| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > The post-WW2 and recent military > General Giap died |
| Posted by: cainele_franctiror October 04, 2013 06:55 pm |
| General Giap died today. He was 102 years old... |
| Posted by: MMM October 04, 2013 07:58 pm | ||
Well, well, well... where is his soul going now? BTW, I noticed (via wikipedia, of course) that he was NOT a big fan of mining!  Anyway, he was one of the bloodiest generals in history; maybe Jukov could have rivaled with him... |
| Posted by: cainele_franctiror October 05, 2013 07:07 am |
| His soul is going to Heaven. To Communist Heaven. As I remember, the Communist Heaven is Soviet Union... |
| Posted by: Dénes October 05, 2013 07:14 am | ||
Indeed: "In a 1998 interview, William Westmoreland criticized the battlefield prowess of Giáp. "Of course, he [Giap] was a formidable adversary," Westmoreland told correspondent W. Thomas Smith, Jr. "Let me also say that Giap was trained in small-unit, guerrilla tactics, but he persisted in waging a big-unit war with terrible losses to his own men. By his own admission, by early 1969, I think, he had lost, what, a half million soldiers? He reported this. Now such a disregard for human life may make a formidable adversary, but it does not make a military genius. An American commander losing men like that would hardly have lasted more than a few weeks." Source: Wikipedia Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: MMM October 05, 2013 08:22 am |
| That is what I read, too, Denes! But it seems a characteristic of communist (well, totalitarian, actually) states and armies! IIRC the Russians, „specialists” in the „art of numbers”, were really unpleasantly surprised by the Chinese in the sixties, when during the „border clashes” the Chinese PLA outmatched the Soviet numeric superiority. The wiki has poor information now... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict |
| Posted by: Imperialist October 05, 2013 10:17 am | ||||
And General Giap should have sent Westmoreland the following pic by email: http://static1.fjcdn.com/comments/Let+the+butthurt+flow+through+you+_52788593f984461328a209e217139f80.jpg |
| Posted by: MMM October 05, 2013 01:14 pm |
| It is enough that Giap not only beat Westmoreland, but he also survived him for more than 8 years... |
| Posted by: Agarici October 05, 2013 04:20 pm | ||
That was a good one.  On the other hand, in spite of knowing the things first hand, I wonder if Westmoreland was the most qualified person for giving out an objective judgement on Giap. |
| Posted by: MMM October 05, 2013 05:43 pm | ||||
1. „a good one” - yeah, given the fact that USSR itself is „gone with the wind” for more than two decades, well, yeah! 2. Somehow, Westmoreland was in a good positionto offer a judgment, because he was the main enemy. Whether Westmoreland was or not able to issue a correct judgement, that is another matter. But to me the accusation of „disregarding” the loss of lives stands; the „no genius” one is perhaps made out of spite, because it is possible that with different tactics, the Americans could have won the war. They are saying that, not me... |
| Posted by: Agarici October 05, 2013 07:44 pm | ||||||
MMM, please read again what I wrote. It's exactly the same thing you've said, in different words. He knew what he was talking about, I was only questioning his objectivity on the matter |
| Posted by: Florin October 07, 2013 12:33 am | ||||
Like many other military leaders before (and after) him, he had to bow in front of the politicians. And when the politicians wanted an offensive "no matter what", he had to obey. The famous Tet offensive was ordered by the politicians. Giap followed orders. * * * * * The total loss of Vietnamese lives (including civilians) was 3.6 million. I guess that both sides were counted into that number. That is 60 percent of the Holocaust. Many journalists of that era (the left side, but also some like Japanese, West Europeans etc.) accused the American army of waging an extermination war. * * * * * Fighting against a foe having the total control of the air and clear technological superiority cannot go with equal losses with that foe. |
| Posted by: Florin October 07, 2013 01:06 am |
| Something that could be funny if it would not be tragic: occasionally too much bloodiness became an embarrassment even for the Communist ideologists. The invasion of Cambodia by the Vietnamese army, ending with Khmer Rouge toppled and Pol Pot running back to mother nature (i.e. jungle) was ordered by the masters from Kremlin, who felt that what was going on in Cambodia was too much even for the Communist standards of the 1970's. The "achievements" of Pol Pot did not look good for the campaign of winning hearts and minds in the West. |
| Posted by: guina October 07, 2013 05:27 pm |
| http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304626104579119221395534220.html?mod=djemITP_h |
| Posted by: MMM October 08, 2013 08:04 pm | ||
Somehow, given the style of the NVA / „Viet-Cong” fighting, it was also a war of self-extermination! Those who did NOT care about the victims were the communists...  |
| Posted by: dragos October 09, 2013 01:37 pm |
| Given how disproportionate the firepower was between the two belligerents, this was the only way the Vietnamese could have won. How could they inflict enough losses to the US forces to wear them down unless they assumed a higher casualties ratio? On the other hand, US employed questionable strategies as well, like carpet bombing civilian areas. |
| Posted by: MMM October 09, 2013 04:14 pm | ||
Should we define „civilian areas”? According to whom, the USA or to Vietnam? The VC was civilian? Oh, I do NOT defend carpet bombing, but neither the „partisan fighting” style... |
| Posted by: dragos October 10, 2013 06:18 am |
| This for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linebacker_II |
| Posted by: Radub October 10, 2013 07:39 am | ||||
"Agent Orange" was quite indiscriminate. It had devastating effects on everyone and yielded no military advantage. It affected the civilians the most because unlike the soldiers that were mobile and just moved elsewhere, the civilans stayed in their villages and on their farms where they were affected for generations (the effects are ongoing). Radu |
| Posted by: MMM October 10, 2013 04:16 pm | ||
Let`s NOT go there... that was Nixon`s „deliberate madness” strategy which could have worked in other circumstances. Anyway, the number of casualties (civilian casualties) was remarkably low... And the „carpet bombing” was way weaker than WW2 camapaigns - for which „Bomber Harris” has statues in England. Not in Germany, though... |
| Posted by: Radub October 10, 2013 05:30 pm | ||
Actually... Unlike other major British military commanders Harris did not get a statue until the nineties, long after he died. I recall that when the Queen unveiled his statue there were protests and the statue had to be put under guard. The RAF Bomber Command was the only major branch of the British Armed Forces that did not get an official memorial after the war. A memorial was eventually unveiled a couple of years ago. In Britain there is a significant anti-war movement and the Bomber Command was often used as their "whipping boy". Radu |
| Posted by: MMM October 10, 2013 06:26 pm | ||||
Yeah, I was referring exactly at that! Perhaps I should have written „eventually” got a statue, but the rest of what I wrote stands! The numbers speak for themselves. |
| Posted by: Radub October 10, 2013 09:33 pm |
| Well, the "tone" of your post implied that Arthur Harris is revered as a hero in Great Britain and has many "statues". But the truth is that the work of the Bomber Command was always regarded with a certain amount of... let's call it... "awkwardness". Both Harris and the Bomber Command had to wait many decades to get some recognition. Neither Harris nor many of his pilots lived to see "official recognition". Radu |
| Posted by: Florin October 11, 2013 05:38 am | ||||
MMM, regarding your "... the number of casualties (civilian casualties) was remarkably low..." Did you read my previous message when I mentioned that the total loss of Vietnamese lives in that conflict was 3.6 million ? I am sure that the civilian casualties exceeded the military personnel killed. Maybe you missed my text... Source: an American newspaper printed in NY few years ago. And the "carpet bombing" was not weaker than WW2 campaigns. I would say it was worse, but this needs a double check. A way to find an answer is to search for the quantity of bombs dropped over Germany, versus the quantity of bombs dropped over Vietnam. (The Romanian newspapers of that era claimed that more bombs fell over Vietnam than over Germany, but maybe it was Communist propaganda.) In the collection of presents received by Ceausescu there was a piece from the 1000th American plane shot down by the Vietnamese. Considering how many Communist leaders were in those days, I guess the Vietnamese had to do a careful partition of that plane, like the 5 breads of Jesus.  The event was also marked by some very funny comics in "Urzica", by Octavian Andronic. |
| Posted by: MMM October 11, 2013 06:49 pm |
| Oh, I am growing tired... Of course I meant „low casualties for carpet bombing”. Just to end this: have you forgotten Dresden? Or the Hamburg firestorm? Google them, please, and only then argue with me or anybody else about a mere 1500 civilians killed (which is, btw, more than half the size of the village I live in...). It was about the effectiveness of the bombing, not the quantity or the power, ok? |
| Posted by: ANDREAS October 12, 2013 10:39 am |
| Beyond an appreciation or criticisms of military mastery of gen. Giap, I say it's more important that he fought for his own country, even serving an authoritarian, communist regime, while his US opponents (especially Gen. Westmoreland) led a war of aggression under the pretext of stopping the advance of communism in South East Asia. Naturally, from our point of view, the policy of ignoring the high loss of your man is criminal, but let's agree with the fact that technological differences, numerical, economical and military potential between USA and North Vietnam (even supported by PRC and USSR) was gigantic and an intelligent solution to that was not easy to find! Without any intention to find an excuse to Gen. Giap, an unusual type of war (guerilla) is indicated in those cases, but it always brings dramatic consequences on the civilian population! Contrary to what some coforumist write above, I know that US Army units were numerous times in a position to be destroyed by VietCong, if the US Air Force had not intervened decisively! |
| Posted by: Florin October 12, 2013 07:07 pm | ||
I fully agree with that. And I am adding that in those days the GDP (Gross domestic product) of The United States was two thirds of that of the whole planet - so the rest of the world combined had an economic power equaling a half of that of The United States. The war in South Asia had an important impact to the American economy. Before it, The United States government was the biggest lender of the world - many countries owed money to it. The expenses of that war turned the U.S. government into borrowing money in all ways possible, and then they did not change the habit ever after, so here we are today: with a debt ceiling voted again and again to go through the roof, until the rotten ship will merely sunk. |
| Posted by: ANDREAS October 13, 2013 10:18 am |
| Florin, you posted interesting data, thanks! Indeed, so what good the propaganda that I have heard on many occasions (I mean "if politicians would have left the military to apply their tactics the war was won by US") if its consequences were so harmful to U.S. especially economy and population? I also agree with the reverse of my statement namely if as many resources were allotted in this war, this war deserved at least to be won! |
| Posted by: Victor October 13, 2013 03:45 pm |
| I think one should look as well on the other side of the fence. The war had a cost also for the Communists (USSR and China), which had to divert resources that could have very well went in other directions. Overall it could have served to weaken the Communist camp. |
| Posted by: Florin October 14, 2013 02:09 am | ||
I would say that immediately after the end of that war the Communist camp felt stronger and the Capitalist camp felt weaker. The few years following the withdrawal from Vietnam saw a lot of confusion and pessimism in America. Fortunately Ronald Reagan helped turning the tide. I think America owes to that president quite a lot, but today he is forgotten. I am not adding more, to spare this topic to become more politicized. |
| Posted by: Florin October 14, 2013 02:17 am | ||
If politicians would have left the military to apply their tactics, General MacArthur would have dropped over North Korea 20...30 nuclear bombs as a simultaneous salvo ! I am serious - you can check this. Fortunately President Truman and the rest of the American political leadership of that moment had more down to earth common sense. |