Dien Bien Phu

Unjustified government asking for an outsider to interfere in a domestic warfare is unjustified. (It is just like my uncle going into my parents' house, living there and then saying that the house is his; after that, he calls a bunch of bandits to kill my parents and takes the house.)

 

There are no victory achieved by waiting only. Through attrition or anything you say, the American had to go home BECAUSE they could not overpower Vietcong and if they kept fighting, there would be chaos in America, caused by its own citizens. So, agree or not, Vietcong fought until the American were kicked out of Vietnam. I can't find a better word for "getting out of the battles achieving nothing but casualties" than "losers".

 

Yes, there are 2 important treaty, one in 1954 between Vietcong-French, another in 1972 between Vietcong-the South-America.

 

It is funny that you only counted American-Vietcong casualties. Where are the South?

And I forgot to mention SEATO including Australia, New Zealand, Thailand and Phillipines sending troops and aid to the South. With a lot of supports for the South, I wonder why the North lost so many men. (1 more time I state, almost no Soviet and China's soldiers participated in battles for the North) Also, the North just fought France not long before, as you knew.

 

In conclusion, with many supports from the most powerful country in the world and others as well, the South still could not beat the North in 20 years, which had to fight with their own men and just got out of war with France. 20 years of fighting against a completely stronger enemy is something the North can be proud of.

 

P/S: I don't directly offend any person or organisation, this is history-the past.

You still did not address my point; every major battle fought in the Vietnam War was won by the allied forces (US and South), and with less casualties. Despite the allied victories, the North held out (losing a lot of soldiers in the process) and eventually captured South Vietnam by waiting for the US to leave.

It would be like a professional sports team dominates a high school sports team 100-0 but then leaves at the last quarter (because there was nothing to be gained from playing that game), disqualifying the professional team.  

You would be arguing that the professional team knew they couldn't win the sports game so they forfeited (despite the huge 100-0 gap, the high school team dripping sweat (and panting heavily), and it being the last quarter).      

Vietcong is shorter form for "Vietnam Communists" (in Vietnamese of course). The American helped the North a lot, i agree, but did they do it if America didn't lose too many soldiers? The American families wanted their children to go home BECAUSE there were enough casualties to make them think so. (American soldiers wouldn't go home if they could win the war shortly)

I agree with you that the North could not win with force alone...just like many wars when the weaker has to fight the stronger. And politic strategies are part of wars.

The South government appeared for the sake of America, so of course the American would be pissed of when their underlings were endangered. (do you think America, hating communists that much, would just stand aside, "waiting" for the South to let them take part in the war and watching the North with Soviet support fight the South for 10 years?)

The South had no trained military and weapons to keep a long fight before 1960, the American had always helped them from the beginning (with troops and aid)

The was no "backing from the North", it sounds like the North interfered in another country's matter. The North and the South were all Vietnamese.

P/S: the American bombarded the North, and had to go home hecause the B-52 were shot down in 1972 (which was incredible at that time). That is also what is mentioned in this manga.

Unjustified government asking for an outsider to interfere in a domestic warfare is unjustified. (It is just like my uncle going into my parents' house, living there and then saying that the house is his; after that, he calls a bunch of bandits to kill my parents and takes the house.)

 

There are no victory achieved by waiting only. Through attrition or anything you say, the American had to go home BECAUSE they could not overpower Vietcong and if they kept fighting, there would be chaos in America, caused by its own citizens. So, agree or not, Vietcong fought until the American were kicked out of Vietnam. I can't find a better word for "getting out of the battles achieving nothing but casualties" than "losers".

 

Yes, there are 2 important treaty, one in 1954 between Vietcong-French, another in 1972 between Vietcong-the South-America.

 

It is funny that you only counted American-Vietcong casualties. Where are the South?

And I forgot to mention SEATO including Australia, New Zealand, Thailand and Phillipines sending troops and aid to the South. With a lot of supports for the South, I wonder why the North lost so many men. (1 more time I state, almost no Soviet and China's soldiers participated in battles for the North) Also, the North just fought France not long before, as you knew.

 

In conclusion, with many supports from the most powerful country in the world and others as well, the South still could not beat the North in 20 years, which had to fight with their own men and just got out of war with France. 20 years of fighting against a completely stronger enemy is something the North can be proud of.

 

P/S: I don't directly offend any person or organisation, this is history-the past.

Technically, the Geneva Treaty in 1954 was between the North Vietnam (Vietminh) and France, not Vietcong (there was no Vietcong at that time). They agreed to ceasefire and pull back their own troops to their territories (divided by the DMZ on the 17th parallel). The country leader would then be decided by a national election that would take place in 1955. However, during the pull back, Ngo Dinh Diem managed to convince King Bao Dai to make him the Prime Minister of State of Vietnam. Diem then used his connection with America to form his own government and refused to take part in the election arcording to the Treaty, using anti-communism as his regime. His regime got the Americans interested as they were alstro trying to defend the spead of communist in Asia at that time. (namely the 2 big guys China and Russia)

Vietcong then was formed by the Southern communists, socialists and nationalists, represented the working class and farmers to fight againsts Diem and his US's psuedo goverment. The North Vietnam (aka the old Vietminh) was backing Vietcong with men, foods, weapons and logistic supports for the resistances. This is the reason why American was so pissed off, hence bombarded the North in the late 1960s. The US basically wanted the North to stop helping the Vietcong in the South.

Vietminh and Vietcong lost tragically in term of millitary, however, they knew themselve they couldn't win with conventional battles alone. I think they traded their men for the advantages in politic and diplomatic warfare. It was American public that really saved the Vietcong, given their total failure in Mau Than offensive. Before that, they didn't lose, but they could not win again the US either.

My whole point, the US didn't really fight the North directly until late 1960s (it wasn't really fighting though, as US forces just bombed the shit out of everything they can). US true enemy was the resistent forces (Vietcong) in South Vietnam itself, who had the backing from the North Vietnam. Basically, US + South Republic vs North Vietnam + South resistant forces.

Unjustified government asking for an outsider to interfere in a domestic warfare is unjustified. (It is just like my uncle going into my parents' house, living there and then saying that the house is his; after that, he calls a bunch of bandits to kill my parents and takes the house.)

There are no victory achieved by waiting only. Through attrition or anything you say, the American had to go home BECAUSE they could not overpower Vietcong and if they kept fighting, there would be chaos in America, caused by its own citizens. So, agree or not, Vietcong fought until the American were kicked out of Vietnam. I can't find a better word for "getting out of the battles achieving nothing but casualties" than "losers".

Yes, there are 2 important treaty, one in 1954 between Vietcong-French, another in 1972 between Vietcong-the South-America.

It is funny that you only counted American-Vietcong casualties. Where are the South?

And I forgot to mention SEATO including Australia, New Zealand, Thailand and Phillipines sending troops and aid to the South. With a lot of supports for the South, I wonder why the North lost so many men. (1 more time I state, almost no Soviet and China's soldiers participated in battles for the North) Also, the North just fought France not long before, as you knew.

In conclusion, with many supports from the most powerful country in the world and others as well, the South still could not beat the North in 20 years, which had to fight with their own men and just got out of war with France. 20 years of fighting against a completely stronger enemy is something the North can be proud of.

P/S: I don't directly offend any person or organisation, this is history-the past.

What treaty? The only "treaty" in 1954 I know is between Vietcong and French, not the appear-out-of-nowhere South government.

I mentioned WW2 because someone said "cannon fodder" and losing 10 men to kill 1. Human recourses and technology are both needed in wars and they are strength of the country. Losing men is part of wars,

And please stop using the word "invade". I think you abuse that word to make the North look bad; and it seems you don't even consider my 1st paragraph.

So, to prove my points:

- The treaty in 1954 was between French and Vietcong: French TEMPORARILY took the south and sent their men back home, Vietcong went to the north. There was no "South government" or America involved.

- Soviet went into WW2, lost >9 mils soldiers; China >3 mils; comparing to 5mils of Germany and 2mils of Japan. So the Allies obviously lost more men, and "they "won" through attrition"?

- Therer was no such thing called the North invading the South WITHOUT America. The US was in Vietnam and they founded the government.

- The North fought the war using their soldiers, the South with American soldiers. Why America had the right to intefere in a domestic war?

If there is any point you want to see proofs, please ask. There are all in history.

Allies eventually beat the Axis powers and invaded their home countries. North Vietnam had lost a lot more soldiers (and all the major battles) and waited until US soldiers left the country. Huge difference there. 

America interfered because the South Government allowed them to (whether or not it was justified is another matter).

There was at least one peace treaty signed after 1972 (in Paris), it seems that none of them had any official names.

First,"invaded" is not the word, it's "relaimed". Yes, the North did have tanks and jets but not in large amount. The South and the US maintained both naval and aerial superiorty throughout the war. North tanks came into play very late in the war and jets were mostly used for defense. That's why aerial Dien Bien Phu was fought mostly by ground-to-air weapon. The North only had the number and morale advantage.

Second, South army was by no mean inept: most operations the North threw at the South were failures, even those considered as sucesses came with great losses like the Mau Than offensive. It was the number of operations that did them in: the constant attacks proved too much for soldiers and kill morale. Then, all it took was a final push from the North.

Finally, strategically speaking, the war was won by the North, even when it was a Pyrrhic victory. They did manage to push the US out of their own countries, something very few countries have been able to do.

On a side note, France took the South for nearly a hundred years( 1861-1945) but then they realized that they couldn't take over completely and so they left it to the US as it was too costly fighting against the North(Dien Bien Phu loss).

And BTW, communism never completely overtake Vietnam. The government is now like pseudo-communism as complete communism didn't really suit Vietnamese(search for Vietnam famine and you'll see). I am a Vietnamese so I do know what I say.

Every major physical battle, US forces BEAT BACK communist forces (which was my original point; was no easy task) with less casualties.

Tet Offensive = total casualties: 4583 (1113 US) allied; 30000+ communist

Retake Hue = 526 (142 US) allied; 8000 Communist

Battle of Dak To  = 287 US; 1600 Communist

They repeatedly attacked US positions (through attrition) and waited until US troops left (under Paris Peace Accords) then rolled their forces into South Vietnam. 

French were repeatedly beaten by communists and eventually left after loss at Dien Bien Phu. 

Soviet and China had their troops in Vietnam, that is true; but did they take part in most of the battles? Did they have bombers rampaging the South? Did they use battleships to bombarding Saigon? Chnese and Russian helped Vietnam in technology and strategies, not in warfare, so i used the word "soldiers".

HIstory is all about the past. Burn all the history books and documentaries, you said, to get over with it (And what is the existance of this manga? Some complete fiction?)

As long as there are people badmouthing about something they don't have much information, there are others who will debate.

Facts are proven by debating through opinions. Do you want people to keep believing something false? I never label "fact" in my comments, and I need someone to prove me wrong (if possible), not someone to completely ignore my opinion.

that's why I hate it when people talk about VN war. It had ended, get over it. The matter is mostly just point of view. From one side, people may say the North invade the South, on the other side, people think the North just reclaim or reunite the country. I hate it when people express their opinions and label it as fact.

Here is the fact: The North got aid from Russia, the South got aid from US, they fought, the North win. Here is the opinion: it's kinda suck when the North took over, but it's done, there's nothing we can do to change it.

by the way

America sent their soldiers to Vietnam, the other Communist's countries didn't.

This is wrong. Record showed a certain amount of Chinese and Russian troop's present, but not as many as US soldiers.

Also, technically the South and US broke the treaty of 1954 first by cancelling the promised national election that might as well have cancelled possibility of war, just because they knew they were gonna lose -FACT- So the north had to reclaim the land

What treaty? The only "treaty" in 1954 I know is between Vietcong and French, not the appear-out-of-nowhere South government.

