PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Little Joe on October 06, 2017, 06:27:16 AM
-
I have been watching the new series, and it reminds me that we are not as bad off now as we were then. Yes, we are divided, but not like the '60s.
It also reminds me that the best way to defeat communism is to leave them alone and allow them to fail on their own. A failing dictatorship can inspire their people to martrydom through brutal force. But lacking an active enemy, like US, most of those people will eventually leave for a more humane government and more opportunity, or they will overthrow their own oppressors. But leaving them alone includes no humanitarian aid. That is like giving food and money to a drug addict. It is enabling.
I disagree with many of the points being made. Like the glorification of Ho Chi Minh as a beneficial uncle figure that only wanted what was best for the Vietnamese people. All he wanted was power to control his people. But the movie also pointed out a lot of real history which validates much of what I remember. Like LBJ being the lying scum I always thought he was. And that Nixon, even with his faults, was not nearly as bad as history portrayed him.
If you watched it, what were your take-aways? And let us know if this is "old history book stuff" to you, or if this is something you grew up with. I admit that I was a supporter of the war until the late '60s/early '70s. I had planned all my life to join the service, and I even planned to enlist (If I couldn't get in to OCS) right up until the draft when I drew #267, and they drafted up to ~#250.
To this day, I am one of those that think the Vietnam war was the beginning of the end of our country's greatness. And it pains me to see us repeating this shit in the Middle East. We should withdraw and fully exploit our own energy resources. Then as the mans said: Let them drink their fucking oil. We ain't paying them any more.
-
I watched bits of the first two, and I could tell where the producers were going. Bashing anything and everything the US did, and the way they did it. Not interested. I joined in late 73, just as we were winding down. Draft had just ended. I was never a fan of our involvement there. As a 17YO know it all, I just could not figure out how the US failed to mop up NV in a matter of WEEKS. Turns out, after 40 years, I still don't know why we didn't just destroy the north and be done with it. Stupidity at the highest level of govt.
-
I've only watched the first episode, but have the rest taped.
For disclosure, I signed up for Selective Service when I turned 18 in 1978, but was not subject to the draft. Still, to that point our nation was at war for most of my life, and thought that it was inevitable to continue. (I tried to join the USAF my senior year in college, but at an all-day physical at Offutt AFB hospital, I found out I was 1/4" too tall sitting height to be a pilot.)
As for Ho Chi Minh, I took it as that is how he was characterized to the Vietnamese people, and why he had broad support early in the revolution. Remember they had a common enemy in the French. As you can see by how the democratic faithful of today are brought together for hatred of their enemy (Trump, the NRA, etc.), that brought the peninsula together, at least initially.
I like your take on this.
It is a true documentary, though, so it feels like a history book. I like that, but it's not for everyone, including my wife, which is why I've only seen one episode so far.
-
The decline of the US involvement in war actually started towards the end of WW2 as congress began to try to intervene in Pentagon decision making. The Korean War was the real beginning of the blunders of what happens when you let the legislative branch attempt to run a war. And remember, Korea was not a war, but a police action.
Even President Eisenhower realized just how corrupt the military industrial complex had become, especially with the backing of congress. We now had an all out war for profit conglomeration going and influencing the military leaders.
Vietnam was a perfect example. That war was never meant to be won, it was way too profitable. Millions upon millions were awarded in military contracts. Thousands upon thousands of yards of concrete were poured, military hardware imported, infrastructure built and the military contracts for weapons and ammunition were breathtaking. And of course all of the aircraft and the subsequent support thereof. Going back and looking at all of these companies that were awarded contracts and the people associated with these companies and the picture becomes clear as to the actual purpose of our involvement.
And each conflict the US has gotten involved in since has been nothing more than a war for profit. Afghanistan is a perfect example.
Eisenhower was absolutely correct.
-
And each conflict the US has gotten involved in since has been nothing more than a war for profit. Afghanistan is a perfect example.
Eisenhower was absolutely correct.
