What do you think?
Rate this book
Modern War Studies
American Soldiers: Ground Combat in the World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam
Some warriors are drawn to the thrill of combat and find it the defining moment of their lives. Others fall victim to fear, exhaustion, impaired reasoning, and despair. This was certainly true for twentieth-century American ground troops. Whether embracing or being demoralized by war, these men risked their lives for causes larger than themselves with no promise of safe return.
This book is the first to synthesize the wartime experiences of American combat soldiers, from the doughboys of World War I to the grunts of Vietnam. Focusing on both soldiers and marines, it draws on histories and memoirs, oral histories, psychological and sociological studies, and even fiction to show that their experiences remain fundamentally the same regardless of the enemy, terrain, training, or weaponry.
Peter Kindsvatter gets inside the minds of American soldiers to reveal what motivated them to serve and how they were turned into soldiers. He recreates the physical and emotional aspects of war to tell how fighting men dealt with danger and hardship, and he explores the roles of comradeship, leadership, and the sustaining beliefs in cause and country. He also illuminates soldiers' attitudes toward the enemy, toward the rear echelon, and toward the home front. And he tells why some broke down under fire while others excelled.
Here are the first tastes of battle, as when a green recruit reported that "for the first time I realized that the people over the ridge wanted to kill me," while another was befuddled by the unfamiliar sound of bullets whizzing overhead. Here are soldiers struggling to cope with war's stress by seeking solace from local women or simply smoking cigarettes. And here are tales of combat avoidance and fraggings not unique to Vietnam, of soldiers in Korea disgruntled over home-front indifference, and of the unique experiences of African American soldiers in the Jim Crow army.
By capturing the core "band of brothers" experience across several generations of warfare, Kindsvatter celebrates the American soldier while helping us to better understand war's lethal reality—and why soldiers persevere in the face of its horrors.
This book is the first to synthesize the wartime experiences of American combat soldiers, from the doughboys of World War I to the grunts of Vietnam. Focusing on both soldiers and marines, it draws on histories and memoirs, oral histories, psychological and sociological studies, and even fiction to show that their experiences remain fundamentally the same regardless of the enemy, terrain, training, or weaponry.
Peter Kindsvatter gets inside the minds of American soldiers to reveal what motivated them to serve and how they were turned into soldiers. He recreates the physical and emotional aspects of war to tell how fighting men dealt with danger and hardship, and he explores the roles of comradeship, leadership, and the sustaining beliefs in cause and country. He also illuminates soldiers' attitudes toward the enemy, toward the rear echelon, and toward the home front. And he tells why some broke down under fire while others excelled.
Here are the first tastes of battle, as when a green recruit reported that "for the first time I realized that the people over the ridge wanted to kill me," while another was befuddled by the unfamiliar sound of bullets whizzing overhead. Here are soldiers struggling to cope with war's stress by seeking solace from local women or simply smoking cigarettes. And here are tales of combat avoidance and fraggings not unique to Vietnam, of soldiers in Korea disgruntled over home-front indifference, and of the unique experiences of African American soldiers in the Jim Crow army.
By capturing the core "band of brothers" experience across several generations of warfare, Kindsvatter celebrates the American soldier while helping us to better understand war's lethal reality—and why soldiers persevere in the face of its horrors.
456 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 2003
3 people are currently reading
143 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
June 5, 2020
In American Soldiers, Peter Kindsvatter gives us an impression of Combat: American Style. Not a tactical treatise, rather its a synthesis of memoirs, autobiographies, and oral histories - trying to get to the roots of the American Psyche in Combat in the Draft era - WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. I've read similar books about Veterans, but by choosing to focus exclusively on combat vets, this book is more intense- and more challenging. We get chapters on Induction(lots of Volunteers in all these wars), training, transportation to war, dealing with the actual environments of war (big differences between the European, Pacific and Asian Wars Fronts), esprit, poor morale, actual combat, officer quality issues, and finally the issues of race in American Armies. When I was done , I felt I understood the American Soldier better- the flesh and blood whose actions grace the pages I often read- even having grown up with a WWII Vet father.
