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!

You don't have to just hike the Appalacian trail if you visit the Smokey Mountain National Park....and this book proves it. Packed with information about the parks and it's trails and non-trail hiking, it's a good book to pack for that vacation you are taking to the area. For day hikes, overnight hikes, or thru hikes of the area, this is a good resource.

I myself am not a big fan of war novels. HOWEVER, this book was amazing! It was written so personally that it was incredibly touching without being soppy. Written from the point of view of a medic sent into Vietnam, you see the conflict from a non-combatant's side instead of the soldier's side. The intense description of some of the scenes he saw may turn the stomachs of the more queasy among us, but they simply enhance the atmosphere around his situation. Although the day-to-day occurances could have become boring, Parrish picks out the things that you need to know, and discards the rest. Without focusing on places, or specific times or layouts of camps, instead he talks about the people, the events, the things personal to him - even talking about a touching conversation he has with his young daughter on the telephone. This book gives you a well-rounded view of the war in Vietnam without being too political in it's perceptions. It also isn't a veteran's list of the fallen - instead it is a touching account of one man's time in a hostile country and his fight to keep others - and himself - alive. Definately worth the read.
(Yes, this is the same review as I've written on another book - however, they are actually one and the same, and I thought this copy deserved it as well.

Most books written by senior commanders are little more than either self-glorifying tomes, or books that deflect blame from themselves for things gone wrong. Bruce Palmer has written a book that does niether. He doesn't concentrate on the grunt level, but rather looks at the strategic level of operations in Vietnam. Palmer served as Army deputy at MACV, and later as Army Vice Chief of Staff, and therefore had a good overall picture of what was going on during the war. His book sheds light on policies that proved misguided, but also discusses some of the sucesses we had. He manages to do this without getting bogged down in the morality of the war or whether or not we should have been there in the first place. His book is a much better look at the subject than Harry Summers book On Strategy. As an army officer, I'm suprised his book isn't on the recommended reading list put out by the Chief of Staff

This is a great resource guide for the entire Southeast, listing agents, cd's, theatre groups, teachers, photographers, everyone! There is even information on how to start if you have no idea what to do! It doesn't tell you who accepts unsolicited headshots, so call first, but otherwise, a truly terrific resource book.

When English adventurer, James Brooke, first set foot in Sarawak in 1839, little did he know that two years later he would be ruler of the state, and that for a hundred years, his family would control the small Southeast Asian nation, and expand its boundaries to what it is today. Although the Brookes administered Sarawak as their own little kingdom, and without interference from any western power, they were influenced by British colonial administration in the Malay states. Naimah Talib does a very credible job of documenting the similarities and the differences between the Brooke administration of Sarawak and the British administration of their Asian colonies. Her treatment of the periods of Charles Brooke's rule (1868-1917) and Vyner Brooke's (1917-1941) are excellent, but the chapter on James Brooke's rule from 1841-1868 could have been better developed. This was the beginning of Brooke administration in Sarawak -- the time when the foundation was being built, and it deserved a deeper, more thorough examination. On the whole this is an excellent resource for anyone interested in the how and why of Brooke administration of Sarawak.

The first third of this Sierra Club book was put to use on our Outer Banks vacation. This is a good book that covers every part of the coast, not just the barrier islands. I liked the historical and cultural background presented on each area. I expected there to be a great deal of information on the local flora and fauna since it is a Sierra Club book, and there was. It provides a wonderful listing of birds and animals to keep your eyes out for. There are also good explanations of the geology behind the coast in the introduction. I would have liked a little more information about each area (there is no info on lodging, food, etc.) and some of it was outdated. The book is appealing because it covers the entire southeastern coast, so I know I will use it in the future!

Twenty-five years after the United States' war in Vietnam ended, the conflict continues to fascinate. As a result, this slim volume edited by Charles Neu, Professor of History at Brown University, is most valuable. It contains only five essays, but they cover a broad spectrum of issues, from the effect of the Vietnam War on American society to an assessment of the impact on the conflict on the American military to a former Secretary of Defense's "reflections" on the war and related topics. This book sheds considerable light on the most controversial foreign war in American history.

Professor Neu's opening essay sets the tone: "The legacy of the Vietnam War is an unending topic." According to Neu, the Vietnam War transformed the U.S. in various ways, including "weakening all of those Cold War assumptions that had crystallized in the late 1940s and guided American leaders through the late 1960s" and "hasten[ing] the decline of the old foreign policy establishment." The war also challenged the "belief in national righteousness and providential destiny." For combat soldiers, according to Neu: "As the war went on, the confusion deepened and old myths dissolved." In World War II, American soldiers "generally had been hailed as liberators;" in Vietnam, the peasantry was wary, if not hostile. Neu implies that this contributed to break downs in discipline, the worst of which occurred in My Lai in 1968, when 400 civilians, including women and children were killed by American troops. In concluding, Neu writes: "Most Americans sensed that the nation had entered a new era after Vietnam, one that was filled with divisions, uncertainties, and moral confusion, both at home and abroad."