There is a lot of truth to this. I've spent a lifetime working for hi tech and many of the biggest players are heavily involved in military hardware and infrastructure. As an example, we have a 'protect' list internally of customer who get almost anything they want, any time they want, any way they want. It has about 15-20 members on it at any time. Four that never leave the list are Lockheed, Boeing, Gen Dynamics, and the Pentagon(fed direct).
A few months ago, I went into one of these customers to work on some hi tech gear. It was the latest, best and most expensive stuff we make, and much of it was just sitting doing nothing of import. Without specifics, they had cutting edge technology at their fingertips when they could have done the task with a couple of Apple Macs, and some cheap Ebay routers and cable. As an employee, I was ecstatic that they bought this stuff, as a taxpayer - I was bitterly dismayed.
-
Here are two excellent articles written by one of the most knowledgable of all those who has ever written on the Vietnam War:
Lead in-Are PBS and Ken Burns about to Rewrite History Again? (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/are_pbs_and_ken_burns_about_to_rewrite_history_again.html)
The Tragedy of the PBS-Ken Burns Version of the Vietnam War (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/09/the_tragedy_of_the_pbsken_burns_version_of_the_vietnam_war.html)
Stephen Sherman served as a civil affairs and psychological operations officer with 5th Special Forces Group in Vietnam. He is a founding member of Vietnam Veterans for Factual History (vvfh.org) and the editor of the Indochina Series that organization publishes.
Noah W
-
While I concur with some of his ramblings on the war, some of it is clearly psy-ops vocational left-overs. Our 'stated' goals might be as he said, but the power-that-be in the US at the time were heavily swayed by those getting rich selling hardware to the US forces, and more-so to the SVN forces.
He rightly points out that dissent to the war was not remotely monolithic. There were a few who saw communism as a just result for the country, and supported the NV policy, but far, far more were simply disgusted with the drawn out status quo of dead youth, and no progress for year, after year, after year. He finally mentions it, but I consider this to be the deciding factor. He also wasn't in the US during the most virulent anti-war times in later 68-72 when the entire nation was being lied to by those that were supposed to represent our ideals and will of the people. I was not so angry when I learned of Tet(I was still pretty young), but when I heard we were bombing Laos and Cambodia with B-52s and they were not adversaries, I was furious! Rightly so.
Beyond the simplistic treatment of the leadership of the US - which was well deserving of ridicule, I didn't agree with his making light of the 'cub reporters' and other minor dissidents to the conduct of the war. Maybe the dissidents weren't up to his psy-ops standards, but his disrespect of their POV, which was held by a majority of young people at the time is no reason to minimize their position.
I'm sure he knows more about the conduct of the war, and I'm sure he's an expert in the tactical and hearts and minds of what we wanted to accomplish, but I don't think his critique of the strategic thrust of the US was accurate. Of course, I admit my bias in that respect because I was staunchly against our involvement, and the withdrawal appeared to me as a victory for the US as a whole, I could have been turned into an ardent supporter if they would have simply prosecuted the war properly(as he pointed out) and crushed the NV, and be done with it.
-
Have seen the first two or three, bunch loaded up on the DVR. Liked it so far. Enjoyed the background history of the late 1940's and 1950's, much of which I wasn't aware of. Didn't know the Ho Chi Min (allegedly) spent time in the US or made overtures to the US to help him against the French. The political situation in the North was interesting, with Ho Chi Min losing influence over time and the rise of Le Duan.
Thought the tapes of conversations between LBJ and McNamara were revealing. My impression was that they both believed continued involvement would be a morass, but LBJ didn't want to back down and be accused of being soft on communism. Lot of lost lives so the President could appear "tough".
Although eligible for the draft, my number never did come up. Did think about it a lot, can't say I was at all enthusiastic to join up and be sent there. Lived in a small town, did have a few of my classmates drafted and sent to Nam, thankfully, they all came back. Had some not, believe my opinion would have worsened considerably.
Don't believe this is "old history book stuff", it jogged my mind on many of the details that time erased.
-
I watched the first five episodes, but didn't like the political, anti U.S. bias. Ken Burns has a good reputation for his past documentaries, though I do think he allowed his liberal/progressive leanings show through here. The Vietnam War was certainly a cluster, but in general I think our men fought well, but were betrayed politically, and by both parties.
-
In regards to corruption, LBJ was a piker compared to Obama but he did manage to permanently cock up our economy to enrich his military industrial complex “donors.”
The war in VN was just a scam to raid the treasury and get rich.
]our soldiers deserved far better from their commander but got garbage instead.
-
In regards to corruption, LBJ was a piker compared to Obama but he did manage to permanently cock up our economy to enrich his military industrial complex “donors.”
The war in VN was just a scam to raid the treasury and get rich.
]our soldiers deserved far better from their commander but got garbage instead.
I believe what Dwight Eisenhower said about the military/industrial complex. Who would better know about such a thing? I saw if first hand as a contractor to a very large Defense company. Admirals, and generals coming in, and yucking it up with retired admirals, and generals now in top management for a private company, getting lucrative contracts from their buddies. Who then retire with full benefits, and get a job at the firm, and the cycle continues.
-
Even my wife is enjoying the series. The show shows Nixon as being much worse than I'd previously thought. Prolonging the war just to get elected. I don't see Burns' anti-war slant. He does show a lot of anti-war sentiment, but there WAS a lot of anti-war sentiment.
Burns did a good job, even with the twists, like listening to the family's audio tapes they'd send back and forth with their son in VN...only the son never made it home. I wasn't expecting that.
The desperation of the VN civilians caught in the middle of the debacle. Flocking to the cities when their villages were torched. The VC come around, collecting taxes, forcing them to feed them, etc. As if the villagers could defend themselves. The the U.S. comes in, "ah, you're supporting the VC, you need to be tortured, interrogated and we'll burn your village on our way out." And worse. I almost turned off the tv when the video clip showed the girl being led off by U.S. soldiers to have their way with her.
Our involvement with VN was a disgrace in every way.
When I was a kid my mother worked with a VN lady whose family was fortunate to flee at the end. He was an SVA colonel and said that not just him, but his entire family would have been executed if they hadn't been able to leave. Even as a kid I was very interested in the war, but he would not share any information about it at all. Probably because I was a kid, but he never smiled so I suspect he just wanted to put it all behind him. His wife taught my mother to make several VN meals, something we used to look forward to.
Back to the show. Burns lives up to his reputation with this series. I've talked to some people who were disappointed. I have a feeling they were hoping it would be more We Were Soldiers or Good Morning Vietnam.
-
Couple points to make on commentary.
Why weren't the Vienamese civilians not able to defend themselves? In a revolution war, you pick a side, you get a rifle, pistol, bayonet, knife, club, or use your hands. But if you don't pick a side, and stand up - then you don't get to complain about the outcome. Our defined enemy was the NVA. The undefined enemies were the VC AND the non-supportive civilians in the south. Much of the Viets in the south wanted to see the US out of their country, wanted the communists out of their country, wanted to be left alone, and go about their lives. Well - sorry, but you have been INVADED by a foreign power! Stand up, arm up, and send some metal downrange, or get crushed. If they didn't care, why should we care? The majority of the south Vietnamese care a hell of a lot today, but in 1971 when it would have made a difference, they were just trying to milk the US govt for all they could, and to hell with fighting. This was clearly apparent when the US started to withdraw and we left billions of war materiel for the south. They either wouldn't or didn't want their freedom enough to do something about it.
After the war came to a close, while I was living in SoCal, there were loads, and loads, and loads of refugees. The US resettled and transported maybe 70-80% of the people fleeing the country. I was not a fan of this either. As harsh as it is - those who are defeated are under the yoke of their new masters, and while it's inhumane to say so - I suspect a lot of people in the cities of south Vietnam always felt that they had an escape to Thailand, Malaysia, or other SE Asian country, for resettlement to the US or AU. What kind of incentive is there for an army to fight with vigor if the alternative is a life in the US or another capitalist society?
What would have been their motivation if they KNEW at time of the war that there was no escape, and no freedom at the end of the line? Suppose the SVA colonel had no recourse but to fight, and win rather than lose and his whole family being sent to live a life of leisure in the US or AU? In retrospect, is losing really losing, or is losing actually winning? That was one of the huge problems the US caused there. The colonels, generals, and upper echelon of the govt were always assured safe exit by the US or other nations. They didn't really care if they won, because in losing they get to go to the land of plenty!
Most of the SVA were poorly trained, and well equipped. Also, most of the SVA were conscripted either by the lawful conscription, or by the illegal way of telling some adult male that the only way he is going to feed his family is by joining the army. They had no motivation to do any of the work needed to kick the commies out. There was never much of strategic plan to go forward and destroy the enemy. They were interested in a 30 year holding pattern after Dien Bien Phu. But - the north had no interest in leaving the south to prosper and grow economically.
I guess to summarize, the way I feel about the entire involvement with the south was 'tough shit. You made your bed, now lie in it.' Too damn many good people died trying to help them, and aside from a small cadre of good soldiers, the rest of the forces were just out for a meal ticket.
-
Back to the show. Burns lives up to his reputation with this series. I've talked to some people who were disappointed. I have a feeling they were hoping it would be more We Were Soldiers or Good Morning Vietnam.
I thought it glorified Ho Chi Minh too much, and tried to make our soldiers look like the bad guys. I kind of pissed me off, so I stop watching it, and deleted all the recordings I was going to keep to re-watch.
-
I thought it glorified Ho Chi Minh too much, and tried to make our soldiers look like the bad guys. I kind of pissed me off, so I stop watching it, and deleted all the recordings I was going to keep to re-watch.
My biggest complaints were the glorification of Uncle Ho, and also the praising of the South Vietnamese soldiers. Had they carried their weight, there may have been a different ending. Yeah, there were somegood ones, but not enough.
-
I'm up through episode 5, and aside from the heaviness of it, I think it's a good and accurate portrayal of the war and the home front. I had a cousin die in an airborne drop in VN, and remember him coming back with a glass covering in his casket. That was around 1968.
I know little about Ho, but I have no doubt he was good to some people in order to get his grassroots following.
It does make Johnson look like a douchebag, which he was.
-
I'm up through episode 5, and aside from the heaviness of it, I think it's a good and accurate portrayal of the war and the home front. I had a cousin die in an airborne drop in VN, and remember him coming back with a glass covering in his casket. That was around 1968.
I know little about Ho, but I have no doubt he was good to some people in order to get his grassroots following.
It does make Johnson look like a douchebag, which he was.
I don't think they portrayed Johnson as quite the douche bag he really was. And they don't do Nixon any favors later either.
But other than that, and a few other things, I thought it was rather well done too.
Some of the other things:
As I stated before, I thought they made Ho Chi Minh look to pure, idealistic and philanthropic and who's only concern was reuniting the people of Vietnam. I think Ho was a rock solid communist who's only goal was consolidating his power over as many people as he could. He was brutal to any that resisted him, and he treated his people like animals. That is why when the country was divided, North Koreans tried to stream south, but South Koreans never went North. But he was a communist, so the American left loves him.
I give them credit for bringing up JFK's so-called "limited war" tactics, but they stopped way too soon in describing the impact of such tactics. In reality, that was just a strategy to try to keep the Russians and/or the Chinese from escalating their own war effort. But the result was that our troops were hog-tied when they tried to advance and win. They would take a hill, then give it back, then take it again, then give it back again, losing many American lives in the process. They made it look like our military did the best they could, but just couldn't win. That was NOT the truth. The military was prevented at every turn from "winning" that war because of politics. And yes, I understand that "winning" in that part of the world is a nebulous term. It would not have mattered one way or the other if we won. Once we left, things would return to the way they always were.
There was another point I took issue with, but I don't recall it at the moment.
-
They moved quickly over the battle in the Ia Drang Valley, but covered our losses and the brutality of the enemy on the battle of Hill 1338 pretty extensively.
-
I know little about Ho, but I have no doubt he was good to some people in order to get his grassroots following.
It does make Johnson look like a douchebag, which he was.
