Abstract
Historians have often used a 1966 Army report nicknamed PROVN either to cast aspersions on the commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam between 1964 and 1968, General William C. Westmoreland, or to praise his successor, General Creighton Abrams. This interpretation is simplistic and inaccurate. Although the report criticized aspects of the war under Westmoreland, its target was really the U.S. and Vietnamese governments. Moreover, PROVN’s conclusions were less radical and its remedies less novel than observers have tended to admit. A fresh look at PROVN reveals significant continuities in thought between Westmoreland, the report, and Abrams.
Read the full article
Members: read on EBSCO
Use the access code from this quarter's member email. Every issue since 1937 is online, with no embargo.
Lost your code? Email jmhsmh@vmi.edu or sign in at the EBSCOhost member login.
Not a member? Buy this article
A PDF sent by email from the Journal office during business hours, $10.
Through a library: sign in with your institution
Full text is in EBSCO's America: History and Life with Full Text and Historical Abstracts with Full Text, and through EBSCO Discovery.
Join: read everything, every year
Membership includes the printed journal and full online access to the archive.
Cite this article
Andrew J. Birtle, “PROVN, Westmoreland, and the Historians: A Reappraisal,” The Journal of Military History 72, no. 3 (July 2008): 1213–1247.
