Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which was a more brutal War: Soviet Afghan War or Second Indochina War?
Both have high civilian casualty numbers. I wondering why. I always thought the Vietnam War was mostly an insurgency type war, and not conventional. Was there a lot of indiscriminate artillery shelling by Americans and NVA when soldiers thought they saw one another? If so, why was this done in population centers.
Same with the Soviet afghan war. Did the Soviets and their allies just massacre whole villages when they suspected the Mujihadeen were hiding there? Did the Mujihadeen do the same? There are reported around 3mil civilian casualties during that war?
I thought both were largely a counter-insurgency type of fighting. So no large pitched battles were large numbers of civilians can get caught in cross fire.
Both the US and Soviets employed mass bombardments etc. But I never heard of the NVA skinning POWs alive, or impaling them. You could survive the Vietnamese captivity, but you'd be better off killing yourself than becoming a POW of the mujaheddin.
What was the Hanoi Hilton famous for then? And didnt the VC employ traps that make you fall onto a spike essentially impaling you? That is pretty gruesome.
What was the Hanoi Hilton famous for then? And didnt the VC employ traps that make you fall onto a spike essentially impaling you? That is pretty gruesome.
As I said, I never read of anyone in Hanoi Hilton being skinned alive, or having their arms, legs, nose, ears and testicles cut off, eyes gouged out, filled to the brim with drugs to keep them alive as long as possible, and then impaled on a pole alongside a road for other troops to see. The Afghans used the same methods when they were fighting the British in the XIX century.
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
And go to your God like a soldier.
R. Kipling
And these traps were a weapon of war, not any worse / more gruesome than the land mines, just cheaper. Not a torture device for POWs.
But during the Soviet Afghan war, who is responsible for the majority of human rights violations against the civilians? Was it the Soviets or the Afghans themselves doing that to their own people?
What do you mean by brutal? Do you mean for noncombatants or for the armed forces involved? How are you defining brutal? emotional or physical stress? fear? departures from the rules of war? No quarter by either side?
There was conventional fighting in Vietnam as well throughout the span of years. And reduce to the squad/fire team level an ambush which turns into a fire fight for superiority is no different than a conventional close quarters battle. Brutal on the fighting man.
Insurgency more of a political term than military.
Soviets used poison gas in Afghanistan. But overall numbers less deployed, population density less, etc. etc.
I tend to think the Algerian War of Independence is the more brutal of modern wars involving a first world power. Read St. Michael and the Dragon. As good as Sajer's The Forgotten Soldier.
Which was a more brutal War: Soviet Afghan War or Second Indochina War?
Both have high civilian casualty numbers. I wondering why. I always thought the Vietnam War was mostly an insurgency type war, and not conventional. Was there a lot of indiscriminate artillery shelling by Americans and NVA when soldiers thought they saw one another? If so, why was this done in population centers.
Same with the Soviet afghan war. Did the Soviets and their allies just massacre whole villages when they suspected the Mujihadeen were hiding there? Did the Mujihadeen do the same? There are reported around 3mil civilian casualties during that war?
I thought both were largely a counter-insurgency type of fighting. So no large pitched battles were large numbers of civilians can get caught in cross fire.
Why these two wars? Is it to compare Soviet tactics to US tactics? Both wars were brutal, as is any war really but here indeed we both have what are essentially civil wars, which by it's nature are brutal because of the role of irregulars mixed with civilians and the "neighbor (or tribe) and against neighbor" component that not only involved the major powers of the US and USSR, but also these regional and state governments against each other.
One big difference however, as much talk in this forum is given to the brutality of US tactics in the Vietnam War, US tactics are still balanced against 1.) A (somewhat counter) strategy of winning the "hearts and minds" of Vietnamese civilians, 2.) A western free press that was more than eager to report and exploit the deaths of civilians, 3.) Rules of Engagement on targeting civilians. Russia did not operate under those restrictions, nor did the Viet Cong or NVA - Charlie didn't have rules of engagements (and how many of us know about the 5,000 civilians murdered, sometimes buried alive, by communist forces in the Battle of Hue)?
