Talk:Operation Léa

Viet Minh strategic victory

The operation was a Viet Minh strategic victory according to following reasons:

• Whatever Bernard Fall says in his source, the failure of the French to capture Viet Minh leadership and destroy its main force has been stated by Spencer Tucker.[1][2] A French strategic failure is equivalent to a Viet Minh strategic victory.
• user:Mztourist's citing of the article's wording as a source for the result section itself is a circular reference and thus being invalid. Dino nam (talk) 07:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

No a strategically indecisive French operation does not equal a Viet Minh victory that is OR/SYNTH. As I stated in my edit summary, Fall never says Operation Lea was a strategic failure, just that the French failed to capture the senior Viet Minh leadership, which is a very different thing. I have no idea what point you are trying to make when you say "user:Mztourist's citing of the article's wording as a source for the result section itself is a circular reference and thus being invalid." please explain. I don't have the Tucker book you cite, so please provide the quote on which you are relying to claim that the operation was a "strategic failure" or a "Viet Minh strategic victory". Until then I have reverted your edits. Mztourist (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• According to the Fall's source, the primary, long-term objective of the French was to capture the Viet Minh leadership. They were unsuccessful in that objective, thus it was a strategic defeat, and that's WP:BLUE. It's you yourself who has made an OR, because you cannot clarify the reason why it's not an strategic victory, and how the failure to capture Viet Minh leadership "is a very different thing". Provide an RS to support your concept.
• About circular reference, read WP:CIRC. It's constituted as you kept citing the word "indecisive" as evidence to back up your editing.
• I've already add the link of Spencer's book in the article. Dino nam (talk) 09:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

No its not [[WP:BLUE}} that is your OR/SYNTH. You have to provide a WP:RS that says it was a Viet Minh strategic victory, but have failed to do so. Using your OR/SYNTH logic every battle between the Viet Minh and the French was a Viet Minh strategic victory, because the French always sought to destroy the Viet Minh and never fully achieved that. Your WP:CIRC comments are completely spurious. Mztourist (talk) 10:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• The weasel words of you without citing any RS to prove your own concept of strategic victory and that the French failure was not a strategic defeat is a clear evidence that you're conducting OR.
• Another thing I should add: in Tucker, p. 55, he has already cited Vietnamese claim that it's the failure of "France's blitzkerg strategy", without any words of his own to reject such claim. Dino nam (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Dino nam I know that you desperately seek to create Vietnamese victories even where they don't exist. You need to provide WP:RS to support your OR/SYNTH that this was a Viet Minh strategic victory and you haven't, Tucker citing a Vietnamese source published in Hanoi in 1993 is of no value whatsoever as this is propaganda. I will leave it to the RFC rather than engage in yet another completely tedious discussion with you pushing your POV. Mztourist (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It's quite riduculous when you keep refusing to acknowledge that I've provide RS without providing any RS of yourself to back up your point. First, you've failed to prove it's propaganda characteristic. Second, whether or not it's a propaganda, Tucker doesn't show any intention of refuting it, if not concurring. Anyway, I also think it's better to listen to the comments on the RfC. Dino nam (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Result

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please comment on whether this operation was a Viet Minh strategic victory or not. Dino nam (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yes - The operation was a Viet Minh strategic victory according to following reasons:

• The failure of the French to capture Viet Minh leadership and destroy its main force has been stated by Spencer Tucker.[3][4] He cited Vietnamese claim that the campaign proved the failure of "France's blitzkerg strategy". A French strategic failure is equivalent to a Viet Minh strategic victory. Moreover, Phillip Davidson (p. 54) says that Gen. Giap did accomplish his primary objective in the campaigns in 1947 (including Léa) based on "weighing Giap's result against his strategic intention".[5]
• user:Mztourist's citing of the article's wording ("indecisive") as a source for the result section itself is a circular reference and thus being invalid. Dino nam (talk) 07:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

'*No'. Dino nam has failed to provide a single WP:RS that says this was a Viet Minh strategic victory. Tucker does not state this and nor does Fall. Tucker citing a Vietnamese source published in Hanoi in 1993 is of no value whatsoever as this is propaganda. Dino nam relies on OR/SYNTH that because the French did not succeed in all their objectives (destroying the main Viet Minh units and capturing their leadership) this amounted a Viet Minh strategic victory, using this logic (for this and every guerilla war) every time the French failed to destroy the Viet Minh was a Viet Minh strategic victory, which makes the Result in Infoboxes meaningless. The WP:CIRC comments are completely spurious. Mztourist (talk) 10:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

"using this logic (for this and every guerilla war) every time the French failed to destroy the Viet Minh was a Viet Minh strategic victory, which makes the Result in Infoboxes meaningless" without any RS to back up the concept is itself an OR. Dino nam (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I am analyzing your errant logic, so of course its OR! Mztourist (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the "logic" itself; I'm talking about your "analysis": they're just self-made weasel words instead of RS-based reasoning. I've stated my own RS, and I think you should do the same. Dino nam (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Neither of your WP:RS states this was a Viet Minh strategic victory, that is your OR/SYNTH, hence my analysis. Mztourist (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll take that as an acknowledgement that you've edited based on OR. On my part, I've already provide my RS and will wait for others' comments. Dino nam (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment A strategic or tactical failure by one belligerent does not constitute a strategic or tactical victory (respectively) by the other belligerent. A case in point would be the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. That the Japanese failed to achieve a strategic victory does not make it a strategic victory for the US. I note that the Viet Minh casualties reported is referenced, the same is not so for the French casualties. I note the closing sentence of the lead and sources cited. I also note Template:Infobox military conflict/doc and the guidance it gives regarding the 'Result'. If not in the 'Aftermath' section (and given the small size of the article) it is appropriately sourced and discussed save the French casualties in the info box. I hate over repetition in small articles but perhaps it does need to be repeated in the 'Aftermath' in this case with a "See the 'Aftermath' section" per template documentation. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cinderella157:

• This op is different to the Battle of Pearl Harbor. At Pearl Harbor, the Japanese failure to achieve a strategic victory was not attributed directly to the American battle effort. The Americans did not achieved any objectives in the battle (if there even had been ones); that's why it's not an American strategic victory. But in this op, the Vietnamese war effort did succeed; they did achieve their strategic goal,[6] so they did score a strategic victory.
• If you don't accept the term, I think at least "French strategic failure" is something acceptable and necessary. Dino nam (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Your response regarding my analogy only proves the validity of the analogy and of the assertion that it represents. To have a strategic victory, there must be a defined strategic aim by which victory can be assessed. Your link did not cite a particular page unless you intended it to be 117, which I don't think was on point. See rather pp 46-54. At p50, Davidson states it was a French failure. This is what the present lead states but I can see that it might be seen as indecisive, given that it did not achieve its aims but did reportedly inflict substantial casualties - part way to, but not the decisive battle that was sought. This, however; would depend on what the other sources say (which I don't have).

The present lead is consistent with Davidson - a French strategic failure but a tactical success, inflicting severe casualties. I also note that Davidson reports the Viet Minh force at 50,000 (p 51) and killed (not killed and wounded) at 9,500 (p 50). I also note that he reports this figure as "difficult to believe" (which is not surprising that this is an over-statement). I have previously commented on the lack of citation for the French casualties and I would be equally skeptical about that figure.

