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

[DarkRyter]

Play Forrest Gump on the Overhead.

 

[Scars Unseen]

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.

That's not right either. He certainly deserves his share of blame, but hardly enough to say that he's "the guy." In reality, he made his decisions based upon what came before, and no one wanted to be another Truman (lowest approval rating of any president in American history). On the other hand, he didn't want to escalate the war too quickly because he didn't want to provoke an all out war with Russia. And not everything was his doing in any case. He wasn't the one that pushed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, even if he did take advantage of it afterward. At the very least, most of the Wise Men [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wise_Men] deserve their fair share of blame, since most of them contributed significantly to the shaping of foreign policy at the time.

I just have absolutely no respect for the man, I'll admit he didn't make all the decisions (indeed often being manipulated by advisors) but had he been stronger there were several alternative paths he could have taken that could have radically altered the outcome of the war.
Perhaps I was too rash with my first statement, you're right that blame can't be thrown at the feet of one person alone, and the 'wise men' had slipped my mind when I posted.

I can respect him for one thing: He chose not to run for a second term.

 

[Death_Korps_Kommissar]

In Ireland the vietnamn war is pretty well covered, im planning my history project on the history of vietnamn in general, should be pretty interesting. Its pretty neutral but you get an air of "MERICA' bombing innocents because of the policy of containment and paranoia about McCarthyism and therefore mistaking freedom fighters in vietnamn, who happen to be communist, as Russia's attempts to spread communism"

Im wondering OP how do they teach the WoI in GB? i missed the thread, got a link?

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

That is pretty dam funny, they actually teach you that bullshit?

What bullshit are you referring to?

That you won i gather.

Woah dude, leaving the project a tad late don't cha think? =P

What happened to your old avatar? i had gotten used to that thing, now everything is new and strange.

haha i know right? i only have like what? minus 14 days? There's still time damnit! i have a Delorean! Naw, my Project work shall begin after the summer is out, thats when the serious work begins so this summer im going to tear the country a new one

Dude I changed that like, before Easter on my American Psycho buzz =P
More to the point I'm recognised around here? :L
Are you in fifth or sixth year, dude?

Well i noticed you during your..I think it was a thread asking about the troubles and the IRA and such? and your name just stuck with me

Fifth right now man, i reckon you've just graduated yeah? Ha im studying for my tests before i enter 6th year right now, well not really, im on the escapist avoiding study like the plague

Ah yes I remember the one!
And I do have a painfully long name so I can see why lol
Yours is amazing btw.
Yeah last week, if you live in Dublin, DO NOT, have your graduation in the purty kitchen, they are a shower of bastards.
Hahaha that pretty much what I'm doing these days =P

 

[Kakashi on crack]

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?

It's taught in generally the same way, except the board of education requires that our teachers not delve into the less noble aspects, and when they do they always try to justify it with bullshit.

 

[shemoanscazrex3]

Maybe it was my school but if it weren't for movies and my free time reading I wouldn't even know the Vietnam War existed

 

[Mallefunction]

I'm sure you've already been told this a zillion times already, but it ultimately does depend on the teacher.

As for me, in my state (AZ), we were never really told why we went to war or what the ultimate goal of the U.S. was. The politics of it all was swept under the rug and the teachers mostly focused on the tragedy, showing us the death tolls from both sides of the conflict.

The Vietnam war tended to get skimmed. We would jump from WWII to the Cold War with barely a blink of the eye. I honestly learned more about Vietnam from my mother (hippie protester back in the day) and from various documentaries I was able to rent from my library.

So yeah...I think our education system is somewhat ashamed of what happened because more than any other historical event, this one always gets the shaft in lesson plans.

 

[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.

That's not right either. He certainly deserves his share of blame, but hardly enough to say that he's "the guy." In reality, he made his decisions based upon what came before, and no one wanted to be another Truman (lowest approval rating of any president in American history). On the other hand, he didn't want to escalate the war too quickly because he didn't want to provoke an all out war with Russia. And not everything was his doing in any case. He wasn't the one that pushed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, even if he did take advantage of it afterward. At the very least, most of the Wise Men [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wise_Men] deserve their fair share of blame, since most of them contributed significantly to the shaping of foreign policy at the time.

I just have absolutely no respect for the man, I'll admit he didn't make all the decisions (indeed often being manipulated by advisors) but had he been stronger there were several alternative paths he could have taken that could have radically altered the outcome of the war.
Perhaps I was too rash with my first statement, you're right that blame can't be thrown at the feet of one person alone, and the 'wise men' had slipped my mind when I posted.

I can respect him for one thing: He chose not to run for a second term.

In that we are in agreement.

 

[Nexus4]

In Australia we were taught about how the Vietcong broke the American spirit despite the Americans winning most engagements with the Vietcong forces. We were taught about how attrition-based warfare got the kills, but the guerrilla-style warfare broke the spirit. Everyone seemed to enjoy calling out claims that America won the war simply because 'they withdrew whilst there still was a South Vietnam', and completely forgetting that America and it's allies, yes that includes us in Australia as well. Abandoned a country they swore to protect against the communist regime, letting it fall to the NVA soon after. What we were taught from this is that kills =/= victory, instead victory = destroying your enemies will to fight.

 

[SomethingUnrelated]

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.
is the Vietnam War taught in the US education system?

That was only one occasion. It was called the My Lai massacre, and it happened because a lieutenant named William Calley was paranoid of the Vietcong. Unable to bear the pressure of not knowing who was Vietcong, and who was innocent, he snapped. He ordered the entire village burned down. Not many people were happy about it around the world, including the U.S. The few people who tried to defend it in the U.S received lots of death threats. Indeed, Calley was sentenced to life in prison for it.

Just did some quick reading up on it; the My Lai massacre was definitely not the only massacre in Vietnam by US soldiers. However, what sets it aside from others is its notoriety, and the effect it had on the people at home in the US, in that is sparked widespread opposition to the war. Still, thanks for the heads up.

 

[Scars Unseen]

her.

As for me, in my state (AZ), we were never really told why we went to war or what the ultimate goal of the U.S. was. .

To be fair, that question was never answered by the politicians or generals of the time, either. We didn't really have any solid reason to be there or a solid goal that would end the war.

 

[Pyro Paul]

went into some depth on it in my class.

We where taught how it was the major shift between conventional and unconventional warfare. It is an example of how a military and nation could win on a stratigic level on every point yet ultimatly lose because of the political reasons.

US won vietnam... we took more land, made more bodies, and held onto key assets the longest.
but political distain for the war ultimatly caused us to pull out before all was said and done.

 

[Del-Toro]

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

They won all the battles, but the North got to annex South Vietnam, which was exactly what the US was trying to prevent. So I'd say tactical victory, strategic loss.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

My high school chemistry teacher Mr. Siegel liked 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>

That is the most AWESOME War Story I have ever heard. The only one I know is from my great grand-dad...and It's not that funny (but it does explain where my really good luck comes from)

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

It was more a matter of fact thing, there were Australians.

did your book omit the troops from South Korea, The Phillipines, Thailand and New Zealand who were also roped in to fight and die for Americas war?

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.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

We don't really, or not enough to even remember it. My history classes usually ended during/after the Cold War.

 

[internetzealot1]

We spent a good month on the Vietnam era in my highschool American history class. Looking at the other posts here, I'm thinking alot of classes run out of time and can't cover it properly (It was the last thing my class studied).

 

[Scars Unseen]

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

They won all the battles, but the North got to annex South Vietnam, which was exactly what the US was trying to prevent. So I'd say tactical victory, strategic loss.

Not only that, we were in truth entirely ineffective on a military level (partially due to the gradual escalation of the war). We killed lots of NVN forces. They sent more. We destroyed their bridges. They built more. We bombed their power plants. They brought generators. We took villages. When we left, the NVN troops came back. Nothing we did gave us a tangible advancement towards victory. We just racked up an impressive body count. Go us.

 

[mysecondlife]

my high school covered it more extensive than I wanted it to. Had to write an essay that was 15% of English and History grade. I doubt they're doing it now, with all the budget cuts.

plus, my history teacher is a Vietnam war veteran, and he told some war stories. Those were the times I did not fall asleep during his class.

 

[Del-Toro]

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

They won all the battles, but the North got to annex South Vietnam, which was exactly what the US was trying to prevent. So I'd say tactical victory, strategic loss.

Not only that, we were in truth entirely ineffective on a military level (partially due to the gradual escalation of the war). We killed lots of NVN forces. They sent more. We destroyed their bridges. They built more. We bombed their power plants. They brought generators. We took villages. When we left, the NVN troops came back. Nothing we did gave us a tangible advancement towards victory. We just racked up an impressive body count. Go us.

At least it shows that the US frontliners were notably better at their jobs than the NVA and VC frontliners were at theirs.

The Americans have the same problem now. Their soldiers are somewhere in the region of a fuckton better than their enemies are yet that doesn't really carry it when your enemies literally blend in and out of the land and the civilian population. Both of which are used, at least today, as a shield. The kind of shield you can't just hit to break the arm that holds it.

I'm basically saying that trying to fight guerillas isn't something uniformed front line armies are used to or particularly good at.

 

[AntonicKnight]

That the Americans failed to destroy the will of the Vietnamese people.
Note that I come from a former communist country.