So yes, Soviets used a "brute force" method in Afhiganistan that would include indiscriminate civilians slaughter, this indeed included chemical weapons...and the local mujihadeen were equally brutal..and then add foreign fighters into the mix.
The Soviets were also trying to win the hearts and minds of the Afghans, building schools and roads and hospitals and such. Of course it was that very policy that backfired badly, the Afghans were not ready to accept the mixed gender schools, female teachers, and especially all of the atheist propaganda forced upon their kids.
I'd say as far as the deliberate impact on the civilian population (stressing the deliberate part) the Soviet methods were somewhat more brutal (no independent media to be mindful of, and the public opinion back in the home country didn't matter as much), but probably not a night and day difference. And the sheer scope of US involvement in 'Nam was far more so more local people were impacted.
As far as the treatment of POWs by the locals, no comparison, as bad as the Vietnamese were, they did not hold a candle to the mujahideen. Not to say that all mujahedeen behaved the same, but a lot of them used extreme brutality as part of psychological warfare against the Soviets, making sure these 18 yo poorly trained conscripts were afraid to death to be caught. This is why the Soviets had to rely so heavily on their Special Ops forces, and the performance of their regulars was rather poor (lack of initiative, afraid to break away from the pack, afraid to go deep inside uncontrolled territory).
The Soviets were also trying to win the hearts and minds of the Afghans, building schools and roads and hospitals and such. Of course it was that very policy that backfired badly, the Afghans were not ready to accept the mixed gender schools, female teachers, and especially all of the atheist propaganda forced upon their kids.
I'd say as far as the deliberate impact on the civilian population (stressing the deliberate part) the Soviet methods were somewhat more brutal (no independent media to be mindful of, and the public opinion back in the home country didn't matter as much), but probably not a night and day difference. And the sheer scope of US involvement in 'Nam was far more so more local people were impacted.
As far as the treatment of POWs by the locals, no comparison, as bad as the Vietnamese were, they did not hold a candle to the mujahideen. Not to say that all mujahedeen behaved the same, but a lot of them used extreme brutality as part of psychological warfare against the Soviets, making sure these 18 yo poorly trained conscripts were afraid to death to be caught. This is why the Soviets had to rely so heavily on their Special Ops forces, and the performance of their regulars was rather poor (lack of initiative, afraid to break away from the pack, afraid to go deep inside uncontrolled territory).
Didnt the previous monarchy try to be more progressive? The Barakhzai Dynasty were not that hard line islamists. They seemed very liberal as liberal as a that part of the world can be. They already started giving women more rights. I think I even saw pictures of women without the burhka.
Why these two wars? Is it to compare Soviet tactics to US tactics? Both wars were brutal, as is any war really but here indeed we both have what are essentially civil wars, which by it's nature are brutal because of the role of irregulars mixed with civilians and the "neighbor (or tribe) and against neighbor" component that not only involved the major powers of the US and USSR, but also these regional and state governments against each other.
One big difference however, as much talk in this forum is given to the brutality of US tactics in the Vietnam War, US tactics are still balanced against 1.) A (somewhat counter) strategy of winning the "hearts and minds" of Vietnamese civilians, 2.) A western free press that was more than eager to report and exploit the deaths of civilians, 3.) Rules of Engagement on targeting civilians. Russia did not operate under those restrictions, nor did the Viet Cong or NVA - Charlie didn't have rules of engagements (and how many of us know about the 5,000 civilians murdered, sometimes buried alive, by communist forces in the Battle of Hue)?
So yes, Soviets used a "brute force" method in Afhiganistan that would include indiscriminate civilians slaughter, this indeed included chemical weapons...and the local mujihadeen were equally brutal..and then add foreign fighters into the mix.
These two wars are often compared to each other. Hence the phrase USSR's Vietnam. And yes I want to compare tactics. Also which one was closer to their objective? I heard the USSR almost actually conquered Afghanistan.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
