What do you think?
Rate this book
The Lost Mandate of Heaven: The American Betrayal of Ngo Dinh Diem, President of Vietnam
Ngo Dinh Diem, the first president of the Republic of Vietnam, possessed the Confucian "Mandate of Heaven", a moral and political authority that was widely recognized by all Vietnamese. This devout Roman Catholic leader never lost this mandate in the eyes of his people; rather, he was taken down by a military coup sponsored by the U.S. government, which resulted in his brutal murder.
The commonly held view runs contrary to the above assertion by military historian Geoffrey Shaw. According to many American historians, President Diem was a corrupt leader whose tyrannical actions lost him the loyalty of his people and the possibility of a military victory over the North Vietnamese. The Kennedy Administration, they argue, had to withdraw its support of Diem.
Based on his research of original sources, including declassified documents of the U.S. government, Shaw chronicles the Kennedy administration's betrayal of this ally, which proved to be not only a moral failure but also a political disaster that led America into a protracted and costly war. Along the way, Shaw reveals a President Diem very different from the despot portrayed by the press during its coverage of Vietnam. From eyewitness accounts of military, intelligence, and diplomatic sources, Shaw draws the portrait of a man with rare integrity, a patriot who strove to free his country from Western colonialism while protecting it from Communism.
The commonly held view runs contrary to the above assertion by military historian Geoffrey Shaw. According to many American historians, President Diem was a corrupt leader whose tyrannical actions lost him the loyalty of his people and the possibility of a military victory over the North Vietnamese. The Kennedy Administration, they argue, had to withdraw its support of Diem.
Based on his research of original sources, including declassified documents of the U.S. government, Shaw chronicles the Kennedy administration's betrayal of this ally, which proved to be not only a moral failure but also a political disaster that led America into a protracted and costly war. Along the way, Shaw reveals a President Diem very different from the despot portrayed by the press during its coverage of Vietnam. From eyewitness accounts of military, intelligence, and diplomatic sources, Shaw draws the portrait of a man with rare integrity, a patriot who strove to free his country from Western colonialism while protecting it from Communism.
314 pages, Paperback
First published October 5, 2015
47 people are currently reading
284 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 - 24 of 24 reviews
Read
October 26, 2021I cannot make up my mind whether or not to give this book stars.
On one hand, I fully agree with Geoffrey Shaw's portrayal of Diem. The South Vietnamese Prime Minister was not an authoritarian monster. He was a devoted Catholic, whose discipline and denial of physical passions appealed to the Vietnamese people. General Nguyen Khanh, who had participated in Diem's overthrow, said that the Prime Minister's purity and simplicity of life made him exemplary to the Vietnamese, Catholic and Buddhist alike. While living in the presidential palace, Diem rejected all luxury, sleeping on an old army cot in his office. He was exactly the ally the American government had been looking for – a popular, incorruptible, non-Communist nationalist. What did not occur to the Americans, though, was that the same those qualities they admired in South Vietnam's Prime Minister would later cause the conflict between him and them – he refused to become an American puppet.
The role the liberal American press played in destroying the relations between Diem and his American allies should not be neglected. According to CIA Saigon Chief William Colby, the Prime Minister's vital error was that he did not realize how great the news media's impact on American political leaders was and allowed negative coverage to spread freely. “Therefore he let the issue grow as to whether Vietnam was democratic enough, rather than the issue grow as to whether Vietnam was progressing. Because if the latter had become the main issue, then I think he would have had support," observed Colby. The American journalists assumed that the Diem government's repeated attempts to prevent or quench Buddhist riots in the spring and summer of 1963 appalled the Vietnamese population, as the American government's crackdowns on religious demonstrations might offend Americans. However, the Vietnamese people tended to support a government that suppressed public demonstrations if they themselves were not among the demonstrators and the crackdowns were carried out effectively. No successful leader in Vietnamese history had tolerated the sort of violent and organized public attacks that the Buddhist militants began to make on Diem in May 1963. Furthermore, in the countryside, where the war against the Viet Cong was being fought, no one caree about the Buddhist protests. Among the educated elite too, a large number understood and approved of Diem’s actions during the Buddhist riots.
The journalists denied Diem's and other South Vietnamese officials' claims that some belligerent Buddhist leaders were covert agents of Hanoi, who were influencing the movement's actions and deluding the reporters, but the Buddhists were not protesting only to put an end to Diem's regime's alleged religious persecution and discrimination. Substantial numbers of the protesters were Communist agents, including some of the monks. "The Vietnamese Communists had a long history of posing as monks and infiltrating Buddhist organizations, a very easy task as any Vietnamese man could become a Buddhist monk at any time simply by shaving his head, donning a monk’s robe, and acting with humility," explains Mark Moyar in his revisionist Vietnam War history, Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965. Captured Communist documents, available at the time to both the Americans and the South Vietnamese, confirmed Communist participation in the Buddhist protest movement. One document, dated July 27, 1963 and captured a few weeks afterwards, read that in some areas Communist personnel “have pushed the political struggle movement by initiating the demonstrations against the terrorization of Buddhism at the province and districts.”
Therefore, Diem was not cruel to the Buddhists, whom he, as the grandson of Buddhists, respected no less than he respected the Roman Catholics, but rather was trying to stabilize his country and maintain his political legitimacy. Guerrilla warfare had expanded greatly since 1959, making national security increasingly difficult to preserve. The American government's demands for liberalization and the principles of Western democracy, such as freedom of movement or the requirement of search warrants for the invasion of private dwellings, were inapplicable in that case and would have only aggravated the already complicated situation. Furthermore, the Communist guerrillas, aware that Diem was between the devil and the deep blue sea, increased their terror campaign in the villages to provoke further undemocratic reactions from South Vietnam's Prime Minister. Those actions further offended his American allies, who were demanding from him an impossible balance between democracy and counterinsurgency. Eventually, Diem told American ambassador Frederick Nolting he intended to gradually cut back the number of American advisers in Saigon because the Vietnamese people had begun to see their country as "a U.S. protectorate." That decision sealed his fate.
All of the aforementioned supports Geoffrey Shaw's idea that South Vietnam's Prime Minister Diem was a wise, effective leader, who understood his country and people well and searched for ways to do the best for them even wehn pressured by his domineering superpower ally and the Northern communists. With its compelling style, insightful analysis, and convincing reasoning, THE LOST MANDATE OF HEAVEN seemed like a five-star read.
On the other hand, Shaw assigns the blame for Diem's assassination to President John F. Kennedy, among other high-ranking American officials, and this is the problem I have with his conclusions.
Because no, President John F. Kennedy did not agree to the coup that overthrew Ngo Dinh Diem on November 1, 1963. In late August, Averell Harriman and Roger Hilsman, the President's primary State Department advisers, decided for American support of a coup against Diem virtually on their own. On August 24, during a weekend when President John F. Kennedy was absent, Hilsman, Harriman and presidential aide Michael Forrestal drafted an urgent telegram to the newly appointed American Ambassador to South Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge, which authorized American support of a coup by rebel South Vietnamese generals, if Diem refused to remove from power his brother Nhu and sister-in-law Madame Nhu. The President, who was presented with a post factum upon his return, approved the telegram because Forrestal lied to him that all the President's advisers had done so. The generals then backed away from the coup, but John Kennedy had already made an irreparable mistake, putting the government on record as being in conditional support of an overthrow.
President John F. Kennedy made another different mistake: after Frederick Nolting's resignation in the summer of 1963, he appointed Henry Cabot Lodge as the new American ambassador in Saigon. "For a decade, Henry Cabot Lodge (and his son) had been trying unsuccessfully to beat John Kennedy (and his brother) in an election. Lodge was no Kennedy man," writes James W. Douglass in his investigation of John Kennedy's assassination, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters.
Lodge's appointment began the downhill road toward an anti-Diem coup. The ambassador was determined to have a coup and highly persistent in pursuing his goal. He refused point-blank to follow the President's suggestions and initiate a dialogue with Diem and Nhu to persuade them to end his repression of the Buddhists in time to avoid being overthrown.
When on October 24, Diem invited Lodge for a talk three days later. The State Department encouraged the ambassador to be open in his dialogue with South Vietnam's Prime Minister because he might have finally decided "to come to you." The Department officials were right. Diem attempted to explain to Lodge that he refused to serve unconditionally the imperial interests of the American government. Lodge treated him with contempt, reporting to Secretary of State Dean Rusk that the Prime Minister was "simply unbelievably stubborn" in not giving up "totalitarian acts which are against our traditions and ideals."
And when, on the morning of November 1, the rebel generals' troops began gathering outside the city and Diem, aware that a coup was inevitable and hoping to survive, spoke to the American ambassador uncharacteristically directly, expressing his desire to obey all American demands, Lodge did not report the news President John F. Kennedy had been waiting for all that time to the State Department until 3 pm, an hour and a half after the coup had begun. Furthermore, he sent the vital cable by the slowest way possible. By the time it reached the State Department, the rebel generals had besieged the palace. It was already too late for the President, who had been trying to save Diem despite virtually his whole administration's opposition, to do anything.
If John Kennedy had endorsed a future coup against Diem in August 1963, would have Henry Cabot Lodge purposefully slowed down the communication flow between the State Department and the Saigon Embassy? And let's not forget that memorable photograph of the President's anguish at the news of Diem's and Nhu's deaths. Would have someone who had approved their overthrow reacted that way? John Kennedy was intelligent enough to realize an overthrow by a military junta would probably result in the two brother's assassinations. If he had been for the coup, he would not have been so surprised and hurt. No, President John F. Kennedy did not agree to the coup that overthrew Ngo Dinh Diem on November 1, 1963.
No stars for now.
On one hand, I fully agree with Geoffrey Shaw's portrayal of Diem. The South Vietnamese Prime Minister was not an authoritarian monster. He was a devoted Catholic, whose discipline and denial of physical passions appealed to the Vietnamese people. General Nguyen Khanh, who had participated in Diem's overthrow, said that the Prime Minister's purity and simplicity of life made him exemplary to the Vietnamese, Catholic and Buddhist alike. While living in the presidential palace, Diem rejected all luxury, sleeping on an old army cot in his office. He was exactly the ally the American government had been looking for – a popular, incorruptible, non-Communist nationalist. What did not occur to the Americans, though, was that the same those qualities they admired in South Vietnam's Prime Minister would later cause the conflict between him and them – he refused to become an American puppet.
The role the liberal American press played in destroying the relations between Diem and his American allies should not be neglected. According to CIA Saigon Chief William Colby, the Prime Minister's vital error was that he did not realize how great the news media's impact on American political leaders was and allowed negative coverage to spread freely. “Therefore he let the issue grow as to whether Vietnam was democratic enough, rather than the issue grow as to whether Vietnam was progressing. Because if the latter had become the main issue, then I think he would have had support," observed Colby. The American journalists assumed that the Diem government's repeated attempts to prevent or quench Buddhist riots in the spring and summer of 1963 appalled the Vietnamese population, as the American government's crackdowns on religious demonstrations might offend Americans. However, the Vietnamese people tended to support a government that suppressed public demonstrations if they themselves were not among the demonstrators and the crackdowns were carried out effectively. No successful leader in Vietnamese history had tolerated the sort of violent and organized public attacks that the Buddhist militants began to make on Diem in May 1963. Furthermore, in the countryside, where the war against the Viet Cong was being fought, no one caree about the Buddhist protests. Among the educated elite too, a large number understood and approved of Diem’s actions during the Buddhist riots.
The journalists denied Diem's and other South Vietnamese officials' claims that some belligerent Buddhist leaders were covert agents of Hanoi, who were influencing the movement's actions and deluding the reporters, but the Buddhists were not protesting only to put an end to Diem's regime's alleged religious persecution and discrimination. Substantial numbers of the protesters were Communist agents, including some of the monks. "The Vietnamese Communists had a long history of posing as monks and infiltrating Buddhist organizations, a very easy task as any Vietnamese man could become a Buddhist monk at any time simply by shaving his head, donning a monk’s robe, and acting with humility," explains Mark Moyar in his revisionist Vietnam War history, Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965. Captured Communist documents, available at the time to both the Americans and the South Vietnamese, confirmed Communist participation in the Buddhist protest movement. One document, dated July 27, 1963 and captured a few weeks afterwards, read that in some areas Communist personnel “have pushed the political struggle movement by initiating the demonstrations against the terrorization of Buddhism at the province and districts.”
