Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why The Vietnamese Can Always Win At War
#1
I've written several times on the "China Makes A Move" thread, that they had better be very careful how they try to steamroll Vietnam. Vietnam, when it is backed up against the wall, will adopt a winning strategy of attrition and terror, against its enemy. They did it to the French, and despite our military might and technology, did it to us as well. And they will do it to the PRC.

I was going through my DirecTV schedule this morning, while working in the basement, and came across this program about to be shown on the History Channel. Watch Ancient Discoveries Season 6 Episode 6 S6E6 Riots and Revolution.

Quote:Discover a book that has never been seen in the west until now. In a world exclusive we track down the secret manual that explained how the Vietnamese defeated not only the US in the 20th century, but the Mongols 700 years earlier–including a revelation of the largest booby trap in history–one that snagged an entire battle fleet. Next, discover how king Mithridates used a substance called burning mud in his revolt against Rome. Learn how the terrorist booby-traps and letter bombs of today were invented hundreds of years ago. Investigate the legend that the Christians wiped out paganism in an attack on their temples with fire so hot it could melt bronze. And, learn how the great ancient revolutionary Spartacus kick-started his great revolt against the Roman Empire.

Well, I just finished watching it from 1-2PM, and it enhances the saying of "More is less, and less is More." The Vietnamese can work with little and defeat the giant who tries to conquer them. And they have someone who taught them how to accomplish it. His name was Trần Hưng Đạo, and he wrote the book on guerrilla warfare.

Here is the program, and it is informative. However, it waits until the 34:00 minute point before discussing Vietnam's success against the Mongols.



In the program, it states that the Vietnamese have the manual, which others don't, and they keep it under wraps and secret. I've looked and cannot find anything on it, so it may be correct. But the point is that determination, willingness to carry on in spite of the hardships, and having a friendly public willing to help them, and they can defeat an invader, no matter how big, mean, and technically advanced. Its like the Taliban leadership once stated about fighting the Americans, "You may have all the watches, but we have all the time"..

The Chinese had better be very careful what they do, because if they try to push the Vietnamese around, they will discover a dragon under a rock they forgot to check under.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#2
Uggh..... two problems here:

1. Why create yet another thread?

2. It is one situation if China (or anyone else) tries to occupy Vietnam, and it is a totally different game if occupation is not involved.
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#3
(06-20-2014, 04:42 PM)mv Wrote: Uggh..... two problems here:

1. Why create yet another thread?

S5

(06-20-2014, 04:42 PM)mv Wrote: 2. It is one situation if China (or anyone else) tries to occupy Vietnam, and it is a totally different game if occupation is not involved.

By squatting on Vietnam's territorial coastline, they are in fact occupying, or that's what I have been led to believe for some time. I'm expecting some action in the future from the barbarians to their south.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#4
In a legal sense, yes, occupying.

In a practical sense -- no, they are not in contact with Vietnamese and immune from typical guerrilla attacks.... this is a different pattern.
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#5
The U.S. sought to prevent the communist tyrants in the north from conquering South Vietnam. In every battle, refugees "voted with their feet" by fleeing south. The North Vietnamese never defeated American forces. America and the South Vietnamese army which they trained had completely won, the Viet Cong guerillas no longer existed, and the northern army had been driven out, and the north had signed a peace treaty. Then a Democrat-controlled Congress voted to defund the war, and President Nixon was forced to bring American soldiers home ASAP. The north saw their opportunity, and broke the treaty and resumed their invasion. Meanwhile a Bhuddist Pacifist had won the election in South Vietnam, and he kept telling the South Vietnamese army to keep retreating, so they never stood and fought, when they could have easily defeated the battered northern army. This lead to the embarassing scenes of the last American forces being helicoptered out of Saigon under fire. This whole thing has been lied about ever since. American Democrats in Congress alone lost the war after it had already been won.
Reply
#6
Ron,



The NVA was not battered, the VC was battered.


In 1972, our air cover afforded them firepower superiority and they ran the NVA back up north, you're accurate there. You're right that our congress entered the picture and ruined the deal.

What you aren't right on is thinking the south would have prevailed w/o our massive presence for at least 50 years. We never prevail over seas w/o staying 50 + years.

Not once, ever. So, next time you support the US killing people for whatever cause, just remember, we need at least half a century of nurturing the allied side with significant military forces.
Reply
#7
Gotta get history right. The U.S. had to leave based on politicians back home - not on the battlefield.

If you read the biographies on General Giap, he was in charge of the NVA, and the uncontested Communist leader of all forces, including those in the black pajamas, the Cong. They may have different cell leaders, but all deferred to the General.

In 1968, in his own autobiography, he clearly stated the war was over. He was against the 1968 Tet Offensive led by Lê Duẩn and Văn Tiến Dũng who pushed it through despite his doubts. He left Vietnam for medical treatment in Hungary, and did not return until after the offensive had begun. He and his armies had lost. He was going to formally surrender the next day. The Tet Offensive was what forced him to surrender. In his book, he said his men were through, with no more weapons, ammunition, or basic supplies for survival. The NVA WAS battered - not just the Viet Cong.

The only and sole reason he did not go forward with his surrender was Walter Cronkite, who lied about what happened, and told his American audience that Giap had won the Tet Offensive and captured the embassies. It was not a cultural paradigm occurring for centuries - it was a one-time paradigm shift caused by the American media. Giap wrote that he could not defeat the military - but he could make impressive theater designed for the cameras. Five years later, he simply filled the vacuum.
Reply
#8
Quote:Gotta get history right. The U.S. had to leave based on politicians back home - not on the battlefield.

Somehow this reminds me of a certain corporal who was sure that Germany was winning WWI in 1918 except for the politicians traitors back at home..... but of course there is no connection, is there?

The thing is that a war can be won in more than one way and demoralizing the enemy's political class is a perfectly valid winning strategy.
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#9
(06-23-2014, 09:09 PM)mv Wrote: ...Somehow this reminds me of a certain corporal who was sure that Germany was winning WWI in 1918 except for the politicians traitors back at home..... but of course there is no connection, is there?

What is so hard to understand? General Giap was going to surrender. He said so.

Cronkite lied about the '68 Tet Offensive and said our embassies were overrun with large loss of life. No one penetrated any consulate or embassies. The loss of life was all on Giap's side.

Giap was more than a simple soldier and quickly adapted the life-ring that Cronkite tossed him. He did not submit the surrender as he initially said he would, and completely invented the new strategy of minimal guerilla warfare targeting the media. This was not a centuries-old history of magic warfare that had always worked. It was new, and completely preventable.
Reply
#10
(06-23-2014, 09:18 PM)WmLambert Wrote: What is so hard to understand? General Giap was going to surrender. He said so.

But did he? And does that count in the real world? Coulda been, shoulda been, woulda been are all nice exercises, aren't they.

However Robert Conroy could use that for his next alternate history novel. S5
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#11
Something wrong with me today, I have nothing to add to But did he, this says it all

S10
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)