Talk:Third Indochina War

Definition
There seems to be no real consent among the authors as to what the TIW actually is. Some apply the title only to the Cambodian–Vietnamese War, some to the Sino–Vietnamese War, some exclusively to the clashes among the communists, some to the whole era from 1973 to 1991, etc. All the best Wikirictor  19:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Issues
The Christopher Goscha article cited in footnote 16 is entirely contrary to the spirit in which it is being used. Goscha DOES NOT think the Third Indochina China War is a product of the "timeless oppositions between the Chinese and the Vietnamese on the one hand and the Vietnamese and the Khmers on the other," he attributes this line to "Hyper Nationalists." Here is the full paragraph for context. "For many writing about the Third Indochina War – not least of all the Chinese, Vietnamese and Khmer hyper-nationalists of the 1980s – the break among Asian Communists marked the victory of “History”, “Tradition” and “timeless security concerns” over ideology and internationalism. Deng Xiaoping was recast as a Ming-minded expansionist determined to take all of Southeast Asia, while Le Duc Tho became the “red” reincarnation of Minh Mang and his early-nineteenth-century attempt to swallow Cambodia whole into the Dai Nam Empire, the precursor of the Communist Indochinese Federation. When it came to Cambodia and Laos, the only way they could survive in the post-colonial and post-Vietnam War period was by returning to the past to re-establish their “neutrality” between Thailand and Vietnam. Most powerful of all, of course, were the timeless oppositions between the Chinese and the Vietnamese on the one hand and the Vietnamese and the Khmers on the other. One has only to consult the scores of “white”, “black” and “truth about” books churned out by the Chinese, Vietnamese, Lao and Khmer Communist nationalists in the late 1970s and 1980s to get a feel for how “History” and “Tradition” were used to legitimate the politics and breaks of the present. It is hard not to agree that, once the French “colonialists” and American “imperialists” had left the region by 1975, deep-seated, pre-colonial historical forces resurfaced with force to realign intra-regional Asian relations in “traditional” ways. While I would in no way whatsoever want to underestimate the importance of “History” and “Tradition” for understanding present-day regional relations, such arguments, like nationalist historiographies that minimise the French colonial period as a brief parenthèse, do not allow for modifications in regional relations and mutual perceptions based on changing historical conditions, the entry, adoption and adaptation of new ideological faiths, and new patterns of revolutionary Asian relations developed to respond to the historical challenges posed by Western and Japanese domination of much of Asia, not to mention the ever-present question of “modernity”. Much went on in the region. Inside French Indochina, Vietnamese and Cambodians continued to engage each other. Indeed, budding Khmer and Vietnamese nationalists constructed nationalist discourses in relation to one another in a number of heated debates that occurred during the colonial period. If the Vietnamese used the overseas Chinese to carve out a definition of the needed nationalist “Other”, many Khmers latched on to Vietnamese in Cambodia and the idea of Indochina in order to define what they were and were not. Defining the “Other” was an important nationalist construction that occurred during the colonial period.1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.121.228 (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Flag of FULRO.svg

Supported By in Infobox
The user User:反共抗獨光復民國 keeps inserting Canada and the UK as supporters of the Khmer Rouge despite having no sources in the case of the UK and two sources that do not support this claim in the case of Canada. Unless theu can find new sources for these claims, they should not be included. Loquacious Folly (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

America
America is not here 45.58.95.149 (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Joe 45.58.95.149 (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)