Valley of Death: The Tragedy at Dien Bien Phu That Led America into the Vietnam War [NOOK Book]

Overview

Pulitzer Prize–winning author Ted Morgan has now written a rich and definitive account of the fateful battle that ended French rule in Indochina—and led inexorably to America’s Vietnam War. Dien Bien Phu was a remote valley on the border of Laos along a simple rural trade route. But it would also be where a great European power fell to an underestimated insurgent army and lost control of a crucial colony. Valley of Death is the untold story of ...
See more details below
Valley of Death: The Tragedy at Dien Bien Phu That Led America into the Vietnam War

Available on NOOK devices and apps  
  • NOOK Devices
  • NOOK HD/HD+ Tablet
  • NOOK
  • NOOK Color
  • NOOK Tablet
  • Tablet/Phone
  • NOOK for Windows 8 Tablet
  • NOOK for iOS
  • NOOK for Android
  • NOOK Kids for iPad
  • PC/Mac
  • NOOK for Windows 8
  • NOOK for PC
  • NOOK for Mac
  • NOOK Study
  • NOOK for Web

Want a NOOK? Explore Now

NOOK Book (eBook)
$19.99
BN.com price

Overview

Pulitzer Prize–winning author Ted Morgan has now written a rich and definitive account of the fateful battle that ended French rule in Indochina—and led inexorably to America’s Vietnam War. Dien Bien Phu was a remote valley on the border of Laos along a simple rural trade route. But it would also be where a great European power fell to an underestimated insurgent army and lost control of a crucial colony. Valley of Death is the untold story of the 1954 battle that, in six weeks, changed the course of history.

A veteran of the French Army, Ted Morgan has made use of exclusive firsthand reports to create the most complete and dramatic telling of the conflict ever written. Here is the history of the Vietminh liberation movement’s rebellion against French occupation after World War II and its growth as an adversary, eventually backed by Communist China. Here too is the ill-fated French plan to build a base in Dien Bien Phu and draw the Vietminh into a debilitating defeat—which instead led to the Europeans being encircled in the surrounding hills, besieged by heavy artillery, overrun, and defeated.

    Making expert use of recently unearthed or released information, Morgan reveals the inner workings of the American effort to aid France, with Eisenhower secretly disdainful of the French effort and prophetically worried that “no military victory was possible in that type of theater.” Morgan paints indelible portraits of all the major players, from Henri Navarre, head of the French Union forces, a rigid professional unprepared for an enemy fortified by rice carried on bicycles, to his commander, General Christian de Castries, a privileged, miscast cavalry officer, and General Vo Nguyen Giap, a master of guerrilla warfare working out of a one-room hut on the side of a hill. Most devastatingly, Morgan sets the stage for the Vietnam quagmire that was to come.

    Superbly researched and powerfully written, Valley of Death is the crowning achievement of an author whose work has always been as compulsively readable as it is important.
 

From the Hardcover edition.

