Vietnam: A History by Stanley Karnow Summary and Reviews
|
List Price: Our Price: $11.84 You Save: $10.16 (46%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.75 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of Vietnam: A History
Book Review: Comprehensive overview
Summary: 5 Stars
I was just a little boy during the Vietnam War, so this book has served as an excellent overview of the politics and sociology that made the Vietnam war what it was. This is not a military strategy group, and it is basically what I'd call a view from 10,000 feet. Reading about the inept, and uncaring Johnson administration was very disturbing. To read about Johnson's band of white collar warriors continually receiving recommendations to exit the war from advisors in Vietnam, and the continual sweeping under the table of bad news, all in service of Johnson's political aspirations, made me sick. And frightened if that kind of political hubris is taking place in George W. Bush's administration as the USA embarks on a war with Iraq. There are a number of similarities...old white men who want to play soldier, invasion of a country that the USA does not understand, and whose people really don't want the USA there, and a blind belief that all people of the world seek a USA style political and economic system.Book Review: Comprehensive perspective
Summary: 4 Stars
I do appreciate how this novel helps me understand pre, intra, and post Vietnam War. My only concern is that Karnow's historical interpretation may not be fully accurate due to his communist sentiments. However, it would be difficult to be 100% accurate for something as foreign and complex as Vietnam's politics.Book Review: Disappointing as history, really just reporter's notes
Summary: 2 Stars
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.
Book Review: Essential Reading for Understanding of the Vietnam War
Summary: 4 Stars
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.
Book Review: Excellent account of Vietnam
Summary: 5 Stars
Stanley Karnow is an excellent author who reports the history of Vietnam through multiple perspectives. If you ever had a question about Vietnam, READ THIS BOOK!