Outstanding Military History

What did you like most about Hue 1968?

Until I read Mark Bowden's outstanding Hue - 1968, I hadn't really appreciated the significance of Tet and Hue as a turning point in the Vietnam war. This is military history at its best, combining detailed research with clear, objective and compelling analysis. In other contexts, the level of detail would be confusing but Hue was such a complex and fragmented battle that Bowden is able to assemble all the disparate elements into a coherent narrative. It is only in the detail that you see the disconnect between the higher levels of command on both sides and the tactical actions on the ground. Bowden is balanced and objective about the significant failure of US generalship at theatre commander and formation level and his indictment of Westmorland, LaHue and Tolson in particular is salutary. In Bowden's view, the indictment is not just of incompetence but of wilful and arrogant self-delusion, which they translated into unrealistic and bombastic orders which got a large number of their subordinates killed and wounded in futile attacks. Bowden's review of the military-strategic and political context is also compelling but is more familiar territory. His judgment that the Press reporting was accurate, objective and in the public interest contrasts starkly with the popular misconception in the US that the Press unfairly influenced the US people to turn against the war. This book is definitive and a landmark in the literature of Vietnam, standing with the handful of books which provide real and original insight into a tragic and misdirected war.

What was one of the most memorable moments of Hue 1968?

Bowden's account of the shock and impact of the initial Front assault on Hue and shock and disbelief it achieved amongst the US troops. His account of the early defence of the MACV compound in Hue is memorable. His later portrayal of street fighting to recover the Triangle brings to life urban combat and we see a privileged view of what it was like for both sides and for the civilians caught up in the fighting.

What does Joe Barrett bring to the story that you wouldn’t experience if you had only read the book?

Joe Barrett is masterful. He narrates with real understanding and sympathy for the subject, avoids melodrama, has an engaging and lively voice which draws you to the narrative and keeps your attention. You really feel his deep engagement with the personalities involved and this creates an impression of intimacy which is the strength of the audiobook format. One of the best and in stark contrast to the narrators of other audio books who have little understanding of or sympathy with their subject and an inflated view of their thespian abilities. Joe Barratt avoids both traps and is a master of his craft.

Did you have an emotional reaction to this book? Did it make you laugh or cry?

It's military history. I read it with objective and detached interest. That said, Mark Bowden has interviewed many of the personalities in the book and has an obvious rapport with them which translates into many moving and human passages.

Any additional comments?

A fine book and one that particularly suits the audio format. Thank you to Mark Bowden and Joe Barrett for many hours well spent listening to their words.

4 people found this helpful

Very insightful book

Not the usual gung ho rubbish. This book attempts to tell the story from different sides. it felt like very balanced tale, and gripping too.

2 people found this helpful

History of a pivotal and gruesome battle

A history of one of the pivotal battles of the American war in Vietnam. As always with Mark Bowden, excellent and in depth research. Key points Disconnect between the reality of the situation “on the ground” and the senior officers and politicians Bravery in Alliance and American sides Apparent total invisibility of ARVN and South Vietnamese authorities How well planned militarily and politically the Tet offensive in Hue was, under the noses of the CIA and Military Intelligence Survivability of American marines and troops from some very gruesome injuries

1 person found this helpful

Brilliant and important history

This is a gripping, well written and very important book. Defines that war so well but frightening how so many lessons learnt have been ignored since then. Perfect blend of narrative, observation and context - and from all sides. The narration is perfect. Can’t wait to start this again.

1 person found this helpful

awesome

it was a fantastic history of a battle that had briefly entered into my fascination with the indo-china area. Bowden is a brilliant author, historian & journalist

interesting and well researched

good book educational and interesting well read and layed out would recommend if interested in Vietnam War

Couldn’t stop listening

A gripping and harrowing account of a pivotal battle in the Vietnam War.The book also examines the story from the other side of the hill and includes accounts of Vietnamese participants.

Fascinating .

The very honest reminiscences of veterans gave this book real value and authority I felt. It certainly increased my understanding of why this was really an unwinnable war for the U.S to be involved in, which does not detract on iota from the bravery of the veterans. So sad at so much loss of life and innocence on both sides. No winners really.

