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.

Today's lesson is on US weaknesses in the Vietnam War and by the end of this lesson we'll be able to assess the role of US weaknesses in its defeats.

In order to do that, we need to use some key terms, and our key terms for today are strategy, occupier, and tactics.

A strategy is a plan for directing overall military operations and movements.

An occupier is a member of a group that takes possession of a country by force.

And tactics are actions employed by armed forces during contact with the enemy.

So now that we understand those, let's get going.

Today's lesson will comprise of two learning cycles, and our first learning cycle is the failure of US strategy and tactics.

So, in the early years of the war, a great deal of effort was put into winning over the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese people in order to stop them from joining or helping the Vietcong.

So the whole idea with hearts and minds is that if you win over somebody's heart, then they want to follow you, they want to do what you want them to do.

And if you win over their mind, then they think that by following your orders, that is the best course of action.

So hearts and minds are really important in order to win a war if you wanna actually make it a lasting peace so that the people not just do it because you tell them to, they do it because they want to do it as well.

However, the US did this without first trying to understand the culture of the Vietnamese people.

And as a result, attempts to paint the US and capitalism as the good guy, it just spectacularly backfired.

The Strategic Hamlets Programme, for instance, was forced upon an unwilling populace who had to watch their original homes being destroyed and then build new homes using their own money and labour.

And this programme also forced people to move away from the graves of their ancestors, which caused a great deal of heartache as this was an important cultural belief.

Resources in the strategic hamlets were also often very poor, which led to hunger amongst the people.

So, in many ways, the Strategic Hamlets Programme was a failure for a number of different reasons, some of which I've highlighted there.

And some of the reasons aren't necessarily all the US's fault, but they most certainly do need to accept quite a large proportion of the blame for why their strategy failed.

Okay, a very quick check for understanding now, then.

So, true or false, the main aim of the the Strategic Hamlets Programme was to show the Vietnamese people the benefits of capitalism.

Is that true or is that false? Alright, well, that answer is false, so well done if you correctly identified that, but let's justify the answer now.

Why is this false? Is it false because the main aim was to reduce the influence of the Vietcong on civilians in South Vietnam? Or was the main aim to improve farming techniques in South Vietnam? So make your choice now.

Alright, if you chose A, then congratulations, that is indeed correct.

So, the war in Vietnam saw several different US presidents and several different generals in charge, which meant that new ideas were introduced which often worked against previous strategies.

An example of this would be the search and destroy missions.

So, US troops were airlifted into known Vietcong hotspots and they were told to clear the area of the enemy.

And success on these missions was judged through body counts, that being the more kills there were, the more successful the mission was judged to have been.

But when US troops were airlifted in, the Vietcong could simply disappear into the jungle and then return once they'd left.

Civilians instead were frequently killed on these missions, which caused the South Vietnamese peasants to fear and hate the US troops, which obviously just further ruins any efforts made to win over hearts and minds.

Bombing strategies also demonstrated fundamental flaws as well.

Operation Rolling Thunder, which is the bombing campaign against North Vietnam, would've been effective against an industrialised enemy.

However, what little industry the North possessed in the early years of the war was small in scale and spread around the country, meaning that bombs did relatively little damage to the North's military capability.

As well as that a great deal of the equipment and ammunition that the North was receiving, was generating during the early stage of the war, was coming from China and the USSR.

So unless you're stopping those trade routes, there's really not a lot that the US is gonna be doing with Operation Rolling Thunder.

Operation Ranch Hand, the use of chemical weapons such as napalm to clear jungle terrain and Agent Orange, which was used to destroy crops used by the Vietcong where there were usually targeted terrain in South Vietnam, which is the area that the US was supposedly protecting from communism.

This operation lasted from 1962 to 1971, and these chemical agents caused terrible injuries to anyone who came into contact with them as well as destroying crops that civilians relied upon, and that caused starvation in a country that was before the war one of the world's largest exporter of rice.

So they went from having a massive surplus of rice to not having enough to feed their own population.

US bombing in South Vietnam killed an estimated two million civilians as well, so just devastating impacts on this country that they're supposedly protecting against the dangers of communism.

