Source B pictures naked children running away from soldiers, they were some of the many victims of napalm, it was published during the war. The people who saw this source would almost definitely side with the anti-war movement but it wasn’t very widely published so it wouldn’t have contributed much. In people’s eyes they would see that the army had gone too far hurting innocent people (including children) and would probably consider joining the anti-war movement. I think the audience was meant for any one who is old enough in America and maybe in England to protest against the war.
Source C is an extract of a piece of writing, done by a famous American journalist Richard Hamer, it was written in 1970 and it contained information about the Vietnam war, it’s all very matter of fact because he
Laura M.
witnessed these events happening I’m sure if anyone read this they would think twice about why America was so heavily involved in the war in Vietnam. I think it was written to persuade people to join the anti-war movement, because it is bad for both sides, it’s turning men into killers, and is leaving lots of people dead. This article shows people what it was like in Vietnam, and how the American soldiers were in a dilemma because they didn’t know who the enemy was. The second paragraph is questioning their actions. It shows the war in a bad light, a lot of people read it, and relied on newspapers rather than television since it was a rather new invention. The audience would have been anyone who picked up a newspaper in that time, and it would have travelled by word of mouth as well.
Source D was published in a British magazine called “Punch” in 1967. It’s meaning is that the ‘great society’ that the President had promised had in effect gone up in smoke. It was heading towards disaster. This piece wouldn’t have had a big effect on the anti-war movement in America but it would have been a different story in England because I imagine a lot of people read it. The cartoon pictured in Source D criticises the American government and emphasises the fact that they’re wasting money on a pointless cause. That audience was for British people probably to try and encourage Britain not to join in on the war because it would go bad for them too.
Source E is a statement made by a BBC commentator Robin Day it was to a seminar of Royal United Service Institution, and some of the audience who heard it would have been American so it would have spread word when they got back home. Robin Day talks about how war looks so realistic on colour TV and how the blood and the fighting is so much worse he talks about how it’s made the American public more anti-war than anything. He mentions how in future he wonders if any war will ever be considered “just”. The speech was made in 1970, the audience was the armed forces British and American. The purpose was to dissuade people from starting war. Unfortunately since the speech was in England it wouldn’t have helped so much over in America.
Source F is a film called ‘Born on the Fourth Of July’ it was made in 1989 about the events surrounding 1972 about the election on the fourth of July, the director was called Oliver Stone. This film couldn’t have effected the anti-war movement back in the 1970’s because it wasn’t made until much later but it was based on real events such as the war veterans crashing an election campaign and trying to spread the story they were encouraging the anti-war movement. The audience was aimed at Americans in general. It would have made a difference had it have been made at the right time, America was still divided in opinion, some were very keen for the war to continue and others had very strong beliefs about stopping it. But seeing as it was a film we don’t know whether we can trust its accuracy and it might have been exaggerated, the point of view was also mostly from an old army veteran so he was biased.
I think there is enough evidence in these sources to suggest that they all helped in the anti war movement, in one way or another most detail events that happened in the Vietnam war, and protests were constantly happening in America. Some of the sources would have been incredibly beneficial to the anti-war movement had they been seen at the right time.
There isn’t enough evidence as well because we don’t know the amount of people who read these sources and some of them we don’t know exactly where they were published. Over all though I think these events/sources added to the anti-war movement they all show bad things that have gone on, on both sides and in the end everyone just wants the blood shed to stop.
Laura M.