Jump to content

Talk:Sino-Vietnamese War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yeumuvayeuem (talk | contribs) at 14:22, 13 September 2012 (→This information should be deleted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Which was was more consequential

The article says the Sino-Vietnamese War was more consequential to Vietnam's mindset than the Vietnam war itself, but never fundaments it. Removing until someone can fundament.

I've heard it myself, and it is quite true. The Sino-Vietnamese war has led Vietnam to keep a very strong standing army, completely in response to the Chinese threat to the north. America is long gone and never coming back, but they walk by the Chinese sentries every day. Stargoat 03:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Evidence needed

This article claims that Vietnam's intent was the creation of a pan-Indochinese nation. I think that if a claim like this is made, the grounds for it need to presented (e.g., statements by Vietnamese leaders or evidence from objective, reliable sources). I also question the statement that the North's goal was "defeat and conquest" of South Vietnam because it assumes what remains to be proved, namely that the state in the South was legitimate from the start or at any time viable without American support. The expression "reunification" would be more accurate in my view.

I agree and removed the claim. - SimonP 02:04, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Go to the french version I've. put under the name of "Troisième Guerre d'Indochine", it's been in fact. The first for independence, the second for eunufication and the third for emergence of a regional power after this "Pedagogic or teach a lesson War". In the military jargon, it's a "proxy low intesity war" to save a larger scale armed clash.

Takima 19:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no citation for the following statement:

"However, many historians have stated that this might have been a convenient excuse for a Chinese exit strategy from Vietnam.[citation needed] Most observers believed that the PLA would overwhelm the Vietnamese forces. The PLA did not foresee the tough resistance of the Vietnamese people, including the suicidal attacks by women and children who were trying to defend their own towns and villages. Faced with mounting casualties, the Chinese began to withdraw their forces, and by March 16, withdrawal was complete."

Taishaku 13:42, 26 October 2007 (PDT)

Seems to be missing a major section

Several major parts of the story are missing.

For one, Vietnam and China have a long history of fighting, mostly for the former's independance from the later. This has been going on for hundreds of years. The fact that Mihn aligned with the USSR after being rebuffed by the USA is not at all surprising, given the historical context.

The USSR was using Vietnam as a center for further political expansion in the far east, in an attempt to supplant China as the guiding force of communism in the area. In building them up to regional superpower status, they hoped to show that other countries were better off siding with them, both financially and politically. The Vietnam-Cambodian conflict was to a major degree a war-by-proxy between the USSR and China.

When Vietnam started asking about invading Cambodia, the USSR claimed that they would support Vietnam if China got involved, or at least the threat of such support would keep China out of the conflict. However the Chinese felt this was an empty threat, and rightlyfully so. They quickly decided to invade Vietnam, not to stop their actions in Cambodia which were largely concluded at this point, but to demonstrate to the entire far east that the USSR was not truly interested in the area -- at least not to the point of a fight.

Another missing part of the article is the failure to mention how the war was played in the western media. I remember quite clearly the descriptions of the Chinese getting their butts handed to them by the ragtag Vietnamese. I can't help but think this was some sort of psychological bloodletting, "they beat us, so they must be good enough to beat those lousy Chinese", the same sort of thing that makes people cheer for the "wrong team" in the playoffs if they beat the home team in the semis. In fact the war went almost badly for the Chinese with the high number of casualty showing that its army needed improvement, the Vietnamese army was not draw off Cambodia.

The death toll shown by the English version does not match the Chinese version,can some one change either of the 2 articles? However, I think that Chinese Government usualy lies--209.89.123.217 03:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever casualty of the war people would believe, the number of POWs are significant and determined by International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. By the supervied of ICRC, China and Vietnam exchanged POWs by five times in the Friendship Pass laying the border of Guangxi Province of China. POWs of Chinese is 238, and POWs of Vietnam is 1,636. ligand 03:01, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)


Quote: "The death toll shown by the English version does not match the Chinese version,can some one change either of the 2 articles? However, I think that Chinese Government usualy lies--209.89.123.217 03:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

In general, most governments lie. It makes no sense to accuse a certain side of the war. I believe Wiki represents a neutral point of view. So evident is what presented here but not prejudgement. The English version of this article is clearly written in favor of Vietnam and has no any reference to existing proof. I doubt who should be called a liar. Moreover, beware of the your wording and keep it neutral.

Every countries lie when it comes to casualty in war.The Chinese version of course will be written in favor of China.So i think we should not call both sides liars

Confusing

To this day, both sides of the conflict describe themselves as the victor. The number of casualties is disputed, with the Vietnamese claiming that the Chinese suffered 60,000 casualties and 20,000 deaths. The Chinese claim they suffered casualties of about 20,000 to 30,000 with Vietnamese losses at about 40,000 to 60,000.

This makes no sense, what's the difference between casualties and deaths? I don't' know of one. Does anybody know what they were trying to say, if so fix it please.

