You have a way of evaluating Giap which sounds very much like : "He was one of the baddies (communists) and he used methods of baddies (total disregard for his people's life and general brutality), therefore one cannot say he is a great general or great soldier or great what not: he is a baddy and therefore cannot apply".
I spent some time today trying to see things from your point of view and tried to find comparable examples in history to where Generals could be considered to be acting in a way similar to Giap.
“The made a desert and called it peace.” - Tacitus
First off you mention that famous Generals from early history brutally treated their conquered foes. It is a fact that cities that resisted either the Athenians, Spartans, Thebans, etc… could expect to have their males killed and those of the population that survived sold into slavery. This carried on into the Roman era and that was the expectation and risks populations took when they chose sides and decided to resist – on both sides. There are numerous documented examples of Generals, who are obviously famous, dealing quite harshly with their foes. Hannibal, Caesar, Scipo, etc… weren’t Saints, but they fought by the same rules and they lead from the field, not a HQ - and at some point the killing stopped. The NVA Communists were willing to let the killing go on endlessly, the US and non-communist peasants in North and South Vietnam were not.
Did Giap fight using a “Fabian” strategy? I don’t think so. Fabius paced Hannibal throughout southern Italy, refusing battle unless he felt the situation was in his favor. Even though Fabius had the manpower advantage he did not sacrifice his troops just to bleed the Carthaginians, he valued the lives of his Legionnaires and committed them to battle wisely.
‘The nation must be taught to bear losses. No amount of skill on the part of the higher commanders, no training, however good, on the part of the officers and men, no superiority of arms and ammunition, however great, will enable victories to be won without the sacrifice of men’s lives. The nation must be prepared to see heavy casualty lists.’ (Written by Haig in June 1916 before the Battle of the Somme began).
Very, very few Generals from WWI are considered “great”, the quote above helps to explain why. In some fashion Giap could fall into the WWI category of Generalship, yet even they grew tired of the killing.
“I am a messenger who will bring back word from the men who are fighting (WWI) to those who want the war to go on forever. Feeble, inarticulate will be my message, but it will have a bitter truth and may it burn their lousy souls.” ― Paul Nash
I don’t think Giap would have heard this message.
“Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.
Such being the case, how are we to save the millions of our subjects, nor to atone ourselves before the hallowed spirits of our imperial ancestors? This is the reason why we have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the joint declaration of the powers.” – Emperor Hirihito
Maybe Giap drew his inspiration from Tojo and the Japanese? Even when defeat was certain Tojo refused to surrender. It took two nuclear weapons falling on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Tojo still wasn’t convinced. He may have thought that the Allies couldn’t stomach the losses that they would incur during “Operation Downfall” (the invasion of the Japanese mainland), but I don’t think that was deciding part of his calculus. From what I have read Tojo’s thinking was mainly influenced by the Japanese mindset and culture of the time, that had more to do with duty, honor, “saving face” – this outweighed trying to achieve a cease fire through oceans of blood. Fortunately the Emperor saw otherwise and the killing stopped.
At this time Japan was on the defensive, in 1945 they were not launching assaults in Indo-China, Burma, or China in attempts to just increase Allied casualties. Tojo wanted to preserve an independent Japan and its current way of life (such as it was), they were no longer incurring casualties to act in an expansionist manner and it is here where they (Japan) again depart from Giap. The NVA had lost the US part of the Vietnam War after “Rolling Thunder”, the US basically left after the peace treaty was signed in 1972. The losses the NVA forces had taken under Giap’s direction were in a losing effort. Unlike Japan he could have stopped the fighting at any time, the NVA just needed to stop trying to “free” South Vietnam.
Maybe Giap falls into the category of the leading Soviet Generals of WWII? This group also suffered huge numbers of casualties against the Axis, yet to compare Giap to Marshal Zhukov would be inappropriate. Zhukov’s troops did take enormous losses, but they also achieved indisputable results. Zhukov had territorial and battlefield victories to weigh against his losses, Giap did not. North Vietnam (heavily support and armed by the Soviets) only took over the South in 1975 when the US Congress refused to honor its treaty obligations and failed to come to the aid of the ARVN. I see this more as a Soviet victory than something Giap orchestrated, the ARVN couldn’t match the Soviet supplied NVA tanks without the promised (and never to arrive) US air support.
Earlier in the thread someone stated that Giap was a “good enough” General and better politician. I would agree that he was a General who was a good politician, but I think he was more of a dedicated Communist who happened to be a General. As a dedicated Communist he could casually accept the fact that the “end justified the means”. Casualties did not matter, opinions other than those of the Communist leadership did not matter, the only thing that mattered was the accumulation of power. History has shown that Communists have one thing in common, the individual is never given a choice and the killing never stops. Stalin, Mao, Ho, Kin Jung XXX, Che, Castro, Tito, you pick the Communist leader, in peace or in war – the killing never stops.
Does Giap’s casual disregard for human life in the pursuit of power make him a good General? Not in my opinion. As I stated earlier I consider him a much better dedicated Communist than he was ever a good General.
