vietnam war a level coursework

The Vietnam War Timeline for A level History

If you are an A level History student studying the Vietnam War, then you’ve come to the right place. You may be doing your A level history coursework on Vietnam, or it may be part of your studies on the Cold War or US foreign policy. In any part of the course it can be quite a confusing conflict to study. There are a lot of dates to learn, people to know about and context to be aware of. One of the best ways to start pulling all of this together is with a detailed Vietnam War timeline. That’s exactly what we’ve put together here. Use this timeline to get ahead of the game with your knowledge of the Vietnam War for A level History.

Most resources on the Vietnam war start with the first US combat troops arriving in Vietnam in 1964. Some will go a little further back to the US support provided by presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy. We think you need to properly understand the context of the conflict in Vietnam. That means going back further and looking particularly at the impact of the Second World War and First Indochina War. Our timeline, therefore, starts a little earlier than you may have expected. It then provides all of the details on the war itself. If you can learn this extra context then you’ll be well ahead of most A level History students.

You should use this Vietnam War timeline as your starting point for revising the conflict. You will find explanations of the most important events collected under headings covering the main turning points and periods of the war. Use the headings as the basis for reading further into the details you need for the exams.

Vietnam before 1941

In the late nineteenth century Vietnam was colonised by the French. It formed part of French Indochina – a federation of French-controlled territories including modern Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. French colonial officials held political control over the territory.

Vietnam in the Second World War

The Second World War had a huge impact on the situation in Vietnam. When France fell to the Nazis in 1940, the Vichy French government took control of French Indochina. Then, after the Japanese attacked the Americans and Europeans in Southeast Asia in 1941, Japanese forces effectively took control of Indochina for the rest of the war.

A Vietnamese resistance force – the Viet Minh – began to grow in strength towards the end of the war. Led by Ho Chi Minh, this communist group aimed to get rid of the Japanese and establish an independent, communist Vietnam. They declared independence for Vietnam in 1945, but the allies wouldn’t allow it. They set about reestablishing French control of Indochina. The seeds of further conflict in Vietnam – that would eventually drag in the Americans – were sown.

First Indochina War, 1946-1954

The aftermath of the Second World War kicked off an 8 year conflict between the communist Viet Minh, led by Ho Chi Minh, and French colonial forces. The Americans became increasingly involved in funding and equipping the French. They saw the French as the best chance of stopping the spread of communism in Southeast Asia.

The French were eventually decisively defeated at the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954.

Geneva Conference, 1954

The Geneva Conference in 1954 ended the war between the French and the Viet Minh. The French agreed to withdraw from Vietnam and handover government to the Vietnamese. The peace deal split Vietnam into two countries, North Vietnam and South Vietnam. The North was communist under Ho Chi Minh. The South was capitalist and governed by President Diem (from 1955). This set the scene for further conflict and the USA was watching closely.

Insurgency in South Vietnam, 1954-63

Soon after the division of Vietnam, the Vietcong – a communist insurgency – began fighting against Diem’s regime in the South. They aimed to reunite the country under the communist government in the north.

The USA became increasingly drawn into the tensions in Vietnam through this period. US foreign policy – still fearful of the domino theory – aimed to contain communism within its existing borders. South East Asia was a strategically important part of the world. Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy increased US funding, arms supplies and military advisors for the South Vietnamese. Both refused to commit the US military directly in Vietnam.

Even with US support, the regime in the South was unable to maintain control and the Vietcong dominated much of the countryside. The South Vietnamese leadership was corrupt and divided. Rival generals assassinated Diem during a coup in November 1963. A series of generals then took over in a chaotic succession of coups. Instability in South Vietnam only helped the Viet Cong.

Gulf of Tonkin Incident, 1964

By 1964 there were thousands of US military advisors in South Vietnam and lots of US equipment and military hardware. The potential for a flashpoint triggering direct US military involvement escalated considerably. The flashpoint was the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The incident occurred in August 1964 between a US military ship (the USS Maddox) and three North Vietnamese torpedo boats. The US claimed their ship had been attacked by the North Vietnamese, providing a justification to escalate their involvement in the conflict.

Congress then passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The resolution gave President Lyndon B Johnson the power to assist any Southeast Asian country threatened with “communist aggression”. This gave President Johnson the legal justification to escalate US military involvement in Vietnam and begin actively fighting the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army (NVA). That’s exactly what Johnson did next.

Growing US military involvement 1964-1968

Following the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, then Americans began a brutal bombing campaign against North Vietnam. The aim was to force North Vietnam to end its support for the Viet Cong, and to boost South Vietnamese morale and support for the government. The Americans thought no one could withstand the full force of their bombing for long. Further bombing campaigns relentlessly targeted the Viet Cong and their supply routes via the Ho Chi Minh trail.

Alongside the bombing, from 1965, the USA began a ground war against the Viet Cong and NVA. The US commanders thought that a combination of heavy bombing and US led ground actions would quickly reverse the situation in South Vietnam and destroy the Viet Cong. They were wrong.

Between 1964 and 1968 the US committed more and more forces to Vietnam. From 1964 to 1968 US troop numbers in Vietnam grew drastically. From 23,300 in 1964 to a high of 536,100 in 1968.

Throughout this period the US government told the American public that they were winning the war in Vietnam. That if just a few more thousand troops went to Vietnam, then the Viet Cong and NVA would be destroyed and the US would be victorious. US journalists on the ground – filming and delivering news reports from the frontline for the first time in a war – told a different story. The story of a war that was looking increasingly difficult to win and of an enemy that was far from beaten. All the while US casualties continued to mount.

The Tet Offensive, 1968

The contrast between what the US government told the public and the reality of the war in Vietnam came to a climax in 1968 with the Tet Offensive. The Viet Cong planned a huge coordinated attack against most major cities and bases in South Vietnam. Up to this point most of their actions had taken place in rural areas and the Americans largely thought the Viet Cong incapable of launching large scale conventional attacks against cities or military bases.

