Ken Burns series "Vietnam" on PBS

[NW-Bound]

... In our infantry platoon we had a Vietnamese chu hoi or Kit Carson scout as they were known (one of the VC that came over to our side to help us) that actually saved and alerted us to what could have become some very bad situations. He became a very good friend and kind of my protector while I was there. He told me that he would make sure I would go home to my family, and he did, for which I am eternally grateful.

Just thought of something.

I wonder what happened to your guy after North VN victory. They would not look kindly on these who changed side. If this guy was lucky, they would execute him. If he was unfortunate, he would die in a hard-labor gulag.

 

[brett]

There was no democracy in either the north or the south. None was realistically planned by either side.

The poor Vietnamese were like the bologna in the sandwich. It has always been like this.

 

[samclem]

The timing of the broadcast is probably just coincidence, but what can we learn from the Vietnam experience to apply to North/South Korea?

I don't think there are useful similarities. South Korea has a well-developed economy, relatively comfortable standard of living, and a good track record of successful self-government and respect for individual rights (yes, there have been periods when it wasn't so, but this could be said of all nations). Frankly, there's no great longing for reunification among the majority of South Koreans, and certainly not under the regime that rules Pyongyang now. It has been a long time since the country was partitioned, and communication between separated families has been largely impossible. The North Korean public knows almost nothing accurate about the conditions in South Korea.

The larger Cold War was the overshadowing element that prompted the US involvement in Vietnam (and the involvement of the USSR and the PRC in that fight). Nobody outside of Korea has a similar proxy interest in pushing the Korean DMZ one way or the other.

 

[Nemo2]

Frankly, there's no great longing for reunification among the majority of South Koreans

Were it to happen, the massive influx of Northerners into the South would undoubtedly overshadow anything that the West Germans experienced when East Germany collapsed.

 

[DrRoy]

Put me in the can't watch camp

Not me. I think it is important to know what really happened. There is so much reference to what happened there and influence on current policy. We need to know how to avoid the mistakes and also how to be involved in events around the world in a way that supports our interests. It is also wrong to just stick our head in the sand.

I was aware of much of the history but am also learning new details and content.

 

[NW-Bound]

Were it to happen, the massive influx of Northerners into the South would undoubtedly overshadow anything that the West Germans experienced when East Germany collapsed.

Or if North Korea prevailed (perish the thought), there would be another massive wave of boat people from South Korea.

 

[dtbach]

I don't think there are useful similarities. South Korea has a well-developed economy, relatively comfortable standard of living, and a good track record of successful self-government and respect for individual rights (yes, there have been periods when it wasn't so, but this could be said of all nations). Frankly, there's no great longing for reunification among the majority of South Koreans, and certainly not under the regime that rules Pyongyang now. It has been a long time since the country was partitioned, and communication between separated families has been largely impossible. The North Korean public knows almost nothing accurate about the conditions in South Korea.

The larger Cold War was the overshadowing element that prompted the US involvement in Vietnam (and the involvement of the USSR and the PRC in that fight). Nobody outside of Korea has a similar proxy interest in pushing the Korean DMZ one way or the other.

+1 Spent a month there doing some logistics training with the ROK forces. They are very proud of what the South has been able to do and have no real desire to unify with the North. And from what I saw, they are steeled to fight to the death if invaded again.

 

[NW-Bound]

... The larger Cold War was the overshadowing element that prompted the US involvement in Vietnam (and the involvement of the USSR and the PRC in that fight)...

Recently, I saw a movie about Dalton Trumbo, a very good and successful movie screenwriter (Roman Holiday, Exodus, Spartacus) who was blacklisted along with many others who were accused of being Communist sympathizers. I read about this McCarthyism period before, but did not know all the details.

This movie was very interesting and I learned a good deal. It may seem strange now, but back then with the expansion of the Soviet Union (invasion of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc...), the threat was very real.

 

[NW-Bound]

There was no democracy in either the north or the south. None was realistically planned by either side...

The truth is that freedom as Americans and Western Europeans enjoy and take for granted does not exist in many parts of the world. So, it is a matter of degree, and totalitarianism is alive and well today. Foreign visitors placing no threat to a regime are left free to roam, and they usually do not know much about how a country is run.

