It’s his second most famous shot; who was the victim?
The dead one.
I haven’t found an account or article that names him.
Personal anecdote: He was the guest speaker at an NROTC “dining-in” I attended in the late 1980s (GySgt Hathcock, not the NVA general).
I will give you an informed speculation.
The Chinese did not support the NVA except to allow transit of supplies across China.
If a prominent NVA General had been killed, it would have been crowed to the world.
The Russians manned the missile sites; just as they had flown the MIGS in Korea.
The military aid came from the Soviet Union.
It was known that Soviet intelligent officers did serve with the NVA.
If it was a General, it would have been a Soviet General and 40 years later you still wouldn’t be told.
Some US pilots and valued ground personnel captured by the NVA ended up in the Soviet Union.
This sounds more like the the maunderings of a fantasist than “informed speculation.” What do you have to offer that supports this laundry list?
Well, just as a guy who’s read some of the books that mention Hathcock’s exploits, I’m interested in the OP, too.
Sounds like “What is the Straight Dope on This?”
So the general at the front, who took over in 1967, says that General Nguyen Chi Thanh did return to the field in 1967…, and died in the FIELD… The story had always been that he died in Hanoi “of a heart attack”… So why the coverup on his death ?
Well it makes some sense… the sniper says that “he regretted doing it because there were reprisal attacks”… Well it was a war and NVA and VC were “attacking” anyway, what was the option ? make friends and share their rice wine or bia hoi (beer) ?
But the sniper may been sent in to disturb the Generals planned “Tet Offensive” (which may have occured earlier without the disturbance.)
The idea may have been that the failure may demoralise the NVA… Either a. They give up on the plan due to the loss of the general, or b. they go ahead despite having lost the general, and therefore fail…
So without the snipers effort, the “test offensive” may have been very deadly to USA/western troops… ?
The Chinese supplied weapons, supplies and troops to North Vietnam.
Are you sure you aren’t thinking of North Korea? The Vietnamese had bad relations with China going back to imperial days; the Soviet Union, North Vietnam’s main backer, had split from China earlier; and China was going through the chaos of the Cultural Revolution.
It seems to be the practice today to challenge with prove it. Well I just saw the challenge. Why don’t you take my laundry list and google each concept???
That article, which is apparently from 1992, appears to address only one of your assertions, which in themselves mostly had little to do with the OP. It’s not up to other posters to “Google your laundry list.” If you’re going to defend your post, you need to provide more evidence.
We prefer that old threads in GQ not be bumped unless to provide new factual information. Unless you can do a lot better than this, I’m going to close this.
General Questions Moderator
Not to hijack this thread, but when a military sniper shoots someone, is it proper or appropriate to call the person (who got shot) a victim?
Sure, I’m ok with it. Why not?
Vic makes it sound like a homocide
The General and others that got clipped were casualties of war
noun: victim; plural noun: victims
a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or **other event or action.**
Another hijack but I remember getting very confused when a local news story reported on a woman deliberately getting run down by a car to silence her and the news story still called it a “car accident”, except you know it was very much intentional.
“Car accident” has entered the vernacular as any time a car hits something it’s generally not supposed to, whether it was intentional or not. Same as (for some people) “going to the bathroom” means urinating and/or defecating, even when talking about other animals.
Think the correct word is “target”, since a “victim” may not be the intended target.