This source is a limited piece of evidence because photographs only shoot one place at one time. Even though it is a powerful source, it does not give a specific date to when it was published and it does not show who it is for or who produced it. We also do not know whether the US public saw it, and if so, when?
Therefore, source B is not fully sufficient evidence to wholly explain why there was an anti-war movement in the US during the 1960s and 1970s.
Secondly is source D, which is a primary source as it was made in 1967 during the Vietnam war. It is a cartoon drawn by a British cartoonist and published in the British magazine, Punch. It shows the effects of President Johnson’s war policy on the ‘Great Society’, and his vision to “feed and shelter the homeless…to provide more education and medicinal care”. One of the main reasons that caused the anti-war movement was the strain on the US economy because too much money was being used to ‘fuel’ the Vietnam War rather than being invested into where it is required, in places such as medical care and education. In the picture, there is also a track running next to the train, I think this signifies the other route which President Johnson could take, which would not stop at the station of war. The alternative route President Johnson could take would be to solve the problems of Vietnam without using force. I think this source is quite reliable to explain why there was protesting as Johnson forgot about the people he really needed to help and spent the money on weapons in order to win a war.
On the other hand, as this was published in a British magazine, this may not have directly affected the US. It may not have even been seen by the US. This source alone is not fully sufficient to explain why there was an anti-war movement because I believe that this source being viewed itself would not influence the public to protest against the war and set up a peace movement.
Next is source E which is a primary source. This source is a statement made by the BBC commentator, Robin Day in 1970 about the Vietnam War. In my view it is a very powerful source and it provides sound evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement. From my own knowledge I know that this war the first war to be captured by the media, so everyone had the opportunity to see all the suffering, sickness and death happening on colour screens right in front of them. To add to the overall anxiety felt by the public towards the war it also suggests that due to the “uninhibited television coverage” a democratic country will never be able fight a war “however just”.
Therefore, in my view, this source is extremely sufficient to explain why there was an anti-war movement during the 1960s and 1970s.
I am now going to look at source C which has been written by an American Journalist. This source indirectly links to the media coverage of the war. The journalist addresses the problems faced by the US soldiers. Furthermore, he is being critical and sarcastic when saying that killing innocent civilians is not the way to win people over and make friends. I also think that important to stress that the journalist is American and he is still condemning the American foreign policy. So in my view I think that this makes him more trustworthy because it would be unnatural to criticise your own government.
On the other hand, in my view this source does not fully explain why there was a peace movement in the US. The most obvious point is that it does not directly refer to the peace movement, so one must read between the lines. Also we are not aware of how many people it has been viewed by and which newspaper or magazine it was published in.
Lastly, we also do not know whether other newspapers shared the same thoughts. So overall, I think that this source is very weak explaining why there was an anti-war movement.
Another source I am going to look at is source A. This source is a secondary source as it was published in 1992. It is an extract from the book ‘Four Hours in My Lai’ by Michael Bilton. It states how the United States army was inexperienced and were “most likely to die in the first month” after going into Vietnam. Its intended audience was the general public and its purpose to was justify how unintelligent and unsuccessful the US army was in My Lai. I do not think that this source would persuade the American public to protest against the war because it has been written by an American. For that reason it is in favour of the US, so this reduces the reliability of the source. The purpose of the source is to encourage people to give the US sympathy rather than turn against them. Therefore, it is biased.
Finally, I feel that this source could not have had an effect on the peace movement. The reason for this is because it was published twenty years after the war in 1992 therefore, it would have not been seen by the public at the time of the war. This is insufficient evidence to show why there was a peace movement in the US.
In conclusion, I believe that the majority of the sources do not provide sufficient evidence in explaining why there was a peace movement during the 1960s and 1970s. One reason for this is because some of the sources are biased; only showing one side of the story. However, in my view the most important reason why the sources were not sufficient is because there was no information showing details of where and when it was published. So one can argue, did these sources actually impact upon the US public? Nevertheless, there is one powerful source, which being viewed itself, could have led to an anti-war movement. This source links to the media coverage of the war. I think that the media coverage was a huge factor as to why people were opposed to the war. From my own knowledge I know that the introduction of the colour screen televisions played a huge role in influencing people’s attitudes.