The Viet Cong aimed to trigger a mass uprising of the South Vietnamese people, destroy large parts of the South Vietnamese army (ARVN) and ultimately force a US withdrawal. They timed their major offensive to coincide with a national holiday, during which they anticipated many ARVN troops would be on leave.

The Viet Cong organised well coordinated assaults on major cities, towns and military bases across South Vietnam. They initially took the Americans and the ARVN completely by surprise. They had some early successes, including taking much of the city of Hue and even getting soldiers into the US embassy in Saigon. Ultimately the US and ARVN forces regrouped and regained all of the territory taken by the Viet Cong. They also destroyed many Viet Cong units. The North’s hope of a mass uprising in southern cities had not materialised. The urban populations of the south had largely stayed loyal or tried to avoid the conflict.

The Aftermath of the Tet Offensive

In military terms, the Tet Offensive was a failure for the Viet Cong and an overall victory for the US and the ARVN. The US had driven the Viet Cong back, killed a lot of them and reduced their fighting capability for months. That, however, is not what mattered. In reality the very fact that the Viet Cong were able to organise such a massive, sophisticated attack showed their strength and support. People in the US and in South Vietnamese cities did not see it as a victory.

The US media showed images of the fighting and its aftermath on the TV news back in the US. These reports included footage of Viet Cong soldiers fighting into the US embassy and atrocities committed by some ARVN forces in retaliation. The US public felt that their politicians had essentially been lying to them. People saw that the Viet Cong were not nearing defeat and that the war in Vietnam was not nearing an end. The enemy was well organised, well equipped and increasingly confident. As a result, US public opinion began to drastically shift against the war in Vietnam.

Nixon and Vietnamization, 1969-72

The 1968 presidential election took place in this context. The Republican candidate, Richard Nixon, won by promising to end the draft and deliver ‘new leadership’ on Vietnam. After secretly sabotaging Johnson’s own peace negotiations, Nixon claimed to be able to end the war in Vietnam. To do so he implemented a policy of Vietnamization, which gradually handed the war over to the South Vietnamese. There were three strands to this policy: withdrawing US troops; stepping up ARVN training and recruitment; and secretly negotiating with the North Vietnamese.

Initially the Viet Cong and NVA were recovering from the losses of the Tet Offensive, so they returned to the small unit guerrilla tactics of previous years. Meanwhile in the US public opinion continued to turn further against the war, with revelations of atrocities committed by US soldiers, including the My Lai Massacre and the ‘Green Beret Affair’. US public and military morale was in steep decline.

The number of US troops in Vietnam reduced drastically between 1969 and 1973, from a peak of over 500,000 in 1968 to only a few thousand before the final withdrawal. The remaining US troops in Vietnam were largely removed from combat roles, which were taken over by the ARVN. At the same time, Nixon also expanded the war by sending US and ARVN forces into neighbouring Cambodia following a bombing campaign.

The invasion of Cambodia increased anti-war protests in the US even further. In 1970 National Guardsmen killed four students during an anti-war protest at Kent State University in Ohio. This provoked further outrage across the US.

Failures of ARVN led missions in Cambodia and Laos demonstrated many of the shortcomings of the South Vietnamese military and political leadership. It did not bode well for Vietnamization.

Paris Peace Accords, 1973

Nixon won a second election in 1972 promising “peace with honour” in Vietnam. His main advisor, Henry Kissinger, was secretly negotiating with North Vietnamese representatives in Paris. The US, North Vietnam and South Vietnam signed the Paris Peace Accords in January 1973. The South Vietnamese were reluctant to agree, however, as they knew it left them in a weak position. The Americans forced the South Vietnamese into the deal to ensure a quick end to the war.

The peace deal officially ended US military involvement in Vietnam and initiated a ceasefire between North and South Vietnam. The deal also guaranteed the borders established by the Geneva Conference in 1954. However, the deal allowed communist Viet Cong forces to remain in the South. This completely undermined South Vietnam’s position. With the Americans gone the North Vietnamese began planning for a full scale invasion of the South within a few years.

North Vietnamese victory over the South, 1975

In 1974 the Viet Cong increased its activity again. The South Vietnamese economy was also in serious trouble following a global recession and the withdrawal of thousands of US troops who previously spent a lot of money in southern cities. Congress also reduced direct US financial support for South Vietnam. The North took advantage of this weak position and invaded the South in 1975. They quickly overwhelmed the demoralised ARVN and North Vietnamese forces took Saigon in April 1975 to complete their conquest of the South and reunify the country under the communist government. The last US officials fled Saigon in dramatic fashion as the North Vietnamese troops closed in.

Further work

This Vietnam War timeline provides an overview of the key events of the war. Hopefully you find this helpful. It is, however, only a starting point for your revision. You need to do much more detailed reading on the areas outlined above. Keep an eye on our A level History tutors page for more great revision resources on the Vietnam War. We’ll be posting shortly. You can find even more great information on the Vietnam War at history.com . Finally, you can also contact us directly to arrange a free A level history consultation where we’ll provide some personalised advice for you.

history vietnam coursework!

Quick reply, related discussions.

• History coursework ideas
• Help! Finding Historians For Edexcel-A-Level Coursework on Mao's China
• History Coursework URGENT HELP (Vietnam)
• How do I get an A* in my History Coursework?
• A level Edexcel History Course work
• history ocr alevel coursework
• I want to travel in vietnam and need advice ?
• Higher History advice S5
• History AQA GCSE Predictions
• AQA GCSE History Paper 1 (8145/1A/A-1B/E) - 15th May 2024 [Exam Chat]
• Predictions Paper 2 iGCSE history edexcel
• History igcse edexcel paper 2
• Past papers
• CAIE iGCSE History Paper 2 Predictions (Containment)
• aqa history 2023 questions
• history spag
• I got some evidence wrong for history aqa
• Edexcel GCSE History Paper 3 (1HI0 30-33) - 15th June 2023 [Exam Chat]

Last reply 3 days ago

Last reply 4 days ago

Last reply 2 weeks ago

Last reply 3 weeks ago

Last reply 4 weeks ago

Last reply 1 month ago

Last reply 2 months ago

Articles for you

English and history students share why they loved their degrees

Your five university application choices: how to make your mind up

Writing a history personal statement: expert advice from universities

How to revise for GCSE History exams: AQA explains what to do

• Transition Guide (Opens in new window)
• Subscribe Now (Opens in new window)

Your Military

• Army Times (Opens in new window)
• Navy Times (Opens in new window)
• Air Force Times (Opens in new window)
• Marine Corps Times (Opens in new window)
• Pentagon & Congress
• Defense News (Opens in new window)
• Israel-Palestine
• Extremism & Disinformation
• Afghanistan
• Benefits Guide (Opens in new window)
• Family Life
• Military Pay Center
• Military Retirement
• Military Benefits
• Discount Depot
• Gear Scout (Opens in new window)
• Military Culture
• Military Fitness
• Military Movies & Video Games
• Military Sports
• Military Communities
• Pay It Forward (Opens in new window)
• Military History
• Salute to Veterans
• Black Military History
• Congressional Veterans Caucus (Opens in new window)
• Military Appreciation Month
• Vietnam Vets & Rolling Thunder
• Service Members of the Year (Opens in new window)
• World War I
• Honor the Fallen (Opens in new window)
• Hall of Valor (Opens in new window)
• Create an Obituary (Opens in new window)
• Medals & Misfires
• Installation Guide (Opens in new window)
• Battle Bracket
• America's Military
• Task Force Violent
• CFC Givers Guide
• Newsletters (Opens in new window)
• Early Bird Brief
• MCON (Opens in new window)
• Long-Term Care Partners
• Navy Federal

Kamala Harris taps Tim Walz, National Guard veteran, as running mate

Editor’s note: This story was updated with a clarification of the rank Gov. Tim Walz held when he retired from the Minnesota National Guard in 2005. He is a former command sergeant major but reverted back to a master sergeant at the end of his career.

Tim Walz, named Tuesday as the running mate of Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, is the current governor of Minnesota, a former high school teacher, a six-term congressman and a long-tenured veteran of the Army National Guard.

Walz, 60, enlisted in the National Guard on April 8, 1981 at the age of 17. While serving, he held multiple positions within field artillery, including firing battery chief, operations sergeant and first sergeant, and he culminated his career serving as the command sergeant major for the battalion, said Lt. Col. Kristen Augé, the Minnesota National Guard’s state public affairs officer.

Walz retired in 2005 as a master sergeant because “he did not complete additional coursework at the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy,” Augé said. Command sergeants major who don’t complete the Sergeants Major Course revert back to their prior rank, she explained.

In 2006, Walz became the highest ranking enlisted soldier to serve in Congress. He used the office to champion veterans issues, and a decade later rose to become the Democratic minority leader on the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee. Chaired by former Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., the committee was praised widely during President Donald Trump’s administration as a rare example of bipartisanship.

Members of veterans organizations who worked with Walz during that time reacted positively Tuesday to Harris’ choice.

“Gov. Walz is a great choice,” John Rowan, the former president of Vietnam Veterans of America, wrote on Facebook. “He helped Vietnam veterans get the benefits they deserved to take care of their illnesses related to Agent Orange exposure during his tenure.”

Tim Walz, the presumptive Democratic nominee for vice president, is shown visiting constituents at Kandahar Airfield in 2011. (Spc. Amanda Hils/Army).

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, or IAVA, released a statement Tuesday applauding Harris for choosing a veteran to add to the Democratic ticket.

The group earlier praised the nomination of Walz’ opponent, Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, who served in the Marine Corps from 2003 to 2007 and deployed to Iraq as a combat correspondent.

When Trump chose Vance as his vice president candidate at the Republican National Convention in July, he became the first post-9/11 veteran to be nominated as part of a major-party ticket.

With Trump pick, JD Vance is first post-9/11 vet on major party ticket

Vance is the first veteran of the enlisted ranks to run on a major-party ticket since al gore in 2000..

Both men represent the post-9/11 generation of veterans, as well as those who served in the enlisted ranks, said Allison Jaslow, CEO of the group.

Before Vance and Walz, the most recent veteran on a major-party ticket was John McCain in 2008. They are the first veterans of the enlisted ranks on a presidential ballot since Al Gore in 2000.

“I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: The Post-9/11 generation of veterans is ascendant in America today,” Jaslow said. “We applaud Vice President Harris for heeding our call and choosing a post-9/11 veteran to join her in her candidacy to be commander-in-chief. And notably, someone who served in, and led troops, in the enlisted ranks.”

With the pick, Harris hopes to shore up her campaign’s standing across the upper Midwest , The Associated Press reported. As governor, Walz helped enact an ambitious Democratic agenda in Minnesota, including sweeping protections for abortion rights and generous aid to families.

Conservatives have criticized Walz over his handling of the arson and looting that followed the murder of George Floyd at the hands of a police officer in Minneapolis in 2020.

Walz deployed the National Guard three days after Floyd’s murder, and some Republicans argued that he was too slow to respond.

This story was produced in partnership with Military Veterans in Journalism . Please send tips to [email protected] .

Nikki Wentling covers disinformation and extremism for Military Times. She's reported on veterans and military communities for eight years and has also covered technology, politics, health care and crime. Her work has earned multiple honors from the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, the Arkansas Associated Press Managing Editors and others.

In Other News

Walz faces Republican criticism over timing of military retirement

The final months of walz's service came under scrutiny when republican vice presidential candidate jd vance accused him of dodging a deployment to iraq..

How the military plans to reduce blast-related injuries in troops

New pentagon guidance reveals which military jobs in each service have the most potential to cause brain damage., how a tiktok video got one military officer court-martialed, service member social media posts are a gray area for the military justice system, attorneys say..

