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

How useful are Sources A to C to explain why the United States became involved in Vietnam

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How useful are Sources A to C to explain why the United States became involved in Vietnam? All 3 sources give different point of view on why America entered the war in Vietnam and they all have value, however there are limitations as well. Together they help us to explain why America got involved in the war. Source A is an extract of a speech made by President Johnson a month after Operation Rolling Thunder therefore it is a contemporary source. Because of this, the source is more than likely to be bias as Johnson has already made his decision about Vietnam therefore he is going to be defending that decision. Johnson is addressing the public thus the speech becomes rhetoric and persuasive. This is a limitation and does not provide accurate understanding. Johnson is speaking to defend his actions and this is clear from the content of the source. He talks about an 'Even wider war' which links in with the domino theory and the spread of communism to neighbouring countries of Vietnam. We know that free elections were not allowed in South Vietnam however Johnson says one of their objectives was 'freedom of the people,' this was clearly not one of them. ...read more.

Middle

President Johnson doesn't mention why he wants to 'contain' Communism and why he does not like this system, which is partly because it means that the country cannot be as productive. In addition, he does not mention the Truman Doctrine or what his opinions are on it when he explains the only reasons they should go into war. This makes it less useful because historians will not be able to see whether Johnson thought it was worth sending supplies into Vietnam, because from what he says, he does not appear to think that Vietnam is a worthwhile country to get involved with. Johnson does not explain how he would feel about going into war against Vietnam if the Vietnamese caused a threat to America, other than the spread of Communism, like they did in the Gulf of Tonkin. Therefore, historians cannot justify whether he is saying Vietnam is not worth fighting for because they have been no real threat to America yet and whether he would actually change his mind if they became a threat. Johnson does not comment on why the public and politicians agree to get involved in Vietnam, which makes this statement less reliable because there is no evidence to back up this point. ...read more.

Conclusion

However, historians don't know what he is a professor of, and he could be a Professor of Science for example. Therefore he may not have studied the war in great depth, which makes the source slightly less trustworthy, and many US intellectuals were opposed to the war anyway so this source will not be as useful, as he will be making the same points as a lot of other US intellectuals. The source is trustworthy because Chomsky would have had access to more sources due to the interview being after the war. He will have been able to look at sources like a private conversation President Johnson was having, as well as photos of the destruction that was caused to South Vietnam. However Chomsky is anti-war and is known to be an extreme radical. Chomsky refers to these sources as being 'official' and includes quotes around the word, which might suggest they are not. Nevertheless there is same justification in believing that the USA were not just defending the South Vietnamese against communism but protecting its own interests in the Far East. Chomsky states 'The U.S. did not want an independent South Vietnam.' This is justified by the fact that South Vietnam did not have free elections. ...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. Cross-referencing of Sources (3.3.2) Vietnam

    I believe the land must have lost all the minerals it had and it could no longer be used to farm. This shows that the U.S would was to destroy anything to achieve their aim. They didn't care what they destroyed good or bad.

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

    As the death toll increased and more men came home without limbs there was an increasing amount of protestors to the war. The evidence provided in source E is not anti-American or anti-war it is simply stating that the media is the main reason for the anti war movement in the USA.

  1. Many peoples have contributed to the development of the United States of America, a ...

    Led by Henry CLAY and Daniel WEBSTER, the Whigs called for protective tariffs, a national bank, and internal improvements to stimulate the economy. Moralists in politics, they also demanded active intervention by state governments to maintain the sanctity of the Sabbath, put down alcoholic beverages, and "Americanize" the immigrants in the public schools.

  2. History of the United States

    When mob attacks prevented commissioners from enforcing the revenue laws, part of the army was placed (1768) in Boston to protect the commissioners. This action confirmed the colonists' suspicion that the troops were maintained in the colonies to deprive them of their liberty.

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

    Probably the turning point came in January 1968 with the Tet Offensive. The US public had been told that America was winning the war. However, when the VC attacked (and held for 3 weeks) most of South Vietnamese cities and towns Americans began to question whether the war could be won at all.

  2. History Coursework - How useful are sources A, B and C in explaining why ...

    I believe it could be unreliable because in most cases speeches are not written by the speakers but by somebody who is specifically employed to do this. This means that what we are being told is not necessarily true as the messages being conveyed are probably not the presidents actual feelings.

  1. Explain why the United States became increasingly involved in the war in Vietnam.

    However the source itself was created in 1992 and is only one person's interpretation. It is therefore limited as such because nobody is worried about the war anymore. Source B is a photograph of two innocent Vietnamese children who are suffering at the hands of napalm.

  2. How useful are sources A-C for explaining why the U.S.A became involved in the ...

    They both fought for four hours but never saw or heard any evidence that there were any communist boats near them. Soon after Johnson appealed to Congress to let him have complete control over the Vietnam War. There was also the view of Noam Chomsky who was a modern languages professor.

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