A
Peace Activist Perspective on “The Vietnam War” of Ken Burns and Lynn Novick
The bottom line is that “The Vietnam
War” is a cinematic super star which implicitly demonstrates that the US war in and with Vietnam,
Laos and Cambodia was wrong and a failure while the views of its opponents were right and successful. However, there are flaws in the series that
will impede lessons learned for other interventionist wars and movements to end
them..
1) The series never addresses directly whether there was an underlying reason that strategies of escalation and deescalation all failed. U.S. decisions to support the restoration of French colonialism, create a client state in the south, and block the reunification elections mandated by the Geneva Agreement could have been asserted as personal motivations by an anti-war activist. These were the factors that motivated anti-war activism from the teach-ins to draft counseling and resistance to mass demonstrations to election of peace candidates for Congress to grass roots pressure for legislation to end US bombing and aid to Thieu. They also contributed to the demoralization and disaffection of US troops.
2) The series never acknowledges the diversity and breadth of anti-war activity that made this the first and only time in US history that a peace movement succeeded. The role of the religious community and later of lawyers and business people is barely mentioned.
3) The series perpetuates, and never addresses, a phony conflict between veterans and anti-war activists, although it does a good job in showing how some of the former became the latter. If an activist ever called a veteran a baby killer or pounded on a car, it was an anomaly contrary the the goals and ethos of the anti-war movement. Substantial civilian support was provided to GI newspapers and coffee houses, an important and unprededented activity that the series never mentions. Post-war polling showed former peace activists to be more supportive of the special needs of veterans confronting PTSD, Agent Orange, etc. than persons who backed the war.
4) The anti-war movement is treated as a spectacle not as a substantive factor in the considerations of US war makers and of the resistance by Vietnamese civilians in the south and the strategy of the other side.
5) The march on the Pentagon coverage ends before more than 600 people were arrested, most staging a non-violent sit-in on the Pentagon steps where they sang America the Beautiful and This Land is Your Land, and watched draft cards burned before being arrested very forcibly by US Marshals.
6) The treatment of Jane Fonda is sexist and shallow, ignoring completely her standing as a extremely popular award winning actor who created the first film dramatization of the challenges to veterans in Coming Home, as well as her substantive work with the Free the Army show to US bases in support of GI papers and coffee houses and the creation of the Indochina Peace Campaign, the final successful grass roots stage of the anti-war movement that focused on Congress.
7) After appropriately illustrating the duplicity of the US government in carrying out and justifying the war, the last episode accepts uncritically the official explanation of the peace negotiations, the impact of the Christmas bombing and the reason the war ended in a military debacle.
8) Far more Americans were involved with the anti-war movement than served in Vietnam. While only a handful of peace activists died (self-immolations, Kent State, Jackson State), tens of thousands of others faced life changing challenges and costs including imprisonment for draft resistance and civil disobedience, exile, family division and vocational harm. Their courage and conviction are not conveyed by the series.
9) Completely ignored is the humanitarian work of US NGOs with the population of the south, regardless of political loyalties, through medical aid to the north, and of their educational work against the war after returning home. The death of an IVS staff person is described but not the mass resignations from IVS several years later to protest the war.
10) Legacies of war (Agent Orange, land mines, UXO) that still today claim victims among US veterans and the military and civilian populations of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia are barely acknowledged and the issue of US responsibility for the consequences of its actions is never raised. The series is full of emotionally wrenching footage of the horror of war but shows nothing of the horror of the legacies of war, including birth defects and lost limbs.
1) The series never addresses directly whether there was an underlying reason that strategies of escalation and deescalation all failed. U.S. decisions to support the restoration of French colonialism, create a client state in the south, and block the reunification elections mandated by the Geneva Agreement could have been asserted as personal motivations by an anti-war activist. These were the factors that motivated anti-war activism from the teach-ins to draft counseling and resistance to mass demonstrations to election of peace candidates for Congress to grass roots pressure for legislation to end US bombing and aid to Thieu. They also contributed to the demoralization and disaffection of US troops.
2) The series never acknowledges the diversity and breadth of anti-war activity that made this the first and only time in US history that a peace movement succeeded. The role of the religious community and later of lawyers and business people is barely mentioned.