Read More Show Less

Editorial Reviews

David Kaiser
Morgan gives us military history of a very high quality at both the strategic and tactical levels…[his] book will be enjoyed by students of military history and will be useful to anyone curious about the bizarre atmosphere of the early, frenzied years of the Cold War.
—The Washington Post
Publishers Weekly
Pulitzer-winning journalist Morgan (Reds) synergizes a comprehensive spectrum of overlooked sources in this magisterial analysis of the 1954 French defeat at Dien Bien Phu and its consequences. The battle ended French colonial rule in Indochina and set the stage for American involvement in Vietnam, as unwanted initially as it was tragic in the end. The French, in November 1953, decided to establish a base in the remote valley of Dien Bien Phu. They were convinced the garrison could be supplied and supported by air, and Vietminh reaction thwarted by the roadless mountains and impenetrable jungles. Both assumptions were mistaken. Morgan, himself a veteran of the French army, eloquently describes the envelopment, the strangling, and the crushing of the French garrison by “a people's army of Vietnamese peasants” in the face of no less determined defenders. Reframing the battle, often viewed as a French folly, Morgan calls Dien Bien Phu “one of the great epics of military endurance” by both sides. His book is a fitting tribute to the men who wrote that epic. 16 pages of b&w photos, 2 maps. (Feb. 23)
Library Journal
In 1956, the French-born Ted Morgan, who later became a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and an author (e.g., My Battle of Algiers), served as a lieutenant in the French army. At that time, he conducted interviews, used here as source material, with veterans of the bloody battle of Dien Bien Phu, fought in 1954 between France, a nation trying to reclaim its pre-World War II Indochina empire, and the Vietminh peasant army under the determined leadership of Ho Chi Minh and Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap. Morgan is effectively providing an update to Bernard Fall's classic Hell in a Very Small Place: The Siege of Dien Bien Phu by accessing sources not available to Fall and showing that this first Indochina War in 1954 was actually a proxy fight between America, which wanted a strong France to stand against the USSR, and China, which loathed any colonial presence that threatened its supremacy. He skillfully appraises the Cold War diplomacy that led up to the battle and includes gripping and graphic accounts of the protracted fight that resulted in more than 7000 French and 20,000 Vietminh casualties. He also faults France for its ineffective strategy and poor leadership. VERDICT This compelling narrative shows how the American-led Vietnam War repeated many of France's earlier mistakes. Highly recommended for all serious readers of military history.—Karl Helicher, Upper Merion Township Lib., King of Prussia, PA
Kirkus Reviews
A Pulitzer Prize-winning historian observes that had Franklin Roosevelt served another few terms, Americans might never have had fought and died in Vietnam. Having fought in Algeria in the French Army, Morgan (My Battle of Algiers, 2006, etc.) understands military culture and lost causes. The great lost cause in question is French control of Indochina after World War II, a conflict that witnessed a curious accommodation. Under Japanese command, French soldiers and colonialists continued to administer the territory throughout much of the war, even as Communist fighters under Ho Chi Minh and other leaders waged a steady campaign of national liberation. Ho saw no problem in the French defeat by Japan, reckoning that it exposed the faraway European power as a paper tiger. Moreover, he served as a good ally of the Allies throughout the years of the war, in at least one instance rescuing a downed American flyer but being rebuffed by American officials for his troubles. Meanwhile, writes Morgan, "FDR felt strongly that colonialism had no place in the postwar world," grimly noting that Americans were dying in the Pacific Theatre precisely because of what he called "the short-sighted greed of the French and the British and the Dutch." The French refusal to give up Indochina led to a grinding war of suppression that a post-FDR America supported to the tune of millions of dollars, a war against China and the Soviet Union by proxy. It also led to the legendary defeat at Dien Bien Phu, when waves of Vietminh fighters surrounded a French army-"not a single Viet ran, they all had to be killed," said one exhausted French soldier-and, over the course of weeks, bled it dry. The author writes of the battlein specific detail rivaling the best of Bernard Fall, Neil Sheehan and other writers on the French and American wars in Indochina, linking it to the eventual immersion of the United States in Vietnam, extending the war another 20 years. A superb portrait of battle and its reverberations beyond the fields of fire.
From the Publisher
"Ted Morgan answers one of the most elusive questions of our time: how and why America went into Vietnam? Until now the issue of the origins of the war was never given the thorough analysis found in Valley of Death, an amazing and essential account that was missing from all the classic Vietnam War histories. It took a writer equally comfortable with the French and the American archival record to finally deal successfully with the issue that compelled Robert McNamara to order the drafting of the Pentagon Papers. Yet even that Department of Defense study remains incomplete because the French record was only marginally touched by the researchers. That gap has finally been closed with Valley of Death."—Robert L. Miller, Co-author of Encyclopedia of Cold War Espionage 
 

