The Vietnam War: A Concise International History is a strong book that portrays a vivid picture of both sides of the war. By getting access to new information and using valid sources, Lawrence’s study deserves credibility. After reading this book, a new light and understanding of the Vietnam war exists.
The Vietnam War (1954-1975) was, and continues to be, a contentious issue around the world. Many analysts of the war attribute it to Lyndon B. Johnson, who was president of America from 1963 until 1969, because under his administration, the American Army became involved in combat in Vietnam. Although there were many facets that lead Johnson to make his decision and there were three other presidents, in power during the course of America’s involvement in Vietnam, who also played key roles, it was Johnson who made the decision to escalate US intervention in Vietnam.
Thus far the Vietnam War has shown to be a highly complex situation. Many of times, I have found myself agreeing with Lyndon B. John’s decisions to escalate the war. First and foremost, the United States had made a promise of freedom and tranquility to the people (whom were not part of Viet-Cong) of Vietnam. As an American, it is my opinion that the United States had to uphold its word, essentially its credibility. Secondly, withdrawing troops from Vietnam when the situation was really out of control would make the United States appear weak. In midst of the Cold War, the one thing that was not going to prove true was that the United States was weak. Although these reasons were and are valid, the anti-war movement in conjunction with the Tet offensive required President Johnson to make a decision that changed the perception of the war; he chose to call a halt on the bombardment in Vietnam. The purpose of this essay is to further analyze how the continuing anti-war movement and the Tet Offensive were the reasons that “America’s fate was effectively sealed by mid-1968.”
The legacy of the American involvement in the Vietnam War is a memory that will live on forever. After reading the book titled Vietnam in Remission by James F. Veninga and Harry A. Wilmer, my first statement has been strengthened ten-fold because of the deep persuasiveness and informative nature of this book. I will begin by summarizing and interpreting the overall thoughts and perspectives that this work brings forth concerning the initiation and justification of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Next, I will paraphrase the authors' views on legacy that this war leaves behind and provide comments dealing with what can be learned from this book and the points it raises. This study of the effects of the Vietnam War is an stirring and an instructive perspective on this sorrowful moment in history.
Lawrence, Mark Atwood. The Vietnam War: A Concise International History. N.p.: Oxford University Press, n.d. Print.
The Vietnam War was destined to fail from the very beginning. Motivated by politics alone, the United States interfered with a smaller states’ freedom from colonialism, just as the Patriots vied for during the Revolutionary War. The defeat of American involvement in Vietnam can be attributed to five main factors: the remaining aftereffects of World War II created fear of communism and a motivation based on the ever shifted soil of political favoritism, which led to hasty decision making and US negligence of caring to the needs of the very people they were attempting to save, The American Army remained underprepared for the climate and terrain, massive differences between the two nation’s motivations for the war, which was partly affected by the fifth point of domestic instability within the United States’ own borders
In his monograph, Lyndon Johnson’s War, Michael Hunt converses the different verdicts, choices, faults and actions which lead up to the Vietnam War. Hunt exploits documents from both American and Vietnam archives to explain in full the actions taken by many American leaders and the potential thought process of our counterpart the Vietnamese and other European and Asian countries and their leaders. In each and every one of these archives he makes a point of it to explain how the United States came to be drawn into the conflict in Southeast Asia and several times through this book Hunt makes the silent argument that the Unted States of America fought the war as if it were “fighting a conventional war.”(Hunt, pg. 53) Each chapter focuses on a different aspect of further American involvement into the war.
One of the most important feature when describing the Vietnam War was why the United States became involved in the war, and their reasons for conflict amongst the Vietnamese in the North of the 17th Parallel. It is known that the US was involved for many reasons, particularly their belief in the Domino theory where if one country fell to Communism, the rest of South-East Asia would fall along with it. Yet there are many other reasons why the US became involved. Howe...
Now, years after the last Marine left Vietnamese soil, the debate continues, but evidence places the majority of the blame at the feet of America’s foreign policy makers. Because, as Paul Elliott writes in his book Vietnam: Conflict and Controversy, “Everything in Vietnam was being viewed through the distorting lens of the Cold War, and against the fear of atomic holocaust” (92), Congress and the President refused to make a total commitment to victory in Indochina. That lack of commitment led directly to American defeat.
...stration honored the treaty and held elections, and then honored the outcome, it likely would have created an entirely different dynamic in our relationship with Vietnam. The U.S. attempt to contain the communist plague lead them to numerous, disastrous conclusions about how to handle this backward, Stone Age insurgency as we inherited the problem and interpreted every moment through the Logic of Fear.
In light of this, the Vietnam War was a major Cold War incident that propelled the United States into combating communist elements within Southeast Asia. The conflict was associated with the trend of decolonization that occurred following the cessation of the Second World War, aligned itself with the United States’ object...
The Vietnam War was the longest and most expensive war in American History. The toll we paid wasn't just financial, it cost the people involved greatly, physically and mentally. This war caused great distress and sadness, as well as national confusion. Everyone had that one burning question being why? Why were we even there? The other question being why did America withdrawal from Vietnam. The purpose of this paper is to answer these two burning questions, and perhaps add some clarity to the confusion American was experiencing.
Twenty-eight years after publication, and 25 after the war's end, Fire in the Lake remains one of the very best books on the Viet Nam war. Sadly, Americans are woefully ignorant of the rest of the world. We have little real knowledge of our own history; but for the rest of the world's history and culture, we have neither knowledge nor regard. We do not even do the Vietnamese people the courtesy of respecting the name of their country--Viet Nam, not Vietnam; Sai Gon, not Saigon. Fitzgerald helps to correct some of this ignorance and arrogance. She begins examining the U.S. in Viet Nam from the perspective of Vietnamese history and culture; and in the process, demonstrating the tenacity and courage of the Vietnamese people, as well as their determination to rid themselves of any foreign invaders, even if, as with the Chinese, it takes 1,000 years. Another great strength of Fitzgerald’s book is, with her attention to Viet Nam's history and culture and their 20th century struggle against the French, she demonstrates, in an almost matter of fact way, a fundamental tenant of U.S. foreign policy which has been repeated numerous times in the post World War II era. That central tenant is to support thugs over patriots, to elevate to power those who will sell out their people for 30 pieces of silver rather than work with those committed to the well being of their people. Ho Chi Minh was our ally during WWII; his hero was Thomas Jefferson, not Karl Marx or Stalin. He was very pro-American; yet he was a nationalist and a patriot first, which meant, from the perspective of the U.S., he was not only unreliable, but someone who had to be destroyed. And though Fitzgerald does not carry her analysis beyond Viet Nam, an informed or a curious reader quickly can draw the parallels between U.S. policy in Viet Nam and U.S. policy in Africa, the Middle East, the Pacific rim (Indonesia specifically), South America, the Caribbean, and most obvious of all, Central America. Thus Fitzgerald gives us not only the means of understanding the war in Viet Nam, and why we were doomed to lose, but also a point of departure for understanding the travesty of U.
...was set for the Soviet Union and the United States to demonstrate which country was more powerful by using the Vietnamese vicariously; the two countries proceeded to take their rivalries to the next level. The war in Vietnam likewise illustrated the ideological revolution of the times that American citizens were undergoing, in a time where "love and peace" was the backbone slogan of the new american lifestyle. The word "war" became absolutely detestable, this was proven during the many protests against the war. I chose to write a paper on the Vietnam War because i believe the war in Vietnam, was the best represenative event of the times. It was a war that threatened to dismantle our government, a war that mirrored other events in Latin America and Europe involving the Soviet Union and the U.S; and a symbol of how far the U.S was willing to go to win the cold war.