• Gucci_Minh [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    True, the Sino Vietnamese war was an L, as expected of post Sino Soviet split Chinese foreign policy. And yeah I had the same concerns over liberalizing too fast, esp in the Jiang and Hu era, but it seems like that’s been reigned in too. Trust the process I guess.

    • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Well this is why I think Deng was right to ensure the CPC maintained leadership within the PRC rather than pursue political liberalization alongside economic liberalization. The CPC may not be perfect. However, I do believe their structures allow them to course correct as needed and advance capable members into leadership.

      That’s why I think they were even able to pull back when Deng’s reforms went to far. It’s also why I think they’ve been able to address corruption and uneven development under Xi.

    • commiespammer@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I might be biased, but didn’t Vietnam repeatedly raid the border with USSR support before China invaded, and withdrew within a few days after taking several cities?

      • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        As far as I’m aware there were border skirmishes prior to China’s invasion. However, there was a context for that. The Sino-Soviet split led to China becoming very suspicious of Vietnam’s motives since they maintained good relations with the USSR. As such, China supported the Khmer Rouge in order to gain influence in the region.

        I don’t have to explain why that was a huge mistake. However for context, Vietnam was forced to invade Cambodia after the Khmer Rouge crossed the border and massacred thousands of Vietnamese civilians. As a consequence Chinese leadership basically believed they had been encircled by the USSR and its allies. IIRC there was a troop buildup at the border as China tried to incite rebellion from ethnic minorities including ethnic Chinese within Vietnam. This is the context for the border skirmishes and the eventual invasion.

        • CCCP Enjoyer@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          For a little more context: The rise of the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot was basically triggered by the US carpet bombing Cambodia. After the US military got thrown the fuck out of Viet Nam, the direct invasion may have ended, but the CIA decided to double down and keep the war going through regional proxy forces, namely the Khmer Rouge, which the CIA was arming, funding and providing military intelligence to. The Khmer Rouge butchered a lot of civilians, but failed pathetically at invading Viet Nam and repelling counterforces. Border regions of Cambodia spent a decade under NVA occupation as a result, while the CIA and KR ran operations out of N. Cambodia and Thailand.

          The CIA also kept stirring up fear and conflict with Viet Nam’s other neighbors, which is where that narrative of “The NVA and USSR won’t stop at the border” came from. My understanding is that the CIA was directly in contact with and trying to convince the PRC that Pol Pot was the real communist revolutionary and needed help, and that the Soviets were using a puppet regime to encircle China. Ofc it was just projection and domino theory bullshit. Deng and the entire PRC should have fucking known better.

      • Gucci_Minh [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        That is correct, there were border raids which prompted the invasion, but the Sino Soviet split is what caused the worsening relations which led to that. Basically, the invasion was cringe, even if there was some justification for it, but what was more cringe was the repudiation of Stalin and the revisionism in the USSR that followed by corn boy.

        • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Idk I think the Sino Soviet split was pretty disastrous and is partially to blame for the fall of the USSR. Even if Khrushchev was wrong to denounce Stalin, there were reasons why Soviet leadership was trying to lower tensions with the west. It’s also not like allying with Nixon and Pol Pot was genuinely a better move geopolitically.