User reviews

Therefore the first question will be: is it worth to watch?

To make it short: Yes, today more than some years ago It is of course primarily from an US point of view, in spite of several Vietnamese interview partners.

Does it miss possibly important details as some critics here argue? Most likely as all major conflicts have deeper roots and more sideways as you have footage to make a documentary about, but IMHO the series provides such a plethora of footage that most of us will see something new and disturbing.

The Vietnam War, as many conflicts before and afterward are presented as an array of conflicting political and military decisions, when in the end they are just killing humans on both sides for no reason. 50 years from now we'll see a similar documentary about the Ukraine, if free speech is still possible.

Another exceptionally objective docuseries from the new master of historical shows.

As a Brit, I can appreciate that my reaction and perspective to this series & the Vietnam war in general is wildly different from anyone in the US. Conversely, since my country opted not to engage in the conflict, we weren't really educated on it any real detail - so broadly speaking, even as a bit of a history dweeb, I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to any of the decades-long western battles against communism.

That's why I'm especially grateful to the talents of Brian Knappenberg.

Rather than portraying 9/11, the Cold War or in this latest fine entry into his canon as a 'rah! Rah! America!' Indulgence, he's proactively evenhanded, fair & draws remarkably detailed and articulate accounts from people who were really there. Yet despite the density of information & intelligence with which it's done, it's still accessible to even a Luddite like me.

It's powerful, powerful stuff - and while I can absolutely 100% appreciate that this must be deeply grating for a lot of those in the states, as a fascinated outsider? It's quite an excellent entry into the mountains of existing work covering this engrossingly chaotic period in modern human history.

Bravo.

Some comments are unfair to say that the series presented Ho Chi Minh as a leader who only wanted to turn Viet Nam communist. Very early on (I think latter part of Ep 1 or Ep 2 onwards), they narrated how Ho Chi Minh banked on the USA history's of struggle for independence against Great Britain, and hoped that the US would likewise support Viet Nam's fight against the French. It also recognized that in Viet Nam, the war was known as an "American War" instead of "Vietnam War", acknowledging the dominant US-centric perspective in calling it the latter.

For the most part, I found this documentary balanced, only because when I find myself sympathizing (?) with one side, it would give another perspective that makes you realize that none of those involved were innocent - they all have blood on their hands for having no regard for non-combatants/civilians. It's materials like this that give us a chilling reminder that war is never the answer.

I have been a Netflix subscriber for years and years and this has to be the best documentary I have ever seen. It is so thoughtful and through, and honest.

I remember sitting in the high school auditorium with all the other male seniors to sign up for the Selective Service in 1972. The representative where really honest with us. It was during the time when the draft was based on the lottery system. They told us if your number was 100 or less, you would be drafted, if it was about 100, no worries. Mine was in 343.

I had to possibility of participating in history, but too dimwitted to understand what it meant.

Now I know, and the knowing makes me feel ashamed for our country.

Best line in the documentary is "We are the United States of Amnesia". Ain't it so, all you can do is weep.

This is a must watch, even for people that do not live in this country.

I really enjoy this kind of documentary, especially because its length - over five hours - allows it to take its time and properly explore a story from as many angles as possible.

What struck me most, personally, was that I ended up feeling sympathy and even a kind of sorrow for both sides. The filmmaker makes a real effort to stay as neutral as possible, showing the motivations - and especially the suffering - on both sides of the conflict.

One real eye-opener for me was what happened to the South Vietnamese who had worked with the Americans, after the US defeat and the communist takeover. It was shocking to see the consequences they faced. And what's more, the country is still divided in many ways because of this war - emotionally, politically, socially.

Neither side is painted as the bad guy.

There have been several documented series covering the subject matter over the decades , but this one ( in my humble opinion ) is the most concise . It doesn't skirt around the truth and in particular the lies from both sides . And there were lots of falsehoods by both and successive administrations about what was being done " over there " . Episodes three and four encapsulated the worst of what was being carried out , both in Vietnam and in America in 1968 . I'm disappointed that the producers didn't critique the over promoted and utterly hopeless Westmorland in more detail , as he more or less brought the whole thing to its knees and cost the lives of thousands of American servicemen and woman , not to mention the millions of Vietnamese civilians who were brutalised on a daily basis . The delicious irony of including the biggest draft dodger in history , John Wayne , was not lost on me.

