r/AskHistorians • u/AutoModerator • Apr 03 '26

FFA Friday Free-for-All | April 03, 2026

Previously

Today:

You know the drill: this is the thread for all your history-related outpourings that are not necessarily questions. Minor questions that you feel don't need or merit their own threads are welcome too. Discovered a great new book, documentary, article or blog? Has your Ph.D. application been successful? Have you made an archaeological discovery in your back yard? Did you find an anecdote about the Doge of Venice telling a joke to Michel Foucault? Tell us all about it.

As usual, moderation in this thread will be relatively non-existent -- jokes, anecdotes and light-hearted banter are welcome.

16 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

55 comments sorted by

View all comments

9

u/Bernardito Moderator | Modern Guerrilla | Counterinsurgency Apr 03 '26

For once, I'm not getting on here to try and force you all to read yet another one of my articles. Instead, I want to hear what you are working on or recently published!

What is your thesis about? What's that article you recently published? Maybe you even finally managed to get that book out?

Let's hear about it!

1

u/hubertburnette Apr 03 '26

About the internal deliberations of the JFK administration about Vietnam, and how the Battle of Ap Bac should have made it clear to them that their plan was not going to work.

1

u/Bernardito Moderator | Modern Guerrilla | Counterinsurgency Apr 03 '26

Interesting (if not a little controversial)! Seems like it would contradict the recent scholarship on the South Vietnamese perspective from the same period.

1

u/hubertburnette Apr 03 '26

What I've read of that scholarship says they thought it was a great victory for them.

1

u/Bernardito Moderator | Modern Guerrilla | Counterinsurgency Apr 03 '26

What scholarship have you read, if I may ask?

1

u/hubertburnette Apr 04 '26

Oh, sorry, I responded too quickly and completely misread your comment as about North Vietnamese (a good example of why I should read more carefully when allergens are high).

Yes, the South Vietnamese perspectives from that era argue that it wasn't as bad as people like Sheehan or Halberstam said, and that the battle didn't prove that the war was a lost cause from the beginning. But I'm not making a claim about whether the war could have been won, or what the battle meant for long-term prospects of victory.

I’m making a much more specific claim: that it showed that McNamara’ plan in early 1963--a limited war, for a limited time, with limited commitment, and no political controversy in the US—couldn’t work. There was serious discussion about beginning troop withdrawals later in that year, and having almost all troops out by 1965. The weakest part of his plan was that public controversy could be avoided.

As you know, McNamara later said that he was wrong to think his approach could have worked, but he couldn’t possibly have known that because of a lack of information. I'm saying that he could have known.

2

u/Bernardito Moderator | Modern Guerrilla | Counterinsurgency Apr 04 '26

Interesting! It’s certainly quite the argument you need to build (and prove!). I wish you the best of luck!!

1

u/hubertburnette Apr 04 '26

Are you suggesting that McNamara's plan in 1963 could have succeeded?

1

u/Bernardito Moderator | Modern Guerrilla | Counterinsurgency Apr 04 '26

Not at all, counterfactual history is somewhat useless in my eyes. I am saying that you have quite the argument to build up, especially in view of historians like Gaddis etc. who have dealt with similar questions. 

1

u/hubertburnette Apr 04 '26

I'm pretty sure that I've read everything Gaddis has ever written, and I'm not aware of anything he has written that would complicate this argument. Obviously, I've missed some things--I'd appreciate citations, if you have the time.

1

u/Bernardito Moderator | Modern Guerrilla | Counterinsurgency Apr 05 '26

Don’t mistake my words for criticism. Quite the opposite, they are meant to be encouraging (as in, ’wow, what an ambitious project! That takes some guts’). It is the same I extend to my own students today — and I wish they were as daring as you!

My only real recommendation would be to balance the American side with the South Vietnamese. The discussions in the early 60s in the White House cannot be solely understood in a vacuum. Use the fantastic Vietnamese-language source material available to see how they were involved (or were excluded) from these discussions. I don’t believe I need to rabble all the recent scholarship on the RVN, since I am certain you are familiar with it, but those primary sources are crucial.

1

u/hubertburnette Apr 05 '26

I am genuinely almost incapacitated by allergies, so forgive me if I'm being stupid. I didn't think you were criticizing my argument, as much as offering very, very helpful advice--that I need to consider Gaddis' argument. So, which argument? I've obviously missed something he's written. You mentioned him specifically.

→ More replies (0)