Academic literature on the topic 'Guerre du Viêt-nam, 1961-1975 – Opinion publique américaine'

Que de 1964 a 1973, l'opinion publique americaine se soit progressivement detournee de la cause americaine au viet-nam ne signifie pas qu'elle ait ete gagnee aux theses de l'opposition pacifiste. De fait, le mouvement contestataire se discredite par sa violence et son extremisme; desunis, les hommes politiques de l'opposition se heurtent au patriotisme des electeurs americains. Quant aux medias, ils n'ont pas mene une campagne d'information systematique contre le conflit indochinois, provoquant des reactions de rejet moral dans l'opinion. Leur role est reste limite par leur dependance des sources officielles, leur integration dans le systeme economique et culturel des etats-unis et par des techniques journalistiques inadaptees a la situation. La cause essentielle de cette erosion reside dans la defaillance du discours officiel a justifier la participation militaire au conflit. Soucieux d'eviter un debat nuisible a l'image d'unite et de determination nationales qui fonde leur strategie sur le terrain, les dirigeants americains ont refuse de mobiliser le pays et cache l'ampleur et la portee veritables de leur politique indochinoise. Au fur et a mesure que se prolongeaient les hostilites, cette propagande en demi-teintes a contribue a aggraver d'autant l'impatience inquiete du public americain
From 1964 to 1973, public support for the american involvement in vietnam slowly disintegrated. This does not mean however that antiwar protest succeeded in turning americans against the war. In fact, the antiwar radical movement was rejected far its violent tactics and its extremism; disorganized, the political "doves" could not overcome nationalistic sensibilities. As for the media, they did not systematically present a negative and violent image of the war, triggering a reaction of moral outrage among the american people. Their role was limited by their dependence on official sources, their integration into the economic and cultural system and by professional techniques that narrowed their field of investigation. The erosion of public support was caused mainly by the inadequacy of the official justifications for the military intervention. To avoid a debate that could have destroyed the national image of unity and determination essential to the success of their military strategy, the american leaders refused to mobilize the american people and concealed the purpose and extent of the military operations. As the conflict dragged on, this muted propaganda fueled feelings of war-weariness among the american electorate