Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Forgotten German vets of Indochine

Discussion in 'Non-World War 2 History' started by Che_Guevara, May 15, 2007.

  1. Che_Guevara

    Che_Guevara New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,109
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Davy Jones's locker
    via TanksinWW2
    An interessting part of german involvment in Vietnam, nearly 30.000 german Volunteers fought in Indochine

    http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=82860

    http://www.arte.tv/fr/histoire-societe/ ... 79652.html

    German légionaries in the war of Indo-China 80 % of the légionaries who took part in the war of Indo-China were of German and Austrian origin. Old SS, orphans of war or criminals of common right, they had been recruited in the zone of French occupation in Germany... After the end of the Second World war, France wants to restore the order in its colonies of Indo-China. But the government refuses to mobilize the soldiers of the quota. In more of the professional army, one thus sends the foreign Legion. This one will play a part determining in the conflict: there will be to 44 000 légionaries in Indo-China. What one knows less, it is that 80 % of these men are of German and Austrian origin. One finds among them the old ones of Wehrmacht and SS, orphans of war, criminals of common right and adventurers of any hair. The majority were recruited in prison camps or camps of transit located in the zone of French occupation in Germany. Strange destiny that that of these a little lost beings which find themselves enrôlés by the enemy of yesterday. The war of Indo-China east one of the first great episodes of the cold war. What is at the beginning an operation of maintenance of law and order in the French colonies of Southeast Asia takes soon an international dimension and symbolizes the fight of the Occident against Communism. In the two camps the propaganda campaigns multiply. Thus, the units of Hô Chi Minh do not hesitate to diffuse by loud-hailer of the German slogans to the attention of the German-speaking légionaries. Certain men will let themselves convince and join the rows of the Communists - once the finished combat, they will be often recovered by the GDR which will use them for its own companies of propaganda. The French adventure in Indo-China, it, will end in May 1954 in the hell of Diên Biên Phu. As for the Legion, it will record very heavy losses: more than 10 000 men in eight years of war.


    Some additional pix of DBP and Indochine

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    ..some of the pix are from militaryphotos.net, anac-fr.com etc

    Regards,
    Che.
     
  2. smeghead phpbb3

    smeghead phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Orst-Ray-Lia
    via TanksinWW2
    First time I learnt of German involvment in Vietnam was reading "The Quiet American", where I was suprised to learn of the large German presence in tha famous battle of Dien Bien Phu...

    Unfortunately it seems that the French Indochina War has been almost completely forgotten in favour of the Vietnam War, though it was almost identical in scale... With few exceptions (most in 1954) the French proved no less successful against the Viet Minh than the Americans...

    According to...
    http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm#FIC45

     
  3. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I'd disagree, the French commitment to Indochina was very small compared to the US involvement in Vietnam both in equipment and manpower. As for proving no less successful, again I can only disagree, whereas the US did not lose a single battle of consequence in Vietnam the French in Indochina suffered a number of serious defeats, including outright massacres such as the RC4 disaster as early on as 1950.
     
  4. Che_Guevara

    Che_Guevara New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,109
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Davy Jones's locker
    via TanksinWW2
    edit *

    I´m getting old....should read careful til I write :oops:

    Regards,
    Che.
     
  5. smeghead phpbb3

    smeghead phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Orst-Ray-Lia
    via TanksinWW2
    Simon,
    Commitment I'd agree with you,
    The Americans were, after all, footing the bill for the French to be there...

    Performance, however, I'd disagree... Simply because the French Indochina war was fought so differently from the Vietnam war...

    The Viet Mihn did not fight large scale battles with the Americans, as they had with the French, becasue they had learnt (the hard way) that engaging Western armies in the field was not their strongest suit. And (although I stand to be corrected) I don't believe that the Americas were involved in any single battles of the scale of Dien Bien Phu (which involved 100,000 VC...)

    I admit my knowlege of the Indochina and Vietnam war is limited, but of what I've read the VC were more willing to engage in large scale battles with the French, it was more like a standard war... The US did not lose any battles because large scale battles were comparitively few and far between, in respect to the French campaign...
    By the time the Americans became directly involved the Viet Mihn had had time to perfect there military doctrine, and engage more in guerilla warfare than standard warfare
     
  6. Che_Guevara

    Che_Guevara New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,109
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Davy Jones's locker
    via TanksinWW2

    Well, actually the Vietminh did not fight the americans and the Vietcong did not fight the french. The Vietminh was formed in 1941 and resolved in 1954, it fought in north vietnam, the VC, also known as Front National de Libération, was formed in 1954 in South vietnam, with ssome members of the Vietminh.

    Regards,
    Che.
     
  7. smeghead phpbb3

    smeghead phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Orst-Ray-Lia
    via TanksinWW2
    Well there you go, what I said was correct :D

    I didn't know that so I tend to use the two transposably... shall we just say 'North Vietnamese forces'?
     
  8. Hoosier phpbb3

    Hoosier phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bloomington, Indiana USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Che:
    Very interesting stuff... and I admit I was not aware of such a large german-presence in the FFL.
    --------------------------
    Smeg:
    While VC tactics may have changed from French Indo-China involvement to the American presence later in South Vietnam, there were more than a few engagements where the VC--and after TET, the NVA--were willing to trade punches in more conventional battles.
    Khe Sanh... at the time US press were trying to compare it to a Dien Bien Phu scenario. American airpower helped negate that comparison and break the seige. I believe at least 30,000 NVA were facing perhpas 6,000 American Marines. Air-supply, and B-52s made all the difference.
    The Tet Offensive comes to mind.
    The Battle for Hue.
    The Ia Drang... "Charlies' backyard" and they weren't afraid to take-on the AirCav.
    Biggest difference was the fact the French were defeated in Indo-China. US forces never lost a major battle in the course of the conflict. During TET Offensive in '68, the Viet Cong were virtually wiped-out. After TET we fought NVA regulars... not irregular-troops.
    TET was an overwhelming victory for US Forces, though the US Press convinced the American public that all was lost. I believe Simon is "spot-on" with his comments.

    Tim
     
  9. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Here again I have to disagree, the US were providing a lot of military equipment, such as war surplus aircraft and tanks, but much of the bill was being paid by France (Soldiers pay, munitions, small arms, military fortifications, etc).

    The Vietminh was divided into three seperate groupings, the military significant ones were the Regionals which were the Guerilla arm and performed broadly the same function as the VC would in later years, and the Regulars which were the fighting divisions and performed broadly the same function as the NVA would later. As has been pointed out, the VM and VC/NVA did not co-exist.

    As Tim's already commented, open engagements between the VC and the US were certainly not isolated, even large scale engagements occured.

    The war was different perhaps in some ways but it was certainly not a case of set piece battles for the French, they had to contend with in some ways the worst of both worlds, open battles largely on grounds of the VM's choosing and ambushes/guerilla warfare against the regionals.

    I can't really see how you can compare the two, including disasters such as Dien Bien Phu and RC-4 on the part of the French and the US military record in Vietnam and claim that the performance was about the same.
     
  10. smeghead phpbb3

    smeghead phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Orst-Ray-Lia
    via TanksinWW2
    I don't see how you can say that the US was so much more successful when the 'same war' was essentially lost in the 'same way'... Both countries failed

    Yes, the French lost some battles...

    Yes the Tet offensive almost wiped out the VC...

    Whereas the consensus seems to be that the French got there arse kicked at every turn and made meagre dints in the Viet Mihn; that is not the case... French operations were quite successful around 1951, and despite the infamy of Dien Bien Phu it was really more of a demoralising blow, mot French forces were still centralised in Saigon... For both countries it was a war which they could win on the field, but would never win politically...

    The only difference was the manner in which the battles were fought, and the interests of the 'invading' country... France wanted to keep the country as a French colony whereas America did not care who kept Vietnam so long as it was not communist...
    America's goals were more 'realistic' but still not enough so as to allow the war to be won
     
  11. Hoosier phpbb3

    Hoosier phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bloomington, Indiana USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Smeg:
    The French were defeated on the battlefield at Dien Bien Phu and the French involvement in Indo-China ended as a result.
    Americans began the "Vietnamization" program in the early 70's and began turning-over equipment and area responsibilities to the ARVN commanders. The USA drew down it's forces rapidly, and left mostly advisors--imbedded with ARVN units--who were still present by the time of the '72 Easter Invasion.
    They had done a great job training the ARVN tank-outfits, and it was clear they were superior to their opponents in both training and equipment. The SVNAF was also well-trained, and equipped with a variety of lethal close-air support aircraft that they were able to use quite effectively against NVA forces.
    While regular ARVN troops might have not always been dependable, the American-trained "elite" Rangers and SV Marines were respected by their American advisors.
    South Vietnam fell in 1975, and not because the American Forces were overwhelmed in a Dien Bien Phu set-piece siege/offensive. The South Vietnamese were responsible for the security of their country by the time NVA tanks rolled into Saigon.
    Not the same scenario as the French at all.

    Tim
     
  12. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    Here's a significant difference: One was a military loss, on the battlefield. The other was a political loss, on the field of public opinion.
     
  13. smeghead phpbb3

    smeghead phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Orst-Ray-Lia
    via TanksinWW2
    There were many similarites ;)
    Just as there were many differences

    The calibre of the US soldiers or the ARVN is not in question, it is the French experience that is... I believe that the French took a far more defensive approach to warfare than the Americans did... They favoured waiting for the Viet Mihn to attack, bleed themselves against defensive strongholds, then counterattack... More focus was placed on keeping soldiers within radius of artillery support, and using parachutists for counterattacks... Far less emphasis on the use of helicopters 'going out to meet the enemy'...

    Also the fact that the Viet Mihn were quite inexperiences in 1945 operated to France's favour... As I said it meant that the Viet Mihn were more eager to partake in conventional warfare with the French, which they *usually* lost... 1951 saw a string of decisive victories for the French and a sucessful 'rout' of the Viet Mihn army... The battle of Dien Bien Phu was, again, a political victory... It took 2 months for the Viets to break the French there, a small garrison detached from the main lines at Hanoi, not part of the main presence... Technically the French still had the strength to remain there, but they decided to pull out for public as well as military reasons... much like America's decision

    Whether the French achieved less than the Americans or the ARVN depends upon how you assess that... However, ultimately both nations lost and ultimatley both nations achieved similar casualty ratios... A for land taken, The French withdrawl included a condition for the preservation the existence of South Vietnam (whether that would be honored is questionable) whereas the American war culminated with the North taking over the South.... The French controlled Hanoi until the witdrawl

    On the use of paratroopers...
    I beleive that the first casualty suffered by the foreign legion was an ex-fallschrimjager, who was strangled in a drop as he had fastened his French-made parachute in a German style, not knowing what the result would be...
     
  14. smeghead phpbb3

    smeghead phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Orst-Ray-Lia
    via TanksinWW2
    The Viet Cong never officially surrendered or conceeded territory permanently, even after Tet, they were back on the offensive within a year. They continued fighting until the US withdrew, after which they invaded South Vietnam, defeated the ARVN and annexed the entire country...

    Doesn't sound much like a military victory to me... :D
     
  15. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    No they didn't, that was the NVA.

    AFAIK, the French loss was in both respects, the war in Indochina was a huge drain militarily and financially on the republic and was pretty unpopular at home too. Add into that a succession of short administrations that barely had time to find their feet in office and you get an unpopular war with a lack of direction or consistent objectives.

    I don't think it's unfair to say that the French lost both militarily and politically.

    However, equally the US never surrendered or conceeded territory permanently, they handed control over to the ARVN who lost it for them, but the fact still remains that the US itself was not militarily defeated in Vietnam. Politically and on the home front is another matter, but it is worth noting that IIRC all the permanent territorial gains by the NVA occured after the US withdrew the vast bulk of her fighting troops and handed the reins to the ARVN.
     
  16. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    And why should it? I don't recall anyone saying anything about a "victory".
    You are incorrect about the Viet Cong (as Simon pointed out) the North Vietnamese Army ( 17 divisions) invaded and defeated the South Vietnamese in 1975 (2 years after the withdrawal of US military forces) , not the VC.

    Learn more about the Vietnam war here:

    http://www.vhfcn.org/stat.html
     
  17. smeghead phpbb3

    smeghead phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Orst-Ray-Lia
    via TanksinWW2
    Not sure I agree with everything that article says...

    I am not questioning the American military and moral superiority in Vietnam... I am saying that many of those 'myths' you refer to (and which I agree are myths) are also applicable to France;s experience...

    While the American war may not have seen any major defeats and the French Indochina war, the overall effect was largely the same... A superior army defeated both militarily and politically... Both America and France were defeated, in the field as well as in the media... Granted it was because both chose to withdraw...

    I am sure that if America really wanted to, as a nuclear power, she could have wiped Vietnam off the face of the map (As could have France)
    However, both countries decided to withdraw as they did not want to suffer the military and politicl ramafications of destroying Vietnam
    And withdrawing generally signifies defeat, no matter how it is done...
     
  18. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    After dosens years of fighting they still had 17 divisions?

    It is not military sucess for me,specialy if u fight against underpowered enemy in techique and training.
     
  19. Hoosier phpbb3

    Hoosier phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bloomington, Indiana USA
    via TanksinWW2
    "While the American war may not have seen any major defeats and the French Indochina war, the overall effect was largely the same... A superior army defeated both militarily and politically... Both America and France were defeated, in the field as well as in the media... Granted it was because both chose to withdraw..."
    -------------------
    Smeg:
    Dec 18, 1972- "Operation Linebacker" is launched, and B-52s begin to carpet-bomb critical North Vietnamese infrastructure.
    Jan 08, 1973-North Vietnam agrees to resume "Peace Talks" in Paris.
    Jan 27, 1973- All warring parties sign a cease-fire. Hostilities end.

    Now explain to me how that is similar to the French outcome?
    How could the United States be defeated on the battlefield when they had a signed cease-fire agreement?
    If anything, it shows that the North Vietnamese government was untrustworthy and disregarded a signed accord.
    ---------------------
    "I am sure that if America really wanted to, as a nuclear power, she could have wiped Vietnam off the face of the map (As could have France)
    However, both countries decided to withdraw as they did not want to suffer the military and politicl ramafications of destroying Vietnam
    And withdrawing generally signifies defeat, no matter how it is done...[/quote]
    ---------------------
    Frankly, had the war not have been so prolonged and unpopular, I would have expected NATO intervention when the NVA offensive began, and ultimately overran South Vietnam. (Same scenario as North Korea and the Korean Conflict of 1950-53?)
    While I would agree that the fall of Saigon went counter to US policy on containing communism in South-East Asia... by strict definition, turning-over the security of South Vietnam to South Vietnamese forces does not constitute a defeat. It was nearly 2-plus years later--April 30, 1975--that the North-Viets overran South Vietnam.

    Tim
     
  20. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes. And millions of people. In the North.
    The US did not invade North Vietnam.
     

Share This Page