Talk:Sino-Vietnamese War/Archive 2

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Aftermath

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

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)

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)

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)

Cold War tag

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

_________________________________________________________________________

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)

According with the Russian sources 62,500 Chinese were killed

Fourth different Russian sources said 62,500 PLA soldiers were killed in 1979 [1][2][3][4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSupern00b (talk • contribs) 22:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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 [5] 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)

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)

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)

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.