Posted on 07/17/2017 7:08:59 AM PDT by rktman
PBS is planning to run a new documentary series this September on the Vietnam War, produced and written by Ken Burns. Burns is a left-wing "historian" and documentary film producer with a history of having his politics shape the narrative of the story he is telling, with a number of resulting inaccuracies.
Ken Burns correctly identifies the Vietnam War as being the point at which our society split into two diametrically opposed camps. He is also correct in identifying a need for us to discuss this aspect of our history in a civil and reflective manner. The problem is that the radical political and cultural divisions of that war have created alternate perceptions of reality, if not alternate universes of discourse. The myths and propaganda of each side make rational discourse based on intellectual honesty and goodwill difficult or impossible. The smoothly impressive visual story Burns will undoubtedly deliver will likely increase that difficulty. He has done many popular works in the past, some of which have been seriously criticized for inaccuracies and significant omissions, but we welcome the chance of a balanced treatment of the full history of that conflict. We can only wait and watch closely when it goes public.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Nixon always lied saying he wasn't involved with the treachery.
I don’t believe what you’re saying, and even if true, the 68 Peace Talks needed to be “sabotaged” anyway. The only “peace” acceptable to the North was total victory.
I believe LBJ was involved in Kennedy’s murder, as did Jacque Kennedy.
The other famous TV Documentary on VietNam is Bill Kurtis on Agent Orange. I worked on a Chicago story with Kurtis a little, and more with his producer, who also did some producing for 60 minutes.
Assuming I was one of them, they were openly callous and boastful about the way they twisted the story, especially the editing, to present THEIR truth.
But Bill Kurtis was the model for Ted Baxter on the Mary Tyler Moore show, according to Bill’s CBS producer back when MTM was in its first season. Bill Kurtis truly does not have what it takes to be a historian, or analyst.
He is just a pretty face and an even prettier voice.
I remember driving thru Texas to visit my grandma as a kid, and my family laughing at billboards that read, “eat Texas beef, not LBJ baloney”.
“... Lady Bird on Huey transmissions.”
My unit in the 4th Div. was involved in upgrading Huey ‘D’ models to ‘H’ models in 1967. We had civilians from a company owned by Lady Bird working right alongside us. Of course, they were paid a lot better than we were and had much better living conditions!
BTW, if anyone remembers the name of that company, could you please let me know. My memory is not what it used to be.
Nixon Tried to Spoil Johnsons Vietnam Peace Talks in 68, Notes Show
No doubt it will be the Walter Cronkite version.
I can see two reasons why Eisenhower is underrated. First, he was a Republican; we both know how liberals try to control the historical narrative these days. Second, as a general he learned to delegate authority, and as president he did it well enough that at times it looked like he wasn’t doing anything at all, except playing golf on the White House lawn.
Once I heard some joker say that FDR proved you can be president for life, Truman proved anyone can become president, and Eisenhower proved you don’t really need a president. Apparently that person didn’t know that in the Eisenhower administration, the action was happening behind the scenes.
May as well pull out after that battle.
Thank you. That is an excellent and balanced thought.
I do believe that Burns stating point blank that it was man made reflects his communist worldview.
Yeah, I think this is the only honest an accurate conclusion any historian can conclude. As noted earlier, Truman had agreements of support with the French and Vietnam. Following the Dien Bien Phu uprising Ike, and the more so Kennedy, sent advisors, but as you correctly point out, we did have advisors everywhere as a result of the historical conditions of the time.
Johnson had a personality dominated by hubris and he truly grafted us into Vietnam and (like Pear Harbor) used the Gulf of Tonkin as the pretext for committing us to the course of war in Indochina.
However, his series on WWII was utterly unwatchable. It was like reading the diary of a vacuous teenaged girl, and about as deep.
Mr Burns should stick to simple, non-contextual topics like sports.
I loved "Jazz". Watching it caused me to dig out my old cornet and start playing again.
Right-and De Gaul told him NOT to
And the US was unofficially involved in actual fighting much earlier. For example, US bombers flew off the record missions supporting the French during the battle of Bien Dien Phu in early 1954.
Eisenhower was a great President.
Agreed. I still go back and watch segments of his Civil War series. I’ve got no use for his more recent propoganda, and I can already tell from the promos that this Vietnam series is going to be another Uncle Ho Victory Dance event.
LBJ micro managed the War,they allowed unfettered access to Russia and Chinese military supplies for the enemy.
Richard Nixon was elected to END THE WAR,took him awhile but he mined Haiphong Harbor preventing those ships from entering and sent B52s to bomb the crap out of the North,according to North Vietnam military leadership had we continued that level of bombing for just a matter of days more they would have surrendered.
I have always said that these TV newsies are first and foremost entertainers and TV news is a form of entertainment.
They are just entertainers who can’t sing, dance, do drama or comedy. All they can do is look good and sound authoritative on TV. The public assigns these clowns way way too much ability & credit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.