Customer Reviews

Webster's New World Dictionary of the Vietnam War

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Marc Leepson and Helen Hannaford have just edited a reference work titled "Webster's New World Dictionary of the Vietnam War." This 600-page volume is an excellent addition to a growing library of Vietnam War reference books that include: John S. Bowman's "The Vietnam War: An Almanac." New York: World Almanac Publications, 1985; Philip K. Jason. "The Vietnam War in Literature: An Annotated Bibliography of Criticisms." Pasadena, California and Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Salem Press, 1992; Stanley I. Kutler. "Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War." New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1996; John Newman, David A. Willson, David J. DeRose, Stephen Hidalgo, and Nancy J. Kendall. "Vietnam War Literature." Lanham, Md. & London: Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1996; James Olson. "Dictionary of the Vietnam War." New York: Peter Bedrick Books, 1987; Linda Reinberg. "In the Field: The Language of the Vietnam War." New York, Oxford: Facts on File, 1991; Harry G. Summer, Jr. "Historical Atlas of the Vietnam War." Boston, New York: Houghton, Mifflin Company, 1995; Carl Singleton. "Vietnam Studies: An Annotated Bibliography." Lanham, Md. & London: The Scarecrow Press; and Pasadena, Calif. & Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Salem Press, 1997; Spencer C. Tucker, editor. "Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: A Political, Social and Military History." Santa Barbara, California, Denver, Colorado, Oxford, England: ABC-Clio, 1998. Leepson and Hannaford's work contains 1,561 encyclopedic entries with the standard "see" and "see also" cross references, eight appendices, and fourteen maps. Central to the essence and ambitions of the book are the contributions of fifty-two scholars whose comments provide bedrock information on an immense array of subjects. The dictionary's specific entries vary in length from a few words for topics such as "jungle boots" and "Rome Plow," to more extensive two-plus page discussions of key items like "Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN)," "Marines," and "People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN)." Leepson and Hannaford have done a commendable job of boiling down an overwhelming amount of information into one useable, quick-reference volume. They admit that their dictionary is not "a definitive account" of the war. (p. v) There is no such work. Yet their result is a welcome addition to the massvie body of literature dealing with a war for which we are steadily compiling layer upon layer of books, government documents, videos, films, journal articles, conference papers, and electronic data-base sources. While those interested in the Vietnam War often debate the conflict heatedly in terms of cause and legacies, accuracy of information, and analytical framework, there can be no doubt that the Vietnam generation has been extraordinarily productive in creating a rich corpus of Vietnam War works for future generations to access and evaluate. "Webster's New World Dictionary of the Vietnam War" speaks eloquently of its editors' sincere and arduous efforts to create a dictionary that will fit competently on library shelves among so many other reference works. It is a recommended purchase for those who wish to possess authoritative accounts of a war that is slowly becoming the most studied conflict in United States history.

As a Vietnam War veteran, college reference librarian and instructor of a class on the Vietnam War, I was thrilled to discover Webster's New World Dictionary of the Vienam War, edited by Marc Leepson. Marc had e-mailed me many months ago and told me about this project and had asked me to help him with some of the fact verification, which I was happy to do, but I had forgotten all about it by the time I saw the book advertised. As a reference librarian, I especially appreciate the clear cross-references, the maps and the text of the Paris Peace Accords which is included in Appendix F. Unlike most dictionaries of the Vietnam War, this book has many entries on Asian political leaders important to the war. For example, see the entry on Souvanna Phouma. Writers, such as Tim O'Brien, also get excellent entries which list their important work. For a bias free, one volume reference book on the Vietnam War, you can't go wrong with this one.

As a serious writer, artist, student and historian of the Vietnam War (as well as a disabled veteran of that conflict), I was appalled and saddened to discover the highly negative reviews of this book posted on amazon.com by Mr. Rosette and a "Beltway Country" vet/researcher who prefers the cloak of anonymity

Unlike these two gentleman, neither of whom gave "Webster's New World Dictionary of the Vietnam War" other than a cursory, bookstore review (their admission), I actually purchased the book via amazon.com and have spent many hours pouring through its illuminating pages as part of the research for an encyclopedia I'm writing (entitled "Where We Were," an attempt to identify in detail every single military installation and Firebase of the American War that already includes over 15,000 entries and 1,000+ pages).

As a result, I must say that what I found among its pages does not in any way resemble the inflammatory descriptions presented by Mr. Rosette and Mr. "Beltway," and therefore feel compelled to step forward in its defense!

This dictionary is a remarkable and extremely comprehensive reference volume unique among, and significantly superior to, its peers in that genre of the literature of the war. In fact, I would unhesitatingly recommend it be purchased as a standard reference for the library of any student or historian of the war of my generation.

What Mr. Leepson does present are over 1,500 entries of what in my opinion is an unbiased, factual reporting of events, personalities, weapons and places pertinent to the VN experience. No previous similar attempt ("Dictionary of the VN War," by James Olson; "The VN War, An Alamanac," by John Bowman come immediately to mind) are anywhere nearly as comprehensive, or as well-formatted, or as well-written than this Herculean effort.

Claims the book is anti-war and ignores the atrocities and dishonorable acts of the enemy are patently absurd. The "Hue" entry, for example mentions the often ignored fact that nearly 3,000 religious leaders, civil servants, educators, ARVN and SVN politicians were "arrested" and then unmercifully executed by the VNA. For another example, look at the "Atrocity" entry which clearly discusses other NVA/VC transgressions thusly: "Most instances of killing captured or wounded soldiers...murder, rape and robbery by soldiers of both sides fall into [the atrocity category]. Common too was the [theft] of food and other supplies from peasants by the soldiers of both Vietnamese factions, although the Viet Cong Guerillas regularized theirs as a form of taxation." If the book were ultra-left in persuasion, would such material be reported as fact by the author? Hardly.

