No Substitute for Victory
|
List Price: $6.99
Our Price: $1.65
Your Save: $ 5.34 ( 76% )
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
Manufacturer: Echo Bridge Home Entertainment
Starring: Hosted by John Wayne
|
Average Customer Rating:  
|
|
Aspect Ratio: 1.33:1
Audience Rating: G (General Audience)
Binding: DVD
EAN: 0096009019792
Format: Color
Label: Echo Bridge Home Entertainment
Manufacturer: Echo Bridge Home Entertainment
Number Of Items: 1
Publisher: Echo Bridge Home Entertainment
Region Code: 1
Release Date: 2001-01-09
Running Time: 80
Studio: Echo Bridge Home Entertainment
Theatrical Release Date: 2001-01-09
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spotlight customer reviews:
|
Customer Rating:
Summary: "No Substitute for Victory": the Parallels with Iraq are Eerie
Comment: Are we doomed to repeat the past? This docudrama hosted by John Wayne was originally released 37 years ago. Its participants, among them Mark W. Clark, Martha Raye, and Lowell Thomas, desperately tried to warn Americans that the leftist establishment was trying to hand victory over to the Communists in Vietnam. Sadly, they failed. Left wing agitators and their comrades in the media brought our country down to its knees. They insulted our troops and glorified the "freedom fighters" of North Vietnam. Our soldiers were forced to fight with one hand tied behind their back. Please pay particular attention to the words of General Clark. He personally witnessed how the United States previously snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory in both China and North Korea. Doesn't this sound familiar?
Stop whatever you are doing and immediately order a copy of "No Substitute for Victory." There is no doubt whatsoever that you will notice the disturbing parallels with our present conflict in Iraq.
David Thomson
Flares into Darkness
Customer Rating:
Summary: JUST FOR HAWKS.
Comment: John Wayne narrates the lion's share of this documentary released in 1970 that has a specific purpose, i.e., to shift the opinion of the public to favour support of the U. S. war against North Vietnam and the Viet Cong during a time when America's cultural atmosphere was strongly antagonistic towards this country's involvement; unhappily for the individuals selected to offer their viewpoints, such as Generals Mark Clark and Albert Wedemeyer, journalist Lowell Thomas, and others, they stare straight into the camera's eye as they haltingly read their lines, detracting from their shared message, one that certainly includes salient points relative to politician interference with and control of our armed forces' efforts and the subsequent demoralization of servicemen; a yet greater reason for the production's eventual failure to persuade is its twisted view of historical events, replete with inaccuracy despite inclusion of captivating footage; in sum, an interesting cinematic document of a dramatic period in our nation's history.
Customer Rating:
Summary: strange film, bad ideas
Comment: This is a vietnam film made by rabid anti-communist hawks.
The kind of guys who were all about putting on a tough show
without thinking anything through.
In it Wayne gathers up a bunch of the failed higher leadership
of the Army with strong anti-communist points of view to tell
everyone how anything less than winning in vietnam is not an
option. And how America lacks the will/courage to fight a real
war on communism.
Its starts with the traditional idiotic cold-war views of the
extreme right. What these guys wanted was total war with the
communist world regardless of the consequences. At the peak
of their influence in the 1950s, they were pushing for putting
the US on a permenant war economy basis and drafting almost
everyone. And that was still their real goal when this film
was made. They never understood that nuclear war was the
ultimate result of what they were pushing or else they knew
and didn't care.
Wayne gives a series of dumb history lessons. He first tells
us that somehow the US let the russians have eastern europe
and Berlin. He doesn't seem to know that the russians conqured
those territories on their own and *they* gave *us* part of
Berlin, not the other way around. I guess Wayne wanted to
continue World War 2 with an attack in 1945 on Russia.
The second dumb history lesson is China. Wayne apparently
thought that the US fighting a super-vietnam war in China
in support of a failed unpopular government was a great idea.
As in Vietnam, Wayne can't quite explain why these evil
communist governments can get so many people to fight for
them while our "good" allies can't gather together much of
anyone to fight back.
He then moves on to Korea. He seems not to understand that
if the US widened the war in Korea or took it deeper into
China, the only result would have been the Chinese expanding
the war themselves and moving their bases back further. Again,
Wayne's solution is to turn a regional war into an all-out
war with China and presumably Russia.
