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

    be argued that American motives can be seen as unjustified as they were clearly trying to suppress others rights to govern themselves. This fact is supported by the poor state that the Southern government run by Diem and propped up by the Americans was in.

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

    Many times the US simply forced their will onto the South. One example of this was the prevention of free elections in the whole of Vietnam, as set down in the Geneva Convention, as America's own intelligence reported that 80% of the people would have voted for Ho and therefore defeated the American-backed government in the South.

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

    Furthermore, the AK's shape made it ideal for the shooter to be in the prone postition (lying down flat on the stomach), which was an ideal position for the shootouts in dense jungles. Also, briefly comparing the rounds used, the M16 had higher velocity (faster travelling)

  2. How effectively did Philip II manage his finances?

    Such heavy taxation on one part of the Monarquia alone sent Castile into steady decline. Instead of being a successfully self-supported land, Castile began to heavily depend on outside imports, increasing the risk of further inflation, a threat that remained since its onset early in Philips reign throughout his inherited lands.

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

    'Rolling Thunder' was not a huge success as Vietnam was mainly a rural nation and there were little targets of opportunity. Much of Vietnam was covered in dense jungle and so, many villages were unintentionally bombed. This led to many civilians siding with the communists and the Vietcong turned their attention to assaults on American airbases.

  2. Use the sources and your knowledge of American history to explain why there has ...

    FDR retaliated by threatening to increase the number of Supreme Court judges from nine to fifteen. As the Supreme Court had a greatly Republican dominance at the time, and FDR threatened to appoint six new Democrat judges into the Supreme Court, the nine justices backed down.

  1. Why did the USA become involved in Vietnam in the 1950s and the 1960s? ...

    Also, the Americans also wanted to use Vietnam as another Hiroshima as such, where they flex their military muscle to scare off the Russians. The third reason is events in Vietnam. The French pulled out of Vietnam in 1954 after being humiliated by the guerrilla tactics of the Vietminh.

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

    Hence Germans and Austrian nationals were deemed 'enemy aliens', and suffered various forms of control ranging from compulsory registration to internment; naturalisation had become irrelevant10. Although complex in nature, the philosophy postulates a link to nations of origin and of 'Nation States', and ultimately political allegiances.

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