However it is not sufficient evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement because it lacks context, for instance there is no known location, and we are not told the number of people that saw these images, or how they affected the peace movement.
Source C is a written extract. It was written by Richard Hamer, an American journalist. It was published in 1970 and was intended to stop people supporting the war. Its purpose was to show the widespread opposition to the American presence in Vietnam. It was also to show the failure of US policies and the difficulties of Guerrilla warfare.
Its intended audience was the American public during the war. It is sufficient evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement because it is emotive, that meant that the public would read it and be more effective than if it was emotionless. It also complies with my knowledge of the tactics used in the war; this also shows how hard it was to fight the Guerrilla warfare tactics. Furthermore, I know that the soldiers were not as intelligent as was expected, and they didn’t have as much military experience as was previously required. There were also some draft dodgers, people that didn’t want to join the army.
However the source is not fully sufficient evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement because we don’t know about the journalist, for instance was he in the war at the time? If he were, then he would have first hand experience of what really happened so it would maybe have more impact. For this reason it is also hard to assess the reliability of the source. And we don’t know the context in which the source was printed. It may have been widely read, or on the other hand it may have only been a handful of people that read it. This is relevant to how much it affected the peace movement in America. The account of the tactics used by the United States may have been biased, as Richard Hamer is American himself.
The source is linked to Sources A and B. Source A says that the young army were very in-experienced and less intelligent, and Source B is trying to show what power the media had on the peace movements back in America.
Source D is a cartoon drawing from the British Magazine Punch published 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”.
Its purpose was to criticise the American attacks in Vietnam. Its intended audience was the British public. This shows that the protests were not just happening in the US, but also in Britain. It is trying to show that America should be concentrating on its own economy, not that of another country. Vietnam was costing the US too much money and destroying President Johnson’s plan of a Great Society.
It is sufficient evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement because it is from an outside perspective; this means that it is less likely to be biased. It was also made in 1967; this was before My Lai and the Tet Offensive. Therefore this means that Britain was against what the Americans were doing before the peace protests or any of the major attacks even started.
However it is not sufficient evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement because it is only from a British perspective and therefore may be biased against the Americans, depending on the British take on the war. We don’t know how many people saw the source; therefore it is difficult to say that it directly affected the protests. Also it was quite a long time before the events or the peace protests started. This means that it would not have directly affected them.
Source E is a statement from BBC commentator Robin Day to a seminar of the Royal United Service Institution, in 1970. Its purpose was to inform the public of the power of television, and media in general. But it may also have been to provoke debate between the media and the American army.
Its audience was the Royal United Service Institution. There were also members of the British armed forces in the audience.
It is sufficient evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement because Robin Day was well known and a respected reporter. Therefore people would listen to him, and may take action depending on what he said. I know from my own knowledge that media played a vital part in the war, and the peace protests. This would be how the protests were advertised, so this source has a huge significance according to my knowledge. It is also sufficient as it is a balanced view of what he is trying to put across.
Source B supports this source, in that it shows the power of the media in the war.
It is not fully sufficient http://www.weebl.jolt.co.uk/pikea3.htm evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement because it is from a British perspective again, and therefore it is an outside view, but may be biased in favour of against America. Also, it is only from the opinion of Television impact, and there is no evidence to show how many people watched the television, only “… Uninhibited television coverage in every home…”. This is a very vague statement as you can never say that every house has “uninhibited television coverage”. The source also blames television only; therefore it is a one-sided opinion in that retrospect.
Source F is an extract from the film “Born on 4th July” directed by Oliver Stone and released in 1989. Its purpose was to reveal the director’s “truth” about the war. He was a Vietnam veteran himself, and so the film was based on the real experience of him in war. It is made from the real perspective and centers around Oliver Stone but in a different light. It isn’t really him, just from his knowledge and views of the war, mixed among his feelings.
The audience is the modern public. This source is sufficient evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement because the director, Oliver Stone, was in the war, therefore it is 1st hand knowledge that is being portrayed in the film. From my own knowledge, I know that veterans of the war joined in with the peace protests. It is also used to show how the US was divided up by the conflict of war. It may have also helped to explain and give an explanation as to why the soldiers joined the army.
However it is not sufficient evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement because the source is only a clip from the movie. The movie is only a modern interpretation of the war and the protests that spurred off from the conflict. Furthermore, films are sensationalised, made to look more interesting for the viewers; this means that it is unreliable. The director may also have put in his own personal feelings from his knowledge and experience as a soldier. It also was made to create a negative atmosphere towards the American government. But most importantly this source was not the reason that the peace movement occurred. On its own it is not the reason for war.
Overall, some of the sources provide sufficient evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement, for instance Source A is useful as it gives good explanations and complies with my knowledge. Source B is useful as it shows the power of media in the war and how it spurred the peace protests. Source E is useful as it, like Source B, brings in the subject that media played a massive part in the peace protests. It is from a very famous journalist and so it would have been heard by many people, this means that it was more likely to have had an effect on the protests than other sources.
However, some of the sources are less sufficient, such as Source C, which is not very useful, as we don’t know much about the author, Richard Hamer. This means we have no idea as to his perspective on the war, other than he thinks that troops are under-trained. Source D is also not very useful as it is from an outside perspective and was published quite a long time before the events or the anti-war movement started. Source F is not useful as it is only from one person’s perspective, and was adapted for the general entertainment of an audience, therefore may not be entirely factual.
The overall messages of the sources are that money was wasted, that there was a vast amount of damage in both loss of lives and structural damage to Vietnam, and also that there was psychological damage to all the troops that returned from Vietnam. However, a message that is conveyed in more than one source is that the media had a phenomenal control over how the American public reacted in certain situations. They showed images of children being drowned in napalm, and of course there was going to be some reaction from the public.
From my own knowledge I can see that the sources do not tackle certain issues such as: Drug addiction. They don’t explain how much it damaged the economy or the amount of publicity that it was given, which in turn may have caused the peace protests. The statistics on the number of people killed, and the average age of the soldiers killed (which was 19) may have made parents and families of young soldiers in Vietnam join in the movements. None of the sources tell you about the effects of the Kent State University protests, where some students rioted and the police shot them. Nothing was mentioned about Martin Luther King or John Lennon joining in the peace protests, which would have, if celebrities were doing it, made more people want to join the rallies. The Tet Offensive, “Life” magazine publishings and Operation Phoenix were also never included in the sources.
So ultimately I believe that the sources do not provide sufficient information to explain why there was an anti-war movement, but however they do provide a good insight into the war as a whole.
