OT: The Vietnam War on PBS

[UConnCat]

A 10-part documentary by Ken Burns (and Lynn Novick) is currently airing on PBS. Fortunately it's available on-line since I've missed every broadcast episode.

It's really well done, though a painful reminder of a difficult time in our country's history. I was a precocious teenager at the height of the war and I've never lost interest in it. Halberstam's The Best and the Brightest is one of the best accounts of the origins of the war. This work by Burns and Novick is excellent and I highly recommend it.

I traveled to Hanoi a few years back and had a chance to see "Uncle Ho" on display. He's well-preserved. A little known (to me) trivia from the program: Ho Chi Minh was once a pastry chef at a Boston hotel.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

I wonder how many would now wish MacArthur had not gotten the axe. Different police engagement or whatever the heck they called it. Yes, I agree. Burns docu is very good and a sober reminder of the slippery slope of such entanglements.

 

[meyers7]

I've only had the chance to see the first couple of episodes. So far very good. I was a little too young to remember much. Or too young to pay attention. So a lot of new information for me.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

I was a little too young to remember much.

Lucky you. I took my draft physical at the Boston Naval Yard and it was the one time I was glad to have my bum knee and receive a 1Y classification, meaning I'd be called up when the Huns or whomever hit our beaches. It occurs to me we could do a pretty funny thread on strange scenes at such physicals; I have several. 'Course I had friens die in Nam, so there's that.

 

[uconnfan68]

Painful to watch. The futility of it all. The best parts are the vignettes of the individual heroism.
I won the first draft lottery. Was bound to go so I dropped out of UConn to join the Navy. Just knew I wouldn’t be coming home. All of my friends from there did. I was never that lucky.

 

[UConnCat]

Painful to watch. The futility of it all. The best parts are the vignettes of the individual heroism.
I won the first draft lottery. Was bound to go so I dropped out of UConn to join the Navy. Just knew I wouldn’t be coming home. All of my friends from there did. I was never that lucky.

The story of the 19-year old Mogey Crocker as told by his mother and sister was particularly heartbreaking. Like so many others, his idealism was quickly shattered by the realities of war and, as you say, the futility of it all.

 

[JordyG]

A 10-part documentary by Ken Burns (and Lynn Novick) is currently airing on PBS. Fortunately it's available on-line since I've missed every broadcast episode.

It's really well done, though a painful reminder of a difficult time in our country's history. I was a precocious teenager at the height of the war and I've never lost interest in it. Halberstam's The Best and the Brightest is one of the best accounts of the origins of the war. This work by Burns and Novick is excellent and I highly recommend it.

I traveled to Hanoi a few years back and had a chance to see "Uncle Ho" on display. He's well-preserved. A little known (to me) trivia from the program: Ho Chi Minh was once a pastry chef at a Boston hotel.

If you've missed this show it's currently available in stores on Blu-ray or DVD.

 

[veryolddog]

I spent 2 years in Viet Nam from Jan 1, 1968 till December 18th, 1969 serving in the U.S. Marine Corps. Some dates you never forget. I do not know if I want to see this again. At the point when I left, I was really glad to go home.

 

[connie]

though a painful reminder of a difficult time in our country's history.

In time, I hope to get around to watching it. But I should think it not entirely unreasonable to note that the war against Southeast Asia (which is, frankly, what it should be called) was also a "difficult time" in the history of Laos, Cambodia, Viet Nam, and surrounding areas. In this connection, I cannot help but note President Jimmy Carter's statement at a 1977 news conference, that the U.S. government ought not "assume the status of culpability" because "[t]he destruction was mutual". The statement is remarkable not so much because of its root disconnect from the facts, but because it elicited no comment in the U.S. at the time.

For those who wish to comment, it may be best to message privately as this affair may run afoul of the admin directive: "no politics".

