(4CD) 2025 T2W9 IP4H1 Virtual Gallery Walk by

Virtual Gallery Walk

tjc_ip_human_3 — 2025-05-18 09:44:00 UTC

In the columns on the right...

tjc_ip_human_3 — 2025-05-18 09:44:00 UTC

Write your name as the Title of the Post-It
Individually, view at least three resources PER LESSON and use the the Connect-Extend-Challenge framework to reflect on each resource.
Ensure you provide SPECIFIC evidence about your own thinking and the resources e.g., ‘I used to think that because… but Resource 1.1. extended my thinking because it highlighted how . Thus, I now think that .

Connect-Extend-Challenge

tjc_ip_human_3 — 2025-05-18 09:44:00 UTC

Eddric

2025-05-22 05:42:01 UTC

i used to think that the vietnam war veterans from US were unaffected apart from their war traumas and the deaths of their comrades but resource 3.3 made me realise that the impact of seemingly losing the vietnam war made the public despise them and little care was provided despite their service. It made me realise how the vietnam war significantly impacted not just vietnam itself but the external backers taking part in it and i now feel pity for the veterans who fought for their country yet face such backlash from the public

Deston

2025-05-22 05:43:11 UTC

I used to think that the Gulf Of Tonkin Incident was the most decisive factor/event that led to the Second Indochina War as it was the trigger for foreign intervention by the US but Resource 1.3 extended my thinking because it highlighted how the start of the Second Indochina War was caused by an interplay of various different factor that led up to the Gulf Of Tonkin Incident, such as failure of the Diem regime and rise of Ho Chi Minh. Thus, I now think that the start of the Second Indochina War was thanks to a combination of various factors.

George 1.3

2025-05-22 05:44:31 UTC

From the infographic I know how the failure of the Diem regime led to buddist and local oppostion against the South Vietnam government. This connects to my knowledge of the failure of Diem's rule leading to the the vietnamese locals veiwing the formation of two Vietnams as illegitamate.

The idea of buddist oppostion has extended my knowledge. I also did not know that the history of being colonised has also caused the the oppostion against being controlled by foreign powers to be even stronger

jerome

loh_yee_kai_jerome1 — 2025-05-22 05:46:59 UTC

the video essay resource 1.1 contains information that are already connected to what i previously knew regarding the US's deep escalation of the war, however the information about the different actions of all the US presidents involved in the war that escalated the conflict extended my knowledge. previously i did not know that Lindon B Johnson played such a pivotal role in the war by signing the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

Saki

2025-05-22 05:47:12 UTC

I used to think that the US’s aggressive involvement in Vietnam’s internal dispute was the biggest catalyst which kickstarted the Second Indochina War. This is because I understood that the Gulf of Tonkin was a crucial event which gave the US the justification and authority to escalate military operations in Vietnam cause the war to truly escalate. However, after reading Resource 1.3, it extended my thinking by highlighting how essential the failure of the Diem Regime was in laying out the foundation for the US to be further involved. Thus I now think that Diem’s corruption was a key catalyst in the events leading up to the war, and believe that the internal factors and events were just as impactful as the US’s involvement.

Ismail

2025-05-22 05:47:56 UTC

I knew that the diem republic was highly unpopular with the public due to their autocratic rule. Diem often exploited the citizens and there was also growth in Buddhist oppositions within major south Vietnamese cities of Saigon and Hue. It was no secret that the public was rather critical with the government established and propped up by US aid. However, resource 1.3 touches on how many citizens from South Vietnam joint the ranks of the Vietminh to oppose Diem. Before, i believed that the Vietminh and Vietcong ranks were only made out of Communist Vietnamese solely. Now, i know that it was a mixture of both the communists and Non-communists who were tired and opposed the Diem regime

Clarisa

2025-05-22 05:48:39 UTC

I used to think that the Second Indochina War started because of the Gulf of Tonkin incident because it led to the US forces entering Vietnam and causing tensions due to cold war to start. But due to Resource 1.3, I now know that there were already tensions from the failure of the Diem Regime. Thus, I now think that the cause of the Second Indochina War could have stemmed from failures by Vietnamese leaders.

Ng Xuan Bim

2025-05-22 05:50:07 UTC

I used to think that that US strengthened reinforcement and support only due to Diem’s weak leadership and political support over its people because South Vietnamese hated Diem but now after reading 1.3 , it extended my knowledge to realise that many south Vietnamese switched sides, leading to a rise in power that led to the opposition towards diem, making the Vietminh stronger than the DRV forcing the US involvement to greater increase. Thus, I now focus on the cause and effect on both sides of Vietnam when a certain event happens.

2025-05-22 05:51:24 UTC

I used to think that China and Vietnam had good relations since China was a major ally of North Vietnam by providing military and economic aid, but resource 1.1 made me realise that there was a brief conflict between them during Sino Vietnam from 17 Feb 1979 to 16 March 1979 due to China launched an offensive ostensibly in response to Vietnam's invasion and occupation in 1978, showing that they had different political views, thus resulting in the one month long war

Ellie

2025-05-22 05:51:25 UTC

I used to think that the Tet Offensive was the most critical event in helping the North Vietnamese win the war, as it was an event that took place during the greatest point of tension during the war and helped in escalating the war. However, Resource 1.3 extended my thinking because it highlighted how even before the Second Indochina War broke out, the North Vietnamese were already busy building their credibility and their army though the organisation of the Vietminh, patriotism campaigns, and by defeating French rule in North Vietname during the First Indochina War. Thus, I now think that the North Vietnamese not only significantly escalated the war, but also played a very crucial role in the outbreak of the war.

jerome

loh_yee_kai_jerome1 — 2025-05-22 05:52:14 UTC

I used to think that the american soldiers did not think about the war for themselves and blindly followed the orders of their leader. however through resources 5.3, i realise that the US soldiers have their own opinions, including confusion about why they are even fighting in the war. Furthermore, the google site extends my knowledge that the information about the Vietnam War was hidden from the public and how the US received much backlash once the information was released to the public, this is showed through the examples of the Walter Cronkite media report and the Vietnam War protest

Dalvin

2025-05-22 05:52:36 UTC

1.2:

I used to think that the Vietnam war was a local conflict between north and south Vietnam. however, international conflicts such as idealogical battles between communism and democracy, following US containment strategy and events during the Cold War like the pig bay and Berlin Wall events affected the political actions and decisions of external actors like the US which severely impacted the outbreak and escalation of the Vietnam war. Hence, it was actually a more international conflict

Caris

2025-05-22 05:52:49 UTC

I used to think the Vietnam War was mainly about the United States trying to stop communism from spreading, but I now realise it was far more complex and rooted in Vietnam’s own history and internal struggles. I hadn't previously considered how the fall of French colonial power, the failures of South Vietnamese leadership, and deep-rooted local resistance all contributed significantly to the outbreak and escalation of the war. Learning about events like the collapse of French control, the rise of Ho Chi Minh, and the political instability caused by Diem’s oppressive regime has broadened my thinking, helping me understand that this was not just a Cold War conflict. It was also a Vietnamese fight for independence and self-determination. What really challenged me was trying to understand why the war continued even after peace talks and agreements were signed. It is puzzling to see how efforts like the Paris Peace Accords failed to stop the fighting, which makes me question how effective peace agreements can be when the root causes of a conflict are still unresolved. This has made me reflect more deeply on the limits of foreign intervention and the importance of local agency in shaping the course of history.

Akshitha

kalepuakshitha — 2025-05-22 05:53:59 UTC

I used to think America joined the Vietnam War just to help South Vietnam win. But learning about the Domino Theory helped me see it was more about stopping the spread of communism, linking to America’s wider Cold War strategy.

I thought Johnson escalated the war just because of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. But Resource 1.1 showed me it was also about protecting America’s image and credibility. I now see that honour and reputation played a huge role in the U.S. staying in the war.

I still wonder why America didn’t pull out earlier, especially after Diem’s failure and public opposition. It challenges my belief that leaders always act based on success or public support.

Eddric

2025-05-22 05:54:01 UTC

source 2.2 expanded my thinking by making me realise how much idealogical differences had fueled the vietnam war. i used to think that it was js a catalyst factor like every other but now i realise how big of a role it played in driivng US motivations to support south vietnam which led to many key events and brutality. i now have a deeper understanding of how the idealogical differences between US and north vietnam has fueled the war and a deeper understanding of all the massacres from the war.

Deston

2025-05-22 05:54:18 UTC

I used to think that Diem's assasination was merely a local issue, with its impact squarely limited to the local context. However, Resource 1.4 extended my thinking because it highlighted how the assasination had an impact on US foreign policy too, as they became more cautious about supporting authoritarian leaders and regimes, and more hesitant to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries. Thus, I now think that the assasination of Diem had a widespread impact both globally and locally

Ck

2025-05-22 05:54:40 UTC

I used to think that the Vietnam War happened solely because the United States wanted to prevent the spread of communism. However, after reading the infographic, I now understand that the war was far more complex and had multiple underlying causes. One key factor was the division of Vietnam into North and South, which created political tensions and internal conflict even before foreign powers got involved. This new perspective helped me realise that wars are rarely caused by a single issue; instead, they are usually the result of a combination of historical, political, and social factors. It also let me better know the nature of the wars and how there isnt usually one factor that ultimately results in the breakout .

Zining

2025-05-22 05:54:53 UTC

I used to think that the Vietnam War was primarily a straightforward fight against the spread of communism, believing that the main objective was simply to contain communism. However, Resource 1.1. extended my thinking because it shows how the conflict was also deeply rooted in Vietnamese nationalism and a long struggle for independence from various foreign powers, not just an ideological battle. Thus, I now think that the war was more complex, driven by both Cold War geopolitics and powerful local aspirations.

caris

2025-05-22 05:55:15 UTC

I used to think that America’s involvement in the Vietnam War was mainly a well-intentioned but poorly executed attempt to stop communism, but after exploring these materials, I now understand that it was also deeply driven by pride, fear of losing global status, and the desire to protect its credibility. The resource revealed how US leaders were not just fighting communism but were also consumed by their need to appear powerful, often ignoring the moral and human cost of their actions. This extended my thinking by showing how public image, political pressure, and personal ego influenced major wartime decisions. It helped me understand how each president faced clear moments where they could have chosen a less destructive path, but still chose to escalate involvement. It opened my eyes to how difficult it can be for nations to walk away from wars, especially when national pride is at stake. What challenges me most is coming to terms with how long the war lasted despite so many signs that it was not working. It raises questions about whether leaders truly act in their country's best interest or if they are more concerned about how their choices will be remembered in history.

Jess

2025-05-22 05:56:14 UTC

I used to think that the Second Indochina war was fought purely due to both the North and South's fierce desire for reunification because they seemed intent on unifying the country under their respective philosophies. However, Resource 1.2. extended my thinking because it highlighted how there was a complex interplay of international diplomacy that influenced the war, specifically cold war tactics that incentivised the US's deep involvement in South Vietnam as seen in their military aid and troops. Thus, I now think that - to the US - the Second Indochina War is more of an extension of the Cold War in the sense that they viewed it as a battle to contain Communism, while the North and South Vietnamese viewed it as a battle for their reunification.

2025-05-22 05:56:51 UTC

I used to think that Ho Chi Minh’s role in the Vietnam War was mainly as a political figure with importance to the communist movement in the North. I assumed that his influence was mostly limited to the early years of resistance. However, Resource 1.3 extended my thinking by showing how central Ho Chi Minh contributed to the ideological and military direction of North Vietnam. The infographic further highlighted his leadership was what aided the Viet Minh to form the Indonchinese Communist Party in 1930 against the French, laying the foundation for the North’s determination to unify Vietnam under communism. Thus, I now believe that his role in the war was a crucial factor in the war’s origins.

jerome

loh_yee_kai_jerome1 — 2025-05-22 05:56:57 UTC

I used to think that the Vietnam War had a large impact on the livelihood of the vietnamese, and this is confirmed through resource 4.2. resource 4.2 shows many different pictures and backstories depicting the many monstrosities committed by the american soldiers and how it had such a great impact on the vietnamese.

Eddric

2025-05-22 05:57:11 UTC

i used to think that gulf of tonkin incident was the decisive factor that played the biggest role in starting the cold war hiwever source 1.3 has extended my thinking highlighting that the diem regime and manyother factors actually played a big role and instead of looking at it just from the perspective of which factor had the biggest role, i learned to view it from an interplay and mix of many facotrs that eventually led up to the event.

Akshitha

kalepuakshitha — 2025-05-22 05:57:54 UTC

I used to think the Vietnam War was mainly about stopping communism, but the script helped me connect it to the U.S.'s fear from the Domino Theory. It wasn’t just about helping South Vietnam, it was about protecting U.S. global power.

I learned that the Viet Cong used smart strategies like timing peace talks after victories and using guerilla tactics. This extended my thinking. as I didn’t realize how much politics and strategy mattered more than just weapons.

It challenged me to see how the U.S., with more tech, still lost. I now question if having the strongest military really means you’ll win, especially when morale and public opinion are against you.

caris

2025-05-22 05:58:02 UTC

I used to think the Vietnam War was mostly a political and military conflict between the United States and North Vietnam, but now I realise it had devastating and long-lasting consequences on everyday Vietnamese people that went far beyond just politics. Listening to the stories and analysis in the podcasts showed me how brutal and inhumane the war truly was for civilians. I was especially shocked by the effects of Agent Orange, which not only caused suffering during the war but continues to affect generations born decades later. This extended my thinking because I had never really considered how a war could cause such deep environmental and biological damage that it changes the lives of people who were not even alive at the time. What challenges me most is accepting how the war created trauma on all sides, even among American soldiers who returned home with mental scars. I now realise that war is not just about who wins or loses on paper but about the irreversible harm inflicted on real people. It has made me question how governments justify such destruction, and whether any cause is ever worth this level of human suffering.

Saki

2025-05-22 05:58:21 UTC

I used to think that the North Vietnamese only engaged in more aggressive retaliation against South Vietnam and the US, such as through the Tet Offensive in 1968. This is because I am aware of the drastic impacts and casualties which this attack had caused, and believed that this was the North’s main form of resistance in the Second Indochina War. After reading Resource 3.2, it extended my thinking by highlighting the different ways in which North Vietnam resisted the US attacks. I now know how North Vietnam also engaged in several propaganda events, such as the formation of NLF in 1960. Through this, I now know that North Vietnam did not just resist in forms of military defence, but also through political strength, such as the propaganda which confronted Diem’s regime.

Deston

2025-05-22 05:59:14 UTC

I used to think that the North Vietnamese did not manage to achieve their goals as they had lost the Tet Offensive but Resource 3.3 extended my thinking because it highlighted how despite losing militarily, the North still managed a political/propaganda victory. Thus, I now think that the North still managed to achieve their goals, even though it didnt do so fully.

Clarisa

2025-05-22 05:59:41 UTC

I used to think that the Second Indochina War was driven by Cold War ideologies -- The US joining because they wanted to curb communist expansion in Asia. However, after listening to resource 2.2 and 2.4, I realise that the US were more of a bane than a boon to the Second Indochina War. They were "narcissistic" and only "helped" in the Second Indochina War to mingle in other country's politics and cause a nation to be "dependent" on them while draining their resources. Thus, now I think that the US were not actually helpful in the Second Indochina War as much as I thought they were (I thought they were helping the South with artillery and manpower, but they were also using up artillery and lives of citizens.)

Srijan

2025-05-22 06:00:31 UTC

I used to think that the gulf of Tonkin resolution was passed to retaliate the gulf of Tonkin incident but resource 1.1 extended my thinking by highlighting how Lyndon B Johnson used the resolution as an excuse to escalate the US involvement in the Vietnam war.Thus i now think the gulf of Tonkin resolution was passed merely to legitimise US involvement in Vietnam and give them grounds for further intervention .

CK

2025-05-22 06:00:51 UTC

As an Elit student, this rap battle has hit me as a profound masterpiece. I used to think that the US and Vietnam was just fighting a simple war. But after reading the rap battle, I was able to dive into the perspectives of both Vietnam and the U.S., highlighting not just their motivations but also their mistakes and hypocrisy. This allowed me to extend my learning by understanding how historical narratives are shaped by bias, national interest, and emotion. Each perspective would act with their own intrest and try to downplay the enemy causing unreliability. It shows the importance of critically reading and detecting the bias of a source before absorbing its knowledge.

Anirudh

2025-05-22 06:01:13 UTC

I used to think that the Gulf of Tonkin was the most significant factor in the outbreak of the Second Indochina War. But through exploring source 1.3, it extended my knowledge and thinking by showing me that failure of the Diem Regime was also an equally impactful factor which caused the Second Indochina War. With a combination of authoritarian rule by Ngo Dinh Diem, subsequent alienation of locals and rising support for the Viet Minh, the US was forced to have greater involvement in the war and hence made a simple regional conflict a global one with international powers also playing a part. Hence, I learnt that the Second Indochina War was caused by a multitude of factors rather than a sole one.

George 3.2

2025-05-22 06:01:19 UTC

The infographic showed me how the North Vietnam made use of the Communist ideals of China to gain communist support against South Vietnam and the USA. This connected with my knowledge of Cold War politics affecting the Vietnam war, turning the domestic affair into a proxy war. While the Soviet Union and China wanted to spread their communist ideals to Vietnam, the US were hard at work containing it. With theories like the domino effect being used as the main justification, where one nation falls to communism, otheres will fall as well.

This extended my knowledge of the support that the North Vietnam recieved.

Katya

2025-05-22 06:02:40 UTC

when I viewed resource 2.1, the information presented was connected to what I know, that the war "officially" began in 1954, with the bombing campaign, followed by arrival of ground troops in 1965 and the withdrawal of troops in 1973. Something new I learnt wthe America used agent orange. This chemical weapon had a devastating effect on vietnam's arable land and food production and also caused many health issues among the vietnamese for many years to come. This has broadened my thinking into the unethical practices, that killed and affected millions, that America orchestrated during the Vietnam war period in attempts to benefit themselves. A challenge that has come up in my mind is that I am confused why American leaders would go through all that trouble in an attempt to save their reputations.

Ng Xuan Bin

2025-05-22 06:02:40 UTC

I used to think that the end and deescalation of the war was as a result of Paris Peace accords and the Spring offensive(leading to the fall of Saigon) because those were the 2 biggest events but now after reading 1.4 i realised that there were many events that took place between 1972 and 1975 which contributed to the end of the war, for example, Nixon’s “Peace with honour”, Easter offensive, Watergate Scandal and multiple ceasefire which played a catalytic role to speed up deescalation and end the war. Thus, I believe that factors are made up of multiple events that lead to the final outcome.

Darren

2025-05-22 06:02:42 UTC

Resource 1.3 confirmed my understanding that conflicting ideologies was a major factor leading to the outbreak of the Vietnam War, as seen in the opposing leaderships of communist backed North Vietnam and American backed South Vietnam. However it also extended my understanding as it showed a deeper internal divide, as the South Vietnamese government became less and less popular due to their alienation of some groups of people including Buddhists, causing an increase in North Vietnamese sympathizers such as the Vietcong, which led to a stronger sentiment to fight for reunification under a more popular leader.

Akshitha

2025-05-22 06:03:14 UTC

I used to think the Vietnam War was just a distant historical event, one that ended long ago with only political consequences. But after exploring the stories and discussions from the podcast, I now understand that the war’s impact runs much deeper and is still being felt today by people in Vietnam and beyond. I had never realised how widespread the damage from things like Agent Orange really was, not just in terms of death and illness, but in the way it poisoned the land, the water, and even future generations. What struck me the most was hearing about people like Le Van O, who suffer from birth defects despite being born years after the war ended. That made the consequences of war feel more personal and real. The explanation of policies like the Agent Orange Act and War Powers Act also helped me see how public outrage can lead to actual change, even after such largescale destruction. What I find most challenging is how both sides caused suffering, not just in combat, but through decisions that punished ordinary people. as well. I now realised that in war, there are no true winners when so many lives are left shattered.

Wantong

2025-05-22 06:03:35 UTC

I used to think that the u.s. entered the Vietnam War solely to protect democracy in South Vietnam. However, resource 2.1 showed me that the U.S. involvement was less about defending democracy and more about containing communism. South Vietnam was not a strong democracy as its government, especially under leaders like Ngo Dinh Diem, was authoritarian, corrupt, and unpopular among its own people. The u.s. still supported it, not because it was democratic, but because it wasn't communist. The main goal of the Americans was to still contain communism, even if that means to support a corrupt regime.

Dalvin

2025-05-22 06:03:51 UTC

Resource 1.1 made deepened my understanding of US politics when making decisions in the vietnam war. The changes in US leaderships especially the assasination of John F Kennedy, which motivated Johnson, inheriting a complex and volatile situation, to make the decision to escalate US involvement dramatically and escalate the Vietnam war severely

Zining

2025-05-22 06:03:54 UTC

I used to think that the U.S. role in the Vietnam War was purely about defending democracy and freedom, believing America was solely there to stop communist aggression. However, Resource 2.1. extended my thinking because it highlighted how the U.S. also had strong economic and strategic interests in Southeast Asia, and that their involvement escalated due to a fear of losing influence in the region and their homeland

Anakin

2025-05-22 06:04:23 UTC

1.1 added on to my understanding of the Vietnam war by explaining further on the roles of people in the war. For example, I learnt that Lyndon B Johnson who was the successor of John F Kenedy was initially planning on continuing to not care much about the Vietnam war. However, in the end, he decided to sign the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which eventually led to more and more operations such as Operation Rolling Thunder.

Grace

2025-05-22 06:04:41 UTC

Reflection 1

I used to see events like the fall of the Diem Regime and gulf of Tonkin, as well as the eventual rise of Ho Chi Minh were all individual, unrelated events. Now, because of resource 1.3, i realised that each event actually has a building up effect that led to the next, and that the failure of the Diem regime may have actually set in stone conditions for the US to intervene through the gulf of Tonkin, which actually strengthened and characterised the rise of Ho Chi Minh in the context of bigger foreign intervention. The escalation of the crisis was also added on by the collapse of French and peace talks. Because of resource 1.3, what I used to see as individualistic and non-interdependent events can now be better linked in a change and continuity perspective and visualised, which broadens and refines my understanding of the Vietnam war and how one thing can build on top of another to produce the outcome (i.e. the war).

Shaurya

2025-05-22 06:05:02 UTC

I used to think that the gulf of Tonkin incident was the main factor in resulting in the outbreak and escalation of the vietnam war. However after reading resource 1.3 I realised that there were many other underlying factors that lead to the Vietnam war such as the failure of the diem regime. The diem regime exploited the South veitnamese citizens and tended to side with the Americans. This resulted in outrage making the South Vietnamese people as they were not being protected by their government. This resulted in many South Vietnamese citizens siding with anti American forces such as the vietcong which was aimed at removing the diems power.

Grace

2025-05-22 06:05:12 UTC

This (resource 3.2) detailed and comprehensive timeline greatly aided my ability to visualise and understand the relationships between events and how the context of the situation and a role to play in decision making of the communists, which then affected their involvement in the war, hence shaping the narrative of the war. I used to be unsure of the communists role in the Vietnam war and thought that the main actors that characterised the Vietnam war were the US and the local Vietnamese, overlooking just how great the impact of the communists were. Resource 3.2 encapsulated how the background diplomatic relations led to difference in involvement and level of cooperation, as well as how US’ policy and other factors like media portrayal (and subsequent revelations) altered the stance of global powers, changing the way of which the war played out. This challenges me to consider the background context and international relations that led to events and decision making, deepening my evaluation and analysis of past events.

Ismail

2025-05-22 06:05:29 UTC

I used to think that the Second Indochinese war was just a continuation of the First Indochinese war, to fight for independence and unite the people under one singular rule, and not to have split states with opposing goals and aims of toppling the other. Resource 2.2 however made me realize there was an even bigger factor contributing to all of these. The reason no peace and agreement can be made between North and South is due to how each regime was cultivated, under either the communist rule of the Soviet and Chinese, or the more democratic South influenced by the US (despite the south being authoritarian). Due to this conflicting ideologies by North and South's overseers, no such peace could ever be brought about. The US desire and aims to eradicate the Communists is singlehandedly enough for no suvh peace and agreements to be made due to the conflicting ideologies, which ultimately lead to the war, to unite all of Vietnam under one rule to prevent the other ideologies from capitalising .

emma

2025-05-22 06:05:30 UTC

Resource 1.3 is connected to what i already knew because it highlighted how the failure of the diem regime led to the alienation of the locals and Buddhist oppositions, and led to the rise in power of the Vietminh, which forced the US involvement to further increase, leading to direct intervention. It extended my thinking as it highlighted how the collapse of the French and peace talks led to the eventual contlict. I now think that the French defeat and resultant peace talks led to competing strands of Vietnamese ideology which prevented a peaceful unification of vietnam, and once the difference in ideology was further solidified after the division of Vietnam, this led to more direct intervention by the US due to its containment policy. while reading this resource, it still puzzles me how the direct involvement of the US has led to the violent conflict.

Grace

2025-05-22 06:05:40 UTC

Prior to this (resource 3.3), I did not have a major impression on the tet offensive and simply thought it was just another event that escalated the war. Reousrce 3.3, however, has shown me the vast scale and impact the Tet Offensive had on the people and on the US, and just how impactful it was in shaking up US security and confidence in winning the war. I am now able to better connect the dots on how local attacks and opposition can shake up even global strong powers like the US through the strength of the masses as well as the role of the public and media in altering US policy and stance.

Saki

2025-05-22 06:05:47 UTC

I used to think I understood the severity and extent in which the Vietnamese suffered from there violence of the Second Indochina War, and was aware of how many innocent casualties there were. However, after reading Resource 4.2, the photo essay allowed me to truly be exposed to how cruel and brutal the war was, being merciless towards newborns, child soldiers, families and everyone involved in the war. I now know that regardless of whether the soldiers were fighting for South or North Vietnam, they are all victims of the ruthless war orchestrated by higher powers, and no person should have to ever go through something like this.

Srijan

2025-05-22 06:06:16 UTC

i used to think that the Tet offensive was launched in order for north Vietnam to capture more land. However, resource 3.3 highlighted that the tet offensive was also launched to cause political instability in south Vietnam by causing disparities between the south Vietnamese troops and the US. It is also stated how the US public lost trust due to the tens of thousands of lives lost, leading to distrust in the government and disapproval in the war. Thus I now think that the tet offensive, more than a conquest for land, was an initiative launched to cause political instability and break South vietnam down internally.

Clarisa

2025-05-22 06:06:30 UTC

I used to think that the Tet Offensive of the Second Indochina War was critical in ONLY shifting public opinion on the Vietnam War. However, after reading resource 3.3, I realised that, apart from revealing the government's lies and shifting public views, it also led to more deaths and dislike towards war actors, most notably the soldiers. I thought that, after the war, the soldiers (who were still alive) would come back to the US and continue their lives. I did not know that they were seen as outcasts and traitors for losing the war, leading them to ignore their medical needs and dying from their injuries. Due to this, there was a common consensus against wars. Thus, I now think that the effect Tet Offensive of the Second Indochina War was not limited to JUST changing opinions of the citizens of the US, but also to the treatment of the soldiers who survived the brutality of the war being treated. poorly.

emma

2025-05-22 06:06:56 UTC

Resource 2.2 connected to what i already knew because it highlighted how the US bombed the supply routes(the ho chi minh trail) for the Viet Cong during Operation Rolling Thunder. It extended my thinking because it highlighted how Vietnamese guerilla forces are very strong and managed to heavily fight back with the Tet Offensive, and caused the Americans to lose confidence in the war, and prevented their success.

Amanda

2025-05-22 06:07:16 UTC

Source 5.3

I used to think that US soldiers only fought in the war because they wanted to contain communism, or were forced to do so. However, source 5.3 has expanded my thinking and led me to realise that some of those who had joined the war had done so as they wanted to fight for their friends. Some of them also did not believe in the US getting involved in a civil war. Thus, I now think that the US soldiers had fought in the war more than just to contain communism, but it may also be due to their personal reasons.

Amanda

2025-05-22 06:07:36 UTC

Source 4.2

I used to think that as long as one is on the winning side, they would not face many negative consequences of the Vietnam war, because if one is on the winning side, it means that the war could end happily for them. However, source 4.2 has extended my thinking as it led me to realise that all the parties involved in the war had to face many challenges, physically and mentally. People, especially children who did not know what was going on, had to experience living in the fear of not knowing what was going to happen and what would happen to their loved ones who were fighting in the war. even when the US was “winning”, the US citizens had to witness their loved ones’ bodies being flown back to the US. This trauma would have a everlasting impact on the citizens, hence showing that no matter which side one was on, they all had to face the same depression and negative impacts.

Marcus

2025-05-22 06:07:59 UTC

I used to believe that U.S. Vietnam War veterans were mostly unaffected beyond the trauma of combat and the loss of their fellow soldiers. However, Resource 3.3 helped me understand that the perceived loss of the war led to public resentment toward these veterans. They received little support or recognition for their service. This made me realize the deep and far-reaching impact of the Vietnam War—not only on Vietnam itself, but also on the nations involved. I now feel sympathy for the veterans who served their country, only to return home to criticism and a lack of appreciation from the public.

CK

2025-05-22 06:08:24 UTC

I used to think the Vietnam War was mainly a fight between countries over politics with not that bad casualties, but now I realise it deeply harmed everyday people, especially Vietnamese civilians. The podcasts helped me see how brutal the war was, with things like Agent Orange still affecting lives today. This changed how I view war — it’s not just about battles, but about lasting trauma, even for soldiers. It made me question whether any goal can truly justify that kind of suffering and also made me want to prevent wars from happening as much as i possibly can in the future such that noone need to suffer such a fate. 🥀 War not only worsens economy but also long term political tensions and standards of living as it slows down progress.

Jess

2025-05-22 06:08:55 UTC

I used to think that the Vietnamese forces were guerilla fighters with simple weaponry while the US had both chemical warfare (most notably Agent Orange) and nuclear weapons. This was confirmed in Resource 2.2, which highlighted the US' overwhelming military advantage over the North Vietnamese with its vivid descriptions of death on site due to bombing and brutal mass famines as a result of the inability to grow crops on the poisoned soil.

Darren

2025-05-22 06:10:01 UTC

I used to think the USA held the advantage going into the Vietnam War due to their position as a global superpower and superior military, following the events of WW2 where they emerged victorious while the Vietnamese had to fight off the French. However, resource 3.3 extended my learning as it showed the ingenuity and effectiveness of guerilla warfare by the North Vietnamese and Vietcong, as their Tet Offensive was able to turn the tide of the war, by inflicting heavy military and political damage on the USA, as they lost countless lives and weakened the position of LBJ, ultimately resulting in their victory as the Americans withdrew.

Anakin

2025-05-22 06:10:18 UTC

I used to think that the most decisive factor which led to the Vietnam war was the domestic political pressures. However, the resource taught me that the dominant reason was the fear of communism spreading. The domino theory suggested that if one fell into communism, neighbouring nations would follow. So the US viewed the Vietnam as a key battleground in preventing this global shift.

Shaurya

2025-05-22 06:10:28 UTC

I used to thi k that the Vietnam war was a localised conflict between the north and the South but this source as helped me realise it was much deeper than that. The interference of global superpowers was a major factor in contributing to the outbreak of the Vietnam war. The ideological battle between the US and soviet was a major factor in this. International conflicts such as ideological battles following us containment strategies and events such as Berlin war events lead to the outbreak and escalation of the Vietnam war

Anirudh

2025-05-22 06:10:28 UTC

I used to think that the South Vietnamese and Americans had completely disrupted the Tet Offensive, which had not done any harm to the South and hence was not an important event in the Second Indochina War. However, through exploration of Source 3.3, My learning was extended as I learnt that the Tet Offensive led the American public to question the motive behind the war effort in Vietnam due to the highly publicised Offensive and subsequently applied pressure on the government to rethink their strategies. This led to the eventual de-escalation of the war and hence shows that the Tet Offensive was an impactful event in the war.

Srijan

2025-05-22 06:11:32 UTC

I used to think that the US soldiers sent to fight in Vietnam were supportive of the US’s cause and thus went to war. However, resource 5.3 highlighted to me how even the US soldiers were unsure of what they were fighting for, leading me to believe that even they were to a certain extent unsupportive of the war. Thus I now think that the US soldiers sent for war in Vietnam were sceptical about it and may not have fully supported it.

Ng Xuan Bin

2025-05-22 06:12:05 UTC

I used to think that USA fought the Vietnam war because they wanted to contain the spread of communism and the domino theory because they feared that USSR might spread communism throughout Asia. But now, after listening to 2.4, I realised that another major factor of US persistence in the Vietnam war was America’s pride and reputation as “strongest military in the world”

and they feared the lost of credibility if they were to simply withdraw or surrender against a country like Vietnam. Thus, i learnt that we should also put our shoes in the positions of leaders in order to easier understand the rationale for certain decisions.

Ellie

2025-05-22 06:12:25 UTC

I used to think that America joined the war as they believed the would be successful in preventing the spread of communism from reaching Vietnam as during the 1950s, America was fighting an ideological battle against USSR, known as the Cold War, therefore, based on the Domino Theory, the US was afraid that if Vietnam was to fall under communist rule, communist in other countries would be inspired to takeover their governments as well. However, Resource 2.4 extended my thinking as it highlighted how the US joined and continued participating in the war, as they were afraid of how the public and other countries would view the US government if they were not successful in taking down communist influence. This can be seen in Operation Rolling Thunder when Johnson decided to escalate the war through the use of atomic bombs instead of calling for peace treaties with North Vietnam. Even though the US knew that they were fighting in a losing battle, they could not bear to let America's honour fall due to their failure to win the war, hence they continued sending troops and support. Thus, I now think that America did not truly care for the well-being of their citizens or for the Vietnamese, but rather they cared more for their pride and honour, even if it meant causing great harm to their own people and the Vietnamese

michelle

2025-05-22 06:13:08 UTC

i used to think that the US intervention in the vietnam war was to mainly aid South vietnam in their battle to resist communism. However, resource 2.2 made me realise that the US was the superpower that escalated the situation and was always waiting for the time to insert themselves to contain communism as they used any opportunity to deem the war to be their issue.

George 4.2

2025-05-22 06:13:14 UTC

This photo essay has given me a profound insight into the physcological and emotional impact of the vietnam war. The photo essay has put me into the shoes of the different people in the Vietnam war, from innocent babies to stoic soldiers. It has taught me that nobody truely wins a war as it has profound psychological impacts of both the 'victors' and the 'losers'. This has tied into my knowledge of the atrocities suffered by the Vietnamese citizens.

Wantong

2025-05-22 06:13:38 UTC

I used to think that the aftermath of the Vietnam war was a short-term destruction, but after reading through resource 4.2, it made me realise that the atrocities the u.s. committed on the Vietnamese people caused severe health issues, including cancer, birth defects, and skin disorders. Even children born years later suffered from deformities such as facial disfigurements, missing limbs, and developmental problems that were passed down genetically from exposed parents.

2025-05-22 06:13:46 UTC

Resource 1.3 made me realise the causal flow of the Vietnam war events. Such as how the Diem regimes failure contributed to the US intervention like the gulf of Tonkin incident and this in turn, strengthen the resolve of North Vietnamese nationalists and local support for them, paving the way for the escalation of the Vietnam war. This deepened my understanding on how the Vietnam war events are not independent, separate events but are interconnected in a complex web of cause and effect.

Amanda

2025-05-22 06:14:08 UTC

Source 3.3

I used to think that the war only impacted the US people mentally (due to loss of loved ones) and in no other way . However, source 3.3 extended my thinking as it highlighted how after the Vietnam war, war veterans found it hard to find jobs and receive public care as many people were disgusted and hated them for losing the war, and saw them as traitors. Thus, I now realise that other than the mental consequences of the war, there were also impacts on the livelihoods of the people

emma

2025-05-22 06:14:10 UTC

Resource 4.2 connected to what I already knew and extended my thinking because it highlighted how serious the effects of war are. For some, they have to deal with the unfortunate deaths and sufferings of close ones, and for others, the traumatic experience continues to linger("even though there are no gunshots, the sound still rings in my ears" Thus I now think that the effects of war on the Vietnamese civilians are devastating

Zining

2025-05-22 06:14:22 UTC

I used to think that history was mainly focused on the actors on why,how and when the wars took place. However, Resource 4.2 extended my thinking because it highlighted the stark reality of war, portraying the impacts of the war to innocent civilians. Babies who got radiation poisoning, burnt down villages and the torture of soldiers. This resource allowed me to emphasise with the victims and open my view about the consequences of war.

Ismail

2025-05-22 06:14:43 UTC

I used to believe that the Tet offensive was seen as an initial failure by the North Vietnams, where they failed to capture key stronholds and cities despite pouring a lot of manpower and resources into that offensive. However, from 3.3, I now undertstand that what was seen as an initital failure had effects that neither the communists, nor the Americans saw coming. Tet Offensive led Americans to question the military and political leaders who assured them that the war would be

won soon. The element of hope in winning the war was taken away by the Tet Offensive as now public realize that

there wasn't going to be an end and victory is not close. This forced the American governemnt to take drastic measures, where generals were replaced, general secretary was replaced out to a more pacifist canditate, eventually leading to peace talks leading to the withdrawal of the American Troops. Despite my initial believes on the Tet offensive being seen as a failure, i now understand it lead to a multiple repercussions, lading to an eventual North's victory

Marcus

2025-05-22 06:14:51 UTC

My understanding of the international support North Vietnam received during the war was deepened by the resourse 3.2. It highlighted how North Vietnam aligned itself with China’s communist ideology to rally support against South Vietnam and the U.S. This strategic alliance drew in major Cold War powers and turned what began as a domestic conflict into a global proxy war. The U.S., fearing the spread of communism, intervened heavily—driven by the domino theory, which claimed that the fall of one nation to communism would trigger a chain reaction in the region. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union and China were actively working to spread their influence. This all reflected how Cold War politics shaped the course of the Vietnam War.

Shaurya

2025-05-22 06:14:57 UTC

Resource 1.1 truly deepens my understanding of conflicts such as the gulf of Tonkin. I had no information of events such as lyndon B Johnson signing the gulf of Tonkin resolution it also deepened my understanding of the political atmosphere when making decisions in the Vietnam war. Such as when Kennedy was assainated it motivated lyndon . This caused a very sensitive situation as every decision mattered in that difficult time period.

Darren

2025-05-22 06:16:08 UTC

I used to think there were clear good and bad sides in the War, as the USA seemingly intended for a good cause in containing communism, while the communists were portrayed as inhumane. However, resource 4.2 extended my learning as it showed how atrocities were carried out by both sides, with the USA employing tactics such as agent orange and citizens being caught in crossfire by the North Vietnamese guerilla warfare. There cannot be a clear winner due to the numerous lives lost.

Katya

2025-05-22 06:17:17 UTC

Source 1.4 confirmed my understanding of the events that occurred before after and during the vietnam war. However, my understanding of the internal events in vietnam, like when Diem was elected as president and then afterwards attacked and assassinated by the communists during a coup. I am able to better understand why the vietnamese Cong were able to hold off against America and the south to protect their communist ideology.

Anirudh 3.2

2025-05-22 06:19:01 UTC

I used to think the Second Indochina War was fought only on the battlefield, and that only the respective governments influenced the outcome of the war, but resource 3.2 extended my understanding as it showed that media portrayal of the war also influenced the eventual outcome of the war. For several major events such as Operation Rolling Thunder and the Tet Offensive, media coverage of the War led to eroding support in an American victory and eventually caused the American to rethink their strategy, thereby playing an important role in the war. Hence, the Second Indochina War was also fought off the battlefield through the use of media.

Ian

lim_zi_ian1 — 2025-05-22 06:19:34 UTC

I used to think that the Diem regime did not contribute as much to the outbreak of the Second Indochina War. However, Resource 1.3 extended my thinking by highlighting the failures of the Diem regime: including its corruption, favoritism toward Catholics, and violent repression of the Buddhist majority during the early 1960s. Due to these, there was unrest within the South as the people began to despise the Diem regime for its corruption and alienation against the people, which led to some South Vietnamese citizens turning to the North in hopes of overthrowning the Diem regime. This resulted in many joining the ranks of the Viet Cong, bolstering the insurgency's manpower capabilities to launch an all out guerilla war within South Vietnam, further weakening the hold of the Diem regime over South Vietnam, encouraging North Vietnam to slowly be more involved in the conflict, eventually leading to the outbreak of full-scale war.

michelle

2025-05-22 06:20:51 UTC

Resource 2.4 confirmed my understanding that the Cold war was fueled by existing tensions which lead to their intervention on the Vietnam war as the US supported the anti communists; south vietnam while China and Russia supported the North. Their intervention was what escalated the conflict even more as the US was originally not involved in this initially local conflict. However, as they did not want the spread of communism in Asia to grow, as shown when president Eisenhower stated "a communist government in one nation would quickly lead to communist takeovers in neighbouring states", this led to the US refusing to pull out of the war despite the heavy casualties, resulting in even more tragic outcomes

Anakin

2025-05-22 06:22:57 UTC

I used to think that the soldiers and public were supporting the war and were happy to do so. However, now I know that the soldiers were only fighting out of loyalty and over time, their morale was steadily declining after seeing the brutallity of the war and the lack of clear progress. As for the US public, after the release of media coverage of the tet offensive and the pentagon papers, public trust in the government eroded and protest songs became a powerful tool for expressing descent, using the lyrics to highlight the war's human cost and question US involvement.

Jess

2025-05-22 06:24:56 UTC

I used to think that the imprint of the Second Indochina War on the generations that survived and their descendants was one that would last for as long as we continue to be. This was confirmed in Resource 4.2, which highlighted the brutality of war, the oppression of the victims and the violence endured by even infants and pregnant mothers, the youthfulness of the victims, the tragedy of families torn apart by guns and bullets and soldiers who, for a majority of the times, did not choose to partake in such a war, and many more.

Ellie

2025-05-22 06:25:32 UTC

I used to think that the impacts of the war were generally just a lot of war casualties and environmental destruction because of the war due to the large scale amount of casualties that took place during events such as the Tet Offensive where both sides faced many casualties due to the intense and violent fights that broke out. However, Resource 4.1 extended my thinking as it highlighted how many of those who fought in the war, especially the Vietnamese, faced many long-term impacts from the war. Herbicides such as Agent Orange that were approved for use against the North Vietnamese in the war, ended up impacting the North Vietnamese with diseases and illnesses that would not only affect them for the rest of their lives, but also cause intergenerational effects on their offspring and future generations. Thus, I now think that the war not only had relatively short-term impacts on those that participated, but it also had long term impacts that can last for generations

Marcus

2025-05-22 06:27:08 UTC

Resource 4.2 broadened my perspective on war by revealing its devastating impact on innocent civilians—something I hadn’t previously considered. It presented harsh realities such as babies suffering from radiation poisoning, villages being burned down, and soldiers being tortured. Before engaging with this resource, I believed history mainly focused on the key figures and the logistics of how, why, and when wars occurred. However, this new insight helped me empathize with the victims and better understand the human cost and long-term consequences of war.

