"Find a primary source..."= the actual man (the vet himself)? "...account written..."=his written biography during the war/or his accounts of it? If this (or that) is what the question means, shouldn't any books written on the subject (that match the above description) be sufficient enough? Such as the book "Chickenhawk" written by Mason, a biography of himself during the war flying choppers; one of the very first Viet War books to come out, around 1983 or so.
The autobiography of Benjamin Franklin is considered a primary source. It is a firsthand account written by Franklin himself, detailing his life experiences, thoughts, and observations. As a primary source, it provides direct insight into his perspectives and the historical context of his time.
The names of the 58,000 American men and women who died in the Vietnam War.
The "Dolson Letter" was a letter than was written by a Texan officer by the name of George M. Dolson. This letter was a written primary account translated to English by Dolson himself. He was called to translate a Mexican officer's account of the executions at the Alamo. Dolson later wrote down the account and is one of the most important sources that historians have in depicting Davy Crockett's death. This account is a very trustful account because a few weeks later, another almost exact same account was published by another Mexican officer by the name of Ramón Martinez Caro.
A first-hand written account of an event is typically referred to as a primary source. This can include diaries, letters, official documents, or autobiographies created by individuals who directly experienced or witnessed the event. These sources offer personal insights and immediate reactions, making them invaluable for historical research and understanding the context of the event.
It was to express the feelings of Australian Vietnam soldiers before and after the war
Primary Source: a firsthand account, also something written by someone who was there. Secondary source: a secondhand account also something written by someone who was not there.
W. A. Macauley has written: 'An account of the development of an intervention programme in an urban primary school'
Peninsular veteran has written: 'Memoirs of a sergeant late in the Forty-Third Light Infantry Regiment : previously to and during the Peninsular War : including an account of his conversion from Popery to the Protestant religion' -- subject(s): Peninsular War, 1807-1814, Personal narratives
Short answer: Probably not. It depends. If you read a document at the museum concerning the event you're thinking about (ie if you read the Declaration of Independence at the National Archives), or if you read an account of an event written by someone who was involved in the event, then it is a primary source. If you read an account of an event that was written by someone who was not there (ie an exhibit with text written by people working for the museum), it was not a primary source.
Veteran has written: 'The important query, whether fornication is a sin? argued and decided' -- subject(s): Sexual ethics
No, a primary source is a contemporary account. To write it now creates a secondary source.
Cobb has written: 'The veteran of the Grand Army'
Felix Greene has written: 'Vietnam! Vietnam!'
A history book written by taking information from lots of other sources.
A history book written by taking information from lots of other sources.
Petr Cincibuch has written: 'Veteran rallye'
An autobiography is considered a primary source as it is a firsthand account of a person's life experiences written by that person themselves. It offers valuable insights and perspectives on the individual's life and can be used as primary evidence in historical or autobiographical research.