Commanding general of the NVA during the Vietnam war dies at 102
Legendary Vietnam Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap dies at 102
Legendary Vietnam Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap dies at 102
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Gen Giap died
- Thread starter kraigWY
- Start date
As the son of a Vietnam veteran, I'm inclined to say "rot in hell"...
But the amateur military historian in me... Well.. I'm not going to say "rest in peace", but I can at least respect his effectiveness as a leader.
But the amateur military historian in me... Well.. I'm not going to say "rest in peace", but I can at least respect his effectiveness as a leader.
Giap was a skilled enemy and a cunning adversary. He did not beat our soldiers as he lost every battle. But he beat our politicians and was savvy enough to bend a pliable and easily-misled public to his cause.
As a student of military history, literally, I offer the opinion that Giap was a man due the respect of a warrior. For as an enemy, he was skilled... and in skill there is honor.
As he was an enemy, I do not revere him. As he was a communist, I disagree with his motivations. As he was defending what he believed was his nation and his people, I would like to think that he was not too different from those of us who would stand up for what we believe in.
No matter what one thinks, his passing (along with the passing a couple of years ago of Robert McNamara) marks the end of an era.
Thanks for putting up with my philosophical thoughts on this.
Sirhr
As a student of military history, literally, I offer the opinion that Giap was a man due the respect of a warrior. For as an enemy, he was skilled... and in skill there is honor.
As he was an enemy, I do not revere him. As he was a communist, I disagree with his motivations. As he was defending what he believed was his nation and his people, I would like to think that he was not too different from those of us who would stand up for what we believe in.
No matter what one thinks, his passing (along with the passing a couple of years ago of Robert McNamara) marks the end of an era.
Thanks for putting up with my philosophical thoughts on this.
Sirhr
Vo Nguyen Giap understood the American political process better than the American politicians did, and manipulated the media and counterculture in a manner which brought far more damage to American society than just convincing some politicians to renege on our diplomatic and strategic promises, as well as repudiating the dedicated efforts of those it sent to that war. He is as much the author of the modern American political and diplomatic landscape as any American born leader.
I credit him for his insight and cunning, and damn him for his part in contorting the legacy my generation leaves for its descendants.
Compared to him, Ho Chi Minh was an overaged cheerleader. He was ruthless enough to feed the bulk of the Viet Cong into the American meat grinder, and cynical enough to credit Communist Doctrine with wisdom it never possessed. Marx was an overeducated, pompous gasbag. Giap was a subtle and sagacious manipulator of an entire world's subconscious desires.
Our legacy has its origins in his insight.
Greg
I credit him for his insight and cunning, and damn him for his part in contorting the legacy my generation leaves for its descendants.
Compared to him, Ho Chi Minh was an overaged cheerleader. He was ruthless enough to feed the bulk of the Viet Cong into the American meat grinder, and cynical enough to credit Communist Doctrine with wisdom it never possessed. Marx was an overeducated, pompous gasbag. Giap was a subtle and sagacious manipulator of an entire world's subconscious desires.
Our legacy has its origins in his insight.
Greg
Last edited:
Both Ho Chi Min, and General Giap were trained by one Rene Defournaux, one of our earliest spooks, during WWII to fight the Japanese. They were well trained in our tactics by US.
If you want to read about this, go find a copy of 'The Winking Fox'. It details Rene's life and times and a lot of what he did in WWII, to include his time with Giap and Min.
I had the pleasure of meeting, dining with, and after dinner hanging out with Rene once. He was quite a guy with some pretty good sea stories.
I think this was teh beginning of US training those who we would always seem to fight later on. For some reason, as a nation, we cannot get beyond this behavior.
If you want to read about this, go find a copy of 'The Winking Fox'. It details Rene's life and times and a lot of what he did in WWII, to include his time with Giap and Min.
I had the pleasure of meeting, dining with, and after dinner hanging out with Rene once. He was quite a guy with some pretty good sea stories.
I think this was teh beginning of US training those who we would always seem to fight later on. For some reason, as a nation, we cannot get beyond this behavior.
SB:
I'll put that on my list... I just picked up a neat biography of "Chinese" Gordon, the British General. I have not had time to read it, but he's another of those fascinating characters in history.
Cheers,
Sirhr
I'll put that on my list... I just picked up a neat biography of "Chinese" Gordon, the British General. I have not had time to read it, but he's another of those fascinating characters in history.
Cheers,
Sirhr
I realize most veterans from that war would say rot in hell, and I absolutely respect that opinion.
I am of the mindset that one should respect their adversary, and of course attempt to kill him.
The man played a political game and won. He beat the politicians of the USA at their own game. I blame US Politicians for their desire to keep the war going and increase their stocks in the defense industry.
(Notice he never won a single battle against US Forces).
The US forced him back to the peace table when we s tarted bombing North Vietnam but we didn't have the political will to win, and it is said that he who has the desire will win.
But he's dead, should have happened 40 years ago.
Leaving the tribal warrior mind out, I respect the dead.
I am of the mindset that one should respect their adversary, and of course attempt to kill him.
The man played a political game and won. He beat the politicians of the USA at their own game. I blame US Politicians for their desire to keep the war going and increase their stocks in the defense industry.
(Notice he never won a single battle against US Forces).
The US forced him back to the peace table when we s tarted bombing North Vietnam but we didn't have the political will to win, and it is said that he who has the desire will win.
But he's dead, should have happened 40 years ago.
Leaving the tribal warrior mind out, I respect the dead.
Unrelated to the war, 102 friggin years old....after all of that combat, food, everything else.
That's old!
That's old!
We all, who claim to be warriors, will always learn from our enemies. Yes, many perished in the RVN, and many came back then perished courtesy of things that went on in the RVN. This does not change the fact that we learned form this. We who walked the path those who came before us made learned well. Good men on both sides warred upon one another for oath to country and their brand of freedom. They did not quit, we did. Lesson learned, never quit, never admit defeat, and if you must admit defeat, always come back to try again...and again...and again...and again ad infinitum until you succeed. My bet is sometime before the fall of Saigon, both Giap and Min looked at one another and admitted defeat, only to be handed a victory by American politicians. They were ready to quit, but had not done so. With the political edge they were given, they had motivation, and they made the right moves.
Did we learn from this? Many of us have. But our leadership seems to have forgotten and has fired off most of the smart ones in favor of keeping the ones who blindly follow orders of bad leadership
Did we learn from this? Many of us have. But our leadership seems to have forgotten and has fired off most of the smart ones in favor of keeping the ones who blindly follow orders of bad leadership
Last edited:
If you served in Vietnam, then you can voice your opinion, because you have earned that right. If you did not serve, you do not know what in the hell you are talking about. You wannabees and paper soldiers need to keep your opinions to your self, because you have no basis for an opinion. I fought against NV regulars. They were well trained and committed to what they were doing. Add in that black pajama gang and you had a formidable force. Not as much can be said about the commitment of many of our own military personnel, because they had little respect for our Commanders and even less for the politicians who would make their fact finding tours. I respect the man for what he accomplished...and no I did not like him.
Gen Giap died
Of course, if only people who have done something were permitted to comment on it then we would not be living in a democracy.
Citizenship here ain't like Heinlein's idea in Starship Troopers. Let's remember, after the battle, what Americans have always fought for:
The rights of idiots and fools to be left to their own devices.
Of course, if only people who have done something were permitted to comment on it then we would not be living in a democracy.
Citizenship here ain't like Heinlein's idea in Starship Troopers. Let's remember, after the battle, what Americans have always fought for:
The rights of idiots and fools to be left to their own devices.
Last edited:
Everyone has the right to their opinion and everyone has the right to express their position that the opinion is credible or full of shit. If you hold an opinion opposed to mine you qualify as full of shit or I wouldn't bother to have an opinion on the subject.
There are many misconceptions regarding the war in Vietnam and Giap's influence is one of them. Giap lobbied against the Tet offensive. Following Ho's death in '69 Giap's influence rapidly waned. The final offensives against RVN were not organized by Giap. On the other hand, Giap was a policy maker in the early'60s when the NLF was ordered to begin a terrorism campaign against RVN civilians. Following the partition of VN in '54 the communists organized the north on a socialist model killing tens of thousands of landowners, business people etc. Many more were imprisoned. Ho and Giap were brutal leaders and of the Stalin vent.
Additionally, the leadership of the north were ready to capitulate after the bombing campaign, Linebacker II, brought them back to negotiations in Paris. They were stunned by the favorable terms that were offered. The subsequent abandonment of the RVN by the US Govt. is another whole story.
There are many misconceptions regarding the war in Vietnam and Giap's influence is one of them. Giap lobbied against the Tet offensive. Following Ho's death in '69 Giap's influence rapidly waned. The final offensives against RVN were not organized by Giap. On the other hand, Giap was a policy maker in the early'60s when the NLF was ordered to begin a terrorism campaign against RVN civilians. Following the partition of VN in '54 the communists organized the north on a socialist model killing tens of thousands of landowners, business people etc. Many more were imprisoned. Ho and Giap were brutal leaders and of the Stalin vent.
Additionally, the leadership of the north were ready to capitulate after the bombing campaign, Linebacker II, brought them back to negotiations in Paris. They were stunned by the favorable terms that were offered. The subsequent abandonment of the RVN by the US Govt. is another whole story.
Heard long ago.
Underestimating your enemy is your first mistake.
Overestimating your ability will be your last.
Underestimating your enemy is your first mistake.
Overestimating your ability will be your last.
The family tradition of Marines and Soldiers in my family includes my uncle Johnny. He served two tours in 'Nam, the second being one with TRIM in Da Nang. I know a few times he was in som eheavy shit on his forst tour which was why he was assigned to TRIM when he went back for the second. I only wish he made it through readjustment when he did come back. There is a special place in hell for the motherfuckin hippy shithead scumbags who were his friends when he left, but spit on him and antagonized him until he committed sepuku on the deck of grampa's little fishing boat docked on Lake Isabella. My Pop's best friend, 'uncle' Davy to me, was a Jarhead aeriel gunner in a Huey. I've spent a few nights drinking beers with him, good riff raff that one. Those Marines and Soldiers who tread that earth in Viet Nam, they were the guys who trained me as a boot Marine. Today, these men are my best friends, and mentors. Personally, I think I have spent enough time around these Riff Raff to say my piece about what I have learned about Viet Nam, and those who served there. For me, sure, Viet Nam is an educational thing, history books, video, and memoirs from Marines and Soldiers who served there. The lessons I gleaned form all that give me a deeper respect of who these men were and what they survived.
We all have opinions and are entitled to them. The only ones that shouldn't be expressed on this site are those that contravene the site rules. I sorta thought that was an important part of what we were fighting to perpetuate, even though we were doing it halfway around our world, and it's not just us combat veterans who sacrifice(d) to make that so. None of us besides the management are in a position to tell any of us here what we can and cannot post about.
Greg
Greg
So if you served in Vietnam I am not allowed to speak, and if I served in Panama you are not allowed to speak?
I've studied a lot with the Vietnam war and I have the *UTMOST* respect for Vietnam Veterans.
But I also know that the NVA had generals that had contacted LRRP teams forty/fifty years later out of RESPECT for their enemy.
Saw a documentary on History on that, fascinated me. LRRP's shot the general but he lived.
I have an uncle that died in WW2, he died for Hitler defending his country. Absolutely respect the german military (and pilots!) as being some skilled warriors.
But RJ my stepdad served in Vietnam and he would probably agree with you, glad the guy is dead etc....
I've studied a lot with the Vietnam war and I have the *UTMOST* respect for Vietnam Veterans.
But I also know that the NVA had generals that had contacted LRRP teams forty/fifty years later out of RESPECT for their enemy.
Saw a documentary on History on that, fascinated me. LRRP's shot the general but he lived.
I have an uncle that died in WW2, he died for Hitler defending his country. Absolutely respect the german military (and pilots!) as being some skilled warriors.
But RJ my stepdad served in Vietnam and he would probably agree with you, glad the guy is dead etc....
Chezuz Criminy, what's your beef now, guys? I come up with a post that says you and everyone else should feel free to post their minds freely and you got a problem with that?
I said, and I quote:
So how does this invalidate anything you're trying to say? Learn how to read, guys...
For the record, I served in I Corps (Dong Ha, Camp Carroll, Qua Viet, and others places more briefly) for 13 months with the 3rd Marine Division in late 1966 and most of 1967. I served with 11th Engr BN, 12th Mar Rgt, and 1st Amtrac Bn, with some direct engagement with Gen Giap's 325b Rgt. Among other things, I have never walked right since then, and am VA totally and permanently disabled with service connection.
I was a Draftee Marine with 13 months of combat in RVN, and separated from 24 months of active service with 13 months in combat, and 13 months in grade as an NCO. Get your frackin' facts right; my opinions are well enough founded for most folks to accept around here.
This still does not give me the right or privilege to tell others here that they are talking out their asses. If you think it does, we disagree.
Me corporate? Ask LL or the Mods if I'm corporate...; very definitely not the case; I just agree where I find a common sentiment.
Bottom line, you guys are outta line; and please don't make me say it again
Greg
I said, and I quote:
So how does this invalidate anything you're trying to say? Learn how to read, guys...
For the record, I served in I Corps (Dong Ha, Camp Carroll, Qua Viet, and others places more briefly) for 13 months with the 3rd Marine Division in late 1966 and most of 1967. I served with 11th Engr BN, 12th Mar Rgt, and 1st Amtrac Bn, with some direct engagement with Gen Giap's 325b Rgt. Among other things, I have never walked right since then, and am VA totally and permanently disabled with service connection.
I was a Draftee Marine with 13 months of combat in RVN, and separated from 24 months of active service with 13 months in combat, and 13 months in grade as an NCO. Get your frackin' facts right; my opinions are well enough founded for most folks to accept around here.
This still does not give me the right or privilege to tell others here that they are talking out their asses. If you think it does, we disagree.
Me corporate? Ask LL or the Mods if I'm corporate...; very definitely not the case; I just agree where I find a common sentiment.
Bottom line, you guys are outta line; and please don't make me say it again
Greg
Last edited:
I had to point that out. LOL.
I agree with what sirmechanic said. There are many ways to fight a war and he was (unfortuntley for us) pretty shrewd.
Last edited:
Kinda gives you the right to say whatever you please
But I do understand where you are coming from, just passing on some respect.
-ArcticLight (Frank rename me please!)
Hey Arcticlight... I was wondering where you had gone. Was worried you had disappeared. Never put the names together... but am not always that quick... How's the percussion-pistol building going?
Cheers,
sirhr
Cheers,
sirhr
well Greg, looks like we disagree. I did three tours in Vietnam, and take great offense when people talk out their asses about that conflict. You walk my road and you can bitch about.
Last edited:
RJW: You wrote
First, anyone who could handle three tours anywhere, much less SE Asia, is a better man than I. So I offer the following words with the greatest respect.
As a budding military historian (Norwich University, School of Graduate Studies Class of 2014, river don’t rise), I’d like to think that those who have not experienced specific conflicts DO have things to add or can speak intelligently about warfare. Though my thesis (just approved) will focus on T.E. Lawrence, it was within a hair’s breadth of being about McNamara and Giap… who are, as stated above, two highly-influential people who played major roles in shaping modern America and, arguably, the modern world. Love them or hate them, scholarly analysis of them and the conflict they were a part of cannot depend solely on those who fought it or, within a generation or two, the case would be closed and the memory lost. Thus I would argue that there is room for discussion and opinion by a variety of people… as long as it is based on fact and not simply hearsay or pejorative opinion or, to use Internet Jargon, trolling.
