This speech has biased views “we are also there to strengthened world order, around the world-from Berlin to Thailand-there are people whose well being rests on the belief that they can count on us if they are attacked”.
This also tells us if Vietnam is left alone to its fate, then this would shake the value of an American commitment and in the value of an American word.
Also the battle would become renewed in one country and then another, this referring to the domino theory, from President Eisen Hower, the Americans want to stay in south East Asia as the Americans did in Europe.
President Johnson becomes biased reciting a verse from the bible, where at that day and age the population was protestant.
“Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further……”
The historical question this extract might help me to answer is that the Americans wanted communism out of Vietnam, and they did not want the domino theory to take its toll. The Americans were determined to stay in south East Asia as they did for Europe.
The problems of this source is that the speech is an extract, which means that only part of the information is presented and given to us, as this speech is, i.e. “ further…
There are always two sides to story and this speech only gives us a one sided story, the Americans. At this stage for reading the extract you can not tell if this source is reliable.
To make sense of this study, I would have to carry out my own research, first of all about this speech in source A, as this speech is an extract and some of the information is partially reliable to us.
I could search via the internet for the whole of the President Johnson’s speech. I could also study from books from the library about the speech and the general study of the Vietnam War.
The speech we have studied is biased, as the speech is a one sided story sticking to one subject, another form fro m this speech becoming biased is where at the time the people are protestant, Johnson recites a verse from the bible.
I would have to say that part of the speech is reliable, telling us about the domino theory but on the other hand the source isn’t as reliable if studying the speech for the reason that the source is a extract there is only partial evidence of that speech.
The speech does not show any emotion from Johnson’s speech as this would portray a sigh of weakness to the American people; also the people would want a strong confident political leader, leading their country at that time.
President Johnson would like to become a strong character, as another president before Johnson had been assassinated, J.F.K.
So a stronger character would win the American hearts of persuasion.
After the assassination john F. Kennedy, Johnson became president of the United States. Johnson was a strong supporter of the domino theory and believed that prevention of NFL victory in South Vietnam was vital to the defence of USA.
“If we quit Vietnam, tomorrow will be fighting in Hawaii and next week well have to fight in san Francisco”.
President Johnson, under pressure from his military advisor, to take more forceful action against North Vietnam and the NFL. The over throw of president Diem did not result into preventing the growth of the NFL.
President Johnson told joint chief of state that he would do all that was necessary to prevent the NFL winning south Vietnam but fight in foreign war, until after 1964 presidential elections.
“Just let me get elected”, he told his military advisers, “and then you can have your war”.
As election was due for 11 months, joint chief of staff feared that this was too long to wait, he suggested a strategy that would be less unpopular with the American public as it would result in fewer of the men being killed.
The lution of the U.S. Congress. It is of historical significance because it gave US President approval, without a formal declaration of war, “To take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.” Both Johnson and President Richard Nixon used the Resolution as a justification for escalated involvement in Indochina.
Following the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, Lyndon Johnson, who was up for re-election that year, launched retaliatory strikes and went on national television on August 4, 1964. Although the USS Maddox had been involved in providing intelligence support for South Vietnamese attacks at Hon Me and Hon Ngu, Johnson's Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, went before Congress and denied that the United States Navy was supporting South Vietnamese military operations. He thus characterized the attack as “unprovoked.” He also claimed before Congress that there was “unequivocal proof” of an “unprovoked” second attack against the Maddox.
Mainly as a result of McNamara's testimony, on August 7, 1964, US Congress passed a joint resolution that facilitated increased U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. The floor vote in the House was 416-0 although Representative Eugene Siler of Kentucky paired against the Resolution. The Senate approved it 88-2, with Senators Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska casting the only nay votes.
The Resolution was repealed in May of 1970, with the help of Judge Glenn Smith II, in response to the Nixon Administration's military operations in Cambodia. The U.S. had already begun the process of withdrawing troops from the area in 1969, under a policy known as “Vietnamization, but did not completely disengage from the region until 1975, after the North Vietnamese take-over of Saigon, now Ho Chi Minh City. The Resolution was replaced by the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which is still in place today.
Source B
The nature of this source is a private conversation from the former president Johnson, this was a taped conversation in May 1964.This has been set as text as a form of primary evidence, to show the true colours and feelings about the war in Vietnam.
“I don’t think its worth fighting for”.
The author and the person recording the conversation is un relative (unknown to us). They produced this source as a political purpose, in which is to remove the president from his stand by conveying the president in a negative aspect, this source refers towards the domino theory.
The aim was to try and remove the president from his position in status, to portray a bad vibe to the public, to show that the people taped this conversation to “show up” the president.
There are many events in source B which relate towards the context of this source, whether if there is a real need for America to fight a war in Vietnam. The fear of communism within Vietnam had applied the irrational involvement with Vietnam as a just cause in order to prevent the spread of communism.
The context also gives us political reasoning where if the cause Americans was needed to fight the war in Vietnam at the time, here the major cause, the domino theory takes in affect-this theory from president Eisen Hower, instructed by president Truman, which indicated that if one country falls then other countries topple down for the cause of Comminism.
“The Battle would be renewed in one country and then another” (From 1965 – where president Johnson speaks, In April a month after operation rolling thunder).
Economic reasons which related to the context of this source towards America’s worth of fighting within Vietnam. ON June 1961 America had agreed to increase aid towards Diem.
What the source contains is the president’s thoughts about the idea, whether it is worth going into war with Vietnam. This is contradicted source as from source A he rallies the public about this just war of communism; it shows us that Johnson has no clue about going into war, Source A has reasons why going into war, Source B it is as if he cannot be bothered he has doubts.
