Ken Burns' "Vietnam"

Quote: terapined

Seems like Ken Burns is blaming a lot of involvement on American politics
Kennedy needs to stand tough in Viet Nam or the communists will win and he cant get re-elected
Johnson needs to stand tough in Viet Nam or he is seen as weak Goldwater might win
I think the documentary puts too much emphasis American politics as the reason we stayed in Viet Nam

I've read several such analyses from various authors. In essence, Vietnam was important but it wasn't a priority. First for keeping the French from defecting to the Soviet camp (as though that would have happened), then for checking the spread of Communism, then to avoid losing a war, then to preserve some dignity and credibility, and so on.

Electoral politics play a large role, too. Surprisingly they play a large role for the enemy as well. Say Nixon is in a hurry to cut a deal in 1972. If you think he'll be re-elected, chances are you can get a better deal from him before the election. If you think he'll lose, it might be best to wait out the election and deal with the other guy.

But it's more like "Kennedy had to stand tough on Vietnam, or be attacked as soft on Communism." The more you can be attacked, conventional wisdom holds, the lower your chances of winning an election.

Quote: Nareed

I've read several such analyses from various authors. In essence, Vietnam was important but it wasn't a priority. First for keeping the French from defecting to the Soviet camp (as though that would have happened), then for checking the spread of Communism, then to avoid losing a war, then to preserve some dignity and credibility, and so on.

Electoral politics play a large role, too. Surprisingly they play a large role for the enemy as well. Say Nixon is in a hurry to cut a deal in 1972. If you think he'll be re-elected, chances are you can get a better deal from him before the election. If you think he'll lose, it might be best to wait out the election and deal with the other guy.

But it's more like "Kennedy had to stand tough on Vietnam, or be attacked as soft on Communism." The more you can be attacked, conventional wisdom holds, the lower your chances of winning an election.

Politics is important but
Kennedy would have won in a landslide in 64 regardless of how he handled Viet Nam
Johnson did win in a landslide 64
during this time, Viet Nam was a tiny issue in the voters mind

Quote: terapined

Politics is important but
Kennedy would have won in a landslide in 64 regardless of how he handled Viet Nam
Johnson did win in a landslide 64
during this time, Viet Nam was a tiny issue in the voters mind

The thing about history, is the people who feature in it don't know how things will turn out.

Quote: Nareed

The thing about history, is the people who feature in it don't know how things will turn out.

Actually, they probably do know. Its just they don't want to admit it to themselves or their advisors. LBJ wanted a military way to win......what a foolish thing to ask for, he must have been drunk. LBJ wanted the SVA to go out and fight .... how ignorant could he be?

They know how things will turn out they just don't want to take the blame for it and hope it happens when they have moved on to something else.

Most people knew that Light At The End of the Tunnel was a Freight Train Coming The Other Way, they just didn't quite like that thought.

Think of the FBI office that suffered a break in: it was not leftist radicals. It was a professor from Haverford, a college that was very conservative and had something like a 97 percent ROTC enrollment. It takes time to "tip' sentiment and overcome the "get on the team' orientation.

Quote: Evenbob

This is part of a long article that appeared
in the LA Times in the 90's.

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-12-15/magazine/tm-868_1_tom-dooley

Well? Where's the outcry about the source
of the info, aren't you going to mock and
impugn it? I was a called a liar and here's
a source saying exactly what I said. Are they
liars too? There are lots of other articles
on this, want to read them?

I've known Dooley was a fraud since the late
90's at least, I just assumed everybody did.
And his books were hugely responsible in
molding the public's view of getting into
Vietnam, just like the CIA intended them to
be. In the early 60's he was a hero, his books
were required reading in HS and college.
But how would many of you know that, you
weren't even born yet so of course you know
everything about it.

I didn't know much about Tom Dooley before you mentioned him. A couple of things I have learned:
- The Vatican never opened his cause for sainthood or declare him a "servant of God" or "Blessed", and it had nothing to do with his personal life. There was someone who promoted his cause but it didn't get very far. It takes a heck of a lot of work to start the canonization process. It involves collecting and critically reading everything that the person ever wrote. What I took as a falsehood was probably more a lack of understanding on your part, I'm sorry about that.
- He was not a bad person and not everything he wrote was totally made up and false.
- He did not have as big an influence as Bob thinks he did on our country's policy towards Vietnam.
- He loved his faith and remained Catholic his whole life and he was homosexual, we need more of these witnesses in our Church and our world.

Quote: FrGamble

I didn't know much about Tom Dooley before you mentioned him. .

And yet you knew enough to say
I was spouting falsehoods. How
generous of you. To now say you
knew almost nothing, but that didn't
stop you from calling me a liar, in
so many words.

And NO, he didn't shape policy in
Vietnam, he shaped the public's
VIEW of Vietnam. That is was a place
full of torturing evil commies. Dooley's
books were bestsellers, he was on the
cover of magazines, he was on TV
shows. His crap was REQUIRED READING
in schools. Just like the CIA intended,
his lies softened us up for the war that
was coming.

Quote: Evenbob

And his books were hugely responsible in molding the public's view of getting into Vietnam, just like the CIA intended them to be.

'hugely responsible' doesn't mesh too well with FrGamble's statement. My understanding is that you each are about the same age. I certainly never heard of this Tom Dooley character except the one on the MTA. So I wonder if hugely responsible is valid. Influences some perhaps but hugely responsible? How well did it sell?

Quote: Evenbob

His crap was REQUIRED READING
in schools. .

????????????????
Never heard of him
Never read anything by him
I did all the required reading and then some in school

Bob, can we get back to our regularly scheduled broadcast here?

You were wrong about him on the way to sainthood, that is all I was really competent to speak to. You do like to talk in extremes sometimes and I myself believe that your exaggeration of his role in letting America care about the atrocities happening in Vietnam by the communists and your exaggeration about how much he lied and your attack on his character are over the top. I do think he helped make America aware of Vietnam and softened our hearts, I do think not everything he wrote was 100% true, and I do think he was vain. However the way you put things; so blunt and mean makes me want to call you a liar out of principal even when you have bits of the truth.