I also set the DVR. I watched a some of the 'making of' and it looks like it'll be good. Would be nice to have a fresh approach rather than a rehashing of several existing (but good) Vietnam docu-series. My local PBS here in OR also has something with interviews of local Vietnam vets as well, seemingly coinciding with the series. Not sure if that is happening elsewhere as well? Looking forward to a binge...
I enjoyed the first episode immensely. Laying it all out as to the reasons and mistakes that led to our presence there was very informative. Being there (USMC - '68 - '72), and knowing little more than what we were told back then, it has given me better insight. You bet I'll be watching the rest of the series... By the way, don't know where you're from @baconjacket but PBS were doing interviews in St. Louis. That's my area...
Like you KA9FFJ Iwas serving in the Army in Vietnam from 67-68.Also like you I knew very little of the country and a vague idea why we were there. The first episode was very interesting.Honestly I can't say I learned anything new in the episode simply because many of contributions are from authors Whose books I have read.Fredrik Logevalls book Embers of War really documents Ho Chi Minhs movements from the early days and beyond.Also had a chance to talk to Phillp Caputo who wrote Rumor of a War.The political side David Halberstam,Neil Sheehan and on and on.I guess what I'm saying is I've been reading and studying the war for the past forty years to try to make sense of it .I am happy Ken Burns has brought this part of history to the general public.Still so many misconceptions.I look forward to the next episode. I live in Florida and the PBS station has interviewed many local veterans.
I've made it halfway through the first episode on the DVR and what I've learned is things might have gone differently if the bureaucrats had delivered the letters from Ho Chi Minh to the presidents. I always wondered why the US backed the French in the 1950s. Especially considering how little the French has supported the US since then.
PappyJoe,you make an excellent point.An opportunity was missed not once but twice.Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman were more concerned about Europe in their respective time in office.FDR was not going to support the French in their effort to reclaim Vietnam,Cambodia and Laos.The French had occupied this part of Indochina for for almost a century as was stated in the documentary,FDRs thinking was that's what we fought W.W. 2 for,so nations could determine their own form of government without interference or occupation from foreign governments.That of course all changed with Truman and the onslaught of the Cold War.The feeling was we needed the French to hold the line against communism in that part of Asia.So we started sending money and materials to support the French.Of course in the fifties we had Joe McCarthy and the notion their was a commie under every rock.This exasperated an already tense situation.I hope I maybe cleared things up a bit and not made them more confusing.I don't claim to be an expert on all this,but I think I know my way this part of our history.
@buflosab FDR was a socialist and believed Joseph Stalin was a friend of the United States - other than that he was a great President at a time when we needed a great president to lead this country out of the Depression and through WWII. If Roosevelt had lived to the conclusion of the war, world history MAY have been decidedly different. As it is, I believe that the communist witch-hunt and the cold war was a backlash against FDR's support of the Stalin regime.
As for McCarthy, I think California and the leftist elites in Hollywood of today may be trying to prove that he wasn't really bat-shit crazy.
I am amazed again at how Ken Burns puts these documentaries together. This series so far has been as high quality and as poignant as his Civil War, and The War. This was for the most part "our war", and if we get nothing out of this series we must recognize how we were shown daily in that time period what "they" wanted to show us and what they wanted us to hear. SO much political back channeling and covert planning. Back in the day I recall vividly watching TV news in the evening and seeing, what I now know as a "seasoned" citizen and Veteran of that war, as almost pure propaganda. There was a huge divide between reality and presentation. "Body Counts" were such that it sounded as if the enemy would run out of fighters.
Robert McNamara some years ago in a book he wrote flatly stated that the war was a MISTAKE, and all facts since the war bear this fact out. For Pete's sake, he was the Secretary of Defense although chosen for his business and analytical background as President of Ford Motors as opposed to any military expertise. This Burns' production has apparent tape recorder records of Johnson asking "how does this help" or conversely "this could hurt me" when talking with advisers and cabinet members. Does anyone with any sense still believe politics does not drive national policy?
I am a member of Veterans' groups, and have a very strong interest in history. Having had many conversations with fellow Veterans I can assure you that almost to a man, none of us had any idea (at that time) what was driving our policy except to "stop communism" and comply with our SEATO obligations. Wonderful aspirations all, but it was a facade to get the "baby boomer" kids to serve like their fathers in World War 2 when the enemy and their plans were an existential threat. Even World War 2 had many, many political under and overtones which directed military strategy.
I look forward to continuing the Burns' series. many of the scenes and narrative are sad, but this war was very sad, and as it turns out (as predicted by LBJ much earlier) would be waste of time destined to be lost to the enemy. And remember we lost over 50,000 young souls, perhaps one of which might have cured cancer, or heart disease, or at least would be a benefit to society in some capacity in later life.
