Will Ken Burns' twisted version of Vietnam War endure?

wnd.com ^ | 10/19/2017 | Richard Botkin

[rktman]

“No event in American history is more misunderstood than the Vietnam War. It was misreported then, and it is misremembered now.” Richard Nixon’s 1994 post-war observation remains as prescient as ever. With the release of the Ken Burns/Lynne Novick epic 10-part PBS documentary on the war last month, it is safe to say that the misreporting and misremembering have only been compounded and exacerbated.

For those among us who expected favorable treatment for the American effort to halt the spread of communism and a serious look at our South Vietnamese allies beyond the recycled shibboleths of their leaders as corrupt American stooges and their troops unwilling to do their share of the heavy lifting, there was evidence well before release that this would never be the case. Burns’ 2016 commencement address at Stanford and public comments made shortly after the election of Donald Trump that he “needed some time in the fetal position” were preview enough into what we would be indoctrinated with by America’s greatest documentarian.

If nothing else, the release of the Burns/Novick work has ignited a firestorm of passionate response from those men who honorably served. And it was their stories, including those of our South Vietnamese allies, that went largely untold in 18 long, tortuous hours.

[redcatcherb412]

Most rational people learn very early that the 2 terms “PBS and Documentary” stand for leftist propaganda. SpongeBob reruns are more informative.

[MarineBrat]

I enjoyed your post. Thank you for putting the time into writing it.

[bondsman]

I was a rifleman in the 173rd Abn Bdg. I watched the entire show, throughout the entire series, not one word of ‘FREEDOM’.
JFK “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

[rlmorel]

You are most welcome, MarineBrat...I looked at your FreepPage, and saw that you and I signed up around the same time on FR, and from what you said there, much the same reasons!

I have a degree of veneration for those Swift Boat Vets, and drove around with this on my car for over a year in this overwhelmingly blue state:

Then, while visiting the DC Chapter of Free Republic a few years later, I got to meet a number of them outside Walter Reed:

I consider it a high point in my life, that I got a chance to spend several hours talking to these men and listen to their views on Kerry, politics, war, and life in general.

See, I have always felt that these men, who could have lived their quiet and comfortable lives and kept their mouths shut, stood up to be counted because they felt their country needed them to serve again, after all those years.

And so they did. They played a major role in saving us from a term or two of "President Kerry". I would say that is Patriot's work, indeed!

Anyway, thanks for your comments...good to meet you.

[liberalism is suicide]

I may take some heat for this,but I find it hard to believe that we won the war,when the civilian government of the US lost it for us. The American military did not lose it,our treasonous elites did...deliberately. South Vietnam fell to the communists. I can’t call that a victory. For a long time after the war I wouldn’t watch anything on the tube about it.Of course,Jimmy Carter didn’t make things any better,by pardoning the draft dodgers. I better stop now,before I ramble too much.

[kearnyirish2]

I thought Ford pardoned the draft dodgers as a conciliatory gesture.

If half the statements attributed to presidents, politicians, and military leaders in the Burns series are true, one can legitimately question whether or not we should have sent troops to South Vietnam. Eisenhower & Kennedy didn’t think it feasible to fight there, and I can’t for the life of me figure out what Johnson expected when he escalated the war.

[kearnyirish2]

To someone under 50, the idea of a draft to send young men abroad seems ludicrous - and subsequent events in Iraq in particular bear that out.

While I had relatives serve in Vietnam, I can sympathize with anyone who was approaching their 18th birthday and draft eligibility. Unless the US is fighting a war within our borders, I would never let the government take my sons - especially if the borders are being left wide open and we are importing Muslims through legal means.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

rlmorel has it right. The military won the war in 1973. After Nixon’s resignation and the withdrawal of our ground troops, the Dems in Congress passed a bill blocking the US from supporting the South in the event of a Northern incursion. Ford never signed the bill but adhered to it anyway.

It’s another reason foreign countries don’t trust us. Every time the Dems come into power, treaties and agreements are subordinated to their desparate need for bribes and corruption to fund their political machines.

[gandalftb]

The series is well worth watching, even if you have to hold your nose at points.

Our mistake was letting the French back in after WWII. That was because we tried to curry favor with de Gaulle and his imperialist colonial attitudes. We didn’t realize that France had no intention of giving up any former colonies or transitioning to local rule.

Little still has been said about the political role of Michelin and their rubber plantations in Viet Nam.

When France failed to reassert their military control over Viet Nam, we bailed them out, split the country and took their place.

It was Eisenhower that committed us to Viet Nam and mission creep that we lacked the will to stop.

Kennedy traveled to Viet Nam and knew how corrupt and weak the southern government was and would never be up to the fight.

Kennedy told the Senate on 4/6/54: To pour men, material and money into the jungles of Indochina without at least a remote prospect of victory would be dangerously futile…no amount of American military assistance in Indochina can conquer an enemy which is everywhere, an enemy of the people, which had the sympathy and the covert support of the people.

How could Kennedy have been such fool? He listened to Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Max Lerner, and Walt Rostow.

[rktman]

Some know when it started. Then again a lot think early to mid 60’s. A lot of history there. Thanks.

[gandalftb]

Bottom line, we greatly misread the motivations of the enemy.

It was Johnson that knew the war could never be won that way we were fighting it and continued on anyway. His incompetence borders on the criminal.

Here we were watching Russian and others, freighter unloading weapons and fuel in Haiphong, unfettered by us. Then chasing after and bombing them on the trails to S VN and even bombing them on the outskirts of Haiphong. But not the docks, not one bullet or bomb.

And we didn’t mine the Haiphong harbor until 1972. That amounts to treason in my mind. Disgraceful. The generals should have resigned en masse in protest of such nonsense and waste of American lives.

I will go to my grave remembering my two cousins and a friend that died there.

[x]

If I was looking for an honest and truthful documentary about Vietnam, Burns is the LAST person I would go to.

Jane Fonda? Tom Hayden? Bill Ayers? Michael Moore?

You know you aren't going to get a conservative view from Ken Burns, but besides airing critical views of the US and South Vietnamese government and military, he also included criticism of the North Vietnamese government and military, the Viet Cong, and the American anti-war movement.

I only saw part of the series, and can't judge on the details, but it seems like people complaining that it didn't represent the pro-war view of the 60s may miss that it also doesn't reflect the simplified anti-war views of the 60s either. If somebody is expecting a program that just repackages the certainties people had back then, any decent documentary would be a disappointment.

I get it. Ken Burns has his own point of view. He has a bias. But the show could have been a lot worse than it was.

[x]

I thought Ford pardoned the draft dodgers as a conciliatory gesture.

Ford offered conditional amnesty to those who'd perform public service (I didn't know that). Carter issued a pardon of all draft evaders.

If half the statements attributed to presidents, politicians, and military leaders in the Burns series are true, one can legitimately question whether or not we should have sent troops to South Vietnam. Eisenhower & Kennedy didn’t think it feasible to fight there, and I can’t for the life of me figure out what Johnson expected when he escalated the war.

He really thought Kennedy's best and brightest knew what they were doing and would win the war.

Also, 'Munich" and "Chamberlain" were powerful words back then. Nobody wanted to be seen as soft on communism or accused of losing Vietnam.

[rktman]

Yup. The grunts on the ground can only do so much. Once the political assclowns take over, all bets are off. And they did.

[LibFreeUSA]

-"War to stop communism is a fine idea. A war to crush it beyond recovery is even better. Our elites sent Americans to be killed and maimed in a war with no intention of winning it."

THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT!

And it proves my point (and thesis) that LBJ never had ANY INTENTION of WINNING that war. His entire motivating focus was to "SHOW" that he was strong against Communism by attempting to prop up a government that didn't even have the people's support, and that's it.