The Real Lesson of the Vietnam War | Fredrik Logevall | TEDxCornellU

At TEDxCornell, Fred Logevall reveals the deep reality of the Vietnam War and what lessons it has for us moving forward.
Fredrik Logevall is a Swedish-American historian and educator at Cornell University, where he is the Stephen and Madeline Anbinder Professor of History. He is a specialist in U.S. foreign policy and the Vietnam Wars, and serves as the Vice Provost for International Affairs. His latest book, Embers of War, won the Pulitzer Prize for History in 2013 as well as the inaugural American Library in Paris Book Award. Starting Fall 2015, he will hold joint-positions in the Harvard Kennedy School and Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at ted.com/tedx

[@brianbozo2447]

I visited Vietnam (in 1997) and spoke to various vietnamese who told me they felt they were fighting for independence against colonial rule ( represented by France and subsequently by the US ) and were not fighting for communism but if joining the communist forces in order to fight to achieve that goal of sovereign independence , then they were willing to go along with it. Same thing ironically seems to have happened in Iraq. People fought against the american soldiers in Iraq not because they wanted to reinstate Saddam or Bathist rule but because the presence of american troops represented the loss of Iraqi sovereignty and control over their own nation. Odd to some degree to consider that elements of the Iraq war reflected a repetition and lessons not learnt from the Vietnam war. I imagine , were the US to invade Venezuela the same thing would happen again.

[@capitaltrading24]

The US won't intervene in Venezuela because Latin American countries are already getting fed up with the narco comunist regime in that country.

[@tienthinh22]

We dont support any -ism. But we arent against Communism and we're living a great life here

[@mrblack888]

The opinions of 80 IQ rice farmers about what was really happening seems pretty irrelevant. They were communist soldiers, fighting to expand communism and enslave more people under its banner.

[@nekomiyahinata7961]

@@mrblack888 lol. They ask for usa to help them but they didn't so they don't have other options but choose communist

[@bhl9532]

@@mrblack888 looking at the intellect of average American, shouldnt you be more humble? Your people are becoming a laughing stock for the rest of the world

[@leninirshad7395]

funtamental mistake of americans was that they thaught that vietnamese were fighting for COMMUNISM but they were fighting for VIETNAM

[@Marcfj]

lenin irshad - you are correct. In fact, if the American political establishment had done its homework on Ho Chi Minh they would have realized that he was a nationalist and not a puppet of China or the Soviets. In fact, if this had been done perhaps millions of lives would not have been lost.

[@DryAnammite]

What no usa figth because there were mad that vietnamese don't want there help

[@robertgabuna355]

how true...

[@Yoyoyoyoasshole]

If only they knew the Viets and chinese are mortal enemies.

[@tonynguyen430]

Exactly!

[@apbpa5042]

What an important conversation to have, Fred Logevall. You are most absolutely right in saying that we could learn from our most recent history. That's the one that, by-pattern, repeats itself the most. Thank you for bringing forward this very crucial conversation, for these are the kinds of times we may need them. Believing our leaders and giving them permissive environments, is a huge problem. The internal temptations are underplayed by media, even promoted at times, and it's no wonder, it's the devil's favorite sin - VANITY. It is up to us to be skeptical, not cynical (thanks for that distinction). Peace and love to all!

[@hunghunghung2005]

I am Vietnamese after the war. I'm studying English by this videos. interesting

[@ottowels1616]

What do you think about the US coming to Vietnam ? I am not American but i am curious what todays Vietnamese think about the war.

[@emillenguyen9358]

@@ottowels1616 well there are mixed reactions. Some (including me) think that the war stays in the past and now Americans are no longer our enemy. Others still keep their hatred and therefore they don't really like Americans.

[@tienthinh22]

@@ottowels1616 The civil war wouldnt have happened if the US had not come to Vietnam. At least I understand that the people in the US was not our enemies, only the government was

[@trangnguyenthiha2891]

@@ottowels1616 I'm also Vietnamese. Now I will talk you about the relationship between Vietnamese and American. I have a friend from America. You come Vietnam to find the reason why Vietnam defeated America. And the small country 's life after war. About relationship, the pain from the last, and America' army regret this. Vietnam want to be a peaceful country not war. So we forgive they because they regret although my country is poor and have many pains. My English is develoving. If you want to know the culture in Vietnam, you could reply this comment. Thank you. Have a nice day!

[@coreyham3753]

@@tienthinh22 What about the long previous colonial occupation of Vietnam by the French? Surely that had some effect on a civil war in Vietnam, regardless of subsequent US involvement.

