Scan barcode
jimbowen0306's review against another edition
4.0
Thorough, but... has a point of view.
At the title might suggest, this book explains the history of Vietnam from 1945, when France tried to reclaim control after WWII, and 1975, 2 years after the Americans beat a retreat, with their tail between their legs. Prior to this, there's a breezy run through of the history of Vietnam, to set the scene.
The book is thorough, and talks you through the history of Vietnam in the 1940s to 1970s in some detail. If you wanted a one book chronology of what happened there, this would be it. Hastings suggests this isn't your typical history book (it's more... journalistic), but it is a complete read on the issue.
The first of two grumbles would be that Hastings has an opinion, and isn't scared to state it. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it did make me wonder if Hastings was wrong on certain things. As an example, Ho Chi Minh famously called the American government "stupid" for assassinating Diem (the South Vietnamese President). This isn't mentioned, or addressed, in the book (because Hastings was... less than convinced by Diem himself), and made me wonder what else was left out, because it didn't fit his narrative.
The other thing is that Hastings doesn't go into as much detail about why the Americans didn't invade North Vietnam, as I would have liked. He's clear it wouldn't have worked, but doesn't state why, as clearly as I would have liked.
At the title might suggest, this book explains the history of Vietnam from 1945, when France tried to reclaim control after WWII, and 1975, 2 years after the Americans beat a retreat, with their tail between their legs. Prior to this, there's a breezy run through of the history of Vietnam, to set the scene.
The book is thorough, and talks you through the history of Vietnam in the 1940s to 1970s in some detail. If you wanted a one book chronology of what happened there, this would be it. Hastings suggests this isn't your typical history book (it's more... journalistic), but it is a complete read on the issue.
The first of two grumbles would be that Hastings has an opinion, and isn't scared to state it. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it did make me wonder if Hastings was wrong on certain things. As an example, Ho Chi Minh famously called the American government "stupid" for assassinating Diem (the South Vietnamese President). This isn't mentioned, or addressed, in the book (because Hastings was... less than convinced by Diem himself), and made me wonder what else was left out, because it didn't fit his narrative.
The other thing is that Hastings doesn't go into as much detail about why the Americans didn't invade North Vietnam, as I would have liked. He's clear it wouldn't have worked, but doesn't state why, as clearly as I would have liked.
greybeard49's review against another edition
4.0
A long long book but surprisingly gripping. Max Hastings is an excellent writer and I have read him several times before. This ranks with his very best. He pulls you into the situation gradually via the 'French Experience' and then develops things until the cavalry arrive in the form of the US States Of America.
He pulls off something that is difficult to do well - he personalises the history skilfully. Individuals appear in the progressive rollout in a seamless and gripping way - and they come from all sides and factions. He pulls no punches in his analysis of the conflict. This is no 'Plucky David and Nasty Goliath' story as often portrayed in books written on the subject. He hammers both sides relentlessly and deservedly for the horrendous excesses carried out. Politicians do not come out well on either side. The analysis behind their reasoning and decisions amazes you - the degree of brutality and disregard for human life is horrendous.
It held me to the end. It was an excellent book which, unfortunately, highlighted the darkest side of the human condition.
He pulls off something that is difficult to do well - he personalises the history skilfully. Individuals appear in the progressive rollout in a seamless and gripping way - and they come from all sides and factions. He pulls no punches in his analysis of the conflict. This is no 'Plucky David and Nasty Goliath' story as often portrayed in books written on the subject. He hammers both sides relentlessly and deservedly for the horrendous excesses carried out. Politicians do not come out well on either side. The analysis behind their reasoning and decisions amazes you - the degree of brutality and disregard for human life is horrendous.
It held me to the end. It was an excellent book which, unfortunately, highlighted the darkest side of the human condition.
paulmcinnis's review against another edition
4.0
Excellent read, it is a stark reminder of how the pursuit of political power can cost us all so much.
gimpyknee's review against another edition
4.0
While certainly an epic undertaking to cover thirty years of fighting in Vietnam in a single volume I believe there is an overall anti-US sentiment throughout Hastings work. The Battle of Ia Drang (November 14-18, 1965) is mentioned in five brief paragraphs. Col. Hal Moore, commander of 1/7th Calvary, is not referenced in the book's index. The "Hill Fights" that took place near the combat base Khe Sanh ( 24 April - 11 May 1967) are covered in a few brief sentences, the actual Tet Offensive assault on Khe Sanh is covered in three and one-half pages. In comparison, the lesser known Battle of Daido, accurately described as an "act of sustained folly", garners its own subchapter heading "Dying" and 21 pages while an account of a successful sapper attack on Fire Base Mary Ann earns a subchapter heading under "Collateral Damage" and nine pages of text. There are other numerous instances of accounts that support my belief that Hastings overall coverage of the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War is somewhat skewed and unbalanced. Having said all this, what do I know? I just read a review of this book by Jonathan Steele in The Guardian who claims the thread that runs through this book "is Hasting's effort to exonerate the US military, arguing that they had a better war than most other authors admit." Go figure. All-in-all I still rate this book highly and can only suggest you read it and form your own opinion.