Post: #1

News agencies today reported the death of Vo Nguyen Giap, the commander of Vietnamese forces during the First Indochina War (1946-1954) and during the American involvement in the Vietnam War (1963-1974). He was 103.
Although he was an adversary of the US, I think he has to be ranked as one of the greatest generals of the twentieth century. He had no formal military training, but was such an adroit tactician and strategist that he was able to defeat the French at Dien Bien Phu and later evicted the United States from Vietnam. He was responsible for developing a style of guerrilla warfar that has been imitated around the world as a model of how to defeat an enemy possessing superior resources and firepower.
There is much we can learn from his tactics, philosophy, and style of insurgency.
Where do you think he should be ranked in history?

Post: #2

Link?

Post: #3

The Wikipedia page on him is very good, as are these:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24402278

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obit...story.html

Post: #4

The guy was a brilliant tactician of asymetrical warfare. It can be argued that he perfected it. He was exceptionally good as evidenced by our own military's contemporary hatred of him. Brutal he was, but then what successful warrior isn't?

From one soldier to another, I hope he's still fighting in hell.

Post: #5

I think the NVA commander in "We Were Soldiers" is based of off him.

No doubt he was a great tactician and leader, I would certainly put him in the top 10. But off the top of my head, I would say Patton, Eisenhower, Rommel, and von Manstein were better leaders. I would say Giap is on the level perhaps of Montgomery and Marshall.

All the aforementioned are land commanders. If we were to include Naval commanders as well, it would really make the list interesting.

Post: #6

(10-04-2013 01:46 PM)MHaes Wrote:  I think the NVA commander in "We Were Soldiers" is based of off him.

No doubt he was a great tactician and leader, I would certainly put him in the top 10. But off the top of my head, I would say Patton, Eisenhower, Rommel, and von Manstein were better leaders. I would say Giap is on the level perhaps of Montgomery and Marshall.

All the aforementioned are land commanders. If we were to include Naval commanders as well, it would really make the list interesting.

I wonder how you stack game theorists in there. Obviously you rank the guys who made it happen in the field higher, but the strategists they learned from (Sun Tzu, Von Clausewitz, etc.) have to get in there somewhere.

Who's more important, the scientist who invents or the engineer who implements?

Post: #7

^We are talking about military leaders of the 20th century.

Post: #8

(10-04-2013 02:54 PM)MHaes Wrote:  ^We are talking about military leaders of the 20th century.

So where do you place Che on that list?

Post: #9

My comments on Giap:

He is unique in many respects, but what impressed me the most was the fact that he was almost entirely self-taught. Possessed of an absolutely unbreakable will, he built up the NVA and the VC by force of his own personality, with little help from his peers.
If we rate skill by the ability to do more with less, he must be ranked as among the greatest in the 20th century. He was fighting the military machines of both France, and later, the US, for a period of over 30 years. Think about that. 30 years.

And he defeated them using strategy and tactics that were suited to the terrain and the shape of the battlefield.
I've read his memoirs, and sadly they are not as revealing as I had hoped. Marred by communist jargon and political cant, he remains an obscure figure, little understood in the West. This is our loss, because Giap has much to teach us about how to do a great deal with little resources. He did give some very detailed and revealing interviews, which describe his philosophy of war and his experiences in combat.
A true warrior. He should be extensively studied.

Post: #10

(10-04-2013 03:32 PM)Ridge Black Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 02:54 PM)MHaes Wrote:  ^We are talking about military leaders of the 20th century.

So where do you place Che on that list?

Che?

No where near the top 10. I'm not sure if I would even place him in the top 50.

I think the cult of admiration for Che amongst the hard-line Socialist/Communist leftist types is hilarious, because 1) he would hate those individuals, and 2) if they knew anything about him, they would hate him. He was the guy who ran the firing squads and labor camps immediately after the Revolution. He put to death gays and lesbians.

Post: #11

(10-04-2013 03:54 PM)MHaes Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 03:32 PM)Ridge Black Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 02:54 PM)MHaes Wrote:  ^We are talking about military leaders of the 20th century.

So where do you place Che on that list?

Che?

No where near the top 10. I'm not sure if I would even place him in the top 50.

I think the cult of admiration for Che amongst the hard-line Socialist/Communist leftist types is hilarious, because 1) he would hate those individuals, and 2) if they knew anything about him, they would hate him. He was the guy who ran the firing squads and labor camps immediately after the Revolution. He put to death gays and lesbians.

So why'd you choose him for your avatar?

Post: #12

I remember my father (Who was part of the South Vietnamese Air Force during the war) told me stories of his interactions with him. When Vietnam re-established relations with the US in the 90s and my dad would make periodic business visits back to Saigon. He acquainted with General Giáp and the General got along well with my Dad (Mostly because my Dad was blunt and doesn't sugarcoat conversations). So, everytime the General visited Saigon, he would call the US Embassy to check if my Dad was in town and if so, finds out where he's staying and sent a limo to pick up my father and take him out to coffee and shoot the shit with him.

An incredible yet controversial man. Rest in Peace, General Giáp.

Post: #13

He was one of the first trans-continental playboys.

The real reason I have him as my avatar is because I admire him as an individual, not so much for the ideologies that stood behind him. He was living a pretty comfortable existence - from a well off family, a soon to be Doctor. He took one trip around the continent with a friend, and what he saw so moved him, that he completely changed his life. Many people read an article somewhere or hear about some injustice, and get all worked up about it, but nothing ever really changes (see Kony 2012, Occupy Wall Street). But Che saw injustice first hand, and was so inspired to right it that took up arms with the disenfranchised around the world, and in doing so he changed the course of human history. I disagree with him on what the rights solutions are to the very real problems he faced, but I'm inspired by his ambition, tenacity, and will to power.

Post: #14

(10-04-2013 04:14 PM)expectation Wrote:  I remember my father (Who was part of the South Vietnamese Air Force during the war) told me stories of his interactions with him. When Vietnam re-established relations with the US in the 90s and my dad would make periodic business visits back to Saigon. He acquainted with General Giáp and the General got along well with my Dad (Mostly because my Dad was blunt and doesn't sugarcoat conversations). So, everytime the General visited Saigon, he would call the US Embassy to check if my Dad was in town and if so, finds out where he's staying and sent a limo to pick up my father and take him out to coffee and shoot the shit with him.

An incredible yet controversial man. Rest in Peace, General Giáp.

_______________

Wow. That is an incredible story.
I'd like to hear more. Maybe you can post some of his thoughts on life, combat, etc., if your dad remembers them.
You might even try to collect something like "General Giap's Maxims on Life and War", maybe a collection of his sayings.
You can tell I admire this guy a lot.
In terms of asymmetrical warfare and guerrilla tactics, he was without doubt supreme.

Post: #15

Holy shit! A quick search and there's a wealth of info associated with this guy. Thanks for the thread. Gonna do some reading.

Post: #16

One thing that bothers me about some of the obituaries that I've read was how he was a hardline communist. In the US, we've been somewhat indoctrinated with this US vs THEM mentality and so during the cold war, it was Capitalist vs Communist mentality- so for some people in the US and Overseas Vietnamese-Americans like myself, he gets a lot of hate. Him and Ho Chi Minh tried to reach out to the US when it was colonized by the French to break free. Of course, you guys know how that worked out so they did what they had to do to get any bit of resources and they went over to Communism only to gather any allies, sympathizers, manpower to gain independence.

Fact is, they were the type of men that grew up somewhat privileged and educated by the French but was so sick of getting dicked around that they sacrificed their standings and looked for any means possible to stop being bullshitted around and as ruthless as it was, you can't argue the end result of it today.

Add to the fact that he harbors no ill will against the Americans and to the South Vietnamese (such as my dad) who fought against him and had every reason to hate him. I hate to use the word "man up" but I think this is the absolutely correct time to use that term to describe the character of General Giap.

I'll give my pops a call tomorrow and I'll have some more detailed stories to share.

Post: #17

(10-04-2013 04:48 PM)expectation Wrote:  One thing that bothers me about some of the obituaries that I've read was how he was a hardline communist. In the US, we've been somewhat indoctrinated with this US vs THEM mentality and so during the cold war, it was Capitalist vs Communist mentality- so for some people in the US and Overseas Vietnamese-Americans like myself, he gets a lot of hate. Him and Ho Chi Minh tried to reach out to the US when it was colonized by the French to break free. Of course, you guys know how that worked out so they did what they had to do to get any bit of resources and they went over to Communism only to gather any allies, sympathizers, manpower to gain independence.

Fact is, they were the type of men that grew up somewhat privileged and educated by the French but was so sick of getting dicked around that they sacrificed their standings and looked for any means possible to stop being bullshitted around and as ruthless as it was, you can't argue the end result of it today.

Add to the fact that he harbors no ill will against the Americans and to the South Vietnamese (such as my dad) who fought against him and had every reason to hate him. I hate to use the word "man up" but I think this is the absolutely correct time to use that term to describe the character of General Giap.

I'll give my pops a call tomorrow and I'll have some more detailed stories to share.

You need look no further than Cuba and Israel to see the simple stupidity of our post-war foreign policy.

Cuba is a natural ally of the United states. We have a shared cultural history of colonization, and a massive community of Cubans in the US. The best thing for that country was for us to keep our relationship with them strong and allow the fruits of capitalism to erode the communist influence. Instead we shut them out, creating an unnecessary schism in our own region and (for a brief moment) a nuclear threat.

Israel is a natural enemy of the United states. They are a segregationist country that has based it's national identity on race (or religion depending on how you weight it). They agitate an Islamic religious movement that causes us no end of headaches. It could be fairly argued that without the creation of Israel there is no Jihadist movement and no conflict between Islam and the Western world. And yet, these people we have chosen to be our "friends".

Why these policies came into being is debatable, but that the policies themselves are ridiculous is not.

Post: #18

As much as I dislike it how it is, I think people need to understand that ALL Governments (the US is no exception as exceptional as it is) will do whatever means whether it's realpolitiks or portray countries as the boogeyman in order to instill control of their populace or maintain influence on allies they feel that provide more value.

Post: #19

(10-04-2013 05:20 PM)expectation Wrote:  As much as I dislike it how it is, I think people need to understand that ALL Governments (the US is no exception as exceptional as it is) will do whatever means whether it's realpolitiks or portray countries as the boogeyman in order to instill control of their populace or maintain influence on allies they feel that provide more value.

Oh but there is a difference. America is the world's only superpower and routinely claims to be the moral center of the universe. Most other countries do not have the near universal capacity impose their morality on others through economic blackmail and violence. We do, and as such should be held to a higher standard.

Post: #20

(10-04-2013 05:20 PM)expectation Wrote:  As much as I dislike it how it is, I think people need to understand that ALL Governments (the US is no exception as exceptional as it is) will do whatever means whether it's realpolitiks or portray countries as the boogeyman in order to instill control of their populace or maintain influence on allies they feel that provide more value.

Moreover, if your country wants to go to war against a foreign country, you have to portray the enemy as a bogeyman, since it's easier for your soldiers to kill enemy soldiers if they believe they're fighting against "evil" people, rather than fighting for something as pragmatic as "national interest". I know, it's obvious. But that is the role of propaganda.

An example is provided by the Guide to the Use of Information Materials (1943):

Quote:Whether the effort should be made to indoctrinate hatred toward the enemy must be considered a practical training question rather than a moral issue.

Since killing is the primary means by which the enemy is compelled to submit to one's own discipline, one of the ends of the training must be to so indoctrinate the soldier that he is not only willing but anxious to work bodily destruction upon the foes of his country. That state of mind is not possible unless the soldier is motivated by hatred in the hour when he is at grips with his enemy.

Oh, and they called it the "good war"...

Post: #21

By the way, when I heard General Giap had passed away in the Vietnamese media, I didn't expect Western Media to pick up on this and see so many people revered General Giap. I thought he'd be an unknown figure to most people. It's a pleasant surprise to see an appreciation of him by many others on this forum.

I'm gonna bounce and enjoy my Friday night. I'll check back tomorrow.

Post: #22

Rest in peace, General Giap.

He still had a huge influence on the army right up till his death at 103 - purely due to how much respect they have for him - that he managed to stop a coup a decade or so ago.

He lived a very healthy life (good diet, exercise, meditation) in his later years too, which is why he lived so long.

Regarding the origin of Communist Vietnam, as mentioned above, most Westerners might not realise but it's America that pushed them to communism. In 1945 when they formed the country, its name was Democratic Republic of Vietnam, with the founding speech and ideals largely based on the American ones, because America promised help. Later on, when the French returned, America left them to their own, and they had to get help from their Enemy of 3000 years+ and counting, China (so much for domino theory, coming from the genius who never read a single history book of the region he was making policies about), and of course, the USSR. Afterwards, the country's name became "Socialist Republic of Vietnam" and we had the lovely Vietnam war...

General Giap might have been a communist officially, but a hardliner? He was far from it.

Post: #23

(10-04-2013 05:10 PM)Ridge Black Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 04:48 PM)expectation Wrote:  One thing that bothers me about some of the obituaries that I've read was how he was a hardline communist. In the US, we've been somewhat indoctrinated with this US vs THEM mentality and so during the cold war, it was Capitalist vs Communist mentality- so for some people in the US and Overseas Vietnamese-Americans like myself, he gets a lot of hate. Him and Ho Chi Minh tried to reach out to the US when it was colonized by the French to break free. Of course, you guys know how that worked out so they did what they had to do to get any bit of resources and they went over to Communism only to gather any allies, sympathizers, manpower to gain independence.

Fact is, they were the type of men that grew up somewhat privileged and educated by the French but was so sick of getting dicked around that they sacrificed their standings and looked for any means possible to stop being bullshitted around and as ruthless as it was, you can't argue the end result of it today.

Add to the fact that he harbors no ill will against the Americans and to the South Vietnamese (such as my dad) who fought against him and had every reason to hate him. I hate to use the word "man up" but I think this is the absolutely correct time to use that term to describe the character of General Giap.

I'll give my pops a call tomorrow and I'll have some more detailed stories to share.

You need look no further than Cuba and Israel to see the simple stupidity of our post-war foreign policy.

Cuba is a natural ally of the United states. We have a shared cultural history of colonization, and a massive community of Cubans in the US. The best thing for that country was for us to keep our relationship with them strong and allow the fruits of capitalism to erode the communist influence. Instead we shut them out, creating an unnecessary schism in our own region and (for a brief moment) a nuclear threat.

Israel is a natural enemy of the United states. They are a segregationist country that has based it's national identity on race (or religion depending on how you weight it). They agitate an Islamic religious movement that causes us no end of headaches. It could be fairly argued that without the creation of Israel there is no Jihadist movement and no conflict between Islam and the Western world. And yet, these people we have chosen to be our "friends".

Why these policies came into being is debatable, but that the policies themselves are ridiculous is not.

Post: #24

(10-04-2013 05:10 PM)Ridge Black Wrote:  Israel is a natural enemy of the United states. They are a segregationist country that has based it's national identity on race (or religion depending on how you weight it).

The relations between Israel and the U.S. changed a lot since 1948.

• The war against the Arabs which Israel fought after its creation in 1948 was fought with Czechoslovak weapons. After Israel was established, the U.S. was very suspicious of Israel due to its ethnic-based communism (e.g., the kibbutz) and feared that Israel would become a Soviet satellite.
  

• The Six Day War in 1967 was won because Israel had French Mirage fighter jets that required very little maintenance and could fly several sorties per day.
  

• Israel became a strong ally of the U.S. after the Six Day War in 1967. Given that Kissinger came to the White House when Nixon became the president in 1969, that may explain why the alliance was forged. Kissinger is Jewish after all. Nixon hated Jews, however.
  

(10-04-2013 05:10 PM)Ridge Black Wrote:  They agitate an Islamic religious movement that causes us no end of headaches. It could be fairly argued that without the creation of Israel there is no Jihadist movement and no conflict between Islam and the Western world.

Well, Islam has been at war with Europe for over 1300 years. The Spanish fought the Muslim Moors for almost 800 years. In Central and Eastern Europe, the Muslim Ottomans were the enemy for centuries.

Post: #25

(10-04-2013 06:20 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 05:10 PM)Ridge Black Wrote:  Israel is a natural enemy of the United states. They are a segregationist country that has based it's national identity on race (or religion depending on how you weight it).

The relations between Israel and the U.S. changed a lot since 1948.

• The war against the Arabs which Israel fought after its creation in 1948 was fought with Czechoslovak weapons. After Israel was established, the U.S. was very suspicious of Israel due to its ethnic-based communism (e.g., the kibbutz) and feared that Israel would become a Soviet satellite.
  

• The Six Day War in 1967 was won because Israel had French Mirage fighter jets that required very little maintenance and could fly several sorties per day.
  

• Israel became a strong ally of the U.S. after the Six Day War in 1967. Given that Kissinger came to the White House when Nixon became the president in 1969, that may explain why the alliance was forged. Kissinger is Jewish after all. Nixon hated Jews, however.
  

(10-04-2013 05:10 PM)Ridge Black Wrote:  They agitate an Islamic religious movement that causes us no end of headaches. It could be fairly argued that without the creation of Israel there is no Jihadist movement and no conflict between Islam and the Western world.

Well, Islam has been at war with Europe for over 1300 years. The Spanish fought the Muslim Moors for almost 800 years. In Central and Eastern Europe, the Muslim Ottomans were the enemy for centuries.

We're getting way off topic and I don't want to wreck the thread, so if there's an Israel thread somewhere point me to it and we can continue this discussion there.

Bottom line point is this: the Europeans all hated the Jews and Israel was the True Final Solution. The European powers could get rid of the despised Semites in a politically acceptable way and who gives a damn about a bunch of camel riding hillbillies anyway? Take their land, give it to the Zionists and everyone wins.

Like most major fuckups it seemed like a good idea at the time.