Tango01 | 14 Sep 2017 10:41 p.m. PST |
""It's not over, it's not over," Sen. John McCain said of the Vietnam War. McCain, a POW in Hanoi for five years, had been asked by Military.com on Tuesday night whether he agreed with documentary filmmaker Ken Burns that Vietnam is still "unfinished business" -- for the U.S. and for Vietnam. "It's true. The war's not over" in the minds of Americans, McCain said, before entering the Kennedy Center Opera House for a preview and panel discussion on the 10-part, 18-hour PBS series "The Vietnam War," co-directed by Burns and Lynn Novick, that will begin airing Sunday night…" Main page link Amicalement Armand |
troopwo | 15 Sep 2017 8:25 a.m. PST |
While I like his documentary on the whole, I just don't know how well I can handle eighteen hours of somebody playing, "Bringing in the Sheeves" on a fiddle as back ground music. PBS is going to make this a center piece of fundraising for ageing hippies and malcontents to relive their glory years. I expect nothing but constant sales pitches of sixties music CD's and pledge drives. |
mwindsorfw | 15 Sep 2017 11:51 a.m. PST |
Everything I've read gives it good reviews. |
coopman | 15 Sep 2017 12:42 p.m. PST |
I looked at the companion book at Wal-Mart a few weeks ago. It is pretty impressive, IMO. |
Cyrus the Great | 15 Sep 2017 1:25 p.m. PST |
I'm looking forward to it. I've seen a lot of opinions already given here, based on nothing. Way to keep an open mind! |
Mardaddy | 17 Sep 2017 11:18 a.m. PST |
I'll probably get around to watching some or most of it after the fact. |
USAFpilot | 18 Sep 2017 7:22 a.m. PST |
Watched first episode last night and thought it was good. I liked that they covered the history of Ho Chi Minh dating all the way back to the Woodrow Wilson presidency. So many mistakes made. And the intentional keeping of information away from the President by bureaucrats with their own agenda. What a tragic waste of human life. |
Pan Marek | 18 Sep 2017 12:30 p.m. PST |
|
Joe Legan | 18 Sep 2017 2:56 p.m. PST |
I thought it was good; not great but good. Nothing I didn't already know though but I guess it is intended for a general audience. Joe |
Legion 4 | 19 Sep 2017 8:33 a.m. PST |
Has been excellent so far. I highly recommend it … But yes, it appears to be aimed at a "broad" audience. Not so much hard corps "history" guys. etc. Regardless, based on my experience, e.g. most in the US know little to nothing about the Vietnam War. And generally most forms of the media don't help. IMO this series is an exception. A ways back when History Channel used to show actual history. They had a pretty good series and programs about this war. That continues to haunt the US on many levels. When I go to the VA, seems most of the Vets there are from the Vietnam War. They are worth listening to from the POV of someone who was there. As I was not … |
Gennorm | 19 Sep 2017 10:25 a.m. PST |
Unfortunately not on PBS America on the eastern side of the pond. Hopefully soon. |
Rudysnelson | 19 Sep 2017 4:00 p.m. PST |
i have watched a few episodes. I thought the episode about the corrupt nature of the early ruler was very good. The lack of motivation to engage and fight hard then should have been a warning to the Americans about what would happen when the USA left and they were left on their own. |
Legion 4 | 20 Sep 2017 8:29 a.m. PST |
I do look forward to seeing the entire series. It can be hard to watch sometimes. This was a very "difficult" time in US recent history. I think this series should be shown in all US high school history classes. Along with programs like Burn's ACW series, etc. The average US citizen is an absolute dunce when it comes to it's own history. Let alone the rest of the world's. |
Joe Legan | 20 Sep 2017 2:37 p.m. PST |
Legion 4 Agree it would be great in a US history class. Joe |
Legion 4 | 20 Sep 2017 3:05 p.m. PST |
The USA's "kids" & their parents know so little about so much of their nation's history. Or much of anything about any history for that matter. |
catavar | 24 Sep 2017 3:04 p.m. PST |
Have seen most of two episodes and have been impressed so far. Well done in my opinion. |
Virginia Tory | 27 Sep 2017 6:17 a.m. PST |
"i have watched a few episodes. I thought the episode about the corrupt nature of the early ruler was very good. The lack of motivation to engage and fight hard then should have been a warning to the Americans about what would happen when the USA left and they were left on their own." Except by 75 the ARVN was much different from the weak, disorganized force of 1963. Cutting off their fuel, ammo and supplies is what did them in, not a lack of fighting spirit. |
hindsTMP | 27 Sep 2017 11:03 a.m. PST |
My wife and I find it quite interesting so far (episode 7), and SFAIK, the political and social elements are plausible. Using hindsight, I guess we should have continued to support Ho Chi Minh in 1945, against the French, as being the lesser of several evils. However, the military elements of the documentary could have been improved. For example, the repeated "capture the hill and give it up" scenario, with inadequate explanation as to whether this was considered to be good contemporary military tactics, is annoying. They even had a U.S. general explaining why he did it, but they cut off the video before he was finished. I assume the commanders were trying to establish the location of enemy troops, so as to attack them with air and artillery, but was this best practice, or not? And if it was, why didn't the participants know this? Also, I was left with the impression that the marines in the firebases near the DMZ weren't too happy with their situations. The documentary doesn't explicitly examine that question, but the implication of stupidity is kind of there. Was this militarily justified? I don't know. MH |
Old Contemptibles | 27 Sep 2017 8:35 p.m. PST |
It is a great work of film making. I thought I knew a lot about this war but holy cow is their a lot I didn't know. I was surprise to hear the story of Nixon going to the South Vietnamese in order to torpedo the Peace Talks until after the election. Just so the Democrats would not the credit. Then lying about it on tape to LBJ! Deja Vu indeed! I like that the documentary went back to 1858 and interwove the veterans telling their stories from the modern war. I have got to get the sound track. |
Old Contemptibles | 27 Sep 2017 8:46 p.m. PST |
The thing about capturing a hill and then giving it back was explained. The hill was irrelevant. It was where a large formation of the enemy was and the mission was not terrain but casualties. The US Military was fighting a war of attrition. Hill or no hill it was where the enemy was. But I would like to have had a military historian explain in more detail why the strategy didn't work. I would think the effect it had on morale would be one reason. During Desert Storm and later Iraqi Freedom, the military did not want to talk about body counts. I suspect most of the top brass were Vietnam Vets. They knew it was a bad strategy back in Vietnam. |
Legion 4 | 28 Sep 2017 6:53 a.m. PST |
The US Military was fighting a war of attrition. Hill or no hill it was where the enemy was. Yes, that is the way I understood it as well. But as we see … Americans don't favor a "war of attrition" like saw in WWII battles e.g. : Normandy, many battles in the PTO, etc. I watched again "Flags of Our Fathers" the week before the Burn's Vietnam series. And was glad we [generally] don't fight wars that way any more. I suspect most of the top brass were Vietnam Vets. They knew it was a bad strategy back in Vietnam. Yes, I remember when I went on active duty with the 101 in '80. All the senior NCOs and Officers were Vets of Vietnam. Many with more than 1 tour. As were my ROTC instructors, '75-'79 and at IOBC, etc. '79. I learned much from all of them. And that some times influenced the way I lead the units I commanded. Plus my outlook on warfare in general I think. For better or worse … The Army was rebuilding itself after Vietnam. And the military learned body count, among other lessons, is not the way to run(win)in a war, at that point I believe … |
Sebastian Palmer | 20 Nov 2017 1:13 p.m. PST |
We in the U.K. were only given 10 of the 18 hours of this epic series, so I feel seriously hard done by. Interestingly, to me at least, probably in part because I'm a musician myself, but also in response to the first comment left on this thread, whereas all the music in the The Civil War was, in my opinion, brilliant – I bought the OST on CD – only the 'period' music here was truly great. The modern stuff (Trent Reznor?) just sounded like passable sonic wallpaper. I agree with Merrill McPeak (prob misspelled his name?) – and he's no nostalgic ageing hippie – who says in the film that what was happening then back home in the US, including all the music, civil rights, women's rights, etc, was an integral part of what made the US what it is now, and he clearly means it as a good thing. I posted my thoughts on the shorter UK version over at my blog: link |
Legion 4 | 22 Aug 2019 5:30 a.m. PST |
Gen McPeak was generally highly respected in many areas of his craft. |
Virginia Tory | 22 Aug 2019 7:34 a.m. PST |
He was also seen as a loony with some truly bizarre ideas about airpower, let alone uniform design. Some of the things he said on the documentary were just nutty. |
Wolfhag | 22 Aug 2019 11:33 p.m. PST |
My family hosted a VN (from Saigon) high school exchange student a few years ago. It was very enlightening discussing present-day VN but not from a political perspective. Her dad owns an HVAC business (capitalist?) and was able to send her and her brother to school in the US for college (no scholarships). He did spend some time in a re-education camp after the war. She was all study and no fun. When we asked why she said that if she did not get a 4.0 average her parents would beat her when she got home. I can attest to this control technique as my son got "thumped" a number of times as a teenager. He later thanked me. She said SVN is mostly free and Capitalist (small business owners) and the north mostly Communist. She said everyone calls Ho Chi Minh City by its old name Saigon. Her brother is an engineer in California and married a Hmong (US citizen) which did not go over well with the parents back in VN. It seems like the different SE Asian ethnic groups do not get along very well. Living in CA I've had a fair amount of social and business interaction with Vietnamese and I find them easy to get along with and have a sense of humor like most Americans. Most that I have met are more "American" than many people I know in CA. They said they've tasted socialism and Communism and want no part of it. They are completely perplexed by the Socialist movement in the US. It's very hard explaining it to them. Most that I've met had to leave family behind. They are definitely not sno (oops, I can't use that word or I may offend someone again). They don't seem to hold a grudge but have used the term "paper tiger" a number of times about the US. They are extremely positive and feel that in the US they are masters of their own destiny and not "victims". They never seem to complain and are very tough and industrious people that do not take freedom for granted. The ones I've met are really pretty cool to be around and joke with. According to the accounts I've read, President Johnson interviewed Westmoreland and Marine General "Brute" Krulak about an overall VN strategy. Westmoreland suggested an attrition strategy and Krulak the "inkblot" strategy to control areas of SVN to pacify it and keep the VC/NVA out. Evidently, Krulak rubbed Johnson the wrong way and went with Westmoreland. Krulak had been in China/SE Asia since 1937 and was the most familiar with fighting people from that area. Krulak was operating with the Chinese Nationalists before 1941 is when he used their "Gung Ho" (work together in Chinese) tactics of fire & maneuver for the Marines in WWII. He also wrote up the requirements for landing craft that resulted in the Higgins Boat. He should have been made Commandant but pissed off Johnson too much. His son (a VN vet) did eventually become Commandant. My personal feelings (feel free to disagree): The Cold War was not a WWII type of war. The US was fighting to stop the spread of Communism because it was a threat to the US economic system which is the US real security. The US needs free Capitalist overseas trading partners ever since their independence. They needed to stop the spread of Communism without starting WWIII so all tactics and strategy had to consider that. They underestimated their enemy and allowed them free havens to regroup. Their political leadership "Will to Fight" was lacking. The Chinese and Soviets were backing attempts to overthrow governments in SE Asia so the US basically had no choice but to stop them with covert or overt methods (or propaganda like the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution). Unfortunately, that meant supporting corrupt dictators as there were no nice guys. That's still a problem today. Too bad it was not as successful as Indonesia. It's ironic that the OSS helped Ho Chi Minh during WWII against the Japanese but abandoned him when he sided with the Communists but he had been a die-hard Commie since the 1920s. Then there is the immediate post-WWII occupation of British (using armed Japanese troops) and French and the US decision not to support the French at Dien Bien Phu against Ho Chi Minh. Things could have turned out differently. I guess you have to begrudgingly compliment the NVN leadership for getting the right read on the US "Will to Fight" and enlisting the US media and hippie "Useful Idiots" in winning the important PsyOp War. They capitalized on the poor US leadership and strategy in DC to turn tactical battlefield defeats (including Tet) into a strategic victory. It's a real lesson to learn today. The post-war activities are really interesting to read. The US continued to wage an economic war with trade and banking embargoes against VN which really hurt them. They also reneged on paying reparations of $2 USD-3B which were never paid. I think the VN still hold US military remains as leverage, just like N Korea does. However, Carter allowed them to enter the global market to an extent. I think Capitalistic freedom and materialistic comforts of Western Society will eventually triumph over the tyranny of Socialism in the next generation. The US sacrifice will not have been in vain. The Vietnamese people will eventually throw off the yoke of Communism and be free. Economic outlook: link It's late and I'm doing this from memory and have not verified everything so please correct me if I got something wrong. Wolfhag |
Uparmored | 23 Aug 2019 2:54 a.m. PST |
Nice post Wolfhag, I've taught a lot of Vietnamese refugees of the Vietnam War in Australia English and they hate communism and love Australia. That's sure right, they don't take their freedom for granted, they make the most of it and are one of the most successful migrant groups in my country. It wasn't easy when they first came, a lot of the younger ones became drug dealers and gang members in the '90s, still they were embracing that capitalism! . |
Legion 4 | 23 Aug 2019 6:49 a.m. PST |
Some of the things he said on the documentary were just nutty. Well he is USAF … Yes, great post Wolf ! Very enlightening and very true !
I have mentioned before, my cane, crutches and walker from the VA were all made in Vietnam. I'm sure some of the Vietnam Vets there may see the irony of that …
|
catavar | 24 Aug 2019 5:47 p.m. PST |
I'm not sure that the US could have done more than it did prior to 1955. From what I've read we were practically bank-rolling the war for the French as it was. As for DBP, it's my understanding the US arranged for American pilots to supply the garrison, which they did during some of the toughest fighting. Sure, we could have sent heavy bombers (with American pilots!) but I doubt they would have changed the outcome. Besides, doing that may have risked a Chinese response ala Korea, no? As for Tet I believe the NVA were really trying to start a mass uprising. I don't think they were aiming for a propaganda win at all. It just turned out that way. The US press missed the real story in my opinion; Tet was a major defeat for the NVA. Not knocking anyone else's thoughts on this subject; just my two cents. I think the big mistake the US made was not learning from the French. Seems to me like we made many of the same mistakes. |
Legion 4 | 25 Aug 2019 8:01 a.m. PST |
Rumor was that US B-29s were in the PI(?) with French Insignia about to be painted on them. That may have changed the outcome of DBP ? I think the big mistake the US made was not learning from the French. Seems to me like we made many of the same mistakes. Yes and no … but there is a lot of similarities in some cases. E.g. The US made sure Khe Sahn would not be another DBP … Bottom line, to paraphrase Dan Galloway, "both the French & the US were fighting a war of attrition against the birth rate of a 3d World Asian country." …
As with all insurgencies, the locals have the home court advantage, i.e. it is "their backyard". Plus they didn't have to win … just not loose per se. Keep inflicting losses on the "invaders" and wait until they get tired of spending/wasting "blood & treasure" … Albeit the US firepower did inflict about 1 million losses on the Vietnamese and others in SE Asia. |
catavar | 25 Aug 2019 2:32 p.m. PST |
I think the Us, like the French, were too concentrated on finding and engaging NVA military forces. This was probably fighting to the NVA's strength as they could determine when and where they wanted to engage. While they abandoned North Vietnam I believe the French in South Vietnam had the right idea. From what I've read, they held the vital area's and forced the Viet Minh to come to them; where they could be defeated by superior French fire power. I think the American Generals were too focused on what happened to the French up north (DBP) and missed how they succeeded in the south (to be fair I doubt most French noticed either). In my opinion, backing a civilian government that was supported by the majority of the South Vietnamese people would have helped too, but that's another story. |
Legion 4 | 25 Aug 2019 3:43 p.m. PST |
That may be true … But in most cases VC and NVA only attacked when they believed the odds were in their favor, like all competent Cdrs would. But they could engage & disengage at will. Again it was their backyard. Yes, the US back a gov't that was not representative of most of the population. At that time due to the French occupation only 15% of Vietnamese were Catholic. Which included most of the Gov't. While the majority were Buddhists, etc. But yes that is another story.
|
Virginia Tory | 28 Aug 2019 9:56 a.m. PST |
"I'm not sure that the US could have done more than it did prior to 1955. From what I've read we were practically bank-rolling the war for the French as it was. As for DBP, it's my understanding the US arranged for American pilots to supply the garrison, which they did during some of the toughest fighting." It was seen as an extension of Korea, especially with China and the Soviets bankrolling and equipping the Vietminh. The US provided civilian contract C-119s to support the French Air Force supply lift into DBP. The tactical air was all French--F6Fs, F8Fs, Corsairs, Helldivers, A-26s and PB4Y (Maritime version of the Liberator). And yes, the main reason the US didn't commit its air was a concern about direct Chinese intervention, as had happened in Korea. The other issue was being seen directly supporting a colonialist endeavor. |
Virginia Tory | 28 Aug 2019 9:58 a.m. PST |
"Yes, the US back a gov't that was not representative of most of the population. At that time due to the French occupation only 15% of Vietnamese were Catholic. Which included most of the Gov't. While the majority were Buddhists, etc. But yes that is another story." Arguably neither were the North Vietnamese, but they pretty much killed/drove off any dissenters, so they appeared a lot more cohesive than the RVN did. There's an interesting revisionist take on all this by Mark Moyar. I wish he'd get on with the successive volumes! link |
Legion 4 | 29 Aug 2019 9:00 a.m. PST |
|