Why is he not considered a top general like Napoleon or Hannibal?

> Jacobins btfo royalists and half of Europe at the same time

> Red Army btfos White Army despite massive foreign support for White Army

> Soviets crush Nazis despite

> Mao btfos American funded Nationalists, exile them to tiny island.

> North Korea and Communist China push back American super power.

> Vietnamese best French and Americans

Is communism the ultimate battle ideology?

No, nationalism is, no matter the ideology whenever foreign factors get involved even the internationalists call upon local loyalty. It's why communism lost in Germany and Spain, could easily be tied to foreign influence (Jews and Russians)

But the North Vietnamese were foreign supported too and the North Koreans more so than the South even.

It's the superiority of communism mate.

Would the Soviet Union have won if they didn't call it the Great Patriotic War and reinstate the churches? Could North Korea have drawn a stalemate if MacArthur didn't threaten China like the retard he was? Could North Vietnam have won if the Americans didn't bring over darkies who looked exactly like the rape happy Tirailleur's the French did?

>hide in a jungle taking random potshots at the Japs until other powers defeat them
>invade Laos to genocide the Hmong
>French try to stop you but their troops promptly surrender and their socialist government surrenders Vietnam's productive north
>turn your imperialist ambitions towards South Vietnam, expressly stating your desire to genocide the country's millions of "bourgeois" (ordinary working class people who disagree with you)
>America reinforces South Vietnam and succeeds overwhelmingly
>ask Soviet Union and China for help and whine incessantly at the UN
>America decides not to bomb you into the stone age to avoid the risk of nuclear war with the Soviet Union
>regardless the US, South Vietnam and allies inflict enormous losses on your troops
>switch tactics, begin targeting civilians and order troops to make a spectacular if useless suicide charge at US bases (Tet offensive) to make the war look bad on US tv sets
>America persists and Nixon comes up with a plan to end the war, attacking North Vietnamese logistics, trying to win over China and preparing South Vietnam militarily to cope with the US withdrawal which the silent majority in the US accept
>again your tyranny and authoritarianism is thwarted by the plucky underdog US, you are running out of steam, you are close to losing this war
>due to pure luck "watergate" happens and the democrats are elected who immediately renege on their promises to South Vietnam
>with the Soviet Union aiding you, you steamroll South Vietnam and begin your genocide with 2 million boat people fleeing as well as many Hmong
>the power vacuum caused by the US withdrawal allows the Khmer Rouge to rise in Cambodia who kill millions more
>invade Cambodia despite having once been allies with the Khmer Rouge because they are outshining you in brutality
>China attacks you to help free Cambodia at great expense and rallies support against you, inflicting more damage on you than vice versa
fix'd

>again your tyranny and authoritarianism is thwarted by the plucky underdog US, you are running out of steam, you are close to losing this war

it's true, vietnam was exhausted and on its last legs

Just like Washington was then, how'd that work out again?

That doesn't prove anything. I could come up with a far more relatable example that actually happened in the 20th century.

>Just like the Malayan guerrillas were, how'd that work out again?

>Even comparing an ethnic minority operating in hostile territory to the Vietcong
Deadshit post user

>goat fucking afghani sheepherders BTFO the Russians
Commies absolutely BTFO by based Mujahideen

>comparing a wa in the 18th century to a war in the 20th century
if that is a "deadshit" comparison then your comparison is far shittier, that was my point

The American Revolution is far more comparable than a bunch of Chinks communists trying to overturn a Malay majority to be quite frank with you cunt

>Viets btfo Cambodians, something the US couldn't do despite dropping a cartoonish amount of bombs on them.
That's Laos. Cambodia was even more of a political clusterfuck than Vietnam and the US fucking SUPPORTED the Khmer Rouge at some point, because the Vietnamese were Soviet aligned and the KR supported by China, who the Yanks were trying to get closer to, and trying to get revenge on the Viets.

>China attacks you to help free Cambodia at great expense and rallies support against you, inflicting more damage on you than vice versa
The rest was a good laff, but this is just plain wrong

>wrecks the Americans and drives them out of Vietnam

Interestingly I'm reading Mark Bowden's new book Hue 1968 and he talks about how Giap was opposed to the Tet Offensive (what won the war for the North) and was in Moscow attending a play on the eve of the offensive. Giap's an overrated faggot.

Hannibal across the Alps tier for sure. Hand tunneling though mountains and bringing in broken down artillery on the backs of your men.

>The plan was to resupply the French position by air, and was based on the belief that the Viet Minh had no anti-aircraft capability. The Viet Minh, however, under General Võ Nguyên Giáp, surrounded and besieged the French. The Viet Minh brought in vast amounts of heavy artillery (including antiaircraft guns). They moved these weapons through difficult terrain up the rear slopes of the mountains surrounding the French positions, dug tunnels through the mountain, and placed the artillery pieces overlooking the French encampment. This positioning of the artillery made it nearly impervious to French counter-battery fire.

>The Viet Minh opened fire with a massive artillery bombardment in March. After several days the French artillery commander, Charles Piroth, unable to respond with any effective counterbattery fire, committed suicide. The Viet Minh occupied the highlands around Điện Biên Phủ and bombarded the French positions. Tenacious fighting on the ground ensued, reminiscent of the trench warfare of World War I. The French repeatedly repulsed Viet Minh assaults on their positions. Supplies and reinforcements were delivered by air, though as the key French positions were overrun, the French perimeter contracted and the air resupply on which the French had placed their hopes became impossible. As the Viet Minh antiaircraft fire took its toll, fewer and fewer of those supplies reached the French. The garrison was overrun in May after a two-month siege, and most of the French forces surrendered. A few of them escaped to Laos. The French government then resigned, and the new Prime Minister, the left-of-centre Pierre Mendès France, supported French withdrawal from Indochina.

I think generals whose primary strategy was guerrilla warfare don't get to be counted among the great strategists.

If your strategy is to avoid battles, you don't get recognition as a great general.

Because he primarily fought in asymmetric conflicts. Total, conventional conflicts are enormously more easy to evaluate, you can compare resources committed and destroyed by the enemy, and come up with a more or less objective standard of measurement.

Barring the invasion of the Khmer Rouge, the North Vietnamese campaigns were generally to render the enemy unwilling to resist further, rather than incapable of resisting further. Measuring an erosion of will to fight is difficult, and tying it to an individual general rather than other factors within the military even more so.

How many insurgent/counterinsurgent generals anywhere are considered top military commanders?

Why not? Plus, avoidance of battle!= guerilla operations. Guys like Guo Ziyi or Fabius weren't guerilla leaders by any means, even if they generally preferred to avoid battle.

This guy said it better so just read that.

>anal evisceration

owie zowie