QUOTE(ChinaSoldier6 @ Apr 1 2009, 10:45 PM) [snapback]4185174[/snapback]
thank you for explaining subtly I have won a good image with you
It's not helpful if some Vietnamese are always seeing enemies in the shadows. Just reading some of these comments make me understand how difficult it would have been to maintain relations after 1975. I don't think Vietnamese should deny China put all its heart into helping Vietnam win its liberation. Maybe both sides felt short of engaging good politics after 1975
, but if you think about the issues that led to conflict, they were just very silly. I think China should have recognized Vietnam has some legitimacy to express its nationalism after unification, on the other hand Vietnam should have paid more respect to china's big brother position.
By 1978 Deng said China had spent $20 billion to help Vietnam. The average GDP of China over that period was only about $150 billion. One quarter of government expenditure was on defense, and so little consumption was available to the growing population.
China supplied Vietnam's 1975 offensive even at a time it desperately needed to build relations with USA. China gave Vietnam priority in weapons over its own troops. In 1979 Chinese infantry were armed with only semi automatic rifle.
In the bold sentences. I'd like to clarify what is truth and what is sugar-coated fact.
In politics, everyone is for himself. Beijing did what it has to in order to protect her self-interest. So does everybody.
On the first bold sentence (first point), this is what you see if you look everything under the hood:
Knowing the US had created a buffer zone as a checkpoint in China's back-door on the Northeastern front, Korea. Vietnam would likely be the next Korea, US's southern checkpoint on China. Thus, Beijing would give an arm and a leg to avoid the same situation in Korea. Another important note to keep in mind, Vietnam had two arm suppliers, and the other one was Russia. Beijing was competing with Moscow for the geopolitical influence in the Southeast Asian region. Fearing Moscow would win over Hanoi which mean a buffer zone would be created in China's back-door in the same way the US would if South Vietnam wins. Beijing faced a dilemma. It doesn't matter if either side of the two Vietnam wins or loses, a buffer zone would be created in her back-door. Therefore, Beijing had no choice but to compete with Moscow to bring Hanoi to her side by being an arm supplier.
On the second point, this is main reason for the fall-out between Beijing and Hanoi.
On the eve of North Vietnam's push toward Saigon in 1975, Beijing took this opportunity to attack and to seize Vietnam's territory, Paracel Islands, then South Vietnam's sovereign. Hanoi then sided with Moscow in order to keep the supply-line flowing. Beijing was bitter at Hanoi and vowed to "teach her a lesson", made a deal with the US to not intervene in her affair and by pulling in Cambodia to surround Vietnam the same way Moscow and US had been doing. What's in it for the US on this deal? Beijing would be US's tool for further checking the "domino effect in Southeast Asian bloc". What's in it for Cambodia? South Vietnam, her long lost territory. And what's in it for Beijing? just a bitter old man, Deng Xiaoping. That is why the 1979 incursion into Vietnam was called Deng Xiaoping's war.
In short, politics is a dirty business. Nothing comes as a free lunch. There is no such thing as charity work.
Another fact for you to ponder on. After the war, Vietnam had to pay Moscow for the arm suppliers in the form of exporting commodities.
If Beijing was in the same shoes as Moscow, the same would happen, even worse, more lost territory. This would be the same if South
Vietnam had won. The beneficiary in this case, US.
The laughing Buddha has spoken. Good day!