[@chrisbusenkell]

I'm a historian also with my Southeast Asia being my chosen area of concentration. I've studied this war at length, from just about every angle and it's a monster of a topic to try to tackle, even if you elect to zero in on one particular facet of it. After more than 3 decades of varying degrees of immersion in the study of it, I still don't feel comfortable making any sweeping generalizations about it. Given that, Mr. Logevall seems to discreetly share this sentiment and I appreciate his respectful approach in introducing his theorems. It was a colossal mistake, not because of the quality of the men involved in the conflict nor the quality of the commitment within those fighting an unpopular war. It was lost in a policy formed about communism while the world was still hot and smoldering from World War II(why we continue to use Roman numerals in this designation, I do not know). It shouldn't have happened. Decisions were made with little input from the people who would most be affected by them. All solutions discussed on the management of Vietnam's future were heavily populated with military involvement. It was as if a military solution had been reached by the U.S., now we just have to spend time, money and lives justifying it. A couple generalizations I do feel comfortable making are in regards to the U.S. and it's policy making. Regardless of the specific decisions that I'm talking about and regardless of the length that such policies would stay static in this dynamic theater of war, I cannot name for you one, single decision maker at any time during the entire conflict who I would consider an expert on the history, culture or peoples of Southeast Asia. All U.S. policies that were established about how the U.S. would be handling the conflict came from our experiences outside Southeast Asia and applied there, followed dogmatically and expected to work. If it didn't seem to work at first, we simply threw more money or more lives at it and expected that to change. Even when it became clear that we would need to leave the conflict and that would mean the end of democracy in South Vietnam, the U.S. still did not change how it viewed or thought about the conflict there and were there an exit interview with all the policy makers in 1975 asking what they would've done differently, I can promise you all of their solutions would've been in the same veins of those that were executed, just tweaked a little bit in the details. Elements of this policy of ignorance and believing that setting up a democracy and a capitalist economy and letting the people learn for themselves that the U.S. model of doing things is superior every where and at every time was still evident in Operation Desert Storm and our subsequent struggles in the Middle East.

[@DF-ss5ep]

It's funny how after all these years, we still don't agree on the causes of Vietnam. I've heard: - Seeing communist expansion as a castle of cards - Containing China - Stopping the USSR from getting important sea ports - Showing commitment to defending Europe - Avoiding embarrassment (this video) If you are not too busy, do you have any opinions on the war in Ukraine today?

[@davisworth5114]

I hope you see that US actions were criminal and the US was fighting on the wrong side of history.

[@TedMichaelMorgan]

I read Professor Logevall several years ago. His work impresses me. Timely moment to review his work. Read his work.

[@Gurkha73able]

Real lesson...never get involved in another country's civil war

[@burthollabaugh2182]

Ritchie Wallace What I've learned from my travels in SE Asia. Asia is very tribe. We call ourself by nation. We are Americans. Not Tagalog or Cebuan.

[@brojohnmcd]

exactly

[@thangbach7244]

lol. it's not even a civil war. South VN was only America 's puppet

[@nguyenthingocmy9032]

actually it's not a civil war, the US invaded Vietnam and Vietnamese fought for peace

[@paulosieck1907]

@@thangbach7244 Both VNCH+VNCS were puppets and culprits themselves stupidly killed 3 millions of their blood relatives.

[@tuanhtran5032]

My grandfather still can’t forgive for what US army did in Vietnam. A soldier killed his father directly in front of him when he was 9. This is terrible memory that he never forget.

[@LKR0722]

I am so sorry for your grandfather and family. 😢It's horrifying reading about what happened in Vietnam.

[@davisworth5114]

I am a Vietnam veteran, and I believe all Americans owe an apology to the Vietnam people. I am so sorry for your grandfather and remind that the suffering over atrocities and murders haunt hundreds of thousands of US veterans to this day, and they will carry this guilt to their graves.

[@flavius3896]

I was a grunt in the 1st Cav in 1968. The population of North and South Vietnam was about 40,000,000 in 1968. He mentioned that up to 3,000,000 Vietnamese were killed. I would suggest that war is a continuum, not a series of isolated events. WWII was won by the infantry, but ended with the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan. This left the air force as the dominant branch of the military. The thought was that no future war would last more than a few days because a few nuclear bombs would end the war immediately; infantry would never be called up. Then came the Korean War which again showed that the infantry was not obsolete. The military recognized that infantry was crucial. They then integrated support for the infantry with the air force for close support of the infantry and integrated helicopters for infantry mobility. The 1st Airmobile Cavalry Division represented this new concept. Vietnam was the next war available to test and demonstrate its effectiveness to the US political leaders, our allies and the communists. The newer technology allowed us to win every battle, however, the military and political leadership lost the war. This is exactly what is happening with the 15 year old War on Terror. The US military threw away the book on counterinsurgency after the Vietnam War. They had to bring it back during the failures of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the lessons of Vietnam were lost or perhaps never learned by those in leadership. You should consider if the goal of modern warfare is really to "win" or to have a never-ending global war. While we are at war with Islam (although our political and military leadership continues denies this obvious fact), we allow millions of muslims to immigrate to the US and Europe. This contradiction in strategy predicts the defeat of the US and the West in the War on Terror. In Vietnam and the War on Terror, the only strategy was to "kill the bad guys". That is a naïve strategy that does not lead to victory. The US ignored the history of the Vietnamese people. In the War on Terror, the history of the West's war with Islam is also being ignored.