Therefore, Diem was not cruel to the Buddhists, whom he, as the grandson of Buddhists, respected no less than he respected the Roman Catholics, but rather was trying to stabilize his country and maintain his political legitimacy. Guerrilla warfare had expanded greatly since 1959, making national security increasingly difficult to preserve. The American government's demands for liberalization and the principles of Western democracy, such as freedom of movement or the requirement of search warrants for the invasion of private dwellings, were inapplicable in that case and would have only aggravated the already complicated situation. Furthermore, the Communist guerrillas, aware that Diem was between the devil and the deep blue sea, increased their terror campaign in the villages to provoke further undemocratic reactions from South Vietnam's Prime Minister. Those actions further offended his American allies, who were demanding from him an impossible balance between democracy and counterinsurgency. Eventually, Diem told American ambassador Frederick Nolting he intended to gradually cut back the number of American advisers in Saigon because the Vietnamese people had begun to see their country as "a U.S. protectorate." That decision sealed his fate.
All of the aforementioned supports Geoffrey Shaw's idea that South Vietnam's Prime Minister Diem was a wise, effective leader, who understood his country and people well and searched for ways to do the best for them even wehn pressured by his domineering superpower ally and the Northern communists. With its compelling style, insightful analysis, and convincing reasoning, THE LOST MANDATE OF HEAVEN seemed like a five-star read.
On the other hand, Shaw assigns the blame for Diem's assassination to President John F. Kennedy, among other high-ranking American officials, and this is the problem I have with his conclusions.
Because no, President John F. Kennedy did not agree to the coup that overthrew Ngo Dinh Diem on November 1, 1963. In late August, Averell Harriman and Roger Hilsman, the President's primary State Department advisers, decided for American support of a coup against Diem virtually on their own. On August 24, during a weekend when President John F. Kennedy was absent, Hilsman, Harriman and presidential aide Michael Forrestal drafted an urgent telegram to the newly appointed American Ambassador to South Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge, which authorized American support of a coup by rebel South Vietnamese generals, if Diem refused to remove from power his brother Nhu and sister-in-law Madame Nhu. The President, who was presented with a post factum upon his return, approved the telegram because Forrestal lied to him that all the President's advisers had done so. The generals then backed away from the coup, but John Kennedy had already made an irreparable mistake, putting the government on record as being in conditional support of an overthrow.
President John F. Kennedy made another different mistake: after Frederick Nolting's resignation in the summer of 1963, he appointed Henry Cabot Lodge as the new American ambassador in Saigon. "For a decade, Henry Cabot Lodge (and his son) had been trying unsuccessfully to beat John Kennedy (and his brother) in an election. Lodge was no Kennedy man," writes James W. Douglass in his investigation of John Kennedy's assassination, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters.
Lodge's appointment began the downhill road toward an anti-Diem coup. The ambassador was determined to have a coup and highly persistent in pursuing his goal. He refused point-blank to follow the President's suggestions and initiate a dialogue with Diem and Nhu to persuade them to end his repression of the Buddhists in time to avoid being overthrown.
When on October 24, Diem invited Lodge for a talk three days later. The State Department encouraged the ambassador to be open in his dialogue with South Vietnam's Prime Minister because he might have finally decided "to come to you." The Department officials were right. Diem attempted to explain to Lodge that he refused to serve unconditionally the imperial interests of the American government. Lodge treated him with contempt, reporting to Secretary of State Dean Rusk that the Prime Minister was "simply unbelievably stubborn" in not giving up "totalitarian acts which are against our traditions and ideals."
And when, on the morning of November 1, the rebel generals' troops began gathering outside the city and Diem, aware that a coup was inevitable and hoping to survive, spoke to the American ambassador uncharacteristically directly, expressing his desire to obey all American demands, Lodge did not report the news President John F. Kennedy had been waiting for all that time to the State Department until 3 pm, an hour and a half after the coup had begun. Furthermore, he sent the vital cable by the slowest way possible. By the time it reached the State Department, the rebel generals had besieged the palace. It was already too late for the President, who had been trying to save Diem despite virtually his whole administration's opposition, to do anything.
If John Kennedy had endorsed a future coup against Diem in August 1963, would have Henry Cabot Lodge purposefully slowed down the communication flow between the State Department and the Saigon Embassy? And let's not forget that memorable photograph of the President's anguish at the news of Diem's and Nhu's deaths. Would have someone who had approved their overthrow reacted that way? John Kennedy was intelligent enough to realize an overthrow by a military junta would probably result in the two brother's assassinations. If he had been for the coup, he would not have been so surprised and hurt. No, President John F. Kennedy did not agree to the coup that overthrew Ngo Dinh Diem on November 1, 1963.
No stars for now.
March 22, 2016
There are 57,000 reasons the US shouldn't have been in Vietnam. It was and is primarily egos that caused the defeat. The worst egos belonged to the biased press that took every opportunity to be negative, rather than seeking the truth, in order to further their personal agenda. The evidence that we were winning in Vietnam is overwhelming but having lived through this period, I can tell you the media reports always painted an ugly picture. The power of the press has never been as obvious as during the war.
This book opened my eyes to the truth of what happened in Vietnam that caused the deaths of so many. It is well researched and airs opposing views. I highly recommend to anyone interested in the truth of Vietnam.
RIP Ngo Dihn Diem. With friends like us who needed enemies.
This book opened my eyes to the truth of what happened in Vietnam that caused the deaths of so many. It is well researched and airs opposing views. I highly recommend to anyone interested in the truth of Vietnam.
RIP Ngo Dihn Diem. With friends like us who needed enemies.
January 11, 2016
Very well researched book, with tons of footnotes. Focused on Vietnam during the late 1950s thru 1963. Makes a very strong case that Averell Harriman and the New York Times (including David Halberstam) conspired against a free Vietnam's best leader, Ngo Dinh Diem.
April 14, 2017
Such a sad book. Some powerful and arrogant members of the Kennedy administration decided that Diem had to go in 1963. They encouraged the press with their views and then cited the compliant reporters as evidence of how bad things were. None of Diem's defenders in the administration argued that he was perfect, but he was making progress in the war against the Viet Cong. Shaw asserts - and others have agreed - that the Buddhist uprising was Communist-inspired. This was the last straw for the Kennedy Administration and sealed Diem's fate. Kennedy was torn by deep divisions among his senior people. This book concludes that he ultimately made the wrong call.
The book inspires a major "what-if". If Diem had continued to lead Vietnam instead of the thuggish generals who murdered him, might the the whole US disaster have been avoided?
The book inspires a major "what-if". If Diem had continued to lead Vietnam instead of the thuggish generals who murdered him, might the the whole US disaster have been avoided?
July 9, 2016
Sách viết về NDD thường đứng ở hai lập trường đối nghịch, hoặc ca tụng hết lời hoặc chỉ trích thậm tệ. Cuốn này không phải là một ngoại lệ ngay khi nhìn vào tiêu đề. Tuy nhiên, điều cuốn hút là mặc dù người đọc bị định kiến về tính khách quan của loại tài liệu ca tụng, họ có thể dễ dàng bị khuất phục bởi các lập luận khá sắc bén để bảo vệ Diệm và hành động của ông.
Qua cuốn sách, sự thăng trầm của Đệ nhất Cộng hòa gắn với sự giằng xé của một xã hội - VNCH, một con người - Ngô Đình Diệm với một câu hỏi kinh điển: Cái nào cần ưu tiên trước cho miền Nam (i) an ninh và trật tự xã hội hay (ii) các cởi mở dân chủ? Đây không phải là một câu hỏi dễ trả lời - cho cả những người lật đổ NDD thường vin vào lý do thứ 2 và cho cả những người muốn tìm kiếm một kết luận đơn giản về một con người gây tranh cãi trong một giai đoạn phức tạp của Việt Nam.
Rất đáng đọc.
Qua cuốn sách, sự thăng trầm của Đệ nhất Cộng hòa gắn với sự giằng xé của một xã hội - VNCH, một con người - Ngô Đình Diệm với một câu hỏi kinh điển: Cái nào cần ưu tiên trước cho miền Nam (i) an ninh và trật tự xã hội hay (ii) các cởi mở dân chủ? Đây không phải là một câu hỏi dễ trả lời - cho cả những người lật đổ NDD thường vin vào lý do thứ 2 và cho cả những người muốn tìm kiếm một kết luận đơn giản về một con người gây tranh cãi trong một giai đoạn phức tạp của Việt Nam.
Rất đáng đọc.
September 26, 2016
One of my favorite podcasts is the The Tom Woods Show. If you don’t know who Woods is, he’s a Harvard educated historian, and in my opinion, one of the more important Libertarians in the Libertarian movement today. Woods shatters typical stereotypes of Libertarians, and does an outstanding job of articulating Libertarian principles. He’s also a self educated Austrian economist. The guy is brilliant and really worth a listen.
On episode 645 he interviewed historian Geoffrey Shaw. Shaw is president of the Alexandrian Defense Group and (from 1994 to 2008) was a professor of history at the American Military University. He holds a Ph.D. in history from the University of Manitoba.
Shaw’s book, The Lost Mandate of Heaven: The American Betrayal of Ngo Dinh Diem, President of Vietnam gives a fascinating look at what President Kennedy did in Vietnam prior to the escalation of Vietnam under Johnson.
I have a BA in political science and a minor in history. I’ve had a passion for history basically since I was in middle school. So, naturally, I knew hardly nothing about Vietnam. (After all, if you’re educated by any public institution in the USA there’s a good chance you know little about any important historical event.)
Ngo Dinh Diem was the President of Vietnam from 1955-1963. He wasn’t perfect, but he did a decent job of leading his people in pretty difficult circumstances.
Diem faced two significant challenges that eventually led to the coup that removed him from office. The first was the American press, and the second was the arrogance of certain members of the Kennedy administration.
There seems to be some sentiment in America that there was a golden era of the press. This book shatters that mythology. The press that covered Vietnam outright manipulated facts and reported in ways that steered American public opinion against Diem and his leadership in South Vietnam.
Averell Harriman was a powerful supporter of President Kennedy and held a position of ambassador-at-large at the Department of State. Harriman and his faction hated Diem. Harriman and his followers reminded me of the arrogant fools that thought we could march into the Middle East and instill American democracy.
The story of Vietman was so reminiscent of our failures in Afghanistan/Iraq. If only us great Americans can bring democracy to these confused simpletons things will be great. The promise of democracy and freedom will solve all.
Except it won't and doesn't.
Our form of government is unique to our historical tradition. You just don't go installing it around the world expecting it to work out. You can't change societies like that.
But Diem wouldn't do it, and so he was eventually murdered (gruesomely I'd add). It's unclear whether Kennedy wanted him killed, but there's no denying he gave the go ahead for the coup which led directly to the murder.
I've heard it said before that the Department of State is incredibly powerful, and they influence the foreign policy of the President. It's not the other way around. I don't know if it's true today, but it's certainly feasible. While Kennedy gave the go ahead for the coup, it's undeniable he was heavily influenced by Harriman and others. Interestingly, Johnson didn't want the coup to take place and was furious about it.
In terms of the historical research, this book is sound. Not kidding, there are over 850 footnotes throughout the 275 page text. Shaw clearly did has due diligence on the research of this book. It's an important work and one that should be read by more.
Despite my ignorance about Vietnam prior to reading this book, my general sense was that it was an insane waste of American life. After reading this text, I would say that I believe this to be the case even more. Sadly Kennedy gets a pass by too many Americans. Terrible human being, even more terrible President.
On episode 645 he interviewed historian Geoffrey Shaw. Shaw is president of the Alexandrian Defense Group and (from 1994 to 2008) was a professor of history at the American Military University. He holds a Ph.D. in history from the University of Manitoba.
Shaw’s book, The Lost Mandate of Heaven: The American Betrayal of Ngo Dinh Diem, President of Vietnam gives a fascinating look at what President Kennedy did in Vietnam prior to the escalation of Vietnam under Johnson.
I have a BA in political science and a minor in history. I’ve had a passion for history basically since I was in middle school. So, naturally, I knew hardly nothing about Vietnam. (After all, if you’re educated by any public institution in the USA there’s a good chance you know little about any important historical event.)
Ngo Dinh Diem was the President of Vietnam from 1955-1963. He wasn’t perfect, but he did a decent job of leading his people in pretty difficult circumstances.
Diem faced two significant challenges that eventually led to the coup that removed him from office. The first was the American press, and the second was the arrogance of certain members of the Kennedy administration.
There seems to be some sentiment in America that there was a golden era of the press. This book shatters that mythology. The press that covered Vietnam outright manipulated facts and reported in ways that steered American public opinion against Diem and his leadership in South Vietnam.
Averell Harriman was a powerful supporter of President Kennedy and held a position of ambassador-at-large at the Department of State. Harriman and his faction hated Diem. Harriman and his followers reminded me of the arrogant fools that thought we could march into the Middle East and instill American democracy.
The story of Vietman was so reminiscent of our failures in Afghanistan/Iraq. If only us great Americans can bring democracy to these confused simpletons things will be great. The promise of democracy and freedom will solve all.
