Source C is an extract from an article, written by Richard Hamer (an American Journalist) in 1970, which makes it primary evidence. Its purpose was to explain the difficulties faced by the American soldiers whilst fighting the Vietcong. It also explains a few reasons why the US lost the war. It was aimed at the American public during the war. It does have sufficient evidence to support the anti was movement as all the content I know to be true from my own knowledge, and this extract dates back to just before the massive anti-war movement in Kent State University, However, the source is a very patronising article. The views are fairly biased towards the Vietcong and they are patronising and arrogant. I would have to question the popularity of this article amongst its viewers. It has no real link with either of sources A or B except they are all favouring the Vietcong.
Source D is a cartoon drawn taken from the British magazine “Punch”, with the artist unknown. It was first published in 1967, with the purpose of showing the effects of president Johnson’s policy of a “great society” which he promised America, it was his vision to “feed and shelter the homeless”. It was aimed at the British population. It does have sufficient evidence to explain the anti-war movement because this was one of the main reasons for the movements – president Johnson wasting all of America’s money that was supposed to be used on his “great society”, on the Vietnam War. This was something Martin Luther King had spoken about in his speeches where he said “President Johnson’s great society shot down on the field at Vietnam”. However, as the cartoon is aimed at the British public and not the American public, it couldn’t have had any direct influence on the anti-war movements in America, only in Britain. Also the source the source is a cartoon, and impression of the artist. It is satire, as this is its purpose.
Source E is a statement written by Robin Day (who was a BBC Commentator in the 1970’s) It was written in 1970 which was during the war, this makes it primary evidence. It’s a statement written to a seminar of the Royal United Service Institution, and it’s purpose is to explain how TV is creating anti-war campaigns. It was aimed for mainly the British Armed Forces but also at a lesser extent to the American Military. It does have sufficient evidence to explain the anti-war movement as it is a primary source explaining that because there is so much TV and Media coverage from the war, it’s increasing the anti-war movements which I know to be true from my own knowledge. The one main reason why it cannot have sufficient evidence is because it was spoken in Britain, and it was only a few American soldiers who heard it, so it cannot have any direct influence on the movements. It can however show us what people believed at the time. This source links with source D, as they were both british and therefore could have had no direct impact on the movements.
Finally, source F is a clip from the film “Born on the fourth of July” directed by Oliver Stone. It was released in 1989, which would make it a secondary source. The clip has a Vietnam veteran trying to explain his version of the “truth”, and that is that they are fighting guerrilla people needlessly, that it was a fake war, a war without ethics and morals. Its audience was to regular ‘cinema goers’ in mainly Britain and in the USA, but also in other English speaking countries. On one hand it has sufficient evidence to explain the anti-war movement because the director had actually fought in the Vietnam war, it was his attempt to show what really happened in Vietnam so it’s a very reliable source. It’s very patriotic towards the beginning and turns very anti-war towards the end. The things that were said in this clip were very similar to things said by Martin Luther King in his anti-war protests. On the other hand it doesn’t have enough evidence because it is a secondary source and therefore could have had no direct impact on the movements, it’s also very sensationalised. This source links with source B as they are both images of a popular culture, and are both Media.
In conclusion none of the sources individually have any power, or sufficient evidence for explain the Anti-War movements in the USA. However, collectively all of the sources give us an idea of why there were anti-war movements but have no real depth to them, and it’s a explanation lacking detail. There were other reasons why there were anti-war movements that none of the sources mention. These are things like the US government, student protests, the number of high casualties, the drugs being abused by officers and soldiers in Vietnam, Martin Luther King and John Lennon to name but a few of the other reasons. So no, I don’t think there is sufficient evidence in sources A-F as to why there was an anti-war movement in the USA in the 1960-1970s.
Mike Hadfield
