Vietnam and the AWM Sources Questions

Authors Avatar

Vietnam and the AWM                 By Phil Hart.

1

Sources one and two both present the same viewpoint. Source 1 shows that there wasn’t that much opposition the war whenever it began. The only people who disagreed were pacifists, left wingers, and people who didn’t believe in supporting authoritarian governments. The protest march made on Washington was small (only 25,000 people) but it shows there was indeed a solid base for the AWM to grow.

Source 2 shows that in 1965 most people supported the war but within the next six years the AWM began to grow in support and eventually out numbered those who supported the war. As the support for the AWM increased the number of people with no opinion decreased. This shows the influence the AWM had on previously neutral people.

2.

Sources 1-4 are of reliable to a certain extent, but each individual source has questions that must be asked about it. Source 1 is taken from a textbook and is therefore generalised and is attempting to give a neutral view. The date it was written has an influence on its perspectives, e.g.: 1967 as opposed to 1973. We also need to ask Who wrote it? Has the author got his sources from a wide spectrum?. All these questions are unanswerable, as we are not given enough information. .. Source 2 is quite reliable as well because the poll is taken over a long period. However we need to know how the  question was phrased and if any major events which might sway peoples opinions, such as Kent State or My Lai, happened near any of the times the poll was taken.

. We also need to know how many people were asked. Were there any events that may have influenced opinion? Again, we are not given any of this information. This graph was publicised, and therefore it could have major influence on some people. This source backs up source 1, it is useful in the sense that it gives a very rough view of peoples opinions.                                                                     Source 3 is from an American advisor speaking in 1967 during the war. He seems very positive that the US will win the war, and that communism will be defeated. This could be part of the propaganda war, as it acts as a confidence act for potential soldiers. We are not sure whether or not this is complete government opinion at the time. But, this source is purely opinion, with no fact to back it up. It only shows us one viewpoint. It is likely this statement is a response to the failure of the US’s ground and air attempts to wipe out the Vietcong, Acheson is trying to tell the public that t his is not the case .This source does not support source 1 or 2 in any way.

As we see in source 4, argument was  already at the  highest level within the Democratic Party by 1968. Governor Warren Hearnes supports the war, and thinks that America should keep their troops in Vietnam, and maybe even step up the numbers. Kenneth O’Donnell is another member of the same party, yet he is in opposition to Hearnes. O’Donnell’s argument is an economic one. In O’Donnell’s view, America should stop pouring money into supporting dictators and killing peasants, and put it into their own country, to increase their quality of life. So, we only have two opposing viewpoints here, but we are not told which view the majority of the Democratic Party hold. I think the reliability is limited, as both views are biased, as they are personal opinions. Also, we have to question why these men were so passionate in their approach. IT is likely to be because the two men are making speeches, politicians are always very up beat and tend to exaggerate when making speeches. Also, I think it may have been because it was a massive convention, and may be a result of both men with a devoted desire to impress amidst other politicians. They were in the spotlight of the entire Democratic Party. This source contains two viewpoints, and therefore it backs up sources 1, 2 and 3 in some ways.                  

The sources that we have looked at are all of limited reliability, as they are all opinions and statistical, and are not backed up with hard fact. If these sources are to be more useful to an Historian, and then we would need to use them along side with other sources, in which we could cross-reference them.

3.

These 3 sources do give us some of the reasons explaining why Americans supported the anti-war movement. Source 5 is an article by a British reporter in 1971 about a demonstration on the steps of the United States congress with about 300,000 people in attendance. It tells us the speech made by a Vietnam veteran who had lost his legs but there were also hundreds of other veteran there as well. This shows us that the American soldiers who had experienced the war were speaking out against it. They saw that it was wrong and wanted to change people’s perception that it was the right thing to do. It could seem to people who seen this demonstration that if the soldiers who were fighting in this war saw it was wrong they would see it as wrong too. As a British journalist writes the source he could be unbiased in his writings, this would make it useful. Although this is the view of hundreds of veterans in the Vietnam War there were a lot more soldiers involved and they might have had a different view.

Join now!

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 ...

This is a preview of the whole essay