What's new

Chinese coast guard opens fire on Vietnamese ship

Chinese should feel ashamed when their army used warships to bully fishermen, who don't have any weapons...




That article by a Chinese - Xiaobing Li , however they could not deny the fact can not be hidden, that is huge shame of the PLA. Please read the red line:


What the PLA Learned in Vietnam, 1979
From A History of the Modern Chinese Army, by Xiaobing Li (U. Press of Kentucky, 2007), pp. 255-256, 258-259 (footnote references omitted):

Some Chinese soldiers called it a “painful, little war.” Vietnamese troops avoided battle and instead harassed PLA forces. Some Chinese officers described it as a “ghost war,” since the enemy troops were almost invisible, or a “shadow war,” since it seemed they were fighting against their own shadows. The Vietnamese troops employed the same tactics, made the same moves, and used the same weapons as the Chinese. They knew exactly what the Chinese were trying to do. They exploited almost every problem and weakness the Chinese had. The Chinese troops had to fight their own problems first before they could fight the Vietnamese. Deng’s border war taught the PLA a hard lesson….

Many of the PLA’s commanding officers were shocked by the poor discipline, low morale, combat ineffectiveness, and high casualties in the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War. During the nineteen days of the first two phases, the PLA suffered 26,000 casualties, about 1,350 per day. Gerald Segal points out that in Vietnam, “in contrast to Korea, Chinese troops performed poorly. In Korea, they adequately defended North Korea, but in 1979 they failed to punish Vietnam. China’s Cambodian allies were relegated to a sideshow along the Thai frontier, and China was unable to help them break out.”

During the war, 37,300 Vietnamese troops were killed, and 2,300 were captured. The Soviet Union surprised the Vietnamese by refusing to get involved in the conflict. On February 18, Moscow had denounced China’s aggression and promised that the Soviet Union would keep its commitments according to the Soviet-Vietnam cooperation and friendship treaty. Then, however, the Soviet Union did not make any major moves. Russian military intelligence did increase its reconnaissance planes and ships in the South China Sea and along the Vietnamese coast after China’s invasion. On February 24, two Russian transport planes landed at Hanoi and unloaded some military equipment. Most countries maintained a neutral position during the Sino-Vietnamese War.

The brief war was a grievous misfortune for both China and Vietnam, not only because it resulted in material and human losses for both nations but also because it brought years of earlier cooperation to a dispiriting conclusion. The war showed that American belief in the domino theory was misplaced, since two Communist countries, one of which had just attained national liberation, were now in conflict with each other. Each valued its own national interests much more than the common Communist ideology. On February 27, 1979, Deng told American journalists in Beijing that “Vietnam claims itself as the third military superpower in the world. We are eliminating this myth. That’s all we want, no other purpose. We don’t want their territory. We make them to understand that they can’t do whatever they want to all the times.”

Hanoi believed, however, that the Vietnamese army had taught the Chinese army a lesson. One [People's Army of Vietnam] general said that China lost militarily and beat a hasty retreat: “After we defeated them we gave them the red carpet to leave Vietnam.” As Henry J. Kenny points out, “Most Western writers agree that Vietnam had indeed outperformed the PLA on the battlefield, but say that with the seizure of Lang Son, the PLA was poised to move into the militarily more hospitable terrain of the Red River Delta, and thence to Hanoi.” Kenny, however, points out that Lang Son is less than twelve miles from the Chinese border but is twice that distance from the delta. Moreover, at least five PAVN divisions remained poised for a counterattack in the delta, and thirty thousand additional PAVN troops from Cambodia, along with several regiments from Laos, were moving to their support. Thus the PLA would have taken huge losses in any southward move toward Hanoi.
 
Please show some common sense. I was not talking about the geography. A nation means one flag, one constitution, one central government and one unified administration . India before britishers were divided in diffrent monarchies and there were no nation called India. it was after britishers they keep all the territories together. God. :hitwall:
Read my post again.....

OK, according to YOUR definition of a "NATION", India wasn't a nation before the British invaded i.e India was not unified under one central govt, had no flag, no defined constitution etc. i.e in short India did not have the REPUBLIC status back then.......

Now tell me, according to YOUR definition of a "NATION", was China a "NATION", when It was attacked and defeated????
THE First Opium War commenced on 1839.
The Second Opium War commenced on 1856.
The First Sino-Japanese War commenced on 1894.
The Second Sino-Japanese War commenced on 1937.
BUT The People's Republic of China was established on October 1, 1949
Thus, what we know as China today, had a flag, a constitution, a central govt. only from 1949 (like, what we know as India today, had a flag, a constitution, a central govt. only from 1950)

So, according to your own logic, you cannot judge their performance in the Opium Wars, as they were not a "NATION"(under Qing Dynasty) back then.
AND their performance in the Sino-Japanese wars is absolutely understandable as they were themselves having a civil war(1927 – 1949 between ROC and PRC) at that time.

So, you are defying your own logic here.....I suggest, you should learn some History before debating on historical facts.
 
OK, according to YOUR definition of a "NATION", India wasn't a nation before the British invaded i.e India was not unified under one central govt, had no flag, no defined constitution etc. i.e in short India did not have the REPUBLIC status back then.......

Now tell me, according to YOUR definition of a "NATION", was China a "NATION", when It was attacked and defeated????
THE First Opium War commenced on 1839.
The Second Opium War commenced on 1856.
The First Sino-Japanese War commenced on 1894.
The Second Sino-Japanese War commenced on 1937.
BUT The People's Republic of China was established on October 1, 1949 (i.e China had a flag, a constitution, a central govt. only from 1949)

Thus, you are defying your own logic.....I suggest, you should learn some History before debating on historical facts.

Those guys are forced to learn other's history (CPC version only) so much so that they forget theirs. And sometimes they are caught offguard ;)
 
OK, according to YOUR definition of a "NATION", India wasn't a nation before the British invaded i.e India was not unified under one central govt, had no flag, no defined constitution etc. i.e in short India did not have the REPUBLIC status back then.......

Now tell me, according to YOUR definition of a "NATION", was China a "NATION", when It was attacked and defeated????
THE First Opium War commenced on 1839.
The Second Opium War commenced on 1856.
The First Sino-Japanese War commenced on 1894.
The Second Sino-Japanese War commenced on 1937.
BUT The People's Republic of China was established on October 1, 1949
Thus, what we know as China today, had a flag, a constitution, a central govt. only from 1949 (like, what we know as India today, had a flag, a constitution, a central govt. only from 1950)

So, according to your own logic, you cannot judge their performance in the Opium Wars, as they were not a "NATION"(under Qing Dynasty) back then.
AND their performance in the Sino-Japanese wars is absolutely understandable as they were themselves having a civil war(1927 – 1949 between ROC and PRC) at that time.

So, you are defying your own logic here.....I suggest, you should learn some History before debating on historical facts.

See you are not getting it again. China has one dynasty which was ruling whole China. Qing Kingdom had all administration and security systems applied to whole china.Go through the links.
Taiping Heavenly Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Qing Dynasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the case of India different parts were ruling by different rulers. So when Moghals , Britishers, Alexander, Afghans attacked they attacked those small parts was given resistance by rulers. For instance Alexander attacked Porus 's state and not all India.We fught 1962,1965,1971 wars as a Indian nation.So we never faced an aggression as a nation. Whether China fought aggressors as one nation and under one dynasty.You got my point? Waiting for an answer.
 
Indians had to drag this and make it off topic again? typical inferiority complex again cmon..
 
Back
Top Bottom