"China Contributed Substantially to Vietnam War Victory," Topic

…Claims Scholar

"For the past several decades, the Vietnam War has been the subject of intense scrutiny in the United States. Documentary films, best-selling books by veterans, Maya Lin's moving Vietnam Veterans Memorial -- all have spurred the debate over how to interpret this controversial war. Seldom, however, have people in the United States ever examined the war from anything other than their own standpoint. How did the Europeans view the war? And what was the extent of the involvement by the two major Communist powers, Russia and China?

Recently, historian Qiang Zhai visited the Woodrow Wilson Center to talk about his new book China and the Vietnam Wars, 1950-1975. Zhai has written extensively on China and its participation in the Cold War. His latest work gleans new insights on China's role in Vietnam from documents that were recently released by the Chinese government…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

I don't think that's news really. It doesn't get 'hyped up' by the Vietnamese as the story is 'we did it ourselves' and in the US people barely know anything about that period in history.

But even a basic study of the history shows how important Chinese help was. Without the 300 000 + Chinese troops in Northern Vietnam the US might have launched a land invasion or even used nuclear weapons.

Dunno.

Reading the blurb it struck me that the topic really should (stress should) have some mileage in it. Vietnamese and Chinese have always been at loggerheads, if not actually at war, but undoubtedly buried the hatchet here. Practical support, in manpower and kit from China, the deterrent value of Chinese troops at target sites could be well worth analysis. Even more, how much of a restraining influence was PRC (or the converse).

The snag is how much documentation is "freely available"? This book can only be as good as the archive source access allows.

I think it's been long acknowledged that Chinese technicians helped with the SAMs and MiGs [perhaps flying some] and 300 000 troops were present for much of the time. North Koreans were also involved – some as psyops specialists – but that was no deterrent to US escalation. Some Chinese and Koreans were killed.

I agree a lot of information is still secret – on all sides.

My assessment is without Chinese troops there would have been no reason not to use nuclear weapons. It was discussed at least – Kissinger was against it – on the taped recordings we have.

Anyway – I repeat the basic idea is not news to me. The book is dated 2001, so yeah. Not exactly hot off the press.

Totally missed that. "Recently" and "new" applies to Jan 1st 2001 indeed……

Yes it is pretty certain that the Chinese were supporting the North. And in large numbers and massive amounts of all classes of supplies. When the US SF made the Son Tay Raid into North Vietnam in '70. Reports said they killed a lot of Chinese at that location. I've heard from a number of sources including someone who was in SF at that time.

My assessment is without Chinese troops there would have been no reason not to use nuclear weapons. It was discussed at least – Kissinger was against it – on the taped recordings we have.

I don't beleive that this action would have been taken even if very seriously discussed. Just like supporting the French at DBP with massive US B-29 strikes.

Albeit the presence of PRC and to a lesser extent the USSR having troops of some sort being there. Is one reasons we were a little circumspect about turning certain cities, harbors, etc., into wastelands using just HE, etc., and no WMDs. Because of the collateral damage it could do to Chinese and Russian military there.

But I think it was well known to the US gov't how much Nukes would "damage" almost all of the North and the surrounding areas, i.e. the PRC. And might give the Chinese or even the USSR reason to retaliate in kind even if just on the South.

Not to mention the fallout from a US Nuke strike(s) on the North would certainly have effected the US/SEATO troops there in the South as well with fallout, etc. Unless they planned on pulling out everyone before they Nuked the North into oblivion. As well as Thailand, Laos and Cambodia would suffer directly or indirectly from fallout, etc., as well.

So regardless I don't think many in the US Gov't really thought using Nukes would be "desirable". As mentioned Kissinger thought it was not the "answer", either …

Not new… but how many books/documents do you read about that…? (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Very true …

Hard to say now if the US would have resorted to nuclear weapons. There was not much left they didn't do after all.

It was discussed at least. More than once. It would not have been 'the answer' for sure.

I think I would edit my sentence above to say 'less reason' rather than 'no reason'.

Yes, even when it was discussed, as I said, the collateral damage to everyone and everything in area/region would not be a good outcome.

And let's admit it is generally hard to be surgical with nukes. But it can be done … to a point … As I have mentioned before. I was the additional duty of an Atomic Demolition Mission Officer when I was in the 101, 80-'83. So those are basically back pack nukes. But I'd think if the US was to use Nukes it would have been on Hanoi and Haiphong, and maybe a few other select targets.

Fortunately we'll never really know. But as I have said before. I really won't care how many VC/NVA, their leadership, etc., would have be "gone" to end that war.