Rating: 
Summary: How colonialism radicalized Vietnam
Review: This is history at its best. Especially interesting to me is how colonialism and its supporters radicalized the Vietnamese leadership into seeking Communist help to throw off the French yoke. After WWI the US had a chance to help Vietnam recover from the Japanese occupation and begin a road to unity. Instead we aided and abbeted the French in their futile attempt to recover their colony. After the defeat of the French we began a long and heartbreaking journey into guerilla warfare to stop the "fall of the dominos" to Communism.
Rating: 
Summary: THE definitive history of both Vietnam and the war itself.
Review: This massive work manages to convey both the broader sense of history that many other books lack and an excellent history of the war itself.UNderstanding the country's history is crucial to understanding the folly of our involvement there and the author carefully portrays both the roots of the country's nationalism and its long history of tragedy and conflict.Karnow also goes to great pains to remain objective about the war and for this reason this is the best factual account of the war itself. He does not have an axe to grind as do many of the book's successors. All other books must compare themselves to this one, and all historians of the war must read Karnow's book. However, Karnow's objectivity makes this book read like a textbook, it is difficult to plow through at times, though the work is well worth it. For pure histroy, read it, but if you are also interested in a more passionate account of the war, read A Bright Shining Lie or The Best and the Brightest. Those books will have you in tears by the end, this book will merely increase your knowledge of this seminal event.
Rating:
Summary: The Bad War
Review: This noted book on Vietnam foregoes detailed accounts of battle and instead provides an often compelling and complete account of the political forces that led to America's tragic commitment to a brutal, futile war. Pages 55-200 drag a bit with detailed, textbookish information about Vietnam's past monarchs and years under French colonial rule. There's an endless barrage of short Asian and long French names to get through and forget. While historical perspective is needed, this section should have been structured in a better narrative, and condensed. From the Kennedy years on, however, the book is a page turner, a fascinating account of how America's so-called "best and brightest" government officials and awesome military power were no match for an enemy whose persistence, patience and capacity for suffering knew no bounds. It wasn't that America wasn't warned. In the 1940s, Ho Chi Minh, the revered communist leader and nationalist, told the French: "You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours, but even at those odds, you will lose and I will win." How right he was in regard to America's involvement later: 60,000 American dead - 600,000 Vietnamese dead - victory for the communists. The scar of Vietnam seems to be branded on the American conscience. At least relatively objective accounts (and Vietnam/A History thus qualifies) of the web we wove and suffocated in will, perhaps, offer a lesson for future generations. Perhaps.
Rating:
Summary: vietnam a history
Review: to have been in vietnam from may68 -may 69 was for me a wide eye opener. this book by stanley karnow is clear and to the point. over and over in the 600+ pages many of my own thoughts seemed to come of the pages. 1 we had no plan. 2 the us was involved in a coup of diem after working with him for 8 year. 3 the south vietnamese never wanted to fight. 4 corruption was everywhere. as the us leaders stumbled along and as bad as it was,the worst was the potential of a nuclear bomb. i thought to myself what is a tatical nuclear bomb?. stanley karnow also brought out how our own officials went at each other state dept, cia, joint chiefs, defense dept,and kissinger seemed to want to be a department unto himself when i finished the book my primary thought was,what were we doing for all those years. how sad so many died. we should have listened to ho chi minh after ww2.
Rating:
Summary: Compelling
Review: Very scholarly history of the Indo Chinese war. In my opinion, ranks above, "Vietnam The 10,000 Day War," and Shehan's "A Bright Shining Lie." A must read for any serious student of the conflict in Vietnam.
Rating: 
Summary: vietnam:a history
Review: When I first published my history of the Vietnam war in 1983, I thought that it might be modestly successful. I was wrong. It has since sold about 1.5 million copies, and I continue to revise it. This demonstrates, I think, the extent to which the Vietnam experience remains in our minds as one of the most dramatic - and tragic - episodes in American history.
