Talk:Sino-Vietnamese War/Archive 3

Nonsensical sentence
The last sentence to the intro of this article makes no sense.

"China also achieved another strategic objective of demonstrating to its Cold War foe, the Soviet Union, that it was unable to protect its ally."

I can't imagine that one of chinas objectives was to demonstrate that they could NOT protect it's ally. I didn't jsut correct it to able though because it seems like they didn't really protect them since the khmer rouge got defeated. I don't know much about this subject anyway but I know that something isn't right with this sentence. 162.24.9.213 (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It made Soviet-Vietnam pact collapse. The soviets were supposed commit direct military assistant to Vietnam under the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation signed in 1978, but instead she more or less sit on her hand, hence voided the pact. On the other hand, China demonstrated that it was willing and capable to commit its military in a large scale operations in support of its ally. It was a major PR coup for the Chinese and was politically damaging to USSR, as it demonstrated the inability of USSR to commit herself in protection of members of Comecon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.242.104 (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, it was a strategic victory to show that symbolic nature of the USSR-Vietnam defense pact. Deng Xiaoping notified US President Carter prior to the attack, and Carter agreed that US will not condemn China's border incursion, and that US will defend China incase of a nuclear attack by USSR, solidifying the informal China-US alliance against USSR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.233.159 (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

War fought outside as a mean to consolidate political power within
This article needs major rewrite. Current researches in this war has tighted to reforms of China in the last 30 years: 1) Deng used the war to kick start the reformation of China's economy and army, as the old timers now knew even a rather small country like Vietnam could inflicted heavy casulty to PLA 2) Created loyalty of younger generation of army officers to the Party after Mao's death 3) Talk to UK on Hong Kong's future —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.134.220 (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Chinese border war with Vietnam in 1979
This whole article deserves to be flushed down the toilet. -- signed: unbiased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.154.188 (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a terrible, biased mess, but it's always hope. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

War result should say "Vietnamese Victory"
How did Vietnam not win? I feel this is a non-neutral viewpoint when the aggressor leaves and the defender gets to keep all of its territory. The defender is clearly the winner.

I'm sure there are hundreds of wars where both sides declare victory, but this assertion is not founded in fact. Is there a way to say the Chinese side won? 220.112.227.135 (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this, If a country is attacked and it manages to successfully retains all its territory at the end of war then it is definitely an Victory, no doubt about it. Claiming China was teaching Vietnam an 'Lesson' is an joke. If someone is trying to teach lesson through war then he must win that to call it successful. Also, China didn't realize its objectives in addition to retreat -

''And it is the firm stand of the USSR, coupled with resistance Vietnamese, and eventually forced to stop the Chinese, who have not even met their goals. Vietnamese troops from Cambodia have not left, to eliminate pro-Soviet stripe on its southern borders could not, in fact, the Vietnamese presence in Cambodia and Laos has increased as the number of troops in the Vietnam-China border.'' Source: http://alerozin.narod.ru/vietnam.htm Swift&amp;silent (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The definition of a victory is the achievement of strategic objectives, which never included territory. China's objectives toward Vietnam were purely punitive, i.e. to punish vietnam for 1. the Cambodian invasion and 2. the Vietnam taking of Spratley and Paracel Islands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.215.183 (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Unsigned is correct. The PRC never claimed to be engaging in a war of conquest in Vietnam. It was planned all along as a limited expedition to punish Vietnam and call the Soviets' bluffs. Having achieved both of these to their satisfaction (more or less), they retreated in good order and laid waste to much of northern Vietnam on their way out. Did it go perfectly for the Chinese? No, but well enough that they could claim their victory. These things aren't always pure black and white/ winner and loser. Milhisfan (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Does the meaning of victory have to be taken that way? While Vietnam have to station over 800,000 soldiers across the border with China, the PLA have to raise over 1,500,000 to counter it. Also the brief war have forced China to accelerate it's modernization process, which in turn hamper the renovation process. Also while the USSR and other countries Warsaw Pact countries don't take direct action in the war, they still play a crucial part by helped the Vietnamese transporting the IV Corp from Cambodia back to Vietnam's Northern border, and mobilize warships toward Haiphong and Danang. It should not be noted in the article.

Also in spite of archiving the element of surprise during the first stage of the war, after two month of bitter fighting, the PLA found out that they have lost the initiative, soldier's morale are dropping, war material losses began to taken it's toll, in the PLA controlled area, their enemy blend in to the locals and began ambushing patrols, and by that time, the VPA have amassed over 500,000 soldiers and equipments in the Red River Delta. And while they're able to brought more ground forces, it only serves the VPA's favor guerrilla tactics, and put more strain on PLA supply which still based around tailors. The Air Force and Navy are also available, but by doing that, they would risk confrontation with the USSR. So if the war was prolonged, they would risked not only losing their forces in Vietnam, but also to fall into the same trap the French and US have. That, and the fact that a fully Mechanized Corp with over 100,000 heavily armed soldiers are only days away from arriving in the battlefield, are the main reason of Deng Xiaoping's decision to withdraw. Also could anyone explain to me that why the most realistic Chinese leaders somehow would drag the country toward a war against their own ally just for the sake of "punishing" them like some Jin Yong's wuxia? --Zeraful (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * please note the 1,500,000 PLA was mobilized to defend USSR, not the amassed Vietnamese troops, the amount of Vietnamese troops you have mentioned have no supports, and DO read the Historical background section, especially the "Sino–Soviet split" and "Cambodia" part, you will see the China-Vietnam relationship had gone to worst after China established diplomatic relations with USA and they haven't been close allies after the US withdraw. And DO NOT use WP as a forum, data with support(s) is always welcomed, but it's not a good idea to give out data without support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixdzy (talk • contribs) 11:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Files_for_deletion/2011_April_13
All opinions welcome. Thank you. walk victor falktalk 18:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Heavily biased towards Vietnam
This article is one sided trash heavily biased towards Vietnam. The war section has no content whatsoever. This article should be re-written, with neutral POV. Danningt (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Way to be specific. There are some disparaging references to PLA command organization that may or may not be justified, but there's a great deal of content in this article. Scuttlest (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Article very much falsifies history
In this war the chinese were very badly beaten. The 1979 war showed that the chinese method of manufacturing thinner-skinned local variants of soviet-designed armoured vehicles was complete insanity. A huge number of those han "light tanks" were slaughtered by the vietkongs using hand-held and light towed launchers, more than 400pcs destroyed, many more disabled. It was literally Iraq in 1991, but 12 years before.

China was scared, because its huge armoured losses in 1979's Vietnam meant there was nothing to shield its troops if the USSR tank force decides to steam-roller across Mongolia. (Not that they had any chance against T-64/T-72 forces in the first place...)

Manpower losses didn't bother either side, as Beijing had so many people, while the vietnamese, having recently suffered 3 million dead versus the USA, considered a further 100 thousand fallen merely a rounding error. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Very POV statements. Have any reliable sources at all to back it up? Otherwise, stop using WP as a forum. See WP:TPG. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If both sides think the article is biased in favor of the other, I think that's the sign of NPOV. Scuttlest (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * True dat, Scuttlest. True dat. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Some information should be removed or noted clearer
this article has a strong bias toward Vietnam, especially in the number of casualities. Even the source of King Chen (Standford University) is also compiled from China. The unique western source of The Time is that China had more than 20,000 death and Vietnam had nearly 10,000. In recent days, the information about Vietnam has 42,000 soldiers and 70,000 militias killed by the Chinese PLA is from heavily nationalist Chinese website. www.9abc.net/index.php/archives/71814. In my opinion, to keep neutral point of view toward the war, these information should be removed and these source from King Chen should be noted that " it is from one of China estimated"

Finally, in vi.wikipedia show Nhan Dan Newspaper claim that Vietnam suffer 10.000 cilivian deaths, not 100.000.http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi%E1%BA%BFn_tranh_bi%C3%AAn_gi%E1%BB%9Bi_Vi%E1%BB%87t-Trung,_1979#cite_note-Zhang_Xiaoming-0. However, this information still obscure. I havent found the original source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeumuvayeuem (talk • contribs) 06:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Grammar errors.
Theres tons of them throughout the page. It needs work.Joesolo13 (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think this is because it was machine-translated from Chinese or Vietnamese text, and/or was written by Chinese and Vietnamese editors with little knowledge of English. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Cause of war
There doesn't seem to be much discussion of the cause of the war in the article. What were the causes of the war? Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit, never mind, found the causes. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Both sides claimed victory?
"The Chinese invaded northern Vietnam" "Result: Both sides claimed victory.        Chinese withdrawal from Vietnam"? Ancient (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, exactly? China claims victory, as they claim that they achieved what they set out to accomplish, and Vietnam claims victory, as they claim that they routed the Chinese invasion. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This information should be deleted
"The claim of "civilian" deaths is technically correct: after the US war against Vietnam, Hanoi granted free farms to the heros of that war, all on land up against the Chinese border. In other words, when the PLA attacked, Chinese infantry was up against Vietnam's most experienced soldiers, who were now fighting not only for their country but for their farms and families as well. However, they were technically still "civilians"."

Firstly, Hanoi never granted exhausted fields to their heroes in northernmost provinces. At that time, since 1975 to 1979, Vietnam army was put on war footing,so there was no time for returning their heroes's favour in Vietnam war. All seasoned soldiers must be on active duty. Secondly, Hanoi thought that it is because of capturing Phnompenh at lightening speed that China would consider it as fait accompli. Besides that, Hanoi was subjective due to the treaty of alliance with USSR and the remained belief of the good relationship between it and Beijing in Vietnam war. Therefore, They deployed all their elite divisions to Cambodia. Finally ,there is no reference for above paragraph. It seems to be the information of Chinese nationalist source. In my opinion, it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeumuvayeuem (talk • contribs) 14:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Disappointing lack of photographs and other media.
There appears to be a disappointing lack of any imagery on this article, aside from an atlas map in the infobox. If somebody can be so kind enough as to upload photographs of the war to Wikimedia Commons, it would be much appreciated. As the war took place long ago, (in 1979), and both parties involved were communist states, chances are that there are a lot of related public-domain photographs and media out there. Cheers! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a place for Nationalism
Full of chinese nationalism here. Only using pro chinese sources like King Chen and some others. I had added some data from Gilles Férier and Russell D. Howard but someone always delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Champions123 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

More Chinese tank destroyed than dispatched?
Infobox: Chinese Strength: 400 tanks from Kunming and Guangzhou Military Districts. Chinese Casualties:420 tanks destroyed

No matter which source is accepted and used, the Wikipedia should at least be consistent. Oceangai (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)