There is nothing I see to suggest this is a Viet Minh strategic victory and the result parameter should be omitted or the 'Aftermath' should be amended and the 'Result' changed "See the 'Aftermath' section" as per the template documentation. I am a neutral observer come from MH talk page. I could optimistically hope this might close this matter. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: Sorry for citing the wrong page. For sure, it's on p. 54, where Davidson says that Gen. Giap did accomplish his primary objective in the campaigns in 1947 (including Léa) based on "weighing Giap's result against his strategic intention". Before that on p. 53, he says that "Valluy's failure was Giap's victory" and further elaborates about it. Dino nam (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Yet again hair-splitting and logic-chopping bedevils this criterion. Template:Infobox military conflict has

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much

The French gig failed to achieve its strategic objectives but the Viets had to retreat. Indecisive, unless the RS treat it as a watershed that determined the rest of the war. Keith-264 (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264: But the source says "Weighing Giap's results with his strategic intention, which was to maintain an effective Vietminh force in being, showed that he accomplished his primary mission. It showed, too, the validity of his developing strategy of revolutionary war, and with a sound strategy, tactical mistakes can be made without incurring disaster." (Davidson, p. 54)? Dino nam (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Further, I don't think a retreat is something to be judged as a basis for a victory or failure. The result must be analyzed based on the objectives of both sides. The French destroyed some stuff but failed to capture enemy leadership and terminate its main force; the Viets succeeded in preserving their leadership and main force from the French mopping-up for the protracting war; those are the things to be analyzed. Dino nam (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• No-please provide the sources defending the result. I do not read a Viet Minh "strategic victory" in any source given so far.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@CuriousMind01: I've listed the RS in the my very first comment. Dino nam (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dino nam: My opinion:I do not read "strategic victory" in the sources. The opinion strategic victory seems to be an interpretation of the sources. I think you are trying to justify a decisive victory but I don't read the sources justify that result, so far.Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@CuriousMind01: So you mean that it's indecisive or anything else? Dino nam

(talk) 17:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Dino nam I do not have any sources to classify the Viet Minh results. fyi, I think the Viet Minh result could be left out of the infobox and explained in the aftermath section.CuriousMind01 (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@CuriousMind01: "Weighing Giap's results with his strategic intention, which was to maintain an effective Vietminh force in being, showed that he accomplished his primary mission. It showed, too, the validity of his developing strategy of revolutionary war, and with a sound strategy, tactical mistakes can be made without incurring disaster." (Davidson, p. 54) → Isn't it enough for an RS? Dino nam (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Dino nam Davidson doesn't say that Lea was a Viet Minh strategic victory, so you still have not provided any WP:RS to support your OR/SYNTH. Mztourist (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dino nam: No I do not think so. The text is not for Operation Lea, the text is for: "Operations March 1947-31 December 1947" p 46.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mztourist: That part is a general remark for the 3 campaigns in 1947, including Léa, so it's about the operation WP:BLUE. He claims that Viet Minh achieved their goal based on considering their objective at strategic level, so it's a strategic victory WP:BLUE also. Dino nam (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat".

Do the RS use the words "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive"? if not '"See the 'Aftermath' section"' is the only tenable alternative. Limited French tactical victory Viet Minh strategic victory is clearly not supported. Interpreting discursive comments by the RS is OR. Keith-264 (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I must also point out that Dino nam appears to be adopting precisely the opposite stance to that which he took in relation to the RFC on the outcome of Operation Castor Mztourist (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I have read p54 and the passage that has been quoted several times now. Giap was successful in that he avoided annihilation of his force and that may have been his mission but that hardly constitutes a 'victory' - in the same way that American carriers were at sea during Pear Harbour and therefore were not destroyed, does not make that an US victory. At p 53, Davidson states: "Valluy's failure was Giap's victory." This is a turn of phrase and applied at a personal level. If Giap's mission was to preserve his force, then he succeeded to the extent that it wasn't annihilated. This could be included in the text - citing Davidson but it does not constitute a victory - it is too long a bow to draw (or you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear). Furthermore, Keith-264 and I have both quoted Template:Infobox military conflict/doc. The result parameter in the campaign box is not the place for such fine distinctions. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

First, I must say that linking to the "Aftermath" section was not a bad idea. However I still think that a clear result like "French tactical victory/Viet Minh strategic victory" was a better case:

• If we rely closely, extremely on the wording of the RS like User:Keith-264 has suggested, numerous articles in Wikipedia need to have its result ridiculously fixed. For instance, this op would have to be solely "Viet Minh victory" if we followed his suggestion (Davidson, p. 53). Battle of Stalingrad could no way a Soviet "decisive" victory, or Battle of Mogadishu could hardly be described as an SNA "strategic" victory, just because none of the RS use such exact words. It is also soundly incompatible with the WP:BLUE policy, as it requires too much wording pedantry.
• Castor and Léa are two different things. The latter was an offensive op while the latter wasn't. With the latter, the French had to engage the enemy and defeat them, while the former was a tactical mission that could have succeeded even if there hadn't been any engagements at all. The victory/defeat issue is simply not raised with Castor. So there's nothing "opposite" as user:Mztourist claims.
• Template:Infobox military conflict/doc also says that the result must also reflect the content of the RS. So when the source says it was "Giap's victory", and that he achieved his target based on "weighing Giap's results with his strategic intention", should we simply just leave it like what the RS says? Isn't it User:Cinderella157's reasoning kind of OR when he analyzes the source in his own way? Dino nam (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• If we rely closely, extremely on the wording of the RS numerous articles in Wikipedia need to have its result ridiculously fixed. Red herring, this is a discussion about which of the four terms to use. "Viet Minh victory" is tenable. Battle of Stalingrad was not a "decisive" victory, that was the Battle of Smolensk in 1941, which decided the course of the Second World War. WP:BLUE? Following Infobox military conflict is pedantic but following Blue isn't? What do the sources say? We can't interpret them only describe. If I were to interpret the result after reading the article I would call it a French failure. The "see Aftermath section" will be suitable for this because the tactical-strategic discussion should be in the article, not in the infobox. The French failed ergo VM victory or "see Aftermath section" (unless the RS say inconclusive).
• PS It's a barebones article so perhaps there are other sources to consult? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Quoting the Macquarie Dictionary definition of 'Victory': "1. the ultimate and decisive superiority in a battle or any contest. 2. a success or triumph won over the enemy in battle or war, or an engagement ending in such a triumph: naval victories. 3.any success or successful performance achieved over an adversary or opponent, opposition, difficulties, etc." I believe that Davidson is using the third of these definitions and not the former two in saying, "Valluy's failure was Giap's victory." Davidson goes on to qualify what he means by this and it is not a 'victory' in the sense of either of the two former definitions. This is not OR or analysing but English comprehension. You either accept Template:Infobox military conflict/doc or you don't - you don't get to pick and choose the bits you like. Furthermore, Davidson is only one of now five sources (see 2 below in CE section) that express a view on the outcome. If you do feel compelled to quote Davidson as above, then quote the sentence in full and in such a way that it retains context and is not distorted. I also note that there is no comment on the extension of my analogy to Pearl Harbour.

Quoting Dino nam: "Saying it's a French victory is like saying one centimeter is too heavy/light. The direct objective of the operation is establishing positions, not defeating sb/sth, so victory/defeat is simply not the correct unit to measure its success." Similarly, trying to call "not being annihilated" a victory in a military sense is "simply not the correct unit to measure its success". Cinderella157 (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• No Strategic failure on the part of the French, does nto make it a strategic victory for VC.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 14:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• No - The template for military conflict guidance for result is: result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

In this case, Inconclusive because the other two labels do not fit, or else leave blank if not clear. Neither side is described as having achieved planned objectives -- and neither side was destroyed or really got anything extra out of it. They went out, shot each other up some, and not much accomplished. Markbassett (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CE

Tidied prose, blammed a few typos and tidied references but in sfn as I buggered up the < > ones. Keith-264 (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

[7] there might be something here for the article.Keith-264 (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

[8] p. 26 Keith-264 (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

[9] pp. 39-40 Keith-264 (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC) p. 57 Keith-264 (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

[10] p 19: "A major offensive against the Viet Minh at the end of 1947 finally ended without decisive results." At p 26, the French fall offensive is described as "unsuccessful". Cinderella157 (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)