I do disagree that the American’s were better trained. They were better trained in conventional warfare and had a lot of experience from World War II. But the Vietcong matched this. They were better trained than the American’s but not in conventional warfare. They were experts in guerrilla warfare which proved vital in their defeat on the USA. They also had a lot experience as they were at war with the French for a long time.
The American’s also had more problems which prevented them from winning the war. In my opinion, this was probably the main reason America lost the war. American support diminished rapidly as this was an uncensored war. Images of children being burned by napalm were seen in America, who thought the USA had gone there to help and free Vietnam and then they saw images of children being burnt. My Lai in 1968 sickened many American’s when they learnt that 347 Vietnamese peasants (including women and children) had been put in a big hole in the ground and shot by American soldiers until they were dead.
There are some primary sources of evidence that back up my arguments. Senator Fulbright, the leading opponent of the war, said in October 1966 that ‘The picture of the world’s greatest superpower killing or seriously injuring 1,000 non-combatants a week…is not a pretty one. It can produce a distortion the world image of the United States’. This is a primary source of evidence as it was someone involved in the war and was said at the time. He is basically saying that the killing of civilians s creating a negative image of the USA which backs up my argument about the media coverage preventing America from winning the Vietnam War.
The Observer newspaper backs this up as in 1973 it was quoted saying, ‘American people were convinced that victory in Vietnam was not worth 300 dead a week and $30,000 million ($30 billion) a year’. This is a good piece of evidence as we have some astonishing facts and figures which will have shocked the American public when they saw them and support for the war diminished. ‘Life’ magazine found in 1967 that it cost $400,000 to kill one Vietcong soldier. As it was a totally uncensored war, facts and figures like this got back to the American public so support just disappeared. Perhaps if it had been a censored war and the American public had not lost support for the war, America may have won it.
There is also some secondary evidence which backs up my argument. A G.C.S.E revision guide for the year 2000 gave 6 main reasons for America failing in the Vietnam War, one of them being ‘American public opinion turned against the war’. Sir Robert Thompson from War in Peace said in 1981, ‘The US media bore a heavy responsibility (for the failure in Vietnam)………Millions of people in the US did oppose the war for reasons which were sincerely felt’, and their activities were an important element in the failure of American involvement’. He is meaning to say the US media played a vital part in America’s failure as it turned public opinion against the war. I could go on naming more sources but I would be repeating myself. I have much evidence that backs up my argument that just because America had better equipment etc…, it didn’t mean they were automatically going to win the war as they did not have public support.
I have actually found a source which maybe disagrees with my source but part agrees aswell. It suggests that the American’s should have bee supported more, or maybe it sort of justifies the American’s actions. It is from an American Journalist in 1970. ‘You walk down a road between rice paddies. Vietnamese are in every paddy. Then, a mortar shell lands, right in the middle of the patrol. A couple of guys are dead, others are screaming in agony with a leg or arm blown off, or their guts hanging out. Did one of them (the peasants) lob the mortar? If so, which one? Should you kill al of them or none of them?’ This was from a journalist so it may have created support for the war. But on the other hand, it may have shown the soldiers difficulties so lackened support. I think it will have lessened the disgust at things such as My Lai but still lackened support for the war as soldiers were being hurt.
My second argument is similar to the first but is lack of Vietnamese peasant support. Just because the American’s had the best technology in the world does not mean that peasants support them. American’s were seen as the foreigners and they mistreat the peasants. The Vietcong were very respectful as you can see in Vietminh Code of Conduct I mentioned earlier. I have a great source which backs up my argument. This is from an American who is commenting on US policy failure in Vietnam. He says: ‘One does not use napalm on villages and hamlets sheltering civilians if one if attempting to persuade these people of the rightness of ones’ cause. One does not defoliate the country and deform its people with chemicals if one is attempting to persuade them of the foe’s evil nature.’ The source is saying that if you are trying to convince people you are the good guys and are here to save them, you don’t abuse them and destroy their homes. This backs up my argument that the Americans did not have the peasants on their side.
Source 13 on my white sheet shows a peasant who the Americans are supposed to be saving, being mistreated. If Vietnamese peasants saw this they would not support the Americans. I could produce countless sources showing f abuse to Vietnamese peasants and the effect of napalm but I would be repeating myself. The American’s did many things which turned the Vietnamese peasants against them and this was a contributing factor in America losing the war. Some American’s did help the Vietnamese with ‘Winning the Hearts and minds’ but this was rare and I cannot find sources to back it up.
Another argument which I have sources that back it up is the one about the Vietcong NOT being a lesser advanced army. America was better trained in the conventional sense but the Vietcong were remarkably well disciplined and well trained in guerrilla warfare.
I will refer back to the 2000 GCSE Revision guide which gives another 2 reasons for America’s failure in Vietnam. ‘Vietcong guerrillas were very skilful soldiers’ and, ‘the North Vietnamese had the support of China and the Soviet Union’. This is quiet obvious in what it is saying. Just because the Vietcong used different tactics, it does not mean they were poorly trained. They were very skilful guerrillas and this was a very effective method against the USA. They also had support fro Russia and China who provided them with weapons. Strictly speaking, these weapons were not as good as the American’s, but it was not like the Vietcong were fighting with spears. They had decent military weapons which proved they were not less advanced. On the white sheet I was provided with, Source 12 shows North Vietnamese soldiers equipped for war. They have decent guns and helmets. They are equipped well enough for war and are not lesser equipped than the USA. Source 10 also shows the extensive and impressive tunnels the Vietcong had underground. This shows real brains and skill which you would not expect from a lesser advanced army. These tunnels caught the American’s out many times.
I do have evidence that disagrees with my argument. It is from a book on Vietnam by an American Author in 1983. It lists all the equipment that the American soldiers had. ‘Helicopter…tank and armoured cars…mortars, machine guns, grenade and rocket launchers…M16…air to surface missiles…bombs of every shape and size…napalm bombs…cluster bombs…chemical weapons.’ Now the Vietcong may have mad decent weapons, but they had nothing of the American’s standards which therefore makes them a less advanced army.
To conclude, I feel the American’s should have really won the war but there were factors brought into play they did not expect. They did not expect to lose the support of their own people and not have the support of the Vietnamese peasants which were major contributions to them not winning the war. The Vietcong had slightly less advanced weaponry but not by much and the soldiers were impeccably trained.
