Source 6 is a statement made by the Peace parade committee in 1967. It tells us that they opposed America’s youth being sent to war that isn’t helping them or the Vietnamese people. It goes as far as describing America’s aggressive tactics to that of nazi Germany and they will not go along with it even though it is their government. These people are pacifists and undoubtedly the view would be the same for pacifists all over America. It was correct in the assumption that it wasn’t helping Vietnam or the USA seeing as it was a major drain on funds that could be put to better use in dealing with problems America had. Vietnam also suffered with so much bombing and the "search and destroy" missions killing many innocent people and destroying many villages. This would be very useful as a source seeing as it is a statement directly from the committee however we don’t know how many people this committee represents, this might not be seen as much of a problem since the views the committee presents are the basic values of the AWM as a whole.
Source 7 is an extract from a book wrote after the incident had finished. It tries to reason why so many people began opposing the Vietnam War. It tells how many people had the view that students were rebellious but that many only went to demonstrations because it was seen as the thing those young people do, not that they actually opposed the war. It ends it summing up that the media had a large part to play in how students were seen and that they really hyped it to levels beyond the level it was at. This source suggests that it was fashionable to support the anti-war movement so that’s why they did it. This source would be considered useful seeing as the author would have had time to think about and research his work but may generalise it too much beyond what would be needed to determine the whole situation. This source is likely to be taken out of context as it isn’t worded well and seems to contradict itself slightly.
These sources do not give all the reasons as to why they were opposed to war and many reasons were not looked upon. These sources could have some value if we were able to cross-reference them with other sources that could help provide hard facts. New evidence is always being uncovered about the AWM and Vietnam, no historian will ever know the full picture and no matter how many sources he or she has there will always be questions left unanswered
4.
Sources 8, 9, 10 and 11 give us information about the Anti-War protests at Kent state university in which 4 protestors were killed. This is a useful incident to look at when studying the anti-war movement as this incident could have influenced many people’s opinions.
Source 8 is a photo of the Kent State university protest. This photo shows the National Guard firing tear gas at the protestors. It shows us that the students were willing to protest with even the National Guard in their way, although I doubt any of them thought there would be killing involved. The source does have its downsides as the photo is of poor quality and therefore very reliant on the caption that accompanies it. It does only show a split second of the protest, so we cant see what happened before or after the photo was taken. It does not show how the protestors were killed so we don’t know if the students were aggressive and maybe gave the national guard no other choice but to open fire. We would need other media sources to really see what happened as then we could cross-reference them with the photo given.
Source 9 is a speech made by President Nixon 3 days before the Kent State killings. He calls the young men in Vietnam the greatest unlike the bums, blowing up campuses, who are lucky to be going to them. This is very useful seeing as it is the view of the president and maybe more of the government shared the same view. Nixon is very critical of the protestors but he piles on the praise for the young soldiers in Vietnam. This could be questioned as it is just then presidents opinion and is likely to be biased as Nixon would want to end the anti-war protests and get on with concentrating on the war effort. This is highly likely as Nixon wasn’t exactly famous for his honesty. With the president saying these things about the protestors.
Source 10 is from an interview with the father of one of the protestors killed at the Kent State university protest. He tells how she was being called a bum just because she disagreed with someone’s views. He defended her right to protest and suggests that she was protesting because she felt it was wrong to bring the war into Cambodia and that it wasn’t just that it was fashionable to be rebellious. This could be questioned as the father is likely to still be in a state of shack and very emotional as the statement is given only a day after she was killed. As her father he is not likely to put his daughter down and rubbish her name but we can’t be sure that they were her views on Vietnam and whether it was her real reason to protest.
Source 11 is an extract from the memoirs of Richard Nixon on the subject of Kent State. He states that the days after it were among his darkest as president and that he regretted making the comment about them being bums when he read the statement by the father of one of those killed.
This could be Nixon trying to improve his image after all he said about the protestors and later the events at the Watergate.
All these sources can contribute significantly to our understanding of the anti war movement in America but they may need to be examined in conjunction with other sources that are relative to that event.
5a) How might reporters of some Newspapers have used the two photographs to represent America’s role in the Vietnam War?
Pro-war supporters would not have used the two photographs (sources 12 and 13). Source 12 shows Vietnamese children who have survived an American air force napalm attack. In the centre of the photo we can see a young Vietnamese girl, Kim, who has had all of her clothes burnt off her. She is screaming out in pain. This is just one example of what the Americans did to many children across Vietnam, although Kim was lucky to have American medics to help and look after her. This source would have been effectively used by the AWM; to show the world exactly what the US were doing in the war.
