Yar, you be here: Path to War > Customer Reviews

Path to War Customer Reviews (1 - 3 of 14 Reviews)

Excellent film that helps to understand LBJ
I agree with George Ball: We should have withdrawn from Vietnam much earlier than we finally did. The argument to this, held firmly by many Republicans today, is based on the assumption that if we had withdrawn in 1963 or earlier, communism would have gained momentum and spread, threatening the free world. Mostly however, the issue should focus on the problem of freedom for the South Vietnamese.

I learned from this honest, realistic film that Johnson was healthily socialistic, which I admire, that he was responsible for improving conditions for the poor & African-Americans through writing bills of law that were passed in congress. This was his Great Society, and it was also brought out that he very much desired to help the South Vietnamese in the same way. The problem, of course is that this was a lost cause, that Vietnam was going to be controlled by communists regardless what some Americans and Europeans wanted for these people.

In the case of Vietnam, America's involvement went too far. We got blood on our hands, as LBJ might have said, because our principles were too self-centered. His refusal to accept the 1968 nomination for re-election proved that he believed there was a great deal wrong with our involvement in Vietnam. It really wasn't much of a threat to us. Because of this, our involvement there made us into conformed aggressors, hypocrites to the ideal of freedom.

If we had left them in the hands of the communists in the first place and told the French colonists to lump it, it's likely little would have changed in terms of capitalism vs. socialism in the sociopolitical and economic world at large. The right wing was, and still is wrong there. Hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved from the violence of war that we perpetrated. Vietnamese people would have suffered the conformity of totalitarian socialism, it's true. But the so called ills of that kind of conformity and restriction of freedom may not be as valid to them as it is to those of us who share western ideals of free enterprise.

Frankenheimer's film caused my opinion of Lyndon Johnson to change. It's too bad the hawks ruined him.


Excellent film the helps to understand LBJ
Lyndon Johnson had, like most Texan men, the ability to be, and therefore to admire aggressiveness. This was brought out in the scene where at a party he gathers his political boys around to entertain a favorite story about how a bull entering into a field caused the cows there to titter in anticipation of you know what. We should remember that such masculine, aggressive behavior is sometimes necessary for humans to exude on Earth, a planet that requires at least some form of hostility from everyone of its living organisms in order for them to survive, despite what some Buddhists, and other peaceniks claim.

I am a peacenik. I agree with George Ball: We should have withdrawn from Vietnam much earlier than we finally did. The argument to this, held firmly by many Republicans today, is based on the assumption that if we had withdrawn in 1963 or earlier, communism would have gained momentum and spread, threatening the free world. Mostly however, the issue should focus on the problem of freedom for the South Vietnamese, since the goal of the communists in power there, in North Vietnam and elsewhere, was to unite Vietnam in totalitarian communism, to take over the entire peninsula and shape the nation as it saw fit according to communist ends.

During the period of this film, 1963-68, I was 6-11 years old, and I was raised by liberals, bohemians and hippies in Los Angeles, a family of artists, musicians, educators etc. The people who surrounded me as a child, like the war protesters shown in the film, not surprisingly despised LBJ, and all of the "establishment" for that matter. My main memory of him consists of a comedy record my cousin always played (I think by Shelly Mann) who made a caricature of Johnson that belittled his Texas origin (traditional racism) by mimicking his inability to correctly pronounce the word "negro" (Johnson pronounced it with a Texan drawl: ni-gra). The shtick impersonated him trying helplessly to change his accent: "Uh... nigger, uh, nigge-, uh, nigger-o, uh... Oh, to hell with it!"

But... I learned from this honest, realistic film that Johnson was healthily socialistic, which I admire, that he was responsible for improving conditions for the poor as well as for African-Americans through writing bills of law that were passed in congress. This was his Great Society, and it was also brought out that he very much desired to help the South Vietnamese in the same way. The problem, of course is that this was a lost cause, that Vietnam was going to be controlled by communists regardless what some Americans and Europeans wanted for these people.

The lesson learned is the same one I learned from parenting one of my children, a boy who instinctively radiates high levels of independence: You can't force everyone to do what you think is the right thing to do. Sometimes people have to do what they have to do, regardless of our western ideals of behavior and politics... and they WILL do it, whether we like it or not. In the case of Vietnam, America's involvement went too far.

We got blood on our hands, as LBJ might have said, because our principles were too self-centered. His refusal to accept the 1968 nomination for re-election proved that he believed there was a great deal wrong with our involvement in Vietnam. There are times when parents and other guardians must let go and allow our children to take their own course. In the case of Vietnam we were more powerful, like guardians. But they weren't our children and, more importantly they weren't really much of a threat to us either. Because of this, our involvement there made us into conformed aggressors, hypocrites to the ideal of freedom.

If we had left them in the hands of the communists in the first place and told the French colonists to lump it, it's likely little would have changed in terms of capitalism vs. socialism in the sociopolitical and economic world at large. The right wing was, and still is wrong there. Hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved from the violence of war that we perpetrated. Vietnamese people would have suffered the conformity of totalitarian socialism, it's true. But the so called ills of that kind of conformity and restriction of freedom may not be as valid to them as it is to those of us who share western ideals of free enterprise. Cuba, for example has proven that socialism does work out well for a willing people, as their educational institutions and other aspects of their society have succeeded admirably.

The biggest lesson I learned from watching this movie is that if LBJ were alive today and reading this, he likely would have agreed with everything I wrote here. I've lived on a commune and been a musician my whole life who's against violence and for socialistic reform whenever it's possible to limit the greedy by-products inherent to free capitalism. I'm still a die-hard hippie today, like my guardians raised me to be. But Frankenheimer's film caused my opinion of Lyndon Johnson has change. I actually like the guy quite a bit now. It's just too bad the hawks ruined him.


A behind the scenes look at Johnson's presidency!!
I thought that this movie offered an indepth look at LBJ's presidency. No movie that I have ever seen goes into the "man" and the issues surrounding his administration as well as "Path to War." I thought that all major and supporting actors did a wonderful job as well. If you are interested in history or just the politics of the 1960's this is a must own!!

1 2 3 4 5

Next Page