Despite my criticism below, I do think that this series is mostly good. It's quite interesting for sure! But I do have some issues with it...
Ho Chi Minh sounds like he was a good guy. When we learned about this in school he was always sort of painted as a tyrant.
Well, on the one hand he does kind of seem to be a good person, who first and foremost wanted to free his country from foreign oppression. However, over time more dedicated Communists gained power. The series does do a decently good job of pointing out how Ho Chi Minh was not actually the most politically powerful figure in North Vietnam during the war, he was instead kind of a figurehead for the true, much more militant leaders beneath him.
It's that latter part that probably is the worst thing about him, that while Ho himself may have been mostly decent, the Communist Party under him did some pretty bad things, either behind his back (such as the time the series mentions they purged people while he was out of the country), despite his opposition (such as the time the series mentions when he was sent to China for medical treatment, and totally not because he opposed the Tet Offensive policy), or surely in some cases with his support. The Vietnamese Communist Party may have started out more focused on nationalism than communism, but by the '60s it was mostly the other way around and things got even worse once they took over the whole country -- see the Boat People debacle for example. That was after his death, but even before that there were plenty of pretty bad things they did.
Probably the worst things you could say about him are that (1) his military strategy greatly devalued human life and (2) land reform was brutal and violent, a lot of landlords and 'reactionaries' got murdered on trumped up changes. Of course that's balanced by his nationalist bona fides and the stories of how he tried to get a meeting with Woodrow Wilson and was told to fuck off and his quotation of the Declaration of Independence in 1945, which are well known now.
He's also not quite in the totalitarian Stalin or Mao mold in that Ho Chi Minh never held absolute power within Vietnam; throughout the 1960s the most powerful man in Vietnam was Le Duan. He was always super important as a symbol though as the cult of personality lasts even to this day. That majestic beard.
That's the thing -- if the more moderate guy is kind of a figurehead by the time the war starts, how much responsibility does he have for the actions Le Duan and co. took, using him as their public face while often ignoring his tendency towards caution?
As for his military strategy though, if they were going to fight a war, what else could they have done when facing a vastly more powerful and well-armed opponent like the United States?
Seriously though, for me the big question about Ho Chi Minh is, if the US had, in 1945-46, decided to support independence and elections and such in Vietnam instead of backing the French and deciding all Communists everywhere were all equally evil, what would have happened? Would Vietnam have ended up run by dedicated pro-Russian/Chinese Communists anyway, like it was by the late '60s, or could more friendly US involvement kept that from happening... I'd like to say it could have, but it's hard to say. Regardless we should never have sent the troops in, it was one of America's worst mistakes, but beyond that it raises some interesting questions.
Watched the whole docu on arte this week. Very interesting, but holy shit I never knew that more than 1m soldiers died on NV's side. A slaughterhouse.
Who cares about that, only the 50-something thousand Americans who died are in any way relevant! (So says most American history of the war...)
I am in episode 3 right now.
While I dreaded to see Agent Orange victims again, I was kind of baffled they skipped that part completely after showing it getting used.
Seriously, Agent Orange and such deserves a lot of attention here, how could they not focus on it? At least they mention a few bad things about use of napalm, but agent orange... they're like, 'they used this defoliant' and that's it, so far at least (through ep. 5).
Also, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was reported without any bit of the controversy. While it was said that there wasn't no second attack after all and that the US fired first, no word about the US misrepresenting what happened to escalate the war. It was just dealt up as a mistake.
Yeah, that is probably my biggest issue with this show so far. The second Gulf of Tonkin incident wasn't just some mistake like this mostly-good series misrepresents it to be, it was an intentional deception by the Johnson Administration used to set off a war he wanted to fight! This series mentions many of the facts of what happened, but never attempts to connect the dots or actually say what really happened there. The "second Gulf of Tonkin Incident" is what started the war, it never happened, and the Johnson Administration knew that probably nothing had happened that day but decided to attack in "response" anyway. The show's excuse is that they thought something had happened, but do you really start a war because "maybe something happened but we have no proof" and "well probably nothing happened but it might have perhaps"? Well you do, but only if you want to start a war whether or not enough has happened to actually go to war yet.
Now, war may well have started anyway regardless of that decision since as the show does make clear the North Vietnamese leadership was looking for a fight, but still, how it did start is important: we almost certainly fired the first shots.
The government's lies about the Vietnam War are a very important part of the story, and with the far too credulous way the series reports on the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, I'm not too optimistic about how it will deal with the lying issues later on once the public really started to get upset about it... unless they are planning to cover that stuff then and not before, that is. We'll see once we get to that point, I guess.
What a fucking crazy and useless war this was. I mean jesus. I guess the banking cartels maybe enjoyed it? I have no idea why this thing ever took place.
It happened because of Domino Theory. Burns does say this, several times; recall the video clip with then-Vice President Nixon showing how if Vietnam falls, next will go Malaysia, etc, etc. If we lose Vietnam we lose the whole region, and we can't lose regions of the world to the reds so we've got to fight even if it seems like a bad idea!
Now, I would say that domino theory proved quite thoroughly wrong, but Cold War America wasn't going to take any chances, even when it meant doing incredibly stupid things.
Plus, as JFK said in one audio clip, how could he win re-election if he looks soft on communism? The thing only makes "sense" in the context of the Cold War, basically.
Burns will often slide by the controversial parts in a war be it whatever conspiracy or event happened. I think it is for the best to be honest otherwise it detracts too much from the whole thing and poses too many questions that often cannot be answered in the 10-30 minute time frame.
I bet not a lot of people in the know wanted to talk about Tonkin.
But by ignoring the controversial and worst elements of your subject, you render the whole work far less important and worthwhile! The primary point of the Vietnam War is basically about the excesses the US went to in our anti-Communist fervor. Fighting Communism was important, but Vietnam showed us going way too far in that endeavor and killing a whole lot of innocent people in the process. Burns kind of makes that point, but never really sticks to it and it's frustrating.
I need to get a copy of Burns' The Civil War. I've only seen parts of it on TV and in class but never the whole thing, in order. The man is a master at what he does though.
It was good at the time but retrospect buys in far too hard to the very bad old story about how great Lee was and such. Newer works do a much better job of representing Lee as the sometimes cruel and dedicated supporter of slavery that he really was, and not as the near-deified figure most 20th century histories present him as.
Am I crazy or did last nights episode recycle some of the interview footage?
The first episode had a bunch of clips in it that turn out to be bits of later episodes, yes. Like, 'here is how it started but this is where it went later on' has to be the idea.