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

[TacticalAssassin1]

My high school chemistry teacher Mr. Siegel like to tell the students a little war story at the school assembly on Veteran's Day. He did the most Hilarious Vietnamese accent you ever heard.
<spoiler= the story, if you're interested> He and his squad (he was the commander) were out on patrol when they encountered an enemy unit in the middle of field of rice paddies. No one was hit in the initial firefight, but they ended-up pinned in a ditch. I can't recall why they didn't call in air support (broken radio, danger close or something). The real problem was that the sun was setting, and NO ONE wants to be stuck waste deep in a rice paddy in the middle of enemy territory at night. In frustration one of the marines yelled out. "God dam it! Why can't you g**ks just go home!" Then they heard a voice yell back "We ARE home! When you go home?" Odd way to start a dialog going but it worked. After confirming that neither side had suffered casualties, Siegel (I forget his rank at the time) asked if the commander if he would like to continue fighting, the response was negative. Unfortunately neither side was willing to be the first to pull back, due to a mixture of distrust and pride. Mr Siegel suggested that they withdraw simultaneously one man at a time. The Vietnamese commander agreed, but then ANOTHER issue came up:
"We send him out on the count of three"
"what?"
"count of three"
"what is that?"
Apparently the Vietnamese commander had never learned to count in English. Fortunately, English is not the only language Mr. Siegel is fluent in.
"Parlez-vous Francais?"
"Oui"
"Nous allons sur le compte de trois"
"Bien"
So the first two guys made it out okay, and they just continued counting down until Mr Siegel and the enemy commander were left. They said their goodbyes and departed.

Later when Siegel was back at camp, he relayed the story to his commanding officer. He gave mr. Siegel a strange look and then said:
"Siegel, I do NOT want to see any paperwork on this."
<youtube=_d8C4AIFgUg>

Now that is a good story!

 

[Ivan Torres]

Inspired by the topic asking how the War of Independence is taught in the UK.

Basically, I ask because, generally, it's held that the US entered Vietnam (amongst other countries during the Cold War, like Korea) for what can be described as less than noble reasons, and then making a bit of a mess of it. For example, at my school, we shortly studied the 'Search and Destroy' tactics, which as far as I understand, was basically US soldiers walking into Vietnam villages and wiping them clean out, regardless of whether the inhabitants were innocent or not. That's one small part of a part of the course on US foreign policy we did.

Anyhow, back to the point. What sort of stance is taken when the Vietnam war is taught to US students? Under what light do they relay the information to you? How is the Vietnam War taught in the US education system?

High school, it's taught as a turmoil-ridden time in our history. It's the backdrop for the 60s in our country.


In college, they go a lot more indepth.

The French were there first because Vietnam used to be a colonial holding but after WWII, France lost it. But it made them so much money that they asked if they could go back in and control the country again. Cue Communist revolt. They lost twice as many men before they went to the US asking for help. The US, afraid of a communist take-over because of the Cold War and the Soviet Union, went into Vietnam with the intention of helping preserve a Democratic government.

Unfortunately, it wasn't handled very well. Some people were put into power that shouldn't have been--that didn't have the best interests of the Vietnamese in mind. The Vietnam war lost public support, soldiers went beserker because of the horrible conditions, there was a loss of control of ground troops and so yeah, you would get situations where a soldier gets caught in a horrific booby trap that tears him to shreds. His buddies find him but have to keep going on. They're extra on edge and wound up because of what happened to their friends. They can't trust the children, the women or even the old men--because anyone could be part of the revolt. So you would get situations sometimes where they would go berserk and just go into a village and slaughter everyone.


So yeah, it happened. But there's a lot more to it than what people seem to think.

You're college = My Highschool, in 11th grade to top it off.

Although it's probably worth noting I'm still a Junior, but that'll end in two days.

 

[Baneat]

Are all the US threads due to Memorial day?

 

[Chris^^]

for every Indian tribe moved a nice tax free casino is created

how is creating a casino balancing out the removal of a Native American tribe? all that does is make them poor as well as robbing them of their land.. There is no way the treatment of the native Americans can EVER be reonciled as far as I'm concerned, I sincerely hope this wasn't a serious statement..

 

[Chris^^]

I think it was something like "We pushed too far, pissed China off and got our asses beat."

funny guy.... you should look for a korea in comedy

 

[icame]

I live in Canada, so i can't speak for the US, but my teacher glossed over it while we were looking at cold war. Basically explained it in about 30 minutes and from his explanation the US sounded like complete assholes with their reasons for fighting it. I was also under the impression that they lost the war. Of course, this is just me.

 

[maturin]

It also taught us that it's probably not the best idea to have a live tv broadcast of the horrors of war into the homes of American families.

That probably saved a million or so lives.

 

[Canid117]

snip

Our goal was to prevent North Vietnam from conquering South Vietnam. We failed to achieve our goal and so we lost the war. You can win every battle and still lose the war. For an example look at... well... Vietnam.

But the facts don't lie. When the US withdrew we had achieved out goal. We had prevented North Vietnam from conquering South Vietnam. We had set up a peace treaty and that was the end of that. We withdrew and went home, having achieved our goal from a tactical standpoint. It was only after we left the North Vietnamese broke the Peace Treaty and was able to win

No we delayed North Vietnam from conquering South Vietnam. Look at a map. There is only one Vietnam and it isn't the one we supported.

 

[Lionsfan]

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.

But the US did manage to hold off the attack. The Peace Treaty of 1973 ensured a separate South Vietnamese state. And yes it mostly is facesaving, but the original OP asked how they taught it here, and I'm saying that schools gloss over this fact in favor of "America got it's ass kicked so hard"

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.

I would argue that there is such thing as Military Victories and Political Failures. The Tet Offensive (and by extension the Vietnam War) is clear example of this. The North Vietnamese never really won a single battle, therefore they lost the Military War and the US won the Military War. But because of better propaganda they were able to convince the American Public (and for the most part the World) into thinking that they were never going to give up (which was partly true). Because of the perception that the US was losing (even when they weren't) the North Vietnamese was able to win overall Politically. I would say that separate failures are generally just short term goals and in the long run the difference is slim.

This was your post:

Most schools just kinda gloss over it, they instead focus on the Home Issues at the time, and not the fact that technically the US won the Vietnam War

I am not arguing that the military attained their primary goals (in the crudest form). However, your post says the US won the Vietnam War. They didn't. The North Vietnamese won the Vietnam War. While the US were involved they succeeded in stopping the North Vietnamese from winning. This does not mean the US won. In the end, the US were part of the side that lost.
If you're half way through a 400m race and are in the lead, you can't ask to stop the race and claim you've won the entire thing: you have to see it through to the end.

I guess I should have been more clear. The US technically won the Vietnam War (which for the US lasted from 1964-1973). If you want to argue win like a team then lose like a team you could argue that, I'm simply saying that the US did it's part from an objective base pov.

Overall I don't think the US won (win as a team, lose as a team [footnote](and that includes Australia and New Zealand. You guys always get off too easy when it comes to this)[/footnote]), you have to pay more attention than just military, I just think from the most basic pov the US did technically win\

No we delayed North Vietnam from conquering South Vietnam. Look at a map. There is only one Vietnam and it isn't the one we supported.

I'm aware of that, I'm just saying that from a Base POV the US achieved it's primary goals. It was only after we had left that unification happened

 

[Ham_authority95]

Inspired by the topic asking how the War of Independence is taught in the UK.

Basically, I ask because, generally, it's held that the US entered Vietnam (amongst other countries during the Cold War, like Korea) for what can be described as less than noble reasons, and then making a bit of a mess of it. For example, at my school, we shortly studied the 'Search and Destroy' tactics, which as far as I understand, was basically US soldiers walking into Vietnam villages and wiping them clean out, regardless of whether the inhabitants were innocent or not. That's one small part of a part of the course on US foreign policy we did.

Anyhow, back to the point. What sort of stance is taken when the Vietnam war is taught to US students? Under what light do they relay the information to you? How is the Vietnam War taught in the US education system?

They haven't taught it at all, except for the reactions to it in the 60s.

 

[liquidsolid]

I was taught by a 'military son' who's father was in Vietnam and whom joined the army when he was old enough (after Vietnam ended)

He unsurprisingly taught us a very biased "it wasn't so bad" point of view with the added "we could have won if..."

Being a rebellious high school student, I debated with him over the validity of the war.

We watched "We Were Soldiers" which I hated, "Platoon" as a liberal counterpoint, and "Hanoi Hilton" to discuss POW's.

 

[Anchupom]

I want to say "In Vietnam, between the years of 1965 and 1973, nothing of note happened. At all."
But that's kinda a lame joke, and as I don't know anything about the American educational system, I'm making it very clear that I don't mean it and that I don't know how it's taught.

 

[tehroc]

When I was in High School in early 90s no world history class I was ever in made it to 20th century history, they barely even got through the 1800s

 

[maturin]

But the US did manage to hold off the attack.

What attack? North Vietnam knew it could not prevail against U.S. military power. Their goal was to outlast us, not to defeat us in conventional war. The operation of Communist forces in the field was an existential threat to the South that could not be fended off, only eradicated. And the North inarguably won. We simply delayed their victory. You need to understand that winning a battle without making any political accomplishment is fundamentally useless.

You don't win a defensive battle until the enemy gives up or is unable to continue. That didn't happen, so when you say we won, what you really mean is that we didn't lose.

I would argue that there is such thing as Military Victories and Political Failures. The Tet Offensive (and by extension the Vietnam War) is clear example of this.

You're extending that principle to the entirety of the war. Meaningless battlefield victories should not be accounted as victories, for some movements win wars without winning battles.

The North Vietnamese never really won a single battle, therefore they lost the Military War and the US won the Military War.

That's really a waste of breath.

But because of better propaganda they were able to convince the American Public (and for the most part the World) into thinking that they were never going to give up (which was partly true).

The North didn't convince Americans with propaganda. Americans saw that the costs had exceeded the slim benefits.

Because of the perception that the US was losing (even when they weren't) the North Vietnamese was able to win overall Politically.

The U.S. wasn't losing, just unwilling to indefinitely sustain the costs of stalemate.

I guess I should have been more clear. The US technically won the Vietnam War (which for the US lasted from 1964-1973). If you want to argue win like a team then lose like a team you could argue that, I'm simply saying that the US did it's part from an objective base pov.

You are defining the "part" of the U.S. as an exercise in poltical, moral and military futility. No rational person would do that then or now, and you pov is not therefore objective. Bloodshed has no value beyond political results.

Overall I don't think the US won (win as a team, lose as a team [footnote](and that includes Australia and New Zealand. You guys always get off too easy when it comes to this)[/footnote]), you have to pay more attention than just military, I just think from the most basic pov the US did technically win

Basic is a good war for. The pov of grunt whose only job is to kill then enemy.

 

[GaltarDude1138]

I can honestly say, being a senior in High School, we were taught that Vietnam was a catalyst to all the unrest and upheaval of the 60's. We lost the war, there's no denying that. And really, the only good thing that came out of it was the lesson that you can't fight a war unless you have the backing of the people, which the NVA and Vietcong expoited. Can't say that they didn't know their Sun Tzu.

 

[00slash00]

Inspired by the topic asking how the War of Independence is taught in the UK.

Basically, I ask because, generally, it's held that the US entered Vietnam (amongst other countries during the Cold War, like Korea) for what can be described as less than noble reasons, and then making a bit of a mess of it. For example, at my school, we shortly studied the 'Search and Destroy' tactics, which as far as I understand, was basically US soldiers walking into Vietnam villages and wiping them clean out, regardless of whether the inhabitants were innocent or not. That's one small part of a part of the course on US foreign policy we did.

Anyhow, back to the point. What sort of stance is taken when the Vietnam war is taught to US students? Under what light do they relay the information to you? How is the Vietnam War taught in the US education system?

in high school anything that didnt pain the us as gods was kinda passed over. we barely discussed vietnam and our history textbook made it seem like world war 2 was pretty much over the second we got there, as if we got there and the germans were like, "fuck its the americans, we are so fucked"

a lot of people who were hippies during the 60s, have become college teachers that have classes about the subject. my history of the 1960s teacher, for example, presented castro in a more positive light than he did the us government

 

[Bad LT.]

It's taught in history about as much as everything else, tells the politics about the war etc. but not too in depth. In another class however I've spent the last semester just learning about Vietnam and it's effect on the states, it's interesting stuff.

 

[Swifteye]

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.

That sums up my experience anyhow. I really can't remember anything really pertaining to the vietnam war except for my literature class using it as an excuse to watch pearl harbor. The movie not a documentary.

 

[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