View Full Version : Ken Burns: The Vietnam War
Anyone else watching this? While I do think that PBS is overall a liberal cesspool I can't help but enjoy Ken Burns' documentaries, and this one is no exception.
http://www.pbs.org/show/vietnam-war-not-edited/
Me. It is sooooooo preachy but still interesting.
One dude from West Point was talking about Ranger school in the 60s and named dropped Charles Beckwith as his senior instructor like he was just some dude. Like that one teacher in school who always busted your hump.
Like The Charles Beckwith.
Still, they aren't wrong for calling BS.
I'm watching.
My Father did 2 tours and came back with (if I'm not leaving out anything...) these:
Bronze Star Medal (5th Award)
Purple Heart (2nd Award)
Meritorious Service Medal
Air Medal (2nd Award)
Vietnam Service Medal
Republic of Vietnam gallantry Cross (w/Bronze Palm)
Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal (w/Silver Date Bar)
He retired as an Army CSM and lived many happy "granddad years". I can remember as a kid sitting in the living room and we'd all say something into the cassette recorder to send to him.
It was many years before he'd start to tell us "the stories".
Nevermind, for some reason it's getting hard to see the keyboard.
I was getting ready to DVR it (DirectTV) and realized I don't have PBS on the package I have! Damn!
It is on Amazon, all 10 parts, for around $70. I am seriously considering getting it. I am going to see what some of you guys think about it first, as PBS obviously has a reputation for a leftward slant to things.
Is there a good deal of unseen footage?
I'm watching and considering who financed this production nothing has surprised me so far.
It is in my Netflix Q, but no release date yet.
I was getting ready to DVR it (DirectTV) and realized I don't have PBS on the package I have! Damn!
It is on Amazon, all 10 parts, for around $70. I am seriously considering getting it. I am going to see what some of you guys think about it first, as PBS obviously has a reputation for a leftward slant to things.
Is there a good deal of unseen footage?
You can watch it free and at your own pace on the PBS website, which is how I'm watching it.
Personally, it seems to be pretty even handed so far - I just finished episode 3. Yes, there's a lot of footage I've never seen before. The music is good too.
Been watching it all week.
Probably the best thing I've ever seen on the Vietnam war. I knew the french dragged us into that mess but I didn't realize DeGaulle actually threatened to move France into the communist sphere of influence if we didn't support them in their attempt to regain their colony.
I have to wonder if Kennedy had not been assassinated if he's have eventually stopped supporting the South. I also didn't realize the full extent of what a continuous train wreck the South Vietnamese government was. If only we had supported freedom for Indochina when Ho Chi Mihn first approached the US prior to turning to Russia and China.
Could have been a different world.
I dont think Kennedy would have played it much differently.
Two different paradigms but a lot of people got sold a lot of bull about Vietnam and Iraq. People were initially supportive but there was a lot of incompetence and skullduggery afoot for people to save face or look more effective than they were.
You can have the best army in the world and the best soldiers but without people knowing their ass from a hole in the ground you aren't going to accomplish much.
That one West Point dude echoed something I was told "Everyone thought they were just a buncha guys in sandals and pajamas", until he met his match. Guys with boots, fatigues, steel helmets, web gear, modern (for that region) weapons, and well trained.
My opinions (such as they are) have changed dramatically. Domino Theory was kind of stupid. Communism, as it was, had become a self eating snake and the only modetately successful communist country today is Red China.
Everybody else broke up, lives in the same squalor they already were, or are facing revolution everyday.
It proves, as mentiomed, that NATO gets us into more BS than it gets us out.
That's true even today. We are dumb, hillbilly 'Mericans who have to count on our toes until something happens then we gotta send Gunships, A-10s, Marines, amd Rangers because NAAAAATOOOO.
Granted, this is all from a 2017 perspective but we really let ourselves get roped into some BS over the decades. And what did we get out of it?
58,000 graves and loved ones with shortened life spans.
I have learned what I wish I had learned years ago......
Ifs and Buts mean you got nothing.
Mission Creep is stalling for admitting failure from a planner's level
Nation Building is retarded and not our responsibility.
Lessay....total victory was achieved. Republic of Vietnam goes democratic. North Vietnam surrenders. China accepts it. Soviets shrug and go "Oh well, have fun".
There would have been insurgent uprisings that may have mellowed into normal "we hate America" protests. More taxpayer dollars for bases, more this, more that.
At least Korea gives us Smartphones.
I just dont see Vietnam doing anything different but textiles and they do that anyway.
Got 5.11 gear? Made in Vietnam.
Got Blackhawk! gear? Made in Vietnam.
And thats with us not achieving victory.
SSDD.
The soldiers who served shall always have a soft spot from me but it really was a waste. France can handle France's shit because I just...you know...WWII is a touchy subject and I have ZERO tolerance for Nazis and all but having been through Europe.....yes.
Yes.
Yes....
Yes. I see it. I can see why it is so tempting to march through France in the most spit shined jackboots and start buttstroking people. I feel bad for regular guys just getting by but ooooh the French.
But you know what....I live here. It is 2017. We should love and revere those who remain. And the people of the 60s couldnt just text each other about the BS or go to bulletin boards and forums and say "Lookit this buuuuullsheeyit. oooweeee"
There was no memery. Just "Trust us, we're the government. You'll get 40 acres and a mule....."
So.....
Stay Woke
My opinions (such as they are) have changed dramatically. Domino Theory was kind of stupid. Communism, as it was, had become a self eating snake and the only modetately successful communist country today is Red China.
I might add that despite the collapse of European communism 25+ years ago, Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos are among the last five (China and NK being the other two) commie countries on Earth today. The Domino Theory was partially correct, Thailand being the exception.
Been watching it all week.
Probably the best thing I've ever seen on the Vietnam war. I knew the french dragged us into that mess but I didn't realize DeGaulle actually threatened to move France into the communist sphere of influence if we didn't support them in their attempt to regain their colony.
I have to wonder if Kennedy had not been assassinated if he's have eventually stopped supporting the South. I also didn't realize the full extent of what a continuous train wreck the South Vietnamese government was. If only we had supported freedom for Indochina when Ho Chi Mihn first approached the US prior to turning to Russia and China.
