The Vietnam War was a military conflict during the Cold War that started in November of 1955 and ended with the fall of Saigon on April 30th 1975. The war was fought between the United States along with Southern Vietnamese against the North Vietminh, in response to the French defeat in Indochina. At first the people in the United States supported the war and thought it would be patriotic to serve for their country, like the older generation that served in the World Wars’. However, as the Vietnam War progressed, the antiwar demonstrations started to spark because as military personal needed to support the war increased Americans saw no end to the war.
Telltale Hearts: the origins and impacts of the Vietnam antiwar movement explains the reasons …show more content…
military operations in Southeast Asia” and “it did not help stop the war but rather helped prolong it.” Garfinkle’s thesis is that because the antiwar movement was not organized, they only aided in prolonging the war because they were a distraction for the government. Garfinkle criticized the antiwar movement’s belief that the movement “played a major role in constraining, de-escalating the ending the war” were wrong and that the antiwar movement “did not save lives but instead probably cost them” by “unwittingly abetting the paralysis of the Johnson administration.” A contributing factor in Garfinkle’s argument of prolonged war due to the antiwar movement is that the “civil rights movement-trained students did not take over the leadership of the antiwar movement” specifically speaking, the Students for Democratic Society (SDS). There were three elements that shifted the center of gravity of the movement the New Left, old Left, and the pacifist, which had many different groups associated with them like the “Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), SDS, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the WRL, the CNVA, the FOR, WILPF, WSP, and the AFSC.” Students for Democratic Society believed firmly that “the antiwar movement could never stop the Vietnam War… they wanted to change and revolutionize American society and politics.”
Confronting the war machines: Draft resistance during the Vietnam War connects directly with the draft resistance …show more content…
Garfinkle’s position is argued through 2 major arguments 1) “the sources of the era’s youthful radicalism” and 2) “the movement’s longer-term impact on American political culture” (Garfinkle 1). Garfinkle justifies the first argument by stating the many different interest groups affiliated with the antiwar movement; for example, the New Left, old Left, and the pacifist whom were in the same movement with different opinions. Garfinkle proves the first claim by showing that the three groups (New Left, old Left, and the pacifist) had other subgroups and different organizations forcing the government to focus on the people’s interest shown through Johnson’s “Great Society”, which in turn disallowed the focus on winning the Vietnam War; such as the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), the WRL, the CNVA, the FOR, WILPF, WSP, and the AFSC (Garfinkle 67-68). Garfinkle criticizes that the movements showed antipatriotism toward the United States government because it was against the government. The more radical the antiwar movement got, the more disorganized the movement became. In turn the movement was less effective because they were no longer fighting for the same thing. Garfinkle’s argument differs from Foley’s because Foley states that because the government paid attention to the society, it was
Telltale Hearts: the origins and impacts of the Vietnam antiwar movement explains the reasons …show more content…
military operations in Southeast Asia” and “it did not help stop the war but rather helped prolong it.” Garfinkle’s thesis is that because the antiwar movement was not organized, they only aided in prolonging the war because they were a distraction for the government. Garfinkle criticized the antiwar movement’s belief that the movement “played a major role in constraining, de-escalating the ending the war” were wrong and that the antiwar movement “did not save lives but instead probably cost them” by “unwittingly abetting the paralysis of the Johnson administration.” A contributing factor in Garfinkle’s argument of prolonged war due to the antiwar movement is that the “civil rights movement-trained students did not take over the leadership of the antiwar movement” specifically speaking, the Students for Democratic Society (SDS). There were three elements that shifted the center of gravity of the movement the New Left, old Left, and the pacifist, which had many different groups associated with them like the “Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), SDS, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the WRL, the CNVA, the FOR, WILPF, WSP, and the AFSC.” Students for Democratic Society believed firmly that “the antiwar movement could never stop the Vietnam War… they wanted to change and revolutionize American society and politics.”
Confronting the war machines: Draft resistance during the Vietnam War connects directly with the draft resistance …show more content…
Garfinkle’s position is argued through 2 major arguments 1) “the sources of the era’s youthful radicalism” and 2) “the movement’s longer-term impact on American political culture” (Garfinkle 1). Garfinkle justifies the first argument by stating the many different interest groups affiliated with the antiwar movement; for example, the New Left, old Left, and the pacifist whom were in the same movement with different opinions. Garfinkle proves the first claim by showing that the three groups (New Left, old Left, and the pacifist) had other subgroups and different organizations forcing the government to focus on the people’s interest shown through Johnson’s “Great Society”, which in turn disallowed the focus on winning the Vietnam War; such as the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), the WRL, the CNVA, the FOR, WILPF, WSP, and the AFSC (Garfinkle 67-68). Garfinkle criticizes that the movements showed antipatriotism toward the United States government because it was against the government. The more radical the antiwar movement got, the more disorganized the movement became. In turn the movement was less effective because they were no longer fighting for the same thing. Garfinkle’s argument differs from Foley’s because Foley states that because the government paid attention to the society, it was