Barry Machado, emeritus professor of history at Washington and Lee University, lectures on Vietnam as part of the W&L Alumni College, "Vietnam: A Retrospective."
It should be noted that many of the people who evaded the draft, did so because they felt it was the morally right thing to do -- some felt it was the most patriotic thing to do. I remember a congressman stating that: "We were probably fighting on the wrong side!"
Each according to their conscience. In my case a friend claimed CO status and ridiculed me for serving. Years later he profoundly apologized and said it had all been a pose. I believe we had good reason to be there, which I can post separately.
@@betterlatethannever7337 "Good reason" is to deprive Vietnamese of their freedom to choose their own leaders ? Then what does the Americans give themselves the right to preach freedom and democracy ???
My father did WWII. He never talked about it. I did Vietnam. I don't talk about it. Most of what I hear about the Vietnam war is BS, most especially from people who were there. Admirable as academics may think it is to discern/distill the truth for future wisdom, it never matters. What I have learned about human beings is that we will do what we want to do -- reason, logic, cost, history, etc. be damned. When we want to go to war again, we will, and we will do it in any way we like. Better to spend your time now savoring a good Cuban cigar and a fine Algerian brandy.
Some viewers might appreciate the short, illustrated, reader-friendly paperback entitled AMERICA'S INDOCHINA HOLOCAUST: THE HISTORY AND GLOBAL MATRIX OF THE VIETNAM WAR.
The war was lost because US policy to defeat the NVA/ NLF could not be achieved with the corrupt opressive South Vietnamese Central government which was not recognized by the people. It's over reliance on unsustainable firepower and mobility that played to the strategy of Westmoreland that resulted in huge expenditures and loss of combat troops made up of draftees, versus Hanoi's ability to asorb such losses with impunity. Basically, the attrition rate was to high for America. The service member was spetacular, but the strategies were terrible! Company grade Officers serving 6 months, the individual replacement, 1 year deployment, WH directing the fighting! It was doomed to fail.
It is true that by and large the youth of America in the 60's and early 70's neither supported or opposed the war. Television was a somewhat new and developing technologically. Vietnam was the centerpiece of news most of the time. There was an analogy that I think best captures what was going on. A farmer in the mid west is riding his tractor in an open field. Around him as far as he could physically see are quiet fields, roads and wooded areas. But in his mind were hippies, war protesters and Vietnam with the war. TV gave him those mental images and TV made most Americans sick and tired of the whole thing since it seemed never ending. The 60's was a time when the world was getting smaller thanks to technological innovations. The onset of "The Global Village" which meant that what used to be very far away and strange were more familiar than in the past. It was also a time when the post WWII baby boomers were coming of age and with it that stage of life when curiosity about your world starts to develop. Hippies and protesters were rich kids with more access to avenues the lower classes could only dream of. So these lower classes were unable to get student deferments and who didn't have political or family connections that could have kept them out of the draft. Still, many of the lower classes actually wanted to go in the military because of family traditions ( Ma Pa wuz in th' war ) and the adventure it offered. Naturally the army being the largest and least picky ended up with the lower dregs. I suppose that was always the case. Anyway, with our without the media the war would have ended in a stalemate. The media did save lives and rescued young victims of the Military Industrial Complex grinder by covering the war as it did and making the public weary of it. If it hadn't it's no telling how long it would have dragged on . Government contracts were lucrative deals for Johnson's cronies.
To be fair to the protesters at least they were honest about dodging nam. Donald Trump and Bill Clinton both dodge the draft with student or medical deferments while George W Bush volunteered for the Air National Guard. They were the men who stood behind the troops in Vietnam, 8,000 miles behind in fact.
