This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Anyone watching the series on BBC?
It should be watched by everyone.
It should be watched by everyone.
9
3
14
In reply to aln:
Because it's an amazing piece of work about an important event in world history. It really is an excellent documentary, I've been gripped by it and have learnt so much.
Because it's an amazing piece of work about an important event in world history. It really is an excellent documentary, I've been gripped by it and have learnt so much.
8
1
In reply to r0b:
Yes it an excellent balanced series, showing the conflict and the social effects that brought about so much change, that period of time certainly awaked my political views and shaped so much of my views today.
Yes it an excellent balanced series, showing the conflict and the social effects that brought about so much change, that period of time certainly awaked my political views and shaped so much of my views today.
2
In reply to robert-hutton:
I've read a lot of positive reviews, but still have concerns how any documentary about Vietnam coming out of the USA can be balanced. I struggle to see how their actions in Vietnam could be seen as anything other than extreme. "Balance" in these circumstances is like balancing creationism against evolution in biology classes.
I think it was Chomsky who made the point that if you were to ask any American how many people were killed in the Holocaust, and they gave you a number in the hundreds of thousands, you'd label them a Holocaust denier. Yet most Americans would struggle to come near the 1 million combatants and 1 million civilians killed on the VC/NVA side alone, not to mention the deaths in Laos and Cambodia, or (as admitted to just the other week) the tacit support of millions more killed in Indonesia under the same anti-communist rationale. It is an entirely acceptable narrative in the US to claim the war was justified, should have been won, and the only error was political failings.
Equally, recently declassified documents had laid bare the extent of US atrocities in Vietnam. These were examined in detail in Bernd Greiner's "War Without Fronts" and it amazes me to this day that a book full of such revelations could quietly pass under the radar with barely a comment. It should have prompted mass soul searching (the basic premise being that Mai Lai was by no means a rarity, and instead was a result of ongoing policy and repeated throughout the conflict). There has been little or no acknowledgment on their side (like what we demand of Serbs, Japanese or Germans).
No doubt Karl Marlantes gives a good account from the American side, Bao Ninh from the communist side. But I really don't believe the US is ready to publicly acknowledge the full extent of what they perpetuated for many decades yet, if ever.
I've read a lot of positive reviews, but still have concerns how any documentary about Vietnam coming out of the USA can be balanced. I struggle to see how their actions in Vietnam could be seen as anything other than extreme. "Balance" in these circumstances is like balancing creationism against evolution in biology classes.
I think it was Chomsky who made the point that if you were to ask any American how many people were killed in the Holocaust, and they gave you a number in the hundreds of thousands, you'd label them a Holocaust denier. Yet most Americans would struggle to come near the 1 million combatants and 1 million civilians killed on the VC/NVA side alone, not to mention the deaths in Laos and Cambodia, or (as admitted to just the other week) the tacit support of millions more killed in Indonesia under the same anti-communist rationale. It is an entirely acceptable narrative in the US to claim the war was justified, should have been won, and the only error was political failings.
Equally, recently declassified documents had laid bare the extent of US atrocities in Vietnam. These were examined in detail in Bernd Greiner's "War Without Fronts" and it amazes me to this day that a book full of such revelations could quietly pass under the radar with barely a comment. It should have prompted mass soul searching (the basic premise being that Mai Lai was by no means a rarity, and instead was a result of ongoing policy and repeated throughout the conflict). There has been little or no acknowledgment on their side (like what we demand of Serbs, Japanese or Germans).
No doubt Karl Marlantes gives a good account from the American side, Bao Ninh from the communist side. But I really don't believe the US is ready to publicly acknowledge the full extent of what they perpetuated for many decades yet, if ever.
Post edited at 09:25
15
9
In reply to David Martin:
It seems they've done a pretty good job so far of balancing it.... I'm very much under the impression the Americans shouldn't have been there and were reckless with their targeting
It seems they've done a pretty good job so far of balancing it.... I'm very much under the impression the Americans shouldn't have been there and were reckless with their targeting
2
1
In reply to David Martin:
I think you'd be surprised. Nearly all you mention is addressed. It is balanced, but unequivocal in its conclusions. Post-war Vietnamese historians, VC, VN and North and South Vietnamese civilians are prominent contributors.
By far the best I've seen on the war and absolutely devastating for it.
I think you'd be surprised. Nearly all you mention is addressed. It is balanced, but unequivocal in its conclusions. Post-war Vietnamese historians, VC, VN and North and South Vietnamese civilians are prominent contributors.
By far the best I've seen on the war and absolutely devastating for it.
