APUSH Vietnam War Interpretations

SAQ #1

A. Major Difference in Historical Interpretations

• VanDeMark:
  • Emphasizes the role of American arrogance and ideological rigidity in shaping foreign policy.
  • Highlights the conviction of U.S. policymakers that they could control political conditions in South Vietnam and elsewhere.
  • Points to domestic political pressures, such as the fear of being perceived as soft on communism, as a significant influence on escalating U.S. involvement.
• McMaster:
  • Focuses on the decision-making processes and personal factors of President Lyndon Johnson and his advisors.
  • Suggests that the escalation of U.S. military intervention was due to a complex series of decisions that gradually transformed the conflict into an American war.
  • Argues that the war was not lost on the battlefield or in public opinion but in Washington D.C., due to failings in leadership and decision-making at the highest levels.

B. Supporting VanDeMark's Interpretation (1945-1975)

• The Domino Theory:
  • The prevailing belief during this period that if one country in Southeast Asia fell to communism, others would follow.
  • This ideological rigidity and fear of communist expansion fueled the conviction that the U.S. needed to actively intervene in Vietnam to prevent the spread of communism.
  • $\text{Domino Theory} \rightarrow \text{Increased U.S. Intervention}$

C. Supporting McMaster's Interpretation (1945-1975)

• The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (1964):
  • Following alleged attacks on U.S. Navy ships, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, granting President Johnson broad authority to escalate U.S. military involvement in Vietnam.
  • This event demonstrates how specific decisions and actions by political leaders in Washington D.C. directly led to the expansion of the war, supporting McMaster's argument that the war was lost in Washington.
  • $\text{Gulf of Tonkin Resolution} \rightarrow \text{Escalation of War}$