The essay written by Brian Balogh. Associate Professor of History at the University of Virginia, examines the war's "domestic legacy." Balogh observes that "Vietnam shattered the myth of American invincibility" and explains: "Innocence and omnipotence lost shattered the perception of American exceptionalism." In discussing "the power of the Vietnam metaphor," Balogh asserts: "Vietnam became the cause of many of America's problems." In Balogh's view, Hollywood's treatment of Vietnam as a metaphor "contributed to the impression that the war was behind everything - or at least everything bad - that was happening to America." According to Balogh: "The war and the movement against it seemed to devour every other concern." Balogh concludes: "Metaphors are bad for history" because they are "emotional shorthand that obscures complex causal relationships."

George Herring, Professor of History at the University of Kentucky, focuses on the Vietnam War's "profound impact on a once-proud U.S. military establishment." Herring quotes an expert on military affairs that, as early as 1971, there was "a state of approaching collapse." According to Herring, the symptoms included "the hippie-like appearance of GIs in the field," rising AWOL and desertion rates, an "epidemic of 'fragging' incidents," skyrocketing drug abuse, and mounting racial tensions. The reason, according to Herring was that "servicemen brought with them to Vietnam and other military posts the drug problems and racial tensions that wracked the United States," but he also acknowledges, as any honest critic must, that: "The way the war was fought contributed decisively to the military breakdown." One study blamed "the managerial revolution instituted at the Pentagon by Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara" for the services' "focus on what could be quantified rather than the more abstract and elusive concept of leadership." According to Herring: "Within ten years of the fall of Saigon, a full-scale military resurgence was under way, and, by the mid-1980s, "the military had rebuilt itself...[but] fears of another Vietnam still haunted its leaders." In particular, in Herring's view, "senior military leaders "brought from Vietnam a keen sense of the limits of public tolerance for a protracted war." Herring writes, that the Persian Gulf War was "more about Vietnam than about Kuwait, oil, and Iraq." According to Herring: "The nation's smashing and stunningly easy victory in the Persian Gulf War seemed for many Americans - military and civilian - a long-awaited vindication." Herring concludes: "The legacy of Vietnam for the military has thus been enormous."

Utilizing Vietnamese-language sources, Robert Brigham, Associate Professor of History at Vassar College, writes about politics in postwar Vietnam. According to Brigham, the Vietnamese Communist Party created "national heroes out of those who sacrificed for the revolution," and the "pantheon of champions" included Ho Chi Minh and Vo Nguyen Giap. At the same time, a new constitution was adopted in 1980, which created a Council of State, and, according to Brigham, this "institutionalized the [Vietnamese Communist Party's] commitment to shared power." (Brigham quotes an editor that, "[d]uring the tension of the war all decision-making was concentrated in the hands of a few men and they had become over-confident.") According to Brigham's, post-war Vietnamese society has treated the war leaders as revolutionary heroes, but their methods of governing have been dramatically altered.

Robert McNamara is the only non-academic contributor to this volume, but his perspective is worthwhile. For instance, one of his conclusions is that the "United States should never apply its economic, political, or military power other than in a multilateral context," except in the event of a "direct threat to the security" of the U.S. McNamara explains that this is the "lesson we should have learned in Vietnam: external military force has only a limited capacity to facilitate the process of nation building." I found McNamara's wide-ranging essay intelligent and well-meaning, but it addressed issues beyond Vietnam, and I suspect that some readers will join McNamara's critics (and there remain many of them) in holding that anything he has to say, except in abject apology for being the architect of U.S. Vietnam policy, is not welcomed.

These essays are selective, addressing only some of the important historical issues emanating from the Vietnam War, but the perspectives offered by Neu, Balogh, and Herring, in particular, add substance to the ongoing debate. Together, they demonstrate that the legacies of this conflict are many and complex, both in the United States and Vietnam.

I learned about the politics of war for the people in Vietnam, and the price paid for actions taken by those in power. It also explained the reactions of all those involved.

Also appeared as: Mededelingen van het Botanisch Museum en Herbarium van de Rijksuniversiteit te Utrecht, no 422

A 30 page description and discussion of the anatomy of ten species of woods of SE-Greenland, illustrated with one map and 23 half-tone figures (good quality reproductions). A solid piece of work, but limited in scope, mainly because Greenland does not have much in the way of trees. Likely to be of some value for those interested in ecological wood anatomy.