"Ted Morgan brings to life the climactic battle of Dien Bien Phu in a way no English reader has seen in four decades. This was the battle that cast the enduring mold for Southeast Asia. From contextualizing the French war in Vietnam to the desperate efforts of French and Vietnamese soldiers, and from the conference tables in Geneva, Paris, and Washington to the staff map rooms in Hanoi and at Viet Minh headquarters in the bush, Valley of Death tells this important story with verve. This is a gem of a book."  —John Prados, author of Vietnam: The History of an Unwinnable War, 1945-1975

"In Valley of Death, Ted Morgan has made a significant contribution to the bookshelf of both history buff and general reader. Done in an easy, readable style, thoroughly researched, it is a story of the incredible blunders made by the French in their effort to maintain their colonial status in Indo-China from 1940 to mid 1954. It stands as a reminder of how easy it is for the Western countries to underestimate the will of "backward" peoples to fight for their freedoms both with self-sacrifice and intelligence. At the same time it is a very human story. It tells of people – of generals, diplomats, and most of all the soldiers and nurses on both sides at Dien Bien Phu who did the fighting and suffering. I was familiar with this story from the days when I assisted my father in writing his memoirs of the White House years. Nevertheless, Valley of Death game me insights and made the grim facts come to life."—John SD Eisenhower

"A Pulitzer Prize–winning historian observes that had Franklin Roosevelt served another few terms, Americans might never have had fought and died in Vietnam ...  The author writes of the battle in specific detail rivaling the best of Bernard Fall, Neil Sheehan and other writers on the French and American wars in Indochina, linking it to the eventual immersion of the United States in Vietnam, extending the war another 20 years .   A superb portrait of battle and its reverberations beyond the fields of fire."—Kirkus, starred review

Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9781588369802
  • Publisher: Random House Publishing Group
  • Publication date: 2/23/2010
  • Sold by: Random House
  • Format: eBook
  • Sales rank: 299,154
  • File size: 3 MB

Meet the Author

Ted Morgan is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist and the author of biographies of FDR, Churchill, and Maugham, the last of which was a finalist for the National Book Award. He is also the author of Reds: McCarthyism in Twentieth-Century America, A Shovel of Stars: The Making of the American West—1800 to the Present, and Wilderness at Dawn: The Settling of The North American Continent. He lives in New York City.

From the Hardcover edition.

Read More Show Less

Read an Excerpt

Act I

The First Partition of Vietnam

Sometime or other, before the day is over, just as a matter of fact in straightening myself out, I’d like to try and find out just what it was, and why it was, that Indochina seemed to move from an idea which President Roosevelt had when he was alive that the French were not going to end up back in Indochina, and then sometime or other in 1945 they ended up. I don’t know how they got there or what happened or what was done.

Dean Acheson, May 15, 1954, at the Princeton seminar he conducted after leaving the State Department


This all began when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt initially decided not to run for a third term in 1940. On May 8, Assistant Secretary of State Adolf Berle wrote in his diary: “It is understood that Roosevelt, unless the situation changes, will wait until the last minute and then issue a statement in favor of Mr. Hull.” FDR was planning to endorse Secretary of State Cordell Hull for the nomination in July at the Democratic Convention in Chicago, before retiring to the life of a country gentleman in Hyde Park.

He had a compelling reason not to run, as he told the Nebraska senator George Norris: “I am tied down to this chair day after day and month after month. I can’t stand it any longer. I can’t go on with it.” He was only fifty-eight, but he was exhausted, imprisoned in his wheelchair, his withered legs the size of the crutches he used to get in and out of cars, and he smoked too many cigarettes. He spoke with enthusiasm about moving his papers to Hyde Park, where he would write twenty-six articles for Collier’s at $75,000 a year. He told his visitors that he’d had enough and Hull was the man.

By mid-May, however, the panzers had crossed the Meuse, demolishing the fortifications that extended the Maginot Line. On May 16, Berle revised his appraisal: “I really think the question of whether Mr. Roosevelt will run or not is being settled somewhere on the banks of the Meuse River. . . . He does not want to run unless circumstances are so grave that he considers it essential for the country’s safety. . . . My private opinion is that circumstances are drafting him. . . . They are very likely to give us another four years for the President,” breaking with the two-term tradition.