In Vietnam, Wayne repeats the foolish arguments that expanding
the war would have led to victory. But as responsible people
in the army and elsewhere knew at the time, those ideas would
do nothing but expand the scope of the war. Mine Haiphong
Harbor and the supplies would come overland from Chinese ports.
No amount of bombing of the Ho Chi Minh Trail was able to
seriously disrupt the movement of supplies and NVA south. And
if you attack into North Vietnam, China probably comes in and you
have Korea all over again. Wayne's answer would of course have
been to ignore all the dangers and push forward to total
all-out war with China and Russia. Thats the whole theme here.
Wayne digs out other guys to suggest the old idea that bombing
could win the vietnam war or force North Vietnam to make peace
on american terms. That was never going to happen. Even in
1972-73, the only way the US got "peace" was making it on
the terms of the north vietnamese (which led to the end of
south vietnam). Area bombing or city bombing has never driven
any country to the peace table. Not in WWII, not in Vietnam.
The documentary makes all sorts of warnings about what will
happen if we lose. But what it doesn't say is that the two
other dominos (Laos and Cambodia) that fell were both involved
in the vietnam war for years. The US had been fighting a proxy
war in Laos since before 1960 in order to pressure North Vietnam.
And Nixon encouraged an army coup in cambodia that switched
cambodia from neutral to the US side. Obviously bloodbaths
followed the victory of the other side in the war, but what
was the alternative? Would fighting the vietnam war for
twenty more years have been worth it? Was Wayne's idea of
turning vietnam into a new world war against China and Russia
a sane thing to propose? Sure, it was terrible what the KRs
and Vietnamese did, but the choices for the US in order to
stop it would have led to worse things happening.
And the dumbest predictions (Red Guards ready to attack Australia
) didn't happen. The war only spread in southeast asia to the
countries around vietnam. And the immediate aftermath of
the war was the communists turning on each other. Vietnam
invades Cambodia and China attacks vietnam. There was no
domino effect and there was no unified communist conspiracy.
As far as Wayne goes, it doesn't take much to make a case
for communists having blood on their hands, the problem is
what he (or anyone else) proposes to do about it.
And all Wayne can come up with is stupid ideas that lead
America either into an all-out war with Russia and China
or build the american army up to the strength of Russia/China.
The idiots that came up with that last idea in the 1950s never
quite understood that drafting and financing an american
peacetime army of 3 million men would have destroyed capitalism
and the vitality of the country.
We clearly know now in the light of history that communism
would eventually destroy itself without the need for a world
war or turning america into a permenant war economy country.
We also know that losing in vietnam wasn't the end of the world.
In fact, getting out of vietnam saved the american army from
total disintegration.
The russians proved by their experiences in Afghanistan that
getting out of vietnam was the right decision for the US.
The worse thing about Wayne is that his whole image was a
con job. He was a draft-dodger who never put himself (WWII) or
as far I know any of his children out on the line in any
war. His first deferment was for family reasons. His second
was because his studio went to washington and got a special
excemption for him.
If you want to call yourself a patriot, talk up driving the
country into a world (or nuclear) war and talk about how
the country lacks guts, you better have done something more
yourself than make a bunch of movies.