Could have been a different world.
I've done some reading on the subject and the supposed overtures by Uncle Ho are a bit misleading. He was a avowed Marxist since the 1920's and had no intention of NOT being a commie. He just wanted our help to rid them of France. He was never going to "come over to our side of the fence" politically. That is why we rejected his overtures.
It's a solid documentary, but so far does not adding anything some of the other excellent documentaries on that war have given us and will not set the standard. "Problem" for Burns is, everything he does will always be compared to his documentary on the the Civil War, which was a masterpiece and sets the standard by which others will be judged.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-23-17, 08:45
It's a solid documentary, but so far does not adding anything some of the other excellent documentaries on that war have given us and will not set the standard. "Problem" for Burns is, everything he does will always be compared to his documentary on the the Civil War, which was a masterpiece and sets the standard by which others will be judged.
And a lot of people were fairly ignorant of the Civil War and he presented the limited media in a new way, luckily named the "Ken Burns Effect". There is no shortage or ignorance of the media about the Vietnam War- it was at the dawn of modern media about the most self absorbed generation.
It's a solid documentary, but so far does not adding anything some of the other excellent documentaries on that war have given us and will not set the standard. "Problem" for Burns is, everything he does will always be compared to his documentary on the the Civil War, which was a masterpiece and sets the standard by which others will be judged.
I was a senior in high school when "The Civil War" aired for the first time. My father was a history teacher so it was no surprise that our family watched it, but all of my friends and their families were watching it too. Probably the only documentary to garner that kind of attention and praise.
I've done some reading on the subject and the supposed overtures by Uncle Ho are a bit misleading. He was a avowed Marxist since the 1920's and had no intention of NOT being a commie. He just wanted our help to rid them of France. He was never going to "come over to our side of the fence" politically. That is why we rejected his overtures.
He first approached the US after WWI. And true he had little interest of joining anyone, he just wanted independence for Indochina. And while he formed a marxist government, he didn't seek assistance from Russia or China until after WWII and after he approached us a second time. The big problem is unlike Stalin, he had nothing to offer in return.
he didn't seek assistance from Russia or China until after he approached us.
As did Castro, but that's another story. Not saying we should or should not have welcomed Castro but it should be noted he was given a heroes welcome in the US by the public and did attempt get the US to work with him and was told to go shit in his hat. Hence, we were given right of first refusal.
And a lot of people were fairly ignorant of the Civil War and he presented the limited media in a new way, luckily named the "Ken Burns Effect". There is no shortage or ignorance of the media about the Vietnam War- it was at the dawn of modern media about the most self absorbed generation.
That's what Burns said, why he was hesitant to do a series on Vietnam. He said there's already a ton of good stuff out there, including the people who were there on both sides.
I think it's fairly objective; Burns is pretty apolitical.
I was a young Airman Basic (E-1) in 1978 and most (if not all) of the NCO's I worked with were Vietnam vets. I remember one of them saying to us younger troops "you guys missed a damn good war". From a USAF perspective maybe he was right.
As did Castro, but that's another story. Not saying we should or should not have welcomed Castro but it should be noted he was given a heroes welcome in the US by the public and did attempt get the US to work with him and was told to go shit in his hat. Hence, we were given right of first refusal.
Yeah, we had such a long history of installing governments that we really thought we could never fail. We've screwed the pooch and created our own enemies a few times now. Hard to reconcile our "line in the sand" regarding communist Vietnam with our current policies regarding China and ironically enough Vietnam.
So many opportunities to deescalate the cold war just pissed away. Of course the most appalling thing is strong evidence that we had live American POWs still in captivity in the early 80s. I cannot even begin to imagine what that must have been like to be abandoned by the US. Given the economic crisis of Vietnam at the time, I don't imagine they were living very well.
I was a young Airman Basic (E-1) in 1978 and most (if not all) of the NCO's I worked with were Vietnam vets. I remember one of them saying to us younger troops "you guys missed a damn good war". From a USAF perspective maybe he was right.
Unless of course you got shot down. But had to be a certain amount of job satisfaction running CAS for guys on the ground who were in a shitstorm.
You can watch it free and at your own pace on the PBS website, which is how I'm watching it.
Personally, it seems to be pretty even handed so far - I just finished episode 3. Yes, there's a lot of footage I've never seen before. The music is good too.
Excellent show. I noticed the music too and lo and behold Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross.
Excellent show. I noticed the music too and lo and behold Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross.
If only they left out the Bob Dylan crap.
If only they left out the Bob Dylan crap.
If I only I could down vote. :D
I do love the series and how it looks at all sides. I think most of my generation (late 20's to early 30's) believe that all of America was against the war. I appreciate that this documentary keeps it more honest then most.
If only they left out the Bob Dylan crap.+1 to that.
So I've watched 5 episodes so far online. The recurring theme is:
The US commanders are bumbling, inexperience, didn't learn from previous encounters.
The US soldiers didn't want to be there.
The US forces were always walking into traps/ambushes.
The US forces that fell into ambushes were outnumbered 3 - 4 - 10 to 1.
The VC and NVA were tough, determined, ruthless fighers. They fight to win, only fight when they outnumbered the Americans 3 - 4 or 10 to 1.
The US soldiers/Marines hated the VC/NVA.
The VC/NVA hated the Americans.
The AR15/M16 jammed a lot.
The AK47 were proven and reliable weapon.
So far that's what I've seen.
So I've watched 5 episodes so far online. The recurring theme is:
The US commanders are bumbling, inexperience, didn't learn from previous encounters.
The US soldiers didn't want to be there.
The US forces were always walking into traps/ambushes.
The US forces that fell into ambushes were outnumbered 3 - 4 - 10 to 1.
The VC and NVA were tough, determined, ruthless fighers. They fight to win, only fight when they outnumbered the Americans 3 - 4 or 10 to 1.
The US soldiers/Marines hated the VC/NVA.
The VC/NVA hated the Americans.
The AR15/M16 jammed a lot.
The AK47 were proven and reliable weapon.
So far that's what I've seen.
