Vietnam An Epic Tragedy 1945-1975 Paperback – January 1, 2019

As a fan of Max Hasting’s previous books on World War II, I was eager to read VIETNAM: AN EPIC TRAGEDY. Considering the controversy, misunderstanding and emotion triggered by any honest discussion of the Vietnam War, I found Hastings’ approach to the issue quite balanced and thorough … he lays it out for all to see.A year ago, Ken Burns released an epic documentary on the Vietnam War that I considered objective and fair, but my opinion was not universal. The war may have ended over forty years ago, but the emotional pain of it will likely remain until the last survivor of the conflict passes away. An honest analysis of the war (any war for that matter) cannot be one-sided as the tragic nature of war is usually shared by all parties involved. Hastings bravely dives into the quagmire of the Vietnam War and delivers a wonderfully detailed and balanced account of this tragic historical event … and yes, the blame for the tragedy is shared.What I like about Hasting’s approach to history is that he offers concise and wonderfully detailed analysis of events. I was really drawn to Hastings after reading ARMAGEDDON - The Battle for Germany and RETRIBUTION - The Battle for Japan; I found those two books to be two of best summaries of World War II I’ve ever read. At almost 900 pages, it is fair to say this book is as concise an account one could expect on the subject as complex as the Vietnam War … especially when one factors the time before and after US involvement (which are frequently and mistakenly ignored/forgotten aspects of the war). Unlike wars in the past (the World Wars and Korea), Vietnam had no definitive front line (with the exception that it was fought in South Vietnam) and the war’s progress cannot easily be explained with a map (until the war’s end, when South Vietnam is no longer on the map). The nebulous and organic nature of the conflict is a challenge the Hastings embraced. As I was reading, I frequently wondered how tedious the research must have been to cover so much of the minutia presented in this book, but the seemingly insignificant “small” things often prove to be what is needed to get a better understanding of how and why other events unfolded. That Hastings managed to cover a detailed history of the Vietnam War (from the period ousting the French through the South Vietnam’s defeat) in 750 readable pages is somewhat miraculous.The sources for the book are what make it such a valuable read. Like Burns’ documentary, Hastings provides a well-rounded perspective of the war by including the experiences of all involved. These experiences add color and clarity to events. The contribution of former Vietcong, NVA and North Vietnamese provide a much-needed perspective of seeing the war from all sides. The book does not excuse American political and military ineptitude, nor does it tread lightly on the brutality of the communists … or the media’s narrow-minded approach to covering the war. The book never bogs down on one event and some of the most iconic/infamous parts of the war (by Western standards) tend to be glossed-over (My Lai, for example) … they are portrayed as contributing factors shaping a bigger story. Unlike the grand operations and big battles of the World Wars and Korea, the Vietnam War was a war of skirmishes big and small (usually with no strategically important outcome). While the Tet operation obviously comprises a prominent place in the book, we get a better understanding of the failed Tet operation being transformed into a political/propaganda victory by the media. Battle accounts are brief and informative to give readers an idea how the war was fought, not a detailed report of troop movements and engagements. Instead, we get a steady dose of what the combatants experienced (on all sides). Hastings opts to focus on only a handful of battles (Dai Do) that serve more as a template for the US approach to fighting. One aspect of the book I thoroughly appreciated is the account of what unfolded after the US leaves South Vietnam and doesn’t look back ... this is where the real tragedy of the conflict comes to light. While it may “seem” the Vietnam war ended following the US departure, the war raged-on for years and included some of its biggest battles.Most importantly, I found the book to be even-handed; it doesn’t shy away from drawing attention to the blundering on all sides of the conflict. The political maneuvering (lying) on all fronts is simply astounding. Oftentimes, the benefit of hindsight gives historians the opportunity to point out mistakes that could have possibly changed events (for the better), but Hastings does not go that route. Instead, he lets the readers absorb the opinions of those who experienced the conflict on all levels. In that regard, we get a more balanced and somewhat surprising array of viewpoints dictated by the varying experiences. I do not feel the book validates any one argument on the war but opts to justifiably point blame in all directions.Overall, I felt VIETNAM: AN EPIC TRAGEDY proved to be as insightful as I hoped it would be. Hastings does an excellent job of summarizing a vast and complex subject into an absorbing read. Additionally, I found the material in the book to be refreshingly new and insightful; I would be hard-pressed to not recommend this book for anyone wanting a better understanding of the Vietnam War in its entirety.

Over the years, without any particular goals other than learning, I've read a number of books that either directly or tangential dealt with that war. This included, "Best and Brightest" , "Dereliction of Duty" , "We Were Soldiers Once, and Young", "The Quiet American", "The Ugly American" "Foreign Correspondent, a Memoir", LBJ and McNamara Bios, "The Pentagon Papers" (segments) and others somewhat less memorable at the moment. Based on this reading and subsequent events I concluded some time ago that the US was embarking on a fools errand when it tried to use its military to shore up a foreign government that was not supported internally by its people. The Iraq and Afghanistan experience in recent years has solidified my opinion on this topic.So It was with a receptive attitude that I recently read this new history; by Sir Max Hastings, an award winning British journalist and historian. This is a long and deeply researched history told mostly in chronological fashion. It draws on many of the published personal history ("I was there") accounts and the more inciteful political/military critiques. He also accessed and quoted myriad personal letters from all sides (including many letters from North Vietnamese combatants and non-combatants that he had had translated by an old CIA hand from the Saigon station that served to illustrate his larger points. Consequently the book presents an exceptionally rich tapestry of many facets of the war, from the cockpits of burning US bombers, through the travails of Vietnamese teenagers humping artillery shells down the Ho Chi Minh trail, to the private conversations of LBJ, McNamara, Nixon, and Kissinger. A very rich and largely seamless tapestry indeed.My main take-aways that filled in many blanks and otherwise colored my understanding:1. As noted above, the signal US failure in Vietnam was the implicit assumption that the people of South Vietnam would support their newly constituted government and help fight for freedom and democracy. The facts turned out to be that the largely Buddhist peasant population never became enthused about the French Catholic elites that were set up to rule them, thereby providing fertile ground for the Viet Cong and its revolutionary zealotry in the countryside throughout the war. This lack of support to the Saigon government, that had been created only after partition, extended to the South Vietnam's conscripted and poorly paid and treated armed forces, who with, few exceptions, were unreliable and a major drag on US military activities. "Nixon"s "Vietnamization" was never a reasonable expectation for defeating the North. Indeed, Hasting's makes it clear that the concept was really a Kissingerian fig leaf for US withdrawal.The South's army officers generally treated their troops badly (feudal) and were often the first to seek a spot on evacuation helos. In some contrast, the South Vietnamese aviators were much more reliable and effective. The South's Army seems to have really become effective on its own only in 1972 and later as the US was withdrawing, when it stopped the North's southward advance for many months, but that was its last major gasp.2. The book reinforces the point that an overwhelming consideration in all US decision making during this long period was US presidential politics; at the cost of tens of thousands of US and other lives. Trump is not the first president to equate the Nation's interest with his personal interests.3. The conventional wisdom in the US seems to be that Ho Chi Minh was the architect of the North's success. In fact he became unhealthy and was kicked upstairs circa 1967. The subsequent Northern efforts were led by Le Duan. Le Duan was a true zealot for forcing Vietnamese independence and integration/solidarity, however long it took. He was a hard core believer in, but not subservient to, the oppressive philosophy of Mao's China. He ruthlessly purged all vestiges of frenchiness and intellectual learning from the ranks of the Northern Army, and, as the main source of support for the VC, forced the same ideology and purge mentality on them. He also ensured that there were essentially no outside observers in the North that could document the extent of his cruel purges and his indifference to horrendous military casualties, so the West never really had a clue. But he also kept his own children safe in schools in Europe.4. Per the foregoing, the North was strongly ideologically driven towards independence in a way that the South never was. This went a long way to explain the superhuman endurance of northern cadres on the Trail.5. The effectiveness of the truly massive US bombing was disappointing, particularly in the early years of the war, which were dominated by guerrillas operating under triple canopy jungle. In 1972 however, when the North mounted a large scale conventional attack through more open country in the Central Highlands, the 150,000 tons of bombs dropped during Operation Linebacker I was very effective in decimating the North's artillery and tracked vehicles, thereby seriously slowing the advance to Saigon.6. Because the South's people - mostly rural peasants - were not strongly committed to the Saigon government, but just wanted to be left alone to tend their rice paddys, the massive and destructive US bombing/WW II-type campaigns and forced re-locations from ancestral lands quickly soured indigenous attitudes toward the US' war efforts.7. As depicted in many movies, the helos were crucial to US troop movement and rescues throughout the war. The US helo loss rate was as high as 1000/year. I was surprised at the ability of the North, helped by China and the Soviets, to largely keep up with US advances in aircraft self protection electronic warfare gear. Their SAMs and MIGs really were more effective against US aircraft than I knew.8. The deterioration of morale in the US military in the later stages of the war - after TET in 68, but even more when Nixon began the long slow withdrawal of US forces while Kissinger was negotiating with a losing hand in Paris, was worse than I knew. Much of it reflected the growing domestic US disenchantment with the war which trickled down to the draftees, but also reflected growing racial disharmony in the US, some of which was fanned by the perception that US black soldiers were dying at a disproportionately high rate. Incidents of US brutality against civilians increased. Calley wan't alone.The author quotes some authority as asserting something like "the US went to war in Korea with a lousy army and came out of Korea with a superb army; but that we went to war in Vietnam with a superb army, but came out with a lousy army". It took 15 years of turmoil after '75 for the US to rebuild an effective, integrated army. Fragging was highly demoralizing of the officer corps.Kissinger and Nixon both knew the losing score but continued scheming for a "decent interval" between US withdrawal and a takeover of the the South by the North. Nixon's tapes were telling.Nixon's punitive "Christmas Bombing" in 72 was billed as a reaction to the North's breakouts from the enclaves that had been agreed to in the Paris Accords, but in fact no one in the White House expected the enclaves to persist. The deadly Christmas Bombing was reportedly really mostly Nixon striking out irrationally to try to deflect attention from his cascading Watergate problems. Buried in the spasm of renewed killing via carpet bombing the Hanoi area was the highly successful aerial mining of Haiphong harbor, which completely dried up Soviet shipment of war material until the end of the war in 75. Some believe that such mining much earlier could have been highly effective in reducing the North's fighting abilities, but LBJ and McNamara were leery of damaging the Hanoi area for fear of bringing in the Chinese, much as MacArthur's overreach in Korea two decades earlier had done.The Paris Accords assured the South that the US would come back to their aid if the North broke the rules. But, as expected, the North did breakout from its enclaves, and the South geared up to fight better but needed supplies from the US that the Congress was increasing loath to provide. Hasting's sees the Congressional failure to support the South with material as promised to be very shameful but consistent with the cascading US public disenchantment with the war.9. The conventional US view is that TET in 68 was a communist victory that led to the end of the war. In fact TET was a major defeat to the southern Viet Cong, which resulted in the North taking over the fighting in the south, going from 25/75 NVA/VC in '67 to the reverse in '69 and later10. Despite the rapprochement symbolized in recent years by US celebrity visits to Vietnam, it remains a Stalinist dictatorship unblemished by fair elections and human rights.11. This is by far the most insightful and fair history of the defining war of my professional life that I expect to ever read. If you read only one book on the history of the US in Vietnam, make it this one.

The detailed research is quite evident. Well worth it if you like war histories.Definitely recommended. I had a tough time putting it down

"Only those who never fought in a war discuss who lost or won" , once said a vietnamese veteran; in this book we can see the roots, the ways and consequences of the most significative conflict in American history, the end of the Lore of the "Manifest Destiny" , a crude portrait of America's loss of innocence; Must Read !

That’s Hastings’s stark analogy for the application of military power by the United States in Vietnam. He contends, persuasively, that the U.S. responded to the many complex challenges in a country most of its senior politicians never really understood with a sledgehammer approach - the use of enormous force, with great loss of human life, to achieve a political end. And Hastings suggests that this gruelling conflict was a platform for waging a crusade against the spread of Communism, rather than being focused on the needs of the Southern Vietnamese. Ultimately, America walked away from the conflict, and from the Vietnamese they’d hoped to save from Communist rule. Hastings’s writing style is masterly - and seemingly effortless. His task was daunting. But he switches seamlessly between the granular and the ‘macro’ - the bleak reality of everyday life for the average soldier, on both sides, and the political overview. That’s no mean feat - but Hastings pulls it off with aplomb. There are many fascinating pieces of trivia and startling facts, about the era of French rule and its brutality - ‘traitors’ opposed to their colonial masters were beheaded - and the war itself; and perhaps most compellingly about its aftermath. Some of the descriptions of combat can be tough going, such is the level of detail. But that is offset by the focus on the personal testimony of those involved. As a reader, you feel at the heart of the action. Hastings reflects that the Americans lost the war but - decades later - they may have triumphed (after a fashion) using ‘soft power’ - oppressed Vietnamese, particularly in the south, long for escape, and images of Hollywood and the freedoms of the West which they see online present a powerful vision of an alternative to the grinding poverty of a backward state which doesn’t tolerate free speech - and is still haunted by its savage past. Communism endures, for now, but it spectacularly failed to live up to the grand promises of the North Vietnamese dictatorship. Hastings is also critical of the U.S. for turning its back on the South Vietnamese so completely. Could there have been a better outcome if Nixon and his successors had taken a different approach? Realpolitik demanded a severing of ties - it was a war everyone wanted to forget, but one that will never be forgotten.

Pages it has

Un vasto e potente affresco di una guerra lunga e controversa.I giudizi sono sbilanciati dalla parte americana e i Nord Vietnamiti dipinti di una crudeltà senza limiti.Nonostante questo ne do un giudizio positivo.