In early June, FDR’s outspoken secretary of the interior, Harold Ickes, told him that Hull would make a poor candidate and a poor president. FDR said that Hull would be a different kind of president: It should not be forgotten that Woodrow Wilson had known nothing about government prior to his election. Others told FDR that Hull was inept and that his wife, Frances, was Jewish. But at a White House banquet, the president sat next to her and told her to get used to such affairs.

The unexpectedly swift fall of France changed Roosevelt’s mind. By mid-June, Marshal Henri Philippe Pétain formed a government and asked Hitler for an armistice. If the French had stopped the Huns, the war might have ended, but England was next, which meant the continuation of American involvement. The issue now was democracy against fascism.

As late as June 20, however, FDR assured Hull that he backed him. Finally, on July 3, after the Republican Convention, which nominated Wendell Willkie, FDR told Hull he was running. Hull said he understood. On July 16, at the Democratic Convention, Senator Alben Barkley of Kentucky read a letter from the president saying he wanted to retire. Cries of “We want Roosevelt” arose, and on July 17, FDR was overwhelmingly nominated. He developed a pronounced animus against France, which he thought did not deserve to keep her colonial empire.

The Commissary Line

Among the war’s unforeseen chain of events, who could have imagined that the fall of France in June 1940 would be one of the decisive factors in the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941. By 1938, in its war with China, the Japanese had taken Canton, the major port and trading center of South China, while Chiang Kai-shek had retreated westward to Chungking. Canton was up the Pearl River from Hong Kong, with the Indochina port of Haiphong five hundred miles to the west. It was at Haiphong that the bulk of Chiang’s military supplies arrived. From the port, they were loaded onto the French-built Haiphong railroad, which lumbered northward across the Chinese border to the old walled city of Kunming, the capital of Yunnan Province. It was vital for the Japanese to choke off Chiang’s supply line.

Japan cast an angry eye toward Indochina, which allowed unfettered transit. The French colony was but a minor appendage to the south of the immense Chinese landmass, with a five-hundred-mile border with China and a thousand-mile coastline, seemingly glued as an afterthought to the Southeast Asian subcontinent of Burma and Thailand. To this barbell-shaped tail of China now known as Vietnam (the bells being Tonkin and Cochinchina, with the bar of Annam at one point only thirty-one miles wide), were added Laos and Cambodia: in all, an area about the size of Italy, mostly mountains and jungle, except for two fertile deltas, the Red River in the north and the Mekong in the south. These rice-rich floodplains provided the staple for twenty million natives, known as Annamites, while fifty thousand French colons skimmed the cream off an economy based on rubber, coal, tin, and tungsten.

There is a Japanese saying that crisis and opportunity are a couple. In September 1939, when Hitler invaded Poland, Japan saw an opportunity. The Japanese complained to the French about the shipment of war material from Haiphong to Kunming to support the Chiang regime. The French replied that since war had not been declared between Japan and China, shipments would not be halted. To show their displeasure, the Japanese bombed the railway line.

By June 1940, when panzer divisions were advancing on Paris, about 10,000 tons of war supplies were being shipped monthly from Haiphong to Kunming, and a backlog of 125,000 tons were piled up in the port’s warehouses. As France collapsed, Marshal Pétain asked for an armistice on June 16. Three days later, the Japanese government presented the French ambassador in Tokyo with a demand that all shipments of war matériel from Haiphong cease and that a Japanese control commission be allowed into the port to ensure compliance.

The governor-general of Indochina, who had to respond to the Japanese demand, was General Georges Catroux, a distinguished officer who had fought in World War I. In 1940, Catroux was anti-German and pro-British, but when he asked for help from the British, the silence was deafening. He had no choice but to submit to the Japanese. Vichy’s puppet government dismissed him in July, not because he had given in but because he was considered disloyal.

