This source generalises on the army of the US and Vietcong, by saying they were very inexperienced compared to the Vietcong soldiers. The reason for this was that conscription was introduced and the USA were just throwing men at the Vietcong, who had little training. As this source doesn’t describe the brutality or tactics of the US it means that this sources use for explaining the anti-war movement lies on the conscription and taking young men away from their homes and families. This could have caused part of the protest, as many parents would have been unhappy about the conscription.
Source B is a photograph, which was produced by a Vietnamese photographer during the Vietnam War, which makes this source primary. The purpose of this photograph is to show the American public and the rest of the world what is happening in Vietnam. The photo holds a strong reliability as it is completely unedited and is an eyewitness account of the real events that were happening. However this horrific scene may not be the case everywhere, and napalm attacks may have only happened in certain places. The strengths of this source are that it is a real event that has been captured by a free-lance photographer, which means it is unbiased because they are not working for the USA or Vietcong. However it is a snap shot and may not be getting the whole story of events.
This source shows innocent children suffering after a napalm attack, this may have caused the anti-war movement because the American people saw this picture and were shocked at this horrific scene. It shows 5 children scared and screaming, while there are three US soldiers behind them, who don’t seem to be helping them, as if they don’t care. It also shows the brutality of the Americans tactics as they target villages of women and children.
Source C is an article written by American journalist Richard Hamer.
He is writing about the widespread opposition tot he American presence in Vietnam. It is a primary source and was written in 1970. The purpose of this article was to get people to consider and question America’s military methods. This source is quite unreliable as it doesn’t give a balanced argument and is one sided. For example he says that the US used napalm, high explosives and destroyed vegetation without warning. He is saying that if the Americans are trying to persuade the Vietnamese people of how evil the Vietcong are and that communism is wrong, the blowing them up is the wrong way to persuade them. He doesn’t describe the full extent of the Vietcong brutality and just describes the Americans. This may have been because most newspapers at the time were against the government and would write what the majority of the American people wanted to hear, so they would make more money. The strengths of this source are that it is uncensored and obviously being a journalist must have researched it so has some strong facts, which make the US look bad.
This source explains the widespread opposition to the American presence in Vietnam. This may have caused the anti-war movement because it is getting people to consider and question the US military methods. It is sort of saying that what the Americans are fighting for is good but the way they are fighting it is wrong.
Source D is from a British magazine called “Punch” and is primary as it was produced in 1967. The source is a political cartoon which shows the effect of President Johnson’s war policy on the “great society” – “his vision to feed and shelter the homeless, and to provide more education and medical care”. The reason for punch magazine publishing this cartoon was to show Britains view on the war and also to show how concerned they are because they do not want America to be crippled by this war and let communism take over. This source is anti-Communist as Britain are capitalists and also fear the domino theory. Britain might of thought that if America were crippled and beaten by communism, then they could be taken over by it, then because Britain are so closely linked with USA the could also be taken over and persuaded by their ideas. However it is also showing and criticising America for wasting loads of money on Vietnam. Also it shows how powerful the anti-war movement was because the interest in the War had spread to Britain. The strengths of this source are that it is researched, reliable and comes from a different point of view other than USA and Vietnam. However the cartoon is simplistic and comes from a country not involved in the war. So they might not be considering what the USA and Vietcong are going through and are only worried about what it will do to their own economy. This magazine is also known for always being critical, so is only pointing out what America is doing wrong and doesn’t show the positive effects if any they are having on Vietnam.
This source shows the effects of President Johnson’s war policy on the “great society” – “his vision to feed and shelter the homeless, and to provide more education and medical care”. This may have caused the anti-war movement because it shows how America is being destroyed to feed the Vietnam War. This concerned the British as they thought that America were being weakened and would be defeated by communism.
Source E is a primary source from 1970 and is a statement by BBC commentator Robin Day to a seminar of the royal united service institution. The purpose of this source was to express his own and the BBC’s opinion on America’s way of inhibited television coverage to its public. This is quite a reliable source as it comes from a war correspondent that must have researched all his facts first before broadcasting them. It has also been unedited, as it is a British statement, this also means that it is coming from a point of view, which isn’t involved in the war, and therefore there should be no bias. However the British government sponsors the BBC, which are allied and are trying to stay on the good side of America. Therefore even though this statement is unedited, the commentator Robin Day may have been told before hand not to completely slander and criticise the USA.
This source is a statement by BBC commentator Robin Day to a seminar of the royal united service institution. This may have caused the anti-war movement because he is expressing his and the BBC’s view, which is that the American government is letting the American public watch more coverage of Vietnam than they should be. And that allowing them to watch scenes of war on there colour televisions, is just adding tot he anger of the anti-war movement.
