It’s tough being an American. After the last eight years we…lack a certain moral standing in the world. Any comment or criticism directed at human rights or state behavior is met with the immediate response: “Yeah, but you guys invaded Iraq.” Nowhere, perhaps, is this witty rejoinder more commonly heard than in the PRC, with “China has NEVER invaded ANYONE” sure to follow.
Well, it does depend on what you mean by “invade” and “anyone,” but this isn’t a post about Τibet, it’s about Vietnam.
On this date in 1979, the PLA launched a massive invasion of Vietnam with 200,000 troops supported by artillery, and armor.* The assault was an attempt by Beijing to punish that country for toppling the PRC-backed Khmer Rouge government in Cambodia, developing closer ties with the Soviet union, and the treatment of ethnic Chinese in Vietnam.
The result was disaster. Fighting against battle-hardened guerrillas and having made a fateful decision to forgo air cover, PLA casualties were enormous with between 25,000 to 63,000 Chinese soldiers killed. Vietnamese figures range as high as 100,000 soldiers and civilian casualties. By comparison, the total number of US soldiers killed in action during the decade-plus American debacle in Southeast Asia was around 57,000. In any case, by the middle of March, the PRC had called it a draw, declaring Vietnam sufficiently chastened with the two countries engaging in low-level border skirmishes for the better part of the next decade.
The war is almost completely forgotten in China but in Vietnam it is remembered as the last in a series of brutal foreign invasions of their territory. In 1993 I traveled to the “War Crimes Museum” in Ho Chi Minh City and was surprised that almost as much wall space was devoted to the Chinese invasion as to the French and US occupation. Even ten years after the last foreign troops had left, the horrible scars of war still remained all over the country. Ideology aside, I think all can agree on the terrible tragedy suffered by the Vietnamese people during the long decades of occupation and conflict.
In The Guardian, D’arcy Doran interviews Chinese veterans of the conflict. They long for closure even as their government refuses to acknowledge the horrible mistakes and costs of the invasion.
After a year surrounded by death in Vietnam — gripping a machine gun between diving for cover from howitzer fire — Zhou Feng decided to spend the rest of his days protecting life, not ending it.
The former infantryman said the shame he felt at all the death pushed him to study animal medicine when he returned from the front.
Zhou, 45, now works at a veterinary clinic and at home he shelters 30 stray dogs — by coincidence one for each year since the war.
“In China, the government respects history about as much as they respect these dogs,” Zhou said.
Chinese academics are prohibited from studying the war, in part to avoid damaging relations with former foe Vietnam, said Xiaoming Zhang, an associate professor at the US military’s Air War College in Alabama.
Zhang is writing a book about the conflict that he hopes will be the closest thing to a Chinese account of what happened.
“It was Deng Xiaoping‘s war,” Zhang said, adding study of the bloody and inconclusive war may also be banned to prevent it from becoming a “black stain” on the record of the father of China’s economic reform.
The United States of course had its own war in Vietnam and many American veterans have found it difficult to achieve the kind closure that Mr. Zhou also seeks. But the whitewashing of the past for political and ideological purposes does not heal history’s wounds, it simply covers them and causes them to fester.
UPDATE: Also see Benjamin Lim’s post at Reuter’s Changing China blog.
———-
*And before anyone starts, I freely admit that the US has invaded many more countries (including ones like Japan and Germany) than China has in the 20th century. We lead the world in building bombs and finding places to chuck ‘em. That said, given the catastrophic stupidity manifested by the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979, one could argue (tongue in cheek, of course) that it’s not that the PLA doesn’t WANT to invade other countries, it’s just that they really suck at it. Not that US strategy in recent years has been a whole lot better.
Koschei,
While I’m the first to admit that I am not a military history guy, I tried to be careful in differentiating KIA and casualties. The numbers I used came from a number of different history books, I’m not sure where the Guardian got theirs, but I appreciate the insight and the fact-checking. Thanks for stopping by.
Hi Jeremiah,
Just to be an echo, I read the above discussion just the same way Odyssey did. Anyway, I am sure all these comments will be keeping you busy all morning!
cc/Odyssey,
I agree that there are no angels, but (and this is my bad) the opening paragraph was really NOT the point of the piece. Poor essay organization on my part. As I said, I wrote this in 15 minutes and needed an intro, I’ve been surprised by the subsequent way some commenters have taken the whole “never invade” thing and run with it, but it is what it is, and I’ve found the discussion interesting.
I generally use Chinese books when I write these,and (as I’ve said three times so far) I’m well aware of the implications of the terminology, but that’s only one of the issues here. It’s also important to note that in Chinese, as in all languages, the choice of a particular word to describe an event is not a neutral process. George Bush can call the invasion of Iraq a “liberation” and order his spokespeople to only use that term in the hopes that it will stick. Fortunately, it did not. In the PRC, especially in the era under discussion, control of the educational and information environment makes this process a bit easier. Perhaps we need to go back to Confucius and discuss a round of 正名.
Be that as it may, equally important, if not more so, is the way this event has been minimized in the official memory and the educational curriculum.
As Wu Ming ably noted, this focus on terminology becomes a part of that. It’s often easier to argue semantics than dealing with messy historical events.
Finally, I don’t know who has the idea that disagreeing with me=troll, nor did I label anyone on this thread a troll. Pfeffer, Tian, and others have made valid points and have done so in a perfectly respectful manner.
What I was referring to, and those familiar with the China blogosphere are nodding their heads right now, are a group of nutjobs who harangue sites such as The Peking Duck and others.
I’ve been quite fortunate over the years to have avoided infestation by trolls and fenqing (one of the blessings of being an obscure history blog, knock wood) and I’ve always enjoyed the discussions here and have learned a lot from my commenters. I hope future discussions continue in the same way.
Thanks for stopping by.
Actually, I think the expression you used was “the usual suspects” and ”those on the bandwagon with limited intelligence”… I thought to myself, “Is my guy in Beijing trying to compliment me or what??”
Respectfully yours,
the usual suspect 牡丹
Peony,
You are of considerable intelligence and are a most unusual suspect. You are also, however, picking nits. Acknowledging that there are 憤青 in the world is not the same as saying they are among my current group of commenters.
I think enough has been said already. If Jeremiah’s point is to showcase the pathetic state of history education in China which is infested with nationalist propaganda and victim mentality, I think we all agree. Yes, China indeed has invaded Vietnam and perhaps some other “countries”.
I would say though, that many foreign cynics found in the China blogosphere are equally as sickening as some of those Chinese trolls.
picking nits indeed… anything to keep myself out of trouble, right?
Well thank you, Pfeffer. That was certainly one of my points, as well as the awesomely important task of providing anyone attending a cocktail party on Tuesday evening some historical trivia should the conversation become really dull.
As to your second point, I couldn’t agree more, and I’m glad that this thread has remained equally free of both 憤青 and 憤外.
憤外? Wow, that’s a good one! Keep up the good work, Jeremiah!
Somehow, I thought you would appreciate that one. Consider it my gift to you. Cheers.
Go Red Sox.
Hi Jeremiah,
Thanks for your quick response.
Yeah I know you are fully aware that most commentators are not ‘fenqing’, however I feel that you were kind of treating them as they are.
For example, as Peony said, the words you used looks like you are involved in a battle with fenqing. Your announcement of your awareness of fact #2 also seems totally unnecessary to me, had you assumed your reader is not a fenqing. Instead, you should expect interesting discussion come out from picks of your error without worrying misunderstandings.
Anyway, I post the last comment just because I feel your frustration over the comments, and I am happy to know that you enjoy the discussions.
Odyssey,
I see your point. While I haven’t had too many of that particular group here on this site, I have certainly seen their handiwork in other places and I know the types of arguments that are made. Thus I was perhaps guilty of erecting the sort of walls Robert Frost once warned us about.
Thanks for stopping by.
Jeremiah,
You know what? I just realized that you might be correct. I noticed another comment by some previous commentator, which I cannot disagree more.
So maybe a wall is needed even your readers are not fenqing.
“See? On one hand you are saying there is hardly any difference between the two and yet you confirmed yourself there is a difference. ”
Actually, Pfeffer, this is not at all what I said. I said that a) A speaker who links any current action with that of another country is defining the terms for you; b) Since examples of both jinlue (as recent as the late-19th and early 20th century) and rulue exist in Chinese history, regardless of which the speaker is referring to, the speaker is invariably wrong by saying that China has never “invaded” anybody. I never said that the two terms were the same. I just implied that the negation of “invasion” with a “never” makes this topic irrelevant as both have happened before.
Incidentally, my comment then turned back to the forgotten war in Vietnam and its cover-up in China, which is where the discussion of this thread probably should be, right?
Thomas,
Sorry but I don’t see your point (a). If someone tells me “the US invaded Iraq”, a fact that I have no problem with, I might still be reluctant to admit that 中国侵略过任何国家 since in my mind “侵略” is not necessarily the same as “invasion”?
By the way, what do you see the difference between “qinlue” and “ruqin” is? And what are the examples for each?
Cover-up of the war? Even though the official interpretation is self-defense as in “自卫反击战”, but I think it is no secret that Deng Xiaoping famously told Carter that “we will teach them a lesson” and people know China didn’t invade Vietnam simply because the Vietnamese allegedly persecuted ethnic Chinese.
peony – i haven’t read the book on herodotus, unfortunately, as i’ve been splitting my time between reading up on the liao, and the usual grant season madness. so many books, so little time.
i studied abroad in vietnam in late 1996, and then passed through again as a backpacker around têt in 2000. both times i got an earful about the chinese, complete with historical litany of plucky vietnamese victories, more often than not involving the bach dang spikes-in-the-river trick. hué was beautiful in an ozymandian sort of way, but my favorite places were hoi an and hoan kiem lake in hanoi. truly a beautiful country.
afraid i can’t help you on the 玄/元 thing. i have pretensions about eventually doing yuan stuff, but haven’t actually gotten out of the song as of yet.
Ah, the spike in the river trick! Yes, if I had a dong for everytime I heard that tale! And, hey, the same thing happened to me once– no matter how hard I tried, I could not find my way out of the Song dynasty. It took me years to break out. So, good luck.
I will leave you with how Kapuscinski described Herodus’ vast project (because I like it so much):
Without memory one cannot live, for it is what elevates man above beasts, determines the contours of the human soul; and yet at the same time so unreliable, elusive, treacherous. It is precisely what makes man so unsure of himself. Wait, wasn’t that…? Come on, you can remember, when was that…? Wasn’t it the one that…? Try to remember, how was it…? We do not know, and stretching beyond that “we do not know” is the vast realm of ignorance; in other words- of nonexistence.
To never forget…
Once again, I did not say they are the same. We are in agreement there. And I won’t be drawn into an “I will recite dictionary terms for you with examples so that we can discuss ad nauseum your/my conceptions of semantic differences” when, as I have said twice now, these differences make little difference in context as examples of both exist in Chinese history.
I will instead refer you to your post 13. Yes, you have done the dictionary work yourself. And I will say that myself and others in this site have already provided historical examples of both. Whether you personally agree with those examples or not is not my affair. After all, my comment 36 was not solely directed at you.
My concern at your comment 44 was that you assigned a meaning to my statement that was clearly not present. Moreover, I am beginning to wonder what your motivation is of taking this point in circles.
I applaud Jeremiah for his insightful post and look for more to come.
But Frost said: “Good fences make good neighbors”
Oh, and Go Yankees!
with memory one cannot live; without forgetting, one goes mad from distraction.
Gee Thomas, my motivations “of taking this point in circles”? Yeah, I was actually paid by the evil Chinese government to mess up a perfectly fine subject that Jeremiah started.
Just to clarify myself: Yes, China has invaded Vietnam and perhaps other “countries”. However, in the case of war with Vietnam I consider it “ruqin”, not “qinlue”. Now I graciously ask you to provide examples of China “qinlue” other countries since you said both existed. Thank you.
Folks, while I doubt anybody here is on the PRC payroll, we’ve discussed semantics over the course of several circles to the point where we are all starting to vaguely resemble racing greyhounds with tongues a-lolling.
Pfeffer: You might think of at as “ruqin,” just as George Bush might call the Iraqi Invasion a “liberation.” But many, including the Vietnamese, would disagree with your characterization. “Qinlue” is a Chinese word. But as I said earlier, the act of naming an event is not a neutral process. Given its connotation, it would be surprising if the Chinese used the word to describe their own actions. Just as the English word “massacre” is used by the victims of an event far more often than by those who write history from the perspective of the perpetrators. But other languages have words too, and while those languages do not contain the specific Chinese word “qinlue,” they have other terms and expressions of similar meaning…in Vietnamese, Tibetan, etc. And those words have been applied to Chinese actions in the past.
Sam: It was my understanding that Frost was being ironic, and enjoy the A-Roid era.
Wu Ming: Wise as always.
Thanks everyone for a fascinating discussion. I hope we have more in the future.