Source 13 shows us a picture of some Vietnamese peasants being rounded up to be shot. This was in the My Lai Massacre, which was one of the worst incidents to happen in this war. The war may be about communism, but it is really about innocent people being killed, women and children. This war makes war on the most innocent. Again, the AWM would use this source.
AWM newspapers, to show the world that America’s involvement in the war is hostile, and that their role is purely inhumane, could use these two sources. They were hurting and murdering the innocent.
5b)
In source 19 we have two extracts from two songs by Merle Haggard. He was a supporter of the Vietnam War, and was very stereotypical of the AWM. In his songs, he hits out at the AWM, and in his song ‘An Okie from Muskogee’ he is very personal on his view of the AWM. He says ‘We don’t let our hair grow long and shaggy, like the hippies out in San Francisco do…’ This indicates that he is talking about the AWM. He thinks that they all have long hair and are hippies. He says that ‘when they’re are running down my country, they’re walking on the fighting side of me.’ From this, we can tell that he thinks that the AWM are cowardly, and frightened to fight. Overall, he thinks that the AWM take drugs, burns their draft cards, are all hippies, have long hair, moan a lot, are cowardly, and basically live off the hard work of good American citizens. President Nixon backs this up in source 9, although we are already aware that this may not have been his true feeling. Source 7 also backs this up to an extent, as Adam Garfinkle says that being a member of the AWM was just something that was trendy for young people, maybe even to escape war, which comes back to Haggard’s point about them being cowardly.
6. According to many sources the Ant-War movement did have an impact on public opinion during the war in the 60’s and early 70’s. However we must question their relevance and reliability as well as their impact. Other sources provide evidence that the AWM was the prime influence on public opinion. There are other sources however that claim other factors were more important. Again, there are sources that attempt to sow that the AWM had the opposite effect than the one they intended. Many of these sources have questionable reliability and therefore a proper conclusion can not be drawn.
Source 5 is from a British journalist, John Pilger, in April 1971. This source is clearly pro-AWM. In it, we read about an ex-soldier of the Vietnam War, who lost his legs in action. This man, William Wyman, was speaking at a protest about his experience. He said, ‘before I lost these legs, I killed and killed and killed! Jesus doesn't grieve for me!’ He wore his green combat fatigues with tears in his jacket where he should have had medals and ribbons. This is a clear indication that he is against war, having experienced it up close and personal. This source would have had a very positive impact for the Anti-War Movement, turning people against war, because he was a soldier speaking from experience. People would be greatly influenced by this sort of thing.
Source 6 is a statement made at Fifth Avenue Peace Parade Committee, a branch of the Anti-War Movement. In this, the actions of the U.S government are compared to that of the Nazi’s during the Second World War. However, we do not know of how many supporters there were present, or the impact and influence that it had. So, I think this source does not help us much with the task.
Source 8 is a photograph from Kent State University in 1970, when there was an Anti-War Movement protest, and four protestors were shot dead by the National Guard. However, it does not show us exactly what happened, as it is just a picture from a split second of the event. It does not tell us whether or not the Anti-War Movement supporters became vicious in their protests, or why the Guards decided to shot four people dead. The fact that the armed National Guards were called in instead local law enforcement shows the how important the government saw the protests. This event did attract a lot of media attention but we don't know how much of an impact it made.
Source 14 is from David Horowitz, an anti-war radical, in 1990, talking about the effects of the Anti-War Movement. He states that the Anti-War Movement had created a power so big, that it made America withdraw from the war, and ‘changed national policy.’ He may be biased, as he was an anti-war radical, and so he would want to believe that he Anti-War Movement had a great impact on the American people and even the government. This is however his own interpretation, and we are not told if this was representative of the American people at that time as a whole. We also must consider the fact that it was written in 1990. This gives Horowitz time to reflect, and events and information may have been clouded in his memory.
Source 20 is a source from Gloria Emerson, a member of the Anti-War Movement. In this source we learn that she used to take time off work to attend Anti-War Movement demonstrations. She said that the movement made a difference to everyone who took part. In her own opinion, Vietnam would have been nuked if it wasn’t for the Anti-War Movement. So, it is clear that she does believe that they influenced the U.S government and public. It also shows that not all protestors were "bums" as Nixon had said or "long haired hippies high on marijuana" as Hagarrd had portrayed them. This woman had a job and took time of work to protest. However, we need to examine this source to determine its reliability. We know that Gloria Emerson was an Anti-War Movement supporter, so she is possibly biased. The fact that this source was written in 1972 means that she still may have been influenced by recent events, which is in comparison to Horowitz in source 14, where he had time to reflect on the whole era. She doesn’t make the same claims as Horowitz. This source is also her own interpretation of the impact of the Anti-War Movement. Therefore this source does appear to be heavily opinionated, but it is still however very useful to an historian.
