Sparks Commentary: A review of Ken Burns’ “The Vietnam War” (PBS)

“ ♪ How many roads must a man walk down,
Before they can call him a man?
How many seas must a white dove sail,
Before she sleeps in the sand? ♪

“ ♪ Yes, and how many times must the cannon balls fly,
Before they're forever banned?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind –
The answer is blowin' in the wind. ♪ ”

– Bob Dylan's “Blowin' in the Wind” (released 1963), an anti-war song not used in this film

Our national debate about the Vietnam War began during the war itself …

Our national debate about the Vietnam War began during the war itself, and continues today in full force. The Ken Burns series is just a relatively recent contributor to this national debate, albeit a very important one. Contrary to popular opinion – and, to some extent, that of this series itself – America actually won most of the battles in that conflict. Nonetheless, it is quite true that we lost the war when we withdrew in 1973, and thus allowed South Vietnam to fall to communism. The doves and the hawks do not really agree on much about this war, but one thing is universally agreed upon: the war was a disaster for the United States and its allies. It caused their prestige to dwindle somewhat abroad, and gave them a reputation for lacking the political will to fight, let alone to stand up to the attempted expansion of communist regimes. (And unlike many other writers, I will not pretend that I have no opinion on this subject; but will admit my partiality up front, honestly and unabashedly.)

Like the American Revolution, the Vietnam War was a guerrilla war …

The war coincided with a myriad of social changes at home, from progress in race relations to the proliferation of street drugs for recreational use, both at home and in distant Vietnam. It saw expansion in the role of government, and changing attitudes towards sexuality (and not necessarily good changes at that). And it saw the longest war in American history, even longer than the Revolution that had given birth to the country some 200 years earlier. To be sure, the military strategy of North Vietnam had many similarities to that of the American rebels in our Revolution, since it was based upon a deliberate prolonging of the war, designed to weaken the enemy’s will to fight. It was thus a guerrilla war in every sense of the word, where the weaker side avoided large pitched battles that risked exposure of its forces. Although the anti-war movement was partially based on pacifism, it certainly grew stronger as the war dragged on for year after year, with no end in sight. Thus, it was also partially based upon the belief that we could not gain a victory, particularly after so much had happened to sabotage it.

Helicopters airlift members of a U. S. infantry regiment, 1966

What's the difference between the North Vietnamese and the “Viet Cong”? (A surprising answer)

And it was a sort of civil war, fought between peoples who spoke the same language and generally shared the same religion. At times, it was difficult to tell whose side the locals were on, since the South Vietnamese did not always like the American support for their country’s independence. Many were allied with the communists, and they became known to the world as the “Việt Cộng” (written as “Viet Cong” in English). In Vietnamese, the phrase can stand for either “Việt Nam Cộng-sản” (“Vietnamese communist”), or alternatively “Việt gian cộng sản” (“Communist Traitor to Vietnam”). Thus, there was a distinction between the communist forces native to North Vietnam (the “North Vietnamese Army,” or “NVA” in English), and the South Vietnamese (or “Viet Cong”) who were fighting for the North Vietnamese. Despite PBS’s (very clear) explanation about this, this is a distinction that actually escaped me for much of the series (I admit with some embarrassment), and I later had to look it up to appreciate the distinctions that Ken Burns and his series were making.

Burning hut in Vietnam, 1967

The French colony in Indochina, and the Japanese occupation of it during World War II

But this story actually begins long before the American war in Vietnam had begun; and thus, so does Ken Burns’ telling of it in this series. For example, the French had invaded Vietnam as early as 1858. Later, Vietnam became part of the French colony called “French Indochina” in 1887. But during World War II, France fell to the Nazis (as you may know). Thus, their colony in Vietnam was now to be administered by the “Vichy government,” that was collaborating with the Nazis closer to home in Europe. But the Nazis didn’t have any troops in Asia to occupy this French colony, so they allowed the Imperial Japanese to do it for them – at least, until March 1945, at which time the Japanese occupation finally ended. As it turned out, the Japanese occupation was even worse for the Vietnamese than that of the French. Thus, there was a rare alliance between the French colonists and the Vietnamese locals, in a struggle against the Japanese occupiers. Ironically, the United States was then sending assistance to people like Ho Chi Minh, since they were actually allies in this war against Imperial Japan at that time. But after the war, the alliance between them quickly fell apart, as the changing situation in Southeast Asia made them enemies now in a bitter Cold War.

