Vo Nguyen Giap, cold war warrior, passed away

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: veji1

ORIGINAL: Feltan


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

The problem with such a comment is that it implies "rules" that would make victory for the north vietnamese impossible : "you are allowed to win only with minimal losses, even facing overwhelming technological superiority"... Yeah right with such rules you don't win...

Giap had to resort to some sort of assymetrical warfare, at the time it was accepting massive losses in the hope of eventually forcing the ennemy to retreat, be it through direct military defeat (ie Dien Bien Phu style), which was unlikely, or throught political factors.

Where the Vietnam war taking place today, the north vietnamese might have resorted to terrorism against US civilians and interests, etc...

The point is you cannot evaluate Giap's results with such standards, it just simply doesn't make sense.

veji1,

That is a valid point if you subscribe to the notion that the ends justify the means of achieving them. I do not. There are norms and behaviors that are expected, and they transcend temporary tactical situations.

Your own post alludes to the fact that Giap departed from these expected norms of behavior. In doing so, in my opinion, his reputation and memory resides in the debris field and pond scum left in the wake of human advancement. Furthermore, I suspect in a generation or two the Vietnamese people will quietly push the memory of Giap to the back of the bus; a bit embarrassed by his brutality and excesses. You don't have to look far for similar examples -- once "great" people who are rapidly disowned once the implications of their behavior is evaluated outside of the current period's passion.

Regards,
Feltan

[AW1Steve]

Here was the obituary in "The Duffle Blog"...... http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/10/vietnam-war-winning/   [:D].

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Here was the obituary in "The Duffle Blog"...... http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/10/vietnam-war-winning/   [:D].

I wonder when this will be sufficiently retweeted to remerge as outrageous news headlines in Xinhua.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: desicat

TBH I find the content of the above quote both ignorant and frightening. It is exactly what The Moose described as viewing the world through a Western state lens.

If you follow the link you will note that this was taken directly from the National Security Strategy of the United States (2006 version), a document that is required by law. It is viewed directly from the the "lens" of the President of the United States (at the time) and should be read in that context.

I posted this to answer the question as to whether the Domino Theory was still being considered in strategic circles. The answer, as supported by the NSS 2006, is yes. Since the Domino Theory is a "theory" there is no way to prove it as truth.

In case there is a misunderstanding, my comment was not directed against you or against any US sitizen.
I understand that you posted it to underline your point that the DT is still alive - as I understand it as a variant from the one originating in the cold war.

What I did was experess my surprize and a bit of shock, that even considering this was the Bush administration, an official document produced nd published in the USA, the one remaining superpower, with an experience in global foreign politics probably unmatched by any other country, and with an intelligence department relying on a budged surpassing the Austrian state budget by several orders of magnitude, simplifies and twists explanations for complex situations to a point that even for an amateur the errors are obvious. Conclusions that can be drawn from this document are so wrong that any action taken with that document as a basis would lead to chaos in the "liberated" region. For the record I am not talking about knowledge frehsly emerging after what is so often called arab spring, but about knowledge readily available at the time this document was produced.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Here was the obituary in "The Duffle Blog"...... http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/10/vietnam-war-winning/   [:D].

"Actress and sometime-girlfriend Jane Fonda has already confirmed she will be singing “Strawberry Fields Forever,” Giap’s favorite song, at his funeral"

[:D][:D]

[veji1]

ORIGINAL: Feltan

veji1,

That is a valid point if you subscribe to the notion that the ends justify the means of achieving them. I do not. There are norms and behaviors that are expected, and they transcend temporary tactical situations.

Your own post alludes to the fact that Giap departed from these expected norms of behavior. In doing so, in my opinion, his reputation and memory resides in the debris field and pond scum left in the wake of human advancement. Furthermore, I suspect in a generation or two the Vietnamese people will quietly push the memory of Giap to the back of the bus; a bit embarrassed by his brutality and excesses. You don't have to look far for similar examples -- once "great" people who are rapidly disowned once the implications of their behavior is evaluated outside of the current period's passion.

Regards,
Feltan

Fair enough, from a moral standpoint your view is valid, but my point was that from a political and military point of view, such a view is but a set of blinkers. It makes you unable to fully grasp what are the means at your disposal to achieve victory.

With such a view, once the US was fully committed, the only rational (or be it "moral") choice for North Vietnam would have been to accept defeat and give up on unifying vietnam under their terms. Interestingly enough your view is very similar to that of the US leaders until 69/70, summarised by McNamara as "inability to put ourselves in their shoes". This is a view that leads to defeat.

And lastly, your point about "great" people is again morally valid, but politically beside the point : most of the great political and military leaders were at some point butchers until the 19th century at least, plunder rape and death were part of the game, their barbarity but the reflection of their time. In our western view of warfare of the middle 20th century epitomized by the bombing campaigns on Germany, Japan or North Vietnam, plunder and rape are barbarities, but mass bombing of civilians is fair game... Where is the line ? morality is a historical concept which evolves with time and distance.

Again i don't mean to say your views are not valid, in absolute, but that to evaluate the figure of Giap and the context of the 35 years long vietnamese war of liberation, they dramatically corner your analysis and evaluation.

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: veji1

ORIGINAL: Feltan

veji1,

That is a valid point if you subscribe to the notion that the ends justify the means of achieving them. I do not. There are norms and behaviors that are expected, and they transcend temporary tactical situations.

Your own post alludes to the fact that Giap departed from these expected norms of behavior. In doing so, in my opinion, his reputation and memory resides in the debris field and pond scum left in the wake of human advancement. Furthermore, I suspect in a generation or two the Vietnamese people will quietly push the memory of Giap to the back of the bus; a bit embarrassed by his brutality and excesses. You don't have to look far for similar examples -- once "great" people who are rapidly disowned once the implications of their behavior is evaluated outside of the current period's passion.

Regards,
Feltan

Fair enough, from a moral standpoint your view is valid, but my point was that from a political and military point of view, such a view is but a set of blinkers. It makes you unable to fully grasp what are the means at your disposal to achieve victory.

With such a view, once the US was fully committed, the only rational (or be it "moral") choice for North Vietnam would have been to accept defeat and give up on unifying vietnam under their terms. Interestingly enough your view is very similar to that of the US leaders until 69/70, summarised by McNamara as "inability to put ourselves in their shoes". This is a view that leads to defeat.

And lastly, your point about "great" people is again morally valid, but politically beside the point : most of the great political and military leaders were at some point butchers until the 19th century at least, plunder rape and death were part of the game, their barbarity but the reflection of their time. In our western view of warfare of the middle 20th century epitomized by the bombing campaigns on Germany, Japan or North Vietnam, plunder and rape are barbarities, but mass bombing of civilians is fair game... Where is the line ? morality is a historical concept which evolves with time and distance.

Again i don't mean to say your views are not valid, in absolute, but that to evaluate the figure of Giap and the context of the 35 years long vietnamese war of liberation, they dramatically corner your analysis and evaluation.

veji1,

While in this case I believe the moral outrage of his actions is of paramount concern, for sake of discussion I will stipulate to your points. Even so, I question his greatness even in a pure military/political realm.

First, to be clear, this was a war of naked aggression. South Vietnam did not want to be liberated by North Vietnam anymore than Kuwait wanted to be liberated by Iraq, or South Korea wants to be liberated by North Korea, or Western Europe wanted to be liberated by the Warsaw Pact. Any analysis has to take into account that there was no patriotic defense of the homeland -- this was a power grab. Untold tens of thousands of South Vietnamese were executed because they didn't fully appreciate the honor that had been bestowed upon them after they capitulated. I simply reject the notion that exercising raw power is laudable, even if one does it efficiently.

What did Ho/Giap's war of national liberation provide? What will learned scholars have to say about it in 100 years? Conventional wisdom says the North Vietnamese won the political war -- they achieved their objectives. I wonder.

Giap's great grandchildren are going to be driving import model Fords, eating at McDonalds, playing on an X-Box and listening to iTunes. Their ports are open and free capitalistic trading flourishes. When I was in Ho Chi Minh City several years ago, people were lining up to see Hollywood movies. Cell phones were in great demand, and a pack of Marlboros was still a greatly sought after and welcome gift.

His great political "victory" is only valid if you evaluate the "victory conditions" in 1975. What happens if you evaluate the political outcome in, say, 2025 instead?

I believe the final analysis will point to the fact that the war didn't make any difference. The great loss of life was in vain. There was no victory. If the war had never happened, a very similar outcome was likely.

Regards,
Feltan

[desicat]

In case there is a misunderstanding, my comment was not directed against you or against any US sitizen.
I understand that you posted it to underline your point that the DT is still alive - as I understand it as a variant from the one originating in the cold war.

LoBaron, I appreciate the clarification and respect your opinion.

[desicat]

Felton, I don't think how this is stated reflects your exact opinion but I will comment on the point.

I believe the final analysis will point to the fact that the war didn't make any difference. The great loss of life was in vain. There was no victory. If the war had never happened, a very similar outcome was likely.

Except for all those poor Vietnamese who had to suffer under the crushing inhumanity of Communism from 1975 - 2005, when the Vietnamese finally began to relax their policies to adapt to the economic realities they were suffering under.

In the ebb and flow of history it may not have made any difference, but to those who lived in that times "then and now" it really made all the difference in how they lived their every day lives. Same can be said of the East Germans who died trying to cross the Berlin Wall, the White Russians, the Chinese Nationalist, generations of Poles, etc...

Better to Die than not Live Free

Camille Desmoulins (1760–94)

[bigred]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Here was the obituary in "The Duffle Blog"...... http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/10/vietnam-war-winning/   [:D].

"Actress and sometime-girlfriend Jane Fonda has already confirmed she will be singing “Strawberry Fields Forever,” Giap’s favorite song, at his funeral"

[:D][:D]

In Washington, flags were ordered to fly at half-mast for the soldier Henry Kissinger once credited as “the man who single-handedly got the U.S. out of the Vietnam War.”

Several leading Congressional representatives, led by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), held a moment of silence on Capitol Hill for the fallen soldier. Giap was technically a constituent of hers, having been made an honorary citizen of San Francisco in 1968. Pelosi has already sponsored a resolution to have Giap’s name added to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has sponsored his own resolution, unofficially backed by Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, thanking Giap for the “years of hospitality” and offering to repay the favor by having Giap’s body flown by helicopter from the rooftop of the American embassy in Vietnam and dumped in the South China Sea.

Read more: http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/10/vietn ... z2hHkTq4EY

I can't resist...

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: desicat

Felton, I don't think how this is stated reflects your exact opinion but I will comment on the point.

I believe the final analysis will point to the fact that the war didn't make any difference. The great loss of life was in vain. There was no victory. If the war had never happened, a very similar outcome was likely.

Except for all those poor Vietnamese who had to suffer under the crushing inhumanity of Communism from 1975 - 2005, when the Vietnamese finally began to relax their policies to adapt to the economic realities they were suffering under.

In the ebb and flow of history it may not have made any difference, but to those who lived in that times "then and now" it really made all the difference in how they lived their every day lives. Same can be said of the East Germans who died trying to cross the Berlin Wall, the White Russians, the Chinese Nationalist, generations of Poles, etc...

Better to Die than not Live Free

Camille Desmoulins (1760–94)

desicat,

I stated that the great loss of life was in vain, and that was pretty much what you stated above. I think we are in agreement.

Regards,
Feltan

[veji1]

Desicat and Feltan, again this is where you fail to grasp that it wasn't a war between evil communism and freedom : The Vietnam war was only the last episode of a 35 years long war of independance against the colonial overlord, and then of national unification against the puppet state and its mighty sponsor that had been left in its wake in the south. Communism was only superimposed on this war of independance.

And how ironic that you would quote Desmoulins, a french revulotionary : doesn't this quote apply perfectly to the independance movement of former colonies ? Whether in algeria, Kenya, Egypt or most of the former western colonies, independance led to corrupt dictatorial regimes, to what extent is that worse than communism ?

Again your moral and cultural vantage point seems to make you unable to "see" the historical perspective imho

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: veji1

Desicat and Feltan, again this is where you fail to grasp that it wasn't a war between evil communism and freedom : The Vietnam war was only the last episode of a 35 years long war of independance against the colonial overlord, and then of national unification against the puppet state and its mighty sponsor that had been left in its wake in the south. Communism was only superimposed on this war of independance.

And how ironic that you would quote Desmoulins, a french revulotionary : doesn't this quote apply perfectly to the independance movement of former colonies ? Whether in algeria, Kenya, Egypt or most of the former western colonies, independance led to corrupt dictatorial regimes, to what extent is that worse than communism ?

Again your moral and cultural vantage point seems to make you unable to "see" the historical perspective imho

vji1,

Well, I think I have a grasp of the historical perspective quite clearly. It just isn't the one Giap would like me to have.

Regards,
Feltan

[Amoral]

ORIGINAL: desicat

Felton, I don't think how this is stated reflects your exact opinion but I will comment on the point.

I believe the final analysis will point to the fact that the war didn't make any difference. The great loss of life was in vain. There was no victory. If the war had never happened, a very similar outcome was likely.

Except for all those poor Vietnamese who had to suffer under the crushing inhumanity of Communism from 1975 - 2005, when the Vietnamese finally began to relax their policies to adapt to the economic realities they were suffering under.

In the ebb and flow of history it may not have made any difference, but to those who lived in that times "then and now" it really made all the difference in how they lived their every day lives. Same can be said of the East Germans who died trying to cross the Berlin Wall, the White Russians, the Chinese Nationalist, generations of Poles, etc...

Better to Die than not Live Free

Camille Desmoulins (1760–94)

"Crushing inhumanity of communism" is a pretty outdated point of view. It pre-supposes that free market capitalism does not suffer from crushing inhumanity. Compare two countries that emerged from a period of turmoil. One with Soviet, communist sponsors, and one with American, capitalistic sponsiors. Generally the quality of life is not tied to which side the country fell to in the cold war. For example, the living conditions in North Vietnam in 1975 were not worse than those of Nicaragua in 1990.

Specifically what I am saying is that it was going to suck to live in Vietnam for a lot of years after that war, regardless of who won.

[desicat]

Specifically what I am saying is that it was going to suck to live in Vietnam for a lot of years after that war, regardless of who won.

If you were allowed to live. The difference between Communism and Capitalism is not purely economic, there are political differences as well. During non-war periods Stalin killed millions, Mao killed millions, and the Vietnamese Communists killed a considerable amount of folks as well - just for disagreeing or not agreeing hard enough with the Communist positions.

The Vietnam war was only the last episode of a 35 years long war of independance against the colonial overlord, and then of national unification against the puppet state and its mighty sponsor that had been left in its wake in the south. Communism was only superimposed on this war of independance.

It may have started that way in Vietnam, but revolutions have a way of getting away from those who start them and quite often the most ruthless end up in charge. Robespierre and the French Revolution, the poor White Russians who led the (February) Russian Revolution prior to the October Revolution were crushed by the Bolsheviks, the Communists in China, the Muslim Brotherhood in Algeria and Egypt, and the Communists in Vietnam.

s a war of naked aggression. South Vietnam did not want to be liberated by North Vietnam anymore than Kuwait wanted to be liberated by Iraq, or South Korea wants to be liberated by North Korea, or Western Europe wanted to be liberated by the Warsaw Pact. Any analysis has to take into account that there was no patriotic defense of the homeland -- this was a power grab. Untold tens of thousands of South Vietnamese were executed because they didn't fully appreciate the honor that had been bestowed upon them after they capitulated. I simply reject the notion that exercising raw power is laudable, even if one does it efficiently.

I think this paragraph says it all. There are very few in this world who would wish to be "liberated" by their Communist brethren.

If Only Stalin Knew!

Question: What were the most common four words uttered by political prisoners in the Soviet gulag?

The millions of prisoners in the Gulag firmly believed that Stalin had no idea they had been imprisoned, and had no idea that they were dying by the hundreds in the labor camps. Read any of the books on the subject and one hope is consistent among these prisoners: a mass amnesty of all prisoners was just days away. Just as soon as someone told Stalin.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: desicat

Specifically what I am saying is that it was going to suck to live in Vietnam for a lot of years after that war, regardless of who won.

If you were allowed to live. The difference between Communism and Capitalism is not purely economic, there are political differences as well. During non-war periods Stalin killed millions, Mao killed millions, and the Vietnamese Communists killed a considerable amount of folks as well - just for disagreeing or not agreeing hard enough with the Communist positions.

The Vietnam war was only the last episode of a 35 years long war of independance against the colonial overlord, and then of national unification against the puppet state and its mighty sponsor that had been left in its wake in the south. Communism was only superimposed on this war of independance.

It may have started that way in Vietnam, but revolutions have a way of getting away from those who start them and quite often the most ruthless end up in charge. Robespierre and the French Revolution, the poor White Russians who led the (February) Russian Revolution prior to the October Revolution were crushed by the Bolsheviks, the Communists in China, the Muslim Brotherhood in Algeria and Egypt, and the Communists in Vietnam.

s a war of naked aggression. South Vietnam did not want to be liberated by North Vietnam anymore than Kuwait wanted to be liberated by Iraq, or South Korea wants to be liberated by North Korea, or Western Europe wanted to be liberated by the Warsaw Pact. Any analysis has to take into account that there was no patriotic defense of the homeland -- this was a power grab. Untold tens of thousands of South Vietnamese were executed because they didn't fully appreciate the honor that had been bestowed upon them after they capitulated. I simply reject the notion that exercising raw power is laudable, even if one does it efficiently.

I think this paragraph says it all. There are very few in this world who would wish to be "liberated" by their Communist brethren.

If Only Stalin Knew!

Question: What were the most common four words uttered by political prisoners in the Soviet gulag?

The millions of prisoners in the Gulag firmly believed that Stalin had no idea they had been imprisoned, and had no idea that they were dying by the hundreds in the labor camps. Read any of the books on the subject and one hope is consistent among these prisoners: a mass amnesty of all prisoners was just days away. Just as soon as someone told Stalin.

+1

[witpqs]

Truth often becomes outdated and out of fashion, but it never yields.

[czert2]

let me put here one interesing question :
 
giap never won any battle (except dien bien phu) , but he wow war. hannibal won every battle (except his last) but he lost war. So tell me, who is great(er) military ruler (or who not) ?  

[veji1]

ORIGINAL: desicat

Specifically what I am saying is that it was going to suck to live in Vietnam for a lot of years after that war, regardless of who won.

If you were allowed to live. The difference between Communism and Capitalism is not purely economic, there are political differences as well. During non-war periods Stalin killed millions, Mao killed millions, and the Vietnamese Communists killed a considerable amount of folks as well - just for disagreeing or not agreeing hard enough with the Communist positions.

The Vietnam war was only the last episode of a 35 years long war of independance against the colonial overlord, and then of national unification against the puppet state and its mighty sponsor that had been left in its wake in the south. Communism was only superimposed on this war of independance.

It may have started that way in Vietnam, but revolutions have a way of getting away from those who start them and quite often the most ruthless end up in charge. Robespierre and the French Revolution, the poor White Russians who led the (February) Russian Revolution prior to the October Revolution were crushed by the Bolsheviks, the Communists in China, the Muslim Brotherhood in Algeria and Egypt, and the Communists in Vietnam.

s a war of naked aggression. South Vietnam did not want to be liberated by North Vietnam anymore than Kuwait wanted to be liberated by Iraq, or South Korea wants to be liberated by North Korea, or Western Europe wanted to be liberated by the Warsaw Pact. Any analysis has to take into account that there was no patriotic defense of the homeland -- this was a power grab. Untold tens of thousands of South Vietnamese were executed because they didn't fully appreciate the honor that had been bestowed upon them after they capitulated. I simply reject the notion that exercising raw power is laudable, even if one does it efficiently.

I think this paragraph says it all. There are very few in this world who would wish to be "liberated" by their Communist brethren.

If Only Stalin Knew!

Question: What were the most common four words uttered by political prisoners in the Soviet gulag?

The millions of prisoners in the Gulag firmly believed that Stalin had no idea they had been imprisoned, and had no idea that they were dying by the hundreds in the labor camps. Read any of the books on the subject and one hope is consistent among these prisoners: a mass amnesty of all prisoners was just days away. Just as soon as someone told Stalin.

This is going nowhere... Do you honestly think anyone here is praising communism ? I'll just rephrase my point one last time and then you can answer and we shall agree to disagree.

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".

Look it doesn't work that way. Giap is no badder than Ben Bela, Sadate, Moubarak, Shariff, and hundreds of other political/military leaders in the developping word once they became independent, and turned into dictatorial regime.

the US and Israel (although their political culture is quite peculiar) are the only countries in the world who have always been democracies, all others had to learn the hard way. To we consider Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, Frederick the Great as "baddies" because they did what was done in their time ?

Giap is a man of his time, look at the leaders of independence movements throughout Africa/middle east/asia... In that respect he is no worse. The difference though is that he was part of movement that managed to defeat in turn France, the US and win the civil war with the South vietnamese (because who are we kidding, like often there is a civil war superimposing itself on a war of independence). In that sense, whether we think he was a good guy or not, he won in the end and was a pretty damn soldier.

And let's not start comparing Giap with Mao, Stalin or what not Hitler.. Let's keep it real.

[HansBolter]

you are correct that it is going nowhere.

No one needs to think you are praising communism, because it's quite evident you are to everyone but yourself.

Your engagement in relativistic equivocation ei....it's ok that he was an exploitative murderous bastard since he was a product of his times wherein everyone else trying to accomplish what he was trying to accomplish were also exploitative murderous bastards......it in and of itself a praising of the methodologies used by the communists.

Rationalizing justification is a form of praise.