book reviews and summaries, comments, analysis
Well, the author frequently quotes other texts or reports verbatim, but that is not first person. Quoting an army cameraman who got a 'lulu of a shot' provides a pretty pale rendition of the Inchon landing. During Knox's account of the Chosin disaster (Knox's books are reviewed on page one of my book reviews.) I shivered with cold. (by the way, I was cold. My quarters were brutally air conditioned) Paschall's 'firsthand' accounts are sterile and dull.
The author does a good job showing how Matt Ridgway turned around an army dispirited and reluctant to engage the enemy. Ridgway states the case for a limited war in Korea in very cogent terms: the US had other responsibilities and military limitations of its own.
The story of the rescues of the 7th infantry, and the 23rd RCT [Task Force Crombez, for you Korea buffs] are gripping accounts of action under fire. But his pallid interview with a few NK POW's describing how they evaded US airstrikes is weak and incomplete. The North Koreans did a hell of a lot more than just walk, wear white, and scatter to the hills when they heard US aircraft!
It is amusing to hear General Spike Momyer say Americans could not 'follow [MiGs] into Chinese air space' in hot pursuit, when it was done constantly after April 1952. If you want to read about cat-and-mouse games between MiGs and F-86 Sabres, read No Kum Sok's book reviewed above. On the other hand, Paschall's description of how the North Koreans used their rugged terrain to neutralize American advantage in armor and airpower is good [although the officer who is being quoted is never revealed in the text] .
Secretary of State Atcheson's summary of negotiation issues is scattered and incomplete (then again, so was Atcheson). You'd be much better off reading Turner Joy's firsthand account.
Paschall needs to realize that very often a historical issue has to be well explained and developed, or it is best not treated at all. Much the same criticism can be made for the repatriation issue: you may as well turn to Joy's book. Paschall is much better when he discusses issues other authors have not covered much, such as how General Clark's improved ROK army demonstrated its mettle at the Battle for White Horse. So is his description of the final hours on the lines before the truce became effective at 10 PM local time.
The final chapter is the best part of the book. His discussion of post Korean War military doctrine: limited war, massive retaliation, flexible response; is superb. It is ironic that Paschall, for all his claims that this book is a 'firsthand account of the war from those who lived it,' is at his best when writing in his own words. Even here, though, there is room for improvement. His claim that 'beyond doubt a prime reason for the poverty of NK is its bloated military establishment' could be right out of Jane Fonda's playbook. Like most analysts, the author equates natural resources with wealth. If that was the case, Africa and Siberia would be the worlds economic superpowers. It is economic and political freedom (Hong Kong, The US and Canada, Europe and Australia) which leads to economic growth and prosperity. But I don't mind military guys taking a stab at economics. After all...I take stabs at military analysis all the time.