• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

History books that warrant a good reading

The New Internationalist? Lol. Hardly an unbiased source...

Okay, here are a few different ones...

"A full-blooded member of what he calls the "revisionist school" of Vietnam War historians.... Though Moyar marshals many primary sources to buttress his political point of view, he undermines his argument by disparaging those he disagrees with (calling Sheehan and Halberstam, for example, "indignant," "vengeful," and "self-righteous"). He also showers praise on those who backed Diem, the autocratic leader who stifled the press and his political opponents. Revisionists will embrace the book" (Publishers Weekly)

"A radically revisionist account of America's policy in Vietnam" (Library Journal)

"A revisionist history that challenges the notion that U.S. involvement in Vietnam was misguided" (Chronicle of Higher Education)

"will be challenged by many of the well-respected scholars he confronts" (ForeWard)

By the way, I give you the squinty skeptical eye for using Wikipedia.

Unless you can empirically demonstrate otherwise, this is opinion rather than factual.

Don't you think this is a silly thing to say? Of course that specific comment was my opinion. However... are you trying to insinuate that something can't be an "opinion" and also be "factual"??

Edit: can't forget aegyptos...

Anyone who doesn't agree with LP's extreme leftwing agenda is automatically a shallow revisionist

Uh, no. I've quoted other people's reviews of the guy's work.
 
Last edited:
Okay, here are a few different ones...

"A full-blooded member of what he calls the "revisionist school" of Vietnam War historians.... Though Moyar marshals many primary sources to buttress his political point of view, he undermines his argument by disparaging those he disagrees with (calling Sheehan and Halberstam, for example, "indignant," "vengeful," and "self-righteous"). He also showers praise on those who backed Diem, the autocratic leader who stifled the press and his political opponents. Revisionists will embrace the book" (Publishers Weekly)

"A radically revisionist account of America's policy in Vietnam" (Library Journal)

"A revisionist history that challenges the notion that U.S. involvement in Vietnam was misguided" (Chronicle of Higher Education)

"will be challenged by many of the well-respected scholars he confronts" (ForeWard)

By the way, I give you the squinty skeptical eye for using Wikipedia.
You were lazy. You should have done the above from the jump rather than assume one review from a biased source would suffice.

Don't you think this is somewhat of a silly comment? Of course my comment was my opinion.
It was unnecessary and it attempted to demean.

aegyptos responded to a request. Rather than diss his suggestion, you should have just provided your own Vietnam book selections and moved on.
 
The US forces acquitted themselves very well in Vietnam, winning every major engagement until they were withdrawn from combat for political reasons. The North Vietnamese Army was the toughest, most talented and dedicated opponent American soldiers ever faced in battle surpassing even the German Army of WW2.

For some good reading on the subject find:

Triumph Forsaken, The Vietnam War 1954-1965 and Phoenix and the Birds of Prey: Counter insurgency and Counterterror in Vietnam both by Professor Mark Moyer.

You say you have read that 1/5 of US KIAs in Vietnam came about through friendly fire. I've never seen that number before. May I ask where you read this?

i read it very recently whilst on a break in work, i think the book was Hutchinson encyclopedia, i will check tomorrow and confirm. it surprised me to be honest but knowing the way Americans often use blanket bombing i would not be surprised. dont take me wrong I'm ex-military and took part in the first gulf war in 91 and there the British lost more from friendly fire [American bombers] than we did from the Iraqi military, not that there were huge losses in the coalition as a whole. the reverse being, with the sustained bombing campaign prior to our advancement resulted in a totally demolished and demoralized Iraqi Army thus enabling us ground troops a much easier time. which I'm very much appreciative of.

paul.
 
You were lazy. You should have done the above from the jump rather than assume one review from a biased source would suffice.

No I wasn't. I had all those reviews at my fingertips from the start. Why shoot the whole ammo clip in the first burst?

It was unnecessary and it attempted to demean.

No it wasn't. The original poster asked specifically for unbais books. Aegyptos was trying to pass his stuff off as such. If you want to see an unnecessary attempt to demean, check out his posts the previous thread where he and I chatted (where were you then?)
 
No I wasn't. I had all those reviews at my fingertips from the start. Why shoot the whole ammo clip in the first burst?
To avoid this unnecessary rigamarole.

No it wasn't. The original poster asked specifically for unbais books. Aegyptos was trying to pass his stuff off as such.
LP, give me a little credit. I do my homework. The original poster said nothing whatsoever about bias...

can anyone recommend good books on the Vietnam war? its something i would like to know more about, from snips I've read so far the US didn't come out of it to good [militarily], especially when you read 1/5 of US troops were killed by friendly fire thats about 10,000 if my facts are correct.

thanks paul.

If you want to see an unnecessary attempt to demean, check out his posts the previous thread where he and I chatted (where were you then?)
Were your fingers unavailable? I've said it a thousand times... report any posts that you consider offensive.

Now... can we all get along and move on? :mrgreen:
 
LP, give me a little credit. I do my homework. The original poster said nothing whatsoever about bias..

You are correct.

Were your fingers unavailable? I've said it a thousand times... report any posts that you consider offensive.

Actually, I believe it was you who told me once in a PM that people who use that feature too often fall into the Chicken Little paradigm (I'm paraphrasing). So, where is the happy medium? Why do you only magically show up when you think it's time to criticize my posts, and not when someone is mocking my Bachelor's Degree?
 
You are correct.
ThankQ :mrgreen:

Actually, I believe it was you who told me once in a PM that people who use that feature too often fall into the Chicken Little paradigm (I'm paraphrasing). So, where is the happy medium?
No worries there as long as the complaints have some empirical merit.

Why do you only magically show up when you think it's time to criticize my posts, and not when someone is mocking my Bachelor's Degree?
Because I'm magical? Seriously LP, I have neither the time nor the inclination to tag around after you and besides... some folks mock my degree also. Unfortunately, it oftentimes goes with the territory.

I do want you to understand something though. I have as much right as any other member to post in threads. If you don't agree with my thoughts fine... but don't commingle a difference of topical opinion between us with my role as a Moderator. Under a Mod action, I always unequivocally present myself as such to avoid any confusion or misperception. As you can plainly see, I have posted on this thread strictly as a member of Debate Politics. You may of course disagree with my threads and/or posts, but don't confuse these personal contributions with official forum moderation.
 
Under a Mod action, I always unequivocally present myself as such to avoid any confusion or misperception.

I understand this.

My point is not that I disagree with your responses to my posts in this thread (although I do find them petty.... I'm "lazy" because I actually researched editorial reviews on the books??).

My point is this..... I don't understand how you can simultaneously be so politically biased {to the point where you apparently turn a blind eye to childish behavior just because it agrees with your ideology}... and at the same time serve as a neural keeper of the peace.
 
Leftist Protozoa uses the word "revision" to in an attempt to vilify texts he does not personally agree with. The fact that he hasn't read any of the ones that have figured in recent arguments here is not relevant to him. His politics requires that he automatically adopt oppositional stances on various subjects depending on whether or not he imagines the the poster's politics are not as radically left as his own even when he knows virtually nothing about the subject. He demonstrated this remarkably kneejerk response in several threads concerning questions of American history and now with regard to the Vietnam War. In his world everything is grist for for political mill.

