GCSE HISTORY COURSEWORK

Johnson called North Vietnam a “fourth-rate, raggedy ass little country”. How do sources C, D and E contradict this view?

Source C shows us that in the years 1962 to 1973, 2595000 troops, a massive number, were in Vietnam, the year in which most troops were deployed being 1969. This huge number of troops being needed to fight in Vietnam suggests that the war was of more importance, and that Vietnam was more prepared and able for war, than Johnson implies. This evidence contradicts Johnson’s description of Vietnam as being a “fourth-rate, raggedy ass little country”. Another point that can be taken from the information in the source which contradicts Johnson’s view is that the war lasted the long duration of 12 years. This would not have been so, had Vietnam been “fourth-rate” and “raggedy ass”, as a country with such characteristics could have been quickly and easily crushed by America, which was a powerful country. Due to the information in this source being taken from factual records, there is little question about its reliability.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Source D shows us US Government Spending in 1968. In this year, 13% of America’s total expenditure went towards Vietnam Defence, and 4% towards Veterans of the Vietnam War. This means that the amount spent on the Vietnam War was more than was spent even on Education in 1968. This suggests that in this year, the War was of even more importance than the education of American children, and this again contradicts Johnson’s view of Vietnam. The fact that so much money was spent on helping war veterans to recuperate suggests that many American troops in Vietnam suffered severely, in terms of psychological trauma (many more committed suicide after their service in Vietnam than were killed in action) and physical injury. Since Vietnam had such an impact on the troops, this shows that it was not a pleasant experience, and that the task they were undertaking in fighting Vietnam was not an easy one, contrary to Johnson’s implications of Vietnam being weak. Like Source C, the figures given in this source would appear to be factual, however there is no evidence in the source to suggest that the information is entirely accurate or hasn’t been changed by the author to suit his intended anti-war purpose, which would be biased.

Source E questions the reliability of the word of past presidents of America. It implies that their message has been the same, “Victory’s just around the corner”, and shows continuity of policy, but that it has been so for years, and has never been true. It is clear from this cartoon that the quick victory promised through five presidencies was a result of ongoing ill assessment and underestimation of Vietnam’s power and status, the same that Johnson displays in his inaccurate description of Vietnam. A factor contributing to the unreliability of this source is the artist and the purpose for which it was written. The comical drawings of the presidents indicate that the creator intended the cartoon to be mocking, which implies an opposition to the war.

Together, these sources, two of them factual, give a lot of evidence opposing Johnson’s claim. The huge financial and military commitments, on top of the many years needed to end the war, seem to blatantly disprove Johnson’s statement.

Eleanor Crossey Malone