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Painful to watch. The futility of it all. The best parts are the vignettes of the individual heroism.
I won the first draft lottery. Was bound to go so I dropped out of UConn to join the Navy. Just knew I wouldn’t be coming home. All of my friends from there did. I was never that lucky.

Glad your prediction was wrong.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

In time, I hope to get around to watching it. But I should think it not entirely unreasonable to note that the war against Southeast Asia (which is, frankly, what it should be called) was also a "difficult time" in the history of Laos, Cambodia, Viet Nam, and surrounding areas. In this connection, I cannot help but note President Jimmy Carter's statement at a 1977 news conference, that the U.S. government ought not "assume the status of culpability" because "[t]he destruction was mutual". The statement is remarkable not so much because of its root disconnect from the facts, but because it elicited no comment in the U.S. at the time.

For those who wish to comment, it may be best to message privately as this affair may run afoul of the admin directive: "no politics".

Yeah, lob that one in there and say: Hush, hush sweet Charlotte ... ooops, confused. Wrong thread.

 

[bags27]

If you've missed this show it's currently available in stores on Blu-ray or DVD.

It's also available for free on the PBS website. It's an absolute terrific (and terrifically horrible, of course) documentary. Mesmerizing.

BTW, for my money, as a book on the war, better even than Best and Brightest is Neil Sheehan's Bright Shinning Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam. Sheehan is a talking head and his brilliant book frames the early part of the documentary. It's one of the very best war books I've ever read. Another good book is Rick Atkinson's Long Grey Line: American Journey of West Point's Class of 1966.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

It's not so much politics, since it crosses all political and national lines: Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

"Those Who Do Not Learn History Are Doomed To Repeat It." Really?

 

[connie]

It's also available for free on the PBS website. It's an absolute terrific (and terrifically horrible, of course) documentary. Mesmerizing.

BTW, for my money, as a book on the war, better even than Best and Brightest is Neil Sheehan's Bright Shinning Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam. Sheehan is a talking head and his brilliant book frames the early part of the documentary. It's one of the very best war books I've ever read. Another good book is Rick Atkinson's Long Grey Line: American Journey of West Point's Class of 1966.

I've been a collector and have a small library of books and other materials on the so-called "Vietnam War" (a phrase I've never liked). There are many excellent treatments, coming from many different directions. Difficult to pick one, or a place to start. Obviously, the 4-volume Gravel edition of The Pentagon Papers is foundational. But it is probably not fair to expect most people to take the time to read through it in its entirety.

For something a bit more digestible, I recommend the collection of essays in the necessary companion volume: The Pentagon Papers: Volume Five: Critical Essays and an Index to Volumes One-Four.

The best treatment within the context of American culture is, in my opinion, Facing West: The Metaphysics of Indian-Hating and Empire Building, a study that locates "the war" within the larger context of Anglo-European imperialism, colonialism, racism, American exceptionalism and expansionism.

My main criticism of Bright Shining Lie is that its convincing indictment of how the war was fought contains within it the tacit, underlying assumption that the entire affair would have been justifiable had it been fought differently.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

@connie, you might want to add The Naked Ape to your collection, though I suspect you have it.

The Naked Ape, which was serialized in the Daily Mirror newspaper and has been translated into 23 languages, depicts human behaviour as largely evolved to meet the challenges of prehistoric life as a hunter (see nature versus nurture).

The Naked Ape - Wikipedia

We are barely out of the trees and some futurists and (mad) billionaires have us extinct in decades. May be right.

 

[bags27]

I've been a collector and have a small library of books and other materials on the so-called "Vietnam War" (a phrase I've never liked). There are many excellent treatments, coming from many different directions. Difficult to pick one, or a place to start. Obviously, the 4-volume Gravel edition of The Pentagon Papers is foundational. But it is probably not fair to expect most people to take the time to read through it in its entirety.

For something a bit more digestible, I recommend the collection of essays in the necessary companion volume: The Pentagon Papers: Volume Five: Critical Essays and an Index to Volumes One-Four.

The best treatment within the context of American culture is, in my opinion, Facing West: The Metaphysics of Indian-Hating and Empire Building, a study that locates "the war" within the larger context of Anglo-European imperialism, colonialism, racism, American exceptionalism and expansionism.

My main criticism of Bright Shining Lie is that its convincing indictment of how the war was fought contains within it the tacit, underlying assumption that the entire affair would have been justifiable had it been fought differently.

Nice post, Connie.

I don't think Sheehan thought the war was justified...or unjustified. He was far more interested in understanding how and why it went wrong. People will always argue whether wars are justified. And what does "justified" mean, really? In most cases, that's a downward spiral of logic depending on which side you're on (as you say: we call it the Vietnam War, but that's our perspective, just the Athenians called it the Peloponnesian War, but there are no Spartan historians to call it the Athenian War). I truly despise war, but even I realize that: once in, it's best to win it at a reasonable cost. I think explaining why we didn't is what motivated Sheehan as a reporter.

 

[Fairfield Fan]

I missed the war by hitting draft age right after they stopped taking soldiers in the draft. Watched all episodes, including #7 last night. Grew up outside of Washington, and I remember my dad taking me as a kid to the demonstration in October 1969 that passed in front of the White House. It was shown in last night's episode. Tens of thousands of people, all walking silently past the White House with candles, and leaving the candles on the wrought-iron fence in front of the White House.

What so angers and saddens me from the documentary is all the revelations that the decision-makers all knew that the war was futile, but never stopped it.

 

[bags27]

What so angers and saddens me from the documentary is all the revelations that the decision-makers all knew that the war was futile, but never stopped it.

To be sure. But Burns also "cherry-picked" those statements. And a lot of them were taken out of context or chronology (depending on interventions by Chinese or Russians). There were at least 2 "truths": the war was unwinnable; the war can be won with just another division of American troops, etc, and they expressed those beliefs also. Also: maybe we can't achieve total victory (like WWII), but we can get a reasonable stalemate (like Korea).

 

[connie]

Nice post, Connie.

I don't think Sheehan thought the war was justified...or unjustified. He was far more interested in understanding how and why it went wrong. People will always argue whether wars are justified. And what does "justified" mean, really? In most cases, that's a downward spiral of logic depending on which side you're on (as you say: we call it the Vietnam War, but that's our perspective, just the Athenians called it the Peloponnesian War, but there are no Spartan historians to call it the Athenian War). I truly despise war, but even I realize that: once in, it's best to win it at a reasonable cost. I think explaining why we didn't is what motivated Sheehan as a reporter.

Understood. And appreciated. But . . . I cannot agree with the proposition that once in, it's best to win at a reasonable cost, because one must always ask the more fundamental question: Is the conduct at issue justifiable? Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. The decision to win at a reasonable cost once committed avoids the necessary question: why am I doing this? and why am I continuing to do it?

 

[msf22b]

I've been mesmerized, can't stay away
Watched the final 2 episodes on-line last night.

In Spring '61, I received my draft notice, Vietnam wasn't yet on the radar screen.
The hot spots were Berlin and the DMZ in Korea.

I jumped at a chance to audition for the West Point Band and somehow was accepted...even though many of the clarinetists and others who auditioned at the same time were far more accomplished...and had wonderful careers in the
major orchestras throughout the country, LA, Chicago, the MET, St Louis et al.

When my three years were up ( having survived numerous scrapes and having almost being kicked out several times), the Tonkin Bay episode had just taken place and the war was heating up. But I was safe...finished, already served.

I still recall...must have been '66/'67...a small band of woman in black circling around the entrance to the Jefferson Market Library in the Village every weekend with their signs..."Not our Sons...Not your Sons."

 

[Alydar]

Probably the only thing that our government learned from the war was to manage the media. It was the first war with live TV and it was those images of death that we were able to see on the nightly news that changed the public's attitude toward the war. When the first Iraqi war occurred the media were mostly kept away from the action and only allowed to witness carefully staged action. CNN went so far as to stage phony missile attacks on a stage set that have become infamous on Youtube.

