Us Involvement in the Vietnam War

United States' Involvement in the Vietnam War
Source Based
Vietnam in South East Asia had always been a desirable country. Since the 19th century, it was ruled by France and called Indo China. Apart form one rebellion in 1930, France had total control of the country until they surrendered to Germany in the Second World War in 1940.
Japan, Germany's ally, took control of Vietnam and the resources in it, such as coal, rice, rubber, railways and roads. An anti-Japanese resistance organisation, which was called the Viet Minh and led by Ho
Chi Minh, a communist, was formed. At the end of the war, the Viet
Minh controlled the North Vietnam and had ambitions to control the rest. Japan had gone when they entered Hanoi in 1945 and declared
Vietnamese independence. When war broke out between France and Vietnam in 1946 because the French wanted to regain control of Vietnam, the
Viet Cong, which was a communist-supporting group against the
Americans set up in the South of Vietnam, used guerrilla tactics against the French. These involved hit and run raids and other tactics that the French hadn't experienced before and made them almost impossible to beat.

To begin with, the USA was sympathetic towards the Viet Minh because they viewed the situation as Vietnam wanting to have independence and they did not agree with countries having colonies anyway. However in
1949, when communists took over China and began to give help to Ho Chi
Minh, the USA became afraid that the Viet Minh were the puppets of
China. The Americans then became increasingly involved in Vietnam because they hated communism and were very much afraid of a communist spread. They feared the Domino effect, which meant that if Vietnam fell to communism, they expected nearby countries such as Cambodia,
Laos, Thailand, Burma and India to become communist one after the other, very quickly. The USA had a policy known as the Truman
Doctrine, which meant that they would send money, equipment and advice to any country threatened by a communist take over. Therefore, they provided Ngo Dinh Diem, who was helped to set up the anti-communist
Republic of South Vietnam, with $1.6 billion in the 1950's. The other policy that the USA had was containment, which was to prevent communism spreading any further than it already had done in Eastern
Europe. The USA stopped the proposed elections taking place in Vietnam for fear that the communists would win, so Vietnam was divided into
North and South Vietnam in 1954. This communist victory over the
French led the Americans to believe that communists were taking over the world and must be stopped.

Sources A to C show two people's views towards America going into war against North Vietnam and the Viet Cong. Source A is a speech made by
US President Johnson in April 1965, one month after the start of
Operation Rolling Thunder. He is justifying the reasons for going into war against Vietnam, which are to keep the peace and freedom of the people in South Vietnam. Its content can be trusted because, being the
President, he was directly involved in Vietnam so he knew what was happening and understood what he was talking about. However, it is untrustworthy because he is speaking after Operation Rolling Thunder so he has a need to justify the reasons for the bombing and attacks on
Vietnam, and he could just be identifying reasons that will help receive most support from the public for the war. He is speaking after the Gulf of Tonkin incident where two American ships were attacked so he is speaking in the 'heat of the moment' and perhaps at a time where he feels that he can convince most of the public that they are going into war to keep the peace and security.

After the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the US Congress passed the Tonkin
Gulf Resolution. This gave Johnson the power to 'take all necessary measures to prevent further aggression and achieve peace and security.' The Congress meant that they would support a war if its purpose were to bring peace and security, so this is maybe why Johnson is saying these are the reasons why America should go into war. It does not give his true opinion of why or whether America should go into war. It gives the official reasons and the ones he wants the public to hear. This suggests that the source is not completely trustworthy and is therefore not useful for providing the feelings that President Johnson really had for going into war. Also, the ascription states that he was 'speaking' but it there is no information as to where he was speaking and in front of which groups of people. This affects the source's usefulness because historians will not be able to tell which people Johnson wants to hear these views. Source A is very useful for showing what President Johnson wanted the
American public to think the reasons were for going into war against
Vietnam. He explains, 'we fight because we have a promise to keep,' which implies that previous American presidents wanted to help South
Vietnam to gain freedom and independence, and he is following this policy. He also states, 'we are there to strengthen world order,' which is suggesting that the USA is like the world's police force and it shows their position in the world, meaning that they are a country with power and responsibility. Johnson has used the bible to gain public support, as he says, 'Hithertho shalt thou come, but no further…' He has done this because a lot of the United State's population were Christians so it would persuade them to think that going into war is morally the correct thing to do. Johnson has introduced an element of fear by saying that if they hadn't gone into war against Vietnam, 'the result would be instability and unrest, and even wider war.' The American public would still be recovering from and remembering the devastating effects of the Second World War and they desperately didn't want another war, so it would add to public support for the war. Johnson refers back to the Second World War when he says, ' we must stay in South East Asia- as we did in Europe,' to reinforce that America needs to go into war to preserve the peace because when they were involved with Europe it worked out peacefully in the end so it should do this time. Therefore this source does have its uses, especially for demonstrating the official reasons for going into war and some of the views he wanted the American public to have, for example America being like the world police force. He emphasises that the war is about keeping peace and is for the freedom of the people in South Vietnam.

