104 replies to this topic

[Sephodwyrm]

Well, without Chinese assistance North Vietnam would never have made Vietnam into a free country. Vietnam would probably be fractured or worst, unified under a dictatorial and corrupt regime.

Why did North Vietnam win? People power and true hearted assistance.

[esse]

Well, without Chinese assistance North Vietnam would never have made Vietnam into a free country. Vietnam would probably be fractured or worst, unified under a dictatorial and corrupt regime.

Why did North Vietnam win? People power and true hearted assistance.

I suggest you need a lot more reading on the Vietnam war to be able to intelligently discuss it.

[nguoiVietchanhtong]

No one won the war. The Chinese troops were close to the capital, Hanoi, and withdrew themselves. It was not about winning or losing but China only wanted to give a warning to Vietnam for not expanding their territory on Cambodia. By that time, Russia was on North of China and ready to attack China if they kept their troops in Vietnam.

[Mei Houwang]

Well, without Chinese assistance North Vietnam would never have made Vietnam into a free country. Vietnam would probably be fractured or worst, unified under a dictatorial and corrupt regime.

Both sides were pretty corrupt. It's a lose lose situation. However, winning against a superpower in your history do make your country look better, rather than winning against a ragtag team of guerillas, with the help of a superpower .

Edited by Anthrophobia, 13 December 2005 - 05:48 PM.

[Karakhan]

China was supplying Vietnam with second rate tech aid. All the soviet equipment aid sent through china was stripped of the best parts and replaced with chinese low tech. Aid indeed.

I saw that on too with an interview with Russian engineers during the war. They'd send down some MiGs via China..when they got there.. they were replaced with Chinese copies.

In any case, the war revealed alot of inefficiencies (especially logistics) in the PLA and Vietnamese armies. The death toll is rather high for a short conflict.

[thankstoall]

If the dispute were to be between two European countries, perhaps, many lives could be saved. Loss-loss game. This war proved a weak ability of both sides to solve problem thru talking.

Forget this bloody history so we can refresh the future.

Edited by thankstoall, 25 December 2005 - 05:09 AM.

[bayonet]

i have browsed through the thread generally finding that there is few which could touch the core of a warfare. Mostly the views are based on some passages linked to certain websites. i also clicked some linkages to see what on the earth they have said. The result dispointed me a lot.

To most of the views,they are obviously inprofessional if one through a military anger. It seems authors feel like focuzing on one tiny point to give a full discussion and then immedietly rush to the conclusions. No international circumstances in that moment, comprison of the detailed equipment and tactics of both sides, morality,structure of the troops, domestic political and economical situation in both countries, supplies, nature features and other further crucial factors were even offered. How could these views be forcible? i donot only refer to the views here also the ones from the linked websites. They apparently belongs to the third rate articles which may even the author himself didnot know what he had said just filed and cut from other places.

My remarks may offend many guys, sorry, just forget it I v once once served in the army, so...


Allow me add a few words on the statistics and the "truth" of a certain historical event.

It comes a phenomenon that any statements which do favor to PRC should be propaganda of the communist party while any words on a certain issue from the usa or other "free world" country should be undoubtfully true.
i feel sick about it.
I agree lack of transparency and media control are caused the assailment to the PRC, but we came here not for attacking on the ideology or belief or social value of others' but for truth. Actually i can not see any difference between a state run media and one run by a nongovermental entity. I skeptical both since in my early age i was indoctrined the motto " be suspicious of everything"

i dare not say i know how to find out the truth, truth may never be found, but i wish to offer my experience here about how to approach it as better as i can.
That is, to collect as much info as possible especially from both sides involved and may as well the third party. Once i studied the Korea War, i read five monographs ( three from americans who, one was once a veteran of that war and now a historian, and a writer and ,the former chief commander of the UN allied amy Matthew Bunker Ridgway, the other two were from the chinese:a PLA colonel and the former vice commander of the Volunteer Army of the Chinese People HONG XUE ZHI who now is still alive and one of the only two living generals of PRC who were conferred medals in 1955) , many articles varied from the dairies of ordinary chinese soldiers to special reports from russian military observers,from the telegraphs on the tactics between Mao and his marshal PENG DE HUAI to a special SWOT on the grenades which the usa soldiers found troublesome often used by chinese army. It is much interesting to compared the details of a certain battle which the both sides have described, you will find lots of versions and fun when u think about what caused it. When it comes to the issue that which version would be more reliable, to my practice, each version should be analysed and tested through its cause, its background and political situations and so on, no one is absolutely reliable it should be comprehensively weighed then u may conclude a closer answer on a certain issue.

sorry, to be continued, (my girlfriend is snarling to me , i have to go off now ) see u ,every one

[Mei Houwang]

In any case, the war revealed alot of inefficiencies (especially logistics) in the PLA and Vietnamese armies. The death toll is rather high for a short conflict.

20 to 30 thousand on both sides I believe. More if you count civilians.

[bayonet]

i m sure that 26000 is an exact number of casualties at china's cost. After a moment of the campaign, every province in china was entitled to reveal the exact numbers and names of those death and wounded of their own provinces on the mainstream provincial newspapers.

