We Were Soldiers

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Patrick Moore:

The interviewer asked him to comment on the VC claims that they won the battle.

If you put the battle together with the LZ Albany fight, the NVA could claim a sort of victory, through learning what sorts of situations to strive for (like the Albany ambush) and avoid (like X-ray). They have said they needed the engagment as a way to study their enemy, and considered the engagement to have been successful for that purpose.

[Bruno Weiss]

Jotte wrote:

To the NVA the US were invaders don't you think? That's their view of things. Might have been that Mel Gibson was refering to?

The NVA may have considered us little green men from mars but I don't think I would assert that as a fact in an interview on national television. Secondly, that is not how Gibson presented it. I saw the interview live.

-------------------------------------------------

Nidan1 wrote:

So here is the rub about who "invaded" who. The Vietnamese communists, both North and South considered their military action to be a war of unification and to rid their country of foreigners. America was so afraid of the "Domino Theory" that it would do anything to block communist wars of liberation anywhere on the globe. So actually America was the foreign Army preventing the unification of a sovereign country.

Everyone is welcome to their opinion. I don't share yours. The Domino Theory might have gotten us involved, but once involved we were there. The result of a failure to achieve the desired results in human suffering post US withdrawel, is hard to imagine. And, the same argument could be presented with regard to Korea. Should then South Korea be turned over to North Korea, or Taiwan to China, or Afghanistan to the Taliban?

I am a Vietnam Veteran and looking back on it now through the eyes of maturity and history, I feel that America should have stayed out of Vietnam, or at least withdrawn earlier before more lives were lost. I think America at the time thought it a noble cause, but I too think that the NVA thought they were doing the right thing as well.

I'm also a Vietnam veteran, and in my looking back on it, I come to a different conclusion. It is a perfect example of the necessity to fight a war, if one is indeed going to fight a war. Once entered into, you conduct the business at hand to achieve the end desired. Had we actually "invaded" Vietnam, as Gibson asserted, the war would have ended in a short period of time, Vietnam would not have been subjected to a totalitarian government and all of the disasterous results that don't need to be listed here, and thousands of American and Allied lives would not have been lost.

-------------------------------------------------

Cm Player wrote:

You oughtn't to have a problem with that since that's Hal Moore's and Joe Galloway's stance in the book. Filming it any other way would be very disrespectful.

That's their stance, not mine. I didn't read the book, and don't desire to. As I stated I did not see the movie for much of the same reason. And what the NVA thought or didn't think of their cause or ours, has little to do with Gibson so glibly, and incorrectly, asserting that the US invaded Vietnam.

-------------------------------------------------

CM Player wrote:

They must have, considering how they fought.

So did the Germans.

[ August 30, 2002, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[gunnergoz]

Hi, Mom!

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Cm Player wrote:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> You oughtn't to have a problem with that since that's Hal Moore's and Joe Galloway's stance in the book. Filming it any other way would be very disrespectful.

That's their stance, not mine. I didn't read the book, and don't desire to. As I stated I did not see the movie for much of the same reason. </font>

[Bruno Weiss]

Yes gunnergoz, that is pretty much where this one was headed from the initial post.

Hi Dad!

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

So did the Germans.

The Germans suffered a moral collapse. The NVA just got stronger and stronger. There's a huge difference there in level of motivation.

[Bruno Weiss]

CM Player wrote:

So Mel Gibson's a numbskull, we all knew that already. The movie's still worth seeing...for SgtMajor Plumly if for no other reason (as someone said). The book is excellent. Since you seem to have strong opinions about this, the book might at least be worth having a look at at the shop. I get the feeling you're letting your buttons get pushed in advance. You seem to already think you know what the book and the movie are about, and therefore refuse to see or read them. That's a bit self defeating if you ask me (not that you did, would or have any reason to care what I think)

