General Giap died

General Giap died today. He was 102 years old...

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...

His soul is going to Heaven. To Communist Heaven. As I remember, the Communist Heaven is Soviet Union...

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

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...
Sino-Soviet conflict

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

And General Giap should have sent Westmoreland the following pic by email:

http://static1.fjcdn.com/comments/Let+the+...9e217139f80.jpg

It is enough that Giap not only beat Westmoreland, but he also survived him for more than 8 years...

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.

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.

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...

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.

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...

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

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

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.

This post has been edited by Florin on October 07, 2013 12:33 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.

This post has been edited by Florin on October 07, 2013 01:07 am

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...l?mod=djemITP_h

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...

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.