amra@ihuxj.UUCP (Steven L. Aldrich) (11/24/83)
I have been watching the Vietnam series on PBS (Channel 11,Chicago)
and was wondering if anyone else any comment on this series. It gives
a balanced view of the war and it's ramifications. There are several
recent events that seem to be very similar to U.S. actions before and
during our involvement there. Especially the actions of our friends in
the CIA DOD & NSA. Sounds very similar to events in central & south
america. Wonder when we'll be "BOMBING THEM BACK INTO THE STONEAGE?"
as one of our generals wanted to do the North Vietnamese (sp?).
In view of previous military actions in these areas I wouldn't be
too suprised if we rescue more endangered Americans in the region in
the near future.
Please let me know your views on this subject. Post it to the net or send
me mail. I am always willing to listen to any reasonable argument or
opinion, even if I don't agree with it. I'll close for now though.
From the ever curious mind of,
Steve Aldrich (ihuxj!amra)
p.s. I've raised my shields and armed all phaser banks in case
of any personal attacks that may be launched against me.wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (11/29/83)
The series on Vietnam on PBS is about as unbiased as a political film at the Democratic or Republican conventions. Where were the scenes showing what the Communist death squads did to teachers, nuns, students, intelectuals, and assorted other non-combatents? Even-handed indeed! I too have been watching the series from the beginning and have found it too be rather heavy handed toward the Northern point of view. For every Southern speaker there have been four Northern opinions. T. C. Wheeler pyuxa!wetcw
gmk@uicsg.UUCP (12/01/83)
#R:ihuxj:-29200:uicsg:17600013:000:3212 uicsg!gmk Nov 30 10:04:00 1983 Yes, "Vietnam: A Television History" does present a viewpoint that is slightly biased toward the North and the Viet Cong. Frankly, I'm glad. It's about time that someone has taken the responsibility of telling Americans both sides of the story rather than depicting ourselves as the defenders of freedom and the enemy as evil incarnate. I think the series has done an excellent job of researching the causes of the war (both ancient and modern) and demonstrating how the nationalist struggle of the Vietnamese to cast off the shackles of colonialism and foreign domination degenerated into a long horrifying war in which unspeakable atrocities were committed on both sides. It was our (and the French) opposition to Ho Chi Minh's nationalism that drove him into the arms of the Communists in quest of support. Unfortunately, with Moscow and Peking backing him, and with the U.S. supporting the "democracy" in the South both sides had the unlimited resources they needed to drag the war on forever and devastate the country. It's clear from the series that Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, et al had no knowledge or understanding of Vietnamese history and hence of the roots of the revolution. All that they saw was Red and the need to score political points at home and diplomatic points abroad by showing U.S. determination to halt the spread of Communism. It was precisely their refusal to understand the country and its people and history that got us deeper and deeper into the Vietnam quagmire. I think the series should be applauded for finally acknowledging the existence of the other side as something other than nameless, faceless, Godless enemies of freedom. We certainly got enough U.S. propaganda during the war -- perhaps if we're allowed to hear statements from both sides, we can sort out the propaganda and rhetoric, and find a few shreds of truth. While it is biased somewhat towards the North, the series is by no means a propaganda vehicle for the Communists. Vivid recollections of U.S. "pacification" of villages--both from the soldiers and the survivors-- are juxtaposed with equally horrifying tales of North Vietnamese torture of prisoners of war. The pacification accounts are also tempered with reports on the organization of the Viet Cong and how women and children made significant contributions to the guerilla movement. Thus, although we see that the Americans had every right to trust no one and be suspicious of everyone, the wholesale slaughters were still unjustified. Too often Americans are content to believe their own rhetoric. It's easy to take a simplistic idealogical view of the world rather than taking the time to sort out the details of each situation and form an educated opinion. This series serves an important function in allowing us for the first time to understand what really happened in Vietnam and, hopefully, to learn how to avoid it in the future. While watching the first few episodes I was overcome with an incredible sense of deja vu. The events being depicted bore an uncanny resemblance to what is currently happening in Central America. Are you watching Ronnie? Gary Koob University of Illinois ..!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsg!gmk
notes@ucbcad.UUCP (12/05/83)
#R:ihuxj:-29200:ucbesvax:7500056:000:3133
ucbesvax!turner Nov 28 01:03:00 1983
Re: Steve Aldrich's question on PBS's "Vietnam: A Television History"
I watched one episode of that. It wasn't bad, for time in front of the
tube. However, it *is* a TELEVISION history--reflecting an unprecedented
level and depth of TV coverage, while at the same time reflecting some of
the inherent biases of the medium and the media establishment of the time.