This number of casualties was stunned by the high rank officials and officers for it was much higher than what had been expected. General XU SHI YOU incurred lot of criticise and complains especially from the fronter line. They said Xu launched several actions with less careness and his strategy totally deviated from the correct way. i m short of information about his command so it is hard to comment on whether there was a obvious better tactics than his under that condition. whatever, it was true that the PLA exposed lot of weakness in the campaign despite the extrodinary impavidity and utimate courage as they had already showed in the Korea War. The suffer mainly was caused by shortage of training and lack of sense of a combined war with modern weapons. The Culture Revolution and other series of poitical movements had almost paralysed every healthy system in China, no exempt for the army. A former officer once told me in person that during the Culture Revolution ,they even did not have a systematical training let alone combined maneuover in a large scale. The whole day was engaged in learning the latest instruction of Chairman Mao and Red books. Their battle effectiveness was deadly weakened. When he first crossed the border of Sino-Vietnam as a platoon leader, like most of other inexperienced grass level soldiers, war to them seems romantic and heroic just like the movies at that time showed them as if as far as they launched an assault , the battle would be over with their victory. Some soldiers even didnot know to cover their left part bodies when they trigered a shoot with their right hands. Many lost could have been saved, the officer told me bitterly.

Every soldier in both side has a grenade hung round the neck when they were stuck in a deperating place they could explode themself to harm the enemy. It was believed that a large number of men in both sides did it without hesitation. These may be hard to imagine for a Westner, there is a tradition in Eastern that becoming a captive is a huge indignity to a individual and his family. Death at a battle field would be held esteem but rather surrendering to the enemy or being captured by them.
The border clash in 1979 might be short of technique and advanced weapons, moveover it lasted only several days, its fierce and bloody impressed many men and women once in that war even many years passed by.

[thankstoall]

A sad story, eventually the grassroot soldiers and civilians are victims and only the warlords are winners. War never does any affect to the family of leaders. Their children are hardly to be sent at the battlefields. Their families are hardly shortage of foods and medicare. That why they do not have a sense of losing.

A medal of a general is something as valuable as thousand deaths.

Edited by thankstoall, 26 December 2005 - 07:24 AM.

[thankstoall]

In the pre-modern society, people used to use fighting for solving conflicts.

The most attractive novel is the Three-Kingdom, why are people so warlike?

[Yun]

The most attractive novel is the Three-Kingdom, why are people so warlike?

I would suggest that if the Chinese people had known less about the Three Kingdoms and more about the Age of Fragmentation, they would understand better what war is really like. How mindless, futile, cruel, and selfish it can be, and how one short-sighted general can write off thousands of soldiers' lives.

And yet, the Three Kingdoms novel was popular in Vietnam too. Guan Yu and Zhuge Liang were also heroes there. Men just have a natural taste for violence and competition. Thousands of years of Confucian teaching have not succeeded in removing that; instead, today we see Confucianism being condemned for teaching people to dislike war in the past. I think that is giving philosophy too much credit - even Buddhism didn't make the Age of Fragmentation, Sui and Tang dynasties into pacifists. Human nature does not change because of philosophy or ideology.

[thankstoall]

I would suggest that if the Chinese people had known less about the Three Kingdoms and more about the Age of Fragmentation, they would understand better what war is really like. How mindless, futile, cruel, and selfish it can be, and how one short-sighted general can write off thousands of soldiers' lives.

Men just have a natural taste for violence and competition. Thousands of years of Confucian teaching have not succeeded in removing that; instead, today we see Confucianism being condemned for teaching people to dislike war in the past. I think that is giving philosophy too much credit - even Buddhism didn't make the Age of Fragmentation, Sui and Tang dynasties into pacifists. Human nature does not change because of philosophy or ideology.

Really?, but anyway, you are Chinese so you may know such problems of Confucianism better than me. Perhaps, I give credits to you on those points.

Guan Yu and Zhuge Liang were also heroes there.

This is perhaps right!

Regards,

TTA

[Chinese Paladin]

Many of the new articles seem to be outdated. And more on the moods of the war instead of motives behind which is a secret.

When Deng Xiaopeng visited Singapore 10 years or so after the Vietnamese war. He explained to Singapore that China was harassing the vietnamese on the northern side of the border. He didnt expected it to be easy, as Vietnam just defeated the USA. China has no intention to take over Vietnam. He only wants Vietnam to deploy its best veterans back to the border and halt vietnam aggression. China acted only after Cambodia was invaded when Vietnam intentions become apparent. Not only to China, but to Southeast Asia.

At that time, Vietnam is at a all high national morale, not only Combodia, but Thailand, and the rest of southeast asia are a target of a Vietnamese offensive. China step in with the support of the USA to defer the Vietnamese. China does not see herself as being commited to take over Vietnam as there will be problems. Even USA cant take over vietnam with its superior technology much less China (PLA have 3mil soldiers, but never commited its majority force as the strategy is to withdrawn right from the start). Once the objective of making the Vietcon are attained, China withdrawn. It does distract Vietnam by having its best troops posted to the northern border for a potential renew China offensive and the countries of southeast asia have to thanks China for deterring a potential crisis.

Have u ever wondered why pior to the China-Vietnam War, countries of southeast asia avoid China? And after China invaded Vietnam, the countries of southeast asia began to see China in a new light and have relationships with a Communist nation?

Information of the interview can be found in the Straits Times.

[Sephodwyrm]

Skirmishes actually continued into 1984, FYI.