Why did the USA lose the Vietnam War?
The Americans did not lose purely for military reasons. There were other factors as well.
Write an explanation AND cite a source which shows the importance of the following six factors:
1. US military tactics in Vietnam
These military tactics caused many acts of inhumanity that shocked the American public. For example, the My Lai massacre. These caused the public to wonder what was actually happening in Vietnam, and if it was worth it. Also, the tactics were less effective in the jungle conditions in Vietnam, then that of the Vietcong, which were more suited for fighting in the confusing conditions of the dense jungle.
2. The unpopularity of the South Vietnamese regime
The South Vietnamese regime was very corrupt, and treated its people horribly, so much so that there were monks that burned themselves in protest to the intolerance of their religion. This caused the South Vietnamese at large to dislike their government, thus making them partial to the North. Furthermore, US public did not approve of the actions of the South Vietnamese government, lowering public opinion in support of the war.
3. The experience of the Viet Cong and the inexperience of the American soldiers
The soldiers in the Vietcong had to fight the entire war, making most, if not all of them veterans, and also had less of a chance to return home and influence public opinion. The US troops on the other hand cycled once a year, just as the troops were becoming accustomed to the war and also were able to come home and influence the public opinion again the war by sharing stories.
4. Domestic opposition to the war in the U.S.
The domestic opposition against the war in the US played a very large part in ending the war. First, there were extremely large antiwar protests, and second, most of the protesters were the young men who were scheduled to be drafted and go and fight in the war, making them unmotivated to fight, and want to fight the draft even harder. Finally, some refused to go to the war all together, and had to be arrested.
5. Chinese and Soviet support for the Viet Cong
The Chinese and Soviet support for the Vietcong gave them access to state of the art supplies from the Soviets, that while they were not as good as the American's, definitely helped them keep from being completely being overwhelmed by the American superior technology. As well as providing for the support of nuclear weapons support.
6. 'But did they really lose?' Summarize the argument put forward in Source 57, and your view on it.
The US did not actually loose the war for a few reasons. First the US left, the South Vietnamese lost afterwards, and the only reason the US left was public opinion, not military defeats. So, in essence I do agree with Source 57, but that does not mean agree with the war, just that there was no loose on the US's part. Also, it was not a war from the US's standpoint, just an 'armed conflict', so the US technically could not loose anyway.
Add other if you think there are factors you should consider.
Showing posts with label Vietnam_War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vietnam_War. Show all posts
Monday, May 10, 2010
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Vietnam War Opposition
You are an opponent of American involvement in Vietnam. Use the evidence in this chapter to begin formulating ideas to make a poster or a leaflet putting forward your views. You will work on this in class on Friday. You can include stories and images from pages 353-61. However, you must also include an explanation that will convince the supporters of containment that the policy is not working in Vietnam. OPTIONAL: Instead of opposing the war, you can support it. Feel free to make a COUNTER-ARGUMENT that the war is necessary to contain Communism.
1. Note all of the reasons why you feel the war in Vietnam is wrong.
-no reason to be there; let them solve their own problems
-killing millions
-wasting billions of dollars
-isn't morally justified
-far away from the US
-domino effect is absurd
2. Note what you re trying to achieve with this poster. (e.g. to convince people to write to their Congressmen to get the troops out.)
-convince people to vote out congressmen who support the war
-convince people the war is wrong
-get people to join the antiwar movement
-get people to talk to their congressmen about it
3. List possible images for your poster. Think about: background (e.g. destroyed villages); the central image (e.g. picture of a young soldier); whether you will need words to explain your image.
-monks burning themselves; this is what the US backs
-My Lai massacre
-young soldier
-burning forests and villages
-dead bodies
-peace symbol
-south Vietnamese police officer killing the young Vietcong man
4. List some possible slogans for your poster.
-Hey hey LBJ...