A series for the ages.

There is no new insight here, and if you're familiar with the Ken Burns series, this is the lackluster remake. It duly covers the various turning points, from French loss to Tet to scuttled peace talks and Nixon's genocidal campaigns to name a few. We get various asides along the way; the student anti-war movement, the elections of '68, the treatment of returning veterans.

If it's your first comprehensive surveying of the Vietnam story, you will get the whole thing. It is, as usual, told from the American perspective; ill-advised entanglement in a faraway jungle, increasingly bitter and chaotic. There are also some Vietcong voices this time around.

There's so much that went wrong in a decade that to survey as we do, with talking heads, and condensing to snippets, makes it seem self-evident. There's no way to tell what a world would look like in which the CIA didn't lose the plot probably starting with Cuba, for example, or 'domino effect' thinking didn't win over in policy circles. And it's important to note how badly Washington misunderstood context; the generals did really think in terms of fighting in the Pacific Theater, but there the troops had been propelled by Pearl Harbor and fighting the good fight.

There have been many excellent TV/streaming series on the Vietnam War and this is another. To be clear, the big events of the war, especially from the years 1965 to 1973 were amply addressed by the other series and the only thing different about this one is some of the interviewees are new.

Where the series adds something new is at the beginning and end of the conflict. The description of the early 20th century developments and the Kennedy years contained some material I don't remember from other series. Ditto for the period after the Paris Peace Treaty. For example, a representative of the Communists admitted they went too far in their postwar purge of the former South Vietnam. I don't remember the other series showing expressions of doubt or regret by the Communists. I think this speaker's regrets could be expressed more freely because relations between the US and Vietnam are so much better today.

Finally, I'm a little surprised that other reviewers suggest the series only shows the American perspective, the series interviews many Vietnamese from both sides of the conflict. While I think the series is perhaps it little more generous to some American critics of the war then they should have been, I don't get the criticism of Dan Rather's inclusion. He was covering the war throughout the entire period of heavy American involvement. He is certainly very critical of the effort in retrospect, but I suspect he was like Walter Cronkite and millions of other Americans in thinking it began as a noble cause.

Being a huge fan of Ken Burns story about the Viet Nam war (in the American context) this is a interesting documentary, but fails to set the war in a context, when not trying to sort out the policies from both Viet Nam and US.

Again its like the rest of the world is US backyard. Why not try the angle of Viet Minh to understand the shifting policies from US. Its easy to blame Johnson Nixon and Westmoreland and the ever so popular "politicians" without asking how for instance Kissingers plan or more important Viet Minhs strategic goals were.

The horrific war killing millions of Vietnamese soldiers and civilians is a far more complex story. Its mentioned that the Viet Cong killed far more civilians, but why?

I certainly won't defend the US policies in the 60s but I need the context badly to understand.

I enjoy learning about 20th century American history, and the Vietnam War is one of my favorite documentary topics. I was initially concerned that this documentary would be filled with anti-American bias, however, it was much more balanced than I expected. The burning of villages by American/ARVN forces was discussed in one episode, for example, but it was also acknowledged that the North Vietnamese did a lot more of that kind of destruction. In one episode, a Viet Cong woman explains why she hated the Americans but also notes that many North Vietnamese didn't really understand what communism entailed. On the other hand, you had one million living in the North flee to the South when the civil war truce occurred, suggesting that many people did understand what life under communism meant (somewhat reminiscent of the East Germans escaping to West Germany, or maybe those Koreans living in the North who relocated to the South). To me this suggests the North Vietnamese victory was a pyrrhic one because while North Vietnam won, the people still didn't have most of the freedoms some people in the West take for granted nor the power. Of course, no more foreign control or interference. But I wonder if their lives changed for the better. We do know a million people from the South escaped (boat people) four years later.

Some critics have said that this documentary is a little too biased for their tastes. But I, someone who gets annoyed when I hear bias, didn't think so. To be sure, there was one guy in Episode 5 who annoyed me because I think he was being dramatic for the camera. Nevertheless, everyone else spoke in a measured way with occasional sincere emotions. All facts to me, and interesting perspectives, too. Some critics also suggest some important details were left out. I think this is true to some extent. No mention of the death of Ho Chi Min in 1969, for instance. I don't think General Giap was mentioned either. Still, I think for a five episode series, and given it's aim, it was wonderfully edited and directed. I love learning new details about subjects I'm already familiar with and this documentary did not disappoint.

I think the first 20-30 minutes of Episode 1 left me a little unclear how this documentary would play out. However, after that it started to grab my interest. As to be expected, there's a lot of sadness, grief, strife, and so on, on both sides. But don't take that as gratuitous anti-Americanism. Rather, I think the director was focused on telling a story from all points of view and how the Vietnam War permanently changed America and the relationship the American people has with their government because of it.

I remember watching the evacuation of Saigon on TV.

My freshman college roommate was a Vietnam refugee. She was 10 years old when she came to the US. Her father worked for the US government. Her family was fortunate enough to make it out.

That's the extent of my knowledge of Vietnam and the war.

I was eager to watch and learn what turned into the worst stain on our nation's history.

Things I learned: I didn't realize the French colonized Vietnam. (I knew there were French influences but didn't realize it was due to colonization.)

Ho Chi Minh reached out to President Truman for support for Vietnamese independence but Truman sided with the French.

Initially, it seemed as though the US was interested providing support to South Vietnam. As time went on the leaders could not admit their shortcomings/defeat and kept moving the goal.

At that point it became "political".

Leaders felt the need to cover up what was happening there.

For me, I found it very interesting and educational. However, the documentary may not be perfect in the eyes of someone who is far more knowledgeable on the subject than me.

After Ken Burns' magisterial and monumental 18-hour deep dive into the Vietnam War, you'd think there'd be nothing left to say. But "Turning Point: The Vietnam War" on Netflix proves there's still room for new voices, especially from both North and South Vietnam, that bring fresh, essential perspectives to this complex and chaotic chapter of history. The series is balanced, detailed without dragging, and as harrowing as any account of America's decades-long misadventure. Fifty years after the fall of Saigon, this story remains urgent and deeply unsettling. Like Brian Knappenberger's earlier "Turning Point" series on 9/11 and the Cold War, it's clear-eyed, unflinching, and committed to telling the truth, warts and all. It's definitely a worthy watch.

Most of us have seen the Ken Burns documentary, which was very good, but focussed a bit too much on the politics and the hippies.

This one is very balanced as others have mentioned. But the archival field footage they found was too grainy. They didn't bother to pay the money to digitalize it. And the soundtrack is quite lacking. I think that's one of the biggest disappointments here.

It's very watchable, and covers most of the turning points of the war, given the title.

I wish they would have focussed more on longer scenes of in country footage and had it in HD at least. The editing is a bit too choppy with the veterans or politics. So displays more like an academic lecture than something for entertainment.

Burns being the raging lib at least got the soundtrack and emotions right for his footage. Although he chopped it up too much in a manic way.

Also, the newer documentary "Vietnam, the war that changed America" also got the footage and music right.

Nothing will ever come close to "The ten thousand day war" documentary, "Dear America letters home from Vietnam", or "Vietnam a television history" documentary.

It was great to see US Marine Scott Camil again. Especially with his groundbreaking interviews in the "Winter soldier" documentary. I was surprised to see lots of images of him in country I've never seen before after following him for decades.

As a British Army veteran with a longstanding interest in the Vietnam War, I approached Turning Point: Vietnam with the hope that it would offer a rich, balanced perspective on one of the most politically and morally complex conflicts of the 20th century. Unfortunately, what unfolds is a disappointingly narrow and overly Americanised narrative, filtered through a distinctly modern lens.

This series seems more interested in drawing parallels with today's ideological and cultural debates than offering a sober, historically accurate examination of the war itself. It applies 21st-century sensibilities to 20th-century geopolitics, and in doing so, misses the nuance, context, and texture that this subject demands. It felt less like a documentary and more like a vessel for contemporary messaging-at times bordering on revisionist history.

What's particularly jarring is the near-total absence of Vietnamese voices, both from the North and the South. The conflict, after all, was fought on their soil, among their people, and with devastating impact. The series gives little space to understanding the motivations of the North Vietnamese or Viet Cong beyond standard Cold War tropes, and barely touches on the tragedy of South Vietnam's fall. There's a living history here that is fading fast, yet the documentary doesn't seem interested in preserving or exploring it.

Likewise, Australia-America's most significant ally in the conflict outside of South Vietnam-is not mentioned at all. Over 60,000 Australians served in the war, with more than 500 killed. Their absence from this series further underscores the US-centric lens through which the entire conflict is portrayed. There's also scant reference to other contributing nations, such as South Korea, Thailand, or the Philippines, nor any deep analysis of the international ramifications of the war on post-colonial Asia.

The Vietnam War was never just a 'bad chapter' in American history, it was a global flashpoint, the culmination of colonial collapse, Cold War paranoia, and regional resistance movements. Any serious documentary on the subject should strive to examine not just what happened, but why, from all angles.

In the end, Turning Point, Vietnam feels like a missed opportunity. At a time when first-hand accounts are still possible, and when global perspectives are more accessible than ever, this series retreats into a familiar, overly simplified narrative. It does a disservice not only to viewers but also to the complexity-and humanity-of those who lived through the war on all sides.

The documentary series Turning Point, which addresses the Vietnam War, offers a profound and revealing analysis of facts previously unknown to the American public at the time of the conflict. One of the central points of the series is the disclosure of the so-called Pentagon Papers, documents that proved how the United States government systematically lied to Congress and the public about the goals and the military escalation in Vietnam. This is a clear example of how the manipulation of information can be used to legitimize questionable military actions.

This pattern has repeated itself in other moments of recent history. A striking case was the 2003 invasion of Iraq, justified by the alleged existence of a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, which were never found. The narrative adopted by the U. S. government, supported by then British Prime Minister Tony Blair, turned out to be unfounded and was later acknowledged as a major strategic and ethical mistake.

Another remarkable episode was the withdrawal of U. S. troops from Afghanistan in 2021, during the Biden administration. The operation was widely criticized for its disorderly execution, which inevitably evoked memories of the collapse of Saigon in 1975. In both cases, the hasty exit reinforced the perception of failure, despite the military superiority of the United States.

These wars share a fundamental element: their asymmetric nature. In Vietnam, the Viet Cong used guerrilla tactics and relied on the support of the local population, which greatly hindered the operations of conventional U. S. troops. In the current Middle Eastern scenario, we see a similar dynamic between Hamas and the Israeli armed forces. Hamas is embedded within the social fabric of the Gaza Strip, operating in a decentralized and unconventional manner - a strategy that renders direct military responses ineffective in the long term.

Despite Israel's military superiority, the conflict in Gaza reveals the limits of military power against an insurgency that benefits from urban complexity and civilian presence. The rhetoric of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who promises the "eradication of Hamas," is proving increasingly unfeasible. The prolongation of the conflict, with its high humanitarian cost, makes it evident that a solution will not be achieved through military means alone.

Since the attacks of October 7, 2023, the continued hostilities have only reinforced the need for a negotiated solution. History has repeatedly shown that asymmetric wars, fought against dispersed and ideologically motivated enemies, cannot be resolved with bombings or occupations. The Vietnam War taught this lesson harshly to the United States. Today, the Middle East presents a similar lesson.

In summary, modern wars demand more than military force. They require political intelligence, historical sensitivity, and a willingness to engage in dialogue. Until these conditions are met, cycles of violence are likely to repeat, with increasingly severe consequences for civilians, soldiers, and global stabilit.

The one thing this documentary missed was any mention of the American women - primarily combat nurses- who also served in Vietnam, and were ignored on their return home. They experienced difficulties getting help for ptsd, not only because ptsd hadn't been defined initially, but because unless they had been injured and ended up in a medical station, many male soldiers never encountered these women.

These women saved lives, lost lives, and experienced bombings and attacks. They worked in the most hostile environments and conditions. And they were all volunteers. Please remember that there were women fighting for the United States in Vietnam.

Netflix's documentary Turning Point: The Vietnam War presents itself as an in-depth exploration of one of the most controversial conflicts of the 20th century. Yet, from the perspective of a Vietnamese viewer-or anyone familiar with the historical complexities of the war-it quickly becomes clear that the film suffers from a familiar flaw: it is yet another Western attempt to retell Vietnam's history through the eyes of the invader, not the invaded.

The documentary, while polished and emotionally compelling, centers heavily on the American experience. We are introduced to the anguish of U. S. soldiers, the political turmoil in Washington, and the ideological confusion that permeated American society during the 1960s and 1970s. It devotes significant time to describing the disillusionment of the U. S. military and the trauma faced by returning veterans. These are valid human experiences, yet their overwhelming emphasis shifts the focus away from the actual victims of the war-the Vietnamese people whose land, lives, and future were devastated by nearly two decades of foreign aggression.

Crucially, the film fails to accurately present the war's origins. It frames the conflict largely as a Cold War miscalculation, a domino-theory-driven campaign against communism. This narrative downplays and distorts the essential truth: the Vietnam War was a war of national liberation against a neo-colonial invasion. Vietnam's struggle was rooted in centuries of resistance to foreign domination. Yet in Turning Point, the war becomes just another chapter in America's internal moral reckoning-its ethical "turning point"-rather than a fight for sovereignty led by the Vietnamese themselves.

Furthermore, the documentary's portrayal of the North Vietnamese government and the National Liberation Front (NLF) lacks nuance and balance. The North is repeatedly referred to as a "communist regime backed by the Soviet Union," with little acknowledgment of its deep legitimacy among millions of Vietnamese. Meanwhile, the South Vietnamese government is subtly whitewashed-depicted as a fragile, misunderstood state caught in a geopolitical crossfire, rather than what it truly was: a puppet regime propped up by American military and financial support, riddled with corruption, and lacking popular support.

Perhaps the film's greatest flaw lies in its absence of authentic Vietnamese voices. While it includes brief commentary from a few Vietnamese individuals, their presence is superficial at best, often relegated to side commentary or edited in ways that support the film's broader American-centric narrative. The voices of Vietnamese historians, former resistance fighters, civilians affected by bombing campaigns, or those suffering from the long-term effects of Agent Orange, are conspicuously absent. Without these perspectives, the film becomes not a dialogue, but a monologue-a one-sided retelling that prioritizes Western emotional closure over historical truth.

In the end, Turning Point: The Vietnam War is less a documentary about Vietnam than it is about America's attempt to grapple with its past mistakes. It repackages the Vietnam War as a tragic American dilemma, rather than a criminal and costly war waged against a determined people seeking self-determination. While it may appeal to an American audience searching for moral clarity, it fails to serve as an honest or balanced historical document.

For Vietnamese viewers, and for those who believe in the importance of historical truth, this documentary is a reminder that history told by the powerful often omits the voices of the oppressed. Until Vietnamese narratives are given the space they deserve in international media, the world will continue to consume a version of the Vietnam War that is, at best, incomplete-and at worst, dangerously misleading.

Started out watching this and only on episode 1.

Already not even 20minutes in the foundation has been laid that Ho Chi Ming wanted to turn Vietnam into a communist country and that is what started the war.

Are we just going to leave out the letters he sent to the President of the USA asking for Vietnam to be free of French rule in consideration of the documents signed at the end of WW2? That Ho Chi Ming asked the USA for help? Not Russia, not China. After being ignored then labelled communist they took the French in themselves.

They didn't want a war, they wanted their homeland to be theirs again.

If the truth prevails throughout I will happily come back and edit this review. I will continue to give forward with the documentary but I just had to get this out there.

How can you show and talk about US soldiers burning villages, raping women, dropping bombs on civilians and just killing everything that moves and then expect us to feel sorry for them?

After watching the other two turning point series i was expecting so much more from this but they framed this war as a "Both sides are bad" situation and just focused so much on those poor US soldiers who Obviously had no other choice but go fight for imperialism :(

they painted all the people who were killed ( and who were afraid of being killed ) by the north vietnamese as just innocent civilians when they were all politicians & army officers working alongside the US government

they didn't talk about the north vietnamese ideology at all they just kept calling them "the Communists" and that's it, portrayed them as these evil people who wanted to "conquer" the entire country just to make everyone's lives a living hell because again that's what "the Communists" do right !!!

They made it look like the anti war movement only cared about the war because of the number of US soldiers who were being killed and then just threw in a muhammad ali clip to balance it out

disappointing.

I had to pause my viewing of the 1st episode...as it seems to be a disingenuous account of the war so far, with few proper foundation laid.

Yet another US centric history of, what they call in Vietnam, the American war. Most of their modern history is trying to gain independence from the French, even seeking support from the US. When that wasn't forthcoming Ho Chi Minh turns to the obvious support he can get from his communist neighbours. In other words he's not an out right communist, he uses communism as a vehicle for independence. This isn't even touched on in the programme.

Hopefully the rest of the episode and series are better.

Resuming to episode 2 - better, maybe should have started with the historical background.

I could tell in the first 30 seconds what this was going to be. The man being interviewed brings up an organization from the 60s and refers to them as right wing. First off, it wasn't until the last 10-20 years we started to refer to anything as right or left wing all the time. We were just republicans and democrats, Netflix constantly tries to stress the evil of republicans but seem to fail to realize that almost every major war has begun under liberal leadership. Gonna be hard to get through the slant but that's what I've come to expect from every Netflix documentary. For once I would love to see Netflix present an unbiased documentary.

Turning Point: The Vietnam War presents itself as a comprehensive documentary, but upon closer examination, it becomes evident that the series is more manipulative than informative. While the production quality is high, with compelling visuals and a somber tone, the content selectively portrays events, leading to a skewed understanding of the Vietnam War.

The documentary notably omits significant aspects of the conflict, such as the brutal French colonial history in Indochina and the complex motivations of various factions. By focusing predominantly on American involvement and perspectives, it neglects the broader geopolitical and cultural contexts that are essential for a nuanced understanding of the war.

Furthermore, the series tends to simplify complex events, presenting them in a manner that aligns with a particular narrative. This approach not only misleads viewers unfamiliar with the intricacies of the Vietnam War but also does a disservice to the memory of those who experienced it firsthand.

In essence, while Turning Point: The Vietnam War may serve as an entry point for some, it falls short as an objective historical account. Viewers seeking a balanced and comprehensive understanding of the Vietnam War should consult additional sources to fill in the substantial gaps left by this series.

If history is an objective recounting and analyzing of facts, this series is the very opposite of that.

Its producers have unleashed a tendentious, self hating and manipulative "documentary" that, from the get-go, spares no effort in portraying the USA as the aggressor and antagonist in a conflict it had no business interfering in.

Brushing aside as insignificant such factors as Soviet post WWII expansionism which saw it expropriating Eastern Europe for itself, the attempted placement of missile bases near US soil and gradual takeover and exploitation of country after country worldwide, the miniseries attempts to debunk the ridiculous notion of a communist conspiracy by suggesting a far more plausible one- an American conspiracy.

If the show is to be believed, the Americans, beguiled in their ignorance ("nobody knew where Vietnam was") by a cunning, malicious leadership, were actually the bad guys, terrorizing the poor, misunderstood natives in an attempt to swindle them of their homeland.

Never mind that the USA never had any motive or interest in furthering its hold on Vietnam other than the stated and obvious one- to hold communism at bay; there are always plenty of sinister, mysterious evil figures lurking in the background in the form of Presidential advisors etc. To shift the blame to... not the innocent Vietcong who are simply caught in the crossfire and entangled against their will.

Do yourself a favor and stick to those documentaries that stick to facts rather than spinning a fiction as this one does.