[@TrumanGN]

58,000 Americans slaughtered for no good reason, and up to 2 million Vietnamese. I met a soldier on his way home about '67. Never forget what he told me. It changed my life.

[@hotsonfornowhere76]

What did he tell you?

[@iryumugababiko336]

What did he tell you?

[@ucleanh9859]

and alies :) dont forget that

[@musicfriend2051]

Lier

[@chrisj197438]

Mark .Smith He told him not to tell us what he told him

[@potterj09]

Graham Green's book The Quiet American was such a good insight into this, same as Morris Wests The Ambassador. Quiet American had a movie with Michael Caine i reccomend :)

[@Raydensheraj]

He mentioned that book multiple times in his own book.

[@hoanghai2k]

As a Vietnamese, my mom and dad and other relative were in to this war during Hanoi at 1972 Linebecker II. Is was a sad time with so many people had died. In the school we have teached all history of all war that Vietnam have had. But trust me, no one of us have a the bad felling of people who are coming from the nation that we had war with come to visit us today. Because everything in the past is already pasted. We are always look for the bright future. Sorry for my English and pls correct me if anything wrong (longtime no write) ...:)

[@ligangshi3508]

Great video!

[@paulscousedownie]

Excellent assessment of the political reasons for Vietnam. Leadership is the ability to realise you’ve made a mistake and admit you’ve made mistake to yourself and your company and your nation. Be honest “we got it wrong “ and we need to change and stop this “catastrophic war” now! Honesty is a strength not a weakness?

[@belgianmalinoit9665]

Fascinating lecture, thank you very much. I was especially interested in a segment where you talked about the permissive environment that allowed Vietnam to begin. I wonder if continued morning from John F Kennedy‘s death also lead to part of that permissive environment? What I mean by that is were we so grief-stricken as a nation that involvement in Vietnam was seen as an extension of Kennedy’s foreign policy and therefore something most people could support?

[@joehalliday6081]

Very insightful about Kennedy and the impact on the public's expectation of leadership.

[@rico879]

What really happened there and the consequences CANNOT BE FORGOTTEN by younger generations!

[@ByDesign333]

The first casualty when war comes is truth. ...Hiram Johnson ; US Senate

[@str.77]

Fred Logeval's lesson: If Vietnamese or other Indochinese people are oppressed it shouldn't concern others. Actual lessons to be drawn: before going to war, think about other ways to achieve your goals. If all these are exhausted, either go to with full force (and full intelligence) or don't go to war at all.

[@TrumanGN]

Are you suggesting that the war was fought in order to free the people of Vietnam from oppression? That was the line Johnson was claiming.

[@str.77]

@@jamesanthony5681 No. Destroying what you want to liberate doesn't make sense.

[@str.77]

@@jamesanthony5681 What Curtis LeMay thinks doesn't affect my point. The only point nuclear weapons had was to deterr the Soviets from using their massive conventional forces.

[@str.77]

@@jamesanthony5681 Because the US (at least until 1969) had no real strategy in Vietnam, thinking high body counts meant success. Losing the war meant that all the rest of the Vietnamese were enslaved and Cambodia fell prey to a gang of genocidal monsters.

[@toothpick5932]

before going into any war you should take your time to know your enemy.

[@davisworth5114]

As a Vietnam veteran, I want to say thank you to Professor Logevall for recognizing the importance of Vietnam in America today. Americans' distrust of its' leaders at that time has grown to the dystopian present, where there is only hatred in national politics. America went from a shame society to a guilt society, look it up, Great job, Fred!

[@exenrontexas]

I think the speaker is a bit naive and pedantic. Most US wars were and still are about money. Suggested reading: "War is a Racket" by Marine General Smedley Butler and "Fire in the Lake" by Francis Fitzgerald.

[@shabdadhar3512]

I dissent any explanation for what US bureaucrats did to Vietnam. All they did to suppress communism in Vietnam. Sometimes, I think superpowers are the reason why we don't peace in the world.

[@lyntwo]

To all. I knew as a friend the former wife of the Vietnamese Ambassador to America, and if I may quote her from some decades back now. "How could we lose? We were allied to the most powerful nation on the planet." With prayers for all who fought, all who suffered and all who are still suffering from the vast human tragedy of the Second Indochina War.

[@mrblack888]

Easy, they were also allied to the most treacherous nation on the planet, one that ignores its own laws and treaty obligations as soon as domestic TV ratings turn against them.

[@lyntwo]

@Alexis M Did you read what I wrote. No. She was schooled at the elite French High School and then the Universite. She was a minor member of the royal family which helped raise the status of her husband. I am relating what her perception was from her perspective.

[@brojohnmcd]

The questions were asked, but LBJ and the rest, straight up LIED.

[@vilatoda3176]

Mong chị may ra thêm mấy bài về Tết nữa ạ殺殺殺

[@peteralanturner9296]

Having lived thru the 60's and survived a tour of combat in Nam. The biggest mistake was sending troops into Vietnam. The second mistake was once we were in the war not fighting to win. The lesson is never enter a war without the will to win and make sure that war is the last resort.

[@mr.fanstastic9010]

Coach Pete Turner, the biggest mistake was Killing Diem, because he refused to comply with Americans request for reformed policy. Which means 90% of troops were brainwashed....Lesson of day, don't start what you can't finish.

[@ricksamericana749]

How many more US troops would have been needed to "win" in Vietnam? This is the question none of the "go all the way" types never want to answer.

[@tereg.6170]

Coach Pete Turner YOURE right we never should’ve gone to NAM to start with look how many lives we could have avoided getting killed

[@kma3647]

No one is capable of answering that question because step 2 is to ask how far the Viet Cong were prepared to go. When you pit two wills against each other in a bloody high stakes game of chicken, we usually think one has to back away before something awful happens. It's not true. Both sides can continue in spite of the most awful outcomes continuing because in their minds the idea of losing leads to something worse - consider Stalingrad during WW2 as an example. The thing about war is that if you state a limit, a line you're unwilling to cross, you define a path to victory for your enemy: push you to that point. The Vietnamese were willing to lose over 2 million of their own to get America to back down... That should tell you about the fanaticism and utter disregard for life of communist "revolutionaries".

[@vargrhelsing8042]

Its a platform of free speaker. The next one that enter the room may disagree with him immediately?

[@thomas.02]

Every time the solution is always "uh we educate ourselves and be skeptical and generally try to elect good people" How has that worked out? Why aren't we searching for other solutions?

[@kencarr2998]

WAR MAKES MONEY !! Lives are just ?? !!

[@mjinba07]

For a Harvard professor and a historian, Logevall offers scant reference to the sources from which he draws his conclusions. He simply tells us at the beginning of his talk that he's done a lot of study. While that's probably true, this 19 minutes is little more than a long diatribe of passionate opinion sprinkled with several "I submit to you"s.

[@johnhenninger1980]

on point

[@benjaminjones6586]

That's how Ted Talks work. If you want the sources, read his book - it's good and fully footnoted as you'd expect from an academic.

[@juliahart8593]

Good point but still an interesting talk to listen to.

[@MarkJohnson-tc7gl]

He might raise a finger to make his point but until we all wake up and advance the beat goes on and history repeats itself.

[@vubin89]

He made a mistake. 30th of April, 1975 the flag of The National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (commonly known as the Việt Cộng) was raised, not the flag of The Democratic Republic of Vietnam until North and South were merged as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in July 1976 and the PRG (Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam) was dissolved.

[@ferrarilorenzo]

Wayne Lyman Morse from Oregon and Ernest Henry Gruening from Alaska.. the only 2 votes against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.. honor to them.. forever..

[@johnbaugh2437]

I know it was a huge mistake. My dad fought there. He told me it was a huge mistake. Despite knowing all of this, I listened to the LBJ tapes here on KZbin some years ago. Even with all the foreknowledge of the outcome, you just kind of feel how easy it was to get sucked deeper in to the conflict. Maybe just a little more force and they will acquiesce.

[@MichaelHarmanWoodDesign]

Is there a way to get a transcript of this talk?

[@Raydensheraj]

Why don't you grab his book?

[@philipmccarthy4975]

Why didn't they show the slides?

[@freddymainman7797]

I would say that it was a war of independence not a civil war as Fred mentioned early in the commentary.The term civil war gives the USA that hint is was helping defend a side and delegitimises the right for Vietnam to have their country back

[@sladetuner8661]

you look at what happen in Southeast Asia in between the 1950s-1970s and now you what has happen and what is still going on in Central and West Asia since the 1990s and 2000s now

[@wolfer8300]

STARTED IN 54 DOING A FATIAL FAVOR FOR THE DEFEATED FRENCH

[@samuelnuchia4989]

The Vietnam war for the Vietnamese was necessary but not for the u.s.

[@2011littlejohn1]

Your name is so apt.

[@southerntiger3107]

In 2023 I guess we haven't learned our lessons from Vietnam. It's sad how we left Afghanishan. I am a veteran of OEF and OIF wars.

[@malcorub]

So who benefited financially from the Vietnam Conflict?

[@MrBahanh]

Singapore,Korea,Japan, Thailand

[@FlyingDoctorC]

Communist party of Vietnam. South Korea Singapore would not be as big major trading posts

[@Gurkha73able]

Owners of Body bag factories

[@namduong8437]

SinsofIgnorance oh. what a lie. South Korean was the most eager to genocide innocent. Singapore was not quite supporting USA but it allowed USA to send troops there and into Vietnam

[@burthollabaugh2182]

Lady Bird Johnson

[@josephquesnel1737]

i think he raises very important relevant points, but as an undergrad historian myself, I question why we have an historian making grand conclusions about the merits of a military effort and not a military or strategic or a political expert? I think this scholar is stepping outside his field a little too much.

[@jonorefi5129]

Excellent reply Joe. I was wondering the same thing myself. He seems to have a political agenda, not a historical one.

[@tonychavez4056]

Didn't consider this. Interesting.

[@pingpong460]

sharp analyzed but every war is unnecessary. including those who are still ongoing

[@mrblack888]

If you believe in nothing, you'll fight for nothing. Usually just a cowards way of excusing himself from service.

[@sylbbb33]

The guy has dedicated his life to understanding the was and doesn't even know when the war started, amazing. It didn't start the 1965, it started in 1962 for the americans when JFK invaded the south, starting the use of napalm of villagers and sending about 10.000 ''advisers'' to the south. And if we want to be honest, for the vietnamese, the perspective that should matter most, it started in 1945.

[@hobojoe5697]

Well the 1st shot fired where officially in 1946 when the French surrounded our Captial-Ha Noi and sent us an final ultimatum : Surrender or Face the warth of the French Armed Forces

[@timothykerr9047]

For some reason scholars never looked up what the Russian & Chinese leaders had to say about the end of the French effort in Vietnam. I did. Look up what Khrushchev had to say in his memoir. Go to pages 482 & 483. The Viet Minh losses at Dien Bien Phu were horrendous. The Viet Minh had destroyed their main force to win. The Viet Minh had used over 50% of their main force troops to fight 2.7 % of the French Union Forces, maybe 1.5 % of France's combat forces. The Viet Minh's support troops got chewed up badly too. The Viet Minh high command went to the Paris peace talks to announce they were giving up the fight. However the French leader Mendez was schedualed to speak first and the first thing out of his mouth was the French were pulling out. The Viet Minh leadership was happily surprised. They had lost, but Mendez gave them victory.

[@thuankhong]

Stop bragging

[@robertburnett5561]

Even if Tonkin was real. No cause for the devastation in the next 10 years.

[@dymoman7]

IN WW2 the French were thrown out of French Indochina by the Japanese. It represented a watershed event in the Far East as Asians saw the powerful French army defeated by asiatics. When the Japanese occupied Vietnam, the Viet Min (Vietnamese Nationalists) were trained and supported by the US and organized with US intelligence officers in order to pin down 11 Japanese divisions fighting the Viet Min in Vietnam (French Indochina at that time). The Viet Min hoped (and some historians say promised) that the US would support Vietnamese Independence after the War. When the US then, changed it’s position and supported France in trying to re-assert it’s colonial empire in French Indochina after the War, the Viet Min allied themselves with the Communists in order to fight the French. The Viet Min bled the French dry for 20 years before they defeated the French will to continue at the Battle of Dien Ben Fu. General Giap and the Army of Vietnam destroyed a French army and France got out of Vietnam. Their Colonial Empire asked for help from the US to fight the Vietnamese Army (Now forced into the Communist fold by US failure to support Vietnamese independence at the end of WW2). The US, IGNORING RECENT HISTORY with the French. Entered the War and tried to fight it the same way the French had with conventional arms against an indigenous Nationalist Movement. It was a MASSIVE FAILURE OF DUPLICITOUS U.S. FOREIGN POLICY IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT DATING BACK TO WW2. THE massive bureaucracy created by WW2 has been fighting massive bureaucratic wars ever since. American foreign policy continues to make simplistic assumptions and wage wars “for the minds and hearts” of the people by insisting on the democratization of nations who simply don’t want or understand democracy and in places where that type of government simply will not work.

[@jaein7779]

Benjamin Franklin: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It." Democracy is hard work married with eternal vigilance on the part of the public.

[@frankmartin8471]

He fails to mention that France started the military action post WWII against an independent country which had been a staunch and courageous U.S. ally during the war fighting against the Imperial Japanese. The French actually released the Japanese POWs to help them fight the sovereign citizens in Vietnam. The Vietnamese begged President Harry Truman to recognize their independence. He refused, choosing instead to curry favor with France. The French were soundly defeated at Dien Bien Phu, and the U.S. was then left fighting simply to avoid defeat. The rest is shameful U.S. history.

[@Raydensheraj]

In the book he wrote this all is mentioned.

[@Yusa9204]

A fine talk! Why so few views and likes?

[@AndreasDelleske]

No UN Mandate, no war. Simple as that.

[@mchristr]

The irony of course is that modern Vietnam is appropriating the very thing America was trying to give them.

[@berndheghmanns1437]

hmm , i saw this Video and i am suprised that an Historian is not able to find out that the Tonkin sea incedent was a lie , the Madox wasnt atacked by Vietmin Torpedoboots at that Day `s and if he now this was a lie why dont he speak it loud out to say clearly that this was a lie. i think as i remember corectly, Mc Namara had worte this in his memoirs.

[@thetelemarkdaydream8896]

Bernd Heghmanns Watt our ewe tocking bout?

[@johnnyscifi]

The gulf of tonkin was LBJ's excuse to bomb the north without having to declare war. It was pretty much the same as the excuse the united states used to get involved in ww1

[@brucenadeau9694]

The Tonkin gulf incendent was not a lye the Madox made miss reading on radar 4 day earlier a destroyer patrolling near where madox was patrolling was attacked ,

[@christianlibertarian5488]

I think you missed the point. These "incidents" were an excuse to do what the Johnson administration wanted to do anyway. They could have found some other incident had they needed. The reason that the Johnson administration went to war, according to the speaker, was credibility. We allowed the war because of apathy. The same dynamic applied to the Iraq war.

[@johnstauffer8772]

In the Summer of 1961, the US Army was pulling personnel from my base in Germany to transfer them to Vietnam!

[@teentopmita]

You don't understand, you need to know that Vietnamese they fight for their freedom, their country and the national pride at any worst, that things in their veins and their DNA. Vietnam

[@billylucius7288]

This Dude is simply talking to an All American Audience. The US got involved in 1958 when Dwight D. Eisenhower sent in Navy patrol boats to help evacuate french troops. The orders were given to stay on the water and don't set foot on the ground. Thus Eisenhower correctly said "no ground troops"

[@bbbabrock]

I am not at sure that t Vietnam War looms as large as he says. Imo the Cold War was the much more significant event in the latter half of the 20th century. We lived under the threat of WWIII and thermonuclear devastation being quite likely until it was resolved.

[@nzzenith]

Shallow.

[@davidgarcia4657]

The lesson is: If you're not serious about winning like in Vietnam, don't send soldiers to die for nothing. don't tie one hand behind their backs and impose ridiculous rules of warfare on them and expect a victory.Put competent people in charge not like those clowns that ran the Vietnam war. They're the ones that effed everything up but who were the ones the American public turned on, the ones they kicked around? The veterans.

[@freddaniel5099]

Thucydides recounts a similar tale - fear, ignorance and arrogance may always lead a nation into war, usually to the detriment of all involved.

[@mrblack888]

And what do the victors say afterwards?

[@voiceofreason6515]

I think the more important lesson is one for the Vietnamese and countries in similar situations. They simply misunderstood the US’s intentions thinking that here was yet another colonial power coming to subjugate them. In hindsight this was not the case and had the Vietnamese cooperated with the US they would probably be on the level of South Korea or Japan today. Surely independence from an imaginary enemy cannot be more important than not being dirt poor and living in a dictatorship.

[@davisworth5114]

No, they saw America as a military coming to invade and kill them. The South Vietnamese government and military were teeming sewers of bribery , fraud, theft, and corruption, with no concern for the people, and no respect from the people. They were our puppets. What we demonstrated to the Vietnamese was nothing they wanted a part of. At least the killing finally stopped in 1975, but the suffering continues in we veterans and all the survivors in SE Asia. Are you going to cooperate with a power that is bombing you every day with B-52s? Your assertions are weak and not rooted in reality.

[@bandwagon22]

It's poorly known among most of Americans that US forces in Nam though having maximum of 540 000 soldiers could sent not more than 40 000 ground combat soldiers for front line action , at maximum. And the fact that American forces were never even near to win anything there is unknown. In fact 75-80% of combat there were when Americans were ambushed by NVA/NLF. Study made by Hirschman, Preston and Vu Manh Loi are suggesting 600 000 - 650 000 Vietnamese military persons deceased. 400 000 of them NVA/NLF and not all in combat. Besides it was Saigon forces, not Americans who did most of the ground combat.

[@checkmate058]

Seems like hes saying the politicans in an effort to posture and look like they stand for something, and to look serious, sorta called their own bluff and had to fight comunism by any means nessessary because they talked up to the public how bad comunism is. Its kinda like someone talking smack about how they would totaly beat up the bully in a fight, then upon realizeing the bully was standing behind them and timidly trying to fight.

[@artmanrom]

:) It gave to us John Rambo and made Sly a world wide super-star.

[@johnnyscifi]

You failed to mention Nixon's secretary of defense, Kissinger, in my opinion, he was even worse than McNamara!!! Atleast, McNamara got out before Johnson did

[@48retrop]

I don't think Henry Kissinger was ever a Secretary of Defense. He was however a Secretary of State and National Security Advisor.

[@jameshendrickson4845]

Fred seems to overstate the case a bit.

[@coltonharland2273]

I feel like this is just common knowledge everyone should already know. I've learned nothing I didn't already know.

[@tbone9603]

Never trust the American Government, why would anyone join the military especially after the Vietnam War? No more drafts, no more Vietnam Wars please! Too many young American boys/men lost their LIVES because of our crooked politicians and it needs to STOP NOW!!!!!

[@farbodpirouz9458]

Keep in mind that the Average American isn’t ready to make the tough calls, so they prefer to surrender their that power to their politicians and then blame them for making the wrong choice. The difference between U.S and other empires is that even though all the people aren’t free. They all have the potential shall to be if they educate themselves.

[@jfrancefl325]

I think george freidman watched this!

[@chrisduhaime5689]

Remember the first Iraq invasion this not going to be another Vietnam here we are to day the complex is still operating but keeping the death tolls way down

[@chrisduhaime5689]

@ 2003

[@toothpick5932]

Iraq army should not fight with the Americans head-on. one will never win when you fight like that against an enemy who is much more powerful than you. the Vietnamese always retrieved and use guerrilla tacted and make it a protracted war. the west will not have enough patience for that

[@carolfolger-brown6340]

With respect, best you look back more in history and you will find that the Vietnam war began during or before the John F. Kennedy Administration. How do I know? My husband was serving in Vietnam in 1963 before Kennedy was assassinated for 12 months! Why? He, JFK, wanted to be re-elected. My husband was sent back to Vietnam in 1965 and served another tour there...again, because LBJ wanted to be re-elected! We have The Wall in D.C. and I have many friends on that Wall. I also am a widow of that war. My husband died at 39 years of age from the effects of Agent Orange and other toxins sprayed. His name is Not on the Wall, though he like many others were "dead men walking" just waiting for the bomb inside their bodies to kill them. There are many service members from Vietnam still dying today and waiting to die any day to come. Their suffering, and their families suffering does not end. That is a take-away from Vietnam!

[@badguy1481]

I talked to a South Vietnamese officer who stayed in Vietnam when the North took over. Anyone who was an officer (and probably ANYONE who had any ties to the USA) was thrown into concentration camps....with limited food...limited medical care..Many died). You never hear about that since it's not politically correct and does not reflect well on how our government deserted the people of South Vietnam.

[@thuankhong]

In Vietnam history collaborators with foreign invaders condemned to death not only them but also their children and their parents

[@DadHacksCentral]

This guy just gives off the liberal vibe

[@paulmehl1985]

Add

[@didequen3339]

See full room of highly regarded educators, professionals...listening like deers....

[@tsbm9]

not a single word about the belief in the domino theory, everything about hubris and personal credibility. terribly subjective and a personal opinion.

[@dianapease643]

58000 American Soldiers died in this Crumby War.

[@sladetuner8661]

If the western governments (America, UK, France Canada, Australia) learned from the Vietnam War and the Southeast Asia Crisis during the cold war

[@topgeardel]

Let me simplify things. I resisted the Draft/Vietnam. Why? My life is my most precious and priceless possession, as is everyone's life. To give it up sacrificially there has to be a very special, priceless and "precious" reason to do so. Vietnam simply didn't fill that bill. I'm not giving my ONE life and future up for a war that was clearly unwinnable. The enemy was confusing. You weren't sure the people you were fighting for were supporting you. It had absolutely NO influence on American's security, safety and freedom. It was the opportunity to live the American Dream versus dying in a Vietnamese jungle @ 18.. Every time I see my children and grandchildren...that validates my decision. Case closed.

[@chrisj197438]

For 70 years now we have involved ourselves in conflict with countries we had no business in doing so.

[@stephencunningham6557]

Watching this in the aftershock of Kabul, Saigon 2.0 The US Empire can't and won't change. It WILL collapse eventually, hopefully not taking the rest of us with it.

[@TrumanGN]

No mystery. Big money for the American corporatocracy.

[@ishrendon6435]

It definitely wasnt that. For the most part it really was about fighting communism as the battle for influence with the soviet unio was more important. It wasn't about money in this case. Dont forget this was part of the cold war

[@dirkgently120]

The war happened because Johnson wanted U.S. troops in there because he and Lady Bird owned tons of stock in Brown & Root...... which has been the military's primary contractor since at least the Spanish American War. They literally made a fortune off of the Vietnam War.

[@granskare]

Cheney and Trump were among the "draft dodgers" here. Mueller was a hero in that war and we wonder about that.

[@gailbatty1702]

I'm trying to remember what unit Bill Clinton was in...Oh right, none, draft dodger. How about Obama's fine military service? Oh right none. Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush all served in some manner.

[@SandfordSmythe]

@@gailbatty1702 I think the term is chicken hawks. Tough guys who play macho, but avoided fighting for their country.

[@joehalliday6081]

Pretty good. It would have been better delivered if this speech was given by an attractive woman with a little humor. His premise that a permissive attitude was present should also include a preoccupied attitude. There was a lot going on that occupied people's lives and mindsets going into the 60's; a baby boom, an economic boom, a cultural blossoming, racial reckoning, interrupted by assassinations of major social and political leaders. Finally, tension among the public coalesced over two events, the Kent State shooting and Nixon's mandatory draft. Up until that point, most soldiers were volunteers, many that liked having a job with pay, training, and free education. With a mandatory draft, however, the war got real for middle-class and wealthy families. That is when households, fathers and sons, had to face the music. Senator's sons got deferments but if you weren't connected and unable to get out of serving, wtf are we fighting for became a common attitude. Joe Biden requested and received deferment 4 times! And although John Kerry tossed his fake purple heart at the Capitol, at least he served. The point is that it was the US Consitution that guaranteed US citizens the right of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and protest, and ultimately the right to vote for a change in leadership that caused the leaders to bow to their voices and end the war. No one was defeated and no side decided victory. It was the American citizens and those guaranteed rights provided in the US Constitution that gave ultimate power to the people and ended the war. O ya.

[@rr-mz7sq]

1) Not one word that Vietnam was part of the world-wide advance of Communism at the time. "Revolutionaries" he calls the Communists - jargon for supporters of a Communist victory. 2) Blames the US for all the deaths. If we hadn't opposed Nazism and Japanese Imperialism, there'd also have been far fewer deaths in WWll. 2) The problem was not fighting to win decisively. 3) Our involvement kept the Communists at bay in nearby countries till they were strong enough to resist on their own. 4) The Communists didn't win until the war had been turned over to the S. Vietnamese and our troops were home.

[@charlesbutler4646]

Good analysis, but it doesn't go far enough with tangible conclusions and recommendations. Also, it fairly blames LBJ, but again doesn't go far enough. The main driver behind this war was a residual belief in the domino theory with the echos of Adolf Hitler, genuine national hubris, a belief we were the world's defender against the evils of communism and all that was bad, a fundamental misunderstanding of the far East culture, the vast power of the military industrial complex, poor military leadership, failed Presidential war strategy, and the massive, John Wayne ego of LBJ, a self-confessed narcissist. A very nasty witches brew that could only lead to disaster.

[@geo86able]

Charles, I am in the process of writing a research paper on this dark time in our history. I concur 100% with your assessment, I also believe that our leaders lied to the American people not only on the events but also on the progress of the war or conflict. Gulf of Tonkin for example. As you stated, the thing Allied Supreme Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about, if the military complex infiltrates the government, we will be under the control of special interests. Weapons manufacturers need a laboratory and war is just that !

[@johnnyscifi]

George C. Perez Eisenhower made that speech as an american president, not as the allied supreme commander...;)

[@48Ballen]

Logevall is trying to rewrite history. First, Vietnam was 10 years after Korea which was perceived as a similar situation of the aggression of the North towards the South, and the US stopped the aggression. Second, The politicians never allowed the military to win the war and instituted absolutely insane rules of engagement like not stopping shipments into North Vietnam. Even when the US won the Tet engagement in a manner ranking as the largest annihilation of a military force by another, the news had people believing that the US lost that battle. I was there and this Logevall is just out to lunch with this talk. He simply does not know what he is talking about.

[@SandfordSmythe]

Stopping Russian ships?

[@josephquesnel1737]

I support the aims of the Vietnam War and believe this is more complicated than he makes it, but he DOES make some great points.. People here should not just dismiss them because u happen to support this historic conflict. We do need some skepticism.

[@claudedietrich8654]

No doubt this London based museum referred to in chat is inspiring. On the other hand, this TedTalk is not (inspiring). All of these pretentious-about-15 mins-of-fame Ted videos uncannily parallel Steve Jobs style. However, in about all, not an ounce of Job's genius is present.

[@jonorefi5129]

Real lesson: America never went there to win, that's why the North wasn't invaded. American troops go into a military situation to win or they don't go in at all. Otherwise, politicians will screw the effort to suit their personal financial & political goals.

[@FlyingDoctorC]

Who fight a war with rules loses.

[@lee4171]

Nothing particularly insightful in this talk. Disappointing.

[@good2freelance1]

Why the US didn't learn the lesson and still go to Iraq twice ?

[@Jariid]

because the issue with Iraq was not the invasion and subsequent fighting but instead the post-war handling of Iraq's internal affairs.

[@filmvn9420]

I think they learned about it, they won this war.

[@whutdatytopsy9651]

credibility. we can do it.

[@johnmiller7453]

Cause we are an Empire that wants to control the world. But like Rome we will fail and soon.

[@deloisemoore5008]

free lance

[@ant5611]

inceredible

[@howielisnoff]

The narrative on Vietnam was trashed by Reagan and George H.W. Bush with the lie of a "noble cause" and the end of the Vietnam Syndrome. Vietnam Syndrome, the hesitancy of the people of the US to use massive military force to further government objectives, lasted about a decade. The syndrome ended with Reagan's low-intensity wars in Central America and Bush's Gulf War. The latter is not a commentary on Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, but the acceptance of that war in the US.

[@2pacisalive915]

When American neo-imperialism goes wrong. People act like America when so great during that period, yah barely decided to end segregation near that period

[@johnthompson6550]

ya it was called. LBJ. EGO

[@jarrettwilliams2651]

There is also this version of events... www.prageru.com/courses/history/truth-about-vietnam-war

[@TonyMotherfuckinLee]

Propaganda for the right wing.

[@jamesjerome6942]

The real lesson was a red lesson

[@erlingandersen8008]

i belive it was started by jfk. americans pilots in southvietnam markt usa planes plus a huges amounds of americans adwiser

[@KOMET2006]

Our involvement in Vietnam goes back to 1950, when the Truman Administration agreed to largely underwrite the French effort in Indochina to re-establish control there. By the time of the massive French defeat at Dien Bien Phu in May 1954 at the hands of the Viet Minh, approx. 80% of the war effort had been financed by the U.S. As a way of building your knowledge about the Vietnam Era, I strongly urge you to read "The Pentagon Papers" and David Halberstam's book "The Best and the Brightest." Our involvement in Vietnam began long before JFK was elected President in 1960.

[@erlingandersen8008]

@@KOMET2006 thanks i didnt know