I think that the difference is that casualties means people who were injured/wounded/captured/disappeared added to the number of people who died. However, I am not sure about this. Academic Challenger 22:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using Iraq as an example, while, for instance, there were at one time like a thousand U.S. troops dead, there were 11,000 U.S. casualties. This number usually includes all dead and wounded. Kamikaze Highlander 15:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties do in fact refer to all dead, wounded, MIA or POW's, a problem I have is that this article states that both sides declared victory under the reference to the outcome. How does this make sense?, it isn't important what both sides claim, and it isn't important how many casualties each side took, its only winning if you take and hold ground, that's the very nature of warfare. Well it is possible to attack and beat a country without doing this by using air or naval power to force political concessions, China did not do this. Since the Vietnamese government still control's its country and the Chinese army was forced to withdraw, and since there is no current war between China and Vietnam that means that Vietnam won. I cannot say whether it was an easy victory, but we have to hold ourselves to the same standards for all nations, if the United States declared victory in Vietnam today after being forced to end the war for political reasons and leave Vietnam completely, where Americans can only visit without breaking there own law since 97 and a complete lack of diplomatic relations since the same period and the destruction of the US ally the republic of Vietnam, would we say that it made any sense to say that the US won because they declared that they did?. or Argentina declaring they won the Faulklands war after a complete British victory?. If a war is not finished then you can say anything you want about the way things are going and the outcome or possible outcomes and will be listened to based on your expertise in the area, but once an issue is decided then that's it. If Vietnam and China were still fighting border skirmishes I would say that China might have a point since the war isn't over. But there is no evidence of this and without it the victor seems clear cut.Colin 8 09:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, the Chinese initiative was not to occupy Vietnam, but to pick up a fight, to suppress, to "teach a lesson"?--61.30.72.148 07:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or more specifically, the Chinese goal in this conflict was to just occupy the capitol in a show of force, or "teach them a lesson" if you will. They had no desire to get bogged down in a prolonged conflict in Vietnam like the US. From Vietnam's prospective, their goal was simply to retain control of the country (which they did since the Chinese had no intention of staying). So both countries can say they've "won" because they both had different set of objectives. - Just.James 06:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Teaching a lesson" is probably a nice way to say that the Chinese are not willing and also not capable of commiting itself in a prolonged war at that time, cos they might not be able to "finish" it in that case. The Cultural Revolution disrupted Chinese industrial production and brought its economy to the brink of collapsing. What's more important is the fear of losing all support in a major 'national security' event. The Chinese govt just need a controllable event to shift the attention of its citizens from internal problems and to unite the people. The Chinese hadn't been able to recover from the aftermath of the Cultural Revolution in 1979, and probably had trouble maintaining its supply line. On the other hand, Deng Xiaoping probably made some assurance about "Peaceful Emergence of China" during his "world tour" before the war. Besides, the Chinese don't really want to poke at the Russians too much, whom at that time were backing up the Vietnamese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.155.245.81 (talk) 06:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

This section is rife with assumptions and subjective statements. Either cite or remove the content. "Caused a long lasting negative impression of Vietnam in the minds of most Chinese people" - According to whom, and how is it a "long lasting negative impression"? Is there survey data? Cite the source. "China provided aid of food of the best kind (rice and flour..." - According to whom? Relative to what criteria? Rice was also produced by Vietnam as well. "To quote the commonly heard comments of Chinese on this issue" - State the source, and who compiled these "commonly heard comments"? "In Vietnam, the war is considered a small border skirmish. Few young people know anything about the war." - Pure speculation and assumptions. In fact, the Vietnamese consider this a major conflict because of the extensive damage that the Chinese inflicted upon the Vietnamese countryside and infrastructure, especially through their "scorched-earth policy" in their retreat. [1] Fixed. --Cloudreaver 05:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1984 Conflict

Didn't Vietnam invade parts of Yunnan and Guangxi in 1984? The Lonely Planet (not exactly a good source of history) reports that 10 divisions were used in the invasion to inflict humiliation similar to the Sino-Indian war in 1962. No land was taken. I was surprised to hear such a conflict for the first time. Any confirmations? --Countakeshi 10:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


1979 & 1984 Conflict

The page reads "huge army of 90,000". I think we should remove the word "huge", it's irrevelent and exaggerating. Also, it should be 88,000 and not 90,000.

Here's the orbat (order of battle) for Sino-Vietnam war of 1979: http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/vietnam/war1979.html

The PLA sent 5 field armies, totaling 88,000 men.

Opposing them in Vietnam's 1st military region, was a force of 11 divisions and 9 brigades/regiments in 2 defensive lines. The first line had 6 divisions and 6 independent regiments, and 2nd had 5 division sand 3 brigades/regiments.

Also employed in Vietnam's defense were militias and military police units.

And yes, there were 2 Sino-Vietnam wars, one in 1979 and another in 1984. The PLA 14th Group Army in Kunming (Chengdu Military Region) is a Category B force that was took part in both Sino-Vietnam wars: http://www.china-defense.com/orbat/pla_orbat/pla_orbat_30.html

Starting Point

Most historians working in the field now consider the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia to be the starting point of the Third Indochina War, and that the Sino-Vietnamese War was its second front. We need to do a lot to this article to improve it and take this into account. Cripipper 17:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree whole-heartedly. A simple case of action reaction. RM Gillespie 21:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name

We have this the wrong way round: Sino-Vietnamese War should redirect to Third Indochina War, not the other way round. What started this conflict was Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia, the origins of which go back to 1975. The Sino-Vietnamese front was only one, although the main one, in this conflict. This article needs to be changed to reflect this. Unfortunately I don't have time to do this myself at the moment. Cripipper 16:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Tactics

What were the tactics in this war? Did the Vietnamese fight the Chinese in the same way they fought the Americans? Did the Chinese try to use a different approach than the U.S. did in fighting this war?

