So, as you saw with the opening slide, this presentation deals with another type of source question -asking you if one source proves another is wrong (another question could ask you if it proves it’s right). So, let’s go through the thinking process that would lead to maximum marks. Now, you can see the question and you’ll note I’ve highlighted two words that were not highlighted on the exam paper and would not be on yours. But you should highlight them in some way so that they form the focus of your thinking and, of course, your answer. And you should think about the burden of proof: what would be enough?
And here are the two sources – when you get to read them, take it all in and by that, I mean the sources, of course, but also the provenance of each source, including their date. This won’t always be important – but it might be! And remember a source always has an author, a message, a purpose and an audience. And any of these might also be significant to your answer.
Now, another key point to think about – Look at the question. You need to see what Source E has to say, if you are going to be in a position to assess whether Source D proves it is wrong or not. What could Source E be wrong about? What are its key points? I’ve put them on this slide, but we’ll examine them in more detail on the next slide.
Senator Fulbright asserts very clearly that America was in Vietnam to defend freedom. But goes on to question whether it was also about pride, which he associates with America’s “reputation as a great power”, so that a compromise would be seen as “shameful”. And that America could not be seen to “settle for less than we set out to achieve”. But arguing that such notions are “senseless” and “unworthy of the richest, most powerful country in the world.” Now I’ve quoted most of the source. You shouldn’t. Paraphrase and use one of the quotes I’ve given you. It doesn’t matter which.
Now, time to think again – this is an exam for thinkers! Before going to Source D, you could use your own knowledge to say that Senator Fulbright is voicing criticisms that had been made of American policy and that are still made by some historians today. You could link it to the “drip, drip’ or quagmire theses. And you could make a comment on the title of the book, ‘The Arrogance of Power’, that the source is an extract from – is Senator Fulbright over-zealous in making his point? And at some point, you could also explain just what freedoms America was defending (its mentioned in both sources, at least indirectly), taking a macro world perspective as well as what was at stake in Vietnam and South-East Asia more generally, bringing in the domino theory.
Now, what does Source D say? President Johnson links his involvement in Vietnam to that of his predecessors: Eisenhower and Kennedy, saying America has consistently been committed to the defence of Vietnam’s freedom (though he uses the word “independence” – show you are carefully reading the source but you can infer wider meanings). He also links it to Truman’s Doctrine saying that America can be depended on, referring to strengthening “the world order”. Which Source E supports: “We are in a war to defend freedom”. Or is Fulbright being ironic or cynical? Its ok to be doubtful, even good, it shows you’re thinking and how can you be certain from a short extract? But Johnson adds that countries needed to believe “that they can count on us.” And this is his main message. And the passage ends with an oblique reference to the domino theory: American withdrawal would only mean that “the battle would be renewed in one country and then another.” But show that you are thinking about the sources, their authors, messages and their reasons, and their audience. President Johnson is defending, justifying his policy to the American people whose votes he may need in the future. But again, think about the title of Senator Fulbright’s book: The Arrogance of Power. And that he was Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. How significance is this when you consider proof? Source D does suggest American pride was a factor, whereas President Johnson emphasises how America’s allies rely on America, that “To leave Vietnam would shake the confidence of all those people who believe in the value of America’s word.” Yet the question is not whether the sources agree or not, but does President Johnson prove that Fulbright is wrong?
Now you can see that you have enough material to write a short book! But there are only 8 marks on offer so don’t get carried away. Note I keep saying “you could” – you as I say on these source presentations, you don’t have to write a book for full marks. But the thing to take from this is that there is plenty of material for you to maximise your mark, so do treat these source questions as friendly things. You can score really well on this paper! But one last thing to THINK about. You could, either mentally or physically (by writing on the exam paper) add the words “or not”. So that the question would read, Does Source D prove that Source E is wrong or not? Do you see how this helps you in maximising marks. I think it helps you focus on the fact that you are making an assessment or a judgement. And for what its worth, I don’t think Johnson proves Fulbright is wrong – I think they simply have different views.