Lesson video

Hello, and welcome to today's History lesson.

My name's Mr. Merrett, and I'll be guiding you through today's lesson.

So, let's get started.

Today's lesson is on the Paris Peace Agreement, and by the end of the lesson, we'll be able to explain the significance of the Paris Peace Agreement.

And in order to do that, we need to use some key terms, and today's key terms are treaty, unification, and ceasefire.

So a treaty is a formal agreement between countries.

Unification means to join together or to make something whole.

And a ceasefire is a temporary stoppage of a war in which both sides agree to pause aggressive actions.

Now that we know those, let's get started.

Today's lesson is gonna comprise of three different learning cycles, and our first learning cycle is the carrot and the stick.

So let's get going.

So, Henry Kissinger's remarks that "peace is at hand" in Vietnam made at a press conference on the 26th of October, 1972, came just in time to give President Nixon a huge boost in popularity when Americans went to the polls to vote for their next president on the 7th of November.

So, the first time Richard Nixon was elected as president, he won by the slimmest of margins against Hubert Humphrey.

He won by less than 1%.

And that was in 1969.

This time, in 1972, Nixon won 49 out of the 50 American states.

So, just an overwhelming victory against the Democrat George McGovern.

So, the first time he's elected is by the slimmest of margins.

The second time, this time he's elected, it's an overwhelming, what we call a political landslide.

So Americans who voted for Nixon because of his promised success in ending the Vietnam War were soon to be frustrated, however.

South Vietnamese president Nguyen Van Thieu disrupted negotiations by insisting on wholesale changes to a peace treaty that he would have no input in drafting.

And the amendments that he insisted upon were refused by the North Vietnamese.

A compromise could not be reached.

And by the 13th of December, peace talks had broken down once again.

In light of this, Nixon adopted what's known as a carrot and stick approach to encourage the Vietnamese delegates to return to the negotiation table.

So the carrot, which is something positive, was offered to Thieu.

And Nixon promised him $1 billion in military equipment, which would give the South Vietnamese Army, or ARVN, the fourth largest air force in the world.

He also promised that the US would reenter the war if the North Vietnamese broke the terms of the treaty.

He also threatened to abandon South Vietnam if Thieu refused his offer.

The stick, which is something negative, was given to North Vietnam.

On the 18th of December, 1972, the US began Operation Linebacker II, which is more often known as the Christmas bombings.

And this was a huge 12-day bombing campaign on North Vietnam designed to force them back to the negotiation table.

And the Christmas bombings saw US planes fly nearly 2,000 missions and drop nearly 35,000 tons of bombs on key military and industrial sites, such as oil tanks, factories, and air fields.

Now, the US was successful in this mission in the sense that they destroyed 25% of North Vietnam's oil reserve and 80% of their electrical capacity in 12 days of the most concentrated bombing in world history.

And the US was successful with its operation in other ways as well because both the carrot and the stick proved effective.

And talks between the Vietnamese delegates resumed on the 8th of January, 1973.

And then by the 27th of January, a treaty had been reached and the Paris Peace Agreement had been signed.

So, a quick check for understanding now then.

Who claimed that "peace is at hand" in Vietnam on the 26th of October, 1972? Was it Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, or Le Duc Tho? Make your choice now.

All right, if you chose B, Henry Kissinger, then congratulations.

Another quick check for understanding now then.

I'd like you to choose two carrots, two positive things, that the US offered to South Vietnam to convince them to resume negotiations.

Did they offer them A, $1 billion in military equipment, B, $1 billion in farming equipment and supplies, C, a promise to reenter the war if North Vietnam broke the terms of the treaty, or D, a promise to drop nuclear bombs on North Vietnam if they broke the terms of the treaty.

So choose two of those options now.

All right, if you chose A and C, then congratulations, that is indeed correct.

And one final check for understanding for this learning cycle.

How long did the Christmas bombings last for? Was it A, 12 days, B, 24 days, or C, 36 days? Okay, if you chose A, 12 days, then congratulations, that is indeed correct.

Okay, so let's go for our first task for today then.

So I've got a source on the screen in front of you there, which is a photo of US planes dropping bombs over North Vietnam in December, 1972, during Operation Linebacker II.

