• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

The USA should have been successful in Vietnam because of its technological and military supremacy. However, the USA failed to use this supremacy effectively to defeat a smaller less advanced enemy"

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

"The USA should have been successful in Vietnam because of its technological and military supremacy. However, the USA failed to use this supremacy effectively to defeat a smaller less advanced enemy" Do you agree or disagree with this interpretation? Explain using the sources and knowledge from your studies Nick Raynor The quote is saying that the USA should have won the Vietnam War because they had better weapons and better trained soldiers than the Vietcong. This can be split into 2 parts: 'America should have won' and, 'America had better weapons and training than the Vietcong'. I agree with the first part because America should have won the Vietnam War as they are very powerful. I disagree with the second part because the Vietcong ha supplies from Russia and China which were good weapons and they were extremely well trained, but in guerrilla warfare. It does NOT mean they were less advanced. The USA was not automatically going to win. They underestimated the enemy greatly which caused problems. They were also seen as the foreigner by the Vietnamese peasants. The people did not want them in their country and many supported the Vietcong. They were often killed if suspected to be Vietcong supporters which just turned the peasants against the USA more. The USA tried to win the support of the peasants by offering medical help, farming advice and assistance with technology. ...read more.

Middle

'Life' magazine found in 1967 that it cost $400,000 to kill one Vietcong soldier. As it was a totally uncensored war, facts and figures like this got back to the American public so support just disappeared. Perhaps if it had been a censored war and the American public had not lost support for the war, America may have won it. There is also some secondary evidence which backs up my argument. A G.C.S.E revision guide for the year 2000 gave 6 main reasons for America failing in the Vietnam War, one of them being 'American public opinion turned against the war'. Sir Robert Thompson from War in Peace said in 1981, 'The US media bore a heavy responsibility (for the failure in Vietnam).........Millions of people in the US did oppose the war for reasons which were sincerely felt', and their activities were an important element in the failure of American involvement'. He is meaning to say the US media played a vital part in America's failure as it turned public opinion against the war. I could go on naming more sources but I would be repeating myself. I have much evidence that backs up my argument that just because America had better equipment etc..., it didn't mean they were automatically going to win the war as they did not have public support. I have actually found a source which maybe disagrees with my source but part agrees aswell. ...read more.

Conclusion

They also had support fro Russia and China who provided them with weapons. Strictly speaking, these weapons were not as good as the American's, but it was not like the Vietcong were fighting with spears. They had decent military weapons which proved they were not less advanced. On the white sheet I was provided with, Source 12 shows North Vietnamese soldiers equipped for war. They have decent guns and helmets. They are equipped well enough for war and are not lesser equipped than the USA. Source 10 also shows the extensive and impressive tunnels the Vietcong had underground. This shows real brains and skill which you would not expect from a lesser advanced army. These tunnels caught the American's out many times. I do have evidence that disagrees with my argument. It is from a book on Vietnam by an American Author in 1983. It lists all the equipment that the American soldiers had. 'Helicopter...tank and armoured cars...mortars, machine guns, grenade and rocket launchers...M16...air to surface missiles...bombs of every shape and size...napalm bombs...cluster bombs...chemical weapons.' Now the Vietcong may have mad decent weapons, but they had nothing of the American's standards which therefore makes them a less advanced army. To conclude, I feel the American's should have really won the war but there were factors brought into play they did not expect. They did not expect to lose the support of their own people and not have the support of the Vietnamese peasants which were major contributions to them not winning the war. The Vietcong had slightly less advanced weaponry but not by much and the soldiers were impeccably trained. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. Describe the military tactics and weapons used by both the USA and the Vietcong ...

    Unlike the M16, the AK-47 was a much sturdier weapon made out of solid wood and metals, heavier but more durable. The AK could stand the humidity of the jungle and literally never jammed or even needed cleaning(if it did, it was very easy to disassemble and clean)

  2. Why did military tactics cause USA to withdraw from Vietnam?

    'Operation Ranch Hand' was a huge failure as it caused damage to civilian areas. Villages were burned with napalm and people's crops were destroyed, leading to starvation. To protect the American airbases in Vietnam, base camps were set up. These were used to launch patrols from and were often heavily fortified.

  1. In both world wars, many enemy aliens were interned in Australia

    In either war the threat of subversion was dubious at best. Fischer believes this imagined threat was used by Hughes during the Great War to justify his conspiracy theory. Again working from a base of White supremacy he had advocated favourable policy to British trade and shipping-to quell what Hughes

  2. A Study of Air Supremacy in the Korean War.

    2 Little did anyone know that in a few short months the Chinese, with the help of the Russians, enter the picture to contest the skies over North Korea, bringing the intensity of the conflict to a whole new level.

  1. Did television play a major part in the US defeat in Vietnam?

    Next to him is a photographer taking a picture. The impact of this picture on the public was enormous to see children involved in a war were horrific. In source F an American journalist comments on how difficult it was to identify the enemy and he blames the use of napalm and high explosives on the devastation of South Vietnam by the Americans.

  2. To what extent can it be argued that the use of guerilla warfare tactics ...

    But why would communism in Vietnam be such a threat to America? First of all America prided itself on its powerful economic position, taking full advantage of her resources and the ability to free trade. Southern Asia was a major importer/exporter of/to America and one impact of communism would be

  1. To what extent can it be argued that the use of guerilla warfare tactics ...

    All these factors will be considered and compared to the guerilla tactics in order to arrive at a conclusion as to whether guerilla tactics really was the major cause of America's humiliating retreat. To fully understand why America was so unsuccessful it is necessary to understand why they involved themselves

  2. 1920's USA.

    In actual fact, taxes were decreased to encourage Americans to spend their wages on luxury goods, such as refrigerators or cars. High tariffs on exported goods from overseas meant people were more likely to buy products made in America, thus boosting the country's industries.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work