3) The series perpetuates, and never addresses, a phony conflict between veterans and anti-war activists, although it does a good job in showing how some of the former became the latter. If an activist ever called a veteran a baby killer or pounded on a car, it was an anomaly contrary the the goals and ethos of the anti-war movement. Substantial civilian support was provided to GI newspapers and coffee houses, an important and unprededented activity that the series never mentions. Post-war polling showed former peace activists to be more supportive of the special needs of veterans confronting PTSD, Agent Orange, etc. than persons who backed the war.
4) The anti-war movement is treated as a spectacle not as a substantive factor in the considerations of US war makers and of the resistance by Vietnamese civilians in the south and the strategy of the other side.
5) The march on the Pentagon coverage ends before more than 600 people were arrested, most staging a non-violent sit-in on the Pentagon steps where they sang America the Beautiful and This Land is Your Land, and watched draft cards burned before being arrested very forcibly by US Marshals.
6) The treatment of Jane Fonda is sexist and shallow, ignoring completely her standing as a extremely popular award winning actor who created the first film dramatization of the challenges to veterans in Coming Home, as well as her substantive work with the Free the Army show to US bases in support of GI papers and coffee houses and the creation of the Indochina Peace Campaign, the final successful grass roots stage of the anti-war movement that focused on Congress.
7) After appropriately illustrating the duplicity of the US government in carrying out and justifying the war, the last episode accepts uncritically the official explanation of the peace negotiations, the impact of the Christmas bombing and the reason the war ended in a military debacle.
8) Far more Americans were involved with the anti-war movement than served in Vietnam. While only a handful of peace activists died (self-immolations, Kent State, Jackson State), tens of thousands of others faced life changing challenges and costs including imprisonment for draft resistance and civil disobedience, exile, family division and vocational harm. Their courage and conviction are not conveyed by the series.
9) Completely ignored is the humanitarian work of US NGOs with the population of the south, regardless of political loyalties, through medical aid to the north, and of their educational work against the war after returning home. The death of an IVS staff person is described but not the mass resignations from IVS several years later to protest the war.
10) Legacies of war (Agent Orange, land mines, UXO) that still today claim victims among US veterans and the military and civilian populations of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia are barely acknowledged and the issue of US responsibility for the consequences of its actions is never raised. The series is full of emotionally wrenching footage of the horror of war but shows nothing of the horror of the legacies of war, including birth defects and lost limbs.
11) The only substantial
peace movement interviewee is Bill Zimmerman, an old friend. When I expressed surprise at the negative
tone of his last interview segment, he wrote, "in my interview with
Burns/Novick I did explain that a good portion of the movement shifted to the
grassroots work you and I did after the failure of Mayday. I also made the point that it was only
because of that work and the networks we developed that we were able after the
Peace Accords to draw so many people into the grassroots lobbying that eventually
stopped the war."
This was achieved by the Indochina Peace Campaign led
and energized by Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda, a network of religious and peace
organizations I coordinated from the American Friends Service Committee, and a
broadly supported Coalition to Stop Funding the War in Washington.
Film editors must always make hard decisions about
inclusion. However, my sense of the
series’ agenda on reconciliation is that they wanted to leave the impression
that all sides had regrets. No doubt
that is true, but there was a right and wrong side about the origin and responsibility for the war, a conclusion
Burns/Novick declined to reach. The right
side, for whatever its mistakes, was proud of what it had achieved in opposing
an unjust and illegal war and for 95% of the way we did it. Maybe not surprisingly, there is no footage of
the huge celebration of the end of the war that took place in Central Park
organized by long time peace leader Cora Weiss.
--John McAuliff, 9/25/17
Episode by Episode
Episode 1
This is a quick take based on my notes.
I have not relooked at it to be sure my memory is correct.
On the positive side, most viewers will be introduced to Ho Chi Minh in a far more comprehensive and sympathetic way than they previously knew, including a brief mention of his time in the US. The history is well conveyed that we are all familiar with of his failed efforts to communicate with Wilson in Versailles and with Truman in 1945, as is the cooperation with the OSS. (FRD could have deepened that picture from our experience bringing the OSS and Viet Minh veterams together in Hanoi and in New York.) The episode conveys well the messages from Ho that were ignored but not the supportive advice from the OSS team that was also buried in Washington.