I mentioned WW2 because someone said "cannon fodder" and losing 10 men to kill 1. Human recourses and technology are both needed in wars and they are strength of the country. Losing men is part of wars,

And please stop using the word "invade". I think you abuse that word to make the North look bad; and it seems you don't even consider my 1st paragraph.

So, to prove my points:

- The treaty in 1954 was between French and Vietcong: French TEMPORARILY took the south and sent their men back home, Vietcong went to the north. There was no "South government" or America involved.

- Soviet went into WW2, lost >9 mils soldiers; China >3 mils; comparing to 5mils of Germany and 2mils of Japan. So the Allies obviously lost more men, and "they "won" through attrition"?

- Therer was no such thing called the North invading the South WITHOUT America. The US was in Vietnam and they founded the government.

- The North fought the war using their soldiers, the South with American soldiers. Why America had the right to intefere in a domestic war?

If there is any point you want to see proofs, please ask. There are all in history.

North invades with tanks and guns and jets. What part do you not understand? 

Communists had their own technology (look up MIG-21 "fishbed" for an example).

The South Vietnamese army sucked; they could not defend themselves at all (inept commanders and scared infantry prove this). 

What is your point on WW2? It sounds like you are committing a false analogy fallacy here...

Result? North breaks a treaty and lost a lot more soldiers.

And I am still waiting for you to prove any one of your points.

First,"invaded" is not the word, it's "relaimed". Yes, the North did have tanks and jets but not in large amount. The South and the US maintained both naval and aerial superiorty throughout the war. North tanks came into play very late in the war and jets were mostly used for defense. That's why aerial Dien Bien Phu was fought mostly by ground-to-air weapon. The North only had the number and morale advantage.

Second, South army was by no mean inept: most operations the North threw at the South were failures, even those considered as sucesses came with great losses like the Mau Than offensive. It was the number of operations that did them in: the constant attacks proved too much for soldiers and kill morale. Then, all it took was a final push from the North.

Finally, strategically speaking, the war was won by the North, even when it was a Pyrrhic victory. They did manage to push the US out of their own countries, something very few countries have been able to do.

On a side note, France took the South for nearly a hundred years( 1861-1945) but then they realized that they couldn't take over completely and so they left it to the US as it was too costly fighting against the North(Dien Bien Phu loss).

And BTW, communism never completely overtake Vietnam. The government is now like pseudo-communism as complete communism didn't really suit Vietnamese(search for Vietnam famine and you'll see). I am a Vietnamese so I do know what I say.

"sugar coat that fact"? Please use history proof when you talk. In 1945, The 1st Vietnam Government appeared for the Vietnamese, not the French, and that was by Vietcong. Tell me where the South Government came from. Did they lead Vietnam out of French's control?

Communists had more technology? Soviet, China and Vietnam went into wars many years; America stayed out, made money from wars, "lent" money to the Allies. And you tell me the North was stronger than the South? Then why the North took over 20 years to fight a weaker enemy?

Second, you are serious when comparing the US and Japan's casualties? Where are Poland, Soviet, China, Germany? Do you think some battles on the sea and Hawaii are better examples than Europe battlefields?

Third, war is "technically" a draw? I don't care how it is "technically", I look at the result and I speak. I don't even know the word "propaganda"

America sent their soldiers to Vietnam, the other Communist's countries didn't.

Anyway, sorry for not reading the part "both".

In conclusion, fact needs to be proven (not by saying fact is fact; I can send all those word back: "the one sugar coat the fact is the US", but I don't); second, the Communists kicked France out, so Vietnam is theirs, not some random government appearing out of nowhere and claiming the glory.

P/s: please use the Internet for more WW2 information.

North invades with tanks and guns and jets. What part do you not understand? 

Communists had their own technology (look up MIG-21 "fishbed" for an example).

