Gal Giap, aged 102, is dead

The General Giap died aged 102. This man, whose name will tell nothing to the youngest, was not only the symbol but the incarnation of the Vietnamese struggle first for Independence against the French then the fight for the reunification against the US, Teacher of History, his wife died in Paolo Condor, where the French were putting all criminals and political opponents… Learning from mistakes of lost Battle of Na San, he is the winner of Dien Bien Phu. Rigid, he tried to replicate the battle against the French against a more powerful adversary and was the looser of the Tet Offensive.

However he was as well the one setting-up the Camps where 71% of the French War Prisoners died of mal-nutrition, starvation, brain-wash and mistreatments. On the 10.300 French Fighters captured at Dien Bien Phu, only 3,200 came back to France, walking skeletons. He decimated the South Vietnamese Communists with an ill-though offensive (some would say that was a plus) but ultimately, his strategy won the war.

Yes, a true hero, he did what needed to be done and secured the victory for his men.
RIP.

RIP :bow:

A good summary from the Beast:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ncibility.html

Giap was an effective military commander and, apparently, an inspirational leader of troops when he served as a field officer. Though he made mistakes and lost some actions -- notably Tet -- he also managed to craft a military effort capable of surprising effectiveness.

Brenus makes a good point about the conditions of NV POW facilities. Giap must bear some responsibility for that as well -- though I do not know that they would have been better/kinder under another NVA leader. Was it Giap's fault in a personal sense? I suspect there were issues of culture and of historical grievance that were likely to have surfaced in such facilities under any NVA leader. That said, the camps were horror-stories and must be counted as an evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Giap was an effective military commander and, apparently, an inspirational leader of troops when he served as a field officer. Though he made mistakes and lost some actions -- notably Tet -- he also managed to craft a military effort capable of surprising effectiveness.

Brenus makes a good point about the conditions of NV POW facilities. Giap must bear some responsibility for that as well -- though I do not know that they would have been better/kinder under another NVA leader. Was it Giap's fault in a personal sense? I suspect there were issues of culture and of historical grievance that were likely to have surfaced in such facilities under any NVA leader. That said, the camps were horror-stories and must be counted as an evil.

---

One of the great regional historical what-ifs must be what would have happened had the US kept out of military efforts in Vietnam, with the North Vietnamese leaders apparently great fans of the founders of the US. With the rapprochement well under way now despite the earlier conflict, would relations have been even closer earlier had it not been for the war? Would Vietnam have had the chance of turning into a Japan, modernised and with cultural values close to America's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

One of the great regional historical what-ifs must be what would have happened had the US kept out of military efforts in Vietnam, with the North Vietnamese leaders apparently great fans of the founders of the US. With the rapprochement well under way now despite the earlier conflict, would relations have been even closer earlier had it not been for the war? Would Vietnam have had the chance of turning into a Japan, modernised and with cultural values close to America's?

---

Part of our deal with De Gaulle. We never really offered Ho Chi Minh or any of the rest of them support after 1945, leaving it alone as part of the French sphere of influence. Hardly surprising that HCM turned to the Soviet bloc for support (he had, after all, been involved with the Comintern since the '20s). Once that occurred, the tenor of the Cold War made any rapprochement more or less a non-starter. Still, you are correct, some different decisions during the last summer of the war may have effected a completely different development in Southeast Asia.

Did he lose the Tet-offensive?

IMHO, USA thought they had started to get things under control, when a green storm hit them.

I, for one, think the Tet-offensive played a major part as to why USA backed down like a dog with its tail between the legs.

Please remember, military victories are not counted in people dead - but counted in national success. Of course a WHOLE lot more VC would die in the battles compared to USAnians.

That's what happens when you give farmers make-do weapons and send them against the worlds premiere super powers military might.

But Gal Giap knew that you could lose a hundred battles, if you won the war. And he did.

My deepest respect. He had faults, of course. But it was a tough time and he needed to make tough decisions. And it's not like the US soldiers or generals behaved as saints.

RIP - a TRUE freedom fighter.

Quote:

---

That's what happens when you give farmers make-do weapons and send them against the worlds premiere super powers military might.

---

The troops that fought and died for the North in the Tet Offensive were well-trained and well-equipped veterans...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

The troops that fought and died for the North in the Tet Offensive were well-trained and well-equipped veterans...

---

First of all, I talked about the war and its strategies at large.

Secondly, no.

Just no.

USAnian troops had access to WAY more modern weapons and training regimes. It's not like it's Viet Cong who used WMD's and had helicopter supported infantry, now is it? :rolleyes:

About half of the operational forces gathered for the Tet Offensive were PAVN , and were indeed, as I said, "well-trained and well-equipped veterans". Most of the rest were Main-Force VC, who were trained in the North and equipped almost as well as the regulars.

The North wanted to try its hand at a conventional offensive, and of course they lost, because, as you say:

Quote:

---

USAnian troops had access to WAY more modern weapons and training regimes.

---

That's why the defeat was so painful - they weren't just losing random conscripts handed bolt-action rifles, they were losing the cream of their armed forces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

About half of the operational forces gathered for the Tet Offensive were PAVN , and were indeed, as I said, "well-trained and well-equipped veterans". Most of the rest were Main-Force VC, who were trained in the North and equipped almost as well as the regulars.

The North wanted to try its hand at a conventional offensive, and of course they lost, because, as you say:



That's why the defeat was so painful - they weren't just losing random conscripts handed bolt-action rifles, they were losing the cream of their armed forces.

---

... And nothing of what you just said diminish Gal Giap.

Nor were you able to communicate how "well equipped soldiers" suddenly translate to "soldiers less equipped than their enemy".

Pass me some.

Quote:

---

... And nothing of what you just said diminish Gal Giap.

---

I was actually trying to correct your 'diminishment' of the majority of the professional Vietnamese soldiers who actually fought for the North after you characterized them as "farmers [with] make-do weapons". :yes:

Quote:

---

Nor were you able to communicate how "well equipped soldiers" suddenly translate to "soldiers less equipped than their enemy".

---

So, there's a wide range of military technology between 'sharpened stick' and 'B-52 bomber'.

It's also rather facile to declare that only the best-equipped force in any given conflict counts as "well-equipped"...

He still caused the USA nightmares to this day and was one of very few generals on the planet who can say they made the USA retreat and admit a defeat. There is often a bit of luck involved in such victories or would anyone say the USA were never lucky in their victories?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Did he lose the Tet-offensive?

IMHO, USA thought they had started to get things under control, when a green storm hit them.

I, for one, think the Tet-offensive played a major part as to why USA backed down like a dog with its tail between the legs.

Please remember, military victories are not counted in people dead - but counted in national success. Of course a WHOLE lot more VC would die in the battles compared to USAnians.

That's what happens when you give farmers make-do weapons and send them against the worlds premiere super powers military might.

But Gal Giap knew that you could lose a hundred battles, if you won the war. And he did.

My deepest respect. He had faults, of course. But it was a tough time and he needed to make tough decisions. And it's not like the US soldiers or generals behaved as saints.

RIP - a TRUE freedom fighter.

---

Giap, interviewed following the conflict, said that NV was within days of seeking terms (relatively favorable ones) after Tet. The VC was almost eradicated and much of the subsequent conflict was effected by NVA troops infiltrating South through Cambodia (hence Nixon's decision to attack into Cambodia in 1970).

They shifted from guerilla conflict to open attacks in Tet and got their heads handed to them tactically.

HOWEVER, and this was huge, Cronkite and others in the American media DID despair after the offensive and called it a shocking setback. They began to wonder if victory was possible short of using nuclear weapons. Essentially, we finally got the open battle we wanted, won it, and then had the media announce we had lost....and sell the FACT of that loss to the public.

