I just don’t have it in me to watch Ken Burns’s documentary on the Vietnam War. I’m sure it’s a masterful job, interesting, and entertaining, joining narration, first hand recollections, photos, video, and music of the period, etc. but I remember the period too well and it was not a happy time for me.
I was called up but didn’t serve. They rejected me for bad eyes and bad knees.
They probably figure demographics give them a big audience, but you’re right, most of us don’t want to relive it. One of my customers is a Vietnamese boat refugee, we talked about the war a little and I remember commenting that for us there was no “Pearl Harbor” moment. No motivation except duty. All ugly.
The time that has elapsed since the Vietnam War is just about the same amount of time as had elapsed between World War I and the Vietnam War. There was no particular surge of interest then in World War I, no audience for it.
I think it’s less an audience for it than Mr. Burns wanted to stick his oar in on it. In other words he began to look into it, realized he had some things he wanted to say about it, and is saying them.
I’ve only watched Episode 5 last night, because I was bored. My son was in the room and started watching a bit while he played games on his phone, so I kept it on, though ultimately I’m not sure it offered much that I hadn’t gotten from that spate of Vietnam war movies back in the late 80s. It had an all-knowing voice over, with stock war footage, 60s music, and new interviews. I was a little surprised that there was not much link-up with domestic politics. Maybe the other episodes do this, but its no Civil War.
I’ve read the WP’s interview with Burns as the series aired. I think he’s pitching a specific point of view, something he’s done in his previous documentaries. In the case of Vietnam while I agree that the waging of the war had a racist element he elides over the fact that the anti-war movement did as well. I seriously doubt that the reaction of those being drafted would have been the same if France had experience the sort of attack from a communist neighbor that South Vietnam did.
That being said during the war I was neither for it nor against it which basically meant that everybody hated me. We had a treaty with South Vietnam but it didn’t obligate us to defend it. We did so anyway. How would Europe have reacted if we had withdrawn from South Vietnam immediately?
Many of the remarks about Vietnam I’ve read over the last couple of weeks refer to the “domino theory” as discredited. In 1972 none of South Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia were run by communist regimes. By 1975 all of them were. “Discredited” doesn’t seem like the right word. “Overstated” seems closer to the mark since India, Malaysia, and Indonesia didn’t fall to communist regimes.
Commentary seems somewhat overwrought.
In any event, treaty or not, what was your reaction when it became obvious we were being lied to, political goals were primary,and the strategy was hopelessly flawed?
I generally assume that political goals are primary in any action by politicians and that we’re being lied to. As I recall it was not evident that the strategy was hopelessly flawed until quite late in the conflict. By that time it was clear we were on our way out.
I’m not watching it for a couple of reasons:
– I don’t watch much TV generally.
– I’m burned out on war. I don’t even like to watch war movies anymore, even “fun” ones like Kelly’s Heroes.
I read Stanley Karnow’s book years ago. I figure that’s all I need to know:
https://www.amazon.com/Vietnam-History-Stanley-Karnow/dp/0140265473
It’s an interesting alternate history if the Vietnam war ended in a stalemate like the Korean War.
The Sino American reapproachment (Nixon goes to China) that was key to the downfall of the Soviet Union would have faced much stiffer resistance.