Why were the anti Vietnam movements so popular?
Ashley Wicken
Why were the anti Vietnam movements so popular?
In 1965, a majority of Americans supported U.S. policies in Vietnam; by autumn 1967, only 35 percent did so. For the first time, more people thought U.S. intervention in Vietnam had been a mistake than did not. The popularity of the anti war movement can be traced to five central factors; Strong student opposition; the social and political climate within the US; continued state aggression in the face of public opposition; the lack of valid reasons why the war should continue; finally opposition came when the war appeared unwinnable. These factors all contributed to increase the popularity of the anti war movement.
Vietnam was in the 1950's a colony of France. Conflict between the two nations was always high. The first link between the United States and Vietnam can be found in this decade when President Harry Truman partly funded France in the conflict, a relationship extended by Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy. The United States was tied political, economic, and militarily to Vietnam. Members of the American senate were vocal in their condemnation of their countries involvement in Vietnam during the summer of 1964. This inspired the anti Vietnam war movement that appeared in the following year. The anti war movement was to be of a scale never before seen within the US.
Teach-ins are mass public demonstrations organized and based around universities. The first teach-in against the Vietnamese war was held on March 24 1965 at the University of Michigan, this first display of opposition was mirrored in numerous other campuses around the US. The fact that these protests spread to so many middle class elitist universities captured much public and press attention. The teach-ins were reliant upon students being able to mobilize, this was only possible during term times and so the teach-ins were only partially effective. The success of the teach-ins can be seen in the fact that they acted as propaganda for their cause, whilst also reminding the government that their authority is bound by popular will and that the people would not allow for an abuse of this authority. The movement therefore was able to gain significant momentum from the teach-ins whilst also developing their arguments.
The unification of the Teach-ins under the "Inter-University Committee for a Public Hearing on Vietnam" 1consolidated the position of the Anti-war movements. Nationwide teach-ins were set up with extensive television and radio coverage, giving exposure to their cause. Debates between protesters and administrators also took place, leading to Mc George Bundy and other politicians being forced to resign as a direct result of their poor performance in these debates. These well-publicized debates made the antiwar effort "more respectable"2, as if professional politicians couldn't win or hold their own in debates with student then perhaps the basis for their war effort was flawed.
Skepticism within the government clearly contributed to the size of the anti war movement. It gave both legitimacy and respectability to the cause. As early as the summer of 1965, Undersecretary of State, George Ball counseled President Johnson against further military involvement in Vietnam. In "1967 Johnson fired Defense Secretary McNamara after the secretary expressed concern about the moral justifications for war." Internal state opposition with perhaps the above exception focused on pragmatic rather than moral reasons for opposition. State officials often believed that the cost of winning the war was simply too high.
Two problems plagued the antiwar movements. Members of the movement questioned its effectiveness this in turn caused declines in membership and hindered the organization of protests and the maintenance of antiwar groups, and aggravating dissension over strategies and tactics. This "infighting continued to sap energy, alienate activists, and hamper antiwar planning."3 The U.S. government attempted to exaggerate these divides but they were largely internally generated. Nevertheless the anti war movements were on the whole large, organized and effective in putting forward their arguments in the earlier years. The youth movement set in motion the protest but was later ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Two problems plagued the antiwar movements. Members of the movement questioned its effectiveness this in turn caused declines in membership and hindered the organization of protests and the maintenance of antiwar groups, and aggravating dissension over strategies and tactics. This "infighting continued to sap energy, alienate activists, and hamper antiwar planning."3 The U.S. government attempted to exaggerate these divides but they were largely internally generated. Nevertheless the anti war movements were on the whole large, organized and effective in putting forward their arguments in the earlier years. The youth movement set in motion the protest but was later unable to drive the cause to its end, due to internal division and conflict.
There was a growing social trend towards extreme liberalism within 1960's and 70's America. The hippy movement embodied this shift. They were very passionate about many issues, peace being of central importance to them and their ideology. This movement came to its strongest in the summer of 1967 during the period known as "the summer of love" the very time the war was raging. The war, to the hippies caused great distress and they joined the Anti war effort in huge numbers. The strength of the Anti war groups was enhanced by the social morality of America's youths at this period. The huge Woodstock festival illustrated the size of this movement the music was coupled with anti war messages.
The hippy movement didn't have a purely positive effect upon the anti war movement. Although they were enthusiastic members of the opposition, their methods and culture were often viewed as distasteful. Hippies would jeer, spit use violence against soldiers, soldiers that may have opposed the war with as much intensity as the hippies. Therefore in 1969 when the Hippies started to replace the clean cut SDS members as leaders of the peace movements a divide between mainstream support and the movements was established. The middle class largely opposed the war but opposed the hippy counter culture with equal hatred. This divide damaged the movement as it meant that mass gatherings weren't as unified and strong as they otherwise would have been.
Civil Rights activists also joined the anti war movement. The leaders of Civil Rights movements emerged as key anti war protesters. An article written for the Chicago Defender, 1967 by Martin Luther King, Jr. expressed support for the antiwar movement on moral grounds. In April at the Riverside Church in New York, he raised more pragmatic problems associated with the war; suggesting that resources were being "wasted" on the war effort that could be better used in the domestic program. He brought the anti war movement and the black rights movement closer together when he spoke on the percentage of African American casualties in relation to the total population, 10% of American was black and yet 25% of casualties were black. This integration of the two causes brought much support from large sections of the Black American population and acted to establish a new moral motivation for objecting to the war. Sections of the women‚s rights movements dedicated themselves to the withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam as well.
Vietnam was known as a T.V war. Unlike the Korean War and World War Two, there was no press censorship in Vietnam. The result of this was to bring home "live uncensored pictures" that shocked certainly aided the development of the anti war movement. The le Mai Lai massacre is the point in case. The horrific scenes of 109 civilians killed by Lieutenant William Calley met with huge social outcry and lead directly to his trial and imprisonment. This event was of hugely significance to the movement as it the cultural divisions within the movement were now forgotten and the movement again unified behind the anti war effort.
The state aggression also contributed to the war movements. In 1965 The US government expanded their war effort, bombing large areas of North Vietnam. This acted as a "catalyst to the antiwar movements"4, these bombings are often seen as the real driving force that caused the mass social movements. The popularity of the anti war movements was further compounded by the stream of American casualties coming back to the US and also by the wounded soldiers returning home with horror stories of their experiences in Vietnam. In response a bombing pause was introduced from the 12th to the 17th of May in 1965. The pause was not a sign that the war may soon end as in fact the war effort grew, Air sorties increased, from "25,000 in 1965 to 79,000 in 1966."5.
The most important anti-war protest took place in 1967 it was a huge march on the Pentagon. President Johnson under tremendous pressure to salvage the situation appealed to the public with news of successes in the war. Although this may have appeared a blow to the protesters it turned out to be a blessing to them in the long term. Johnson had lied the war was actually going badly and it looked as if the US could not win. Johnson's lies were exposed in the Tet offensive. This was an offensive by the Vietnamese in early 1968, in which the US lost over 1000 units a devastating blow, although it was a military victory, as the Vietnamese lost many times more units without gaining any ground. Ironically this "victory" lead to huge growths in the anti war protest. The war now looked as if it could not be won. The losses both human and economic were too much for the US public especially given that no valid purpose or benefit appeared to come from the war. This was the first time Americans would oppose the war because they didn't believe they could win. The Marches had "ultimately contributed to the redirection of the American policy in Vietnam and by 1968 the destruction of the presidency of Lyndon Johnson". In November 1969 over 250,000 people staged a massive demonstration against the war in protest.
The next president Nixon made one last ditch aggressive plan to attack "Cambodian sanctuaries to destroy communist command-and-supply buildings, while containing the protest".6 His plan failed as minutes after the US announced having entered the region protest began. The protest was further intensified by the Kent university killings. On May 4th 1970 four protesters were shot dead by police. This caused demonstrations on hundreds of college campuses "paralyzing America's higher-education systems."7 "Between May 4 and May 8, campuses experienced an average of 100 demonstrations a day, 350 campus strikes, 536 colleges shut down, and 73 colleges reported significant violence in their protests."8 Non student groups also protested "Nobel science laureates, State Department officers, the American Civil Liberties Union"9 called for withdrawal. "Congress began threatening the Nixon administration"10 with challenges to presidential authority.100,000 people gathered in Washington in protest the following weekend. In 1971 60% of Americans opposed the war.
The already angry and frustrated public was further outraged by the Pentagon papers, published in 1971 by the New York Times, "tales of drug trafficking, political assassinations, and indiscriminate bombings"11 created a feeling that the military was corrupt and had lost all accountability. Antiwar protest was no longer confused by its own internal division it became a normal reaction against the war. Dissent dominated America, "the antiwar cause had become institutionalized."12 When on January 1973, Nixon announced the end of the US involvement in Vietnam; he did so with "a mandate unequaled in modern times13."
It appears to be the case that the greater the aggression of the Government the greater the resistance became. The US government's lies and repeated acts against the will of the people therefore contributed to the strength and popularity of the anti-war movements.
The antiwar movements were so strong because the state itself had few valid reasons for going and continuing the war. In an attempt to curb the growth of opposition, supporters of the war argued from two perspectives. Firstly the domino theory, proposing that communism was less a political doctrine and more a disease that would, left unattended, spread uncontrollably throughout South East Asia. The domino theory was never fully validated. Especially given that communism in the region remained fairly contained even after US withdrawal.
The second argument suggested that American citizens should support the war out of a loyalty to their nation and soldiers. This "support for our boys in Vietnam" argument, appears to contradict the liberal democratic premise of the American political system. If loyalty to ones Nation defines the opinions of its citizens then all state policy would unquestioned, then it is peculiar that a Liberal Democratic nation would produce such a slogan. Even if we concede that this second argument is valid as a general rule, it is still problematic to support the war in Vietnam given its context; as the troops at war branded peace symbols and held anti war protests in conjunction with those being organized the US. In "November 1969 antiwar Mobilization, a unit boycotted its Thanksgiving Day dinner". "Individual acts of rebellion, raging from desertion to killing officers who ordered search-and-destroy missions, merged into mutinies and large-scale resistance."14 By 1970, over fifty underground newspapers operated on military bases. The following year 17.7% of US soldiers were listed as AWOL. In 1972 one in four US soldiers had mutinied or defied military orders. Paradoxically "support for our boys in Vietnam" 15 would entail joining rather than opposing the peace movements.
The arguments put forward for the War were highly questionable, "Vietnam Day," held at Berkeley in October 1965, attracted thousands to debate the moral basis of the war, this when coupled with the exposure in the press of this event left many people disillusioned with their government and ready to join the struggle. "The entire nation was now aware that the foundations of administration foreign policy were being widely questioned."16
The antiwar movements were able to succeed in stopping the war. The organized and motivated American youth had set in motion movement that snowballed into a huge mass movement. Continued American governments acting against the wishes of their people and against appears to be the more valid argument all clearly contributed to the anti war movement's popularity. Most importantly the political educated, active and agitated America of the late 1960's and 70's acted as a fertile base from which opposition could flourish.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Gaullucci, Robert L. Neither Peace Nor Honor. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975.
Rosen, Ruth. Vietnam project, http://projects.mvhs.net/anti-war/campus.htm electronic library
Barringer, mark and Tom Wells. The Anti-War Movement in the United States, http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/antiwar.html
Author not available. Vietnam anti war movements http://www.studyworld.com/Antiwar_Movement.htm.
Electric Library http://projects.mvhs.net/anti-war/campus.htm Ruth Rosen
2 http://projects.mvhs.net/anti-war/
3 http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/antiwar.html
4 http://projects.mvhs.net/anti-war/
5
6 http://projects.mvhs.net/anti-war/
7 http://www.cyberessays.com/History/168.htm author and publisher unavailable
8 http://www.studyworld.com/Antiwar_Movement.htm author and publisher unavaible
9 http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/antiwar.html
0 http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/antiwar.html
1 http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/antiwar.html
2 http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/antiwar.html
3 http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/antiwar.html
4 http://www.studyworld.com/Antiwar_Movement.htm
5 Electric Library http://projects.mvhs.net/anti-war/campus.htm Ruth Rosen
6 http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/antiwar.html