Kindsvatter is giving the Combat Vet the treatment Fusell gave the overall Veteran community. There is psychology, historiography, and sociology - as well as tactical and historical information. The American army in France in WWI was a country bumpkin army full of hunters and marksmen- wide eyed at Europe. By WWII the first Divisions were largely regular, National Guardsman, and Volunteers - but the drafted divisions that followed were seldom of lower quality. Korea, the first of the "Limited Wars" with its murky causes and aims had some later combatants with serious doubts in the front lines. Then came Vietnam, where some draftees really began to wander from the cause as the war ground on. I had read some of the sources, but was very excited to look at the bibliography- for future reading choices.
This book is full of adult themes and has carnal and injury descriptions, so this is for Junior readers over 13- and possibly taking college classes- this is dense prose. For the Gamer/Modeller/Military Enthusiast, a mixed bag. The Gamer gets to understand the realities of "Confident Trained" , "Confident Veteran", and "Fearless Veteran" in games like 'Nam/Flames of War/Team Yankee or Bolt Action. The Modeller might get diorama ideas- but will mainly be looking for atmospheric/mood elements. Its the Military Enthusiast who get the most here- a look into the psyche of American Armies in ways most other books dissect the actual events and achievements. By the end , you feel better connected to American history, American soldiers and American Challenges. A really interesting book.
Kindsvatter is giving the Combat Vet the treatment Fusell gave the overall Veteran community. There is psychology, historiography, and sociology - as well as tactical and historical information. The American army in France in WWI was a country bumpkin army full of hunters and marksmen- wide eyed at Europe. By WWII the first Divisions were largely regular, National Guardsman, and Volunteers - but the drafted divisions that followed were seldom of lower quality. Korea, the first of the "Limited Wars" with its murky causes and aims had some later combatants with serious doubts in the front lines. Then came Vietnam, where some draftees really began to wander from the cause as the war ground on. I had read some of the sources, but was very excited to look at the bibliography- for future reading choices.
This book is full of adult themes and has carnal and injury descriptions, so this is for Junior readers over 13- and possibly taking college classes- this is dense prose. For the Gamer/Modeller/Military Enthusiast, a mixed bag. The Gamer gets to understand the realities of "Confident Trained" , "Confident Veteran", and "Fearless Veteran" in games like 'Nam/Flames of War/Team Yankee or Bolt Action. The Modeller might get diorama ideas- but will mainly be looking for atmospheric/mood elements. Its the Military Enthusiast who get the most here- a look into the psyche of American Armies in ways most other books dissect the actual events and achievements. By the end , you feel better connected to American history, American soldiers and American Challenges. A really interesting book.
May 30, 2018
Kindsvatter compares the experiences of ground combat forces during the draft wars (World War I thru Vietnam). Starting at boot camp, and moving thru the experiences to arriving in country, leadership, fighting and returning home, he uses soldiers' own words to describe their circumstances.
Why I started this book: Working my way thru the available audio books of my huge professional reading list.
Why I finished it: Powerful reminder of the horror, the boredom, prejudice, comradship, excitement and dirt of combat. Additionally a great reminder that the more things change, the more they remain the same.
Why I started this book: Working my way thru the available audio books of my huge professional reading list.
Why I finished it: Powerful reminder of the horror, the boredom, prejudice, comradship, excitement and dirt of combat. Additionally a great reminder that the more things change, the more they remain the same.
July 24, 2016
Peter S. Kindsvatter has written an excellent history of American combat soldiers between the First World War and the Vietnam War. His study is pregnant with insights about both the particular experience of soldiers in each war and the universal psychological and physiological factors that affect combatants. He intervenes in numerous debates that currently concern military historians: combat motivation and soldiers' motivational complexes, psychological repercussions of combat, the use of memoir to study combat experience, race relations within the military, the officer-enlisted relationship, and the cultural components of war that can exacerbate or constrain violence.