You forgot that we didn't pull out even though we should have so that the USA wasn't embarrassed on the world stage. And that the early years of where the OSS stood up Uncle Ho versus France it mildly resembles the CIA with OBL versus the Russians.
So I've watched 5 episodes so far online. The recurring theme is:
The US commanders are bumbling, inexperience, didn't learn from previous encounters.
The US soldiers didn't want to be there.
The US forces were always walking into traps/ambushes.
The US forces that fell into ambushes were outnumbered 3 - 4 - 10 to 1.
The VC and NVA were tough, determined, ruthless fighers. They fight to win, only fight when they outnumbered the Americans 3 - 4 or 10 to 1.
The US soldiers/Marines hated the VC/NVA.
The VC/NVA hated the Americans.
The AR15/M16 jammed a lot.
The AK47 were proven and reliable weapon.
So far that's what I've seen.
Aside from the AK/M16 spiel, it isn't wholly inaccurate from what happened.
I was there. The show is pretty well done IMO. Vietnam was a disaster.
So I've watched 5 episodes so far online. The recurring theme is:
The US commanders are bumbling, inexperience, didn't learn from previous encounters.
The US soldiers didn't want to be there.
The US forces were always walking into traps/ambushes.
The US forces that fell into ambushes were outnumbered 3 - 4 - 10 to 1.
The VC and NVA were tough, determined, ruthless fighers. They fight to win, only fight when they outnumbered the Americans 3 - 4 or 10 to 1.
The US soldiers/Marines hated the VC/NVA.
The VC/NVA hated the Americans.
The AR15/M16 jammed a lot.
The AK47 were proven and reliable weapon.
So far that's what I've seen.
Was in HS when the war and draft ended. So did not serve, but was around many who did.
The above sums up what I heard from them.
Remember, about 60%+ were drafted or volunteered to get ahead of the draft and get a cushy Navy/USAF billet.
Read accounts like "We were soldiers once" and make your own conclusion... "We need to get this war started. Go here", points to a spot on a map, no Intel/recon about what was there.
At the strategic level we did not fight smart, creating a grinder that burned though ground forces at a sustained rate that never would have been tolerated now. (Though on a smaller scale we had some shorter periods like that in A'stan. Korengal, etc)
Take a village, incur casualties, capture 5 bags of rice. Even the Navy was not immune, the brown water navy would take fire and lose people to capture a sampan or junk that had 1-2 VC and a few weapons.
Bad mix of nonstop asymmetric warfare with conventional engagements with a tough, experienced enemy.
Vets buried their service even into the 80s. Usually you did not know unless they still quietly wore a POW bracelet. As a kid one babysitter was what I now know as a gold star mom. Don't ask about that picture, don't go in that room. (Ironically, today is Gold Star Mother's day) As a Blue Star dad with an OCONUS son, often deployed, I have a better understanding now than I did. Have to watch this when my wife is not around, too close to home.
It's not the media I fault for Viet Nam, though they were evil even then. But the politicians and generals were the biggest issue. And the horrible treatment of the returning vets (baby killer!) Is totally on the older baby boomers. Some see their error, many do not.
Aside from the AK/M16 spiel, it isn't wholly inaccurate from what happened.
The M16 myth lives longer than reality, but had some truth apparently early on. Well documented that early only on powder change in the ammo created issued, Joe's did not have cleaning kits, etc.
In general equipment sucked, was illsuited, and logistics were very difficult.
The enemy had 30 round mags, we had 20. 7.62x39 was throughly debugged, we were still sorting 5.56, powder, twists, etc. Joe's lugged M60, SAW would have been better. CAS was immature, often was just Slicks with M60s.
There are always debates and whining on gear, but the Army is much more responsive now to addressing issues. It was not then, and was not even thru the late 80s. (M16A2 anyone? Let's change our rifle to help the Army and Marines win at Camp Perry)
You forgot that we didn't pull out even though we should have so that the USA wasn't embarrassed on the world stage. And that the early years of where the OSS stood up Uncle Ho versus France it mildly resembles the CIA with OBL versus the Russians.
I didn't forget them, my list were items that kept coming up again and again. Beside so far that's almost 10 hours of videos, there were more.
Try to read my reviews with some sarcasm.
I didn't forget them, my list were items that kept coming up again and again. Beside so far that's almost 10 hours of videos, there were more.
Try to read my reviews with some sarcasm.My response was somewhat tongue in cheek.
I do think in the first three episodes the 'embarrassment' angle repeated itself.
However you're right the Uncle Ho / OBL parallel was probably just in episode one.
It is possible for Vietnam to be an embarrassment for the US and specifically its political and Military leadership, but not be an embarrassment for the people who served and especially lost their lives. And specifically on the mil leadership I'd say field grade and up were complicit.
Many can/would say the same is true for Iraq and Afghanistan, though on a much smaller scale.
Army officers (especially at West Point) extensively study Vietnam era strategy and tactics for learnings. Most are not positive learning, though some are.
That said, most of our maneuver infantry tactics and doctrine taught to officers, NCOs and in Ranger school are still essentially Vietnam era patrolling and ambush / counter ambush tactics.
And it was a complex time. Mistakes and all, there is no easy answer on how to handle VN/Iraq/A'stan situations.
It was. It was not black and white.
The man on the ground was great despite his leadership, not because of it.
Per AKs/ARs.....depending on who/when you were; you had high speed gear towards the end. CAR-15 w/ 30 rounders.
But even if we went to 1964 and gave everyones entire outfit HK416s and Pmags.....I doubt it would have really changed anything.
It is possible for Vietnam to be an embarrassment for the US and specifically its political and Military leadership, but not be an embarrassment for the people who served and especially lost their lives. And specifically on the mil leadership I'd say field grade and up were complicit.
Many can/would say the same is true for Iraq and Afghanistan, though on a much smaller scale.
Army officers (especially at West Point) extensively study Vietnam era strategy and tactics for learnings. Most are not positive learning, though some are.
That said, most of our maneuver infantry tactics and doctrine taught to officers, NCOs and in Ranger school are still essentially Vietnam era patrolling and ambush / counter ambush tactics.
And it was a complex time. Mistakes and all, there is no easy answer on how to handle VN/Iraq/A'stan situations.