The world and the US can be glad that nobody listened to
these maniacs. I dont endorse the lefties of the 1960s
(thats for sure), but we had to get out of Vietnam when
we did to save the army and the country. And if nutcases
like Wayne had been listed to, we would either all be dead
as the result of his global war on communism or you would
be living in "wartime" america which would not look that
much different than the soviet union.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Interesting, little known documentary of the Vietnam War era
Comment: For some curious reason, the Vietnam War was largely absent from US cultural outlets like cinema, comic books, television shows, etc. even though it was one of the most important issues of the time. In the movies, only two films actually dealt with Vietnam as a primary focus when the war was still raging. The two were To the Shores of Hell (1964) and The Green Berets (1968). Both films were pro-US and pro-US involvement in Vietnam. Perhaps it was fitting that the fellow (John Wayne) involved with bringing to the silver screen the most well-known of the two Vietnam films (The Green Berets) was also responsible for the documentary that argued not only for the US effort in Vietnam but also for victory. In this film, Wayne calls upon several military veterans of the Vietnam War as well as generals who had experience with communist countries and communist enemies to make the point that the US has dealt with communist lands with kid gloves and hasn't had the political will to win in hot wars with them. To make this case, Wayne goes from the aftermath of WWII in showing how the US slowed down in taking territory and let the Soviets go into Berlin and Eastern Europe. (Incidentally, it is here where Wayne is on his weakest ground.) Admittedly, the US slow down allowed Stalin's USSR to plant the Red Banner further in the West. The US could've marched further east to make sure more people didn't fall under the communist banner. However, the US would have likely taken many more casualties, certainly more in taking Berlin which cost the Soviets about 500,000. Wayne makes a stronger case against the mistake of not supporting Chiang Kai-Shek in China against the communists as well as the insanity of bombing restrictions in the Korean War such as not bombing the Yalu River bridges, not hitting targets in China, etc. In Vietnam, Wayne makes a compelling argument that the "fighting with one hand tied behind the back" approach to was being used by the US. Many areas were placed off limits to US airpower and naval might such as Haiphong Harbor. On top of this, it is pointed out that the war was micromanaged from Washington and that targets had to be approved. (LBJ famously opined that the US couldn't "bomb an outhouse" without his approval.) This took time and sometimes the approval never came. Wayne further makes the overwhelming case that bringing the other side to the peace table cannot be done with bombing halts, only through massive strength. He has a former Korean War general to make this case and also points out that bombing halts didn't spur the North Vietnamese efforts for peace. (Indeed, Nixon in 1972 used city bombing to bring the North Vietnamese back to the peace table.) Overall, quite a bit of what the documentary warned about came to pass. After the US pull-out, Laos, South Vietnam, and Cambodia fell to the communists, and bloodbaths did result, especially in Cambodia with the deaths of 2 million people. Other predictions, though, (communist insugency in Australia, for example) did not. Far from Wayne having "blood on his hands" as some would say, Wayne accurately depicted communist aggression throughout the world and demanded from the US a will to win against it. Even with the technical problems that the film has, it still is an important piece of Cold War history.
Customer Rating:
Summary: John Wayne at his Best
Comment: John Wayne tells (told) it like it was. For those of us who had first hand knowledge of this subject can not help but give this video a big 5 stars. You may not agree with everything John Wayne did or stood for but at least he had the guts to put his career on the line for what he thought important. How many of the Hollywood crowd stood up for those of us in uniform during these trying times.
Watch & listen carefully and you will see who John Wayne really was.
|
|
|
Editorial Reviews:
|
Customer Rating:
Summary: "No Substitute for Victory": the Parallels with Iraq are Eerie
Comment: Are we doomed to repeat the past? This docudrama hosted by John Wayne was originally released 37 years ago. Its participants, among them Mark W. Clark, Martha Raye, and Lowell Thomas, desperately tried to warn Americans that the leftist establishment was trying to hand victory over to the Communists in Vietnam. Sadly, they failed. Left wing agitators and their comrades in the media brought our country down to its knees. They insulted our troops and glorified the "freedom fighters" of North Vietnam. Our soldiers were forced to fight with one hand tied behind their back. Please pay particular attention to the words of General Clark. He personally witnessed how the United States previously snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory in both China and North Korea. Doesn't this sound familiar?
Stop whatever you are doing and immediately order a copy of "No Substitute for Victory." There is no doubt whatsoever that you will notice the disturbing parallels with our present conflict in Iraq.
David Thomson
Flares into Darkness
Customer Rating:
Summary: JUST FOR HAWKS.
Comment: John Wayne narrates the lion's share of this documentary released in 1970 that has a specific purpose, i.e., to shift the opinion of the public to favour support of the U. S. war against North Vietnam and the Viet Cong during a time when America's cultural atmosphere was strongly antagonistic towards this country's involvement; unhappily for the individuals selected to offer their viewpoints, such as Generals Mark Clark and Albert Wedemeyer, journalist Lowell Thomas, and others, they stare straight into the camera's eye as they haltingly read their lines, detracting from their shared message, one that certainly includes salient points relative to politician interference with and control of our armed forces' efforts and the subsequent demoralization of servicemen; a yet greater reason for the production's eventual failure to persuade is its twisted view of historical events, replete with inaccuracy despite inclusion of captivating footage; in sum, an interesting cinematic document of a dramatic period in our nation's history.
Customer Rating:
Summary: strange film, bad ideas
Comment: This is a vietnam film made by rabid anti-communist hawks.
The kind of guys who were all about putting on a tough show
without thinking anything through.
In it Wayne gathers up a bunch of the failed higher leadership
of the Army with strong anti-communist points of view to tell
everyone how anything less than winning in vietnam is not an
option. And how America lacks the will/courage to fight a real
war on communism.
Its starts with the traditional idiotic cold-war views of the
extreme right. What these guys wanted was total war with the
communist world regardless of the consequences. At the peak
of their influence in the 1950s, they were pushing for putting
the US on a permenant war economy basis and drafting almost
everyone. And that was still their real goal when this film
was made. They never understood that nuclear war was the
ultimate result of what they were pushing or else they knew
and didn't care.
Wayne gives a series of dumb history lessons. He first tells
us that somehow the US let the russians have eastern europe
and Berlin. He doesn't seem to know that the russians conqured
those territories on their own and *they* gave *us* part of
Berlin, not the other way around. I guess Wayne wanted to
continue World War 2 with an attack in 1945 on Russia.
The second dumb history lesson is China. Wayne apparently
thought that the US fighting a super-vietnam war in China
in support of a failed unpopular government was a great idea.
As in Vietnam, Wayne can't quite explain why these evil
communist governments can get so many people to fight for
them while our "good" allies can't gather together much of
anyone to fight back.
He then moves on to Korea. He seems not to understand that
if the US widened the war in Korea or took it deeper into
China, the only result would have been the Chinese expanding
the war themselves and moving their bases back further. Again,
Wayne's solution is to turn a regional war into an all-out
war with China and presumably Russia.
In Vietnam, Wayne repeats the foolish arguments that expanding
the war would have led to victory. But as responsible people
in the army and elsewhere knew at the time, those ideas would
do nothing but expand the scope of the war. Mine Haiphong
Harbor and the supplies would come overland from Chinese ports.
No amount of bombing of the Ho Chi Minh Trail was able to
seriously disrupt the movement of supplies and NVA south. And
if you attack into North Vietnam, China probably comes in and you
have Korea all over again. Wayne's answer would of course have
been to ignore all the dangers and push forward to total
all-out war with China and Russia. Thats the whole theme here.
Wayne digs out other guys to suggest the old idea that bombing
could win the vietnam war or force North Vietnam to make peace
on american terms. That was never going to happen. Even in
1972-73, the only way the US got "peace" was making it on
the terms of the north vietnamese (which led to the end of
south vietnam). Area bombing or city bombing has never driven
any country to the peace table. Not in WWII, not in Vietnam.
The documentary makes all sorts of warnings about what will
happen if we lose. But what it doesn't say is that the two
other dominos (Laos and Cambodia) that fell were both involved
in the vietnam war for years. The US had been fighting a proxy
war in Laos since before 1960 in order to pressure North Vietnam.
And Nixon encouraged an army coup in cambodia that switched
cambodia from neutral to the US side. Obviously bloodbaths
followed the victory of the other side in the war, but what
was the alternative? Would fighting the vietnam war for
twenty more years have been worth it? Was Wayne's idea of
turning vietnam into a new world war against China and Russia
a sane thing to propose? Sure, it was terrible what the KRs
and Vietnamese did, but the choices for the US in order to
stop it would have led to worse things happening.
And the dumbest predictions (Red Guards ready to attack Australia
) didn't happen. The war only spread in southeast asia to the
countries around vietnam. And the immediate aftermath of
the war was the communists turning on each other. Vietnam
invades Cambodia and China attacks vietnam. There was no
domino effect and there was no unified communist conspiracy.
As far as Wayne goes, it doesn't take much to make a case
for communists having blood on their hands, the problem is
what he (or anyone else) proposes to do about it.
And all Wayne can come up with is stupid ideas that lead
America either into an all-out war with Russia and China
or build the american army up to the strength of Russia/China.
The idiots that came up with that last idea in the 1950s never
quite understood that drafting and financing an american
peacetime army of 3 million men would have destroyed capitalism
and the vitality of the country.
We clearly know now in the light of history that communism
would eventually destroy itself without the need for a world
war or turning america into a permenant war economy country.
We also know that losing in vietnam wasn't the end of the world.
In fact, getting out of vietnam saved the american army from
total disintegration.
The russians proved by their experiences in Afghanistan that
getting out of vietnam was the right decision for the US.
The worse thing about Wayne is that his whole image was a
con job. He was a draft-dodger who never put himself (WWII) or
as far I know any of his children out on the line in any
war. His first deferment was for family reasons. His second
was because his studio went to washington and got a special
excemption for him.
If you want to call yourself a patriot, talk up driving the
country into a world (or nuclear) war and talk about how
the country lacks guts, you better have done something more
yourself than make a bunch of movies.
The world and the US can be glad that nobody listened to
these maniacs. I dont endorse the lefties of the 1960s
(thats for sure), but we had to get out of Vietnam when
we did to save the army and the country. And if nutcases
like Wayne had been listed to, we would either all be dead
as the result of his global war on communism or you would
be living in "wartime" america which would not look that
much different than the soviet union.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Interesting, little known documentary of the Vietnam War era
Comment: For some curious reason, the Vietnam War was largely absent from US cultural outlets like cinema, comic books, television shows, etc. even though it was one of the most important issues of the time. In the movies, only two films actually dealt with Vietnam as a primary focus when the war was still raging. The two were To the Shores of Hell (1964) and The Green Berets (1968). Both films were pro-US and pro-US involvement in Vietnam. Perhaps it was fitting that the fellow (John Wayne) involved with bringing to the silver screen the most well-known of the two Vietnam films (The Green Berets) was also responsible for the documentary that argued not only for the US effort in Vietnam but also for victory. In this film, Wayne calls upon several military veterans of the Vietnam War as well as generals who had experience with communist countries and communist enemies to make the point that the US has dealt with communist lands with kid gloves and hasn't had the political will to win in hot wars with them. To make this case, Wayne goes from the aftermath of WWII in showing how the US slowed down in taking territory and let the Soviets go into Berlin and Eastern Europe. (Incidentally, it is here where Wayne is on his weakest ground.) Admittedly, the US slow down allowed Stalin's USSR to plant the Red Banner further in the West. The US could've marched further east to make sure more people didn't fall under the communist banner. However, the US would have likely taken many more casualties, certainly more in taking Berlin which cost the Soviets about 500,000. Wayne makes a stronger case against the mistake of not supporting Chiang Kai-Shek in China against the communists as well as the insanity of bombing restrictions in the Korean War such as not bombing the Yalu River bridges, not hitting targets in China, etc. In Vietnam, Wayne makes a compelling argument that the "fighting with one hand tied behind the back" approach to was being used by the US. Many areas were placed off limits to US airpower and naval might such as Haiphong Harbor. On top of this, it is pointed out that the war was micromanaged from Washington and that targets had to be approved. (LBJ famously opined that the US couldn't "bomb an outhouse" without his approval.) This took time and sometimes the approval never came. Wayne further makes the overwhelming case that bringing the other side to the peace table cannot be done with bombing halts, only through massive strength. He has a former Korean War general to make this case and also points out that bombing halts didn't spur the North Vietnamese efforts for peace. (Indeed, Nixon in 1972 used city bombing to bring the North Vietnamese back to the peace table.) Overall, quite a bit of what the documentary warned about came to pass. After the US pull-out, Laos, South Vietnam, and Cambodia fell to the communists, and bloodbaths did result, especially in Cambodia with the deaths of 2 million people. Other predictions, though, (communist insugency in Australia, for example) did not. Far from Wayne having "blood on his hands" as some would say, Wayne accurately depicted communist aggression throughout the world and demanded from the US a will to win against it. Even with the technical problems that the film has, it still is an important piece of Cold War history.
Customer Rating:
Summary: John Wayne at his Best
Comment: John Wayne tells (told) it like it was. For those of us who had first hand knowledge of this subject can not help but give this video a big 5 stars. You may not agree with everything John Wayne did or stood for but at least he had the guts to put his career on the line for what he thought important. How many of the Hollywood crowd stood up for those of us in uniform during these trying times.
Watch & listen carefully and you will see who John Wayne really was.
The Communist threat and its zenith in Vietnam is the focus of this video hosted by John Wayne with interviews of Lowell Thomas and Sgt. Barry Sadler.
|
|
|
- Ask about this healthcare product "No Substitute for Victory" in the forum
- Give review on this healthcare product "No Substitute for Victory" in the forum
- Search related information in the forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
