Ken Burns' Vietnam

[James DiEugenio]

That is overestimating what it does and does not do Sandy.

Parts 1 and 2 as I noted are pretty much worthless at telling us the truth about the early years of our backing of the French and how we got into the war ourselves with Diem--a Catholic in a land of 70 per cent Buddhists--and it completely warps what Kennedy's policy was.

I have just finished the Johnson years, parts 3-6,  and really, there is a way of eliminating information that is nothing less than misrepresentation.  And this is what they do here.  They make it seem like LBJ somehow just stumbled into Vietnam willy nilly.  What they do with the Gulf of Tonkin is just irresponsible, but what they do with the 8 months before is worse.

But to give you an example of withholding information as a pattern of deception.  They mention the Fulbright hearings and the testimony of the historian diplomat George Kennan.  Kennan was a very important witness because no one could call him a commie symp.  He was the father of the containment strategy as far back as 1946 with the Long Telegram from the USSR. Johnson knew he would be a formidable witness to counter his escalation policy. Since CBS was airing it, millions would see him.

Burns and Novick say that at the last minute CBS decided to air reruns of comedy shows instead of Kennan.

That is simply false.  And they had to know it.

What really happened is this : Johnson called the president of CBS, Frank Stanton, and browbeat him into not showing Kennan.   CBS executive producer Fred Friendly resigned over Stanton's decision.

As I will show, this is not an exception.  Not by a longshot.  It is a pattern.

Edited September 30, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Sandy Larsen]

24 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Burns and Novick say that at the last minute CBS decided to air reruns of comedy shows instead of Kennan.

That is simply false.  And they had to know it.

What really happened is this : Johnson called the president of CBS, Frank Stanton, and browbeat him into not showing Kennan.   CBS executive producer Fred Friendly resigned over Stanton's decision.

Jim,

Do you know what the source is for this incident? And whether or not it is written about in many books on Vietnam?

I ask because I wonder if it is possible that Burns, Novick, and James Bamford, are ignorant of this fact because they haven't read the right books.

(I just re-read what you said, and you said "they had to know it." So I guess I'm wondering how it is they had to know it.)

 

[Joseph McBride]

The heading, "Ken Burns' Vietnam," leaves out his co-director, Lynn Novick. She went to Vietnam; he didn't.

She conducted 85 of the 100 interviews. And so on. She is at least as much the auteur as he is.

Women directors often get ignored. Jim DiEugenio doesn't ignore her in his fine articles on this deplorable, mendacious series.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Joseph McBride

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Joe.  Burns did not go to Vietnam?  Geez.

Sandy, the source is Randall Woods biography of Fulbright, p. 405. That book is 22 years old.  And the information is easy to find for any researcher.  In my upcoming article on the Johnson part of this very disappointing series, these facts will be annotated as I always do.

Let me add, Kennan's testimony was very similar to what Kennedy's ideas were.  He said that 1.) Vietnam was not part of our vital interests, and 2.)  It would be very difficult to win.  In other words, it was not worth it.

My problem with parts 3-6 is that the pattern noted above seriously distorts what LBJ did.  He did not stumble into Vietnam.  From within about 48 hours, he altered Kennedy's policy and then browbeat McNamara into accepting his ideas and disposing of Kennedy's.  

All of this and more will be written about in my review of Parts 3-6,  with footnotes of course.

 

 

Edited October 1, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Burns and Novick say that at the last minute CBS decided to air reruns of comedy shows instead of Kennan.

That is simply false.  And they had to know it.

What really happened is this : Johnson called the president of CBS, Frank Stanton, and browbeat him into not showing Kennan.   CBS executive producer Fred Friendly resigned over Stanton's decision.

As I will show, this is not an exception.  Not by a longshot.  It is a pattern.

Wow.

Maybe you'll be able to determine what their goal was, by observing what they hid and what they didn't. For example, maybe they are motivated by an ideology of some kind. (Or is everything driven by ideology?) I'll be interested in hearing or reading your conclusion.

 

[Michael Walton]

I found a link to an article recently but lost it. The gist of the story though is that Richard Nixon was just as much part of the planning for VN. He did this in the early and mid 50's when he was VP, all under the guise of helping the French save their colonial power there.