9
In reply to David Martin:
You'll remember the well televised mass anti war protests and the treatment of returning servicemen?
Obviously a nation in denial.
You'll remember the well televised mass anti war protests and the treatment of returning servicemen?
Obviously a nation in denial.
1
In reply to baron:
What proportion of Americans were solidly against the war to begin with? And even when the tide turned, how much of that was simply down to the number of American dead?
If half of German's still thought WWII and concentration camps were good ideas which failed only in their execution or on account of the eventual madness of Hitler, we'd be up in arms. But that seems to be an entirely acceptable line of dinner-table discussion for much of America today when it comes to Vietnam - "problem was, we didn't kill more of them commies".
I had an American girlfriend back in University whose father, then a United Airlines pilot, had been a B52 pilot in Vietnam. Both his and her views were utterly unreconstructed and hardly seemed a rarity. All the more odd when you consider North Vietnam never laid a finger on the US, could barely mount any defense against Arc Light raids, and Ho himself had been somewhat of an admirer of the country. The level of hatred and justification from the other direction seemed out of all proportion.
What proportion of Americans were solidly against the war to begin with? And even when the tide turned, how much of that was simply down to the number of American dead?
If half of German's still thought WWII and concentration camps were good ideas which failed only in their execution or on account of the eventual madness of Hitler, we'd be up in arms. But that seems to be an entirely acceptable line of dinner-table discussion for much of America today when it comes to Vietnam - "problem was, we didn't kill more of them commies".
I had an American girlfriend back in University whose father, then a United Airlines pilot, had been a B52 pilot in Vietnam. Both his and her views were utterly unreconstructed and hardly seemed a rarity. All the more odd when you consider North Vietnam never laid a finger on the US, could barely mount any defense against Arc Light raids, and Ho himself had been somewhat of an admirer of the country. The level of hatred and justification from the other direction seemed out of all proportion.
5
2
In reply to David Martin:
You do not seem to have watched the documentary, you should do so. Part 8, describing My Lai, gave examples of similar but lesser-known massacres. It was very clear it was not an anomaly and civilian deaths were, at best, accepted and frequently encouraged. A recurrent theme in the later parts of the documentary is this was a foreseeable consequence of the policy of using body count as the only outcome measure.
> Equally, recently declassified documents had laid bare the extent of US atrocities in Vietnam. These were examined in detail in Bernd Greiner's "War Without Fronts" and it amazes me to this day that a book full of such revelations could quietly pass under the radar with barely a comment. It should have prompted mass soul searching (the basic premise being that Mai Lai was by no means a rarity, and instead was a result of ongoing policy and repeated throughout the conflict). There has been little or no acknowledgment on their side (like what we demand of Serbs, Japanese or Germans).
You do not seem to have watched the documentary, you should do so. Part 8, describing My Lai, gave examples of similar but lesser-known massacres. It was very clear it was not an anomaly and civilian deaths were, at best, accepted and frequently encouraged. A recurrent theme in the later parts of the documentary is this was a foreseeable consequence of the policy of using body count as the only outcome measure.
2
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
If I can find a spare 60 hours I might give it a watch. I couldn't face putting myself through it if all I wanted to do was smash the keyboard in frustration.
The Vietnam war has long been a foundational event for me. Even though I was born just as it finished, it still shaped me right through my teenage years and is largely responsible for where I am and what I do now.
If I can find a spare 60 hours I might give it a watch. I couldn't face putting myself through it if all I wanted to do was smash the keyboard in frustration.
The Vietnam war has long been a foundational event for me. Even though I was born just as it finished, it still shaped me right through my teenage years and is largely responsible for where I am and what I do now.
3
3
In reply to David Martin:
It is full of relevance for the policitcal sitaution now in the US. Watching this, the rise of DT is no surprise. What is evident is the remaining unfullfilled potential for things in the US to get much worse than they are now. After the Kent State Uni shooting something like 58% of Americans thought the students deserved what they got. It doesn't flinch from the ugly.
It also makes clear that, at the highest levels, i.e. the President and his advisers, and nearly from the outset, they knew the war was unwinnable and that the conflict should have been seen as an internal civil war, an uprising against colonial powers and an unpopular, repressive regime in the South.
It is full of relevance for the policitcal sitaution now in the US. Watching this, the rise of DT is no surprise. What is evident is the remaining unfullfilled potential for things in the US to get much worse than they are now. After the Kent State Uni shooting something like 58% of Americans thought the students deserved what they got. It doesn't flinch from the ugly.
