Explain why the US withdrew its forces from the Vietnam War in 1973

Authors Avatar

Jenny Stalker

Explain why the US withdrew its forces from the Vietnam War in 1973.

In the early 1960s, the American president, John F. Kennedy pledged financial and military aid to the struggling South Vietnam. As political unrest grew the support from a war in North Vietnam grew and 1963, and with John Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, President Johnson felt that, to keep in with the U.S. foreign policy of containment, he would have to send a vast amount of young soldiers into Vietnam to help fight the rising influence of the Viet Cong. For over ten years, the U.S. pledged thousands of young troops and billions in financial aid until public opinion and guerilla tactics forced the U.S. to withdrawal from Vietnam, claiming that they hadn’t been defeated but that they had left in their own right. But in reality, a tiny, lesser economically developed country had successfully defeated a new super power. This was due to many reasons, both short and long-term, such as the political unrest in the U.S., fighting conditions, military tactics and lack of trained unity within the U.S. forces, all of which will be dealt with in this essay.

In the mid-1800s, Vietnam was colonized by French forces, which imposed dramatic political and cultural changes on to the country. And though they helped boost the country’s economy, fuelled by exports, the French government often ignore calls for self-government and to improve human rights in Vietnam. The French continued their control of Vietnam, until shortly after World War 2, when Japanese forces invaded the country; using the natural resources in Vietnam to continue their wars against British forces in the colonies of Burma, Malay and India.

In 1941, the Japanese government lost control of the colony of Vietnam and a communist and nationalist liberation movement emerged under Ho Chi Minh, who set up a provisional government in Hanoi, desperate for Vietnam to finally be an independent nation. As fighting broke out between Ho Chi Minh’s forces in the north and loyalists in the south, China began to support Ho Chi Minh’s forces, and the North Vietnamese were beginning to be seen as an ally of China and a threat to the US.

The U.S. foreign policy, at the time, was dominated by a fear of communism and a need to contain it from spreading throughout the world. The witch hunts and warmongering caused by McCarthyism, an intense way of anticommunist behavior seen throughout the U.S. in the 1950s, this insured that the American people feared the spread of communism and felt that the Vietnam War was a device they could use to stop the “Domino Effect”, which suggested that the whole of Asia would eventually be controlled by communist states, much like what happened in Eastern Europe under Joseph Stalin. This theory acted as justification for the U.S. foreign policy. As the fighting escalated, the U.S. poured $500 million dollars a year into the new French war effort, desperate for them to set up a democratic government in the south. The Geneva Peace agreements separated the country into two, following the 17th parallel, and the example of Korea. This was only meant to be temporary, and the unification of the countries put up for vote in 1956.

Join now!

The US foreign policy was one of ignorance and determination. In fact, the 1956 vote didn’t take place due to US interferance because of their fear that the population would support Ho Chi Minh. Eisenhower said; ‘80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist,’ Instead they changed the agreement, sponsoring a new, democratic government in the South, giving over $1.6 billion dollars in financial aid to the state. This action lead to the election of Ngo Dinh Diem and the start of presidential rule over South Vietnam. As a strict, rich catholic, Diem’s regime alienated ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

Avatar

This is a very well written and detailed response that demonstrates excellent understanding of the key reasons for US withdrawal, with clear links to the question throughout. At times, the counterargument could have been considered more thoroughly and lengthily narrative could have been cut to make the response more concise. The lack of a conclusion is a significant weakness. 4 out of stars.