MovieChat Forums > Hamburger Hill (1987) Discussion > Anti-Vietnam War protesters attacking in...

Anti-Vietnam War protesters attacking individual soldiers - real?

posted 14 years ago by guysmiley00
64 replies | jump to latest

While I understand that the main thrust of this film was not to make a political statement but to present as accurately as possible a portrait of the US combat soldier's experience of battle in Vietnam, I have to take issue with the political statements made in the film about anti-war protesters, particularly the one speech where a soldier relates a story about a man in his hometown getting calls from anti-war protesters telling him that they're glad his son was killed by the "patriotic peoples of Vietnam". There is also another line where a combat journalist tells a soldier that Senator Kennedy (I'm assuming they meant RFK, although it isn't specified in the film - and btw, can anyone confirm that "Senator Kennedy" made any such remarks?) said they have no chance of taking Hamburger Hill.

My understanding of anti-war activities in the US during Vietnam is that many of the stories of individual protesters attacking individual stories didn't begin to circulate until the mid-1980s, when conservative think-tanks established after the war to prevent another "loss of narrative" began to put about the idea that it was only weak support for the war at home that kept the US from succeeding in Vietnam. One example of this is the inability of anyone to come up with a documented example of the famous "protester spitting on a returning uniformed soldier" story.

I certainly don't doubt that anti-war individuals may have taken offensive personal actions - when you have such a large, heterogeneous group, it's hard to rule anything out absolutely. But my question remains - why include such clearly-vilifying and unconfirmed events in a movie meant to be relatively apolitical? And to what extent is the whole "stabbed in the back" narrative just a convenient excuse, made up by a conservative movement who could not accept the idea that the US military wasn't both angelic and invincible, and it was only the cowardly students and Democrats back home that kept Vietnam from being a total victory?

[–] FourthIVY 14 years ago

As this film is supposed to be about the grunts point-of-view, the purpose of such scenes are designed to demonstrate how these men felt about the antiwar protesters. Certainly some soldiers sympathised with the antiwar movement, but some resented it for reasons highlighted in this film. Director John Irvin was a combat reporter during the war, and the screenwriter was a G.I, so unless the guys just completely fabricated it (which I personally doubt), then these are some of the sentitments felt by G.I's in the field.

There may be no photographic evidence, but many veterans mention harrassment by the antiwar movement on return home, whether it be spitting or shouting abuse. And as for the man getting harrassing phone calls, the author of an excellent book about the Vietnam War myths mentioned that NVA soldiers actually sent the mail found on the bodies of dead G.I's to antiwar protesters, whom then wrote horrible and insensitive letters to their families (which in my opinion is, no matter you're stance on the war, just sick and sadistic). And sometimes they wouldn't even need adresses. Word gets around that so-and-so lost a husband or a son or a father in Vietnam, the harrassment starts.

And finally, I got the feeling that the cameraman was just trying to provoke a reaction from the G.I's, that he was someone who had already made up his mind about the war being wrong and he wanted to prove it by getting footage of one of the soldiers blowing up at him, which I think he deserved.

So, no, I don't think it was a lie by the "conservatives."

[–] nickm2 14 years ago

Damn captain I had heard the NVA & their decedents, the Viet Minh, did some serious cruel stuff in conjunction with thier French & American sympathizers, that crap with the letters was particularly nasty.

NM

[–] thechangeling7988 13 years ago

"NVA soldiers actually sent the mail found on the bodies of dead G.I's to antiwar protesters, whom then wrote horrible and insensitive letters to their families (which in my opinion is, no matter you're stance on the war, just sick and sadistic). And sometimes they wouldn't even need adresses. Word gets around that so-and-so lost a husband or a son or a father in Vietnam, the harrassment starts."

This is the most ignorant statement I think I've ever read. It is this kind of idiocy that has plagued our society for years about the Vietnam war and the protesters who helped to end it. Yeah, the NVA had the address's to anti war protesters, who were mostly made up of former G.I.'s, draft age youth, and family members of those who were fighting or had already died, and these people sent hate mail to the families of the dead, who had their pockets picked by the NVA after their deaths. How stupid do you have to be to believe this crap? This whole "People spit in my face" MYTH is out of control and all you fools who buy into make me sick. Two of my uncles fought in Nam, one was a helicopter pilot and the other a marine, both fought in raugh area's during their deployment and neither one will agree with you idiots who promote this garbage about veteran hating war protesters. The government screwed Vietnam vets when they came home, and the public was upset for being lied to about a war, thus came the protests. Now if you really wanna try and pick out one or two morons who "might" have said or mistreated a returning soldier and act as though the entirety of the movement was bad, well, then you're a complete dunce and forget you. If you think real hard about those stories you'll notice that none are confirmed and the others were added to social consciousness by movie characters like Rambo, lying politicians, and half wits who didn't serve in Vietnam like Chuck Norris, oh but his brother died there so he must have received one of those hate letters from the NVA backed protesters. This phony rewriting of history needs to end.

