Vietnam: A History by Stanley Karnow Summary and Reviews
|
List Price: Our Price: $11.90 You Save: $10.10 (46%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $1.86 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of Vietnam: A History
Book Review: Hysterical bombast masquerading as history
Summary: 1 Stars
I've read everything on about the Vietnam War I could get my hands for the last 20 years and this shrill book stands out as the worst. I sorely regret having spent money on it. If you seek understanding of the conflict check out Sheehan's Bright Shining Lie instead.Book Review: IN THE TIME OF THE VIETNAMESE NATIONAL LIBERATION STRUGGLE
Summary: 4 Stars
As the current Bush Administration-directed quagmire continues in Iraq it is rather timely to look at a previous bout of American imperialist madness in Vietnam if only in order to demonstrate the similar mindsets, then and now, of the American political establishment and their hangers-on. This book, unintentionally I am sure, is a prima facie argument, against those who see Iraq (or saw Vietnam) as merely an erroneous policy of the American government that can be `fixed' by a change to a more rational imperialist policy guided by a different elite. Undeniably there are many differences between the current war and the struggle in Vietnam. Not the least of which is that in Vietnam there was a Communist-led insurgency that leftists throughout the world could identify with and were duty-bound to support. No such situation existsin Iraq today. Seemingly, from the little we know about the murky politics of the parties, leftists can support individual anti-imperialist actions as they occur but stand away, way away, from the religious sectarian struggle for different versions of a fundamentalist Islamic state that the various parties are apparently fighting for.
Stanley Karnow's well-informed study of the long history of struggle in Vietnam against outsiders, near and far, is a more than adequate primer about the history and the political issues, from the American side at least, as they came to a head in Vietnam in the early 1960's. This work was produced in conjunction with a Public Broadcasting System documentary in 1983 so that if one wants to take the time to get a better grasp of the situation as it unfolded the combination of the literary and visual presentations will make one an `armchair expert' on the subject. A glossary of, by now, unfamiliar names of secondary players and chronology of events is helpful as are some very good photographs that lead into each chapter.
This book is the work of a long time journalist who covered Southeast Asia from the 1950's until at least the early 1980's when he went back after the war was over and interviewed various survivors from both sides as well as key political players. Although over twenty years has passed since the book's publication it appears to me that he has covered all the essential elements of the dispute as well as the wrangling, again mainly on the American side , of policy makers big and small. While everyone should look at more recent material that material appears to me to be essentially more specialized analysis of the general themes presented in Karnow's book. Or are the inevitably self-serving memoirs by those, like former Secretary of War Robert McNamara, looking to refurbish they images for the historical record. Karnow's book has the added virtue of having been written just long enough after the end of the war that memories, faulty as they are in any case, were still fresh but with enough time in between for some introspection.
The first part of Karnow's book deals with the long history of the Vietnamese struggle as a people, either in their various provincial enclaves or as a national entity, to be independent of the many other powers in the region, particularly China, who wanted to subjugate them. The book also pays detailed attention to the fight among the European colonial powers for dominance in the region culminating in the decisive victory for control by France in the 1800's. That domination by a Western imperialist power, ultimately defeated by the same Communist and nationalist forces that were to defeat the Americans and their South Vietnamese allies, sets the stage for the huge role that the United States would come to play from the French defeat in 1954 until their own defeat a couple of decades later. This section is important to read because the premises of the French about their adversary became, in almost cookie-cutter fashion, the same premises that drove American policy. And to similar ends.
The bulk of the book and the central story line, however, is a study of the hubris of American imperialist policy-makers in attempting to define their powers, prerogatives and interests in the post-World War II period. The sub-title of the book, which the current inhabitants of the Bush Administration obviously have not read and in any case would willfully misunderstand, is how not to subordinate primary interests to momentary secondary interests in the scramble to preserve the Empire. Apparently, commonsense and simple rationality are in short supply when one goes inside the Washington Beltway. Taking into account the differences in personality among the three main villains of the piece- Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon- the similarities of response and need to defend some sense of honor, American honor, are amazingly similar, individual rhetoric aside. There thus can be little wonder the North Vietnamese went about their business of revolution and independence pretty much according to their plans and with little regard to `subtleties' in American diplomacy. But, read the book and judge for yourselves. Do not be surprised if something feels awfully, awfully familiar.
Book Review: Karnow almost gets it right
Summary: 3 Stars
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?
Book Review: Lying Outright, and Lying Through Omission !
Summary: 1 Stars
There is great deal critical to the full story this author leaves out, because it does not fit his pro-Communist bent.
This "author" lies outright when he says ARVN would not fight, because HIS heart and mind is on the side of the wonderful Communists.
ARVN shouldered most of the fighting burden for most of the war.
For example..."A RECORD OF SHEER ENDURANCE" is how Time Magazine headlined and characterized ARVN's triumph at An Loc, on page 25 of their June 26, 1972 issue; for those of you who don't recall and would like to look it up for themselves.
They held out longer than the elite French Foreign Legion (composed mostly of very tough battle hardened German World War Two veterans ) held out at Dien Bien Phu !
What a JERK this guy is to besmirch ARVN's fighting record!
It is like pointing to the American debacle at Kasserine pass or Task Force Smith in Korea and then pronouncing "Americans can't fight"!
Who does he think took on the great NVA offensive of 1972...and defeated it!
Who does he think fought on for several years after the American pull-out , even as they saw their ability to wage that fight steadily erroded by their erstwhile American "Allies" ?
The fact of the matter is that ARVN had defeated the best the NVA could throw at them by the time of our pull-out, and continued to do so through 1973 and 1974 all by themselves !
We were suposed to keep them supplied with the means to continue to do the job.
We, the U.S. let them down.
When the U.S. was fighting that war, it out-spent the Soviets by a 4 to 1 margin.
Then came Watergate and a weak Presidency.
Instead of the $1.6 billion RVN needed, at a time the Soviets were spending $1.2 billion on the NVA, Saigon got $700 million from the U.S. vindictive congress.
The Soviets outspent the wealthiest nation in the world in a war where our credability was at stake.
Iraqis and Afgans take note of whome you are making friends with.
By early 1975, ARVN Infantrymen were down to 85 M-16 rounds per man per month, one hand grenade per man per month, 4 rounds of 105-mm artilery ammunition per howitzer per day and 2 rounds for 155s.
Fuel was in equally short supply.
One of the largest Air Forces of the world could not conduct combat missions anywhere near it's potential because of little fuel, few bombs to drop, and virtually no spare parts for even general maintenance.
None of these details are in this liars book.
They are in a report by the RAND Corporation.
At a time when everyone in the mainstream controlled media is extolling the virtues of "deepthroat" in the Watergate scandal that severely weakened the Presidency at a critical juncture, perhaps it is time for pause and real reflection.
"Deepthroat" was the linchpin that lost the Vietnam War.
Now that he is known, perhaps the current Communist "peoples democratc republic", or whatever they call themselves these days, will fork over the appropriate award for all he did for them.
He erned it.
Don't waist your valuable reading time with this apologist for Communist aggression.
Much better, read A SOLDIER REPORTS by William Wesmorland, or one of the books by Nguyen Cao Ky for the real reasons things went wrong.
I blame "deepthroat".
Book Review: One Sided Book about a Complex Subject
Summary: 2 Stars
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.