The rest of your comment is interesting, but this...

>>Vietnamese had no Hollywood to force their point of view onto the global society

Sort of implies that Hollywood was reinforcing some view that the US won in Vietnam, or that the reasons for the war were noble, or?

I can't think of any Hollywood produced Vietnam centric movies that follow that sort of theme.

Rambo II re-iterated the fiction that massive POWs were still in Vietnam. Watch the History Channel and you'll see almost no mention of agent orange, and none (that I've seen) would ever use the phrase "chemical warfare". The narrative that the media lost the war for the U.S. at the Tet offensive is pervasive.

Then there's what is omitted. I can't think of a movie/TV show I've seen about Vietnam that mentioned we bombed South Vietnam as well, or that we propped up a dictator that rigged the election and made life so intolerable for the Buddhists that monks were self-immolating in protest.

This I agree with...Hollywood did not put out movies with the full context and nuance.

On the other hand, most of the movies did highlight the horrors of war, highlight the futility of the effort, disillusion of the front line troops, etc.

So, the argument isn't that Hollywood did a terrific job, just that they weren't portraying the war as noble, winnable, etc.

I think John Wayne's The Green Berets is possibly the only movie that attempts to portray that particular war as "noble" (and I should add that I only know of that movie by reputation).

Apologies for answering your question with another question - but have their been any movies that were even distributed (let alone produced) in the West that try and given an account of the war from a North Vietnamese viewpoint?

You don't know any not because there weren't any, but because in the end nobody remembers propaganda.

In the beginning the society didn't take the war too seriously, it took ten more years for the anti-war movement to gain strength. Ten years!

Yet something must have gone wrong. As a European, I've met many Americans who only learned of the US losing the Vietnam war, when they were in Europe.

Some of them might not have been that bright, though. I remember an exchange student protesting a poem we read in English class because she thought it implied the US lost the war. There was complete silence in class and our teacher just said "well, they did lose." She actually said "No, we won it when we threw the bomb on Hiroshima."

So, you've met some number of ignorant Americans, including someone who thinks Hiroshima is in Vietnam.

That's not really compelling evidence that there's a widespread belief among Americans that we won the Vietnam war.

Well, to counter your anecdotal evidence: I am American, was once an exchange student in Europe, know what country Hiroshima is in, and don't think we won the Vietnam war.

that's not how averages work...

It kind of is... IQ is normally distributed, and in the normal distribution average == median.

Except it isn't - because of sampling biases.

> Take the most average person you know

The average person you know might not be close to population average, depending on the circle of people you know - let's say Stanford post-docs.

* Take the average person from a high school class you took