Sino-Vietnamese War (1979): What was the end results of it ?

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #21
I know they did. But not so close to the Chinese border because they didn't want a repeat of the Korean war.

A lot of the heavy industry Vietnam built was close to the border area and they all got demolished when the PLA left.
Considering how relationships between China and Vietnam were frayed for several years before the war one has to wonder how many industrial facilities were relocated to other parts of the country due to strategic concerns. Vietnam is by no means a blind to it.
 

PiSigma

"the engineer"
Considering how relationships between China and Vietnam were frayed for several years before the war one has to wonder how many industrial facilities were relocated to other parts of the country due to strategic concerns. Vietnam is by no means a blind to it.
Not easy to move everything, and also cost a lot of money that they don't have. It is easier to set up new facilities than move old ones. And Vietnam is one of those countries that have no strategic depth. They can't use Laos or Cambodia anymore because both are aligned with China.
 

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #23
Not easy to move everything, and also cost a lot of money that they don't have. It is easier to set up new facilities than move old ones. And Vietnam is one of those countries that have no strategic depth. They can't use Laos or Cambodia anymore because both are aligned with China.
With reunification of Vietnam they have the whole south to make as strategic depth. And money and depth are rather subjective things, in war time you don't really care about how much you get paid.
 

Viktor Jav

Senior Member
Registered Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #25
Regardless of speculations, the fact is Vietnam is currently decades behind China.
But then again, what Vietnam and China is today has very little to do with the Sino Vietnam war, but rather with economic steps taken by the respective countries afterwards vis a vis the economic opportunities available for them .
 

ougoah

Senior Member
Registered Member
Current Vietnam's GDP (nominal) is $260B, while China's GDP is $14,140B or 54x Vietnamese GDP

Every year China's GDB grows so much, equivalent to 3.2X Vietnamese GDB. Or every 3.75 months, Chinese economy growth is equivalent to Vietnamese GDP
Yes but per capita and per capita after adjusting to PPP is more revealing of actual realities. Of course Vietnam is not as nominally wealthy but China has far greater economy than Switzerland as well except when we consider the whole picture.

All these nations with significantly lower per capita income reveals how much room there is to develop and how many opportunities still exist. If China can get to roughly 50% of the US's per capita GDP, it would have FAR overtaken the US. Since Chinese people are relatively successful in the US, it shows how much potential there is still left in the PRC and this potential if unrealised, can only be attributed to a structural fault since Chinese are second if not the most productive national ethnic group in the US after one single generation. This proves Chinese in PRC can in theory exceed this per capita benchmark if you will. This is a true source of fear for hegemonic players in the west. US is not even close to being highest per capita but it is without a doubt the most technologically and industrially capable, partly due to size but also structure.
 

AndrewS

Captain
Registered Member
There is a difference between abandonment and limited assistance here, just as how China did not intervene in North Korea until they were push till the breaking limit. The USSR knew that this conflict will not require it to assist Vietnam because it is not dire and they will most likely inform Vietnam about that.
The difference is that there was no treaty between China and North Korea.
Nor did North Korea ever expect Chinese assistance, because North Korea fully expected conquer South Korea by itself (and almost did)
China never made a formal commitment to North Korea.

In comparison, Vietnam and the USSR did sign a treaty with military provisions in 1978.
Then the next year, the Chinese military starts a war with Vietnam.

Whilst the USSR may not think it abandoned Vietnam, the Vietnamese most certainly did feel abandoned.

That is what happens when you have a military treaty, and everyone in Vietnam starts thinking, why aren't Soviet soldiers fighting?
 

AndrewS

Captain
Registered Member
I will hardly say that Vietnam was bogged down in an insurgency in Cambodia see how they pulled on their timetable leaving a government that is still existing to this day.
And trade did still happen between Vietnam and the rest of Asia but it was definitely not on the level of today's.
Vietnam had 180,000 soldiers occupying Cambodia.
If you have a 11 year occupation, it is accurate to say Vietnam was bogged down in an insurgency.

---

You also say that the Cambodian government still exists today.
But after the Vietnamese soldiers left, Cambodia was able to pivot towards China, because they do have 2 much larger land neighbours (Vietnam and Thailand)
Now Cambodia looks more like a Chinese client state, which is allowing the construction of Chinese naval and air bases.

---

As per the 1990 CIA Factbook, Vietnam's 2 largest trading partners were a distant USSR and Eastern Europe.
That makes absolutely no sense, unless Vietnam is cutoff from trade with its neighbours (China, ASEAN) and also the West.
That is what happens when you have awful political/economic relations with China, ASEAN and the West.

Even North Korea (which had good relations with China and the USSR) was doing twice as much trade in 1990 than Vietnam was.
 

AndrewS

Captain
Registered Member
During the Cold War, nearly all nations of opposing blocks maintained huge armies. So Vietnam having one is not so big of an issue. The USA was always going to be a issue with Vietnam. And also the VPA was actively involved in economic activities in Vietnam just as how the PLA was in China so it was not a complete drain to Vietnam as one might think, following a trend often seen in soviet style states.
Look at the difference in military personnel in 1984.

USSR: 4.5million
Vietnam: 1.26million

Given the relative size of the population, it means Vietnam was 30% more militarised than the USSR.
And we know what happened to the USSR with its excessive military spending.
Conclusion: Vietnam's excessive military spending was a huge issue, despite what you say.

Yet the Vietnamese military still was inferior to the Chinese military which was some 3-4x bigger in terms of manpower.
Note that in 1984, China had a population some 17x larger than Vietnam, with an even larger economy.
 
Top