14 Points and to realize what opportunities were missed and what came later as consequences is heartbreaking.
The Dulles brothers were abominations...
5
Yes the infamous Dulles brother! I liked you bringing them up.
1