Rating: 
Summary: Karnow almost gets it right
Review: Karnow tells an interesting tale particularly as it relates to Vietnamese history. Where he falters is when he takes the Leftist point of view of Ho Chi Minh. Ho, contrary to opinion popular in the academy today, was a communist, Stalinist thug, and not the Jeffersonian leader of his people that myth would have you believe. Refer to "the Black Book of Communism" by Courtois and other former communists and you will learn how Ho murdered, by the thousands, other nationalist groups in the 1930' and 40's. True, Diem's crowd was no box of chocolates, but neither was Ho. How many boat people did we see during the war/ And, how many after? Vietnam, I believe, is a nation of 70 million people. The hardcore communists totaled a fraction of that number. Ho's Communist party wanted hegemony over all of Southeast Asia. Read abnout it for yourself. Needless to say, the Black Book isn't popular with our Marxist academics, but it's accurate history. For contrast read the record of the Marxist far Left Nation magazine on Alger Hiss and Whittaker Chambers, and also the Rosenbergs. Only after the Soviet archives opened were we able to learn the truth. The new information such as that published in "the Venona Secrets", "the Haunted Wood", and "the Sword and the Shield", belies the communist myth. Contrary to what another reviewer purports here, there was in fact a worldwide communist movement bent on world domination. Read these references for contrast and you can get the balance neccessary to see these arguments through a clearer lens. Vietnam was a disastor due to the way America conducted the war. The containment of communism was the right goal, but in this case we could have gone about it in a more effective, less costly way. But, isn't hindsight always 20-20?
Rating: 
Summary: Essential Reading for Understanding of the Vietnam War
Review: Karnow writes from the perspective of being there during America's involvement in Vietnam's civil war. He also writes with a clear, easy to follow style that helps one proceed easily through the 648 pp. of this book. Especially noteworthy is his coverage of the years between 1945 and 1965, which are key to any understanding of the big picture of America's involvement and why our policy in Vietnam failed. However, despite Karnow's expertise on this subject, he does seem to make some errors and leaves out some important information. For example, for some reason, he writes that only 100 people were killed by the Americans at My Lai. Yet, the official body count is 500. He also only makes a single, passing reference to the brutality of South Korean troops stationed in South Vietnam as part of the Pacific forces deployed there. Also, as the book progresses, it becomes less and less about South Vietnam and more about US policy. This only contributes to the accusations that the government in the South was a phony puppet government set up to follow US dictates. The book also contains a surprising number of misspellings. And, I'm not talking about misspelling Vietnamese place names. I get the impression that an electronic spell-checker was used to catch misspellings. The misspelled words are words that are spelled correctly, but wrong in the context. For example, the misspelling "an" for "and" or "receive" for "received". Had an editor actually read the text, most of these misspellings would have been caught. The book also ends rather abruptly with the fall of Saigon. True, that's the end of the civil war, but it doesn't cover the aftermath of US/Vietnam reconciliation, ongoing efforts to recover bodies of those MIA, the boat people, re-education camps, and so on. Still, despite the faults of the book, this is a good place to begin a study of this time period in Vietnam and American history.
Rating: 
Summary: One Sided Book about a Complex Subject
Review: Karnow's does an excellent job in recording Vietnamese history until he hits the 20th Century. Karnow spends lots of time criticising South Vietnamese and Free World Forces' efforts to give a part of this tragic land a chance at freedom and proserity. However, he glosses over or just ignores most of the excesses and atrocities of Vietnamese Communists. If you buy this book, I would advise ignoring the portions dealing with the time period of around 1919-1975. Its just too biased in this area to be taken seriously.
Rating: 
Summary: This is the best book I've read about Vietnam
Review: Karnow's journalistic style makes this an easy to read masterpiece. He explores not only the American involvement in the conflict, but the roots of Vietnamese nationalism, past conflicts, and the French involvement, and shows how many of the lessons we learned the hard way had already been learned by others. You finish the book having a better "understanding" of the conflict, not just the mechanics of the war.
Rating:
Summary: Had to read it in college
Review: Man, when I was college I had to read this book and considering the size and the manner in which it is written it's no wonder the only other people I meet who read it read because they had to in order to get a grade from history class. And the topic of Vietnam seems so distant to those of my generation, that's why I was so surprised to read a book called "The Bamboo Chest: An Adventure in Healing the Trauma of War". If you want to get the whole story of Vietnam, and not just the war as long as we were directly involved, then I suggest getting this book and "The Bamboo Chest" and you'll get the WHOLE story, and not just the stuff that has been regurgitated by journalists and history professors over and over! Read my review on "The Bamboo Chest" and see why: how many Americans (non-Vietnamese-Americans) under 40 years old can say they were held hostage for eleven months in a Vietnamese re-education camp and lived to tell about it??
Like I've told my friends, read the Vietnam: A History and then read "The Bamboo Chest: An Adventure in Healing the Trauma of War" and you'll get the WHOLE story about what happened over there, including the missing part that isn't in "Vietnam: A History", what really happened when we left. . .
Rating:
Summary: Truly superb. A must read book.
Review: More of a political and historical book than a war book. It is still the best book on Vietnam that Ive ever read.
