UPSET for what? You do realize that the US is a nuclear power? Think of it for a second if you are in our shoes. We just fought hard in the Korean War and you wanted us to support your invasion of the South and force a direct confrontation with the US's nuclear power? What funny is why are you upsetting of our betrayal but NOT the Soviet? It wasn't as if it's a secret deal between China-US. The Soviet was heavily involved and agreed with us to make a deal at the 38th parallel.
lol why are you asking me those questions? I didn’t said I was upset, I was referring to the north Vietnamese leaders being upset. And yes, China had her own interests and has the right to persue her own interests with respect to the Soviet+US+China geopolitical dynamics. But I must mention that China too had ill-intentions against Vietnam regardless of the Soviet-US dynamic:
Following a Party congress in December, it was announced that reunification would be completed by April 30, 1976...China refrained from sending any personal greetings and Peking would certainly have preferred Vietnam to remain divided and thus relatively weak.
...The Chinese reaction betrayed Peking’s long-standing fear that Vietnam should emerge as a powerful state threatening Chinese power and influence in the region. It had not escaped Hanoi’s notice that Peking had sought for several years to jeopardize Vietnamese chances for rapid reunification in the hope that it might delay or halt the strengthening of its southern neighbor.
Source: Cécile Menétrey-Monchau.
American-Vietnamese Relations in the Wake of War: Diplomacy After the Capture of Saigon. (pg. 52-53)
What I quoted is just common knowledge in Vietnam. China had wanted Vietnam to be just strong enough to exist as a buffer state between the US-allied South VN and the Chinese boarder, but want Vietnam to remain divided and weak.
I think your own fellow Chinese countrymen (Kiss of Dragon) summarized it best from his Chinese perspective: that Vietnam is just something to be used and then to be disposed of when it can no longer serve any purpose. I would say that is a very honest and Chinese perspective.
The Chinese looks down on you because you bite the hand that feed you. Let remember, we don't have to support you whatsoever in the Vietnam War. Absolutely none! You haven't' done jack shit or aid us in any of our conflicts.
Was it really a case of VN biting the hands that feed it or was it a case of China being a “turncoat” so Vietnam reacted accordingly? or worse, was it a case of Vietnam seeing through China’s ill-intentions against VN from the beginning and reacted accordingly?
Of course I can’t draw any conclusion yet about China with only that one source, I would need to provide more. So please give me some time to post those up.
Okay the question of repayment was surmised reaction to
Vietnam's Soviet-era dept.
Sino-Soviet split needs to be understood as it preceded and contributed to the Sino-Viet split.
I further add that during the Korean war, aid to N Korea from both the Soviet's and China, was to be repaid (later both countries strategically erased this dept for influence within N Korea). Post Korea China found itself in further dept which crippled it's economy for years buying weapons from the Soviet's.
Contradicting the promoted ethos - communist spirit of helping one another, China's Mao disappointed, commented "Soviets seem more like arms merchants". Mao was also disappointed with the way China was treated like a junior in the communist alliance having its war plans pass through the Kremlin.
This definitely echoed China's behavior toward Vietnam during Vietnam war with conditional aid and planning having to pass China's command - this was why I automatically suggest that there was a 'repayment'.
The Viet-Soviet-Russia case is different. Russia/Soviet can legally ask VN for repayments since VN legally owes the Soviet/Russia. It’s because both parties have signed legally binding agreements for loans and credits, even from the 1960s, with stipulations that VN needs to pay them back. And they were still legally binding even after the Soviet had collapsed. This was what Russia had asked for and they were legally entitled to do so.
That was not the case for VN-China. I guess we can attribute this to the European social ethos (which I would include Soviet Russia just only for this specific case) where it was primarily based on Social contract with an emphasis on things getting agreed to and signed with ink on paper. You probably already know about the alternative Confucian ethos, with its emphasis on the virtues whereby a good man is expected to have the moral sense to perceive what is wrong and right and how to behave accordingly during social interactions in accordance to confucian moral norms, so less emphasis on the “ink on paper” contracts were needed. I think you can see this kind of ethos in daily encounters, a little gesture here and there, without any written or verbal contractual agreements, but it is still expected that you will perceive the meanings and significance behind those gestures and respond in accordance to moral norms. This is offtopic and belongs to another thread, but my point is that the Chinese cannot talk about repayments, betrayal, etc. in legal terms like how the Russian could (the Russian can do this with VN just by showing the signed legal documents). I can end this thread easily just by looking at it from a legal perspective: there are no existing legal documents to show that VN owes China or who betrayed who, and vice versa. Case closed.
However, many Chinese members still talk about repayments, betrayal, deeds and ingratitude in reference to the VN-CN relation, then it means that they were talking in terms of morality and not on law. I will also write from this moral perspective. So even though there are no legal documents to show that VN owes or had betrayed China, they can argue that VN still owed something from the moral perspective.
The difference between the legal and moral approach is that morality can be (and often is) independent from legal contracts. If I’ve made a legally binding agreement to transfer to you my house, I am legally binded by it regardless of your later immoral conducts like stealing my girlfriend and eating my dog, as long as those actions were not mentioned in the contract. In the moral approach, all moral/immoral actions need to be taken into account, they are all interdependent. So sure, I could give you a house without any legal conditions and from the moral perspective, you would owe me something in return, like favors, friendship, etc. However, unlike the legal approach, my other immoral actions will affect this dynamic. If I steal your girlfriend, eat your dog, beat up your parents and burn down your other 2 houses, then my previous gesture would be now meaningless. You would no longer owe me things like favors or friendship. I am not saying China had done these things, just pointing out the differences between the legal and moral approach.
And many Chinese members here often use the moral approach but only cherry pick a certain gesture and actions their country have made in the past and interpret it in a way to paint their country as the saint, the helper, while ignoring their other actions. I want to approach this by looking at the VN-CN relation more holistically by examining other Chinese actions and looking at other interpretations.