This quote by Eugene Debs seems very relevant,The Master class has always declared the Wars,the subject class has always fought the battles.The Master class had all to gain and nothing to lose,while the subject class has nothing to gain and all to lose-especially their lives.
Did anyone else pickup last evenings' broadcast when they discussed Nixons' backdoor involvement with North Vietnam while LBJ was winding down but still president? There was a tape recorded conversation with LBJ and someone where they discussed Nixon doing an "end around" (before he was even elected president) scuttling some moves that MIGHT have brought an agreement in the Paris talks in favor of that happening after he became POTUS to obviously get the credit. The discussion was on point as to that back channel communication was actually TREASON in a war scenario. They just sort of let the conversation end on its' own with no further discussion. I was actually overseas when all this happened, I remember how we were told Nixon had won the election that November and everyone thought that was a good thing. I had never heard this allegation before last evening and I am an historian. I was flabbergasted. My thoughts ran to the question of how many people died on all sides in the time between a possibly earlier negotiated 'cease fire" under LBJ that was scuttled by Nixon until the actual Paris Accords were finalized? WOW..........Politics raises its' ugly head again. Also, John Carey (Swiftboat Carey) was back from Vietnam, and reportedly while he was still a Navy Reserve Lt. Commander went to Paris (after he threw his 'medals" over the White House fence) and actually contacted the North Vietnamese delegation to discuss a settlement, which also was an act of treason. He was never reprimanded. It just reminds me of what a unbelievable period it was in our history.
Being overseas I totally missed all of the crap that was going on here back in the states in 'real time". When overseas we saw everything in narrowscope. It is eye opening to go back and reconstruct all of the machinations of the war both militarily and politically. A childhood buddy of mine who came back with a round still near his spine went back to school. In a Political Science class just before Nixon's second campaign he wrote the slogan "Dick Nixon before he Dicks You". Again, politics.
Yes Nixons back door channel was I believe Anna Chennault,it's a violation of The Logan Act.Basically what he was doing was telling the South Vietnamese thru Chennault not to sign any agreement with North Vietnam because he would give them at better deal when he was elected President which at the time looked like a sure thing.As far as Kerry is concerned many Nam vets threw their medals over the White House fence,and like you I never heard of the Paris trip.
As a side bar I believe 20,000 more GIs died and lord knows how many Vietnamese,Cambodians,and Laotians died although that came later in his Presidency.
Yeah, Chennault was the name. John Kerry was however a Commissioned Officer in the US Naval Reserve (being an OCS graduate) at the time he threw his medals, and at the time he (REPORTEDLY) tried to broker a peace deal speaking with the North Vietnamese delegation in Paris for the peace talks. He was in total conflict with the Logan Act and the later (if true) was pure treason. As you may recall, he was "swift boated" when he ran for POTUS several years ago by group of guys with whom he served and accused of using minor injuries to put himself in for 3 Purple Hearts, at which point he could get out of Vietnam......and he did. His crew claimed they were abandoned, his "wounds" being superficial and I know of a lot of guys who would not have left their buddies. He wanted back in "the world" so he could begin his political career. The amazing thing that I remember was him showing his medals during his presidential campaign, which were obviously not the originals since they ended up on the US Capital lawn. He would have bought them as you do not get seconds.
I have no problem with his anti war bent, many, many Vets had the same attitude. The other issues however still bother me. He is the typical "lying, cheating 'what's in it for me politician". Sorry if I sound the least bit cynical.
To see it is to hate it.....and I agree, discussing this stuff with all my wartime veteran buddies we would all go back if it saved the younger guys. (After all we are all old, crochety, miserable, can't see or hear. We are already pissed off. We are used to crappy food sometimes, and hell we all probably have less than 20 more years or so anyway.) I would go in a heartbeat if I knew my 5 grand sons would be spared. But seriously, every so many years we lose a bunch of youngsters in these God forsaken wars for reasons mostly for the wrong reasons. Among those KIA are probably future heads of state, doctors, honest politicians, and maybe someone who would develop a cure for cancer. Sad......
I was wondering last evening when they hit hard the issue of demonstrations and riots here at home (we did not know about those when we were overseas) if Burns was trying to tell the younger folks something? Just a thought as the world ramps up to potential conflicts.
Great comments Woodsman.While I can't say I was spit on and called names after my tour and my release from the service,something just as bad I feel happened to me and I guess many others,I was ignored.Growing up as many of us did looking up to W.W. 2 vets and Korean vets the silence was deafening.Don't want to turn this into a pity party but those are my feelings.I believe I heard my first Thank You for your service 5 years ago.
I am SO disgusted with what I am either learning, or things that I selectively forgot relative to the politics throughout OUR war. The tape recordings of the presidents graphically only interested in their next election is so in your face that it is immoral. I say "selectively forgotten" because we all pretty much knew that was the case, but these excerpts are like a shot to the heart. These are real, not stories or third hand theories or reports. I cannot help but to feel that those of us who served were used as political fodder. I had in my old age sort have put this entire portion of my life behind me. I was proud to have served my country, happy to have come home. I forgot how disgusted I was at that time and for reasons of sanity I put those negative feelings way down deep in my sea bag hoping I would not find them again. I was so happy that my Son after me did not have to go to war. I worry every day and pray that the same can be said years in the future about my 5 grand sons and 1 grand daughter.
When I got home everyone seemed either ambivalent and disconnected, or politically rabid, there seemed no middle ground. In a years time (68 to 69) my country had changed so much I did not understand what had happened. Everything we saw overseas was "narrowscope" in nature and we did not have the "big picture" so to speak. We were spoon fed what we were supposed to know.
When I came home after my tour I got off a train in Philadelphia. There were hardly any military uniforms around like there were just a year or two before. I actually had some trouble getting a cab to the bus station in center city but got picked up by a recent veteran, who advised me to "ditch the uniform and the sea bag" (which I could not) and he waived the fare. I was so confused.....but several weeks of TV news set me straight.
I think I have lived through one of the nations most polarized periods of time, and in hindsight I recognize it was really some ride through history.
pwkarch,if you really want more info on the history and involvement regarding our involvement in this War, go online and type in The National Archives-Pentagon Papers and you will be able to download the entire document.The entire document has been declassified.And it's not something that can be read in a day,like any official government document it is very long.
I know that is available......but thanks for the heads up......this last week or so I have reopened a very poignant period in my life. I am going to store a link to that site for when I have more time.
I have always been an historian. I have literally hundreds of books the majority of which are Revolutionary and Founding Fathers literature, and tons of World War 2 literature (including the '30s). These are my 'specialty" eras.
I have read, or at least been through for research most of my books multiple times. When my kids were little I invested in the Time Life Vietnam series The Vietnam Experience (sorry cannot underline as I should) which sits on my bookshelves mostly unread and several volumes unopened since the day I received them. Feeling the emotions I have had this past week, I assume that to be the case because I was subconsciously blocking that period of history out? I am not a Psychologist but maybe I just self diagnosed myself?
@pwkarch I would view what you watch as being informative but also being "out of context" to when it was said. You don't know what was said immediately before the recording was made and immediately afterwards. As far as the presidents being concerned another election, I always say politicians consider their primary concern is to get re-elected.
I used to ask my students, "What is the job of a newspaper?" "To spread the news," they said. "To sell advertising and make money," I said. "Now what is the job of a pilitician?" "To discuss and make laws," they said.
I understand your point totally, I would however ask what difference does it make what was said before or after those particular statements. Those statements made by the powers to be stand on their own, implying, no, stating outright that politics trumped (no pun intended) the concern for those put into harms way. This is not a surprise to me, just that it was so almost casually discussed as if it did not matter. You and I were numbers, just players in a world wide chess match. And I understand this was not anything new, but in most previous wars (and arguably the Korean "Police Action") were existential in nature. The public was behind the war sentiment for the most part if not at first, then as time went on.
And I could not agree with you more, I think ALL politicians as soon as the day after they are elected begin working not for the people they represent, but for the people who donated to their campaigns for favors and they immediately begin their next political campaign.
I was in college in the late 1960s. We always felt that we were being lied to about the war, but I don't think many of us imagined the level of deception indicated in this film.
Comments
As for McCarthy, I think California and the leftist elites in Hollywood of today may be trying to prove that he wasn't really bat-shit crazy.
This was for the most part "our war", and if we get nothing out of this series we must recognize how we were shown daily in that time period what "they" wanted to show us and what they wanted us to hear. SO much political back channeling and covert planning. Back in the day I recall vividly watching TV news in the evening and seeing, what I now know as a "seasoned" citizen and Veteran of that war, as almost pure propaganda. There was a huge divide between reality and presentation. "Body Counts" were such that it sounded as if the enemy would run out of fighters.
Robert McNamara some years ago in a book he wrote flatly stated that the war was a MISTAKE, and all facts since the war bear this fact out. For Pete's sake, he was the Secretary of Defense although chosen for his business and analytical background as President of Ford Motors as opposed to any military expertise. This Burns' production has apparent tape recorder records of Johnson asking "how does this help" or conversely "this could hurt me" when talking with advisers and cabinet members. Does anyone with any sense still believe politics does not drive national policy?
I am a member of Veterans' groups, and have a very strong interest in history. Having had many conversations with fellow Veterans I can assure you that almost to a man, none of us had any idea (at that time) what was driving our policy except to "stop communism" and comply with our SEATO obligations. Wonderful aspirations all, but it was a facade to get the "baby boomer" kids to serve like their fathers in World War 2 when the enemy and their plans were an existential threat. Even World War 2 had many, many political under and overtones which directed military strategy.
