Talk:Sino-Vietnamese War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sino-Vietnamese War article.
Article policies

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)

Contents

[edit] 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.[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)

[edit] 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 verison of this article is clearly written in favor of Vietname 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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?

[edit] 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)

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)

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

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

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)


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))

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

[edit] Copyedit

A request was made for this article, or a prior version of it, to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors . Unfortunately, the request was denied – the reason for its refusal is given below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.

Proofread denied by Happy‑melon (19:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)) – WP:LOCE/C#1 - Presence of {{refimprove}} tag..
  • I'm working on an initial copy-edit offline... will update shortly. Please keep substantive changes to a minimum. Livitup (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry guys, but it's not going to make it to a year. Since there doesn't appear to be any response from Livitup, I can't put off denying this article any longer. Happy‑melon 19:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese Debacle 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)