Not to mention the entire SOF community created for the war, and was making a big difference once they were up and running, but too little too late politically speaking. Given time, we would have "won" that war, but to what end? Nothing of value I can think of, but I posit that's the case. So, we thank that war for our current exceptional SOF forces and capabilities. It's a damn shame it had to come at those costs, but humans by and large are reactive vs proactive, which includes governments, mill, etc.
Not to mention the entire SOF community created for the war, and was making a big difference once they were up and running, but too little too late politically speaking. Given time, we would have "won" that war, but to what end? Nothing of value I can think of, but I posit that's the case. So, we thank that war for our current exceptional SOF forces and capabilities. It's a damn shame it had to come at those costs, but humans by and large are reactive vs proactive, which includes governments, mill, etc.
I respectfully disagree in regards to being able to win the war. The war in Vietnam was a losing proposition from the start, and no amount of fire or man power could change that. The North had the will to win while we backed corrupt regimes in the South who cared more about retaining power and lining their own pockets rather than fighting communism and creating a sustainable democracy
But even if we went to 1964 and gave everyones entire outfit HK416s and Pmags.....I doubt it would have really changed anything.
My son's comment on stuff like this: "people and training matter far more than specific gear". 1LT wisdom notwithstanding, heavily groomed/coached in RS, then by ex regiment NCOs and CO for his line platoon. Plus a big dose of NCOs that lived some of the worst A'stan situations.
My relatively uninformed opinion... The M16 helped us in VN more than hurt. And that's in spite of Army's ordinance branch.
So I agree, would not have made a difference. But also some died due to gear issues, that is clear.
Read contemporary accounts "we were soldiers", "dak-to" and similar. Your hair will stand on end at the leadership approach/decisions.
Then read "to qwell the Korengal" or "Chosen Few" to see how we can repeat mistakes due to REMF leadership decisions around ROE, limited engagement, etc.
Vietnam was one huge laboratory for weapons testing. Some worked, some didn't.
Not to mention the entire SOF community created for the war, and was making a big difference once they were up and running, but too little too late politically speaking. Given time, we would have "won" that war, but to what end? Nothing of value I can think of, but I posit that's the case. So, we thank that war for our current exceptional SOF forces and capabilities. It's a damn shame it had to come at those costs, but humans by and large are reactive vs proactive, which includes governments, mill, etc.
There are ongoing debates on the relative roles and needs even now:
https://warontherocks.com/2013/08/unconventional-warfare-does-not-belong-to-special-forces/
VN was particularly tough as it had both UW (utilize civilian forces as irregular troops against a state/formal military) AND counter insurgency (fighting/preventing local non-state actors trying to take out the legit gov).
Even now there are COINistas and non-COIN believers in the current leadership. Big debates.
To a certain extent, same for SF UW relative importance and effectiveness, though most agree it's needed. But maybe not to the point it canablizes from the mainstream effort.
Hearts and minds efforts are important to both.
I was there. The show is pretty well done IMO. Vietnam was a disaster.
Hey, thanks for your perspective on that. I was at least one year too late to be a Marine in VN. I regretted that for several years. After I got a little older and talked with Marines who had BTDT, I changed my mind and was glad I wasn't born a year or two earlier.
I respectfully disagree in regards to being able to win the war. The war in Vietnam was a losing proposition from the start, and no amount of fire or man power could change that. The North had the will to win while we backed corrupt regimes in the South who cared more about retaining power and lining their own pockets rather than fighting communism and creating a sustainable democracy
All hypothetical now anyway, and I can appreciate POV which may be correct. That war was a bad idea from a the start - though we all understand what the motivation was at the time - and there was really nothing for us to win ultimately. Assuming it would be an easy win and over quickly, and allowing various knobs heads at the WH to sit there and plan missions like it was a game of f-ing Battle Ship, was a formula for fail from minute 1.
Partly of concern was the "Domino Theory". If South Vietnam fell then so would Cambodia, Thailand, etc.
I was there. The show is pretty well done IMO. Vietnam was a disaster.
So was I. Flew AH-1G's, 69-70. The show has presented a lot of interesting information, but seems to emphasize the popular rhetoric (as Sam pointed out) that, while somewhat fact based, is not totally accurate.
"The US commanders are bumbling, inexperience, didn't learn from previous encounters". Has been the case in all wars to some extent. I worked for guys that , in some cases, had been in WW2, Korea, and RVN. Didn't notice a lot of bumbling.
My 2 cents, YMMV.
HardToHandle
09-25-17, 23:42
Tonight's episode with Merrill Mcpeak resonated - "we fought on the wrong side".
Strong words from a former Air Force Chief of Staff.
He is just trending to the peace at any cost perspective, and virtue signaling at the same time.
The powers that be all flip flopped at some point to stay in the loop.
There may have been some truly wise people in the loop at one time, but political pressure and
the vast amount of money floating around cuts a lot of honor and conscience .
After the war everyone in Washington knew we abandoned the POW's to their fate without a
backward glance.
The pox on all of them, especially John McShame !
"while somewhat fact based, is not totally accurate."
What is?
" Didn't notice a lot of bumbling"
Neither did I but that changes nothing.
I'm still thinking this is the best thing I've seen on the Vietnam war with the most credibility. I don't agree with every part of it, but I think all sides are being presented in a mostly accurate way.
I remember the doc "the 10,000 day war" done by some Canadians. I remember it as being pretty good but it's been a long time since I saw it, so things in me may have changed.
I was watching a little tonight about the Kent state incident. Sounded really biased to me. The student "idealists" burn down the ROTC building, the following days the young nat'l guardsmen shoot people and the people commenting make it sound like the idealists were not part of the problem, you know.....arson is no big deal and is totally not violent and didn't put the guardsmen on edge at all. I'm not really fond of either side. My enemies, enemy is not my friend.
I found this opinion piece by Olver North about Burns story on the Vietnam War interesting.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/27/oliver-north-pbs-and-ken-burns-get-vietnam-and-richard-nixon-wrong-again.html
Meh. I went USAF, SEA, frankly had it easy. Saw some stuff, read Bernard Fall and others , paid attention. Saw and read Karnow's book and series. Liked McMaster's "Dereliction of Duty".