World War II veteran and writer James Jones once asked "What is it that makes a man go out into dangerous places and get himself shot at with increasing consistency until finally he dies?" Kindsvatter mostly concerns himself with answering this question throughout his wide-ranging study.He argues that soldiers largely fought because they inherently believed in some mixture of cause, comrades, country, and self and adopted various coping mechanisms that sustained them throughout long deployments. However, motives differed depending on class, race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, socio-economic class, and a variety of other factors. He remains sensitive to these issues, while cognizant of the general factors that most soldiers identified with in their wartime and post-war writings. African-Americans, for example, commonly fought to demonstrate their commitment to national values (freedom, democracy), social justice, and prove their prowess in battle. By and large, though, Kindsvatter agrees with the primary-group (or buddy) thesis; men fought because they fashioned indelible bonds with the men who fought alongside them.
Kindsvatter suggests that men enlisted for a variety of reasons: social pressure, a sense of duty or obligation to country, a desire to test their manhood, among others. In general, these factors explain the mass turn-out of volunteers at the beginning of most American wars, even during the Vietnam War.
In combat, some men accentuated the positives of war (to perhaps mis-use Paul Fussell's phrase). Men enjoyed the spectacles of combat. Aircraft, artillery, machine guns, and other modern weapons put on a show for soldiers, especially those observing from the sidelines. Others particularly delighted in destruction, or what J. Glenn Gray and Kindsvatter describe as the "soldier-adventurer." These men excelled in different facets of combat and killing, and derived a certain amount of pride and confidence from their abilities; they found delight, or even excitement, in closing with the enemy. However, soldier-adventurers did not find pleasure in killing. Soldier-adventurers compartmentalized killing as simply part of their "job," whereas psychopathic soldiers delighted in killing and actively sought out opportunities to ratchet up their kill tab.
Among the "enduring appeals of war" that J. Glenn Gray identified in his work on the Second World War, Kindsvatter suggests that comradeship exercised the greatest influence on soldiers, in two distinct ways. Historian Richard Kohn argued that "props" sustained soldiers morally and emotionally during war, while "motivators" were factors that compelled men to fight. Kindsvatter argues that comradeship constituted both a "prop" and a "motivator." During lulls in combat, comrades sustained one another emotionally by assuaging the guilt that accompanied killing, and venting frustration through laughter, joking, griping, and spreading rumors. During episodes of combat, the primary group motivated men to kill the enemy by enforcing conformity—those who skulked or were non-firers faced ostracism by their peers. One caveat, however, was that men expressed sympathy with those who broke down after demonstrating their commitment to protect their buddies by fighting honorably in numerous engagements.
Kindsvatter's conclusion offers an important throw-away thesis: men consistently hold roseate imaginations of warfare because war memorialization and mass media advances a glamorized, romanticized portrayal of war. This is a plausible hypothesis that resonates with the writings of numerous Korean War and Vietnam War veterans' remembrances of how John Wayne and other B-movie war icons shaped their ideas of war and influenced their decisions to enlist in the military. There's certainly a dissertation topic to be found here, and perhaps even a comparative element wherein one might study the similarities and differences between popular culture of war during the twentieth century and its influence on soldiers' imaginations of the battlefield. It's difficult to surmise how B-movie images factored into an individual's motivational complex to enlist in the military. Indeed, it would require pure speculation in most cases.
This is a rich book that I've hardly explained in full detail here. It deserves wide readership and exemplifies the interdisciplinary approach to military history. It's also a great book to read alongside Gerald Linderman's The World Within War, J. Glenn Gray's Warriors: Reflections on Men in Battle, Paul Fussell's Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War, and Christian G. Appy's Working-Class War.
World War II veteran and writer James Jones once asked "What is it that makes a man go out into dangerous places and get himself shot at with increasing consistency until finally he dies?" Kindsvatter mostly concerns himself with answering this question throughout his wide-ranging study.He argues that soldiers largely fought because they inherently believed in some mixture of cause, comrades, country, and self and adopted various coping mechanisms that sustained them throughout long deployments. However, motives differed depending on class, race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, socio-economic class, and a variety of other factors. He remains sensitive to these issues, while cognizant of the general factors that most soldiers identified with in their wartime and post-war writings. African-Americans, for example, commonly fought to demonstrate their commitment to national values (freedom, democracy), social justice, and prove their prowess in battle. By and large, though, Kindsvatter agrees with the primary-group (or buddy) thesis; men fought because they fashioned indelible bonds with the men who fought alongside them.
