• miz [any, any]
    ·
    11 hours ago

    I haven't researched the China-Vietnam conflict enough yet but even in the fucked-up foreign policy of the Sino-Soviet split, from what I understand the motivations were punitive and not to occupy territory. three and a half weeks is not enough time to do much "occupation", I would be interested to find out if there was any meaningful interaction with the civilian population, i.e. did they have to set up any infrastructure at all

    • Dolores [love/loves]
      ·
      10 hours ago

      three and a half weeks is not enough time to do much "occupation",

      on the basis that the other map was painted, it absolutely qualifies. yankee troops were never in Bulgaria until it joined NATO, but merely being in the axis/central powers they're dark red on the map

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Yeah, I don't think Vietnam counts as any sort of occupation. It is an instance of a war of aggression by China though. I do consider it to be a mistake on the part of Chinese leadership, but the reality is that every society makes mistakes. Societies run by communists aren't immune from that, and that's just life.

      In my view, the question is always how these societies compare to other real world alternatives. Even if we take the most critical view of China in cases of Vietnam, it's clear that there is no comparison with the US. The path of development China took is overwhelmingly peaceful, and one that helped improved life both in China and in many other nations around the world.