Its intended audience was the world and additionally the US public because its purpose was to deliberately show Vietnamese children suffering for everyone to see because the photographer thought the war was corrupt.
It is useful evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement because images showing little children pain would make people back home in America disgusted. This potentially would inspire them to start protesting, especially in Kent state university where the protesting got so out of hand that a student was shot down so this would cause even more protesting. This showed how powerful the media was for anti-war protests to start.
However it is not useful evidence to explain why there was anti-war movement because the photo lacks content. The photographer isn’t identified and it doesn’t state where the photo was taken and you can’t tell people saw it and if they reacted.
Source C is a written extract by an American journalist called Richard Hammer in 1970. The source is about the wide spread opposition to the American presence in Vietnam.
Its intended audience was the US public during the war so they could now how bad the US tactics were from this extract, which also illustrates how they failed.
It is sufficient evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement because it gives reason why the US tactics failed and how guerrilla warfare was hard to fight. Also if the US public knew how brutal their soldiers were being and that the Vietnamese were being spayed by defoliants. These entered their water system, and caused poisoning and Siamese twins, they would again be inspired by this to protest.
However it is not sufficient evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement because we don’t know anything about the journalist for example, who he writes for, or if it is a paper, magazine, poster or book or does he specialise in this area? We don’t even know if he was there so it could be secondary evidence and it doesn’t say if he toured with a platoon. Also we don’t know if the article is read worldwide, or he’s biased because he doesn’t give an opinion about the US.
This compares to sources A and B. It compares to source A because they both agree on how guerrilla warfare was such a big obstacle for the US to deal with and it compares to source B because it supports the chemicals that are being used.
Source D is a photograph and it shows how America was wasting money on the Vietnam War instead of spending it on education and medical care. In the picture men are cutting up wood, which represents all the money that’s been put into the war, and the wood is being burned in a steam train to show how the money is being wasted because steam trains waste a lot of energy and pollutes the air.
It was published in the British magazine “Punch” in 1967. Its purpose was to show the effects of President Johnson’s war policy on the ‘great society’.
Its intended audience was the general public but it was probably directed more to the US public.
It is sufficient evidence to explain why there was anti-war movement because it shows that money is being used to kill people rather than to than to pay for education and medical care. As it was published in Britain it gives a neutral view because Britain was not involved in Vietnam. Punch had been a popular magazine since 1860 so many people must have seen the picture.
However it is not sufficient evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement because it was published only in Great Britain, so people in the USA wouldn’t have this magazine, but if they did see the photo it would be a reason why they started an anti-war movement because it shows how they are wasting their money which pays for their taxes. It was published in 1967 before My Lai and the Tet offensive, which were two big events in Vietnam. It doesn’t state who actually drew the picture.
Source E is a statement by the BBC commentator Robin Day. The source shows how powerful the media was for the anti-war movement to start because the Americans could actually see how brutal and violent it was, “The war on colour televisions screens in American living rooms has made Americans far more anti-militarist and anti-war than anything else”, “blood looks very red on colour television screens”. He broadcasted this in 1970 to a seminar of the Royal United Service Institution.
Its purpose was to put across the power of TV and to promote the debate to the intended audience of the people at the seminar who were British armed forces.
It is sufficient evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement because it’s more of a balanced view because Robin Day is English so it can’t be biased and he is a well-known good and popular BBC commentator.
However it is not sufficient evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement because he is English and is only giving his opinion. There is no evidence showing that many people are watching it and if people in the USA are even seeing it. The statement has an intended audience of members from the British armed forces who don’t have anything to do with the Vietnam War.
This source links to source B because source B supports this piece as source B shows how effective the media was for an anti-war movement to start.
Source F is a video called “Born on the fourth of July”. The video shows president Nixon (who supports the Vietnam War) giving a speech to all his supporters who chanting “4 more years” repeatedly. There are several soldiers who have came back from Vietnam who are disabled. One of them is strongly against the Vietnam War and he tries to get out his views out and is successful, because a TV reporter gets a camera on him and gives an interview. When he’s on camera he says how corrupt the government is by staying in Vietnam because he knows how awful it was out there in Vietnam and it put him in his wheelchair. Then he got escorted out because he was being too uncontrollable and all the supporters of Nixon spit on him whilst he was being escorted out.
Oliver Stone was the director and he produced it in 1989. Its intended audience was the modern US public so he could reveal his “truth” about the Vietnam War from the perspective of a disabled soldier.
It is sufficient evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement because Oliver Stone was in the war so he could use 1st hand knowledge of it. He knew what really happened if some things weren’t televised or captured on camera. Soldiers who were fighting the war were now against it and they had the best perspective about the war. From my own knowledge I know that disabled ex soldiers joined the protests.
However it is not sufficient evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement because the video is sensationalised and it only gives Oliver Stones view of the war, so it biased. From his experience the war might have been terrible but from another soldiers view the war could have been successful. It compares to sources A and C.
It compares to both the sources because they show how lives were being wasted.
Some of these sources show reasons why the peace movement started such as: in source A it showed the amount of early deaths, source B showed the children running down a street who have just been victims of napalm, source C shows the use of chemicals used, source D shows how expensive the war cost when it could have been spent on education and medical care and source F shows a first hand perspective of the war.
However some of these sources were less useful reasons for the peace movement to start, such as: source A doesn’t give factual information, instead it uses words such as “likely” and “majority”, with sources B you can’t tell how many people of the public saw it, also with source C you can’t tell how many read it, source D was British so you don’t know if it was shown in America, source E was also British and source F only had one perspective.
None of the sources can provide the full explanation. There were other reasons for the anti-war movement to start that are not included such as: the misuse of drugs which soldiers used to stay awake and if they returned back home to America they were often addicted. They don’t mention the average age was 19 which would be a big factor for families to join the peace movement, the effects of the Kent state protest where a student was shot down and died and it doesn’t show the effects of the Tet Offensive where the Americans thought they were winning the war but the power of the media showed that this was not so, and the publics opinion had changed which lead to the anti-war movement.
All these sources are sufficient and they are not sufficient. On their own a single source wouldn’t be enough for the anti-war movement to start but together they all make more of an effect for the anti-war movement to start. If an American read/saw one of these sources they would think it was quite bad, but if all of these quite bad thoughts were put together then it would equal a very bad view on the Vietnam War and enough evidence from the sources to start an anti-war movement.
