Television The Vietnam War, 10 part documentary series by Ken Burns. BBC showing it in the UK, PBS in the USA.

Do they talk about the war crimes?

Only at episode 3 so far, and they've not exactly portrayed the American intervention in a positive light.

Going by the general approach of the series I'd say they definitely will mention them.
 
The most criminal part, aside from bombing Laos and Cambodia with more munitions than were dropped in the entirety of World War Two, was that they knew they couldn't win in the early to mid sixties and it continued nearly a decade or so after, sending thousands of Americans to their deaths and killing millions of Asians in the process. In fact, it became more of a horror war after they understood victory wasn't feasible.

They also knew that the Gulf of Tonkin had nothing to do with the North Vietnamese but used it as a predicate for armament.
 
I'm amazed by all the footage and the stories. For example, the Vietcong guy saying he was impressed with how American soldiers treated their wounded and dead and gaining respect for them because of that. Also, the story of that Mogie Crocker kid where we see his pictures and family etc only to find out this 19 year old kid (!) got killed in the jungle, at night, by Vietcong machinegun fire. It's all so surreal to hear such stuff.
 
Starting on BBC4 tonight with the first two episodes at 22:30.
 
Started watching on Netflix not too long ago but don't have it anymore. Was a great show though, just like WW2 in colour.
 
I got finished with it a couple of weeks ago, a right old slog to get through but by 'eck it is really, really good.
^
Some subjects can’t be covered quickly. Not that Ken Burns knows how to anyway. He is a living legend of US documentary making.
 
Really want to watch this but it's so long.

That is because it was an extremely complex situation.
To appreciate it and to put it into context, it is important to understand the way that the world was then.
Heavily dominated by the spread of Communism and the Cold War.
President Kennedy had inherited a very difficult and devisive set of conditions. Especially for such a young and inexperienced in foreign affairs President.
He was determined to prevent another country falling into Communist hands but had absolutely no idea how inept South Vietnam actually was.

By the way. If you think that the programme is long, try reading The Vietnam War in wiki.
 
That is because it was an extremely complex situation.
To appreciate it and to put it into context, it is important to understand the way that the world was then.
Heavily dominated by the spread of Communism and the Cold War.
President Kennedy had inherited a very difficult and devisive set of conditions. Especially for such a young and inexperienced in foreign affairs President.
He was determined to prevent another country falling into Communist hands but had absolutely no idea how inept South Vietnam actually was.

By the way. If you think that the programme is long, try reading The Vietnam War in wiki.
It's funny you quoted me. Because afterwards I did watch the doc in full. Amazing doc. Was worth the time.
 
I always found this war interesting because from my understanding, the Americans (which they often perceive themselves to be the hero) were the side in the wrong in a big way and should never have been there in the first place. In fact, it was seemingly doomed from the outset because they were fighting against people wanting to live their lives relatively peacefully without foreign intervention (even if they did take supplies from Russia and China) and for some form of gain.

I actually had this discussion with a German friend of mine the other day regarding German Army men in ww2 and those that fought because they had/were made to, not necessarily because they agreed with the Nazi regime, and whether those people are honoured in Germany even though their countries leaders did a horrible thing. Similarly the same could be said with US soldier in this war. Neither of them won, yet seemingly history forgets the sacrifices alot of good people made in the name of their Country even if they didnt agree with government regime or the people calling the shots.

I guess its hard to discuss these issues because there are people that agree with the government rhetoric, but others that don't but are forced into situations otherwise facing prison time.
 
I always found this war interesting because from my understanding, the Americans (which they often perceive themselves to be the hero) were the side in the wrong in a big way and should never have been there in the first place. In fact, it was seemingly doomed from the outset because they were fighting against people wanting to live their lives relatively peacefully without foreign intervention (even if they did take supplies from Russia and China) and for some form of gain.

I actually had this discussion with a German friend of mine the other day regarding German Army men in ww2 and those that fought because they had/were made to, not necessarily because they agreed with the Nazi regime, and whether those people are honoured in Germany even though their countries leaders did a horrible thing. Similarly the same could be said with US soldier in this war. Neither of them won, yet seemingly history forgets the sacrifices alot of good people made in the name of their Country even if they didnt agree with government regime or the people calling the shots.

I guess its hard to discuss these issues because there are people that agree with the government rhetoric, but others that don't but are forced into situations otherwise facing prison time.

That is an extremely good point and well put.
As I mentioned it is always very important to look at an event in the context of that time and not through hindsight.
The world, particularly as the US perceived it was either Communist or the so called Free West. The US was desperate to contain the spread of Communism and had little real interest in Vietnam.

Regarding the soldiers, many were fighting a war they had little interest in either.
Vast numbers were mamed and injured simply for an ideology.
 
I always found this war interesting because from my understanding, the Americans (which they often perceive themselves to be the hero) were the side in the wrong in a big way and should never have been there in the first place. In fact, it was seemingly doomed from the outset because they were fighting against people wanting to live their lives relatively peacefully without foreign intervention (even if they did take supplies from Russia and China) and for some form of gain.

I actually had this discussion with a German friend of mine the other day regarding German Army men in ww2 and those that fought because they had/were made to, not necessarily because they agreed with the Nazi regime, and whether those people are honoured in Germany even though their countries leaders did a horrible thing. Similarly the same could be said with US soldier in this war. Neither of them won, yet seemingly history forgets the sacrifices alot of good people made in the name of their Country even if they didnt agree with government regime or the people calling the shots.

I guess its hard to discuss these issues because there are people that agree with the government rhetoric, but others that don't but are forced into situations otherwise facing prison time.

We should leave the actual foot soldiers out of this, they're just a small cog in a well oiled machine. It's the top brass that should be held accountable.

For whatever they did in the battlefield, war is hell. I really can't blame human being resorting to inhuman acts in those inhuman condition and inhuman warfare. When you put people on the hell of Vietnam war I doubt many of us can proudly kept our integrity and moral compass true.
 
The most criminal part, aside from bombing Laos and Cambodia with more munitions than were dropped in the entirety of World War Two, was that they knew they couldn't win in the early to mid sixties and it continued nearly a decade or so after, sending thousands of Americans to their deaths and killing millions of Asians in the process. In fact, it became more of a horror war after they understood victory wasn't feasible.

They also knew that the Gulf of Tonkin had nothing to do with the North Vietnamese but used it as a predicate for armament.

The US run on a war economy. These need it for "jobs and growth". They dont care how many people die as long as it helps keep the economy ticking over.
 
The US run on a war economy. These need it for "jobs and growth". They dont care how many people die as long as it helps keep the economy ticking over.
Not quite true yet back then. You can in fact even argue that the decades long spent in Vietnam entrenched the role of the military-industrial complex in their economy, even more so than the Cold War arms race, to the detriment of the economy as a whole.

It’s one of the many instances in history when a conflict is not justified by the materialistic interest, but quixotic ideological one. The previous incarnation of the Vietnamese Communist Party worked with the OSS (first iteration of CIA) during WWII against the JIE, after all of the nationalist groups they previously funded proved to be singularly corrupt and incompetent, yet after the war its those groups the Western Allies propped up, ignoring HCM’s repeated pleas for recognition and peaceful coexistence, ignoring the reality on the ground they were well aware of, that the communist party enjoyed the support of the people (CIA asserted that had election been held in 1956 according to the Geneva Convention, 90% would have voted for HCM).