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointing as history, really just reporter's notes
Review: While looking for a good survey of the war, this book only covered particular political events. In defense of the author, he makes it clear early on that his view is the "Vietnam War" was a political struggle, not a war.
So, it is hardly surprising that the only military events he provides any detail on are the Tet Offensive and the retaking of Hue. Even then, he only provides isolated details, not a complete picture.
Karnow is a reporter, not a historian, and the book is written that way. Only the first few chapters covering pre-20th Century Vietnam read like a historical account, but even then the author jumps around in time, forward and backward, in a disjointed fashion.
Once he reaches the 20th Century, the writing style devolves into first person reporter's notes. What is most distracting is the arrogance and self-promotion he buries in the text.
Instead of quotes from primary sources (there are some), the reader is given passages about the author's interview, "When I interviewed..." or "In my interview with..." followed by his interpretation. The author makes direct judgments on the subjects, their truthfulness, their wisdom, and their mistakes with no substantiated basis for them.
With all the subtlety of a B-52, the author declares how he knew exactly what the challenge and solution to Vietnam was as far back as 1958. Each interview reference is followed by commentary on how the subject "...never understood..." Vietnam, the struggle, or what to do. The author alone knew the answers.
Unfortunately, for all his wisdom and insight, the author repeats many myths about the war. Ignoring recent serious academic research, he continues to paint the war as fought primarily by undisciplined, doped up, drafted minorities.
Even given his own position that Vietnam was a political struggle, there are huge gaps in the history. Many of the political events in South Vietnam, like the election in 1967 for example, are barely mentioned.
So, the reader is left with set of political events, almost anecdotal, where the author had some first hand insight or access to primary sources. Everything else is treated as if it never happened.
There are two other aspects of the book that I found disappointing, the apologetic treatment of the North Vietnamese and the weak defense of the media.
Whereas atrocities committed by South Vietnamese are covered in every gruesome detail, atrocities by the North Vietnamese are discounted and partially justified. When the North Vietnamese killed thousands for land reform after defeating the French, the author gives Ho Chi Minh a pass (paraphrase), "...but Ho later recognized this was a mistake and expressed regret." Regret?!?! All you have to do is express regret and then the wholesale premeditated murder of thousands of peasants can be forgiven?
In another passage, he describes how some VietCong stop a bus, take off two unarmed low-level officials, and then kill them. The author finds a silver lining to their action (paraphrase) "...while brutal, they did only target the two who had worked for the local government." So, it is OK to kill unarmed men, as long as their job is working for your enemy.
Finally, there is the defense of his profession. First he tries to debunk the `myth' the media turned the public against the war by chastising them for not having opposed the war earlier. Then he argues the media really only followed public opinion. The evidence he cites undermines his argument though - Americans wanted to `win OR get out' not just `get out' based on the opinion polls he cited. At that time, the media had simply adopted `get out now' as their slogan. He talks about how the pictures from Tet, dead VietCong `inside' the US Embassy and Col. Loan summarily executing a VietCong really had a much more profound impact. Yet, he forgets to tell us that the media mis-characterized both images.
The US Embassy was never breached and the Ambassador never in immediate harm, the VC were killed in the courtyard in front. The image of Col. Loan lacks context. What nobody was ever told was that particular VC had earlier killed the entire family of Loan's best friend, slitting the throat of Loan's 6 young god-children. Most American's I know would have gladly executed the murderer of their best friend, wife, and 6 young children. To Karnow's credit, he does mention it, but in such a way to minimize what happened...and once again, he leaves out the gruesome details that truly justify Loan's actions.
While the cover claims the book is one of the most thorough and even-ended accounts, I have to wonder if the critics even read it before their comments were solicited. This book is a very poor substitute for a history of the Vietnam War or Struggle, whichever you prefer.
Rating:
Summary: Why not tell about the communists?
Review: Why we not hear story of the Communists atrocities as much?
Why we not care about 3000 killings of innocent peoples by NVA with VC help at Hue?
Why speak more on communist killings in Laotian highlands.
Pol Pot in Cambodia?
God bless America for what try to do in Vietnam.
|