The fundamental flaw lies in the underlying and unchallenged editorial judgement voice over in the first few minutes that evokes US belief in its inherent innocence:
On the positive side, most viewers will be introduced to Ho Chi Minh in a far more comprehensive and sympathetic way than they previously knew, including a brief mention of his time in the US. The history is well conveyed that we are all familiar with of his failed efforts to communicate with Wilson in Versailles and with Truman in 1945, as is the cooperation with the OSS. (FRD could have deepened that picture from our experience bringing the OSS and Viet Minh veterams together in Hanoi and in New York.) The episode conveys well the messages from Ho that were ignored but not the supportive advice from the OSS team that was also buried in Washington.
The fundamental flaw lies in the underlying and unchallenged editorial judgement voice over in the first few minutes that evokes US belief in its inherent innocence:
"America's
involvement in Vietnam began in secrecy. It ended thirty years later in
failure witnessed by the entire world. It was begun in good faith by
decent people out of fateful misunderstandings, American overconfidence and
cold war miscalculation and it was prolonged because it seemed easier to muddle
through than admit that it had been caused by tragic decisions made by five
American presidents belonging to both political parties."
We know from
the New Yorker article that there were extended internal debates about whether
to use "failure" or "defeat". I wonder if the rest of
the language was also contested. Does this represent a Burns/Novick
decision about how to avoid alienating and closing down an audience they were
trying to reach and/or the consistent national failure to accept responsibility
for our actions?
The narration goes on to acknowledge the vast difference in loss of life in the US and Indochina, but a moral conclusion about that reality is totally absent. Such judgement does not emerge in the last episode, but I don't know yet what lies between.
There are three omissions that stand out:
1) The movement of half of Catholics to the south is described but the role of the CIA in encouraging their flight is not mentioned. The implication of their cultural, military and political link to the French colonizers is not considered. The US goal to use them to create an alternate anti-communist government in the south is never raised.
2) The role of the US in choosing and bringing back Diem is fudged. Instead Leslie Gelb is allowed without challenge to create the image of the devious puppet controlling the puppet master by making it seem he was indispensable for US success. How could they have used Gelb but ignored Ellsburg?
3) Diem's phony referendum is exposed, but the voiding of Geneva mandated elections merits only passing comment and nothing is said of the US determination to prevent them from taking place, although it is acknowledged that Ho was expected to win.
The sense of abandonment among Viet Minh oriented southerners in the face of Diem's repression is described and there is a significant reference by a Vietnamese interviewee that Le Duan from Quang Tri brought southern will to the government in Hanoi. But the north/south mind set persists by describing "northerners" being in control of the formation of the National Liberation Front rather than as an alliance between Vietnamese from the south and center, some of whom believed that under the Geneva Agreement they had relocated temporarily to the north.
(I was reminded of a conversation with Mac Duong, the former head of the Social Sciences Center in HCM City in which he described a book he had just finished about a prison uprising by Viet Minh women that was not recognized as a legitimate patriotic act in Hanoi until after the war war over.)
The leadership in the north is legitimately criticized for Giap's purge of contending forces in the Vietminh while the Geneva negotiations were taking place and for the harsh land reform.
Notably Mai Elliott's first reference to a civil war is during the struggle against France, with the illustration of the division within her own family, a sister that is with the Vietminh and a Mandarin father who is a third generation collaborator with the French. Virtually any independence struggle can be described as a civil war because a sector of the population has benefited from and sides with the foreign colonizer, as was the case in the American revolution.
Artistically I understand the directors' goal in cross cutting between the French and US experience but I am not sure it works as well as they intended.
The narration goes on to acknowledge the vast difference in loss of life in the US and Indochina, but a moral conclusion about that reality is totally absent. Such judgement does not emerge in the last episode, but I don't know yet what lies between.
There are three omissions that stand out:
1) The movement of half of Catholics to the south is described but the role of the CIA in encouraging their flight is not mentioned. The implication of their cultural, military and political link to the French colonizers is not considered. The US goal to use them to create an alternate anti-communist government in the south is never raised.
2) The role of the US in choosing and bringing back Diem is fudged. Instead Leslie Gelb is allowed without challenge to create the image of the devious puppet controlling the puppet master by making it seem he was indispensable for US success. How could they have used Gelb but ignored Ellsburg?
3) Diem's phony referendum is exposed, but the voiding of Geneva mandated elections merits only passing comment and nothing is said of the US determination to prevent them from taking place, although it is acknowledged that Ho was expected to win.
