On the political side to why America became increasingly involved in Vietnam was mostly to gain their own reputation as a feared and undefeated power and also to gain status and prestige towards other nations. President Kennedy sent American military experts to South Vietnam to train Vietnamese to make people of America realise that he is not a weak President and is tough on communism. Whereas after President Kennedy’s assassination in 1963 the new President, Lyndon Johnson was well-known to be soft on communism. I think that he acted to please the American nation and prove them wrong since they wanted a more aggressive war against the communists in Hanoi.
At the ‘Gulf of Tonkin’ incident South Vietnamese commando attacked North Vietnamese radar stations in the ‘Gulf of Tonkin’ during the night of 31st July 1964. The American ‘USS Maddox ship’ aided the South by simply monitoring the signals sent out by the radar stations. On the morning of the 2nd of August three North Vietnamese torpedo boats headed straight for the Maddox, which was still in the area. One of them hit the ship but it did not explode. At first President Johnson took lightly towards the bombing of the USS Maddox as there were no casualties but one might believe that later he realised that it was time to gain revenge and destroy his label as being soft on communism.
To conclude, a unanimous but expected decision was made by President Johnson, he decided to go to war with the communist forces of Vietnam as this would convince other nations to have a good impression towards the United States and also increase their reputation as a feared power. I would say that the catalyst, if any, for the war breaking out was the USS Maddox ships been under attack by the North Vietnamese as this not only gave the Americans an excuse but something to have revenge over. As a result of America being increasingly involved, this would also stop communism spreading and the cold war would come to an end. The domino theory would be abolished and President Johnson would no more be referred to as been soft on communism.
America’s motivation to be involved in Vietnam came from all the points above, however the NFL also played a big role in Americas involvement as they persuaded America to defend the South of Vietnam because if the Vietcong and NFL succeed in their task (reunite North Vietnam with South, get rid of Americans) it would be very difficult or too late to eliminate communism from spreading.
Q2. Study Source A. Do you agree with this interpretation of the problems faced by United States Soldiers in Vietnam?
I am persuaded to agree with Source A, since where the source indicates that, “Soldiers were most likely to die in the first month”, the main reason for this could have been because of booby traps, ambushes and tunnels the Vietcong had set-up towards the Americans, also I agree with the fact that ‘The Rookie army was constantly throwing inexperienced men against experienced guerrillas on their home ground’, I agree with this because it coincides with my knowledge, the fact that the guerrillas were used to and trained to fight in the Vietnam jungles were as the USA troops were not.
Some of the ‘Booby Traps’ in which the guerrillas used were ‘The Fuel Tank Trap’, ‘The Tin Can Trap’ and ‘Bouncing Betty’. Firstly ‘The Fuel Tank Trap’ was a grenade with a rubber band around it to stop the firing mechanism, detonating the explosives inside. Secondly ‘The Tin Can Trap’ was a grenade with the pin removed, which was wedged inside a can to stop it from been detonated. It was set off when a soldier tipped it over with a wire. Thirdly ‘Bouncing Betty’ was a mine under the earth’s surface. It exploded when a soldier stepped on one of the three prongs pointing upwards out of the ground.
The Vietcong also used dugout tunnels to protect them-selves from the air attacks by America. At first they were simply dugouts to hide or ambush enemies, by the end of the war there were underground kitchens, hospitals etc… Ambushes were used to prevent face to face confrontations as the Americans were more equipped with weapons and technology.
On the other hand I could also be persuaded not to agree with Source A as it is from a book called ‘Four Hours in My Lai’ in 1992, therefore could have been incorporated with exaggeration and added content as well as inaccurate text. Firstly because of the time difference between the actual events took place and the fact that the book in fiction (made up).
Also the source could not be reliable as it does not tell us about the other American aspects of the war such as ‘fragging’, ‘friendly fire’, minor racism issues and ‘Drug’ intake.
‘Fragging’ (soldiers killing own officers when they are unaware in order not to receive inevitable orders of death) was a big problem the United States soldiers were faced with since not only did it mean killing their own officers in order not to have any priorities given, but also this showed that the United States soldier’s morale was very low indeed.
I believe that the United States soldier’s morale was so low because most of the troops joined because of peer pressure and patriotism and conscription, but did not consider the consequences war had to offer.
‘Friendly Fire’ was when American soldiers killed their own troops because of confusion they were faced with and the lack of training they had received. This shows the shortage of training they were given.
There was also racial tension between black and white troops but this was sometimes hard to judge because it depended on where the soldiers were and the amount of blacks and whites surrounded the area.
The drug intake issues increased the risk of soldiers been killed as this made them high and allowed them to go into deep sleeps without realizing enemies were present. In 1971 5000 men were treated in hospital for combat wounds and 20, 000 for drug abuse. The most popular drug intake was from Marijuana and other drugs they used consisted of Cocaine and Heroin. There was an advantage side to one drug they took. The drug was called Amphetamines to keep troops awake during night-time ambushes and simply to get high. This also meant that the soldier’s morale was low since they needed drugs to allow the stress and depression to ease a little.
In conclusion I would say that the interpretation of Source A is agreeable since it agrees with my knowledge. The United States soldier’s problems increased simply because of the inexperience the troops had, and the stress gained from drug intake and unexpected guerrilla warfare, not to mention the highly developed tunnels, booby traps and un-confrontational ambushes devised and intended by the Vietcong. Black soldiers were especially faced with social and racial issues as the black people were still quite new in the West. Many of the combat problems were caused by ‘Friendly Fire’ as this meant that soldiers were very confused and did not really know who their enemies were. Finally ‘fragging’ really showed how corrupt the morality of soldiers was and how much they would do to get out of an unavoidable situation.
Q3. Is there sufficient evidence in Sources A to F to explain why there was an anti-war movement in the United States during the late 1960s and early1970s?
Sources A to F give a realistic amount of evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement in the United States. They talk about the experience guerrillas have compared to the inexperience American soldiers as well as the effects in which media can have towards citizens of American. They also embrace the views of other media sources such as British Magazines, other people’s books, and films.
If source A was published during the war it would most certainly persuade Americans to start anti-war protests, since it shows the weak side of the war and how quickly troops were being killed. It would make people think twice before signing up to join the war. I would say that this Source A would have given board appeal towards American nation as it inflicts the truth as well as coinciding with my knowledge, the fact that inexperienced soldiers were been sent to fight experienced guerrillas on their home ground.
In contrast to Source A I would say that Source B hand would have had a more powerful effect on the citizen’s of America as the children naked and crying, as an effect of napalm, creates an emotional view and influences Americans to start anti-war protests. This especially applies to mothers and the elderly as they will be easily disturbed and feel sympathetic towards the Vietnamese children. The source also shows photographers in the background, which indicates that the media played a big role towards the anti-war movement.
Source C is written by ‘Richard Hamer, an American journalist, writing in 1970 about the widespread opposition to the American presence in Vietnam’. This source is very good in helping to create an anti-war movement as it explains how weak and less technological Vietnam is compared to America who has a sufficient amount more of weapons and technology. This helps to persuade the American citizens to feel that their country is going to war with a country that is weaker and increasingly poor than them. Also the source talks about the difficulties of fighting guerrillas, since there was a large amount of confusion, thus the US troops were unsure who is innocent and who is part of the Vietcong. So therefore sympathy and emotional views are implied towards the Vietnamese and then this encourages Americans to start anti-war protests.
Source D is a ‘Cartoon published in the British Magazine Punch in 1967. It shows the effects of president Johnson’s war policy on the’ ‘Great society’ – ‘his vision to “feed and shelter the homeless… to provide more education and medical care”. The source is showing a train named ‘US Economy’, with Vietnam written in the smoke that the train creates. This basically means that America’s money is been used on the war with Vietnam, but in the trains cabins there are workers chopping up planks of wood, for fuel, with the words ‘Great Society’ written on them. This indicates that the money for Johnson’s ‘Great Society’ plan has been used for the war. I would say that this defiantly increases the people’s thoughts towards the war and enhances the chance of anti-war protests as they would assume the fact that if there was no war, money could be used elsewhere i.e. ‘The Great Society’.
Source E is a ‘Statement by BBC commentator Robin Day to a seminar of the Royal United Service institution, in 1970’. The source basically talks about the way colour television and the media as a whole having an enormous role in the increased amount of anti-war Americans. Also how Red Blood looks more disturbing than black and white TV. I would say that source E is absolutely correct since the Americans were so traumatised by the images they received from Vietnam that they held anti-war protests.
Finally source F concentrates on the interpretation of events in Vietnam and the US in the film ‘Born on the fourth of July’. The film ‘Born on the Fourth of July’, interrogates the event in Vietnam and the US quite accurately as it includes a famous man from the time of the war called, ‘John Kovak’, who held anti-war protests. He was disabled from the events of the war. This shows that most veterans would have been against the war because of experience. Also in the film there was a scene where friendly fire took place and innocent Vietnamese people were killed by the US troops because of confusion and inexperience. If the film was made at the time of the war it would have defiantly increased the rate in which people protested, this is by simply seeing the truth and tragedy war is all about as well as veterans gathering supports to disrupt the streets of America.
On the whole, the sources do give a reasonable amount of evidence to why there was an increasing amount of anti-war protests, but they do not mention the amount of technology, weapons, money, and transport the US had with contrast to the Vietnam forces. Also the Sources do not mention why people at home in a general point of view protested i.e. Poor People this meant that there money will go towards war, Economists predict that the US Economy will decrease rapidly, Major religions simply obeying their religious beliefs, Blacks with be conscripted to go to the war and racism will be present, People with jobs and future will lose their jobs, income and future, Pacifists are people who generally believe in peace, etc… Even though this information is not submitted with in the Sources, I still believe that they give sufficient enough evidence to say why there was an anti-war movement.
To conclude, I would say that the sources A to F give enough and sufficient evidence
to explain why there was an anti-war movement in the United States during the late
1960s and early1970s. This is because all the sources are powerful in their own ways –
some use emotional images, some use propaganda and clever techniques such as source
D, some use films (source f), statistics and negative opinions towards the war, which all
Help to succeed in the anti-war movement.
Mohson Qayyum Candidate Number: 4091 Centre Number: 37321 - -
