Class notes
Required reading:
Required viewing:
The Fog of War (dir. Morris) - viewing Wed. 7 January 2009, 18:00, Classroom A
The Fifties, The Sixties
Written assessment:
Quiz 10
Written assignment due:
web response paragraph
Response paragraph prompt:
In The Fog of War, Robert McNamara discusses at length two historical issues that we've also seen in the video series, A Biography of America: The development and use of bombers in fire-bombing campaigns during World War II, and America's military involvement in Vietnam in the 1960s.
Pick one of these two issues and compare the understanding and interpretation of history given by the video series and by Mr. McNamara.
9 comments:
American military involvement in Vietnam in 1960s is a very controversial issue. Many presidents undestood that Vietnam is a good strategic battle ground in Cold war and sent there money and medical aid. But then Lyndon Johnson became a president and everything was about to change.
In the Biography of America, he is presented as a very contradictory person and a manipulator with a huge ego. Was he really trying to help in Vietnam or was he more like a little boy playing conquerors? Did he have the right to destroy many lives and cities with bombs or many acres of forests with toxic chemicals? First of all this war began with a huge lie about an attack in a Gulf of Tonkin. If they were hit by a bomb, they would notice for sure right away. When Johnson started losing in the war, he made up good news for the public or said nothing at all. Anybody who was in opposition to the war was automatically an enemy and could be spied on. That doesnt sound very democratic. The Biography of America is showing things from the points of view of ordinary people and is far more critical to the war then Mr. McNamara.
From the point of view of Mr. McNamara, Johnson was a good man that just didnt listen to advice that he was given. A stubborn man that was hard to persuade. More like selfish to normal people, because who else would risk so many lives to win a war, in which he should have never been. McNamara was generally against the war, but that didnt stop him giving orders to kill people. People shouldnt be killing other human beings. We cannot use evil in order to make good. We are experiencing again the problem of relativism. Difference between the story of a man that was there and historians that see it more objectively.
When we are about to compare two different sources, we need to take into consideration both sides. One side we have the academics on the other we have former Secretary of Defense, who experienced the war as close as no one of the academics. If we look at the format both sides are giving us facts. I have chosen to analyze the end of the war and bombing of Japan, because more than a fight between two ideologies was involved. All eyes in Europe, America and Asia were looking towards the end of the war. And America did what it takes to finish it.
In The Biography of America they show us both sides. They say that American soldiers were as bad as Japanese. They also show us soldiers doubting about the sense and humanity left in the fight. You had to kill not to be killed. And the same says Robert McNamara. But he doesn’t speak much about the Japanese. He shows us the importance of efficiency during bombing. You can see how touched and full of emotions he is, when looking back and realizing how many people had to be killed to stop the fighting. He also says when one pilot loses his wingman; He lost his wingman, but we destroyed Tokyo. Both documents show us about the necessity of attacking from the air. It would cost more and more American lives to do in the land invasion and thanks to B-29 it wasn’t necessary.
However even McNamara doesn’t see the proportionality of destroying so many Japanese cities and still bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki afterwards.
What can violence do with human beings? Both The Biography and Robert McNamara agreed, that certain steps were necessary to end the war. Nevertheless some were effusive and extreme, but that’s just how the war is.
The development and use of bombers in firebombing campaigns during World War II, and America’s military involvement in Vietnam in the 1960s are two controversial issues of the American history. The movie “Fog of War” and American History video series are good examples of confrontational views on these events.
McNamara is the people who hold power in 1960s and had an actual stake in Vietnam War. He tries to explain his decisions in the context of what was going on back then, what information he had, and what forces that pushed him to issue certain orders. McNamara attempts to explain his particular role and contribution to the conflict.
In the video series Vietnam War was shown retrospectively. In a sense that is not really fair to Mr. McNamara because he is judged based on the full information society has now, when back then the situation was different. Moreover, in the series the event was looked on from the perspective of ordinary Americans not people of power which makes a lot of difference. The set of mind of people of power is quite different in many cases. When most of the ordinary people would argue against the war, people of power realize that some military operations are necessary. As it was said by McNamara: “The evil is sometimes necessary in order to do good.” McNamara says that he served his country well and did his best to do so. In the video series Johnson administration was presented as a single unit with no individuals but rather as some form of homogeneous superpower, when in the movie “The Fog of War” McNamara aimed to present the disagreements in executive branch. Overall, both of the views should be taken into consideration in case the events are judged. McNamara’s perspective is a very valuable insider view of the event that is for sure should not be excluded from history books.
The main question here is that which is more countable. in terms of close look at one conflict. Formal secretary general Robert McNamara is more plausible, however, the bibliography of America, they are professional historians, which they are studying and researching about what really happened in broader concept. However, Robert McNamara is one person who spoke about his personal experience and it is possible that there can be possible exaggeration; on the contrary the bibliography of America is taking account of both side of war. for instance, the Vietnam war, Robert McNamara was personally involved, therefore he knows a lot of details of war, however, he had a duty to defend a country with his account can be a little biased. However, the bibliography of American, it examines the conflict in the view point of third party, which means that there were less feeling involvement. Robert McNamara was personally and closely involved in the war. however, in terms of accurate historical account, the fog of war is too biased to be used.
