Source E would have fuelled the anti-war movement in America. It shows children affected by napalm bombing, and this would have had a big impact on the public when it was shown on television. The army may have had to use napalm bombing against difficult guerrilla tactics, which backs up the point made by source D, but the public would have started to question whether the war was morally justified or not once they had seen scenes like this. This source does support the statement above more than it does source D. It makes America look evil in the war.
An American journalist, Richard Hamer, wrote this source in 1970. It mentions how difficult guerrilla tactics would have been to fight against for the Americans (“did one of them (the peasants) lob the mortar? If so which one? Should you kill all of them of them or none at all?”), and therefore again supports source D. It is sympathetic to American soldiers, as the writer appreciates how it would have been hard not to harm civilians amidst the chaos caused by guerrilla warfare, but it is critical of the use of napalm, and the lack of consideration shown by America to the Vietnamese civilians by stating “One does not use napalm on villages and hamlets sheltering civilians… if one is attempting to persuade these people of the rightness of one’s cause”. This source does point towards how public opinion would have turned because of the pictures they would have seen after napalm attacks, etc, etc. So this source again supports arguments that television would have fuelled the eventual demise of the war, but also how guerrilla tactics would have done this as well.
Source G is an American soldier’s account of how people reacted to the My Lai incident. It says some of the behaviour there was reminiscent of Nazi tactics, and was mentally unstable by stating that “W didn’t go there to be Nazis. At least none of the people I knew went there to be Nazis”. It also explains that atrocities were committed and seen on television screens around the globe, and that the public were appalled by this. The fact that the government tried to cover up some events was also mentioned, and when people found out about this, it too fuelled an anti-war attitude in the public of America. People were wary about events after My Lai, and that moral ground for Vietnam had disappeared after this. This source supports strongly the opinion that television was the major factor for the war being lost by America, but also that the behaviour of troops themselves was a major factor too.
This next source is a cartoon from ‘Punch’, a British magazine, and was published in 1967. It shows how President Johnson’s attitude to the war affected the ‘Great Society’ policy in America. The great society notion was his vision to ‘feed and shelter the homeless… to provide more education and medical care’. The cost of the war economically on America was growing by the year, and people were losing faith in the war because they were losing the chance of having a ‘great society’ by attacking Vietnam and this fed to the anti-war opinion. All the money that was to be used for the great society plan was fuelling Vietnam. This source suggests a different reason other than television as the root of America’s troubles in Vietnam.
Source J is a picture of an anti-war demonstration in America in 1970. At peaceful demonstrations like the one shown, in certain cases things had turned nasty, and people ended up getting killed by police, which would have only added to angst felt by the civilians in America. Also, if demonstrations were shown on television, people could have been of the opinion that they should go to a demonstration if they were against the war. So this source could be said to support the statement as well.
Source K does not really support any arguments as to why America lost the war other than the fact that public opinion gradually turned against the war and people lost faith in America. As the source is from Australia, it could be said that other countries pressurised America into pulling out by pulling out themselves, because America would not have been keen to have been seen as morally wrong by most other countries in the world. So this source doesn’t support the statement about television.
This source is a television clip covering events that occurred at My Lai. This supports the argument that television was the main reason for America losing the war. It shows pictures of civilians devastated by the effects of the war, and also American troops injured and killed by the Vietcong. Even though the Americans had far fewer casualties than the Vietcong, when people saw dead Americans it would have effected them far more than reading the statistics, as it is far more graphic. Also the same applies to civilian casualties, as when they were seen on television it greatly affected opinion in the U.S.
After studying all the sources carefully, I am of the opinion that television was a major factor of America’s loss, but not the sole thing that caused America to lose. Sources D, E and F clearly support the case that the American’s lack of experience and inefficiency against guerrilla warfare was a major factor to them losing, and perhaps a bigger factor than television. It could be argued that had the war been successful for America in terms of defeating the Vietcong, then public support would have turned and started to gain confidence in the government. Having said that, the television broadcast seemed to be against the Vietnam War, so perhaps television would have turned public opinion against the war even if the Americans caused minimal civilian casualties and American casualties, etc, because the images on television are so graphic. So it could be argued that television was the biggest factor in the Americans losing the war as it is in the statement. Having considered all this, I still believe that guerrilla warfare was a bigger factor, because not only did it hinder the Americans, it also provided a lot of material for television to broadcast to turn people against the war.
