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

[Chris^^]

It was taught to me more or less as this, not a whole lot of time spent on it: Communism was spreading and we wanted to stop it, so we went in and supported the democratic side. We did a lot of things we aren't proud of, and pulled out while we were winning because of protests back home. In a nutshell, we were in the right and hippies prevented us from stopping north (or south, I keep forgetting) from winning.

(I could be wrong but)

1) America supported an unpopular dictatorship, not a democracy. Throughout the Cold War America had a philosophy of they may be bastards, but they are our bastards. A strategy which has come back to bite them in the ass rather beautifully since the 90's

2)You weren't winning, not even a little bit. You had superior weaponry but the environment and the fact that the Vietcong knew the landscape better meant that the superior technology didn't make a difference, for example America had M16's but these weren't able to withstand the conditions while the AK-47s of the Vietcong were less powerful but a lot more resistant to the weather and a lot less reliable.

Whoever taught you that either didn't know what they were talking about or were suffering from a really strong case of denial.

Vault Citizen is right, the South had an unpopular leader in the form of Diem when America first began to get involved, after he was assassinated in a coup he was superceded by a procession of more and more unpopular leaders who only made the situation for the people of the South worse. Given the opression of Buddhists for example its unsurprising the Viet Cong found a lot of support in the South.

And to counter Zarincos' point, communism was not precisely [/B]spreading[/B] but the US believed in the 'domino theory', that if one state fell to communism its neighbours would soon after. This was supported by the Truman Doctrine that pledged the US to oppose communism everywhere and support any power that was challenged by a communist enemy, regardless of how corrupt and undemocratic that power may be. Hence the support of Diem.

Furthermore victory was nowhere close, the US military had no idea how to fight an insurgency what with the strategic hamlet and search and destroy techniques. They looked for victory in terms of 'body count', a truly stupid way of conucting the campaign as to win against an insurgent foe one needs the support of the people, which the Americans certainly did not have. Furthermore the tactics used against the North were also totally inappropriate, see Operation Rolling Thunder for example; the USAF's tactical doctrine of the day emphasised the destruction of a nations industry in order to cripple it (basically every strategy they knew was to ensure the destruction of the USSR), these were all useless against a third world nation like Vietnam.

The US fundamentally underestimated the tenacity and fighting skill of the Vietnamese and they paid the price, even without the 'media war' they could never have secured a total victory thanks to their total mismanagement of the 'hearts and minds' campaign.

 

[Kolby Jack]

Vietnam was a good lesson for the United States, not just in how public perception can affect a war, but also in the use of military tactics against guerrillas in a dense jungle on their home turf. We weren't really prepared for that kind of environment, much like we weren't prepared for the desert in Afghanistan and Iraq (but have since learned much from).

 

[Darius Brogan]

Erm... not wanting to offend any people that have stated to the contrary up until now, but...

The United States actually lost more battles in Vietnam than they won. This isn't a biased view-point or anything, but from what I've gathered by reading various textbooks, interviews, articles, ect... American soldiers were so vastly under-prepared for the dense jungle warfare that they got beaten to a bloody pulp more often than not, and came out on top only when they had the advantage right from the beginning of the battle.

Again, I don't want to offend anyone, but that's what I've learned of the Vietnam War.

 

[TiefBlau]

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

"Those who reply with quotes do so to sound pretentious while cleverly avoiding the burden of having anything worth saying" - Abraham Lincoln, 2010
[hr]640[/hr]
OT: In my school, Vietnam was taught alongside the Red scare and all that commie-hating we've been doing for the past decades. The more conservative teachers would say that if we persevered we would have won, but everyone else recognizes it as a massive failure.

 

[Inkidu]

That's kind of a biased look at it, this is how I was taught as an American

Okay, Vietnam was basically a screw up all around. The United States was called in to help the Capitalist South Vietnamese forces while Russia backed the Communist North. America just had consultants in there at first. The whole thing was a screw up from French Colonial days, and the Vietnam conflict has one of the worst defeats of of the French armed forces in modern history.

So, a few American consultants are killed and Kennedy pumps in the troops, it's a little at first, but as we keep losing Kennedy keeps getting more and more upset and the Secretary of Defense at the time has these absurd rules of engagement. "You can only fire back unless fired upon." If any one person is to blame for the bloodbath of Vietnam it's that guy.

So Kennedy is killed. Johnson steps in a starts Operation Rolling Thunder which kind of works, the conflict still goes on until Nixon who pulls us out just in time for his re-election.

I'm sure that America did some horrible things, and I'm sure the Vietcong did as well. The village paranoia came because the Vietcong would do stuff like tell kids to give the Americans a live hand grenades and the Americans would give them candy.

It was a bloody messed-up conflict that you can't really point to one side or one cause and say, "That's it."

 

[Inkidu]

"Those who reply with quotes do so to sound pretentious while cleverly avoiding the burden of having anything worth saying" - Abraham Lincoln, 2010

I'm sure he's been dead for a century or two.

 

[emeraldrafael]

snip

Are you serious? No, really, that is ALL they've taught you in high school history classes? I...I cannot believe that. I have no idea how teaching history goes in the USA, but this is just...wow...I didn't think such a curriculum was even possible.

Personally, my high school history education covered, amongst some I might have left out: prehistoric history, Sumer, Mesopotamia, early Middle East, Egypt, Greece, Rome, early Europe, our country's history(which, depending on how you view it starts from 780ish, or 1000), the history of just about every major(and some minor) European countries, Russia, China, Japan, colonial territories, UK, USA, major battles/revolutions/formations in Europe, WWI, WWII, Cold War, USSR and a load of other stuff I won't list because I don't wanna clutter up this reply any more.

Incidentally, most of these we already learn pre-high school, so it's more or less partially a revision. A friend of mine mentioned the history curriculum is bad, but I didn't this it was really this bad.

Yeah? Why, we didnt need to learn the rest of the stuff pre American History, mainly cause we learned most of the kinda stuff youre talking (Rome, greek, such and such) in middle school. Elemetary was:

first grade, first half of second: basic geography and its terms (what you would call mountains if they do certain things, savanahs, such and such.

Second half of Second Grade: European history, focusing mainly on Germany, Poland, and Italy (makes up most of the european ancestors for the area I live in.

Third: Russia, eastern Europe

Fourth: PA state/Ohio river area history.

Fifth: China, Japan, Oceania areas, pacfic islands and misc. world areas.

And let me say that off topic, thats high presumputious of you to just assume i never learned any of that because MY high school chose to educate us on places in the world other then the US before talking about the US in great detail, so that we would have a diverse view of the world by the time we decided to settle completely on ourselves.

 

[Lionsfan]

So, you think more losses than gains, a complete loss on the propaganda front, repeatedly feeling the need to commit crimes against humanity, then making a treaty destined to fail and running qualifies as a victory on any grounds?

All I can ask now is "wanna fight?". This one I could gladly "lose".

From a military perspective yes. It was a clear cut win. The Armed Forces were sent in to stop North Vietnam from conquering South Vietnam. They did so. That's the whole point I'm arguing, that the US Military did it's job and won the war. I'm not arguing the Propaganda War (which was an overwhelming loss), or the various ethical complaints about the legality of the war. I'm just saying that from a purely objective point of view, the US won during their time when they were involved in Southeast Asia.

The peace treaty was meaningless, however, without continued US presence as was seen when the North broke the treaty after the US forces left. While it was certainly the fault of the North Vietnamese for breaking the treaty, it does, however, throw into light how the US campaign cannot be called a victory. It is clear from the results of the treaty that communism could not be contained to the north without a US presence. Given how no-one would wish for US soldiers to have to remain permanently in Vietnam to maintain order, it would have to be assumed that the war in Vietnam would need to end with South Vietnam being safe from invasion without a continued, external military presence.

The US' inability to neutralize the threat to South Vietnam pretty much left them in the exact same position they were before the war started. This cannot be viewed as a victory. Even if the military's aim was simply to hold off the threat while they were present, this does not count as a victory. Why? Because the Vietnam War did not end when the Americans pulled out. It ended when North Vietnam gained control of South Vietnam, something the US failed to stop due to the withdrawal of their troops.

Correct, however it wasn't the US Military's job to destroy the threat. They were called in to halt the North Vietnamese from conquering South Vietnam. They did so, and ended up with a treaty that halted the war. There's no doubt that the inability to destroy the North Vietnamese ultimately led to the fall of the South, but the US military achieved their primary goals while they were there. The Vietnam War may not have ended in 1973, but for the US Military it did and it was a victory for them at the time. In pure military terms the US entered with a clear goal, stop the NV, and withdrew having stopped the NV. Politically the war was a failure yes, but military wise it was a victory

 

[Death God]

They don't call it a war. It was more of a "disagreement" according to our school system. Most of the teachers are always made about that and say that we were cruel to our soldiers who came back from it so Vietnam is always a heavily disputed topic at my school. Not sure how it is at other schools but my school is a bit... unorthodox at times.

 

[emeraldrafael]

"Those who reply with quotes do so to sound pretentious while cleverly avoiding the burden of having anything worth saying" - Abraham Lincoln, 2010

What Abraham Lincoln are you talking about, cause he cant be THAT Abraham Lincoln. Unless we finally made the guy a zombie to fight those vampyres more easily.

 

[Death_Korps_Kommissar]

I recall spending a couple weeks on it. Propping up what amounted to a dictatorship in South Vietnam, pouring more and more resources into a clearly losing conflict...

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.

No it was, it was called Pacifisim, I'm learning about nam at the moment in school.
And the major massacre was the one at my Lai.

 

[Chris^^]

Oddly, teachers here magically twist it to just be all our fault and never mention the french.

may I mention the US international policy of containment?
you can't lay the blame solely on the French, in fact America supported and even funded Ho Chi Minh in pushing for independance during and immediately after WW2. May I also point out that America prevented the free and fair elections promised in the Geneva Accords of 1954.

I certainly agree that wars are only won by doing what needs to be done and that the 'media war' was pivotal in Americas eventual defeat but you cannot deny that America had no place in that war. Kennedy himself realised that they needed to get out, but was killed before he had any chance to do so.

It's wrong of your teachers to place the blame solely on the French, but blame truly lies with, in my opinion, Lyndon B. Johnson. He threw America into the war with little idea on tactics or how it was to be conducted, the US armed forces had [/B]no[/B] idea how to fight an insurgency whatsoever; the killing of civilians by US personnel for whatever reason did little to win the hearts and minds of the people, regardless of why or how it happened.

 

[Aur0ra145]

In the UK, i learned that we wouldn't be covering the Vietnam war for a good year in history. So i sat down and watched:

Forest Gump
Full metal Jacket
Apocalypse now
Born on the forth of July
Platoon

If you don't get taught it, then just watch these movies.

You'll get a better representation by watching the Tour of Duty TV-series.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Well, in US history class I was shown the Vietnam war engagement by engagement and given approximate body counts for both sides, starting with the attempted French occupation. I was also shown videos of Presidential speeches, senate meetings, protests, et cetera, and I was tested on who took what positions. Generally the gory details of engagements were glossed over with numbers, but political motivations were laid out starkly for students to make their own values judgements on.

The class tended to agree that we were an entity of bad guys fighting another entity of bad guys, while the soldiers involved on both sides and the people of Vietnam were both victim and patsy to our country's ham-handed attempt to stave off a non-existent threat.

Ironically, we weren't fighting bad guys at all. The people we were fighting were themselves fighting for independence from brutal French rule and had been since long before America stepped in. In fact, the only reason that North Vietnam turned communist was because we backed France's oppression in order to gain their support against Russia. Russia and China agreed to help Ho Chi Minh, but only if he would go full communist. He was more of a nationalist before that. Of course, once NVN did turn communist, they were suddenly part of the "international communist conspiracy" and had to be stopped at all costs.

So really, we brought it on ourselves.

 

[Luthir Fontaine]

what i remember... it was glossed over. No one wants to teach how we may/maynot have "won" the most battles but lost the war due to the dick reason we were there

 

[Chris^^]

They don't call it a war. It was more of a "disagreement" according to our school system.

that's because war was never officially declared.

 

[LeeHarveyO]

Well I did my own research on the war so I know a hell of alot more than they teach in school. But we just got done learing about it, and pretty much learned that we didnt accomplish anything. Though we could have won the war, it was just too unpopular. Also they taught us why we were there, which was to stop the spread of communism, and initially help out the French.

 

[drisky]

Pretty deeply in my school at least, about 2 weeks at least. So no, we don't skip it just because it was bad, the bad stuff is the most important stuff in history. Your meant to learn form your mistakes not hide them.

 

[maturin]

So, you think more losses than gains, a complete loss on the propaganda front, repeatedly feeling the need to commit crimes against humanity, then making a treaty destined to fail and running qualifies as a victory on any grounds?

All I can ask now is "wanna fight?". This one I could gladly "lose".

From a military perspective yes. It was a clear cut win. The Armed Forces were sent in to stop North Vietnam from conquering South Vietnam. They did so. That's the whole point I'm arguing, that the US Military did it's job and won the war. I'm not arguing the Propaganda War (which was an overwhelming loss), or the various ethical complaints about the legality of the war. I'm just saying that from a purely objective point of view, the US won during their time when they were involved in Southeast Asia.

The peace treaty was meaningless, however, without continued US presence as was seen when the North broke the treaty after the US forces left. While it was certainly the fault of the North Vietnamese for breaking the treaty, it does, however, throw into light how the US campaign cannot be called a victory. It is clear from the results of the treaty that communism could not be contained to the north without a US presence. Given how no-one would wish for US soldiers to have to remain permanently in Vietnam to maintain order, it would have to be assumed that the war in Vietnam would need to end with South Vietnam being safe from invasion without a continued, external military presence.

The US' inability to neutralize the threat to South Vietnam pretty much left them in the exact same position they were before the war started. This cannot be viewed as a victory. Even if the military's aim was simply to hold off the threat while they were present, this does not count as a victory. Why? Because the Vietnam War did not end when the Americans pulled out. It ended when North Vietnam gained control of South Vietnam, something the US failed to stop due to the withdrawal of their troops.

Correct, however it wasn't the US Military's job to destroy the threat. They were called in to halt the North Vietnamese from conquering South Vietnam. They did so, and ended up with a treaty that halted the war. There's no doubt that the inability to destroy the North Vietnamese ultimately led to the fall of the South, but the US military achieved their primary goals while they were there. The Vietnam War may not have ended in 1973, but for the US Military it did and it was a victory for them at the time. In pure military terms the US entered with a clear goal, stop the NV, and withdrew having stopped the NV. Politically the war was a failure yes, but military wise it was a victory

Wow, that's a facesaving exercise to the max. The military objectives could have been set at "Hand out candy to children and get a wicked tan." Then we would have won even more, and it would have been just as meaningless.

Holding off an attack that you never manage to stop isn't victory, it's just the absence of failure. And then we gave up.

War is the extension of politics. There is absolutely no such things as a military victory and a political failure because war has no purpose except to serve political interests. To say otherwise indicates you are primarily ego-stroking and keeping imaginary score in a great big bloody game.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

It was combined with the domestic issues when I took courses that went over it. This is because there was alot of social change that was beginning to happen during that time and the Vietnam war affected how it played out back in the States. Over all though, the war isn't seen as our finest hour, that's for sure. My teachers did a good job of avoiding supporting either the "It was a huge mistake, we should have never been there" or the "Of course it was a mistake, we pulled out way too early" side. We didn't learn too much about what happened there other than how it was a war that the US military wasn't used to fighting and how it could be very trying for the soldiers.