1. Note all of the reasons why you feel the war in Vietnam is wrong.
-It was wasting millions of lives, and billions of dollars, with no end in sight
-It was hypocritical: the U.S. was saying that they were there to remove Communism, but they were backing far more corrupt governments in South Vietnam
-Vietnamese civilians were being killed by the thousands
-Containment was clearly not a successful policy; it had not worked in the past, and it certainly was not working in Vietnam
-the U.S. was too set on looking good to the world; by the time thigns started to turn badly for them in Vietnam, they were too proud (and too far in) to back out
-It was causing unrest within the U.S.; people were being killed at protests, and the government was more hated than it had been since Hoover was in office
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.)
This poster would be trying to convince people to let their voice be heard via peaceful protest; while they often became dangerous, they were a powerful statement, and an effective way to draw attention to the cause.
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.
Images of injured Vietnamese children; images from other peace rallies; images of the effects of Agent Orange/napalm; images of the U.S. soldiers in contrast to the Vietnamese soldiers; words may be necessary, but minimalism would be best.
4. List some possible slogans for your poster.
-Rally for peace, let freedom increase
-Raising voices brings more choices
-Protest today, get out of My Lai
-Search for solutions, destroy violence
-Reason with the Vietcong, peace and love is never wrong
Showing posts with label Vietcong. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vietcong. Show all posts
Friday, May 7, 2010
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Vietnam War Turning Points
1. Why was the Tet Offensive a turning point? Explain your answer.
The Tet Offensive was a turning point in the war; while not exactly a military turning point, it was a turning point in the attitude with which Americans perceived Vietnam. After the Tet Offensive, people became very angry; it appeared that the U.S. was wasting time, money and lives in a situation where they clearly had never had the upper hand. The Offensive destroyed an ancient city; this raised more questions, such as what other precious things the war would destroy if it was allowed to continue. The Tet Offensive was not a clear victory for either the U.S. or the Viet Cong, but it was definitely a turning point within the minds of Americans.
2. Are Sources 51 and 52 making the same point about the My Lai Massacre?
Sources 51 and 52 make similar points, but not exactly the same one. Source 51 carries more remorse; it acknowledges more of the fact that they weren't meant to go to Vietnam to kill anyone, let alone civilians. There is a lot of guilt evident in Source 51; it implies that once the soldiers got to Vietnam, their view of the situation became warped and they acted without thinking. Source 52, while it also points out that the soldiers were not originally sent there to kill humans, seems to be colder about the event; it states that the soldiers saw the Vietnamese not as people, but as people who carried an evil idea that they were ordered to eradicate.
3. Why do you think it took 12 months for anyone to do anything about the massacre?
The army is often very good at covering its mistakes. The army, and the government, would not have wanted news of the massacre to get out; soldiers might have been afraid to speak up in order to avoid retribution. Also, freedom of speech is limited in times of war; everyone works to protect their country and make it look good. Soldiers may have felt that it would hinder the war effort if they let the truth out.
4. Why was the massacre so shocking to the American public?
Up until this point, Americans had not been fully aware of the bloodshed going on in Vietnam. They knew civilians were being killed, yes, but they saw it as an accident. After the My Lai massacre, the people began to turn not only against the government but against the soldiers, as well; perfectly innocent civilians had been murdered, simply because the army did not know what it was doing.
The Tet Offensive was a turning point in the war; while not exactly a military turning point, it was a turning point in the attitude with which Americans perceived Vietnam. After the Tet Offensive, people became very angry; it appeared that the U.S. was wasting time, money and lives in a situation where they clearly had never had the upper hand. The Offensive destroyed an ancient city; this raised more questions, such as what other precious things the war would destroy if it was allowed to continue. The Tet Offensive was not a clear victory for either the U.S. or the Viet Cong, but it was definitely a turning point within the minds of Americans.
2. Are Sources 51 and 52 making the same point about the My Lai Massacre?
Sources 51 and 52 make similar points, but not exactly the same one. Source 51 carries more remorse; it acknowledges more of the fact that they weren't meant to go to Vietnam to kill anyone, let alone civilians. There is a lot of guilt evident in Source 51; it implies that once the soldiers got to Vietnam, their view of the situation became warped and they acted without thinking. Source 52, while it also points out that the soldiers were not originally sent there to kill humans, seems to be colder about the event; it states that the soldiers saw the Vietnamese not as people, but as people who carried an evil idea that they were ordered to eradicate.
3. Why do you think it took 12 months for anyone to do anything about the massacre?
The army is often very good at covering its mistakes. The army, and the government, would not have wanted news of the massacre to get out; soldiers might have been afraid to speak up in order to avoid retribution. Also, freedom of speech is limited in times of war; everyone works to protect their country and make it look good. Soldiers may have felt that it would hinder the war effort if they let the truth out.
4. Why was the massacre so shocking to the American public?
Up until this point, Americans had not been fully aware of the bloodshed going on in Vietnam. They knew civilians were being killed, yes, but they saw it as an accident. After the My Lai massacre, the people began to turn not only against the government but against the soldiers, as well; perfectly innocent civilians had been murdered, simply because the army did not know what it was doing.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
The U.S Struggles Against the Communists in Vietnam
1a) Were the armies finely balanced or was the balance strongly weighted to one side or the other?
The war was weighted towards the Viet Cong. While the U.S. had better (and more) supplies and technology, they lacked a key component: their soldiers lacked the strong, passionate motivation that the Viet Cong had. The Viet Cong had good soldiers, effective tactics, support from the Vietnamese people, and motivated and committed soldiers. These things tipped the scales in their balance.
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?
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?
Having motivated and committed soldiers was most important in determining who won the war. Yes, this feature was so important that other advantages/disadvantages did not matter; Tthe Viet Cong were fighting for a personal goal that they found to be incredibly and intrinsically important to them; they were willing to risk their lives for their ideals. This passion, shown through their ruthless guerilla tactics, terrified the U.S. soldiers, completely removing their morale.
2. Now write up your answer. Use this structure:
a. The U.S. weaknesses were that they lacked soldiers who truly believed in what they were fighting for; their tactics were not as effective as they had hoped they would be; they had little to no support from the Vietnamese people; their soldiers were, for the most part, not motivated or committed.
b. At the same time, the Communist strengths were that they had soldiers who were passionate about their cause; their guerilla tactics crushed the morale of the U.S. soldiers and allowed them to fight a large scale with a fairly small scale army; they had a great deal of support from the Vietnamese people; the Viet Cong soldiers were fighting for a personal cause, and were therefore highly motivated.
c. The U.S. forces did have some successes. For example, their technology far surpassed that of the Viet Cong. Chemical warfare helped the U.S. to make great strides in driving the guerilla soldiers out of the jungle, not to mention removing entire villages without soldiers actually having to enter the village. Also, the U.S. had a larger budget, and was much more well equipped; their soldiers had the latest technology, and enough of it. The U.S. tended to count their successes strangely: the massacre at My Lai, for example, was counted as a victory, as was the bombing campaign.
d. However, there were some major failures as well. Examples of these were the Tet Offensive, in which American troops were taken completely by surprise, and many Americans were killed. Another major failure was actually on the home front: after news of the My Lai massacre got out, the American public began to actively hate and protest the war. The Vietnam War had very, very little support from U.S. citizens.
e. The Viet Cong had some major successes, such as the Tet Offensive; what can be listed as a failure for the U.S. was a victory for them. Smaller, less specific victories include the winning over of the Vietnamese people, little by little, and the development of guerilla warfare tactics. By the end of the war, Americans were terrified of every Vietnamese person they saw; even children were perceived as the enemy. This was certainly a psychological success.
f. However, they also suffered defeats, for example the number of deaths that occurred as a result of search-and-destroy missions like the one at My Lai. Innocent civilians died in great numbers each day; the number of women and children killed by American warfare was definitely a defeat for the Viet Cong.
g. If I had to identify one major American weakness, it would be the lack of motivated soldiers, because without soldiers who truly believe in their cause, it is impossible to have effective troops. Morale was low, the U.S. could not win over the Vietnamese people, and soldiers deeply hated the war and their duties in it; all of these qualities added up to a poor army.
h. The key Viet Cong strength was their good soldiers because it was due to the passion and courage of the Viet Cong that their tactics proved so effective; it was because the Viet Cong were so impassioned about their cause that they were able to easily win over Vietnamese; it was because of the intensity of their soldiers that technology is not a valid part of the equation, because no matter how powerful the weapon, one simply cannot beat an idea with an army.
a. The U.S. weaknesses were that they lacked soldiers who truly believed in what they were fighting for; their tactics were not as effective as they had hoped they would be; they had little to no support from the Vietnamese people; their soldiers were, for the most part, not motivated or committed.
b. At the same time, the Communist strengths were that they had soldiers who were passionate about their cause; their guerilla tactics crushed the morale of the U.S. soldiers and allowed them to fight a large scale with a fairly small scale army; they had a great deal of support from the Vietnamese people; the Viet Cong soldiers were fighting for a personal cause, and were therefore highly motivated.
c. The U.S. forces did have some successes. For example, their technology far surpassed that of the Viet Cong. Chemical warfare helped the U.S. to make great strides in driving the guerilla soldiers out of the jungle, not to mention removing entire villages without soldiers actually having to enter the village. Also, the U.S. had a larger budget, and was much more well equipped; their soldiers had the latest technology, and enough of it. The U.S. tended to count their successes strangely: the massacre at My Lai, for example, was counted as a victory, as was the bombing campaign.
d. However, there were some major failures as well. Examples of these were the Tet Offensive, in which American troops were taken completely by surprise, and many Americans were killed. Another major failure was actually on the home front: after news of the My Lai massacre got out, the American public began to actively hate and protest the war. The Vietnam War had very, very little support from U.S. citizens.
e. The Viet Cong had some major successes, such as the Tet Offensive; what can be listed as a failure for the U.S. was a victory for them. Smaller, less specific victories include the winning over of the Vietnamese people, little by little, and the development of guerilla warfare tactics. By the end of the war, Americans were terrified of every Vietnamese person they saw; even children were perceived as the enemy. This was certainly a psychological success.
f. However, they also suffered defeats, for example the number of deaths that occurred as a result of search-and-destroy missions like the one at My Lai. Innocent civilians died in great numbers each day; the number of women and children killed by American warfare was definitely a defeat for the Viet Cong.
g. If I had to identify one major American weakness, it would be the lack of motivated soldiers, because without soldiers who truly believe in their cause, it is impossible to have effective troops. Morale was low, the U.S. could not win over the Vietnamese people, and soldiers deeply hated the war and their duties in it; all of these qualities added up to a poor army.
h. The key Viet Cong strength was their good soldiers because it was due to the passion and courage of the Viet Cong that their tactics proved so effective; it was because the Viet Cong were so impassioned about their cause that they were able to easily win over Vietnamese; it was because of the intensity of their soldiers that technology is not a valid part of the equation, because no matter how powerful the weapon, one simply cannot beat an idea with an army.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)