How old are you? Did you grow up in the '60's? 1. "Hippies and protesters were rich kids with more access to avenues the lower classes could only dream of"?. Really? Hippies and protesters came from ALL classes. Middle class and lower class kids checked out and burned their draft cards as did upper class kids. By 1968/1969, the protesters were no longer predominantly the 'hippies', but a large number of adults. Combat troops were, however, disproportionately from the middle and lower classes. 2. "It is true that by and large the youth of America in the 60's and early 70's neither supported or opposed the war." The correct grammar is 'neither.....nor....." This depends on the year. In early 1965 when LBJ launched Operation Rolling Thunder, many in America thought it'd be a short war. Home by Christmas. Nobody new any better. In 1968, 1969, a good part of America turned against the war. Lies by LBJ. Lies by McNamara (he left in 1967). By 1969, the business establishment had turned against the war. 3. Americans don't like long, costly wars. USA declared war on Japan on Dec 7/41, and by May/45, Germany was defeated, and 3 months later, Japan surrendered. Television certainly played a part, but the length of the Vietnam war, the body bags returning home, and no apparent victory in sight, all played a role in the country turning against Vietnam.
@@TalonAshlar George W Bush had an influential father and avoided going to Vietnam by entering the Air National Guard. Likewise, Dan Quayle, the Indiana national Guard. I don't believe the Vietcong attacked either state, so both were very safe.
Don't make this into a class struggle thing with the politicians making money off of this and working class boys being sent to war. Very shallow understanding.
1968 was a pivotal moment in that war. By then they've had 3 years of major combat operations and should've had an idea of what was going on. After tet they either should've been all in, or start complete withdrawal. The only way we could've had success there was to invade the north with a massive amount of troops, and draw the insurgency out of the south. But of course Washington seemed like they just wanted an endless slugfest in the south. If they drew the fighting to the north, maybe they could've had a chance to stabilize the south and come up with a peace with a central DMZ like in Korea
China and Russia had nuclear weapons by the '60s, unlike during Korea. Some think our best option, given we had some people on the ground on some level during JFK, was to do what he seemed to have been planning: a coalition involving Duong van Minh and his North Vietnamese brother, Duong van Nhut. We could have done that while Ho was still alive, and he had enough moxie among the Politburo that he could have brought off a more pro-India and pro-Western Vietnam Republic -- which FDR had endorsed at the time of his death. Truman gradually drifted away from FDR's position, under pressure from Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon. It's no wonder some have wondered about the timing of JFK's assassination, and that of his brother, and, not to mention the death of MLK and the attempt on EMK. An obsession with a certain view of "communists" in Asia as being "like ants" seemed to dominate a certain segment of the American body politic. LBJ, unlike JFK, was very impressed with it; even more so, was Richard M. Nixon. One hint: we never THOUGHT about using napalm in Europe, but it was our weapon of choice in Asia from the very first. I, personally, think that our use of napalm in Vietnam practically reinvigorated the original Viet Minh, which had fought France but which we hadn't strongly opposed under FDR. Seeing their countrymen again roasted to death turned off the Vietnamese to us, big time. They just didn't care to make eye contact with us long enough at a time, after that, to say. (Might explain most or all of those tanks our troops and reporters kept running across in South Vietnam in places like Pleiku Province, with their innards all pulled out and sold on the Black Market. The last people who had laid hands on them, had been members of the ARVN.)(How do you say "Don't roast gramma" in Vietnamese?)
@@maxs1247 Interesting. Vietnam was about our intention to support our anti-communist allies. It didn't matter if they were non-white, 7,000 miles away, and poorly led. In fact, to make our point, South Vietnam was the best ally because it was the worst ally. The objective of halting the dominos could be attained not only by winning but by fighting -- in the field, and at home.
I Believe Our Armed Forces Must Improve & Be Deterent to them We Can't Withdraw or think We Should not have Fought we have learn & improve Arms & also Our Army Man Power too Don't say Cut Down & Give Up
Too easy to blame Calley. Sure, he did wrong. So did his higher-ups. In the deposition, Calley said he knew if he lost 1 man, then he'd have to report 10 VC/NVA as killed. He said, "that's hard to do when you're fighting just one sniper all day." I think Westy's requirement that some of the bottom 20% be drafted was meant to allow local draft boards to coordinate with local high schools to draft those who intentionally failed the test. Draft boards were comprised of people who knew people, and draft dodging was a crime.
It does not excuse Calley who was unfit to be an officer. Maybe that is why he got his ass kicked by a Marine, after becoming mouthy when he should have been maintained his bearing as an officer.