I do not travel to the Orient, but just from reading have learned a few things. For example, several Thai's were sentenced to decades, yes decades, in prison because they wrote something critical of the Thai Royal family. A few were jailed simply because they provided a link on their Facebook page to a certain BBC article.

Even in Singapore, I read about a journalist who wrote something negative about the country. He was forever banned from the country, and the Western magazine that published his article was also banned indefinitely from import.

Vietnam and mainland China are indeed much better than North Korea, but knowing what their governments do, no way I will apply for a visa to go there. It's not about the people or the country. It's about the rulers.

 

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

I did not know about this documentary until I saw this thread. I have not watched any episode during a broadcast, but may watch it later if the streaming is still on, or if I can find it on youtube.

In 1983, there was a documentary called "Vietnam: A Television History" by PBS. I watched all 13 parts of this. I scanned through this thread, and did not see anyone mention this, though I might have missed it.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam:_A_Television_History.

I saw parts of this twice. The first time, there was an interview with a minor army officer who, at the end of WW2, made the decision to return Vietnam Nam to the French instead of giving them independence. The second time I saw that episode, the interview was gone. This one guy created the war in Vietnam Nam. I was floored.

 

[brett]

I believe that in some instances, those rulers of undemocratic countries were actually put in place initially with the support of democratic governments and then subsequently supported financially and propped up by them.

 

[samclem]

It turns out that there are foundational prerequisites that are mandatory in order to have a functional "democracy." Chief among these are a robust civil society and well defined individual rights and strong mechanisms for protecting those rights. In cases where these things don't exist (and they can't be put in place overnight--it can take generations), there can't be a "democracy", there will instead be a "mob" which rapidly transitions to something else (rule of a particular ethnic/familial group that oppresses everyone else, totalitarianism etc).

As has been said elsewhere: "A pure democracy is two lions and a sheep voting about what to have for dinner."

 

[Sunset]

I saw parts of this twice. The first time, there was an interview with a minor army officer who, at the end of WW2, made the decision to return Vietnam Nam to the French instead of giving them independence. The second time I saw that episode, the interview was gone. This one guy created the war in Vietnam Nam. I was floored.

Sort of like the one guy who started WWI (assassinated some royal fellow of some small country in Europe).

The Butterfly Effect.

 

[braumeister]

Sort of like the one guy who started WWI

Gavrilo Princip: Serbia erects statue in honour of man who assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand

 

[NW-Bound]

It turns out that there are foundational prerequisites that are mandatory in order to have a functional "democracy." Chief among these are a robust civil society and well defined individual rights and strong mechanisms for protecting those rights. In cases where these things don't exist (and they can't be put in place overnight--it can take generations), there can't be a "democracy", there will instead be a "mob" which rapidly transitions to something else (rule of a particular ethnic/familial group that oppresses everyone else, totalitarianism etc).

As has been said elsewhere: "A pure democracy is two lions and a sheep voting about what to have for dinner."

At the end of WWII many countries were in a mess. Many colonial territories were looking to gain independence. And in all cases, there were many factions jockeying for power. In Vietnam as in China, the communists got the upper hand.

In China, I read that Chiang Kai Shek was weakened by his fight with the Japanese, hence lost to Mao Tse Tung later. The latter was wily, and let his adversary tire himself out fighting a common foreign enemy. The result was of course that Chiang later had to retreat to Taiwan and ceded the mainland to a bunch of communists.

Yes, history can take some unfortunate turns that are hard to predict.

 

[dtbach]

That and the fact that Chiang Kai Shek was corrupt to his core. Mao gave responsible positions to those who were brilliant. Chaing to those who were family members or gave him the most loot.

 

[samclem]

That and the fact that Chiang Kai Shek was corrupt to his core. Mao gave responsible positions to those who were brilliant. Chaing to those who were family members or gave him the most loot.

I'd be very reluctant to paint Mao as some sort of enlightened leader who surrounded himself with brilliant people. He surrounded himself with sycophants who were promoted for loyalty. He was responsible for tens of millions of deaths through such ill-considered catastrophes as his Great Leap Forward (20-45 million excess deaths due to the program) and the Cultural Revolution (about a million killed, widespread persecution). It wasn't brilliant leaders and talented bureaucrats who oversaw these disasters, they were hard-core Mao loyalists who were content to impoverish millions in service to the Great Leader.

