Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I Believe This is Important Enough to Post

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I Believe This is Important Enough to Post

    General Nguyen Giap, the celebrated architect of guerilla warfare that defeated the French and the Americans in Vietnam says USA is facing defeat in Iraq.

    Question is, was it Giap's NVA and irregulars who defeated USA or was the billions of dollars that China and USSR invested in modern weapons and supplies for the Vietnamese?

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapc...iap/index.html


    Picture: Vietnamese Dien Bien Phu veterans
    Last edited by MonsterZero; 07 May 04, 21:52.

    "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
    --Frederick II, King of Prussia

  • #2
    Originally posted by MonsterZero
    General Nguyen Giap, the celebrated architect of guerilla warfare that defeated the French and the Americans in Vietnam says USA is facing defeat in Iraq.

    Question is, was it Giap's NVA and irregulars who defeated USA or was the billions of dollars that China and USSR invested in modern weapons and supplies for the Vietnamese?

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapc...iap/index.html
    I read it last week he said that the US will have trouble against an enemy with resolve no matter the size, he did not specifically comment on iraq becaused he didnt know the situation.

    The Vitnamese were winning wars before the US appeared in great numbers, they should be respected for the achievement, in Australia we respect our foes when we see talent.
    Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by MonsterZero
      General Nguyen Giap, the celebrated architect of guerilla warfare that defeated the French and the Americans in Vietnam says USA is facing defeat in Iraq.

      Question is, was it Giap's NVA and irregulars who defeated USA or was the billions of dollars that China and USSR invested in modern weapons and supplies for the Vietnamese?

      http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapc...iap/index.html


      Picture: Vietnamese Dien Bien Phu veterans

      If money is enough to win war, USA definitely would have won that war, here is the cost of the war:
      http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm


      Conflict Cost in $ Billions Per Capita
      Current 1990s (in $1990)
      Vietnam (1964-1972) 111.00 346.7 1,692.04
      a brain cell

      Comment


      • #4
        What is conveniently overlooked is the fact that Giap was fired after the failure of the TET Offensive. In hindsight, the NVN have claimed the wisdom that they knew the USA media would portray TET as a US defeat. In reality, Giap was militarily defeated by the USA and was "kicked" upstairs only to have the US Congress pull defeat from the jaws of victory by the denial of funding of the South Vietnamese Armed Forces after the USA pullout.

        Giap's dismissal is fact, the rest is just my opinion. Amazing that after over 30 years, we still are not sure what went on in the North Vietnamese councils of war.

        Comment


        • #5
          Wasnt it the fact that the NVA and VC could still show that after all the US efforts in the country the enemy could still front up for battle on a massive scale. That was the real victory, that was how the American Revolutionary War was won, not by just winning battles but not giving up and dragging the whole thing out for so long that public opinion was against it.
          Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by MonsterZero
            General Nguyen Giap, the celebrated architect of guerilla warfare that defeated the French and the Americans in Vietnam says USA is facing defeat in Iraq.

            Question is, was it Giap's NVA and irregulars who defeated USA or was the billions of dollars that China and USSR invested in modern weapons and supplies for the Vietnamese?

            http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapc...iap/index.html
            I don't think communist money won the war for the Vietnamese at all. For every dollar the hard-pressed communist powers could put up, American could pour in much more anyway.

            If you want to understand how NVA/Vietcong won the war, just look at the casualty figures of the Americans and then the Vietcong/NVA: http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html

            You will then understand how North Vietnam won. By sheer human sacrifice in face a technologically superior army.

            Comment


            • #7
              We lost the political war, the SV armed forces just fell apart on a strategic/operational level after years of "training" & "retraining". The will to win wasn't there, which means SVN was still a "puppet" & couldn't stand on it's own. If a regime can't stand up on it's own it's a "puppet", regardless of right or wrong, just like the Warsaw Pact countries were "puppets".
              Unite your forces in space & time, split the enemy forces spatially & defeat them at different times - Rommel

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Tzar
                If you want to understand how NVA/Vietcong won the war, just look at the casualty figures of the Americans and then the Vietcong/NVA: http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html

                You will then understand how North Vietnam won. By sheer human sacrifice in face a technologically superior army.
                I don't know about that.. if you tally up dead/wounded for the "Allied" parties and compare to the dead/wounded for the NVA/VC, the casualties are fairly equal.
                "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                Comment


                • #9
                  In reality, Vietnam is not an example of the success of a "Guerilla Insurgency". When the USA pulled out in 1973, although the guerilla movement was active, the South Vietnamese controlled all population zones and most of the rest of the country. The South was defeated in 1975 by a standard "conventional" military invasion from North Vietnam with a conventional army equipped and trained by the Soviets.

                  South Vietnam had an army equipped and trained by the USA. This resulted in an army that needed heavy logisitcs and had some sophisticated weapons (F-5 Fighters....). The US Congress voted to defund the South Vietnamese army and this resulted in severe shortages within the South Vietnamese army. Also contributing was President Ford's decision not to intervente wish USA air power. In 1973, when the North tried the first conventional invasion of the South, USA air power played a major role in its defeat. In 1975, with President Ford's decision, the USA sat it out.

                  In the end, the North Vietnamese were willing to die for what they believed in and not give up after many defeats and the South Vietnamese were not willing to die for their cause and fight on.

                  It is not an example of a successful guerilla war. It is the example of a successful standard conventional military invaision. It took the North two tries, but the second time they succeeded.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I thought back in 1966 that the USA/SVN had lost the War.
                    http://www.irelandinhistory.blogspot.ie/

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Custer6
                      In reality, Vietnam is not an example of the success of a "Guerilla Insurgency". When the USA pulled out in 1973, although the guerilla movement was active, the South Vietnamese controlled all population zones and most of the rest of the country. The South was defeated in 1975 by a standard "conventional" military invasion from North Vietnam with a conventional army equipped and trained by the Soviets.

                      South Vietnam had an army equipped and trained by the USA. This resulted in an army that needed heavy logisitcs and had some sophisticated weapons (F-5 Fighters....). The US Congress voted to defund the South Vietnamese army and this resulted in severe shortages within the South Vietnamese army. Also contributing was President Ford's decision not to intervente wish USA air power. In 1973, when the North tried the first conventional invasion of the South, USA air power played a major role in its defeat. In 1975, with President Ford's decision, the USA sat it out.

                      In the end, the North Vietnamese were willing to die for what they believed in and not give up after many defeats and the South Vietnamese were not willing to die for their cause and fight on.

                      It is not an example of a successful guerilla war. It is the example of a successful standard conventional military invaision. It took the North two tries, but the second time they succeeded.

                      Cant see the reasoning in your argument, they were able to outlast the American involvement and then begin conventional war on SV, thats how geurrila tactics are done. Three stages, first gain support of the people in the rural areas, then wage unconventional warfre to weaken the enemy and then engage in conventional war when it suits you.

                      It looks like a highly successfull guerrilla campaign to me.
                      Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        TET was to be the third and final stage. Giap thought that TET would end the war. He presumed that when TET started, the people of the South would rise up and destroy the South Vietnamese gov't. The reality was the North received devestating casualties. As a result, Giap was fired (kicked upstairs). The guerilla movement had failed.

                        After TET, the North Vietnamese switched to negotiation and conventional forces to defeat the South. In the peace treaty with USA, they pledged not to attack the South. They violated the treaty by attacking in 1973 and in 1975 with conventional forces. Guerilla warfare did not play a role in the defeat of the South. Conventional forces did.

                        Since both the USA and North Vietnamese signed the treaty, it is incorrect to say that one outlasted the other. In fact, many believe it was the "Christmas bombings" of the B-52's that forced the North Vietnamese to sign the treaty.

                        The guerilla movement failed in the South, the violation of the Paris Peace Accords with conventional forces by North Vietnam resulted in the defeat.

                        Remember the iconic video of the end. The iconic video is not of a rebel breaking into the presidential compound with the North Vietnamese flag, the iconic video is of a North Vietnamese TANKER breaking into the presidential compound leading conventional forces with a North Vietnamese flag.

                        Comment

                        Latest Topics

                        Collapse

                        Working...
                        X