While I appreciate the passion and sentiments expressed by the presenter, his talk is overburdened by homilies, platitudes, and some clichés. Better that he just get on with it and eschew the dramatic pauses and pacing.
After 1975, the Vietnam struggled economivally for 20 years is mainly due to the American embargo and by uncoutable actions to help the China and the Khmer Rouge to invade the Vietnam sovereignty were thousands of Vietnamese civilians are killed at the borders. The US also financing the ASIAN activities and took actions to banned any trades or diplomacy relationships with the newly unified Vietnam. At around the time 11:24, pretending the " Vietnamese regime saved the country to destroyed in the next 20 years. " It is totally to misinformed people and take others as totally dumb. Shamed on you!
By the 3:00 mark, this man has already shown he totally understands the world and the many different BS agendas that so many people fall for, ESP the ignorant -- 11B= 11 Bravo = 11 bang-bang
It should be noted that many of the people who evaded the draft, did so because they felt it was the morally right thing to do -- some felt it was the most patriotic thing to do. I remember a congressman stating that: "We were probably fighting on the wrong side!"
Juan Jerez It was absolutely the morally correct thing to do!!! The US had absolutely no right to interfere!!!
I would say that for many it was selfish needs. Join as a medic with CO status.
Each according to their conscience.
In my case a friend claimed CO status and ridiculed me for serving.
Years later he profoundly apologized and said it had all been a pose.
I believe we had good reason to be there, which I can post separately.
@@betterlatethannever7337 "Good reason" is to deprive Vietnamese of their freedom to choose their own leaders ? Then what does the Americans give themselves the right to preach freedom and democracy ???
The best presentation I have seen so far on Nam. Not like some of the dry monotone stuff I've been wading through lately.
The best Lecture I have heard on the subject yet.
Great lecture. Thanks for sharing it!
My father did WWII. He never talked about it. I did Vietnam. I don't talk about it. Most of what I hear about the Vietnam war is BS, most especially from people who were there. Admirable as academics may think it is to discern/distill the truth for future wisdom, it never matters. What I have learned about human beings is that we will do what we want to do -- reason, logic, cost, history, etc. be damned. When we want to go to war again, we will, and we will do it in any way we like. Better to spend your time now savoring a good Cuban cigar and a fine Algerian brandy.
Some viewers might appreciate the short, illustrated, reader-friendly paperback entitled AMERICA'S INDOCHINA HOLOCAUST: THE HISTORY AND GLOBAL MATRIX OF THE VIETNAM WAR.
The war was lost because US policy to defeat the NVA/ NLF could not be achieved with the corrupt opressive South Vietnamese Central government which was not recognized by the people. It's over reliance on unsustainable firepower and mobility that played to the strategy of Westmoreland that resulted in huge expenditures and loss of combat troops made up of draftees, versus Hanoi's ability to asorb such losses with impunity. Basically, the attrition rate was to high for America. The service member was spetacular, but the strategies were terrible! Company grade Officers serving 6 months, the individual replacement, 1 year deployment, WH directing the fighting! It was doomed to fail.
It is true that by and large the youth of America in the 60's and early 70's neither supported or opposed the war. Television was a somewhat new and developing technologically. Vietnam was the centerpiece of news most of the time. There was an analogy that I think best captures what was going on. A farmer in the mid west is riding his tractor in an open field. Around him as far as he could physically see are quiet fields, roads and wooded areas. But in his mind were hippies, war protesters and Vietnam with the war. TV gave him those mental images and TV made most Americans sick and tired of the whole thing since it seemed never ending. The 60's was a time when the world was getting smaller thanks to technological innovations. The onset of "The Global Village" which meant that what used to be very far away and strange were more familiar than in the past. It was also a time when the post WWII baby boomers were coming of age and with it that stage of life when curiosity about your world starts to develop. Hippies and protesters were rich kids with more access to avenues the lower classes could only dream of. So these lower classes were unable to get student deferments and who didn't have political or family connections that could have kept them out of the draft. Still, many of the lower classes actually wanted to go in the military because of family traditions ( Ma Pa wuz in th' war ) and the adventure it offered. Naturally the army being the largest and least picky ended up with the lower dregs. I suppose that was always the case. Anyway, with our without the media the war would have ended in a stalemate. The media did save lives and rescued young victims of the Military Industrial Complex grinder by covering the war as it did and making the public weary of it. If it hadn't it's no telling how long it would have dragged on . Government contracts were lucrative deals for Johnson's cronies.
To be fair to the protesters at least they were honest about dodging nam. Donald Trump and Bill Clinton both dodge the draft with student or medical deferments while George W Bush volunteered for the Air National Guard. They were the men who stood behind the troops in Vietnam, 8,000 miles behind in fact.
How old are you? Did you grow up in the '60's?
1. "Hippies and protesters were rich kids with more access to avenues the lower classes could only dream of"?. Really? Hippies and protesters came from ALL classes. Middle class and lower class kids checked out and burned their draft cards as did upper class kids. By 1968/1969, the protesters were no longer predominantly the 'hippies', but a large number of adults. Combat troops were, however, disproportionately from the middle and lower classes.
2. "It is true that by and large the youth of America in the 60's and early 70's neither supported or opposed the war."
The correct grammar is 'neither.....nor....."
This depends on the year. In early 1965 when LBJ launched Operation Rolling Thunder, many in America thought it'd be a short war. Home by Christmas. Nobody new any better. In 1968, 1969, a good part of America turned against the war. Lies by LBJ. Lies by McNamara (he left in 1967). By 1969, the business establishment had turned against the war.
3. Americans don't like long, costly wars. USA declared war on Japan on Dec 7/41, and by May/45, Germany was defeated, and 3 months later, Japan surrendered. Television certainly played a part, but the length of the Vietnam war, the body bags returning home, and no apparent victory in sight, all played a role in the country turning against Vietnam.
@@TalonAshlar George W Bush had an influential father and avoided going to Vietnam by entering the Air National Guard. Likewise, Dan Quayle, the Indiana national Guard. I don't believe the Vietcong attacked either state, so both were very safe.
Yes in oz poĺiticians sons got out of it the worst i heard was oh no its for the common man
Don't make this into a class struggle thing with the politicians making money off of this and working class boys being sent to war. Very shallow understanding.
Is there a transcript of this somewhere?
PantheraUncia13 Howdy, there is currently no transcript available. Thanks.
Silvano Alva Turn on autogenerated english
1968 was a pivotal moment in that war. By then they've had 3 years of major combat operations and should've had an idea of what was going on. After tet they either should've been all in, or start complete withdrawal. The only way we could've had success there was to invade the north with a massive amount of troops, and draw the insurgency out of the south. But of course Washington seemed like they just wanted an endless slugfest in the south. If they drew the fighting to the north, maybe they could've had a chance to stabilize the south and come up with a peace with a central DMZ like in Korea
China and Russia had nuclear weapons by the '60s, unlike during Korea. Some think our best option, given we had some people on the ground on some level during JFK, was to do what he seemed to have been planning: a coalition involving Duong van Minh and his North Vietnamese brother, Duong van Nhut. We could have done that while Ho was still alive, and he had enough moxie among the Politburo that he could have brought off a more pro-India and pro-Western Vietnam Republic -- which FDR had endorsed at the time of his death. Truman gradually drifted away from FDR's position, under pressure from Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon. It's no wonder some have wondered about the timing of JFK's assassination, and that of his brother, and, not to mention the death of MLK and the attempt on EMK. An obsession with a certain view of "communists" in Asia as being "like ants" seemed to dominate a certain segment of the American body politic. LBJ, unlike JFK, was very impressed with it; even more so, was Richard M. Nixon. One hint: we never THOUGHT about using napalm in Europe, but it was our weapon of choice in Asia from the very first. I, personally, think that our use of napalm in Vietnam practically reinvigorated the original Viet Minh, which had fought France but which we hadn't strongly opposed under FDR. Seeing their countrymen again roasted to death turned off the Vietnamese to us, big time. They just didn't care to make eye contact with us long enough at a time, after that, to say. (Might explain most or all of those tanks our troops and reporters kept running across in South Vietnam in places like Pleiku Province, with their innards all pulled out and sold on the Black Market. The last people who had laid hands on them, had been members of the ARVN.)(How do you say "Don't roast gramma" in Vietnamese?)
@@maxs1247 Interesting. Vietnam was about our intention to support our anti-communist allies. It didn't matter if they were non-white, 7,000 miles away, and poorly led. In fact, to make our point, South Vietnam was the best ally because it was the worst ally. The objective of halting the dominos could be attained not only by winning but by fighting -- in the field, and at home.
Invasion would have precipitated a war with China.
US couldn't win the war against 30 millions Vietnamese, then how to talk about victory in the war with 500 millions Chinese this time?
Hey Barry, Over 25000 Canadians crossed the border to join the fight.
Listen to this guy for a week and you'd want to join the Foreign Legion
I Believe Our Armed Forces Must Improve & Be Deterent to them We Can't Withdraw or think We Should not have Fought we have learn & improve Arms & also Our Army Man Power too Don't say Cut Down & Give Up
Samuel Bhaskar Really??
The Vietnamese call it The American War.
Walter Simon obviously, what’s your point
@@willnill7946
Thinking he sounds smart parroting something he heard.
@Pat The Patriot
Who calls it The Big L?
It was they took it there
Yes, the US governments were the cause of the Vietnam war.
Where was the speaker? Where was the guy who speaking why wasn't he there?
I think that this guy watched _Back to School._
57,000 Americans died, 3 million Vietnamese died.
loopholes r nothing new,in civil war u could literally buy your way out of union army for $300 gold.rich man's war poor man's fight.
To paraphrase Phil Ochs, “It's always the rich to lead us to the wars, it's always the poor that fall.”
Betel Nut
Too easy to blame Calley. Sure, he did wrong. So did his higher-ups. In the deposition, Calley said he knew if he lost 1 man, then he'd have to report 10 VC/NVA as killed. He said, "that's hard to do when you're fighting just one sniper all day." I think Westy's requirement that some of the bottom 20% be drafted was meant to allow local draft boards to coordinate with local high schools to draft those who intentionally failed the test. Draft boards were comprised of people who knew people, and draft dodging was a crime.
It does not excuse Calley who was unfit to be an officer. Maybe that is why he got his ass kicked by a Marine, after becoming mouthy when he should have been maintained his bearing as an officer.
@@andrebredell3293 Let us not forget Medina.
An old post but I have to point out "Westy" didn't have anything to do with project 100,000; that was McNamara.
@@sgtcwhatley And to which I would have been assigned for confusing the two. 🤣
This is Sylvia Flores Cardona San Antonio Texas .do you not see the war and all the yellow blue electricity vlours that are
what is this critical analysis....that's strange coming from an american
His 'perspectives' are learned from others not his own experienced. He's full of it in many of his assertions.
So once the others are gone no one can examine history and interpret it. Okay.
While I appreciate the passion and sentiments expressed by the presenter, his talk is overburdened by homilies, platitudes, and some clichés. Better that he just get on with it and eschew the dramatic pauses and pacing.
true observation
After 1975, the Vietnam struggled economivally for 20 years is mainly due to the American embargo and by uncoutable actions to help the China and the Khmer Rouge to invade the Vietnam sovereignty were thousands of Vietnamese civilians are killed at the borders. The US also financing the ASIAN activities and took actions to banned any trades or diplomacy relationships with the newly unified Vietnam.
At around the time 11:24, pretending the " Vietnamese regime saved the country to destroyed in the next 20 years. " It is totally to misinformed people and take others as totally dumb.
Shamed on you!
America's revenge against Vietnam was cowardly and shameless
By the 3:00 mark, this man has already shown he totally understands the world and the many different BS agendas that so many people fall for, ESP the ignorant
--
11B= 11 Bravo = 11 bang-bang
Hahahha I thought he was gonna say Trump not Clinton
So you Trump Supporters should pass on this lecture. It is over your heads.
When all of Vietnam's previous enemies (China, Mongolia, France) were defeated, America's defeat was no longer strange.