Enjoy fast, FREE delivery, exclusive deals and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery
Amazon Prime includes:
Fast, FREE Delivery is available to Prime members. To join, select "Try Amazon Prime and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery" below the Add to Cart button.
Amazon Prime members enjoy:- Cardmembers earn 5% Back at Amazon.com with a Prime Credit Card.
- Unlimited Free Two-Day Delivery
- Instant streaming of thousands of movies and TV episodes with Prime Video
- A Kindle book to borrow for free each month - with no due dates
- Listen to over 2 million songs and hundreds of playlists
- Unlimited photo storage with anywhere access
Important: Your credit card will NOT be charged when you start your free trial or if you cancel during the trial period. If you're happy with Amazon Prime, do nothing. At the end of the free trial, your membership will automatically upgrade to a monthly membership.
Buy new:
$36.99$36.99
FREE delivery:
Friday, June 30
Ships from: Amazon.com Sold by: Amazon.com
Buy used: $8.08
Other Sellers on Amazon
& FREE Shipping
65% positive over last 12 months
& FREE Shipping
81% positive over last 12 months
+ $3.99 shipping
84% positive over last 12 months
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Masters of War: Military Dissent and Politics in the Vietnam Era
| Price | New from | Used from |
-
90 days FREE Amazon Music. Terms apply.
90 days FREE of Amazon Music Unlimited. Offer included with purchase. Only for new subscribers who have not received offer in last 90 days. Renews automatically. You will receive an email to redeem. Terms apply. Offered by Amazon.com. Here's how (restrictions apply)
Purchase options and add-ons
- ISBN-100521599407
- ISBN-13978-0521599405
- PublisherCambridge University Press
- Publication dateFebruary 28, 1997
- LanguageEnglish
- Dimensions6 x 1.01 x 9 inches
- Print length404 pages
Books with Buzz
Discover the latest buzz-worthy books, from mysteries and romance to humor and nonfiction. Explore more
Customers who bought this item also bought
Special offers and product promotions
- 90 days FREE of Amazon Music Unlimited. Offer included with purchase. Only for new subscribers who have not received offer in last 90 days. Renews automatically. You will receive an email to redeem. Terms apply. Offered by Amazon.com. Here's how (restrictions apply)
Editorial Reviews
Review
"Buzzanco has written a bold, provocative book that challenges many assumptions. Based on judicious research in primary and secondary sources, Masters of War is a mandatory read for anyone interested in the military history of the Vietnam War." Houston Chronicle
"Buzzanco is particularly interesting on the views of military dissenters, including senior generals, who opposed either the war itself or the way the United States chose to wage it....there is much to be learned here." Foreign Affairs
"This is a brilliantly argued account that tells us who was responsible for what in Vietnam. It challenges some of our basic assumptions." Seymour Hersh, author of My Lai Four: A Report on the Massacre and Its Aftermath
"A diligently researched and thought-provoking contribution to the literature of Vietnam." Kirkus Reviews
"This ambitious book sweeps across the American military's relationship to the wars in Indochina and Vietnam. Drawing on an impressive range of primary sources, Buzzanco analyzes the military's view of the war, differences among the sevices, and civil-military relations." Journal of Military History
"No serious student of the Vietnam War can afford to miss this challenging and superbly researched book....Presents the most complete and nuanced account of the U.S. military's attitudes and actions toward Vietnam during the years 1950-1968...." Political Science Quarterly
"This work provides new insight on dissent within the ranks of the American military concerning policy and strategy during the warin Southeast Asia....should be examined by students and scholars...." History
"Masters of War will be most useful to those who already know a good dea about U.S. policy in Vietnam; they will find much that is new and significant....." Edwin E. Moise, Journal of Asian Studies
Book Description
Product details
- Publisher : Cambridge University Press (February 28, 1997)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 404 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0521599407
- ISBN-13 : 978-0521599405
- Item Weight : 1.3 pounds
- Dimensions : 6 x 1.01 x 9 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #2,598,662 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #992 in Asian History (Books)
- #1,204 in Military History (Books)
- #2,158 in Southeast Asia History
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
The result was that over and over again officers raised the same unalterable points. You cannot bomb the North into submission, and you cannot defeat the NLF in the South with the corrupt and incompetent Southern regime we possess. Of course, much of this was the army, the navy and the air forces criticizing the other services plans. But as it turned out they were right and Buzzanco shows that the army was not stabbed in the back. A review of America's long involvement should help demonstrate this. In 1947, General George Marshall said that the French "have no prospect" of success in Vietnam. Five years later the Joint Chief of Staff were unanimously opposed to committing any American troops into Vietnam. General Matthew Ridgeway's opposition to assisting the French after Dien Bien Phu was crucial to the Geneva Accords.
Flash forward ten years and Johnson's decision to expand the war. 1964 is a year filled with concerns over the collapse of the South Vietnamese authority, concerns about NLF strength, and strategic dithering. It is important to point out that Westmoreland, along with other officers like Wheeler, Johnson, and MacDonald opposed an all-out air war because they believed the Southern regime was too fragile to survive VC counterattacks. Pacification was dying and in only about 20% of the villages were the residents willing to provide RVN officials with information about the Viet Cong. In 1965 the war escalates. The army Chief of Staff suggests US military involvement will last at least five years, and could go as long as 20. "In I Corps, where the Marines were deployed, `the communist guerrillas enjoyed essentially uncontested dominance over most of the rural population,' they [the Corps] admitted." Conservative critics have blamed LBJ for not supporting an all-out air war. But at the time army leaders were divided about the effectiveness of such a strategy. Westmoreland thought that an air war would be ineffective as long as the situation of the South was on the verge of collapse. Westmoreland and Taylor were surprised at how often the White House took the initiative in demanding the offensive.
1966 and 1967: the officers quarrel about attrition, the air war and reinforcement, each pointing out the flaws in the other's arguments and nobody really very optimistic about a solution. "Admiral Sharp...pointed out that the United States had already caused heavy damage to most of the important military targets in the DRVN by August 1965, yet no American commander was suggesting that such measures had significantly altered the military situation in Vietnam." In response to the full-scale American invasion, the Vietcong and the PAVN were stepping up their recruitment and matching the Americans. Meanwhile Maxwell Taylor pointed out that the ARVN was shirking its duties, when the whole point of intervention was supposedly to stiffen their spine. Various officers called for more reinforcements and more troops. Even though they could make no promise that this would have any real effect, it could give them an alibi after an American defeat. In January 1967 the MACV found that it had underestimated VC and PAVN major unit attacks by a factor of four. Despite much blather about having their hands tied, the air force and the army culpably failed to protect their bases from guerrilla attacks.
Finally, 1968. Supporters of the war have argued that the Tet offensive was in fact a glorious American victory. But an obtuse and biased media convinced the American public the opposite. In fact, as Clark Clifford pointed, at the time many senior military leaders were on the verge of panic. As low morale, drug abuse, and fragging ravaged the American army, Westmoreland partially admitted the obvious: the Communist goal was not to expel the Americans, but to undermine what southern faith remained the RVN's government and army. The average ARVN battalion strength was at 50%, and it had lost one-quarter of its pre-Tet strength. Even hard-line senators such as Stennis and Jackson were beginning to waver, while pacification and counter-insurgency had been ravaged. Vann, Lansdale and others pointed out ARVN Corruption, intense popular opposition to American destructiveness and the culture of euphemism and denial at military headquarters. The one flaw in this book is that more is not said about the post-1968 war, though the government has made sure that primary documents are much less available. Based on 62 sets of private papers and oral histories and firmly well documented, this is a book that will be read for years to come.
The basic context is as follows:
After WWII, containing communism in Europe was the main US concern. The French capitalized on this US concern, with the threat of noncooperation in Europe, to facilitate their return to French Indochina (the former colony they lost to the Japanese). The subsequent events of China going communist in 1949 and Korea in 1950 (including China's reaction there)created the foundation for the Domino Theory in Asia. Vietnam became the domino that could not be allowed to fall to the Chinese (and international communism).
Meanwhile, the Vietnamese saw the post WWII situation as their chance to finally gain independence from France after 158 years of interference and domination. The key here is that there were many different Vietnamese independence groups struggling for independence.
So you have the following players and their motivations:
US - Stopping the spread of communism
France - Regaining French Indochina
Vietnam - Gaining it's independence from France
This is where the pro-war and antiwar "scholars" diverge into a myriad of conclusions based on cherry picking additional facts, ignorance of additional facts, and rationalization of their own inappropriate behavior during the war.
The only circumstances here which I would give quarter is where there isn't any authoritative information. In those cases, sometimes an educated guess or opinion can't be avoided; however, to propose one's opinion as fact and, further, to present it as dispassionate, when it is not, is unacceptable when one is presenting themselves as a scholar on the subject; Mr. Buzzcano happens to be of the antiwar ilk.
Now, this book was published in 1997 and since that time a lot of additional information has become available that negates both the antiwar and pro-war party lines.
I would challenge any "scholar" on the subject to factually refute any of the following statements:
1. The Vietnamese wanted the French out of Vietnam.
2. The US didn't want the French getting back into Vietnam.
3. Ho Chi Minh asked the US for help, to keep the French out, before he turned to the USSR and China.
4. After WWII, To get back into Vietnam, the French extorted the US by threatening noncooperation in Europe.
5. After the French got back into Vietnam, and with the loss of China to communism, the French played on US fears, of the spread of international communism, in an effort to have the US finance their reoccupation of Vietnam.
6. Ho Chi Minh would have won the elections if they had been held in July 1956 in accordance with the 1954 Geneva Accords.
7. Ho Chi Minh was the most recognizable and accepted independence leader to the Vietnamese in both the South and the North.
8. Diem was a catholic and wasn't an appropriate, or democratic, choice to lead an emerging Buddhist country.
9. Though incorrect, given past events, the North Vietnamese belief that the US were imperialists that wanted to replace the French in Vietnam was genuine and not merely propaganda.
10. Though incorrect, based on an ignorance of Vietnamese history, the US belief that Chinese communism would spread into Vietnam was genuine and not merely propaganda.
11. Most Vietnamese, the majority of which lived in the countryside, wanted to be left alone because they were to busy trying to survive.
12. From a conventional perspective, given the strategy of attrition, the war in Vietnam was unwinnable because of two things: 1. The limitations on ground operations in Cambodia, Laos, and North Vietnam; 2. The number of draft age North Vietnamese, available annually, to replace their losses.
13. The North Vietnamese/Viet Cong Tet Offensive in 1968 was one of the greatest strategic and tactical military blunders in the history of warfare for three reasons: 1. The Viet Cong infrastructure was exposed and destroyed; 2. The planned general uprising of the Southern Vietnamese people failed to occur (exposing an important fallacy); 3. The US was handed the opportunity that they had substantially failed to achieve in the last three years - to locate and engage the enemy in a large scale battle - over 40,000 NVA/VC were killed in the offensive.
14. After Tet 1968, because of the damage to the VC infrastructure, the US was, militarily, in a position to secure victory in Vietnam.
To make the argument that the military was against involvement, while the politicians were not, implies that the fear of international communism, and the domino theory, only existed in the civilian ranks. The conflict existed in that the military laid out what it would take to win, including taking into consideration the possibility of Chinese intervention. What the civilians did was to ignore the military professionals and fabricate their own plan to spoon feed involvement in a way they thought would be palatable to the American public. This plan also included promising to ultimately meet the requests that the military had put forth. Subordinate to the civilian government, the military was left to implement a layman plan whose main architect was an egotistical, probably sociopathic, business executive turned Secretary of Defense - Robert McNamara.
Should we have been in Vietnam under the circumstances that we were there? No. Could we have won in Vietnam? Absolutely. Should we have won in Vietnam if we shouldn't have been there? Well, there was a legitimate Vietnamese population that didn't want to live under the communist government (that we helped to create), but we were there to stop a non-existent Chinese threat.
So, should we have won or not?
I think John Paul Vann, who is often misused by the antiwar clique, sums it up in a few quotes:
"If it were not for the fact that Vietnam is but a pawn in the larger East-West confrontation, and that our presence here is essential to deny the resources of this area to Communist China, then it would be damned hard to justify our support of the existing government."
----Neil Sheehan, A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam
"The basic fact of life is that the overwhelming majority of the population somewhere around 95 percent prefer the government of Vietnam to a Communist government or the government that's being offered by the other side."
----Lewis Sorley, A BETTER WAR p. 348
Thanks to over 45 years of time past, we know that John Paul Vann didn't have it all right on either account, but he didn't have it all wrong either.
So, should we have won or not?
When you try to answer that question for yourself, please try to keep an open mind and keep your radar up for those that offer their propaganda in the form of a "dispassionate and scholarly" work.

