By Daniel Falcone
William Thomas Allison is a professor of history at Georgia Southern University. He is author of Military Justice in Vietnam: The Rule of Law in an American War. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2007).
Dr. Allison has thoroughly researched The My Lai Massacre, a heavily publicized event. At that time however military lawyers were also needed in the service branches for lesser known cases involving “fragging,” desertion, ramped drug abuse, raping, and a host of underground activities. “Allison reveals how the military justice system responded to crimes and infractions both inside and outside the combat zone as American involvement escalated.”
In this interview, Allison helps to examine, The Vietnam War TV Series, a 10-part American television documentary series about the Vietnam War written by Geoffrey C. Ward and directed by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick. Allison provides a general analysis of the film series and comments on various reviews. He maintains that if the viewer enters the series with an open mind and holds “pretty basic expectations,” then they can better “think a bit more, read a bit more, maybe question some of their assumptions about Vietnam.”
Daniel Falcone: Can you comment on your professional work and how the Lynn Novick and Ken Burn's Vietnam War TV Series is in conflict with your thesis? Were you disappointed with any portions?
William Thomas Allison: Of all the episodes, I thought the one on the Tet Offensive was disappointing. The two that followed I thought were outstanding, ["The Veneer of Civilization" (June 1968 – May 1969) and "The History of the World" (April 1969 – May 1970).] But that's just my view. I had pretty basic expectations for the series - I learned a bit, disagreed here and there, and on the whole thought for a general audience this was time well spent. If it gets people to think a bit more, read a bit more, maybe question some of their assumptions about Vietnam, then Burns and Novick have done well. I think by and large they have done that.
Daniel Falcone: Professor Stephen Zunes, a highly accomplished and sensible scholar, recently remarked that, "While Ken Burns's PBS miniseries on the Vietnam War was good at showing the horror of war and the criminality of the American political leaders who made it possible, it fails to adequately explore the power and significance of the anti-war resistance." What are your thoughts on his take on Burns?
William Thomas Allison: I thought the film gave the anti-war movement a fair shake. Each episode discussed it in some form or fashion, some more than others obviously. The interviews with those involved were compelling. Of course I'd like a bit more of this and other issues, but they have to make choices.
Daniel Falcone: Robert Levering wrote that, “The Vietnam War” fails to tell the story of the organized movement of draft resisters that grew to such proportions that the draft itself became virtually unworkable and that was a major factor why Nixon ended the draft." To what extent is he accurate here?
William Thomas Allison: This was his thing - the anti-war anti-draft movement. I do disagree with the contention that resistance to the draft made the draft "unworkable" and that's what led to abandoning the draft. That's a stretch - it played a part, an important one, but there are other political and economic factors that moved DOD toward the AVF model.
Daniel Falcone: Historian Jerry Lembcke called the film, "false balancing." How would you evaluate this conclusion?
William Thomas Allison: I read Jerry's piece - he's usually spot on with his work on the War. The Spitting Image is one of the best books on the Vietnam era. We've let false memories replace the actual history in some cases, especially with veterans. But that's a common thing for all history. Anyway, I think he nailed it for the Vietnam War and the study of the Vietnam War as a whole, not just the film, when he said something about the “search for healing rather than a search for truth.” The directors did allow veterans to speak their peace, unquestioningly. By doing so, these veterans (from all sides) shared their pain and their experience, but they also shared what they wanted to, maybe what they believed fit what they were supposed to be saying. Karl Marlantes may have fallen into that trap a few times.
There were no talking heads to challenge or to place their remarks in a broader or proper context. I'd say that the Vietnam Memorial itself is about healing, not about having a frank and honest discussion about the war. We need both, right? So - I'd say it's a strong statement to condemn the film for "false balancing," although "false balancing" is certainly in the film. I would not dismiss the film because of this. Despite what I said above, I found the absence of talking head historians refreshing, despite the inherent issues of that absence.
Daniel Falcone: Much of the Vietnam War coverage and historical work comes with a preset language. In other words, it's often called, a "mistake," or a "lapse in judgment," and not considered what it was: criminal and fundamentally immoral. Liberals such as John Kerry (who did significant testifying) and NYT columnists like Anthony Lewis fall into this trap. This word choice (in reference to actual policies) has been cited notoriously by Noam Chomsky. Can you comment on these understatements?
William Thomas Allison: This where we politicize the war and it depends on where you sit on the political spectrum as to what words you want to use. Read Mark Moyar and Lewis Sorley, you get one thing; read Lembcke, Chomsky, and you get the additional perspective. It was a mistake, it was the result of poor judgment, and the way we fought the war was immoral and without regard to humanity. I've spend too much time in the My Lai records to think otherwise.
I'd also say that this has become a "trope" of studying the war, just as there are "tropes" and mythic stereotypes from the war itself. Frankly, we won't settle the correct words to use until the veterans, anti-war people, the middle of the road types, the historians and other commentators who were involved in the war in whatever way are all gone. The emotions after all of these years is still raw, fresh, hardened. There seems to be no compromise on either side, whatever those sides are. The actual revision of Vietnam War history won't happen for another fifty years - it can't happen until they are all gone.
Sometimes I wish I studied the French and Indian War!