I really didn't have such an opinion about Gibson until that interview, rather like Richard Gere speaking of peace and love at the WTC-NYPD Fund Raising. It may be a great book, many believe Mein Kampf was a masterpiece. Just not my cup of tea. No, why would my stating my opinion just as you stating your opinion somehow represent "my buttons getting pushed"? I had no idea what the book was about, other then your telling me that it represents a stance by the authors that the NVA were honorable soldiers or some such. I don't agree. And while I've read all manner of books on WWII, I would also pass on any where the Nazi regime was presented as an honorable or noble cause, however well done the book might be. As for opinions as to how I'm self defeating, I'm not looking to expand my cosmic understanding of what the NVA thought about the war, or what schwell fellers Hollywood thinks they might have been. No, I didn't ask for your opinion, but as everyone is on this here forum, your most welcome to give it.

[ August 30, 2002, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[Bruno Weiss]

CM Player wrote:

The Germans suffered a moral collapse. The NVA just got stronger and stronger. There's a huge difference there in level of motivation.

The Germans did not suffer any moral collaspe, nor did the NVA get stronger and stronger. The Germans suffered a military catastrophy and were stopped only through military means, while the NVA were ready to give it up with the B-52's began to bomb Hanoi and Haiphong. It was the US that suffered a moral collaspe and allowed itself to forget that war, indeed means fighting a war.

[ August 30, 2002, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[Nidan1]

The problem with American involvement in the war was that we had no strategy to win. We sacrificed 56,000 young Americans and countless Vietnamese, and then we just left. As a participant I am still glad I served, but now in 2002 I am disappointed that we didnt do a better job.

[ August 30, 2002, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: Nidan1 ]

[Bruno Weiss]

In that we agree.

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

In that we agree.

Good, I'm glad. Can we get the CMBB Demo now!!

[Voxman]

Saw the movie, real stinker.

There a three VHS tape with interviews with many of the real people involed in the battle including Moore and the reporter. Ten times better than the movie.

Bad battle scenes and hoaky acting killed it. I liked the Sgt. Majoy though, very funny!

Regards,

Voxman

[Bruno Weiss]

Nidan1 wrote:

Can we get the CMBB Demo now!!

Yes by dammies, now there is something I do wanna see!!

[ August 30, 2002, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[Frunze]

To say the north Vietnamese invaded south Vietnam is even less accurate than saying the Union armies in the American Civil War were foreign invaders.

North and south Vietnam were one country, as both Hanoi and Saigon acknowledged; they just disagreed about which government should rule it. In '54, the Viet Minh, under pressure from Moscow, gave up a lot of territory they controlled in southern Vietnam, and agreed to the temporary division of Vietnam, in exchange for a promise of elections to choose the government of southern Vietnam. Not surprisingly, these elections were never held, as it was feared that Ho Chi Minh would win.

What's more, U.S. and ARVN forces initially did a lot of their fighting against south Vietnamese guerillas, though the NVA was a bigger and bigger part of their opposition as the war went on, esp. after Tet, when the south Vietnamese NLF forces took heavy casualties. So one could more accurately say that the U.S. invaded southern Vietnam, like the French, Japanese, and British before them.

Anyway, the "We Were Soldiers" movie rewrites the ending of the book in order to give it a victorious ending. In reality, no bayonet charge, like people have mentioned, instead, First Batallion was relieved by a column from Second Batallion, which was hit by an ambush while moving to LZ Albany. The official count of American casualties from First Batallion was 49 dead and 124 wounded, and from Second Batallion was 155 dead and 123 wounded. So Hollywood decided to end the movie after only one quarter of the American KIAs had been inflicted.

I'm amazed that Nidan1 would acknowledge that countless Vietnamese were killed and then say "The problem with American involvement in the war was that we had no strategy to win." So it would have been okay to slaughter millions if it resulted in victory?

The whole idea that the U.S. was trying to liberate people or protect them from aggression, while at the same time its soldiers and officers routinely referred, and politicians like McCain still refer, to the same people as gooks, and treated them as subhumans who could be napalmed, bombed, shot, raped, whatever at will....

[ August 30, 2002, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: Frunze ]

[zee]

Voxman either u have Very bad taste , and dont like war movies.. or ur just a prick.

the movie was very good and i hope it wins an academy award for it well deserved.

[Bruno Weiss]

Frunze wrote:

So it would have been okay to slaughter millions if it resulted in victory?

You mean like in Germany or Japan? Yep, unlike modern times when we try to knock out the enemy with peanut butter MRI's from 5,000 feet, in reality, genuine military victory (not the kind that fits into a 30 second sound bite for political convenience), often has to be achieved through the death of someone. And invasions happen when someone isn't invited, as the US was when it entered into defending the South.

The whole idea that the U.S. was trying to liberate people or protect them from aggression, while at the same time its soldiers and officers routinely referred, and politicians like McCain still refer, to the same people as gooks, and treated them as subhumans who could be napalmed, bombed, shot, raped, whatever at will....

Your kidding me right!?! Again, like maybe in Germany or Japan? Jap or Kraut come to mind. Japan probably faired better on rapes, but it was wholesale open season in Germany. And talk about slaughter. Why the North Vietnamese were purely scientific in their torture methods against South Vietnamese citizens, soldiers, and US prisoners for that matter. What's your point here... Last time I checked, American's were human beings, not angels and war was a gruesome business. Not at all like soccer.

[ August 30, 2002, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[Nidan1]

Funze wrote:

I'm amazed that Nidan1 would acknowledge that countless Vietnamese were killed and then say "The problem with American involvement in the war was that we had no strategy to win." So it would have been okay to slaughter millions if it resulted in victory?

-----------------------------------------

The whole idea that the U.S. was trying to liberate people or protect them from aggression, while at the same time its soldiers and officers routinely referred, and politicians like McCain still refer, to the same people as gooks, and treated them as subhumans who could be napalmed, bombed, shot, raped, whatever at will....

------------------------------------------------

I take offense to the fact that you equate my statement as condoning the killing and raping, etc. of the Vietnamese. Unfortunately for mankind, war is sometimes used as a tool of national policy. When I said we had no strategy to win, I was referring to the fact that when any nation embarks on the use of force, for whatever reason or perceived goal, it better have some kind of plan to win. How many more people would have been killed or maimed in the Persian Gulf if the coalition had gone in half assed and fought over the dessert for three years instead of three months.

The tragedy for all concerned as far as Vietnam is concerned, is that we started out with a noble purpose, but allowed it to become perverted due to indecision and faulty strategy.

Killing is never a good thing, and no country is immune from excesses in wartime. I think its time to let this discussion go.

[ August 30, 2002, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: Nidan1 ]

[rucrazee]

There aren't many Hollywood films that are totally historically accurate. If you want history, read the book, buy documentaries (lots of them at Sam's in multi-video packs) or watch the History Channel. If you want a great semi-historical war movie, check this one out. I think it was a fantastic flick with some of the best looking combat scenes I have seen. Two thumbs up! Lighten up a little, geez.

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by rucrazee:

There aren't many Hollywood films that are totally historically accurate. If you want history, read the book, buy documentaries (lots of them at Sam's in multi-video packs) or watch the History Channel. If you want a great semi-historical war movie, check this one out. I think it was a fantastic flick with some of the best looking combat scenes I have seen. Two thumbs up! Lighten up a little, geez.

No disrespect to the men who actually fought at Ia Drang, but this movie reeks: Of bad acting (Gibson seems to be chanelling John Wayne by way of Dale Dye), hackneyed dialogue ("Tell my wife I love her...", "I'm glad I could die for my country..."), low-budget-itis ("Eh, nobody'll notice we shot in Southern California and not Southern Vietnam!"), and card-board characters (can anybody who saw the movie recall anything about anybody besides Mel and the SGM?)

From what I was able to determine from the confused and chaotic scene changes, and lack of coherent narrative, the main problem with our attack into the Ia Drang seemed to be that the 7th Air Cav had only two choppers to ferry in all their troops and supplies! Oh, and I got that Mel saved the day by killing the almost infinite supply of NVA pretty much all by his lonesome. (Though the required-by-law Crusty Senior NCO did pop a few).

The only thing that bouyed this dog at the box-office was the aire of post-911 pseudo-patriotism prevelent when it opened. Check out the scene near the end when a CH47 full of reporters descends on the battlefield and starts thrusting mikes in the survivors faces (yeah, right --- this is Vietnam 1965, not Somalia, 1993!!!). The tattered, yet still waving, US flag that the camera pulls back to as one reporter exitedly snaps pictures of same, is just waaaay over-the-top.

And the attempts to show the NVA as sympathetic "regular guys" just defending their turf, only ends up coming off as condescending.

This movie so want's to be Saving Private Ryan meets Platoon, but instead comes off more as The Sands of Iwo Jima meets Hamburger Hill.

And why isn't this in the General Forum?

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

[hackneyed dialogue ("Tell my wife I love her...", "I'm glad I could die for my country..."),

Those were the actual last words of those two men when they really died. Sorry if you think reality is corny, that happens sometimes.

From what I was able to determine from the confused and chaotic scene changes, and lack of coherent narrative, the main problem with our attack into the Ia Drang seemed to be that the 7th Air Cav had only two choppers to ferry in all their troops and supplies!

The original LZ was too hot to use so they had to improvise a back up by blowing up some trees. This new LZ could handle, at most, two choppers at a time. So your impression was intended and historical.

oh, and I got that Mel saved the day by killing the almost infinite supply of NVA pretty much all by his lonesome. (Though the required-by-law Crusty Senior NCO did pop a few).

Again the 'Crusty Senior NCO' was a real figure. And one of his best moments, telling a prone Joe Galloway "Get up sonny, you can't take any pictures lying down there" was worth the price of admission. Also Hal Moore's leadership probably was of critical, absolutely vital importance to the LZ-Xray battle not turning into a rout and massacre, though this was NOT by him leading a charge and overrunning an enemy regimental HQ like is fictionalized in the film. But I don't see how you could have missed noticing that the vast majority of enemy were 'popped' by air power and artillery in the film, just as in history.

Check out the scene near the end when a CH47 full of reporters descends on the battlefield and starts thrusting mikes in the survivors faces (yeah, right --- this is Vietnam 1965, not Somalia, 1993!!!).

A helicopter full of reporters did really land at X-Ray as shown in the film. And by that point Galloway, their colleage who'd been in the battle, really did stand firm while the reporters flinched over friendly artillery impacting nearby.

The tattered, yet still waving, US flag that the camera pulls back to as one reporter exitedly snaps pictures of same, is just waaaay over-the-top.

Again, the 1/7 did have a tiny, tattered American flag that had come in somehow and which they put up near the CP. And I believe (but I can't confirm) that a photo of that little flag was in the media in the reporting after the battle in 1965. That flag was then retained by the battalion as a memory of the battle. That's why it's in the film. It may seem corny to you but little things like that can seem meaningful to people who've just fought together for 3 days that felt like 3 years.

Don't get me wrong, lot's of things irritated me about this film. I'm surprised no one has mentioned the droning chant that comes in when it's supposed to be moving, or the medley of superimposed still photos with Galloway hovering about. That was gut churningly awful. And it bugged me that Moore is portrayed as turning away from the reporters because of his grief when, though his grief was real, he actually gave them a nice, cut and dried discussion of the battle.

Still thought it was worth seeing though.

[ August 31, 2002, 02:11 AM: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

I had no idea what the book was about, other then your telling me that it represents a stance by the authors that the NVA were honorable soldiers or some such. I don't agree.

This is where I think your buttons are being pushed because you probably have direct or second hand experience of NVA killing wounded, torturing prisoners, and behaving like they have no respect for anyone's, not even their own, lives.

All of that is in the book and it's not glossed over. I think you've taken my comment about the author's stance and made some assumptions about what kind of book it must be (Jane Fondaism comes to mind).

But it's actually a minute oral history, telling very clearly the details of what hundreds of men and boys actually did and said as they fought and in many cases died over the course of a bad week in 1965. It's the sort of book (like Black Hawk Down) that a veteran should be dying to put into the hands of the civilian public.

Anyhow, I should probably quote what the authors actually said about that 'stance' since I'm not getting it across well enough. From the prologue:

This story, then, is our testament, and our tribute to 234 young Americans who died beside us during four days in Landing Zone X-Ray and Landing Zone Albany in the Valley of Death 1965....[snip].... While those who have never known war may fail to see the logic, this story also stands as tribute to the hundreds of young men of the 320th, 33rd, and 66th Regiments of the People's Army of Vietnam who died by our hand in that place. They, too, fought and died bravely. They were a worthy enemy. We who killed them pray that their bones were recovered from that wild, desolate place where we left them, and taken home for decent and honorable burial. This is our story and theirs.

[ August 31, 2002, 02:35 AM: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[russellmz]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

No disrespect to the men who actually fought at Ia Drang, but this movie reeks: Of bad acting (Gibson seems to be chanelling John Wayne by way of Dale Dye), hackneyed dialogue ("Tell my wife I love her...", "I'm glad I could die for my country..."),

too bad the lt. herrick who actually said "if i have to die, i'm glad I could die for my country" in real life as he died didn't have time to come up with a better line. (we were soldiers once...and young, p116-7)

and you might have appreciated this deleted scene that the director said was based on a true incident:

one officer in a hole is hit by NVA mortar shell. a soldier gets into the hole with him and tries to help him. a nva rushing by shoots at the soldier who falls down, hit in the arm. the nva runs off without bothering to confirm the kill.

the officer and the soldier(both very much alive) take a moment to access their wounds. then the soldier looks to the officer and says, "tell my wife i love her." the officer stares at the soldier for a moment then screams, "can't you see i'm hit worse than you are, you dumb son of a bitch!?" of course they both start laughing after this.

Originally posted by von Lucke:

low-budget-itis ("Eh, nobody'll notice we shot in Southern California and not Southern Vietnam!"),

i guess they shoulda tried filming in vietnam...might have made for a few real life and realistic fight scenes?

Originally posted by von Lucke:

and card-board characters (can anybody who saw the movie recall anything about anybody besides Mel and the SGM?)

From what I was able to determine from the confused and chaotic scene changes, and lack of coherent narrative, the main problem with our attack into the Ia Drang seemed to be that the 7th Air Cav had only two choppers to ferry in all their troops and supplies!

sorta, they had (and showed) more than two choppers but not enough to get everyone in at once, as they mentioned before the first helicopter dropoffs.

Originally posted by von Lucke:

Oh, and I got that Mel saved the day by killing the almost infinite supply of NVA pretty much all by his lonesome. (Though the required-by-law Crusty Senior NCO did pop a few).

??? a lot of no name and minor character soldiers did a lot of killing...

Originally posted by von Lucke:

The only thing that bouyed this dog at the box-office was the aire of post-911 pseudo-patriotism prevelent when it opened. Check out the scene near the end when a CH47 full of reporters descends on the battlefield and starts thrusting mikes in the survivors faces (yeah, right --- this is Vietnam 1965, not Somalia, 1993!!!).

in the dvd extras i remember some b&w news footage of moore being interviewed after the battle, on the field i believe. moore said something to the effect that the american soldier was the finest in the world and then teared up on camera.

Originally posted by von Lucke:

The tattered, yet still waving, US flag that the camera pulls back to as one reporter exitedly snaps pictures of same, is just waaaay over-the-top.

at least it wasn't 50 ft long like in pearl harbor and saving private ryan

seriously though, i thought the fact they used that tiny tattered flag was very powerful.

Originally posted by von Lucke:

And the attempts to show the NVA as sympathetic "regular guys" just defending their turf, only ends up coming off as condescending.

i thought it showed them as enemies not to underestimate.

Originally posted by von Lucke:

This movie so want's to be Saving Private Ryan meets Platoon, but instead comes off more as The Sands of Iwo Jima meets Hamburger Hill.

And why isn't this in the General Forum?

i don't knwo.

[ August 31, 2002, 02:56 AM: Message edited by: russellmz ]

[Grey Hunter]

Vie-Et-Nam?

[runs to history book, Printed 1945, then to atlas]

no, nothing happend there, whats this fighting you are talking about? are the NVA a Jap supported faction?

[Or is this one of those newfangled post WWII things, I don't hold with them, you wippersnappers.]

PS - i'm 21 pysically -121 menatally.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I can't believe so many of you guys loved this film, it was pure U.S. patriotism (and patronising) at it's worst IMHO.

The standard portrayal of the Vietnamese as being human drones whose only tactic was to charge the enemy en masse a la Russian hordes style. The Vietnamese commander in his underground C.P. using what looked like one side of a brown paper bag as his tactical "map" with drawings on it that looked like they were done in crayon! COME ON NOW... I was wondering at this point of the film whether he would soon resort to the old stick and sand drawing to show where the enemy were.

As I said, I thought it was a very poor war movie which fell for many of the standard "mom's apple pie" cliched portrayals. Still, I guess I should be thankful of something, at least it wasn't as bad as Pearl Harbor (nothing could be that bad) and although I haven't seen Windbreakers(?) yet, I've heard that's almost on par in terms of hokery compared with Pearl Harbor.

Regards

Jim R.

[Bruno Weiss]

CM Player wrote:

It's the sort of book (like Black Hawk Down) that a veteran should be dying to put into the hands of the civilian public.

Actually it sounds more to me as if your buttons are being pushed because I don't agree with you or something. I take no offense at your opinion, nor to their (the authors) stance, but neither do I agree with it. I did not understand Black Hawk Down to be a celebration of the honorable cause of the noble Somolians.

I believe most rational folks agree that Germany and Japan were bad, wrong anyway, and had to be defeated. That cannot be said of North Vietnam. The lack of national consensus as to the validity of our involvement from the get-go, inevitably spills over into and gets confused with what took place after we were involved. And, because many, possibly most believe we should not have been involved, there is an illogicial IMO, viewpoint that we were somehow unhonorable, while the NVA were somehow honorable. Nothing dishonorable happened in South Vietnam, or on the battlefields of Vietnam which did not occur sometime, somewhere, in Europe or in the Pacific. Yet, our national pastime seems to be one akin of the Iranians, hauling out the whips and chains and spanking ourselves on the butt in sympathy for the NVA. I'm simply not of a mind to agree. If one wants to try and put it in perspective that the NVA were as honorable as the Japanese we dug out of caves who surrendered then pulled grenades outta their pants, or the SS troops who so efficiently applied their methods of punishment and control against the civilian populations where resistance occured, then I suppose from that context I might agree. Though I'm not sure what is honorable about that.

As far as your reference to my statement on NVA torture methods, my statement was in response to someone exhorting all of the supposable horrific things we did in South Vietnam, the sum total of which would not hold a candle to what the NVA and VC did, or for which occured in Europe and the Pacific during the course of WWII, and all of which tends to accompany warfare in general anyway, that was my point.

Okay, finite point there, you maybe want to separate the NVA and the VC, like the Wehrmacht and SS? I don't think that would fly, they weren't nearly as efficiently organized as the Germans. Which, brings me back to the authors stance. It is my belief that they (the authors), desired to place an honorable prestige upon something they experienced, but to do so in our national conscience of the Vietnam syndrome of societal self pitty, they must then elevate the NVA to some position of honor in order to achieve a general level of social acceptability and thereby gain their desired result. It is my opinion that the latter is both misconceived and unnecessary, as the former was apparent all along.

[ August 31, 2002, 09:00 AM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]