Except it won't and doesn't.
Our form of government is unique to our historical tradition. You just don't go installing it around the world expecting it to work out. You can't change societies like that.
But Diem wouldn't do it, and so he was eventually murdered (gruesomely I'd add). It's unclear whether Kennedy wanted him killed, but there's no denying he gave the go ahead for the coup which led directly to the murder.
I've heard it said before that the Department of State is incredibly powerful, and they influence the foreign policy of the President. It's not the other way around. I don't know if it's true today, but it's certainly feasible. While Kennedy gave the go ahead for the coup, it's undeniable he was heavily influenced by Harriman and others. Interestingly, Johnson didn't want the coup to take place and was furious about it.
In terms of the historical research, this book is sound. Not kidding, there are over 850 footnotes throughout the 275 page text. Shaw clearly did has due diligence on the research of this book. It's an important work and one that should be read by more.
Despite my ignorance about Vietnam prior to reading this book, my general sense was that it was an insane waste of American life. After reading this text, I would say that I believe this to be the case even more. Sadly Kennedy gets a pass by too many Americans. Terrible human being, even more terrible President.
February 26, 2021
In most historiographies on Vietnam War, Ngo Dinh Diem, the first President of Republic of Vietnam, or South Vietnam, was commonly depicted as ballot-rigging bachelor who persecuted the buddhists while rewarding his catholic cronies with perks and benefits. Meanwhile, his brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu, was similarly demonized as Diem’s henchmen, who loyally quashed any resistance against their rule, along with his wife, Madame Nhu, the archetypal dragon lady. In popular memory, those shortcomings are things that made the war went nowhere, which led to Diem and Nhu being toppled and murdered by a US-sponsored military coup.
The author of this to rectify this popular view by presenting an argument that it was US government itself that snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, due to Department of State’s naive assumption that South Vietnam was not democratic enough, thus the pace of democratization need to be accelerated even further. However, as the author pointed out, it was simply not possible to have normal democracy while the country was at war, with enemies from both within and without. Loosening the restriction in emergency times carried the risk of destabilizing the country, thus playing into the communists’ hands. The position of Ngo Dinh brothers were made even more precarious due to Secretary of State Averell Harriman who personally loathed the brothers and called for their blood. US Media also had a hand in Diem’s downfall, with their negative media coverages that exaggerated the setbacks in the war while downplaying the successes. After Ngo Dinh brothers were gone, everything went downhill from there.
I, personally, wholly agreed with what the author conveyed, although the author’s depiction of Diem as an almost-saintly person who would rather be a monk if he were not a Vietnam nationalist and patriotic first needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I recommend this book for everyone who seek to find alternative explanation for US calamitous adventure in Vietnam.
The author of this to rectify this popular view by presenting an argument that it was US government itself that snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, due to Department of State’s naive assumption that South Vietnam was not democratic enough, thus the pace of democratization need to be accelerated even further. However, as the author pointed out, it was simply not possible to have normal democracy while the country was at war, with enemies from both within and without. Loosening the restriction in emergency times carried the risk of destabilizing the country, thus playing into the communists’ hands. The position of Ngo Dinh brothers were made even more precarious due to Secretary of State Averell Harriman who personally loathed the brothers and called for their blood. US Media also had a hand in Diem’s downfall, with their negative media coverages that exaggerated the setbacks in the war while downplaying the successes. After Ngo Dinh brothers were gone, everything went downhill from there.
I, personally, wholly agreed with what the author conveyed, although the author’s depiction of Diem as an almost-saintly person who would rather be a monk if he were not a Vietnam nationalist and patriotic first needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I recommend this book for everyone who seek to find alternative explanation for US calamitous adventure in Vietnam.
March 18, 2016
The Vietnam War was a dark point in world history. The U.S. lost the lives of many soldiers, and those that returned fell through the cracks of our medical system, suffering physically, mentally, and emotionally. There were also countless lives lost by both North and South Vietnam, but ultimately North Vietnam and the communists "won." There was apparently more to this dark war that went on than we knew about until very recently. Primarily, former President John F. Kennedy and the United States were responsible for the death of South Vietnam President Ngo Dinh Diem. The book The Lost Mandate of Heaven, by Geoffrey Shaw, explains this betrayal.
The book begins reflecting on the assassination of Diem and how even years later, Vietnamese people were trying to keep his memory alive. It then explains how he believed family was one of the most important responsibilities of society. It also details how he tried to restore traditional Vietnamese society. The book then is essentially a history lesson on relations between the U.S. and South Vietnam. You will read about diplomacy in South Vietnam in the 1950s-1960s, U.S. ambassador Dubrow's condescension towards South Vietnam and Diem, the new ambassador Nolting, isolation and doubt in Diem's ability to lead South Vietnam, and the coup that eventually led to Diem's death.
This book was very difficult to read for many reasons, but I will just focus on two. For starters, the history aspect of it is very specialized. It is a mix of U.S., Vietnam, and military history and the level of detail, while impressive, can weigh the casual reader down. The other reason the book is tough to read is you know how it is going to end. The book does a good job of painting Diem in a good light, but you ultimately know he is going to be assassinated, so it's tough to read, because it feels like you are just waiting for it to happen. Those complaints aside, I think it was important that this book was written. Too often, history is written by the winners. It was nice to expose light on a dark moment in U.S. and Vietnam history and was pleasing that the truth came out, even if it is a poor reflection of our nation. All that said, I am not the audience for this book, but if you think you might be the audience for this book, I recommend it. If not, perhaps just borrow it from a friend, as it might not be your cup of tea.
The book begins reflecting on the assassination of Diem and how even years later, Vietnamese people were trying to keep his memory alive. It then explains how he believed family was one of the most important responsibilities of society. It also details how he tried to restore traditional Vietnamese society. The book then is essentially a history lesson on relations between the U.S. and South Vietnam. You will read about diplomacy in South Vietnam in the 1950s-1960s, U.S. ambassador Dubrow's condescension towards South Vietnam and Diem, the new ambassador Nolting, isolation and doubt in Diem's ability to lead South Vietnam, and the coup that eventually led to Diem's death.
This book was very difficult to read for many reasons, but I will just focus on two. For starters, the history aspect of it is very specialized. It is a mix of U.S., Vietnam, and military history and the level of detail, while impressive, can weigh the casual reader down. The other reason the book is tough to read is you know how it is going to end. The book does a good job of painting Diem in a good light, but you ultimately know he is going to be assassinated, so it's tough to read, because it feels like you are just waiting for it to happen. Those complaints aside, I think it was important that this book was written. Too often, history is written by the winners. It was nice to expose light on a dark moment in U.S. and Vietnam history and was pleasing that the truth came out, even if it is a poor reflection of our nation. All that said, I am not the audience for this book, but if you think you might be the audience for this book, I recommend it. If not, perhaps just borrow it from a friend, as it might not be your cup of tea.
May 21, 2016
The Vietnam war and the years leading up to it seem long ago and faraway; but in this book telling the backstory to that tragic era, Geoffrey Shaw makes those times very relevant to our times.
He shows that for political reasons related to an imminent election, President John Kennedy reluctantly agreed to the assassination of Vietnam's legitimate and Western-friendly president Ngo Dinh Diem. "The Mandate of Heaven" is the Vietnamese approbation of a worthy, Heaven-sent leader. Like President Kennedy, President Diem was religiously Catholic. At the same time, he built up Buddhism in Vietnam, believing that Buddhism strengthened the people and the society. There were some Buddhist centers that were used by Viet Cong agitators to provoke incidents of violence. When the army would put down these outbreaks, President Diem would be accused of persecuting Buddhists.
While the American role in Diem's assassination was well known, it was not reported. The press, anchored in Saigon hotels and cafe's, fed American news readers stories planted by agents of the Kennedy administration or of the Communist infiltrators. Most reporters were young and inexperienced, Vietnam being a steppingstone assignment. They were easily used as propaganda pipelines.
Despite being well-known, well-liked and admired by the American political and diplomatic establishment, no voice of protest was raised in opposition to his betrayal. In fact, the assassination was arranged by Washington insiders--most especially Averell Harriman and the U.S. State Department. While the careers and reputations or these insiders was advanced, their legacy was the escalation, ineffectiveness and casualties of the Vietnam war.
Most Americans will feel shame and outrage in reading this book. Sadly, the pattern of political and press policies repeated in more current world events will be evident. For this reason, I am grateful to Geoffrey Shaw for writing THE LOST MANDATE OF HEAVEN, and recommend it to everyone.
He shows that for political reasons related to an imminent election, President John Kennedy reluctantly agreed to the assassination of Vietnam's legitimate and Western-friendly president Ngo Dinh Diem. "The Mandate of Heaven" is the Vietnamese approbation of a worthy, Heaven-sent leader. Like President Kennedy, President Diem was religiously Catholic. At the same time, he built up Buddhism in Vietnam, believing that Buddhism strengthened the people and the society. There were some Buddhist centers that were used by Viet Cong agitators to provoke incidents of violence. When the army would put down these outbreaks, President Diem would be accused of persecuting Buddhists.
While the American role in Diem's assassination was well known, it was not reported. The press, anchored in Saigon hotels and cafe's, fed American news readers stories planted by agents of the Kennedy administration or of the Communist infiltrators. Most reporters were young and inexperienced, Vietnam being a steppingstone assignment. They were easily used as propaganda pipelines.
Despite being well-known, well-liked and admired by the American political and diplomatic establishment, no voice of protest was raised in opposition to his betrayal. In fact, the assassination was arranged by Washington insiders--most especially Averell Harriman and the U.S. State Department. While the careers and reputations or these insiders was advanced, their legacy was the escalation, ineffectiveness and casualties of the Vietnam war.
Most Americans will feel shame and outrage in reading this book. Sadly, the pattern of political and press policies repeated in more current world events will be evident. For this reason, I am grateful to Geoffrey Shaw for writing THE LOST MANDATE OF HEAVEN, and recommend it to everyone.
November 26, 2017
When Kennedy became president of the USA in 1960 the communist North was winning the war in Vietnam. President Kennedy told the Republic of Vietnam President Ngo Dinh Diem would support him. Ngo Dinh Diem then changed his approach to the war by also working with the rural population. Under Diem’s leadership the Republic of Vietnam winning the war with the North in 1963.
The American surrender of Laos to the communist did not stop Diem’s success in the war. The American CIA, Military, Ambassador Nolting and Vice President Johnson all supported President Diem. The Viet Cong were losing.
The Washington and New York reporters, as well as the Washington Democratic ‘elite’ thought that President Diem’s policy would lose in the long term and hurt Kennedy’s re-election in 1964. The Republican’s would then campaign that the Democrats lost both Laos and Vietnam in less than 4 years.
They convinced Kennedy unless President Diem was over thrown Kennedy would lose the 1964 election. Kennedy agreed and the Republic of Vietnam president was killed in a Military coup only months before his own assassination in Texas. This led America into one of its longest and bloodiest wars, a war it lost.
The American surrender of Laos to the communist did not stop Diem’s success in the war. The American CIA, Military, Ambassador Nolting and Vice President Johnson all supported President Diem. The Viet Cong were losing.
The Washington and New York reporters, as well as the Washington Democratic ‘elite’ thought that President Diem’s policy would lose in the long term and hurt Kennedy’s re-election in 1964. The Republican’s would then campaign that the Democrats lost both Laos and Vietnam in less than 4 years.
They convinced Kennedy unless President Diem was over thrown Kennedy would lose the 1964 election. Kennedy agreed and the Republic of Vietnam president was killed in a Military coup only months before his own assassination in Texas. This led America into one of its longest and bloodiest wars, a war it lost.
February 13, 2018
Geoffrey Shaw's book is a disappointing and hagiographic take on President Diem and his fall at the hands of the United States in the early phases of its war in Vietnam. While history has harshly judged the assassination of President Diem for its destabilizing effects on South Vietnam, Shaw seemingly seeks to rectify this by raising Diem to a flawless martyr who was undone by scheming Americans, biased journalists, and an uncooperative North Vietnam.
My hope for this book was that Shaw would present a balanced take on Diem, and perhaps why, despite his flaws, he may have been South Vietnam's only hope in its civil war. Instead, Shaw writes as if chained in the presidential palace in Saigon, dismissing reports of corruption and political malpractice on Diem's part as the fantasies of foolhardy Americans.
Diem may warrant a rehabilitation, but not a full-throated hagiography on the level of Shaw's loving and flawed portrait.
My hope for this book was that Shaw would present a balanced take on Diem, and perhaps why, despite his flaws, he may have been South Vietnam's only hope in its civil war. Instead, Shaw writes as if chained in the presidential palace in Saigon, dismissing reports of corruption and political malpractice on Diem's part as the fantasies of foolhardy Americans.
Diem may warrant a rehabilitation, but not a full-throated hagiography on the level of Shaw's loving and flawed portrait.
Read
August 16, 2016I very much enjoyed this book. It confirmed my previous understanding of the much maligned Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother.
Yes, in the game of 'what if', one wonders how things may have turned had the Ngos survived.
My major concern with the book is Geoffrey Shaw's claim of success for Diem's strategic hamlet program.
In my studies of the Vietnam War, I find little evidence of success of the program and its forerunner, Agroville. For example see War Comes to Long An by Jeffrey Race. This causes me to question how really in touch was Diem with the countryside as Shaw claims.
I would like to hear Prof. Shaw's view on this!
Yes, in the game of 'what if', one wonders how things may have turned had the Ngos survived.
My major concern with the book is Geoffrey Shaw's claim of success for Diem's strategic hamlet program.
In my studies of the Vietnam War, I find little evidence of success of the program and its forerunner, Agroville. For example see War Comes to Long An by Jeffrey Race. This causes me to question how really in touch was Diem with the countryside as Shaw claims.
I would like to hear Prof. Shaw's view on this!
April 17, 2023
I've read many volumes about the Vietnam War era, but this is the best, most authoritative and informative book. Author Geoffrey Shaw, is a historian with a Ph.D. from the U of Manitoba, and it is thoroughly footnoted for the reader to look into the basis for his statements. The widely accepted narratives of this period are based on poorly documented, self-serving books and articles, from those in the Kennedy Administration, American generals such as H.R. McMaster, and our own press gurus, particularly David Halberstam.
Ngo Dinh Diem was a highly educated, experienced and principled man who was President of Vietnam. A devout Catholic and a Confucian, he saw parallels in the principles of both these faiths. Above all, and for his entire career, the people regarded him as someone who could not be bought, scrupulously honest and ethical. Even the French colonizers, who feared his nationalism, regarded him as a great asset for understanding what was going on in the country, down to the hamlet level. Diem's brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu was Diem's trusted political advisor and very capable administrator.
Diem, who was born in the North, had an absolute faith in the need to regard Vietnam as a unified nation, after the inevitable exit of the French colonizers. Ho Chi Minh was Diem's adversary in the struggle to establish a Communist stronghold in the North and to eventually eviscerate the South by unconventional terror, relentless propaganda, infiltration of social and religious organizations, and erosion of the people's confidence. Britain had used a strategy called the Strategic Hamlet Plan (SHP) successfully in Malaysia, and its architect Robert Thompson was happy to its architecture and implementation with Diem.
SHP was working very successfully, despite the propaganda against the program which originated by Ho's large network of infiltrators, abetted by the U.S. press which published unverified, unsubstantiated claims that Diem's program was not working, and his brother Nhu was a tyrant and receiving bribes. All of these statements are extensively footnoted by the author. From the French colonizers on, no one believed that even a conventional guerilla war could be waged successfully to defeat the Communist north. Both Diem and Ho Chi Minh knew that it was ultimately a battle for the minds and hearts of Vietnamese villagers. But infiltration from the north had been going on since the 1950s and even with the progress made and verified by the British, French, and U.S. inspections, it needed time.
The American press and publishing media were unusually powerful and close to the policy table in JFK's administration. Time Magazine, David Halberstam, Neil Sheehan and others generated increased circulation and built careers and media identities for themselves by perpetrating fictions about Diem and his administration.
Ambassador Averell Harriman, son of billionaire railroad mogul Edward Harriman and 48th Governor of New York created a roving ambassadorship for himself, outside of any accountability to the State Department. In creating this unusual position, Harriman reminded Kennedy of his important role in financing JFK's first campaign, as plans for the next campaign were being contemplated. Harriman was a keen, wily political fixer. He even persuaded the anti-Diem cabal to bring on Republican Henry Cabot Lodge, another Massachusetts blueblood from St. Alban's prep, Harvard College, and the Hasty Pudding Society. He was brought on solely to give cover if any cabal decisions looked like they were backfiring. Good fixers don't miss the details.
Eventually, the direct and indirect pressures on President Diem and his brother Nhu, his trusted advisor and administrator were unbearable. A group of dissident Vietnamese generals were told that if Diem were removed, there would be no negative consequences as far as American political and economic support were concerned.
President Diem and his brother Nhu were both assassinated in a coup, viciously murdered in a gruesome ritual evisceration by Vietnamese generals who wanted a larger role in post-colonial Vietnam. What about the U.S. role in the assassination of a duly elected President of a nation which was an ally? In a footnoted telephone call with Senator Eugene McCarthy in 1963, President Lyndon Johnson said, " [We] killed him. We all got together and got a goddamn bunch of thugs and we went in and we assassinated him. Now, we've really had no political stability since then." Madame Nhu, the widow of Ngo Dinh Nhu, whom our press refers to as the "Dragon Lady," said,
"Whoever has the Americans as allies does not need any enemies.....I can predict to you all that the story in Vietnam is only at its beginning."
The widow Nhu was absolutely correct. A struggle for hearts and minds became a conventional war, run by American generals commanding both South Vietnamese armies and American troops. As always, our general staff in their war colleges are fighting the last war. "....57,000 American lives, eight years of dissension in our country, huge increases in the public debt, and the inflation that afflicted us throughout the 1970s. The actions of the Kennedy administration set the stage for all this." Ambassador Frederick E. Nolting.
Letters, memoirs, oral histories, transcripts of telephone calls and other riches are in the historical archives. Reading Dr. Shaw's books gave me the chance to delve into these to satisfy myself that citations were correct and that references were appropriately used.
Ngo Dinh Diem was a highly educated, experienced and principled man who was President of Vietnam. A devout Catholic and a Confucian, he saw parallels in the principles of both these faiths. Above all, and for his entire career, the people regarded him as someone who could not be bought, scrupulously honest and ethical. Even the French colonizers, who feared his nationalism, regarded him as a great asset for understanding what was going on in the country, down to the hamlet level. Diem's brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu was Diem's trusted political advisor and very capable administrator.
Diem, who was born in the North, had an absolute faith in the need to regard Vietnam as a unified nation, after the inevitable exit of the French colonizers. Ho Chi Minh was Diem's adversary in the struggle to establish a Communist stronghold in the North and to eventually eviscerate the South by unconventional terror, relentless propaganda, infiltration of social and religious organizations, and erosion of the people's confidence. Britain had used a strategy called the Strategic Hamlet Plan (SHP) successfully in Malaysia, and its architect Robert Thompson was happy to its architecture and implementation with Diem.
SHP was working very successfully, despite the propaganda against the program which originated by Ho's large network of infiltrators, abetted by the U.S. press which published unverified, unsubstantiated claims that Diem's program was not working, and his brother Nhu was a tyrant and receiving bribes. All of these statements are extensively footnoted by the author. From the French colonizers on, no one believed that even a conventional guerilla war could be waged successfully to defeat the Communist north. Both Diem and Ho Chi Minh knew that it was ultimately a battle for the minds and hearts of Vietnamese villagers. But infiltration from the north had been going on since the 1950s and even with the progress made and verified by the British, French, and U.S. inspections, it needed time.
The American press and publishing media were unusually powerful and close to the policy table in JFK's administration. Time Magazine, David Halberstam, Neil Sheehan and others generated increased circulation and built careers and media identities for themselves by perpetrating fictions about Diem and his administration.
Ambassador Averell Harriman, son of billionaire railroad mogul Edward Harriman and 48th Governor of New York created a roving ambassadorship for himself, outside of any accountability to the State Department. In creating this unusual position, Harriman reminded Kennedy of his important role in financing JFK's first campaign, as plans for the next campaign were being contemplated. Harriman was a keen, wily political fixer. He even persuaded the anti-Diem cabal to bring on Republican Henry Cabot Lodge, another Massachusetts blueblood from St. Alban's prep, Harvard College, and the Hasty Pudding Society. He was brought on solely to give cover if any cabal decisions looked like they were backfiring. Good fixers don't miss the details.
Eventually, the direct and indirect pressures on President Diem and his brother Nhu, his trusted advisor and administrator were unbearable. A group of dissident Vietnamese generals were told that if Diem were removed, there would be no negative consequences as far as American political and economic support were concerned.
President Diem and his brother Nhu were both assassinated in a coup, viciously murdered in a gruesome ritual evisceration by Vietnamese generals who wanted a larger role in post-colonial Vietnam. What about the U.S. role in the assassination of a duly elected President of a nation which was an ally? In a footnoted telephone call with Senator Eugene McCarthy in 1963, President Lyndon Johnson said, " [We] killed him. We all got together and got a goddamn bunch of thugs and we went in and we assassinated him. Now, we've really had no political stability since then." Madame Nhu, the widow of Ngo Dinh Nhu, whom our press refers to as the "Dragon Lady," said,
"Whoever has the Americans as allies does not need any enemies.....I can predict to you all that the story in Vietnam is only at its beginning."
The widow Nhu was absolutely correct. A struggle for hearts and minds became a conventional war, run by American generals commanding both South Vietnamese armies and American troops. As always, our general staff in their war colleges are fighting the last war. "....57,000 American lives, eight years of dissension in our country, huge increases in the public debt, and the inflation that afflicted us throughout the 1970s. The actions of the Kennedy administration set the stage for all this." Ambassador Frederick E. Nolting.
Letters, memoirs, oral histories, transcripts of telephone calls and other riches are in the historical archives. Reading Dr. Shaw's books gave me the chance to delve into these to satisfy myself that citations were correct and that references were appropriately used.
August 12, 2016
My husband and his best friend, both Vietnam War vets, highly recommended this book. Both of them got angry when discussing Harriman and company and agreed that they could have stayed home if Diem had not been murdered.
I found the book compelling, and shed light on a period of history I knew little about.
I found the book compelling, and shed light on a period of history I knew little about.
March 23, 2016
Very informative about the Vietnam war, it has really added to my knowledge of history. I was quite young when this all happened. Very well researched.
December 17, 2016
Outstanding; required reading for anyone who group up during the Vietnam War era.
May 10, 2020
State Dept., etc.; influence of the media; communist sympathies... -- recurring issues it seems....
January 5, 2020
Excellent book
Very well documented, with numerous primary and secondary sources, the US betrayal of its erstwhile ally in South Vietnam. One can only help wonder what might have been if Kennedy and others had listened to the right people and allowed Ngo Dinh Diem to live and remain in power.
Very well documented, with numerous primary and secondary sources, the US betrayal of its erstwhile ally in South Vietnam. One can only help wonder what might have been if Kennedy and others had listened to the right people and allowed Ngo Dinh Diem to live and remain in power.
March 28, 2019
Outstanding review of the Kennedy Administration and the catastrophic mistakes they made. Averall Harriman was an advocate for killing Diem. They supported the coup and his murder.
August 10, 2019
4.5 stars
Read
March 24, 2025Very good. I definitely don’t agree fully with the thesis (especially the dovish Diem parts) but incredibly informative and well written.
December 6, 2021
I found out by chance from flicking through a Lonely Planet guide of Vietnam that the coup that would lead to the assassinations of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu occurred only streets away from what was my dad’s childhood home in Saigon.
This is the book that has finally provided me with the in depth information that I had been seeking as most of what I know is just the basic facts and also what my dad remembers.
Well researched it paints a very different picture of the Ngo brothers to how history would come to view them and raises the question of whether or not their assassination only further destabilised South Vietnam and prolonged the conflict which would ultimately lead to the Fall of Saigon in 1975 and a reunified Vietnam under a communist regime.
This is the book that has finally provided me with the in depth information that I had been seeking as most of what I know is just the basic facts and also what my dad remembers.
Well researched it paints a very different picture of the Ngo brothers to how history would come to view them and raises the question of whether or not their assassination only further destabilised South Vietnam and prolonged the conflict which would ultimately lead to the Fall of Saigon in 1975 and a reunified Vietnam under a communist regime.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 22, 2022
I appreciate the light shed on the positive side of the 1st Republic of Vietnam, but feel the narrative slanted too much in doing so. President Diệm, detached from his scheming brother and draconian sister-in-law, was not deserving of his reputation and grisly demise, but this book makes it appear as though all flaws and failures of the Ngô brothers' regime (in so far the author even acknowledges them) occurred outside his control or knowledge. Another point that keeps The Lost Mandate from more than a 2-star rating is the overabundance of marginalia, which occupy half the page at certain points. An apt writer should've been able to weave this extraneous information into the narrative or at least confine the footnotes to the closing pages of each chapter.
Currently reading
February 21, 2018Only several chapters in, but so far it's an interesting apologia of South Vietnam's first president. It seems rather biased in the opposite direction from the common consensus, but quite well written and has a lot of reference material from people with first-hand involvement that can be followed up
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews