Wars in Vietnam and Cambodia 1968-1993 (AS interpretation)
Vietnam War in the American History
Two well-established historiographical schools dominate the public and scholarly opinions on the Vietnam War: the Orthodox view, which views the war as inherently unwinnable and unjust - the idea started among liberal intellectuals as part of the 60s' anti-war movement; and the Revisionist view, which frames the war as viable but ultimately lost due to political and military tactical errors. Both sides have produced a considerable number of works and influential scholars. Two leading Revisionist accounts on understanding the war:
|
'Could the U.S. have won the Vietnam War?' In many ways, the debate surrounding the Vietnam War, particularly fierce among the media and the intellectuals since the 1960s, could be outlined in this question. As recently as this year, major publications continue to grapple with this question. A New York Times opinion piece published in 2017 sought to explain 'Why Vietnam was unwinnable' from the beginning (Kevin Boylan, 2017), while a New Yorker feature this year sought to find out 'what went wrong in Vietnam' (Louis Menand, 2018). Of course, these questions—while potentially useful in rekindling general interest in the past—often lead to bad history-writing. Under this frame, scholars use the past to speculate and justify their preferred "what-if" scenario rather than understand the Vietnam War as it happened. |
Internet Resources
Articles on the changing views of the war.
|
Vietnam War as part of a broader international Cold War history
Much like scholarly understanding of the Korean War, recently there have been shifts in Vietnam War historiography, though in an opposite direction: shifting from an American-centric viewpoint to one which focuses on internal Vietnamese politics as well as prominent regional actors (especially China and the USSR). This is at least partly due to the increased availability of communist sources after the fall of the USSR in 1991. With this change in perspective, the Vietnam War has begun to be reconceptualised through a broader lens. Rather than merely relying upon 'official sources,' generally from the American government or military, some historians now incorporate non-Western and non-elite perspectives to furnish understandings of the war. This holistic approach was, to some extent, pioneered by a former SOAS historian, Ralph Smith, who was well ahead of his time in understanding the Vietnam War's historiography.
|
Internet Resources Explain the difference.
|