As strangers treat your country like a placemat for the boots of war, spit in the face of your family and friends; then treat you as insolent for refusing to cooperate it's only natural to be furious. After 22 years of ongoing bombing, shooting, chaos, and overall misery for the U.S. and Vietnam the letters exchanged by President Johnson and Ho Chi Minh establish their and opinions on each other and the war.Through descriptions of how the U.S. has ravaged Vietnam and the devotion of it's people for their cause, Minh provides an explanation for his decision to pause negotiations and attitude towards the U.S.
From start to finish Johnson was fatigued and irritated, treating the war more like dealing with an unruly toddler. Johnson uses a welcoming
…show more content…
Minh's response is written with a sarcastic and bitter tone towards Johnson and the American soldiers, beginning his letter with " Excellency, on February 10,1967, I received your message". Throughout his reply Minh's emotions, including his resentment and frustrations, are apparent. His letter is littered with descriptions of how the U.S. has devastated Vietnam and their offenses such as, " In North Viet-Nam thousands of American planes have rained down hundreds of thousands of tons of bombs destroying cities, villages, mills, roads, bridges, dikes, dams and even churches, pagodas, hospitals, and schools". Johnson's letter is more professional in comparison to Minh's, but it lacked the same intensity. Johnson tried to express his patience and openness to Ho Chi Minh, but in such a way that he felt conceited, as if he were a parent looking down on a rebellious teen. To contrast Ho Chi Minh fills his letter with sentiment and vigor by speaking out against America's transgressions. Minh is able to provide evidence with examples of bombings, napalm, and other atrocities enacted on the Vietnamese people and appeal to our humanitarian sides with the toll It's taken on their lives to back up his
The Vietnam War was a very mismanaged war but our involvement was very crucial. Some people believe that the side we were on was wrong, and the author of this completely agrees. Ho Chi Minh was really a quite conservative communist leader. He was fair and he was also was balanced. He treated his people very fairly. The beliefs of the author are that if Truman would have not set the precedent of opposing all communist leaders than the Vietnam War would have been a lot different.
Appy’s book is valuable to its readers in showing how Vietnam became the template for every American war since, from novelties like the invasion of Grenada to the seemingly never-ending conflicts post-9/11. But before all that, there was Vietnam, and, larger lessons aside, Appy’s book is a fascinating, insightful, infuriating and thought-provoking study of that conflict, from its earliest days
This shows that not only did Russell not feel intimidated by LBJ, but LBJ welcomed Russell’s opinions. Even though LBJ welcomes Russell as an advisor, in this tape LBJ is questioning sending American troops into Vietnam because even the loss of one American life is a loss. Looking back on the situation, although LBJ was wary about becoming more involved in the war and Russell argued why America should not get involved, LBJ did not take Russell’s opinion and inevitably sent American troops in. Thus, it can be assessed that President Johnson is interested in hearing Russell’s opinions but is still stubborn because he argues that other individuals are not in his position. Russell disagreed with entering Vietnam because he believed the Vietnamese were not doing much to help themselves and thus, did not deserve American help. However, he believed that if the President put American troops in Vietnam then the nation becomes involved and the war needs to be one by extensive military
Lawrence’s purpose in writing this book was concise and to the point. In recent history, due to the fall of the Soviet bloc, new information has been made available for use in Vietnam. As stated in the introduction, “This book aims to take account of this new scholarship in a brief, accessible narrative of the Vietnam War… It places the war within the long flow of Vietnamese history and then captures the goals and experiences of various governments that became deeply embroiled in the country during the second half of the twentieth century” (Lawrence, 3.) This study is not only about the American government and how they were involved in the Vietnam conflict, but highlights other such countries as France, China, and the Soviet Union. Lawrence goes on to say that one of his major goals in writing this book is to examine the American role in Vietnam within an international context (Lawrence, 4.) Again, this goes to show that the major purpose of Lawrence’s study included not only ...
Fussell, Paul. "Vietnam." The Bloody Game: An Anthology of Modern War. Ed. Paul Fussell. London: Scribners, 1991. 651-6.
Before I read this book, I knew almost nothing about LBJ. I had no opinion of him, good or bad. I can't even really remember hearing much about him. So I was given the rare opportunity to formulate an opinion without any personal bias, and despite popular opinion, I really like Lyndon Johnson. Despite his shady political methods (which is actually nothing unusual in politics), he was a man who knew how to get things done. I think people criticize Johnson too quickly. Although the distrust Johnson received from Americans may have been well deserved (when he with-held the truth about the escalating situation in Vietnam), how can one man be held responsible for Vietnam. Johnson didn't start the war, he simply inherited it from Kennedy. Sure, he could have withdrew from Vietnam, but when he started sending troops, he did so at the discretion of his advisors and with the support of the American people. But when Vietnam turned into the horrible "unnecessary" disaster it is remembered as, everyone backed off and Johnson was left to blame. I think the book did an excellent job showing the awesome pressure a president (who people often forget, is just another human being), is put under during a war.
