Legendary General Vo Nguyen Giap dies, aged 102

[NiceGuy]

That belief is not new. It has been around since the battle itself. The Chinese generals who advised the Viet Minh knew only one tactic: the human wave. And there is nothing creative about it. But unfortunately, the same tactic was often used by the NVA and VC themselves during the Vietnam War.

Sometimes we have to choose that kind of tactic to break enemy's will first.

Tet Offensive

Gen. Vo Nguyen GiapFour-star General Vo Nguyen Giap led Vietnam's armies from their inception, in the 1940s, up to the moment of their triumphant entrance into Saigon in 1975.

Possessing one of the finest military minds of this century, his strategy for vanquishing superior opponents was not to simply outmaneuver them in the field but to undermine their resolve by inflicting demoralizing political defeats with his bold tactics.

This was evidenced as early as 1944, when Giap sent his minuscule force against French outpost in Indochina. The moment he chose to attack was Christmas Eve. More devastatingly, in 1954 at a place called Dien Bien Phu, Giap lured the overconfident French into a turning point battle and won a stunning victory with brilliant deployments. Always he showed a great talent for approaching his enemy's strengths as if they were exploitable weaknesses.

Nearly a quarter of a century later, in 1968, the General launched a major surprise offensive against American and South Vietnamese forces on the eve of the lunar New Year celebrations. Province capitals throughout the country were seized, garrisons simultaneously attacked and, perhaps most shockingly, in Saigon the U.S. Embassy was invaded. The cost in North Vietnamese casualties was tremendous but the gambit produced a pivotal media disaster for the White House and the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. Giap's strategy toppled the American commander in chief. It turned the tide of the war and sealed the General's fame as the dominant military genius of the 20th Century's second half.

John Colvin author of "Giap Volcano Under Snow"

Giap was prepared to take a gamble. His divisions had been battered whenever they met the American forces in conventional combat and the VC -- if not exactly on the retreat -- were at least being pushed backwards. Hanoi was perfectly aware of the growing US peace movement and of the deep divisions the war was causing in American society. What Giap needed was a body-blow that would break Washington's will to carry on and at the same time would undermine the growing legitimacy of the Saigon Government once and for all. In one sense, time was not on Giap's side. While Hanoi was sure that the Americans would tire of the war as the French had before them, the longer it took, the stronger the Saigon Government might become. Another year or so of American involvement could seriously damage the NLF and leave the ARVN capable of dealing with its enemies on its own. Giap opted for a quick and decisive victory that would be well in time for the 1968 US Presidential campaign.
Vets With A Mission - History of Vietnam - Tet Offensive

 

[janon]

So are his losses.

Maybe so, but his victories outweigh his losses. No other country has actually defeated the US in war (not battles, but the entire war) in the latter half of the 20th century, if I'm not mistaken. Or in the first half, come to think of it.

Unlike the claims of Pakistanis and Taliban worshippers that the 2014 withdrawal of NATO forces is a defeat for the USA, or that USA lost in Iraq, and so on, the Vietnam war was well and truly lost by the US. They were forced to withdraw by the enemy, as opposed to leaving at a time of their choosing. I can't think of any example in the 20th century where the US was completely defeated in a war.

 

[Soryu]

Uh.. wrong my friend. The root problem was your Northern Vietnam Communist betraying Maoist's China, cuddle up with the Soviet, which led China a feeling of a brotherly comrade betrayal and weaken our support. Initially our support during the North Vietnam revolution was substantiated, unconditional support. In fact, we promised to Uncle Ho that if US would to invade North Vietnam, our troops would enter to defend. In this way, it allows North Vietnam a safe heaven and scare the American from engaging further invasion and bombardment up North.

Check this picture of our aid to you by years.


You might want to read the history book again. I advise you read this why we limit our support.


Vietnam had always been on the wrong side of History in the 20th century and maybe 21st century too. In the 20th century, you should have choose the US over the French. Then during the Vietnam War, you should have choose China over the Soviet, then all current existing problems wouldn't exist. As a matter of fact, had you choose us over the Soviet, we would have provide defense weapons for you, instead now you are forced to buy Soviet weapon to defend the threat from us. Then during the Cambodia-Vietnam war, you should have listen to us and the US, instead choose the Soviet, which led to further economic sanction which brought your country back to another 20 years of underdevelopment. Now back to 21st century, you continue to pick the wrong side and choose a declining power like the US as your economic safe heaven and even trying to wishy washy siding between Soviet and the US for military support.

But luckily, you still have time to correct the mistake.

LOL, bro. This is standard in your head:
"Chinese was help Vietnamese for free", "Chinese is good side, Vietnam was helped by Chinese and pay nothing for China", "China help Vietnam and didn't demand any price, any cost ...", "Chinese help Vietnam was not for China interests ...", " PRC attacked Vietnam because Vietnam betrayed China ...." ....etc.

Hey, friend, Are you saw anything bullshjt like those kind of thought.

You, Chinese alway want stand at higher place, like a big Empire (of course you are) and look down on us, and you want to grant us benefits if we do like you said.

It's natural when you're big country and we're small nations. So you should stop pretend (or you really think so) like a God (help the other for nothing or help them because you're so kind).

You shake hand with Western in 1970s, now we do the same, we can cooperate with anyone we see they are friend, if they're not against our Policy and interest, and we no need your permission.

China has supported vn for more than 20 years, you called that half-hearted support???

After China-soviet split, both vn and nk threw themselves into u.s.s.r. and disregard China, it is vn and nk who has betrayed China at first, not the other way around. China clearly told vn and nk to choose between China and ussr, and both of course chose ussr thinking they could get more stuff from it.

As a result of that, China stopped her support over vn. Well, history is always playing tricks. Now both beg China for help again.


The # of vn members can be counted here. I do think I need tell you whose are the ones, right?

No, buddy, you alway want we're "betrayer and ungraceful to Chinese", "China help Vietnam because Vietnamese's interests, not because Chinese's interests ..."

That's bullshjt can made some of us go the ideal: you're not help us on anything but divided our country like Korea.

R.I.P general, your victories are forever enshrined in the military history!

Thanks , bro

So are his losses.

You're alway in bias thought, you forget what he has and when, and where he build up his army, also his goal. It's difference from your standard.

 

[gambit]

Maybe so, but his victories outweigh his losses. No other country has actually defeated the US in war (not battles, but the entire war) in the latter half of the 20th century, if I'm not mistaken. Or in the first half, come to think of it.

You cannot claim to defeat an opponent when you consistently lost in battles. The US simply withdrew from a conflict because of lack of political will, not from lack of military strength. Mike Tyson could beat me to a pulp then quit the ring. Would YOU say that I outboxed him?

 

[LaBong]

You cannot claim to defeat an opponent when you consistently lost in battles. The US simply withdrew from a conflict because of lack of political will, not from lack of military strength. Mike Tyson could beat me to a pulp then quit the ring. Would YOU say that I outboxed him?

You mean it's tactical win and pyrrhic victory for USA while strategic win for Viets!

 

[gambit]

Sometimes we have to choose that kind of tactic to break enemy's will first.

The human wave tactic did not broke the French's will at Dien Bien Phu. In fact, it nearly broke Vo's will because he nearly physically threw the Chinese advisors out after repeated horrific losses of his men.

 

[gambit]

You mean it's tactical win and pyrrhic victory for USA while strategic win for Viets!

You obviously did not study the political aspects of the Vietnam War.

A war is motivated by political goal (or goals). The political goal then sets the military objectives.

For example...I want to defeat X country. I want to be able to present to X sufficient evidences that he cannot continue the fight. It would be the military's job to give me those evidences. The military would say to itself: Need to take that hill, that valley, those cities, and blockade all sea ports. With those objectives completed, I can present to X as evidences that his defeat is inevitable.

But what if I decide to throw away all those evidences?

There was a gross difference between political goals between North Viet Nam and South Viet Nam. The political goal for the NVN/China alliance was a unified Viet Nam under communist rule. The political goal for the SVN/US alliance was partition ala the Koreas. The military objectives will be equally grossly different. The North will continue to fight no matter what. The South will fight and stop at the 17 parallel.

You cannot win a war when YOU STOPPED YOURSELF from fighting. In this case, I stopped myself when the enemy crossed the 17th parallel. I beat him in battle after battle. I chased him and every time he crossed the 17th, I stopped and that allowed him respite. Time after time. No one can continue fighting this kind of war. It is not about military losses but about political endurance. Stopping chasing the enemy at the 17th is the equivalent of throwing away successful military objectives over and over.

 

[+4vsgorillas-Apebane]

You cannot claim to defeat an opponent when you consistently lost in battles. The US simply withdrew from a conflict because of lack of political will, not from lack of military strength. Mike Tyson could beat me to a pulp then quit the ring. Would YOU say that I outboxed him?

No one here is doubting American military superiority. Given the poor resources, technology and lack of organisation/logistics that Giap had, his victories are all the sweeter despite heavy losses.
If I was forced to enter the ring with Mike Tyson and dodged and weaved and ran, would the crowd blame me? If he hit me hard a couple of times but I still stood up would the crowd cheer me? What if the crowd started to jeer and boo Tyson for being a bully and he had to quit in shame? Even Americans tend to support the underdog.
Giap was a great man and did well with what he had.

 

[gambit]

No one here is doubting American military superiority. Given the poor resources, technology and lack of organisation/logistics that Giap had, his victories are all the sweeter despite heavy losses.
If I was forced to enter the ring with Mike Tyson and dodged and weaved and ran, would the crowd blame me? If he hit me hard a couple of times but I still stood up would the crowd cheer me? What if the crowd started to jeer and boo Tyson for being a bully and he had to quit in shame? Even Americans tend to support the underdog.
Giap was a great man and did well with what he had.

Were you forced to fight Tyson?

As long as partition was off the table for North Viet Nam, then no one forced NVN to fight SVN. The war was truly optional. One side was already willing to live with partition so peace was always available. It is easy for today's people -- YOU -- who did not lived through that era to toss off those heavy losses. I lived through that era. I survived the 1968 Tet Offensive. I dodged bullets and choked on smoke on the streets of Sai Gon before all the Viets on this forum were even borned. It is only armchair generals who never had the burden of death on their conscience would call such victories 'sweet'.

 

[xunzi]

has anybody of us denied that China´s help did not exist? a question: Could China provide North Vietnam at this time air defence equipments, similar to the Soviets MIG-jet fighters and anti aircraft missiles?

You used the term "half-heart" effort to undermine our enormous support for your North Communist regime.

We provided what we can to you. You are asking us to build aircraft which everyone knows we are still very weak at the time. Despite our weakness, we did not hesitated to provide you with over 320,000 Chinese engineering and anti-aircraft artillery forces, and at one point 170,000 were in Vietnam to construct an airfield, maintenance and defence of North Vietnam. This afford you to conduct offensive maneuver in the South and deter the US from expanding to the North. Look up the chart to see what we provided to you. And why do you even ask that question? You did not beat the US by outgun, outmaneuver the US in the air. You won on the ground with bare gun that we provided, riding it out as we advised, and prolonged the war with China/Soviet support.

read my post earlier (#66). You pushed us into a corner. There was no much choice for us.

We push you into a corner? LOL WTF is this. We asked you to pick us over the Soviet or at least limit your tie with the Soviet, but the typical Vietnamese backstabbing the one who support them mightily in the war against French and Vietnam war with America. But we don't expect you to thank us or anything. It was typical of Vietnamese behavior to side with the stronger power, the richer country than the poor Chinese who actually stand by your side during imperialist resistance movement. As a matter of fact, you decide to side with the stronger and wealthier Soviet than the one who grow poor together with you in the early 20th. Typical Vietnamese who doesn't remember anything but now we are getting richer by day and powerful by year and the Soviet collapsed in 1990s, you run back to us for support on your regime survival.

if the Khmer Rouge did not attack us over and over again, then we would probably haven´t started the invasion. That is true, what you said at the second part: the war against Cambodia and China did cost Vietnam another 20 years of economic development. The current weakness of Vietnam is partly due to the sad events.

All in all, the wars in the last century probably costs Vietnam 60 years of economic development, not to mention the cost of lives.

You need to ask why Khmer Rouge started to attack you. It's all started with you cuddle up with the Soviet and help them gaining influence in Southeast Asia when the rest of Southeast Asia was terrifying of Soviet influence in the region. Luckily, we got the ball to test the Soviet by launching attack on you and stop the Soviet movement toward Southeast Asia. Otherwise, Southeast Asia would be a satellite, puppet states of the Soviet in the 1980s. Funny how everything turns out for the good. Vietnam was pressure to free Cambodia and Soviet collapsed.

wait a moment, we are still a member of ASEAN, we maintain friendly relation with anybody, not against China. Unlike Japan and Philippines, we are NOT in any military alliances.

I hope your country keep those words and not make alliance to target us because we are very wary of you.

 

[neehar]

salute to the brave soldier..RIP

 

[NiceGuy]

The human wave tactic did not broke the French's will at Dien Bien Phu. In fact, it nearly broke Vo's will because he nearly physically threw the Chinese advisors out after repeated horrific losses of his men.

But it did broke US's will in Tet offensive and US started reducing its support to South VN govt after that shock.

You cannot claim to defeat an opponent when you consistently lost in battles. The US simply withdrew from a conflict because of lack of political will, not from lack of military strength. Mike Tyson could beat me to a pulp then quit the ring. Would YOU say that I outboxed him?

Then do u have the guts to fight wt Mike Tyson when u know he can knock you out in one hit ?? pls note that even China dare not face wt US navy to take back TW until now

 

[Viet]

China has supported vn for more than 20 years, you called that half-hearted support???

After China-soviet split, both vn and nk threw themselves into u.s.s.r. and disregard China, it is vn and nk who has betrayed China at first, not the other way around. China clearly told vn and nk to choose between China and ussr, and both of course chose ussr thinking they could get more stuff from it.

As a result of that, China stopped her support over vn. Well, history is always playing tricks. Now both beg China for help again.

Why did you see it necessary to push Vietnam and Korea into the corner? Why did North Vietnam have to chose between USSR and China, just because you had conflict with the Soviets?

Again, China was not willing to support Vietnam´s ultimate goal: re-unitification. That is the root of the problem. You played foul. By the way, China was a mess in that time, unable to provide modern weapons such as MIG-21s and anti-aircraft missiles against high-flying bombers like B-52s. Vietnam was at war, and not in a peace time.

History proves that North Vietnam was on the right side.

 

[xunzi]

LOL, bro. This is standard in your head:
"Chinese was help Vietnamese for free", "Chinese is good side, Vietnam was helped by Chinese and pay nothing for China", "China help Vietnam and didn't demand any price, any cost ...", "Chinese help Vietnam was not for China interests ...", " PRC attacked Vietnam because Vietnam betrayed China ...." ....etc.

Hey, friend, Are you saw anything bullshjt like those kind of thought.

You, Chinese alway want stand at higher place, like a big Empire (of course you are) and look down on us, and you want to grant us benefits if we do like you said.

It's natural when you're big country and we're small nations. So you should stop pretend (or you really think so) like a God (help the other for nothing or help them because you're so kind).

You shake hand with Western in 1970s, now we do the same, we can cooperate with anyone we see they are friend, if they're not against our Policy and interest, and we no need your permission.

It is true initially we aid you with expectation of loan and return the debt payment, but eventually we erased those debt and to this day, not a single payment received by the debt you owned us. Talking about generosity, we are truly one of a kind for whom we consider a "blood and thick" friend.

It was not us who think we are the big brother but your ******* Uncle Ho, founder of the current Vietnamese country, considered us as a big brother. As big brother, we take care of you the best we can. Like I said, despite our massive failure with the great leap forward, we are poor and famine in China everywhere, we still provided you with help whenever you ask without asking for immediate return on ANYTHING.

"Ho Chi Minh secretly visited China in May and June 1965. On 16
May, he met Mao Zedong in Changsha, the capital city of Mao's home
province Hunan. Ho expressed his gratitude for China's support and his
satisfaction with the achievements of Le Duan's visit a month earlier.
Then he clarified that Hanoi was determined "to take the main burden of
the war by themselves." What the Vietnamese needed, Ho stated, was
China's material and military support, so that Hanoi could send its own
people to fight in the South. Mao was ready to provide such assistance,
and he promised Ho that China would offer "whatever support was needed
by the Vietnamese." Ho then asked Mao to commit China's resources to
building 12 new roads for Vietnam. Mao gave his consent immediately. -46 "

First and foremost, my friend, we only publicly shake hand with the West in the 1970s to expand our interest, but everyone within the Communist brotherly alliance knows deep inside the hatred of Western imperialism run deep in CCP's psychic.

 

[NiceGuy]

You obviously did not study the political aspects of the Vietnam War.

A war is motivated by political goal (or goals). The political goal then sets the military objectives.

For example...I want to defeat X country. I want to be able to present to X sufficient evidences that he cannot continue the fight. It would be the military's job to give me those evidences. The military would say to itself: Need to take that hill, that valley, those cities, and blockade all sea ports. With those objectives completed, I can present to X as evidences that his defeat is inevitable.

But what if I decide to throw away all those evidences?

There was a gross difference between political goals between North Viet Nam and South Viet Nam. The political goal for the NVN/China alliance was a unified Viet Nam under communist rule. The political goal for the SVN/US alliance was partition ala the Koreas. The military objectives will be equally grossly different. The North will continue to fight no matter what. The South will fight and stop at the 17 parallel.

You cannot win a war when YOU STOPPED YOURSELF from fighting. In this case, I stopped myself when the enemy crossed the 17th parallel. I beat him in battle after battle. I chased him and every time he crossed the 17th, I stopped and that allowed him respite. Time after time. No one can continue fighting this kind of war. It is not about military losses but about political endurance. Stopping chasing the enemy at the 17th is the equivalent of throwing away successful military objectives over and over.

Cu chi is only 60km from Sai Gon, and US-South VN still couldnt uproot VC there, so how could poor trained and low morale South VN army attack to Ha Noi ??

If South VN army fought alone without US force like NVA then it would be crushed in few days ,not 20 years. pls note that well trained French troops only last 54 days in Dien Bien Phu