-make love not war
-End the War Today
-Stop the Atrocities Now
1. Note all of the reasons why you feel the war in Vietnam is wrong.
-no reason to be there; let them solve their own problems
-killing millions
-wasting billions of dollars
-isn't morally justified
-far away from the US
-domino effect is absurd
2. Note what you re trying to achieve with this poster. (e.g. to convince people to write to their Congressmen to get the troops out.)
-convince people to vote out congressmen who support the war
-convince people the war is wrong
-get people to join the antiwar movement
-get people to talk to their congressmen about it
3. List possible images for your poster. Think about: background (e.g. destroyed villages); the central image (e.g. picture of a young soldier); whether you will need words to explain your image.
-monks burning themselves; this is what the US backs
-My Lai massacre
-young soldier
-burning forests and villages
-dead bodies
-peace symbol
-south Vietnamese police officer killing the young Vietcong man
4. List some possible slogans for your poster.
-Hey hey LBJ...
-make love not war
-End the War Today
-Stop the Atrocities Now
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Vietnam War Turning Points
1. Why was the Tet Offensive a turning point? Explain your answer.
The Tet Offensive was not a turning point. Neither side gained anything from it, in fact both sides probably lost an equivalent amount of man power and resources as a result of it. Furthermore, it did not sway public opinion in the US to thoroughly, and public opinion was what in the end decided the outcome of the war. However it was around the point that Johnson decided that the war could not be won militarily, however his successor, Richard Nixon did not share this belief continued to fight in Vietnam. NOTE: The article does not agree with this but Nixon's own memoirs admit that he tried to end the war with the US in a honorable way, however this was not going to be possible without further involvement in Vietnam.
2. Are Sources 51 and 52 making the same point about the My Lai Massacre?
Sources 52 and 2 do not agree. 51 is opposes the reasons behind the My Lai Massacre, calling it a Nazi thing to do. However, it also says that many of the soldiers did not know what they were doing. Source 52 says that it was not a massacre of people at all, just the killing of pawns who supported a bad idea; communism.
3. Why do you think it took 12 months for
anyone to do anything about the massacre?
It probably took 12 months for anything to be done about the massacre because 1), manny people thought that nothing incredibly inhumane or different from anything else in war had happened, and 2) it was greatly discrediting to the US military and would have enraged many antiwar protesters who were already angry about the war.
4. Why was the massacre so shocking to
the American public?
The massacre was so shocking to the American public because no one thought that the US military would ever do something so evil as to kill around 400 innocent civilians, and it was done by ordinary Americans, many who were drafted into the war. Furthermore, it was the type of thing that they were led to believe that Communists would do, not Americans.
The Tet Offensive was not a turning point. Neither side gained anything from it, in fact both sides probably lost an equivalent amount of man power and resources as a result of it. Furthermore, it did not sway public opinion in the US to thoroughly, and public opinion was what in the end decided the outcome of the war. However it was around the point that Johnson decided that the war could not be won militarily, however his successor, Richard Nixon did not share this belief continued to fight in Vietnam. NOTE: The article does not agree with this but Nixon's own memoirs admit that he tried to end the war with the US in a honorable way, however this was not going to be possible without further involvement in Vietnam.
2. Are Sources 51 and 52 making the same point about the My Lai Massacre?
Sources 52 and 2 do not agree. 51 is opposes the reasons behind the My Lai Massacre, calling it a Nazi thing to do. However, it also says that many of the soldiers did not know what they were doing. Source 52 says that it was not a massacre of people at all, just the killing of pawns who supported a bad idea; communism.
3. Why do you think it took 12 months for
anyone to do anything about the massacre?
It probably took 12 months for anything to be done about the massacre because 1), manny people thought that nothing incredibly inhumane or different from anything else in war had happened, and 2) it was greatly discrediting to the US military and would have enraged many antiwar protesters who were already angry about the war.
4. Why was the massacre so shocking to
the American public?
