Talk:Sino-Soviet border conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hey guys how can there be 105-200 russian casualties when ther were only 64 border guards fighting?Heres the list of all russian casualties:

List of soldiers killed in action on 2 March 1969. 1 frontier of 57-th border detachment

Sergeant Ермолюк Виктор Михайлович. 
 -- Private Коржуков Виктор Харитонович. 
 -- Private Ветрич Иван Романович. 
 -- Private Гаврилов Виктор Илларионович. 
 -- Private Змеев Алексей Петрович. 
 -- Private Изотов Владимир Алексеевич. 
 -- Private Ионин Александр Филимонович. 
 -- Private Сырцев Алексей Николаевич. 
 -- Private Насретдинов Исламгали Султангалеевич (died on 15 of March). 

2 frontier of 57-th border detachment Senior lieutenant Стрельников Иван Иванович.

 -- Sergeant Дергач Николай Тимофеевич. 
 -- Corporal Давыденко Геннадий Михайлович. 
 -- Private Денисенко Анатолий Григорьевич. 
 -- Private Данилин Владимир Николаевич. 
 -- Private Егупов Виктор Иванович. 
 -- Private Золотарев Валентин Григорьевич. 
 -- Private Исаков Вячеслав Петрович. 
 -- Junior lieutenant Колодкин Николай Иванович. 
 -- Private Каменчук Григорий Александрович. 
 -- Private Киселев Гавриил Георгиевич. 
 -- Private Кузнецев Алексей Нифантьевич. 
 -- Junior sergeant Лобода Михаил Андреевич. 
 -- Corporal Михайлов Евгений Константинович. 
 -- Private Нечай Сергей Алексеевич. 
 -- Private Овчинников Геннадий Сергеевич. 
 -- Private Пасюта Александр Иванович. 
 -- Private Петров Николай Николаевич. 
 -- Sergeant Рабович Владимир Никитич. 
 -- Private Шестаков Александр Федорович. 
 -- Private Шушарин Владимир Михайлович. 
 -- Corporal Акулов Павел Андреевич. 
 -- Senior lieutenant Буйневич Николай Михайлович. 
 -- Colonel Демократ Владимирович Леонов 
 -- senior lieutenant Лев Маньковский 

List of soldiers of MSD DVO killed in action on March 15

 -- Junior sergeant Владимир Викторович Орехов 
 -- Private Александр Васильевич Бедарев 
 -- Private Алексей Алексеевич Кузьмин 
 -- Junior sergeant Анатолий Власов 
 -- Private Александр Гельвих 
 -- Sergeant Виктор Карамзин 
 -- Private Сергей Колтаков 
 -- Private Владимир Потапов 
 -- Private Владимир Штойко   —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC) 

I think there is a problem using the name Damansky Island in the title of this article. The Chinese have another name for it, and this title therefore appears to take the Soviet side in who owns the island. Perhaps Soviet-Chinese Border Conflict, 1969 would be better. Also the article should note the Chinese name of the island (which I have forgotten). Adam 01:25, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I was using the Russian name because the island belongs to Russia. If it had been a Chinese island, I would have used corresponding Chinese name (which I also have forgotten). I do agree, however, that this name should be mentioned in the article. In any case, feel free to make appropriate changes to make the article less POV or move it under the new name altogether.--Ezhiki 01:47, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

Does China now recognise Russian sovereignty over Damansky Island? If that is so, then that is the name we should use, though not in the title. The Chinese name was Chen-Bao Island. Adam 02:03, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

The island was transferred to China per May 19, 1991 border demarcation, so, it turns out that I should really be checking the facts before engaging in an argument, eh? Oh well, happens to the best of us, I guess... Anyway, the demarcation addressed the fact that the Ussuri River fairway changed over the years in such a way that the island was now on the Chinese part of the river (per previous agreements the border was established along the fairway). If you can move (as opposed to merely cutting and pasting) the article under a new name, which would not include the "Damansky island" part, please, do so. Thanks for the heads up.--Ezhiki 13:42, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

June 2, 2005, related news:

mistakes in numbers?[edit]

As far as I know soviet casualties are right but chinese look somewhat too small. They still have a lot of propoganda-for example take their "museum of warriors glory", or how they call it. The real number of chinese casualties is near/more than a 1000 given their poor equipment and tactics. Also when the reinforcements came russians used reactive artillery-soviet "grads" which eliminated nearly all of the chinese forces. I understand that an article must be neutral but why there is no mentioning of russian/soviet heroism as there were only 100+ soviet board guards fighting one batallion and two companys of PLA until the reinforcements arrival?

