Vietnam: An Epic Tragedy, 1945-1975 (1 Viewer)

The book has received some mixed reviews. One criticism is that he focuses mostly on the fighting. That may work for WWII but Vietnam was a political war. For example, Michael Beschloss in his new book found evidence that Westmoreland planned to bring nuclear weapons into Vietnam. As soon as LBJ found out about this misguided idea, he countermanded it; he had grave concerns as to how the Chinese would react.

Some of Hastings’ later books haven’t been that good. His book on spying was criticized by the experts and his book on WWI was a slog
 
Hastings is going to be at the US War College in Carlisle, PA on Oct. 17 if anyone in the area is interested in hearing him discuss his new book. He will also be signing copies. The War College also posts the event on YouTube within a view days.


https://ahec.armywarcollege.edu/events.cfm
 
BHogan said:
Thanks for sharing. Seems like it was an interesting talk.

Brendan
Click to expand...

I have only started reading the book but wasn't overly impressed by his presentation. Maybe it's not fair to expect a great deal of specificity in a one hour presentation, but he made a lot of generalized statements like the war couldn't be won via the use of the military alone. But my recollection is that a lot of wars, like WWII, were won via military power. It wasn't necessary for the US to understand German culture to defeat the Nazis. It's unclear why the overwhelming application of force against the Vietnamese proved so lacking in results under his theory. He seemed to dismiss the notion that political constraints placed on the military was a significant factor. But the war in Vietnam was conducted with all manner of constraints. You can't defeat an enemy if you allow them to pick the time and place most advantageous to fight and then run back across a national boundary. It seems to me that not allowing a ground invasion of N. Vietnam was the fatal flaw. There was effectively no way to win that kind of defensive war on the ground. We wouldn't have defeated the Germans if we had refused to invade Germany but only fought them when they ventured out beyond their national boundaries when they felt it most advantageous to fight. Absent a willingness to take the ground war to N. Vietnam, no military solution could be forced on them. So long as they maintained the will power to hold out, the war would continue endlessly under those circumstances. And the Communists knew time was on their side.
 
I’ve read a few more reviews and they seem positive so I may have to backtrack on what I previously said. One reviewer went so far as to say that it stands with Halberstam’s Best and the Brightest and Logevall’s Embers Of War, which is high praise indeed.
 
Combat said:
I have only started reading the book but wasn't overly impressed by his presentation. Maybe it's not fair to expect a great deal of specificity in a one hour presentation, but he made a lot of generalized statements like the war couldn't be won via the use of the military alone. But my recollection is that a lot of wars, like WWII, were won via military power. It wasn't necessary for the US to understand German culture to defeat the Nazis. It's unclear why the overwhelming application of force against the Vietnamese proved so lacking in results under his theory. He seemed to dismiss the notion that political constraints placed on the military was a significant factor. But the war in Vietnam was conducted with all manner of constraints. You can't defeat an enemy if you allow them to pick the time and place most advantageous to fight and then run back across a national boundary. It seems to me that not allowing a ground invasion of N. Vietnam was the fatal flaw. There was effectively no way to win that kind of defensive war on the ground. We wouldn't have defeated the Germans if we had refused to invade Germany but only fought them when they ventured out beyond their national boundaries when they felt it most advantageous to fight. Absent a willingness to take the ground war to N. Vietnam, no military solution could be forced on them. So long as they maintained the will power to hold out, the war would continue endlessly under those circumstances. And the Communists knew time was on their side.
Click to expand...

I go back to this being a political war. In WWII, the non Axis powers were agreed on defeating the Axis and their people were behind the war because basic freedoms were the issue. In Vietnam, this was lacking as the American public was not united although the Vietnam had strong support in the early stages. However, LBJ was constantly worried about how Russia and China would react if the US launched an unlimited war. Moreover, this was a war of independence, a struggle that Vietnam had fought for centuries against the Chinese and the French. Ideas are hard to fight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top