I look forward to continuing the Burns' series. many of the scenes and narrative are sad, but this war was very sad, and as it turns out (as predicted by LBJ much earlier) would be waste of time destined to be lost to the enemy. And remember we lost over 50,000 young souls, perhaps one of which might have cured cancer, or heart disease, or at least would be a benefit to society in some capacity in later life.
Being overseas I totally missed all of the crap that was going on here back in the states in 'real time". When overseas we saw everything in narrowscope. It is eye opening to go back and reconstruct all of the machinations of the war both militarily and politically. A childhood buddy of mine who came back with a round still near his spine went back to school. In a Political Science class just before Nixon's second campaign he wrote the slogan "Dick Nixon before he Dicks You". Again, politics.
Yeah, Chennault was the name. John Kerry was however a Commissioned Officer in the US Naval Reserve (being an OCS graduate) at the time he threw his medals, and at the time he (REPORTEDLY) tried to broker a peace deal speaking with the North Vietnamese delegation in Paris for the peace talks. He was in total conflict with the Logan Act and the later (if true) was pure treason. As you may recall, he was "swift boated" when he ran for POTUS several years ago by group of guys with whom he served and accused of using minor injuries to put himself in for 3 Purple Hearts, at which point he could get out of Vietnam......and he did. His crew claimed they were abandoned, his "wounds" being superficial and I know of a lot of guys who would not have left their buddies. He wanted back in "the world" so he could begin his political career. The amazing thing that I remember was him showing his medals during his presidential campaign, which were obviously not the originals since they ended up on the US Capital lawn. He would have bought them as you do not get seconds.
I have no problem with his anti war bent, many, many Vets had the same attitude. The other issues however still bother me. He is the typical "lying, cheating 'what's in it for me politician". Sorry if I sound the least bit cynical.
To see it is to hate it.....and I agree, discussing this stuff with all my wartime veteran buddies we would all go back if it saved the younger guys. (After all we are all old, crochety, miserable, can't see or hear. We are already pissed off. We are used to crappy food sometimes, and hell we all probably have less than 20 more years or so anyway.) I would go in a heartbeat if I knew my 5 grand sons would be spared. But seriously, every so many years we lose a bunch of youngsters in these God forsaken wars for reasons mostly for the wrong reasons. Among those KIA are probably future heads of state, doctors, honest politicians, and maybe someone who would develop a cure for cancer. Sad......
I was wondering last evening when they hit hard the issue of demonstrations and riots here at home (we did not know about those when we were overseas) if Burns was trying to tell the younger folks something? Just a thought as the world ramps up to potential conflicts.
When I got home everyone seemed either ambivalent and disconnected, or politically rabid, there seemed no middle ground. In a years time (68 to 69) my country had changed so much I did not understand what had happened. Everything we saw overseas was "narrowscope" in nature and we did not have the "big picture" so to speak. We were spoon fed what we were supposed to know.
When I came home after my tour I got off a train in Philadelphia. There were hardly any military uniforms around like there were just a year or two before. I actually had some trouble getting a cab to the bus station in center city but got picked up by a recent veteran, who advised me to "ditch the uniform and the sea bag" (which I could not) and he waived the fare. I was so confused.....but several weeks of TV news set me straight.
I think I have lived through one of the nations most polarized periods of time, and in hindsight I recognize it was really some ride through history.
I have always been an historian. I have literally hundreds of books the majority of which are Revolutionary and Founding Fathers literature, and tons of World War 2 literature (including the '30s). These are my 'specialty" eras.
I have read, or at least been through for research most of my books multiple times. When my kids were little I invested in the Time Life Vietnam series The Vietnam Experience (sorry cannot underline as I should) which sits on my bookshelves mostly unread and several volumes unopened since the day I received them. Feeling the emotions I have had this past week, I assume that to be the case because I was subconsciously blocking that period of history out? I am not a Psychologist but maybe I just self diagnosed myself?
"To spread the news," they said.
"To sell advertising and make money," I said. "Now what is the job of a pilitician?"
"To discuss and make laws," they said.
You know the rest..........
I understand your point totally, I would however ask what difference does it make what was said before or after those particular statements. Those statements made by the powers to be stand on their own, implying, no, stating outright that politics trumped (no pun intended) the concern for those put into harms way. This is not a surprise to me, just that it was so almost casually discussed as if it did not matter. You and I were numbers, just players in a world wide chess match. And I understand this was not anything new, but in most previous wars (and arguably the Korean "Police Action") were existential in nature. The public was behind the war sentiment for the most part if not at first, then as time went on.
And I could not agree with you more, I think ALL politicians as soon as the day after they are elected begin working not for the people they represent, but for the people who donated to their campaigns for favors and they immediately begin their next political campaign.