In addition, I would add that there are lots of ways to look at a war and many different ways to view the events. I will argue that no military historian who was not ‘there’ can adequately capture the worms-eye view of the conflict. There are those, like Stephen Ambrose or Cornelius Ryan, who were good at putting into prose the experiences of guys like you who were boots on ground, but no words or avatar can capture every aspect of it. There will always be elements of that level of historical record that will rest only with those who experience it. At the same time, those who experienced a conflict at a micro-level were also not part of the big picture of a conflict… and so the folks who wrote the primary histories or who analyzed the war from a political or command level also see and interpret things differently from those who were at the sharp end of the spear. This is not to say that either view is wrong, invalid or should be suppressed, but that it is up to the reader (and sometimes the historian) to blend all together to create as full – and as realistic -- a picture as possible. Whether that picture is from the squad level or from the White House archives.
Last, the Vietnam War, in particular, has proved that not all those who served there have come through with the same viewpoints and perspective. My guess is that you and I would very much see eye-to-eye on the Vietnam War and its causes, challenges and consequences. On the other hand, I hold some of those who served in Vietnam (I’ll withhold some very recognizable names due to the non-political nature of this forum) and their activities after the war – and towards their fellow-veterans – in utter contempt. So not every veteran who, some would argue, has walked in your shoes will represent the war fairly or honestly, especially when they can make political hay out of ‘their version’ of things. History and memory are two very different things… and both can be distorted by those who wish to do so. The same is true, by the way, of historians… and there are plenty of activists who are bandying about that title, too.
Anyway, I agree that there are an awful lot of folks who will take a small amount of suspect information, form a questionable opinion and then blow smoke with it. Welcome to the Internet… ;-) But to limit the discussions of a conflict or a historical event to those who were there limits the ability for those who come later (or were simply privy to a different aspect of the same conflict) to research and determine – and record for posterity – the historical truths. As a budding historian, I’d argue that the truth of an event… is what matters. Those who seek that truth deserve a voice.
Cheers and thanks for giving me an excuse to ramble on a bit. Wait... an historian rambling on? I MUST be learning something!
Sirhr
First, anyone who could handle three tours anywhere, much less SE Asia, is a better man than I. So I offer the following words with the greatest respect.
As a budding military historian (Norwich University, School of Graduate Studies Class of 2014, river don’t rise), I’d like to think that those who have not experienced specific conflicts DO have things to add or can speak intelligently about warfare. Though my thesis (just approved) will focus on T.E. Lawrence, it was within a hair’s breadth of being about McNamara and Giap… who are, as stated above, two highly-influential people who played major roles in shaping modern America and, arguably, the modern world. Love them or hate them, scholarly analysis of them and the conflict they were a part of cannot depend solely on those who fought it or, within a generation or two, the case would be closed and the memory lost. Thus I would argue that there is room for discussion and opinion by a variety of people… as long as it is based on fact and not simply hearsay or pejorative opinion or, to use Internet Jargon, trolling.
In addition, I would add that there are lots of ways to look at a war and many different ways to view the events. I will argue that no military historian who was not ‘there’ can adequately capture the worms-eye view of the conflict. There are those, like Stephen Ambrose or Cornelius Ryan, who were good at putting into prose the experiences of guys like you who were boots on ground, but no words or avatar can capture every aspect of it. There will always be elements of that level of historical record that will rest only with those who experience it. At the same time, those who experienced a conflict at a micro-level were also not part of the big picture of a conflict… and so the folks who wrote the primary histories or who analyzed the war from a political or command level also see and interpret things differently from those who were at the sharp end of the spear. This is not to say that either view is wrong, invalid or should be suppressed, but that it is up to the reader (and sometimes the historian) to blend all together to create as full – and as realistic -- a picture as possible. Whether that picture is from the squad level or from the White House archives.
Last, the Vietnam War, in particular, has proved that not all those who served there have come through with the same viewpoints and perspective. My guess is that you and I would very much see eye-to-eye on the Vietnam War and its causes, challenges and consequences. On the other hand, I hold some of those who served in Vietnam (I’ll withhold some very recognizable names due to the non-political nature of this forum) and their activities after the war – and towards their fellow-veterans – in utter contempt. So not every veteran who, some would argue, has walked in your shoes will represent the war fairly or honestly, especially when they can make political hay out of ‘their version’ of things. History and memory are two very different things… and both can be distorted by those who wish to do so. The same is true, by the way, of historians… and there are plenty of activists who are bandying about that title, too.
Anyway, I agree that there are an awful lot of folks who will take a small amount of suspect information, form a questionable opinion and then blow smoke with it. Welcome to the Internet… ;-) But to limit the discussions of a conflict or a historical event to those who were there limits the ability for those who come later (or were simply privy to a different aspect of the same conflict) to research and determine – and record for posterity – the historical truths. As a budding historian, I’d argue that the truth of an event… is what matters. Those who seek that truth deserve a voice.
Cheers and thanks for giving me an excuse to ramble on a bit. Wait... an historian rambling on? I MUST be learning something!
Sirhr
Message received and acknowledged.
Like others here, I agree with your having the right to say whatever you believe, and I support your right without reservation.
Like you, I resent it when people use the RVN war as a pulpit from which to spew all sorts of dubious folderol, especially when those utterances clearly indicate a non-experiential basis.
But there's a paradox here.
When we do what we did in RVN, we (or I at least) do so in defense of the basic freedoms we (should) enjoy as Americans. Yet others use those selfsame hard won and hard defended freedoms to advance petty, personal agendas intended to undermine/invalidate those very same freedoms, as well as our own labors to support those freedoms.
That's an inherent danger in the democratic process; one in which the BOR explicitly prohibits legislative and executive privilege to abridge such freedoms, and the very same argument which the Grabbists would foist upon the American electorate as being within their purview. If there is such a thing as a BOR, then that purview becomes moot, or nonexistent. If the BOR is subject to revision, then the freedoms (any and all) that it acknowledges become subject to the same revision, and such purview is something the Founding Fathers explicitly, vehemently opposed as being at the very core of existence deep within the BOR.
The paradox comes when we ourselves declare others unqualified to exercise to those freedoms. When we exercise our right to employ those freedoms, it becomes implicit that we support the rights of others to do the same, because anything else repudiates what we and that long line of predecessors did to establish and ensure the continuance of those freedoms.
Rights of free speech are only valid for as long as we all refrains from accepting the defining of prejudicial and arbitrary limits on that freedom. Freedom curtailed to even one amongst us converts a right into a privilege, something that becomes apparent as some of our government's leaderships are meddling deep within the guts of the same process with our Second Amendment. A freedom denied to one implies the ability to deny it to all.
When we do something similar to that, we affirm a basis for the grabbists to claim similar righteous authority to curtail our own rights ala civilian gun ownership (or any other Constitutionally affirmed right). What's wrong for them is (and must be) just as wrong for us.
No status, be it as a Veteran or as a Government operative, entitles any one of us in a public environment to deauthorize another's freedom.
Here, in SH, we voluntarily waive some aspects of free speech as a condition of our participation, but we do it willingly, and with our implicit permission for the site leadership to do so, regardless of some's inability to recall or understand the rules governing our membership, that we all acknowledged as we joined. For example, it chafes me greatly that I may not engage in political debate; but as a member of the forum, I must accept, however reluctantly, the right of the forum leadership to impose limits on political speech.
Greg
Last edited:
Greg, I will let you have the last words. I have and will defend every aspect of the Constitution, including assholes and their opinions, based on nothing.
I've been flying UAS's, started a business, finally got back to work, custody case that I won....
Life has been BUSY!
I have to say, sadly, I must have burned myself out shooting as much as I did, or it's my AO and the politics over the range but I hvae very little desire to shoot an ymore. I think once I get some property in Texas where I don't have to drive 40 miles to shoot I will get back to it....
Similar threads