After watching the video series and the film “fog of war“ by McNamara, former American Secretary of Defense,, we can see two quite different points of view on two very controversial historical issues: the fire-bombing campaigns during World War II, and America's military involvement in Vietnam.
The divergence of views is understandable mainly because McNamara was directly involved and as a Secretary of Defense even responsible to some extent, for the Vietnam war. Therefore, it is very personal for him and we can see as Lucy said “how touched and full of emotions he is, when looking back”.
There is also the other side, which we can see in the Biography of America: the side of academics. The academics as we could see were much more critical to the Vietnam War; and they can be considered more objective; however they can never have such an insight into the whole problem as McNamara has.
Americas involvement in Vietnam is by both documents seen very critically. Both seem to agree that the war on Vietnam was unnecessary and a mistake.
In the documentation fog of war I got the impression that Robert McNamara seems to convince the viewer of his innocence about his fault about the war in Vietnam in an indirect way. He, as the secretary of defense, admits that he had to order people to be killed, but he was emphasizing that he just did his job, that he only followed the orders and decisions of President Johnson. At the same time he accuses him of being responsible for the mistake of involving with Vietnam, but also tries to not blame the former president for having made a bad decision, maybe because of loyalty to his former boss. But still, one gets the impression that he regrets that he hasn’t convinced Johnson of not interfering in the conflict in the Vietnam, because it is obvious that McNamara was very emotional about being at least partially responsible of so many deaths. The pictures in the movie with McNamara and Johnson in discussion on them; McNamara’s facial expression and gestures give the impression that McNamara did not even back then agree with the war. He is saying this from a perspective of a person who has gone through this more than anybody else, he has been there and he knows a lot more than anybody who wants to get an objective picture of who was guilty for this disaster. Of course he could be lying and just making himself look better and pushing the guilt away from him, but why would he do that when this is long over and 85 years old and owes nobody nothing which in my opinion gives his words credibility.
Same as McNamara the historians agree that the war in Vietnam was useless. More or less, they have put together the pieces that were promoted by the media and influenced the opinion of the general public. Although in the beginning the public was convinced of the necessity of a fight against communism, the historians depict that as the conflict was reaching its peak the government was acting against the will of the people, denying that the fight for democracy was not able to be won. The video series has not even mentioned McNamara, but even more they mentioned President Johnson and what kind of person he was, putting him in a negative light and blaming him for the war which in the end is in my opinion the major difference between the two documents.
America's military involvement in Vietnam in the 1960s. and the development and use of bombers in fire-bombing campaigns during World War II are contentious problem in the history of America. Comparing two different sources, we should take in attention sides. One side is viewing of academics, which were critical adjusted to the Vietnamese war, a Biography of America is illustrating war from the points of view of usual people and another side is viewing of Robert McNamara, about which the movie “The Fog of War” has been shot.
“The Fog of War” is movie about a life of one of the most appreciable politicians of the XX-the century - the former Minister of Defence of the USA Robert McNamara whom named "the architect of war in Vietnam". The movie represents the story about history of wars of 20th century from lips of one of the most disputable and influential characters of world politics, the former Minister of Defence of the USA Robert McNamara.
Since bombardment of 100 thousand peace inhabitants of Tokyo in 1945 and finishing terrifying consequences of the Vietnamese war, "The Fog of War" tries to analyse a train of thought of heads of the leading world powers sending the people on war.
The movie, first of all, allows seeing world politics "human face". Yes, McNamara planned nuclear bombardment of Japan, and he was the Minister of Defence during the Vietnamese campaign. But he tries to inform the lessons taken by it to all (not only to American) politicians and heads of the states. From time to time it seems that McNamara tries to justify the actions, but it not quite is possible to it. Eyes and a shivering voice give out the person who feels the responsibility for come true, because McNamara was involved in this war.
Trying to prove correctness of war, McNamara is free or involuntarily condemns it, and becomes obvious, that in this fog not so simply to find the clear answer. Simply there are lessons which cannot be forgotten, as "the one who forgets the past, is doomed to that again it to go through".
McNamara discusses two very controversial issues and his discussion is particularly interesting, as he was personally involved and was a key figure in these events. When considering these two views, one has to see the flaws and advantages of both sides - the academics might be less biased , more insightful and theoretical in many ways, but unlike McNamara, they have not seen these things first-hand, while McNamara, as mentioned, was directly involved in history he is discussing.
When watching McNamara, it might be slightly amazing that this is a person who was one of the key figures in military planning and with how much precision these people have to think about the lives of their men. And then, this person gives first-hand comment about these experiences.
Fog of the War seems very interesting and powerful documentary, describing Cold War period through the life of U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara.
As McNamara said he "has lived through the Cold War", participated in military operations in Vietnam, in the Japanese war and at the same time served as a Secretary of Defense.
The movie seems as a reflective story of his life, but that is a history now. You may compare him as a real book of facts, what happened, how, when where... it is good that his life was recorded because he is the natural witness of that time.
Documentary is a good introduction into the sixties.
But however, according the the complexity of that time a single move may not be enough. It gives you a kind of picture of sixties but from the perspective of a single human being. Different points of views should be used to interpret the history, because often there are more than two parties. (Limerick, 1978)
Finally McNamara approaches moral and ethical issues, that this or that should be used, but it is insufficient and maybe even inadequate to define norms according to a single person, whatever position he had.
Post a Comment