Personal Comments About the PBS Vietnam Series and Station Practices

Donald Voth

There is a glaring error in segment 5.  While discussing the rise of president Ngo Dinh Diem, narrator says, as I recall "There has never been a separate, southern government of Vietnam." Anyone who knows even the most elementary stuff about the history of Vietnam knows that, starting in 1558, the southern, Nguyen, dynasty was established in direct conflict with the Trinh dynasty in the north, and that they fought each other more or less regularly, from 1600 until 1800, and that the southern regime actually became a dynamic and wealthy state, completely overwhelming the Trinh dynasty in the North.  Else what the hell was Hue about?  It's so obvious I surely don't need to cite sources, eh?  The error is not trivial, it must surely be celebrated by the current regime in Hanoi, which seeks to downplay any and all accomplishments by the southern Nguyen dynasty whenever possible.

Donald E. Voth, Ph. D.
Professor of Rural Sociology, Emeritus
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR
4323 Balcon Ct., NW
Albuquerque, NM  87120

Louis Wolf

While I found the
series quite positive in terms of the unique Vietnamese
war footage included demonstrating that Ken Burns & Co.
had gone to some lengths to include it, I found the section
about the Tonkin Gulf incident severely thin and did not even
mention that official U.S. government documents prove that
the incident was not caused by Vietnamese navy vessel/s
shooting at the American ship, a fact hidden and kept secret
for many years. Rather, the incident was the basis for
the Tonkin Gulf Resolution which launched the war that
lasted for three decades, resulting in the deaths of some
millions of Vietnamese, 58,00 U.S. servicemen killed, and the
lingering effects of Agent Orange in both countries.

The other piece which was virtually left out of the series was
the 'secret wars' in both Laos and Cambodia, which also caused
the deaths of additional millions in both countries. Also
missing was any treatment of the continuing presence in both
countries of unexploded ordnance which the U.S. left behind.
In both countries, the Central Intelligence Agency was a central
architect of the wars by secretly arming, training and supplying
the brutal Khmer Rouge forces of Pol Pot in Cambodia, and by creating
and supporting the mercenary Hmong secret army in Laos. It is
no coincidence that measured in terms of the per capita population, the tonnage of ordnance
dropped there by the U.S. Air Force made Laos the most bombed country
in the entire history of warfare. Moreover, the Air Force used Laos
as a virtual laboratory for the secret use of chemical weapons, including
the highly toxic Agent Orange and Agent Blue.

I hope the agenda will include an ongoing effort to effectively
counter the Pentagon's semi-public pet project of rewriting
the history of the Vietnam War, reportedly costing American
taxpayers some $15 million.

Louis Wolf

louw7@live.com


Neville Williams


I thought I was over Vietnam 40 years ago, although I've known America is never "over Vietnam" as Ken Burns relates in his comprehensive 10-part, 18-hour PBS series on the war.

This is the best war documentary since "Victory at Sea." It is also the best antiwar film ever made, and the best thing Burns has ever done. Words fail me when I try to praise what Burns accomplished (an eleven-year-long production). It is the most magnificent television journalism I've seen in the past 50 years. It leaves the viewer with no other conclusion that this was one great war crime from start to finish; this is not a version of history the public has accepted -- until now, if they watched this, and millions did.

Along with many friends who suffered through the war as soldiers, as US officials, as antiwar leaders, or, like myself, as war correspondents, I said I can't watch this. I'd already seen all the documentaries on Vietnam I ever wanted to see and read all the books on the war I ever needed to read. I had given 200 of my Vietnam books to George Washington University and all my writings and files on the war and the draft etc. to the American Heritage Center at the University of Wyoming. I was SO done with Vietnam, and never looked back after helping organize the "War Is Over" celebration in Central Park in May of 1975 with Phil Ochs, Cora Weiss, and Carl Rogers.

But I did watch it, with my wife, who wanted to learn what really went on during all those crazy years. Once we started watching, I couldn't take my eyes off the screen.

First, Peter Coyote is the best narrator there is. Second, it's extremely well written, the narration underpinned by the most amazing footage of all aspects of the war I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of it. Turns out, I'd seen very little. A third of the footage comes from the North Vietnamese, their army, the NLF, and foreign journalists and TV cameramen. Much of it has never been shown before. All 18 hours is accompanied by music from our era. (I'll never forget waking up to Judy Collins' "Both Sides Now" on many a morning in Saigon being broadcast over Armed Forces Radio.)

The series misses nothing. I can't offer a single criticism of the content, the facts, the history, or the delivery, and I was ready not to like it. The first three and half hours covers the years from the late 40's to 1965 explaining how we got into the war. For most of us, the war started with the Marines landing in Danang in 1965, but there is 15 to 20 years of history -- and US meddling in the country -- prior to that. After Mao proclaimed the People's Republic in 1949, and Stalin continued with his iron rule, and Eastern Europe "went communist," it was inevitable that we would draw the line somewhere, and that line was Vietnam, after the French left in 1953.

But while the war made perfect sense historically, it didn't make any sense to our generation, especially when the draft was instituted. What is extraordinary about the film is that it is fair to everyone involved in the war at all levels, on all sides, but it leaves one with the full knowledge that the Vietnam War (or the American War as the Vietnamese call it) of the stupidity, the evil, and criminality of this misbegotten enterprise. We all knew it at the time, but now everyone can know it. The film clearly identifies the criminals -- at all levels. Instead of featuring antiwar leaders, it uses interviews from soldiers, officers, policy-makers, and journalists on all sides to tell the story. And no one interviewed for the program "on our side" defended the war, its purpose, or its prosecution. There are plenty of antiwar leaders, from Allard Lowenstein to Jerry Rubin to Jane Fonda, and even an army deserter, whom I knew in Canada, who get their brief licks in; there as lots of footage of antiwar marches from the Pentagon to London to the New Mobe, and then there is Kent State.

Burns makes it very clear that divisions in America today are the direct result of fighting, and losing, that war. We will never be over Vietnam.

Neville Williams
October 2017

(Williams is the author of The New Exiles [1971], and a retired solar energy company CEO.)



Walter Teague

"Winning the Hearts and Minds of the People!"

As a veteran and anti-war activist since 1964, viewing most of Ken Burn’s documentary The Vietnam War I am worried not so much about the content or quality of the film, but about its long term effect on the public’s understanding and acceptance of the current and future such wars.

Most of the reviews especially by other veterans of the war and anti-war movement, agree the film is flawed and point out historical and political discrepancies. Most also recognize that Burns presents a middle-of-the-road position and he admits his aim is to resolve the conflicts the war left in the U.S.

While most critics focus on the films accuracy or focus and hope the film will provide a base for further understanding, few discuss the likely ongoing effect on a public which knows little of the US war on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and is often accepting or confused about the current seven ongoing wars. My observation is that efforts by veterans and critics have not been allowed equal time at film previews nor can they compete with the massive public hype around this historic event.

The film does show much of the ugliness of U.S. motives and actions. But will showing these flaws and U.S. bias help or prevent most U.S. viewers to develop a full awareness of the troubling lessons? Will the weaknesses and omissions of the film succeed in smoothing over the more vile and aggressive causes of the U.S. aggression and conduct of the war? Will this film by excusing U.S. aggression and war crimes make it easier for the U.S. government to continue and expand its current and future wars?

So the more serious question is not is this a good and accurate film, but will this film help prevent such tragic and immoral U.S. war crimes past, present and future? Will this film help prevent more wars by revealing to the average viewer, the true causes and horrors?

Therefore I have 2 major disagreements with the argument that the film should be judged separately from its public affect.

1st, it is not just a film. Many reviews focus on the discrepancies with the facts and interpretations of the political history. This approach supports the conclusion that this film series can and should be something to build on. I agree we should build upon the film since it will be a major public event whatever its weaknesses, but because the film is likely to dominate public opinion, it is all the more important we consider what the overall political impact will be and what can be done to mitigate the damage.

2nd, will it really promote peace? Most of the reviews and critiques of the film are from those who already know a great deal about these issues. However the most important impact of this film is not as entertainment or even a historical record, but its special and likely massive potential impact on the general public’s awareness and interpretation of the meaning of that war. In a time of ongoing wars and charges of war crimes, the U.S. Pentagon recognizes the public’s view of the Vietnam War can influence public support or opposition for its current and future wars. Therefore the Pentagon has initiated a massive 13 year campaign to present and organize public awareness to support the Pentagon’s point of view.1 In the middle of this massive Pentagon campaign to re-write the Vietnam War history and white-wash the war crimes and anti-war movements, PBS’s 18 hour series will play again and again and become an important part of the public’s education.
Is there any question whether this film’s effect will agree with the Pentagon’s view or be counter to it and even if it helps to educate the public? How effectively it builds support or opposition to ongoing wars will be the major test of this film series.

And then will this film help or hinder the pentagon’s effort by rewriting the history of this war to protect the US from any quilt or blame for its past and continuing war crimes?1

At a time when the President surrounds himself with generals and actions that risk adding major wars in Asia and Africa to the ongoing 7 wars so little understood or opposed by the general public, I am reminded of that phrase we all remember, "winning the hearts and minds of the people!"

Since the US public is the real target and their reactions will determinant the effectiveness of this film, we should ask how will this film influence the less informed public. Will it reveal that the U.S. intentionally started the war for only slightly hidden Imperial purposes? Will it reveal the many systemic war crimes detailed in the pentagon papers and discussed in Congress? Will this film help change the views of those who have heard for 50 years how we should have won the war and it was a mistake not to support the troops? Will they finally realize they were being massively lied to just as they have been lied to since? Will it build opposition or support for the ongoing and new wars?

The reviews I’ve read fall into two general categories, those who consider The Vietnam War as a portrayal of a major error and the others including a spectrum of those who see the war as a major moral crime that should teach us to guard against those who try to rationalize or recreate such wars. Today most of us know not to trust the Pentagon, but how many will be deluded by Ken Burns into agreeing that the war was started by people with good intentions?

The public’s awareness is likely to be split since most know little about the facts or causes of the war. Using this film to teach one-on-one, many of us could easily debunk and correct the glaring historic distortions and counter the pentagon's 50th anniversary effort. But if those of us who are opposed to the U.S. claims and actions that led to this terrible war, soft pedal our responses, it is very unlikely we will have an opportunity to protect the larger public from once again being misled by what I believe is a major propaganda documentary.

1. http://www.vietnamwar50th.com/

Walter Teague, 9-16-17
wteague@verizon.net