Talk:Battle of Lạng Sơn (1979)

Who wrote this?

 * There are too many things wrong but I am too lazy to fix everything. But first off, the battle ended on 4th March, not 6 March..I can't read the sources in previous edits but am certain the previous editor had likely misread the date.

Here is a reliable source stating the Chinese captured Lang Son on March 4.

Also I don't know why there is so much emphasis on how China was real slow in capturing cities. It literally took them total 17 days to successfully capture all those border cities. I don't know why previous edits keeps claiming the Chinese were of no match to the Viets in the lang son battle. It is not even logical to say China was of no match if they literally defeated all the Vietnamese defenders of that city and captured it successfully. In fact Washington post cited analysts saying that

Peking's withdrawal announcement followed what analysts here called an important Chinese victory in capturing the Vietnamese provincial capital of Lang Son, 12 miles inside Vietnam, along with other military successes along the 500-mile front. Particularly at Lang Son, the analyst said, the Vietnamese appeared to make a determined, and unsuccessful, effort to stop the Chinese advance. "The fight for Lang Son went on for well over a week. The Vietnamese were heavily entrenched, with large reinforcements sent in by both sides -- infantry, armor and artillery on both sides. Hanoi never ordered anybody to withdraw, but the Vietnamese were just pushed out of there," the analyst said.

That doesn't sound like the Chinese were of no match to the Viets.. Instead thee Viets seem to be of no match to be defeated by Chinese forces and lose their city to invaders. The current article keeps citing over and over the same weird unsourced info that the Chinese were outmatched despite the Chinese were successful in taking the cities from the Viets in less than a month.49.179.29.157 (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * That WP article is just one of the source. It is contradictory to other sources e.g. Edward O'Dowd, which clearly states that Chinese performance in the battle was "ineffective and inefficient" (p. 60). According to O'Dowd, their tactics did not transform into swift advance (in contrast with other contemporary campaigns e.g. the North Vietnamese offensive in South Vietnam in 1975), and their small gains were exchanged by excessive losses.
 * In common sense, "ineffective and inefficient" is by no means "victory". Therefore, I suggest redirecting the result line to the "Aftermath" section to be more neutral and reflecting all sources, rather than "Chinese victory". 2001:EE0:22D:973C:5D04:D02:E5CB:7C0B (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If no one protests, I will restore my last edits. 2001:EE0:8207:42EB:3C0D:BD1D:C864:7611 (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Responding to discussion that had no input in two years and then deciding that no one had protested to their changes is nonsense. The source states that it is a Chinese victory regardless of their effectiveness and efficiency. The sources provided don't contradict the victory itself. "Ineffective and inefficient" is not an indicator of lack of victory, and to suggest so is disingenuous, otherwise anybody would be able to say that someone had not won because they suffered heavy losses and their gains were worthless. Qiushufang (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Qiushufang There's no logic of being victorious and ineffective at the same time; you cannot achieve your objective when your method is not effective. That's WP:BLUE. O'Dowd does not say that the gains were "worthless"; he says that the tactics did not transform in to rapid advance (as the Chinese had targeted with "battle of quick decision") and the gains were small in comparison to the losses. 2001:EE0:8207:42EB:1064:83FE:6469:6B96 (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @2001:EE0:8207:42EB:1064:83FE:6469:6B96 The first statement is blatantly wrong and original research. Qiushufang (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia, a battle is typically labeled as a victory for the invader when they have successfully overcome the city's defenders, resulting in the capture or control of the city with no remaining resistance from the defenders. At the beginning of this short battle, the Vietnamese defended the city while the Chinese launched attacks. By the battle's conclusion, the Vietnamese had either perished or become prisoners of war, leaving the city defenseless. So this battle qualifies as a clear victory for the Chinese. Note it's the same reason why the fighting at the Siege of Mariupol, is deemed as a Russian victory in Wikipedia. Despite it lasted so much longer and Ukrainians had fought valiantly and hard, if the city falls as a direct result of the fighting, it's marked as a victory for the invaders and a defeat for those who fought to defend the city, disregarding the defenders' valor and sacrifices. 124.19.28.214 (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)