What you'll find instead are tons of important and often obscure facts reported in a very professional, straight-forward, readable style. Don't be fooled by the casual and ill-founded remarks of two people who did not even take the time to read the text they so readily condemn!

Mr. Leepson, by the way, is the very thoughtful, intelligent and reflective Arts Editor for the VVA's VETERAN Magazine in Wash. D.C. There he has deservedly earned an impecable reputation for the quality and fairness evident in his reviews of the literature, poetry, plays, TV presentations and films of the Vietnam War.

Most Sincerely, Michael "M-60" Kelley

Company D, 1st Bn/502d Infantry, 101st Abn Div, RVN 69/70 (retired for disability due to wounds received 16Sep70; Vietnam Veterans Arts Group 80-99; California Vienam Veterans Memorial Commission,84-91; Art displayed at Chicago's National Vietnam Veterans Art Museum; Author of WHERE WE WERE (late 99 release), Ambush at Firebase Bastonge (VIETNAM Magazine, Jun 99 issue); Contributor to: Dear America-Letters Home from Vietnam, book and film; "We Were Soldiers Once and Young..." and etc...

With over 1500 entries this dictionary guides you through a lot of interesting facts of the war. The descriptions are short and I agree that the book contains a number of errors. Therefore you should not regard it as an important source, but as a start for finding out about the different aspects of the war. Everytime you grab the book you'll find some new things that attracts your attention and before you know it you have spend a lot of time with the book in front of you.

Page 397 ends with an entry on Ticket Punching, so Ticket Punching is the caption at the top of the page. Of the nine entries on that page, I was most familiar with 365 Days, a book by Ronald J. Glasser, a U.S. Army Medical Corps physician who treated burn patients in Japan. There is also an entry for Strom Thurmond, a U.S. Senator since 1954, on that page. All that page 397 says about Thot Not, Operation is "See Daniel Boone Operations." Daniel Boone was a Special Forces thing in Cambodia. Ultimately Thot Not was arrived at as the perfect description for such people who, being "dressed as peasants or in unrecognizable uniforms, went into Cambodia to gather intelligence or to sabotage communist installations at the Southern end of the Ho Chi Minh Trail, despite U.S. law forbidding operations in countries not at war with the United States." (p. 88). The entry for Operation Arc Light covers almost a page, from the first strike on 18 June 1965, dropped from B-52s flying above 30,000 feet, to the last on 18 August 1973. I had missed seeing the effective strikes against NVA forces at Khe Sanh in 1968 and Pleiku and An Loc in 1972 when they happened, and only visited one of those sites in the highly exciting time in between those events. There are only eleven lines in the entry for Fonda, Jane, not counting the "See also: Hawks and Doves; Teach-Ins." (p. 131). The entry on Free-Fire Zones is longer, and includes the information that "After 1965, the Pentagon renamed the zones `specific strike zones,'" (p. 138), but I was in one after 1969 and still think that the army was calling them Free-Fire Zones. I was too close to Pinkville to know what the Pentagon was thinking about a lot of things, so this book contains a number of revelations, even for me. Also from Washington, D.C., Appendix E has the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Public Law 88-408; 78 Stat. 384 which clearly stated, "the United States is assisting the peoples of southeast Asia to protect their freedom and has no territorial, military or political ambitions in that area." (p. 543) Appendix F on pages 545-578 contains the text of the Paris Peace Accords~27 January 1973, and I might read this some day to see if it says anything about American bodies, a subject on which there is no entry in the main part of the Dictionary, but which has been the subject of much diplomatic discussion since the Accords were agreed to, and articles in the press always seemed a bit vague about what the elements of the agreement were. This book is a tiny additon to the level of recognition of history as a context and part of American culture, but is a bit heavy on the items of controversy which mattered as much as anything about Vietnam, which is one of those things which has never really been subject to agreement.

I have been teaching a Vietnam War history course for five years and have always wanted to have such a concise, well-conceived, and accurate reference book as the Dictionary of the Vietnam War. Controversy surrounds the war and our involvement--this is not unusual since the Vietnam War was one of the most devastating emotional events in American history. Due to this fact, often times the struggles to deal with the legacies of the war venture off into directions that are not productive and do not promote further understanding and healing. In my opinion, the entries that I checked in this book are well written, informative, and do not convey any particular bias. I will use this book and will recommend it to my students.

Dr. Bruce Solheim, Professor of History

I spent about 20 minutes scanning through this book at a book store. I am a Vietnam Veteran that does research at the National Archives to verify events. What I found was a strong anti-war bias and a glossing over of events. A prim example is every American Base Camp listed shows it's peak strength , usually around late 1968 and then says it was taken / overrun by the NVA on a certain day in 1975. The trouble is all Americans troops had left in early 73 and all bases were turned over to the ARVN between 1969 and 1973. In the talk of towns destroyed during the TET offensive they talk of the US firepower used and how many civilians died and it is worded in a manner to interpet that the US military killed everyone of them. They list every War protester of any prominance but leave out any real mention of the Viet Cong Attrocities. Many locations and events are not even mentioned. In order to tell history properly all information has to be told not just the selected truths.

This is book is so unfactual that it is a shame to the great name of Webster! I read through this book at my local Barnes and Noble and wouldn't use for a door stopper let alone a factual refference. It is full of lies and half truths and so anti-war one sidded that you would think it was the Americans and not the Viet Cong who killed all the civilians. This book should be removed from the shelf and not sold! If you can't tell the truth, what's the point?