The Vietnam War by Ken Burns on PBS

[madguy30]

The juxtaposition of Vietnam, civil rights, hippies, domestic violence, the amazing changes in pop culture, space race, etc.

The 1960's....one hell of an interesting era.

President gets assassinated. You could have quite a debate on what the most amazing situation/event of the 1960's was. Imo while not as objectively influential i.e. legalities, etc., the musical explosion would have a category.

Just watching these kinds of things makes me feel confused about the times and I was born 20 years after. Even growing up in the 80's I seem to remember how there was still a sense of recovering from all of it.

 

[cyclones500]

This show is highlighting what I knew long ago: Lyndon Baines Johnson (and he is a symbol of the people around him) was an awful, awful person. I just erased about 4 sentences.

Although I haven't gotten to part 3 yet, I'm already curious how the doc will assess Johnson. I was fascinated by "LBJ" in the American Experience series, which I think was released in the 1990s — there was complexity to him, personally/professionally, as with any president. Definite Politician, with capital P ... sometimes good, sometimes not, in that respect. He seemed to be motivated to have civil rights/domestic legislation as a centerpiece, but seems almost destiny that V-War was going to curb that idea.

I may need to revise that view after watching next few episodes.

 

[HFCS]

I'll eventually watch this (I've seen most of the others) but it's sad just thinking about what it'll be like seeing it in such detail.

The way in which returning soldiers were treated alone is a dark chapter in our history without even getting into the rest. I never could understand how someone could belittle and mock the military service of others, anybody at all who served but especially people who were drafted, wounded or captured.

 

[KnappShack]

Although I haven't gotten to part 3 yet, I'm already curious how the doc will assess Johnson. I was fascinated by "LBJ" in the American Experience series, which I think was released in the 1990s — there was complexity to him, personally/professionally, as with any president. Definite Politician, with capital P ... sometimes good, sometimes not, in that respect. He seemed to be motivated to have civil rights/domestic legislation as a centerpiece, but seems almost destiny that V-War was going to curb that idea.

I may need to revise that view after watching next few episodes.

Robert Caro - The Passage of Power is an amazing LBJ book

To think he took control after Kennedy shockingly died and very shortly after got the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act pushed through.

His administration started with such big victories and popularity.

Think if the history. Kennedy - killed. Then LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and Carter. 1st 2 flamed out. Last 2 never got off the ground.

 

[SCyclone]

Although I haven't gotten to part 3 yet, I'm already curious how the doc will assess Johnson. I was fascinated by "LBJ" in the American Experience series, which I think was released in the 1990s — there was complexity to him, personally/professionally, as with any president. Definite Politician, with capital P ... sometimes good, sometimes not, in that respect. He seemed to be motivated to have civil rights/domestic legislation as a centerpiece, but seems almost destiny that V-War was going to curb that idea.

I may need to revise that view after watching next few episodes.

I'm of the opinion that the civil rights legislation probably would have happened no matter who was in the White House.....there was just so much upheaval and turmoil, something had to give. Lots of LBJ's Texas buddies were making obscene amounts of money on the war, and that may have been a contributing factor in Kennedy's assassination as well.

 

[SCyclone]

The two biggest nuggets I've gleaned from this so far:

1. Ho Chi Minh was simply a man who worked tirelessly to free his country and achieve independence. He took military aid from China and Russia because they offered it, not because he viewed Communism as an option. This, to me, was a singularly critical factor in our decision to send troops. The entire exercise was a revolt against colonialism, and then corrupt and incompetent government exacerbated it.

2. By 1954 the United States had already spent one billion dollars (yes, that's correct - a billiion) aiding the Vietnamese in their struggle against both French and British tyranny. This was before a single American soldier's feet touched SE Asian soil. (I'm not counting military advisers as soldiers.)

 

[Sigmapolis]

The two biggest nuggets I've gleaned from this so far:

1. Ho Chi Minh was simply a man who worked tirelessly to free his country and achieve independence. He took military aid from China and Russia because they offered it, not because he viewed Communism as an option. This, to me, was a singularly critical factor in our decision to send troops. The entire exercise was a revolt against colonialism, and then corrupt and incompetent government exacerbated it.

2. By 1954 the United States had already spent one billion dollars (yes, that's correct - a billiion) aiding the Vietnamese in their struggle against both French and British tyranny. This was before a single American soldier's feet touched SE Asian soil. (I'm not counting military advisers as soldiers.)

(1.) This is true throughout the world -- communism ironically never developed in the modern, industrial states as Marx predicted, but always had a strong element of nationalism (a vestigial and antiquated mindset for communists, according to Marx) and anti-colonialism within it. Even the peasant societies of Russia and China were essentially colonial or feudal in their nature, not the industrialized Britain, France, or Germany of the era.

Our inability to read this difference -- between communism, nationalism, and anti-colonialism -- led us down a lot of rabbit holes in the Cold War. You could have argued they were worth it, because if we did not, the Soviets or the Chinese might have done it instead, but sometimes it definitely went too far, and Vietnam is the obvious example of it.

