What do you think?
Rate this book
جرائم الحرب في فيتنام
In this harsh and unsparing book, Bertrand Russell presents the unvarnished truth about the war in Vietnam. He argues that "To understand the war, we must understand America"-and, in doing so, we must understand that racism in the United States created a climate in which it was difficult for Americans to understand what they were doing in Vietnam. According to Russell, it was this same racism that provoked "a barbarous, chauvinist outcry when American pilots who have bombed hospitals, schools, dykes, and civilian centres are accused of committing war crimes." Even today, more than forty years later, this chauvinist moral blindness permitted John McCain to run for President effectively unchallenged when he gloried in his exploits in bombing the Vietnamese.
Paperback
First published January 1, 1967
3 people are currently reading
278 people want to read
About the author
Bertrand Russell
1,270 books7,336 followersBertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS, was a Welsh philosopher, historian, logician, mathematician, advocate for social reform, pacifist, and prominent rationalist. Although he was usually regarded as English, as he spent the majority of his life in England, he was born in Wales, where he also died.
He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought."
He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
January 11, 2023
In his book, British philosopher Bertrand Russel, who organized the International War Crimes Tribunal to investigate the American government's policy toward Vietnam, discussed the racism of America, which made atrocities like the ones committed during the Vietnam conflict possible. According to him, racism not only confused the historical beginning of the war, but also provoked "a barbarous, chauvinist outcry" when American soldiers who had killed innocent people and bombed civilian infrastructure were accused of war crimes.
What Russel addressed was as concerning as he believed it to be. Aside from the fact that the American soldiers were trained to kill first and think later, such killing was excused by the racism that they were taught during their training. The drill instructors called the people of Vietnam gooks, dinks, and similar offensive words, making it clear that the soldiers should think of them as less than human. From the moment the soldiers arrived in Vietnam on, this racist attitude was only encouraged. They were told that the official policy did not matter and that all people, even women and children, were not to be trusted because they all could be enemies – an idea that, naturally, fostered a dislike for the people of Vietnam in the soldiers, who believed that they were protecting those people from the Communists.
Most of what the author discussed is familiar to me. He devoted a lot of pages to the history of Vietnam, especially French colonialism and the period after the Second World War. However, there is a chapter called The Press and Vietnam that presents an interesting exchange of letters between Russel and the editor of the New York Times, which shows that while the press did share individual pieces of information about cruelty in Vietnam with the public, it neither formed a coherent picture of the Vietnam conflict from them nor allowed others to do so. This fact bothered the British philosopher, so in the spring of 1963, he decided to bring attention to the brutality with which the American government handled Vietnam through the New York Times. In a letter addressed to the editor of the newspaper, he wrote about the villages that were burned with napalm and the crops that were destroyed with chemicals, leaving the people to starve.
The New York Times, in response, criticized him for his "unthinking receptivity to the most transparent Communist propaganda." Funnily, they claimed that the South Vietnamese air force – allegedly despite the disapproval of the American officials in Vietnam – was using napalm against "real or imagined havens of Viet Cong guerrillas." I wonder who thought that writing that America's allies were using napalm against imagined enemies was a good idea. It just confirmed Russel's apprehensions: the soldiers were napalming villages without having established if there were Viet Cong in those villages. They were harming civilians. It is sad that the people who got to decide what news Americans should know and to form the public's views could not even write a convincing defense.
As expected, Russel destroyed them with logic and facts in his next letter. For instance, he countered their claim that the chemicals used in Vietnam were common weedkillers by pointing out that weedkillers could harm animals and destroy crops and that the South Vietnam Liberation Red Cross had conducted a study that had showed that other chemicals, such as DNP and DNC, which inflamed and ate into human flesh, were used. He also underscored that he criticized atrocities where he saw them and had been called anti-Communist because he had protested against's Stalin's atrocities in Russia. Not surprisingly, his letter was not included in the New York Times' letters column. Furthermore, he was accused by the editor of distorting the truth, which cast the newspaper in an even more negative light.
This correspondence demonstrates how the American media in the sixties actively helped the American government continue the war by distorting facts and preventing public figures such as Russel from informing Americans of what was actually happening in Vietnam.
WAR CRIMES IN VIETNAM is a short but thought-provoking read. Russel's thoughts are intelligent and clearly expressed. This book is a great introduction to the topic of American war crimes in Vietnam.
What Russel addressed was as concerning as he believed it to be. Aside from the fact that the American soldiers were trained to kill first and think later, such killing was excused by the racism that they were taught during their training. The drill instructors called the people of Vietnam gooks, dinks, and similar offensive words, making it clear that the soldiers should think of them as less than human. From the moment the soldiers arrived in Vietnam on, this racist attitude was only encouraged. They were told that the official policy did not matter and that all people, even women and children, were not to be trusted because they all could be enemies – an idea that, naturally, fostered a dislike for the people of Vietnam in the soldiers, who believed that they were protecting those people from the Communists.
Most of what the author discussed is familiar to me. He devoted a lot of pages to the history of Vietnam, especially French colonialism and the period after the Second World War. However, there is a chapter called The Press and Vietnam that presents an interesting exchange of letters between Russel and the editor of the New York Times, which shows that while the press did share individual pieces of information about cruelty in Vietnam with the public, it neither formed a coherent picture of the Vietnam conflict from them nor allowed others to do so. This fact bothered the British philosopher, so in the spring of 1963, he decided to bring attention to the brutality with which the American government handled Vietnam through the New York Times. In a letter addressed to the editor of the newspaper, he wrote about the villages that were burned with napalm and the crops that were destroyed with chemicals, leaving the people to starve.
The New York Times, in response, criticized him for his "unthinking receptivity to the most transparent Communist propaganda." Funnily, they claimed that the South Vietnamese air force – allegedly despite the disapproval of the American officials in Vietnam – was using napalm against "real or imagined havens of Viet Cong guerrillas." I wonder who thought that writing that America's allies were using napalm against imagined enemies was a good idea. It just confirmed Russel's apprehensions: the soldiers were napalming villages without having established if there were Viet Cong in those villages. They were harming civilians. It is sad that the people who got to decide what news Americans should know and to form the public's views could not even write a convincing defense.
As expected, Russel destroyed them with logic and facts in his next letter. For instance, he countered their claim that the chemicals used in Vietnam were common weedkillers by pointing out that weedkillers could harm animals and destroy crops and that the South Vietnam Liberation Red Cross had conducted a study that had showed that other chemicals, such as DNP and DNC, which inflamed and ate into human flesh, were used. He also underscored that he criticized atrocities where he saw them and had been called anti-Communist because he had protested against's Stalin's atrocities in Russia. Not surprisingly, his letter was not included in the New York Times' letters column. Furthermore, he was accused by the editor of distorting the truth, which cast the newspaper in an even more negative light.
This correspondence demonstrates how the American media in the sixties actively helped the American government continue the war by distorting facts and preventing public figures such as Russel from informing Americans of what was actually happening in Vietnam.
WAR CRIMES IN VIETNAM is a short but thought-provoking read. Russel's thoughts are intelligent and clearly expressed. This book is a great introduction to the topic of American war crimes in Vietnam.
August 17, 2022
من برای شناخت بشریت به اینجا آمده ام. به خاطر اینکه دلم میخواهد بفهمم مردی که مرد دیگری را میکشد در جست و جوی چیست و وقتی که آخرین گلوله را در بدن مردی فرو میکند به چه می اندیشد. من برای ثابت کردن عقیده ای که همیشه به آن معتقد بوده ام به اینجا آمده ام و آن پوچی و احمقانه بودن جنگ است و فکر میکنم جنگیدن قاطع ترین دلیل حماقت بشر است...
اوریانا فالاچی
زندگی، جنگ و دیگر هیچ
مغز آدم با خواندن این کتاب سوت می کشد
اوریانا فالاچی
زندگی، جنگ و دیگر هیچ
مغز آدم با خواندن این کتاب سوت می کشد
September 30, 2012
I don't see eye-to-eye with Bertrand Russell on a lot of theological, philosophical, economic, and political concepts. And at times this book is infected with more than a few tangential diatribes which I heartily disagree with.
That said, this book is a valuable resource for those seeking to understand the Vietnam War. Read it only if you are not faint of heart. Read it carefully and be prepared to take some of his socialism and some of his pronouncements with a grain of salt.
Russell wrote this book shortly before he died as he was gathering together a tribunal to investigate, document, and make a statement on the Vietnam War. At the time the war was still raging. He was indignant and rightfully so.
I'm convinced that if the decision makers of the Vietnam War were subjected to a tribunal similar in nature to those utilized to investigated World War II and the Balkan Wars, multiple individuals would have been, at the very least, imprisoned.
Russell assembles a lot of weighty information, and even if some could find a way to doubt the details at the time, it's clear that for the most part, history has vindicated most of Russell's factual observations.
If you read this book, I suggest keeping in mind that this book was written during the war, so it lacks some of the insights and opportunities that appear after the dust has settled. It is very much set right in the thick of things and so it is probably edgier than most of the contemporary books on Vietnam would be. It's hard to be calm when the Napalm is still burning.
I do not want to in any way diminish the importance of this work, but I have a potential alternate suggestion which may connect better with some people. If you want to read something more contemporary and less infected with Russell's economic propaganda, you could check out Christopher Hitchens' "The Trial Of Henry Kissinger". Granted, it focuses on only one actor in the Vietnam war and is not nearly as broad. However, I think it is fantastic and it truly continues in the great tradition of Russell's outrage and brings forward a very compelling case establishing some of the same points.
That said, this book is a valuable resource for those seeking to understand the Vietnam War. Read it only if you are not faint of heart. Read it carefully and be prepared to take some of his socialism and some of his pronouncements with a grain of salt.
Russell wrote this book shortly before he died as he was gathering together a tribunal to investigate, document, and make a statement on the Vietnam War. At the time the war was still raging. He was indignant and rightfully so.
I'm convinced that if the decision makers of the Vietnam War were subjected to a tribunal similar in nature to those utilized to investigated World War II and the Balkan Wars, multiple individuals would have been, at the very least, imprisoned.
Russell assembles a lot of weighty information, and even if some could find a way to doubt the details at the time, it's clear that for the most part, history has vindicated most of Russell's factual observations.
If you read this book, I suggest keeping in mind that this book was written during the war, so it lacks some of the insights and opportunities that appear after the dust has settled. It is very much set right in the thick of things and so it is probably edgier than most of the contemporary books on Vietnam would be. It's hard to be calm when the Napalm is still burning.
I do not want to in any way diminish the importance of this work, but I have a potential alternate suggestion which may connect better with some people. If you want to read something more contemporary and less infected with Russell's economic propaganda, you could check out Christopher Hitchens' "The Trial Of Henry Kissinger". Granted, it focuses on only one actor in the Vietnam war and is not nearly as broad. However, I think it is fantastic and it truly continues in the great tradition of Russell's outrage and brings forward a very compelling case establishing some of the same points.
February 19, 2013
الكتاب موسوعة وثائقية رائعة عن الحرب في فيتنام ومدى بشاعة الإمبريالية الامريكية في الحرب الباردة. لحظات كثيرة تقشعر لها الابدان أثناء القراءة وربما تذرف الدموع. لا حاجة للحكم على الصحيح أو الخاطئ فما حدث هو غير إنساني بالمرة. المهم أن برتراد رسل دافع عن الإنسانية حتى الرمق الأخير في حياته. إنه بحق شخصية ملهمة ملمة نهمة للإبداع والتأثر في الكون. من أفضل ما في الكتاب مقدمته. سأقوم بكتابة مراجعة في وقت لاحق
February 24, 2015
كتاب يحمل احصائيات لحجم الدمار الذي خلفه استعمار امريكا ع فيتنام.
و يكشف الجانب الانساني الأخلاقي للعظيم برتراند راسل، من الممكن ان نسمي الكتاب لماذا نعشق راسل ؟
و يكشف الجانب الانساني الأخلاقي للعظيم برتراند راسل، من الممكن ان نسمي الكتاب لماذا نعشق راسل ؟
August 30, 2025
RUSSELL CONDEMNS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AS “WAR CRIMINALS”
Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872-1970) was an influential British philosopher, logician, mathematician, and political activist. In 1950, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, in recognition of his many books.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1967 book, “The fundamental fact which I wish to establish here is that the Vietnam war is the responsibility of the United States. This elementary truth is central to any understanding of this cruel war… It is America that has given Vietnam an international significance. While the beginnings of the American role in Vietnam precede the notorious involvement with Ngo Dinh Diem, it must be noted that France deserves the credit for nearly obliterating the Vietnamese cultural heritage.” (Pg. 9-10) Later, he added, “Had it not been for the Marshall Plan, France would have been in no position to finance the costly, protracted war which ensued. American aid not only made possible the war, but it had a considerable influence on the manner in which the war was conducted.” (Pg. 23)
He explains [in a response to a New York Times editorial criticizing him], “I criticize ‘atrocities’ where I find them. I was considered too anti-Communist by the liberals of the U.S. in Stalin’s day for objecting to the atrocities that occurred in Russia at that time. I have recently been carrying on a correspondence concerning the hardships suffered by Jews in Communist countries. I see no reason to suppose that atrocities are to be condoned when committed by Western Governments. It is not I, but you, who, in attempting to whitewash U.S. action in South Vietnam, are speaking half-truths and are thereby doing the very thing of which you accuse me.” (Pg. 35-36)
He asserts, “a beginning must be made of nuclear disarmament. Most of these should be done in 1965; all of them must be begun with a serious promise of their being soon accomplished. If all these things are done, there will be new hope for the world. If they are not, the drift toward disaster will continue, and with increasing rapidity. Human beings will have proved themselves indistinguishable from either lemmings or Gadarene swine.” (Pg. 81)
He wrote in 1966, “The United State must be compelled to get out of Vietnam immediately and without conditions. There are at least four important reasons why such a policy must be enforced. First, the United States is committing war crimes in Vietnam… Secondly, the United States has no right to be in Vietnam…Thirdly, Washington’s talk of ‘halting aggression’ is shameless Orwellian doublethink… Fourthly, if the Vietnamese are to lose… their independence, the United States will be encouraged to think that aggression pays and to act accordingly.” (Pg. 101-102) He adds, “The Government of the United States has fallen into the hands of war criminals who must be halted whilst there is yet time…” (Pg. 106)
He points out, “Let us now consider together why the U.S. government does this. The excuse that they are protecting the Vietnamese against the ‘Vietcong’ or North Vietnamese can be seen by all of you to be the disgusting lie that it is. Vietnam is one country. Even the Geneva Agreements acknowledge that it is one country. The North Vietnamese and the South Vietnamese are not merely the same people, but the wives and children of men living in the North are in the South and many of those who live in the South were born in the North.” (Pg. 108)
He pleads, “You will remember that Germans were considered guilty if they acquiesced in and accepted the crimes of their government. Nobody considered it a sufficient excuse for Germans to say that they knew about the gas chambers and concentration camps, the torture and mutilation, but were unable to stop it. I appeal to you as a human being to human beings. Remember your humanity and your own self-respect. The war against the people of Vietnam is barbaric. It is an aggressive war of conquest.” (Pg. 122)
Russell’s book is clearly one-sided; but he makes some points which, in retrospect, are quite sound.
Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872-1970) was an influential British philosopher, logician, mathematician, and political activist. In 1950, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, in recognition of his many books.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1967 book, “The fundamental fact which I wish to establish here is that the Vietnam war is the responsibility of the United States. This elementary truth is central to any understanding of this cruel war… It is America that has given Vietnam an international significance. While the beginnings of the American role in Vietnam precede the notorious involvement with Ngo Dinh Diem, it must be noted that France deserves the credit for nearly obliterating the Vietnamese cultural heritage.” (Pg. 9-10) Later, he added, “Had it not been for the Marshall Plan, France would have been in no position to finance the costly, protracted war which ensued. American aid not only made possible the war, but it had a considerable influence on the manner in which the war was conducted.” (Pg. 23)
He explains [in a response to a New York Times editorial criticizing him], “I criticize ‘atrocities’ where I find them. I was considered too anti-Communist by the liberals of the U.S. in Stalin’s day for objecting to the atrocities that occurred in Russia at that time. I have recently been carrying on a correspondence concerning the hardships suffered by Jews in Communist countries. I see no reason to suppose that atrocities are to be condoned when committed by Western Governments. It is not I, but you, who, in attempting to whitewash U.S. action in South Vietnam, are speaking half-truths and are thereby doing the very thing of which you accuse me.” (Pg. 35-36)
He asserts, “a beginning must be made of nuclear disarmament. Most of these should be done in 1965; all of them must be begun with a serious promise of their being soon accomplished. If all these things are done, there will be new hope for the world. If they are not, the drift toward disaster will continue, and with increasing rapidity. Human beings will have proved themselves indistinguishable from either lemmings or Gadarene swine.” (Pg. 81)
He wrote in 1966, “The United State must be compelled to get out of Vietnam immediately and without conditions. There are at least four important reasons why such a policy must be enforced. First, the United States is committing war crimes in Vietnam… Secondly, the United States has no right to be in Vietnam…Thirdly, Washington’s talk of ‘halting aggression’ is shameless Orwellian doublethink… Fourthly, if the Vietnamese are to lose… their independence, the United States will be encouraged to think that aggression pays and to act accordingly.” (Pg. 101-102) He adds, “The Government of the United States has fallen into the hands of war criminals who must be halted whilst there is yet time…” (Pg. 106)
He points out, “Let us now consider together why the U.S. government does this. The excuse that they are protecting the Vietnamese against the ‘Vietcong’ or North Vietnamese can be seen by all of you to be the disgusting lie that it is. Vietnam is one country. Even the Geneva Agreements acknowledge that it is one country. The North Vietnamese and the South Vietnamese are not merely the same people, but the wives and children of men living in the North are in the South and many of those who live in the South were born in the North.” (Pg. 108)
He pleads, “You will remember that Germans were considered guilty if they acquiesced in and accepted the crimes of their government. Nobody considered it a sufficient excuse for Germans to say that they knew about the gas chambers and concentration camps, the torture and mutilation, but were unable to stop it. I appeal to you as a human being to human beings. Remember your humanity and your own self-respect. The war against the people of Vietnam is barbaric. It is an aggressive war of conquest.” (Pg. 122)
Russell’s book is clearly one-sided; but he makes some points which, in retrospect, are quite sound.
January 7, 2026
“The tenancy of the rich nations is infected with the stench of carrion. The progress that politicians in these countries speak about with voices drowned in tears looks more and more like progress in the elimination of human life.”
“One of the most important aspects of this war has been that the United States pretended for many years that no such war was taking place and that the war which was not taking place was not being conducted by Americans.”
“One of the most important aspects of this war has been that the United States pretended for many years that no such war was taking place and that the war which was not taking place was not being conducted by Americans.”
January 11, 2023
If the CIA hadn't killed JFK in 63 these atrocities probably wouldn't have happened.
According to John M Newman's JFK & Vietnam JFK wanted to withdraw if he got reelected in 64.
I'm a Christian but I respect B Russell. NY Times was part of coup cover-up so keep that in mind.
Something to the racist angle.
According to John M Newman's JFK & Vietnam JFK wanted to withdraw if he got reelected in 64.
I'm a Christian but I respect B Russell. NY Times was part of coup cover-up so keep that in mind.
Something to the racist angle.
June 8, 2020
It has everything you wanna know about the war crimes in Vietnam
Now I know how much the American army was cruel and war criminal .
Now I know how much the American army was cruel and war criminal .
December 28, 2023
يكشف برتراند راسل الوجه القبيح للامبريالية الامريكية و يؤكد ان مساعيها التوسعية في الهند الصينية ليس الا لقمع حركات التحرر الوطني حفاظاً على مصالحها الرأسمالية.
و يكشف عن استخدام الجنود الامريكيين كمرتزقة في جنوب فييتنام لصالح الديكتاتور الرأسمالي (نجودين دييم) بشتى السبل القميئة: من الابادة الجماعية للمدنين من القرويين و العمال و التعذيب القاسي و حتى القاء القنابل الكيمائية على ٤٤٠٠ قرية ذوات كثافة سكانية عالية لتقتل اكبر عدد ممكن من السكان و استخدام قنابل شديدة القسوة مثل النابالم و هلام البترول (الذان يستمران في حرق كل ما يلمساه حتى تحويلة إلى كتلة رغوية)
و يكشف ايضاً المثير من خبايا الحرب الفيتنامية التي تحاول الولايات المتحدة اخفائها و التي تتعارض مع ادعائات مناصرتها للعالم الحر والديموقراطية و حقوق الشعوب في تقرير مصيرها
و يكشف عن استخدام الجنود الامريكيين كمرتزقة في جنوب فييتنام لصالح الديكتاتور الرأسمالي (نجودين دييم) بشتى السبل القميئة: من الابادة الجماعية للمدنين من القرويين و العمال و التعذيب القاسي و حتى القاء القنابل الكيمائية على ٤٤٠٠ قرية ذوات كثافة سكانية عالية لتقتل اكبر عدد ممكن من السكان و استخدام قنابل شديدة القسوة مثل النابالم و هلام البترول (الذان يستمران في حرق كل ما يلمساه حتى تحويلة إلى كتلة رغوية)
و يكشف ايضاً المثير من خبايا الحرب الفيتنامية التي تحاول الولايات المتحدة اخفائها و التي تتعارض مع ادعائات مناصرتها للعالم الحر والديموقراطية و حقوق الشعوب في تقرير مصيرها
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews