(09-19-2017 08:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 05:12 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I've been reading that it's slanted to the conservative point of view. No mention of the French using Vietnam to exploit the rubber. No mention if HoChiMinh being our ally in WWII. The seeds of our modern political dissent lies in Vietnam.

I think that's more a commentary on the point of view of your sources than upon the point of view of the film. To a far left reviewer, anything looks like a conservative point of view. I doubt very seriously that Ken Burns is going to present anything from a conservative point of view, and my left-leaning friends who have watched this say that this is not presented from that point of view.

I have yet to watch any of the Vietnam documentary, but Ken Burns' work is generally very careful to avoid a partisan slant. Despite his own political leanings, he is extremely dedicated to presenting facts or stories of his subjects without bias.

His WWII documentary is fabulous, as was The Dust Bowl. I'm still trying to find time to watch his series on baseball & jazz.

(09-19-2017 07:01 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 06:55 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You don't think that? Nixon blaming the media for losing the war? The liberal elites? I speaka da truth.

No. I do not.

I'm not going to dig into cherry picked semantics....

you know me better than that....

I'll simply sum it up this way.....the VW was a waste of time, money, resources, and loss of life that divided a nation.....

the war on "communism" was by design as another attempt at a control mechanism.....

what they dippos didn't realize, was what got jfk elected (and what is sprialing out of control today), is the same thing that caused Nixon's demise.....

and don't kid yourself.....I despised Nixon too.....creating the war on drugs was 10x worse than the VW.....

Stalin and Krushchev were no jokes. Both leaders of the USSR were committed to expanding their power and influence abroad, and I believe that the Soviets and the other Communist nations from the late 40s thru the early 70s did want to topple gov'ts to spread communism. Granted the U.S. did plenty to initiate/retaliate against the Soviets so we too were not lily white in all this either. I think that the Cold War began out of necessity; however, it's quite likely that both of our leaders used the "never let a good crisis go to waste" philosophy to abuse the system.

I think it's easy to see the Vietnam War in hindsight. Regardless of the intentions of the French, at the time the U.S. got involved in it, we were operating under the fear of the domino effect and wanted to do everything in our power to contain the spread of communism. It worked in S. Korea, so why not S. Vietnam too?

(09-19-2017 07:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 05:12 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I've been reading that it's slanted to the conservative point of view. No mention of the French using Vietnam to exploit the rubber. No mention if HoChiMinh being our ally in WWII. The seeds of our modern political dissent lies in Vietnam.

You should try actually watching instead of reading some *******'s point of view. They covered the OSS being with Minh when he read to the Viet Minh from Jefferson at the end of WWII. They covered his pleas with Truman to intervene with the French, only his letters were found undelivered in a declassified CIA file decades later. They covered French atrocities. And they covered the attitudes of the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations regarding the war. And this was all in the first episode.

As one who lived through the era, who lost friends in the war, had a uncle imprisoned for 7 years (5 in Hanoi) and had a father who served there flying his 100 missions and then working as a liaison to the CIA for the remainder of his tour, I can state clearly that into the third episode which I am watching tonight, that it has been even handed in presenting the events and why they were misinterpreted by our leadership. He has been particularly clear about why McNamara misunderstood what was actually happening because he wanted a bean counting approach to analyzing our position in the war. Literally hundreds of military officers had nothing to do but keep a score card for each engagement. How many killed, wounded, captured, how many weapons and what kind were captured were the emphasis of our activities, and nothing on the attitudes and support levels of the South Vietnamese people was passed along.

And having had my emphasis in Far Eastern Political Studies and as an ardent anti-communist I find the depiction of the events to be fair and accurate.

I've not watched the Vietnam Documentary mentioned in this thread, but I agree that Vietnam was one of those wars that could have been prevented. It was a completely different model than what was observed on the Korean peninsula where Communist China was a blatant aggressor and the sides were clear cut. The French were bastards at managing their colonies (although better than the Belgians!), and Ngo Dinh Diem was a brutal asshat who was backed by the U.S. despite his obvious incompetence and penchant for graft. The South Vietnamese "leadership" were nothing but corrupt people who cared more about lining their own pockets than the survival of a communist free South Vietnam.

Ho Chi Minh had plenty of moral failings himself; however, I bet if Truman would have intervened against the French on the Vietnamese people's behalf, it quite possibly could have been swayed away from communism and ultimately an ally.

