Source 'B' is something new to people at the time; this was being able to see the war whilst it is happening, through the media. This shocked and horrified people as they saw the effects of the war. The picture in source 'B' would affect people’s emotions and encourage them to protest as it shows injustice. This injustice is that innocent Vietnamese children are being attacked with napalm, by US soldiers. In America the people believed that the US in Vietnam were doing good and trying to help the natives and the peasants who were not involved with communism. However, from this picture it looks like the US do not care for the innocent people. It seems as if they are just trying to stop communism from spreading past Vietnam and not to it. This bad treatment to innocent people would upset the American public and encourage them to support the peace movement. I know that the US did treat innocent civilians harshly and that they also tried to cover incidents up by lying. This is because the government papers known as the Pentagon Papers were stolen and publicized. They show that the US did not always act correctly.
This source would contribute to an anti-war movement because the image of a persons friends or family 'screaming in agony with a leg or arm blown off, or their guts hanging out…' would make them want the war to end and stop other people suffering. It also would make people feel sorry for the civilians who were in the middle of the war and were be killed all the time and the next generation who would suffer from the chemical the US used.
Source C is a primary Source; it is an article by an American journalist, Richard Hamer. He is writing in 1970 about the widespread opposition to the American presence in Vietnam. The Source describes how the soldiers were killed and their reaction. The Source says that the soldiers were in bad situations and with reluctance they kept their tactics and the napalm bombs to stop communism. The American government was not concerned about how many people were killed or how many they were killing just as long it stopped communism. This article went towards the anti-war feelings.
Source 'C' backs up source 'B' in the way of attacking/killing innocent civilians. It shows how it is immoral and not the way to persuade the people of the evil of communism. The bombing of civilians gave people a reason to protest against war, as war was obviously not the way to achieve the aims of the US. This source gives a reason for socialists to protest against the war, as they believe that the Vietnamese have a right to rule themselves, or elect who they want to rule. Anti-war slogans show how the US public felt about the war and the USA's involvement in it. These include "Make love not War," "who are we to police the world" and "giving peace a chance".
Source 'D' is a cartoon from a British magazine in 1967. It shows President Johnson ruining his 'great society's programme, which is going up in smoke, in Vietnam. It shows that the money from the great society is being spent on Vietnam through the US economy, (around $20billion a year). His great society programme was supposed to help the poor and the blacks, but instead he was forcing them off to war to die. Martin Luther King was a black civil rights leader who joined the anti-war movements. I believe that this source is probably reliable evidence into the situation in the US.
Source 'E' says how the media, especially television portrays the war as being more gruesome than it really is. This would show why there was so much protesting as they had been unknowingly mislead into what the war was really like.
I think that the sources do give some good reasons and motives for the public of the US to protest against the war, but some aspects are not mentioned. These include the unfair executions and torturing of men without trial, and that some of the chemical weapons used by the US were harmful to the environment, as scientists discovered. Also, these sources do not show what the secretary of defence, Robert McNamara, said about the bombing of North Vietnam and how it was not helping, as this drove many people to the protests. They believed that if the main politician, the expert, agrees that the bombing should be stopped, then it must be. After all, he was the secretary of defence for seven years.
These sources miss out a lot of points however, they fail to emphasize, the effect of increasing American casualties, these rose from 100 000 in 1967 to 300 000 four years later. This effected hundreds of thousands of families that later joined the anti-war protests. The veterans protest in 1975 shocked thousands across America when war heroes that had fought in Vietnam and had returned because of crippling injuries marched in Washington, some still in their uniforms and tore off and threw away their medals and ribbons that they had been awarded for their service. Many were shocked that war heroes, not just draft dodgers or families of dead were going on protest against the war. This greatly increased opposition to the war. Many Americans also believed that war was simply immoral and was wrong including pacifists.
Many socialists in America thought the Vietnamese had the right to rule themselves. When the vice president resigned, he said that the bombing of North Vietnam isn't working and should be stopped, this re-vitalized protests against war as now even politicians who were greatly in support of war were now going back on their tactics and admitting they were wrong.
Sources ‘E’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ link to show how the effects of the Media was widespread and were one of three main reasons of the growth of the anti-war movement. People from the media, come out saying what they have come to believe. My Lai was a massacre and came to scrutiny as it was found that out of all of the 400+ that were killed, their was no Vietcong found.
Sources ‘A’ and ‘C’ talked of US tactics not working and related to Source ‘D’ in the waste of US tax money going up in smoke, with president after president draining the nation of resource’s. Millions of people suffered sacrifices, with men from poor areas of the country going to war, getting injured, coming home and not being able to work. This left families with out a primary source of income and left many of them claiming benefits, which were receiving less money from the national budget every year.
I believe there were three main factors to the increase of the Anti-war movement. One was the way the media portrayed the war in Vietnam, with wave after wave of image’s showing the horrors of napalm and other chemical weapons. Second their was the veterans. The veterans came home injured or psychologically damaged with what they have gone through. They knew what was happening in Vietnam was wrong and stood up against it. Thirdly was the fact that soldiers with low intelligence were sent to Vietnam and sent back home if they had managed to survive. The experience they had gained was wasted and possibly led to the increase of US casualties.
