Gal Giap, aged 102, is dead

[Brenus]

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.

[Husar]

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

[HopAlongBunny]

RIP

A good summary from the Beast:

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

[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.

[Pannonian]

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?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why are people honoring this man?

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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....

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[Husar]

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.

[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.

[Husar]

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.

[Greyblades]

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

[Montmorency]

Hitler was elected with the democratic rules of the time.

Nope.

[Fragony]

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.

[The Stranger]

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...

[Fragony]

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.

[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.

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.

[Fragony]

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