Source A showed that President Johnson had indeed put on a front concerning Vietnam, he stated that the US where in Vietnam as they had a promise in 1954, to do so when Johnson had signed an agreement at the Geneva Convention with the UN and NATO. Moreover the US was trying to strengthen world order and to stop the spread of communism as, they believed that when one influential country succumbed to communist ways, then surrounding countries would follow (The Domino Theory). This is evident in line 7 – “The result would be instability and unrest.”
With the President of the USA being the author, he obviously knew everything about the war; also President Johnson was a key figure in the conflict. Source A is useful as it reinforces what I already know about the Vietnam War.
The information gathered in Source A is backed up in Source B and both mention communism – however, in Source A there is no clear example of it.
Source A, although useful is biased, as the President mentions nothing bad about the USA.
As I mentioned earlier, it is apparent that President Johnson blocked out the official truth. Having made his speech with regards to the spread of communism, he had put forward America to intervene on behalf of North Vietnam and convinced the American public that Vietnam would not become another Korea. In addition to this, he said that America had promised freedom for all the South Vietnamese people, although in reality, the majority of locals did not want the intervention of America.
President Johnson quoted from the bible, and linked the portrayal of America as the great and good, whilst Vietnam was bad and evil.
The Source is very vague, a typical sweeping Source and President Johnson was only allowing people to hear what he wanted them to hear. There is no reference to Communism, or the deaths caused by Operation Rolling Thunder, however Johnson may not have known how much they were failing just one month into Rolling Thunder (Blanket Bombing).
Again the Source was written in April of 1965, in the middle of the conflict and just one month into Operation Rolling Thunder. In comparison to other Sources, Source B totally disagrees with the Source in question as they both hold different viewpoints, although Source B portrays the official truth.
In conclusion, Source A is somewhat biased as it holds very little, if any truth, it is very uncritical and packed full of American propaganda. The source is obviously been censored for the use of public speaking, and shows how the President was willing to lie to his country.
Source B shows the official truth and the true thoughts of President Johnson, something highlighted in line 5; he states, “It’s the biggest damn mess.” From my point of view it seems that in reality he doesn’t want to fight and is unsure of what to do and possibly regrets the conflict because he is unable to establish a clear reason as to why they are there. This again highlights Johnson’s committed belief in the Domino Theory.
Both Sources (A and B) amaze me, as to how the President can tell the Americans – the people who believe and trust him – a pack of lies. In Source B it is again the President who wrote the Source and again knew everything about the Vietnam War and was also a key figure in the topic. Source B reinforces the guerrilla Warfare of the Vietcong and the successes.
The content in Source C strongly agrees with that of Source B, as, in B, the President is stating his personal beliefs which are true, together with the statement of Noam Chomsky, whilst it is clear that, in fact Source A held little or no truth at all. Although Source B is useful, but it has its limitations, as Johnson was talking in a private conversation; therefore I would expect that it would not be very biased. Unfortunately, to leave it as it stands would be too vague. From my point of view, I can’t help but assume that the whole conversation was planned and I feel that President Johnson knew quite well that the American public would soon find out what was really happening, although there is no mention as to whom the President was talking to.
I would have to say that the Source holds lots of detail and President Johnson knew that they (America) were fighting a war they knew very little about. Again, it seemed that President Johnson thought America would be successful, but now, he could not find a reasonable answer as to why they are there. The Source was written in May 1964, a year before Operation Rolling Thunder, which proves to me that America was failing long before they even started, long before Operation Rolling Thunder.
Source C can justify the evidence gathered from Source B, as both Sources contain the very negative, but truthful information.
In conclusion, Source B portrays the official truth of what was really happening in Vietnam. This Source particularly holds lots of truth behind America’s failure, and shows that the President didn’t really know what to do next, almost like he was embarrassed about losing a war he thought he could win.
From the beginning of Source C, Noam Chomsky restated that the USA was defending the South from North Vietnam; this is somewhat untrue, as the US attacked South Vietnam and ultimately devastated it. Chomsky presented his beliefs to why the US were involved. I quote “the US did not want an independent South Vietnam.” Line 8. America wanted influence in Vietnam.
It became apparent that Professor Noam Chomsky was Anti-Vietnam, Anti-establishment and Anti-capitalist, which presented a very biased view and portrayed America as being bad, and evil people. He believed that Vietnam could develop economically by themselves without the interference of America and Chomsky, although a Professor was not a key figure in the War, but he obviously has all the information he needed to make assumptions, bearing in mind he was a critic. He stated that America would never have considered freedom for Vietnam and not only did they hate Communism, but this was their excuse to become involved in Vietnam.
Source C reinforces extensively what I already know about the Vietnam War, again giving it an element of truth. Source B backs up and agrees with the Source in question.
“It’s a big mess.” America were becoming deeper and deeper involved in this conflict and their aim of going into save South Vietnam, but in fact, a large number of innocent South Vietnamese people were killed by the American’s. Source C, although useful, has limitations. Chomsky had a very biased argument; I couldn’t expect anything more from an American Critic, who obviously has a negative view on America’s involvement. Furthermore, nowhere has he justified his beliefs. This Source is very critical, but does hold a lot of detail towards the issue itself and I am unable to gather any background knowledge as to whether or not Professor Noam Chomsky was involved in the topic.
Chomsky was being interviewed in 1982 – long after the war, therefore his comments would not have had an affect on the people who were involved in the War. I question his reliability.
This particular Source was written in 1982 and Chomsky has all the evidence of the failings and commented extremely well with regards to such things.
Source C does not compare with Source A at all, but Source B hints. They both gave a negative view on the issue as to why America where involved in Vietnam.
Finally, Chomsky stated that the USA did not want South Vietnam to prosper. I couldn’t disagree more and by using background knowledge, I can safely say that, in-fact, the USA was helping the South Vietnamese to prosper by aiding them with money.
In conclusion, although Professor Noam Chomsky was a critic, he made many valid comments about America being in Vietnam. He showed that the American public, including Johnson, felt the involvement was a waste of time, effort, money and most importantly the lives of the young soldiers that were sent there. In the end, what actually was accomplished by America’s involvement? It seems to me that is was a war that ended without just settlement and highlighted the fact that political desire showed no respect for political correctness or responsibility.