Senators urge Pentagon to ease deadline of Wounded Knee medals review

Native american tribes, families of victims, historians and academic institutions should be allowed the time to provide input, they argued..

Explainer: Why are there riots in the UK and who is behind them?

• Medium Text

WHY DID THE PROTESTS BEGIN?

Where have there been riots, who is behind the riots, why are people protesting, what is the uk government doing.

Sign up here.

Reporting by Michael Holden; Editing by Alex Richardson

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

Not fast or furious: nations take measured reaction to Venezuela election

More than two weeks after Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro claimed reelection victory, the U.S. and other Western countries are showing little sign that they plan to quickly impose tough measures for what many of them have condemned as voting fraud.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Vance accused Walz of 'stolen valor.' What to know about Walz’s military record

Quil Lawrence

Left: Democratic vice presidential candidate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz speaks during a campaign rally on August 6 in Philadelphia. Right: Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, delivers remarks during a campaign rally on August 6 in Philadelphia. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images; Drew Hallowell/Getty Images hide caption

For more on the 2024 race, head to the NPR Network's elections updates page.

Late Tuesday afternoon, the Harris campaign released a video of Tim Walz talking about gun control. Walz, whom Kamala Harris recently announced as her running mate, talks about banning assault rifles as part of what he calls “common sense” proposals.

“We can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at,” Walz said in the video.

That was all Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance needed.

“Well, I wonder, Tim Walz, when were you ever in war? When was this?” Vance said.

The vice presidential candidate is supposed to be an attack dog, sometimes landing the lower blows that might seem unpresidential. But Vance and Walz are also both veterans, with another thing in common: neither one of them saw combat. Their service shored up each ticket, adding a military credential beside two presidential candidates that never served. It didn’t seem like an issue. But in this compressed campaign season, Walz’s phrasing opened up a line of attack — and the Trump campaign took it, accusing the Minnesota governor of one of the most grievous charges possible in military circles.

War, combat and service – and a charge of “stolen valor”

Walz joined the National Guard at age 17 and served 24 years, first in Nebraska then Minnesota. During that time he got called up to national disasters and a deployment to the Arctic Circle in Norway. He completed his 20 years required for retirement in 2001, but then reenlisted after the attacks on Sept. 11. His only wartime deployment was to Italy in 2003, backfilling troops that were deploying to Afghanistan. So Vance, and many veterans on social media, took issue with Walz saying he’d carried weapons “in war.”

The Harris campaign said in a statement: “In his 24 years of service, the Governor carried, fired and trained others to use weapons of war innumerable times. Governor Walz would never insult or undermine any American's service to this country -- in fact, he thanks Senator Vance for putting his life on the line for our country. It's the American way."

But Vance went a lot further, with an attack that the Trump campaign probably had prepared.

“What was this weapon that you carried into war, given that you abandoned your unit right before they went to Iraq, and he has not spent a day in a combat zone? What bothers me about Tim Walz is the stolen valor garbage," Vance said.

Since Walz first ran for Congress and then governor, he’s faced attacks around the timing of his retirement. Vance’s accusation echoes one made by two fellow high-ranking sergeants from the Minnesota Guard who publicly attacked Walz in 2018, in a paid endorsement letter to the editor of the West Central Tribune . They slammed Walz for “conveniently retiring a year before his battalion was deployed to Iraq.”

According to the Minnesota National Guard, Walz retired in May 2005, two months before his unit, the 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery received an alert order for mobilization to Iraq in July 2005. It’s likely that Walz put in for retirement months before that May. It’s also clear that guardsmen anticipated deployment to Iraq months before July.

According to several of his contemporaries in the guard Walz talked about it as a hard decision: that if he deployed he’d miss his best chance to run for Congress.

“He weighed that decision to run for Congress very, very heavy,” Allan Bonnifield, who served with Walz, told Minnesota Public Radio in 2018. “He loved the military, he loved the Guard, he loved the soldiers that he worked with, and making that decision was very tough for him. Especially knowing that we were going on another deployment to Iraq. He didn’t take that decision lightly at all.”

The unit didn’t go to Iraq until March 2006, 10 months after Walz retired, where it stayed for a grueling 22-month extended deployment. The charge has dogged Walz, and in his last run for governor in 2022, it was even leveled by a political opponent who never served at all.

Walz’s rank

The latest round of attacks on Walz stirred up another confusing point about his rank. Walz served as a command sergeant major, the highest enlisted rank. But his retirement papers put him one step lower – a master sergeant. The Minnesota National Guard told NPR that Walz retired before completing academic requirements to keep the higher rank.

“He held multiple positions within field artillery such as firing battery chief, operations sergeant, first sergeant and culminated his career serving as the command sergeant major for the battalion. He retired as a master sergeant in 2005 for benefit purposes because he did not complete additional coursework at the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy,” said Army Lt. Col. Kristen Augé, the Minnesota National Guard’s state public affairs officer.

So while Walz can say he served as a command sergeant major, which also made him the highest enlisted member serving in Congress, and he can even get away with saying he retired as a command sergeant major, he cannot say he is a “retired command sergeant major.” On Thursday the Harris campaign changed Walz’s official bio on their website to reflect that.

John Kerry Reflects On Smear Campaigns And Not Taking Anything For Granted

Charges of “swiftboating”.

Attacking an opponent’s military service has a short history in presidential campaigns – the verb “swiftboat” dates back only 20 years, when George W. Bush’s campaign attacked combat-decorated John Kerry’s military service in Vietnam, which might have seemed risky since Bush avoided serving there. Donald Trump, who also avoided going to Vietnam, took the tactic to another level, attacking his GOP critic John McCain’s storied status as a POW. Now, Harris supporters are claiming that Vance is trying to “swiftboat” Walz, and even pointing to a member of the Bush-era campaign who is now working for Trump .

