Talk:Sino-Vietnamese War/Archive 4

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)

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. 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)

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)"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)