[–] SpiltPersonality 13 years ago

Wow - what a rant... not that I don't agree with you (perhaps less forcefully, but in principle)... however:

This phony rewriting of history needs to end

You DO realise that the rewriting of history has been going on since the dawn of time don't you? It aint stopping any time soon.

SpiltPersonality

SpiltPersonality

[–] blwilmeth 13 years ago

Verbal abuse by anti-war protesters toward servicemen was common parlance after Tet (Jan. 1968) and was not unknown before that. The other side dipped their pungy sticks in human dung ... these guys studied at the Mao and Lenin (and Stalin) school of class warfare. Odd situation. 8 years. A conscript army. Accomplished little or nothing unless you view it in grand terms (holding Soviets in check, etc.). Nixon, LBJ & even Ford ... morons.

[–] blackjackxxx 12 years ago

This whole "People spit in my face" MYTH is out of control and all you fools who buy into make me sick.

Tell that to the vets who were spit on. Not a myth.

This phony rewriting of history needs to end.

I agree. I wish you would stop doing it.

Push the button, Max

[–] FourthIVY 14 years ago

The idea of telling people whom are still grieving that their loved ones deserved to die is just sadistic. One veteran said he had no problems with protesters in general, but believed that people like Jane Fonda (his words, not mine), who came from rich parents and knew nothing about the war, and visited Hanoi and claimed that dead soldiers got what they deserve, were nothing short of collaborators, and that the military recommended that the GI's burn their mail after reading it to prevent NVA from sending it back to the states if they die, something that he bitterly resents today.

[–] rick-deckard45 14 years ago

the kennedy they're referring to is ted kennedy - i don't remember exactly what he said, but i've read in a couple of books about vietnam (one of them was called "a better war"... can't recall the others) that he did make some rather nasty comments towards the army during and after hamburger hill.

and i do believe that it has been documented that soldiers were spit on returning from vietnam, a rare occurrence but an occurrence all the same, but take my word on that with a grain of salt because i can't remember the sources from which i read this.

baby can you dig your man?
he's a righteous man.

[–] Mike1951 14 years ago

Found this incident of a soldier who lost his leg above the knee:

His homecoming — amid protesters and shouts of, ‘Here come the baby killers!’ — is one Brooks will never forget.

“This woman, she walked up and spit on me,” he recalls. “I was on the stretcher. I was so weak I couldn’t even raise a hand.”

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nickm2 14 years ago

Well honestly; French Post War Lefties were pretty much the same ilk as the Vietminh.

NM

[–] nickm2 14 years ago

The Viet Minh used to work with the French Anti War Left to organize 'spit/throw garbage on returning wounded soldiers' rallies;

NM

[–] wheezledick 14 years ago

Let's all think like real human beings here. Does ANYONE really think that a man coming home from being shot at, and God knows the worlds worst, would put up with a kid spitting on him? Does ANYONE really think that? The poster here saying that while on a stretcher a kid spit on him is bunk. Servicemen were at each end of that stretcher. Vietnam vets put up with a lot of crap, but this story is bunk, folks, PURE bunk...

[–] nickm2 14 years ago

Why don't we ask a Vet Weeze? Nevermind what YOU think....

NM

[–] rpatrias 13 years ago

Absolutely. Weeze was probably one of the cowards who fled to Canada during that war...

[–] nickm2 13 years ago

A handful of Americans went to Canada; however tens or even hundreds of thousands of Canadians came to the U.S. to serve in Vietnam

[–] Balcones 14 years ago

Hey LimpNoodle,

I had a friend come home from Germany during the Vietnam era, and he was spit on. It didn't matter he hadn't even been to Vietnam. Just the fact that he was a soldier in a uniform, got him spit on.

Saying it is bunk, is BS, and is a further insult to the men and women that served. I respect the men and women who have and do serve the country. Especially those that served in Vietnam.

My thanks to those that served.

[–] wheezledick 13 years ago

Rah-rah, Balcones, your friend lied to you. That spit on story is bunk, pure and simple bunk, and I don't disrespect ANY vet. The REAL disrespect comes from how the Vietnam vets were treated by those who sent them there.

