Ken Burns - The Vietnam War (2017)
- Thread starter managee
- Start date
It's been airing the past 3 days or so. I've seen up to episode 4 now (missed ep 1).
I like it. Good amount of detail, interviews are poignant, like that lots of interviews are with North Vietnamese to get their viewpoint. Also interesting to learn how opposed the US government (and presidents) actually were but classic case of not knowing how to extricate.
I like it. Good amount of detail, interviews are poignant, like that lots of interviews are with North Vietnamese to get their viewpoint. Also interesting to learn how opposed the US government (and presidents) actually were but classic case of not knowing how to extricate.
Been watching and making comparisons between it and Maclear's Ten Thousand Day War.
Maclear was more top-down I think and Burns is doing a more balanced presentation including more bottom-up perspectives.
Burns going to Vietnam now and interviewing Viet Mihn and VC regulars is something I don't think Maclear was able to do at the time, or decided not to. But Maclear had contemporary interviews with Giap and Key and Westmoreland and Lodge etc., but did not have access to the presidential tapes that Burns had.
Both are excellent in their own ways.
Maclear was more top-down I think and Burns is doing a more balanced presentation including more bottom-up perspectives.
Burns going to Vietnam now and interviewing Viet Mihn and VC regulars is something I don't think Maclear was able to do at the time, or decided not to. But Maclear had contemporary interviews with Giap and Key and Westmoreland and Lodge etc., but did not have access to the presidential tapes that Burns had.
Both are excellent in their own ways.
Gut-wrenchingly difficult to watch. It was The Living Room War. Lived it, knew many that were drafted and sent over. One guy from grade school never came back.
Because it's about the War, it sadly short-changed us on the how and why of the USA getting into it in the first place. By the end of the first hour that was over and done with, and from there on that most important topic of all been, as Keeblerr said, only about how to extricate.
What's going on in the White House suggests we need that same old lesson repeated again. Simple slogans don't solve complex issues. They just get millions of young folks killed. Unfortunately for evolution, not the stupid old ones in power who should have been.
What's going on in the White House suggests we need that same old lesson repeated again. Simple slogans don't solve complex issues. They just get millions of young folks killed. Unfortunately for evolution, not the stupid old ones in power who should have been.
I'm really enjoying it so far, but it does feel like they rushed the prelude to war episode. I watched it twice just because I thought I'd missed a bunch on a casual first viewing... which as it turns out I did not.
---
10,000 Day War has always been a favourite.
Awesome series, but like others said, it could have done more on the reasons why US was there in the first place.
Funny, I had no idea that this war was going on in my elementary school years until the fall of Saigon was really big news in 1975 (I was in my mid teens back then)
I missed a few episodes, was there any mention of the "Cu Chi" tunnels?
Funny, I had no idea that this war was going on in my elementary school years until the fall of Saigon was really big news in 1975 (I was in my mid teens back then)
I missed a few episodes, was there any mention of the "Cu Chi" tunnels?
I like it, but sadly I missed the first few episodes. I like the balance that is being used, with viewpoints from soldiers who fought on both sides.
As Henry Kissinger said..." we have achieved our strategic objectives in Vietnam ". Translation..."we've captured the Heroin trade in Southeast Asia. Divided the Country. Built a massive Military base in South Korea. And we have a presence near China and Russia's borders ". I call the Vietnam War Kissinger's wet dream.
https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Lake-Vi...8&qid=1506460345&sr=8-1&keywords=fire+in+lake
I would recommend the book above for guys who want to supplement the series with some reading. The book covers much of the same territory. Of course, it doesn't have the dramatic impact of the series.
As far as the reasons for the US getting involved, I believe the series covers them pretty well. The issue is not so much the coverage as the fact that the reasons do not make sense to us now and are utterly unconvincing. So it is tempting to search for something more - that simply wasn't there.
I would recommend the book above for guys who want to supplement the series with some reading. The book covers much of the same territory. Of course, it doesn't have the dramatic impact of the series.
As far as the reasons for the US getting involved, I believe the series covers them pretty well. The issue is not so much the coverage as the fact that the reasons do not make sense to us now and are utterly unconvincing. So it is tempting to search for something more - that simply wasn't there.
oagre, your line " the reasons do not make sense to us now and are utterly unconvincing" pretty much nails it, when talking about the whys, in America's entry into Vietnam. To understand this, one must look at the overall picture and that was the fact that the west and in particular the US, were embroiled in the Cold War and Communism was the enemy.
Although the US didn't have time for the old Colonial powers and their grip on their former colonies, it was of necessity that they back them and turn a blind eye because of the threat of a Communist takeover of these old colonies. Vietnam was one such place and although the French were doing the fighting, they were backed by American money and materiel to do so and whenever the French wanted to pull out, it was the American's pushing them to stay in. In the final stages of the war in Vietnam for the French, during the battle of Dien Bien Phu, there were a number of "men in power" at the top levels of government in the US who advocated and pushed for the use of nuclear weapons, on behalf of the French, to save them and win the war. Eisenhower, to his credit stood his ground and wouldn't hear of using nuclear weapons on Asiatic peoples once again in the span of a less than a decade of doing so on Japan.
