Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: desicat

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

quote:

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)

quote:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: desicat

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

quote:

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)

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: desicat

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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!

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: desicat

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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!

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1


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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1


If you were allowed to live. The difference between Communism and Capitalism is not purely economic, there are political differences as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1


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.

veji1,

It is "going nowhere" just in the sense that it isn't simple, and the distinction between correct and incorrect doesn't have a whole lot of meaning here. A lot depends on the yardstick you use to measure greatness. An analogy if you will:

Imagine a soccer game. A very bad game where everyone is throwing elbows and kicking each other in the nuts. As time wears on, players leave the game in disgust. It just isn't worth it for them. The last player on the field, and we'll call him Giap, is very proud and struts around the field. He is shunned, but everyone acknowledges he is the last man on the field.

In this scenario, would you call Giap a great soccer player? Is he a Pele? Does he belong on a World Cup team? No, he is just the last man standing in one game that really sucked.

Regards,
Feltan

quote:

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".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1


If you were allowed to live. The difference between Communism and Capitalism is not purely economic, there are political differences as well.

Whether you were killed by Stalin or killed by a right-wing death squad in: Honduras, Guatemala, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Colombia, Sri Lanka, Chechnya, Kosovo, Spain, Venezuela, Lebanon, South Africa, or Iraq (to name only some) you were still dead.

But in the latter cases you had comfort that you weren't killed by those nasty Commies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: desicat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1


If you were allowed to live. The difference between Communism and Capitalism is not purely economic, there are political differences as well.

Whether you were killed by Stalin or killed by a right-wing death squad in: Honduras, Guatemala, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Colombia, Sri Lanka, Chechnya, Kosovo, Spain, Venezuela, Lebanon, South Africa, or Iraq (to name only some) you were still dead.

But in the latter cases you had comfort that you weren't killed by those nasty Commies.

I don't know the name of any of those Right Wing killers so, like Giap, I wouldn't classify them as one of the 20th Centuries greatest Generals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: desicat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1


If you were allowed to live. The difference between Communism and Capitalism is not purely economic, there are political differences as well.

Whether you were killed by Stalin or killed by a right-wing death squad in: Honduras, Guatemala, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Colombia, Sri Lanka, Chechnya, Kosovo, Spain, Venezuela, Lebanon, South Africa, or Iraq (to name only some) you were still dead.

But in the latter cases you had comfort that you weren't killed by those nasty Commies.

I don't know the name of any of those Right Wing killers so, like Giap, I wouldn't classify them as one of the 20th Centuries greatest Generals.

He said, completely missing the point . . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: desicat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: desicat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1


If you were allowed to live. The difference between Communism and Capitalism is not purely economic, there are political differences as well.

Whether you were killed by Stalin or killed by a right-wing death squad in: Honduras, Guatemala, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Colombia, Sri Lanka, Chechnya, Kosovo, Spain, Venezuela, Lebanon, South Africa, or Iraq (to name only some) you were still dead.

But in the latter cases you had comfort that you weren't killed by those nasty Commies.

I don't know the name of any of those Right Wing killers so, like Giap, I wouldn't classify them as one of the 20th Centuries greatest Generals.

He said, completely missing the point . . .

??? I think i have missed your point.

I thought the conversation was whether Giap should be considered one of the great Generals of the 20th century? I'm not condoning killing on the Left or Right, I'm just stating that Giap was a better Communist and politician than he was a General.

quote:

ORIGINAL: desicat

quote:

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.