This book ... runs just over a hundred pages, but Hunt spends the first half of the book showing how it was Truman, Ike's and Kennedy's War, then writes one chapter on Johnson then a brief conclusion. I agree with his thesis that it was Johnson's war; after all Johnson is responsible for the biggest escalations in the war. There's just not much new or illuminating here.

I found the most useful part of the book to be his description of Kennedy's whiz kids and the energy and enthusiasm they bring to the scenario. But that supports an argument that this was JFK's war even if he didn't live to see it to the end. Ultimately it was a war typical of America's tendency throughout the Cold War to see everything in black and white, freedom vs. totalitarianism. Any President, faced with the same choices and domestic political context, would have made the same decisions.

Michael Hunt has written a compact yet thorough history of the U. S. involvement in Vietnam. Hunt's premise, in effect, is that due to ignorance, arrogance, and ethnocentrism, U.S. leaders are prevented from a real understanding of Vietnam before embarking on a series of ultimately tragic decisions.

The title of the work suggests two themes. One, Lyndon Johnson made the crucial decisions and thus made the war his own and is therefore to blame for the resulting quagmire. Two, while it is LBJ's war, it is actually part of a larger struggle, the Cold War, an effort in which the United States ultimately prevailed. This is, perhaps, the proper prism through which Vietnam should be viewed.

This work is particularly strengthened and distinguished by Professor Hunt's exploration of the major criticisms of Lyndon Johnson's prosecution of the Vietnam War. He concludes that Johnson was not candid with the American public, and that he proceeded knowing full well the risks involved. Additionally, while Johnson did go to war with clear goals, utilizing power decisively, he was ultimately strait-jacketed by the times in which he lived.

This book shows the eagerness of the U.S. to stomp out communism and protect our Asian friends'. It is this parental instinct and portrayal of understanding that all people want to be "american" that led the U.S. into an inconclusive battel. The idea that the North won ater the U.S. withdraw falters the necessity of U.S. intervention.

First the good: Trachtenberg's style is good; a flowing historical narrative with plenty of personal voices from history. Well researched and, for the most part, well argued. As is fair in any Industrial Age analysis, Trachtenberg views the Gilded Age through a primarily socialist lense, giving a unique perspective on the situation.

Now the problems. In general, the work is overly academic in several portions, philosophizing beyond what is rational. I recognize that any work on cultural trends will tend towards this problem; none-the-less the book reminds me of my father reading an article in the newspaper about this new fangled 'rap' phenomenon and speculating about all the repurcussions for the American people: it comes across as both overblown and speaking from a biased and not-with-it perspective. This philosophical bent exposes itself in Trachtenberg's fanatical devotion to writers and intellectuals of the time rather than the politicians who were actually getting things done. It's obvious that Trachtenberg is more interested in a fairy tale history he wished could happen rather than a serious analysis of how things might have worked out differently and for the better.

As to the argument itself, Trachtenberg has, unfortunately, chosen to open his book with his weakest argument: that of Native American culture presenting a terrifying and pervasive cultural challenge to the Americans. That he has chosen to do so is no surprise: the back of the book states that he is a professor of the subject. However, it seems bizarre to start an argument with an opposing viewpoint. Moreover, the viewpoint is a tenuous one. It is a stretch to imagine most of America deeply troubled by ideological conflict with the American Indians, a stretch that becomes apparent when Trachtenberg resorts to using American ideas from the 1880's to explain a counter-ideology within America arising 20 years earlier. Again we have a logical fallacy: how can future events give rise to a counter movement in the past? Why couldn't he find contemporary examples to buttress his argument? Was it laziness or a lack of data to support his claims? I don't know. If an editor had convinced Trachtenberg to save this weaker argument for a later chapter, the organizational structure of the book and the credibility of the writer would increase greatly.

Overall, worth reading for class or for fans of the age, otherwise there's no reason to pick it up.

This book revolutionized the debates on naturalism and realism of the later part of the nineteenth century. It is one of the best interpretations I have ever read about how the formation of corporations were inaugerated in the 1870s with growing mechanization, industrialization, labor strife, and depressions. I have no idea what the prior review means that Trachtenberg looks too much at literary history in that the book only devotes one out of its seven chapters to the writers of the times. The book is mainly concerned with showing the interactions between labor and capital, the formation of the new cities, the effects of Westward expansion (once again, I have no idea what the prior reviewer means by having the initial chapter play such a pivotal role since Trachtenberg does not make the claims that the reviewer makes), the growing of populism, and the 1893 Columbia Exposition.

Regardless if one studies history or literature of the late nineteenth century, this book is one of the most important written about the times and offers a wide range of marginal perspective that are usually overlooked in such texts.

This collection of essays probably merits 3.5 stars because it actually does live up to its title; it presents a collection of essays covering "The New American History." I refer to it as somewhat new because, as has always been the case in "American" history, the story of people of color and women gets short shrift. The essays were originally compiled to expose high school history teachers to the latest historical research and interpretations going on in particular subject areas in an effort to keep them abreast of the changes in historical philosophy, approach, and perspective. It illustrates these current trends by presenting 16 essays with titles such as, "Society, Politics, and the Market Revolution, 1815-1848", "Slavery, Civil War, and Reconstruction","Intellectual and Cultural History", and "The History of the Family and the History of Sexuality." Of the 16 essays, only two deal with African-American history, 1 deals with ethnicity and immigration, and only 1 is about women. While the book leans toward social history, which is the current historical wave, and consciously points to the fact that the old approaches to American history (the exclusive study of white, male, wealthy, political and military leaders) needed revising, it short-changes blacks, women, and other people of color just as the old American history does. With that said, 4 out of 16 is 25% which, unfortunately, might be a little more history of "others" than most middle-aged Americans were ever exposed to. This book is still good for anyone, particularly any high school history teacher, who needs to understand that history is constructed, open to interpretation, and ever evolving. And the historical references at the end of each chapter are almost worth the price of the book alone. Get it if you think you need it.

This is really an invaluable book for history scolars as it lays out the "current state" of U.S. history in a multitude of topics.

Admittedly, I went to a left leaning University a few years ago but almost all of my classes came almost straight from the essays in this book so it might not be entirely represetative of the state of historical debate.

I foudn the most interesting parts of the book to be the historiorahpic analysis--that is, how the study of a particuolar subject has changed over years with the times. For example, until the civil rights movement of the 1960's, the reconstruction period of the 1860's and 70's was seen as an unmitigated disaster where uncompetant freedmen were set up in governments to run the south with Northern military support. This interpretation of course served a country that still had segregated lunchcounters in 1960. However, recently, a much more nuanced interpretation has appeared led by such writers as Eric Foner (the writer of the chapter on Reconstruction) who place their own gloss on the Reconstruction movement which was undoubtedly infulenced by their own participation and sympathy with the "new left" movements of the 1960's.

Also useful is each author cites the leading books in the field for their argument so it can produce a great reading list for any history buff that wishes to delve deeper into a particular subject.

Leffler writes a balanced account of the events leading up to and into the the Cold War. He discusses the impact of geopolictics with regard to the First and Second World Wars and how communism impacted American public policy. He points out that it was not so much fear of the physical power of the Soviet Union but fear of the ideologies of communism within our borders that led the anit-communist anti-Soviet movements in our nation. He follows the growth of Russia into a world power and explains how it eventually became a military threat and a nuclear power. The book is engrossing and well structured. Leffler presents the information in a clear way without unnecessary deviations. It is an excellent look at Cold War origins.

This book is good for what it tried to accomplish. Its a introductory survey of the origins of an American mindset against communism. Leffler points out that communism wasn't a concern of the USA population or politicians until after WWII- when the communist began to rival democratic capitalism. Leffler uses historical documents to support the assertion that the sum of world-wide communism never really came close to rivialing the US in terms of economic or military power. However, the fear that maybe communism could gain equal status one day in the future led the US to undertake decisive actions toward securing Hegemony.

White says he "will measure the book's success by the extent to which is surprises its readers, catches them offguard, and forces them to think about new ways not merely about the Columbia but about nature and its relation to human beings and human history."

Well if this is his standard he failed miserably. The book is an absolute bore because it focuses so much on ancient history. White tries to bring in Native Americans and salmon as a way of bridging the gap between nature and humans - it does so, but it is painfully slow, dull and uninteresting. The book changes a little as it moves into more modern times, but his ending thesis would have been just as strong had he not tortured the reader with a 50 page history lesson.

The last chapter also includes the term "Organic Machine" about a dozen too many times. We figured out from the title what the term meant, rampant repetition doesn't bring out his meaning any more.

Richard White's "Organic Machine" is a neat display of erudition and intelligence. Through the prism of the Columbia river, the book delves into the difficult relations between native Americans and white settlers. It shows the stronghold an aluminum multinational on local economy and politics. It informs us about the megalomania of giant state bureaucracies. It analyses the emergence and subsequent (enormously expensive) blunders in managing nuclear reactors, followed by the immense human and economic costs. It explores the society's attitudes to endangered species such as salmon, threatened with extinction because of technical progress. It shows us the power and resilience of a large river, unwilling to yield to the numerous dams built during the last 100 years.

The Organic Machine compares to John Barry's "Rising Tide", which treated the Mississippi's history as a classic epic in 400+ pages. "Rising Tide" is a compelling page-turner, not at all times sharp in its analysis, but centered around brilliantly narrated biographies and societal sketches. The Columbia's history has been just as rich, but Richard White took a totally different approach to explain the river. All elements which made Rising Tide such a fun read are there, and more. But Richard White chose to strip the story to the bone. What remains is 112 pages of crisp, flawless analysis. "Organic Machine" is very smart, but I thought the author was too dispassionate. Every page in this book screams for more illustrative anecdotes, it should have been at least three times its actual size.

Hands down the best history book written in English on a river. It rivals William Cronon's "Nature's Metropolis" as the best environmental history book I've read. Anyone who spends time near/on rivers (especially the Columbia) will appreciate this book. White tells a fascinating, compact story (~100 pages) that will force the consciencious reader to rethink his/her relationship with rivers as a source of energy. The book is also a lesson in form and style.

It was informative. I felt like there was too much about certain topics. I did enjoy reading it.

I found this book to be horrible. It puzzles me how this book could be a product of a professor of history. His chief failings are as follows: (1)He fails to use footnotes. I find this to be inexcusable for a serious scholar. He wrote a number of things, for example, that I found to be unbelievable, but because of his failure to provide proper citations, I was unable to follow up and double check him on his work. Just one example: he wrote on page 22 that "50 percent of eighteenth-century New England brides .. were pregnant at their wedding[.]" This is not something that could be known without extensive research. I'm not aware of any statistical surveys or census information that could verify such a claim. I don't think this kind of information would be found in church marriage records. Did someone do an exhaustive study of personal diaries and make a statistical inference? Academic protocol demands a proper citation, and he provided none. (2)His organization was lacking. This is a time period in which I have recently completed a number of readings, and yet I, at times, had a difficult time following where he was going, or ultimately what point he was trying to make. At least I understood many of the specifics of events he alluded to, but a reader unfamiliar with the events would be lost. In my opinion, he lumped too many things together, causing the reader to feel at various times like he was jumping all around chronologically and geographically and, at times, topically. (3)I think the title of the book is misleading. It is less a history and more an essay on how the author views the interplay between the political events of the day and the social dimensions. Many of his points were lost on me. For example, he develops the idea that early Americans lived in a violent world. Well, so? Who didn't know this? Violence pervades most of history. If I were his editor, I would have tried to get the author to focus more on what he was trying to do with this book. Did he want the book to be a history book, a social essay, or what? Anyone wanting to gain a fundamental history of the time period would be well advised to avoid this book. Finally, I hate to be so negative for there is some good content, but I would only read this book if you are already well read on this time period and have nothing better to do, or if you are a professional academician with interest in this field. And for those of you who teach a history course on the American Revolution, please don't inflict this book on your students. For those who do not fall into those two categories above and you would like to read good history on the American Revolution, I recommend the following: for the period up to and including 1776, Merrill Jensen's "The Founding of a Nation," for the time period of the Articles of Confederation, Merrill Jensen's "The New Nation," and for the Constitutional Convention, Forrest McDonald's "Novus Ordo Seclorum" and Catherine Drinker Bowen's "Miracle at Philadelphia." I am not well read enough on the war itself to make a good recommendation.

This book is rediculously boring. How a person can actually put their name on a piece of writing that so bad leaves me dumb founded. If anyone can find me anything similar to Cliff's Notes for this book, I'd love you forever, because in 1 month I've read 100 pages, and I'm 1 of those that actually enjoys reading. It had facts, but that's about it. Wow a summer well wasted...

Contrary to Mr Randolph's and Marina's opinions, I found this book to be well-written and very readable - and I'm in fact reading it for my first course in the history of the Revolution, although it wasn't recommended by the lecturer!

Certainly the book doesn't contain as much new research as some scholars would expect, and is instead a synthesis of previous work on different aspects of the period (as Countryman's Acknowledgements and Bibliographical Essay suggest). That includes his own research on New York that won the Bancroft Prize in 1982.

If you're uncomfortable with the lack of footnotes, Countryman isn't the only one to do this. John Fairbank did the same with some of his books on China (but of course you'll reply that Fairbank was a giant in his field). In any case, most of Countryman's facts can be verified by referring to earlier works in this field. His assertion about pre-marital pregnancies was borrowed from Robert Gross' "The Minutemen and their world", where the proper statistics are included in detail.

If you find jumps in chronology and unconventional details distracting, that would rule out much of the fine historical writing of the last 40 years, wouldn't it? Countryman was aiming for a thematic, rather than purely narrative, history of the Revolution, and military history was secondary to his argument - hence the sparse attention paid to it. Personally, I'm glad I got this book as it's a lively and stimulating read for anyone new to the subject - unless you love reading footnotes, that is.