Vietnam's Prodigal Heroes: American Deserters, International Protest, European Exile, and Amnesty

In 1967, the first American deserters began to step out and explain their reasons. Paul Benedikt Glatz's Vietnam's Prodigal Heroes offers a historical analysis of the domestic and international ramifications of U.S. deserters-turned-exiles. This thoroughly researched monograph argues the importance of placing deserters in the historiography for a deeper understanding of the Vietnam War and the politics of the 1960s and 1970s.The monograph rests on three arguments. The first is that desertion was a protest against war, much like draft evasion and refusal. Glatz insists that desertion was the only choice for those who could not utilize legal options. War opponents in the United States and abroad “organized to support oppositional servicemen, to mobilize further protest, and to assist absentees and resisters, either in legal defense or in escaping the military authorities” (xvi). Further, AWOL servicemen became the links between civilian and GI antiwar movements. Deserters received sympathy from Europe and Japan, which offered the American GIs a haven. Sweden, France, and Canada organized to help deserters and draft-age men. Antiwar activists across the globe “organized a support network to assist dissenting American servicemen to escape the military authorities and find sanctuaries” (52). The Intrepid Four, Navy seamen that deserted the USS Intrepid in Japan, became the first symbol of Vietnam deserters. Glatz contends that these four individuals changed notions of desertion. They “challenged the prevailing image of the deserter from coward to social misfit” (xiii). The Soviet Union agreed to help the four young men, which caused U.S. media to misunderstand the motives of the deserters. The Cold War logic of Americans made them see deserters as “the ultimate transgression of the Cold War consensus” (53).Glatz's second argument claims desertion was part of the broader conflicts of youths in the 1960s and 1970s. He argues that solders’ dissent was the “military variant of the broader phenomena of youth protest” (xvii). For examples, Black soldiers became politically radicalized against institutionalized racism and “subverted military discipline by forming solidarity groups, using Black Power salutes, modifying uniforms, and growing their hair or going AWOL” (xviii–xix). The global revolutionary year of 1968 was also a crucial moment for deserters. Over 50,000 cases of desertion in 1968 alone led to harsh political ramifications for these now exiled Americans. The formation of many solidarity committees was key. These organizations helped them “to cope with their new life situation, to respond to increased public interest, and not least to help the young refusers to make sense of their action and its consequences” (122). Still, Americans disapproved of deserters despite Europe's continued support and endorsement. Glatz argues that those making the decisions were from the World War II generation who felt “patriotism, civic duty, manliness, and honor” were at stake (124).Glatz's final argument asserts that desertion during Vietnam was a high point of international discussions on the individual in armed conflict. The ongoing Cold War and the liberation movements in the Third World intensified the discourse. The debate on war protests and desertions “questioned the idealized image of the United States in the Second World War and alluded to the ongoing debate on amnesty for Vietnam War refusers” (xxi). Debates turned to the political asylum for American deserters, especially in Sweden. American deserters received special status in Sweden, but this soon became a debate on dissidence, human rights, Swedish neutrality, and U.S. conscription. Proponents for political asylum highlighted the discrimination within the U.S. draft system. Further, Sweden's decision not to offer political refugee status “maintained that young Americans from underprivileged ethnic and social groups would generally face difficulties abroad” (197). The American exiles turned to the counterculture to voice their frustrations and solidarity.With the end of the Vietnam War, American deserters and exiles became a talking point in American politics. Glatz argues that the critical issue was “whether desertion had been legitimate action or at least a condonable one in the context of the Vietnam War” (295). At first, there were conditioned solutions, which many exiles refused to take part in. Yet, when returnees entered the United States, their voice in the public discourse promoted observers to “take note of their plight” (296). President Jimmy Carter issued a blanket pardon for draft dodgers while leaving deserters to the military authorities. Glatz concludes that Carter's decision “failed to resolve substantial conflicts and fault lines in American society and within the Vietnam generation” (297).Overall, Glatz does an excellent job of juggling a wide variety of archival sources and stories of deserters and exiles. However, this can also prove to be a downside for the monograph. At times, the narrative and the argument can be hard to follow. Despite this, Glatz's scholarship is integral to expanding our understanding of Vietnam, U.S. politics, and transnational solidarity committees.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.