Ken Burns' The Vietnam War

[GeezerSteve]

If the US is guilty of a war crime against civilians then isn't the government of N Vietnam just as guilty?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[GeezerSteve]

Frankly, Burn's main sin seems to be not rubbing people's faces in it. The facts are there and one is left to make their own judgements [sic].

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

If the US is guilty of a war crime against civilians then isn't the government of N Vietnam just as guilty?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

I heard Ken Burns and Lynn Novick on NPR. The film's use of the phrase about "starting" the war with "good intentions" was a reference to Ho Chi Minh's initiation of the fighting against the French imperialists, i.e., the start of Ho's efforts to free the Vietnamese people from occupation by a western imperial power. If that's not good intention, what is? ETA: Note that the U.S. originally supported Ho, albeit clandestinely.

Daniel Ellsberg was also interviewed. He erroneously interpreted the phrase as referring to the "start" of U.S. involvement, and his U.S.-centered myopia leaked into some of his other criticisms. (See link below.) Ellsberg said that, although he thought the film has some omissions, "the overall thing is very impressive."

You can read a transcript of the salient points here: http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/...vick-ken-burns

[Kinnikinnick]

The Killing of History

by John Pilger

https://dissidentvoice.org/2017/09/t...ng-of-history/

of the most hyped “events” of American television, The Vietnam War, has started on the PBS network. The directors are Ken Burns and Lynn Novick.

That author would lick the crusty anus of communist/fascists leaders if they'd let him.

I found the Vietnam documentary relatively balanced, but yeah comes from an American perspective so this commie douchebag is unhappy that it didn't completely villain-ize Americans and glorify the North Vietnamese.

The US leaders were and are largely incompetent and did/do things that harm a great many people, but so did the North Vietnamese. Millions died on both sides so that the North Vietnamese and their puppetmasters in Moscow could implement a fascist communist regime. Was it worth it? I doubt many honest people on either side would now say that it was some great thing. In the end they in many ways abandoned the bullshit commune style life that was a pile of shit for most people.

Net/net is that all these ideological leaders do things that kill(ed) millions for little or nothing of real value. He's outraged someone would compare the communists to Hitler - hell Stalin killed 50-60million of his own people. Oh wouldn't this author rejoice if only Burns would have sided with the beautiful communists. What a prick.

[Meadow Skipper]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

^^^This, a thousand times this. It has diverted and ruined so many discussions.

Thanks for that link, I'd never seen it before.

[GeezerSteve]

The US leaders were and are largely incompetent and did/do things that harm a great many people, but so did the North Vietnamese. Millions died on both sides so that the North Vietnamese and their puppetmasters in Moscow could implement a fascist communist regime.

Add to that the revolving door of manifestly corrupt South Vietnamese puppet governments, the leaders of which were chiefly interested in lining their own pockets and/or converting their people to Catholicism. Burns/Novick did a good job covering the evolution of that hot mess.

Ho Chi Minh as not a USSR puppet. Indeed, he was initially pro-U.S. and remained so until the U.S. elected to support his enemies. The real problems with the north started when Ho lost power to militarists who were courted by the USSR.

[DougW]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

I'm not trying to lessen the role of the US in the death of many civilians. But in a war , esp a statemented war both sides have to be supplied with enough materiel to maintain the statement. The NV choose to support the war in the south, it choose to launch the Tet offensive which put many civilians in harms way. Of course if the US had not supported the south the war would have been very short and very few civilians would have been killed. I think that was one of the points in the episode last night that the US by abandoning the south it shortened the war.

[DougW]

Add to that the revolving door of manifestly corrupt South Vietnamese puppet governments, the leaders of which were chiefly interested in lining their own pockets and/or converting their people to Catholicism. Burns/Novick did a good job covering the evolution of that hot mess.

Ho Chi Minh as not a USSR puppet. Indeed, he was initially pro-U.S. and remained so until the U.S. elected to support his enemies. The real problems with the north started when Ho lost power to militarists who were courted by the USSR.

One thing that I learned was that those terrible Southern leader were not puppets of the US but the US was a puppet of those leaders. I had always thought that the US was behind the changes in gov't. As presented by the show that was not the case.

[DougW]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

I think you , on second thought, are misusing the concept. Whataboutism it bringing up an unrelated behaviour to divert from the behaviour in question. Your bad too because you did or are doing that. In this case its to allocate blame. Is it all the US fault? Was the US trying to win the war or just trying to get out of it and was trying to sue for peace behind closed doors? What was the NV doing that prolonged the war?

[waxman]

I was speaking non-specifically about Iraq and Afghanistan. We were fed what were supposed to be excellent reasons to do what we did and it turned out to be a giant mess built upon lies.

As a student of history and Canadian doesn't that sum up US foreign policy pretty much from Korea to modern day?
A friends uncle was the Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister (equivalent to USA Secretary of State) when the USA went into Afghanistan (dragging along the "coalition of the willing" ie NATO). When asked at Xmas dinner why Canada was joining in his response was "if we don't the US will screw it up like every other conflict they have entered since WWII."
I'm not judging just relaying the story. IMHO there isn't a square inch of Afghanistan or the middle east worth one US or Canuck life. My foreign policy would be send all sides of any internal conflict as many man portable small arms as they need to wipe each other out and then negotiate with the winners.

Interesting Viet Nam fact, did you know that almost as many Canadians crossed the borders to join the US forces to fight in Viet Nam as US citizens that crossed into Canada to avoid the draft.

[Cono Este]

One thing that I learned was that those terrible Southern leader were not puppets of the US but the US was a puppet of those leaders. I had always thought that the US was behind the changes in gov't. As presented by the show that was not the case.

There are many ways to look at a disaster in history. But this ^^^^ is a re occurring method. Blame the foreigners for everything, hold the locals responsible for nothing.

Used exclusively by the intellectually inept.

On a side note, I'd like to add that many of the weapons left in Vietnam ended up in other Cold War hot spots. I think this is a perfect example of how to lay blame on BOTH sides. http://www.nytimes.com/1986/10/19/wo...d-to-cuba.html

[wyeaster]

conehead bringing the lulz as usual.

[Cono Este]

conehead bringing the lulz as usual.

You're such a bone head. How old are you?

There are people in here who lived through that history and you embarrass yourself with your cut and paste drivel.

[wyeaster]

old enough to know your regularly racist elitist imperialist bullshit by heart

[Cono Este]

old enough to know your regularly racist elitist imperialist bullshit by heart

That's not very old. Why don't you stick to current events? That way you can feel some personal embarrassment 20 yrs from now.

[GeezerSteve]

I think you , on second thought, are misusing the concept. Whataboutism it bringing up an unrelated behaviour to divert from the behaviour in question.

My use was appropriate. Did you read the definition? Someone posted about the U.S. war crimes and your response was "yeahbutwhatabout North Vietnam?" That's a a common use of whataboutism: Someone makes a critique of the bad conduct of party A and the whataboutist responds "but what about the bad conduct of B?" Of course, that party B acted badly is not a defense to, nor a rationale for, party A acting badly. Party B's conduct is "behavior unrelated to" (your term, albeit with American spelling) party A's conduct. But it's a convenient way to divert the discussion away from party A's bad conduct.

[DougW]

Nope ... " divert the discussion away from party A's bad conduct." that was not my intention It was an original thought from viewing the program. It was something that really had not thought about and as such posed with "?? at end.

In someways your response reflects American navel gazing in that there is no good other than American good and if America is not good, then well America is going to be the most evil possible. Almost all conflict is more nuanced.

Of course if America had not gotten involved the war would have been very short and possibly ~ 2 mil would not of died. At the very last of the last episode a NV raised the point that even the NV wonder if it was worth it.

But I will use that link every time someone defends Islam by commenting on Christian behaviour 500 years ago. Then that concept would be applicable.

[GeezerSteve]

I figured you hadn't read the wiki article I posted. If you had you would have seen this example of whataboutism:

When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world.

That's the equivalent of what you did. Somebody mentioned U.S. atrocities and your response was "if U.S. is guilty, then isn't NV also guilty?" That is classic whataboutism.

Next time you get stopped for speeding, tell the cop that you saw some other guy who was also speeding and see how that works for ya.

ETA: I won't take your bait on the black vs. white logical fallacy. I haven't seen anybody on this thread claim that the U.S. was all bad (well, except maybe wyeaster) or all good in Vietnam.

[DougW]

But the NV were guilty for prolonging the war by not being at all interested in peace talks were they not? At least the US was interested in getting out of the war though their method of enlarging the war to sue for peace didn't work with the NV. There was some sort of twisted logic to it.

"That is classic whataboutism." I don't agree as its the same conflict. In any conflict the behaviour of the enemy effects the behaviour of your side to a degree. I one side uses human shields, kills POWs, kills wounded etc. So the behavoiur of one side cannot be completely viewed in a vacuum.

[GeezerSteve]

But the NV were guilty for prolonging the war by not being at all interested in peace talks were they not? At least the US was interested in getting out of the war though their method of enlarging the war to sue for peace didn't work with the NV.

What is your point?

At least? The U.S. was interested in getting out because the administration in charge wanted to get reelected. But otherwise the U.S. policy was generally to escalate the war year after year after year until the truth got out and duly informed public sentiment compelled the political reality of an exit.

Nor do I get your second point. The My Lai Massacre can indeed be examined and deemed a heinous war crime without reference to the conduct of the North Vietnamese, i.e., to use your term "in a vacuum." Atrocities against civilians are never excused nor tempered by the conduct of the enemy -- except maybe to whataboutists.

[ill-advised strategy]

[B]

Interesting Viet Nam fact, did you know that almost as many Canadians crossed the borders to join the US forces to fight in Viet Nam as US citizens that crossed into Canada to avoid the draft.

source?

[seano732]

source?

I believe it was in the documentary, where Burns got it I don't know......

[DougW]

What is your point?

Nor do I get your second point. The My Lai Massacre can indeed be examined and deemed a heinous war crime without reference to the conduct of the North Vietnamese, i.e., to use your term "in a vacuum." Atrocities against civilians are never excused nor tempered by the conduct of the enemy -- except maybe to whataboutists.

not to beat a dead horse... as I posted" behaviour of your side to a degree" In the case of MyLai really to no degree or almost 0, other than it was an insurgent war in that area which is difficult and requires a high degree of leadership which esp in the case of MyLai was lacking at many levels. My Lai seemed to be a perfect storm of psychopath at the platoon and company level and moral failings higher up also.

Yes My Lai was all on the US Army. Tet could be looked at differently. I think you can look at the actions of all parties in the war critically without taking away the " guilt" from the actions of the US, it off course should have done better. Yes the US prolonged the war that the leadership was not winnable and the strategy of body count, lets kill so many that there won't be any more is pretty evil esp against an opponent that really had very little regard for the sacrifice of its people. After that the French are the bad guys and then the NW and maybe then the SW. See the US wins gold and silver in the done evil awards.

[DougW]

I believe it was in the documentary, where Burns got it I don't know......

I don't think there is any way of knowing as I don't think the US collected that stat or if they had it released it. Really a guess estimate. Anecdotally you hear about more draft doggers but then again at remembrance day ceremonies there used to Vietnam vets but don't know if they were Canadians who served or Americans who moved to Canada or both?? Canadians who served are not going to broadcast that .

[GeezerSteve]

... as I posted" behaviour of your side to a degree" In the case of MyLai really to no degree or almost 0

doubletalk

I'll double down on my position that the opposing nation's behavior is never a justification to any degree for atrocities against civilians.

That an insurgent war was being fought in the south has zero relevance to the atrocity of shooting babies in the head -- unless you're a whataboutist.

Tet could be looked at differently.

Tet was a military offensive, so, yes, it was different, of course. Duh. Not getting your continued pattern of comparing apples v. oranges.