It also makes clear that, at the highest levels, i.e. the President and his advisers, and nearly from the outset, they knew the war was unwinnable and that the conflict should have been seen as an internal civil war, an uprising against colonial powers and an unpopular, repressive regime in the South.
Post edited at 10:23
4
In reply to David Martin:
It's ten hours and you might find it cathartic. It's an analysis of how badly the US got things so wrong an several levels.
> If I can find a spare 60 hours I might give it a watch. I couldn't face putting myself through it if all I wanted to do was smash the keyboard in frustration.
> The Vietnam war has long been a foundational event for me. Even though I was born just as it finished, it still shaped me right through my teenage years and is largely responsible for where I am and what I do now.
It's ten hours and you might find it cathartic. It's an analysis of how badly the US got things so wrong an several levels.
Post edited at 10:24
2
In reply to David Martin:
The Vietnam war was probably the most televised war in history.
Every night watching the sic o'clock news in full colour, helicopters, napalm, machine guns, more helicopters, dead bodies,,wounded soldiers and civilians, blood, more helicopters.
And on and on, for what seemed like and probably was years.
Not the sanitised, embedded journalist version seen on today's news.
Anybody who bothered to watch the news was in no doubt of the savagery of this war.
The validity of fighting a war thousands of miles from home is debatable but that the war was very well reported isn't.
The Vietnam war was probably the most televised war in history.
Every night watching the sic o'clock news in full colour, helicopters, napalm, machine guns, more helicopters, dead bodies,,wounded soldiers and civilians, blood, more helicopters.
And on and on, for what seemed like and probably was years.
Not the sanitised, embedded journalist version seen on today's news.
Anybody who bothered to watch the news was in no doubt of the savagery of this war.
The validity of fighting a war thousands of miles from home is debatable but that the war was very well reported isn't.
1
In reply to Flinticus:
Is this the Ken Burns one? If you haven't seen that, then watch it - it's very good.
Is this the Ken Burns one? If you haven't seen that, then watch it - it's very good.
In reply to flaneur:
(Haven't seen the documentary but...) the Phoenix programme?
Mick
> A recurrent theme in the later parts of the documentary is this was a foreseeable consequence of the policy of using body count as the only outcome measure.
(Haven't seen the documentary but...) the Phoenix programme?
Mick
1
In reply to Flinticus:
I would like to have seen version where US presidents and US generals and well as those other country who help USA in Vietnam and all US Congressmen and senators who vote for attack Vietnam are put on trial for the war crimes and genocide of 3 millions people.
Tens thousands or 100 thousand of Vietnamese born since with birth problems with USA chemical weapons throughout.
I would like to have seen version where US presidents and US generals and well as those other country who help USA in Vietnam and all US Congressmen and senators who vote for attack Vietnam are put on trial for the war crimes and genocide of 3 millions people.
Tens thousands or 100 thousand of Vietnamese born since with birth problems with USA chemical weapons throughout.
1
In reply to Flinticus:
I'm 11 episodes in , its very good.
Its also made from the point of view what a pointless and fruitless war it was from the Americans side.
The resounding thing for me so far was how did they ever hope to prove to Vietnamese that they were helping them by basically destroying the whole country and slaughtering anybody in the progress , i'd imagine the amount of people who turned to fighting with the communist north just because you'd watched the Americans slaughter family members was staggering , without them agreeing with Communist policies and beliefs at all .
I'd recommend it highly.
I'm 11 episodes in , its very good.
Its also made from the point of view what a pointless and fruitless war it was from the Americans side.
The resounding thing for me so far was how did they ever hope to prove to Vietnamese that they were helping them by basically destroying the whole country and slaughtering anybody in the progress , i'd imagine the amount of people who turned to fighting with the communist north just because you'd watched the Americans slaughter family members was staggering , without them agreeing with Communist policies and beliefs at all .
I'd recommend it highly.
1
In reply to Tanke:
That wouldn't be a documentary though would it? It would be fiction.
> I would like to have seen version where ....
That wouldn't be a documentary though would it? It would be fiction.
In reply to Pkrynicki1984:
How have you managed that? It's in ten parts.
"To save the village we had to destroy it."
> I'm 11 episodes in , its very good.
How have you managed that? It's in ten parts.
> Its also made from the point of view what a pointless and fruitless war it was from the Americans side.
> The resounding thing for me so far was how did they ever hope to prove to Vietnamese that they were helping them by basically destroying the whole country and slaughtering anybody in the progress , i'd imagine the amount of people who turned to fighting with the communist north just because you'd watched the Americans slaughter family members was staggering , without them agreeing with Communist policies and beliefs at all .
"To save the village we had to destroy it."