And what I would like you to think about is how useful is this source for understanding why the Paris Peace Agreement was signed in January, 1973? So, I'd like you to explain your answer using the source and evidence from this lesson.

So pause the video now whilst you do that, and I'll see you once you've finished.

Okay, welcome back.

So let's have a little look at the model answer that I've got on the screen here in front of you.

So I said: This source is useful in helping understand why the peace treaty was signed in January, 1973, because it shows US planes dropping dozens of bombs on North Vietnam during Operation Linebacker II, which took place over Christmas 1972.

The US dropped nearly 35,000 tons of bombs and caused a huge amount of damage; for instance, 80% of North Vietnam's electrical capacity was destroyed.

This bombing campaign was the stick part of the US's carrot and stick strategy, which forced North Vietnam to restart peace negotiations in order to stop the bombing and ultimately led to the Paris Peace Agreement.

So hopefully your answer follows a similar sort of track as mine there.

Let's move now, though, to our second learning cycle for today, which is the terms of the treaty.

Now, the peace treaty signed in Paris was almost identical to the treaty that had been drafted during the secret negotiations between the US and North Vietnam.

The treaty specified that the last remaining US troops would leave Vietnam within 60 days and prisoners of war, or POWs, would be exchanged within the same timeframe.

All foreign troops would leave Laos and Cambodia, and a ceasefire would be enforced in South Vietnam.

No new troops could enter South Vietnam, nor could any military equipment unless it was to replace faulty existing equipment.

The US was to clear North Vietnamese ports of the mines that had been laid as well as contribute financially to healing the wounds of war throughout Indochina.

North Vietnamese troops were also able to remain in the territory they had gained from South Vietnam.

Lastly, Vietnam was to become unified through elections free of foreign interference, with an independent commission made up of representatives from independent countries to oversee this.

So those are the main terms of the treaty which ended the war in Vietnam.

Right, a quick check for understanding now.

So true or false? Under the terms of the treaty, the US had to pay for damages they caused in Cambodia and Laos.

So decide now whether you think that is true or false.

All right, if you chose true, then congratulations, it is indeed true.

But let's justify that answer now then.

Is it true because the treaty referred to the US paying for damages in Indochina, which included Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, or is it true because separate treaties were signed with Cambodia and Laos and were then included in the main treaty with Vietnam? So choose your justification now.

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

Let's have another check for understanding first of all before we go any further, though.

So how did the Paris Peace Agreement say that unification of Vietnam should happen? So there are two correct answers here.

I'd like you to choose two from the options below.

So was it because of A, through peaceful means, elections? Was it through B, through military means but without foreign interference? Was it because of C, under the supervision of an independent commission? Or was it because of D, under the supervision of President Nguyen Van Thieu? So choose two of those options now.

Okay, if you chose A and C, then very well done, those are indeed two correct answers there.

And one final check for understanding for this learning cycle.

Who was expected to win the unifying elections? Was it the capitalists, the communists, or was it just too close to call? Okay, if you chose B, then that is indeed correct.

I'm gonna explore that a little bit further in just a moment.

But first of all then, who benefited the most from the peace treaty? Let's answer this question here.

So, for each term of the treaty, decide whether the US, South Vietnam, or North Vietnam would be pleased with it or not.

So just put a tick or a cross in the box to indicate your opinion.

And then once you've done that, once you've completed the table, I want you to explain which country you think would have benefited the most from the peace treaty.

And try and use examples from the treaty to support your opinion.

So, here are the terms of the treaty, or the main terms of the treaty, and the table there.

So the withdrawal of all US troops within 60 days, the return of prisoners of war, the clearing of mines from North Vietnamese ports by the US, the financial support from the US for damage done to Indochina, the ban on new troops and equipment in South Vietnam, unification elections for North and South Vietnam under the supervision of an independent commission, and a ceasefire in South Vietnam.

So just tick or cross if you think either the US or South Vietnamese or the North Vietnamese would be pleased with that term.

And once you've done that, which country do you think came out the best from this peace treaty? Pause the video now whilst you complete that, and I'll see you once you're finished.

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you got on fine with that task.

Let's go through this table first of all.

So we'll go through each of the terms and we'll see what we think of that.

So the withdrawal of all US troops within 60 days.

I felt that the US would be very happy with that, and reason being's that people back home, that's what they desperately want from the Vietnam War.

They want their boys out of the fighting so they can stop dying.

The South Vietnamese were probably less pleased with that, though, 'cause they would have lost a really key ally.

And the North Vietnamese would be over the moon with it because they've lost a really, really dangerous opponent.

In terms of the return of prisoners of war, I can't really see a reason why anybody wouldn't be happy with that.

That'd be pleasing for everybody involved.

The clearing of mines from North Vietnamese ports by the US.

I can't imagine the US would be overly happy with that.

They've only just dropped them for a start.

And also, it's an expensive and dangerous mission to do that.

The South Vietnamese probably wouldn't be pleased either because that is obviously helping their enemy.

And from the North Vietnamese perspective, it's brilliant, though, because these horrible mines that are preventing trade from occurring are now gonna be removed, and it's gonna cost them nothing to do that.

Financial support from the US for damage done to Indochina.

I think both South Vietnam and North Vietnam, as well as Laos and Cambodia, would be very pleased with that.

Huge, extensive, massive damage was done all over Indochina, which would cost a lot of money to sort out.

And as a result of that, I can't imagine the US would be overly pleased having to foot that bill.

In terms of the ban on new troops and equipment in South Vietnam, I think the US would be quite pleased about that, and the reason being is that what they desperately want is to get out of the war.

So they don't want any justification for trying to move men back in to that theater of war.

So, just being able to get out and having to stay out is fantastic for them.

From the perspective of South and North Vietnam, I can't imagine they'd be overly pleased with that, though, because for them, they feel the fighting might start again at any moment.

They want to be ready for that.

The unification elections for North and South Vietnam under the supervision of an independent commission.

I think North Vietnam would be most pleased with that because realistically, the North Vietnamese are most likely to win any free and fair election taking place.

The South Vietnamese people are not in the least bit happy with their governments.

A lot of the South Vietnamese people have been supporting the Viet Cong and the NVA, the North Vietnamese Army, so they may well have communist sympathies anyway.

So I would imagine that from a North Vietnamese perspective, it's brilliant, but from the perspective of South Vietnam and the USA, kind of the capitalist or democratic people in these elections who are less likely to win the elections, that they're gonna be less pleased about this term.

And finally, a ceasefire in South Vietnam.

I'd imagine that both the US and North Vietnam would be quite pleased with that.

The US, as we said, just wanted to get out of the war at this point in time.

From the North Vietnamese perspective, it gives them time to kind of organize themselves and make use of the gains that they've made during the Easter offensive.

From the South Vietnamese perspective, I imagine that they are quite eager to try and push the North Vietnamese out of their country, and a ceasefire prevents them from doing this.

So I can't imagine it's particularly pleasing for them to have this term in the treaty.

Now, this is what I think of the treaty.

If you've got different ticks and crosses, that's absolutely fine as long as you can justify why you think that.

That's what I'm really looking for here.

I want you to think about each term of the treaty and how it applies to each country.

And if you come up with a different analysis, that's absolutely fine.

As long as you can justify it, that's what I'm looking for here.

Overall, though, in terms of who benefited the most, I said that based on the individual terms of the treaty, North Vietnam benefited the most from the peace treaty.

This is because the US had to pay large sums to repair the damage they caused in Indochina as well as clear the mines they had laid in North Vietnamese harbors.

They were also very likely to win the unifying elections that were due to be held.

North Vietnam was also left in an even stronger position by the inclusion of unification elections in the treaty.

The communists were almost guaranteed a victory if they stopped fighting and allowed the elections to happen as the government of South Vietnam had treated its people badly since it was established in 1954, and it is almost certain that the people would have voted to remove them from power if they had the chance.

So, that's the justification I came up with for why I think the North Vietnamese would be most pleased with this peace treaty.

Again, if you've got something different, that's absolutely fine as long as you can justify why you think that.

That's what I'm really looking for here.

Right, let's move on now then to our third and final learning cycle for today, which is the end of the war.

So, elements of the treaty were quickly honored.

Most of the US troops who were still in South Vietnam, they left, and prisoners of war were exchanged.

Nearly 32,000 North Vietnamese and Viet Cong prisoners were exchanged, and in return, nearly 6,000 South Vietnamese prisoners and around 600 US prisoners were sent back to their respective countries.

However, nearly 2,000 US troops were still missing, and they were presumed captured after this point as well.

In public, Kissinger and Nixon were applauded for bringing an end to the war, and some felt that Nixon had finally achieved the peace with honor they had worked so hard for.

And Kissinger and the North Vietnamese negotiator, Le Duc Tho, were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts, although it's worth pointing out that Le Duc Tho refused the honor.

So only Kissinger received the Nobel Peace Prize.

In private, however, Nixon and Kissinger had little hope that the ceasefire would be honored.

And sure enough, the ceasefire was broken by both North and South Vietnam within the first day.

North Vietnam was able to keep its troops in South Vietnam as part of the peace deal and used this opportunity to secure it position and build up its strength.

And in March, 1975, North Vietnam began their final offensive.

The US did not keep its promise to reenter the war.

US Congress would not support it at that point in time, although I do feel as though the US government wouldn't have been overly happy with reentering the war anyway.

The ARVN were unable to stand up to the ferocity of the North's assaults, and they rapidly fell apart.

And by the 30th of April, 1975, North Vietnamese tanks were rolling through the gates of South Vietnam's presidential palace in Saigon, which effectively signaled the end of the war and a soon-to-be-unified communist Vietnam.

Right, let's go for a check for understanding now.

So how long did the ceasefire last between North Vietnam and South Vietnam after the peace treaty was signed? Was it A, less than a day, B, roughly a week, or C, just over a year? Make your choice now.

All right, if you chose A, less than a day, then you are correct, very well done.

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

So how many US troops were still missing, presumed captured, after the end of the Vietnam War? Was it A, nearly 1,000, B, nearly 1,500, or C, nearly 2,000? So make your choice now.

If you chose C, nearly 2,000, then well done, you are correct.

Let's go for our final task for today then.

So, I'm gonna show you an interpretation by Jacob, which I'm gonna put on the screen in just a moment.

And I want you to think, how far do you agree with his interpretation about the success of the peace treaty for the US? And what I'd like you to do is explain your answer using what you've learned so far about the impact of the war on Americans.

So, Jacob says, "The peace treaty was great for the US.

It got them out of a difficult and expensive war without looking as though they had been defeated." So have a think about the extent to which you agree with Jacob's interpretation.

Think about what evidence you had to support your opinion.

Pause the video whilst you answer that question, and I'll see you once you've finished.

All right, welcome back.

So, let's have a little think about what you could have written.

So you could potentially have agreed with the interpretation.

And I said that I agree with the interpretation to a great extent.

People in America had been calling for an end to the war for years, so the treaty ending US involvement was a huge success and could be viewed as the US having gained peace with honor.

Furthermore, the US forced North Vietnam to return to negotiations through the use of heavy bombing during Operation Linebacker II, which suggests that the US did not suffer a military defeat.

The US also left South Vietnam with a large and well-equipped army, helping them appear honorable as if they did not abandon their ally when they left South Vietnam in 1973.

So if you agree with the interpretation, you might have an answer that's similar to this on the screen.

If you disagree with the interpretation, you might have an answer similar to the one that I've got here.

So let's read through that one.

So you could have said: I disagree with the statement to a great extent as many of the terms of the peace treaty favored North Vietnam at the expense of South Vietnam and the US.

For instance, the US had to clear the North Vietnamese ports of the mines they had dropped there, and South Vietnam had to accept that North Vietnam controlled a large portion of their territory.

Both Nixon and Kissinger believed that the treaty would not be honored, which suggests that the people responsible for making the peace treaty didn't view it as much of a success.

So, whatever your perspective is, whatever you feel about Jacob's interpretation, whether you agree or disagree, it's entirely down to your own opinion.

But the key thing is you are able to justify your opinion with specific evidence.

And that's what I've done here for both sides.

So hopefully your answer is similar to one of those two answers that you've just seen there.

Right, let's summarize the lesson now then.

So, Nixon used a carrot and stick approach to restart negotiations.

The US accepted the unification of Vietnam during the Paris Peace Agreement.

The US had to withdraw from Vietnam.

The US agreed not to involve itself in Vietnamese affairs.

And Saigon fell to North Vietnam when the North invaded South Vietnam again in 1975.

So thank you very much for joining me.

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

Bye-bye.