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

History Coursework assignment- Question 3

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

During the late 1960s and early 1970s the number of Americans opposing the war had increased rapidly and so an anti-war movement took place. There were many different reasons for this, some of which are suggested by sources A to F.

First of all, source A is an extract from the book ‘Four hours in My Lai’ and it gives a negative view of the war and in particular, the army. For instance, “…most likely to die in the first month” suggests that soldiers were weak and ineffective in the war. This would have made American people oppose the war because they would have felt their government made the wrong decision sending men to the war; especially since some were very young at the time. Therefore when the public came to realise the amount of soldiers dying in the war they would have been worried that their relatives or friends in the war were also at risk of death. The limitations of this source is that it was published in 1992 which means people in that period were not influenced by it for it to help explain why there was an anti-war movement. Even so if people were aware of the large number of deaths and suffering in the war, then it is useful in saying what may have encouraged the public to oppose the Vietnam War.

Next, source B is a photograph published during the Vietnam War and it shows two children running and looking discomforted as a result of napalm attacks. Also, there are a number of American soldiers walking behind them. This photo had a massive influence on the American public because of the victims’ age and the state that they appear to be in. That is probably because their young age suggests they had nothing to do with Viet Cong and were innocent sufferers of American attacks, which in the photo is emphasized by the American soldiers walking further back. Consequently, American people would have sympathised for them as well as realise how much damage the US army has made and was willing to make. This meant that people were likely to think badly of the war and wanted it to end both to save the reputation of Americans as good people, and also to save children and families as such from suffering in Vietnam.

Since this photo was published during the war, it would have had a big impact on people’s opinion and could have possibly changed the way people thought. Furthermore, this source is useful because it is a photo which means it cannot be exaggerated, unlike an illustration. On the other hand, it must be considered that the person who captured the image had deliberately taken the photo in this way. As a result, it is one sided because we do not see what may have been the situation beyond the borders of the photo; this could have a completely different effect ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Moreover, source C is about the opposition to the American presence in Vietnam, and it was written by Richard Hamer, an American journalist in 1970. From this source I can tell that the writer opposed the war and I can tell this from comments such as “A couple of guys are dead, others are screaming in agony with a leg or arm blown off…” this has been written in a very straight forward manner and without any sympathy or kind emotions. This suggests that even as an American the writer had no support for the US army in order to even sympathise for them. In addition, he continued to write comments as if they were guidelines on how attacks should take place. For instance “One does not use napalm (a chemical weapon which inflicts terrible burns) on villages and hamlets sheltering civilians…” as he has written this I can infer that he felt the war was not being fought how he felt it should have been. This source is sufficient in suggesting why there was an anti-war movement in America because it is a form of media that was written by an American therefore it may have influenced the way people thought. Moreover, since it was written by an American during the early 1970s; it represents how some Americans felt about the Vietnam War. However it is only sufficient to an extent that people may have disagreed with writer’ s view as it is his own opinion, which also makes the source one-sided.

Another source expressing someone’s opinion is source D which is a cartoon. It was published in the British magazine ‘Punch’ in 1967- period of anti-war movement in America. It is meant to show the effects of President Johnson’s war policy on the ‘Great Society’. That is his promise to the American public to improve education, medical care as well as feed and shelter the homeless. However a lot of the money that he planned to spend on his Great Society was instead spent on the war in Vietnam. This is shown in the cartoon using the train that has “GREAT SOCIETY” written on its side and is on its way to Vietnam which is written in the smoke from the train. It also shows Johnson chopping up part of the train that appears to say “great society” on it. Consequently, from this source I can infer that American people may have opposed the war because they wanted President Johnson to fulfil his promise of ‘Great Society’ as that is something they would have benefited from themselves.

Overall, source D is useful in explaining why there was an anti-war movement in America to an extent that it relates to the desires of the American public only. However, as a cartoon it is a form of opinion and moreover the opinion of one who is most likely to be British rather than American. I assume this because it was published in a British magazine. That is a limitation of the source because it is not the view of an American.

Next, source E is a statement by BBC commentator, Robin Day, in 1970. In his statement he refers to the Vietnam media war and gives his description about people watching the war on colour TV as well as the impact it has on people’s opinion. This can be seen when he said “The war on colour television screens in America has made Americans far more anti-militarist and anti-war…” This suggests that constantly being able to see the images of war may have been so graphic that it had put in perspective the damage and injuries that were endured by both the Americans and the opposition. This would have left the American people thinking that the situation was wrong and that such brutality was unjust.

This source is sufficient in saying why there was an anti-war movement in America to an extent that it explains the effect of the media on the public clearly and suggests the analysis of one who worked for the BBC; thus making them a reasonable source. In addition the statement was made at a convenient period to notice the effect on the American people. However as BBC is not American this may not have been correct in terns of how the American public felt.

Lastly, source F is a GI graffiti and helmet art which is in the form of a poem. In his few words he suggests he opposes the war; for instance his first line is “Make love not war.” This shows that although he is a private in the US army he is there against his own wishes. Also, this infers that what he has experienced in the war is something that he finds wrong and unreasonable which leads to him disagreeing with war. Moreover, his attitude shows that there was a low morale within the army.

This source is useful because it was written by a GI whose criticism of war would be unique, since he is fighting in the war himself. In addition, it was written on a helmet which suggests it was written during the war, making its meaning more credible. As a result this source goes far in explaining why there was an anti-war movement in America because it represents the feelings of a GI- which in consequence could easily reflect the attitude of the American public, especially since they saw what took place in Vietnam through television. On the other hand it is limited because the GI may have only written this as a result of a bad incident at war which had startled and disturbed him at the time, yet faded in the long term.

To conclude, I believe that there is sufficient evidence in sources A to F to explain why there was an anti-war movement in the United States during the late 1960s and early 1970s. I believe this because, together, sources A to F have a diverse range of reasons why the American public may have opposed the war and more importantly the sources were all written, produced, or distributed as a form of media. Hence it is media, it means that their contents, which all opposed the war, may have had a big influence on the American people and so lead them to act against the Vietnam War.

By Yasmine Mohamed-Ali