Before reading this article, please click "Follow" to facilitate your discussion and sharing. This article is only published in today's headlines, and no platform is allowed to carry it, and it must be investigated!
Why do Viet Nam think that Viet Nam "won" the border war?
Wars between Large and Small Countries in History: Differences in Evaluation in Sino-Vietnamese Border Wars
Why are wars so much disputed, and why is it so difficult to know whether they will win or lose? Historically, the confrontation between large and small countries has often led to diametrically opposed conclusions from different perspectives. In the Sino-Vietnamese border war, for example, China had the upper hand with its strong military strength, but eventually chose to withdraw its troops; Viet Nam, on the other hand, defended its territory with stubborn resistance, believing that it had won. This kind of evaluation reflects the complexity of judging historical events.
From China's point of view, the war was undoubtedly a victory. At that time, the Chinese army broke through quickly and approached Hanoi, the capital of Viet Nam, and dealt a heavy blow to the other side. It can be said that it completely destroyed the infrastructure of northern Viet Nam and directly threatened the survival of Viet Nam. But in the end, China chose to stop in time to avoid a long war of attrition. This move not only prevented the war from further expanding, but also dragged down Viet Nam and its ally the Soviet Union, killing two birds with one stone. From the point of view of the interests of the great powers, China is undoubtedly the winner of the war.
However, if you look at it from the perspective of the Viet Nam, the outcome of this war is very different. Viet Nam textbooks and folklore describe the war as "the stubborn resistance of the Viet Nam army that repelled the invasion from the north." The Viet Nam believed that although they were once in danger, they eventually won by forcing China to withdraw from Viet Nam territory by virtue of their bloody struggle.
The reason for this is, first of all, the propaganda strategy of the Viet Nam government. As a socialist country, the Viet Nam government will not admit its defeat, otherwise it will mean the shaking of the regime. As a result, they heavily promoted the image of the Viet Nam army fighting valiantly, covering up their own military defeats. This continuous "brainwashing" has made Viet Nam gradually identify with and internalize this "victory" narrative.
Another reason stems from the psychological expectations of the Viet Nam themselves. In the face of powerful China, the Viet Nam at that time were quite desperate in their hearts, and even prepared to die in the country. But in the end, China chose to withdraw its troops, which undoubtedly relieved the Viet Nam to believe that they had defeated the formidable northern invaders. Thus, from this point of view, the Viet Nam did realize their "victory" aspirations.
It can be said that the difference in the evaluation of this war reflects a microcosm of the complexity of historical events. Standing on different positions and perspectives, even in the face of the same facts, people will come to diametrically opposite conclusions. This also shows that when interpreting history, we need to maintain an objective and rational attitude, and try to take into account the views of multiple stakeholders, so as to understand the ins and outs of events more comprehensively.
Behind this difference in views is also a reflection of the disparity of power between large and small countries. For a small country, being able to defend its territory in the face of great power is already a kind of "victory". As far as the major powers are concerned, the victory or defeat of a war does not only depend on military strength, but also on the realization of strategic goals. Although China eventually chose to give up, from the perspective of the interests of a major country, it can be regarded as achieving its goal.
It can be said that the evaluation of historical events often needs to take into account the perspectives of multiple stakeholders in order to be more comprehensive and objective. When interpreting the gains and losses of the Sino-Vietnamese border war, we should abandon the simple dualism of "victory and defeat", but focus on the complexity of the incident and deeply explore the motives and demands of all parties. Only in this way can we better understand the truth of history and draw useful enlightenment from it.