The massacre was so shocking to the American public because no one thought that the US military would ever do something so evil as to kill around 400 innocent civilians, and it was done by ordinary Americans, many who were drafted into the war. Furthermore, it was the type of thing that they were led to believe that Communists would do, not Americans.
The U.S. struggles against the Communist in Vietnam
1a) Were the armies finely balanced or was the balance strongly weighted to one side or the other?
In size and technological advantage, the US army was heavily superior to that of the Vietcong. However, the Vietcong managed their army and resources much better than the US did, as well as using better tactics for the situation. Thus army wise the US was superior, but in reality they were either balanced, or even tipped in the favor of the Vietcong.
1b) Which quality was most important in determining who won the war? Was one feature so important that being ahead in that area meant that other advantages or disadvantages did not matter?
The one feature that was the most important in determining who won the war was the strategy each side used. The only feature that could come close to having in itself won the war was the way the Vietcong managed to use guerilla tactics to negate the US's advantages in numbers and technology. They did this by evading US forces by retreting, hiding in the Jungle and using tunnel networks.
Stage 3: Explaining your conclusions
The failure of the U.S. army to beat the Communist in Vietnam was the result of its own weaknesses and Viet Cong strengths.
2. Now write up your answer. Use this structure:
a. The U.S. weaknesses were: the anti war movement, and the fact that it tried to fight guerilla tactics with either conventional or inhumane tactics.
b. At the same time, the Communist strengths were:
motivation, the use of good tactics, and the support of the peasants as well as not caring if they used inhumane means to an end.
c. The U.S. forces did have some successes. For example:
They repelled the Tet offensive, they destroyed many Vietcong supply routs, and they did destroy some of the Vietcong tunnels.
d. However, there were some major failures as well. Examples of these were:
Their strategy was terrible, they lost the war in the end, they caused many civilian casualties, and the loss to gain ratio many times was not worth it.
e. The Viet Cong had some major successes, such as:
They were able to fend off the US with significantly less troops, they did not allow the US to gain any North Vietnam land and they did eventually conquer the South.
f. However, they also suffered defeats, for example:
The Tet offensive failed causing a major loss of troops and supplies as well as not gaining any ground, they also were not able to acutely drive the US out, the US chose to leave based on public opinion in the US.
g. If I had to identify one major American weakness, it would be the anti war movement because it demotivated US soldiers, who were mainly draftees that did not want to be there or to fight, caused public opinion in the US to go against the war, made the war seem evil, and caused many to refuse to be drafted, or resist once they were, or flee the country.
h. The key Viet Cong strength the use of guerilla tactics because: It allowed them to avoid direct contact with the superior US forces, and the use of tunnels (a guerilla tactic) allowed them to menuver troops without letting the US know and provided protection from bombing raids, and other assaults, as well as providing a place to retreat that the US could not follow them into.
In size and technological advantage, the US army was heavily superior to that of the Vietcong. However, the Vietcong managed their army and resources much better than the US did, as well as using better tactics for the situation. Thus army wise the US was superior, but in reality they were either balanced, or even tipped in the favor of the Vietcong.
1b) Which quality was most important in determining who won the war? Was one feature so important that being ahead in that area meant that other advantages or disadvantages did not matter?
The one feature that was the most important in determining who won the war was the strategy each side used. The only feature that could come close to having in itself won the war was the way the Vietcong managed to use guerilla tactics to negate the US's advantages in numbers and technology. They did this by evading US forces by retreting, hiding in the Jungle and using tunnel networks.
Stage 3: Explaining your conclusions
The failure of the U.S. army to beat the Communist in Vietnam was the result of its own weaknesses and Viet Cong strengths.
2. Now write up your answer. Use this structure:
a. The U.S. weaknesses were: the anti war movement, and the fact that it tried to fight guerilla tactics with either conventional or inhumane tactics.
b. At the same time, the Communist strengths were:
motivation, the use of good tactics, and the support of the peasants as well as not caring if they used inhumane means to an end.
c. The U.S. forces did have some successes. For example:
They repelled the Tet offensive, they destroyed many Vietcong supply routs, and they did destroy some of the Vietcong tunnels.
d. However, there were some major failures as well. Examples of these were:
Their strategy was terrible, they lost the war in the end, they caused many civilian casualties, and the loss to gain ratio many times was not worth it.
e. The Viet Cong had some major successes, such as:
They were able to fend off the US with significantly less troops, they did not allow the US to gain any North Vietnam land and they did eventually conquer the South.
f. However, they also suffered defeats, for example:
The Tet offensive failed causing a major loss of troops and supplies as well as not gaining any ground, they also were not able to acutely drive the US out, the US chose to leave based on public opinion in the US.
g. If I had to identify one major American weakness, it would be the anti war movement because it demotivated US soldiers, who were mainly draftees that did not want to be there or to fight, caused public opinion in the US to go against the war, made the war seem evil, and caused many to refuse to be drafted, or resist once they were, or flee the country.
h. The key Viet Cong strength the use of guerilla tactics because: It allowed them to avoid direct contact with the superior US forces, and the use of tunnels (a guerilla tactic) allowed them to menuver troops without letting the US know and provided protection from bombing raids, and other assaults, as well as providing a place to retreat that the US could not follow them into.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
The U.S. Enters the Vietnam War
1. Many neutral observers in Vietnam were critical of US policy. Explain why.
Many people were critical of US policy because their tactic of opposing the communist North Vietnamis was to back anti-communist governments in South Vietnam, and these were generally corrupt and did not treat the general populace very well. Also, the US did not allow the Vietnamis to have free elections.
2. Explain how US politicians would have defended their policies.
The US politicians would have defended their policies by saying that they were just to stop the spread of communism, they would say that if Vietnam fell, than it would create a domino effect and other South Asian countries would also fall to communism.
3. The following events are not listed in correct date order. Place them in the correct chronological order. (Write the year inside the parenthesis, i.e. (1965). Then note the reason for each U.S. action, and how it brought the U.S. into deeper involvement in Vietnam.
The reasons you can choose from are: No direct involvement; financial support; political involvement; military involvement. Also, note what events triggered the increased involvement.
1954) U.S. stops elections in Vietnam: political involvement.
The US feared that if the people of Vietnam were allowed to have their own elections then they would vote communist, so they refused to allow them to have elections.
(1955) Formation of South Vietnam: political involvement and financial support.
The US needed to support South Vietnam against the communists in the North if it had any chance of containing communism. This meant that the US backed all of the governments in South Vietnam and that it gave financial support to them.
(1960) Viet Cong formed: No direct involvement.
The Viet Cong was a guerrilla force made up of communists from North Vietnam. This forced the US to send military aide to the South in order to counter act this group, at first this was in the form of "advisers"
(1961) Viet Cong attacks on U.S. and South Vietnam bases: military involvement
The Viet Cong attacks on U.S and South Vietnam bases forced the US to respond with immediate military involvement so as to defend the U.S's world standing and its troops already there.
(1962) JFK sends military advisers: military involvement.
The military advisers helped train the military in South Vietnam. This dragged the US farther and farther into the conflict as it became a target and it had obligations to fulfill.
(1962) Number of 'advisers' reaches over 11,500: military involvement.
This caused tensions in Vietnam to soar because there were so many military advisers that it was like a small army was occupying South Vietnam.
(1963) U.S. supports South Vietnam government after army overthrow Diem: financial aid.
This caused the US to have to back yet another corrupt government, as well as continue to give it aide.
(1963) Assassination of JFK - Johnson becomes president: no direct involvement
US policy towards Vietnam under Johnson became much more aggressive and he was ready to act at the slightest provocation.