The South Vietnamese army sucked; they could not defend themselves at all (inept commanders and scared infantry prove this). 

What is your point on WW2? It sounds like you are committing a false analogy fallacy here...

Result? North breaks a treaty and lost a lot more soldiers.

And I am still waiting for you to prove any one of your points.

"sugar coat that fact"? Please use history proof when you talk. In 1945, The 1st Vietnam Government appeared for the Vietnamese, not the French, and that was by Vietcong. Tell me where the South Government came from. Did they lead Vietnam out of French's control?

Communists had more technology? Soviet, China and Vietnam went into wars many years; America stayed out, made money from wars, "lent" money to the Allies. And you tell me the North was stronger than the South? Then why the North took over 20 years to fight a weaker enemy?

Second, you are serious when comparing the US and Japan's casualties? Where are Poland, Soviet, China, Germany? Do you think some battles on the sea and Hawaii are better examples than Europe battlefields?

Third, war is "technically" a draw? I don't care how it is "technically", I look at the result and I speak. I don't even know the word "propaganda"

America sent their soldiers to Vietnam, the other Communist's countries didn't.

Anyway, sorry for not reading the part "both".

In conclusion, fact needs to be proven (not by saying fact is fact; I can send all those word back: "the one sugar coat the fact is the US", but I don't); second, the Communists kicked France out, so Vietnam is theirs, not some random government appearing out of nowhere and claiming the glory.

P/s: please use the Internet for more WW2 information.

The ones that kicked France out of Vietnam IS the North and Vietcong; it is like "you (the North) kicked the invader (France) out of the house (Vietnam), so now I (the South) will take half of the house". Study Vietnamese history please.

Second, the definition of winning IS to complete the mission given: the North is to kick American out and spread the Communism (don't know if spelled right); the South and the America is to stop that spreading. Guess who finished their mission now. That is stupid comparing the lost (and you forgot to count the South)

An example: do you think the Nazis lost more men than Soviet and other countries? And who won WW2?

Using men as cannon fodder? Why the American didn't use knives to fight? You want a side with a disadvantage in technology to fight equally? You just criticize most revolution my friend.

And we are talking about the present. The South government no longer exists, the American stay where they should, and Vietnam is full of communists now. Who is the right, the law, the moral now?

So, in conclusion, Vietcong did not invade anyone, they took back what they earned; the war is not a draw, look at the result; war crimes are commited by BOTH sides (do you seriously think that American soldiers are like angels? Look at the wars happened recently now)

P/S: I used present tense in "the victor is the right"; it is always true in the present.

I like how you sugar coat that fact that the North invaded the South. Fact = fact.

And if you read my post,I added "as well" meaning I said BOTH SIDES committed war crimes.

Lol knives?

Communists had overwhelming numbers and GUNS AND JETS AND TANKS.

Allies won WW2; not sure about total loses, but in the Pacific theater for every one US soldier who died 10 Japanese soldiers died.  

Sorry but no, War is still technically a draw. Save your propaganda for some other board.

My, every friend of mine is having fun with their girlfriends, and I'm here discussing about history. Sorry if anyone feels offended (I'm kind of feeling heated up when duscussing something interesting), and sorry for my mistakes in spelling (English is not my mother language). Anyway, is the mangaka Japanese? I have never seen a manga about Vietnam, especially about the Vietnam war.

The ones that kicked France out of Vietnam IS the North and Vietcong; it is like "you (the North) kicked the invader (France) out of the house (Vietnam), so now I (the South) will take half of the house". Study Vietnamese history please.

Second, the definition of winning IS to complete the mission given: the North is to kick American out and spread the Communism (don't know if spelled right); the South and the America is to stop that spreading. Guess who finished their mission now. That is stupid comparing the lost (and you forgot to count the South)

An example: do you think the Nazis lost more men than Soviet and other countries? And who won WW2?

Using men as cannon fodder? Why the American didn't use knives to fight? You want a side with a disadvantage in technology to fight equally? You just criticize most revolution my friend.

