The Vietnam War

I learned a great deal of detail from the course but it has a great flaw. The instructor, too young to have lived through the era, sees the look but not the feel of the era. It reminds me of an original series Star Trek episode where the "villain" the Squire of Gothos ( Trelane) recreates the appearance of Earth food etc. without any of its substance. (the food had no taste). Having lived through the era I think the lecturer is being too easy on the US government in general and Nixon in particular. With all of the revelations of Nixon's machinations why does the lecturer think that "peace with honor" was anything but a cynical political ploy. I also think too much credit is given to the honorable efforts of the American soldier and the South Vietnamese effort in general. The North Vietnamese were misguided in their communist beliefs but who can blame them when the western powers refused to lend any help getting rid of foreign colonialism. The war was clearly unwinnable from the beginning. The North Vietnamese were willing to war for decades and some say the USSR bankrupted itself funding the effort. The US was never willing to make that kind of effort. It did throw tons of money and hundreds of thousands of troops at the communists but it was never our fight. Lastly, will someone please give the instructor a pronunciation guide. If this were not a tragic subject his mispronunciations would be comical. .For example the folk singer he referred to in one lecture, Phil Ochs, is pronounced OAKS not OX. As I said in the beginning the instructor is, like Trelane, looking in at a great distance . Unfortunately the distance hasn't so much added objectivity as it has resulted in a loss of substance and an unfortunate tendency to even out the highs and lows of a great tragedy. Kind of like using lithium to treat bi polar disorder. It lessens the symptoms but also dulls the ability to feel emotionally. and the Vietnam War was , and is, a very emotional issue.

Instead of lecturing the professor simply read in a non-dulcet tone. As a draftee at the time and an 11 Bravo some of the descriptions brought back some haunting memories. However, the people who watch this course would be better served without the obvious conservative coloring.

I was impressed with the history and background that was provided in this course.

I've read Professor McManus's first two books on the World War II Army in the Pacific and look forward to the final volume of the trilogy. If his preparation of this series has delayed its completion, it was worth it. As a Vietnam veteran, I generally read about the war, allowing me to pace myself since I can still run into problems. But the professor's balanced presentation and his even tone made him good company in this look back, richly detailed within the confines of the course length. I liked the simplicity of the technical presentation, with the lecture titles presented with a little "snow" such as appeared on TV screens of the time and much of the still and film imagery framed by a TV -- this was of course a "television war." I also liked that the professor sat in one place instead of, as in many other courses, pacing between cameras. I will say that the repeat use of the same images to illustrate the lectures seemed unnecessary given how much documentary material exists. It sometimes made the forward movement of the narrative "stutter," as when, most every time war resistance at home was said to ramp up, the same poster, GET THE HELLicopters OUT OF VIETNAM, was shown. I appreciated the respect shown to Vietnamese subjects by spelling out their names as they're spelled in Vietnam. A crossed "d" is pronounced differently than an uncrossed "d." (Professor McManus didn't always get this right orally. He didn't attempt the tones at all, but to make the shift to that sound system in the middle of an English sentence is very very difficult.) Where I had a different impression of something factual, I almost always bowed to his superior knowledge. I will mention, though, that it's not true that medics weren't sent on ambush patrols. I was a medic, and was. I'd recommend this course to people with some knowledge of the war and even more to those with little.

I bought this more out of curiosity than any real desire to learn more about the War. I was in college between 1963 and 1972, spent time in ROTC, and served Stateside during the 1972-1978 period, so I saw first-hand the turmoil of the 60’s and the later negative disposition towards those of us in uniform. This course gave me better perspective on what I thought I saw and why there was so much antagonism toward service persons. The presenter did a good job, in my opinion, of presenting information fairly and without an obvious slant.

This is one of the two best courses I have downloaded. I felt the pain that the "grunts" as they were led into impossible situations. True examples of poor leadership led to this disastrous war that flip/flopped America. This deserves six stars.

I listened to this course on Audible and I was very impressed. Few of the most popular "histories" of the war go beyond simple activist narratives into the real causes of the war, the geopolitical factors that led to America's escalation, and what really happened in Vietnam. The presenter's expertise encompasses the morass of controversy across both tactical and political lines, and he gives a fair shake to all of the players involved. Profoundly eye-opening for anyone with interest in the topic, especially if you already think you know what happened. Highly recommended.

This course filled in the blanks for me. I graduated college in 1971 and this war was a big factor in my life at the time. I knew so little of what was going on and why we were involved. This event was a life-changer for me. I’ll never forget that era. A well presented course, in my view. So sad that we were involved in this whole mess.

Dr. McManus did an outstanding job of developing and presenting an interesting and apparently objective course on the Vietnam War. I say "apparently" not because I suspect it was not, but simply because I do not have the knowledge to evaluate that. It certainly came across as objective, as a good historian should strive to present. I especially appreciated the multifaceted view that he presented. I'm not a fan of the recent productions with speakers sitting like statues reading from teleprompters. I'm sure their presentations would be even better if they were allowed some freedom.

I am 70 years old. My Dad was an F-105 pilot flying out of Takhli, Thailand from 1965 until July 1966 when he was killed. In all these years I have rarely if ever heard conversations or even comments about Vietnam that did not come with an “agenda” attached. It was with great pleasure and relief that after the first couple of lectures I understood I was getting a factual history of the Vietnam War and not a “reeducation.” This course was a breath of fresh air. Dr McManus did a wonderful job of being objective. He told me things I wanted to hear and also things I didn’t. His last lecture and his comment about the US “losing the war but winning the peace” was especially poignant. I want to thank Dr McManus for giving me a historical context and a broader understanding of a topic which has always been somewhat of an open wound for me. The word closure has become overused and diluted but I can’t really think of a better one in this case. Now for my agenda. Dr McManus makes the point that ultimately wars are won by the political will of the people. My own point is that wars are “made” by a civilian government, and fought by the soldiers. I believe it is a crime when wars are started by the government (of the people) which later pulls the rug out from beneath the soldiers who are dying for that cause.