 

[connie]

To be sure. But Burns also "cherry-picked" those statements. And a lot of them were taken out of context or chronology (depending on interventions by Chinese or Russians). There were at least 2 "truths": the war was unwinnable; the war can be won with just another division of American troops, etc, and they expressed those beliefs also. Also: maybe we can't achieve total victory (like WWII), but we can get a reasonable stalemate (like Korea).

I want to be cautious about using terms like "we" and "us" when referring to conduct carried out by governmental bodies. Putting that aside . . .

Even accepting the metaphor that the war was "unwinnable", the U.S. quite arguably achieved a number of its major objectives. To see how so, we need to consider the war in the context of U.S. geopolitical thinking in the 1940s and 50s. The real enemy was (for lack of a better expression) third world radical nationalism in the wake of the breakup of the traditional colonial order. The concern was that the third world, with its rich source of labor and war materials, would chart a course that did not necessarily "compliment the economies of the west" (to take the phrase of George Kennan, I think). To his credit, President Eisenhower notes the point in his "domino theory" speech -- that if the Vietnamese prevailed it would have the effect of cutting off U.S. access to important raw materials, leaving the region increasingly outside the orbit of U.S. influence. In this respect, there was a very credible logic behind the domino theory (which is generally derided today). The strategy was to attack radical nationalism at the core and to strengthen entrenched positions in the surrounding regions (a process I once heard described as one of "extirpating the rot at the core, and inoculating the periphery against the infection"). One can like it; or one can hate it. But I think there is no denying that this objective was qualifiedly achieved in Southeast Asia in the decades following WWII. You see it with the establishment/strengthening of authoritarian U.S-friendly regimes in Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia, and the attack on areas seeking to strike an independent course. A similar process is seen through the 1980s in Latin America (described by Henry Stimson, the Secretary of War under Truman, as "our own little region over here, which has never really bothered anybody").

 

[connie]

@connie, you might want to add The Naked Ape to your collection, though I suspect you have it.

The Naked Ape, which was serialized in the Daily Mirror newspaper and has been translated into 23 languages, depicts human behaviour as largely evolved to meet the challenges of prehistoric life as a hunter (see nature versus nurture).

The Naked Ape - Wikipedia

We are barely out of the trees and some futurists and (mad) billionaires have us extinct in decades. May be right.

Thanks. This is one of countless books that I know about but have never read. That you have recommended it may just be enough to get me to crack it open at long last. Assuming you have described the thesis accurately, it certainly sounds credible.

 

[connie]

Probably the only thing that our government learned from the war was to manage the media. It was the first war with live TV and it was those images of death that we were able to see on the nightly news that changed the public's attitude toward the war. When the first Iraqi war occurred the media were mostly kept away from the action and only allowed to witness carefully staged action. CNN went so far as to stage phony missile attacks on a stage set that have become infamous on Youtube.

Agreed. However, the U.S. government learned many other things as well, including the following (taken from a leaked 1991 National Security Policy Review): “In cases where the U.S. confronts much weaker enemies, our challenge will be not simply to defeat them, but to defeat them decisively and rapidly” because any other outcome would be “embarrassing” and might “undercut political support".

 

[rugbymate]

IMO, this is must see TV. Pretty easy to shed a tear watching so many lives (on both sides) lost so pointlessly. After watching each episode its very difficult not to feel angry. I had been of the opinion that LBJ was a better president than history gives him credit for but after watching how he made decisions I no longer share that opinion.
Interestingly, as bad a shape many think this country is in today it doesn't compare to 1968 when we lost MLK, RFK, had a deeply divided country over race and the war, and political and military leadership outright lying to the country.
The only positive that I can come up with is that the baby boomers and ensuing generations learned that the gospel according to government needs to be constantly questioned.