In Vietnam , Gary R. Hess describes and evaluates the main arguments of scholars, participants, and journalists, both revisionist and orthodox in their approach, as they try to answer fundamental questions of the Vietnam War.
This is an enormously valuable book for those interested in the Vietnam War. Taking the several most divisive points of the debate about the meaning of the war, Hess presents the revisionist and orthodox (hawk and dove) positions on those issues. The arguments are laid out clearly and objectively in point/counterpoint fashion. A careful, understandable discussion of an opaque subject. Hess did a good job with controversial material. I admire his excellent analysis, feeling it came from comprehensive research. His impartiality is so impeccable, his arguments for the opposing arguments so convincing, that I'd find myself believing first one position then the other. Good historical writing.
The book is part of the “Contesting the Past” series. Each chapter takes a specific question related to the war and gives the traditional (anti-war) view and the revisionist (pro-war) view of it. Chapters include: Was it necessary? Was there a missed opportunity to get out? Could an all-out effort have won it? Could a “hearts and minds” approach have won it? Did the media lose the war? Was Tet a win or loss? Did Nixon-Kissinger unnecessarily prolong the war? The author appears to have a bias toward the traditional view that the war was unwinnable. He concludes each chapter with a statement that says the evidence for the traditional view is stronger.
The book is excellent. It is a kind of FAQ’s of the Vietnam war that gives a pretty fair opportunity for both sides to answer. It is thought provoking.
It could be used as a guide for discussing the war with a class. It would be a great text for a class on Vietnam.