As Hearts and Minds shows in such a constant and repeated manner, people suffered as a result of the Vietnam War. Vietnamese died. Americans died. Loved ones were lost. It would be foolish to argue with any of these statements. The invention of the camera has allowed director Peter Davis to show us these things. However, what about the wars that were not so heavily filmed? I would venture to guess that people suffered as a result of WWII as well. Americans died. Germans died. Loved ones were lost. So why was Vietnam so different? What makes Vietnam a mistake but WWII a success?
Hearts and Minds is an excellently crafted documentary in that it provides an argument and supports its argument with evidence. When broken down, the entire film consists of three types of scenes: those that show the suffering of the Vietnamese, those that portray the “lies” of the American government, and those that show the go-between: the soldiers who were coerced to impress the suffering on the Vietnamese by the “lies” of the government. When combined, Hearts and Minds conveys a story of an oppressive regime that employs brainless minions to carry out their selfish, evil will. However, Hearts and Minds never addressed the opposing viewpoint.
I believe that the Vietnam War was essentially similar to WWII. Rarely do Americans question the validity of the U.S.’s participation in WWII. Hitler and the Nazis are portrayed in American society as the essence of pure evil, a true threat to humanity, and Americans were the knights in shining armor who successfully slayed the dragon.
However, America only involved itself in WWII when it felt that its safety was threatened. Disregarding conspiracy theories for which I have heard very little believable proof, historical evidence supports the idea that the U.S. only decided to enter WWII after Pearl Harbor was bombed. The U.S. had been attacked, and so it needed to protect itself. Most Americans accept this as a totally logical and justifiable reason for entering the war.
Yet, the situations surrounding the U.S.’s entry into Vietnam are essentially similar to those of WWII. At the time, communism was perceived as a very real threat to the U.S., arguably even more so than the Axis regime. Before Vietnam, the U.S. was involved in the Cold War; a time in American life where school children were subject to bomb raid drills. At this time, communism seemed extremely dangerous. So, when it appeared that communism was spreading, the U.S. government had a justifiable reason to send troops to Vietnam. Just like in WWII, the U.S. was trying to protect itself from a perceived threat.
One of the arguments presented by a few interviewees in Hearts and Minds is that the U.S. should learn from what happened in Vietnam to avoid similar problems in the future, but that is exactly what the U.S. was doing when it entered Vietnam. After trying to remain uninvolved in foreign conflicts during the start of WWII, the U.S. was attacked at Pearl Harbor. So, when another perceived threat, communism, was rising, the U.S. applied what it learned from WWII. The U.S. wanted to attack the enemy before it was attacked by the enemy. So, if WWII and Vietnam began under similar conditions, why did they end so differently?
The reason that the Vietnam War and WWII ended on such different terms can be explained in terms of the cultural differences between the Vietnamese and the Axis powers. If anything, the U.S.’s military advantage over the Vietnamese was far greater than any advantage the Allied forces may have had over the Axis powers. The only reason that the Allies won WWII and the Americans lost the Vietnam War is, as General Westmoreland said, “the Oriental, doesn’t put the same high price on life as does the Westerner.” Granted, in Hearts and Minds, General Westmoreland’s statement was placed directly adjacent to footage of the Vietnamese heavily mourning the casualties of war, and in doing so, Davis is basically mocking what he perceives as the utter ignorance of that statement.
However, I think General Westmoreland’s statement is not at all ignorant, and in fact, summarizes the reason that WWII and the Vietnam War ended on such different terms. Clearly, as Hearts and Minds does such an excellent job of portraying, the Vietnamese were entirely overmatched in the war. Yet, they refused to surrender. So, the U.S. reverted to bombings in hopes of inciting their surrender. The U.S. wasn’t bombing civilians, women, and children because it was a cruel, tyrannical regime. It was a calculated move following the adage “sacrifice a little to get a lot”. Once again, it was a lesson learned from WWII.
The dropping of the atomic bomb obviously killed innocent civilians, yet it also brought about the end of the war, and in doing so, saved countless other lives. Much like this, the U.S. was hoping that the bombings in Vietnam would discourage the Vietnamese to the point of surrender, and in doing so, they would save even more soldiers and civilians from dying. The U.S. government was not a cold, heartless killing machine. In its mind, it was seeking to bring about peace and safety.
Yet, the Vietnamese possessed a stubbornness unlike those of the Axis powers. They were not willing to surrender. Obviously they are still human, and so clearly death still takes a huge emotional toll on the lives of those affected. However, culturally, they were not willing to sacrifice their independence, even at such great costs. Then, as time passed and the threat of communism seemed to fade, the U.S. decided the best decision was to withdraw.
So, if we are to follow the advice given at the end of Hearts and Minds and try to apply what we learned in Vietnam to prevent future mistakes, we are forced to ask “What did we learn from Vietnam?”. I am by no means an expert, but from what I have seen and read, the only conclusion I can draw is that we learned not to rely on our history. Relying on what the U.S. learned through WWII is what caused Vietnam. As the saying goes “hindsight is 20/20”. It’s easy to look back and decide what was a mistake and what wasn’t. However, Vietnam only proves that history is not a perfect predictor for the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment