Lmao, it directly goes against even common sense.
A 1 to 10 rate is already incredible and can be written into history.
So... Just laugh and ridicule them for even believing in a 1 to 100 rate.
Sino-Vietnamese War (1979): What was the end results of it ?
A 1 to 10 rate is already incredible and can be written into history.
So... Just laugh and ridicule them for even believing in a 1 to 100 rate.
For an army that can take on 100 for every 1 of its troops, it sure is strange how so many of them managed to be taken as prisoners huh? I also remember that their SFs and commandos were wiped out before the war even came close to ending. Coming from a bunch of guys who think they somehow "won" the vietnam war and Sino-viet war regardless of the outcome (which ain't good), why should anyone take a history revisionist seriously?
Even western estimates at that time and today roughly put it at 26,000 KIA for China and 30,000 KIA for Vietnam. I wonder why its just so hard for these armchair generals to just type a few words into Google.
A note: when you are on the offensive and still manage to take 8 times more prisoners than the other side, that's not a sign of the battles being anywhere near equal.
The "western" estimate is face saving used by Viet nationalists, where they claim 70 000 deaths were "civilians". It is ironically highly insulting to their own ancestors, who did their best to fight using what they had, yet find their memory disgraced by being classified as defenseless civilian, just so modern day Viet nationalists can jerk off to their "1to1" kda against the PLA. It shows how out of touch they are with reality.
Cognition can sometimes be completely different from facts. For many years, the West has been shaping the historical memory of the serious failure of the Chinese people's sea of people tactics (a few days ago, I also saw a similar view from the Japanese). They prefer to adopt all viewpoints that are more favorable to Vietnam.
"Western estimates" are a meme anyways, they don't have any access to actual Battlefield or casualty reports of the Chinese and Vietnamese side, people just hear "western" and automatically assume it's credible without thinking about where the estimate even comes from. Amateur Military history blogs on Zhihu that actually delve into both Vietnamese and Chinese battlefield reports as well as veteran testimonies are 100x more credible than "western estimates".
Last edited:
The west was neither friend or ally to China or Vietnam, where did they get the numbers of any side? From their backend?
Here is the thing, wiki is a web site operated in the west, active writers are westerners or their "good" Vietnamese exiles who are the most fanatic Vietnamese "patriots". These "Vietnamese" would then export their "fact" into Vietnam making the westerners word become common Vietnameses' word. The Vietnamese government would not come out to make corrections that would make China looks any better.
The conclusion is that although disputable, only the official Chinese and Vietnamese reports have some reliability because they are the only ones having access to the battlefield. Any other numbers or speculations are just rubbish propaganda.
My overall point wasn't trying to state that those were reliable figures. It was to portray that it is widely accepted that Vietnam suffered more casualties, hence the claim that the Chinese suffered 100 to 1 KIA is nothing short of pure delusion.
Many Westerners aren't even aware that the conflict went on for nearly a whole decade after 1979.