Hello, and welcome to today's history lesson.

My name is Mr. Merrett, and I'll be guiding you through today's lesson.

So let's get started.

So by the end of today's lesson, which is on peace negotiations, we'll be able to describe the features of the peace negotiations and give reasons for their failure.

And in order to do that, we need to use some key terms. And our key terms today are delegates and negotiation.

A delegate is a person sent to a meeting or conference in order to represent others.

And a negotiation is a discussion aimed at reaching an agreement.

So now that we know that, let's get started.

Today's lesson has three learning cycles, and our first learning cycle is early setbacks.

So early in 1968, president Johnson could see the extent to which the American public opposed the war in Vietnam, and he decided to take action.

On the 31st of March, Johnson ordered a halt to Operation Rolling Thunder, which was the extensive bombing campaign against North Vietnam, in the hope that this might encourage the North Vietnamese to begin negotiations to end the war.

The plan worked and both sides met in Paris on the 10th of May, 1968.

However, any celebrations at Johnson had planned were soon put on hold.

It very quickly became clear that these negotiations were gonna be a long, drawn-out affair.

Arguments between the delegates began immediately.

South Vietnam refused to accept the presence of the Viet Cong delegates, and in return, North Vietnam and the Viet Cong refused to acknowledge the South Vietnamese delegates.

Once this disagreement had been resolved by the U.

S.

delegates, a new argument broke out, which is, what kind of table would be used for negotiations.

So the North Vietnamese wanted a round table to symbolise equality, whereas the South Vietnamese wanted a rectangular table to demonstrate that there were two sides to the fighting.

An agreement was finally reached, which provided both North and South Vietnam with a shared round table, and all other delegates with individual square tables placed nearby.

Over the months that these preliminary negotiations were taking place, the fighting and the killing continues.

On average at this point in time in the war, roughly 500 U.

S.

soldiers became casualties every single day, whilst, from the U.

S.

perspective, delegates wasted time in Paris arguing over seating arrangements.

So a quick check for understanding, it's a discussion question first of all.

I would like you to discuss, why did the U.

S.

want to end the war in Vietnam in early 1968? So think about how many different answers you can come up for that question.

Have a little go on that, pause the video whilst you're thinking about it, and I'll come back to you in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

So some possible answers which you may have come up with might be the impact of the Tets Offensive.

It might have been unhappiness in the U.

S.

with the draught, and it may well have been growing opposition to the war.

There are other answers you could have come up with as well.

But those are three that I came up with and maybe you've got those as well.

So another quick check for understanding: Which of these were an indication that early negotiations were not going well? Is it that disagreements over the table shape? Was it that delegates refused to be in the same room? Or was it that delegates refused to attend? So choose A, B, or C now.

Okay, if you chose A, then congratulations.

That is indeed correct.

And another very final check for understanding for this learning cycle.

On average, how many U.

S.

soldiers became casualties every day whilst preliminary negotiations were taking place in 1968? Was it A, 50, B, 500, or C, 5,000? Make your choice now.

All right, if you chose B, 50, that is correct.

Very well done.

So the average number of U.

S.

casualties every day at this point in time in the war was about 500.

Right, let's go for our first task for today then.

So I've got two newspaper articles, which I'm going to show you, and the first one's on the screen now.

What I'd like you to do is read through the two newspaper articles about the early negotiations, and first of all, for each one, write a headline that summarises the main points made in the article.

And then secondly, I'd like you to identify the main differences between them.

So let's just read through those articles now to make sure we are happy and understand them.

Article one says, "Johnson is close to securing victory for the U.

S.

on the battlefield and around the negotiation table.

Johnson's decision to halt Operation Rolling Thunder has successfully forced the communists into negotiation talks and, with Johnson's men leading the negotiations, this war is sure to be over soon.

Johnson has listened to the people of America and South Vietnam and given them what they asked for: an end to the communist menace in Vietnam.

Go Johnson, go." So that's our first article.

Our second article states, "Johnson is having no luck in convincing the Vietnamese delegates to sit down together for serious negotiations to end the bloodshed in Vietnam.

Reports from the negotiation room suggest the delegates have spent another day arguing about the shape of the table, all whilst another 500 brave U.

S.

soldiers have become casualties.