Vietnam was a highly debated war among citizens of the United States. This war was like no other with regards to how it affected people on the home front. In past war’s, the population of the United States mainly supported the war and admired soldiers for their courage. During the Vietnam War, citizens of the U.S. had a contradictory view than in the past. This dilemma of not having the support of the people originates from the culture and the time period.
In order to give a just analysis, to give an examination of the Vietnam Counter-Culture, one would have to look to the preliminary causes, the debates and diplomacy of the youth themselves, and the reflection where this has influenced today’s youth. I am proud to say that as an American I am proud of the simple origins of the peace and love philosophy. Coupled with the causes of freedom, comes a cause for peace and love. Simply put, why can’t we be friends? Why can’t we love our neighbors in the world? Why not peace and love?
The first of these letters was written by Robert C. Ransom from New York City. He was shipped to Vietnam in March 1968 and his letter to his parents showed me how oblivious some soldiers were when first coming to Vietnam. In his letter Ransom shows excitement from being shipped to war and how happy he is to get to fight. He begins to feel compassion for the enemy by stating, “For the most part nobody is particularly wild with patriotic feeling.” Here he explains that the Vietnamese aren’t bad people, their just defending what they believe in. Ransom also writes to his parents about stories other soldiers have told him and tries to glorify them. At the end of his letter he boast about how strong the United States military power. His letter stood out to me because of how naïve he was to what was going ...
The Vietnam War was the longest and most expensive war in American History. The toll we paid wasn't just financial, it cost the people involved greatly, physically and mentally. This war caused great distress and sadness, as well as national confusion. Everyone had that one burning question being why? Why were we even there? The other question being why did America withdrawal from Vietnam. The purpose of this paper is to answer these two burning questions, and perhaps add some clarity to the confusion American was experiencing.
It continues with Johnson and his administration making decisions over and over that continued to commit more and more involvement in the war, without the understanding and approval of all decision makers who should have been thoroughly involved in each decision. It details Johnson’s decision to focus on his domestic programs and his desire to not do anything that would lose him re-election.... ... middle of paper ... ... McMaster has written a thorough look at the decisions of all these men, which certainly shows a Dereliction of Duty.
So many things influenced our involvement in the Vietnam War, and Lawrence examines the decisions we made in a greater context than just our own. He argues that international pressures controlled the attitudes and ideas of the United States, for the most part.
In May 1961, John F. Kennedy sent investigators to Vietnam, thus turning the tide in favor of the United States and South Vietnam. Unfortunately, with the flow of infiltrators and weapons from North Vietnam, the United States and South Vietnam lost their upper hand (Tucker). Conclusively, 2.5 million Americans served and about 58,000 lost their lives in Vietnam (Vietnam Veterans Memorial). On April 30, 1975 Vietnam was finally reunited under a communist government. Once the war ended, Vietnam was devastated. Both the South and North Vietnamese economies were in shambles and they suffered from the chemical pesticides. The Vietnamese also lost about 3 million soldiers and civilians during the war. The United States also suffered due to the fact that the military was completely shattered and had to be rebuilt. The inflation was at an ultimate high from the failure to fact the actual costs of war. These situations forced Washington D.C. to reevaluate the power of the United States
When the Vietnam War was heating up, he tried his very best to keep his words very straightforward and honest. He used pathos in his speech through the usage of the phrases, “a celebration of freedom,” and, “forge against these enemies.” By using these phrases, instead of making the war a task for the people, he made it out as saving the country for the people and for their kids. It wasn’t just a "go and fight," but more of a "go, win, and when you come back enjoy what you have accomplished. " Ask not what your country can do for you but ask what you can do for your country.”
i. Difficulties faced by soldiers due to the nature of fighting in the Vietnam War - Personnel had difficulties with transportation supplied with adapted vehicles back seat faced rear to provide additional fire power (Source A) – It appears as if the government didn't worry enough to supply men with safe and capable equipment - Threat of traps led to fear as vehicles had to be parked on street at night (Source A) o Check for traps each morning became a daily ritual particularly in fuel tanks (Source A) o A request for a locking fuel cap was denied because weren’t entitled to one” (Source A) • What circumstances would have needed to arise for them to be entitled to one? The Offensive full guard was set up (24hrs a day), personnel got no sleep and were constantly on alert (Source A) – How significant would this have been in the personnel’s mental frame of mind?