Talk:Sino-Vietnamese War/Archive 1

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?

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)

Along the Sino-Soviet split lines, it might also be useful to have a mention of PLA officers serving in Vietnam's war with America. Wei Guoqing was one, I believe. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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))

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)

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)

Copyedit

• 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)

Chinese retreat 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)

There are too much exaggerations which should be corrected--PLA was using military maps dated back to 70 years ago?? The PLA was equiped with weapons from Long March (1930s) and WWII?--even after they'd fought a war with US Amry for 3 years in Korea in 1950s and forced a cease of fire? It is simply hard to believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.90.56 (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I have no references I find such a statement believable given Chinese history and the Chinese character, there are two factors. The first is the effect of the cultural revolution which set back the country by decades, people write of the lost generation, not only did the country not make progress it took steps backwards. The second is that one would think that in gathering a force of 200,000 the very best and best equipped 200,000 of a three million strong army would be mobilised however it has been traditional for senior commanders to hoard the best of their own equipment and troops, in order to preserve the fighting strength of their own formations and therefore their own status and standing at the centre of power (something that they have done since imperial times).KTo288 (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

(1) According to most Chinese articles, the Chinese troops were using Type 56 semi-automatic rifles. It is a crude copy of the Russian CKC Siminov rifle (not to be confuse with Type 56 assault rifle, which is a copy of the Russian AK47). The Chinese CKC do not have automatic fire mode.

The Vetnamese on the other hand are generally armed with AK's.

(2) Not sure about maps.

(3) The Chinese troops were not well-trained at all during the Cultural Revolution 1966-76. Officers and generals were deeply involved in political movements. Unversities and schools were closed for years as there was an anti-intellectual atmosphere. The general public were busy with faction clashes to show their undying loyalty to the Leader, in this case, Mao. The situation is similiar to the Russians immediately after the the communist bloc collasped: no money to train, no directives to follow. everything in chaos.

Explusion of Chinese began after US withdrawal, probably a retaliation and a show of distrust towards the Chinese, as they befriended USA in 1972 when Vietnam was in a heated war with the latter. It is no surprise that the Vietnamese were pissed. On one hand the Chinese were giving all sorts of "support" and "promises" to the Vietnamese to fight against the USA, on the other hand the Chinese are secretly making negotiations with the USA, as Russians had obviously gained an upper hand in the Sino-Russian split. The great "supporter" to the Vietnamese suddenly became a US-ally overnight, I would imagine the Vietnamese were pretty shocked, especially when there were so much Chinese "assisting" the Vietnamese in key positions at that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.155.245.81 (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The funny thing is, the Chinese later used this as one of the reasons to accuse Vietnam, without reflecting on their own. How would the Vietnamese trust somebody who betrayed them? Explusion is the logical thing for the Vietnamese to do, given that they already commited in Cambodia, they probably don't want to have a open conflict with the Chinese.

According to my father's account, before 1975, Chinese ethnics in Hanoi at least had their own Chinese schools and newspaper.

However, after 1975 re-unification, fearing an unified Vietnam would pose a threat, China incited many violent demonstrations in Hanoi. There were also many Chinese Vietnamese (whose ancestors came to Vietnam several generations earlier) serve in various government posts which together could pose an internal threat as the relation with China strained.

This is of course according to my father's experience. Any scholar who could find citations to back this up would be great.

For the point (3) stated above - most of Vietnam army officers were sent to the Soviet officer schools. Vietnam also implemented Soviet military command structure as early as 1965 (at least). Vietnamese infantry tactics displayed in 75' and in Cambodia demonstrated this fact - Soviet style.

Border militia was manned mostly by ex-soldiers - hence "trained and experienced". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caraoke (talk • contribs) 05:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If China feared a unified Vietnam so much, she didn't have to offer huge amounts of assistance to the north during the Vietnam War. The aid given during the war was far beyond the maximum requirement to ensure the survival of the north.Vulturedroid (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

First war

We have to move this page to First Sino-Vietnamese War, because there is a second war between two countries in 1984-1988. Kinh Duong Vuong (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we have an article on the one you're referring to? Badagnani (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As you wish: [1], [2], many others. Kinh Duong Vuong (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The other conflict was so obscure that it shouldn't force the first one to be renamed. DHN (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I mean, is there any article at Wikipedia (English or any other language) that mentions this war you're referring to? Badagnani (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a Vietnamese and a Norwegian article on wikipedia. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)