(09-20-2017 06:31 AM)fsquid Wrote:  I've got it on the DVR, worth a watch?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

Yes,

(09-20-2017 07:50 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 07:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 05:12 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I've been reading that it's slanted to the conservative point of view. No mention of the French using Vietnam to exploit the rubber. No mention if HoChiMinh being our ally in WWII. The seeds of our modern political dissent lies in Vietnam.

You should try actually watching instead of reading some *******'s point of view. They covered the OSS being with Minh when he read to the Viet Minh from Jefferson at the end of WWII. They covered his pleas with Truman to intervene with the French, only his letters were found undelivered in a declassified CIA file decades later. They covered French atrocities. And they covered the attitudes of the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations regarding the war. And this was all in the first episode.

As one who lived through the era, who lost friends in the war, had a uncle imprisoned for 7 years (5 in Hanoi) and had a father who served there flying his 100 missions and then working as a liaison to the CIA for the remainder of his tour, I can state clearly that into the third episode which I am watching tonight, that it has been even handed in presenting the events and why they were misinterpreted by our leadership. He has been particularly clear about why McNamara misunderstood what was actually happening because he wanted a bean counting approach to analyzing our position in the war. Literally hundreds of military officers had nothing to do but keep a score card for each engagement. How many killed, wounded, captured, how many weapons and what kind were captured were the emphasis of our activities, and nothing on the attitudes and support levels of the South Vietnamese people was passed along.

And having had my emphasis in Far Eastern Political Studies and as an ardent anti-communist I find the depiction of the events to be fair and accurate.

I've not watched the Vietnam Documentary mentioned in this thread, but I agree that Vietnam was one of those wars that could have been prevented. It was a completely different model than what was observed on the Korean peninsula where Communist China was a blatant aggressor and the sides were clear cut. The French were bastards at managing their colonies (although better than the Belgians!), and Ngo Dinh Diem was a brutal asshat who was backed by the U.S. despite his obvious incompetence and penchant for graft. The South Vietnamese "leadership" were nothing but corrupt people who cared more about lining their own pockets than the survival of a communist free South Vietnam.

Ho Chi Minh had plenty of moral failings himself; however, I bet if Truman would have intervened against the French on the Vietnamese people's behalf, it quite possibly could have been swayed away from communism and ultimately an ally.

Diem's, wife was a piece of work. And your comment about Truman sounds about right. Also Truman never got the memo from Ho Chi Minh.

(09-20-2017 07:50 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Vietnam was one of those wars that could have been prevented.

???
The war in Vietnam wasn't the result of some misunderstanding or clerical error. Two sides both wanted control and were willing to fight to death in order to achieve it.

Quote:It was a completely different model than what was observed on the Korean peninsula where Communist China was a blatant aggressor and the sides were clear cut.

The Vietnam scenario was remarkably similar. Hanoi was not as reliant on Chinese troops as North Korea had been, but they were supplied by Chinese/Russian allies throughout the entire ordeal. The war couldn't have happened without that support.

Quote:Ngo Dinh Diem was a brutal asshat who was backed by the U.S. despite his obvious incompetence and penchant for graft. The South Vietnamese "leadership" were nothing but corrupt people who cared more about lining their own pockets than the survival of a communist free South Vietnam.

Brutal asshat or no, Diem was his own man; intensely nationalist. He was never a US puppet and everyone knew it. Kennedy's decision to encourage the coup against Diem was the greatest strategic failure of the whole war. Everyone who came after Diem was viewed as a eunuch for the Americans. Which was partly true.

Quote:Ho Chi Minh had plenty of moral failings himself; however, I bet if Truman would have intervened against the French on the Vietnamese people's behalf, it quite possibly could have been swayed away from communism and ultimately an ally.

Quite possibly, yes.

(09-20-2017 09:21 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-20-2017 07:50 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Vietnam was one of those wars that could have been prevented.

???
The war in Vietnam wasn't the result of some misunderstanding or clerical error. Two sides both wanted control and were willing to fight to death in order to achieve it.

Quote:It was a completely different model than what was observed on the Korean peninsula where Communist China was a blatant aggressor and the sides were clear cut.

The Vietnam scenario was remarkably similar. Hanoi was not as reliant on Chinese troops as North Korea had been, but they were supplied by Chinese/Russian allies throughout the entire ordeal. The war couldn't have happened without that support.

Quote:Ngo Dinh Diem was a brutal asshat who was backed by the U.S. despite his obvious incompetence and penchant for graft. The South Vietnamese "leadership" were nothing but corrupt people who cared more about lining their own pockets than the survival of a communist free South Vietnam.

Brutal asshat or no, Diem was his own man; intensely nationalist. He was never a US puppet and everyone knew it. Kennedy's decision to encourage the coup against Diem was the greatest strategic failure of the whole war. Everyone who came after Diem was viewed as a eunuch for the Americans. Which was partly true.

Quote:Ho Chi Minh had plenty of moral failings himself; however, I bet if Truman would have intervened against the French on the Vietnamese people's behalf, it quite possibly could have been swayed away from communism and ultimately an ally.

Quite possibly, yes.

The Vietnam War could have been prevented because it was originally their war for independence against the French. The most crucial mistake the U.S. made with the war was supporting the French to reestablish control over Indochina. It appeared that Ho Chi Minh tried to reach out to the U.S. first before ultimately turning to China and the USSR. Granted, Ho dabbled in communism in the 30's; however, IMHO it was an alliance of convenience for him because the alternative was to kowtow to the French and be subjected to their brutal rule. I think of Ho Chi Minh's embrace of communism as applying the logic of "any port in a storm" as opposed to being a true believer of the plight of the worker.

The Korean War vs the Vietnam War appears to be similar in form; however, I think the conflicts themselves were quite different. Korea was partitioned just like Germany was as a result of the Japanese being the losers in WWII and thus the "Allies" occupied zones similarly to what happened in Germany in 1946. From the onset, North Korea was a defacto Communist beligerent from the start. Contrast that to the French immediately trying to establish control over Indochina after WWII. While Hanoi and Saigon appeared to be a north vs south set up like in Korea, it was never formally set up that way. The Chinese recognized Ho's leadership in Hanoi and the rest of the allies deferred to the French to reestablish control with control established in Saigon. The Viet Minh were a guerilla force fighting the formal French Army. That's different than how the Korean War started.

Diem's hold in South Vietnam was untenable. He may have been his own man; however, he was a brutal leader who was perceived as being little better than the French. South Vietnam turned on Diem long before the coup snuffed him and his family. Diem may have been a strong nationalist, but the everyday South Vietnamese no longer was - especially those who lived away from Saigon in the countryside.

Those are my thoughts on it anyways.

(09-20-2017 07:15 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I watched episode one last night and in my humble opinion the article I read was bunk. They did mention it in the first episode. I think they showed the motivations of the French as colonial. If they spent more time on that it would invite people to say it had a left wing bias. I really enjoyed episode 1. I can't wait to start 2 tonight.

I forgot to record it and missed the first (and maybe the second episode). But the one I watched appeared pretty even handed and very interesting.

You can stream it from the PBS site for free. It's excellent but at the same time frustrating. The folly of man. History proves time and time again.........

Here's the stream for episode 2.

http://www.pbs.org/video/riding-the-tige...63-nmixl5/

I just watched Episode 1. I certainly learned more about Ho Chi Minh, who, in the aftermath of WWII tried to gain U.S. support through diplomacy in preventing re-colonization of the country after Japan's surrender. Roosevelt seemed amenable but, of course, he died, and Truman, as the Soviet Union grew in power and China fell to Mao, was under pressure to show resolve against communism.

The filmmakers flash forward and back to shows parallels throughout the sad history of the country. And the soundtrack is going to be awesome. Dylan's "A Hard Rain Is Gonna Fall" played a prominent role in the film at the beginning and the end of the episode.

Tonight,

Shaken by the violence of the Tet Offensive, assassinations and unrest, Americans begin to doubt President Lyndon B. Johnson's promise that victory is near; Johnson decides not to seek re-election.

I wanna watch it but for some reason the idea of reliving it gives me the creeps. I was just a kid during that period but i dont want the negative vibes.

Strange for me to feel that way. I love history.

(09-20-2017 07:36 AM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 08:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 05:12 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I've been reading that it's slanted to the conservative point of view. No mention of the French using Vietnam to exploit the rubber. No mention if HoChiMinh being our ally in WWII. The seeds of our modern political dissent lies in Vietnam.

I think that's more a commentary on the point of view of your sources than upon the point of view of the film. To a far left reviewer, anything looks like a conservative point of view. I doubt very seriously that Ken Burns is going to present anything from a conservative point of view, and my left-leaning friends who have watched this say that this is not presented from that point of view.