Veterans groups are generally keeping out of the fray; many veterans service organizations are on record praising the choice of two enlisted military veterans as vice-presidential nominees.

“This means that regardless of the outcome in November, the next vice president of the United States will be a former enlisted service member. I am pleased to see both major parties recognize that military service is once again a valued experience in choosing the candidate for the second highest position in the country,” Veterans of Foreign Wars National Commander Al Lipphardt said in a statement.

• election 2024

Advertisement

Supported by

Walz in the National Guard: A Steady Rise Ending With a Hard Decision

In a military career that spanned three decades, Tim Walz achieved one of the highest enlisted ranks in the Army. Some peers took issue with the timing of his retirement.

• Share full article

By Thomas Gibbons-Neff John Ismay and Kate Selig

In the 1980s, the U.S. military was in the middle of a transformation. The Vietnam War was over, and a force once staffed with drafted troops who had fought and died in the jungles of Southeast Asia was transitioning to ranks filled solely with volunteers.

In Nebraska, Tim Walz was one of those volunteers.

Mr. Walz, now Minnesota governor and the presumptive Democratic candidate for vice president, raised his hand to join the Army National Guard just two days past his 17th birthday on April 8, 1981. In a career in the military that spanned three decades, he battled floods, managed an artillery unit and achieved one of the highest enlisted ranks in the Army. He also navigated a full-time job teaching social studies alongside his part-time military occupation as an enlisted combat arms soldier, a role that trained him for war.

Mr. Walz never went to war. Most of his service covered a period when America was bruised from foreign entanglements and wary of sending troops into combat overseas for long stretches. And it ended when Mr. Walz was 41, as the military ramped up for war after Sept. 11.

Since being picked as Vice President Kamala Harris’s running mate this week, he has found himself facing allegations previously aired by Minnesota Republicans and newly amplified by JD Vance, former President Donald J. Trump’s running mate.

Those criticisms center on Mr. Walz’s decision to retire from the Army in 2005, the year before his artillery battalion deployed to Iraq. He was thinking seriously about a run for Congress and spoke with other soldiers about being torn between his loyalty to his fellow troops and his desire to move on with his life. At the time, there were vague expectations that the unit might deploy, but actual orders came several months later.

The unit deployed to Iraq for more than one year beginning in 2006. During that time, soldiers in the unit provided security for transportation convoys and other tasks common in a combat zone.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Republicans start attacking Walz by going after his military record

Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is homing in on what advisers see as a potential liability for Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz : his departure from the Army National Guard two decades ago.

Walz, introduced Tuesday as Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate, ended his 24-year military career to run for public office in 2005 — several months before the unit he led deployed to Iraq. 

Walz officially retired from the Minnesota National Guard in May 2005. His unit was alerted about a deployment to Iraq in July, and the unit deployed there in October. Walz filed to run for Congress in January 2005 with paperwork that was certified by the Federal Election Commission the next month.

“When Tim Walz was asked by his country to go to Iraq, do you know what he did? He dropped out of the Army and allowed his unit to go without him — a fact that he’s been criticized for aggressively by a lot of the people that he served with,” Sen. JD Vance , R-Ohio, Trump’s running mate and a Marine veteran who served in Iraq, said Wednesday at a news conference in Michigan. 

“I think it’s shameful to prepare your unit to go to Iraq, to make a promise that you’re going to follow through, and then to drop out right before you actually have to go,” Vance added.

The strategy, which Trump amplified Wednesday by calling Walz a “DISGRACE” on Truth Social, is a throwback to 2004, when Republicans attacked Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry’s record as a Navy officer in Vietnam. Chris LaCivita — who was a consultant to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group that helped sink Kerry’s bid — is a senior adviser to Trump’s campaign and has signaled an eagerness to reopen the playbook on Walz.

“And when his men needed him the most … as they headed into the Crucible that is combat … he deserted them … left them,” LaCivita posted Tuesday on X , shortly after Harris selected Walz to join her on the Democratic ticket. “Why? So he could run for Congress.”

In introducing Walz, 60, to a wider audience beyond Minnesota, the Harris campaign has emphasized his military record, as well as his experience as a football coach . Campaign officials frame his decision to leave the National Guard and pursue a career in politics as a path that offered him new and meaningful opportunities to help service members and veterans.

“After 24 years of military service, Governor Walz retired in 2005 and ran for Congress, where he chaired Veterans Affairs and was a tireless advocate for our men and women in uniform — and as Vice President he will continue to be a relentless champion for our veterans and military families,” Harris campaign spokesperson Lauren Hitt said in a statement.

Walz has faced such attacks before, including in his re-election campaign in 2022, when his GOP opponent questioned his decision to leave the service in 2005. Walz’s campaign responded with a letter signed by 50 veterans praising his record and leadership.

“Governor Walz secured additional funding for new veterans homes,” read the letter, a copy of which the Harris campaign shared Wednesday with NBC News. “In his first term, Minnesota was one of just seven states initially selected by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to participate in the ‘Governor’s Challenge’ to eliminate veteran deaths by suicide.”

Erick Erickson, a prominent conservative commentator, drew attention Tuesday to a paid letter to the editor that scrutinized Walz’s service and was published by the West Central Tribune newspaper of Willmar, Minnesota, in 2018, days before he won his first term as governor. Erickson also called for a return of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, prompting LaCivita’s initial social media post. Other posts followed.

“He deserted his men and quit before they went to combat,” LaCivita wrote of Walz in response to a complimentary post from Alyssa Farah Griffin, a co-host of the daytime talk show “The View” and a former Trump White House aide who has since denounced Trump.

LaCivita’s previous work with Swift Boat Veterans for Truth stands as one of the most aggressive and potentially consequential political attacks of the modern era. 

Kerry — who was awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and, for wounds sustained in battle, three Purple Heart medals — had drawn the ire of many veterans for his advocacy against the war after he returned home. And as he sought the presidency in 2004, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ran ads accusing him of lying about his service on 50-foot aluminum crafts that ran dangerous missions in the Mekong Delta waterways of South Vietnam. Some of the veterans featured in the ads said he had won awards under false premises.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who spent years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam before becoming friends with Kerry in the Senate, criticized the ads and noted that the veterans making claims against Kerry did not serve on his boat . Some of those who did supported Kerry’s accounts . The allegations, which Kerry did not immediately counter, muddied the picture he presented of himself as a war hero — which appeared to be the group’s aim from a political perspective. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth may not have proved its case, but it sowed doubt about a perceived strength of Kerry’s — his war service — and about his credibility.

FactCheck.org concluded after exhaustive research that “at this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth.” Kerry lost to President George W. Bush.

Walz joined the National Guard in 1981, just after his 17th birthday. After he transferred from the Nebraska National Guard in 1996, he served in the Minnesota National Guard’s 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery, said Army Lt. Col. Kristen Augé, the Minnesota Guard’s public affairs officer. Walz, Augé added, “culminated his career serving as the command sergeant major for the battalion” and “retired as a master sergeant in 2005 for benefit purposes because he did not complete additional coursework at the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy.”

During Walz’s nearly quarter-century of service, he was part of flood fights, responded to tornadoes and spent months on active duty in Italy, according to the Harris campaign. Walz “was deployed to Italy in 2003 to protect against potential threats in Europe while active military forces were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan,” the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported in 2022 , attributing the information to Walz in an article about the scrutiny of his military service.

Walz and Vance are the first veterans on a national ticket for either major party since McCain was the GOP presidential nominee in 2008. Vance, 40, briefly chronicled his experiences in Iraq in his 2016 memoir, “Hillbilly Elegy,” recalling his work as a public affairs Marine.

“Sometimes I’d escort civilian press, but generally I’d take photos or write short stories about individual marines or their work,” he wrote. “Early in my deployment, I attached to a civil affairs unit to do community outreach. Civil affairs missions were typically considered more dangerous, as a small number of marines would venture into unprotected Iraqi territory to meet with locals.”

In a post Tuesday on X that highlighted Walz’s hunting and military background, the Harris campaign shared undated video that featured him talking about gun control.

“We can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at,” Walz says in the brief clip.

Vance alluded to the video at campaign stops Wednesday, accusing Walz of misrepresenting his military service and asserting that he never spent time in a combat zone. 

“Well, I wonder, Tim Walz, when were you ever in war? What was this weapon that you carried into war, given that you abandoned your unit right before they went to Iraq?” Vance asked at an event near Detroit. “What bothers me about Tim Walz is this stolen valor garbage. Do not pretend to be something that you’re not. ... I’d be ashamed if I was him and I lied about my military service like he did.”

Later, arriving for an event in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, Vance told reporters that he had “served in a combat zone” and “never said that I saw a firefight myself, but I’ve always told the truth about my Marine Corps service.” 

Trump spokesperson Karoline Leavitt also alluded to the video in a statement, telegraphing the campaign’s intentions to keep pressing on Walz’s military record.

“Tim Walz is a fraud who wants to ban firearms like the ones he claimed to carry in war — except Tim Walz never deployed to a combat zone and lied about his record of service in the National Guard,” Leavitt said. “If Walz won’t tell voters the truth, we will: just like Kamala Harris, Tim Walz is a dangerously liberal extremist, and the Harris-Walz California dream is every American’s nightmare.”

Asked about the video, a Harris campaign spokesperson did not deny that Walz had embellished when he spoke of carrying weapons in war.

“In his 24 years of service, the Governor carried, fired and trained others to use weapons of war innumerable times,” the spokesperson said. “Governor Walz would never insult or undermine any American’s service to this country — in fact, he thanks Senator Vance for putting his life on the line for our country. It’s the American way.”

Henry J. Gomez is a senior national political reporter for NBC News

Adam Edelman is a politics reporter for NBC News.

Jonathan Allen is a senior national politics reporter for NBC News.

• TOP CATEGORIES
• AS and A Level
• University Degree
• International Baccalaureate
• Uncategorised
• 5 Star Essays
• Study Tools
• Study Guides
• Meet the Team
• International History, 1945-1991

Vietnam Coursework Sources Questions

Study Source A

What can you learn from Source A about the reasons for US involvement in South Vietnam?

Source A is written by John F Kennedy in 1965, which is four years before he became President. This shows that the threat of communism abroad was a big worry to Americans not just the threat of communism in their own country. Tensions were still high at this time as America was just coming out of the McCarthy era. In source A Kennedy firstly describes the worries of communism spreading from the already communist Russia and China to other countries in eastern Asia such as Vietnam. This spread of communism from one country to another is known as the domino effect and was first mentioned by Eisenhower. From this you can learn that Vietnam was already a worry to Americans as people felt it make become a communist country. Kennedy then goes on to try and justify his argument against communism in Vietnam so you can see from this source that Americans felt Vietnam was an important issue. He describes how he feels that Vietnams economy is important was important and that the countries politics were very good. The fact that Kennedy describes Vietnam as such an important country shows that Americans would feel very against the country falling to communism.

Study Sources B and C

In what ways does the evidence of Sources B and help you understand the reasons for US involvement in South Vietnam?

Source B shows how the US government felt about the situation in Vietnam. Although the USA had not yet become directly involved with Vietnam the source still shows it is an important issue. Source B describes how the Americans felt about the actions of the North Vietnam Communist government. They felt the communist government was trying to conquer the people of South Vietnam. This idea that North Vietnam was forcing its views on South Vietnam by using weapons and violence made the American government look to the Truman doctrine. This gave Americans a justification to become involved in Vietnam because the Truman doctrine says that the United States must support people who have armed forces subjugation. In other words it made Americans feel they had the right to contain the spreading communism. Source C shows gives you a good idea of how many young men felt about the war when it first started. The source shows that to the young, war was seen as attractive. This meant that when the opportunity to fight for their country against the communist enemy in Vietnam came, many young men volunteered. The fact that America had never lost a war was also an added attraction to the young men who were volunteering to fight against the communists of North Vietnam. The source refers to Kennedy’s speech “ask what you can do for your country.” This was another reason for young American citizens to go and fight in Vietnam as they were living up to Kennedy’s challenge and doing something for their country and doing something for their country. The rest of source C does not give any reasons for US involvement in Vietnam but describes the kind of things these young American soldiers were doing in Vietnam. This war they were now fighting was very different to the expectation and formerly normal “set-piece” battles were very rare. This source was written by a volunteer who fought in Vietnam so his feelings were very likely to be the same as many young Americans at the time.

Study Sources C, D and E

Use the evidence of Sources C, D and E, and your own knowledge, to explain why the US forces were unable to defeat the Viet Cong.

Source C is written by a volunteer who fought in Vietnam so it is a reliable description of the kind of fighting that went on between the American and Viet Cong troops. Much of the army sent to Vietnam was made up of young recruits who had very little battle experience but they were trained to kill There were not fighting the kind of battles that were previously considered normal which was that you knew exactly where the enemy was. The Source describes how these “set-piece” battles were rare and they only thing they achieved were a few dead Viet Cong bodies. From this you can see that the American troops were fighting a new kind of enemy that they had never had any experience of fighting before. Source C then goes on to say that the main objective was just to kill which shows that the Americans had no real plan of how to stop the Viet Cong and the spread of communism. Source D is written by the leader of the communist movement, Ho chi Min. He describes the kind of methods the Viet Cong used that the US troops were not used to. These tactics, known as Guerrilla tactics, were hit and run and surprise tactics used by the Viet Cong. These methods used by the Viet Cong unnerved the US troops, as they never knew when or where the enemy could strike. This meant the Viet Cong had a great advantage in Psychological warfare. The American troops never knew where the enemy could come from and many injuries and deaths occurred when they didn’t even see the enemy. Booby traps were set by the Viet Cong that caused horrific deaths and injuries to the unexpecting Americans. Examples of these traps were pits in the ground with spikes in that were covered up so one wrong step and a person would fall to their death. This made the soldiers terrified to move around the jungle as a Viet Cong trap could be lurking anywhere. The Viet Cong had a series of underground tunnels they could escape into if they were ever pursued making it very difficult for the Americans to locate and kill any of them. The Americans were attacked without warning many times and then the attacks disappeared before the Americans could get any shots off. Source D also says that large battles that the US troops would have liked should not be fought unless they would definitely be won. Most of the fighting went on in the jungles of Vietnam instead which was also another advantage the Viet Cong had over the US troops as it was their own territory. Most of Vietnams terrain is covered in think jungle that the Vietnamese knew well and could navigate whereas the Americans couldn’t. Another way the Americans failed in Vietnam was the fact they did not treat the peasants of Vietnam very well whereas the Viet Cong were told to be good to the peasants and gain their support. Source E shows this because it is the instructions that the Viet Cong were given. The fact that the Viet Cong treated the peasants much better made them want to support them rather than the Americans who showed little respect. The US troops moved many of the Vietnamese into tempory Hamlets which did not please them so the feelings felt towards the US troops were not good at all. This was not good, as the very people they were trying to protect from the Viet Cong did not support them. This was a major failure of the Americans. Source E also shows how the Viet Cong were told to act just like the South Vietnamese civilians, “move like fish in water”, which made it almost impossible for the Americans to tell the difference between the two. This lead to the Americans killing many innocent people such as in Mai Lai. This meant America was fighting an unseen enemy.

Study Sources F, G and I.

How useful are these sources as evidence of the public’s reaction in the USA to the Vietnam War in the mid-1960’s?

This is a preview of the whole essay

Source F shows how the majority of the US public felt about Vietnam. It is useful for understanding how the public felt during the mid-1960s because it gives statistical information on the number of people who supported or opposed Vietnam due to television. It shows that the American public were not getting the full news coverage of Vietnam at this time because if they had been watching the failures and innocent lives being lost many more people would have been opposed to Vietnam. However, the source does not say how many people were asked and what kind of people were asked so it may not be entirely accurate. Source G is also useful for showing the publics reaction to Vietnam. It shows that the majority of the public felt Vietnam was a major issue faced by the USA for four years running. The source does not say whether these people supported or opposed Vietnam as it only tells you if they believed it was an important issue. The source also does not give information on how many people were asked so it may not be that reliable but I believe it probably is as Vietnam was the most important issue at this time. Source I shows the kind of War publicity that was beginning to come across to the USA’s public. It is useful for understanding why people would have begun to feel opposed to the war because it is an eye witness account of the My Lai massacre which was one of the main events that made people begin to think about what was going on in Vietnam. This kind of war publicity, along with photos and film were bound to change the views of the public as they showed the real events taking place in Vietnam and the horrific reality of the war. People were beginning to see how innocent people were being slaughtered and their friends and family who had gone to fight in Vietnam were being killed by a ferocious and usually unseen enemy. When this kind of war coverage began to come out and the American public began to see the truth about the war the majority would have felt opposed to the action that was taking place in Vietnam.

Study Sources G, H, I, J, K and L

Use the evidence of these sources, and your own knowledge, to explain why public opinion about the war in the USA changed between 1967 and 1970.

During the late 1960s the American public began to see real images of horrific scenes from Vietnam. A new kind of media was getting though and people were seeing what was happening to the young American GI’s and also the treatment of the Vietnamese. Source J is a photo that many people would have seen or something similar. It was this kind of media that began to show the truth behind the war in Vietnam and the terrible treatment of the Vietnamese. Photos were not the only kind of publicity getting through to the American public, films and articles were also released. Source I is an article that was written by a witness of the My Lai massacre. It describes the horrific treatment and murder of the Vietnamese who turned out to be completely innocent. People reading this kind out eyewitness account would have realised the terrible errors being made and would have felt against the war. The American public began to realise, as this kind of war coverage appeared, that the war was going far from well. Source G shows how before this kind of media came out people felt it was an important issue but this was probably due to the fear of communism rather than because the war was being lost. The fact that Vietnam was considered so important for four years funning shows that Americans would have wanted the war to go as successfully as possible. When people began to realise this was far from the truth they would have felt very against the war. It was not just the media that changed the opinions of many people. The fact that many families were losing young members to a supposedly inferior enemy was more than enough to start making people question the war. People received letters from friends and family describing the bad conditions in Vietnam and how bad things really were which made many people want their loved ones to come home. These letters would have made people feel very against Vietnam as they revealed how things were not going well at all. They also showed how miserable many of the soldiers were. Source K and L show the negative attitudes towards Vietnam, Source K is a song that shows how people felt Vietnam was pointless and should not be happening. This kind of song would have been heard by a wide variety of people and would have made people think about the situation in Vietnam. The fact that the song makes Vietnam sound ridiculous would have made people listening to it also feel it is a pointless waste of America’s resources and young lives. Source L, a cartoon, also shows the feeling that the war in Vietnam was pointless and ridiculous. It shows how America was trying to force its ideas and culture on people who it would not work on. The cartoon represents this very well and would have made people who saw it think about what exactly American was trying to achieve. It shows the lack of understanding America had of the Vietnamese and makes the point that the war would never achieve anything. Demonstration began to take place, which showed people how hostile feelings were being felt about the situation in Vietnam. These demonstrations would have made people think about the point that was being made and they would have had a lot of publicity. An example of these demonstrations is the one that took place at Kent state University where six students were shot dead by the National Guard. This would have sparked off other protests and led to a feeling of general bitterness felt towards the government about the war in Vietnam. Another reason for growing concerns was the Tet offensive in 1968. This made many people feel that America had truly lost the war as the Viet Cong had reached as far as Saigon and had attacked the American embassy. This was sign to many that America had no chance in stopping the advancing Viet Cong and victory would not be theirs.

All these things would have made Americans feel strongly against the war in Vietnam. People began to realise the failures and how much difficulty the US soldiers were facing. Friends and family were being killed for what seemed like a pointless aim. As the war was costing more and more money people began to question the need for the war as it looked like it could never be won. The media was changing people’s views as it showed he reality of the war and was also one of the main reasons why people were beginning to feel strongly opposed to the war.

Study all the sources

The writer of Source M believes that television played an important part in changing people’s attitudes to the Vietnam War.

Use the sources and your own knowledge, to explain whether you agree with this view.

I agree with this statement. The fact the public was seeing the true brutality of war was a major reason for why people’s attitudes changed. However, there were other major reasons for why people began to feel differently about the war.

Prior to the television and other media coverage of Vietnam, most Americans would have supported the action in Vietnam. This is because it was against a communist enemy which many Americans feared greatly. Source A shows this kind of fear from communism. As it is written by J.F.K before becoming president, it shows that it was a common worry among the government. Source G shows how the public also felt Vietnam was a big worry as well so Vietnam was seen as a very important issue by most Americans. At first people were eager to volunteer to fight as it was seen as a brave and exciting thing to do. Another attraction was that it was against a communist enemy, which was so greatly feared in America. Source C is proof of the eagerness of many to go to Vietnam. America had its excuse for going into Vietnam. This was that the North Vietnamese were trying to force their communist views onto South Vietnam, which meant that America could use the Truman doctrine as their justification. Source B is an example of how the government justified their actions and why America must intervene.

Source M shows the effect the television coverage of Vietnam had on the public. It was far different to what people expected and made people realise what war was really like. People would watch the television to find out what was happening in Vietnam but would not see the clean deaths and American victories they had expected. In fact, they would see very little of that kind of coverage. The media had full coverage of the war so all kinds of footage reached the USA’s public and the horrific brutality was really shown to everybody in their own homes. Photos were also another type of media that resulted in a changing the attitudes of the public. Source J is an example of the kind of photographs that were taken. They showed the cruel treatment of the Vietnamese and the public was shocked by what they saw as they showed scenes like My Lai. Scenes like this were bound to change the feeling of people, as they were so horrific.

The reality of the war was realised and opinions changed. Families were loosing their loved ones to what they had been told was an inferior enemy and they were receiving letters that revealed the truth of the war and the misery of the soldiers. An example of the misery felt by the soldiers is source H and I imagine many soldiers would have felt the same. Mothers wanted their sons home as they began to realise the pointlessness of the war and how horrific the deaths of the American soldiers were. Protests such as in Kent state university were taking place and more and more people were being to stop and think about how necessary this war really was. Protests came in the form of songs as well, which reached a wide variety of people. Source K is an example of this kind of song and shows how people believed Vietnam was a pointless waste of young lives and America’s resources. The failures and mistakes in Vietnam were becoming more apparent. Events like Mai Lai had full media coverage and disgusted many American citizens as America had made such a terrible error. Sources I and J show how the events like Mai Lai had all kinds media coverage so people found out them very easily. The Tet offensive had resulted in the American embassy being attacked. This would have horrified many as such a thing was able to happen and the Viet Cong had reached so far into South Vietnam.

Television and the media played a big part in changing peoples attitudes towards Vietnam. It showed the public what they had not been told. The deaths of the US soldier, deaths of innocent Vietnamese and the failures that of the war were all revealed. Also the war in Vietnam was costing huge amounts of money which many people felt was being wasted. Letters families received from their sons were also revealing the reality of the war. People began to stop and think about how necessary the war was and attitudes began to change. A mixture of this and the fact that many soldiers were being lost with no sign of victory resulted in great opposition to Vietnam.

Document Details

• Word Count 3327
• Page Count 4
• Level AS and A Level
• Subject History

Related Essays

Vietnam Sources Questions

Vietnam Sources Coursework