• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Cross-referencing of Sources (3.3.2) Vietnam

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Assessment objectives (a) Cross-referencing of Sources (3.3.2) Source C does not prove that the anti - war protests mentioned in source A had an immediate effect on the number of U.S troops in South Vietnam. I say this because in source A, it mentioned that the anti- war protest took place in the year of 1965. But source C says that in 1965 there were 60,000 troops who were committed to South Vietnam. However in 1966, 268,000 troops were committed to South Vietnam, which shows even after the anti war, protest the U.S increased its troops by 208,000 in Vietnam. This proves that the anti-war protest didn't have hasn't had any effect on the number of troops in South Vietnam. Moreover in 1967, the U.S added 231,000 troops to South Vietnam, which led to a total of 449,000 troops. The U.S kept on increasing its troops until the 1969. Only in 1970 did the number of troops decrease from 539,000 (1969) to 415,000 (1970). Another huge anti-war protest took place in 1970 and it seems this had an effect on the number of U.S troops in South Vietnam. In 1970 there were 415,000 U.S troops in South Vietnam then in 1971 there were only 239,000 troops in South Vietnam. This shows a vast decrease in the number of troops. On the other hand, I can say the anti-war protests probably didn't have a huge effect on the amount of troops in South Vietnam because the number of U.S troops has already started to decrease from 1969 to 1970, which proves that even before the anti-war protest the U.S has started to decrease its the troops. So I can also say that the second anti war protest didn't have an affect on the amount of troops, also I can say it did had an effect because in 1970, when the huge anti - war protests happened there were 415,000 troops, over the following year there was a less troops. ...read more.

Middle

Three-quarter of all napalm victims in Vietnam were burned through to the muscle and bone. The pain alone often caused death because it was so intensive. Agent orange contained traces of the most toxic forms of dioxin. Hectares of forests were destroyed using Agent Orange. Not only did Agent Orange destroy thousands of trees but it was later found to have caused birth deformities in children. It also caused cancers in soldiers fighting in the war. Source H is a picture, which shows children hit by napalm. This suggests that the troops didn't just deform the Viet Cong; they deformed innocent people and children. Therefore these Vietnamese who were supporting for the U.S, would now turn against U.S, as the U.S punished people who didn't even do anything wrong. However the pictures are always not true as they can be tampered with. Source I says American civilians were sickened of the fact that their own country used chemicals such as napalm and Agent Orange, there fore they were showing disgust towards their own country. The source also says, these chemicals affected the soldier and the civilians in the same way. This source is taken from a schoolbook; therefore it might be reliable, as the publisher may wants the children to learn the facts. However, on the other hand might not be reliable. It may be written by someone who doesn't want American children to know how badly the U.S acted towards the Vietnamese. It could be a government publication and therefore unreliable it so also it is a secondary source. Source J is two pictures with writing. It shows two photographs, first picture was taken before the land was destroyed by agent orange and the second picture was taken after the agent orange had been bombed over the land. The first picture shows land full of crops and the second picture shows all those crops have been destroyed; even the land looks so rocky. ...read more.

Conclusion

900,000 North Vietnamese and Viet Cong died, 400,000 North Vietnamese died, only 50,000 American troops died. From this you can see the U.S although they had a lot of power and killed lot of Vietnamese soldiers, the Vietnamese would not give up easily. Even with this massive number of human loss the Vietnamese able to win the war. All these sources are biased as most of them from American textbooks. Also most sources seem to be secondary source. Therefore they consider not being reliable. Overall I would say all these sources doesn't give me enough evidence to understand why a super power like the united States of America failed to defeat the Viet Cong. These sources are only taken from textbooks. I would likely to have more evidence such as:- * film footage e.g. damaging crops and civilian using bombs, * record tapes e.g. enquiries, * books e.g. about war, * past news papers e.g. pictures, articles, * interviews with eye witness I believe doing more research would provide more information rather than what the source's tells us. Guerrilla tactics was a popular tactic used by the Vietcong. These were hard among the U.S troops. This was a very important factor for why the U.S didn't win the war. None of these sources doesn't give any information about these Guerrilla tactics such as jungle tactic, booby traps, trip-wire, etc. The U.S soldiers didn't fight very affectively, because they began to be scared for their lives. Thus so many soldiers begin to leave their jobs and later in 60's American people stayed back to join as soldiers. But the Vietnamese were strong, they had many people to fight even the women begun to fight for their land. This was another factor why America couldn't win the war The above two factors (guerrilla tactics and the weakness of the soldiers) isn't mentioned in any source at all. I think I need more information on these. Over all I would say all these source don't give me enough information. Pauline Alagarajah 11mur History Course work ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. What can you learn from Source A about the reasons for US involvement in ...

    These kinds of letters influenced individual opinion greatly and people began to stop supporting the war, but only small scale. Source I is a description of what happened at the My Lai massacre, information about My Lai was not realised until 1969, but when it was it caused out rage.

  2. Evaluation of key sources to address the question of increased tension

    Tension between the American government and its public will have risen greatly. Most were then against the war and Kennedy would have a less stable lead of the country, his attack on North Vietnam will have only lead to the anger of the Soviets and their want to fight back.

  1. American History.

    - In January 1776, a huge step towards the decision to declare independence was taken when Thomas Paine released his book, Common Sense, which was an instant bestseller and had an enormous impact b/c of its challenge of colonial assumptions about the colonies' relationship to Britain.

  2. Coursework on discussing whether television was an important reason why the United States lost ...

    William L. Calley, invaded the South Vietnamese hamlet of My Lai, an alleged Viet Cong stronghold. In the course of combat operations, unarmed civilians, including women and children, were shot to death (the final army estimate for the number killed was 347).

  1. How Useful are Sources A to C to Explain Why the United States Became ...

    Source B can also be seen as useful, because it is a private conversation which suggests that people are more likely to be open about their views and say anything they may be hiding, therefore president Johnson is going to give his true view on the war without having to worry about what the public may think.

  2. Vietnam Question 2

    In addition, if the soldiers were to kill all the people present, this would have been viewed negatively in the minds of the American public. Hamer also states that winning the war of "hearts and minds" cannot be achieved by killing random people that you suspect.

  1. what the Americans did in My Lai source work

    Its intended audience was the worldwide public, i.e. everyone who could see it. It was televised from Vietnam to the world on the news channels. It is sufficient evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement because when the American public saw it they were outraged that men from their country were doing this to the Vietnamese people, and especially young children.

  2. The Vietnam conflict - "Our objective is to create conditions for a favorable settlement ...

    This group, or MAAG as it was called, due to an 85 million dollar per year budget, was able to turn an unorganized and poorly equipped south Vietnamese army into a modern fighting unit. In the economic arena, the U.S.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work