WP:MilHist Assessment

A nice, lengthy, and detailed article. Could use an image or a map of the conflict, if possible; I fully understand the frustration of trying to find these kinds of images. The intro paragraph is also quite short, though again, I understand the difficulties in expanding that sort of thing. As it stands right now, it says pretty much all it needs to say, it just looks short in terms of how much of the page it takes up. The Aftermath section could afford to be a little longer, but I like the inclusion of footnotes and a good number of external links. I'll admit, I haven't actually read through the whole content of the article, so I am not sure to what extent the issues mentioned above (in other talk page posts; not my own) have been addressed. If they have not, then this article could benefit from quite a bit of expansion. As it is a modern war, I'd imagine there is a lot more to be said about the causes and aftermath and events during the war. LordAmeth 14:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged article for inaccuracy: the point about the DRV siding with China in the early days of the Sino-Soviet Split is unsubstantiated. Am researching for a paper on this topic right now, and will add to the article when I'm done.

That the DRV sided with China in the 1960-1964 period is not contested. See for example, Ilya V. Gaiduk, Confronting Vietnam; idem, The Soviet Union and the Vietnam War; Marie Olsen, Soviet-Vietnam relations and the role of China, 1949-64; Zhai Qiang, China and the Vietnam Wars Cripipper 10:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more sources. Two are not enough. RM Gillespie 21:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Along the Sino-Soviet split lines, it might also be useful to have a mention of PLA officers serving in Vietnam's war with America. Wei Guoqing was one, I believe. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for "citation needed"

"several authors have viewed the war as a Chinese failure.". Cripipper has rightly tagged it as needing a cite. But should the "several authors" be directly cited, which would mean a bulk of inline citations or how? Idleguy 15:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources can be cited in a single note (<ref>citation1; citation2; ... </ref>). -- Donald Albury 22:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Faka

What is this Mount Faka in Guangxi that the Epoch Times mentions was fought over between China and Vietnam in 1981, then returned back to Vietnam by China? I can't find mention of a "Mount Faka" on a Google search except for the Epoch Times article. Badagnani 23:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because nothing the Epoch Times say is considered a valid source unless supported by other sources. The Epoch times is not considered an unbiased newspaper and frequently makes up stuff to defame china. AKFrost 17:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Mount Faka (法卡山) straddles the border between Vietnam and China. The mountain was fully occupied by Vietnam

in January 1980. It was fully occupied by China in May after 2 month of intense fighting. In 1993, negotiation between two countries led to the division of the mountain in half again between the two countries. However, there are conflicting reports. For example, see http://w1w1.bokee.com/2358761.html; http://cn.netor.com/qikan/4/yi3.htm; http://military.china.com/zh_cn/history2/06/11027560/20050705/12456624.html; http://www.singtaonet.com/world/t20060828_310322.html; and many other Chinese website on this. But, it seems that the peak of the mountain is no-longer (fully?) under Chinese administration. (Postdoc 16:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Disputed

The article seems to confuse the Nung with the Hoa, two separate ethnic groups in Vietnam. The Hoa are ethnically Chinese, while the Nung are not. 24.113.177.5 23:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General directions!!

I think this is a really important page. It offers the potential to give some good detail on events that people have common knowledge of, but may not really know much about; particularly as it focuses on the third war. However, it seems to me that the page needs a lot of work in terms of organization and ensuring accuracy of the content. For example, it blurs the distinction between three wars. While this may be rightfully so, since the wars are so interdependent, it can be still be communicated to the reader with greater clarity and coherence. Unfortunately, the other articles for these wars do not help much. As such, I have added content for the first war to work from. I kinda got my passport to Canada with the second war, but made the section then added a little bit from which the third war can be worked on to become the major focus of the article. Working in this way, I think the article can become a starting point for improving the others. I hope that this gives it some direction. --Kenneth M Burke 03:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important note on references: I think I may have accidentally cited one of the books incorrectly, i.e. mixed up the books that I was working from. I will look into it. --Kenneth M Burke 22:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the reference. There are several other books that I did not cite that might be helpful to the rest of the article. Contact me if interesting in knowing which ones they were or given an interest to collaborate on the page. --Kenneth M Burke 22:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit

Chinese retreat section

is seriously one sided, cites articles from the 80s, and is in general need of a makeover, starting right with "there are many reasons why it could be argued...". not presenting Chinese advantages and exaggerating the problems China faced is not a neutral POV.

Then again, if a force of 85,000 Chinese soldiers lacking radios, up-to-date maps, effective command structures, and modern weaponry faced down 200,000 Vietnamese troops "that was highly trained, experienced, and confident due to successive victories in wars with France, the U.S., and Cambodia", "combined with assault rifles for every soldier", and only lose less than 10,000 in battle--it speaks volumes about the combat efficiency of the Chinese army, which should not go unnoted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.164.19 (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are too much exaggerations which should be corrected--PLA was using military maps dated back to 70 years ago?? The PLA was equiped with weapons from Long March (1930s) and WWII?--even after they'd fought a war with US Amry for 3 years in Korea in 1950s and forced a cease of fire? It is simply hard to believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.90.56 (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have no references I find such a statement believable given Chinese history and the Chinese character, there are two factors. The first is the effect of the cultural revolution which set back the country by decades, people write of the lost generation, not only did the country not make progress it took steps backwards. The second is that one would think that in gathering a force of 200,000 the very best and best equipped 200,000 of a three million strong army would be mobilised however it has been traditional for senior commanders to hoard the best of their own equipment and troops, in order to preserve the fighting strength of their own formations and therefore their own status and standing at the centre of power (something that they have done since imperial times).KTo288 (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is far away from the truth

(1)"that only Chinese officers carried assault rifles", I wonder what did ordinay Chinese soliders carried with them in that war? Maybe they were all KungFu masters and went to battles with bare fists.