I then came across the Frost/Nixon interviews and one of the earliest questions asked by Frost was about VN.  Nixon said something like "Now wait just a minute! I inherited VN..." or some such nonsense.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Nixon was such a xxxx. And he did this for purely political purposes.

Once everyone saw it was a disaster, he then tried to say that it was really Kennedy and Johnson that got us into the war.  What pure balderdash.

It was him, the Dulles brothers and Eisenhower who CREATED South Vietnam.  There was no such country prior to 1955.  And they also made the almost unfathomable choice of  picking Diem, a Catholic, to run a country that was 70% Buddhist.

They then violated the Geneva Accords about every single way you possibly could.  All in order to prop up Diem, and stop the country from being unified by Ho Chi Minh.

Nixon learned a lot of his lessons in foreign policy through Foster Dulles,  which is why he was such a bad president.  And as even Stephen Ambrose, his sympathetic biographer noted, RMN was a little nutty about Vietnam.  I mean anyone who could have expanded the war into Laos and Cambodia, causing the collapse of the latter country, and dropping more bombs in Indochina than Johnson, had to have been maniacal about the subject.

His book, No More Vietnams, is so dishonest, its a sick joke.  He says in there that he never considered bombing the dike system, and never considered using atomic weapons. When the record of audio tapes which he fought against releasing, were finally declassified, it turned out he considered both. It was Kissinger who advised against it.  When you are to the right of Kissinger, what does that tell you? 

Edited October 1, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Walton]

There's this too:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/politics/nixon-tried-to-spoil-johnsons-vietnam-peace-talks-in-68-notes-show.html

From the MSM no less which is pretty shocking. Once Bobby Kennedy was out of the way, it's hard to say if Humphrey would have done the right thing, though I'm guessing probably not as the war machine was in full swing then.  But even more shocking is RN trying to sabotage a peace effort purely for political gain.

[Douglas Caddy]

[James DiEugenio]

Mike, from what I understand, Burns and Novick actually covered this aspect, that is the Chennault Affair.  

Doug, from my understanding that program, MHCHAOS, began when LBJ asked Helms to get dirt on the anti war movement.

Which is how COINTELPRO began, when LBJ asked Hoover to do the same.

 

[Ron Bulman]

I'd read part of the info in the attached article below elsewhere in the last few months.  Can't remember where.

http://jimhougan.com/NixonInTheJungle.html

Did Nixon play a role in the creation of the Gulf of Tonkin incident?

[Joseph McBride]

The Pentagon Papers says explicitly that South Vietnam was a creation of the United

States. Since they had Leslie Gelb on the series, they could have asked him to say that. But no.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Joseph McBride

[James DiEugenio]

Gelb was the closest thing they had to an overall expert, BTW.  But remember the PP only goes up to 1967 because that is when McNamara was relieved of duty.

Ron, that article by Jim Hougan is utterly fascinating and I really do not know what to make of it.  What the heck was Nixon doing there while he was out of office?

BTW, that was not the only time he was there out of office.  Len Osanic has a photo of Nixon in South Vietnam in 1967 meeting with Lansdale.  Again, what the heck was he doing there as a civilian?  

Ambrose was correct, Nixon was really fruity on the subject of Vietnam.  It was an obsession with him.

I really hope the last four parts which deal with Nixon are better than the first six.

 

[Ron Bulman]

Jim I wonder who sent him, why is potentially addressed in the article.  But I can't see Nixon suddenly deciding "I'm going on a world tour to bolster my image".   He was a pawn.  I'm curious if there is known sponsorship of the trip.

BTW, is there  link to Len's picture?  Nixon/Lansdale together in Vietnam in 1967 is significant.  Worthy of inclusion  in the revised edition of Ken Burns 'documentary". 

Edited October 4, 2017 by Ron Bulman

[Douglas Caddy]

Prof. Luke Nichter is co-author with Prof. Douglas Brinkley of the 2015 award winning book, “The Nixon Tapes: 1971-1972.”

In PBS' 'Vietnam War,' Not All Voices Get Equal Play

Commentary

By Luke A. Nichter
October 04, 2017

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/10/04/in_pbs_vietnam_war_not_all_voices_get_equal_play_135164.html