Vietnam Sources Questions

These 3 sources can not be generalized as it is not the view and attitude that all American politicians have making these sources an adequacy issue it is also one sided.

Question 3

Study sources 5,6&7. How far do these sources explain why Americans supported the Anti-War Movement?

Source 5 is written by a British Journalist named John Pilger in 1971. By 1971 many Americans were disillusioned by the war even those who had fought in the war were protesting, even as the war continued. This shows precisely how the public felt about the war, disgusted and angry. Those who fought in Vietnam felt if they were murderers. The public also felt strongly about the way the war was being conducted and that the brutality of the war was almost unrecognized and the mass amount of injuries and pain in which the soldiers had to face was excruciating. Pilger is also keen to consider the negative side of the war as he acknowledges how the Americans slaughtered thousands and were unable to justify their actions "The good guys are really the bad guys in disguise." In addition this source contains extremely emotive language, for example, "Never before in this country have young soldiers marched in protest against the war in which themselves have fought and which is still going on."

Source 6 is a statement from the Peace Parade Committee in 1967. This source highlights the demand to end young Americans being drafted into Vietnam. This source compliments the pervious source as it doesn't agree with the brutality that's taking place in Vietnam and that the Americans are the "good guys" but instead are exercising "aggressive war making policies."

In source 7 Adam Garfinkle us that "students are rebellious" and that their opinion has less importance to it as it was a fashionable thing then to be rebellious. That is why students rebel against the war according to Adam Garfinkle.

All three of these sources give us a better understanding of the anti-war movement but three sources alone are inadequacy as we do not get any of the views of the all the American people as only a small percent of America's population turned out for the protest. As well all the Veterans are not presents at the protest indicating that they all didn't agree. I believe it would be an inaccurate conclusion to say that all Americans supported the anti-war movement there were many other people such as Adam Garfinkle despised the students and saw them as "rebellious" ,and that they had no worthy reason of protesting and that they only prolonged the war.

Question 4

Study the sources 8,9,10&11. In what ways would a historian studying the anti-war movement in the USA find these sources useful?

After studying the four sources I have acknowledge the usefulness of the sources in developing my understanding in the Kent state tragedy and specifically I gained insight on to the Kent state incident and Nixon's possible involvement and the role he played. The utility is helped by the fact that it is a visual snap shot of history. The photograph is a contemporary picture taken on the 4th May. In the photograph we see what appears to be a grenade or tear gas. In addition it seems that the two groups are at battle with each other. We are under the impression that the National Guards have drawn banonets and rifles.

Source 8 is beneficial because of the immediacy of the evidence and we can empathize with visual evidence like this easily. It allows us to comprehend complex political concerns like the anti-war movement in an accessible form, conversely we must be cautious of accepting this evidence at face value as photos can be staged of even air brushed for propaganda reasons.

Source 9 is a speech by Nixon on the 1st of May (three days before the Kent State confrontation). In this extract Nixon describes the campus students as "BUMS" and not worthy of respect, unlike those soldiers in Vietnam. It is possible that the National Guards were influenced preconditioned towards violence in opposition to the student by the speech. Its feasible that it effected their actions. The National Guards thought their deeds were justified by Nixon's words.

Source 10 is a statement by Arthur Krause who's daughter was killed at Kent. The berates his governments because she was assassinated simply because she "disagreed with someone else's opinion." The father speaks immediately after the tragedy with great dignity and it is useful as it represents the re-evaluations by Americans of his generation about their attitudes to the war. Kent state emphasis a significant turning point in the direction of American from involvements in the war.

Source 11 is from Nixon's memoirs. He refers to the Kent State episode and attempts to offer a retrospective justification for his own actions, proclaiming that that period was "amongst the darkest days of his presidency" but the source really indicates how deeply the U.S split over Vietnam as four years after the war ends Nixon is still trying to excuse his actions.

reasons for rebelling except that "they were young."

Questions 6

Study all the sources.

"The anti-war movement had little impact on the attitude of the American people to the war in Vietnam."

Explain whether you agree or disagree with this statement.

I think that it is inconceivable that the Anti-War movement had little impact on ending the war as shown in source in source 1. It reveals immediately the impact of the Anti-war movement. Source 1 also reveals that the largest ever Anti-war movement demonstration. The demonstration occurred in Washington D.C on December 1964 and the movement consisted of three board types of supports, Pacifists, Liberals and those with left-wing opinion. It was in it nascent form.

Source 2 confirms the growth of the war opposition, and significantly how support for the war collapsed as people in the U.S reflected on the impact in their lives. People re-accessed political views as they re-evaluated their opinions.

Source 3 and 4 acknowledge that support was drawn in 1968. Hearns emphatically endorses the campaign as Acheson who is optimistic of victory "We can and will win".

However, the 'gung-ho' philosophy was to be challenged by the anti-war movement as it seems that in source 2 and also source 4 where "Doves" like O'Donnell are appalled by the "Foreign Adventure".

In source 7 Garfinkle does not diminish this argument of the massive impact of the movement on U.S. society. Interestingly enough though he does not suggest that the youth motivation to demonstrate was determined by the fact that they were young " they opposed it because they were young".

Sources 5 and 6 are extremely persuasive in providing evidence of the accelerating conversion in favour of the anti-war movement. Wyman is representative of the generation of young traumatized, physically and emotionally by their horrifying experiences of Vietnam. "He has ripped away his medals given in exchange for his legs".

3000,000 of those veterans "marched in protest against the war in which they themselves have fought and which is still going on".

The Peace Committee of 5th Avenue again mirrored similar organization set up across American cities who rejected the "aggressive war making policies" of their own government.

Sources 8 to 11 are also consistent with the impression that the support for the war was ebbing the Kent State Tragedy was a massive turn around in the war as it was a catalyst that changed the perceptions of the older generations of America. Krause dignified response showed progress as he reflected on the injustice of his daughter's death because she "disagreed with the actions of her government".

Unfortunately, these deaths impacted less in the embellishment since Nixon even in 1968 reveals his lack of understanding of the strength of the movement.

The two photographs in sources 12 and 13 indicate the type of evidence emerging from Vietnam at the time repulse and change opinions about the war. The contemporary release of these images betrayed the immorality and recruitment is the anti-war movement.

In sources 14 and 15 we might expect a self-declared radical of the Anti-War Movement like Horowitz to claim credit for accelerating the end of the Vietnam War. He proclaims that "we changed national p0ooicy in the most dramatic way".

Conversely, Adam Garfinkle, who also opposed the war believed that the movement prolonged the war because the everyday American weren't willing to be associated with the undesirables who opposed the war.

Accordingly to sources 16 and 17 media gave weight to the Anti-War Movement. Robin Day is convinced that "blood looks very red on colour television screens", implying that this added momentum to the opposition of war. On the other hand, knightly argues, based on the Newsweek survey that "64% of viewers replied that they were moved to support the soldiers and 24% to oppose war".

Finally in source 18, Summers, a combat Colonel in Vietnam, placed responsibility for the loss of Vietnam firmly on the government's lack of resolve to "win the damn war or get the hell out" and he marginalizes contribution of protestors.

Having reviewed all the arguments in the sources I believe that the Anti-War Movement had a significant impact on ending the war as it was a dramatic time in American History, and many people relied on their government to make the right choices. As the government wasn't doing so it was the responsibility of those who disagreed with the war to take a stand and put pressure on the government to withdraw from the war.

Micheal McAughey History Course Work 12A