Can the Vietnam War Ever Make Sense?

Where the Domino Fell, by James Olson and Randy Roberts, St. Martin's Press, 1991. Contemplating this book brings me a curious and unexpected reaction: I feel optimistic and reassured that such a clear history of the Vietnam Wars cannot but help educate future generations against repeating such an impossible adventure as was the US intervention in Vietnam.

Previous histories of the war had only left me disgusted and mystified as to how the American rulers could have continuously dug themselves deeper into the quicksand of resisting Vietnamese independence and revolution. For example, George Herring's America's Longest War portrays American involvement not as a product of policymaker errors or personality quirks, but rather as the logical outgrowth of "containment." Since I was never satisfied with containment's simplistic conception of the breakup of the colonial world, the war always seemed a mysterious product of d! ark and hidden motives of US policymakers who were ethno-centric, competitive imperial managers incapable of comprehending the commitment to liberation and independence of the Vietnamese people, or of even entertaining the possibility that the USSR was a legitimate civilization or at least the product of historical forces. William Duiker's Sacred War, documenting the Vietnamese experience of the war, only confirmed my despair over the stupid arrogance of the American ruling class. Ho Chi Minh was so obviously right that only the devil himself could have guided America's hand.

Then I read Olson and Roberts' Where the Domino Fell. The authors don't really offer a new perspective on any of the particulars, but they achieve a balance of all actors that make the whole monstrosity at least seem plausible, the stupidity at least understandable. American oversimplifications find their place in the larger constellation of factors, and the war begins to be comprehensible. Vietnamese nationalism is given its proper context of twenty centuries, showing an Asian sage's sense of time and history that the nouveau-riche kid named America couldn't appreciate. The French are shown for the brutal and greedy colonists they were, first accepting huge US subsidies for their war to keep the Indochina colony, and then assuming the "I told you so" attitude once the Americans adopted the war after Dienbienphu. The American war in Vietnam is shown from the perspective of both sides, which really amounts to showing the many sides --from Diem to the Buddhists to the Khmer in Vietnam, from the hawks to the anti-war movement in the USA, the multiple perspectives are concisely explained in all their mutual relations. Whatever judgements the authors place on the merits of these perspectives, they don't allow their own opinions to eclipse the facts, which are made plain to all who will read. Even the American psychological recovery from the war is covered, with an insightful history of Hollywood Vietnam movies linked t! o the larger political evolution of these United States.

One problem with the book is the lack of footnotes, obstructing any direct investigation of the quotes and their context. The sources used seem to be all secondary, but there are no claims of original research here. The book is rather the best survey of the war I've seen, complete with a careful bibliographic essay directing the reader towards the right source for any questions provoked by this introductory book. Also included is a useful chronology, glossary, and a few interesting photos. Highly recommended reading!

I've seen a lot of John Wayne movies, but knew little about the man until I read this book. This is a thorough, well-researched, and well-written book about his life. I don't think you can help liking the big lug, despite his many faults. He was loyal to his friends, honest, well-meaning, and a hard worker at his craft of acting.

The biggest negative about Wayne is that he didn't serve in the military during World War II. The authors go into the reasons and don't spare him criticism. Wayne was undoubtedly more important to the war effort as a maker of patriotic movies than he would have been carrying a rifle - but that doesn't excuse him. He was the original chicken-hawk - a species that is proliferating these days.

I also found the material interesting about the ideological struggle in Hollywood between right and left in the late 1940s and 1950s. We hear a lot a criticism about "black lists" and Hollywood types boycotted because they were leftists; this book points out that the leftists also had their fangs out to bring down the rightists like Wayne. That he came out on top, despite his unpopular political stances, is a tribute to his honesty and stubborn inflexibility - similar to the characters he played.

I doubt that any other movie star is so distinctive in walk and talk - or more deserving of a good biography. I enjoyed the book - and I look forward to reading more about John Wayne someday in a book which will probe even deeper into his life, career, and psyche. Wayne was an American original.

A book well worth your time. The film giant was apparently cursed by a harpy of a mother whom he could never please. It goes into his guilt over leaving his first wife, the complex (or not?) reasons he didn't join the service in WWII, and his health problems at the end. I liked him before, and his made him more human and 3 dimensional.

Olson and Roberts, take the myth of John Wayne and place it (him) into the proper historical context and create a vivid, complete, fascinating and ultimately revealing portrait of one of film's most famous and enduring stars.

John Wayne: American, is not only about Marion Micheal Morrison, the gangly Iowa kid who grew up to become an Icon, but also about the American myth machine. Olson and Roberts include intriguing insights into the Hollywood dream factories, politics and the craft of acting.

Wayne comes off here as a suprisingly complex man who not only proved to be a fine actor but an astute business man who willingly allowed himself to be co-opted as a profitable commodity by not only the Hollywood system but by the political arena as well as the American cult of personality. Whether for well or ill, Wayne came to rdefine not only entire generations of men but also a national identity as well.

