Amazon.com: Customer reviews: Breakout: The Chosin Reservoir Campaign, Korea 1950

Top positive review

Here is a record of honorable, brave Marines who showed us all what a Marine is made of...

ByRobert Burns Wadleyon August 1, 2017

This is an excellent history of the terrible Chosin Reservoir experience suffered by ground forces of the United States Marine Corps and the U.S. Army. Two things, first, I am glad that I was unaware of the sorry performance exhibited by the U.S. Army and its leadership when I enlisted in the army in 1956, and second, I am ashamed of the way the U.S. Army failed to pull their weight in the Chosin Reservoir campaign. Does anyone know if they are better trained and more courageous now (1965 - 2017)? Anyway, this is a great book, with a well documented story of brave men who suffered much more than they should have had to. A story of brave men (U.S.M.C.), well trained (U.S.M.C.), well led (U.S.M.C.), and good men who loved and cared for one another (U.S.M.C.), a story that should never be forgotten.

Top critical review

See all 28 critical reviews›

Background information I. The start can be a bit ...

ByCarla perryon December 29, 2014

Background information I. The start can be a bit slow. After 100 pages it gets "popping" so to speak.
My father was one of the "Chosin few"this book helped me understand a bit more.

Sort by:

Filter by:

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Showing 1-1 of 1 reviews(2 star, Verified Purchases). See all 167 reviews

Unfortunate

ByChrison February 14, 2012

Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase

The topic and narrative covered by Martin Russ's "Breakout" is indeed some of the most riveting kind of military history, more so because it has faded further and further from the English speaking consciousness. However Mr. Russ does himself and thereby his book and subject (the 1st Marine Division in the winter campaigns of 1950) a disservice by presenting what amounts to a deeply biased and marginally professional (often excruciatingly myopic) view of the campaign. His straw-manning of the U.S. Army command decisions and intelligence; in tadem with his seeming preference for unserviceable simplification robs this work of its promise and represents some of the most damaging kind of popularly oriented narrative history. Recommend a look elsewhere for information of this compelling piece of history - boy of Roy Appleman's works cover in better scholarship and style the same material and for breadth of understanding Frehrenback's classic "This Kind of War" or Halberstam's newer "Coldest Winter" are both better options.