I think it was Hegel that said history is a butcher's block.
What's new?
I'm still thinking this is the best thing I've seen on the Vietnam war with the most credibility. I don't agree with every part of it, but I think all sides are being presented in a mostly accurate way.
Absolutely, and if you get a chance to listen to Sam Harris’s interview with them in his podcast it gives some more background to the production behind it.
Averageman
10-27-17, 11:27
I tend to agree with Oliver North.
What gets me is all the supposed comments from high-ranking political and military leaders about the war being "unwinnable". That baffles me as these guys were of the WWII generation and had seen the all-out commitment and bloodletting that war had produced but yet said Vietnam was unwinnable? Perhaps it's because they knew the United States would never commit like it had in WWII in order to actually win the damn thing. Surely they couldn't have believed that the North was invincible, just that we would never do what was necessary or for as long as necessary to prevail?
ABNAK,
I cite everybody being on drugs as the reason for the demoralization.
Had Cocaine and New Wave come 20 years earlier, Vietnam would likely be another Guam.
What gets me is all the supposed comments from high-ranking political and military leaders about the war being "unwinnable". That baffles me as these guys were of the WWII generation and had seen the all-out commitment and bloodletting that war had produced but yet said Vietnam was unwinnable? Perhaps it's because they knew the United States would never commit like it had in WWII in order to actually win the damn thing. Surely they couldn't have believed that the North was invincible, just that we would never do what was necessary or for as long as necessary to prevail?
They weren't dumb, and the handwriting was on the wall as early as the early 60s. It's a logical argument, really: if we can't do 'N' things, we can't win the war. We can't do 'N' things; therefore, we can't win the war.
The generals saw what happened to the French who were there almost 70s years, and had some of their best military there. Ho Chi Minh had the US figured out very early once we committed to being there militarily.
Another thing I found interesting, and maybe it's because of the fact that it's 2017 and the height of our involvement was half a century ago, is that the ex-NVA interviewed weren't all "HOOAAHH" like I've seen on documentaries in the past. I'm talking back in the 80's and 90's they would talk smack, but likely had a commissar standing off to the side making sure they towed the party line. The ones they interviewed on Burns' show seemed pretty straightforward about things, and I took away that they had taken one hell of a beating over the years. One even said when the war ended and he returned to Hanoi it wasn't some big high-fiving event, but rather very somber. He was one of 6 guys from his apartment building to go south to war and the only one to return. Saw a few comments about how brutal war was. Got the distinct impression, despite the fact that we once saw all commies as diehard fanatics, that they didn't really care for that shit-show either. Even the one or two guys who were retired NVA officers weren't overly enthusiastic when talking about the war. I assume they felt that in today's environment that they could speak a little more freely.
One ex-VC mentioned that he saw Americans crying over dead buddies, and how they cared for each other and kind of "closed ranks". He remarked how he and his comrades were kind of surprised, "They are like us Vietnamese".
I don't recall if it was Westmoreland or someone else who said "We will bleed them dry for a generation". I think we just about accomplished that, despite the outcome.
One other interesting point made at the end was the still-lingering divide between the North and the [former] South. For all the bitching the South Vietnamese did about their corrupt governments over the years, apparently the war and it's hard feelings doesn't die very easily.
They weren't dumb, and the handwriting was on the wall as early as the early 60s. It's a logical argument, really: if we can't do 'N' things, we can't win the war. We can't do 'N' things; therefore, we can't win the war.
The generals saw what happened to the French who were there almost 70s years, and had some of their best military there. Ho Chi Minh had the US figured out very early once we committed to being there militarily.
A big factor was also the fact that there was no viable government in South Vietnam that could function without being propped up by the US and supported by the massive influx of US goods. I knew things were bad but didn't realize how bad until I saw this documentary.
Meanwhile in the North there was a beloved grandfatherly figure who had been fighting for the independence of the entire country since the 1920s and he even had remarkable support from those in the South. And in the South, the guy who supposedly represented "freedom" was oppressing the Buddhist majority of the population.
The whole thing was a fiasco. No matter who did what, or how well, in the end the government of the south couldn't support or sustain itself. Would have been nice if we figured out that critical piece of the puzzle ten years earlier.
Another thing I found interesting, and maybe it's because of the fact that it's 2017 and the height of our involvement was half a century ago, is that the ex-NVA interviewed weren't all "HOOAAHH" like I've seen on documentaries in the past. I'm talking back in the 80's and 90's they would talk smack, but likely had a commissar standing off to the side making sure they towed the party line. The ones they interviewed on Burns' show seemed pretty straightforward about things, and I took away that they had taken one hell of a beating over the years. One even said when the war ended and he returned to Hanoi it wasn't some big high-fiving event, but rather very somber. He was one of 6 guys from his apartment building to go south to war and the only one to return. Saw a few comments about how brutal war was. Got the distinct impression, despite the fact that we once saw all commies as diehard fanatics, that they didn't really care for that shit-show either. Even the one or two guys who were retired NVA officers weren't overly enthusiastic when talking about the war. I assume they felt that in today's environment that they could speak a little more freely.
One ex-VC mentioned that he saw Americans crying over dead buddies, and how they cared for each other and kind of "closed ranks". He remarked how he and his comrades were kind of surprised, "They are like us Vietnamese".
I don't recall if it was Westmoreland or someone else who said "We will bleed them dry for a generation". I think we just about accomplished that, despite the outcome.
One other interesting point made at the end was the still-lingering divide between the North and the [former] South. For all the bitching the South Vietnamese did about their corrupt governments over the years, apparently the war and it's hard feelings doesn't die very easily.
In all seriousness, this.
A lot of VC were spun up on a lot of twisted propaganda until they saw the "enemy"
A lot of people were kinda shocked as it was AMERICA who pushed the Japanese out.
There is, to this day, ZERO love for the Japanese in that part of the world. They made rape and genocide into a sport.
The South were seen as Quislings for the French and whoever would grant them the "better" deal. A lot of VC, like a lot, were no more Communist than anybody else.
After the war "ended" a LOT of people found out what Communism was going to do. The hard way.
There's been a lot of reformation in times since. But there were a lot of opportunists and warlords who preyed upon people caught in the middle.
Looking back, It was a rather pointless endeavor. Russia thought they were going to get another country. Not really.
They'll take guns and kit but stay your ass and your governance at home. Vietnam had been the victim of Colonialism for decades.
They were not going to trade Hanoi for Moscow any more than they would Paris, Tokyo, Beijing, or DC.
Hindsight is 20/20 but staying home between 64-72 wouldnt have killed us.
Attended an event last night at the Clements Center for National Security which included author Mark Bowden and a discussion on his new book Hue 1968: A Turning Point of the American War in Vietnam (Atlantic 2017): https://www.clementscenter.org/events/item/1184-bowden-discussion
The discussion was not kind to Westmoreland. The discussion did not get into Johnson and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as it was focused on Hue, but I wish it had.
Hue 1968 is a badass book and should be required reading.
One small sticking point. It details how this one VC chick was trained on guns and it mentions a "KR-15". I thought it was some obscure weird French, Chinese, or Indian gun.
Nope, a typo for AR-15 which could have been had at that time.
What gets me is all the supposed comments from high-ranking political and military leaders about the war being "unwinnable". That baffles me as these guys were of the WWII generation and had seen the all-out commitment and bloodletting that war had produced but yet said Vietnam was unwinnable? Perhaps it's because they knew the United States would never commit like it had in WWII in order to actually win the damn thing. Surely they couldn't have believed that the North was invincible, just that we would never do what was necessary or for as long as necessary to prevail?
The north was never invaded, I wonder how long Germany would have held out if we and the Soviets never invaded Germany?
Hue 1968 is a badass book and should be required reading.
One small sticking point. It details how this one VC chick was trained on guns and it mentions a "KR-15". I thought it was some obscure weird French, Chinese, or Indian gun.
Nope, a typo for AR-15 which could have been had at that time.
The K is only 7 keys away from the A, LOL. I still like Bowden and forgive him.
What gets me is all the supposed comments from high-ranking political and military leaders about the war being "unwinnable". That baffles me as these guys were of the WWII generation and had seen the all-out commitment and bloodletting that war had produced but yet said Vietnam was unwinnable? Perhaps it's because they knew the United States would never commit like it had in WWII in order to actually win the damn thing. Surely they couldn't have believed that the North was invincible, just that we would never do what was necessary or for as long as necessary to prevail?
The one thing that sticks in my mind while I was growing up and reading about the Vietnam War is when the VC were building the SA-2 sites we couldn't hit them. Only when they were active and lobbing SA-2's could we hit them, and then ONLY if they were outside of Hanoi and Haiphong. When the ROE prevent you from actually trying to win the war, then you get what happened in Vietnam. IMHO, a lot of that goes back to time immediately following World War 2 and the Korean War. IMHO we should have listened to Patton and MacArthur, and had it out with Russia and China then and there. Every conflict we've been involved in since can be traced back to those moments in time.
No doubt that the South Vietnamese government was a corrupt pile of steaming crap. I question why we even cared, especially after Korea. More so after the VC drove out the French. At the end of it all, WE cut off the aid to SVN. When that happened it was just a matter of time before the fall. Now that years have passed since 2003, it's hard for me to not think of Iraq and Afghanistan as "our generation's Vietnam".
Look at what happened in Iraq when we started withdrawing troops and cutting off aid. Russia gets its foot in the door, ISIS forms, and we're right back in the thick of it. Of course part of that is Obummers love of the Arab Spring, and us arming the enemy of my enemy who I think is my friend, but is really my enemy too. That's another reason to shake my head at Obummer, Killary, and Kerry's sorry asses.
Make no mistake, this world is going to be engulfed in a world war again, and it will be for all the marbles. We should have taken care of business in 1945. The handwriting was on the wall. Our government (and the British and French too) knew it (going back to the Tehran Conference) yet they still failed us with the eventual premise that the MAD doctrine would keep the status quo.
The north was never invaded, I wonder how long Germany would have held out if we and the Soviets never invaded Germany?
Exactly.
When you have buffer zones around NVN's two major industrial centers, you can't hamper their war material production, and you can't stop them from receiving war material from Russia and China; then you end up with a big fat loss in the win - loss column.
Partly of concern was the "Domino Theory". If South Vietnam fell then so would Cambodia, Thailand, etc.
That, and probably more truth there than given credit today. Plus both sides were busy with a proxy war NOT in Europe.
I agree. If Patton hadn't been assassinated, we'd likely not have the same reverberating and echoing issues we have now.
He was our 1940s John Connor whether people want to admit it or not
ken burns is a lefty though :) so anything he does has a slant to it ? but that would be true if he was a conservative :) just good to know what side someone is really on so you can kinda counter some of those thoughts
Partly of concern was the "Domino Theory". If South Vietnam fell then so would Cambodia, Thailand, etc.
You do realize that Cambodia was the home of infamous Communist Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, and the domino had already "fallen" there?
You do realize that Cambodia was the home of infamous Communist Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, and the domino had already "fallen" there?
In case some had forgotten, here are some stark reminders:
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/kf11.jpg
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/kf21.jpg
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/kf31.jpg
You do realize that Cambodia was the home of infamous Communist Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, and the domino had already "fallen" there?
And Pol Pot first joined the Communist Party while studying in France.....
You do realize that Cambodia was the home of infamous Communist Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, and the domino had already "fallen" there?
The Domino Theory was mostly correct: with the exception of Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam did indeed fall to the commies. I might also mention that they are 3 of the last 5 remaining communist nations on Earth (China and NK being the other two). There are some socialist countries, and SE Asia has seen reforms in the last decade or two, but they're still commies.
And Cuba
Another great example of how our government abandoned and failed our allies (Bay of Pigs). Then again, it didn't take France long to figure that out and militarily leave NATO after the Suez debacle in 1956, and our lack of support to them in French Indochina too for that matter.
I agree. If Patton hadn't been assassinated, we'd likely not have the same reverberating and echoing issues we have now.
He was our 1940s John Connor whether people want to admit it or not
He was also party to the assault on WWI veterans during the Bonus March. As often as not he stepped on his own dick because he couldn't get past his own vanity which included the belief that he was reincarnated several times and was many great leaders of the past.
I don't believe for a second he was assassinated, besides the circumstances being far too complex to guarantee a kill, if we were going to knock of a pain in the ass prima donna we'd have whacked Doug MacArthur.
Steyr,
He wasn't the hero we deserved, but he was the hero we needed.
He was a backshooter, a martinet, and an uncaring bastard...
but he got results
The Domino Theory was mostly correct: with the exception of Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam did indeed fall to the commies. I might also mention that they are 3 of the last 5 remaining communist nations on Earth (China and NK being the other two). There are some socialist countries, and SE Asia has seen reforms in the last decade or two, but they're still commies.
Most of those countries that were taken over by communism slowly and finally realize that pure communism didn't work. China, Vietnam and Cambodia relaxed their iron grip ideology and allow some form of capitalism. They are still a long way from gaining democracy. Cambodia is having their election next year and strong man Hun Sen is doing his best to hold on to his ruling seat since the mid 80s. Arresting political oppositions, silencing dissent voices, flexing his military muscle and being an all around thug.
I found this opinion piece by Olver North about Burns story on the Vietnam War interesting.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/27/oliver-north-pbs-and-ken-burns-get-vietnam-and-richard-nixon-wrong-again.html
I would tend to believe Oliver North more than Ken Burns. I watched the series, and agree with a lot of what North said.
Steyr,
He wasn't the hero we deserved, but he was the hero we needed.
He was a backshooter, a martinet, and an uncaring bastard...
but he got results
He gets points for blitzkrieging through the rhineland even if it was just all a competition to him. Despite his willingness to send everyone into the meat grinder he probably saved lives compared to the cautious approach of Montgomery by ending conflicts efficiently. So credit where credit is due, but I still don't think he was assassinated.
He gets points for blitzkrieging through the rhineland even if it was just all a competition to him. Despite his willingness to send everyone into the meat grinder he probably saved lives compared to the cautious approach of Montgomery by ending conflicts efficiently. So credit where credit is due, but I still don't think he was assassinated.
Maybe not. But I know folks who swear up and down he was. Well he's dead now and doing in the Bonus Army was a chump move but I do believe he would have went from Moscow to Beijing if given the opportunity
He was also party to the assault on WWI veterans during the Bonus March. As often as not he stepped on his own dick because he couldn't get past his own vanity which included the belief that he was reincarnated several times and was many great leaders of the past.
I don't believe for a second he was assassinated, besides the circumstances being far too complex to guarantee a kill, if we were going to knock of a pain in the ass prima donna we'd have whacked Doug MacArthur.
He was reincarnated.
MountainRaven
10-28-17, 00:26
Another great example of how our government abandoned and failed our allies (Bay of Pigs). Then again, it didn't take France long to figure that out and militarily leave NATO after the Suez debacle in 1956, and our lack of support to them in French Indochina too for that matter.
Of course, Cuba is also another perfect example of victory being granted to America for the paltry price of simply accepting it, but turning it down because it wasn't convenient at the time. Instead, Cuba - like Vietnam before it - went to the Soviet Union when America spurned them. And like Vietnam, Cuba found a willing ally in the Soviet Union.
Maybe not. But I know folks who swear up and down he was. Well he's dead now and doing in the Bonus Army was a chump move but I do believe he would have went from Moscow to Beijing if given the opportunity
He may have tried.
He was reincarnated.
Mattis is far too intelligent - and humble - to be the Pattonerine.
Maybe not. But I know folks who swear up and down he was. Well he's dead now and doing in the Bonus Army was a chump move but I do believe he would have went from Moscow to Beijing if given the opportunity
He might have gone, but not sure we had the men, material, gas, food or money in the budget to send anyone with him. If we were going to do Moscow, it would have been with a B-29 and a "bigger boy" bomb rather than Barbarosa Part II.
Of course, Cuba is also another perfect example of victory being granted to America for the paltry price of simply accepting it, but turning it down because it wasn't convenient at the time. Instead, Cuba - like Vietnam before it - went to the Soviet Union when America spurned them. And like Vietnam, Cuba found a willing ally in the Soviet Union.
The Castro/Ho Chi Minh being turned away by us thing is a bit oversimplified. Uncle Ho was an avowed Marxist since the 1920's and Castro was also a diehard. They both floated some kind of gesture to us but given the times (post-WWII anti-communist policies) it is no surprise that we shunned them. They weren't offering to give up communism or totalitarianism, just wanted our support.....read: $$$.
Most of those countries that were taken over by communism slowly and finally realize that pure communism didn't work. China, Vietnam and Cambodia relaxed their iron grip ideology and allow some form of capitalism. They are still a long way from gaining democracy. Cambodia is having their election next year and strong man Hun Sen is doing his best to hold on to his ruling seat since the mid 80s. Arresting political oppositions, silencing dissent voices, flexing his military muscle and being an all around thug.
The true "freedom test" if you will: can a Vietnamese/Laotian/Cambodian openly and vocally protest their governments without being killed or incarcerated? If not then they're still totalitarian regimes.
I am surprised, however, how well Americans are treated when they go to Vietnam. They are a curiosity to be sure, but I've not heard of any harshness. Now the fact that most Americans who go there visit the southern part may be why. As was mentioned at the end of the documentary, there is still a palpable divide between northerners and their southern brethren over there. Perhaps residents of the former RVN still see us as "saviors" of sorts while those above the old 17th Parallel see us as the ones who damn near killed off a generation of fathers/uncles/brothers/friends. As should be unsurprising, deep down they want American $$$ no doubt so the curiosity thing coupled with a desire for an influx of cash keeps them warm to us.
The true "freedom test" if you will: can a Vietnamese/Laotian/Cambodian openly and vocally protest their governments without being killed or incarcerated? If not then they're still totalitarian regimes.
I am surprised, however, how well Americans are treated when they go to Vietnam. They are a curiosity to be sure, but I've not heard of any harshness. Now the fact that most Americans who go there visit the southern part may be why. As was mentioned at the end of the documentary, there is still a palpable divide between northerners and their southern brethren over there. Perhaps residents of the former RVN still see us as "saviors" of sorts while those above the old 17th Parallel see us as the ones who damn near killed off a generation of fathers/uncles/brothers/friends. As should be unsurprising, deep down they want American $$$ no doubt so the curiosity thing coupled with a desire for an influx of cash keeps them warm to us.
You're probably right about the Vietnam situation. As for your question about the true test of freedom, I can say that the answer right now is NO for Cambodia. I don't follow the news in the other two former IndoChina countries so I can't be certain.
I do know that Americans and all foreigners are very welcome and treated very nicely in Cambodia. I think even with the current chest beating by the corrupted Hun Sen, that's all it is, for show. They love the influx of money. U.S. dollars is the main currency, but I read now that they're trying to switch to the Chinese Yuan. Every price is listed as US dollar or just plain dollar. Small change is given in Cambodian currency, kind of confusing at first but we get used to it. Everywhere in the country there are foreigners, westerners, other Asians. Tourism bring a lot of money. Foreign banks (Canadian, South Koreans, Japanese) have huge sky scrapers offices in the capital. It is a lifetime away from the days of the killing fields. As long as one does not oppose the ruling party, keep their opinions to themselves, close their eyes to the corruption, the strongman will leave them alone.
You're probably right about the Vietnam situation. As for your question about the true test of freedom, I can say that the answer right now is NO for Cambodia. I don't follow the news in the other two former IndoChina countries so I can't be certain.
I do know that Americans and all foreigners are very welcome and treated very nicely in Cambodia. I think even with the current chest beating by the corrupted Hun Sen, that's all it is, for show. They love the influx of money. U.S. dollars is the main currency, but I read now that they're trying to switch to the Chinese Yuan. Every price is listed as US dollar or just plain dollar. Small change is given in Cambodian currency, kind of confusing at first but we get used to it. Everywhere in the country there are foreigners, westerners, other Asians. Tourism bring a lot of money. Foreign banks (Canadian, South Koreans, Japanese) have huge sky scrapers offices in the capital. It is a lifetime away from the days of the killing fields. As long as one does not oppose the ruling party, keep their opinions to themselves, close their eyes to the corruption, the strongman will leave them alone.
Did you see the Burns documentary? In the last episode (same one they mentioned the existing divide between north and south in Vietnam) they also mentioned Vietnam's post-1975 involvement in Cambodia. The Vietnamese lost 50K+ fighting in Cambodia during those years and I kind of chuckled when the Burns show called it "Vietnam's Vietnam". Even the vaunted PAVN bit off a bit more than they could chew and learned what many would call an "unwinnable" situation was.
The true "freedom test" if you will: can a Vietnamese/Laotian/Cambodian openly and vocally protest their governments without being killed or incarcerated? If not then they're still totalitarian regimes.
Then Thailand would be right in there as well, would it not? Despite being well allied to the US than and now.
Many countries have adopted our capitalistic behaviors without our democratic aspects.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Then Thailand would be right in there as well, would it not? Despite being well allied to the US than and now.
Many countries have adopted our capitalistic behaviors without our democratic aspects.
Still don't think they're as totalitarian as the communists.
Yes, I saw all 10 episodes of the Burns documentary. I wouldn't call it Vietnam's Vietnam like they referred and I can't agree that VN lost over 50K in that war. The difference between that war/invasion is that when the VN's forces finally withdrew, they in fact had installed a government that was basically their puppet (my opinion). The current prime minister was a former Khmer Rouge than defected and went to VN. I see lots of Vietnamese influence to this day with my own eyes. I've spoken with many Cambodians who feel this way. For hundred of years, the Cambodians and the Viets have always had a racial tension. It will not end until VN succeeds in full control of the Khmers.
Yes, I saw all 10 episodes of the Burns documentary. I wouldn't call it Vietnam's Vietnam like they referred and I can't agree that VN lost over 50K in that war. The difference between that war/invasion is that when the VN's forces finally withdrew, they in fact had installed a government that was basically their puppet (my opinion). The current prime minister was a former Khmer Rouge than defected and went to VN. I see lots of Vietnamese influence to this day with my own eyes. I've spoken with many Cambodians who feel this way. For hundred of years, the Cambodians and the Viets have always had a racial tension. It will not end until VN succeeds in full control of the Khmers.
Hmmm.....Wiki cites between 15,000-23,000. Not sure where Burns came up with 50K.
Hmmm.....Wiki cites between 15,000-23,000. Not sure where Burns came up with 50K.
See what I mean ... way earlier in this thread I expressed my thought that the documentary maybe of half truth. The VN's army rolled over the Khmer Rouge like a bulldozer in less than 3 weeks. The long dragged out war was a 3 or 4 way fight between the occupying VNmese army vs. remnants of Khmer Rouge vs. old Lon Nol's republic's loyalists vs. Sihanouk's loyalists.
See what I mean ... way earlier in this thread I expressed my thought that the documentary maybe of half truth. The VN's army rolled over the Khmer Rouge like a bulldozer in less than 3 weeks. The long dragged out war was a 3 or 4 way fight between the occupying VNmese army vs. remnants of Khmer Rouge vs. old Lon Nol's republic's loyalists vs. Sihanouk's loyalists.
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of homicidal crap bags. Too bad they didn't go at each other for 10 years in a violent, protracted conflict.
I have heard, like in my actual life, first hand accounts of the Khmer Rouge. It was absolutely horrible.
We got it really good in America and if our Cable or WiFi dies we bitch up over it.
platoonDaddy
10-29-17, 11:50
Oliver North: PBS and Ken Burns get Vietnam – and Richard Nixon – wrong, again
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/27/oliver-north-pbs-and-ken-burns-get-vietnam-and-richard-nixon-wrong-again.html
All I got to say is, unlike when I was 18 and joined up, man I'm glad I wasn't born two years earlier.
Th
I am surprised, however, how well Americans are treated when they go to Vietnam..... As should be unsurprising, deep down they want American $$$ no doubt so the curiosity thing coupled with a desire for an influx of cash keeps them warm to us.
Vietnam has moved so far beyond the US in "getting over the war." Yeah, they love Americans, and American money. American tourism is a growing business, and their government has been cozying up to the US re: military assistance and arms.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.