Rating:
Summary: Flawed But Fine
Review: Much of Mr. Karnow's work is outstanding. Vietnam's historical development, especially the two century lead up to the present time, is expertly handled. The Johnson Administration's slide into the Vietnam quagmire and its inept responses to policy flaws and South Vietnamese political and military setbacks is documented clearly by the author. Karnow expertly portrays the chaotic South Vietnamese political and military situation and seemed to be well-aquainted with all the major figures in South Vietnam. Karnow explains a South Vietnam where major villages within an hour's drive of Saigon would be VietCong strongpoints, resilient enough to be overrun by American forces only to return to being VietCong villages as soon as the Americans left. Although Karnow does not dictate to his readers, one is left with the idea that the war was unwinnable as the Americans chose to fight it and that the war was utterly foolish. However, here is where one of Karnow's flaws comes to bear. He showers contempt on Johnson Administration figure Walter Rostow's suggestion that the only way to defeat the communists in Vietnam was to invade the North and take Hanoi. Yet, in hindsight, invading the North and occupying Hanoi, the organizational center of the communists, was the only way to defeat the communists. Karnow spends little time explaining American military strategy; what the American soldiers on the ground went through is largely ignored. The South Vietnamese military is belittled by Karnow but why it was often ineffectual is not really explained by Karnow. Karnow's explanation of the rapid collapse of the South Vietnamese army in 1975 is lacking as Karnow tells the reader that the South Vietnamese controlled over 80 % of South Vietnam a year before its ignominious defeat. As 1974 begins, Karnow paints a picture of a confident South Vietnamese army on the march. By Christmas, 1974, the first provincial capital is taken by the communists and the demoralization and collapse of the South Vietnamese is at hand. Why? As for North Vietnam, Karnow spends little time in explaining the merciless collectivization of the society. It is not in Karnow's make-up to be too critical of Ho Chi Minh and his fanatical communists. Karnow's villains are to his right and not to his left. Karnow's claim that North Vietnamese General Giap was as much of a military genius as Napoleon or Lee is laughable. Giap had many millions of Vietnamese men to sacrifice to obtain victory and he was more than willing to send them off to their deaths for the greater glory of the communist future. Lastly, it is plain that Karnow does not see Ho Chi Minh or General Giap or their communist fellow-travelers in blood as the wicked creatures that they were. Karnow is almost gleeful that the communist Vietnamese raised their flag over Saigon in April, 1975 and continue to misrule that wretched nation 28 years later.
Rating:
Summary: Flawed But Fine
Review: Much of Mr. Karnow's work is outstanding. Vietnam's historical development, especially the two century lead up to the present time, is expertly handled. The Johnson Administration's slide into the Vietnam quagmire and its inept responses to policy flaws and South Vietnamese political and military setbacks is documented clearly by the author. Karnow expertly portrays the chaotic South Vietnamese political and military situation and seemed to be well-aquainted with all the major figures in South Vietnam. Karnow explains a South Vietnam where major villages within an hour's drive of Saigon would be VietCong strongpoints, resilient enough to be overrun by American forces only to return to being VietCong villages as soon as the Americans left. Although Karnow does not dictate to his readers, one is left with the idea that the war was unwinnable as the Americans chose to fight it and that the war was utterly foolish. However, here is where one of Karnow's flaws comes to bear. He showers contempt on Johnson Administration figure Walter Rostow's suggestion that the only way to defeat the communists in Vietnam was to invade the North and take Hanoi. Yet, in hindsight, invading the North and occupying Hanoi, the organizational center of the communists, was the only way to defeat the communists. Karnow spends little time explaining American military strategy; what the American soldiers on the ground went through is largely ignored. The South Vietnamese military is belittled by Karnow but why it was often ineffectual is not really explained by Karnow. Karnow's explanation of the rapid collapse of the South Vietnamese army in 1975 is lacking as Karnow tells the reader that the South Vietnamese controlled over 80 % of South Vietnam a year before its ignominious defeat. As 1974 begins, Karnow paints a picture of a confident South Vietnamese army on the march. By Christmas, 1974, the first provincial capital is taken by the communists and the demoralization and collapse of the South Vietnamese is at hand. Why? As for North Vietnam, Karnow spends little time in explaining the merciless collectivization of the society. It is not in Karnow's make-up to be too critical of Ho Chi Minh and his fanatical communists. Karnow's villains are to his right and not to his left. Karnow's claim that North Vietnamese General Giap was as much of a military genius as Napoleon or Lee is laughable. Giap had many millions of Vietnamese men to sacrifice to obtain victory and he was more than willing to send them off to their deaths for the greater glory of the communist future. Lastly, it is plain that Karnow does not see Ho Chi Minh or General Giap or their communist fellow-travelers in blood as the wicked creatures that they were. Karnow is almost gleeful that the communist Vietnamese raised their flag over Saigon in April, 1975 and continue to misrule that wretched nation 28 years later.
Rating:
Summary: A Great Starting Point!
Review: My brother died in Vietnam (1968), I spent two years in Vietnam with USO (1970-72), I've taught a Vietnam War history class at the college level, and I've written about the war. If you know little or nothing about the conflict, this book is a great starting point. Sincerely, Diana J. Dell, author, "A Saigon Party: And Other Vietnam War Short Stories."
Rating:
Summary: AVERAGE OF 5 AND 1 IS 3!!!
Review: Should you buy this book??? It depends what you are looking for...Karnow was in 'Nam as a reporter for 25 years and is probably the most qualified writer alive to write about it. He met with all of the top officials in the south and north Vietnamese Govts and had informants in our own govt to help with details. So if you are looking for a Political history of the war, 'the why we were there and what kept us there' kind of topics, then this is a five star must read. But if you are looking for details on the fighting and on individual battles then look elsewhere because this book has little to none of that. You will find out why and when soldiers were first sent to nam but you will not find out what they did or felt once they were there. Political history = 5 stars
Military history = 1 star
|
