Max Hastings is a well-respected writer of military history. Inferno: The World At War, 1939–1945 and Retribution: The Battle for Japan, 1944–45 are listed on this sub's Booklist under World War II and Catastrophe: Europe Goes to War 1914 under World War 1.

Vietnam: An Epic Tragedy is a lengthy one volume that digs into a war that is difficult to contain in one volume. His ultimate prerogative in this book is to emphasize that the tragedy of the Vietnam War was based on the fact that no side or combatant deserved to win. He's critical of both North Vietnam and the United States. For some reviewers of his book, he wasn't critical of the US enough, however.

Hastings takes the position that all sides were bad and wrong on their policy in regard to Vietnam. But Hastings is careful to not completely blame the United States. For him, North Vietnam was an aggressor and a brutal regime that acted strategically and with coordination. North Vietnam wasn't just villagers trying to stop imperialists, but were competent Communist foes aiming to assert itself over the rest of the country.

Through this, he contextualizes the rationale of the United States involvement. He argues that the United States was deliberate if imperfect and brutal in their own measure. The United States acted with some diplomatic and, in some cases, military support from other countries who agreed with the US's strategic position (the Domino Theory and Containment) at least in principle. He argues that the United States's decisions weren't as unilateral as it seems in retrospect, or as blundered in military actions.

These ideas are controversial. A particular group with criticism of the book are Vietnam veterans themselves. Hastings writes in a language that sometimes chastises veterans and, most controversially among this group, dismisses the effects of Agent Orange. This review by The VVA Online shares this positon. Hastings cites one study that Agent Orange and defoliants weren't as severe. "The defoliant was indisputably a loathsome instrument; yet that does not make it necessary to accept the more extreme claims about is effects on human beings exposed to it.”

The VA has conceded that if someone has a related illness or negative health effect associated with Agent Orange and served in Vietnam during this time they can receive specific benefits. Hastings suggests that veteran exposure didn't necessarily cause some of these health effects. A veteran who has diabetes, for instance, probably got this from their diet and not Agent Orange exposure - to paraphrase an example of Hastings's in the book. The reason veterans receive these benefits is because the VA assumes that if you were around Vietnam, you were likely exposed. Additionally, a 1994 NAS report Veterans and Agent Orange stated "The committee found sufficient evidence of an association with herbicides and/or TCDD for three cancers: soft tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and Hodgkin's disease."

None of this is to say that Hastings's book isn't a worthwhile read. But these are facets of the book that wade into controversy and polarize scholars as well as individuals who lived through the Vietnam War.