In reply to Flinticus:
And the weird thing is now how close the 2 countries are... therein lies the paradox.
And the weird thing is now how close the 2 countries are... therein lies the paradox.
In reply to Flinticus:
Only watched the first episode so far, but plan to watch more. 20 or 30 years ago I'd have avidly waiting for each new episode, but such is life.
What impressed me about that first episode was that it covered the origins in far more detail that I've ever been aware of. Most previous docs gloss over how the US got involved, how Vietnam became divided. To my mind how wars start is always more interesting than how they are won or lost.
However there has always been a tendency, both in fiction and non-fiction, to focus on the American angle, their stories. Even in ostensibly anti-war films such a Deer hunter or Platoon, the Americans have always been the victims. They may ask the question "why are we here ?" but rarely "what are you doing here ?"
Only watched the first episode so far, but plan to watch more. 20 or 30 years ago I'd have avidly waiting for each new episode, but such is life.
What impressed me about that first episode was that it covered the origins in far more detail that I've ever been aware of. Most previous docs gloss over how the US got involved, how Vietnam became divided. To my mind how wars start is always more interesting than how they are won or lost.
However there has always been a tendency, both in fiction and non-fiction, to focus on the American angle, their stories. Even in ostensibly anti-war films such a Deer hunter or Platoon, the Americans have always been the victims. They may ask the question "why are we here ?" but rarely "what are you doing here ?"
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:
I've always had problems understanding that refrain of "Why are we here?".
I thought the reasons, however misguided, were pretty clear and little different from the reasons for being in Korea or WWII: stop the enemy, kill the enemy, with the enemy being communists.
The question of what right do you have to do so, what positive are you achieving, and how can you believe the ends justify the means, seem like far more relevant questions. Perhaps that is what they mean when asking "Why are we here". But it always sounds like such a limp question.
Hollywood has long had a problem presenting Vietnam. For every Platoon or Deer Hunter there are at least a dozen jingoistic flicks where American soldiers heroically mow down hordes of maniacal Vietnamese, only to be denied an outright and deserved victory by meddling politicians, corrupt CIA agents or a deceitful populace back home. With such strong global opposition to it, you would think a more critical stance could have been taken by what is considered to be a liberal-minded entity.
> They may ask the question "why are we here ?" but rarely "what are you doing here ?"
I've always had problems understanding that refrain of "Why are we here?".
I thought the reasons, however misguided, were pretty clear and little different from the reasons for being in Korea or WWII: stop the enemy, kill the enemy, with the enemy being communists.
The question of what right do you have to do so, what positive are you achieving, and how can you believe the ends justify the means, seem like far more relevant questions. Perhaps that is what they mean when asking "Why are we here". But it always sounds like such a limp question.
Hollywood has long had a problem presenting Vietnam. For every Platoon or Deer Hunter there are at least a dozen jingoistic flicks where American soldiers heroically mow down hordes of maniacal Vietnamese, only to be denied an outright and deserved victory by meddling politicians, corrupt CIA agents or a deceitful populace back home. With such strong global opposition to it, you would think a more critical stance could have been taken by what is considered to be a liberal-minded entity.
1
3
In reply to David Martin:
Perhaps it would also be a good moment to watch/rewatch 'Johnny Got His Gun' ?
Perhaps it would also be a good moment to watch/rewatch 'Johnny Got His Gun' ?
7
In reply to David Martin:
If you ignore the chuck Norris and Stallone movies you'll find that there are many anti Vietnam war films.
As I posted before, the war itself was so very well televised, why bother making a film about it?
If you ignore the chuck Norris and Stallone movies you'll find that there are many anti Vietnam war films.
As I posted before, the war itself was so very well televised, why bother making a film about it?
2
In reply to Flinticus:
Been watching it and reading A Bright Shining Lie by Neil Sheehan at the same time. The documentary covers a lot of the what the book does just not in as much detail, I am only up to episode 3 but it seems to be fair and balance, not pro US.
Been watching it and reading A Bright Shining Lie by Neil Sheehan at the same time. The documentary covers a lot of the what the book does just not in as much detail, I am only up to episode 3 but it seems to be fair and balance, not pro US.
In reply to baron:
Debatable whether it was "well" televised. It was simply televised almost live, in a way that wasn't possible in Korea or WWII. That doesn't mean anything remotely like the reality was being presented. Sure, there's bodies and wounded, but the gravity of what was happening wasn't close to reality. The only difference between then and now was the freedom of reporters to roam. Reporters still relied on the military for access and what was deemed palatable for the public was limited.
The sheer scale of the Vietnamese dead, the graphic imagery of what weaponry does, the mass of civilian casualties, really weren't shown at all. Why else would Kim Phuc, Mai Lai or Tet have become so iconic? They shouldn't have been surprises to anyone if the reality of the war was being well televised.
Debatable whether it was "well" televised. It was simply televised almost live, in a way that wasn't possible in Korea or WWII. That doesn't mean anything remotely like the reality was being presented. Sure, there's bodies and wounded, but the gravity of what was happening wasn't close to reality. The only difference between then and now was the freedom of reporters to roam. Reporters still relied on the military for access and what was deemed palatable for the public was limited.
The sheer scale of the Vietnamese dead, the graphic imagery of what weaponry does, the mass of civilian casualties, really weren't shown at all. Why else would Kim Phuc, Mai Lai or Tet have become so iconic? They shouldn't have been surprises to anyone if the reality of the war was being well televised.
In reply to Flinticus:
Been watching it and really enjoyed it but I'm with David on this one. I found the last episode really troubling as it fast forwarded so much it just lost any of the nuance that they had tried to get in in the earlier episodes. To me it seemed to be saying "turns out Communism was evil after all due to the drop in living standards after the war, we cleaned up the environment, Vietnam adopted a form of capitalism and we have hugged and made up so its all OK - I guess we were all victims of that war"
Balance is all very well but the body count didn't balance by a long shot and the pattern of overwhelming force used for what seems like domestic political reasons against a much poorer country whose level of threat is dubious to say the least has been repeated since.
I guess it is a US programme with a US audience and funding and there is only so far they can go but I think the conclusion let it down a bit.
Been watching it and really enjoyed it but I'm with David on this one. I found the last episode really troubling as it fast forwarded so much it just lost any of the nuance that they had tried to get in in the earlier episodes. To me it seemed to be saying "turns out Communism was evil after all due to the drop in living standards after the war, we cleaned up the environment, Vietnam adopted a form of capitalism and we have hugged and made up so its all OK - I guess we were all victims of that war"
Balance is all very well but the body count didn't balance by a long shot and the pattern of overwhelming force used for what seems like domestic political reasons against a much poorer country whose level of threat is dubious to say the least has been repeated since.
I guess it is a US programme with a US audience and funding and there is only so far they can go but I think the conclusion let it down a bit.
1
In reply to David Martin:
I was an army mad teenager and even after all this time I can remember how enthralling much of the televised footage was.
This was war up close and personal.
Reporters in the thick of the fighting, bodies, dead and wounded, NVA, VC, ARVN, civilians, Australians, Koreans, Americans.
All delivered into your living room while you ate your tea.
O.K. there wasn't much footage of massacres being carried out but I guess they tended not to happen when the press were around.
Maybe massacres were shocking because they didn't happen as often as some like to portray.
I was an army mad teenager and even after all this time I can remember how enthralling much of the televised footage was.
This was war up close and personal.
Reporters in the thick of the fighting, bodies, dead and wounded, NVA, VC, ARVN, civilians, Australians, Koreans, Americans.
All delivered into your living room while you ate your tea.
O.K. there wasn't much footage of massacres being carried out but I guess they tended not to happen when the press were around.
Maybe massacres were shocking because they didn't happen as often as some like to portray.
1
1
In reply to Deviant:
You can connect anything from this to Mash with the Vietnam war. Problem is, none can outright state they are about Vietnam.
Johnny Got His Gun is evidently about WWI and primarily focusses on personal suffering. The cold hard reality of what the US was doing to the civilian populations of three Southeast Asian countries is, fifty years on, still no go territory. Even Platoon or Deer Hunter, about as close as Hollywood have got, are rightly criticised for their portrayal (or non-portrayal) of the other side. If it wasn't for Bao Ninh's book I doubt we'd see anything of the other side. Hollywood just can't do it.
On the other hand, there have been increasingly positive portrayals of Japanese in WWII for some time now, probably culminating in Letters From Iwo Jima - 60 years after the event. Its 50 years after Mai Lai and there's not much to show for it in terms of cinematic acknowledgment. We've even seen portrayals of atrocities in Iraq (Battle for Haditha) released already. When it comes to Vietnam, there appears to be a national unwillingness to account for what happened - I assume because so many in the US still believe it was a just war and to say otherwise is tantamount to treason.
> Perhaps it would also be a good moment to watch/rewatch 'Johnny Got His Gun' ?
You can connect anything from this to Mash with the Vietnam war. Problem is, none can outright state they are about Vietnam.
Johnny Got His Gun is evidently about WWI and primarily focusses on personal suffering. The cold hard reality of what the US was doing to the civilian populations of three Southeast Asian countries is, fifty years on, still no go territory. Even Platoon or Deer Hunter, about as close as Hollywood have got, are rightly criticised for their portrayal (or non-portrayal) of the other side. If it wasn't for Bao Ninh's book I doubt we'd see anything of the other side. Hollywood just can't do it.
On the other hand, there have been increasingly positive portrayals of Japanese in WWII for some time now, probably culminating in Letters From Iwo Jima - 60 years after the event. Its 50 years after Mai Lai and there's not much to show for it in terms of cinematic acknowledgment. We've even seen portrayals of atrocities in Iraq (Battle for Haditha) released already. When it comes to Vietnam, there appears to be a national unwillingness to account for what happened - I assume because so many in the US still believe it was a just war and to say otherwise is tantamount to treason.
3
In reply to David Martin:
Perhaps TV coverage was less but once the UK press got hold of Calley and My La the papers and in particular the new Sunday Colour Supplements were awash with blood and guts in graphic detail. I turned 13 in 1969 and I can remember how the these pictures were picked over by people at school and the horrifying reports discussed by some while others condemned us for being interested in the "blood and guts" of war shown like this.
I also recall the widespread astonishment and revulsion at Calley's light sentence.
I don't know when the US started to believe in it being a just war but it wasn't perceived as such at the time, hence the pressure on Nixon to get out and the widespread indifferencet in the US to those who came back, reported at the time in the British press and TV
Isn't Haldeman's Forever War based partly on his feeling of social isolation from having served there?
Perhaps TV coverage was less but once the UK press got hold of Calley and My La the papers and in particular the new Sunday Colour Supplements were awash with blood and guts in graphic detail. I turned 13 in 1969 and I can remember how the these pictures were picked over by people at school and the horrifying reports discussed by some while others condemned us for being interested in the "blood and guts" of war shown like this.
I also recall the widespread astonishment and revulsion at Calley's light sentence.
I don't know when the US started to believe in it being a just war but it wasn't perceived as such at the time, hence the pressure on Nixon to get out and the widespread indifferencet in the US to those who came back, reported at the time in the British press and TV
Isn't Haldeman's Forever War based partly on his feeling of social isolation from having served there?
Post edited at 21:23
3
In reply to Flinticus:
I thought that this was a fabulous series of programs.
My criticism is that perhaps more could/should have been made of the subsequent history. Specifically, whether or not the lessons of the prosecution of the Vietnam war have indeed been learned (by the US, by us, etc.), or not. That specifically relates to the tone of the final episode.
In any event, I found the entire series riveting viewing.
I thought that this was a fabulous series of programs.
My criticism is that perhaps more could/should have been made of the subsequent history. Specifically, whether or not the lessons of the prosecution of the Vietnam war have indeed been learned (by the US, by us, etc.), or not. That specifically relates to the tone of the final episode.
In any event, I found the entire series riveting viewing.
Post edited at 21:39
1
In reply to Flinticus:
Exactly why are you saying this ? I’m interested to know as I was working in Saigon in 1972 - 1974. I’ve only seen one episode which didn’t quite match up with how I remember it but different people will have a different take on it.
> Anyone watching the series on BBC?
> It should be watched by everyone.
Exactly why are you saying this ? I’m interested to know as I was working in Saigon in 1972 - 1974. I’ve only seen one episode which didn’t quite match up with how I remember it but different people will have a different take on it.
In reply to Flinticus:
Sounds as if its well worth watching.
Probably the series covered this but at the time one of the supposed justifications for the war was stopping the "Domino" effect whereby once one country fell to Communism this would help neighbouring countries to follow, including Cambodia, Thailand and then Malaysia. I imagine from one point of view this actually was achieved, partly due to Vietnam being in a totally exhausted state (I think it later fought a short disastrous war with China).
I'm in no way trying to justify American involvement.
> It also makes clear that, at the highest levels, i.e. the President and his advisers, and nearly from the outset, they knew the war was unwinnable and that the conflict should have been seen as an internal civil war, an uprising against colonial powers and an unpopular, repressive regime in the South. <
Sounds as if its well worth watching.
Probably the series covered this but at the time one of the supposed justifications for the war was stopping the "Domino" effect whereby once one country fell to Communism this would help neighbouring countries to follow, including Cambodia, Thailand and then Malaysia. I imagine from one point of view this actually was achieved, partly due to Vietnam being in a totally exhausted state (I think it later fought a short disastrous war with China).
I'm in no way trying to justify American involvement.
In reply to oldie:
It could look like it succeeded in stopping the domino effect. But that was probably more on account of the domino effect largely being more of a fantasy. Just like capitalist countries disagree and fight amongst themselves, the communist countries of Asia appeared to do the same; if not fighting off America they were fighting off their neighbours, internal minorities or perceived enemies, or settling old territorial disputes.
It seems they had more immediate concerns than outward expansion of their doctrine. I guess you could even argue the opposite was the case: a bunch of poor communist countries had just seen off the might of the US, which probably made it a pretty attractive political doctrine for other regional leaders to emulate.
Just spent my Sunday watching it. Pretty decent. Not anything revelatory but a good account covering an extended period, with some novel footage. Always interesting to hear in the flesh the authors of the many books produced covering the period. "Balanced" probably is a fair term for it. IMHO, it doesn't delve enough in to the utter wrongness of every day American actions (e.g. "Speedy Express" gets one spoken sentence, Mai Lai probably two minutes), so while what is said will probably still shock, it still comes across as a substantial understatement.
It could look like it succeeded in stopping the domino effect. But that was probably more on account of the domino effect largely being more of a fantasy. Just like capitalist countries disagree and fight amongst themselves, the communist countries of Asia appeared to do the same; if not fighting off America they were fighting off their neighbours, internal minorities or perceived enemies, or settling old territorial disputes.
It seems they had more immediate concerns than outward expansion of their doctrine. I guess you could even argue the opposite was the case: a bunch of poor communist countries had just seen off the might of the US, which probably made it a pretty attractive political doctrine for other regional leaders to emulate.
Just spent my Sunday watching it. Pretty decent. Not anything revelatory but a good account covering an extended period, with some novel footage. Always interesting to hear in the flesh the authors of the many books produced covering the period. "Balanced" probably is a fair term for it. IMHO, it doesn't delve enough in to the utter wrongness of every day American actions (e.g. "Speedy Express" gets one spoken sentence, Mai Lai probably two minutes), so while what is said will probably still shock, it still comes across as a substantial understatement.
Post edited at 12:27
In reply to I like climbing:
Because most people were not there working during the war and it presents the perspective of many different people. It's a highly influencing war in shaping the US (and thus impacts the world) and casts a light on how governments operate and deceive. It illustrates the cost of war in human terms. It illustrates the potential for the current cultural divide in the US to widen. And so on.
Because most people were not there working during the war and it presents the perspective of many different people. It's a highly influencing war in shaping the US (and thus impacts the world) and casts a light on how governments operate and deceive. It illustrates the cost of war in human terms. It illustrates the potential for the current cultural divide in the US to widen. And so on.
2
In reply to Flinticus:
Spot on. I have a friend of mine served on carriers in the Navy . Considers the series a typical view of the Vietnam war from a bunch of lefties. He speaks fluent Japanese etc etc and lived abroad in Asia for a good few years. Voted for Trump.
Talk about a cultural divide.
Spot on. I have a friend of mine served on carriers in the Navy . Considers the series a typical view of the Vietnam war from a bunch of lefties. He speaks fluent Japanese etc etc and lived abroad in Asia for a good few years. Voted for Trump.
Talk about a cultural divide.
In reply to Flinticus:
Excellent series, and I think very well balanced. I remember at the time how we were fed a lot of tosh about the justification for America's involvement in the war., and the "crusade" against the spread of Communism. The VC and North Korea were depicted as evil unfeeling baddies, whereas as the series tells us they were fighting foreign agression and occupation, something they had been doing for the previous century. Interesting how it was the ordnary peasants who were suffering as cannon fodder, the N Vietnam leasership sent their eligible young men away to study safely in places like Russia to avoid them being called up. The Saigon Governments were totally corrupt. Not just thousands of civillians but too many young Americans, Australians and New Zealnders died or were mutilated in a pointless war they should never have been sent to.
America and her Allies had no business getting involved in someone else's civil war. Thank goodness the UK kept out of it.
The music being played throughout the series is very evocotive and reminds me of that time
Excellent series, and I think very well balanced. I remember at the time how we were fed a lot of tosh about the justification for America's involvement in the war., and the "crusade" against the spread of Communism. The VC and North Korea were depicted as evil unfeeling baddies, whereas as the series tells us they were fighting foreign agression and occupation, something they had been doing for the previous century. Interesting how it was the ordnary peasants who were suffering as cannon fodder, the N Vietnam leasership sent their eligible young men away to study safely in places like Russia to avoid them being called up. The Saigon Governments were totally corrupt. Not just thousands of civillians but too many young Americans, Australians and New Zealnders died or were mutilated in a pointless war they should never have been sent to.
