It is long but superb.

There'a some footage in there of a chopper pilot with an A&M logo painted on the back of his helmet.

A pic was posted back when the doc was released a dozen years ago or so.

Is there a good documentary about how the French slid us into that?

Well, I didn't want to embarrass the guy too much.

Yes, the documentary being discussed. Pretty much the second episode is about the French in Indo-China and them passing the tar baby to us.

IIRC, it was good, but not exactly neutral about the War. It was a bit slanted towards the Anti-War side.

I'd still recommend you watch it though.

As I recall I came away thinking that if we had put our Prussian hat on and paid attention to Clausewitz we could have won the damn thing.

Of course, to me the person that angered me the most was McPeak the former CoS of the Air Force, when I was active duty. Could not stand him or his wife and his stories about the war are charged with politics, like the man.

I think a lot of it was the politicians were running the war, not the soldiers. I recall reading books and also the documentary pointing out that all they cared about was body count. They take a hill, kills 200 VC and declare victory. Then they'd leave a few days later and the VC would be back on the hill again.

I would, but I don't have actual TV.

Seriously, even the Flintstones had TV

I think you can watch on youtube. Not certain if all episodes are available.

BQ78 said:

---

Politics aside, it is a good documentary, give it a watch aaalan.

---

concur- it was very fair and a nice look at the overall situation over an entire decade

The interviews with John Musgrave were some of the most haunting I've ever seen.

Remember sitting and watching Walter Cronkite every night. Remember the body count reports. Dan Rather was in almost every report with combat going on all around him. Not that I am a fan of Dan.... I was just 6.

After my uncle came back my brother and I were kitted out the latest and greatest ALICE gear available. Even had jungle boots and steel pots.

Yep, early government gaslighting and the casualties were always like:

US 75 dead
SVN 225 dead
VC 1,239dead
NVN 730 dead

(I tried to find a picture of Cronkite and the casualty report on the web but could not, strange because it was so ubiquitous back in the 60s and early 70s)

We lost that war due to the press and in less than a minute, Cronkite put a dagger in the heart, at the moment we could have won it militarily, if Johnson was not directing it down to the tactical level:

+1. It's a great documentary. Highly recommend anyone give it a chance.

The French learned a lesson at the Battle of in Bin Ph. However, the US did not take heed of the lessons learned at the battle. I am going off of memory here. The Viet Minh amassed an army of 80,000 around the French base. They occupied the high ground and emplaced artillery on the top of the ridgelines and hills. Then they sent wave after wave of infantry to attack the base. It was obvious that they had the will power and resources to be some serious MOFOS.

I am done with TEXAGS. Never met so many caustic people. Admins. You must wear pink panties to be so offended by posts of the Principles Of War. Some of you veterans wear pink panties as well. Getting offended by posting Vietnam Era Music. *******! hahaha

Ban me for good! Adios muchachos! hahaha

Burns documentary was just more misrepresentations,that is slanted to the antiwar left. The media slant became an exercise in commentary vs reporting. Those who think Burns Doc was ""great or "fair" are wrong. Sadly it will become the "definitive" story of Vietnam...and it is seriously flawed. I am a vietnam vet "66-67 could not finish watching it. It made me angry.

I used to eat breakfast each Wednesday morning with a group of guys that included a bunch of older retired Army officers, all of whom had served in Vietnam. They couldn't stand the documentary either because of its slant and inaccuracies. The officers' retired rank ranged from Major to Major General, so they had witnessed the war from multiple perspectives.

Interestingly, many of them also blamed our loss in Vietnam in part on the way the Army itself managed the war. They take no blame away from LBJ, other politicians, or the press, but they insist that the Army's mismanagement should not be overlooked. Among other things, officers and troops only served in Vietnam for 12 months. In WW 1 and 2 they served until the war was won. On top of that, officers in Vietnam were rotated in their jobs while in country. Officers were only permitted to have combat commands for a mere 6 months. That policy was designed to allow as many officers as possible to have a "combat command" checkmark on their resumes, but also ensured that every officer in a combat command was completely inexperienced. That Army policy was internal; neither the politicians nor the press forced it on the Army.

IIRC Hal Moore was fairly critical of the Army in the book "We Were Soldiers Once and Young." That always surprised me because it is indeed rare to find any flag officer, let alone a high-ranking one, critical of his own service.