This is driving me nuts. I know someone who is a high school social studies teacher–very bright, very articulate and logical, with a JD degree who argues that WWII and Vietnam deserve barely more than a mention in history classes because they just don’t have much long-term impact. He says he teaches them, but spends only one day on WWII and one on Vietnam. For the record, he’s politically very conservative. He also doesn’t think the other 20th century wars should be emphasized either.
My list of reasons WWII needs to be taught include the Cold War (which he claims can be taught with minimal reference to WWII); US policy in the Mideast, which is directly related to the Holocaust; the atomic bomb and its impact (sorry) on politics and the military; and the cultural repercussions in the 1950’s. Vietnam, of course, has cast a long shadow. (Maybe he doesn’t like to spend time on it because he’s so conservative and believes fighting Communism was a good reason to go to war.)
WWII had such a huge impact on the world and its future that I have trouble imagining anyone who would seriously question its historical significance.
Same goes for Vietnam. Even if it didn’t have as much worldwide significance as WWII its effect on our country was immense. It was the first time the United States had lost a major conflict. I think the Vietnam War heralded an era in which people distrusted the government more than they had ever before. Also, my personal favorite; some of the best music to come out America are about Vietnam. I had a teacher in high school who had music of the era in his curriculum.
Maybe he’s so conservative that he thinks we should have been fighting the Bolsheviks in WWII instead of the Germans.
Jet engines were made before WWII, but Germany was very advanced at the end of the war. The accelerated development of jet-engine fighters probably brought about commercial passenger jets more quickly than if there was not the impetus of war.
The Germans were also advanced in the field of rocketry and we (and the Soviets) took advantage of their scientists. As you said, WWII led to the Cold War – during which a lot of missile research was done. When the Soviets flew Sputnik, they demonstrated they could drop a nuclear weapon anywhere they wanted to. The U.S. had to make a similar demonstration. This led to the Space Race. Without WWII, Man may not have walked on the Moon. Without the space program, many developments (‘spin offs’) may not have been developed.
In medicine, penicillin began to be used on a widespread basis during the war. Surgical techniques developed and practiced during the war has saved countless lives.
The war brought to light the dangers of ‘rogue leaders’. The modern concept of ‘war crimes’ was established with the Nuremberg Trials – which wouldn’t have happened but for the war.
Many scientific, medical, political, social, and other advances would have come about anyway. But WWII accelerated them.
This is probably more suited to IMHO or GD than GQ. Since I doubt that too many people would agree with the teacher that WWII and Vietnam weren’t significant, let’s start it off in IMHO.
If he spends so little time on WWII and Vietnam, that leaves a lot of time available for other topics. So what other topics does he think are important to expand?
WWII had such a huge impact it’s insane to think it deserves a passing mention. I can’t even begin to address it as it’d take days to tell why this guy is wrong.
As for Vietnam it’s impact was local on the USA. It brought a catalyst for change in the USA. I’m not saying this change wouldn’t have happened without Vietnam but it was the driving force behind the social changes. I believe without Vietnam we would’ve got their but not as quick.
But Vietnam is not nearly important to anyone except the USA, and perhaps the Vietnamese themeselves.
The '50s had beatnicks. But the hippie counterculture didn’t take off until the '60s, and much of it was because of the [del]war[/del] police action in Vietnam. Lynden Johnson worked hard on the Great Society. Liberals and Conservatives still argue about it, but IMO we’re better off with the programs he instituted than we would be without. Had it not been for the conflict in Vietnam, Johnson may well have run for a second term. If he had, then we might have already resolved issues that are so contentious today. Vietnam is important to liberals and conservatives because of Johnson. If there had been no war, would '50s attitudes have prevailed since there would have been no anti-war protesters advancing the cause of the counterculture? Or, since Johnson would have run for President again and (hypothetically) won, would the Great Society have been greater? Either way, the war brought things to a head.
If not for Vietnam, would Nixon have become President? If he had, would he have engaged in the skullduggery that damaged the nation so? I agree that the Watergate Scandal is the point where distrust of the government became widespread.
This point of view seems completely nuts to me. I’m also wondering what else he considers more important than these topics.
WWII had a direct bearing on the postwar division of Europe, Vietnam, and Korea and on the outcome of the Chinese Civil War, not to mention the formation of strategic alliances like NATO and SEATO. I can’t see how one can possibly discuss the Cold War without reference to WWII.
Vietnam has influenced strategy up to the Gulf War, Iraq, and Afghanistan - enter with overwhelming force rather than a gradual escalation. And the need for an “exit strategy” became part of the discussion in warfare due to the quagmire of Vietnam, even if it hasn’t always been followed through on.
WWII shaped the way the world works like no other war before, except maybe WWI, which was the prelude to WWII. Vietnam shows the limits of a democratic power in the media age. I’d like to see the whole curriculum before passing judgment. These subjects are usually taught more than once by the end of high school, so the damage might be minimal if another teacher hasn’t glossed over them.
I can’t see how anyone could disagree with this. I’m not even interested in what he DOES teach, just his obviously political motivation for not teaching WWII or Vietnam.
it’s not even that. it’s just the simple fact that he thinks it’s his place to pick and choose what is and isn’t “important” for his students to learn. I mean, I’m not comfortable with school boards or districts picking and choosing either, but at least it’s a little more transparent.
and really, WWII having no long term significance… WTF? It only directly influenced almost 50 years of international politics.
the latter I can see, since it’s at least the second high-profile failed US war on an “idea” (Korea being the first.)
In addition to everything else mentioned about WWII, the wide-scale employment of women outside the home (needed to keep industry running) had huge and far-reaching sociological effects.
Really, I can’t think of anything that could be called history that wasn’t significantly affected by World War II, and for many aspects of history, it was the most significant event of the century.
Is his class an overall US history class? If so, the curriculum may not have time for much after 1865. If he’s setting the curruculum, or if it’s a class in “Modern American History” then he’s clearly mistaken about WW2. Harry Turtledove has some alternate history stories on this very point. Alternate WW2 worlds are scary and depressing.
In my opinion is he’s mistaken about 'Nam also. Without 'Nam we have a second LBJ term. Even if Nixon became president without his “secret plan to end the war” (and whether it was '68 or '72), he would not have become POTUS during a time when the government - and all of “The Establishment” - was under figurative and sometimes literal attack. IRL we elected a near-clinical paranoid to a position where he was under assault - how’d that work out?
No 'Nam means no culture wars now. Four of the last five presidential campaigns included large discussions of Viet Nam war service, or lack thereof. I suspect the first reason conservatives have such a visceral reaction against Bill Clinton was his weaseling out of 'Nam.
We’re still fighting the battles of the 60s. I :rolleyes: at that, but it’s true.
In 1971, Henry Kissinger supposedly asked Chou Enlai what he thought had been the historical impact of the French Revolution in 1789. Chou said it was too soon to tell.
Maybe your teacher is following the same reasoning. He may figure that WWII and the Vietnam War hav happened to recently for us to fully understand their impact.
If he’s teaching an AP class, I can see why he skips them. There are virtually no questions on the test about either war. Lead-up and aftermath, sure. But the wars themselves? Maybe one multiple choice question, if that.
Or simply for ignoring the state’s history model standards–that is, if it’s a public school. Where is this, taffygirl? And what’s the scope and focus of his class?