Give me an hour or two, and I am sure I will have started a new thread about this as I am genuinely concerned regarding the answer to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Printable View
Give me an hour or two, and I am sure I will have started a new thread about this as I am genuinely concerned regarding the answer to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
“Giap's actions against the French are far more interesting and significant from a military history perspective than his actions against the US” Agree. Giap is one of the few who succeeded to turn Guerrilla Forces into Regular Forces. It was not easy, and credits are due to his skills of organisation and his less nice part of his character, the inflexibility and roughness.
Helped by a very hard-core political agenda based on Communism, he imposed this turn and created an Army . When the Nationalist Chinese lost the battle, he was able to train them in South China, then, in my opinion, what is the key of his success and the ultimate victory, he launched the offensive on Dong-Khe, That Khe, Lang-son and Cao-Bang, securing the North Vietnam Borders and the RC4 (Route Coloniale No 4) in 1950. This gave him the road to supply his units in modern Weapons, especially during and after the Korean War.
“the politicians created a set of rules that made the game impossible for the military to win” Usual complain from the military… They should realise at one moment that war is a political action (or economical when you go for loot). You do NOT wage war just for the sake of it. Giap had (and Ho Chi Minh) had their aims, the French and the US moved from theirs.
Still, the Vietnamese fighting for (or with) the French showed a great deal of heroism. My father survived 3 assaults on his post (2 Europeans and 60 Vietnamese) only because his soldiers did a good job (and a change of a machine gun position). Why they collapse so easily when the US were involved…
I would say that a big chunk of the cluster-fuck is the lack of understanding that peacekeeping/nation building are fundamentally different from normal warfare. That part strikes me as a tack on and neglected at the critical beginning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Because he fought the great devil and won.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Giap did what needed to be done, a bit like many American TV show heroes.
You just hate him because you grew up in the great devil and your nation had 40 years to spin the story of political self interest and colonialism into a fight for freedom when it was really the other side fighting to free their nation.
Hrm. "Great devil"... never thought of the USA as cohesive enough to be referred to as a singular "devil". If only they were devils, they might actually be able to agree to act once in a while.
It's their corporate identity, no matter how chaotic the inside is, to the outside they always appear as a united nation. It's not like they sent a republican army and a democrat army to Vietnam, it was just one single US Army.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Arguable. Personally I see it as one body that swaps heads every 4\8 years between stupid and evil.
We last swapped heads 3 years ago, and prior to that 5 years before. Pre-official PMs, our first lords of the treasury lasted on average 2-3 years. One could argue that, with the stresses of the job and the human body being what it is, 4-8 years is the optimal length of time one can hold that office. Any longer than that and the average human body cannot cope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I respect him because he was good military tactician. :creep:
So were Ambrose Burnside and George Custer. It is not a quality that should inherently warrant respect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
1. Your bias is getting boring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
2. That doesn't make you look any better than the ones you criticize.
So was Hitler. Why do you love Hitler?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
We seem to have a love affair with a lot of "war criminals": Robert E. Lee, Mao-Tse-Tung, Napoleon, Rommel, Alexander...etc.
Whether its just a fascination with mass murder, or whether these people teach us something about ourselves is very curious indeed.
Hitler was elected. Why do you hate democracy and freedom?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Husar, I know, I know... But if someone gives the opportunity to smash, I will smash :)
Ka - POW!!
uhhhhh...Quote:
Hitler was elected
the first words on the google page, you stupid SkitstövelQuote:
The leadership in Hanoi was despondent at the outcome of their offensive
Custer had the respect of his enemies, alright. They even had a nickname for him referring to his ability to endure long marches on horseback. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Uuuuuuh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Need me to fill in some obvious and glaring gaps in your education?
He was, mostly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Read up, guys.
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Yes, do read up.
They're notable because their tactics/strategies, not because they were more brutal than their contemporary comanders. And underdogs are more popular than the top dog.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
...Apart from mao I dont think any of them were war criminals, in the legal sense anyway.Quote:
Robert E. Lee, Mao-Tse-Tung, Napoleon, Rommel, Alexander
By modern legal standards, it is likely that they all are. By the standards of their own eras, the verdict would vary. I agree that Mao probably gets that label regardless of then current or current standards being applied. The pedo stole all of his guerilla mantrae more or less whole cloth from Sun Tzu anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Eh... all I know is that I havent herad of any stories of napoleon executing POW's needlessly or robert E lee massacring civillians (unless he was involved in some of the indian wars previous that I dont know about, I wouldnt be surprised if so). From what little I remember Rommel was supposed to be pretty benevolent, as for alexander... well that long ago you were lucky if invaders left traces of your city's existence back then so he did pretty good.
If not them personally, then almost certainly some action by some underling (whom they would be responsible for) would qualify for a trip to the ICC.
In any case, they all did change/extend our understanding of just what is possible in war; I would submit that Giap belongs in that company. His leadership defeated a very powerful enemy and showed the amazing resilience of a people united against a foreign aggressor. Unlike Napoleon and Rommel, he actually won :p
Technically, yes he was. But personally I don't think that the Weimar republic ever became a functioning democracy in its short existance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
I've not studied the period in detail and I've not heard or read anything about "outright fraud" in the sense of false ballots and whatnot. It's well known however that his SA frequently attacked and disrupted gatherings of rival politicians like the communists.
Which isn't to say that Hitler was the only one to do so - the others just weren't successful in the end. But regardless; the entire election was democratic in name only and besides he exceeded his constitutional powers almost from the beginning.
Viewing Mao and Alexander as war criminals by modern standards is too easy to have to denote here.
Lee's campaign in Pennsylvania was specifically aimed at two goals: 1) political -- taking the war to the enemy and making them feel threatened and 2) taking lots of supplies and other stuff from the North. While Heth's move at Gettysburg was probably NOT prompted by raiding for shoes, Lee's troops were taking all sorts of stuff -- under orders -- and not issuing vouchers or indemnifying the locals in any way. Not a crime against humanity, but a war crime by modern definition.
Napoleon's armies were infamous, even by the standards of the time, for living off the land at the expense of the locals and beating/killing any local who attempted to dissuade them. Napoleon could not have been unaware of the practice. Moreover, his orders for dealing with Haiti -- even presuming RIbbe is off base on the worst episodes -- constitute not only war crimes but crimes against humanity by modern definition.
Rommel was in charge of the defenses of the so-called Atlantic Wall. Efforts to improve those defenses utilized "slave labor" conscripted from local populations and from prisoners of war. The basic means of promoting cooperation was simple. Refuse a job, no food ration cards -- good luck eating. Rommel may not, at that point, have been the ardent Nazi he was through the Anschluss, but he was certainly aware of who was building his fortifications...and thus, by modern definitions (and some contemporary ones) guilty of war crimes.
It is rather easy to take the modern definition and brand virtually any past military leader as a war criminal. Giap actually qualifies more quickly than most for his complicity with the NV POW system.
France has always been pretty damn brutal, we can only they don't get the GRANDEUR-fever againQuote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Yes, read the article you linked and then tell me how much of that was 'legal' or 'democratic'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency