The Vietnam War by Ken Burns on PBS

[DarkStar]

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.

Reminds me of when we pulled into the Philippines for a port of call back in the late 80's. When we got our port briefing, they said that the night before we pulled in two marines were shot by communist rebels outside the front gate.

They were fighting against the corrupt Philippine government. After the Soviet Union collapsed they switched sides to whomever would give them support. Now they are Islamic terrorists.

The only constant is the corrupt government and people fighting against it. It has been going on since it was a Spanish colony.

 

[KnappShack]

So far it has been really good. But I am a little confused as I thought the Vietnam War was ALL Nixon and Kissinger's fault... jimlad

Isn't the jury still out on whether Nixon sabotaged the peace talks ahead of the '68 election? Throw him on the pile of villains

Hats off to the men and women who actually had to fight this war. My Uncle never stopped fighting it. America did these people wrong on far too many levels.

 

[SCyclone]

The real obscenity was the trumped-up (sorry, couldn't resist, thought it fit well) casualty reports the military fed to the media to make it look like they were actually accomplishing something. I read Seymour Hirsch's excellent book on the My Lai massacre, which contains many details about the tweaking of casualties to reflect more NVA and less civilians being killed.

This was a war of opportunity more than anything else.

 

[BoxsterCy]

and Eisenhower also warned against our economy getting to reliant on the military industrial complex. He was afraid we were creating monster. He was Republican in brand name, but a far cry from what the conservative movement is today. Also, there were plenty of Dems, against the war. Don't see many republicans against it in the list in the link below. So for you to call out one party but not the other, is not accurate when it comes to Vietnam. But there is no doubt, the war was mismanaged and ill-conceived by Johnson and Nixon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Congressional_opponents_of_the_Vietnam_War
Don't see many republican congressmen apposed to it.

Not to be overlooked in all of the condemnation of elected officials, generals and bureaucrats is that for a good period of time, as noted in the series so far, the majority of the citizens supported the war. That tide shifted mightily. Not giving the guys a pass or anything but they were supported. Things really started to shift my senior year in high school and by spring of my ISU freshman year it really hit home for a lot of people.

 

[CycloneErik]

If I understand from someone else's project a few years ago, ISU Special Collections has a lot of interesting stuff about Vietnam protests here on campus.

 

[bawbie]

Eisenhower refuses to get us in deep or help the French while Kennedy, Johnson, and their East Coast liberal "best and brightest" pals go all the way with a great plan.

Still somehow the Republicans' fault, right?

I see below that you this is sarcasm, but I this is what I had previously thought - but Eisenhower did no such thing. I did not realize that he was fully invested in helping the French, and by 1954 the US was paying 80% of the costs of the French fighting there, and was sending "military advisers" well before Kennedy was elected.

 

[cyclones500]

I've jotted random notes for each episode so far, thinking it might lead to observations I could post in this thread. So far, most of it remains a list of random notes, with no clear narrative.

Totality of my jottings for Part 3:
* No front, no ground won or lost
* Perceived quantification of success, body count.

 

[CycloneErik]

I see below that you this is sarcasm, but I this is what I had previously thought - but Eisenhower did no such thing. I did not realize that he was fully invested in helping the French, and by 1954 the US was paying 80% of the costs of the French fighting there, and was sending "military advisers" well before Kennedy was elected.

I knew he was fully supporting them, but I hadn't read the financial part. That's mind-blowing.
Helps me understand a little more why they felt so free to ask for further help, especially nuclear, at Dien Bien Phu. Why would we start saying no at that point?

 

[Sigmapolis]

I see below that you this is sarcasm, but I this is what I had previously thought - but Eisenhower did no such thing. I did not realize that he was fully invested in helping the French, and by 1954 the US was paying 80% of the costs of the French fighting there, and was sending "military advisers" well before Kennedy was elected.

I am well aware of Eisenhower's cloak-and-dagger "behind the scenes" sort of Cold War geopolitics, using the CIA to fight proxy wars and preferring local allies to direct American commitments, rather than sending in the Marines. I think we are all probably familiar with the story of what happened to Mossadegh in Iran, for that matter.

Leaving that approach aside for a moment, I do give Eisenhower some credit for (1.) refusing to send direct U.S. military aid when the French starting losing hard in Indochina, (2.) not using nuclear weapons to bail the French out at Dien Bien Phu, which at least some people wanted to request, and (3.) not taking up the Vietnam fight ourselves under his watch, or, at least, leaving office before the situation demand some harder to decisions to be made, which mostly fell on the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Ike lucked out there.

My mock partisanship was joking there, trust me. This is way too complicated and way too long ago to try to make this into yet another Red v. Blue game here.

 

[bawbie]

I knew he was fully supporting them, but I hadn't read the financial part. That's mind-blowing.
Helps me understand a little more why they felt so free to ask for further help, especially nuclear, at Dien Bien Phu. Why would we start saying no at that point?

I'm continually astounded by my lack of history knowledge. I took AP American History in HS and 3 semesters of American History at ISU, and I'm fairly sure I knew nothing about Dien Bien Phu. or Le Duan. Or the coup that killed Diem.

 

[CycloneErik]

I'm continually astounded by my lack of history knowledge. I took AP American History in HS and 3 semesters of American History at ISU, and I'm fairly sure I knew nothing about Dien Bien Phu. or Le Duan. Or the coup that killed Diem.