America and her Allies had no business getting involved in someone else's civil war. Thank goodness the UK kept out of it.
The music being played throughout the series is very evocotive and reminds me of that time
Post edited at 10:30
In reply to Flinticus:
I think that’s a great answer. I’ll be interested to see how I feel once I’ve watched the series.
> Because most people were not there working during the war and it presents the perspective of many different people. It's a highly influencing war in shaping the US (and thus impacts the world) and casts a light on how governments operate and deceive. It illustrates the cost of war in human terms. It illustrates the potential for the current cultural divide in the US to widen. And so on.
I think that’s a great answer. I’ll be interested to see how I feel once I’ve watched the series.
Post edited at 10:34
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
Quite right ! i was 9 in....
Found the last episode the poorest of a good series.
Quite right ! i was 9 in....
Found the last episode the poorest of a good series.
In reply to Flinticus:
I was riveted by the series, having grown up during that time, it was simply a war somewhere else that I didn't understand anything about. USA against the commies was pretty much all we knew.
Good to have the history and events unravelled and yes, I thought it was pretty well presented and even sided, there is only so much you can portray when condensing about 20 years of war into a few hours of TV.
I was riveted by the series, having grown up during that time, it was simply a war somewhere else that I didn't understand anything about. USA against the commies was pretty much all we knew.
Good to have the history and events unravelled and yes, I thought it was pretty well presented and even sided, there is only so much you can portray when condensing about 20 years of war into a few hours of TV.
In reply to Flinticus:
On a slightly lighter note I've just bought the soundtrack CD. Collection of stunning music that shaped my youth.
I thought a great series, with good balance from an American made film. Thought provoking about how we got from there to here and perhaps how little has changed.
On a slightly lighter note I've just bought the soundtrack CD. Collection of stunning music that shaped my youth.
I thought a great series, with good balance from an American made film. Thought provoking about how we got from there to here and perhaps how little has changed.
1
In reply to Flinticus:
Yes brilliant, What a bastard Nixon was ( I already knew some of it, but not this), the lengths some people will go to get / stay in power. It's a pity Karma doesn't work a little better for people like him.
Purposefully telling one party to stay away from the peace talks, WTF!!
Yes brilliant, What a bastard Nixon was ( I already knew some of it, but not this), the lengths some people will go to get / stay in power. It's a pity Karma doesn't work a little better for people like him.
Purposefully telling one party to stay away from the peace talks, WTF!!
In reply to David Martin:
I didn't know about the helicopter pilot in Mai Lai, I didn't know Nixon had sabotaged the peace talks prior to the US election, etc.
Of course my knowledge might be limited, but I thought there was lots of information in the series that was new, to me at least.
> . Not anything revelatory but a good account covering an extended period,
I didn't know about the helicopter pilot in Mai Lai, I didn't know Nixon had sabotaged the peace talks prior to the US election, etc.
Of course my knowledge might be limited, but I thought there was lots of information in the series that was new, to me at least.
In reply to krikoman:
Lots of things made me think I'd like a bit more information - but I suppose s line has to be drawn, and you can always go off and read up on particulars.
I was also interested to note that Trent Reznor did some of the score
> Of course my knowledge might be limited, but I thought there was lots of information in the series that was new, to me at least.
Lots of things made me think I'd like a bit more information - but I suppose s line has to be drawn, and you can always go off and read up on particulars.
I was also interested to note that Trent Reznor did some of the score
In reply to krikoman:
Hugh Thompson Jr.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2006/jan/11/guardianobituaries.usa
> I didn't know about the helicopter pilot in Mai Lai
Hugh Thompson Jr.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2006/jan/11/guardianobituaries.usa
In reply to Ridge:
Yes sadly he's gone (and the rest of the crew), I looked for him after the program, I was going to try and thank him for what he did, but obviously I can't, which is a pity.
Some people are just great aren't they? If only we had a world with more of them.
> Hugh Thompson Jr.
Yes sadly he's gone (and the rest of the crew), I looked for him after the program, I was going to try and thank him for what he did, but obviously I can't, which is a pity.
Some people are just great aren't they? If only we had a world with more of them.
1
In reply to krikoman:
Apparently, he received an astounding amount of abuse for intervening.
We treat Tump's America as unusual (i.e. the abuse victims of the Vegas shootings have been receiving from conspiracy theorists), but there is a long history of this sort of chaos.
Apparently, he received an astounding amount of abuse for intervening.
We treat Tump's America as unusual (i.e. the abuse victims of the Vegas shootings have been receiving from conspiracy theorists), but there is a long history of this sort of chaos.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...