Ho Chi Minh, 1946

The First Indochina War: Kicking out the colonizing French from Vietnam

Now that the Vietnamese had kicked out the Japanese, they would now focus on trying to kick out another occupying force – namely, the colonizing French. This is known as the First Indochina War, and it was a bitter and bloody struggle that began in 1946, shortly after the end of the Second World War. But it ended seven years later in 1954, with a near-total French withdrawal from Vietnam. The Geneva Accords of 1954 created two separate zones in Vietnam, with plans to reunify them at a later time. But neither the United States nor the future state of South Vietnam ever signed these fateful accords. The first episode of this series thus covers all of this in great detail, and helps you to understand the complicated origins and backstory of our own war there.

The Geneva Conference, 1954

Partition of Southeast Asia from the Geneva Conference, 1954

The Second Indochina War: How the United States got involved in this second conflict

The American war in Vietnam was part of the Second Indochina War. It began in 1955, about a year after the French war had ended, and the Geneva Accords had been signed. But the superpowers now could not agree on who was the “legitimate” government of Vietnam, and so there was now conflict about how (and even if) the reunification should take place. The future states of South and North Vietnam both rigged the “elections” about who would rule their parts of the region. At this time, they were both led by corrupt regimes. In the South, there was a full-blown insurgency against the Saigon regime, and the Hanoi regime in the North eventually backed this Southern insurgency. The North Vietnamese Communist Party thus approved a “people’s war” on the South, at a fateful session in January 1959. Later that year, they sent arms to the insurgent Southerners via the Ho Chi Minh trail; and starting in 1961, North Vietnam actually sent its soldiers there. The first episode ends here in 1961, and so the bulk of the series covers the period from this point in the conflict through the later American withdrawal.

Black smoke covers areas of Saigon during the Tet Offensive, 1968

Comments on the different episodes of this series, including the last one

America had been supporting South Vietnam with advisers since 1955, and the United States suffered its first casualty of the war as far back as 1956. But it was not until the mid-sixties – specifically, in 1964 – that the Americans sent troops to Vietnam, who were actually intended for combat duty. At that time, the American role in Vietnam became much more extensive than before. The third episode begins in 1964, at the time of the war's greatest escalation (which was by LBJ). For me, the most intense episode may have been the one about the Tet offensive in 1968, since that was when things really started to go south for the Americans. The most depressing episode – again, for me, at least – was probably the very last one, which talked about what happened to South Vietnam after we withdrew in 1973. At the time that we withdrew, the fate of South Vietnam was pretty much sealed, and it surrendered hours after the American diplomats pulled out of Saigon on the 30th of April, 1975 – a year and a half after official American military involvement had ended. The last two Americans to be killed in Vietnam died one day before the fateful Fall of Saigon in 1975, so the last American casualties of the war occurred long after our military had officially pulled out of the region. This series also covers the related events in nearby Laos and Cambodia, particularly with regards to the Ho Chi Minh trail that supplied the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong.

Fall of Saigon, 30 April 1975 (a year and a half after the American military had officially pulled out)

Interviewing people on both sides was a good technique

One of the advantages of this series for me was its interviews with people on both sides of this conflict. This was something that Ken Burns had not done, in his earlier series about World War II. For better or for worse, that documentary was focused exclusively on the United States; and left the discussion of the Axis powers (not to mention our allies) to other media, such as “The World at War.” Focusing on one side does have its advantages, of course; but for me, one gets a better understanding of any conflict by studying both sides of it. To be clear, this does not mean that both sides have to be depicted sympathetically, but nor should they be left out of the series. Both sides should be depicted, and this series does this well.

Victims of the My Lai massacre, 1968 (one of the most publicized events of this war)

The series has some unfortunate left-wing bias, but it's still a good series despite this

I did see some unfortunate left-wing bias in this series at times, particularly in its discussion of American atrocities (both of the real and alleged kinds). Nonetheless, I actually appreciated this series despite these things. I'm glad that they talked about what happened to our prisoners, and I actually have no problem with their unsympathetic coverage of the various South Vietnamese regimes (or how they treated their own prisoners). These regimes were brutal and corrupt, of course, and their main selling point for the Americans was not that they were genuine representatives of good government, but that they were at least not communists. This series does acknowledge that South Vietnam was free (while North Vietnam was not), but has few other positive things to say about the South Vietnamese. Regarding the so-called “re-education camps” after the war, Ken Burns makes it sound like people were seldom detained there for long; although one interviewee is shown saying that he was detained there for 17 years (which I suspect is accurate). Ken Burns does not really go into the extent of the torture and abuse at these camps; but in fairness, some things have to be cut out to get the film down to 18 hours, so I'll give him a pass on that one. I was more satisfied with their coverage of the numerous refugees from postwar Vietnam, including the later group known as the “boat people.” This had significance for Asian American history, as it turned out, and its effects are still felt to this day, in places like the hometown of my father's side of the family in Garden Grove, California.

Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém during the Tet offensive, 1968 (highly publicized in the West)

This series has the virtue of making one think

I didn't always agree with the series, but I will say that it has the virtue of making one think. For example, this series shows the early doubts of the American government about our ability to win this war on the ground. To me, it would seem that this war could only have been won, by a government that actually had confidence in final victory. Thus, if they didn't believe that we could win, then it would seem to me that they had no business sending our boys there in the first place. Even for those of us who believe in the justice of the American cause at this time, we acknowledge that the war was criminally mishandled; and that the conduct of the Lyndon Johnson administration was negligent and irresponsible. Indeed, this is why we feel that the Americans lost the war in the end. I actually feel somewhat sorrier for Richard Nixon (despite his obvious flaws), since he inherited the worst foreign policy situation that any president has ever inherited (in my opinion). Thus, he could only do so much with what he had been given.

LBJ photo-op in visit to Vietnam, 1966

Comments on the communist war crimes, and how they are covered here

Regarding the war crimes, I am glad that this series covered some of the North Vietnamese atrocities, and did not just focus on those from the American and South Vietnamese sides. One of the North Vietnamese interviewees said things that he commented might get him into trouble with his own government, presumably causing him some regret over saying these things for the camera as he did. I don't envy him his probable fate for talking to Ken Burns with such honesty here (although I don't actually know what happened to him afterward), but nor do I think that the truth should have been covered up to save him (so I am thus glad it wasn't). The North Vietnamese government had some terrible culpability in that war, and that culpability had to be entered onto the historical record, even for a liberal like Ken Burns who believed that the war was “irredeemable,” in the words of the memorable closing to the series.

Interment of 300 victims of the Huế Massacre, perpetrated by the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong

This series was instructive, but I nonetheless found it almost painful to watch at times …

I did not really enjoy viewing the series, and found it almost painful to watch at times. This was an unusual reaction for me to have to a documentary, since I love documentaries (particularly ones by Ken Burns). I found it instructive, and I learned a lot, but I did not really look forward to watching the next episodes in some ways. On the contrary, I actually dreaded watching a few of the episodes, and said sarcastic things under my breath like “Yay, I get to watch the Americans get their butts whipped again … ” I watched it mainly because I wanted to understand - really understand - what happened there, to my friends from this generation (veteran and otherwise). Since my generation was born long after the war, I felt that I needed an education about what happened in this major conflict. I did get involved emotionally in this series, and bonded with people on both sides despite my aforementioned partiality. But I could only watch about an hour at a time, and do not recommend viewing this series in large doses. I think watching this series once was enough for me, and I currently have no plans to watch it again.

Memorial of the Hỏa Lò Prison – better known as the “Hanoi Hilton”

Conclusion: This is a good series despite its flaws, which will stand the test of time

This series was probably made after the right amount of time had passed since the war itself – with enough distance from these events to view them with some relative amount of objectivity, but enough closeness to them to allow the filmmakers to interview some of the participants. Despite the political correctness and the depressing nature of much of the content, this was still a good series; and it will probably stand the test of time.

“The return of captured military personnel and foreign civilians of the parties shall be carried out simultaneously with and completed not later than the same day as the troop withdrawal mentioned in Article 5. The parties shall exchange complete lists of the above-mentioned captured military personnel and foreign civilians on the day of the signing of this Agreement.”

– “Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam” (better known as the “Paris Peace Accords”), Chapter III, Article 8, Section A (27 January 1973)

DVD at Amazon

If you liked this post, you might also like:

A review of Ken Burns' “The Civil War”

A review of “The World at War” (World War Two series)

A review of Ken Burns' “The War” (World War Two series)

A review of “Korea: The Forgotten War” (Timeless Media Group)

A review of CNN's “The Cold War” (includes Vietnam episodes)

A review of PBS’s “LBJ” (American Experience)

A review of PBS’s “Nixon” (American Experience)

Forgotten battlegrounds of the Cold War: Angola

The Soviet war in Afghanistan

Part of a series about

American military history