And we are talking about the present. The South government no longer exists, the American stay where they should, and Vietnam is full of communists now. Who is the right, the law, the moral now?

So, in conclusion, Vietcong did not invade anyone, they took back what they earned; the war is not a draw, look at the result; war crimes are commited by BOTH sides (do you seriously think that American soldiers are like angels? Look at the wars happened recently now)

P/S: I used present tense in "the victor is the right"; it is always true in the present.

The "Điện Biên Phủ" mentioned in this manga is the second one; it is when Vietnam shot down US's B-52 and other planes in the sky of Hanoi.

Second, what does the princess do to be called "the crimes against USA", who sent their chilren into hell without accomplished anything? At least Vietcong fought with their men (with the support of China and Soviet) when the US-as an outsider-involved in, killed people in the name of justice, threw tons of bombs, left Vietnam defeated, and made a scar that never heal to both countries (American died and others have mental disorder)

Third, Pol Pot was in Cambodia, Vietnam was involved in that.

Finally, someone said "tyranny began", please make your point clear. There is no "tyranny" of a victor, Vietcong won this war with their people's strenght and they become justice. In a war and many other situations, the victor is the right.

And another thing: are you fine with North Vietnam INVADING South Vietnam, (committing war crimes (as well) along the way (look up the village of Hue and the aftermath of the Tet Offensive)) while using their own people as cannon fodder ("We could lose 10 soldiers for every 1 US soldier and still win.")?

The "Điện Biên Phủ" mentioned in this manga is the second one; it is when Vietnam shot down US's B-52 and other planes in the sky of Hanoi.

Second, what does the princess do to be called "the crimes against USA", who sent their chilren into hell without accomplished anything? At least Vietcong fought with their men (with the support of China and Soviet) when the US-as an outsider-involved in, killed people in the name of justice, threw tons of bombs, left Vietnam defeated, and made a scar that never heal to both countries (American died and others have mental disorder)

Third, Pol Pot was in Cambodia, Vietnam was involved in that.

Finally, someone said "tyranny began", please make your point clear. There is no "tyranny" of a victor, Vietcong won this war with their people's strenght and they become justice. In a war and many other situations, the victor is the right.

Technically the war was a draw (look up Paris Peace Accords).

They didn't "win" through strength; they "won" through attrition (America lost <60,000 soldiers while the total communist forces lost over 1,000,000).

And you need to rephrase "...the victor is right" to "War is written by the victors" of which (as far as the Vietnam War is concerned) there were none.  

The "Điện Biên Phủ" mentioned in this manga is the second one; it is when Vietnam shot down US's B-52 and other planes in the sky of Hanoi.

Second, what does the princess do to be called "the crimes against USA", who sent their chilren into hell without accomplished anything? At least Vietcong fought with their men (with the support of China and Soviet) when the US-as an outsider-involved in, killed people in the name of justice, threw tons of bombs, left Vietnam defeated, and made a scar that never heal to both countries (American died and others have mental disorder)

Third, Pol Pot was in Cambodia, Vietnam was involved in that.

Finally, someone said "tyranny began", please make your point clear. There is no "tyranny" of a victor, Vietcong won this war with their people's strenght and they become justice. In a war and many other situations, the victor is the right.

The art is great. very stylish, and quite uncommon to the manga world (not so in BD)

But I've got to say that I was surprised : Dien Bien Phu is much more known for the battle between Vietminh and the French colonial forces, leading to the first Paris Accord (and tragic partition of Vietnam), and subsequent american involvement in Vietnam.

Thinking about it, it's also an emblematic name. Clearly related to the Vietnam wars, yet not limited to the US period, and thus showing a longer continuity.

will keep watching.

thx a lot

just to let you guys know, I was born near Điện Biên Phủ, not the time, but the place

Be warned, speculations are inside:

the story is decent, but the art is bad. It's way too simplistic. Gonna drop this one even tho it's about my country

not sure how I should feel about this...

FINALLY someone is translating this