Product Description

The first book to give equal weight to the Vietnamese and American sides of the Vietnam war.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #140298 in Books
• Published on: 1991-09-25
• Released on: 1991-09-25
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 448 pages

From Publishers Weekly
In this dark account of the political and diplomatic sides of the Vietnam wars and the psychic aftermath, the author contends that the Indochina experience refuted (temporarily) the simplistic assumptions that in foreign policy America always "meant well" and that communism was always "bad." The epithets popularly employed to characterize the enemy in Vietnam--"indifferent to human life," "dishonest," "ruthless"--came to characterize our own actions as well. From counterinsurgency expert Edward Lansdale's "cheerful brutalization of democratic values" to President Nixon's attempt to "make war look like peace," the moral breakdown is assessed here in disturbing detail. Young goes on to argue that more recent U.S. intervention in Lebanon, Libya, Grenada and Panama suggests that few lessons were learned in Vietnam--indeed, that the past decade has seen a dangerous resurgence of native faith in the benevolence of American foreign meddling. This, she maintains, goes hand in hand with a renewed commitment to use force in a global crusade against Third World revolutions and governments. Young, a history professor at New York University, paints a grim picture of our part in the Indochina war and its excoriating effects on the nation. Photos.
Copyright 1990 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal
Two new books join the many which try to summarize and analyze the Vietnam War, its precedents, and its epilog, with differing approaches and results. Young (history, NYU) coauthored, along with William G. Rosenberg, Transforming Russia & China ( LJ 1/1/82). Her current study focuses on the American experience, while touching on the periods before and after direct American involvement. She provides some useful insights, and details debates among American leaders, but she draws predominantly on published sources and offers little new information. More significantly, her arguments are heavily biased (she seems to think that only the American and South Vietnamese military and governments demonstrated cruelty, corruption, deception, and destruction), leading to some troubling conclusions (e.g., that U.S. bombing of Cambodia may have been responsible for the later horrors of the Khmer Rouge), and leaving the reader unable to place events in any kind of valid historical perspective. In stark contrast to Young's black-and-white picture, Olson and Roberts (history, Sam Houston State Univ. and Purdue Univ., respectively) paint a picture of many colors. This successful popular history of the war is less scholarly, less detailed than The Vietnam Wars , but the better-balanced coverage throughout yields a more insightful, instructive history. At times the authors' emotionalism (e.g., the account of the My Lai massacre) clouds their presentation, and the otherwise fascinating discussion of the postwar media's depiction of the war is not up to date, but general readers will find their book to be a helpful and accessible introduction to the complexities of the Vietnam experience.
- Kenneth W. Berger, Duke Univ. Lib., Durham, N.C.
Copyright 1990 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Review
"This engaged and engaging study deserves a place at the top of everyone's Vietnam reading list." -- Michael H. Hunt, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Customer Reviews

A good (but biased) popular history
You'll notice that the reviews posted so far for Marilyn Young's "Vietnam Wars" are quite polarized (1 star vs. 5 stars). Some complain of Young's agenda and anti-American viewpoint, while others find her tone appropriate and the book revealing; all of these points are valid. This book is biased, frustratingly so at times, but it is also informative and a good read.

"Vietnam Wars" covers the Vietnamese struggle for independence from France, the war with the US, and the war with China, naturally focusing on the American war. The substance of the book is a mix of details of the actual war and the politics concerning it, with ample, though not exhaustive, footnotes and plenty of fascinating anecdotes. The level of detail is perfect for a popular history.

The tone of the book is distinctly anti-American, partly because of the author's own bias, but also partly because of the information available. The details of North Vietnam's motivations, actions, etc. are lacking, I imagine because there are so few sources. As a result, the viewpoint is American, and the mistakes made by the US are on full display; I found these to be the most interesting aspects of the war, e.g., the astounding naiveness of Psy Ops.

The author's bias is irritating, though thankfully clear. While she does not engage in outright revisionism (her facts are supported by references), she does selectively emphasize information. For example, while civilian deaths inflicted by US firepower are mentioned repeatedly, over many pages, atrocities commited by the North are downplayed, in oneliners along the lines of "Only 15-thousand Vietnamese civilians were executed by the VC, not 500-thousand, as claimed in US propaganda!". Despite this selectivity, sufficient facts are presented to convey the moral ambiguity that surrounds the conflict.

Read skeptically, Marilyn Young's "Vietnam Wars" is an excellent starting point for understanding Vietnam.

A very informative and disturbing book
Young details the war well, so that a reader who does not know anything about Vietnam will finish the book having a good idea of the issues that drove the war and the questions that are still asked about it today. History buffs should find this book informative and journalists will enjoy Young's inclusion of the press in her story. I particularly enjoyed Young's examination of events in Cambodia and the perfidy of President Richard Nixon. However, while I agree with Young's inclusion of material that serves to call into question America's actions during the war, I think that her bias as an author against the war was a little too obvious. As an academic, I guess she is entitled to argue against the war rather than simply presenting the facts on both sides, but at points the book reads more like an editoriral rather than an article you would find in the news section of your local newspaper. Nevertheless, the book is chock full of facts, good observations and is clearly written. It certainly gets my reccomendation.

Leftist Vietnam War History
There is a left wing bias to this book--and it is obvious, so it shouldn't irritate a reader who wants to hear the hippie version of the Vietnam War.

However, the most treacherous thing we did was to abandon South Vietnam--financially and militarily-- while the Soviet Union continued to supply military aid to the North. A conventional Russian supplied North Vietnam Army made the final invasion of South Vietnam in 1975. South Vietnam had no chance.