Sources 1 gives us information about whom opposed the war, left-wing radicals, pacifists and liberals. It gives us the figures for the war demonstration, 25,000 people. However it is a very short extract and it may have left things out. It doesn't talk about why people began to oppose the war, which would be useful with the task at hand.
Source 9 is a speech made by President Nixon. This source shows that the Anti-War Movement had made an impact on the American people as Nixon made an attack on it. In it he said, "You think of those kids out there. They are the greatest. You see theses bums blowing up the campuses." The President doesn't make an attack against you unless you're influential.
Sources 12 and 13 may also have had an impact upon the public, and the Anti-War Movement would have used these two photographs to show exactly what was happening out in Vietnam. We can only presume that these would have had a positive effect on behalf on the Anti-War Movement.
There is a lot of evidence showing that the Anti-War Movement did make an impact of the American people. However, there is also evidence that opposes this view. These sources try to put forward the feeling the Anti-War Movement did in fact prolong the war, instead of helping the American Government come to a speedy resolution.
Source 19 shows the lyrics from two songs by Merle Haggard, ‘An Okie from Muskogee,’ and ‘The Fighting Side of Me.’ Through these songs, Haggard claims that the Anti-War Movement had a negative effect on Americans, portraying them as bums and hippies. He shows them to be unpatriotic. This source alone would have had a great impact on his listeners and possibly made them turn on the Anti-War Movement. Perhaps this was a factor of the prolonged war. However, this is merely Haggard’s personal view of the Anti-War Movement. He may have influenced others, although we do not know for sure.
In source 15 Adam Garfinkle speaks out against the Anti-War Movement, saying that they simply prolonged war and many Americans felt pressure to support the Anti-War Movement because it was popular. This portrays the Anti-War Movement as more of a trend than anything else. This source was written in 1995, which give Garfinkle time to reflect and gave an opportunity to examine a wide range of evidence. We would need to cross-reference his claims with other texts, as it seems opinionated.
We must analyse sources that suggest that the Anti-War Movement was not the main reason for public opinion turning against the war. There were many other factors as well, such as the media, military arguments or economic arguments.
In source 4 we read about two democratic politicians who speak at a National Convention. Governor Warren Hearnes holds a very different view to that of Kenneth O’Donnell. Hearnes supports the war and the government in it’s actions, but O’Donnell claims that there is no need to spend $30 billion a year in their foreign endeavours, when they could invest it into American society. His argument is about the economy. So, it is clear that there are other factors, which may turn people against the war, and the government. Although these are only the personal views of the two politicians, they would have had an impression upon others, as they were speaking with other politicians present in a conference.
Source 16 is from a British television commentator, Robin Day, in 1989. He tells us that it would be very hard to ever fight another war again, because of the brutality of the Vietnam War shown of TV. He argues media coverage, mainly TV, had a big influence on people. He says that the media’s coverage was unrestricted, and so it didn't hold back. The source may be reliable as he is British and so he would be less involved or effected by the war, which may have made him less bias. However source 17 directly opposes this, saying that television had encouraged a majority of television viewers to support the war. Knightly talks about a survey carried out by Newsweek in 1967. We do not know
the question asked, we are not told the number of people asked, and what types of people were asked. This source may not be reliable and we would need to cross-reference with other sources before making a final decision.
Source 18, a statement made by Harry Summers (colonel during the Vietnam War) in 1989. Summers doesn't think the media was responsible for American people turning against the war. He says that after 1967, public sentiment was ‘win the war or get the hell out.’ They wanted a result. He said that support for the government dropped once the public realised that they wouldn't win. This is a view from a colonel, someone who has a lot of experience in the military. He can't really speak for the American population, but he can for the military. This seems to be a reliable source, and it gives us a military perspective that is hard to come by. However he seems to dismiss the media's apparent part rather quickly and it is a short extract, so again it would need to be cross-referenced before passing judgement.
There appears to be a great deal of evidence in relation to the question at hand but still not enough evidence to come to a firm and concise conclusion. Some sources believe that the Anti-War Movement had an impact, but others believe that there were other factors that were more important, and that the Anti-War Movement played a minor role and didn't make as great an impact as some sources imply. New evidence is always appearing so the question can never really be answered so no historian will ever really have the full answer
.