This source does have its limitations also, because it is only a snapshot of one moment. Also, it was possible the US soldiers did give help medically. This was seen by U.S. public, who were horrified & didn’t want to be part of the US.
This source is quite biased because it only shows U.S. attack victims and also there’s no sign of communist atrocities.
Source F, is the American view of the difficulties of fighting guerrillas. It was written by an American journalist, Richard Hamer in 1970.
The intended audience was the U.S. public. This source is anti-war; ‘The end justifies the means’, this is saying it doesn’t matter how you win the war, spraying napalm is not the way to win ‘hearts & minds’.
This source tells us that the US soldiers did not know their enemy, as normal peasants were attacking them. “Did one of them [peasants] lob the mortar? If so which one? Should you kill all of them or none of them?” U.S. soldiers were using wrong tactics to persuade civilians to be on their side, “One does not defoliate [destroy vegetation in] a country and deform its people with chemicals if one is attempting to persuade them of the foe’s evil nature”.
This source is biased because it suggests that the U.S. tactics were counter productive, meaning the attacks weren’t working. It’s criticising the American tactics.
In the same way, this source is limited because it doesn’t tell us anything about TV forcing the U.S. to leave Vietnam, but however some media is critical. It doesn’t say anything about how the TV might have made the U.S. to leave but how counter productive the U.S. tactics was.
Source G, is the aftermath of the My Lai massacre of 1968. It shows the reactions of an American soldier after having been told about the massacre of 347 unarmed civilians at My Lai in 1968.
This source is trying not to blame the soldiers. It’s suggesting that the soldiers had good motives “they were going to do something courageous on behalf of their country.” It mentions how the soldier thought it was the ‘American ideal’ to go to Vietnam, to fight. They wanted to be part of the good America, who is there to help when a problem occurs [Truman Doctrine].
This source can be said to be biased because, it says how an American soldier is criticising the American behaviour in Vietnam; only shows the typical reaction of an American soldier [one point of view]. The soldier talks about ho he felt it was a ‘Nazi thing’. “You know, it was a Nazi thing. We didn’t go there to be Nazis. At least none of the people I knew went there to be Nazis.” When the Nazis behaved, this way, American soldiers went to stop them.
However, there are limitations to this source, because there is no real reference, My Lai was featured on TV, also the soldiers reactions were typical. TV plays a big part in this war, but unfortunately coverage of My Lai, helps change opinions.
Source H, is a primary source, it shows how money and resources which should have been spent on Johnson’s ‘Great Society’ being wasted in the war in Vietnam.
This source is limited because, TV is irrelevant here. Because it’s a pictorial source it’s aimed at a British, not American source.
The intended audience are the British public because if the U.S. public seen this pictorial, they’d wonder why this is happening, what happened to the ‘Great Society’? And whether Johnson was lying to them or not.
Source J, shows a photograph of an anti-war protest in the USA. The photograph is from an American school textbook showing anti-war demonstrations at Kent State University in 1970. It’s a primary source and the intended audience were the American students.
The photograph shows there was a massive demonstration at Kent State University. Also, this demonstration at the university was anti-war because the main pass in the U.S. was watching T.V. These people have seen what’s happening in My Lai and what the American troops have done, and as we can see, they don’t like what they have seen.
This source was aimed at an American audience, mainly at students. This demonstration would have been broadcasted.
This source is limited in several ways because it only shows how the U.S. draft-dodgers reacted to what the American troops did in Vietnam, and no one else.
Source K, is the results of an Australian public opinion polls; a primary source. It was produced between 1969 and 1970. The results show the public opinions as to whether they wanted the war to be brought back home or not. This source would not have any influence on American opinions or thoughts as it was done in Australia, therefore the U.S. public wouldn’t have seen this and it’s only Australia’s choice what they take.
Would the results from the Australian public’s opinion be similar to the U.S. public’s opinion? Yes, they would be similar because the U.S. pastime are watching T.V. so they know exactly what is going on down there in Vietnam, and because they don’t want to be a part of this, they wouldn’t want the American troops [their family/friends] to continue. And the more they watch or receive news; the majority of the U.S. public would agree with bringing back the U.S. troops home.
However, this source is limited because there is no provenance so we wouldn’t know who it would be aimed at, or who wrote it, and when it was written.
Source L, is an irrelevant source because no information is given about how or why the power of television might of lead America to leave Vietnam.
In addition, no provenance is given, so we wouldn’t know who the audience were, who written the source or when it might have been done; whether it’s a secondary or primary source would also have been questioned.
This source doesn’t support the statement of influencing the U.S. public to become anti-war because it’s a school assignment to study different subjects of history, and is so irrelevant.
To conclude, sources E & J give the U.S. public a clear vision as to why the American troops began to change their mind about the war. Both these sources could support the answer ‘Yes’; when answering ‘Did the power of television force the United States to leave Vietnam?’ because source E made Americans hate Vietnam Veterans and ask for withdrawal of American soldiers. Also it could have been used as propaganda statement. Whereas, during the time source J was published the U.S. past time was watching T.V. and were angry of what they were part of, they didn’t want to be part of this anymore. They wanted the U.S. soldiers to come back home, so they protested! This did contribute as to why the media force leads United States to leave Vietnam.
Finally, the rest of the four sources give us un-useful information and pictures, which would not have made a difference on the public U.S. opinions, or as to why the U.S. troops left Vietnam.