The book does honestly deal with the fact that Wayne cocooned himself within the sanctity of the manufactured image and took great pains to maintain that carefully constructed product. But what a product it was.

Olson and Roberts are reverant to their subject while managing to lend the critical eye a terrible aspect. This book is refreshing in its honesty. Admirable for its respectful treatment. And thoroughly entertaining and enlightening in its detail. Watch Wayne's films and enjoy this book.

The first half of "A Line in the Sand" gives a good overview of the history that led up to the famous siege of the Alamo from both the Mexican and Texas settler perspectives. The battle itself and its aftermath (the Texan victory at San Jacinto) are given a good overview as well. Along the way, the authors attempt to portray the battle for what it was, free of either liberal condemnations of the defenders as imperialisist or reactionary attempts to elevate the defenders to God-like status. The truth lies somewhere in the middle of the elevated rhetoric. The defenders made a galliant stand against an authoritarian despot, but they did so in defense of slavery among other things. Whatever else they may have been, the stand of Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, Colenol Travis and the others remains unassailable as an act of bravery.

The second half of the book focusses on the history of the shrine since the battle. It covers preservation attempts and the lionization of the battle by such 20th Century luminaries as Walt Disney and John Wayne. The Alamo has become a powerful political symbol, a fact that was emphasized particularly during the Vietnam war.

All of this adds up to a fascinating and very well written book. The only flaw is that covers the first part too quickly, giving more of an overview than an in-depth history. Nevertheless it is still an informative and enjoyable read.

This is a very well-written book about the history of the famous Alamo mission in San Antonio. Roberts and Olson do a good job of telling about the background of the mission all the way from when it was built by Spanish missionaries until the past decades. The opening few pages show a side of the battle of the Alamo that is not often thought about. It opens with James Butler Bonham sitting on his horse looking down upon the besieged Alamo mission. What would have happened if he just rode away? Instead, Bonham rides into the Alamo with his message.

This book is very informative on everything Alamo. Ranging from Clara Driscoll to the de la Pena diary, John Wayne to Fess Parker, this book has it all. It also gives background on the Texas War of Independence from the Mexican Army's perspective as they march north to crush the rebellion. Very interesting and a good read for history fans and especially Alamo buffs. Visit the Alamo! It is well worth the trip.

I tend to read a lot of historical nonfiction, and much of it seems to range from either well-intentioned but amateurish to, worse, underresearched to support a (not-so-well-) hidden agenda. On the other hand, this book is exceedingly well-researched and well-written, and caught me up in a reading frenzy like none since Ambrose's "Undaunted Courage." The first half of "A Line in the Sand" covers the events leading up to the fight at the Alamo in 1836 from both Mexican and Anglo perspectives, and paints both sides in a fairly honest and unsentimental light. It also does the two thing all nonfiction should do: It doesn't play favorites, telling both sides of the story with journalistic integrity, and it shows the event to be what most similar events inevitably are: a collision of ideals, fate, timing and personalities. Concentrating first on what happened immediately following the battle, through the hagiographic treatment of Crockett, Bowie and Travis, and finally to the view of these men and their actions in 1999, the latter half of the book shows, with a surprising yet believable spin, that a combination of the Cold War, Walt Disney's politics, John Wayne's patriotism and increasing multiculturalism have caused people to view this hourlong battle as everything from a defining moment in American history (even though Texas wasn't IN America at that point) to an attempt by Bowie, Travis and others to preserve slavery and racism. Compelling and very enjoyable book.

Detailing the Vietnamese resistance to foreigners from 40 to 1990 A.D., James S. Olson and Randy Roberts attempt to explain one of the greatest enigmas of war history, the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. It has always been quoted as " the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." This statement is often repeated throughout the story and adequately explains the theme of the book. What the book does is try to prove this statement true by explaining the entire ordeal supported by historical facts. It straightens out the confusion commonly placed with the war and leaves the readers to interpret the meaning for themselves.

The content of the novel itself was entertaining and much is to be learned from the book. Its chronological style of narrating the war provided for increasing clarity and understanding for those unfamiliar with this topic, especially with the brief overview of Vietnam's past. The authors skillfully interweaves the present with the past, always explaining the Vietminh's behaviors, actions, or decisions with supporting facts from past history. Also noteworthy was the method of introducing significant people in the war. A short background was always provided so as to make the readers feel they really know these individuals. This method was helpful on clearing up the perplexity of so many names because the authors provided more details on the important ones. Additionally, this book facilitated an understanding of the military aspects of the war, with all the different operations and battle sites. A concise definition was given to each type of military action, followed by an explanation, opposing views, all supported by facts from the past or experience. Not only does this book depend on political explanations, but culture and religion were not to be ignored. This book presented a well-rounded account of the Vietnam with credible supporting statements.

Not only does the war have a historical meaning for me but a cultural and family meaning as well. All my childhood, my parents have enjoyed recounting their version of the war every chance they get. The communists were the bad guys and America was the good guy, and that was all there was to it. Their simple grasp of the conflict influenced the way I read the book in the beginning. However, by the time I reached the end, having understood my own meaning of the war, my opinions have changed greatly. The communists were not just ruthless murderers as I have always depicted, but fierce nationalists who wanted the best for their country, which they had believed was reunification and socialism. They suffered greater casualties than Americans or French, yet they held on and endured the pain for a cause they believed was the right path for their country, whom they loved just as much as any South Vietnamese. This quality in them makes them admirable, and the hate associated with their name slowly disinegrates. Moreover, the Americans are not the angelic fighters of evil as they were also portrayed. They first fought for the prospect of preventing the next domino from falling, clearly outlined in former President Truman's domino theory. Yet, by the end of the war, not a single American knew what America was in the war for. It became a game of politics, as opposing politicians fought for the approval of the public and against each other. Four presidents have presided over the war and, with the exception of Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford could have pulled out at any time. Nonetheless, they placed their political careers ahead of the lives of thousands and refused to be a president who lost a war. Pressures from the American people caused them to make irrational decisions and lie to the public. One extreme was complete withdrawal from Vietnam, while the other consisted of full-scale military operations and bombing. The problem was, most of the time, the presidents chose the middle road. This was poor since they needed to formulate a definite stance. The wavering and ambiguity caused the public to lose sight of the cause of the war. Corruption ran increasingly high, not only in the presidencies, but also in the officers who ran the war in Vietnam. The My Lai incident is one of many such occurences, where only one officer was brought to trial for what hundreds participated in. From my perspective, neither the communists or the Americans are the bad guys, but simply two opposing sides that wish to win over this conflict. The war happened because neither side refused to back down and both inherited stubborn leaders who would not negotiate. Reading an unbiased account of the war has cleared up the few misconceptions I held.

In conclusion, the book held great value in my eyes. Not only did it drastically increase my understanding of the conflict, but also it enhanced my interest in this subject matter. It is no longer just a part of my parents' past, but a part of history of the country that I live in. It reasons today's foreign policy and gives me a glimpse of the world of politics. I recommend this book to anybody interested in the Vietnam War, because after reading this book, the level of awareness will be improved. This recommendation does not apply to those only vaguely interested since this book contains an extension to what the reader should already know and helps them to understand what they themselves are trying to. It would not serve greatly as an introduction to the Vietnam War, but those people should try to first read a book not as complicated. On the whole, I have enjoyed reading the book and feel that my intellectual curiosity has been sparked.

Contemplating this book brings me a curious and unexpected reaction: I feel optimistic and reassured that such a clear history of the Vietnam Wars cannot but help educate future generations against repeating such an impossible adventure as was the US intervention in Vietnam.

Previous histories of the war had only left me disgusted and mystified as to how the American rulers could have continuously dug themselves deeper into the quicksand of resisting Vietnamese independence and revolution. For example, George Herring's America's Longest War portrays American involvement not as a product of policy-maker errors or personality quirks, but rather as the logical outgrowth of "containment." Since I was never satisfied with containment's simplistic conception of the breakup of the colonial world, the war always seemed a mysterious product of dark and hidden motives of US policymakers who were ethno-centric, competitive imperial managers incapable of comprehending the commitment to liberation and independence of the Vietnamese people, or of even entertaining the possibility that the USSR was as legitimate as any western nation-state (which were also united by blood and iron) or at least the product of historical forces. William Duiker's Sacred War, documenting the Vietnamese experience of the war, only confirmed my despair over the stupid arrogance of the American ruling class. Ho Chi Minh was so obviously right that only the devil himself could have guided America's hand.

Then I read this book, Olson & Roberts' Where the Domino Fell. The authors don't really offer a new perspective on any of the particulars, but they achieve a balance of all actors that make the whole monstrosity at least seem plausible, the stupidity at least understandable. American oversimplifications find their place in the larger constellation of factors, and the war begins to be comprehensible. Vietnamese nationalism is given its proper context of twenty centuries, showing an Asian sage's sense of time and history that the nouveau-riche kid named "USA" couldn't appreciate. The French are shown for the brutal and greedy colonists they were, first accepting huge US subsidies for their war to keep the Indochina colony, and then assuming the "I told you so" attitude once the Americans adopted the war after Dienbienphu. The American war in Vietnam is shown from the perspective of both sides, which really amounts to showing the many sides --from Diem to the Buddhists to the Khmer in Vietnam, from the hawks to the anti-war movement in the USA, the multiple perspectives are concisely explained in all their mutual relations. Whatever judgements the authors place on the merits of these perspectives, they don't allow their own opinions to eclipse the facts, which are made plain to all who will read. Even the American psychological recovery from the war is covered, with an insightful history of Hollywood Vietnam movies linked to the larger political evolution of these United States.

One problem with the book is the lack of footnotes, obstructing any direct investigation of the quotes and their context. The sources used seem to be all secondary, but there are no claims of original research here. The book is rather the best survey of the war I've seen, complete with a careful bibliographic essay directing the reader towards the right source for any questions provoked by this introductory book. Also included is a useful chronology, glossary, and a few interesting photos. Highly recommended reading!