Scan barcode
fourtriplezed's review against another edition
2.0
Not my style of history. I would have preferred this to be a touch more academic than the Popular/Populist delivery that this book is. Author Paul Ham has let his disgust and anger at just about everybody involved, other than the Australian soldiers, get in the way of the narrative to the point that it made the book far too long.
An example of this was the ridiculous populist overkill such as the first two pages of Chapter 34 “Australian Viet Cong” when he listed a plethora of persons and cultural events over 2 very long pages and then wrote that this was a “Tumble of people, pop and paraphernalia providing the stuffing of the social revolution in Australia in the 1960’s; these were some of the voices, sounds and influences that heralded the over throw of the established order”. He then writes “In retrospect, the decade seems rather to have left a faint indent on time’s shifting sands, blown on the wind like other youthful fads and ideals, the pale faced prelude to a long, adult hangover of dazed disillusionment.”
The actual narrative of events was constantly scattered with strange thought bubbles such as the above, use of slang and vernacular, historical inaccuracies, and intermittent use of endnotes. One thought bubble that caught my attention was that the author was not keen on elections being held after the French left and glad that they were not as the wrong side might have won. The occasional use of slang such as “daft” “Sheila” “yanks” to name a few. The constant analogies and vernacular used in the body of the narrative seemed out of place for me for what was a serious subject. A couple of noteworthy mistakes also come to mind. Gough Whitlam is quoted a few times and endnoted in Hansard but one controversial comment Ham has cited has no date against the Hansard extract. All other Hansard extracts do. Black American soldiers refused entry to Australia during World War II due to the White Australia Policy he states at one point. I can find no reference to the truth of this anywhere. The author writes that Nixon was impeached. Was he? I thought he resigned before impeachment could occur.
As usual there is a lot to learn from books such as this so I do recommend it to anyone that has an interest in the subject. I am just not keen on populist history.
An example of this was the ridiculous populist overkill such as the first two pages of Chapter 34 “Australian Viet Cong” when he listed a plethora of persons and cultural events over 2 very long pages and then wrote that this was a “Tumble of people, pop and paraphernalia providing the stuffing of the social revolution in Australia in the 1960’s; these were some of the voices, sounds and influences that heralded the over throw of the established order”. He then writes “In retrospect, the decade seems rather to have left a faint indent on time’s shifting sands, blown on the wind like other youthful fads and ideals, the pale faced prelude to a long, adult hangover of dazed disillusionment.”
The actual narrative of events was constantly scattered with strange thought bubbles such as the above, use of slang and vernacular, historical inaccuracies, and intermittent use of endnotes. One thought bubble that caught my attention was that the author was not keen on elections being held after the French left and glad that they were not as the wrong side might have won. The occasional use of slang such as “daft” “Sheila” “yanks” to name a few. The constant analogies and vernacular used in the body of the narrative seemed out of place for me for what was a serious subject. A couple of noteworthy mistakes also come to mind. Gough Whitlam is quoted a few times and endnoted in Hansard but one controversial comment Ham has cited has no date against the Hansard extract. All other Hansard extracts do. Black American soldiers refused entry to Australia during World War II due to the White Australia Policy he states at one point. I can find no reference to the truth of this anywhere. The author writes that Nixon was impeached. Was he? I thought he resigned before impeachment could occur.
As usual there is a lot to learn from books such as this so I do recommend it to anyone that has an interest in the subject. I am just not keen on populist history.
books17's review against another edition
5.0
As someone who knows almost nothing about the Vietnam War other than popular media's portrayals of it, and absolutely nothing about Australia's involvement, I loved this book. It provides an excellent overview of the war, but contained to the Australian commitment – so whilst you get the broad strokes, you avoid the minutiae of every single skirmish, which can often be overwhelming when reading about a conflict or war for the first time.
As an Australian, I've grown up hearing about Long Tan and Coral/Balmoral, often as the lesser brother of Lone Pine and the Nek, but never really understanding their significance - Australia's Vietnam War was vastly different to the United States experience. Stealth, diplomacy and civilian assistance ruled, and the single province assigned to Australian forces was one of the most stable and secure throughout the war – but when forced into a pitched battle, Australian and New Zealand soldiers showed the same courage and selfless dedication to their comrades that they are rightfully renowned for – so while 18 ANZACs perished at Long Tan, compared to the over two thousand casualties at Lone Pine, it is not made a lesser event as a result.
Possibly the most interesting part of the book for me was the last third dedicated to the treatment of our veterans when they came back home – I was aware that the US veterans were treated with contempt and disgust, but for some reason I believed that Australian people would be above that. Not so unfortunately, and returning Anzacs were as despised and mistreated as any others – great steps have been made since to right this injustice, but it is something that, as an Australian, I'm ashamed to learn about. If I'm honest, I got a bit teary during some of this stuff.
So, onto other things - I've got a lot more to learn about the war from an American perspective, so I'm interested to see how that goes. But I'd highly recommend Vietnam: The Australian War to any fellow Aussies who know as little as me about the seven years and tens of thousands of men that the Australian people and government committed, and then rejected as cowards and monsters when they came home.
As an Australian, I've grown up hearing about Long Tan and Coral/Balmoral, often as the lesser brother of Lone Pine and the Nek, but never really understanding their significance - Australia's Vietnam War was vastly different to the United States experience. Stealth, diplomacy and civilian assistance ruled, and the single province assigned to Australian forces was one of the most stable and secure throughout the war – but when forced into a pitched battle, Australian and New Zealand soldiers showed the same courage and selfless dedication to their comrades that they are rightfully renowned for – so while 18 ANZACs perished at Long Tan, compared to the over two thousand casualties at Lone Pine, it is not made a lesser event as a result.
Possibly the most interesting part of the book for me was the last third dedicated to the treatment of our veterans when they came back home – I was aware that the US veterans were treated with contempt and disgust, but for some reason I believed that Australian people would be above that. Not so unfortunately, and returning Anzacs were as despised and mistreated as any others – great steps have been made since to right this injustice, but it is something that, as an Australian, I'm ashamed to learn about. If I'm honest, I got a bit teary during some of this stuff.
So, onto other things - I've got a lot more to learn about the war from an American perspective, so I'm interested to see how that goes. But I'd highly recommend Vietnam: The Australian War to any fellow Aussies who know as little as me about the seven years and tens of thousands of men that the Australian people and government committed, and then rejected as cowards and monsters when they came home.
hugh's review
Interesting, and I learned a lot about the conflict. His approach is very much to focus on individual acts of bravery, so there's a huge amount of reports of specific combat actions rather than the bigger picture.
It also contains the quite spectacular argument that it's actually racist to criticise western atrocities, and anyway why does no-one talk about all the Australian soldiers who *didn't* commit war crimes? Honestly, he says that quite explicitly.
Also - I had the audiobook version of this, and I understand voice acting is part of being a good narrator and he knows the region well, but the way he voices Vietnamese characters gets really uncomfortable.
It also contains the quite spectacular argument that it's actually racist to criticise western atrocities, and anyway why does no-one talk about all the Australian soldiers who *didn't* commit war crimes? Honestly, he says that quite explicitly.
Also - I had the audiobook version of this, and I understand voice acting is part of being a good narrator and he knows the region well, but the way he voices Vietnamese characters gets really uncomfortable.
More...