The sense of abandonment among Viet Minh oriented southerners in the face of Diem's repression is described and there is a significant reference by a Vietnamese interviewee that Le Duan from Quang Tri brought southern will to the government in Hanoi. But the north/south mind set persists by describing "northerners" being in control of the formation of the National Liberation Front rather than as an alliance between Vietnamese from the south and center, some of whom believed that under the Geneva Agreement they had relocated temporarily to the north.
(I was reminded of a conversation with Mac Duong, the former head of the Social Sciences Center in HCM City in which he described a book he had just finished about a prison uprising by Viet Minh women that was not recognized as a legitimate patriotic act in Hanoi until after the war war over.)
The leadership in the north is legitimately criticized for Giap's purge of contending forces in the Vietminh while the Geneva negotiations were taking place and for the harsh land reform.
Notably Mai Elliott's first reference to a civil war is during the struggle against France, with the illustration of the division within her own family, a sister that is with the Vietminh and a Mandarin father who is a third generation collaborator with the French. Virtually any independence struggle can be described as a civil war because a sector of the population has benefited from and sides with the foreign colonizer, as was the case in the American revolution.
Artistically I understand the directors' goal in cross cutting between the French and US experience but I am not sure it works as well as they intended.
Episode 2 1961 - 1963
Provides some insight into the failure of the advisory stage and the collapse of the U.S.'s Diem strategy. However, no one is interviewed who argues that US intervention was inherently flawed, regardless of its form, because of its intervention in another nation's history. The Korean War, the Cuban Missile crisis and Soviet expansion in Eastern Europe are posed as explanations, if not almost sufficient reasons, for US policy.
The ostensible hands-off stance that allows the coup against Diem to proceed may understate the behind the scenes US roll in the coup if my memory of research is correct. If so, that omission serves the purpose of maintaining the theme of US innocence.
In any case there isn't an interview or voice over that articulates the thesis that Diem would not have existed nor continued past the unification elections but for the US.
While the facts are presented, no one makes it explicit that the US upping the ante with advisors and modern military equipment is what prompts Hanoi with Chinese support to strengthen its forces in the south.
Was there no one in the US government or the academic world or journalism raising these issues contemporaneously who could have been interviewed to make the point that more reasoned options were rejected and why?
Neil Sheehan ends the episode with an elegant and poignant comment that the US was not the exception to history.
Missing is an explicit argument that we aspired to replace the French with a different form of foreign authority but with equal determination to frustrate the country's authentic forces for self-determination.
Two side notes:
1) There is a brief profile of an IVS worker Peter Hunting who is the first US civilian aid worker killed by local guerillas. (I wonder if the series comes back to IVS when Don Luce, et. al. resigned to protest the war.)
2) There is a mention and video of the beginning of Agent Orange spraying but not of its consequences for health and genetic damage.
Episode 3 January 1964 - December 1965
A pattern is developing to make the first reference to "National Liberation Front" before using the more common place (albeit pejorative) "Viet Cong", perhaps a compromise position but acceptable.
Both 3 and 4 make clear that it is the US military that is pushing LBJ to increase bombing and troop numbers. The Republicans reinforce tha pressure.
In both episodes there are passing references to opposition from allies (England, France and Canada) that deserved greater attention. I had forgotten the British wanted to reconvene the Geneva conference. Reasons for US refusal needed to be explained.
Ball's lonely disagreement with escalation is recognized, and the core of his argument reported.
Hal Moore's battle in the Ia Drang valley with North Vietnamese regular forces is dramatically recreated, as it had been in an earlier documentary on PBS, but his costly victory receives a lot more attention than a nearby US defeat.
North Vietnamese regulars come south only after the US begins bombing the north, but the lesson is not made explicit that US escalation precedes and could be said to cause DRV escalation.
A soldier whose family and story are being followed denounces the anti-war movement in a letter to his parents. No soldiers are heard who welcome it.
The role of Le Duan and his relationship Ho Chi Minh may be exaggerated and influenced too much by the perspective of Vietnamese-Americans.
The teach ins and April 17 SDS march in Washington are reported with good comments from Bill Zimmerman. Norman Morrison's self immolation is not mentioned nor is the November 27th SANE demonstration in Washington.
Episode 4 January 1966 - June 1967
The Fulbright hearings are well covered.
The effect of search and destroy missions in creating three million refugees is noted, and there is film of people impacted, but no personal story is offered comparable to the personal stories about American suffering.
Piles of Vietnamese combatant corpses are shown, but we see no discussion of mass graves and their significance for Vietnamese funeral traditions.
A short clip of defoliant spraying is shown but no reference is made to long term health consequences.
Caputo characterizes protesters as being self-interested.
A clip of Stokely Carmichael denouncing the war is shown, but there is no mention of early SNCC opposition. A short clip of Casius Clay is shown with a news story of his conviction for refusing the draft but the injustice is not explored nor the effect in the black community and among sympathetic whites..
A nice clip of Spock and his support for draft resistance. No reference is made to his later indictment but it could be in a future episode. No description of nationwide draft counseling in churches and on college campuses that led to the number of CO applications and deferments cited.
A nice clip of Dr. King's Riverside Church sermon but no indication that Clergy and Laymen Concerned sponsored it, nor of how mass media and political leaders criticized him.
Footage of Spock and King at April 15th demonstration in New York with good commentary by Bill Zimmerman.
A reference is made to FBI and CIA infiltration of protest organizations and provocateur role, but the consequences for the peace movement are not developed.
Eloquent interview with Bill Zimmerman on conflicting interpretations of patriotism.
Anti-war buildup not covered: Mobilization Committee mass demonstrations and protest against McNamara speech at Harvard in November; opening of Quaker refugee assistance center in Quang Ngai; blockade of Whitehall Induction Center in Manhattan; Clergy and Laymen Concerned mobilization in Washington; formation of Resistance;
Episode 5 July - Decenber 1967)
The dehumanization, and underlying racism, of attitudes about Vietnamese well conveyed.
Important description of Tiger Force atrocities and non-prosecution; other descriptions of GI maltreatment of Vietnamese civilians without discussion of why it took place because of the purpose and character of the war.
The Pentagon march is featured but with Jerry Rubin's radical aspirations setting the tone. The civil disobedience sit-in on the steps, patriotic spirit of protestors, mass arrests and harsh treatment by marshals are not covered; good statement by Zimmerman that US government, not the soldiers were seeb as the enemy; no description of distorted press coverage
Terrible battle footage communicates cost to both sides but stongest personal stories are all of Americans.
No direct connection made between treatment of POWs and the the suffering of bombed civilians.
Allard Lowenstein and McCarthy campaign described.
Anti-war build-up not covered Vietnam Summer, The Resistance mass turn-ins of draft cards around the country; militant confrontations with police at Stop the Draft Week in Oakland and Dow Chemical protest in Madison, WI; presentation the day before the march of 1000 draft cards at the Justice Department; Customhouse draft board blood pouring action in Baltimore by priests and nuns
Provides some insight into the failure of the advisory stage and the collapse of the U.S.'s Diem strategy. However, no one is interviewed who argues that US intervention was inherently flawed, regardless of its form, because of its intervention in another nation's history. The Korean War, the Cuban Missile crisis and Soviet expansion in Eastern Europe are posed as explanations, if not almost sufficient reasons, for US policy.
The ostensible hands-off stance that allows the coup against Diem to proceed may understate the behind the scenes US roll in the coup if my memory of research is correct. If so, that omission serves the purpose of maintaining the theme of US innocence.
In any case there isn't an interview or voice over that articulates the thesis that Diem would not have existed nor continued past the unification elections but for the US.
While the facts are presented, no one makes it explicit that the US upping the ante with advisors and modern military equipment is what prompts Hanoi with Chinese support to strengthen its forces in the south.
Was there no one in the US government or the academic world or journalism raising these issues contemporaneously who could have been interviewed to make the point that more reasoned options were rejected and why?
Neil Sheehan ends the episode with an elegant and poignant comment that the US was not the exception to history.
Missing is an explicit argument that we aspired to replace the French with a different form of foreign authority but with equal determination to frustrate the country's authentic forces for self-determination.
Two side notes:
1) There is a brief profile of an IVS worker Peter Hunting who is the first US civilian aid worker killed by local guerillas. (I wonder if the series comes back to IVS when Don Luce, et. al. resigned to protest the war.)
2) There is a mention and video of the beginning of Agent Orange spraying but not of its consequences for health and genetic damage.
