Source B is a still photograph from a clip of film showing napalm victims. The two victims are small Vietnamese children, an image which would have shocked the American public. At first the majority of the American people had supported the Vietnam War, they thought the war was the only way to protect their country- but seeing pictures like these would make them wonder who they were protecting their country from. Surely their great enemy was not innocent children, so why were these children being so cruelly harmed? The image would have struck hardest with people who had children themselves, which was probably a vast number of the adult population in America. The children in the image have been affected by napalm, a chemical used by the American soldiers that covers its victims in terrible burns and causes horrific pain. Both children are running away from the soldiers, and one child in particular would have provoked stronger anti-war feelings, as she is naked and mutilated. Also shocking is the fact that behind the children are soldiers casually looking on, some filming, some taking photographs, and some just watching. The public would see this as thoughtless and insensitive and would be outraged by the soldiers’ lack of remorse for the children. There are many limitations to this source, mainly being that as it is a photograph, we cannot see the full picture, we can’t see what happened immediately before, or afterwards. For example, following this shot the soldiers could’ve offered help to the children. We can only hope also, that napalm was accidentally inflicted upon the children, and was not always used on civilians; perhaps this was a one-time mistake. However, we know, as would the American public, that it wasn’t. They would have seen thousands of other images just like this one, were innocent children have been killed or harmed, for a reason which they are not too sure of. They would be told, “That’s war”, but this source would be very hard hitting to peoples emotions, and stir anger amongst the people who already doubt the war.
Source C is similar to Source A, in that it contains information on the “difficulties of fighting guerrillas”, and to Source B in the way that it would ask the American public who the enemy really is. Source C is an extract of writing written by American journalist Richard Hamer in 1970 about the growing opposition to American presence in Vietnam. He writes again of the difficulties the soldiers faced in trying to decipher the difference between the Vietnamese civilians and the guerrillas. In this source he talks of a possible situation the soldiers could have to face, civilians all around, a mortar shell fired at the soldiers, some die, some are in agony…the rest left decide what to do. “Should you kill all of them, or none of them?” This would put the reader in the position to try and decide what they would do in such a situation, showing them how impossible it is to decide. If they kill the civilians then they are destroying the country they went there to save. Hamer obviously has an anti-war motive in writing this text, which is a limitation, as it is very one sided. However, it is a true example of what the American public would have been able to see during the war, and so it does show us how such media items could influence opposition to the war. Hamer goes on to explain how the soldiers are ruining the country, obliterating crops, deforming people with napalm, and showering whole village with explosives- when these are the people who America want to convince to be on “their side”, and “persuade them of a foe’s evil nature”. Reading this the public would have a lot to think about, they would be worried about their own soldiers, who are stuck in such terrible and unfeasible circumstances. They would think about the civilian people, just like them, who were being maimed and murdered without reason. They would begin to wonder why the ever supported such a war, which was obviously getting nowhere. For these reasons, this text and others like it could easily pass as evidence to why the anti-war movement took place. One limitation however is that Hamer, obviously anti-war himself is only putting across the worst aspects of the war, arguably in my studies of the Vietnam War, I cannot remember any positive aspects caused by the Americans, so maybe there are none.
Source D is a cartoon, which was published, in a British magazine called “Punch” in 1967. It shows how the war affected “The Great Society”, President Johnson’s policy for a better America. ‘The Great Society’ meant that Americans were promised food, shelter, education and medical care. Johnson had the money for this, but then commits America to war with Vietnam, which uses up all this money, if not more. The people who the “Great society” was originally planned for, the people in the ghettos, the black people, the immigrants and the working class, were those who were more likely to have fought in the war. Therefore they were sent off, fighting for something they probably didn’t believe in, and returned to a homeland in a worse state than when they left, if they came back at all. The war did not help the American people, it only killed them, it took away the money that was going to be used to improve their standard of living- in order to improve the standard of living of the Vietnamese…but it also only killed them. On the cartoon President Johnson can be seen chopping up a piece of wood, which represents the “Great Society” in order to fund the war. The cartoon shows the U.S economy as a train, the money for the “Great Society” as wood for fuel for the train, and the outcome, the Vietnam War, trailing off as smoke. Despite this being a British publication, it probably gets across the views of the American public also. The money, which would have been used for them, disappearing like smoke, never to be seen again. There are a few minor limitations with this source, as it doe not show us the true cost of the war, nor does it explain that taxes in America would be rising, which would cause even more upset amongst the nation. What began with as an image of a great president in their eyes, promising them a better country, quickly turns to someone taking it away from them, and charging them in the process, through the rising tasks. Such information is vital to why the anti-war movement began. The American people have always been stereotyped as people fanatic about money, if this is true, then such economic disaster caused by the war, would in return cause people to turn away from supporting it.
Source E is a statement by Robin Day, a BBC commentator, to a seminar of the Royal United Service Institution in 1970. He explains how the war-on-television ha affected the American public. He states that “the war on colour television screens in American living rooms has made Americans fat more anti-militarist and anti-war than anything else…the full brutality of the combat will be thee in close up and in colour, and the blood looks very red on the colour television screen.” He describes how normal people have been shown too much, and when they are shown such violent images and told such terrible information- they are bound to turn against the war. The only limitation to this source is that is it just one mans opinion, and obviously an anti-war opinion. However, I agree with him, that the availability of horrific war related media items played a main role in turning the American public against the war. Each of the sources I have looked at has been a media item accessible to the public at the time, or similar to ones which would have been. I do not think it is a coincidence that soon into this uncensored war, the public turned against it. The sources I have looked at give many different reasons why the anti-war movement could have broken out. The human cost; the lives of soldiers- family members- thrown away for unnecessary reasons, and also the lives of Vietnamese civilians-including children, ended. The impossible circumstances faced by the soldiers, in not being able to tell the difference between innocent civilians and guerrilla fighters. And the economic cost of the war, where the war was put ahead of the U.S.A’s own people in importance. Together all these factors add up to agree with what Robin Day puts across in his statement, such unrestricted media coverage of the war- will make the people turn against it. Every war is brutal, every war causes strains on the countries involved, and every war affects its civilians- however, most wars aren’t covered by newspapers, television broadcasts, and the radio in the same way which the Vietnam War was; giving away every violent detail. I believe this is what caused the anti-war movement in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, therefore, there is sufficient evidence in Sources A to E to explain why the movement took place.
Rosanna Marr 11J