(2)"Their maps were 75 years old...". There were many high rank Vietnamese officers trained in Chinese military schools before and during the US-Vietnam war, including Ho Chi Ming himself(which anyone can easily find documents on this subject). Why Chinese forced used 75 year-old maps? To prove they were superior?

(3)"the Chinese invaded an enemy that was highly trained".

How did they get the resources to and where did they train the Vietnamese military personnels? China or Soviet Union? If they were not trained in USSR but instead 90% of the Viet-Gong officers were trained in China instead, the editor is saying:

"the Chinese invaded an enemy that was highly trained (by China military schools), experienced(as taught by China's Mao guerilla war tatics), and confident due to successive victories in wars with France, the U.S.(because huge supports given by Mao's governemnt), and Cambodia, [and that is why it was a disaster for Chinese military]. "

Well, well, I am a big fool!!


Finally, it is not true that "The war also resulted in the discrimination and consequent migration of Vietnam's ethnic Chinese".

Explusion of Chinese enthic Vietnamese happened before the Sino-Vietnam war, right after the US force rewithdrew from Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.108.184 (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) According to most Chinese articles, the Chinese troops were using Type 56 semi-automatic rifles. It is a crude copy of the Russian CKC Siminov rifle (not to be confuse with Type 56 assault rifle, which is a copy of the Russian AK47). The Chinese CKC do not have automatic fire mode.

The Vetnamese on the other hand are generally armed with AK's.

(2) Not sure about maps.

(3) The Chinese troops were not well-trained at all during the Cultural Revolution 1966-76. Officers and generals were deeply involved in political movements. Unversities and schools were closed for years as there was an anti-intellectual atmosphere. The general public were busy with faction clashes to show their undying loyalty to the Leader, in this case, Mao. The situation is similiar to the Russians immediately after the the communist bloc collasped: no money to train, no directives to follow. everything in chaos.

Explusion of Chinese began after US withdrawal, probably a retaliation and a show of distrust towards the Chinese, as they befriended USA in 1972 when Vietnam was in a heated war with the latter. It is no surprise that the Vietnamese were pissed. On one hand the Chinese were giving all sorts of "support" and "promises" to the Vietnamese to fight against the USA, on the other hand the Chinese are secretly making negotiations with the USA, as Russians had obviously gained an upper hand in the Sino-Russian split. The great "supporter" to the Vietnamese suddenly became a US-ally overnight, I would imagine the Vietnamese were pretty shocked, especially when there were so much Chinese "assisting" the Vietnamese in key positions at that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.155.245.81 (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is, the Chinese later used this as one of the reasons to accuse Vietnam, without reflecting on their own. How would the Vietnamese trust somebody who betrayed them? Explusion is the logical thing for the Vietnamese to do, given that they already commited in Cambodia, they probably don't want to have a open conflict with the Chinese.

According to my father's account, before 1975, Chinese ethnics in Hanoi at least had their own Chinese schools and newspaper.

However, after 1975 re-unification, fearing an unified Vietnam would pose a threat, China incited many violent demonstrations in Hanoi. There were also many Chinese Vietnamese (whose ancestors came to Vietnam several generations earlier) serve in various government posts which together could pose an internal threat as the relation with China strained.

This is of course according to my father's experience. Any scholar who could find citations to back this up would be great.

For the point (3) stated above - most of Vietnam army officers were sent to the Soviet officer schools. Vietnam also implemented Soviet military command structure as early as 1965 (at least). Vietnamese infantry tactics displayed in 75' and in Cambodia demonstrated this fact - Soviet style.

Border militia was manned mostly by ex-soldiers - hence "trained and experienced". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caraoke (talk • contribs) 05:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


If China feared a unified Vietnam so much, she didn't have to offer huge amounts of assistance to the north during the Vietnam War. The aid given during the war was far beyond the maximum requirement to ensure the survival of the north.Vulturedroid (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the War Section?

This is a B Rated article, but it's missing a whole War Section. There were plenty and very informative sections on playing up to the war. There is also a good section on the Aftermath, but where is the war section? “80,000 PLA Invaded Vietnam...” That’s it??!! TheAsianGURU (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First war

We have to move this page to First Sino-Vietnamese War, because there is a second war between two countries in 1984-1988. Kinh Duong Vuong (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an article on the one you're referring to? Badagnani (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish: [2], [3], many others. Kinh Duong Vuong (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other conflict was so obscure that it shouldn't force the first one to be renamed. DHN (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, is there any article at Wikipedia (English or any other language) that mentions this war you're referring to? Badagnani (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Vietnamese and a Norwegian article on wikipedia. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent anon edit

This edit, made by an anon, and with some grammatical errors, needs to be verified. What is the source? Badagnani (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one as well. Badagnani (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was made by me. I forgot logged in befor added those contents. The sources were some publishing materials in PLA internal for discipline, e.g. "The History of Automobile Troop Units of PLA" published in 2000; "The Selected Combating Examples of Self-defence Fight-back War Towards Vietnam" published just after the 1979 war. There isn't public book and article to describe the war in China still. But these internal readings in PLA now can be buyed in second-hand markets and read in Internet because some Chinese military history enthusiasts scaned or typewrote the reading's content and uploaded to the web. Otherwise, the Chinese veterans participated this war widely uses Internet now. They builds a lot web forums , blogs, homepages to memory their war experiences. The most famous web forum about the war is the ”Burning Blood", you can find a lot military combating maps, combating documents, photos, videos and veterans' memoirs in details. Some of them can speak Vietnamese language and even access similar Vietnamese web forums, communicated with past opponents and tranlated Vietnamese materials and opinions to Chinese web. In China, the history about the Sino-Vietnamese War is not confidential, but can not be discussed in mainstream medias and publication. The official altitude toward the war may be focus the Sino-Vietnamese foreign relation. But the Chinese historical enthusiasts can know most details about the war within the information age: the order of battle, the predure of every combat , the casualty of every combats, experiences and lessons, rewards and punishment in PLA. ligand (ligand) 6:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks user ligand, your comment is very much valued here on this talk page, as I believe that this war needs to be put under the real perspective for the uninformed readers. There are many issues concerning the PLA Vietnam war veterans that the PLA officials persistent "sweep under the carpets", as if the war did not happen. To start with, the combine force of PLA Korean war and Vietnam war veterans together is a powerful force that is causing social unstability in China nowaday. In short, the PLA never really look after their veterans the way a modern military force should be, the vaterans were simply tools that are to be thrown away in the minds of the PLA top brass. Arilang talk 04:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current Events

Maybe I haven't been keeping up with current events but it seems the Chinks got their arses kicked by the Slopes.

It seems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.109.55 (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lay off the booze old hick. Take your racism somewhere else you swine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.65.56.123 (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

Somebody delete or edit that section - it's an embarrassment! 79.97.133.179 (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This article states the following: "...but Viet Minh efforts towards independence were backed by Chinese communists, the Japanese, and the United Kingdom. The Soviet Union at first supported French hegemony, but later supported Ho Chi Minh.[10][11] The Soviets nonetheless remained quiet compared to China, who, like the United States, had disapproved of using Japanese forces against the French. "

The U.K. supported the Viet Minh? No way, we were fighting them in 1945-46, we supported the return of the French. The Soviet Union supported the French? That can't be right. And what on earth does this mean?: "The Soviets nonetheless remained quiet compared to China, who, like the United States, had disapproved of using Japanese forces against the French." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.243.150 (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above comments add nothing to the article but do everything to embarrass the author and Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.216.39.61 (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything to do with the United Kingdom then? How busy! ZJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.3.79.243 (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cold War tag

This does not seem appropriate to me. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.3.79.243 (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A horrible mess

This article is a horrible mess and needs to be rewritten from scratch from reputable sources. It does not need to include the complete history of the Vietnam War as a prologue. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretzel logic

"When Moscow did not intervene, Beijing publicly proclaimed that the USSR had broken its numerous promises to assist Vietnam. The USSR's failure to support Vietnam emboldened China to announce on April 3, 1979 that it intended to terminate the 1950 Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance, and Mutual Assistance"

So let me get this straight. Roughly speaking, China says, "we who are attacking Viet Nam, protest that you, Russia, are not defending Viet Nam, so we break off our agreement to not attack you, Russia"? Anarchangel (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My edits

I just made some edits based on my reading of the history of Vietnam, which I found very much at odds with the text. I was under the impression that the Viet Minh, far from being allied with the Japanese occupation, actually were the main resistance against it. I've also read that the Japanese were rearmed after their surrender in order to help prevent the VM taking over. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read them

CHinese Force: - Theo Ngoại giao Việt Nam của Lưu Văn Lợi: 300.000 infantry + 2.558 khẩu pháo - Chinese Aggression : How and Why it failed của Nguyen Huu Thuy 550 xe tăng thiết giáp, 480 pháo, 1.260 cối các cỡ - Bùi Xuân Quang, tr. 429: 300.000+ bộ binh và 400 xe tăng

Vietnam Force: lực lượng biên phòng và dân quân bố trí dọc biên giới khoảng 150.000 người, 80.000-100.000 quan chu luc (7 sư đoàn, 15 trung đoàn độc lập), biên phòng và dân quân tự vệ

Casualities Chinese Aggression : How and Why it failed của Nguyen Huu Thuy: CHina claimed 30.000 killed and 32.000 wounded