Katya

2025-05-22 06:29:27 UTC

This source deepened my understanding in the way that the north vietnamese Cong were able to hold their own against the American forces. This is due to their “home-court" advantage, well-thought out strategies, and their psychological warfare tactics(lowering American morale). This is really a herculean feat they managed to accomplish and really highlighted Americas weaknesses.

Eddric

2025-05-24 08:37:41 UTC

I used to think that US soldiers were forced to go to war and i had the perspective that all soldiers were limited to the view of either being loyal to the country or not knowing what they were fighting for. However source 5.3 taught me that soldiers had their own reasons for fighting such as personal revenge etc. this made me wonder if some events that occurred in the war such as the my lai massacre may have been driven from personal motives and not orders from the country

Yixin

2025-05-28 15:01:46 UTC

I used to think that the Second Indochina War started mostly because of Cold War tensions and US fearing the spread of communism. But resource 1.3 — specifically the section on the "Failure of the Diem Regime", a section that focused on the internal political failures in South Vietnam as a major trigger. I didn’t fully realize how deeply unpopular Ngo Dinh Diem’s regime was among his own people, (specifically w/ Buddhists and other non-communist groups). I now see that the internal instability made the country vulnerable and more reliant on US support (since they felt like they couldn't rely on their leader), which in turn escalated the involvement of the US in the second Indochina war.

My thinking has been extended and I now understand that the war wasn’t just about external forces like the US and their goals and interests, but it also was heavily shaped by local political struggles and resistance. The fact that the US trained and equipped Diem's secret police (as mentioned in the infographic) challenged my previous view that the US was mainly reacting to what they thought was Northern aggression — it turns out they were also actively involved in escalating the war.

Yixin

2025-05-28 15:33:39 UTC

I used to think that the Vietnam War was mainly about the ideological battle between communism and capitalism, and that the US got involved primarily to stop the spread of communism. But resource 2.2 — really revealed the many points of hypocrisy, ego, and propaganda behind the US brought with them.

"You think cos ur a superpower you’re some kinda hero? The Only super you are is a supercilious zero."

This challenged the assumption that the US entered the war as a global protector and champion of stability and peace. The rap showcase the US' intent behind their actions as arrogant and self-serving rather than noble or strategic.

I used to think the Tet Offensive was a loss for the Viet Cong because of all the heavy casualties.

“Struck with a heavy blow after the Tet Offensive, You hit a whole new low and got all defensive."

This tells us that while the U.S. won militarily, the tet offensive shattered american's trust in the US government and their handling of the war (public support died down and americans wanted to turn away from the full out war strategy) Thuis I now know “victory” isn't just about winning battles but also about maintaining support and legitimacy for fighting the war.

Yixin

2025-05-29 01:08:53 UTC

I used to think that the Tet Offensive was a failure for the Viet Cong because the military didn't really hold captured territory, and they faced way more heavy casualties. On the battlefield, the US won the tet offensive. However, after reading Resource 3.1 explained how the real power of the Tet Offensive wasn't in its military success, but in its psychological and political impact on the US (especially the domestic part).

The script talks about how media coverage of the tet offensive shocked the US public. For example, it said that “photographs of the victims would make their way to the American public and with it, shock them at the true atrocities of the war.” And it shows me that public opinion became just as important as (maybe more important than/not just fought through) battlefield victories, and the U.S. government lost credibility because its optimistic reports no longer matched reality. Which caused a lot of people to speak up and pressure the government into changing their strategy.

I had always heard that guerrilla warfare helped the Viet Cong win the war, but this source made it clearer how carefully timed ambushes, like targeted attacks on US command structures actually led to crushing morale among American troops and deescalation of US involvement. This challenged my earlier confusion about how a less advanced country could beat a global superpower.

Jerome

loh_yee_kai_jerome1 — 2025-05-29 04:35:31 UTC

i used to think that the soviet union and china played a minor role in the vietnam war, however, source 3.2 clearly shows china's and the soviet union's large impact on the vietnam war. This made me wonder how much information about the war was made avaliable to the public or was it hidden from the public like what happened in the US

Eddric

2025-05-29 04:41:30 UTC

This podcast (4.1) really helped me understand how war leaves lasting scars, not just physically, but socially and environmentally too. i knew that war was brutal and devastating but through this resource it expanded the way i viewed especially how US acted so selfishly on polotical interests.

jerome

loh_yee_kai_jerome1 — 2025-05-29 04:41:48 UTC

Resource 1.4 reinforced what I already knew about the Vietnam War, particularly the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as a catalyst for U.S. military escalation. It confirmed that the war was marked by significant public opposition and that American involvement ended without a clear victory. It also supported the idea that U.S. military efforts, such as bombing campaigns, had limited success in achieving political goals. My understanding of the war was deepened by learning about some key events such as: Nixon’s strategy of Vietnamization and the Paris Peace Accords and “Peace with Honour” strategy. This source made me wonder to what extent did misinformation and political motives influence key decisions like the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution?

Deston

2025-05-29 04:42:28 UTC

I used to think that the US military and the US public had different stands on the Vietnam War because of the different lived experiences. However, Resource 5,3 extended my thinking because it highlighted how similar the 2 parties' views and opinion on the Vietnam War was. Thus, I now think that both the US army and public were opposed to the continuation of the Vietnam War

Darren

2025-05-29 04:42:44 UTC

I used to think the U.S. joined the Vietnam War simply to fight communism, but learning about the Domino Theory and U.S. foreign policy from 3.2 during the Cold War showed me how deeply the fear of global communism shaped American decisions—even when it meant supporting an unpopular government in South Vietnam. This reinforced how geopolitical fears can sometimes override moral or strategic clarity.

Eddric

2025-05-29 04:43:05 UTC

Before this, I mostly understood it as just another Cold War conflict with political tensions and military involvement. But through the research and scripting process, I gained a much deeper appreciation for the human cost of war especially how it affects civilians, soldiers, and even future generations. I had no idea how devastating Agent Orange still is today, or how policies like the War Powers Act were born out of the war's failures. Learning about personal stories like Le Van O and Pham Thanh Cong really helped me connect emotionally to the facts and made me realise that war isn't just history, it's something that continues to shape people’s lives long after it ends. resource 4.4 really allowed me to gain a much deeper insight to the impacts of war

Darren

2025-05-29 04:43:53 UTC

I had heard that the Vietnam War was controversial, but after seeing footage of resource 5.2, reading firsthand accounts, and learning about events like the Tet Offensive, I understood how much the media coverage turned public opinion against the war. It was one of the first wars where graphic images and uncensored reports were shown widely, leading to protests and deep divisions at home. This taught me how powerful public perception can be in shaping policy and history.

Cj

2025-05-29 04:44:17 UTC

I used to think that external actors such as China and the european/anti communist forces didnt play a mssive role in the vietnam war but now i knw that external actors had a huge role to play and how the soivets and chinese tried to influence the war after reaching source 3.2. This made me wonder what their motives where and what they tryna achieve.

jerome

loh_yee_kai_jerome1 — 2025-05-29 04:44:43 UTC

Source 4.4 reaffirmed my existing understanding that the Vietnam War was a brutal conflict with devastating consequences for civilians. I already knew that the US was heavily involved in the war and that their involvement led to significant suffering, particularly through their military operations and support of corrupt regimes. The information about the US pushing for Ngo Dinh Diem’s leadership, despite his unpopularity and corrupt practices, aligned with what I previously knew about US interference in foreign governments during the Cold War era. The mention of Operation Rolling Thunder and the widespread bombing also matched my prior knowledge of the US’s reliance on air power in Vietnam. This source deepened my understanding by illustrating the emotional and human impact of the war in a way that textbooks often overlook. It introduced lesser-known but significant aspects like the Buddhist Crisis, the self-immolation of Thích Quảng Đức, and the role of Rainbow Herbicides, especially Agent Orange and Agent Blue. I learned about the long-term environmental and health consequences of herbicide use, such as birth defects and cancers that still affect Vietnamese people today. The explanation of the Tet Offensive clarified how both North and South Vietnamese civilians suffered, not just due to US actions, but also from Northern attacks, like the massacre in Huế. The source also offered insights into how the war was shaped by Cold War ideologies, such as the Domino Theory, and how geopolitical alliances played a part, with China and the Soviet Union backing the North. This source made me wonder how many other conflicts during the Cold War had similar patterns of suffering that were overshadowed by political narratives. I’m also curious about how the Vietnamese people, especially those from rural or heavily affected areas, view the legacy of the war today. Do they see the US as a former enemy, a current ally, or something more complicated? Additionally, I’m wondering whether full justice or reparations were ever provided to victims of herbicide exposure and if the international community recognizes the long-term consequences of the US’s chemical warfare. Lastly, it raises a broader question: how can powerful nations be held accountable for the suffering they cause in other countries, especially when those actions are justified under vague terms like “fighting communism”?

Darren

2025-05-29 04:44:45 UTC

I always knew war caused suffering, but learning about the atrocities commited in resource 4.4, and the long-term trauma experienced by both Vietnamese civilians and American veterans gave me a new level of empathy and understanding. It reminded me that beyond politics and strategy, real people on both sides endured unimaginable pain. It made me think critically about how and why wars are fought.

caris

2025-05-29 04:45:37 UTC

I used to think the Vietnam War was a unified national effort from the US side, where both the public and soldiers were fully behind the mission to stop the spread of communism. But now I realise that the war created deep divisions not just between nations, but within the United States itself. Through learning about how US soldiers questioned the purpose of their fight and how the public turned against the war after events like the Tet Offensive and the release of the Pentagon Papers, my thinking has been extended. I now understand that the Vietnam War was not only fought in the jungles of Southeast Asia but also in the minds and hearts of Americans back home. What challenges me most is the idea that soldiers and citizens were not always aligned with their government’s goals. Many soldiers fought out of loyalty, fear, or personal reasons, while the public protested, wrote songs, and marched in the streets out of a sense of betrayal and disillusionment. This makes me question how democratic decisions are really made in times of war, and how often the voice of the people gets ignored until it is too loud to silence.

Anirudh

2025-05-29 04:46:07 UTC

I originally thought that American soldiers joined the Vietnam War due to their loyalties to the nation. However, after reading source 5.3, I realised that many of them did not want to join in the first place or were motivated to join in order to seek revenge for their friends who would have passed due to the war efforts. Hence, events during the war could have happened due to their personal revenge

Deston

2025-05-29 04:46:20 UTC

I used to think that the Tet Offensive only had an impact militarily, in the sense that it swayed public opinion on the war and resulted in changes administratively. However, Resource 3.3 extended my thinking as it showed how the Tet Offensive had an impact on how the US public viewed the veterans. Thus, I now think that the veterans were seen in a negative light as a result of the Tet Offensive

Wantong

2025-05-29 04:47:00 UTC

I used to think that Vietnam was just a pawn in the Cold War, following the lead of whichever communist power supported it. After reading resource 3.2, now I think that Vietnam played a much more strategic and independent role, especially after the Sino-Soviet split, navigating the rivalry between China and the Soviet Union to secure the most beneficial support for its own goals.

Grace

2025-05-29 04:47:02 UTC

Before looking at resource 4.2, I never truly realised how impactful and real the Vietnam war was. I used to think that the Vietnam war was just merely between global powers, local conflicts and a consequence of the political struggle, but resource 4.2 has highlighted how many civilian lives were the cost of the political disputes. Seeing the expressions and fear in the civilian faces has extended my thinking by making me realise just how far the extent of war and violence was, as well as just how drastic its real-life impact was on the people of Vietnam suffering from decisions they could not control or prevent. It makes me consider the perspective of the powerless and helpless people.

Ismail

2025-05-29 04:47:05 UTC

I used to think that Sino-Vietnamese relations were smooth sailing as China was close and major ally of the North Vietnamese, supplying military aid and troops throughout the war. However, resource 1.1 made me realise that behind the scenes, there were disagreements and conflicts between them. From 1978, tensions escalated between North Vietnam and China, culminating in the Sino-Vietnamese War. This conflict was a direct result of Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia in 1978, which ousted the Khmer Rouge regime, a Chinese-backed entity. China viewed Vietnam's actions as a threat to its influence and security, leading to a military respons. Thus, relations were not as smooth and merry as it seemed between the two

Dalvin

2025-05-29 04:47:08 UTC

I used to think that the Americans were righteous and fought for the freedom of countries. However, source 2.2 made me realise the atrocities that the US committed to the Vietnamese such as the My Lai massacre and the aimless bombings that killed countless innocents

Amanda

2025-05-29 04:47:22 UTC

I used to think that the Vietnam war was merely due to Cold War ideological differences because it was technically a proxy war between communists and anti-communists, however, source 1.4 has extended my thinking because it highlighted how the religious differences between Catholics and Buddhist also had a role in either amplifying or causing the outbreak of the war, as Diem was a catholic and his own Catholicism and the preference he showed for fellow Roman Catholics made him unacceptable to buddhists. Hence, this shows how the religious differences within the country also could have led to the outbreak of the war.

ck

2025-05-29 04:48:11 UTC

I used to think politics is all in th government part of the country and usually not with the civilians. But after watching the footage in Resource 5.2, reading personal stories, and learning about key moments like the Tet Offensive, I realised how media coverage played a major role in shifting public opinion. It was one of the first wars where the public saw raw, unfiltered images and reports, which sparked widespread protests and caused strong divisions within the country. This helped me understand how much public perception can influence government decisions and change the course of history.

Katya

rudenko_yekatyerina — 2025-05-29 04:48:16 UTC

Reading the stories about the effect of people in the Vietnam war really left a lasting emotional impact about how gruesome and violent the Vietnam war really was, and even for regular civilians who played no part in the fighting.

caris

2025-05-29 04:48:37 UTC

I used to think stories about war were mostly focused on politics, strategies or who won and lost, but working on this project helped me see how war affects people on a much more personal level. Through the grandfather’s story, I came to understand how someone’s life could be completely changed by being forced into something they never wanted. What extended my thinking most was the way his past as a writer and his relationship with his best friend on the other side made the war feel real, not just historical. The use of letters and songs helped show how complicated emotions like guilt, grief, and confusion can last long after the war is over. It wasn’t just about which side was right or wrong. It was about how ordinary people had to deal with impossible choices. What challenges me is how easy it is to overlook the long-term effects of war, especially on people who survive but carry that weight quietly. The grandson’s perspective also made me realise how much we take for granted today. I now see that telling these stories matters, because otherwise the emotions and experiences behind them just fade away.

Akshitha

kalepuakshitha — 2025-05-29 04:48:38 UTC

I used to believe that the United States only increased its support and military involvement because of Diem’s poor leadership and lack of public support, as many South Vietnamese disliked him. However, after reading section 1.3, I’ve gained a deeper understanding. I now realise that a significant number of South Vietnamese began supporting the opposition, which strengthened the Viet Minh and escalated resistance against Diem’s government. This shift in support made the Viet Minh more powerful than the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV), which in turn pressured the U.S. to step up its involvement even further. As a result, I’ve started paying more attention to how actions on one side of Vietnam triggered responses and consequences on the other, revealing the complex cause-and-effect dynamics of the conflict.

Saki

2025-05-29 04:48:58 UTC

I used to think that while the election of Diem was a significant event which contributed to the outbreak of the Vietnam War, after his short rule, the influence of his actions were not as prominent. This is because while Diem’s presidency involved extremely brutal and merciless rule, he was assassinated after 2 years of presidency, causing his rule to come to an abrupt end.

However Resource 1.4 extended my thinking by informing me about the extent of his brutalities, driven by his extreme hate of Buddhists. The resource highlighted how in 1963, the government forces had killed several Buddhists, which caused the Buddhists’ protests against Diem to become even greater. This was a catalyst for the coup which protested against the governance in South Vietnam, which in turn destabilise the country and made them more vulnerable to attacks from the Viet Cong. Thus I now know that Diem’s rule was a crucial catalyst in laying the foundation for the outbreak of the Vietnam War.

Anakin

2025-05-29 04:49:06 UTC

I used to think that consequences of war were mostly short-term ones, where people experienced short-term trauma and did not have too much of an effect. However, I learnt that there is a large psychological toll left on people affected by the war. Both soldiers and civilians suffered from lasting PTSD, highlighting the effects of a military conflict. It also showcases the need for continued education on the consequences of a war, calling for global efforts towards peace.

Ellie

2025-05-29 04:49:31 UTC

I used to think that the Second Indochina War was only an extension of the Cold War where it was the communists against the non-communists—however, resource 3.2 extended my thinking as it highlighted how amongst the communist countries in support of North Vietnam, which was USSR and China, there was competition amongst them to become the world's communist leader, which in turned spured them to support North Vietnam even more in order to prove their power and dominance as the best communist country by spreading communist ideology. Thus, I know think that the Second Indochina War was not only a fight between the communist and non-communist, but it was also a fight amongst the communist countries to prove that they were the best.

Yixin

2025-05-29 04:49:39 UTC

I used to think that photography was for documenting and archiving events. But resource 4.2 allows us to consider how photography humanizes suffering and connects the audience to the event and the people emotionally, on an individual level and not as another statistic.

Deston

2025-05-29 04:49:49 UTC

Resource 4.4 deepened my understanding on the brutality and the scale of impact of the Vietnam War. While I understood the US' heavy involvement in the Vietnam War prior to this resource, it deepened my understanding on how the Buddhist Crisis and the role of the rainbow herbicides played a part in making the war into one of the most brutal and deadly wars.

Akshitha

kalepuakshitha — 2025-05-29 04:50:15 UTC

I previously believed that the Tet Offensive was the most important turning point that led to North Vietnam’s victory, as it occurred during a peak in conflict and played a key role in intensifying the war. However, after examining Resource 1.3, my understanding has deepened. I now realise that long before the Second Indochina War officially began, the North Vietnamese were already laying the groundwork for their strength. They did this by building up their military capabilities, rallying national support through patriotic campaigns, and gaining legitimacy by defeating French colonial forces in the First Indochina War through the Viet Minh. This new perspective has helped me see that North Vietnam not only escalated the war but was also instrumental in initiating it through years of preparation and resistance.

caris

2025-05-29 04:50:36 UTC

I used to think the Vietnam War was mostly about politics and military strategies, but after listening to this podcast, I now realise that the war was just as much about the people who lived through it and the damage they continued to carry long after it ended. What stood out to me most was how the effects of something like Agent Orange did not stop when the war ended. The idea that a teenager today, like Le Van O, can still suffer from the consequences of a chemical used decades ago genuinely surprised me. It extended my thinking by showing me how war is not limited to just the battlefield, it spills into families, future generations, and the environment. The section on PTSD also made me think differently about what “survival” really means. I had not thought much about how even those who made it out physically alive might still be deeply affected. What challenges me now is wondering how many voices and stories we never get to hear. The podcast reminded me that behind every policy, statistic, or historical event, there are people whose lives were changed forever. It makes me realise how important it is to keep learning and listening, not just to understand the past, but to do better in the future.

michelle

2025-05-29 04:50:48 UTC

i used to think that the Vietnam War was just a one-sided conflict where the United States, with all its advanced technology and military power, would easily win against a much smaller and poorer country. I believed the U.S. lost only because of their overconfidence in themselves.

However, source 3.1 showed me that the Viet Cong using guerrilla tactics slowly drained the Americans of their morale and resources, they avoided large confrontations and instead relied on ambushes, underground tunnels of the terrain. Their political strategy, inspired by Chinese and Korean methods, also played a key role by linking military victories with peace talks, they gained both local and international support. Meanwhile, the U.S. underestimated them, thinking it could bomb its way to victory, which only backfired as they were unprepared, allowing the Vietnamese to be victorious.

Ng Xuan Bin

2025-05-29 04:50:53 UTC

I used to think that the war was costly for the country but was also brutal for the many people involved in the war. This knowledge was confirmed by 4.2 where one of the photo essay states “Even though there are no gunshots, the sound still rings in my ears. Even though there is no fighting, there is still no peace.” This line tells me that those who were in the war ( both soldiers and innocent civilians) were traumatised by the sounds and wanted the war to end. Thus, now I believe that because of the lack of empathy and understanding of those in authority and power, they often make decisions resulting in consequences that ruin the lives of many that were in the war

Dalvin

2025-05-29 04:51:17 UTC

I used to think that the communist leaders were baited and close allies fighting against democracy together. However, source 3.2 made me realise that their relationship was strained and they despised each other. (Mao and Khrushchev)

Ian

lim_zi_ian1 — 2025-05-29 04:51:44 UTC

I used to think that both the Soviet Union and Communist China agreed to support the North Vietnamese in order to expand their sphere of influence at the expense of the Americans. However, after reading Resource 3.2, I have learnt that the Sino-Soviet had a huge role in both Communist power's support, with both trying to outdo each other in their aid to North Vietnam due to the Sino-Soviet split in an attempt to curry North Vietnam's favour. Due to the rivalry between the Soviet Union and China, the North Vietnamese received sufficient support to outdo the Americans and South Vietnamese to unify the country.

Zining

2025-05-29 04:52:01 UTC

I used to think that the social impact of the Vietnam War on the Vietnamese people was mainly limited to physical destruction and displacement. But Resource 5.1 extended my thinking because it highlighted how the war also deeply affected social structures such as the breakdown of traditional family units, the trauma experienced by civilians, and the longterm effects of chemical warfare like Agent Orange on multiple generations.

Anirudh

2025-05-29 04:52:41 UTC

I originally thought that the Vietnam War was mostly a normal military conflict with casualties coming only from combatants from the North Vietnamese and SOuth Vietnamese side. However, after reading source 4.4, I understood the amount of suffering the civilians went through from some of the military strategies used, such as the herbicides used by the US as well as corrupt leadership form Ngo Dinh Diem. Hence, the War impacted not only military combatants but also the general public severely.

Wantong

2025-05-29 04:53:13 UTC

I used to think that the Tet Offensive was somewhat a military failure for North Vietnam because after all, they suffered heavy casualties and failed to hold any territory for long. After reading resource 3.3, I think that the Tet Offensive was actually a turning point in the Vietnam War, not because of battlefield victories, but because of its massive psychological and political impact. It shattered the u.s. government's narrative that the war was being won, deeply eroded American public support, and exposed the vulnerability of u.s. and South Vietnamese forces, even in supposedly secure areas. What seemed like a loss on paper was, in reality, a powerful strategic move that shifted the momentum of the war in North Vietnam’s favor by undermining American will to continue fighting.

Clarisa

2025-05-29 04:53:15 UTC

I used to think that soldiers from both sides of the war (Vietnamese nationalists and American soldiers) went into the war with the goal to conquer the land for their respective sides. However, after reading resource 4.2, I understand that a vast majority of the soldiers who fought, regardless of origin and goal, were scared to die. Other citizens who were not involved in the war still suffered side effects of feeling afraid daily. This highlighted that the war (the casualties) was a push for survival, to kill or be killed, for the soldiers instead for glory.

Ismail

2025-05-29 04:53:20 UTC

I used to think that US soldiers and citizens were willing to support r US's cause in maintaining stability in North Vietnam until the end of the war. However, from resource 5.3 it shows that as reports from the field became increasingly accessible to citizens (Tet offensive and Pentagon Papers), public opinion began to turn against U.S. involvement in the War. It was orginally made out that the war was to contain communism, to fight against those who started the war, to maintain stability and peace. But as time went on, it was clear that the US was prolonging a losing conflict simply to save face and not accept defeat. The US people felt betrayed by their government for not being truthful about the war which led to an increase in public pressure to end the war(protests). And as for the soldiers, they fought a multitude of reasons, but it was clear that not everyone was supportive of the War or have the same goal as their government.

Shaurya(source 3.2)

2025-05-29 04:53:39 UTC

This source supplemented me with the knowledge of relationships between the different communist leader such as stalin Mao and Khrushchev. This source showed me that the communist leaders actually despised each other and were not united. One thing I learnt was that Mao disliked Stalin even though he talked so highly about him publicly. I also learnt that Mao disliked khrushchev because he kinda supported the US and believed that communism and democracy could go together which Mak was strictly against.

zining

2025-05-29 04:53:44 UTC

I used to think that reactions to the Vietnam War were mostly supportive within the countries involved, especially among government leaders. But Resource 5.3 extended my thinking because it highlighted the wide range of reactions from strong anti-war protests in the United States, to cautious support from the Soviet Union, to mixed feelings among South Vietnamese civilians who were caught between fear of communism and resentment toward American involvement

Grace

2025-05-29 04:53:59 UTC

I used to think that the decisions and actions of the US had minimal effect and simply influence the course of the war by igniting stronger offence both from the local communists and the pro-communists powers like China and USSR. However after reading resource 4.4, my thinking has been extended in a way that allows me to understand the links as to how decisions were made, as well as how these decisions actually linked or stemmed from other reasons I overlooked previously. Resource 4.4 has really shown me how these aggressive actions taken by the US showcased their strong stance, as well as how these actions were a culmination of a multitude of factors like political agendas, Cold War policy, strategic interests and nationalism.

Katya

rudenko_yekatyerina — 2025-05-29 04:54:48 UTC

From the google site I learnt that while the Americans were anti-communist at the same time, it seems like they were also anti-war and were not pleased with the fact that their military was taking part in a lot of brutality while also facing heavy losses and not winning the war.

Akshitha

kalepuakshitha — 2025-05-29 04:55:32 UTC

I used to think I understood the severity and extent in which the Vietnamese suffered from there violence of the Second Indochina War, and was aware of how many innocent casualties there were. However, after reading Resource 4.2, the photo essay allowed me to truly be exposed to how cruel and brutal the war was, being merciless towards new borns, child soldiers, families and everyone involved in the war. I now know that regardless of whether the soldiers were fighting for South or North Vietnam, they are all victims of the ruthless war orchestrated by higher powers, and no person should have to ever go through something like this.

Amanda

2025-05-29 04:56:19 UTC

I used to think that the US fought in the Vietnam war solely due to the fact that they wanted to contain communism, as they believed in the domino theory, and that if Vietnam fell to communism, neighbouring southeast Asian countries would too. However, source 2.4 has extended my thinking, as I now know that they also did so as they did not want to appear weak. Source 2.4 highlights how by pushing and persisting the North Vietnamese to surrender, it would prove to other countries that the US was capable of containing communism even if they weren’t winning, and they felt that if they backed down, they would lose respect from other countries. Hence, I now know that the US fought in a “losing” battle because they also wanted to appear strong.

ck

2025-05-29 04:56:47 UTC

At first, I saw the Vietnam War mainly as a Cold War-era power struggle focused on politics and military action. looking at stories like those in Resource 4.4 i realised just how deeply war impacts individuals, not just during the conflict, but long after it ends.Le Van O and Pham Thanh Cong helped me understand the emotional and generational toll war takes. I was especially struck by the lasting effects of Agent Orange and how responses to the war. EVen the government was unprepared for the grave consequences of the war. It teaches me that war shouldnt be taken likely and isnt just a political or ideological conflict

Anakin

2025-05-29 04:56:49 UTC

This source reinforced my concepts of the factors resulting in the Viet Cong victory during the Vietnam War. The source tells me that the Viet Cong's unwavering commitment towards their cause gave them the resilience to withstand superior forces. They used guerilla tactics to overpower stronger forces. Meanwhile, it also showed that international alliances matter, the support from China and the USSR was crucial in levelling the playing field. On the other hand, US's overreliance on technology and the public opinion was the turning point, influencing the war.

Ng Xuan Bin

2025-05-29 04:58:49 UTC

I used to think that the US soldiers joined the war was mainly because they were forced to but now source 5.2 broadens my knowledge by letting me understand that the soldiers joined the war due to different reasons. 5.2 states “They had different beliefs, some believed communists were bad, and some believed that the US should not get itself involved in a civil war... These can be seen from the interview of different soldiers such as Robert Ritterm("Keep a country overrun by communists"), Joseph Rank ("Communists are bad"), and his roommate ("He believed war was wrong")...” shows how different soldiers followed their own beliefs and so they had different motivations to join the war. This resource allowed me to understand that war prolongs because of different motives to keep on fighting and that humans will fight for what they believe is right.

Clarisa

2025-05-29 04:58:50 UTC

I initially thought that the soldiers were in the war for their support and trust in the government. However, after reading resource (5.3) I learnt that although there were soldiers like Paul Wisovaty of Taylorville who thought they were fighting communists, they realised very quickly they were fighting for their survival. This extended my thinking because it highlighted how American soldiers who were "chosen" to fight for the war in Vietnam were mostly against their own will. I get this conclusion from the resource that says "they willingly joined the war but if they had a choice, they did not want it to happen."

Jess

2025-05-29 04:58:56 UTC

I used to think that the emotional scars of war were mostly individual and internal, because the Grandfather in Act One, Scene Two expresses his trauma in isolation, slumped over a typewriter, surrounded by crumpled paper, consumed by guilt and memories. But Resource 4.3 extended my thinking because it highlighted how intergenerational dialogue, seen through the Grandson’s questions and eventual vow to “tell your story”, transforms private pain into collective memory and public healing.

Thus, I now think that the legacy of war is not just about the people who lived through it, but also about how future generations choose to engage with those stories, not just to remember, but to understand, honor, and carry them forward.

Wantong

2025-05-29 04:58:58 UTC

I used to think that the Second Indochina War was mainly a political and military conflict between the United States and communist forces in Vietnam. After reading resource 4.4, now I think that the real burden of the war was carried by the Vietnamese people themselves, who suffered the consequences of aggressive actions from all sides. Millions were displaced from their homes, entire villages were destroyed in bombing campaigns like Operation Rolling Thunder, and civilians suffered alot due to the chemical warfare. Beyond the physical devastation, the war tore families apart, created deep ideological divisions within communities, and left people suffering from PTSD that lasted for generations.

Anirudh

2025-05-29 04:59:07 UTC

I used to think that the Vietnam War was mainly a war between the different actors of the US supporting South Vietnam, and Russia and China supporting North Vietnam. However source 2.4 deepened my knowledge, as now I know that South Vietnam itself had a deep divide. Due to the oppression of the ruling leader at the time, Ngo Dinh Diem, there was an alienation of people within South Vietnam who chose to support the North Vietnamese’ cause, leading to the downfall of the ruling faction.

Ian

lim_zi_ian1 — 2025-05-29 04:59:15 UTC

I used to think that the Tet Offensive did not have a large impact on the Vietnam War. However, after reading through Resource 3.3, I have learnt the importance of the Offensive. While the North Vietnamese were beaten back, it had dealt a huge blow to the American and South Vietnamese forces. This resulted in the degradation of trust in both country's leaderships to win the war, leading to increased public pressure to end the conflict, accelerating the end of the Second Indochina War.

Shaurya(3.3)

2025-05-29 04:59:30 UTC

This source taught me that The Tet Offensive made Americans start doubting their military and political leaders who kept saying the war was almost over. It crushed the hope that the U.S. was close to winning, and people started to realise the war wasn't ending anytime soon. Because of that, support for the Vietnam War dropped, and more protests started popping up.

Ellie

2025-05-29 04:59:50 UTC

I used to think that the Tet Offensive played a key role in the war, as it showed the North Vietnamese military's strength, which caused the American public to doubt America's chances of winning the war. However, resource 3.3 extended my thinking as it highlighted how even though the US military had won the battle during the Tet Offensive, it showed to the American public that the North Vietnamese military was to be taken seriously, which caused the hope of America winning the war to diminish. This hence decreased domestic support for the US and caused protests to arise. Thus, I now think that the Tet Offensive was more key in spreading the North's political agenda rather than a military success

Jess

2025-05-29 04:59:54 UTC

I used to think that the Viet Cong's victory in the Vietnam War was mostly due to America’s strategic mistakes and lack of commitment. But Resource 3.1 extended my thinking because it highlighted how the Viet Cong’s success was not just due to U.S. failures, but rather the result of a smart combination of guerrilla tactics, strong political messaging, international alliances, and public relations strategies that actively exploited American weaknesses. Thus, I now think that the Viet Cong's victory was not only about resisting a technologically superior force, but also about effectively using asymmetrical warfare, maintaining high morale and purpose, and leveraging international and domestic opinion to weaken the U.S. effort from both outside and within.

Marcus

2025-05-29 05:00:00 UTC

Before analysing Source 3.2, I underestimated the impact of foreign involvement in the Vietnam War. I didn’t think countries like China or Western anti-communist allies played a major role. However, I’ve realised that external powers, particularly the Soviets and Chinese, were deeply invested in influencing the conflict. This has made me curious about their intentions and what they were ultimately trying to accomplish.

emma

2025-05-29 05:00:22 UTC

resource 5.3 connected to what i already knew because it highlighted how the US had kept many secrets from the public during the vietnam war. (president Nixon directing his campaign efforts to scuttle peace talks over fears it might grant his opponent an edge in the election) this resource extended my thinking because i did not know that the american involvement in the war had impacts on future politics. during events such as the pentagon papers, it showed many people that the US government could be dishonest, manipulative or unaccountable, planting a deep mistrust in institutions. hence the murder of George Floyd wasnt just seen as an isolated act of police brutality, but a symbolism of long-standing issues within american politics, as there was public outrage. the justice in policing act tried to rebuild that trust by increasing transparency and accountability in policing, just as other post crisis reforms had aimed to restore faith in government.

Jess

2025-05-29 05:01:34 UTC

I used to think that America persisted with the Vietnam War solely because they genuinely believed in the domino theory and were committed to preventing the spread of communism in Southeast Asia. But Resource 2.4 extended my thinking because it highlighted how deeply America’s decisions were also influenced by the need to maintain national honour and global credibility, even when their military strategy was clearly failing. Thus, I now think that while anti-communism was a driving force, America's persistence in the war was just as much about preserving its international image and avoiding the appearance of weakness, even at the cost of thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

Marcus

2025-05-29 05:01:48 UTC

Yixin

2025-05-29 05:02:13 UTC

Resource 4.2 uses a blend of the lyrics who lies who dies who tells your story. Because hamilton is about ideals, ambition, legacy and loss. the war had a lot of ppl arguing over ideas they didnt even fully understand ("what does freedom mean?"). The grandson, much like eliza in hamilton, uncovers the legacy of a dear one and talks about how the next generation, the living, can/has to make peace with the past. it works and im a huge musical fan. very peak.

michelle

2025-05-29 05:02:26 UTC

I used to think that the soldier drafted for the war blindly followed commands without being interested in the actual meaning behind the war. I thought of them as passive participants, blindly following orders without much personal reflection. However, after engaging with Source 5.3, I came to understand that many U.S. soldiers were actually deeply conflicted about their roles. Some even questioned the reasons behind their deployment and expressed uncertainty about the war’s objectives.

Saki

2025-05-29 05:02:49 UTC

I used to think that the US seemed almost undefeatable through their violent tactics and military support. This is because they had launched large scale attacks such as the Tet offensive, which caused Vietnam to suffer significant loses, escalating the war. But Resource 2.2 extended my thinking by highlighting the many blunders which the US had made, such as the Failure of Operation Rolling Thunder, and how the bombs had often just fallen into empty jungles, missing their targets. The resource also mentions the release of the Pentagon papers which had exposed the US government’s losing stance. Thus I now think that the US is not as mighty as they seem, and while they had violently attacked North Vietnam, they did not overwhelm Vietnam, and was not invincible.

Dalvin

2025-05-29 05:03:34 UTC

Before, I thought that the events of the Vietnam war was under wraps and not disclosed to the public. Source 3.3 made me aware that the tet offensive made the American populations doubt the government and the hope/belief that the US had the upper hand and could win the Vietnam war.

Shaurya(source 2.2)

2025-05-29 05:04:26 UTC

I used to think that the US citizens were ethical and carried out activities with some extent of mercy. However source 2.2 made me realise that the Americans were ruthless with their killing due to events such as the my lai massacre

Ng xuan Bin

2025-05-29 05:04:56 UTC

I used to think that many victims of the war especially the Vietnamese people suffered long term impacts from the war and resource 3.1 confirms this idea by mentioning how “The public view Vietnam War veterans as violent symbols of war and was hostile towards them. The Vietnam War Veterans also find it hard to find jobs and receive public care.” This illustrates the long lasting effect even on American soldiers who survived the war and how society treated these people. Thus, I believe that peace is better than war

Anakin

2025-05-29 05:05:39 UTC

This source reinforces my idea of America persisting the war despite the great costs involved. I learnt that the ideological rigidity led to costly mistakes for the US. The fear of communism blinded US leadership from recognising the flaws in their approach. Additionally, the US's national pride by trying to preserve America's global standing when they could not win the war prolonged the conflict. Despite Operation Rolling Thunder's destruction, this did not guarentee a victory for the US at all as North Vietnam endured and adapted against such challenges.

Katya

rudenko_yekatyerina — 2025-05-29 05:06:05 UTC

The video confirmed my understanding of the timeline of the indochina war, something new i learned was that afterwards, Richard Nixon was pardoned for the crimes he committed.

Yixin

2025-05-29 05:06:26 UTC

I used to think people just blindly followed their leaders ideology, and everyone within one group acted the same an thought the same. However, resource 2. tells us about how many people involved or even watching the war was conflicted about their role and ideology in the war.

Ismail

2025-05-29 05:06:42 UTC

I used to believe that photos taken during the war was simply to document what has happened, to see the horrors of the war, but nothing else more. What effect can it have on such a big scale? However, resource 4.2 has shown me that these images and photos captured played such a crucial role in the Vietnam war. It has made me realise the true horror and burtality war brings about. It spares no one from the sufferings, starvation, injuries, traumas, no one was spared from the consequences of war. War did not discriminate, everyone suffered equally, may that be the young, old, working, or even the soldiers. These pictures were crucial in potraying the horrors of the Vietnam war back in US soil, to inform the citizens on the scale US went to.

michelle

2025-05-29 05:06:49 UTC

I used to think that the event that triggered the escalation of the Vietnam War was the Gulf of Tonkin as it is what triggered the intervention of US. However, resource 1.3 taught me that the Vietnam war was really started by other things such as when Diem failed to unify the region and the rise of Ho Chi Minh.

zining

2025-05-29 05:07:44 UTC

I used to think that the legacy of the Second Indochina War mainly ended with Vietnam’s reunification in 1975. But Resource 4.3 extended my thinking because it highlighted how the war’s aftermath continues to affect Vietnam socially, economically, and environmentally through longterm issues like unexploded ordnance, the impact of Agent Orange on public health, and a cautious approach to foreign policy rooted in historical trauma. Thus, I now think that the war’s legacy is still deeply embedded in Vietnam’s development, national identity, and global relations today

Amanda

2025-05-29 05:08:01 UTC

I used to think that countries with more advanced technology would be able more easily win the war. However, source 3.1 highlighted how even without the advanced technology, if a country has the smart tactics, it could still win the war, as long as it attacked at the right times.?

emma

2025-05-29 05:08:11 UTC

resource 4.4 connected to what i already knew because it highlighted how the aggressive actions in the war impacted the vietnamese greatly, with many deaths and casualities caused by the diem regime. the diem regime alienated the vietnamese people, especially buddhists, which caused even more tension between the north and the south, leading to the US' direct involvement which led to the outbreak of the war. this resource extended my thinking because i did not know that the US played such a big part in pushing for Ngo Dinh Diem's leadership just due to his anti-communist views, despite his incompetency.

Clarisa

2025-05-29 05:08:35 UTC

I used to think that the Vietcong won due to their successful ambushing and smart use of the jungle they are in. This is supported by my reading of resource 3.1. However, this resource also deepened my understanding of the war tactics the Vietcong used, such as taking advantage of their smaller bodies to dig tunnels, as well as chasing Americans when they retreated and even attacking the American troops when they are already exhausted. I also learnt that the USSR and China funded approximately $600 billion USD together for the Vietcong's attack. Thus I now think that the Vietcong's success was 70% Vietnamase nationalist and 30% USSR and China

Marcus

2025-05-29 05:09:24 UTC

I once believed that the United States acted purely out of a desire to protect freedom and support other nations. But after reviewing Source 2.2, I became aware of the severe actions taken by the U.S. during the Vietnam War, including the My Lai massacre and indiscriminate bombings that led to the deaths of many innocent civilians.

Grace

2025-05-29 05:09:35 UTC

Prior to reading resource 2.4, I always thought that the US persisted in the war because of its strong desire not to let communism spread as well as its pride in upholding its reputation - the US had already invested heavily in the second Indochina war, and if they were to announce to the American public that they were losing against mere local communists insurgents, their reputation would definitely take a hit. However, after reading resource 2.4, my thinking has been extended. I know understand the reasons why the US had such a strong agenda in persisting in the war. Regarding its desire to contain communism, I realise that many US politicians would probably have had been influenced by its preceding theories and policies about communism - Domino Theory for instance - which would have pushed them not to draw out of the war in fears of signalling the further spread of communism. Closely related to that, I realise that US’ reputation back then was imperative in its context as it winning the war would have direct and implied effects on the ideological struggle. Hence, this resource given me deeper insights into the reasons as to why the US would have had such a strong stance in persisting in the war.

Ellie

2025-05-29 05:10:05 UTC

I used to think that the main casualties in the war were from the military forces from both sides. However, resource 4.2 extended my thinking as it highlighted how the biggest victims in this war were the Vietnamese citizens who did not have any role in the war. Due to the war, many families, mothers, fathers and children were separated from each other and forced to face the horrors of war for a fight that they might not have wanted at all. Thus, I now think that the biggest victims and the greatest horrors that came from the war were the number of innocent civilians who were forced to experience the war

Saki

2025-05-29 05:10:20 UTC

I used to think that that the US’s military power came from their vast amount of soldiers and firepower. This is because the US had sent a large amount of troops to Vietnam during the Vietnam War, and this large number of military personnel supported the South greatly. But Resource 4.4 extended my thinking by informing me about even their chemical attacks, which did not kill the enemies but the plants growing in Vietnam. This was labelled the Rainbow Herbicide which were 6 different type of chemicals which destroyed the crops that were affected. This allowed me to learn how they also had tactical attacks that were not just comprised of military attacks, but also those that were strategical.

Marcus

2025-05-29 05:12:00 UTC

I previously believed that US soldiers participated in the war solely to stop the spread of communism or because they were compelled to. However, after examining source 5.3, my perspective has broadened. I’ve come to understand that some soldiers chose to fight out of loyalty to their comrades. Others were motivated by personal beliefs, such as opposing the idea of US involvement in a foreign civil war. As a result, I now recognize that their reasons for going to war extended beyond political goals like containing communism, they also included personal convictions and relationships.

emma

2025-05-29 05:13:43 UTC

resource 1.4 connected to what i already knew because it highlighted how many events led to the outbreak of the vietnam war, such as the election of Diem as president assisted by US military and economic aid. diem imprisoned buddhists which alienated the vietnamese locals and caused more tensions within the region and led to the eventual outbreak of the war.

Ian

lim_zi_ian1 — 2025-05-29 05:16:16 UTC

I did not think about the US soldiers' opinion during the Vietnamese War. However, after reading Resource 5.3, I have learnt that there were multiple groups of soldiers that had differing opinions on the war. Some were anti-communist, avenging their relative deaths or merely protecting the legacy of the US, while others were anti-war .