Pétain replaced Catroux with an obedient sailor, Admiral Jean Decoux, anti-British with fascist tendencies, who considered the Annamites a subject people. Just as Pétain collaborated with the Nazis in France, Decoux gave in to Japanese demands on Indochina. The Japanese occupation was incremental. On August 1, 1940, they demanded the right of transit for their troops throughout Indochina, the use of airfields, and an economic agreement that turned out to be somewhat one-sided. Each time Vichy submitted to Japanese demands, new ones were made, much like a kidnap-and-ransom scheme. On September 22, 1940, a revised agreement provided for more Japanese airfields in Tonkin; permission to station 6,000 troops; and the right of transit of up to 25,000 troops through Tonkin to China. On September 27, Japan signed the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy, which tied its operations in the Pacific with theirs in Europe to form the Axis.

Indochina was the first of many colonies occupied by the Japanese in Southeast Asia, as part of a secret program adopted in October 1940 called the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere. Co-prosperity meant that the Japanese plundered the raw materials of the lands they invaded, among them Malaya, Singapore, British Borneo, the Dutch East Indies, the Philippines, Siam, and Indochina. But since Indochina was ruled by the Vichy regime, while the other colonies were governed by the British, the Dutch, or the Americans, the Japanese allowed the French administration to remain in place. France was tractable and saved Japan from employing their already stretched manpower in occupation duties.

The Japanese army called Indochina a “commissary line,” which meant that its troops in China could be supplied from there, and also that the rice from Indochina would be used to feed them, while Japanese vehicles would roll on Indochinese rubber. Thus, in late 1940, the Japanese confiscated facilities necessary for the pursuit of war, from coal mines to rubber plantations to lumber factories. Vichy did not protest, for its aim was to maintain the colonial status quo until the war was over.

We Mustn’t Push Japan Too Much

In Washington, FDR’s cabinet was divided over the president’s Japan policy. His secretaries of war, the interior, and the treasury—respectively Henry Stimson, Harold Ickes, and Henry Morgenthau—were opposed to letting Japan buy U.S. oil, scrap iron, and steel. His secretary of state, Cordell Hull, as well as Hull’s number two, Sumner Welles, were involved in delicate negotiations with the Japanese, which could be disrupted by bans on exports. The other three felt that the president was “coddling the Japs.”

In July 1940, Ickes noted in his diary that the “glacially lofty Sumner Welles objected strenuously to putting petroleum products and scrap iron on the list for licenses.” Ickes was irate. This was a time when oil for Spain was being transshipped to German U-boats right at the Spanish docks, while Japan had contracted for all the airplane gasoline on the Pacific coast for immediate delivery. Stimson warned FDR that the Japanese were trying to corner the aviation-fuel market.

On August 16, FDR told Morgenthau that “we mustn’t push Japan too much or she’ll take the Dutch East Indies,” which had plenty of oil. But Ickes pointed out that if the Japanese came in, the Dutch would blow up their wells and refineries. Morgenthau kept himself informed on Indochina, where the French had caved in by signing a pact on September 22 that allowed Japanese troops to move in. Morgenthau noted in his diary: “Hull is out on a limb. He has twice scolded Japan if she goes into Indochina.”

When the Japanese signed the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy on September 27, calling it a defensive alliance, Hull said: “That’s like Jesse James and Cole Younger going into an alliance for self-defense.” He seemed to be firming up.

But Hull still held back on interdicting scrap iron to Japan. He said the situation was delicate and the Japanese might take over Indochina at any time. Ickes felt that by selling them oil and scrap “we have made it possible to continue their career of aggression.”

Finally, on September 29, 1940, FDR embargoed shipments of steel and scrap iron. But oil was still flowing. Morgenthau thought it was too little, too late. Ickes was convinced that Hull wouldn’t do anything about oil until his hand was forced. Hull was “useless,” Ickes wrote in his diary.

After FDR’s election to a third term, Ickes was named petroleum coordinator for national defense. He was increasingly incensed that the United States was shipping oil and gasoline to Japan while rationing “our own people.” On June 8, 1941, he told the president that the press was raising hell. FDR said, “Give Cordell a few more days.” Ickes felt that Hull was being gulled by the Japanese.

On June 22, Ickes learned that more than two thousand barrels of lubricating oil were being sent to Japan aboard one of their tankers, which was docked in Philadelphia, at a time when U.S. plants could not meet their own needs. Ickes boiled over, and had the shipment held up. FDR “pinned my ears back,” he wrote in his diary, for not consulting with the State Department. The president told Ickes that the United States and Japan were engaged in delicate negotiations. Furthermore, he saw oil as an integral part of foreign policy, not to be messed with by Ickes.

By this time, Hitler had invaded Russia, forcing Japan to make a difficult decision. Should they also attack Russia, from the Siberian side, or should they prepare to invade the colonies of Southeast Asia, using Indochina as an advance base, so they could assure their supply of raw materials in case of war with Britain and the United States? In his ongoing talks FDR was aware of the disconnect between the Japanese government, still working through diplomacy, and the Imperial Army, which was preparing for war. On July 1, 1941, he informed Ickes that “the Japs are having a real drag-down and knock-out fight among themselves . . . trying to decide which way they are going to jump—attack Russia, attack the South Seas . . . or whether they will sit on the fence and be more friendly with us. . . . It is terribly important for the control of the Atlantic for us to help keep the peace in the Pacific. I simply have not got enough Navy to go around—and every little episode in the Pacific means fewer ships in the Atlantic.” At this point, FDR was still trying to avoid war with Japan. But in July the situation changed dramatically.

From the Hardcover edition.

Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Average Rating 4.5
( 9 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(4)

4 Star

(4)

3 Star

(1)

2 Star

(0)

1 Star

(0)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
Sort by: Showing all of 9 Customer Reviews
  • Posted March 30, 2010

    I Also Recommend:

    Excellent analysis of the political background to the French and American involvement in French Indochina.

    If the reader is interested in a better understanding of the political background and results of the decisive battle of Dien Bien Phu then this is an excellent choice. If, however, one's interest runs more toward military history then he/she would be better served by purchasing Bernard Fall's classic work "Hell in a Very Small Place". The author's description of the siege is rather cursory and the maps are so sketchy as to be next to useless.

    3 out of 3 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted December 5, 2010

    more from this reviewer

    I Also Recommend:

    The most outstanding and comprehensive book on the subject matter

    This simply ts an outstanding book by any standard of measure. If you want to observe political. diplomatic, and military machinations taking place in which less powerful people and countries comply with the threats (real and imagined) made by the more powerful. Here we have a self-appointed guardian in our own country in the Secretary of State (dulles) who is going to prevent the spread of communism no matter what the cost. Additionally, it is clear that he cares not a whit about how Britain or France feels as long as they dance to his music. You also have a country who has been a colonial power in possession of the disputed territories from the gift, by sleight of hand,in which a form of independence seems to be granted to Vietnam as a "member State of the French Union." In fact, this was nothing more than a brushoff. France retained the colonial position. Then you have Dien Bien Phu. A lovely, lush, green valley in the Northwest of North Vietnam. You cannot fight a guerilla war from a stable, dug-in, fixed in place defensive positions. Reinforced concrete and steel bunkers just make a better, more exciting abd more expensive target to knock out on the way in. Sure, the Viet-Minh were going to lose a lot of men but tey were prepared to do so. The were dedicated, pumped up, and fighting for their slice of land to live and raise their family on, and that was their highest aspiration, taking care of their family. Anyone who reads this book and fails to see the motivation and Espirit de Corps these people possessed is truly a fool. These people were fully prepared to die for what they believed in. This is a book you will keep for reference and will read several times more, We could have saved so many lives if we had just listened to the lessons known from History. This book is one of the best I have ever read. Lastly, At the meeting prior to and after the tentative agreement, Le Duc Tho, the Viet-Minh chief negotiator told the French rep to his face thst, " the people of Southvietnam will win this war. If you kill one hundred of our soldier and we kill only one, we will win the wsr. General Giap was asked the same question. He took a long look outside his room and replied, "we will win. He was then asked how long he would continue to fight and he responded,"maybe ten years, maybe a hundred years and maybe more, bu we will win whatever the cost. These people were clearly motivated, General Giap said, "as many years as it takes and for however long it lasts.

    2 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted April 11, 2010

    VALLEY OF DEATH DIEN BIEN PHU WAS DOOR TO US VIETNAM

    THIS BOOK PUTS VIETNAM IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT. A MUST REED. IT SHOWS THE MILITARY BLUNDERS AND INFIGNTING BY THE FRENCH GOVT AND GENERALS, THE US FEAR OF THE DOMINO EFFECT IF VIETNAM FEL, ENGLAND LIKE FRANCE TRYING TO HOLD ON TO COLONIALIES, RUSSIA AND CHINA NOT WANTING TO HAVE THE WAR EXPAND FOR FEAR OF US NUKES, THE FALLOUT FROM KOREA THAT MADE US INVOLVEMENT IMPOSSIBLE FROM EISHENHOWER'S, CONGRESS" AND THE PENTAGON'S VIEW. GENERAL RIDGEWAY(KOREA) LED THE CHARGE TO AVOIDE SENDING TROUPS.
    SO, WHEN DIEN BIEN PHU FELL, DULLES SAID IT MAY HAVE BEEN A "BLESSING IN DISGUSE" MEANING NOW US COULD TAKE OVER THE WAR.
    MANY INTERSTING FACTS: EISEHNOWER OKAYED MATERIEL BUT FELT THE FRENCH VIOLATED BASIC MILITARY PRINCIPLES GIVING THE HIGH GROUND TO THE VIETS.
    ONLY 22% OF THE TROUPS WERE FRENCH. THE REST GERMANS, MOROCCANS, ALGERIANS AND VIETNAMESE.
    THERE WAS NO ESCAPE PLAN OTHER THAN AIR AND TROOPS CONTINUED TO BE AIR DROPPED AFTER THE BATTLE WAS LOST.
    THE TREATEMENT OF THE WOUNDED BY VIETS WAS GENOCIDE.THE LACK OF EVACUATION BY THE FRENCH WAS CRIMINAL AND THE DELAY BY GENEVA TO RESCUE THE WOUDED ON BOTH SIDES WAS A VIOLATION GENEVA ACCORDS ON TREATING THE WOUDED, MOST OF WHOM DIED OF IFECTION OR THE FORCED MARCH BY THE VIETS.
    NIXON, DULLES, JOHNSON ET AL WERE ALL INOLVED IN THIS MATTER. NIXON WANTED TO BOMB THE NORTH.
    VIET LOSSES WERE OVER 300m V 50m FRENCH,
    GENERAL NAVARE NEVER HAD LED TROUPS IN BATTLE. HIS PLAN DID NOT REALISTICALLY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE WEATHER, ENEMY, TERRAIN AND A CONTINGENCY FOR SUCH A HIGH RISK GAMBLE. HE UNDERESTIMATED HIS ENEMY.
    A MAJOR BATTLE THAT HAS HAD MAJOR IMPACT TO THIS DAY, I.E. KOREA.
    THIS BOOK IS AMAZING, RIVETING AND EDUCATIONAL. IT IS NOT AN 'EASY ' READ BUT ONE THAT AT TIMES IS SHOCKING MILITARILY, POLIICALLY, AND INTERNATIONALLY.

    2 out of 3 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 4, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted October 17, 2013

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted July 18, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted January 8, 2012

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted April 8, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted July 12, 2011

    No text was provided for this review.

Sort by: Showing all of 9 Customer Reviews

If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
Why is this product inappropriate?
Comments (optional)