I have yet to watch any of the Vietnam documentary, but Ken Burns' work is generally very careful to avoid a partisan slant. Despite his own political leanings, he is extremely dedicated to presenting facts or stories of his subjects without bias.

His WWII documentary is fabulous, as was The Dust Bowl. I'm still trying to find time to watch his series on baseball & jazz.

Baseball is really good. New York, The Brooklyn Bridge, and Civil War are he best. He has such talent for finding stories in things. Definitely a big influence on ESPN's 30 for 30.

(09-20-2017 09:21 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-20-2017 07:50 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Vietnam was one of those wars that could have been prevented.

???
The war in Vietnam wasn't the result of some misunderstanding or clerical error. Two sides both wanted control and were willing to fight to death in order to achieve it.

Quote:It was a completely different model than what was observed on the Korean peninsula where Communist China was a blatant aggressor and the sides were clear cut.

The Vietnam scenario was remarkably similar. Hanoi was not as reliant on Chinese troops as North Korea had been, but they were supplied by Chinese/Russian allies throughout the entire ordeal. The war couldn't have happened without that support.

Quote:Ngo Dinh Diem was a brutal asshat who was backed by the U.S. despite his obvious incompetence and penchant for graft. The South Vietnamese "leadership" were nothing but corrupt people who cared more about lining their own pockets than the survival of a communist free South Vietnam.

Brutal asshat or no, Diem was his own man; intensely nationalist. He was never a US puppet and everyone knew it. Kennedy's decision to encourage the coup against Diem was the greatest strategic failure of the whole war. Everyone who came after Diem was viewed as a eunuch for the Americans. Which was partly true.

Quote:Ho Chi Minh had plenty of moral failings himself; however, I bet if Truman would have intervened against the French on the Vietnamese people's behalf, it quite possibly could have been swayed away from communism and ultimately an ally.

Quite possibly, yes.

Of course Diem was never really legitimate either---and everyone knew that too. As was often the problem in Vietnam---there were no good answers. Diem was one of those "no good answers" situations.

I watched the first episode and it's pretty well done. Interesting information leading up to the war itself. I never did the research on what led up to it prior to the 60's when the US entered.

(09-24-2017 06:09 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  Tonight,

Shaken by the violence of the Tet Offensive, assassinations and unrest, Americans begin to doubt President Lyndon B. Johnson's promise that victory is near; Johnson decides not to seek re-election.

I watched 6 last night. It seems like I had seen the Tet part before. Has this series been around a while?

(09-25-2017 08:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-24-2017 06:09 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  Tonight,

Shaken by the violence of the Tet Offensive, assassinations and unrest, Americans begin to doubt President Lyndon B. Johnson's promise that victory is near; Johnson decides not to seek re-election.

I watched 6 last night. It seems like I had seen the Tet part before. Has this series been around a while?

This is new, it's a ten part series. The last four parts are this week. I'm sure you've have seen stuff on the Tet Offensive before. It was a pretty big deal back in 1968.

(09-25-2017 09:36 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(09-25-2017 08:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-24-2017 06:09 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  Tonight,

Shaken by the violence of the Tet Offensive, assassinations and unrest, Americans begin to doubt President Lyndon B. Johnson's promise that victory is near; Johnson decides not to seek re-election.

I watched 6 last night. It seems like I had seen the Tet part before. Has this series been around a while?

This is new, it's a ten part series. The last four parts are this week. I'm sure you've have seen stuff on the Tet Offensive before. It was a pretty big deal back in 1968.

I guess Burns has re-used some footage from some other documentaries. I'd seen at least some of this in the last 10 years.

I have been struck by just how balanced Burns' narrative has been. As an American who reached draft age in 1962, I can attest to just how ignorant Americans - young and old - were about the history of this conflict.

That ignorance largely persisted throughout my college years, and speaking for myself even beyond that - including my military service. I am acutely aware that the view of most servicemen, even those of us who served in Vietnam, was extremely myopic. For most of us, our interaction with Vietnamese civilians, and even ARVN troops, was pretty limited. Those of us below the rank of general knew what our unit was doing and not much more.

That being said, I can't say that anyone I served with below the rank of colonel had any illusions about whether that war was winnable in any traditional sense. But for career officers, it was the only war they had, and therefore an opportunity not to be wasted. That wasn't a recipe for great morale.