Okay then, so a quick check for understanding.

So, what was the name of the strategy that used chemical weapons to remove jungle vegetation and crops used by the Vietcong? Was it, A, Operation Rolling Thunder? B, Operation Linebacker? Or C, Operation Ranch Hand? Make your choice now.

Alright, if you chose C, Operation Ranch Hand, then congratulations, that is correct.

So, Vietnam has a long history of foreign occupation going back hundreds and hundreds of years.

The rapid rise in US troop numbers made it seem as though the US was the latest in a very, very long line of occupiers.

The communists were able to successfully use propaganda to emphasise this point, an example of which is on the screen in front of you there.

And this had the effect of increasing their level of support as well.

Okay, another check for understanding now.

So, how did communist propaganda portray the US troops? Was it as, A, welcome allies? B, as unwelcome occupiers? Or C, as useful advisors? Make your choice now.

Alright, if you chose B, then very well done, they were indeed portrayed as unwelcome occupiers.

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

So, I have a source on the screen in front of you there.

What I would like you to do is give two things that you can infer from the source about the reasons why US strategy failed in Vietnam.

So, just in case you're not aware, this is a source.

This source is showing US soldiers setting fire to a suspected Vietcong-friendly village in South Vietnam, and it was taken on the 7th of May, 1966.

So, what two things can you infer about the reasons why US strategy failed in Vietnam? Pause the video while you have a go at this and I'll see you once you've finished.

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you got on fine with that task there.

Let's have a little look at what I came up with.

So I said, "Source A shows burnt-out houses.

I can infer that the US soldiers destroyed the houses, which probably greatly upset the South Vietnamese villagers who lived there.

If the villagers were not already part of the Vietcong, this action might have encouraged the villagers to join them in order to take revenge on the US for this action." I also said that "source A is a photo taken in South Vietnam.

US troops were based there to try and protect the South Vietnamese from communism.

I can infer that the villagers probably did not feel very protected by US troops, as their houses had been destroyed by them.

In fact, they probably felt that the US troops were enemy occupiers, not the communist Vietcong." So, that's two things that I inferred from that source, maybe you picked up some other things as well, that's absolutely fine.

But you can see there that I've kinda supported the points that I've made with my own evidence there as well.

Right, another task for you here, then.

So, I have two sources again on the screen in front of us.

What I want you to think about is how useful are these sources for an inquiry into the reasons why the US lost in Vietnam.

Use the sources and your own knowledge in your answer.

So, source A is a napalm strike in South Vietnam, which was taken in 1966, and source B is the anti-US North Vietnamese propaganda poster I showed you earlier, and the text reads "The unconquerable and heroic self." So have a little think about how useful these sources are.

Pause the video while you're doing this task and I'll see you once you're finished.

Alright, welcome back.

I hope got on fine with that task.

Let's see what I came up with as well and see if that's any similar to yours.

So, I said that "sources A and B are very useful for an inquiry into the reasons why the US lost in Vietnam as they both give an the indication as to why many people in South Vietnam supported the communist Vietcong instead of their American allies.

Source A shows a napalm strike in South Vietnam.

Napalm was effective at destroying jungle, which the Vietcong used for cover.

If dropped inaccurately, however, it also destroyed homes and could severely injure or kill people.

US bombs, including napalm bombs, were regularly dropped inaccurately during the Vietnam War, leading to the deaths of an estimated two million civilians as well as countless more injuries.

Source A is a photograph taken in 1966.

This was during Operation Ranch Hand, which lasted from 1962 to 1971.

Such a sustained bombing campaign would've reduced support for the US amongst the Vietnamese people as they frequently ended up as the victims of American aggression.

The source does not show us exactly where this napalm bomb struck, whether it was accurate or whether it caused unnecessary harm to civilians, but it does give an indication of the level of destruction that bombs of this type were able to produce." So, that's my answer there looking at just that first source, source A.

For source B, I said, "Source B is also useful as it is a piece of North Vietnamese propaganda, showing the communist perspective as to why the US lost in Vietnam.

The communists saw the US presence in Vietnam as the latest in a long line of occupiers.

The poster shows weapons with "USA" written on them pointed at a Vietnamese mother and child.

This implies that the US acted aggressively against vulnerable Vietnamese people.

Another example of this are the search and destroy missions that US soldiers engaged in.

Civilians were frequently killed during these missions and labelled as Vietcong in order to make the missions appear successful.

Source B refers to South Vietnam as 'unconquerable and heroic,' which suggests that the North supports them in their struggle against aggressive US troops.

Propaganda like this was aimed at South Vietnamese people, as it was written in Vietnamese, and was designed to encourage them to support or join the Vietcong to fight against the US.

This suggests that some North Vietnamese propaganda was designed to turn South Vietnamese people against the US and help America lose the war." So, you can see that I've discussed my source B and I've also picked out points from that source and I've backed up my point from that source with my own knowledge as well.

It's important to mention that any source regarding a particular period in history can be seen as useful.

Even if it tells complete lies, it can be useful 'cause it can give you an idea about the sort of people that are telling those lies and why they might be telling them as well.

So, no source is ever not useful.

They might be limited in their utility, but every source is useful to some degree and it's your job to try and find where that utility is.

How exactly is this source useful? How much is this a useful source? That's what the examiner is really looking for here.

Okay, let's move on and look at our second learning cycle for today, then, which is the weaknesses of the US armed forces.

So, the overarching plans to defend South Vietnam from communism were flawed, yet the way in which they were implemented also contributed to America's defeat.

The Vietcong spoke the same language and shared the same culture, unlike US troops, so they were better able to understand and provide what the residents needed.

US troops, in contrast, demonstrated greater disdain for the Vietnamese people as the war dragged on, unfortunately exhibited in their conduct during search and destroy missions.

Civilian casualties became increasingly common, although they were presented as Vietcong kills in order to satisfy the generals in charge, and they culminated in massacres such as My Lai in March 1968 where as many as 500 unarmed villagers were brutally murdered by US soldiers.

Right, a very quick check for understanding here, then.

So, why is the My Lai massacre of 1968 an example of the weaknesses of the US armed forces? There are two correct answers on the screen.

So, is it A, it shows that some US troops saw all Vietnamese as the enemy? Is it B, it shows that US troops did not know what would upset the local people? Is it C, it shows that US troops were not expecting guerrilla warfare tactics? Or is it D, It shows that US troops were scared and frustrated by guerrilla tactics? So choose two of those options now.

Alright, if you chose A and D, then congratulations, that is indeed correct.

Okay, looking forward, then, the draught resulted in younger, poorer, and less well-educated men making the majority of new recruits.

Many of them didn't wanna be there and that led to a buildup of resentment.

So, just to give you an idea about how young they were, the average age of a US soldier in Vietnam from this point onwards was just 19 years old.

The reason why they were less well-educated is because those who were at college, which is the American version of university, they could defer the draught, which means they didn't have to join the army, they could continue their studies and they didn't have to join once their studies had ended.

But of course, if you couldn't afford or if you weren't able to go to university, then there's no way you could avoid that draught legally, which is why the average US soldier became younger, poorer, less well-educated than what they had been before.

As well as that drug use amongst US troops just absolutely soared as well.

After 1970, it's estimated that roughly 20% of serving troops have become addicted to heroin.

And there's also an alarming increase in fragging, which is the deliberate wounding or killing of commanding officers.

More than 1,000 cases of fragging have been recorded and they were often the result of resentment against officers whose lack of experience put their troops' lives at risks.

It's probably worth pointing out that there are 1,000 recorded cases.

The likelihood is that there were more than that.

One particular group that frequently resented being drafted were Black soldiers and many did not appreciate the irony of being forced to fight for the freedom of South Vietnamese people when they were denied those very same freedoms at home in America.

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

So, what estimated percentage of US soldiers in Vietnam became addicted to heroin after 1970? Was it 5%, 10%, 15%, or 20%? Right, if you chose D, 20%, then very well done, it is indeed that high, so roughly one in five American soldiers was addicted to heroin in the latter stage of the Vietnam War.

Another check for understanding now.

True or false, fragging, the deliberate targeting of a commanding officer, became increasingly common amongst US forces.

Is that true or is that false? Okay, the answer is true, but let's justify that, though.

Why is that true? Is it true because fragging became more common because of opposition to the war back home? Or is it true because fragging became more common due to resentment among drafted soldiers? So choose your justification now.

Alright, if you chose B, then congratulations, that is indeed correct.

Right, let's think about our next task, then.

So, the interpretations below on the screen there with Andeep and Sam they give different views about the weaknesses of US armed forces.

What I'd like you to do is read through those interpretations and then write down what you think is the main difference between these views.

So, I'll read them out now just to make sure that there's no confusion.

So Andeep says, "The US didn't understand the Vietnamese people.

Their lack of understanding and frustration with guerrilla tactics led them to act in ways that made enemies out of the people they were supposed to be protecting." Sam, on the other hand, says that "draftees who didn't want to be in Vietnam made poor soldiers.

They treated all Vietnamese people as Vietcong and resorted to drug use and fragging, making them an aggressive and ill-disciplined army." So, what you need to do is explain what the main differences between those two views.

Pause the video while you do that, and I'll see you once you've finished.

Okay, welcome back.

Let's go through the answer that I've got then.

So I said, "Andeep thinks the main problem is that Americans did not take the time to try and understand Vietnamese culture.

This, combined with how frustrating it was to fight a guerrilla army, caused the US troops to lash out and turn the people they were supposed to be protecting into enemies.

Sam, on the other hand, thinks the main problem was the type of soldiers in the US Army.

As many draftees did not want to go and fight in Vietnam, they took out their frustrations on the local people, on commanding officers, and by taking drugs, making them a less effective army." So, hopefully you can see there that I've identified the point that both of them are making and I've explained how they are different.

Right, the next thing I'd like you to do with these sources then, I'd like you to explain who you think makes the more convincing judgement about the weaknesses of US armed forces.

So, the key thing with this task then is to justify your answer.

There's no right or wrong answer, so to a great extent it doesn't matter which one you choose.

What matters is your ability to justify why you've chosen it, so make sure you fully explain why you've made your choice.

So, pause the video while you do that and I'll see you once you're finished.

Okay, welcome back.

Let's go through this model answer that I got on the screen here then.

So I said, "Andeep's is the more convincing judgement.

I think this because Sam's point about drug use only really came into effect after 1970 and the US was not doing well before that date.

Andeep's point about them making enemies out of the South Vietnamese is accurate, as strategies and tactics such as the Strategic Hamlets Programme and search and destroy missions were focused on South Vietnamese civilians and were generally hated.

These missions made unhappy South Vietnamese civilians turn to the Vietcong in retaliation against US actions." That's my support there for Andeep's point of view and I've drawn in specific details to support that point.

Our final task then, I'd like you to explain why someone might disagree with your response.

So, think about the response that you wrote down, what counterargument could there be to what you've just said? So, pause the video now, think about what that counterargument could be and what evidence they have to justify it, and I'll see you once you're done.

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you've got okay with that task.

Let's go through the counterargument that I've got on the screen here then.

So I said that "the point that Sam makes about US soldiers treating all Vietnamese people as Vietcong is accurate.

During search and destroy missions, success rates were measured by body counts.

The more casualties there were, the more successful the mission.

This led to civilians being killed and labelled as Vietcong.

A soldier who had recently been drafted would've less experience in telling apart civilians from Vietcong, increasing the chances that civilians would be killed.

Fragging also increased as the war progressed.

An army that fights amongst itself suggests that there are major weaknesses in the army that need to be fixed before it can successfully fight the enemy." So, that's my counterargument there to my initial argument, so effectively this could be just Sam's argument, but I want you to think about both points of view.

Right, let's summarise this lesson now then.

So, US strategies in Vietnam were ineffective and often contradictory.

US soldiers did not understand Vietnamese culture, which led to poor decision-making.

Communist propaganda painted the US as occupiers.

Poor tactics meant that Vietnamese civilians frequently became casualties.

And poor discipline and drug use meant that the effectiveness of the US Army diminished after 1970.

Thank you very much for joining me.

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