Vo Nguyen Giap, cold war warrior, passed away

[Terminus]

Giap was not a thug. He basically created the North Vietnamese Army from the ground up.

And he didn't plan the Tet Offensive, by the way.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

ORIGINAL: Feltan

ORIGINAL: Terminus

War -n: the use of force to implement a political agenda.

T,

I do not disagree. However, I hope you acknowledge that there is a difference between practitioners of the military art (the aforementioned Rommel, Yamamoto, Guderian, etc.), and those that are basically thugs who use brute force to implement political change.

Regards,
Feltan

In that case, the "thug" was Ho Chi Minh. And excluding Ghandi's, was there any other independence movement not using force to implement political change?

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Feltan

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
... In Vietnam was, contrary to WWII, a war far away about something only few understood. It was not a war about the survival of western democracy, or freedom. Thats why Gian succeeded and the US failed.

LoBaron,

After the war, a large number of Vietnamese refugees came to the US. I got to know several, and one with whom I worked is among those that I call my friends.

They would take great exception to your statement that the war was not about western democracy or freedom. South Vietnam was taken over by a communist regime that was as violent and mean to the population as any stories or history that you will read about Genghis Khan and the Mongol hordes. The atrocities were really quite unbelievable, and have (as most periods of atrocities do) faded with time for most people who prefer to remain unaware.

Feltan, important was what it meant to the US public, because that had an impact on how much the US would be able to invest into the defense of ROK. This is what I am referring to.

I never denied that it was a matter of pure survival for the ROK, not that it changed a thing.

LoBaron,

In common usage, ROK usually is an abbreviation for Republic of Korea (i.e. South Korea).

That being said, I will agree that the conflict in South Vietnam was not viewed as vital to the survival of the U.S., and the American commitment level to the war did not compare to WWII. In fact, nothing has come close to the commitment level of WWII. Currently, while the US military is engaged overseas the population is not engaged. I would go further, and say most are simply unaware of what is going on. Most don't personally know anyone overseas, and it doesn't affect their daily lives in the least.

Regards,
Feltan

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Giap was not a thug. He basically created the North Vietnamese Army from the ground up.

And he didn't plan the Tet Offensive, by the way.

T,

OK. I disagree. In my opinion, he was a thug who showed disregard for his own people and soldiers, and brutal contempt for helpless civilians once under his control. His willingness to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of his own soldiers to achieve objectives in the field doesn't distinguish him nor elevate his reputation to that of the great marshals of history.

Regards,
Feltan

[desicat]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: desicat

So, the main objectives of the NVA (and Giap) was to first weaken and afterwards destroy the South Vietnamese government/ military.

Actually this was something that the Viet Kong was relatively successful at. Prior to Tet the Viet Kong had control of large swaths of South Vietnam including most of the Mekong Delta. After Tet the haggard Viet Kong survivors had great animosity for their NVA "brothers" betrayal leading to an almost total break between any cooperation between North and South. This also coincided with successful US pacification and protection operations that really put some starch in loyalty to the South Vietnamese leadership (mostly the local ARVN commanders).

Post Tet saw the South's government and military actually gaining in popularity.

Giap died in a free Vietnam. The rest is just old men wool-gathering.

Vietnam is still a Communist country, I'm not sure it can be defined as free. I will agree that he died in the united country of Vietnam.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

Free, as defined as fully independent, without any foreign/ colonial military force dictating or "influencing" how to manage their affairs

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury
In that case, the "thug" was Ho Chi Minh. And excluding Ghandi's, was there any other independence movement not using force to implement political change?

Ho and Giap were two peas in a pod. They had different roles, but Ho was not disconnected from the military, and Giap was not disconnected from politics. They had similar culpability.

Independence movements tend to be more brutal than nation-states going to war, and I would think that the use of force is generally implied. However, the scale of that brutality and force differs, and when one considers if someone is "great" the manner in which force is used I think warrants close scrutiny.

Regards,
Feltan

[desicat]

Personally I think he was a good enough general. He became great because he commanded an army willing to take unbelievable losses and accept an extreme ammount of atrocities for a higher cause, and a population that either supported such sacrifices or did not know about them, and faught against an opponent who was not equally dedicated. Similar tactics had already failed when employed by the Japanese against the Allies after the US war machine had switched into full gear.

In Vietnam was, contrary to WWII, a war far away about something only few understood. It was not a war about the survival of western democracy, or freedom. Thats why Gian succeeded and the US failed.

This is revisionist history. To say that the US was not dedicated to victory during the war years is ludicrous on its face. How in the world did 500,000 troops get into Vietnam in the first place? What in the world was the vast majority of the Pacific Navy doing off Yankee station? How much blood and treasure was expended in these efforts?

To claim that the vast majority of the population supported the NVA or was ambivalent is also totally untrue. The NVA population control tactics can easily be compared to those used by the Taliban or Al Queda in Syria. In many cases it was pure intimidation backed up by rape, torture, and murder.

Ho and Giap failed in their efforts to win the war through force of arms or by "swaying" the Vietnamese people to their side. The US military partnering with the ARVN won the military conflict - period. South Vietnam was lost when the political leaders in Congress failed to live up to their treaty obligations in 1975. US air power would have blunted the NVA invasion in 1975.

Well, the OP´s link suggests Gian opposed the Tet Offensive:

I never said Giap planned the Tet Offensive, I related that post Tet disaster is when he began to talk about "breaking the will of the American people" as his strategic goal. This is the mark of a good politician - not a military genius. As I did state Nixon dispelled that strategy with Rolling Thunder.

[desicat]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

He deserves the respect of his enemies, just as many laud the efforts of Rommel, Yamamoto or Guderian.

None of the three men you list above used military might to personally direct the brutal slaughter of helpless civilians. One can't say the same for Giap.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

Both had a ruthless determination, the kind you develop when you define a political objective as your one and only goal in live. Victory at all costs.

They were quite successful in building a disciplined and organized "liberation army". They were also successful in stirring Vietnamese nationalism (and xenophobia) against the US and the perceived "puppet" South regime. That is their "greatness", even their foes would recognize their superior organization, motivation, moral and resilience. This is sharp contract with the South's

Talking about the South, I think that at the end, it's defeat was unavoidable, directly related to it's demons: political weakness, instability, endemic corruption, inefficient administration and military organizations.

Had the South be less incompetent, and more self reliant, then maybe the population would had been less willing to follow the communists or accept willingly their brutality

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: desicat

ORIGINAL: JeffK

He deserves the respect of his enemies, just as many laud the efforts of Rommel, Yamamoto or Guderian.

None of the three men you list above used military might to personally direct the brutal slaughter of helpless civilians. One can't say the same for Giap.

Hmmmm, there might be quite a few civilians that might disagree with u on that. All of the 3 fought for regimens that have lots of civilian casulties to their name. Not only that at leased in the case of both Rommel and Guderain units under their command participated in attrocities. Both against civilian as well as enemy combatants.

As for being culprite in that that,i guess the Nuremberg trials said what it thot of that. Agree or disagree in that.

The wehrmacht wasnt with out its fair share of participating in attrocities and in the case of Rommel he had SS units under his command so he is responsible per Nuremberg trials for their actions too, while under his command.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[desicat]

then maybe the population would had been less willing to follow the communists or accept willingly their brutality

I'm not sure this is the point you were trying to make. It does make a good argument for the thoughtfulness of the US founding fathers and the importance of the 2nd Amendment.

[desicat]

ORIGINAL: Walloc

ORIGINAL: desicat

ORIGINAL: JeffK

He deserves the respect of his enemies, just as many laud the efforts of Rommel, Yamamoto or Guderian.

None of the three men you list above used military might to personally direct the brutal slaughter of helpless civilians. One can't say the same for Giap.

Hmmmm, there might be quite a few civilians that might disagree with u on that. All of the 3 fought for regimens that have lots of civilian casulties to their name. Not only that at leased in the case of both Rommel and Guderain units under their command participated in attrocities. Both against civilian as well as enemy combatants.

As for being culprite in that that,i guess the Nuremberg trials said what it thot of that. Agree or disagree in that.

The wehrmacht wasnt with out its fair share of participating in attrocities and in the case of Rommel he had SS units under his command so he is responsible per Nuremberg trials for their actions too, while under his command.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

I don't normally make a point of trying to defend the foes of freedom as these are the kind of troubled waters one wades into. I suppose it is a matter of degree, as Felton mentioned Giap seems to fit into the Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao in the mass murderer category, while the others fall somewhere lower on the scale in both degree and culpability.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

ORIGINAL: desicat

then maybe the population would had been less willing to follow the communists or accept willingly their brutality

I'm not sure this is the point you were trying to make. It does make a good argument for the thoughtfulness of the US founding fathers and the importance of the 2nd Amendment.

Pointed that the communist had strong popular support in the South, otherwise, they would had failed.
I am not saying that the vast majority of the population supported them; obviously, there were also millions of people opposing a communist takeover, specially in the cities.

[desicat]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

ORIGINAL: desicat

then maybe the population would had been less willing to follow the communists or accept willingly their brutality

I'm not sure this is the point you were trying to make. It does make a good argument for the thoughtfulness of the US founding fathers and the importance of the 2nd Amendment.

Pointed that the communist had strong popular support in the South, otherwise, they would had failed.
I am not saying that the vast majority of the population supported them; obviously, there were also millions of people opposing a communist takeover, specially in the cities.

The Viet Kong initially had support in the South but after the Tet Offensive they were a broken and spent force. The utterly rejected further support for the NVA as their betrayal at Tet was unforgivable. The vast majority of the rural population on both sides just wanted to be left alone, as you mentioned the NVA got most of its "support" through brutality.

The South's defeat in 1975 was driven by forces from the outside, it was nothing resembling an internal uprising.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: desicat

ORIGINAL: Walloc

ORIGINAL: desicat




None of the three men you list above used military might to personally direct the brutal slaughter of helpless civilians. One can't say the same for Giap.

Hmmmm, there might be quite a few civilians that might disagree with u on that. All of the 3 fought for regimens that have lots of civilian casulties to their name. Not only that at leased in the case of both Rommel and Guderain units under their command participated in attrocities. Both against civilian as well as enemy combatants.

As for being culprite in that that,i guess the Nuremberg trials said what it thot of that. Agree or disagree in that.

The wehrmacht wasnt with out its fair share of participating in attrocities and in the case of Rommel he had SS units under his command so he is responsible per Nuremberg trials for their actions too, while under his command.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

I don't normally make a point of trying to defend the foes of freedom as these are the kind of troubled waters one wades into. I suppose it is a matter of degree, as Felton mentioned Giap seems to fit into the Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao in the mass murderer category, while the others fall somewhere lower on the scale in both degree and culpability.

It was u and not me that wrote: None of the three men you list above used military might to personally direct the brutal slaughter of helpless civilians. One can't say the same for Giap.

Giap might been higher up the foodchain and the culpatry might there for might be less or more but non teh less im pretty certain he didnt run around doing the warcrimes on his own so his responsibility comes from being in command of units commiting such.
That is no different than in the case of Rommel and Guderain. They had resposibility of what units under their command did. I know there is a certain heroismn factor when it comes to the germans stemming from an awe of the military prowness of the german forces. That IMO shouldnt in any detract from the responsibility of warcrimes that units under their command participated in.

As for Yamamoto im not knowledgeble enough on the japanease command structure to say for certain but while he was and he spend alot of time on Truk. Civilians was abused and mistreated and killed, tho to some japanease these were "volentiers" and as Yamamoto presumable was the highest ranking officier on Truk during atleased some of these times he cant said to be unresponsible for per Nuremberg Trial be unaware of these things happening right under his nose.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Feltan

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Feltan




LoBaron,

After the war, a large number of Vietnamese refugees came to the US. I got to know several, and one with whom I worked is among those that I call my friends.

They would take great exception to your statement that the war was not about western democracy or freedom. South Vietnam was taken over by a communist regime that was as violent and mean to the population as any stories or history that you will read about Genghis Khan and the Mongol hordes. The atrocities were really quite unbelievable, and have (as most periods of atrocities do) faded with time for most people who prefer to remain unaware.

Feltan, important was what it meant to the US public, because that had an impact on how much the US would be able to invest into the defense of ROK. This is what I am referring to.

I never denied that it was a matter of pure survival for the ROK, not that it changed a thing.

LoBaron,

In common usage, ROK usually is an abbreviation for Republic of Korea (i.e. South Korea).

That being said, I will agree that the conflict in South Vietnam was not viewed as vital to the survival of the U.S., and the American commitment level to the war did not compare to WWII. In fact, nothing has come close to the commitment level of WWII. Currently, while the US military is engaged overseas the population is not engaged. I would go further, and say most are simply unaware of what is going on. Most don't personally know anyone overseas, and it doesn't affect their daily lives in the least.

Regards,
Feltan

Oooops got two mixed up there. Obviously I was referring to South Vietnam, not South Korea. Thanks Feltan!

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Feltan

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury
In that case, the "thug" was Ho Chi Minh. And excluding Ghandi's, was there any other independence movement not using force to implement political change?

Ho and Giap were two peas in a pod. They had different roles, but Ho was not disconnected from the military, and Giap was not disconnected from politics. They had similar culpability.

Independence movements tend to be more brutal than nation-states going to war, and I would think that the use of force is generally implied. However, the scale of that brutality and force differs, and when one considers if someone is "great" the manner in which force is used I think warrants close scrutiny.

Regards,
Feltan

For the record the majority of people who died in Vietnam, North and South died at the hand of American and South Vietnamese forces. This would include a substantial number of non-combatants estimated at one third to a half of all deaths in North Vietnam and a smaller percentage in South Vietnam where most of the actual fighting took place. This reflects the greater firepower of the Americans more than anything else. As for atrocities there can be no doubt about the North's atrocities as there is also little doubt about the whole scale demoncide killings by the government of the South during the war. You have to remember that the was was a Civil War more than anything else and that type of war can be the most brutal with the most radical elements eventually taking power resulting in the total loss of moderation. (Thucydides 101). I find it short sighted to make statements incriminating one side when the other side was just a culpable. And yes, to a lesser degree US forces were at times also guilty of crimes against humanity during this conflict. I don't think there can be much argument against the evidence that we now have for this. Atrocities are simply a product of war. Likewise I have always found it a bit odd to talk of one method of death in warfare as brutal as if all the other horrible ways of killing are more sanitary or humane. Let's be real here. If the dead could voice an opinion, do you think that many of them would really care how they died in a conflict?

I am not really going to try and defend right or wrong in a conflict such as Vietnam. However, it bugs me how so many people want to come up with simplistic explanation and theories about a conflict that was incredibly complex and had roots that went back to well before the turn of the century. To attempt to explain this conflict that predates rise of Communism as solely a Cold War event is short sited in my opinion. Quite frankly the social and civil upheaval that the Vietnamese were undergoing had very little to do with the coinciding conflict between the US, China and the Soviet Union. And, I doubt you will find many Vietnamese today that won't agree with that. Let me just say that I am not trying to be critical of my fellow posters here. I have spent a good deal of my life studying this "signature event" in my life and will be the first to admit that there are still gaps in my knowledge and that I have gotten a lot wrong over the years.

But it bugs me when the debate just runs over the same old myths and half truths about the war that get stirred up whenever a discussion like this starts.

On a constructive side. For those who have an interest in this subject and want to know more. I suggest you start by watching the excellent documentary on Robert McNamara called "Fog of War." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkQk50qtTwo A brilliant man and a key player in the war. I also recommend Neil Sheehan's "A Bright Shining Lie"-a history of the war that reads like a novel and sees the war through the eyes of one of it's true heroes, John Paul Vann. There are countless other excellent sources on the war and I urge others to make some recommendations here

On a personal note to Desicat. Perhaps I am off base but I took your original remarks not to be a benign comment on proper protocol but a critical remark aimed at the current administration, and still read it that way. I got no problem with your opinion on this, I have to listen to my wife on this subject every day. However, I do fully believe that statements like this tend to be inflammatory and have no place in this forum. I hope that you see what I am saying. Let's debate about Giap and the Vietnam War but not about president Obama here.

[desicat]

On a personal note to Desicat. Perhaps I am off base but I took your original remarks not to be a benign comment on proper protocol but a critical remark aimed at the current administration, and still read it that way. I got no problem with your opinion on this, I have to listen to my wife on this subject every day. However, I do fully believe that statements like this tend to be inflammatory and have no place in this forum. I hope that you see what I am saying. Let's debate about Giap and the Vietnam War but not about president Obama here.

I fully expect that the US will have someone attend this funeral as it is in the national interest to continue working with Vietnam and the rest of the Indo-Chinese nations to counter balance Chinese expansion into the South China Sea and the Spratley Islands. I intended no ill will to the President with my comment, but I did find it ironic that Sec State Kerry could end up attending.

[crsutton]

From Robert McNamara's 1995 book "In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam".[8]

1.We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.
2.We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.
3.We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.
4.Our misjudgments of friend and foe, alike, reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.
5.We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces, and doctrine. We failed, as well, to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.
6.We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.
7.After the action got under way, and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening, and why we were doing what we did.
8.We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.
9.We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.
10.We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.
11.Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues.