Cash4Coursework has been rebranded ‘FreeCoursework.info’ - Visit us to download coursework for free and to earn money from your old coursework!
View this page at Freecoursework.info
Johnson called North Vietnam a “fourth-rate, raggedy ass little country” (Sources C, D and E) - page 1
Keywords: gcse history coursework question four 4 johnson north vietnam war source c d e fourth rate raggedy ass quote
By exploiit on 19/06/2010
Level: GCSE Key Stage 4 (Years 10-11)
Page Number: 1 of 2 pages: 1 2President L.B. Johnson dismissed Vietnam as a “fourth-rate, raggedy ass little country”, exercising his arrogant and small-minded stance both on his own country’s authority and the ability of his opposition. In suggesting that Vietnam is “fourth-rate”, we come to understand that Johnson regards the country as backward and under developed. He believes that their weak, disorganized military force can in no way combat the advanced American army and, by referring to the “raggedy ass little country” is shown to employ a further sense of overconfidence as he disregards the nation – a costly mistake.
The first of my three sources, source C, is a table containing a record of the number of American troops in Vietnam, dating from 1962 to 1973. From this table alone, we can salvage a number of contradictions in regards to President Johnson’s statement. Initially, America had obviously believed that sending 9,000 troops to Vietnam would be sufficient in their engagement. Of course, we have to question why American troops then almost doubled in number, to 15 000 and then 16 000, within the next two years. The following year (1964) saw the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, and an American change of policy. This change of policy brought with it a dramatic rise in the number of soldiers deployed to Vietnam – by 1965, 60 000 troops were serving in the war and this number was to rise consistently to more than 500 000 in 1969. This steady rise leaves us to question Johnson’s bombastic attitude – If this “raggedy ass” nation were so incapable of defending themselves, why was it taking such an excessive number of U.S. soldiers in order to overcome Vietnam? Of course, the sheer length of the war is another indication that President Johnson under estimated the power of Vietnam and the Viet Cong. We see that America’s occupation in Vietnam ranges from 1962 right up until 1973. The fact that it took America 11 years to achieve a ceasefire (in contrast to 3 years in Korea), suggests that Johnson, again, misjudged the capability of his enemy. And of course, Johnson’s haughtiness can be challenged by recognizing that it took over 500 000 troops and an 11 year conquest to achieve not a victory, but a humiliating ceasefire.
Source D is useful in furthering the idea that Johnson took a miscalculated approach to the war in Vietnam. It illustrates the U.S. Government Spending in 1968,
Last 5 comments…
There have been no comments posted for this article, but you need to register if you want to be the first!