The usefulness of Source A is however limited, particularly by details that are left out and the way the source is one-sided. President
Johnson was bitterly anti-Communist, which is one of the main reasons
America went into war against Vietnam. Johnson feared a spread of
Communism around the world. In the source there is no reference to
Communism or mention of any of the causes of this conflict and why war is actually necessary to preserve the peace. Instead, his speech concentrates on what the consequences will be if America does not go into war. He does not give information on the Domino theory or containment. This makes it less useful because there is no evidence to back up Johnson's speech that war is needed to keep the peace. Johnson is also very positive about the war and does not mention any problems that the soldiers might have fighting, for example the Viet Cong's guerrilla tactics that the American soldiers were not used to at all and had trouble fighting against. Johnson also doesn't talk about the
Gulf of Tonkin incident, which happened a short while before his speech. This is because he did not want to appear weak, but it affects its usefulness because historians cannot find out what Johnson's opinions were on it.

Some points that Johnson makes are accurate and correct whereas some are not, for example when he says, 'since 1954 every American
President has offered support to the people of South Vietnam,' he is being accurate in some ways. When John F. Kennedy became President in
1960, he increased the number of military advisors from 100 to 1600 by
1963, and also helped to equip the South Vietnamese army. President
Eisenhower supported the South Vietnamese government before him.
However, Johnson has been slightly inaccurate because although the
American Presidents have supported the governments, they haven't necessarily supported the people. A lot of the South Vietnamese people actually supported Communism because a lot of them were peasants and it meant that everyone would be equal and landlords would not be better off anymore. However, the leader Ngo Dinh Diem imprisoned many of the people who supported Communism, so they didn't always express their opinions. Johnson has been accurate about staying in South East
Asia in earlier times, because the Americans did fight here and didn't just ignore it or leave it. There is evidence to suggest that Johnson has been pretending that he wants to go into war because in May 1964 he spoke in a private conversation and said, 'I don't think its worth fighting for.' This affects the source's usefulness because historians cannot trust the source, as it could all just be an act to the public.

Source B has been taken from a private conversation that President
Johnson was having in May 1964. He is basically saying that the situation in Vietnam is not worth fighting for and that he disagrees with going to war, although certain factors are making it very difficult for him not to go into war. As he is speaking in a private conversation, it makes what he is saying extremely reliable because he is likely to be being honest and truthful, as he does not have to put on an act in front of a group of people and he is not speaking on the radio for example so Johnson does not think that what he is saying will be disclosed to the public. Johnson sounds as if he is being honest too, because he is speaking in a very informal tone, as he says things like, 'we care a hell of a lot less,' and 'it's the biggest damn mess.' He would not use language like this if he was trying to persuade someone important and pretend to them that he was opposed to going to war. He is presenting the unofficial reasons of why America should and shouldn't go into war and they are likely to be his personal views. However, because there is no information to suggest whom he is talking to, it makes it less useful because he may have been speaking to someone who he wanted to make believe that he was against war. Also, there is the risk that the details of his speech may not have been captured inaccurately, for example if someone had overheard him, and this makes the source very slightly untrustworthy.

The fact that he is speaking in May 1964 means that he is speaking before the Gulf of Tonkin incident, where two American ships were attacked, because this happened in August 1964. Therefore the
Vietnamese showed no real threat to the Americans at this point in time anyway and he may have changed his mind after this event, which is what his public speech after war broke out was suggesting. This makes historians unable to trust that what he is saying is what he thought directly before the war, when the situation was more desperate, although it is difficult to tell whether he had changed his mind to be supportive of the war due to his speech being public. Like
Source A, President Johnson is speaking and he was directly involved in the war so he knows what he is talking about and can make therefore use his knowledge and experiences to make informed arguments. This makes it a trustworthy source to be used to see the reasons for not going into war at this time, and it can be used to show why America did not go into war this early.

Due to this source being a private speech, historians can be almost certain that these are the President's true thoughts and feelings, and so it can be used to investigate what they were. Johnson implies that he does not want the USA to be involved in Vietnam by saying, 'I don't think the people of our country know much about Vietnam,' but the people and politicians would be unhappy if he withdrew. Also, he thinks that he would be replaced or not elected again, as he says,
'they'd bring a President down if he ran out.' He is implying that he is being forced to go into war by the people and politicians so he can remain President, yet they do not know enough about Vietnam to be able to able to support going into the North of Vietnam to fight. He is suggesting that the people and politicians of America don't understand why he is not making a move and going into war. The source can be useful for showing what the thoughts of the politicians and people were in May 1946 but historians could not fully trust it, as it is only what Johnson has said, although he probably has no reason to lie, as he is speaking privately.

Johnson does want to make sure the Communists are dealt with and not ignored, as he says, 'if you start running from the Communists, they may chase you into your own kitchen'. This means that if the
Communists are ignored, they will take over, spread and become a threat to US lands. He is referring indirectly to the US policy of containment where Communism has to be prevented from spreading and the
Domino theory, which demonstrates how Communism could spread extremely quickly. Historians can make good use of these views of the President because his views are very important, as he was one of the main leaders in the Vietnam War. The source can also be useful to suggest that Source A is inaccurate because President Johnson has given a totally different account of why America should get involved with
Vietnam. In Source A he is saying that it would be to preserve peace and allow the people of South Vietnam to have freedom, although in
Source B he is arguing that it is not worth it, as the country is so far away and no use to America, which implies that one of them is inaccurate. The source's usefulness is affected by the information that is left out, as it means that historians cannot use the source to find out the
President's views on other issues. President Johnson doesn't mention why he wants to 'contain' Communism and why he does not like this system, which is partly because it means that the country cannot be as productive. In addition, he does not mention the Truman Doctrine or what his opinions are on it when he explains the only reasons they should go into war. This makes it less useful because historians will not be able to see whether Johnson thought it was worth sending supplies into Vietnam, because from what he says, he does not appear to think that Vietnam is a worthwhile country to get involved with.
Johnson does not explain how he would feel about going into war against Vietnam if the Vietnamese caused a threat to America, other than the spread of Communism, like they did in the Gulf of Tonkin.
Therefore, historians cannot justify whether he is saying Vietnam is not worth fighting for because they have been no real threat to
America yet and whether he would actually change his mind if they became a threat. Johnson does not comment on why the public and politicians agree to get involved in Vietnam, which makes this statement less reliable because there is no evidence to back up this point. If what he is saying is correct, historians will be unable to find out why these people supported the war from this source, or what
Johnson thought their reasons were for supporting war.

Some of the points that Johnson makes are accurate and correct, however some of the things he says are incorrect. When Johnson says,
'if you start running from the Communists, they may chase you into your own kitchen,' he is being accurate by saying this is a possibility because Vietnam attacked two American ships in the Gulf of
Tonkin so they are prepared to fight the Americans. Also, they used the guerrilla tactics, which the Americans were not very good at fighting against, so they had the capabilities of causing threats to the Americans involving land. When he mentions the politicians by saying, 'they'd bring a President down if he ran out, wouldn't they?' he is being quite accurate because they may not like him being
President if he is making America look weak by backing out of Vietnam and ignoring the situation. Because Johnson makes some accurate points, it makes the source useful for showing some reasons why
Johnson felt he had to get involved in Vietnam. Some points that
Johnson makes are inaccurate, for example, 'I don't think we can fight them ten thousand miles away from home' is inaccurate because they did manage to send thousands of troops and 3500 US marines, and used chemical weapons and search and destroy to fight against the
Vietnamese government. Although he was unaware of this at the time, it still makes the source not useful for giving us factual details; its main uses lie in giving historians Johnson's opinions about going into war. Source C is an American critic of the war, called Professor Noam
Chomsky, being interviewed in October 1982. Firstly, this source's content can be trusted for providing historians with the possible reasons why America got involved with Vietnam, because he is a
Professor so he is an intelligent man and probably has good abilities in research and gathering information. However, historians don't know what he is a professor of, and he could be a Professor of Science for example. Therefore he may not have studied the war in great depth, which makes the source slightly less trustworthy, and many US intellectuals were opposed to the war anyway so this source will not be as useful, as he will be making the same points as a lot of other
US intellectuals. The source is trustworthy because Chomsky would have had access to more sources due to the interview being after the war.
He will have been able to look at sources like a private conversation
President Johnson was having, as well as photos of the destruction that was caused to South Vietnam, so he will have had more evidence to base his argument on. He would have also been able to research more events. Because Chomsky is speaking in the 1980's there was more freedom of speech and he will have been able to say what he thought without him being seen as a defender of Communism or North Vietnam, as there would have been little tension and bad feeling at this time.
Therefore he is likely to have been honest, which gives the source more uses to historians.

The factors that make this source untrustworthy are he is speaking in an interview so some of his answers could have been altered by the interviewer or he could have made his answers more dramatic when he talks about South Vietnam being devastated, to seek public approval.
Chomsky was not involved in the war so it can be argued that he does not know much about why America got involved in Vietnam, as he was not there at the time when leaders were making decisions. He can only assume what the reasons were. This source is not useful for providing a balanced account of the reasons why America got involved with
Vietnam, as he is a war critic so he is always going to be biased and against the war. However, he is an American so he is not likely to be trying deliberately to lie and make the country sound weak and selfish so historians can be quite certain that what he is saying is truthful and not just made up. This makes the source more useful to historians.