Respectfully disagree on Ho. He was a opportunist and manipulator of his people, just like all totalitarians of the past. He read the 'little red book'. He read Das Kapital, and he was able to focus his vilification of the French colonialists at first, and the 'Imperialist' Americans second. Not that I don't blame a dictator for wanting foreign powers out of the country, but looked at from the perspective of what the French took from VN, and what they gave back - anyone of a modern standard of culture would agree that VN was getting very good cultural advancement for the colonial 'master'.
Saigon of the 50s was one of those 'Paris of the SE Asia' kind of places. They had French language schools, art and history, they had a very nice orchestra, museums, boulevard living, etc. All the trappings of western civ, which so many want, except the fascist dictators who want everyone to be living in a mud hut, growing rice and corn, and providing sustenance to the rest of the proletariat. This is elitism of the worst kind, and Ho was a master of manipulating the people against those who were trying to get VN up to some modern standard of living.
My uncle(older than my father) lived in Saigon in the mid-50s and he said it was an Asian paradise. Much like Beirut of the 60s. Artists, musicians, painters, were common in Saigon after WWII. And now, it's a shithole, all thanks to uncle Ho.
-
Respectfully disagree on Ho. He was a opportunist and manipulator of his people, just like all totalitarians of the past. He read the 'little red book'. He read Das Kapital, and he was able to focus his vilification of the French colonialists at first, and the 'Imperialist' Americans second. Not that I don't blame a dictator for wanting foreign powers out of the country, but looked at from the perspective of what the French took from VN, and what they gave back - anyone of a modern standard of culture would agree that VN was getting very good cultural advancement for the colonial 'master'.
I
Saigon of the 50s was one of those 'Paris of the SE Asia' kind of places. They had French language schools, art and history, they had a very nice orchestra, museums, boulevard living, etc. All the trappings of western civ, which so many want, except the fascist dictators who want everyone to be living in a mud hut, growing rice and corn, and providing sustenance to the rest of the proletariat. This is elitism of the worst kind, and Ho was a master of manipulating the people against those who were trying to get VN up to some modern standard of living.
My uncle(older than my father) lived in Saigon in the mid-50s and he said it was an Asian paradise. Much like Beirut of the 60s. Artists, musicians, painters, were common in Saigon after WWII. And now, it's a shithole, all thanks to uncle Ho.
Obviously you haven't been to Vietnam in the last 20 years. Calling it a shithole is the furthest from the truth. Saigon (Ho Chi Men) is a bustling city, Hanoi is as modern as most cities in SE Asia, pristine beach resorts, etc. To most Vietnamese the war is ancient history and most remnants of it are long gone.
-
Imagine what Saigon would have been like if it's wasn't a workers paradise.
-
Imagine what Saigon would have been like if it's wasn't a workers paradise.
I don't follow you. I've made several trips to Saigon and still don't get the "shithole" comment. I enjoy going there and even enjoy Hanoi.
40+ years makes a difference.
-
Respectfully disagree on Ho. He was a opportunist and manipulator of his people, just like all totalitarians of the past. He read the 'little red book'. He read Das Kapital, and he was able to focus his vilification of the French colonialists at first, and the 'Imperialist' Americans second. Not that I don't blame a dictator for wanting foreign powers out of the country, but looked at from the perspective of what the French took from VN, and what they gave back - anyone of a modern standard of culture would agree that VN was getting very good cultural advancement for the colonial 'master'.
Saigon of the 50s was one of those 'Paris of the SE Asia' kind of places. They had French language schools, art and history, they had a very nice orchestra, museums, boulevard living, etc. All the trappings of western civ, which so many want, except the fascist dictators who want everyone to be living in a mud hut, growing rice and corn, and providing sustenance to the rest of the proletariat. This is elitism of the worst kind, and Ho was a master of manipulating the people against those who were trying to get VN up to some modern standard of living.
My uncle(older than my father) lived in Saigon in the mid-50s and he said it was an Asian paradise. Much like Beirut of the 60s. Artists, musicians, painters, were common in Saigon after WWII. And now, it's a shithole, all thanks to uncle Ho.
Understand I'm not saying he was good. I'm saying that he was good to some people to accomplish his ends. According to the documentary, Ho capitalized on the Vietnamese honor with which they held the elderly, so he grew a beard and began to look and act old to gain the respect from the people of VN.