Episode 3 January 1964 - December 1965
A pattern is developing to make the first reference to "National Liberation Front" before using the more common place (albeit pejorative) "Viet Cong", perhaps a compromise position but acceptable.
Both 3 and 4 make clear that it is the US military that is pushing LBJ to increase bombing and troop numbers. The Republicans reinforce tha pressure.
In both episodes there are passing references to opposition from allies (England, France and Canada) that deserved greater attention. I had forgotten the British wanted to reconvene the Geneva conference. Reasons for US refusal needed to be explained.
Ball's lonely disagreement with escalation is recognized, and the core of his argument reported.
Hal Moore's battle in the Ia Drang valley with North Vietnamese regular forces is dramatically recreated, as it had been in an earlier documentary on PBS, but his costly victory receives a lot more attention than a nearby US defeat.
North Vietnamese regulars come south only after the US begins bombing the north, but the lesson is not made explicit that US escalation precedes and could be said to cause DRV escalation.
A soldier whose family and story are being followed denounces the anti-war movement in a letter to his parents. No soldiers are heard who welcome it.
The role of Le Duan and his relationship Ho Chi Minh may be exaggerated and influenced too much by the perspective of Vietnamese-Americans.
The teach ins and April 17 SDS march in Washington are reported with good comments from Bill Zimmerman. Norman Morrison's self immolation is not mentioned nor is the November 27th SANE demonstration in Washington.
Episode 4 January 1966 - June 1967
The Fulbright hearings are well covered.
The effect of search and destroy missions in creating three million refugees is noted, and there is film of people impacted, but no personal story is offered comparable to the personal stories about American suffering.
Piles of Vietnamese combatant corpses are shown, but we see no discussion of mass graves and their significance for Vietnamese funeral traditions.
A short clip of defoliant spraying is shown but no reference is made to long term health consequences.
Caputo characterizes protesters as being self-interested.
A clip of Stokely Carmichael denouncing the war is shown, but there is no mention of early SNCC opposition. A short clip of Casius Clay is shown with a news story of his conviction for refusing the draft but the injustice is not explored nor the effect in the black community and among sympathetic whites..
A nice clip of Spock and his support for draft resistance. No reference is made to his later indictment but it could be in a future episode. No description of nationwide draft counseling in churches and on college campuses that led to the number of CO applications and deferments cited.
A nice clip of Dr. King's Riverside Church sermon but no indication that Clergy and Laymen Concerned sponsored it, nor of how mass media and political leaders criticized him.
Footage of Spock and King at April 15th demonstration in New York with good commentary by Bill Zimmerman.
A reference is made to FBI and CIA infiltration of protest organizations and provocateur role, but the consequences for the peace movement are not developed.
Eloquent interview with Bill Zimmerman on conflicting interpretations of patriotism.
Anti-war buildup not covered: Mobilization Committee mass demonstrations and protest against McNamara speech at Harvard in November; opening of Quaker refugee assistance center in Quang Ngai; blockade of Whitehall Induction Center in Manhattan; Clergy and Laymen Concerned mobilization in Washington; formation of Resistance;
Episode 5 July - Decenber 1967)
The dehumanization, and underlying racism, of attitudes about Vietnamese well conveyed.
Important description of Tiger Force atrocities and non-prosecution; other descriptions of GI maltreatment of Vietnamese civilians without discussion of why it took place because of the purpose and character of the war.
The Pentagon march is featured but with Jerry Rubin's radical aspirations setting the tone. The civil disobedience sit-in on the steps, patriotic spirit of protestors, mass arrests and harsh treatment by marshals are not covered; good statement by Zimmerman that US government, not the soldiers were seeb as the enemy; no description of distorted press coverage
Terrible battle footage communicates cost to both sides but stongest personal stories are all of Americans.
No direct connection made between treatment of POWs and the the suffering of bombed civilians.
Allard Lowenstein and McCarthy campaign described.
Anti-war build-up not covered Vietnam Summer, The Resistance mass turn-ins of draft cards around the country; militant confrontations with police at Stop the Draft Week in Oakland and Dow Chemical protest in Madison, WI; presentation the day before the march of 1000 draft cards at the Justice Department; Customhouse draft board blood pouring action in Baltimore by priests and nuns
No comments:
Post a Comment