(2.) According to this...

https://thevietnamwar.info/how-much-vietnam-war-cost/

The U.S. spent around $1 trillion (2017 dollars) on the Vietnam conflict. That is actually roughly a third of the Iraq War, so we have that going for us.

The population of Vietnam in 1960 was about 35 million.

Therefore, we could have just given every Vietnamese person about $28,000 and be done with it. South Vietnam's population was about 40% of the total, so mark that number up to $72,000 if you just wanted to hand the south the money.

 

[bawbie]

Haven't watched but have they covered what an atrocity the whole endeavor was?

yes. the whole things is completely heartbreaking. And they haven't even gotten to the bad parts yet.

The phone call in 1964 between Pres. Johnson and SecDef Macnamara where Johnson says it's going to be a disaster and there will be no way out - and then they plow ahead and escalate over and over and over again is just disgusting.

 

[bawbie]

I thought it was so interesting how they pointed out the complete misread of the situation. It should have been seen as the end of the colonial era but we took it as "Communists, Communists everywhere" instead.

Coincidentally, the exact mistake we've made over the past 20 years, except replace "communists" with "terrorists".

 

[cowgirl836]

Coincidentally, the exact mistake we've made over the past 20 years, except replace "communists" with "terrorists".

I said the same thing to DH as we watched last night. We've made the same mistakes over and over since Korea.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Coincidentally, the exact mistake we've made over the past 20 years, except replace "communists" with "terrorists".

You stole my line...



https://cyclonefanatic.com/forum/th...y-ken-burns-on-pbs.231032/page-2#post-5823158

I am saving this for the next time you call me a Republican

 

[cydsho]

I said the same thing to DH as we watched last night. We've made the same mistakes over and over since Korea.

"It's deja vu all over again"

 

[Rural]

Don't want to get all Trilateral Commissiony but they weren't mistakes to "The Complex".

 

[SoapyCy]

Why did/do we send good money after bad? The war/project/country was lost. Why don't people accept that and move on instead of sending young men to get killed fighting a war that we don't need to fight in an area that doesn't really impact us?

Last night one of the North Vietnamese soldiers said Americans bombing villages was the best recruiting tool they had. Sounds familiar to the last 15 years, doesn't it?

 

[KnappShack]

Why did/do we send good money after bad? The war/project/country was lost. Why don't people accept that and move on instead of sending young men to get killed fighting a war that we don't need to fight in an area that doesn't really impact us?

Last night one of the North Vietnamese soldiers said Americans bombing villages was the best recruiting tool they had. Sounds familiar to the last 15 years, doesn't it?

You kill the right man and he's replaced. Kill the wrong man and you make 10 more enemies.

True then. True now

 

[SCyclone]

Why did/do we send good money after bad? The war/project/country was lost. Why don't people accept that and move on instead of sending young men to get killed fighting a war that we don't need to fight in an area that doesn't really impact us?

Last night one of the North Vietnamese soldiers said Americans bombing villages was the best recruiting tool they had. Sounds familiar to the last 15 years, doesn't it?

The war was good for the economy at home. Especially LBJ's Texas buddies, who were making a killing manufacturing arms and weaponry. By that point the administration could hardly admit their mistake.

 

[bawbie]

You kill the right man and he's replaced. Kill the wrong man and you make 10 more enemies.

True then. True now

Absolutely, but it was the next line that was the most important: and they were always killing the wrong man

 

[bawbie]

The war was good for the economy at home. Especially LBJ's Texas buddies, who were making a killing manufacturing arms and weaponry. By that point the administration could hardly admit their mistake.

It was mentioned upthread a couple times, but worth stating again - the philosophy of the US leadership for the last 70 years has been : you don't have to win the war, just don't be the one to lose it.

 

[BoxsterCy]

Coincidentally, the exact mistake we've made over the past 20 years, except replace "communists" with "terrorists".

True but in context the current is even more dishonest IMHO. In the Cold War and post- WWII climate there really was a fight against communism. Proxy wars that sometimes ended up as direct army to army like with the Chinese in Korea. It was a ****** up situation. The whole current terrorist fear seems more constructed and built entirely on ******** whereas the commie thing at least made some basis regardless of how misplayed and misread it turned out to be.

 

[bawbie]

True but in context the current is even more dishonest IMHO. In the Cold War and post- WWII climate there really was a fight against communism. Proxy wars that sometimes ended up as direct army to army like with the Chinese in Korea. It was a ****** up situation. The whole current terrorist fear seems more constructed and built entirely on ******** whereas the commie thing at least made some basis regardless of how misplayed and misread it turned out to be.

Yeah, its insane that we never actually had a full-scale ground war with China, even though we were proxy "at war" with them almost consecutively for 3 decades.

I'll say, in hindsight, not having lived through is, the fear of communism seems contrived. I mean, it's one thing to have a foreign policy to oppose communism, its another thing to have fear of it drive everything you do and cause you to make really bad decisions.