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

Explain why there was an anti-war movement in the united states during the late 1960 - source based work.

Extracts from this document...


IS THERE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN SOURCES 'A' TO 'E' TO EXPLAIN WHY THERE WAS AN ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES DURING THE LATE 1960s AND EARLY 1970s? Source 'A' shows that people were sent off to war against their own will as they would not have usually been let into the army as they scored so low on intelligence tests. This is a reason for people to oppose this war as these people who are being drafted are being forced to do something against their own will and are risking their lives in the process. It also says that a lot of men had died, especially in the first few months. They were not given proper training and so were more likely to die or become a casualty. People were wondering if Vietnam was worth dying for and whether it mattered if communism spread through Asia. ...read more.


It seems as if they are just trying to stop communism from spreading past Vietnam and not to it. This bad treatment to innocent people would upset the American public and encourage them to support the peace movement. I know that the US did treat innocent civilians harshly and that they also tried to cover incidents up by lying. This is because the government papers known as the Pentagon Papers were stolen and publicised. They show that the US did not always act correctly. Source 'C' backs up source 'B' in the way of attacking/killing innocent civilians. It shows how it is immoral and not the way to persuade the people of the evil of communism. The bombing of civilians gave people a reason to protest against war, as war was obviously not the way to achieve the aims of the US. ...read more.


Source 'E' says how the media, especially television portrays the war as being more gruesome than it really is. This would show why there was so much protesting as they had been unknowingly mislead into what the war was really like. I think that the sources do give some good reasons and motives for the public of the US to protest against the war, but some aspects are not mentioned. These include the unfair executions and torturing of men without trial, and that some of the chemical weapons used by the US were harmful to the environment, as scientists discovered. Also, these sources do not show what the secretary of defence, Robert McNamara, said about the bombing of North Vietnam and how it was not helping, as this drove many people to the protests. They believed that if the main politician, the expert, agrees that the bombing should be stopped, then it must be. After all, he was the secretary of defence for seven years. ...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. How Useful are Sources A-C to explain why the United States became involved in ...

    200,000 South Vietnamese soldiers, 1 million North Vietnamese soldiers, and 500,000 civilians were killed. 56,555 US soldiers were killed 1961-75, a fifth of them by their own troops. The war destroyed 50% of the country's forest cover and 20% of agricultural land.

  2. How useful are sources A to C to explain why the United States became ...

    Johnson also doesn't talk about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which happened a short while before his speech. This is because he did not want to appear weak, but it affects its usefulness because historians cannot find out what Johnson's opinions were on it.

  1. Vietnam source based work

    This shows that the Viet Cong were more tactical as they knew that the Americans would be more powerful in set pieces as they had more soldiers and firepower. There mission was simply to kill and this also shows that America's tactics were not as good.

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

    Special investigations by the US army and the House of Representatives concluded that a massacre had in fact taken place. Of the many soldiers originally charged, only five were court-martialed, and one, Lt. Calley, convicted. On March 29, 1971, he was found guilty of the premeditated murder of at least twenty-two Vietnamese civilians and sentenced to life imprisonment.

  1. Hiroshima Coursework This piece of coursework will concentrate on three questions, all source based.

    used the bomb for their own purposes, not just to end the war. So in conclusion, this source is quite reliable to understand the motives of America. This is due to the fact that two of three sources stated that the USA did not intend just to end the war, but to experiment their new creation of an atomic bomb.

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

    Finally, in terms of its unreliability, as we are looking back in hindsight, we know that President Johnson is lying to the public, so therefore it is unreliable. Overall, Source A is reliable in its context, as it does give reasons why America joined the war in Vietnam, as they wanted independence for South Vietnam and wanted to remain loyal.

  1. I will be looking at how the U.S became increasingly involved Vietnam, the problems ...

    They helped Ngo Dinh Diem set up the Republic of South Vietnam in 1955 because Ngo was extremely anti-communist and was prepared to imprison any communists. The US hoped that he be able to take control of North Vietnam as well.

  2. Is there sufficient evidence to explain why there was an anti war movement in ...

    However he has no hard facts or statistics, and doesn't say the number of how many died, but just says the "large majority". Secondly he is not an historian, and is therefore not writing to inform, but to entertain. As he uses a lot of exaggeration on generalised statistics.

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