After this Vietnam was separated, much like Korea, but without major powers having forces ready and available. The Communists or Viet Minh, kept infiltrating back into the south and although the American's didn't have combat troops there, they did have military advisers and over time, the American's started to lose some of these advisers. They escalated their presence and there became the need to protect their interests in Vietnam and in the opinion of many a scholar, the same type of "power elite" guided the President into sending actual American combat troops into war in Vietnam, by manufacturing the evidence to do so. The Gulf of Tonkin incident is one such happening that has many holes in it.
This war in Vietnam was exactly what the hawks wanted and although it wasn't a showdown with the Russians, it would have to do. Since before the end of WW2, there were those in the Allied camp who didn't trust the Russians and by the end off that conflict thought they may as well just keep rolling along and fight the Russians, while they still had the men in uniform and the materiel at hand. So Vietnam would have to do for this and the "power elite" convinced the president that American military might would prevail and like many from days long ago, thought they'd do so in days, rather than years. We know what the outcome was to this thought and the escalation in number of troops as well.
Although the US didn't have time for the old Colonial powers and their grip on their former colonies, it was of necessity that they back them and turn a blind eye because of the threat of a Communist takeover of these old colonies. Vietnam was one such place and although the French were doing the fighting, they were backed by American money and materiel to do so and whenever the French wanted to pull out, it was the American's pushing them to stay in. In the final stages of the war in Vietnam for the French, during the battle of Dien Bien Phu, there were a number of "men in power" at the top levels of government in the US who advocated and pushed for the use of nuclear weapons, on behalf of the French, to save them and win the war. Eisenhower, to his credit stood his ground and wouldn't hear of using nuclear weapons on Asiatic peoples once again in the span of a less than a decade of doing so on Japan.
After this Vietnam was separated, much like Korea, but without major powers having forces ready and available. The Communists or Viet Minh, kept infiltrating back into the south and although the American's didn't have combat troops there, they did have military advisers and over time, the American's started to lose some of these advisers. They escalated their presence and there became the need to protect their interests in Vietnam and in the opinion of many a scholar, the same type of "power elite" guided the President into sending actual American combat troops into war in Vietnam, by manufacturing the evidence to do so. The Gulf of Tonkin incident is one such happening that has many holes in it.
This war in Vietnam was exactly what the hawks wanted and although it wasn't a showdown with the Russians, it would have to do. Since before the end of WW2, there were those in the Allied camp who didn't trust the Russians and by the end off that conflict thought they may as well just keep rolling along and fight the Russians, while they still had the men in uniform and the materiel at hand. So Vietnam would have to do for this and the "power elite" convinced the president that American military might would prevail and like many from days long ago, thought they'd do so in days, rather than years. We know what the outcome was to this thought and the escalation in number of troops as well.
I think you nailed the soft spot in the treatment of the lead-up to the all-out war The US got itself drugged into: Back then all a Western pol had to do was point and say, "Communists!", and he (always a 'he') could be confident we'd all know why Steps Had To Be Taken, even if maybe we disgreed with the size of the steps or their direction. That obsession with an ideology blinded and deafened 'our' side to practical reality. So the understandable Vietnamese yearning for freedom, one that was worth millions of lives through several decades of war to them, just vanished from American thought processes as soon as they found out Uncle Ho was a Red.
It's the same stupid blindness that has another President banning Muslims from the US today: labelling is easier for weak brains than evaluating and thinking. I wouldn't want a documentary historian like Burns to be drawing such a direct line from Then to Now, but he was so matter-of-fact about that Cold War paranoia, that it almost disappeared in the part of the first episode that covered it.
The histories of past wars have two obvious lessons for the present: How to avoid them, and How to win them. We're uncertain about Kennedy, but there's no doubt every President from Johnson's first days onward knew that the US could not win that war. The documentary can't be faulted for not showing how they could have lost it with less pain, suffering and cost; that was their task, and they bungled it badly. Burns does succeed in clearly showing Administrations continuously lying to the people whose sons they were sending to die, because the pols couldn't devise a way to tell them the truth and get on with the 'surrender'.
But that lying began with lying to themselves, back in the '40s when they picked DeGaulle — who distrusted and feared American dominance, and resented their post-war power — to side with, instead of Ho Chi Min — who had lived and worked in the USA and admired respected it as a revolutionary democracy. More time and more detail about that thoughtless, prejudiced choice and what made it inevitable would have given us greater insight into our own times, not just that fading past. And very clearly, we need that insight now, every bit as much as our parents and grandparents needed it back then. Because avoiding wars is a reliably better bet than winning them. And much, much better than having that coin-toss come down against you.