Our willingness to wage the war was thereby sapped, allowing the USA to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Giap really was close to terms, saw the media reaction in the USA, and began to think that they could win simply by not quitting...that we would quit first. On that level it can be construed as a victory for the NV forces. Their victory was political, not military.

Of course, as history points out, it was enough for them to win, so.....

Quote:

---

and then had the media announce we had lost....and sell the FACT of that loss to the public.

---

The media and the public were shocked not at a supposed "loss", as contemporary conservatives are fond of asserting, but because they perceived that the national government had flat-out deceived them as to the situation in Vietnam and the very character of the conflict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Eh.. actually he is regarded warmly by American military doctrine and even most people. You'll study him at West Point. Thanks to the vietnam experience our military was radically reformed as demonstrated penultimately in Desert Storm.

Unfortunately, as demonstrated in Iraq and Afghanistan, no Army can make up for bad policy.

---

Hmm, I'm not sure Desert Storm proves that you could have done better in Vietnam in the early 90ies. Completely different terrain and a different enemy as well, the technological differences on the ground were probably smaller in Vietnam than they were during Desert Storm.

The air war however was pretty much won over Vietnam as well but then again that's your thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

That's not the point at all. The reforms were in the structure of the Army.

---

So how did Desert Storm demonstrate the new structure? And what were the advantages if not that you were able to roll over your enemy almost unopposed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

The air war however was pretty much won over Vietnam as well but then again that's your thing.

---

Rather stunning that the US lost 3500 fixed-wing and 5500 rotary-wing aircraft in the war against a "backwater".

Stalin knows that feel. :sneaky:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

So how did Desert Storm demonstrate the new structure? And what were the advantages if not that you were able to roll over your enemy almost unopposed?

---

One thing Vietnam did teach US strategists that was observable in the first Gulf War was the strict adherence to clearly defined, limited, and measurable military goals tied directly to clearly defined, limited, and measurable political goals. Attempting to use military force to achieve broad, vague policy goals such as "stopping the spread of communism" or "bringing democracy to the Middle East" is a recipe for mission creep.

About the article of the beast: Full of approximation. The Vietminh succeeded to carry 24 pieces of 120 mm, and 15 of 75 mm. The real surprise was the AA composed by 36 x 37 mm and 20 heavy machine gun 12.7 mm. We are far of the 150 Heavy Artillery pieces, even if you include 20 x 120 mm mortars (which are not artillery but infantry weapons).
Giap was far to be patient. It took him some time to understand he couldn’t win in Na-San, and his premature offensive on the “useful delta” in 1951 was costly but he learned from it.
The French did as well, understanding that he won’t attack a too strong position, in order to destroy the Vietminh Corps de Bataille, you had to present an acceptable target, big enough to tempt Giap, but not too much.
And unlike the French Generals, Giap understood the political consequences of a battle.

“Part of our deal with De Gaulle.”: err, it was no deal with De Gaulle. Roosevelt (so was Truman)was opposed of a French Return to Indochina, so the French Troops had to be shipped by the English, without the USA knowing. In fact, the US Jedburgh (OSS) did trained the Vietminh which had to good idea to hind the fact they were Communist (explaining the “US” Constitution, by the way). The Japanese surrendered to the British and the Chinese (Nationalist) and these kept the survivors of the French Troops captured during the Japanese attack of the 9th of March 1945 in the Camps. The US representative Patti contacted then Ho Chi Minh. Ho Chi Minh then declared the Independence of Vietnam the 2nd of September 1945 (Capitulation of Japan), claiming that France having being defeated by Japan, Vietnam gained its independence from the Japanese defeat.

That is a very comprehensive explanation and summary of how the operations are conducted, Cube (and PJ). I knew a lot of this somewhere but never thought about it or read about it in such a condensed form, very good post!

However, I wouldn't call this structure, more like strategy or mode of operation. And additionally the type of enemy you face matters as well.
Desert Storm was a huge success but Desert Storm 2 only happened because Saddam wasn't caught. In other words, would it have helped to prevent the spread of communism in Vietnam if the US Army had simply combed through the country up to the very northern end and then left again, similar to Desert Storm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Structure is important. The NCO corps is structure, and the NCO corps of Desert Storm (or even the modern US Army) is far more educated and motivated than the NCO corps of Vietnam. That is a structural difference. The creation of a purely volunteer Army is also certainly a matter of structure, as it required levels of funding to maintain permanent readiness that (to this day) dwarf any other nation. This is all because of Vietnam, and the long look inside that it prompted. However, we would not have won in Vietnam without taking the ground war to the North. That never happened because of political reasons, mainly not wanting a hot war with Russia.

---

You're right about the structure, my apology for forgetting about that part of your previous post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

And desert storm 2, as you call it, happened for so many reasons that trying to claim any specific one as the cause is the height of misunderstanding. Its the definition of cluster-fuck. The lesson to be learned is not new: The only war worth waging is Total War.

---

Sure, I just meant that without Saddam's return to power, the second part might not have happened after all. And without capturing Ho Chi Minh and his buddies, Vietnam may have become communist anyway despite a less taxing operation for the US Army. I mean just because the soldiers are less exhausted one cannot assume that a political victory will follow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Posted junk that ended with:

Of course, as history points out, it was enough for them to win, so.....

---

So...?

You act as if the good guys in Vietnam didn't have televisions and radio to follow the ebb and flow of USAnian morale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Maybe. All I can say is that having served in Iraq, I still don't know why we went in there. In retrospect the evidence to go to war in '03 seems to have been blatantly fabricated, and as far as I can tell the United States of America in no way benefited from the war (financially or otherwise).

---

I think President Bush explained that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfwuDjC6nTs

It was basically for two reasons:

1. Iraq had WMDs, turned out to be false, I could swear he once even said it was fabricated but I may be off since I can't find that anywhere.

2. To stop Iraq from being a breeding ground for terrorists by establishing a government they will all love. In other words: LOL!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

We know Pakistan has to be crushed to secure Afghanistan, but the political will isn't there.

---

I'm not so sure about it having to be crushed since it doesn't seem quite as hopeless a case and is relatively stable, it might end up even more unstable after getting crushed. And it has nukes so I hope by crushed you don't mean nuke the country. On the other hand sending conventional troops could end up disastrous.

Why are people honoring this man?

I sense a bit of politics at play in the veneration of Giap, such as that Daily Beast article gleefully detailing how he "took America down". He can be credited (wrongfully to a large extent) with defeating the US, and that carries a special significance to a lot of people beyond simple academic interest.

IMO, Giap's actions against the French are far more interesting and significant from a military history perspective than his actions against the US. During the latter, he simply sat behind an unassailable border and sent men to their deaths. His real accomplishment was in convincing millions of young Vietnamese to ignore all instincts of self preservation and willfully walk into a meat grinder.

As in Afghanistan today, the politicians created a set of rules that made the game impossible for the military to win. Giap, I suppose, should be credited with recognizing that and taking full advantage of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Why do you note the passing of anyone who has made significant contributions to their field? From an academic point of view, Giap's story is essential to the tale of war. Emotion shouldn't factor into it.

---

Yeah, which is why we all agreed for the Osama bin Laden death thread to be free of emotion....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I didn't celebrate his death, as I don't celebrate anyone's death. That said, we are not still fighting against Vietnam.

---

We stopped fighting Osama after Tora Bora. Bush even admitted it wasn't one of his priorities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

We are still fighting the group he created. You're being dense.

---

We are fighting the group we created with our foreign policy since the 1950s.

EDIT: If I am dense, please be the pickax to my boulder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

That's an academic discussion worth having. Much like the one going on here regarding the circumstances of Giap's life and his relationship with our country. You should start a thread on it

---

I am not trying to diverge the conversation here. I am trying to make a point that I find it a bit amusing how a bunch of men and women likely born after the Vietnam War are giving respectful statements to a man who committed war crimes against the French and sent thousands to get slaughtered by Americans in order to kill thousands of Americans. The war might be over, but I am sure there are still Vietnam veterans still alive that wouldn't lay flowers on his grave.

Lots of people here put up a solid front against my attempt at an Osama death thread that wasn't just high fives and jingoism, I am just curious whether the time difference is really the reason whether someone considers a man a monster or just another actor in a long and complex play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I think Giap and Osama are comparable in many ways... but I don't know that enough things are yet known to have a fair discussion about his role, even concerning doctrine. The war is not over, even. I won't be the one to start that discussion, but I think you have a point.

---

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.

“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…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

And desert storm 2, as you call it, happened for so many reasons that trying to claim any specific one as the cause is the height of misunderstanding. Its the definition of cluster-fuck. The lesson to be learned is not new: The only war worth waging is Total War.

---

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 a completely inoffensive name

Why are people honoring this man?

---

Because he fought the great devil and won.
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

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.

Arguable. Personally I see it as one body that swaps heads every 4\8 years between stupid and evil.

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.

I respect him because he was good military tactician. :creep:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Pre-Edited

---

So were Ambrose Burnside and George Custer. It is not a quality that should inherently warrant respect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Pre-Edited

---

1. Your bias is getting boring.

2. That doesn't make you look any better than the ones you criticize.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Pre-Edited

---

So was Hitler. Why do you love Hitler?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

So was Hitler. Why do you love Hitler?

---

Hitler was elected. Why do you hate democracy and freedom?

Husar, I know, I know... But if someone gives the opportunity to smash, I will smash :)

Ka - POW!!

Quote:

---

Hitler was elected

---

uhhhhh...

Quote:

---

The leadership in Hanoi was despondent at the outcome of their offensive

---

the first words on the google page, you stupid Skitstövel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

So were Ambrose Burnside and George Custer. It is not a quality that should inherently warrant respect.

---

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 Montmorency

uhhhhh...

---

Uuuuuuh?

Need me to fill in some obvious and glaring gaps in your education?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

uhhhhh...

---

He was, mostly.

Read up, guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Read up, guys.

---

:rolleyes:

Yes, do read up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

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.

---

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:

---

Robert E. Lee, Mao-Tse-Tung, Napoleon, Rommel, Alexander

---

...Apart from mao I dont think any of them were war criminals, in the legal sense anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

...Apart from mao I dont think any of them were war criminals, in the legal sense anyway.

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Hitler was elected. Why do you hate democracy and freedom?

---

Technically, yes he was. But personally I don't think that the Weimar republic ever became a functioning democracy in its short existance.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

---

France has always been pretty damn brutal, we can only they don't get the GRANDEUR-fever again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Read up, guys.

---

Yes, read the article you linked and then tell me how much of that was 'legal' or 'democratic'.

Quote:

---

Yes, read the article you linked and then tell me how much of that was 'legal' or 'democratic'.

---

Hitler's appointment to the Chancellorship, while technically legal, was clearly in no way democratic.

If you think what Hitler did after January 1933 counts as legal, well, I'm afraid I can't help you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Hitler's appointment to the Chancellorship, while technically legal, was clearly in no way democratic.

If you think what Hitler did after January 1933 counts as legal, well, I'm afraid I can't help you.

---

it depends whether you view a largely bloodless coup as a "legal" change of government or not. Mostly this comes under the old saw about treason never prospering.....

https://i494.photobucket.com/albums/...0684836355.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Hitler's appointment to the Chancellorship, while technically legal, was clearly in no way democratic.

If you think what Hitler did after January 1933 counts as legal, well, I'm afraid I can't help you.

---

He was democraticslly ellected, that's a fact. That he killed it afterwards is something else.

To those who believe that Hitler was "democratically elected":

1. Why do you believe that "Chancellor" was an elected office?

2. Why do you believe that the backroom dealings of German politicians of the era constitute a manifestation of the will of the people?

3. Why do you believe that the NSDAP achieved a majority win in one or more elections prior to Hitler's assumption of dictatorial power?

4. Why do you believe that the Reichstag fire was not a Nazi plot?

5. Why do you believe that it was "democratic" or "legal" for party paramilitaries to engage in political violence against the opposition?

6. Why do you believe that preventing all opposition politicians from participating in legislative proceedings counted as "democratic" or "legal"?

Sheesh...

HUURR DURR I READ IT ON AN INTERNET SITE THAT SPECIAZES IN DEBUNKING

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Wrote stuff not worth repeating

---

Hitler was elected with the democratic rules of the time.

You can ***** and moan about it, but it wont change the facts. He also made no secret of wanting supreme power, so it's not like people didn't know what they voted for.

You can of course play the old "true Scotsman" fallacy, but you are smarter than that, no? It's like saying Bush II wasnt' really re-elected democratically as the majority didn't vote for him, and his own family controlled the outcome... Or you can just say he was elected and move on :shrug:

Quote:

---

Hitler was elected with the democratic rules of the time.

---

Nope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Hitler was elected with the democratic rules of the time.

---

Some quick google double checking notes:

Hitler was defeated in the only election for which he stood for office. Both rounds of presidential voting went to Hindenburg. Hitler's strong second place finish -- probably with a better percentage than he thought he might receive -- confirmed the growing power of the NSDAP and confirmed that the KPD had lost out.

In the Reichstag, the NSDAP was never a majority party, though in the last two elections prior to Hitler's seizure of power, the NSDAP were the largest single party in that body.

The strong showing in a race for the Presidency coupled with his being the leader of the plurality party in the Reichstag were factors that combined to propel him into the chancellorship -- to which he was appointed, not elected.

So, Hitler was never elected, but the electoral process was one of the stepping stones to power for the NSDAP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

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

---

well... rommel and napoleon were the invaders not the invaded. if u would make the ww2 comparison then he should be compared to zhukov i think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

If the European Orgahs want to retain their facade of superior intellect, you all should lock Kadagar away in a closet somewhere.

---

I am perfectly aware of the fact that I am dumb, I don't even know where I left my superior intellect. But kadagar is right about Hitler being elected. It kinda went wrong after that but what he says is true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I am perfectly aware of the fact that I am dumb, I don't even know where I left my superior intellect. But kadagar is right about Hitler being elected. It kinda went wrong after that but what he says is true.

---

eh... how can u still say that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

To those who believe that Hitler was "democratically elected":

1. Why do you believe that "Chancellor" was an elected office?

2. Why do you believe that the backroom dealings of German politicians of the era constitute a manifestation of the will of the people?

3. Why do you believe that the NSDAP achieved a majority win in one or more elections prior to Hitler's assumption of dictatorial power?

4. Why do you believe that the Reichstag fire was not a Nazi plot?

5. Why do you believe that it was "democratic" or "legal" for party paramilitaries to engage in political violence against the opposition?

6. Why do you believe that preventing all opposition politicians from participating in legislative proceedings counted as "democratic" or "legal"?

Sheesh...

---

I don't think that Hitler's rise to power was democratic, but my reasons are different.

1. Prime ministers and Chancellors (largely the same) are not elected as such, but approved by a majority of the legislature. So while technically Hitler was not elected in the capacity of chancellor, his appointment was legal on paper. As said, most of the things he did afterwards were unconstitutional.

2. See number 1. The conservatives approved his bid for chancellor because they didn't believe things would turn out that bad in practice. This isn't an unusual turn of events in parliamentary democracies today.

3. No argument.

4. I think that it's actually unknown what the truth is behind the Reichstag fire. It could be that it was a false flag operation orchestrated by the nazis, or it could have been a lucky turn of events that gave them the excuse they needed to cement their power.

5 & 6: I agree with you, and these are the reasons why I don't think that the rise of the nazis qualifies as "democractic".

The Weimar Republic never had one easy moment from its inception, and having paramilitary gangs like the SA mucking things up only made it worse. The various factions in the Reichstag were never able to form a coaltion to actually support a government, at least not for any meaningful amount of time. The only reason the administrations/cabinets functioned at all was because they used various "emergency clauses" to keep the daily operations of the state running. Which is one of the reasons why Hitler was able to shove aside the constitution so easily - because it never worked properly to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

eh... how can u still say that...

---

Well it's simply true

Edit, Krazilec is better at it. But Kadagar isn't wrong here. You don't have to like it, but he isn't.

its not true lol? didnt u read a word that seamus wrote? or pay attention during history classes.

what exactly was he elected for/to?

in any case i dont see why it is relevant, because he changed the rules after he became chancellor and while we can argue all day if it was legal or not, im quite sure we can all agree that it was not democratic.

hitlers office of chancellor was largely ceremonial, he was appointed to it by president hindenburg who disliked hitler but feared his growing power and tried to appease him. hitler then orchestrated or conveniently used the fire in the reichstag to gain more power, effectively making him omnipotent for 4 years. when hindenburg died he made himself fuhrer, which ruled for life. so what was he elected to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

its not true lol? didnt u read a word that seamus wrote? or pay attention during history classes.

what exactly was he elected for/to?

in any case i dont see why it is relevant, because he changed the rules after he became chancellor and while we can argue all day if it was legal or not, im quite sure we can all agree that it was not democratic.

---

Krazilec explained it just fine. That Hitler abused the system, alas. What Kadagar says is still true though

kadagar isnt right. hitler wasnt elected, this doesnt mean that his appointment as chancellor was undemocratic. however what the office was, and which he was appointed to by the rules of the time, is not the same office which hitler made it to be, which he did by changing the rules of his time...

if the majority of the people of germany at that time wanted hitler to be their president then he wouldve won the election (assuming it wasnt rigged). but he didnt win, hindenburg became president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

kadagar isnt right. hitler wasnt elected, this doesnt mean that his appointment as chancellor was undemocratic. however what the office was, and which he was appointed to by the rules of the time, is not the same office which hitler made it to be, which he did by changing the rules of his time...

---

Well, that was the point of my previous post.

His appointoment as chancellor was legal on paper. Which is a weak argument considering the situation that Germany was in. But it's technically true.

...and that's where it ends, really - his decision to usurp Hindenburg's powers after his death (into a combined office of chancellor/president that he called "Fuhrer") was clearly illegal, as were most of the other things he did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

kadagar isnt right. hitler wasnt elected, this doesnt mean that his appointment as chancellor was undemocratic. however what the office was, and which he was appointed to by the rules of the time, is not the same office which hitler made it to be, which he did by changing the rules of his time...

---

Yeah he did that. That is where things got wrong he was a dictator who immediatly scrapped everything that didn't fancy him. But he was in fact elected by the rules at the time, wasn't a very good idea in hindsight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Yeah he did that. That is where things got wrong he was a dictator who immediatly scrapped everything that didn't fancy him. But he was in fact elected by the rules at the time, wasn't a very good idea in hindsight.

---

except that he wasnt elected... but appointed.

consider this situation, the "voorzitter van de 2e kamer" (president of the house of representatives) stages a coup and becomes the next leader and dictator of the netherlands. however this person has been appointed to his office by political "backroom" talks and not by any direct form of democratic election. so while the appointment is a legal decision by the democratic government, you cant say that person was elected as if it was the "will of the people" which seems to me what kadagar is trying to do when he is saying that hitler was elected. that the german people got what they wanted and deserved, what they voted for etc etc...