15 You wrote: The fact that the U.S. government would think that constitutional checks and balances would make Diem to weak shocked me. This shouldn't be a shock. Either you are too much an idealist or you haven't paid attention to the Herring text and DVD's. You mention Edward Lansdale as an authority (who apparently should have been listened to, I'm guessing) but say nothing else about him. Also, backing Can Lao was simply backing Diem, which the U.S. did from 1954-63. No surprises there. The questions I asked required much more depth of thought and written development than provided here. Have you read the comments I posted to students after the first Journal assignment, about incorporating textbooks and DVD's into your papers? Have you read the announcements where these assignments are meant to show me an entire week’s worth of work? Re-read the questions in part 2. You didn't answer any of them in just 2 sentences. 17 Robert, This was too brief. Have you read the announcements where these assignments are meant to show me an entire week’s worth of work? You wrote: South Vietnam was portraying itself to be a fully democratic nation Just the term "portraying" should give this away, let along the numerous pages in Herring and information in the DVD's that Diem was far from being a benevolent democratic leader. So either you didn't know this (which would not be good) or it does not really belong in this assignment when speaking about Browne. In fact, his story WAS one of those which was seen by many and helped turn the tide against Diem and even the entire war. The questions I asked, especially in part 2, required much more depth of thought and written development than you provided here. For your positive lesson, I am perplexed. You like Sergei Khrushev's comments, even though they've been controverted by information in the Herring text. Would he have a reason to lie? Certainly. And he wasn't the leader of Russia during the Vietnam war. So, what would he know? 20 Tomoaki, Watch typos and grammar problems. You wrote: He also reveals no one in the US embassy in Saigon could spoke (speak) Vietnamese that all information but pro-Vietnam War was ignored (I don't know what this means) The last 2 paragraphs of your paper go off topic and talk about the South Vietnamese not wanting to fight the war. And your last sentence tells me what you want to study next week. Although nice, this doesn't belong in a written assignment. 20 Shelah, First, I'm glad you're reading all the stories. That is clear. But your part 1 is a rant in which you superficially mention many stories, but don't go into depth or analysis of any of them. Depth is important in these assignments. I also share your disbelief in what you are reading. It's amazing that ANYTHING got done during this conflict. But comments like: The whole thing makes me sick. It isn’t right. ...made the war in Vietnam a complete mess. are certainly not very academic. And yes, we do know what happened. All of these people are telling you their various "truths" and experiences during the conflict. I take it you are enjoying the Herring book better? You should use the information from that book (facts, quotes, etc) to support some of the in-depth claims that you should be making in this assignment, such as Singlaub's propaganda campaign against the North Vietnamese (and LBJ's propaganda campaign at home). You could have also focused on Le Lieu Brown's job of "sanitizing" the press, as I continue to see evidence of it today in this very presidential election, as well as Iraq. I supposed "free press" that doesn't work is a VERY BAD thing indeed. Be sure to do exactly what the questions ask you to do. I don’t believe anything you wrote answered any question I asked for part 2. What you wrote was vague and non-specific to Vietnam. 18 Steven, Taking a bit more time (and more sentences) to fully explain yourself would have helped greatly, especially in part 2. What you have provided here could have been written by anyone who had read or even glanced at just 1 story in the Appy book, instead of reading hundreds of pages in two books and viewing 3+ hours of video. 10 Andrew, The questions I asked required much more depth of thought and written development. It is very clear to me that what you have provided here is completely superficial and could have been written by anyone who had read or even glanced at just 2 stories in the Appy book, instead of reading hundreds of pages in two books and viewing 3+ hours of video. Have you read the comments I posted to students after the first Journal assignment, about incorporating all of these elements into your papers? Have you read the announcements where these assignments are meant to show me an entire week’s worth of work? 16 Natalie, The questions I asked required much more depth of thought and written development. Using a quote to say "Paul" was cynical" doesn't really get to the question I posed. What you have provided here is could have been written by anyone who had read or even glanced at just 2 stories in the Appy book, instead of reading hundreds of pages in two books and viewing 3+ hours of video. 24 Jared, The Colbert paragraph was a bit vague, but this was a nice step up from the first assignment. Keep up the good work. You wrote: in my opinion, the less death and destruction avoided in war, the better. Yeah, me too, but that certainly was not Singlaub's mission. Constructive criticism. In the future, be sure to include Herring text and video accounts/examples as proof or evidence to bolster your claims. 15 Kali, The questions I asked required much more depth of thought and written development. What you have provided here is could have been written by anyone who had read or even glanced at just 1 story in the Appy book, instead of reading hundreds of pages in two books and viewing 3+ hours of video. 25 April, This is good work although a bit different from the more formal PSD papers you wrote in U.S. History... good thing for you so you can get some emotion "off your chest" as you read these stories. Keep up the good work. Constructive criticism. In the future, be sure to include Herring text and video accounts/examples as proof or evidence of your claims. For example, you talk about ignorance belonging to the U.S. and not-so-much N. Vietnam. I agree. How can you help "prove" or support that? I'd say the Vietnamese history facts dealing with China, France, Japan, U.S. illustrates they knew what they were doing (also see/recall the Giap story in this section... tragedy to McNamara, noble sacrifice to Giap). For U.S. ignorance, see many pages in Herring, especially JFK's dealings with Diem, and with LBJ, where do we start?. Finally, re-read your paper WITHOUT the 3rd paragraph. Better flow, as far I am concerned. What you you think? 19 Ailiah, Your first paragraph talks around the subject, but why did the U.S. decision-makers disregard Ngo Vinh Long's advice? Your Herring textbook and videos are pretty clear on the subject. You need to include them and cite them, in these journal assignments. Also, when you wrote: but Vietnam didn't reach it's breaking point. America did. I do not understand what you meant. The point was awkwardly worded and not convincingly made. The second paragraph answer was a bit brief and VERY superficial. Richard had a good time? That's postive? Re-read the original question I posed. 24 Lacie, Very good job overall, especially part 1. Part 2 was a bit brief. In the future, include information from your textbook and cite sources, eg. (Appy p45), and use quotes. For example, you must have read in the Herring book that LBJ had all of his advisors swear to secrecy about the war. That gives you a reason (right or wrong) for what McNamara did, doesn't it? 22 Amy, Good use of the textbook information (Kennedy question) to bolster your claim and your reasoning why this story was the most negative for you. Do much more of that. You spend a bit too much time on the vague issues, such as imagining what it would have been like if you were the prisoner. The second paragraph is the weaker one. Because what you have provided here comes from the same story, it could have been written by anyone who had read or even glanced at just 1 story in the Appy book, instead of reading hundreds of pages in two books and viewing 3+ hours of video. 24 Taylor, Watch the typos and grammar. You wrote: Nguyen give this great story about when he was a POW. Give should be "gave" or some better word, and I'm not sure "great" would actually describe the story. Perhaps "compelling" or even "amazing" would better describe it. You were the only student to confuse my directions about focusing on the negativity in the stories. Perhaps I need to revise my wording? In essence, I didn’t need you to soley take issue with the writers themselves, but the content of their stories. Certainly it had to bother you reading about Giap talk so calmly about defeating the U.S. That’s what I meant to have you focus on. There was an element like that in just about every story. Regardless, you still faithfully addressed the topic. 15 Driana, The questions I asked required much more depth of thought and written development. What you have provided here is could have been written by anyone who had read or even glanced at just 1 story in the Appy book, instead of reading hundreds of pages in two books and viewing 3+ hours of video. 18 Amanda, In the future, cite your quotes and sources, eg. (Appy p45) You needed to focus on specifics, but you state a number of things without proof or support. You wrote: people gained these positions of responsibility without any real qualifications. Where is the proof of this? If I've ever said anything wrong or behaved badly to students in my classes, you could say the same thing. But you'd be wrong. I have the college degree, credits, transcripts, diploma, and official teaching license to prove it. None of these things guarantees that I am a "good" teacher, but your conclusion about lack of qualifications is not a logical one. Also, when you state Also the various factions of protests, Buddhists vs. Catholics, regime changes I'm not really sure what you are getting at, specifically concerning actions by the U.S regarding these issues internal to Vietnam. For your positive lessons, I am also perplexed. You like Sergei Khrushev's comments, even though they've been unheaded by the U.S., and according to you, the U.S. is in a similar problem in Iraq as it was in Vietnam. I can't find the positive here, unless you are saying that Sergei Khrushev can rightfully claim, "I told you so". Perhaps more explanation (or a different story) would have helped. Your paper certainly didn't the long quote from the text. That single quote was longer than your own thoughts and words on the subject. 18 Michael, In the future, cite your quotes and sources, eg. (Appy p45) I am perplexed by your paragraph on Giap. Would you really expect him to admit or believe that the war was more lost by the USA than won by North Vietnam? You mention that the American government refused to fight the war in an all-out effort, but don't cite any proof. Anyone reading the Herring book would be able to see a profound shift in the way the war was being fought and funded, from JFK to LBJ. You say LBJ agonized over his decisions, but I can't see how this would support your position. What... he was holding back and felt bad about it? Or was he committing all, still not succeeding, and feeling bad about it? You mention his domestic agenda (good) but don't reveal the part it played. You give the fatalist argument that the war was "doomed from the start", without proof. But most importantly, how did you think Giap was supposed to address ANY of this information? The second paragraph is better, but much too vague. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason, is a fine phrase to use, if you explain what doing the right thing is (evacuating Catholics from N.Vietnam is my guess from your paper) and you explain the reason (you only mention propping up the Diem government). This was one non-military event that occurred during the entire conflict. Also, Dr. Dooley was one man, and the analogy of his arrogance to the arrogance of the U.S. was a stretch and not convincingly presented. 20 Lizzy, A bit brief. Be careful on some of your conclusions. Taking a bit more time (and more sentences) to fully explain yourself would have helped greatly. For example, your intro paragraph seem to imply something important. If we don't really strive to understand what people did, then it is all too easy to come to the conclusion that "everyone back then was just stupid, crazy, (add-your-own-adjective) ". That, of course, would not be a proper way to study history. But you claim that Cold War attitudes were dying when you were born in 1979. First, you don't provide any proof of this statement. Moreover, I'd propose that you would be wrong. Cold War mentality continued at least until the fall of the wall in Berlin (1989) and the collapse of the Soviet Union, but some may argue that the mentality is still here today. (read any stories about Russia and natural gas and oil production recently... scary). Unfortunately, the second paragraph of your assignment seems to disregard this stance. You mention "cultural understanding", which is a pretty big buzzword today, but was certainly not back then. When you mention LBJ in the last sentence, I was thinking "great, she's on the right track", but you fail to back up the statement with proof (citing sources such as your textbook). The last paragraph is simply too vague. Policy makers today are the same sort and don't really see peaceful resolution. The U.S. today did go to the United Nations before it acted in Iraq. In Vietnam, we did not. I'm guessing that this fact alone would not satisfy your hopeful desire for peace.