REMEMBER TO MAKE NOTES FOR THE LESSON ON THURSDAY. THESE SHOULD BE ORGANISED UNDER HEADINGS - 1, ARGUMENTS FOR, ARGUMENTS AGAINST, CONCLUSION.
Mr Currie - Agree:
Mr Currie - Agree:
The Tet offensive was a change to the guerrilla tactics of the VC. The VC carried out frontal assaults in towns and cities which would have been more suited to the training of US forces. VC attackers could not hit and run as they did in jungles of Vietnam. There were now forced to try and overcome and defend the towns and cities of South Vietnam.
Corrected copy
ReplyDeleteUndoubtedly the Tet offence was a military victory but the unrestricted media coverage change the outcome back at home. As there were no restrictions the American public received the brutal images of the war taking place without any censorship. On the night of the Tet offensive 90% of all the news is directed towards the war, over 50 million Americans tune in to watch this daily. The news showed the graphic images of dead troops and civilians killed in the battles. The media showed that a war that America should be winning was taking its toll on the army. Many said that “it was at best a war that could not be won and at worst defeat.” To make matters worse many of the politicians also had this way of thinking even all the way up to Lyndon Johnson.
Well done Ben, very strong response. The evidence about the media (90% news coverage on the first night of the offensive, 50 million Americans, no censorship) helps to support your argument that TET was a defeat for the USA.
DeleteMeasure and explain how accurate the argument is that TET was a failure for the US forces. Try to explain why people would have the view that it was a failure.
ReplyDeleteArguably to both sides the Tet offensive was a failure. It caused the Americans to pull out of the war even though they did beat the NVA and Viet Cong. The NVA and Viet Cong combined lost 69% of their troops and were ended as an effective fighting force. Yet the Tet offensive still caused the U.S. to pull out of the war allowing the North to unify with the South a short while later; defeating the entire objective of the Americans first entering Vietnam in the first place. So in that sense the American forces failed abysmally.
Good effort Saul. You have put together a conclusion which argues against the hypothesis. However, you need to try and explain how this interpretation has come about. Can you explain why Historians can come to the conclusion that the Tet offensive was a failure?
DeleteThe guidance in the mark scheme demands that students "articulate their answer to acknowledge that interpretations of the past alter depending on what knowledge is selected/downplayed/rejected"
Sentence starter: "The origin of this interpretation is based on historians who consider.........Those that have this interpretation are also likely to have ignored........"
The origin of this interpretation is based on historians who consider the fact that the US pulled out of Vietnam, which was shortly unified under a communist state, as a sign that the US failed. Those that have this interpretation are also likely to have ignored the fact that at least militarily, the america forces defeated the NVA and Vietcong in the Tet Offensive. this is supported by the fact that 69% of the North Vietnamese troops mobilized were killed. At the battle of Khe Sanh , 12,000 of the 20,000 NVA troops that surrounded the position were killed over the 5 month period.
DeleteIs that better???
Superb - couldn't have done better myself. You clearly explain how the interpretation that 'Tet was a failure' has emerged.
DeleteMr Currie, I think this is an absolutely brilliant site and you have obviously put in a massive amount of work to set this up. . . . I just hope that the boys really appreciate your efforts, and that they reward you with their own efforts to get the best possible grades.
ReplyDeleteI used the video links to learn more about the TET Offensive, and scrolled through the past papers to see how the questions about Vietnam are framed.
I am really impressed with what I have seen.
I sincerely hope to see feedback from all of your students on this site.
Mrs Keaney
My conclusion - The interpretation is accurate:
ReplyDeleteAfter considering the two interpretations I have decided that the Tet offensive was mostly a victory for the US forces. This is because the Tet offensive was a distinct campaign of the Vietnam war and I support the interpretation that assesses this in military terms. Those who reject this focus on the impact of the media coverage. However, this is an issue which permeates throughout the whole of the Vietnam war and whilst Tet may have been a turning point in public opinion, it is likely that the first war to be shown in full colour, so extensively and without censorship was always going to negatively impact on public opinion at some point. I therefore believe it is unfair just to view Tet in terms of the media impact and it should be assessed in light of the US success in almost eradicating the threat from VC for the rest of the war.
My Conclusion - The interpretation is inaccurate:
ReplyDeleteAfter considering two contrasting interpretations I have to accept that the Tet offensive was mostly a defeat. Despite the military success of the offensive from a US point of view and the permanent damage that this had on the strength of the VC, this opinion is too narrow and doesn’t reflect the importance of public opinion in this media infused war. The Tet offensive gave the media and the public at home a basis for articulating their opposition of the war. The extent and nature of the attacks caused horror at home and left people in doubt as to how welcome US soldiers were in Vietnam and how likely they were to be successful. This led to pressure from the public to withdraw troops from Vietnam. Leading politicians also began to doubt the prospects of success and strategic thinking from 1968 started to consider how they could end the war rather than win it.
The Tet Offensive was a setback for the South Vietnamese - 14,300 civilians were killed, 70,000 homes were destroyed and there were 627,000.
ReplyDeletewell done Luke, to improve you need to make a stronger connection to America. For example; America were supposed to be defending South Vietnam and appeared to have failed in this task during the Tet offensive.
DeleteThe Tet offensive was a success for the Americans as it did a substantial amount of damage to the Viet Cong.
ReplyDeleteThe Tet offensive resulted in the killing of 45,000 Viet Cong and some of their best Guerrilla fighters were lost. Lots of their most valuable equipment was lost. This all led to the loss of Morale in the troops and the mass desertion of the Viet Cong. For the first time in the war North Vietnam considered surrendering the war. Due to the Tet offensive the Viet Cong were very much ended as a fighting force and the main damage was done by the media after the Tet offensive. Through the Tet offensive the US were able to face the Viet Cong on an open battlefield were the was able to do kill of a large majority of the Viet Cong.
-Ethan Murray
Well done Ethan - although you only had to develop one point. You have made it harder for anyone who has not yet commented but that is not necessarily a bad thing.
DeleteWe might consider the TET Offensive to be a success for US forces, especially militarily. Even though it took their forces by surprise, the US ended the Offensive within 48 hours which resulted in the North failing in what they had hoped to achieve. The South Vietnamese did not rise up in support of the Communists as the North expected and neither did the ARVN crumble; US and South Vietnamese forces succeeded in defending and maintaining their Capitalist Vietnam. Whilst defending the South, US forces also managed to deal devastating blows to the Communist fighters. American forces crippled the Vietcong and reduced it as a credible fighting force; the guerrilla organisation never recovered. Although the NVA was not devastated and would play the major role in US opposition for the rest of Vietnam, it did take it four years to recover after TET. As a result of the failed Offensive, North Vietnamese morale fell, their soldiers began to desert and, for a time, it considered surrender. So, despite the damage caused to the South, it is clear that the TET Offensive was a military success for the US. This interpretation originates from historians who support US involvement in Vietnam and consider their actions in TET to have been successful. The view exists because US forces truly did hinder the North's combat capabilities in the Offensive and they unarguably won in regards to combat in TET. Those who have this view are likely to have ignored the media's portrayal of the TET Offensive and the impact it had on the public. Despite their success in combat, the American people doubted whether their country should be involved in Vietnam and were unsure if the war could be won.
ReplyDeleteWell done Macaulay, you have explained why the interpretation exists (Tet was a victory). To improve you would make it obvious that the interpretation is based on military and strategic information.
DeleteAgainst -
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Tet offence was not a clear victory for the USA and its southern allies. This is due to that fact that after witnessing a video of Vietnamese guerilla warfare, Walter Kronkite, a television journalist who influenced many, questioned the strength of the US soldiers. Having lost President Johnson decided not to stand for re-election in 1968. Having lost the President's support, this is the main reason I believe that it was not a clear victory.