And this follows days of arguments in which South and North Vietnamese delegates refused to even acknowledge each other.

The American people are slowly losing faith in Johnson's negotiation skills.

Will this war ever end?" So a reminder, you need to write a headline for each of those two articles that summarises the main points.

And then once you've done that, identify the main differences between them.

Pause the video whilst you're having a go at that, and I'll see you once you're finished.

All right, welcome back.

Hopefully you got on fine with that task.

So here's some possible answers which you could have come up with.

So the headlines I came up with for those two articles: the first one, I said "Peace with Honour".

And for the second one I said, "No Peace, No Honour".

So somewhat similar with those two there, obviously coming up from a different perspective, and I highlighted that perspective in my answer to the second question, which is that the main difference between the two articles is that the first article is positive about the negotiations whilst the second article is negative.

I then go on to just give a little more detail for my answer there.

So I say, "The first article is happy the negotiations are taking place, but the second article is frustrated by the delays." So technically my first sentence answered the question, but my second sentence just gives that little bit of additional detail to support the point that I made.

So hopefully you've got something similar to that as well in your answer.

Right, our second learning cycle for today is negotiations under Nixon.

So 1968 was also the year that presidential elections were due to be held in the U.

S.

Nixon, who was a Republican, was running against the Democrat and current vice president, Hubert Humphrey.

And in order to give himself an edge, Richard Nixon was secretly in communication with the president of South Vietnam, Nguyen Van Thieu, which was considered treason.

And the reason being that regular U.

S.

citizens are not allowed to conduct negotiations with foreign countries on behalf of the U.

S.

That is a treasonable offence.

Only people who work for the American government are able to do that.

Nixon was concerned that any breakthrough in negotiations would reflect well on Humphrey, what with him being the current vice president, so he could claim that he was part of the government that helped bring about peace in Vietnam, which would obviously give him a massive boost in the upcoming election.

As a result, Nixon encouraged Thieu to sabotage the peace talks in order to improve his own chances of being elected.

And in return, Nixon promised Thieu more favourable terms in the peace talks once he, Nixon, was in power.

Thieu complained once again about the seating arrangements, which delayed negotiations.

But it should probably be pointed out that there's no evidence to suggest that Thieu did this on behalf of Richard Nixon.

We do know that Nixon wanted this to happen.

We do know that Thieu did indeed do that.

We don't necessarily know that Thieu was acting on behalf of what Nixon wanted or whether he had legitimate concerns and that led to the delays anyway.

So it's probably worth pointing that out.

Regardless, what Nixon wanted happened, Nixon then won the election against Humphrey, but he won it by less than 1% of the overall vote.

So the margin's just incredibly tight, and it kind of brings up one of those what if moments in history, what if Thieu had not brought about those additional delays in the negotiations? Would that have encouraged more people to vote for Humphrey? Would we therefore have Hebert Humphrey as president at this point in time rather than Richard Nixon? But we just don't know.

We can just explain the facts to you and just think about what might have happened as a result.

In any case, once he was in power, Nixon found that the issues plaguing the peace talks just, they didn't just magically disappear, they continued.

The exact same problems that were plaguing the peace talks before Nixon came to power were still there once he was in power.

They didn't go away just because he was the president.

And becoming increasingly frustrated by these delays, Nixon authorised his national security advisor, a man called Henry Kissinger, who's on the screen in front of you there, to begin secret negotiations with North Vietnam.

And on the 4th of August, 1969, Kissinger met with the North Vietnamese representative, who was a man called lead Le Duc Tho, who is also on the screen in front of you there, and they met in Paris.

Tho's demand were for the immediate withdrawal of U.

S.

troops, the removal of Thieu's government in South Vietnam, and the the demobilisation of the South Vietnamese army.

And naturally, these demands were completely unacceptable to the U.

S.

A.

So a very quick check for understanding now then, who was Nixon secretly in contact with during the 1968 presidential election campaign? Was it Ho Chi Minh? Was it Lyndon B.

Johnson, or was it Nguyen Van Thieu? So make your choice now.

All right, if you chose C, Nguyen Van Thieu, very well done.

That is indeed correct.

Another check for understanding now though.

So what were two of Tho's demands during the secret negotiations? Was it A, the immediate withdrawal of U.

S.

troops? B, the sharing of technology to make nuclear weapons.

C, the demobilisation of the South Vietnamese army, or D, the imprisonment of the South Vietnamese President Thieu? Choose two of those options now.

Okay, if you chose A and C, then well done.

Those indeed are correct.

Right, let's have a go at our second task for today then.

So I want you to think, why would Nixon engage in secret negotiations if there were already official negotiations taking place? So I want you to think about the pros and cons of conducting this particular form of negotiation.

So have a think about what is good about conducting secret negotiations alongside official negotiations, but also what is bad about it.

Try and think of at least two different points for both pros and cons.

If you can think of more than that, then that's fantastic, but a minimum of two would be ideal.

Once you've done that, have a little think, do you think that Nixon made the right decision to open the secret talks? And there's genuinely no right or wrong answer here.

I just want you to think about it from your own perspective.

What do you think would've been the right course of action, to continue the official negotiations and that'd be it, or to do as Nixon did, and try and open up secret negotiations to bring the war to a close sooner? So have a go at finishing that table.

Have a go at answering that question.

Pause the video whilst you're doing so, and I'll see you once you're finished.

Okay, welcome back.

Let's have a think then about what some of these pros and cons could have been there.

So one pro for trying to engage in secret negotiations whilst official negotiations are taking place could be that there are fewer people to complicate matters, and the reason being that there are no South Vietnamese delegates there.

So you might just be able to get into the actual, the nitty gritty of the talks far quicker.

Another point could be that talks could proceed faster.

There's no need for discussions over the shape of the table, for instance.

Thinking about the cons now though, is that you could reach an agreement that not everybody will be happy with.

Specifically, the South Vietnamese may not be happy because they've had absolutely no say in these negotiations.

And secondly, it could be viewed as dishonourable.

And the reason being is that you're going behind an allies back.

You are doing something which the South Vietnamese would be very unhappy about if they ever found out about it.

So hopefully you completed your table as well.

Maybe you got some of those points, maybe you got different points and that you also, hopefully you thought about whether you think it was the right course of action or not.

I'm not gonna address that question.

It's purely speculative, it's purely down to your own opinion, but I'd to have a little think: do you think that Nixon made the right call or not? Right, let's go for our third learning cycle for today now then, which is was peace at hand.

So in late March, 1972, North Vietnam began their Easter offensive, which is a huge invasion of South Vietnam.

On the screen in front of you there is a map detailing exactly where North Vietnam attacked.

And you can see that they attacked mainly in three different areas, almost simultaneously as well.

There were three major attacks in three different locations around South Vietnam.

And the reason they did that was to try and stretch the South Vietnamese and U.

S.

troops hopefully to breaking point, so they'd have to cave in at one area.

There's 120,000 troops from the North Vietnamese that they launched during this Easter offensive, and it was a strategy that America didn't necessarily think that North Vietnam was capable of achieving.

So it was a surprise to them when the scale of this attack actually took place.

Another reason why it was a bit of a surprise is, well it is that North Vietnam were quite clever in the fact that they attacked that northern most strategic point first of all, in order to try and draw troops away from the central and southern part of South Vietnam, which did have some effect as well.

So there were some troops that were drawn north, and once they were engaged, the North Vietnamese then attacked in the centre and south of South Vietnam as well to try and stretch the U.

S.

and South Vietnamese forces even further.

Now, negotiations between Vietnamese delegates were still ongoing and they were still going nowhere.

Nixon was enraged by the enormity of the North Vietnamese attacks.

He felt that it was a betrayal of the spirit of cooperation that the negotiations were trying to achieve.

And in response, Nixon launched Operation Linebacker, which is an all-out bombing campaign on North Vietnam.

And the negotiations may not have been proceeding, but the war certainly was.

As well as that the election of Nixon also represented a shift in attitudes in the U.

S.

towards communism.

So fear of communism in the U.

S.

which had been ever present since, well since before the 1920s, that was now diminishing at this point in time, and in its place a desire for peaceful coexistence was growing.

Nixon made visits to both China and the Soviet Union, improving the U.

S.

's relationship with these strongholds of communism.

And these improved relationships had a knock on effect on the Vietnam War.

Both China and the Soviet Union encouraged North Vietnam to make peace with the U.

S.

That's a real shift in attitude there from North Vietnamese's allies.

North Vietnam, therefore, feared becoming politically isolated if it refused the request of its two closest allies.

So what that means is that if they refused the request and just carried on with the war and carried on not making serious overtures during the negotiation, then perhaps they would lose support of China and the USSR, and China and the USSR at this point in time are providing them with men and machinery.

So to lose their support would be an absolutely devastating turn of events for the North Vietnamese.

And as a result of this, for the first time, negotiations were actually taken seriously.

In May, Nixon suggested a ceasefire to allow U.

S.

troops to withdraw safely, which North Vietnam agreed to in their secret negotiations.

So this agreement was a major breakthrough.

The fact that there was a ceasefire hadn't been achieved successfully up until this point in the negotiations.

So it was a major, major breakthrough.

And by October, 1972, a draught peace treaty had actually been drawn up.

Kissinger made a public announcement declaring that peace is at hand.

Once more, however, any celebrations had to be put on hold.

Thieu, the president of South Vietnam, was furious that negotiations had been taking place in secret and had excluded South Vietnam.

He refused to sign the peace treaty unless dramatic and, frankly, unrealistic changes were made.

And once again, discussion gave way to argument in Paris.

And in Vietnam, soldiers and civilians continued to die.

Right, let's go for a check for understanding now then.

So how did attitudes towards communism change in the U.

S.

under President Nixon? Did they, A, the public wanted a more aggressive stance? Was it B, the public wanted a more peaceful stance? Or was it C, the public wanted to try a communist government? So choose A, B, or C now.

All right, if you chose B then very well done.

The people wanted a more peaceful stance.

Another check for understanding now.

Both China and the USSR switched sides and fought against North Vietnam in 1972.

Is that true or false? Make your choice now.

All right, if you chose false, then very well done.

They absolutely did not.

But let's justify this answer now then.

Is it false because China and the USSR encouraged North Vietnam to make peace with the U.

S.

due to improved relationships, or is it because China and the USSR encouraged North Vietnam to make a last push to win the war? So choose your justification now.

All right, if you chose A, then very well done.

That is indeed correct.

Let's go for one final check for understanding now.

Why did win Nguyen Van Thieu refuse to sign the draught peace treaty? It's because A, he wanted more land and resources for South Vietnam from the treaty? Is because of B, he had a personal dislike for the North Vietnamese delegate and refused to work with him? Or was because of C, he was upset that South Vietnam had been excluded from the secret negotiations.

So choose A, B, or C now.

All right, if you chose C, then congratulations.

That is indeed correct.

Right, let's go for our final task for today then.

So I want to explain why the peace negotiations failed to achieve their aims. And I'd like you ideally to use the following in your answer.

I'd like you to mention or discuss seating arrangements, and I'd like you to also bring secret negotiations into your answer as well.

And as well as that, I'd like you to try and use your own information too.

So have a go at that task.

Pause the video whilst you're doing that, and I'll see you once you're finished.

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you got on okay with that task.

Here's a model answer that I've got and hopefully you've got something similar.

well certainly a similar sort of vein of argument to mine here.

So I said, "The peace negotiations failed to achieve their aims for several reasons.

Vietnamese delegates from both the North and South seemed to be more interested in personal pride than in ending the fighting.

The arguments over seating arrangements took months to resolve, and while this was happening the fighting in Vietnam continued, resulting in thousands of unnecessary deaths.

In response, the U.

S.

and North Vietnam engaged in secret negotiations to try and end the war and seemed to have some success.

However, the secret negotiations ultimately failed because they were secret.

The South Vietnamese president refused to sign the agreement because it had been kept secret from him." So hopefully your answer follows a similar sort of track of argument as mine.

Right, let's summarise the lesson today then.

So Johnson began negotiations in 1968, but little to no progress was made.

Nixon began secret negotiations with North Vietnam when he became president in 1969.

And a breakthrough in the secret negotiations was made in 1972.

But peace was delayed once again when South Vietnam refused to accept the draught peace treaty.

The war continued whilst the negotiations were ongoing through actions such as the Easter Offensive and Operation Linebacker.

So thank you very much for joining me today.

Hopefully you enjoyed yourself, hopefully you learned something, and hopefully I'll see you again next time, bye-bye.