Journalistically worthy, but dry and unsatisfying

Bowden is an odd author, writing the superb Black Hawk Down followed by a turgid book on Pablo Escobar. I stopped reading his books after being disillusioned by the Pablo puff-piece. At his best he's brilliant, and while this account of the battle of Hue does not have the 'real-time, as it happens' perspective that made Black Hawk Down so gripping, it is nonetheless a thorough and harrowing account of the battle. Its a good subject, but has Bowden lost his magic? The author has a journalists mentality of only reporting the facts. In Blackhawk down he used the facts to tell a 'story' as it happened, like in a novel, only each sentence was backed up with studied references and interviews. He has changed his style for this book, and not for the better in my opinion. He now tries to write as a historian, but he seems to lack the understanding that great historians (such as Max Hastings) delve deep into nuances, context and use their intuition to tease out intentions. Bowden just reports like a newspaperman, not a historian. Facts only please, gentlemen. For example, any perspective or context of the battle is given by quoting his interviewees. This is great for a newspaper, bad for a historical account. Interviewees want to seem smart with the benefit of hindsight. He criticises Westmoreland for this, but fails to see that all of the people he speaks to after the war is going to puff themselves up, given justifications after-the-fact, and want to show themselves as being smarter than they were. Particularly the Vietnamese who won the war and ended up the worse for it. He reports everything they say as 'the truth,' apart from Westmoreland who he seems to have a personal grudge against and is the only one he berates for spinning the facts. Another problem of his journalistic account is that he tends to make both sides seem equally as bad because he is afraid to take sides. Good journalists are discouraged from getting involved in the nitty gritty of context and opinion. Good historians live for the nitty gritty of context and opinion. Great historians frame the context of their subject for the rest of us - for them context, opinion and intuition are the meat and potatoes of their work. Bowden is either afraid of having an opinion, or afraid of venturing it. For example, the political murders enacted by the Communists he equates with the subsequent tit-for-tat murders by the South Vietnamese. In his journalist mind, they are one and the same. Reading between the lines, I'm not so sure that the South Vietnamese would have killed the NVA sympathisers if the NVA hadn't brutalised and murdered politicians and uncooperative civilians. Bowden simply equates the two sides, implying both were equally wicked. True, in a literal sense, but I'm not convinced the South Vietnamese would have sought bloody retribution if the Communists had not insisted on the torture and brutalisation of the civilians in the first place. Bowden ducks the issue. A good historian would examine the issue in detail and perhaps conclude that 'what goes around comes around.' He interviews the Vietnamese combatants that are still alive, but fails to ask the obvious question: "was it worth it?" The Vietnamese who fought against the Americans are proud and even boastful, but Bowden doesn't even hint that the country they live in is far worse than what may have been had they 'lost.' Modern Vietnam is no place to live compared to South Korea or Japan, both South East Asian allies of the US. He doesn't confront them with this and ask if living in a poor police-state was worth their sacrifice. Also, I would like to have him dig a little harder into the disillusionment of the NVA who expected the city of Hue to rise against the Americans. Stories, particularly factual accounts, are about real people. I want to know what those NVA felt when they realised the people weren't buying Communism. Journalism is dry, without context and open to interpretation. A good history book should be the opposite - it needs context, consideration, and a point of view. Bowden's journalistic heritage makes for an accurate, if dry read, and one that feels ultimately unsatisfying. Either he is afraid to venture an opinion because of his journalistic instincts, or because he's an American and can't face the pain of examining the war. Without context and a framing opinion, the book is lightweight and unsatisfying. But at least it isn't about Pablo Escobar. Be thankful for small mercies.

1 person found this helpful

A thriller but exposes Audible problems

REads like a thriller, especially in the first half.
The Audible version is missing the maps, references and pictures. The chapters are listed as 1-56 instead of part 1 "name", chapter 1 "name", chapter 2 "name" and then PArt 2 etc. So its harder to understand where you are if there is a problem or get an overview of the book from its chapter list. Also there is an advantage to seeing names in print. It kind of needs a written reference section. I know some books have them but I didn't see one.