Sino-Vietnam war in 1979 ended with Soviet Nuclear Threat

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Violet Oboe

Junior Member
Though casualties are always a reason for grief in any nation war will ever be about killing and being killed. A war without (civilian?) casualties is a chimera created by Western spin doctors trying to deceive their own people for ´selling´ them wars of aggression through media disinformation.
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
This war was so typical of Chinese military intervention abroad, in a strategic sense at least.

The PLA would go in fact and hard, crush all resistance and pull back to where they started once a pre-determined point has been reached or goal achieved. This way they take full advantage of the initial momentum of the attack to appear far stronger then they might actually be by avoiding showing fallibility as would happen if they pressed too far for too long, loose the momentum and get bogged down.

This demonstrates the PLA's superiority most spectacularly and beyond all doubt while China suffers the least political fall out because of its voluntary pull back and also minimize losses to its armed forces.

What more, by stopping when the PLA had a massive advantage, it is crystal clear that the PLA stopped because they chose to stop and not because of enemy resistance, that will deliver a heavy blow to enemy moral and make them less inclined to seek a re-match.

This was the case here, and with India in 62 (who is still smarting even today and will probably continue to do so for many many years to come), and would have been the case in Korea had the PLA pulled back to the Chinese boarder when they overran their supply lines and stopped their initial advance instead of staying on to continue the fight. Hundreds of thousands of deaths and years later, the boarder was settled further north then when the PLA first stopped. But then hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Korea is an abject lesson in what could happen if China overplays its hand.

The PLA has traditionally been a defensive force, and its power projection capabilities are disproportionately weak compared to its fighting strength. That means the PLA is not best suited to long-term, long-range combat operations away from home support.

That is changing now, but back in 79, especially against the force that worn down the Americans, staying on and trying to hold ground would have been a terrible idea. It would have cost China hugely politically, financially and most importantly, in lives. And there would have been little to no gain.

The terrain was strategically valuable, but only if you wanted to annex all of Vietnam. Its advantages in defensibility would more then be cancelled out by inciting the Vietnamese to continuously attack in order to regain lost territory.

The main reason this war did not have the kind of effect as usual was probably a combination of the tactical ineptitude the PLA displayed and also from the high the Vietnamese were still on after driving out the Americans. As such, the victory was not as crushing as it could have been, and the Vietnamese also had enough to not loose heart and feel they can 'take China' in the long term and wear the PLA down as they did the Americans.
 
V

victtodd

New Member
plawolf said:
This war was so typical of Chinese military intervention abroad, in a strategic sense at least.

The PLA would go in fact and hard, crush all resistance and pull back to where they started once a pre-determined point has been reached or goal achieved. This way they take full advantage of the initial momentum of the attack to appear far stronger then they might actually be by avoiding showing fallibility as would happen if they pressed too far for too long, loose the momentum and get bogged down.

This demonstrates the PLA's superiority most spectacularly and beyond all doubt while China suffers the least political fall out because of its voluntary pull back and also minimize losses to its armed forces.

What more, by stopping when the PLA had a massive advantage, it is crystal clear that the PLA stopped because they chose to stop and not because of enemy resistance, that will deliver a heavy blow to enemy moral and make them less inclined to seek a re-match.

This was the case here, and with India in 62 (who is still smarting even today and will probably continue to do so for many many years to come), and would have been the case in Korea had the PLA pulled back to the Chinese boarder when they overran their supply lines and stopped their initial advance instead of staying on to continue the fight. Hundreds of thousands of deaths and years later, the boarder was settled further north then when the PLA first stopped. But then hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Korea is an abject lesson in what could happen if China overplays its hand.

The PLA has traditionally been a defensive force, and its power projection capabilities are disproportionately weak compared to its fighting strength. That means the PLA is not best suited to long-term, long-range combat operations away from home support.

That is changing now, but back in 79, especially against the force that worn down the Americans, staying on and trying to hold ground would have been a terrible idea. It would have cost China hugely politically, financially and most importantly, in lives. And there would have been little to no gain.

The terrain was strategically valuable, but only if you wanted to annex all of Vietnam. Its advantages in defensibility would more then be cancelled out by inciting the Vietnamese to continuously attack in order to regain lost territory.

The main reason this war did not have the kind of effect as usual was probably a combination of the tactical ineptitude the PLA displayed and also from the high the Vietnamese were still on after driving out the Americans. As such, the victory was not as crushing as it could have been, and the Vietnamese also had enough to not loose heart and feel they can 'take China' in the long term and wear the PLA down as they did the Americans.
Click to expand...

Excellent points.
And in hindsight, the 1979 invasion paid handsome dividends. It surely helped to solidify China's credentail as a power and, more importantly, an important ally of Nato group. It facilitated China's engagement and collaboration with United States and other Nato members, which brought significant benefits to China.
 
L

Lion

Senior Member
victtodd said:
Excellent points.
And in hindsight, the 1979 invasion paid handsome dividends. It surely helped to solidify China's credentail as a power and, more importantly, an important ally of Nato group. It facilitated China's engagement and collaboration with United States and other Nato members, which brought significant benefits to China.
Click to expand...


1979 invasion paid Handsome dividend?

In 1962 Sino-India border war, after the victory over India. India did not carry out any large scale aggressive cross border intrusion. In Korea War,China successfully stabilise and ensure the regime of Kim Jong survive. Most objective was achieved.

But in 1979 sino-vietnam war. Vietnam aggression did not back down. It continue to harrass China border until it needed to launch a large scale attack on Lao Shan in 1984 to prevent further attack. It clearly show Vietnam was not intimidated by China in 1979 war.
 
S

sidewinder01

Junior Member
Lion said:
1979 invasion paid Handsome dividend?

In 1962 Sino-India border war, after the victory over India. India did not carry out any large scale aggressive cross border intrusion. In Korea War,China successfully stabilise and ensure the regime of Kim Jong survive. Most objective was achieved.

But in 1979 sino-vietnam war. Vietnam aggression did not back down. It continue to harrass China border until it needed to launch a large scale attack on Lao Shan in 1984 to prevent further attack. It clearly show Vietnam was not intimidated by China in 1979 war.
Click to expand...

Yes you right, the viets werent scared at all because their whole country has been fighting wars for decades, almost all of their citizens can be part of the armed force. There was a famous true story told by one of the frontline reporters during the war, "a vietnamese women carries a baby wrapped in heavy blanket to crosses Chinese checkpoint, her baby covered in blanket werent searched due obvious reasons, when she passes the frisk and moves into the town she suddenly throws her baby and the blanket together into an Chinese Armoured Carrier and 5 seconds later a big explosion took place in the carrier killing 5 people as well as her 1 year old baby"." this shows that even vietnamese women would go as far giving her self and her baby's life away just to kill some army. The viet werent beaten back completely by the US or CHina, but the price is that their country lays in ruin and severly undevelopeed for decades.
 
N

nemo

Junior Member
Lion said:
1979 invasion paid Handsome dividend?

But in 1979 sino-vietnam war. Vietnam aggression did not back down. It continue to harrass China border until it needed to launch a large scale attack on Lao Shan in 1984 to prevent further attack. It clearly show Vietnam was not intimidated by China in 1979 war.
Click to expand...

If you think Vietnam is not intimidated, you are kidding yourself. Note how quickly Vietnam folds when support from ex-USSR ends. Vietnam now jails anyone who protests the border settlement when it accepted the defeat. Vietnam now dreads any incident that China can use as causus belli.

Compared with India, Vietnam fared worse --the infrastructure of the northern provinces was destroyed. By the end of the conflicts, China was using Vietnam to train its troops, while Vietnam was forced to maintain massive troop strength on the border.
 
vesicles

vesicles

Colonel
I think the fact that PLA pulled back after Laoshan has a lot to do with how Chinese think. One good example, Yao Ming, the NBA star, sued some company for $1 a couple years back when he had a clear case and could've got millions. He did this to demonstrate a point: "I'm not looking for money and I'm simply trying to show the world that you are wrong!"

This kind of thinking is very typical of Chinese. This could also be why the PLA pulled back after Laoshan. In order to demonstrate that their motive for the war was totally righteous and had nothing to do with occupying Vietnam, they pulled back when they could go on. Again, very typical of Chinese thinking.
 
bladerunner

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
vesicles said:
, they pulled back when they could go on. Again, very typical of Chinese thinking.
Click to expand...

:eek:ff I note a similar logic was applied to China's actions in the Sino Indian war, but would i be wrong in suggesting, that they didnt want the UN poking their noses in, if it had gone on to long.
 
R

RedMercury

Junior Member
20k was total casualties, and then after some bad copy and pasting by inept historians, it became 20k KIA.

Critics have said that the tactical performance during '79 was bad, but considering these were second line forces (the best were put on the northern boarder, in case the USSR did do something), meh.
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Last time the UN poked their nose in without China's agreement, that nose was well and truly bloodied by the PVA.

The UN is completely impotent when it comes to sanctioning one of the 5 permanent members. Even it the UN could get the mandate, no-one wants to get involved when one of the major powers has rolled up their sleeves and is on the war path.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top