Is there sufficient evidence in Sources A-F to explain why there was an anti-war movement in the United Statesduring the late 1960s and early 1970s?

Rachel Husband 11Y

Is there sufficient evidence in Sources A-F to explain why there was an anti-war movement in the United States during the late 1960s and early 1970s?

By 1967 a national movement against the war had developed. Some of the opposition came from socialists or radicals who sympathized with the Vietnamese and wanted to help create a united, independent, Vietnam. Pacifists were also against the war because they believe that all war is wrong. Other people just believed that the war was not worth the lives of American men.

The Vietnam War was mainly a media war shown on television, heard on radio and read in the newspapers. The USA needed the support of its people to win this war and the media was turning them against it. TV showed prisoners being tortured and executed and women and children watching their house burning to the ground.

Pictures showed the affects of napalm and the American public was horrified. All of these things fueled the anti-war movement. People began to draft dodge and staged demonstrations. At Kent State University four students were killed by the National Guard and this shocked the public. The war was making the USA increasingly unstable.

The one event that had a particularly devastating effect on American and international support for the war was the Mai Lai Massacre. This happened on the 16th of March 1968. An American patrol attacked a small village called Mai Lai and, according to an American report, murdered 347 men, women, children and babies. Some of the women had been raped first and other reports put the number of dead over 500.

Source A is a written extract from the book ‘Four hours in Mai Lai’ and it states that the US soldiers in Vietnam were unintelligent, ‘scored so low on the intelligence tests’, they were likely to die early, ‘the large majority of deaths took place in the first six months’ and the inexperienced troops were not as good as the experienced guerillas, ‘inexperienced men against experienced guerillas on their home ground’. It was written by Michael Bilton and published in 1992. Its purpose could have been to make money, to inform, to express his view, to justify why the incident at Mai Lai took place or to be critical. Its intended audience was schools, people who are interested in My Lai and Americans. It is useful evidence to explain why there was an anti war movement because it agrees with the things I already know about the American soldiers. I know they were young and there was a high death rate. Their average age was 19 and 43% of soldiers died in the first three months. I also know they did lack experience and were not good at guerilla warfare. They only wanted to count down the days until they went home after their one year tour of duty. Also, they did not really believe in what they were fighting for. However it is not sufficient evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement because it is only an extract and you don’t know if it typical or unique. You also don’t know what comes before or after it and there could be something written that completely changes the meaning. It is from a book written after the war and although Bilton could have been in the war he could have forgotten things or made them up so this makes it less sufficient. I also do not know how many people read it and this is important because if not many people read it then it would not have had any influence. It would, however, not have influenced the ant-war movement because it was written after it ended, however, what is written in the text might have.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Source B is a photograph and it shows napalm victims (two children) running towards or away from something. We do not know why they are running in that direction. It was produced by someone anonymous and this is significant because it could have been staged or even be fake. It was published during the Vietnam War and this makes it primary evidence which is more reliable and useful than source A because it was done at the time. This means it would have contributed to the anti-war movement however it is a still from a film shown on American televisions. Not many Americans had televisions and colour ones were rare, so not many would have seen it. It was not shown in newspapers because the girl is not wearing any clothes and it was censored and considered unsuitable material. Its purpose was to show the horror of war and to shock the American public. It is of two children who are innocent and this would have shocked the Americans greatly. It is sufficient evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement because it was at the time so it would have affected the public greatly as children are viewed as innocent and the fact that they had been killed too was an even bigger shock. The information was leaked just as the anti-war movement was just getting going and this fueled it. However it is not useful because it could have been staged and there is no factual support. Did it occur in Vietnam? We don’t know and is it what it says it is? It might just be a story. It did however, strongly influence the anti-war movement and does explain it.

Source C is a news article and it states that it was very difficult to fight the guerillas. It was written by Richard Hamer, an American journalist in 1970. Hamer was a respected journalist and so people would have taken his writing seriously. It is primary evidence and would have added to the anti war movement. Nixon said they would not win the war against the guerillas and so does this. It looked like they were right. It was intended to criticize the US policies and give reasons for their failure. It was in effect encouraging the anti-war movement. Its purpose was to criticize the US policies and give reasons for its failure. Its intended audience was the US public and this would have an influence on the anti-war movement in America. It is sufficient evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement in the USA because it was at the time of the movement and it fueled it. It is primary evidence and this is important, as if it was not then it could not have contributed to the movement. However we do not know who or how many people saw it. This is a weakness because if not many people saw it then it would not have had much affect on the anti-war movement. It is also biased against the war and the US government so people may have not taken it seriously.

Source D is a cartoon that was published in the British magazine punch in 1967. It shows the effects of President Johnson’s war policy on the ‘Great society’. You can see a train moving along and this is the US economy. The carriages are the great society but they are being chopped up and burnt in the fire on the train to fuel it. The ‘great society’ is fueling the US economy. 1967 is before the big anti-war movement and this means that it could have contributed to it. It was drawn by a British cartoonist and published in a British magazine and this means that it would have only affected a select audience and would not have directly affected the US. It shows the British view on the Vietnam War and not the American view. However it fits with my own knowledge because the small British anti-war movement would have shown the US that they had support so they would have carried on. They would have thought it was ok. This source is quite sufficient to show why there was an anti-war movement but it does have some weaknesses.

Source E is a statement by BBC commentator Robin Day to a seminar of the Royal United Service Institution. It was given in 1970 and this makes it primary evidence. It is at the same time as the Kent state university shooting and Nixon became president. It says that the war being shown in colour is making it far more real for the American public and they are turning against war. He said ‘blood looks very red on the colour television screen.’ By 1970 colour television screens were becoming more common. They started off being very expensive but they quickly became cheaper and more widely available. TV was a powerful factor in shaping the opinions of the public. Its audience would have been the British armed forces, professionals, the air force, the navy and maybe some Americans. The strengths of the source are that colour seemed more real that black and white and it shocked people. The point applies to all countries and affected quite a large amount of people as there were TVs everywhere. Its weaknesses are that the source is exaggerating it says colour TVs had ‘made Americans far more anti-militarist and anti-war than anything else’ but there were other things that turned people against the war. Not everyone had a TV and even less people had a colour TV. It would not have affected a huge amount of people. There were not many programs in colour so colour did not have a very wide influence. I think source E is quite sufficient to show why there was an anti-war movement but it does have some weaknesses.

Source F is a film, ‘Born on the Fourth of July’. It shows a ‘pep rally’ for the re-election of Nixon. The veterans and disabled soldiers are protesting and saying how war is wrong. This event did take place and has been well researched by Oliver Stone the director who could have even fought in the war. It fits with my own knowledge as it reveals the US public. The film itself did not influence the anti-war movement but the content did. It does have many weaknesses because it is only a film and films are usually sensationalized and selective about the information they show. It had a financial motive and not all the content is entirely true. It is not very useful for detail but the basic facts do explain why there was an anti-war movement.

Overall, some of the sources provide useful and sufficient evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement. The sources I found most useful are B, D, and E because they all contain evidence or describe things I know happened and they are quite reliable. However, some of the sources are less useful and sufficient. These are sources A, C and F because they do contain some evidence that I know is true however, there is too much evidence missing and this makes them unreliable. The photo is very unreliable as you do not know who took it and there is a big chance that it could have been staged. None of the sources can provide the full explanation – there were other reasons for the anti-war movement that are not included.

Protests had mostly been from students however as the war progressed a draft law was introduced and this forced young men to go and fight. Most did not want to go and there were ways for rich or educated people to avoid it. Most of the poorer uneducated population of America was black and this led to protests from them because only 12% of Americans were black but 16% of the draftees were black. They were hit the hardest. Middle-class Americans were against the war because so many were dying in a war a long way away that they did not fully understand. They did not want their families dying in this war. The average age of a soldier was 19. This meant there were older and younger soldiers fighting in the war. Many of these soldiers did not understand or care what the war was about and many protested against the defoliants used. Agent orange was one of the more famous ones used. Its affects are that it causes cancer and birth deformities. This appalled them and the effects lasted for generations.

Another reason was guerilla tactics were frustrating and the war lasted for such a long time that soldiers started giving up hope of ever winning the war. People saw many civilian targets and this was not what they wanted. They saw houses being burnt in front of women and children; this killed many people. Drugs were one of the only things that kept GI’s going and amphetamines were used to keep the troops awake at night. Drugs were not popular and this would have increased the anti-war movement.

The war was costing $20 billion a year, the taxes in America had to be increased, this annoyed the American public, and this made America even more anti-war.

A major reason for the anti-war movement in America was the failure of the Tet offensive. It convinced the American people that this was a war they could not win. This was the major turning point in the anti-war movement and strengthened it dramatically and I believe this is the most important reason why there was an anti-war movement.

I believe there is sufficient evidence in Sources A to F to explain why there was an anti-war movement in the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s. However, there were many reasons that were not mentioned in the sources and all the reasons are important.

2280 words