Cac ban Meo vang neu co the thi cam phien vao bai nay tren Wiki Viet, co nhieu thong tin dan chung day du hon o day nhieu. Dung co tu bit mat minh va nguoi ngoai quoc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman89 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, the thing you should know is Wikipedia English is not Wikipedia Vietnamese. Two projects they are completely independent of each other. And Wikipedias are never considered reliable sources for reference.
Second, if you want to use Vietnamese source; you should prove that these sources are reliable per WP:RS. Simply answer the question: Why should we believe Lưu Văn Lợi, Nguyen Huu Thuy, Bùi Xuân Quang? Are they famous or reputed authors like Tran Trong Kim or Ta Chi Dai Truong?. Sorry but all source come from Vietnam could not be considered as independent and reliable source because their authors directly involve in this war in some way and they are heavily censored by the government officials (in other words, they are primary source). This Wikipedia is not Vietnamese Wikipedia where any published books are considered reliable without checking the author's or the publisher's reputation. If you don't like this procedure, you could come back to Vietnamese Wikipedia and keep replacing anything you don't like with "quân giải phóng" in Vietnam war-related articles. I think you will be delighted by doing that.
Third, please be polite when you are editing. Yelling or insulting others is not nice at all. If you overact, you could got a block and I would not happy seeing that. Best regards--AM (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Thanh thuc kham phuc tinh than "Khong nghe dai dich" cua cac ban Meo vang, khi so lieu sai kinh hoang (so voi chinh noi dung bai viet o ben duoi) ma van co giu, va di ton sung nhung nha Su hoc chet da duoc non nua the ky (truoc ca khi su kien dien ra), tham chi trong do co vi con cam tam lam bu nhin cho Nhat. Thoi thi to luon cho cac ban tiep tuc dau doc dam Angle vaySaruman89 (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respect him because he don't tell white lie and he didn't glorify one side while defame others. So... what is matter?. And I'm a academic writer, what I do care about a source is its reliability not what its author have done. I emphasize again, this is not Wikipedia Vietnamese!--AM (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva 1954

The Third Indo-China War or Sino-Vietnamese War made clear the Zhu Enlai manouver in pushing the Vietnamese Pham Van Dong delegation to accept the temporary partition of Vietnam for military regroupment.

During World War II the Japanese occupation forces overthrew the French in Vietnam. They could not consolidate their hold over the countryside and thus gave the Viet Minh guerillas their chance to move in. Thus when the French returned they were sucked in to a relentless guerilla war. In 1954 came Dien Bien Phu and the rout of the French forces in Indo-China. The Geneva conference partitioned Vietnam along the 17th parallel. It is noteworthy that Chou en Lai (Zhou Enlai) – the late Chinese Prime Minister played a significant role in this partition. The Chinese were not keen to see a strong united Vietnam on their southern borders. The Americans moved in and Vietnam’s agony dragged on for another 20 years - as a fierce guerilla war now started in the South against the pro American regime.

The Chinese appeared to be intent on fighting the Americans to "the last Vietnamese" and fighting the Vietnameses to "the last American".

However when the signs of American defeat became apparent the hardheaded Chinese realized that before them lay the prospect of a militarily strong and reunited Vietnam. Besides the Sino-Soviet rivalry had now turned into open with undisguised hostility. The Chinese stopped all Russian supplies from reaching Vietnam by land. This tacitly encouraged the Americans to stay. Before the American rout finally came in 1975 and the Viet Minh forces reunited Vietnam, the Chinese launched a naval attack and captured the disputed Paracel Islands in the South China Sea in 1974. The “façade” of friendship was over. The historical rivalries had flared into the open.

Takima (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_________________________________________________________________________

http://www.mishalov.com/Pham_Van_Dong.html

"[...] At the war's end in 1954, after the French were badly defeated at the battle of Dien Bien Phu, Mr. Dong was chosen to head the Viet Minh delegation to the Geneva conference. It should have been a moment of complete triumph for Mr. Dong, but he felt betrayed by Zhou, the Chinese premier, who headed China's delegation to the talks and seemed more interested in avoiding further war with the Americans after the Korean War and agreed to divide Vietnam between a Communist north and a non-Communist south. According to one version, Zhou invited Mr. Dong to a dinner party, but to Mr. Dong's fury, also invited a brother of Ngo Dinh Diem, a Catholic anti-Communist who went on to become the leader of South Vietnam. Mr. Diem's brother was seated in the place of honor at Zhou's left, and Mr. Dong overheard the two men talking about their love of China's Qing Dynansty porcelain. "When you are the envoy to Beijing," Mr. Zhou is quoted as saying to Mr. Diem's brother, "I hope you will see more of Qing ceramics." To Mr. Dong, this clearly implied that not only would China agree to the division of Vietnam, which would cost the Viet Minh half their victory, but that China would recognize the newly created government in South Vietnam. This was the beginning of a terrible feud between the Vietnamese and Chinese Communists which lingered through the American war in Vietnam, unknown to Washington, and which burst into the open in 1979 when China invaded the northern part of Vietnam. Many historians say that if America's leaders had been more knowledgeable, they would not have asserted."

Takima (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According with the Russian sources 62,500 Chinese were killed

Fourth different Russian sources said 62,500 PLA soldiers were killed in 1979 [4][5][6][7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSupern00b (talk • contribs) 22:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reliable source. Read this. Casualty numbers for Sino-Vietnamese War are from this book (King V. Chen(1987):China's War With Việt Nam, 1979. Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University, page 114, table 5.1). Catt79 (talk) 05:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

China's War With Vietnam is a good bock but is also a pro Chinese bock and almost everything the things in the article is based in only this bock. According with the Polish bock Najwieksze bitwy XX wieku 17 - Chiny-Wietnam Page 45 table 4f the table in the bock China's War With Vietnam show only the Chinese estimate. Why fourth different Russian Sources are not reliable and just one Chinese bock yes ? this Russian source [8] is supported by others 25 sources more and it said 62,500 Chinese soldiers were killed in 1979. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSupern00b (talk • contribs) 07:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Chinese picture

This picture the three Chinese soldiers a flamethrower team is Wrong it is not the Chinese Vietnamese war from 1979. So the PLA introduced this camouflage uniform a few years after 1980 File:Sinovietnamesewarmontage.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSupern00b (talk • contribs) 08:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam claim 100,000 civilian killed who said that ?

Where is the source from "Vietnam Claim" 100,000 civilian killed anyone can link that please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.209.223.134 (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S withdrew its force from Taiwan in exchange for China to withdraw its force from Vietnam?

How could that have that been negotiated back in 1972 when the war itself took place 7 years later in 1979? Unless China & the U.S managed to build a time machine. Wikipedia is getting shittier by the day.

Nonsensical sentence

The last sentence to the intro of this article makes no sense.

"China also achieved another strategic objective of demonstrating to its Cold War foe, the Soviet Union, that it was unable to protect its ally."

I can't imagine that one of chinas objectives was to demonstrate that they could NOT protect it's ally. I didn't jsut correct it to able though because it seems like they didn't really protect them since the khmer rouge got defeated. I don't know much about this subject anyway but I know that something isn't right with this sentence. 162.24.9.213 (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It made Soviet-Vietnam pact collapse. The soviets were supposed commit direct military assistant to Vietnam under the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation signed in 1978, but instead she more or less sit on her hand, hence voided the pact. On the other hand, China demonstrated that it was willing and capable to commit its military in a large scale operations in support of its ally. It was a major PR coup for the Chinese and was politically damaging to USSR, as it demonstrated the inability of USSR to commit herself in protection of members of Comecon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.242.104 (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Agreed, it was a strategic victory to show that symbolic nature of the USSR-Vietnam defense pact. Deng Xiaoping notified US President Carter prior to the attack, and Carter agreed that US will not condemn China's border incursion, and that US will defend China incase of a nuclear attack by USSR, solidifying the informal China-US alliance against USSR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.233.159 (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War fought outside as a mean to consolidate political power within

This article needs major rewrite. Current researches in this war has tighted to reforms of China in the last 30 years: 1) Deng used the war to kick start the reformation of China's economy and army, as the old timers now knew even a rather small country like Vietnam could inflicted heavy casulty to PLA 2) Created loyalty of younger generation of army officers to the Party after Mao's death 3) Talk to UK on Hong Kong's future —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.134.220 (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese border war with Vietnam in 1979

This whole article deserves to be flushed down the toilet. -- signed: unbiased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.154.188 (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a terrible, biased mess, but it's always hope. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War result should say "Vietnamese Victory"

How did Vietnam not win? I feel this is a non-neutral viewpoint when the aggressor leaves and the defender gets to keep all of its territory. The defender is clearly the winner.

I'm sure there are hundreds of wars where both sides declare victory, but this assertion is not founded in fact. Is there a way to say the Chinese side won? 220.112.227.135 (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, If a country is attacked and it manages to successfully retains all its territory at the end of war then it is definitely an Victory, no doubt about it. Claiming China was teaching Vietnam an 'Lesson' is an joke. If someone is trying to teach lesson through war then he must win that to call it successful. Also, China didn't realize its objectives in addition to retreat -

And it is the firm stand of the USSR, coupled with resistance Vietnamese, and eventually forced to stop the Chinese, who have not even met their goals. Vietnamese troops from Cambodia have not left, to eliminate pro-Soviet stripe on its southern borders could not, in fact, the Vietnamese presence in Cambodia and Laos has increased as the number of troops in the Vietnam-China border. Source: http://alerozin.narod.ru/vietnam.htm Swift&silent (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of a victory is the achievement of strategic objectives, which never included territory. China's objectives toward Vietnam were purely punitive, i.e. to punish vietnam for 1. the Cambodian invasion and 2. the Vietnam taking of Spratley and Paracel Islands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.215.183 (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsigned is correct. The PRC never claimed to be engaging in a war of conquest in Vietnam. It was planned all along as a limited expedition to punish Vietnam and call the Soviets' bluffs. Having achieved both of these to their satisfaction (more or less), they retreated in good order and laid waste to much of northern Vietnam on their way out. Did it go perfectly for the Chinese? No, but well enough that they could claim their victory. These things aren't always pure black and white/ winner and loser. Milhisfan (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does the meaning of victory have to be taken that way? While Vietnam have to station over 800,000 soldiers across the border with China, the PLA have to raise over 1,500,000 to counter it. Also the brief war have forced China to accelerate it's modernization process, which in turn hamper the renovation process. Also while the USSR and other countries Warsaw Pact countries don't take direct action in the war, they still play a crucial part by helped the Vietnamese transporting the IV Corp from Cambodia back to Vietnam's Northern border, and mobilize warships toward Haiphong and Danang. It should not be noted in the article.

Also in spite of archiving the element of surprise during the first stage of the war, after two month of bitter fighting, the PLA found out that they have lost the initiative, soldier's morale are dropping, war material losses began to taken it's toll, in the PLA controlled area, their enemy blend in to the locals and began ambushing patrols, and by that time, the VPA have amassed over 500,000 soldiers and equipments in the Red River Delta. And while they're able to brought more ground forces, it only serves the VPA's favor guerrilla tactics, and put more strain on PLA supply which still based around tailors. The Air Force and Navy are also available, but by doing that, they would risk confrontation with the USSR. So if the war was prolonged, they would risked not only losing their forces in Vietnam, but also to fall into the same trap the French and US have. That, and the fact that a fully Mechanized Corp with over 100,000 heavily armed soldiers are only days away from arriving in the battlefield, are the main reason of Deng Xiaoping's decision to withdraw. Also could anyone explain to me that why the most realistic Chinese leaders somehow would drag the country toward a war against their own ally just for the sake of "punishing" them like some Jin Yong's wuxia? --Zeraful (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please note the 1,500,000 PLA was mobilized to defend USSR, not the amassed Vietnamese troops, the amount of Vietnamese troops you have mentioned have no supports, and DO read the Historical background section, especially the "Sino–Soviet split" and "Cambodia" part, you will see the China-Vietnam relationship had gone to worst after China established diplomatic relations with USA and they haven't been close allies after the US withdraw. And DO NOT use WP as a forum, data with support(s) is always welcomed, but it's not a good idea to give out data without support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixdzy (talk • contribs) 11:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_April_13#File:Truong_Sa_Navy.jpg

All opinions welcome. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 18:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heavily biased towards Vietnam

This article is one sided trash heavily biased towards Vietnam. The war section has no content whatsoever. This article should be re-written, with neutral POV. Danningt (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Way to be specific. There are some disparaging references to PLA command organization that may or may not be justified, but there's a great deal of content in this article. Scuttlest (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article very much falsifies history

In this war the chinese were very badly beaten. The 1979 war showed that the chinese method of manufacturing thinner-skinned local variants of soviet-designed armoured vehicles was complete insanity. A huge number of those han "light tanks" were slaughtered by the vietkongs using hand-held and light towed launchers, more than 400pcs destroyed, many more disabled. It was literally Iraq in 1991, but 12 years before.

China was scared, because its huge armoured losses in 1979's Vietnam meant there was nothing to shield its troops if the USSR tank force decides to steam-roller across Mongolia. (Not that they had any chance against T-64/T-72 forces in the first place...)

Manpower losses didn't bother either side, as Beijing had so many people, while the vietnamese, having recently suffered 3 million dead versus the USA, considered a further 100 thousand fallen merely a rounding error. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very POV statements. Have any reliable sources at all to back it up? Otherwise, stop using WP as a forum. See WP:TPG. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If both sides think the article is biased in favor of the other, I think that's the sign of NPOV. Scuttlest (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True dat, Scuttlest. True dat. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some information should be removed or noted clearer

this article has a strong bias toward Vietnam, especially in the number of casualities. Even the source of King Chen (Standford University) is also compiled from China. The unique western source of The Time is that China had more than 20,000 death and Vietnam had nearly 10,000. In recent days, the information about Vietnam has 42,000 soldiers and 70,000 militias killed by the Chinese PLA is from heavily nationalist Chinese website. www.9abc.net/index.php/archives/71814. In my opinion, to keep neutral point of view toward the war, these information should be removed and these source from King Chen should be noted that " it is from one of China estimated"

Finally, in vi.wikipedia show Nhan Dan Newspaper claim that Vietnam suffer 10.000 cilivian deaths, not 100.000.http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi%E1%BA%BFn_tranh_bi%C3%AAn_gi%E1%BB%9Bi_Vi%E1%BB%87t-Trung,_1979#cite_note-Zhang_Xiaoming-0. However, this information still obscure. I havent found the original source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeumuvayeuem (talk • contribs) 06:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar errors.

Theres tons of them throughout the page. It needs work.Joesolo13 (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think this is because it was machine-translated from Chinese or Vietnamese text, and/or was written by Chinese and Vietnamese editors with little knowledge of English. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of war

There doesn't seem to be much discussion of the cause of the war in the article. What were the causes of the war? Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit, never mind, found the causes. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides claimed victory?

"The Chinese invaded northern Vietnam" "Result: Both sides claimed victory. Chinese withdrawal from Vietnam"? Ancient (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This information should be deleted

"The claim of "civilian" deaths is technically correct: after the US war against Vietnam, Hanoi granted free farms to the heros of that war, all on land up against the Chinese border. In other words, when the PLA attacked, Chinese infantry was up against Vietnam's most experienced soldiers, who were now fighting not only for their country but for their farms and families as well. However, they were technically still "civilians"."

Firstly, Hanoi never granted exhausted fields to their heroes in northernmost provinces. At that time, since 1975 to 1979, Vietnam army was put on war footing,so there was no time for returning their heroes's favour in Vietnam war. All seasoned soldiers must be on active duty. Secondly, Hanoi thought that it is because of capturing Phnompenh at lightening speed that China would consider it as fait accompli. Besides that, Hanoi was subjective due to the treaty of alliance with USSR and the remained belief of the good relationship between it and Beijing in Vietnam war. Therefore, They deployed all their elite divisions to Cambodia. Finally ,there is no reference for above paragraph. It seems to be the information of Chinese nationalist source. In my opinion, it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeumuvayeuem (talk • contribs) 14:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sino-Vietnamese_War&oldid=512184995"