So what about revision in the writing of history? History writing is a process of continual revision. Why do scholars still write books about Custer and the Little Big Horn or the Great Depression? After all, there were books written about those things shortly after they occurred. Some of them are even pretty good. But good as they are its not enough. Time does not stand still. As scholars sift through primary and secondary source material they find facts that were previous undiscovered, overlooked or ignored. The introduction of this material into the finished product represents a revision of what was previous known or accepted about the subject. All good history writers are therefore, revisors. For instance beginning in about 1960 or so scholars began to understand that Women, Blacks and American Indians were under represented in the writing of history and that their roles were not given the weight that they had earned by their contributions to our common history. Many scholars examined the roles minority groups played in history and much good work resulted, and the "Great Man" trope in history writing is less prevalent today than it once was. I have many of these books in my collection. A great favorite of mine among them is "The Age of Homespun" by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich a book that examines the role of women on the colonial frontier. This is the process of revision at work in history. Moyer's two books about Vietnam are a revision of history in the sense that they both bring new information and new voices to the table while offering a fresh perspective.

What LP is really doing is trying to control and restrict your free access to knowledge. Didn't they try that in Germany and USSR at one time? Wonder how that turned out? For those who don't want their familiar and comfortable ideas about the nature of the war in Vietnam challenged, those who wish to imagine that the war was exactly as shown on the TV news by Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite, those who cling desperately to the narrow minded leftist meme about the war being morally and militarily indefensible I say by all means avoid any work that may challenge your preconceived notions. I doubt if there are many individuals on this site as intellectually dormant and incurious as that but if there are they don't need to read some stinking book, they should just direct any questions they may have about history to Leftist Protozoa. He'll wiki up something for them that passes his political test.
 
Leftist Protozoa uses the word "revision" to in an attempt to vilify texts he does not personally agree with. The fact that he hasn't read any of the ones that have figured in recent arguments here is not relevant to him. His politics requires that he automatically adopt oppositional stances on various subjects depending on whether or not he imagines the the poster's politics are not as radically left as his own even when he knows virtually nothing about the subject. He demonstrated this remarkably kneejerk response in several threads concerning questions of American history and now with regard to the Vietnam War. In his world everything is grist for for political mill.

So what about revision in the writing of history? History writing is a process of continual revision. Why do scholars still write books about Custer and the Little Big Horn or the Great Depression? After all, there were books written about those things shortly after they occurred. Some of them are even pretty good. But good as they are its not enough. Time does not stand still. As scholars sift through primary and secondary source material they find facts that were previous undiscovered, overlooked or ignored. The introduction of this material into the finished product represents a revision of what was previous known or accepted about the subject. All good history writers are therefore, revisors. For instance beginning in about 1960 or so scholars began to understand that Women, Blacks and American Indians were under represented in the writing of history and that their roles were not given the weight that they had earned by their contributions to our common history. Many scholars examined the roles minority groups played in history and much good work resulted, and the "Great Man" trope in history writing is less prevalent today than it once was. I have many of these books in my collection. A great favorite of mine among them is "The Age of Homespun" by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich a book that examines the role of women on the colonial frontier. This is the process of revision at work in history. Moyer's two books about Vietnam are a revision of history in the sense that they both bring new information and new voices to the table while offering a fresh perspective.

What LP is really doing is trying to control and restrict your free access to knowledge. Didn't they try that in Germany and USSR at one time? Wonder how that turned out? For those who don't want their familiar and comfortable ideas about the nature of the war in Vietnam challenged, those who wish to imagine that the war was exactly as shown on the TV news by Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite, those who cling desperately to the narrow minded leftist meme about the war being morally and militarily indefensible I say by all means avoid any work that may challenge your preconceived notions. I doubt if there are many individuals on this site as intellectually dormant and incurious as that but if there are they don't need to read some stinking book, they should just direct any questions they may have about history to Leftist Protozoa. He'll wiki up something for them that passes his political test.

"It was unnecessary and it attempted to demean." Tashah
 
You demean and embarrass yourself, LP. Perhaps you should pick your fights more wisely.
 
I understand this.
Okay

My point is not that I disagree with your responses to my posts in this thread (although I do find them petty.... I'm "lazy" because I actually researched editorial reviews on the books??).
If you had posted your various sources in-toto instead of just one biased opinion, I would have had no problem with your contention. The fact is, you didn't do this until I called you on it and forced your hand even though you admitted these other sources were already "at my fingertips". As is obvious, you attempted an initial shortcut that didn't quite pan out.

