Vietnam at War: The History, 1946-1975

Rating:
Summary: Davidson makes a lousy historian
Review: I am truly hating this book. I am still slogging through it as I have a genuine desire to understand the Vietnam conflict in detail. When I see coverage of the vietnam war in the media - be it films, or documentaries, I want to know how they relate to the big picture and understand both sides of the struggle. However, this book is so painful I really dont know if I will make it to the end.

The main problem is that Davidson has some major faults as a historian. First, as a previous reviewer mentioned, he definitely glosses over a lot. This is obvious to anyone reading the book who will immediately notice how vacous some descriptions are. Some of the accounts just dont feel full fleshed enough and it is from such a high level you are not drawn into the description.

Next, I was incredibly annoyed by his style. He seems to make some base assumptions about the readers knowledge of the war, and as such he makes comentary about decisions which recks any anticipation. For example, in a truly gripping historical account which makes the reader interested in the topic and rams facts into your head, you detail a political decision. You then show the reader how this grows into a real world action or series of actions. Then you critique the decision as an interesting summarization point of view. This book however, is plagued with examples of jumping the gun, where Davidson will detail some decision or political action, put in some personal critique explaining why this will be a terrible decision, then documents in dry detail (and sometimes not even too much detail) what happened. Of course you know what is going to happen already as he has thrashed it out in agonizing detail from a political / intelligence officer viewpoint already.

The end effect of all this is that the book is hopelessly and awfully boring. My personal view is that historical accounts have a duty to educate the reader by being interesting enough that the facts stick. This is fluffy enough that it couldn't be used as a referrence book, and terrible enough that I beg everyone out there to stick well clear of it.

Rating:
Summary: Davidson makes a lousy historian
Review: I am truly hating this book. I am still slogging through it as I have a genuine desire to understand the Vietnam conflict in detail. When I see coverage of the vietnam war in the media - be it films, or documentaries, I want to know how they relate to the big picture and understand both sides of the struggle. However, this book is so painful I really dont know if I will make it to the end.

The main problem is that Davidson has some major faults as a historian. First, as a previous reviewer mentioned, he definitely glosses over a lot. This is obvious to anyone reading the book who will immediately notice how vacous some descriptions are. Some of the accounts just dont feel full fleshed enough and it is from such a high level you are not drawn into the description.

Next, I was incredibly annoyed by his style. He seems to make some base assumptions about the readers knowledge of the war, and as such he makes comentary about decisions which recks any anticipation. For example, in a truly gripping historical account which makes the reader interested in the topic and rams facts into your head, you detail a political decision. You then show the reader how this grows into a real world action or series of actions. Then you critique the decision as an interesting summarization point of view. This book however, is plagued with examples of jumping the gun, where Davidson will detail some decision or political action, put in some personal critique explaining why this will be a terrible decision, then documents in dry detail (and sometimes not even too much detail) what happened. Of course you know what is going to happen already as he has thrashed it out in agonizing detail from a political / intelligence officer viewpoint already.

The end effect of all this is that the book is hopelessly and awfully boring. My personal view is that historical accounts have a duty to educate the reader by being interesting enough that the facts stick. This is fluffy enough that it couldn't be used as a referrence book, and terrible enough that I beg everyone out there to stick well clear of it.

Rating:
Summary: A Whitewashed General History of the Vietnam War
Review: Lieutenant General Davidson (ret.) does a great job summarizing and analyzing the French war in IndoChina from 1946-1954, but fails miserably with the US campaign of 1965-1967 of which he was a part (as USMACV J-2, senior US intelligence officer in Vietnam). The author is a major apologist for General Westmoreland. Also, too much of the book centers on Washington politics rather than operational matters (which is a shame, he could have shed much light on the intelligence picture in the crucial 1967-8 campaigns). Davidson ignores the crucial Battle of Ap Bac in 1963, the Son Tay Raid, My Lai massacre and the participation of allies (ROK, Australia). The Crucial Tet campaign is glossed over - he never mentions the bloody Battle for Hue. The author is far too political and seems intent to present a white-washed "history". Maps are somewhat crude but plentiful and accurate.

Rating:
Summary: A detailed analysis of the war(s) in Vietnam
Review: The book opens with an in-depth description of the little known historical figure who directed the Vietnam wars for 30 years--North Vietnamese Senior General Vo Nguyen Giap. In Giap's background and personality we first see the seeds of determination that led ultimately to the defeat of three major armies: the French, the Americans, and the Army of South Vietnam.

The wars are presented from a factual, and thoroughly researched, perspective. Davidson analyses both sides of each major strategy, and each key battle. A reader wanting to know what really took place in the Vietnam wars (ours and theirs), from a military perspective, will find the answers here. And the answers are sometimes surprising when compared to the newspaper and televison accounts which were published at that time.

Rating:
Summary: A detailed analysis of the war(s) in Vietnam
Review: The book opens with an in-depth description of the little known historical figure who directed the Vietnam wars for 30 years--North Vietnamese Senior General Vo Nguyen Giap. In Giap's background and personality we first see the seeds of determination that led ultimately to the defeat of three major armies: the French, the Americans, and the Army of South Vietnam.

The wars are presented from a factual, and thoroughly researched, perspective. Davidson analyses both sides of each major strategy, and each key battle. A reader wanting to know what really took place in the Vietnam wars (ours and theirs), from a military perspective, will find the answers here. And the answers are sometimes surprising when compared to the newspaper and televison accounts which were published at that time.