I ll state the sources later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Poor tactics? The Chinese have always been masters of guerrilla warfare. This is a known fact and their infantry dealt the Soviets some heavy losses despite being at a technological and firepower disadvantage. Read the book Formidable Enemies and you will learn that they outperformed American infantry in the Korea war. They are masters of ambushes and especially raids. Their human wave tactics have been overstated. They use what is called triangle tactics.Don Brunett (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett

The military strengths given are excessive. There were not hundreds of thousands involved, but rather hundreds. (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

nuclear weapons??[edit]

Unless i'm wrong but China did not have Nuclear weapons at this point in history, it was only the US and Soviet Russia. In fact it was Soviet Russia's refusal to help it develop nuclear weapons that contributed to Sino-Soviet split. Perhaps whoever wrote this article should cite evidence for this or revise the article before i do as i wuldnt want to step on any1's toes.

Reply: Read the history of nuclear weapon programs before posting please. China has it since 1964. By the way, what about Britian and France?

First military laser use[edit]

I've heard during that conflict Russians used some kind of laser contraption to "evaporate" Chinese soldiers. It was around 1968 or 1969. Doxent 11:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That sound pretty out reached. Lasers that evaporate people? Even now the best hardware I have heard of can only blind people. Yongke 04:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding "Even now the best hardware I have heard of can only blind people." That is currently incorrect. The military has been testing lasers to shoot down missiles, for at least a decade now. These lasers do this by heating the missile until the casing, usually a metal, melts, causing them to either fall apart, or more usually explode when the missile's burning propellant is released from confinement within the missile's casing. While these laser can not, and probably will not in my lifetime, "vaporize" people, they could give certainly them a severe and probably lethal burn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlg666666 (talkcontribs) 19:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Casualty Figures[edit]

Well, it look like casualty figures were provided by the Soviet. Consider it was in the 60th, it is reasonable to say the numbers were stretched at the least, after all Soviet was pretty big on Propaganda at that time. Does anyone have a more neutral source at all? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yongke (talkcontribs) 05:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

AFAIK, the only choices in the Zhengbao Island affair are the Soviets or the Chinese. The one time I saw a Chinese claim with numbers, it was 250 Soviets to 150 Chinese IIRC. Kazuaki Shimazaki 15:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The numbers of Soviet casualties are probably from Krivosheev ( - or at least Krivosheev claims the same numbers. Krivosheev's work was released in early 1990s. Since the USSR was no more at that time, it's doubtful that those numbers are propaganda. On a side note, while the Damanskiy affair claimed 58 killed and 94 wounded, there was another incident, of a much smaller scale, at lake Zhalanashkol (Жаланашколь) in Kazakhstan, which claimed the lives of 2 Soviet border guards (further 10 were wounded). This incident happened August 13, 1969. With respect, Ko Soi IX 22:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

For the Chinese casualties, the Zhenbao Island martyrs' cemetory, built in March 1969, has 68 tombs of PLA members killed in the conflict. I think this figure can be used [1] (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I found two rather detailed Chinese sources[2][3] both giving much different figures: 71 killed and 88 wounded on China's side vs. 80 killed and 170 wounded on Soviet's side. Although one of them is a personal blog and some text of them seem identical, the number of Chinese soldiers killed matches exactly the number of tombs found in the cemetories:[4][5][6][7][8] MS1337 (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Move to "Russian-Sino border conflicts" page?[edit]

Shouldn't the name of the page be the "Russian-Sino border conflicts" or "China-Russia border conflicts" instead? Slleong (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Fiftieth Anniversary[edit]

Given China's seemingly unstoppable rise in economics, technology, population, and other components of national power; combined with Russia's seemingly irreversible decline on the global stage (most projections place the Russian Federation's population as only 110 - 115 million for the year 2050); I think it is time to consider the possibility of China acting upon Mao Zedong's claims against Russian territory referred to in this article. In 1969 the U.S.S.R. and P.R.C. could field comparable numbers of troops to their border (with the Soviets possesing clear advantages in technology, training, and military leadership (the Cultural Revolution having weakened China's "experts" on all matters)); However by 2019 the advantage is likely to be overwhelmingly Chinese in any potential CONVENTIONAL conflict. Could we eventually see a case where China uses it's 10:1 numerical advantage to "take back" eastern Siberia (there have been Chinatowns in most Siberian cities since the early 1990's).JeepAssembler (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


what is the purpose of the map that does not even show the border?--dunnhaupt (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

both sides claimed victory?[edit]