Kindsvatter suggests that men enlisted for a variety of reasons: social pressure, a sense of duty or obligation to country, a desire to test their manhood, among others. In general, these factors explain the mass turn-out of volunteers at the beginning of most American wars, even during the Vietnam War.
In combat, some men accentuated the positives of war (to perhaps mis-use Paul Fussell's phrase). Men enjoyed the spectacles of combat. Aircraft, artillery, machine guns, and other modern weapons put on a show for soldiers, especially those observing from the sidelines. Others particularly delighted in destruction, or what J. Glenn Gray and Kindsvatter describe as the "soldier-adventurer." These men excelled in different facets of combat and killing, and derived a certain amount of pride and confidence from their abilities; they found delight, or even excitement, in closing with the enemy. However, soldier-adventurers did not find pleasure in killing. Soldier-adventurers compartmentalized killing as simply part of their "job," whereas psychopathic soldiers delighted in killing and actively sought out opportunities to ratchet up their kill tab.
Among the "enduring appeals of war" that J. Glenn Gray identified in his work on the Second World War, Kindsvatter suggests that comradeship exercised the greatest influence on soldiers, in two distinct ways. Historian Richard Kohn argued that "props" sustained soldiers morally and emotionally during war, while "motivators" were factors that compelled men to fight. Kindsvatter argues that comradeship constituted both a "prop" and a "motivator." During lulls in combat, comrades sustained one another emotionally by assuaging the guilt that accompanied killing, and venting frustration through laughter, joking, griping, and spreading rumors. During episodes of combat, the primary group motivated men to kill the enemy by enforcing conformity—those who skulked or were non-firers faced ostracism by their peers. One caveat, however, was that men expressed sympathy with those who broke down after demonstrating their commitment to protect their buddies by fighting honorably in numerous engagements.
Kindsvatter's conclusion offers an important throw-away thesis: men consistently hold roseate imaginations of warfare because war memorialization and mass media advances a glamorized, romanticized portrayal of war. This is a plausible hypothesis that resonates with the writings of numerous Korean War and Vietnam War veterans' remembrances of how John Wayne and other B-movie war icons shaped their ideas of war and influenced their decisions to enlist in the military. There's certainly a dissertation topic to be found here, and perhaps even a comparative element wherein one might study the similarities and differences between popular culture of war during the twentieth century and its influence on soldiers' imaginations of the battlefield. It's difficult to surmise how B-movie images factored into an individual's motivational complex to enlist in the military. Indeed, it would require pure speculation in most cases.
This is a rich book that I've hardly explained in full detail here. It deserves wide readership and exemplifies the interdisciplinary approach to military history. It's also a great book to read alongside Gerald Linderman's The World Within War, J. Glenn Gray's Warriors: Reflections on Men in Battle, Paul Fussell's Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War, and Christian G. Appy's Working-Class War.
June 19, 2019
Comparison of American soldiers experiences and outlooks through WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Compelling in his assertions and thoroughly backed up by many sources.
October 4, 2021
It was okay. Drew from a limited number of sources. Thought there was a lot of OTOH-BOTOHing through this book, so much so that it was difficult to draw many conclusions on what I read.
July 29, 2016
Some interesting facts & insights. It could be repetitive at times. There is no reason to state the same thing several different ways. Also I'm suspect of any nonfiction work that sites fiction books as a source of information.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 11, 2014
I think every soldier and marine should read this book.
Want to Read
December 17, 2012I registered a book at BookCrossing.com!
http://www.BookCrossing.com/journal/11594921
http://www.BookCrossing.com/journal/11594921
October 1, 2015
Informative, insightful, grounded.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews