General Giap passes away at age 103

[bronk7]

Giap's 'victory' is not too impressive...the SV government was ridiculous [ had 3 changes in less than 2 years including a murder ]..he used common sense tactics MOST of the time......he really didn't have to do anything to win...the US couldn't stay FOREVER....no, the high casualty rates show poor planning/strategy/etc.....if the US objective was to keep SV non-communist<> as said before, that's very hard, if not impossible, for a foreign power to accomplish even with an adequate friendly government...the Russian analogy is hard to compare, since Vietnam was really a civil war... look at what happened to Russia AND Britain in Afghanistan<>same thing...Giap was wiser than the French AND the US AND Japan??etc..thanks for any replies

[Ironmachine]

Giap's 'victory' is not too impressive...

There are victories and there are victories, but I will always prefer an unimpressive victory over a glorious defeat.

he really didn't have to do anything to win

Good for him.

if the US objective was to keep SV non-communist<> as said before, that's very hard, if not impossible, for a foreign power to accomplish even with an adequate friendly government

It really tells something about the US that they tried to accomplish something that was very hard, if not impossible.

Giap was wiser than the French AND the US AND Japan??

At least, he was not more stupid than them.

[South]

Good morning Bronk,

Vietnam did - display - major aspects of a civil war; it definitely was going on. However, the better view, in my opinion, is to view the US-North Vietnam conflict within the umbrella of the Second Indochina War (the first was the French fight 1945-1954).

Related to above; Did not the US eliminate Sarkarno and the PKI from Indonesia - and then instal.......and then appeared Suharto and a pro-US government?!

General Giap was wise but the calibration really deals with institutions and the US was clearly weak in this category.

"the French" had divided attention. Some blocs wanted out of Vietnam. Some wanted out of Algeria - and various combinations thereof. The US wanted a French allied government present in France proper and all sorts of views and rationalizations appeared in US policy positions.

At the time, the Japanese thinking always required looking at the US armories and airfields in Okinawa and even closer when preparing thoughts. Japan was not going to be allowed to go neutral during the Cold War.


Warm regards,

Bob

[bronk7]

was it really a 'victory' when the US does not use its full power??..or just the 'waiting' game??..US defeated? I don't think that's the case...when the USAF finally brought the big boys and correct tactics into play, the NVs got scared...US couldn't even go[ in big numbers officially ] across the DMZ thus providing sactuary for the NVs..etc etc...I wouldn't call it a US defeat or NV victory over the US...thanks for all replies...very interesting and informative

[Kingfish]

Again, what is the definition of victory here?

For North Vietnam it was conquering the South.
For the US it was to prevent this from happening.

The picture clearly illustrates who the winner and losers were.

[bronk7]

Again, what is the definition of victory here?

For North Vietnam it was conquering the South.
For the US it was to prevent this from happening.

The picture clearly illustrates who the winner and losers were.

well, call it a victory, but I'm not impressed because of the reasons I mentioned above....the US kept NKorea from conquering the south, but was it a clear cut victory?? no, there is the armistice to just end the fighting, not the war...I would consider a Nkorean win as not a victory over the US as much as one over SKorea, same as Vietnam

[Kingfish]

Fair enough, but suffice to say to the Vietnamese that distinction didn't matter much, if at all.

[Attrition]

Again, what is the definition of victory here?

For North Vietnam it was conquering the South.
For the US it was to prevent this from happening.

The picture clearly illustrates who the winner and losers were.

well, call it a victory, but I'm not impressed because of the reasons I mentioned above....the US kept N Korea from conquering the south, but was it a clear cut victory?? no, there is the armistice to just end the fighting, not the war...I would consider a Nkorean win as not a victory over the US as much as one over SKorea, same as Vietnam

China and the USSR kept South Korea and the US from conquering the north.

[bronk7]

good call Attrition, and the US kept the NKs and Russia from getting the South...ironic??wasteful??etc

[Kingfish]

Not wasteful when you compare the two Koreas today.
SK is a global economic powerhouse, NK can't feed its own people.

[Attrition]

Not wasteful when you compare the two Koreas today.
SK is a global economic powerhouse, NK can't feed its own people.

Really? Unlike Britain and the USA where the people can be fed but the state can't be bothered.

[Kingfish]

Not wasteful when you compare the two Koreas today.
SK is a global economic powerhouse, NK can't feed its own people.

Really? Unlike Britain and the USA where the people can be fed but the state can't be bothered.

Sorry, I don't see your point. Care to give it another try?

[Attrition]

Not wasteful when you compare the two Koreas today.
SK is a global economic powerhouse, NK can't feed its own people.

Really? Unlike Britain and the USA where the people can be fed but the state can't be bothered.

Sorry, I don't see your point. Care to give it another try?

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/12 ... m-d12.html

Every criticism of North Korea is mirrored by the conduct of its enemies.

[Kingfish]

Not wasteful when you compare the two Koreas today.
SK is a global economic powerhouse, NK can't feed its own people.

Really? Unlike Britain and the USA where the people can be fed but the state can't be bothered.

Sorry, I don't see your point. Care to give it another try?

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/12 ... m-d12.html

Every criticism of North Korea is mirrored by the conduct of its enemies.

Sorry again, but I fail to see how the cancellation of American unemployment benefits has any bearing on a side-by-side comparison with the two Koreas. Should we include the botched roll-out of the ACA as well?