Well done but you should try to give more evidence about Kronkite to make a more significant argument. For example, he was probably the most watched newsreader in America and he helped to form opinions about the war. He was trusted and had shared many of huge moments with the American public - it was him that announced to death of John F Kennedy to Americans. After the Tet offensive he gave his view that Vietnam was a war that could not be won.
DeleteI believe that the Tet offence was not a clear victory for the USA and its southern allies. This is due to that fact that after witnessing a video of Vietnamese guerilla warfare, Walter Kronkite, a television journalist who influenced many, questioned the strength of the US soldiers by saying, "What the hell is going on? I thought we were winning this war". He was a significant figure for Americans, as he shared many important times with the Americans, such as the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Having lost Walter, a man who had affected the views and opinions of many others, President Johnson decided not to stand for re-election in 1968 and came out with the statement "If i've lost Walter, I've lost Mr Average citizen". After the Tet offensive, he gave the people his view that he believed it was a war that they could not win.
DeleteGood improvements Will - well done.
DeleteThe Tet Offensive could definitely be considered a success for the US and South Vietnamese forces. The assaults lasted no more than 48 hours due to the change of tactics by the vietcon. Their sudden change of ways appealed to the US training methods. In the sense that the American army was more acclimatised to frontal assaults. However, there were still casualties from both sides amounting to over a million. But, due to the development of weapons technology, the Americans were able to massively reduce the number of communist fighters in North Vietnam. Reducing the overall impact of communist influence in Vietnam and Eastern Asia. Of course, this links back to the origins of the Vietnam conflict with the idea of preventing the 'Domino Effect' and the globalisation of communism.
ReplyDeleteHarvey Green
Good effort Harvey - just some corrections:
ReplyDelete* The casualties on both sides were around 100,000 not 1,000,000
* The 48 hours is how long it took to get the embassy back under control in Saigon, the offensive itself lasted for around 1 month.
The Tet offensive could most definitely be considered as a victory for the US. This is because the NVA lost 45,000 soldiers, many of them where their most experienced guerrilla fighters, many believed that the NVA would never be able to mount an attack that big any more. This is accompanied by the fact that the NVA added directive 55, to stop them from ever risking entire armies. When The NVA attacked Saigon, but where surprised when many of those in the south chose not to help them, they instead allowed no help to them, this shows that the Americans may have succeeded in winning over the souths minds and hearts. it took only 48 hours in order to get the American embassy back under control, and the battle was over in 1 month.
ReplyDelete-Daniel Wilson
The conceptual view on the TET offensive is broadly accepted as a loss on both sides of the battlefield, per contra be that as it may after excogitation, the events of the TET offensive would advocate a US victory in the eyes of a militaristic perspective. This one month offensive lead to the eradication of a large plethora of Vietcong forces which practically extirpated the usefulness of the Vietcong as an apt war unit. Additionally over 45,000 NVA soldiers lost their lives due to this offensive. In this offensive it was recognized that the loser would be the side which had lost the most lives. Keeping that in mind, the US clearly were the winning side. It is clear that the TET Offensive was a military success for the US. This interpretation likely derives from historians who support US involvement and the actions they took in Vietnam. This particular view exists as the US forces truly did hinder the North's combat capabilities within the offensive. Those who have this view are likely to have ignored or disagree with the media's portrayal of the TET Offensive and the impact it had on the public. Furthermore, it is possible that the scenes shown at home were exaggerated or at least censored to only show the most disturbing of images from the war effort. The extent and nature of the attacks caused horror at home and left people in doubt as to how welcome US soldiers were in Vietnam and how likely they were to be successful. This led to pressure from the public to withdraw troops from Vietnam. Leading politicians also began to doubt the prospects of success and strategic thinking from 1968 started to consider how they could end the war rather than win it. This view on the offensive would have likely offset peoples opinion on who the real winner of the offensive was. To the public this offensive was a disturbing mess that the US couldn't control and although to an extent this may be true in afterthought the offensive in terms of numbers lost was a US victory.
ReplyDelete- Anon 'e' mouse (Jordan-Anthony Davies)