(1964) Gulf of Tonkin Incident: Military involvement
This caused the US to send 3500 marines to Vietnam.
(1965) U.S. Marines land at Da Nang: military involvement.
This meant that the US was now unofficially involved in a war in Vietnam.
4. Choose two events that you think were critical in getting the U.S. involved in a war in Vietnam. Explain
your choice.
Two events that were critical in getting the U.S involved in the Vietnam war were the assassination of JFK, and the U.S support of South Vietnamis governments. The assassination of JFK caused LBJ to assume the presidency, and he had a much more aggressive stance to the North Vietnamis. He was prepared to go to war at the slightest provocation. The U.S support of the different governments that appeared in South Vietnam caused it to get involved in the war because these governments were hated by the people and thus the North Veitnamis grew bold and support for them grew.
Many people were critical of US policy because their tactic of opposing the communist North Vietnamis was to back anti-communist governments in South Vietnam, and these were generally corrupt and did not treat the general populace very well. Also, the US did not allow the Vietnamis to have free elections.
2. Explain how US politicians would have defended their policies.
The US politicians would have defended their policies by saying that they were just to stop the spread of communism, they would say that if Vietnam fell, than it would create a domino effect and other South Asian countries would also fall to communism.
3. The following events are not listed in correct date order. Place them in the correct chronological order. (Write the year inside the parenthesis, i.e. (1965). Then note the reason for each U.S. action, and how it brought the U.S. into deeper involvement in Vietnam.
The reasons you can choose from are: No direct involvement; financial support; political involvement; military involvement. Also, note what events triggered the increased involvement.
1954) U.S. stops elections in Vietnam: political involvement.
The US feared that if the people of Vietnam were allowed to have their own elections then they would vote communist, so they refused to allow them to have elections.
(1955) Formation of South Vietnam: political involvement and financial support.
The US needed to support South Vietnam against the communists in the North if it had any chance of containing communism. This meant that the US backed all of the governments in South Vietnam and that it gave financial support to them.
(1960) Viet Cong formed: No direct involvement.
The Viet Cong was a guerrilla force made up of communists from North Vietnam. This forced the US to send military aide to the South in order to counter act this group, at first this was in the form of "advisers"
(1961) Viet Cong attacks on U.S. and South Vietnam bases: military involvement
The Viet Cong attacks on U.S and South Vietnam bases forced the US to respond with immediate military involvement so as to defend the U.S's world standing and its troops already there.
(1962) JFK sends military advisers: military involvement.
The military advisers helped train the military in South Vietnam. This dragged the US farther and farther into the conflict as it became a target and it had obligations to fulfill.
(1962) Number of 'advisers' reaches over 11,500: military involvement.
This caused tensions in Vietnam to soar because there were so many military advisers that it was like a small army was occupying South Vietnam.
(1963) U.S. supports South Vietnam government after army overthrow Diem: financial aid.
This caused the US to have to back yet another corrupt government, as well as continue to give it aide.
(1963) Assassination of JFK - Johnson becomes president: no direct involvement
US policy towards Vietnam under Johnson became much more aggressive and he was ready to act at the slightest provocation.
(1964) Gulf of Tonkin Incident: Military involvement
This caused the US to send 3500 marines to Vietnam.
(1965) U.S. Marines land at Da Nang: military involvement.
This meant that the US was now unofficially involved in a war in Vietnam.
4. Choose two events that you think were critical in getting the U.S. involved in a war in Vietnam. Explain
your choice.
Two events that were critical in getting the U.S involved in the Vietnam war were the assassination of JFK, and the U.S support of South Vietnamis governments. The assassination of JFK caused LBJ to assume the presidency, and he had a much more aggressive stance to the North Vietnamis. He was prepared to go to war at the slightest provocation. The U.S support of the different governments that appeared in South Vietnam caused it to get involved in the war because these governments were hated by the people and thus the North Veitnamis grew bold and support for them grew.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)