My point is this..... I don't understand how you can simultaneously be so politically biased {to the point where you apparently turn a blind eye to childish behavior just because it agrees with your ideology}... and at the same time serve as a neural keeper of the peace.
The bottom-line point is, I rarely moderate in a thread in which I am also a participant. It is the same with all Moderators. I didn't moderate in this thread whatsoever. Neither with you nor with anyone else. Another point. I have no idea what transpires in every thread here at DP. Be aware that there are over 720,000 posts existant here at DP. You simply MUST use the Report Post feature when you have a complaint. Otherwise, it may simply go unnoticed by the Mod Team.
 
you attempted an initial shortcut that didn't quite pan out.

I'm really at a loss as to how you can spin this into me doing something wrong. I knew someone would attack the source I provided, so I held back some material. It made for a delightful right hook after the left jab (no pun intended). You're just being a sore loser about this.

You simply MUST use the Report Post feature when you have a complaint. Otherwise, it may simply go unnoticed by the Mod Team

Apparently the "may" hinges on if you (Tashah) personally agree with the obtuse comment.
 
Moderator's Warning:
First of all, let's all remember the DP golden rule - civility a must.

Secondly, let's also remember that issues with mods and/or mod actions need to be handled via PM. Every member is welcome to PM any mod at any time; you do NOT have to specifically address the mod you have issues with or that gave you an infraction. LP, your continued attempts to bring Tashah's status as a mod into the discussion is inappropriate and has no bearing on the discussion at hand. Please keep your future posts in this thread related to the topic of this thread only, and take your mod grievances to PM.
 
meh

Believe what you want. The bottom line is that I presented about a half-dozen editorial reviews that don't have much good to say about the books in question. One was from a source that was liberal, but was reprinted in the National Review (which is where I found it... neither Google or Wikipedia were involved in any of my research). Believe it or not, I found about three more that I didn't bother to quote, because they said the same things as others I had included.

I think it's lame to say "you didn't post all your information at once" or "you must have used Google/Wikipedia" and consider that a substantive response. Or the part about comparing me to totalitarian governments.... nice. You attack my Liberal values all you want. I just presented editorial reviews that consider your author to be less than reputable.

I know that it hurts when I score a point. You'll get over it.
 
If you liked the above by Solzhenitsyn, I highly recommend...

"One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" and "The Gulag Archipelago"

Once again, digest somewhat slowly. :mrgreen:

Both excellent books!

I have them both, and both are quite disturbing to read.
 
This is the same Mark Moyer who's work has been described as a “shallow, cynical, and selective effort by an American conservative who wishes to justify global military domination in the spirit of the aggressive imperialist Teddy Roosevelt” (Prof Colin Gordon in the New Internationalist). He is also the same conservative revisionist historian who wrote a long whiny piece for the National Review about not getting hired at the University of Iowa because of his extremist view of history. Yawn. At least that's why he thinks they didn't hire him. You'll find that all recommendations by aegyptos fall into this category.

Or... you could look for a book by a reputable historian.

have you a reputable historian in mind?

paul.
 
have you a reputable historian in mind?

paul.
As with most historical topics, I would urge you to be expansive in your quest. Be openminded and examine different viewpoints. The more information that you digest, the better equipped you will be in formulating your own opinion.
 
A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam by Neil Sheehan is my favorite.


I've read that. Its a great book. Sheehan is wonderful writer. I was glued to the book from start to finish.

Vann was an interesting guy. Unfortunately neither Harkins or Westmoreland was interested in what he had to offer.

The thing to remember about Vann is that his ideas were good for the part of the war he was familiar with - the US Army's and ARVN copunter-insurgency war against the Viet Cong. Vann's tactics would not have worked in the very different war the Marines were fighting against the regular forces of the North Vietnamese Army, however.
 
Back
Top Bottom