[–] Crackshot94 14 years ago

Wheezle, those soldiers probably didn't react because doing so, especially if said person was a female, would simply reaffirm prejudices, maybe even get them charged with assault, no matter how much said person deserved it. With the over- whelming antiwar sentiment, it would have being a bad move.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nickm2 14 years ago

howzabout:
screamed at;
yelled at;
insulted;
called: "murderer, warcriminal, babykiller, etc;
told they deserved their amputations, wounds;
or
had the surviving family members called at home by total strangers & told by the caller they were glad said family member was dead & deserved to be killed...?

NM

[–] druss44121-1 14 years ago

You see it now... "Thank God for dead soldiers" was one of the posters of that one right-wing extremist group right next to "F-ggots burn in Hell forever."

The biggest problem is, either people blame soldiers for the sins of the government, or they use the soldiers to claim any attacking of the government is attacking of the soldiers. A soldier and the government are two very, very different things.

[–] nickm2 14 years ago

don't think the group you're referring to is actually 'right wing'....

nm

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rmancassman 13 years ago

Actually vets were spit on amongst other indignities and it's not some right wing fabrication as many folks on the new Left would like it to be. If you want ancillary proof all you have to do is Google "Vietnam soldiers spit on" and you'll run across a great number of personal stories of vets describing their spitting incidents.

As for a personal story my Step-father who is a Vietnam Vet while not spit upon was harassed and verbally assaulted by some hippie wacko while touring D.C. in his uniform during the Vietnam conflict. As for an actual spit on story believe it or not but a good friend of mine was in Seattle a few years back, after the whole "War on Terror" got cranked up, in his Navy uniform and some old burnout hippie type attempted to spit on him, luckily for him he missed.

[–] dannieboy20906 11 years ago

It is more than two years since you wrote your post, so this may be too late for you to see it. However:

I will say that we (the United States of America) fought the war for noble reasons. We went to war against the communist forces of North Vietnam to prevent them from forcing their political construct on the south (Republic of Vietnam).

The government of south Vietnam (the Republic of Vietnam) was corrupt. No government is perfect but President Diem certainly used bribes and force blatantly to ensure his continuance in power. On the other hand, they also permitted religious freedom, even though they did favor Catholics. At least they did not hunt down and kill any religious leader as the communists did. While they did suppress differing opinions, they did not kill anyone who proposed establishing a second party.

The Viet Minh (literally translates as Vietnamese nationalist) precede the Viet Cong and can trace their history to fighting against the Japanese occupation during World War II. I studied Vietnamese language and culture under two of them. Ho Chi Minh, Pham Van Dong, and Vo Nguyen Giap, the Chairman of the Vietnamese Communist Party, the Foreign Minister of the People's Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and the Defense Minister (nee Commander in Chief) of the People's Democratic Republic of Vietnam were all devout communists. While they attained leadership positions in the Viet Minh in the 1950's, while carefully hiding their adherence to communism, they forced the country into a communist framework after their victory in the north in 1954.

We won the war militarily. We lost it politically here at home because too many Americans could not understand or accept the value of fighting and winning a war in a tiny Asian country half way around the world, because the American leadership did not trust the American people to understand the complexities of the war, and because American journalists were full of themselves believing that they understood what was going on better than the professionals who had been involved with it for ten or twenty years.

For some gd, piss ant, gen-y punk to come in here forty years later and pontificate on the war offends me in a way that I cannot express verbally. (not aimed at the poster to whom I am replying). The war was complex, complicated, frustrating, and abhorrent. I think we went there with complex purposes, but included among them was a genuine desire to help the Vietnamese. It is heartbreaking that our only goal of good purpose was obscured by internal politics.

[–] blackjackxxx 12 years ago

That's very stupid.

Push the button, Max

[–] nickm2 12 years ago

My 'nest' feature is acting up, what's this about?

[–] rwsmith29456 13 years ago

RFK was killed in 1968.

[–] mehaul 13 years ago

I was in the military in 1971-4 and spent 71-2 in Denver and Tampa. I was refused service and escorted out of many drinking establishments in both those cities. Whether the proprietors were against the war or not, I don't know. They acted because there were many violent anti-war protesters who would start fights with military people. How'd they know if we were military? Well, the haircuts gave it away. I feel it's a shame my opportunity to mix with other Americans from different parts of the country I had volunteered to serve, was denied. We were essentially restricted to only those near base establishments that relied on military business. Even there, many fights were started by "red necks" wanting to make their antiwar feelings physically established. Denying such actions as these and the incidents (well reported and televised) of returning 'Nam vets being spit on and having things thrown at them is to live in a fantasy world. There were many peace and love protesters but there were also crude and violent ones.

[–] nickm2 13 years ago

why not believe it; In any case many of the more 'vocal' activists were not "against" the War, they were definitely pulling for North Vietnam to win.

NM