How China could claim victory if they were unable to take control of the islands? Or did they stated that they did not intend to do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that both sides claimed the island was under their control at the time of the agreement. There was no clear winner about the conflict.-- (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep the article neutral and have a good faith. Not explicitly mentioning who really controlled the area (which is disputed) won't hurt any side or anyone.-- (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I recalled some pieces of information I read in the past, that the island had no permanent population before the conflict. The only human actvity on the island was some Chinese fisher/hunters and the like who occasionally visited it. Later Soviet Union set up patrol on the island. After the conflict, the island remained uninhabited, and both Chinese fisher/hunters and Soviet border patrols ceased their operation due to the feral artillery fire from the other side. I will see if I can find some clear reference to prove this123.123.202.233 (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese controlled the territory after the conflict and the Chinese did some serious damage to Soviet mechanized units. The Soviets were clearly outperformed judging by the references I provided. They hid the truth about this conflict for many years.Don Brunett (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Don Brunett

soviet victory[edit]

Russian article says so, chinese claim both sides claimed victory, so i would say 1,5 to russia and china 0,5 points = Soviets won. Seriosuly or write both sides claimed the victory but the soviets kept control of the territory. Wikipedia is full of retarded chinese kids.--Alibaba445 (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the Soviets controlled the territory. How were the Chinese able to prevent the Soviets from recovering their damaged tank and then claim it for themselves? The Soviets took losses trying to recover the T-62 tank. Chinese SEALs are the ones who recovered the tank. So there was still some Chinese presence there. There are a lot of holes in the details of this conflict.Don Brunett (talk) 09:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett

Soviet support for East Turkestan Separatists and border clashes in Xinjiang[edit]

The article needs to mention the soviet KGB support for East Turkestan Independence Movement, both military and propaganda.

The soviet formation of uyghur nationalism and history

Clashes in Xinjiang

KGB Agent Victor Louis (journalist) wrote a book about his support for Uyghur, Mongol and Tibetan separatists, he encouraged the Soviet Union to try to wage war against China to allegedly "free" those nationalities from China's rule

During the Ili Rebellion russian participation in the rebellion Ishaq Beg commanded GPU against Ma zhongying along with white russian polinov cyrillic writing soviet admission of support for east turkestan republic

Rajmaan (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Soviet deaths - inconsistent[edit]

There is an inconsistency between the sidebar and the article on the number of Soviet deaths. On the sidebar it claims 59 deaths, while in the article it claims that 59 Soviets were killed initially and later the tank commander was killed. Tweisbach (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

There does seem to be a discrepancy there. Unfortunately the linked source seems to be dead, giving me a 404 not found error. An additional source needs to be found to clarify this data. Rincewind42 (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
More than a year later this issue has not been fixed. It is why I came to the talk page. Guess I will put tags on it. Also it says Soviet troops tried to recover the T62 tank on March 17 and 21 but were repelled, but also that the Chinese left the island on March 15. How did they repel the Soviets if they left a week earlier? Very confusing. Memento Morty (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^
It has been just more than 1 year. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 23:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Correct. More than a year. Memento Morty (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"珍宝岛自卫反击战" Translation[edit]

Based on the dictionary meanings, I'm not certain that this has the meaning of 'Zhenbao Island incident'. The meaning appears to be roughly 'Zhenbao Island self-defence counterattack war'. Also, perhaps an inclusion of the Russian name for the conflict would be useful?

--Korikisulda (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The source you provided did not mention Soviet won a tatical victory at all ! No where in the source mentioned that. However, it does mentioned that Russia later on ceded half of the island to China, and the border agreement resulted in China's favor ![edit]

The source you provided did not mention Soviet won a tactical victory at all ! No where in the source mentioned that. However, it does mentioned that Russia later on ceded half of the island to China, and the border agreement resulted in China's favor ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

the answer[edit]

there were a lot of wrongs about that battle back at soviet times after the chinese ambushed the soviet border guards at march 15 1969 the soviets retaliated with artillery fire which resulted 1000 chinese dead and the chinese withdrew and they came back at september but soviet border guards received the order not to open fire against them so it was a soviet victory i hope this site wont be biased or whatever just because some retarded chinese made some illusions this was the example of how wrong it was this is what the wikipedia said On March 2, 1969, a group of Chinese troops ambushed Soviet border guards on Zhenbao Island. The Soviets suffered 59*dead, including a senior colonel, and 94*wounded. They retaliated on March 15 by bombarding Chinese troop concentrations on the Chinese bank of the Ussuri and by storming Zhenbao Island. The Soviets sent four then-secret T-62 tanks to attack the Chinese patrols on the island from the other side of the river. One of the leading tanks was hit and the tank commander was killed. On March 16, 1969, the Soviets entered the island to collect their dead, the Chinese held their fire. On March 17, 1969, the Soviets tried to recover the disabled tank, but their effort was repelled by the Chinese artillery. On March 21, the Soviets sent a demolition team attempting to destroy the tank. The Chinese opened fire and thwarted the Soviets. With the help of divers of the Chinese navy, the PLA pulled the T-62 tank onshore. The tank was later given to the Chinese Military Museum. but the missing piece is this On March 15, 1969, the Chinese troops were repelled from Zhenbao Island (Damansky Island) with significant losses and did not return until September of that year, when Soviet border guards received the order to not open fire against them. so it was a soviet military victory— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis767 (talkcontribs) 11:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Sino-Soviet border conflict was a strategic victory for China. Because Russia later regonized the border and granted those area to China. Adding source.[edit]

China was granted control over Tarabarov Island (Yinlong Island) and approximately 50% of Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island (Heixiazi Island) near Khabarovsk.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You are only producing OR and POV that china won tactical and strategic victory while the two given sources "Kuisong p.29" "The Chinese People's Liberation Army since 1949 by Benjamin Lai" doesn't say that or anything about who won the conflict, while a did added a wp:rs [1] clearly saying soviets won the border conflict (one more source [2]), you removed the source on spurious ground, which is not acceptable. Soviet controlled the island [3] [4] till both coutry's leaders held meeting in late 1969, agreeing to maintain status quo. [5]. Spartacus! (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly the point. The Soviet controlled these islands and area only later ceded them to China !!

This means that in the long run China got what it wanted and achieved its strategic goals: 1. Stopping Soviet/Russians in the border. 2. Maintain border control. 3. Gain those islands and area back!!

The later Sino-Russian border agreement resulted hugely in China's favor, which China gained more than 700Km^2 of area including those islands you listed !

-- (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Spartacus, the source you provided has merely 1 page of a blurry picture !! Do you use this as your "reliable" source?

No where in your source mentioned any details about the conflicts !!

I have already notified the admins and I suggest you stop your nonsense !

-- (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@IP, I have replied to your above comment about sources here [6]. And about your comment "That is exactly the point..." IP, here we're talking about who won the border conflict of 1969 militiary? It was soviet union as the source says. I agree after the fall of USSR, border agrement was signed on 2004 which resolved the dispute, and have added it in infobox. Spartacus! (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Spartacus, since you were already debunked in the Sino-Vietnamese talk page; therefore, your source was also unreliable in this article. You use the exact same source !

I will quote from Rajmaan a well respected editor.

" Spartacus! has zero concept of what reliable source means. A source is not reliable if it includes a table or if it cites from other reliable sources. A source is reliable if the author has credentials in the field he is writing in, such as a military historian writing about war. An economist's field is in economy. The main topic of The Global Rise of Asian Transformation: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics is mainly about economy where the war is briefly mentioned and the main topic is not about war. It can be cited in an article about economy but not war in contentious cases. Just like a person with a degree in pottery and writing a book on pottery where he briefly mentions a war where soldiers destroyed pottery, is not a qualified source on that war even if that pottery book is published by Springer. A journal on medical injuries by a doctor describing injuries soldiers suffered during the war, is not a RS on the outcome of that war. Its only an RS on injuries and casualties but not who an RS on who won the war. Doesn't matter if it was published in a scientific medical journal, its not about military science. Its an RS on medicine, the work on economics Spartacus! cites is an RS on economics, neither of them are RS on war. An RS would be a military historian writing in a military journal. The author of the source Spartacus! uses has zero credentials in the field- modern warfare in Southeast Asia. If citing from reliable sources made a source RS, then any random person can start writing blogs by citing reliable sources and get considered a reliable source.Rajmaan (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC) " — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

-- (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^