 

[dtbach]

I'd be very reluctant to paint Mao as some sort of enlightened leader who surrounded himself with brilliant people. He surrounded himself with sycophants who were promoted for loyalty. He was responsible for tens of millions of deaths through such ill-considered catastrophes as his Great Leap Forward (20-45 million excess deaths due to the program) and the Cultural Revolution (about a million killed, widespread persecution). It wasn't brilliant leaders and talented bureaucrats who oversaw these disasters, they were hard-core Mao loyalists who were content to impoverish millions in service to the Great Leader.

Never said that he was "enlightened" but the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution happened decades after the 1949 defeat of Chaing. In the 40's Mao elevated qualified soldiers to important positions. The same can't be said for Chaing (or for that matter the leaders of South Vietnam). There were reasons that the Nationalists and South Vietnam governments failed and a big reason is the vast corruption in both of them. We can probably expect the same from Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[samclem]

There were reasons that the Nationalists and South Vietnam governments failed and a big reason is the vast corruption in both of them. We can probably expect the same from Afghanistan and Iraq.

I'll buy that.

 

[NW-Bound]

Ho and Mao won obviously because of their astute military strategy. How do we know that their regimes were any less corrupt than the ones they competed against? Let me elaborate.

When they kept such a tight lid on the news, imprisoned or executed all those with dissenting views, what do you know about what was going on behind the scene? As mentioned earlier, even now, people in Thailand who mentioned in their Facebook page a BBC article critical of something of their government got tracked down and imprisoned. Imagine how far the Communist regimes would go.

Many mainland Chinese do not know of the Tiananmen protest in 1989 because their government blocks Internet search on the subject. I happened to see on the Web the news about some Vietnamese being imprisoned because they voiced criticism on their Facebook.

So, about corruption, lack of news does not mean good news. Countries where the media can talk openly about corruption, or foreign reporters are allowed in to observe are the better ones, in my view.

 

[frayne]

Ho and Mao won obviously because of their astute military strategy. How do we know that their regimes were any less corrupt than the ones they competed against? Let me elaborate.

When they kept such a tight lid on the news, imprisoned or executed all those with dissenting views, what do you know about what was going on behind the scene? As mentioned earlier, even now, people in Thailand who mentioned in their Facebook page a BBC article critical of something of their government got tracked down and imprisoned. Imagine how far the Communist regimes would go.

Many mainland Chinese do not know of the Tiananmen protest in 1989 because their government blocks Internet search on the subject. I happened to see on the Web the news about some Vietnamese being imprisoned because they voiced criticism on their Facebook.

So, about corruption, lack of news does not mean good news. Countries where the media can talk openly about corruption, or foreign reporters are allowed in to observe are the better ones, in my view.

Exactly.

 

[brett]

One thing that goes through my mind as I watch this series is IF communications/reporting were as instant as they are now, net, email, facebook, etc, I wonder if the war would have lasted as long as it did.

 

[NW-Bound]

One thing that goes through my mind as I watch this series is IF communications/reporting were as instant as they are now, net, email, facebook, etc, I wonder if the war would have lasted as long as it did.

Very good point!

For example, if the North Koreans knew how well the South Koreans are living the good prosperous life compared to their situation, they would depose of their Supreme Leader and hang his corpse up in a public square as the Italians did with Mussolini.

Now, how do we get the Internet, Web access, computers and smartphones into the hands of the North Koreans?

 

[calmloki]

Gal's father spent two years in German prison camps after being shot down. He depised what he called propaganda. If we had reporting like that during the Viet Nam war I wonder if we would be acting as a nation in the same way as we do now?

 

[GrayHare]

I thought the program did a poor job of explaining why the failure of NVA's Tet offensive surprisingly did not boost US support of the war. The impression I got was the media's coincident portrayal of the war at that point, especially the photographed execution and Cronkite's editorial, was responsible for the decline in support. It was hinted that the public did not believe South Vietnam's success during the Tet offensive because the public realized it had been lied to earlier.