Oh. I read most of that on my own before college.
I guess I'm a nerd, but everyone knew that.

 

[Rural]

Not to be overlooked in all of the condemnation of elected officials, generals and bureaucrats is that for a good period of time, as noted in the series so far, the majority of the citizens supported the war. That tide shifted mightily. Not giving the guys a pass or anything but they were supported. Things really started to shift my senior year in high school and by spring of my ISU freshman year it really hit home for a lot of people.

The first TV war and Uncle Walter.

 

[cyclones500]

I'm continually astounded by my lack of history knowledge. I took AP American History in HS and 3 semesters of American History at ISU, and I'm fairly sure I knew nothing about Dien Bien Phu. or Le Duan. Or the coup that killed Diem.

I have similar feelings. I've had increasing interest in history as I age, and have learned far more on my own than I gleaned from course work. But docs like this make me realize how much less I know about particulars (and I didn't claim to have in-depth knowledge going into it).

 

[BoxsterCy]

The first TV war and Uncle Walter.

A far cry from WWII. We were almost two years into WWII before ANY American publication had a picture of American dead in it. Here's the picture and the story. Even then it took a picture as dramatic and as powerful as this to break the ice. Not implying or judging how that war was covered, way too different circumstances and times to back judge. However, a lot of the men running Vietnam, civilians and generals, grew and knew that WWII coverage approach. Listening on the radio to Edward R. Marrow broadcast from London during the blitz was likely pretty stirring but not the same as nightly film on national TV news.

http://time.com/3524493/the-photo-that-won-world-war-ii-dead-americans-at-buna-beach-1943/

Related to this, several of my fathers letters home in WWII include references as to how different American newspapers covered the war (he got occasional papers) compared to how he perceived it.

 

[Tazzels2Fers]

Before watching the Ken Burns Documentary I would recommend spend some time reading the basic Wikipedia history of French Indochina and Vietnam starting in the 19th Century to get a basic understanding of what was going on in the region.

I think that the relatively successful defense of South Korea in the Korean War from Communist takeover was a blue print that the West thought they could replicate in Vietnam in my opinion.

Here is a good book to read from a French author on counterinsurgency...

Amazon product

 

[SCyclone]

Another interesting nugget was how the North Vietnamese were ready to surrender after the carpet bombing, and Ho Chi Minh discovered American opinion beginning to turn against the war.....so they decided to wait a bit.

 

[KnappShack]

I remember the Vietnamese participants telling McNamara in his book that they would not and could not negotiate while being bombed. Some other articles say the same. The North was ready to ride out the bombing.

Haven't seen the last episode, but it sounds like that's not what was included in the documentary.

Wonder which is true or maybe both are true at different times?

 

[CycloneErik]

Before watching the Ken Burns Documentary I would recommend spend some time reading the basic Wikipedia history of French Indochina and Vietnam starting in the 19th Century to get a basic understanding of what was going on in the region.

I think that the relatively successful defense of South Korea in the Korean War from Communist takeover was a blue print that the West thought they could replicate in Vietnam in my opinion.

Here is a good book to read from a French author on counterinsurgency...

Amazon product

Might want to just put the author and book title in your post.
I had a ton of trouble with that earlier in the thread. I failed twice trying to get Amazon links for books in here.

Just an idea, because this sounds fascinating.

 

[jsb]

I'm only 2 episodes in. I can already tell that I am going to have a hard time watching it. Somewhere along the line, I developed a real pacifist reaction to war topics. I went to a bunch of Civil War battlefields in Virginia several years ago and I couldn't stop thinking about how awful the whole thing was and how people would just kill other people. And there really was very little point to any of it. The people fighting on both sides of a war are mostly just normal people fighting because someone else told them to. I shuddered at the American soldier who talked about how just walking was scary when he was in Vietnam. I can't imagine living with that kind of fear for years. I also am pretty sure that I would be shot by the first enemy that found me.

I was talking to my Dad tonight about our current political climate and he mentioned how my grandpa would always say that they should just let the old men fight the wars. They are always the ones that want to fight, but the send the kids to do their dirty work. My grandpa was a nice man, but pretty difficult. Hearing what he thought made me smile.

(In case I start to pat myself on the back too much about my great love of peace and all of that, for whatever reason I love a good Dateline episode where the husband kills the wife. THAT I can watch, apparently.)

 

[CNECloneFan]

Isn't the jury still out on whether Nixon sabotaged the peace talks ahead of the '68 election? Throw him on the pile of villains

Hats off to the men and women who actually had to fight this war. My Uncle never stopped fighting it. America did these people wrong on far too many levels.

Like I said, it was a bipartisan fubar.

Regarding Nixon, and Johnson for that matter, here is an interesting observation:

I remember years later when I just happened to have my television set on. I think it was public television, and somebody — it might have been David Frost, or some other well-known TV interviewer — was asking Nixon about foreign policy.

It went something like this: “Mr. President, quite aside from the Watergate affair and all that, you are known as having been very skilled and successful in the area of foreign policy. Is there anything in that area you regret, anything that you wish you had done differently?”

He thought for a moment and he said, “Yes, I made one very serious mistake, and that is I waited until December 1972 to do what I should have done as soon as I took office in January of 1969, namely send the B-52 strategic bombers against Hanoi and Haiphong.”

http://adst.org/2016/11/bombing-nor...essions-christmas-bombings-1972/#.WcRvWsiGPIU