The first source that I am going to be looking at is Source A, which I think is a very useful source as it is written by the American President Lyndon B Johnson, who was President, at the time of the war in Vietnam, so his views and opinions on the war will be taken seriously. The source was written one month after operation Rolling Thunder. This was a bombing campaign that the US airforce was carrying out on Vietnam. The aim of this campaign was to try and destroy the majority of the Vietcong.
The source is useful as it gives you a reason why American became involved in North Vietnam. In this source Lyndon B Johnson states that the Americans became involved in Vietnam because they wanted to stop the spread of communism.
However, this particular part of the source could be doubted because it sounds like a propaganda speech. Also, President Johnson could be biased, after all, he is leading a country which is at war to Vietnam, so his speeches are bound to be Pro – American. This source can also come across as false when compared to Source B. When both of the sources are compared, Source A is made to look like a propaganda speech, as Lyndon’s opinions are completely different in both sources.
I personally think that President Lyndon B Johnson felt like it was his duty to get involved in Vietnam. After all, American had sworn in the Truman doctrine that they (the government) would help to stop communism wherever it might occur and here it was, happening in Vietnam.
The source’s reliability could be doubted because there are no details, which tell you who the source is being addressed to.
In the source President Johnson states that American is fighting in Vietnam to try and make South Vietnam a free country. However, this might not have been the case. It is possible that American could be fighting in Vietnam because they want some involvement in the running of South Vietnam.
Also, in the source, it seems as though President Johnson is trying to keep all the Americans happy, aiming the speech at both the Hawks and the Doves. (The Hawks were pro war and the Doves were anti – war). I think this was to combat the heavy protesting that was coming from both sides. The hawks were calling for the war to escalate whereas the doves were calling for the war to stop. Many of the protesters who were against the war were University students. This was mainly because the American Government had introduced conscription; so many students were being drafted into the war against their will.
Overall, you can tell from the source that Lyndon B Johnson is trying to please the people of America, The Hawks, The Doves and The Christians by including themes in the speech that are relevant to these groups of people. The source also shows that he is very, much aware of the spread of communism and how the domino theory could eventually effect America, if it was not stopped.
Source B was also written by President Johnson, but the source seems to contradict what he is saying in source A, which makes me doubt the reliability of both Source A and B. Because of Lyndon’s use of contradicting statements, it is difficult to distinguish his true thoughts on Vietnam.
Another different in the source is that Source A has a very positive feel to it, as if he is trying to encourage people into believing in the war and put their full support into it. However, source B as a negative feel to it, which makes the sources, differ. It also makes me doubt the source’s reliability
I do, however, think that the source’s reliability could be considered to a certain extent because the conversation is a private conversation, so it is possible that his true feelings and opinions on the war could be coming out.
In this source President Johnson comments on the domino theory, as he does in Source A. This shows that he still believes that the domino theory could effect America, but he doesn’t think Vietnam is worth fighting for.
In the source President Johnson’s states that many people in America believed that the war in Vietnam was just to prevent the stop of communism but I think he believes that the war means more than that. I think the war could mean more to President Johnson because if American won the war, then it meant that his popularity as President would increase. So that is one possible reason why Lyndon Johnson felt that the war in Vietnam was not just to prevent the spread of communism.
Overall, this source shows a very different side to President Johnson and it shows his worries and personal feeling’s about Vietnam. You would not have seen these in the propaganda source because his personal feelings take a negative approach to Vietnam. The source’s reliability could be used to an extent because it gives his personal opinions on why American because involved in Vietnam.
Source C was written after the war in Vietnam ended, so the source will have a different point of view from the other two sources. Professor Noam Chomnsky wrote this source in 1982, which make the source a secondary source, so it’s reliability could be doubted because it was written after Vietnam and could be lacking important details.
I don’t think that this source is very reliable as it seems quite biased and it is littered with personal statements and opinions, which may not be necessarily. I also think that many of his statements and opinions are exaggerated and his comments are very opinionated and vague. I think that Professor Noam Chomnsky is exaggerating his statements to try and get people to believe in his own point of view, which gives me reason to doubt the source’s reliability.
On the other hand, the sources reliability could be used to a certain extent as the source could have the benefit of hindsight, so he would know all of the facts on Vietnam, which would help him give an informed opinion on Vietnam.
Overall, I think that the source could be quite useful as it shows a very anti – American view on the war in Vietnam, whereas the other two sources were very much pro – American sources.
So, in conclusion, I think that each of the sources reliability can be trusted to a certain extent, even though the three sources show very different approaches and opinions to the war in Vietnam.
