Please consider supporting the channel on Patreon HERE: / mikeb128 Also, if you like Military Surplus gear and collectibles, visit my online store HERE: www.mikesmilitaria.com
I’m glad to hear that history is still being taught. I’m 51 and my kids have let me know that the same level of history is not being taught. When we were in high school we didn’t have these docs to teach us. We were taught about the Vietnam war by teachers who were there and some who did not serve but lived during the time of war. My parents generation were the soldiers
Thanks for giving me a new perspective on the documentary. Frankly I need to study up on the Laotian contribution because it’s relatively unknown to me. Thanks for pointing it out. Keep up the good work Mike.
Mike, great perspective. There are definitely topics which are worth an 11th or 12th part to the Ken Burns series. I recently finished the series on Netflix and I guess I came away with a slightly less critical opinion of it. A few things: 1) I consider myself a Conservative. So, that is the lens which I viewed the documentary through. 2) His documentary leaned anti-war. But to be fair, that was a very strong sentiment in the United States so I didn't think it was necessarily disingenuous to give the audience that experience through the people that experienced it firsthand. It was refreshing to not see someone go off the rails with it (which you could easily do) which may have tempered my opinion. Even though, like you say, a more balanced view would have been obviously better. 3) I'm active duty Army and I know that you are a veteran so I can appreciate your opinion that no war is justified insofar as there are other options on the table, they should be considered before going to war. IMO some wars are justified but you have to go to war for the right reasons with clear objectives in mind and a definition of what victory looks like (WWII comes to mind). The reasons and results of a war have to validate the cost of the war. I think the seemingly perpetual nature of the Vietnam War combined with tens of thousands of American lives lost for the purpose of containing communism surpassed the validation threshold in people's minds later in the war as it did when Americans had a smaller footprint (pre-65).
I've watched it a few times (it's become almost a background show to watch for me now), and while I didn't quite walk away with the same impression; but as always, I'm glad you share your thoughts and encourage intellectual honesty in what we choose to take in for information.
As a non-American, I would note different things from the documentary: - first of all, Lê Duẩn is portrayed as absolute warmonger, who is doing everything in his power to continue the war no matter the cost, and even if others in the party, even Ho Chi Minh himself disagree. - That North Vietnamese used torture against american prisoners, who are held in primitive faculties, with high mortality, and routinely use terror as weapon against civilians. - The documentary is focused on Conflict between the Washington and Hanoi. There are many parts of course that get brushed off to side, but the documentary is a general overview on the events, aimed primarily to american audiences. - Document is also rather uncritical towards Vietnamese nationalism, which ties down to the issues with Hmong etc. If I remember correctly, there was even some critique made towards the communist policies by the Vietnamese interviewees, however, there was absolutely zero critique made towards the Nature of Vietnamese Nationalism, which quite well sits with Current leadership of Vietnam. Of course, no one is going to read this comment on this old video, but felt a need to make a point.
As I recall there was a PBS interview series from the late 80s or early 90s where they just found a bunch of 'nam vets and asked them what it was like, and just let them tell their stories. I think it's up on youtube somewhere.
I watched it a few times. It starts out good but ends in a more ideology conclusion. It certainly focused more and more on the ant war aspect. Wich is fine for its own documentary. But entire aspects of the war were barely awknowledged when they should have been highlighted. I usually watch other documentaries. The Battlefield series is a more pure analytical documentary that I recommend. It doesn't get into opinions or view points. Documentaries have to decide what they want to cover and how before they make them. Burns starts out focused on the history and initial start and perspectives but shifts midway.
Good documentary, and a massive effort by Burns, but in ten parts it never mentioned the horror of communism. Never even mentioned it as being problematic to Americans.
zunedog31 But they did reference it though. As far as I remember. In the interviews multiple people talk about how scared they were of communism. And how they saw them as enemies.
I think I remember the people in the interviews mentioning this, but the narrator/film did not express this as a major reason for war or explain the reasons the soldiers felt this way.
I have the the original 1969 issue OG 107 utilities including the bush hat. I have 3 pair trousers, one pair never worn . Can’t get these anymore. I have 7 of the jungle jackets. 3 I have kept unused. I got then years ago I new they would be hard or impossible to get one day. So glad I did. These are the best utilities in my opinion. War is hell. Alan Rice.
I’ve watched the kburns doc several times and will watch the other docs listed by your viewers. The most truth in kburns is how the fighting Americans were treated when they returned home. Sad, sorry ass protestors who put that war on our veterans
If it's worth my perspective, I watched the series and thought it was real good, however the parts where they brow beat the politicians didn't really stick in my mind. I remember the impact on the people and the veterans more that anything else. I didn't really care about the politics of it.
Wont lie stopped watching after you said "be careful when you reference this" because I've learned to take everything you hear with a grain of salt and I'm glad that you did as well because everyone needs to do it more often but enjoying your stuff already
I agree with basically everything you said. And I appreciate the perspective. I became immediately suspicious of how highly they described about Ho Chi Minh. I don’t even know much about him but that glowing perspective on him made me very suspicious. However, I disagree with what you said about Burns painting the North as the good guys. I specifically remember in an early episode of the documentary a north Vietnamese fighter explained how he murdered a man in cold blood for not siding with the north. And everyone was too scared to even go to the funeral. There are many mentions of the very sick and depraved things the north did. There is a whole sub story of the doctor who was captured by the north and tortured for years. They even showed many times how the north Vietnamese would kill wounded American and south Vietnamese soldiers. I really didn’t feel some sort of positive outlook towards the north after watching it. I mainly saw what I believe was the main point of the documentary, which is to show how savage and brutal this conflict was. And how both sides had their moments of cruelty and brutality. While I do agree with you about the Laotian point I think that they seemed to want to focus on the south Vietnamese army more. I feel like most people looking back probably see them as incompetent cowards. While the documentary shows many examples of bravery from their side. And how it was the corrupt leaders of that military that really dragged down the whole ARVN and made them ineffective without American help.
The fact of the matter is that if you can't spell "war" correctly, when it's in the title of the video, and a three letter word, your point becomes hyperbole at best.
sounds almost like documentaries about germany in WW1 or WW2... we are always the baddies and its never neutral. i guess now you can feel how it is to be the bad guy :D
Very Mature and Well Laid Out argument on your part. I have been hesitant to listen to the documentary . I am 66 and never been in Service. I am an Independent and was for the War and for our Troops. I have Big Problems with Leftist Slants on the War. But I am not closed minded or dismissive. I may watch the Burns thing after listening to your Comments in the Video.
I'm 60, born in 1960 so I was a little boy & young teenager through the war. What really struck me from the documentary was the sense of deju vu: you could take all the rhetoric about the threat of communism in the 50's & 60's & substitute "terrorism" and you'd have damn near the same verbiage we've been getting sense 9/11. It really made me wonder, if Viet Nam was a bungled mistake by our politicians (LBJ in over his head & a spineless congress), is the war on terrorism a bungled mistake by our politicians?
What you consider far-left in USA is seen as central-right in Canada. To be frank, I couldnt even finish the first part, not for any political reason, but because of the propaganda-level juxtaposition of the stories of the GIs to the stories of the north-vietnameses soldiers, which created a tale of "both sides suffered equally" which is complete bullsh*t. I aint saying americans didnt suffer or paid an unjust price, whether it be the 50 000 deads or the awful and humiliating treatments of returning GIs at the hand of the pro-peace protesters, but it is nothing but a footnote compared to what vietnameses suffered through. To this day, there are still miscarriage and malformations from the Agent Orange. There are still unexploded ordnances and minefields in the forests. Death still stalk that land, decades after.
The North and the VC were hardly innocent either. They committed more than their fair share of attrocities during the war and I'm not just talking about their notorious treatment of America POWs either.
@@freedomis4all That's part and parcel of any civil war, which the Vietnam war ultimately was. It's like saying the US suffered the worst as a result of our Civil War.
True, and yet there was no other country on the ground, taking side one way or another. That change a lot. Was it truly a civil war, though? If the outside powers would have kept their promise in '56 and let an election go through, the whole country would probably have gone communist, and no matter what would have happened after that, it could hardly been worse than what actually happened. Until the end, the South-vietnamese government was a shambling puppet of the US, and if I remember well, never really had the popular support (outside of Saigon and the big cities.)
@@MikeB128 what do you mean? maybe i'm a bit in the black and white here. I'm not saying both sides werent cruel to one another but when you read about the hanoi hilton and vc boobytraps its... Idk is my response inapropriate?
@@bogglemeister4204 I never defended either side's actions. It's a war, nothing is fair in a war. Nobody is innocent. My point was that the documentary painted the North as more of the victims than I thought was appropriate. There were plenty of victims, but the documentary discounted a lot of other groups.
@@MikeB128 i wasnt trying to take shots at anything you said. I agreed with your opinions throughout. Its dificult to look at them the way the film wants you to. Idk i kinda just woke up this afternoon and watched your video. Been watching your series an it got me riled up. Forgive my commentary i love your videos
