History Fridge / ApocalypseNow

** Leaving aside the issue of atrocities, the USA started out by sending dozens, then hundreds, then thousands of 'military advisors' to Vietnam, as part of its own ideological campaign to "contain the spread of Communism", even though that meant interfering with the affairs of a foreign country. Vietnam was only partitioned in the first place because the communists had occupied the North and the French were occupying the South for colonial reasons; when the French were defeated the Americans entered the country in what, when any other nation does it, is described by America as an "invasion". The Americans were hostile troops occupying a country that didn't want them; in short, they were the bad guys, and the good guys won when the Americans were driven out. If you want proof, consider that Vietnam today is not North Korea; its human rights record is questionable, but since the passing of the PATRIOT act, so is the USA's. Vietnam is a growing country with a healthy economy, and most of its problems are due to the legacy of the occupation.

** Leaving aside the issue of atrocities, the USA started out by sending dozens, then hundreds, then thousands of 'military advisors' to Vietnam, as part of its own ideological campaign to "contain the spread of Communism", even though that meant interfering with the affairs of a foreign country. Vietnam was only partitioned in the first place because the communists had occupied the North and the French were occupying the South for colonial reasons; when the French were defeated the Americans entered the country in what, when any other nation does it, is described by America as an "invasion". The Americans were hostile troops occupying a country that didn't want them; in short, they were the bad guys, and the good guys won when the Americans were driven out. If you want proof, consider that Vietnam today is not North Korea; it's a growing country with a healthy economy, most of whose problems can be traced back to the legacy of the French/American occupation.

*** With all due respect, My Lai was a mere preschool playground spat compared to the atrocities committed by the North Vietnamese/Viet Cong. The best words ever stated on this issue was on the now-defunct [[http://web.archive.org/web/20041230164533/http://www.geocities.com/mnussitch/gossip.html A List]] (celebrity gossip) website when it chastised Jane Fonda: "We [the U.S.] sure weren't saints during that [Vietnam], but the North Vietnamese and Chinese were a damn sight worse."

** This is definitely true. By 1969 the US Military was taking anyone willing to wear the uniform; if it wasn't for the war they wouldn't have looked twice at men like [[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley William Calley]]. It also makes a certain amount of thematic sense to send Willard to hunt down Kurtz; Kurtz is what Willard has the potential to come.

*** No, the US dropped thousands of tonnes of bombs on North Vietnam, and the most famous incidents of the war - including the My Lai Massacre - were indeed US troops. The US played dirty, and it can be argued they played much, much dirtier than North Vietnam because they intruded on a civil war they were never asked to be in. They were just in it to stop the communism spreading, and killed millions in the process.

* In ''ApocalypseNow'', I really disliked where the rogue officer describes how the VietCong were not evil despite committing [[MoralEventHorizon grossly evil acts]], but then I realized that he was [[MisaimedFandom not exactly sane]] [[HorribleJudgeOfCharacter or a good judge of character]] and we are not supposed to believe the VietCong are good.

* It always bothered me why U.S Command sent a recently divorced and clearly traumatized veteran of the currently on-going Vietnam War on a top secret mission to kill a rouge U.S Special Forces Colonel. You would think they would choose another Special Forces guy who didn't have all these psychological issues to take the mission. Then I realized that the concept of Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder was only recently coming into the lime-light at that point and before that most Military forces around the world didn't care if you were traumatized by what you experienced, if your body is intact and you can fire a gun you are good to go. The U.S Military would be no different towards Captain Willard.

** I've always thought that the VietCong were just trying to [[OccupiersOutOfOurCountry be able to live in Vietnam free of the Americans]], and the Americans were just trying to help the people who the [[DirtyCommunists North Vietnamese regime]] were mistreating and oppressing.

** Another important point is that, you know, the US Forces weren't precisely pure noble goody goodness. Vietnamese innocents were killed by the Americans, and the film doesn't shy away from the most immoral actions of the US. So it could be more of a "Everybody could be seen as evil in a war" thing.

* While the plot of Apocalypse Now is essentially Conrad's Heart of Darkness, most of the scenes are taken nearly verbatim from a real-life, first person account of the war, whose title I alas cannot remember. The scene at the bridge is exactly as described, right down to the stoned-out M79 gunner killing the screaming VC with a single, instinctive shot in the dark.

** Another important point is that, you know, the US force weren't precisely pure noble goody goodness. Vietnamese innocents were killed by the americans, and the film doesn't shy away from the most inmoral actions of the US. So it could be more of a "Everybody could be seen as evil in a war" thing.
* The reason why a recently-divorced and clearly traumatized veteran of the currently active Vietnam War was given a mission to kill a high-ranking Colonel in the U.S Special Forces who went rouge always bothered me. Then I realized that shit like that happened all the time in Vietnam (minus the top secret mission to assassinate one of our own commanders on the field), the U.S Military was and still is notorious for not caring about the mental health of their soldiers giving them a clean bill of health if at least their body is intact.
** If they kept him, he would be nothing but trouble. If they sent him, he would kill the colonel or get killed himself. Either way, one less problem
* For the longest time I thought the part right before the crew enters Cambodia past that bridge was surreal just for the sake of being surreal. Then I realized that we are looking through the eyes and ears of Private Lance who is currently stoned on drugs, NO WONDER it was surreal.

** I always thought that the point Colonel Kurtz was getting at was that in warfare it is quite literally insane to be placing objective morality of right and wrong on the battlefield where the objective has and always will be to murder each other until one side is destroyed or gives up, petty preconceptions of morality shouldn't exist in war. The Vietcong were willing to do '''WHATEVER''' it took to achieve victory regardless of the morality of their actions and didn't let "judgement" based on those societal/moral preconceptions defeat them, the Americans weren't and that is why Kurtz felt that the Americans were eventually going to lose the war because of this. Americans were no where near as dedicated as their enemy, we may have been vastly more well-equipped than our enemy but to us it was just a matter of containment based on the larger Cold War, for the Vietcong getting rid of the Americans was a matter of life and death to which they were willing to dedicate every last man woman and child to defeat, had America given such dedication the war would have been over in just a few short years. Kurtz realized that it is important to be a moral, good-natured person but at the same time be able to tap into your instincts and kill the enemy without passion, judgement or remorse, because that is how wars are won.
*** The above seems to be the most substantiated interpretation, as Kurts places great emphasis on the fact that the Vietcong are motivated to commit horrible acts out of the deep love they have for their families.

* For the longest time I thought the part right before the crew enters Cambodia past that bridge was surreal just for the sake of being surreal. Then I realized that we are looking through the eyes and ears of Private Lance who is currently stoned on drugs, NO WONDER it was surreal.

* The reason why a recently-divorced and clearly traumatized veteran of the currently active Vietnam War was given a mission to kill a high-ranking Colonel in the U.S Special Forces who went rouge always bothered me. Then I realized that shit like that happened all the time in Vietnam (minus the top secret mission to assassinate one of our own commanders on the field), the U.S Military was and still is notorious for not caring about the mental health of their soldiers giving them a clean bill of health if at least their body is intact.

** I always thought that the point Colonel Kurtz was getting at was that in warfare it is quite literally insane to be placing objective morality of right and wrong on the battlefield where the objective has and always be to murder each other until one side is destroyed or gives up, petty preconceptions of morality shouldn't exist in war. The Vietcong were willing to do '''WHATEVER''' it took to achieve victory regardless of the morality of their actions and didn't let "judgement" based on those societal/moral preconceptions defeat them, the Americans weren't and that is why Kurtz felt that the Americans were eventually going to lose the war because of this. Americans were no where near as dedicated as their enemy, we may have been vastly more well-equipped than our enemy but to us it was just a matter of containment based on the larger Cold War, for the Vietcong getting rid of the Americans was a matter of life and death to which they were willing to dedicate every last man woman and child to defeat, had America given such dedication the war would have been over in just a few short years. Kurtz realized that it is important to be a moral, good-natured person but at the same time be able to tap into your instincts and kill the enemy without passion, judgement or remorse, because that is how wars are won.

** I always thought that the point Colonel Kurtz was getting at was that in warfare it is quite literally insane to be placing objective morality of right and wrong on the battlefield where the objective has and always be to murder each other until one side is destroyed or gives up, petty preconceptions of morality shouldn't exist in war. The Vietcong were willing to do '''WHATEVER''' it took to achieve victory regardless of the morality of their actions and didn't let "judgement" based on those societal/moral preconceptions defeat them, the Americans weren't and that is why Kurtz felt that the Americans were eventually going to lose the war because of this. Americans were no where near as dedicated as their enemy, they weren't willing to dedicate everything that they had to kill the enemy which if they had they could have won the war any given day, if the Vietcong had all the Military technology and weaponry the Americans had they would have used them, we didn't and that was our mistake. Kurtz realized that it is important to be a moral, good-natured person but at the same time be able to tap into your instincts and kill the enemy without passion, judgement or remorse, because that is how wars are won.

** I always thought that the point Colonel Kurtz was getting at that in warfare it is quite literally insane to be placing objective morality of right and wrong on the battlefield where men suffer and kill each other each day. The Vietcong were willing to do WHATEVER it took to achieve victory regardless of the morality of their actions and didn't let "judgement" based on those societal/moral preconceptions defeat them, the Americans weren't and that is why Kurtz felt that the Americans were eventually going to lose the war because of this. Kurtz realized that it is important to be a moral, good-natured person but at the same time be able to tap into your instincts and kill the enemy without passion, judgement or remorse, because that is how wars are won.

** I always thought that the point Colonel Kurtz was getting at that in warfare it is quite literally insane to be placing objective morality of right and wrong on the battlefield where men suffer and kill each other each day. The Vietcong were willing to do WHATEVER it took to achieve victory regardless of the morality of their actions and didn't let "judgement" based on those societal/mores preconceptions defeat them, the Americans weren't and that is why Kurtz felt that the Americans were eventually going to lose the war because of this. Kurtz realized that it is important to be a moral, good-natured person but at the same time be able to tap into your instincts and kill the enemy without passion, judgement or remorse, because that is how wars are won.
* The reason why a recently-divorced and clearly traumatized veteran of the currently active Vietnam War was given a mission to kill a high-ranking Colonel in the U.S Armed Forces who went rouge always bothered me. Then I realized that shit like that happened all the time in Vietnam (minus the top secret mission to assassinate one of our own commanders on the field), the U.S Military was and still is notorious for not caring about the mental health of their soldiers giving them a clean bill of health if at least their body is intact.

* In ''ApocalypseNow'', I really disliked where the rogue officer describes how the VietCong were not evil despite committing [[MoralEventHorizon grossly evil acts]], but then I realised that he was [[MisaimedFandom not exactly sane]] [[HorribleJudgeOfCharacter or a good judge of character]] and we are not supposed to believe the VietCong are good.

** It's also important to remember that Kurtz is batshit insane.

** I've always thought that the VietCong were just trying to [[OccupiersOutOfOurCountry be able to live in Vietnam free of the Americans]], and the Americans were just trying to help the people who the [[DirtyCommunists North Vietnamese regime]] were mistreating and oppressing.

** I seem to remember that what he says is something like they were moral enough to give them the right kind of motivation but immoral enough to be sufficiently ruthless to get the job done. In that context all "moral" really means is [[WellIntentionedExtremist "motivated by their own morals"]], and that kind of balance can, I'm sure, be useful in warfare.