And I have one big argument with it.
According a review I read, the subject of heroin comes up exactly once.
And I looked in the index of the companion volume in a bookstore, under
'H', and promptly threw the book down in disgust. There is an entire
*book* about the pivotal role that heroin played in the Indochinese wars,
called "The Politics of Heroin in South-East Asia", (A. McCoy, ca. '72,
350+ pages). And this whole subject was completely ignored!
One might ask "why bring up such a minor and sordid detail of the war?"
It was not minor, and it was not a detail. President Thieu and Air
Marshall Ky were intimately involved in the opiate trade festering in
the Golden Triangle. The CIA got it all started in the 50's, training
and arming hill tribes whose economic base was mountain poppy fields.
The opium warlords of this region vied with each other for the air
transport that the CIA could make available through its ownership of
regional airlines, since this allowed them to circumvent each other's
taxation systems. The factions most loyal to CIA imperatives were the
ones who got their way.
From there, it is a long and winding story until the heroin epidemics
among GI's in Vietnam in the late 60's and early 70's. One group within
the country managed to wrest control of the opium trade from its former
bosses, the Corsican Mafia (recall the French colonization) and the Kuo
Min Tang (recall the Chinese civil war, and earlier). That group built
heroin factories within South Vietnam, to break the production monopoly;
to circumvent the international transport monopoly, they decided to sell
the heroin in a domestic market which they had helped to create: U.S.
military bases. The U.S. drug market was not, of course, far behind.
This group also had political control of the South. But you didn't see
that on television. Television didn't know what was going on.
And is this issue irrelevant today? Ask yourself what the main cash
crop is in the embattled regions of Afghanistan. And where is the CIA
money going? And how well is the drug traffic in the Khyber pass being
controlled today? Last summer, the Soviets signed a harvest-season
cease-fire with one of the tribes in that area. Interesting and strange.
I wonder how the CIA felt about that? ("Well, I guess we'll get those
Afghani hearts & minds next year, eh guys? Hell, they learned this game
from us!")
Well, sorry to flame, but the whole thing disgusts me still. Wounds of
Vietnam, you ask? Look first at Vietnam. Then at the needle-scars of
some of the drifting veterans I see around here. I hope the U.S. has
cleaned up its war habit. Its going to need some resolve to resist
re-addiction in the next year or so.
---
Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)genji@ucbopal.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (12/05/83)
<< Posted: Mon Dec 5 21:46:15 1983 << Sender: notes@ucbcad.UUCP << According a review I read, the subject of heroin comes up << exactly once. And I looked in the index of the companion << volume in a bookstore, under 'H', and promptly threw the book << down in disgust. There is an entire *book* about the pivotal << role that heroin played in the Indochinese wars, called "The << Politics of Heroin in South-East Asia", (A. McCoy, ca. '72) ... << President Thieu and Air Marshall Ky were intimately involved in << the opiate trade festering in the Golden Triangle. The CIA got << it all started in the 50's, training and arming hill tribes << whose economic base was mountain poppy fields.... One group << within the country managed to wrest control of the opium trade << from its former bosses, the Corsican Mafia (recall the French << colonization) and ... As for the Corsican Mafia (and i assume you mean "French Connection"), that gang's modern power was engineered by the USA, which used the gang in 1948 to break the Communist-led Marsellaises dock strike. Irving Brown was the principal CIA agent for that work-- in a recent year Brown was invited by Solidarity to Poland as an AFL-CIO representative but the Polish government refused him entrance. --Genji