Source C is certainly very useful for providing the unofficial reasons for America going into war, possible reasons that the American government didn't want the public to know and what American war critics thought of America going into war. This is because Chomsky suggests what he thinks are the real reasons for America getting involved in Vietnam and they are backed up with evidence. To begin with, he denies that the official reasons for going into war are correct, like the ones in Source A. He disagrees with the possibility that America was defending South Vietnam by saying, 'the United States did attack South Vietnam.' He has used the fact that the South was devastated, including the farming and peasant society, as evidence.
The effect that the fighting had on South Vietnam was more widely known about in 1982, so people were more likely to agree with his views and this is probably why he has used the destruction of South
Vietnam as evidence. Chomsky states that people opposed to the war in the 1960's were accused of defending Communist North Vietnam. He is probably using this to explain why it is mainly now that people like him are expressing their views towards America's reasons for their involvement because if they spoke before they would be accused of this, and his purpose is to gain more public approval. Chomsky implies that the official reasons were incorrect by saying, 'the U.S. did not want an independent South Vietnam that was no longer dominated by
America.' He is suggesting that America didn't actually want South
Vietnam to have independence because America wanted to be in control and thus make sure South Vietnam would not become a superior force.

The source is concentrating on the reasons America might have had for going into war that would be seen as being selfish and the ones they did not want the public to know about. However, there is no mention of fighting and killing innocent Vietnamese people just because America wanted to prevent Communism spreading. This is one of the more selfish reasons that America had for going into war, yet it is not mentioned by Chomsky, which makes it less useful to the historian because they are not provided with a full account of the unofficial reasons for
American fighting Vietnam. There is no mention of the Truman Doctrine or the policy of containment. Also, Chomsky has been slightly over-dramatic and inaccurate by stating that the reason they fought
Vietnam was to stop Vietnam becoming superior over America and loosing
America's dominance over them. There is no evidence to suggest that
America was seeking power in South-East Asia, and there is even evidence to suggest they were not interested, for example where
Johnson was speaking in a private conversation and said, 'what is it worth to our country?' The likelihood is that Chomsky has altered the reasons for America wanting to control South Vietnam to seek more public approval. This makes the source less useful, as it is less trustworthy and reliable, and this makes the rest of the source untrustworthy. Chomksy has been accurate when stating that the Americans were attacking South Vietnam more than defending. This is because a lot of the fighting took place in South Vietnam and Americans killed many innocent Vietnamese people, as they did not wear uniform so the
American soldiers were not able to distinguish between civilians and soldiers. For example, in March 1971, Calley was found guilty of the murder of 22 civilians. Considering that a lot of the South Vietnamese people wanted a Communist government, the Americans were attacking them more than defending them. Therefore, this part of the source would be useful to an historian for providing relatively accurate information. Overall, Source C is mainly useful for identifying what an American critic thought of the American reasons for getting involved, and due to some inaccuracy and over-dramatic comments, it is less trustworthy, so it makes it less useful. There is also no other viewpoint given that is suggesting reasons why it was right for
America to go to war; it is simply explaining why it was wrong. This makes the source less useful, as no information can be gathered about these reasons.

Sources A, B and C are all useful to some extent. Source A gives the official reasons for America getting involved in Vietnam, that Johnson wants the public to hear and Source B and C give the unofficial reasons. Source A is less useful for providing an accurate account of the reasons for going into war, because they are simply the reasons that the President wants the public to hear. However, this source is useful for showing what he wanted the public to think. Johnson was more likely to be telling the truth in Source B because he is speaking privately, so it makes the source useful for identifying his thoughts and feelings. This source is less useful though because there is no real threat to Americans at this time in the conflict anyway. Source B is useful for proving that the President is lying in his speech, in
Source A, or has changed his mind, as they show very different views.
Source C is very useful for providing a more accurate account, as
Chomsky is a person who wasn't involved in the war so he does not have to pretend to anyone what America's reasons were. It can provide historians with useful facts that suggest that America was being selfish and was merely attacking South Vietnam, not defending it.
Although this source lacks some details and mentions nothing about
Communism, which is the main reason America became involved, and this makes it less useful. None of the sources mention anything about the
Truman Doctrine or the policy of containment, which makes them less useful because no opinions about these can be gathered, although all the sources give opinions on the reasons for America getting involved, which can be useful to historians when trying to figure out the real reasons for America's increasing involvement in Vietnam. The sources give the views of the President in the 1960s and of an anti-war campaigner, but not the views of the Congress or U.S. people and they do not mention why President Kennedy became involved in Vietnam in the first place. Consequently, the sources cannot be used to gather information about these issues. All of the sources give historians an idea as to what the reasons were, but do not provide historians with the full picture