The one important failing of the documentary, is there's no sign Trump cares to watch. Too sad! Covfefe!
An excellent book to read about this is Embers of War, by Frederik Logevall. It's from this book you can see the slippery slope that could have been avoided. There is a link between Ho, who wanted a democratic country, with a constitution like that of the United States and President Wilson, who Ho believed could be the man to help him achieve this.
Good points Oagre, to which I would add that the attitudes in both the U.S. and to a significant degree Canada towards all sorts of politico-military issues are so utterly different now than they were circa 1968 - 1972 as to be near incomprehensible to many people.
I am really enjoying this series.
The best previous documentary was "Vietnam The 10,000 Day War"
It was also quite good, and interviewed some of the heavy hitters of the time.
The depth of the the episodes in Ken Burns series are quite good, and I believe it presents a reasonable explanation of the origins as well as the rest of the story.
The best previous documentary was "Vietnam The 10,000 Day War"
It was also quite good, and interviewed some of the heavy hitters of the time.
The depth of the the episodes in Ken Burns series are quite good, and I believe it presents a reasonable explanation of the origins as well as the rest of the story.
I don't think you're wrong, I just would rather have seen something like, ep 1) to 1954 2) to 1960 3) to 1964. Otherwise it still just feels like the American take on the war in Vietnam, which it is. It's my same complaint for Burns' The War. I get that he's trying to tell the American story, but it's been done. I'd love to see him and/or Novick branch out a bit.
At least in this series he's interviewing vets and civilians from both sides of the conflict, which makes it feel a little more like The Civil War. I thought the Civil War did a great job at creating sympathy for both sides of the conflict. It made it feel more tragic.
As last night's episode concluded with the peace accord in Paris, and I tried to make sense of what I saw as a young man and saw again through Burns and Novick's eyes, it started me thinking about the similar moment in the Civil War series that Burns also covered. There's a significant parallel in the two nations, the USA and Viet Nam, coming apart and fighting a war over staying together or staying divided. Certainly there are many significant differences, but even stuff like first fighting to throw off their colonial masters is an element common to both peoples.
The one big difference (and the only important one to western eyes) is the involvement in Viet Nam of a massively wealthy foreign power determined to assert its own interests in spite of local concerns. But back in the 1860's it was for awhile a near-run thing whether massively wealthy Britain would set their navy against the Union blockade to protect the raw material supplies for its cotton mills that coming from the South.
America 'took over' Viet Nam's civil war and ran it to suit itself, and that arguably changed the USA more than Viet Nam which is today a unified Communist country, which like others welcomes Americans and their trade. And if the few British blockade-runners had been replaced by navy-protected gun-runners that lead to British veterans 'advising' Confederate troops? It's not like the North over here would be any less stubborn and committed than it was in Viet Nam. Or the Brits would be any less divided about such a war.
Makes you wonder if the Vietnamese managed their peace and reconciiation any better than the botch that's still working its way out today.
The one big difference (and the only important one to western eyes) is the involvement in Viet Nam of a massively wealthy foreign power determined to assert its own interests in spite of local concerns. But back in the 1860's it was for awhile a near-run thing whether massively wealthy Britain would set their navy against the Union blockade to protect the raw material supplies for its cotton mills that coming from the South.
America 'took over' Viet Nam's civil war and ran it to suit itself, and that arguably changed the USA more than Viet Nam which is today a unified Communist country, which like others welcomes Americans and their trade. And if the few British blockade-runners had been replaced by navy-protected gun-runners that lead to British veterans 'advising' Confederate troops? It's not like the North over here would be any less stubborn and committed than it was in Viet Nam. Or the Brits would be any less divided about such a war.
Makes you wonder if the Vietnamese managed their peace and reconciiation any better than the botch that's still working its way out today.
There is a new book called Hue 68 that claims the Americans stumbled unwittingly into a civil war.
That is why the prelude to the American War is so important. Hue was the ancient capital of Vietnam, located just south of the border between North and South. When the French took over Indo-China, they keep the two Nam's divided by moving the capital from from Saigon to Hanoi. After Dien Bien Phu, the South Vietnamese (almost untouched by war against the French) split from the North. The North Aligned themselves with Russia after FDR rejected Ho's proposals for an independent Vietnam. Hue saw the fiercest fighting during the Tet Offensive, the Viet Minh and the American Marines fought from house to house.
That is why the prelude to the American War is so important. Hue was the ancient capital of Vietnam, located just south of the border between North and South. When the French took over Indo-China, they keep the two Nam's divided by moving the capital from from Saigon to Hanoi. After Dien Bien Phu, the South Vietnamese (almost untouched by war against the French) split from the North. The North Aligned themselves with Russia after FDR rejected Ho's proposals for an independent Vietnam. Hue saw the fiercest fighting during the Tet Offensive, the Viet Minh and the American Marines fought from house to house.