The information contains, that of the president tells us of what the president thinks that the American public aren’t aware of what is going on in Vietnam.
“I don’t think our country know much about Vietnam”.
The president tells us that all the politicians tell him to move, to go to the north, but this source does not reveal who the politicians are. You get to see his doubts take in action where he is a bit worried as he doesn’t know the outcome would be if he had listened to his politicians.
He believes that he doesn’t think America can fight ten thousands mile away from home and President Johnson doesn’t think Vietnam is worth fighting for. Johnson tells us that, “it’s just the biggest damn mess…”
It’s as if that time he has no care of the problem situation, again he speaks his mind and tells his true inner feelings, “What the hell is Vietnam worth to me?”…”What is it worth to this country?”…
And lastly he relates to the theory again (domino) he shows fear of communism, dealing with Vietnam is said by the president is a terrible thing to do.
The historical question raised in this extract is that, if President Johnson is making from this speech in reference to Cuba? And also why they are so unsure?
Other supporting sources I would have to study to support my evidence even further is that from source B, the information is limited with as it seems a paragraph
The source is an extract formed as text, somehow to support the source I would have to have to take in further study for this source; I could also research background information from via the internet, or researching the information from books and lastly to support the evidence you could have watched documentaries suitable for this study.
The limitations and problems refers towards the context of this source, the source contradicts with other neighboring sources as the mind set of the president, is conveyed through mixed views between the different sources.
The problem with this source, to be sure that we do not find out who the politicians that give advice to the president are? The author is limited to us as we do not know who he or she is? It also doesn’t tell us who President Johnson is talking too.
Source B is a reliable source as the source I had studied “was Vietnam worth it?” the president gives his opinion of matter through this tape. From the source Johnson gives out his official opinions.
The source is objective, as the president tells us the truth about what he truly believes on the situation within Vietnam.
There are emotional feelings in the situation in Vietnam, he is also kind of frightened about communism, where Johnson tells us from the source,
“The communist may even chase you into your own kitchen” and from that predicament he puts across that “what were getting ready to do is a terrible thing America is ready to do”
The president’s doubts about the situation in Vietnam take place, and that the president is worried as he comes clean about his true opinions to the unknown.
Source C
Source c, was written after the war this is an interview were professor Noam Chomsky, an American critic of the war, professor Noam Chomsky is being interviewed in source C.
This source id from a secondary source as the speech is form a secondary source as the speech is from an interview, we are not sure who has produced this source, this could be produced by the media or the producer, this source is unknown.
The purpose of source C was hindsight, which is to give opinion of matter of the war (Vietnam), the war was going on this had an affect on Professor Noam Chomsky and this had influenced his opinion on the war.
The professor is talking about what happened several years before he had analysed the situation, the professor now decides to unravel his thoughts and opinions for the real causes of war.
A disadvantage for historians, as the professor then talks about on event which occurred seven years before he narrows down the cause of war were, the professor gives a negative attitude to the war.
The source is very biased one sided, of one man, one man with his words of opinions to the cause of the war in Vietnam, it’s as if he preaches hatred in the way he uses his words and a grudge against the Americans.
Although the professor was an American himself, this does not mean his opinions for going to war were similar to other American’s opinions.
The war could have affected the professor a great deal more and this is why the professor may have been more pessimistic.
The source has no real purpose and this is only an account or really the professors’ official opinions. This is also because the Vietnam War was over and this will not influence the war, this would\just go down in history as a strict opinion of professors Noam Chomsky’s.
The interview does not influence on the political matters and this source has no real cause. Professor Noam Chomsky makes serious issues but he is going against his own country, nobody will delegate this issue apart from historians studying these sources.
The reason for this, as it would be completely pointless, just talking about a war which is now over and people are now starting to get over this and people want to move on and carry on with their everyday lives.
What this source contains is the biased opinions of one man, this man is Professor Noam Chomsky, and this source is very opinionated.
Here the professor tells us that when a book comes out about how the United States was defeating South Vietnam, he then reports to us “it’s official”. Here is the first glimpse of biased way, his first taste of his grudge for the opinionated answer he gives to the interviewer.
“Of course it’s just not true “
Once that is in the air and opened he straight away attacks America forcing the blame on to them, telling us that the war was fought against South Vietnam, the professor then gives us an account of what had happened during the war.
“It destroyed the farming, peasant society”
He uses harsh words for his one sided view, the professor approaches his answer.
“United states did attack south Vietnam”, gives the impression that he is opinionated and may have a grudge against the Americans.
Professor Noam Chomsky then questions the interviewer “why did the united states move into Vietnam?” then the professor gives his answer by telling the interviewer that there wasn’t any Vietnamese people around.
As we know that this source is opinionated, he uses the blame on targeted America, he also says that America feared that the south was no longer needed by America and that the South Vietnam might be able to reform and improves itself.
From the above paragraph we know that this is a very biased context and 100% opinionated.
The historical question raised here that might help me to answer this question, “why did it take several years to say the Americans had gone to war?”
And, “was America wrong for heading for war?”
The problem with the source is the professor, fair enough that he was commenting on the war, but what kind of professor is he?, he does not tell us what type of professor he is?
Other sources were this study could make sense from this source, is from research on the professor himself, also from documentaries on videos and the internet I could research the background information on the professor to try and understand him properly and also to find out what kind of professor he is.
The emotion that pours out from this source is hatred and the professor bears a grudge for the American soldiers.
