The battle over reconstructing the collective memory of the Vietnam War is a battle over reinterpreting America, and it started even before the end of the war, and continues to the present day. George Orwell summarized the significance of such struggles in his novel 1984: “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” Since national leaders invariably assume a leading role in the development of an official memory of traumatic events in a nation’s history, the article begins with Nixon’s efforts in redefining and reconstructing the war. Nixon Administration’s: the Reconstruction of Collective Memory Nixon’s approach to the war was viewed as Birchesque. He redefined the war by resorting to the excuse of POW/MIA, and successfully reconstructed American’s memory of the war. When the anti-war movement criticized these measures, Nixon did what any Bircher would do: he decried the anti-war movement as a communist conspiracy that was prolonging the war and that deserved to be treated as an internal security threat. Meanwhile he redefined the war by creating a myth of POW/MIA, and successfully created new visions of the war for Americans. Nixon campaigned for president in 1968 as a peace candidate by promising to bring the troops home, and his campaign was also under the slogan that he would end the war in Vietnam and bring "peace with honor" and he reiterated it in the coming years. In the third Frost interview he stressed his actions were “to try to win an honorable peace abroad”. However, this is only half of the story, and we should clarify the misconception of “honor” here. Here is what he said exactly in the interview: The actions I took with great reluctance, but recognizing I had to... ... middle of paper ... ...in sympathy was no longer for “the man fighting and dying on the front,” who “went virtually unnoticed as attention was focused on the POWs,” who had become “the objects of a virtual cult.” Schell probed to the core of the growing obsession:”Following the President’s lead, people began to speak as though the North Vietnamese had kidnapped four hundred Americans and the U.S. had gone to war to retrieve them.” Perhaps the most startling and penetrating judgment came years later from Gloria Coppin, VIVA’s longtime chair. Although remaining a fervent believer tin eh existence of living POWs, she had come to a painful realization of how she and many others may have been manipulated. As she put it in a 1990 interview:”Nixon and Kissinger just used the POW issue to prolong the war. Sometimes I feel guilty because with all our efforts, we killed more men than we saved. ”
The Vietnam War, which lasted for two decades (1955-1975), was probably the most problematic of all American wars. US involvement in Vietnam occurred within the larger context of the Cold War between the US and the USSR. It was, and remains, morally ambiguous and controversial. The Vietnam War was slated as both a war against Communism and a war aimed at suppressing dangerous nationalist self-determination. Christian G. Appy's book, Working-Class War: American Combat Soldiers and Vietnam, is a graphic and perceptive portrayal of soldiers' experiences and the lasting effects the Vietnam War has had on the American culture and people. Working-Class War: American Combat Soldiers and Vietnam, is an analytical work that has three major purposes: 1. to show that those who fought in Vietnam were predominantly from the working class 2. to convey the experiences of the soldiers who served in Vietnam and 3. to offer his own scathing commentary of American actions in Vietnam.
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 ...
The Vietnam War has become a focal point of the Sixties. Known as the first televised war, American citizens quickly became consumed with every aspect of the war. In a sense, they could not simply “turn off” the war. A Rumor of War by Philip Caputo is a firsthand account of this horrific war that tore our nation apart. Throughout this autobiography, there were several sections that grabbed my attention. I found Caputo’s use of stark comparisons and vivid imagery, particularly captivating in that, those scenes forced me to reflect on my own feelings about the war. These scenes also caused me to look at the Vietnam War from the perspective of a soldier, which is not a perspective I had previously considered. In particular, Caputo’s account of
In 1968 Richard Nixon was elected President. One of the promises he made was to end the Vietnam War. When the My Lai massacre was exposed in November of 1969 there was worldwide outrage and reduced public support for the war. Then a month later the first draft lottery was instituted since WWII. In April 1970, Nixon told the public he was going to withdraw large numbers of U.S. troops from Vietnam. So when he made his television address on April 30 to say we had invaded Cambodia the American people reacted strongly. In the speech Nixon addressed not only Cambodia but also the unrest on college campuses. Many young people, including college students, were concerned about the risk of being drafted, and the expansion of the war into another country appeared to increase that risk. Across the country protests on campuses became what Time magazine called "a nation-wide student strike."
...l. Although we still have not found an exact cure for cancer, we do have ways to get rid of some cancers through either surgery or chemotherapy. These breakthroughs have all started from the push that Nixon gave to start public health care. Richard Nixon’s legacy is one of helping the public, and creating lasting foreign affairs. He is an agent of change for his determination to make America a better country, which he believed was the job of the President of the United States. This determination has given people the comfort of public health care and the world a better sense of environmental protection. He was compassionate, determined, and strong-willed to make America better. His want and desire to make life better for America and the people living in America gave him the drive to create these lasting policies that are still constantly used today.
...of the struggle over how the war would be remembered. Blanketed by the discourse of disability, the struggle over the memory of veterans and the country alike would be waged with such obliquity as to surpass even the most veiled operations of Nixon’s minions. While Nixon’s plumbers were wrenching together the Gainesville case against VVAW in the spring of 1972, mental health and news-media professionals were cobbling together the figure of the mentally incapacitated Vietnam veteran. More than any other, this image is the one that would stick in the minds of the American people. The psychologically damaged veteran raised a question that demanded an answer: what happened to our boys that was so traumatic that they were never the same again? As it came to be told, the story of what happened to them had less to do with the war itself than with the war against the 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 then in the past. This dilemma of not having the support of the people originates from the culture and the time period. During this time period it would be the fourth time Americans went to war in that century which made it tough for Americans to give their supportS (Schlesinger 8). Most Americans did not know why the country was getting involved in Vietnam as well as what the United States’ agenda was. This dilemma ties into the short story, “On the Rainy River” which is a passage from Tim O’Brien’s book The Things They Carried.
In his speech, Eugene McCarthy describes why fighting the Vietnam War was a poor decision to make. First, he mentions how John F. Kennedy gave hope and courage to America and its people in 1963; on the other hand, in 1967, America was in a period of frustration and distrust due to the escalation of the Vietnam War. McCarthy states that America is not the world police and should not be giving promises that they could not follow through with. Moreover, the United States was fighting a pointless war where there are no changes being seen. “I see little evidence that the administration has set any limits on the price which it will pay for a military victory which becomes less and less sure and more hollow and empty in promise” (McCarthy). Throughout the duration of the war, the United States made very little progress, even though they had p...
On April 30, 1970, when Nixon gave a speech announcing his invasion of Cambodia, anti-war factions rose up across the United States. In the speech he stated that, “If, when the chips are down…the world’s most powerful nation, the United States of America, acts like a pitiful, helpless giant, the forces of totalitarianism and anarchy will threaten free nations and institutions around the world. I would rather be a one term president and do what I believe is right than to be a two term president at the cost of seeing America become a second rate power.” Students did not agree with Nixon and protests cropped up on university campuses in the days that followed his speech. Amongst these protesters were students of Kent State University, “The Cambodian invasion defined a watershed in the attitude of Kent students toward American policy in the Indochina War.” At this point, the first two days of May, the students were protesting Nixon’s actions. While the cou...
This unfortunate legacy of failure in Vietnam carried far past the end of his service as Secretary of Defense. For years after, there have been ongoing debates as to what factors led the outcome of the Vietnam War. It wasn’t until 1995 that Robert McNamara contributed his own viewpoint on where the responsibility for the result of the war fell. McNamara’s memoir, “In Retrospect”, chronicles his perspective on the role he played as Secretary of Defense. It is apparent in his memoir that the public image associated with McNamara is vastly different from the McNamara he presents. Ironically, this infamous war he was so commonly know for may have been a war that privately he did not support.[1] This raises the question—was this hawk actually a
...o peoples emotion because in the picture he illustrated their family is just like most care, loving and loyal American families. After Senator Nixon expresses how great he is, he downgrades his opponents by explaining that they are not the best canidates and claims that they support communism, so Americans would question their integrity just as much as they have questioned his. By doing this Senator Nixon forces the people to stop blaming him and to blame his opponents. This brings into question if Senator Nixon is an honest man or just a superb speaker that knows what the people want to hear; leading to the real question of are any polititions honest men or are they just exceptionable at lieing and manipulating? Sadly, most people don't think to question it.
The political and societal ramifications of Vietnam's Tet Offensive indubitably illustrate the historical oddity of 1968. 1967 had not been a bad year for most Americans. Four years after the profound panic evoked by the assassination of John Kennedy, the general public seemed to be gaining a restored optimism, and even the regularly protested Vietnam War still possessed the semblance of success (Farber and Bailey 34-54). However, three short weeks following the eve of 68, Americans abruptly obtained a radically different outlook. The Tet Offensive, beginning on January 30, 1968, consisted of a series of military incursions during the Vietnam War, coordinated between the National Liberation Front's People's Liberation Armed Forces (PLAF), or "Viet Cong," and the ...
General William Childs Westmoreland is a figure that is inextricably linked with the Vietnam War and he is the man that embodies the event to the American people. To look at a timeline of his life is to look at a steady progression to his command in Vietnam. Beyond that he dealt with the aftermath. In effect, it was the defining feature of his life, and Westmoreland was the defining face of Vietnam. His were the policies that kept us in the war, and his were the policies that many claimed lost it. In his own words, “The President never tried to tell me how to run the war. The tactics and battlefield strategy of running the war were mine. He did not interfere with this. He deferred to my judgment, and he let me run the war or pursue tactics and battlefield strategy as I saw fit.” As a result, his decisions had a direct and long lasting effect on America, and its worldview. Three themes run through Westmoreland’s life and help to explain his role in the Vietnam War. His character, likeable, responsible, but conservative, stubborn, and even plodding, was certainly a salient aspect of his career. His upbringing, education, and military experience helped define that character and prepared him, for better or worse, for his eventual command. Finally there was what might be called the system itself, the institutions and their ideologies that steadily promoted him, often, it would seem, for reasons having little to do with merit, to a command in which he found himself in many respects overmatched at home and in the theater of operations. The execution, the outcome, and the ultimate effects consequences of the Vietnam War cannot be viewed as entirely the result of any one man’s actions, but William Westm...
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.
This book details the discussion of government policy in the stages of the Vietnam crisis from 1961-July 1965. It examines the main characters of President Lyndon B. Johnson, Robert McNamara, in addition to the military, which included the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It began in the Kennedy era amidst the Bay of Pigs incident and how that led to mistrust of the military planning by advisors and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It continues with Johnson and his administration making decisions over and over that continued to commit more and more involve...