Calling it "historical baggage between them" is problematic both-sidesing tbh.
The Han Empire, then the Yuan Empire then the Ming Empire then the PRC all invaded Vietnam for purely selfish reasons and the Vietnamese people either beat back these invasions or were exploited by the Chinese ruling class for hundreds of years. The people of Vietnam never threatened or invaded China and have never been in a position where there was a credible threat of that happening. The conflict doesn't go both ways and presenting it as if it does isn't great as it puts pressure on the oppressed to make it up to the oppressor rather than vice versa.
Agreed. Its marginally better now, i mean, i can umderstand the realpolitik of selling the filipino govt weapons, but just about everything China did involving SEA/Vietnam/khmer rouge was utter trash policy.
If anything, one could say it makes China (of that period) the "2nd world imperielists" Mao accussed the USSR of being, prehaps the purpose of his dogshit 3 worlds theory was to obfuscate these circumstances.
Edit: and i love Mao, but he was just straight wrong here so props to my boi Enver Hoxher for calling him out on that shit.
It seems like when the Sino Soviet split happened, China just sided the opposite of the USSR to get back at them. Astoundingly stupid and will bite them in the back when the new Cold War takes off.
it's a shame about the thousand years of historical baggage between them
Calling it "historical baggage between them" is problematic both-sidesing tbh.
The Han Empire, then the Yuan Empire then the Ming Empire then the PRC all invaded Vietnam for purely selfish reasons and the Vietnamese people either beat back these invasions or were exploited by the Chinese ruling class for hundreds of years. The people of Vietnam never threatened or invaded China and have never been in a position where there was a credible threat of that happening. The conflict doesn't go both ways and presenting it as if it does isn't great as it puts pressure on the oppressed to make it up to the oppressor rather than vice versa.
I see now how it sounds both-sidesy, I didn't intend it that way and I should have been more descriptive about how asymmetric it was
All g.
Thanks for being a comrade.
Why did the PRC invade Vietnam?
Sino Soviet split. Vietnam on Soviet side.
Cambodia (Khmer Rouge) was on China-US side.
Khmer Rouge starts genociding Vietnamese because they’re insane ultra-Maoists.
Vietnam invades and installs a classic Soviet government.
China invades Vietnam, capturing three cities before retreating, as a way of telling Vietnam to fuck off.
Vietnam doesn’t fuck off until the USSR falls, at which point the UN restores the Cambodian monarchy.
khmer rouge was never on US side. the monarchy was allied with US and fought the communists.
deleted by creator
Agreed. Its marginally better now, i mean, i can umderstand the realpolitik of selling the filipino govt weapons, but just about everything China did involving SEA/Vietnam/khmer rouge was utter trash policy. If anything, one could say it makes China (of that period) the "2nd world imperielists" Mao accussed the USSR of being, prehaps the purpose of his dogshit 3 worlds theory was to obfuscate these circumstances.
Edit: and i love Mao, but he was just straight wrong here so props to my boi Enver Hoxher for calling him out on that shit.
It seems like when the Sino Soviet split happened, China just sided the opposite of the USSR to get back at them. Astoundingly stupid and will bite them in the back when the new Cold War takes off.