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.

[brianbozo]

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.

[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.

[leninirshad]

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

[flavius]

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.

[tuanhtran]

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.

[hunghunghung]

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

[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.

[Gurkhaable]

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

[davisworth]

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!

[str.]

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.

[peteralanturner]

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.

[hoanghaik]

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) ...:)

[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.

[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.

[sylbbb]

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.

[TedMichaelMorgan]

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

[mjinba]

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.

[shabdadhar]

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.

[frankmartin]

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.

[josephquesnel]

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.