How is the Vietnam War taught in the U.S?

[Jonabob87]

That and my grandfathers always tells them that he pities them for having to fight that war, and by comparison WW2 was the easier war to fight in.

I'd say that depends entirely on which front of WW2. Look up both the Red Army and the Wehrmacht 6th army, both went through utter hell.

Few of those who survived from the 6th army were left with all of their limbs, and I'm not talking about war wounds.

Not trying to say "YOU AND YOUR GRANDAD KNOW NOTHING" I just read up on the battle of Stalingrad not long ago and feel like people should know what a horrible war truly is.

/derail

No, I understand. he Fought int he european theatre, but at least there, it was easier then the Vietcong. you werent fighting the losing battle, the nation was behind you. Plus, like I said, you werent fighting the Viet cong. Again, its all his personal opinion though.

Thoguh I can say one thing. my uncle (who's in his sixties now) gets spit on from time to time if he mentions he fought in Viet Nam, and told that he must have been one of those murdering dogs that just liked to murder anyone he could get in his cross hairs. I can see where my grandfather would say his war was "easier".

I mean, just that abuse against my uncle alone while my grandfather is told he's a hero is so... degradingly... horrible. And thats not even with what happened to him int he war (which any time I ask, he always just says dont ask, things I've done I'd never wish for anyone to do or have done), and fighting in the war (whcih, if you've done any travel, South east Asia is a far more dangerous place just naturally then europe).

Some people just like to hate soldiers for some reason. We had a similar thing with british soldiers coming home from Iraq/Afghanistan and being attacked/verbally abused in the street.

It's sad as hell. These people are free to do and say whatever they want because they have men who are willing to defend them, and they use that freedom to abuse those men? Sickening.

Were these people asked if they wanted to be defended against countries that don't share a border with theirs, don't have a viable airforce (or even a reliable electrical grid) and need warcrimes committed in their name in order to still have an opinion?

Note: I don't have any problem with people who join the military not realising they'll be used and abused for purely political motives, just those that suggest I have to actively "support" their actions. In the case of Vietnam, where so many were drafted, it's unreasonable to abuse those forced to serve...

I never said that we should all be pro army all the time no matter what they do.

I do think that it's a disgrace to treat brave men and women like they're scum for something they almost literally have no control over.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

As far as High School goes, it's kinda glossed over. We cover up until WWII usually, and by then the year's over. I can tell you that a lot of us aren't proud of what we did over there and would probably rather forget it.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santanaya, 1905

I don't remember that saying...
see what i did there?
I'm not proud of it.

 

[Jonabob87]

That and my grandfathers always tells them that he pities them for having to fight that war, and by comparison WW2 was the easier war to fight in.

I'd say that depends entirely on which front of WW2. Look up both the Red Army and the Wehrmacht 6th army, both went through utter hell.

Few of those who survived from the 6th army were left with all of their limbs, and I'm not talking about war wounds.

Not trying to say "YOU AND YOUR GRANDAD KNOW NOTHING" I just read up on the battle of Stalingrad not long ago and feel like people should know what a horrible war truly is.

/derail

No, I understand. he Fought int he european theatre, but at least there, it was easier then the Vietcong. you werent fighting the losing battle, the nation was behind you. Plus, like I said, you werent fighting the Viet cong. Again, its all his personal opinion though.

Thoguh I can say one thing. my uncle (who's in his sixties now) gets spit on from time to time if he mentions he fought in Viet Nam, and told that he must have been one of those murdering dogs that just liked to murder anyone he could get in his cross hairs. I can see where my grandfather would say his war was "easier".

I mean, just that abuse against my uncle alone while my grandfather is told he's a hero is so... degradingly... horrible. And thats not even with what happened to him int he war (which any time I ask, he always just says dont ask, things I've done I'd never wish for anyone to do or have done), and fighting in the war (whcih, if you've done any travel, South east Asia is a far more dangerous place just naturally then europe).

Some people just like to hate soldiers for some reason. We had a similar thing with british soldiers coming home from Iraq/Afghanistan and being attacked/verbally abused in the street.

It's sad as hell. These people are free to do and say whatever they want because they have men who are willing to defend them, and they use that freedom to abuse those men? Sickening.

Were these people asked if they wanted to be defended against countries that don't share a border with theirs, don't have a viable airforce (or even a reliable electrical grid) and need warcrimes committed in their name in order to still have an opinion?

Note: I don't have any problem with people who join the military not realising they'll be used and abused for purely political motives, just those that suggest I have to actively "support" their actions. In the case of Vietnam, where so many were drafted, it's unreasonable to abuse those forced to serve...

I never said that we should all be pro army all the time no matter what they do.

I do think that it's a disgrace to treat brave men and women like they're scum for something they almost literally have no control over.

Read any transcripts of the Nuremberg trials? Or to counterbalance that, any of the wonderful research by Stanley Milgram? Look into both and make a call, but it can't be both ways. Either the perpetrators of war crimes should all be punished for obeying orders, or only the top brass. When neither get served some steaming justice pie, it is a sad fact that it'll be the grunts who cop the flak while the nobs plausibly deny everything.

They're still nabbing Nazi concentration camp guards who're 80+ years old and jailing them for following explicit orders without any direct executive control and/or direct policy input, nor any hands on murdering of innocents, but wearing a uniform in a camp and following orders still warrants punishment according to many countries, including the USA...

If you're going to honestly compare concentration camp guards with soldiers who simply got sent to a foreign country then this conversation is over. There is a huge difference between committing a war crime and just being in the country when it happens.

 

[SpireOfFire]

i was taught that it was the US attempting to prevent the spread of communism, specifically from north korea into south korea. it started with advice, supplies, a few strategic personel until it escalated into an all out war. the US military and government was under extreme scrutiny from its citizens (and others, no doubt) and was forced to withdraw from the war. not long after "pulling out", the communist north overtook the democratic south.

thats what i was taught. there were some finer points like agent orange, the massacre at mai lai, operation waterfall, etc. but thats the gyst of it.

 

[Danny Ocean]

UK 18-yr-old here. We spent all of last year studying Vietnam, Korea, and the Civil Rights Movement as a quarter of our A-level (the other quarters being C19 British Political History, Ireland 1800-today, and Germany 1870-1945). The US definitely lost in Vietnam, and can be argued to have lost in Korea when it was defeated after overstepping the UN remit: that was when the USA went on its own mission to roll back Communism rather than just fulfill its UN mandate.

The conclusion I came to was that it was all about money- the US wouldn't have anyone to trade with if everyone else became communist, after all.

 

[rokkolpo]

I'm from The Netherlands and did half my exam about the Vietnam war...
Made me dislike American policy in a whole different way.

 

[jack583]

we lost, so it wasn't a war.
it was a police action.
and the french are cowards.
it rained a lot.

that's what i was taught.
the school i went to used little more then the movie "forest gump" to teach it

 

[Harkonnen64]

I really don't remember too much of it, as I don't think it was covered much, but here's what I remember:

Our (American) involvement in Vietnam was ideological: If communism had spread in Vietnam, other countries would adopt it and become a threat to the capitalist style of the western world. So we went over and sided with the non-communist Nationalists. Then the Tet Revolution came about and we got our asses kicked. From that point on, we progressively pulled out.

That's what I remember, I could be filling in blanks though.

 

[Numb1lp]

I don't know about that 'Search and Destroy' thing. There were a few guys who snapped under the strain and just started shooting, but I never heard of it as official policy.

There's a really good account of one of these incidents in a book my teacher has; I can't remember the name, but I think it was just My Lai. Terrible tragedy that took place. And no, these incidents didn't happen as often as most people believe, but those in the media who were strongly opposed to the war made it seem that way.

 

[RuralGamer]

snip

That is just an awesome story.

When I was at school, we weren't really taught international history past WW2; being from the UK, we weren't even taught about the Falklands War; I'm surprised because it is actually an interesting story and yet no; the only history post-1945 we were taught was about industrial relations and parliament... oh the joys.

The only mention of Vietnam was my history teacher mentioning her sister (ironically also a history teacher I think) said that (she lives in the US by the way) they only skimmed over it and that it was a time that people would rather just forget about.

 

[RA92]

I remember that the MiG-21 kicked so much ass that the US had to create the 'Top Gun' Navy school back in '69. Yep, a second generation Soviet fighter was tackling a wide range of specialized third generation American aircrafts all by itself.

Yes, and then came the F-15... Which dominated all the way from '71 until the mid-2000's when the F-22 was finally mass produced. I still prefer the F-15 for several short-sighted reasons (The Top speed is a little higher, supposedly, and it looks prettier), but on the whole, the Russians build a damn sexy aircraft... (We STILL can't match the MiG-31's top speed in a fighter...)

Yeah, the F-22 can possibly never eclipse the F-15's track record,considering how the F-35 is rapidly taking over its roles. I mean, the F-15 had virtually zero attrition rate, and the only one that was damaged returned and landed back to base with an entire wing clipped off. Not to mention how it can accelerate to supersonic speeds during a vertical climb, fire an ASM-135, and take down satellites.

Oh what, satellite? You're in space? Doesn't matter, you're still in the F-15's rape territory.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/ASAT_missile_launch.jpg



At the same time, though, the later Sukhoi Su-27 variants gave the F-15 a run for its money. In fact, the Su-35 is probably the best fourth generation fighter still in service. At the same time, while the Americans are prancing around with the unmitigable disaster that is the F-35, the Russians are working on the <url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/pak-fa.htm>PAK FA T50 that rivals the F-22 (and surpasses it in some cases, such as with the inclusion of IRS trackers and 3D thrust vectoring, though at the cost of a larger RCS). It'll be hilarious when America's closest allies will have worse air superiority fighters (the F-35 can carry only two A2A missiles) than second world countries like India and Indonesia.

What happens when an F-22, YF-23 and an Su-37 has a baby? Awesomeness.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Sukhoi_T-50.jpg/800px-Sukhoi_T-50.jpg



Okay, major derailment.

 

[keve4433]

In my twelve years of school I don't think I even heard the word Vietnam...

 

[Spade Lead]

I remember that the MiG-21 kicked so much ass that the US had to create the 'Top Gun' Navy school back in '69. Yep, a second generation Soviet fighter was tackling a wide range of specialized third generation American aircrafts all by itself.

Yes, and then came the F-15... Which dominated all the way from '71 until the mid-2000's when the F-22 was finally mass produced. I still prefer the F-15 for several short-sighted reasons (The Top speed is a little higher, supposedly, and it looks prettier), but on the whole, the Russians build a damn sexy aircraft... (We STILL can't match the MiG-31's top speed in a fighter...)

Yeah, the F-22 can possibly never eclipse the F-15's track record,considering how the F-35 is rapidly taking over its roles. I mean, the F-15 had virtually zero attrition rate, and the only one that was damaged returned and landed back to base with an entire wing clipped off. Not to mention how it can accelerate to supersonic speeds during a vertical climb, fire an ASM-135, and take down satellites.

Oh what, satellite? You're in space? Doesn't matter, you're still in the F-15's rape territory.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/ASAT_missile_launch.jpg



At the same time, though, the later Sukhoi Su-27 variants gave the F-15 a run for its money. In fact, the Su-35 is probably the best fourth generation fighter still in service. At the same time, while the Americans are prancing around with the unmitigable disaster that is the F-35, the Russians are working on the <url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/pak-fa.htm>PAK FA T50 that rivals the F-22 (and surpasses it in some cases, such as with the inclusion of IRS trackers and 3D thrust vectoring, though at the cost of a larger RCS). It'll be hilarious when America's closest allies will have worse air superiority fighters (the F-35 can carry only two A2A missiles) than second world countries like India and Indonesia.

What happens when an F-22, YF-23 and an Su-37 has a baby? Awesomeness.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Sukhoi_T-50.jpg/800px-Sukhoi_T-50.jpg



Okay, major derailment.

Wow... I hesitate to say this, lest I sound biased against my own countries aircraft, but the T50... looks to have the same compression inhibiting flaps that the F-15 has, giving it a higher top speed than the F-22. Which means all else being equal, the T50 will have an advantage.

Also, I love that picture of the F-15 launching the ASAT missile. I think that will be my new avatar...

My big quibble with the F-22 isn't anything that they added, but something they omitted...

Like 3 Tactical hardpoints for munitions. I always believe that more is better, especially when flying into a combat zone like B7R...

Then again, my favorite plane of all time is the F-15 ACTIVE.

 

[WolfThomas]

Nope, we were only told about the Australians. They must have been pretty impressive to get an entire sentence to their contribution to the war when it was otherwise painted as a solely American operation.

I think it's because the Australians (and New Zealanders who worked closely with us) had a completely different approach to the US solider, which seemed to work pretty well.

Spoiler: A quote from a Viet Cong commander

Worse than the Americans were the Australians. The Americans style was to hit us, then call for planes and artillery. Our response was to break contact and disappear if we could...The Australians were more patient than the Americans, better guerilla fighters, better at ambushes. They liked to stay with us instead of calling in the planes. We were more afraid of their style

In fact the Australia and NZ SAS were nicknamed the "Ma Rung" or "Jungle Phantoms" by the Viet Cong, because of how dangerous and stealthy they were.

Spoiler: Who often used cut down FN FALs or SLRs, converted to fully automatic and with a grenade launcher attach

Also Australians in general were a bit of an oddity for the American soldiers and public. They weren't issued helmets and carried beer rations in their packs.

 

[Carlston]

So for the Vietnam war...thank the french.

But how is it taught? Oddly, teachers here magically twist it to just be all our fault and never mention the french.

They mentioned that in our class, but from what I understood, the American government was eager to oblige to their request.

At the time, wasn't there any excuse the American government wouldn't take to prevent communism from "spreading"?

The reason I hold a slight more fault to the French is not only did they start it, they abandoned us when we showed up.

They could have let us in on what they learn, their failures ect...

Not just let us start a fresh in a war we had no drive to really win.

 

[Carlston]

Well, I'm a 2nd year in Highschool, they seem to be focusing on WWI and II, and leaving Vietnam for later...
The way I see it is, we stuck our noses in a place it didn't belong and then it got bit the fuck off...
Go America!

So you know nothing of the war... nice opinon but fact is we were asked to help the French, it was their slice of territory. And when we arrived we were handed a ball to a already lost game.

But yeah, I'm all for never helping anyone for asking for help to defend whats theirs, mostly the USA has to fit the bill of life and resources and we always get made the devil afterwards.

That's not really the point of the backlash though, is it? From what I've seen, people in the UK tend to be more pissed at the massacre of the villagers thing than the "You shouldn't have been there!" thing. Admittedly, it's never really blamed on the French over here and we're really quite fond of being dicks to the rest of Europe.

When it's not just a villiage and uses as a stockpile for weapons and ammo, it's a military target and it's ok to torch it.

 

[MagicMouse]

Well in my small town school:

Covered in depth as its own conflict in 7th grade. It had an entire unit. We focused on all the bad, no candy coating.

Then later covered as part of the cold war. In depth reasons for entering, and leaving. World effect, and the anti war movement. This was the biggest part of the cold war unit.


So, it gets covered thoroughly and undiluted.

>Results may vary school to school.

 

[Ken_J]

This may be because my US history was Canadian but we went in depth in 'Nam. What we covered was the reason why we got involved was because of the domino theory, if one south-east Asia country fell to communism the rest will soon fallow. In 'Nam our tactics where crap our weapons where horrific (AGENT ORANGE), But so where the Viet Cong's (RAZOR BLADED APPLES). Nixon tried to get South 'Nam on its feet while we left. Then the Dominoes fell.

Tl;DR Cluster Fuck