|
crsutton -> RE: Books/Atkinson (7/7/2014 4:57:47 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
quote:
ORIGINAL: jmalter
IMO it's not possible to separate military history from its social / political context. You might be able to find 'operational' mil-hist, but that's not gonna tell you anything about what actually happened.
I couldn't disagree more. There are plenty of excellent autobiographies out there that minimize or mitigate the social / political context of the war(s) in which they are written. In reading the History of the United States Navy in the Second World War (Morrison), I've not sensed any political overreach. Same with the sound footing of Breakout and Pursuit (official US Army history of the Second World War in Europe, post July 1944) and the USMC Official histories. The latter does a superb job in explaining EXACTLY what was happening on the field in excruciating detail and lets the reader know what was really happening.
For one-volume operational or strategic overviews, I understand why the political arena needs some discussion. But while it's OK in measured quantity for context, the Vietnam War books tend to focus on this predominantly. Moreso, in my opinion, than most other conflicts. How many other books, for example, really deal with the fighting on the ground and in the air post Tet? I've not seen many that can divorce the good account of the American soldier 1968-1972 against the VC and NVA from the political machinations of the home front during this tumultuous period.
Well CB, the original post was about Atkinson, so I can use him as an example. To me the absolute "best" part of the third book was his recount and analysis of the Yalta conference. You can describe campaigns and battles with little political analysis (although very few in my view) but not a war. The problem with Vietnam is that there were really very few set piece battles or distinctive campaigns to define the war with. The war, and global political and social situation were so intertwined that it would be impossible to separate them. The battle of Ap Bac in 1963 is a prime example. Without an understanding of the underlying political ramifications this small but crucial battle really cannot be seen in context. To me any attempt to separate the two would be like crossing the Rocky Mountains with your car windows covered in newspaper. You certainly would know where you started and assuming you did not drive over a cliff, know where you arrived at but you really would not have an understanding of how you got there...[;)]
|
|
|
|
