From the opening:

>It was begun in good faith by decent people out of fateful misunderstanding; American overconfidence, cold war miscalculation...

This simple assertion is so far removed from reality as to operate in another universe. The origins of the Vietnam war date to the late 1930s and 1940s when America was crafting massive studies of the probable post-WWII world; and the foreign policy that would guide US foreign policy to the present. A key component to the stability of the world economic system is the absorption and integration of Japan; whose economy is heavily based on having South East Asia as a market for exports, raw materials, etc. If Vietnam successfully nationalized their economy, US planners understood, as early as 1942, that Japans economy would likely collapse (in the model that was being constructed at the time). This is the real origin of the 'domino' theory. Furthermore, the idea that the US lost the Vietnam war or somehow didn't achieve its objectives is nothing short of a complete fabrication of historical fact. The US had always regarded a stalemate (preventing the Vietnamese people from gaining power outside of Western frameworks) as not only highly desirable but likely. So the invasion of Vietnam was carried out, an act which the Nuremburg Trials regarded as the most egregious and flagrant violations of international law, human rights, and human decency: the preparing and launching of a war of aggression. The greatest possible war crime a state can commit.

This is the kind of shit you'd find if you watched a documentary in China about their history with Japan or in Nazi Germany concerning Poland or whatever. That people don't fall over from laughter at the complete absurdity of such propositions and that what follows in that film is regarded as 'history' reveals all one need know about the complete elimination of historical memory.

I'll try and answer through a couple questions. What impression do the documentaries create in relation to the reason the Civil War or the Vietnam war occurred? What is the essence of US policy with regards to South East Asia? Why did the Civil War occur?

I'm glad to hear that. I never would have imagined they'd see the light of day given the accounts of his previous 2 war films. Maybe my impressions were incorrect, I appreciate the edification.

But it was surely reasonable to be skeptical when the myth of the lost cause has been documented to the point of nauseum. And Vietnam is exactly the propaganda one would expect in an account where most know nothing of the actual conflict other than that it was unpopular. That's not to say they aren't entertaining or that they don't contain aspects of interest. When one proclaims to offer truth value in regards to the most significant events in modern history you have a tremendous moral duty to the elevation of historical memory; when such claims are accompanied by mere shadows you have only reinforced the dominate illusions.

Also, the swift backlash against expressing such ideas and the emotional reactions they elicit is at least antidotal evidence in itself. Genuine errors and completely incorrect ideas rarely have the power to even elicit words of correction. If I held a parade proclaiming 2+2=3 it would get no serious consideration, nor deserve none.

Maybe I wasn't clear but I thought my first sentence indicated that I had not. I realize people love Ken Burns but his accounts of the Civil War and Vietnam are absolute disasters; they're obviously master films created by a true craftsmen but it doesn't follow that we should treat him as Thucydides or something.

That's fair, I removed it. I would maintain that's its accurate nonetheless. If I had taken more time, I'd probably have reworded it as 'the most powerful, systematic, and enduring racist society in world history.' Sentiments don't easily translate into quantifiable research variables and it was sloppy to include them.

I have in mind overt public displays of horror inflicted on individuals in countries outside the US; these are often implicitly regarded as evidence of their power but the opposite is the case. Similar to public execution and torture in European feudalism was always a sign of a weak state. My impression is that you might already be familiar with this line of reasoning but for those who have not, such claims will appear to take off from the planet.

I linked a historical scholar who goes piece by piece through the creation of the Nazi laws. They openly discussed US race law in the policy discussions. This isn't speculation, we have the documents. Mere doctrinal dismissals have no bearing when the historical record is clear.

It wouldn't make sense if the Nazis didn't study its machinations. They also learned about modern propaganda through studying American and British techniques. None of this should be controversial but all countries without exception don't contain anything that could be called 'history' its mythology and symbol management. It's rather easy to see this when we look at other countries but near impossible to notice operating in daily life precisely because its so familiar.

There's certainly more detailed analysis of the subject that exist than the following but it remains rather insightful.

https://old.reddit.com/r/theoryofpropaganda/comments/xqnzci/racism_has_not_receded_but_actually_progressed_in/

Would it be to optimistic to expect anything but a whitewash when the doc discusses the US role in relation to the Holocaust?

Many aren't aware that the NYT only published six stories that clearly identified Jewish geocide. That only 12 of the 500 Presidential press conferences during WWII did a journalists ask about the Jews. Or that the Nazis used the Southern US as a model when creating the original racial laws. They thought America was too extreme.

[Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law] (http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=1143E3E4FF767A913B58AC2806315EE4)

[The Cambridge History of the Second World War: Volume 2, Politics and Ideology] (http://library.lol/main/65E173CE2B5B5B61F02CF0ADB361D4FC)

[They Thought They Were Free] (http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=BB1197CDD90D41BDB7B50CCEC0F47BC2)

News of the Holocaust: Why FDR Didn't Tell and the Press Didn't Ask -- Can't get the link to work but a search on google should return a result.

[Post documenting WWII policy planning, revealing that the motivations were entirely pragmatic and/or imperialist in nature] (https://old.reddit.com/r/theoryofpropaganda/comments/smysv8/this_is_excellent_a_dissertation_from_columbia/)

[Declassified US Psy Evaluation of Adolf Hitler that correctly predicted he'd kill himself] (https://ia800607.us.archive.org/21/items/B-001-003-894/B-001-003-894.pdf)

> Numerous appeals for bombing the gas chambers, or the rail lines and bridges leading to them, were sent to U.S. officials by American Jewish organizations throughout the spring, summer, and fall of 1944.

> Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy was designated to reply to the requests. He wrote that the bombing idea was "impracticable" because it would require "diversion of considerable air support essential to the success of our forces now engaged in decisive operations." He also claimed the War Department's position was based on "a study" of the issue. But no evidence of such a study has ever been found by researchers.

> In reality, McCloy's position was based on the Roosevelt administration’s standing policy that military resources should not be used for "rescuing victims of enemy oppression."