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 1960's and early 70's?

    Source B is a photograph of napalm victims. It is a primary and reliable source as it was published during the war in Vietnam. This source is the type of media which many people in America were exposed to. The source portrays a negative image for the war in Vietnam as it shows young children running from their homes which have just been bombed. This may have been one of the reasons for the anti-war movement because the distraught faces of the innocent children brought a feeling of guilt to the American people. However this source is biased and may have been used as propaganda to try and persuade the American people that taking part in the war would result in the loss of many innocent lives.

    Source C is by Richard Hamer, an American journalist, writing in 1970 about the widespread opposition to the American presence in Vietnam. This is a primary source which explores the difficulties of fighting guerrillas. ‘Should you kill of them or none of them?’ This suggests the American soldiers weren’t killing the people they wanted to. The source is very negative towards U.S involvement in Vietnam and suggests reasons for the anti-war movement. ‘A couple of guys are dead, others are screaming in agony with a leg or arm blown off, or their guts hanging out’. This is a shocking sentence which made American people feel that the U.S involvement in Vietnam was resulting in many gruesome and pointless deaths. This source is fairly reliable, however it may have been biased if the journalist Richard Hamer supported the anti-war movement and wanted to persuade the American public into not wanting America to continue its involvement with Vietnam.

    Source D is a cartoon published in the British magazine punch in 1967. It shows the effects of President Johnson’s war policy on the ‘great society’ which was his vision to ‘feed and shelter the homeless and to provide more education and medical care’. The planks of wood being pulled of the train suggest that the war in Vietnam was destroying this policy. This may have promoted the anti-war movement because many people believed that the money wasn’t being used for a good cause and that the money should be spent on America itself. The cartoon shows the train being eroded by Vietnam which suggests that the American economy suffered badly due to the war. This source is very reliable due to the fact that it was published at the time of the war.

    Source E is a statement by BBC commentator Robin Day to a seminar of the royal united service institution, in 1970. It is a primary source and is very reliable. This source suggests another reason for why the American public were becoming against the American involvement due to the fact that media were making the deaths and casualties look a lot more gruesome. ‘Blood looks very red on the colour television screen’. At this time of the war technology had advanced and many people had colour televisions and could see the real horrors of the war. Many families who had sent their boys to Vietnam wanted them back safely because the dead bodies shown on the TV could be one of their loved ones.

    So overall I think that sources A to E give sufficient evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement in the U.S during the late 1960’s and early 70’s because they are all valid and very reliable. They also explore all the different reasons which could have sparked an anti-war movement. The sources suggest that the anti-war movement mainly began when the American public became aware of what was actually going on in Vietnam. This was due to anti-war propaganda.