关于越南我知道得不多

Quora 阅后即焚

There have been four well documented invasions of Vietnam by China with last being in the late 70s, none have been a success, even though the first three included the occupation of Hanoi and all of the Red River Plains and Delta (this is the rice bowl of Vietnam and the main area from which her Kingdoms wealth was generated).

The most famous defeat was of the Chinese Mongol Army by a far smaller and more lightly armed Vietnamese force and last was not a defeat of the Chinese PLA but it was not a victory for the invaders either. The Chinese suffered huge losses in men and material and were forced into a tactical withdrawal but not defeated, out played, out fought, out manoeuvred with appalling supply chain problems yes, true.

This punishment of the PLA by the Vietnamese lead to the total re-organisation of the PLA along it current lines. Lines which XI has radically proposed to change for the first time in 25 years.

Although the anti China lobby on Quora might not like this, the fact is China is a learning nation and since 1949 and especially since the end of the Gang of Four era she taken a much more secular and non Confucianist view of Chinese history and military history,she is smarter and better informed. So while the noisy red patriot brigade have one view about military might, hegemony over tiny islands and the China at the top of the natural order in Asia blah blah blah, luckily sensible heads run both foreign policy and military strategy and they know its easy to invade Vietnam but very hard to hold it so there is no reward. They also know China depends on trade and good will, Vietnam with a population of 90 million and huge global diaspora has huge amounts of good will is a risky and poor choice of victim to demonstrate military prowess, and attacking them will have a negative impact on China, politically, economically, socially and mentally if casualties are high.

Written Feb 11 · View Upvotes
Upvote9DownvoteComment
Lingyi Guo
Lingyi Guo, Knows something about something
1.8k Views
If you have that thought you have probably watched too much TV shows that tries to tell you that China is a powerful and dangerous facist country. The idea of invading Vietnam will sound absurd to most Chinese people, because why? What's good for China to invade Vietnam? Those islands in South China Sea do worth something, but not as much that we'd go to war with Vietnam. Even if CCP is an authoritarian government, it does not make its leaders stupid.

ONE DOES NOT SIMPLY GO TO WAR
WITH VIETNAM...

Written May 22, 2015 · View Upvotes
Upvote23DownvoteComments2+
Brian Collins
Brian Collins, I am a graduate student of linguistics and interested in many things.
631 Views
I think it is possible, but it did not work out so well the last time China tried in 1979.

If Vietnam has shown one thing, it is that you cannot simply try to occupy a single portion of their country without taking the rest. For China to have any hope of success, they would have to take the whole thing... the whole 1,700 km long thing. Only holding a single part allows for guerrilla fighters to be trained in other parts of the country.

China does not have the military (particularly the air force and naval technology and armaments) necessary to do this quickly or with minimal casualties the way the US did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Chinese military operations have a long history of being very long, hard, and costly, with the exception of Tibet.

The Chinese military has improved significantly since 1990, but largely in defensive areas. They have one type of stealth fighter, and no stealth bombers, and most of their new missiles are anti-air and anti-sattelite, and anti-ship and not very tested against moving targets (I believe the "carrier killing" missile was tested on a completely stationary carrier sized outline in the Gobi Desert).

It would probably take months for the PLA to cross the whole of Vietnam, and the entire region, from the Japan to Thailand, would be arming the Vietnamese all the while. Chinese military planes over Vietnam may find themselves being shot down by mysterious highly trained F-16s, bearing Vietnamese flags, but whose pilots are speaking fluent American and Australian English... or even Japanese.
Written Feb 12 · View Upvotes
Upvote7DownvoteComment
Suppanut Jongjitaree
Suppanut Jongjitaree
1k Views
There is no real reason for China invade Vietnam today. Cost of doing that would be higher than benefit it would gain. Last time China at war with Vietnam in 1978 is more about show commitment for cementing tie with USA and its allies more than what they would gain from actual military conquest. That why 1 month of inconclusive war is enough, battlefield outcomes was not really important for China in this war. (although they admit that they loss face from battlefield outcome)
Written May 12, 2015 · View Upvotes
Upvote6DownvoteComment
Talis Pähn
Talis Pähn, I read more than the headlines.
1k Views
Vietnam is a VERY, VERY, VERY militarized country, it does not show in it's public image, but nearly every able man is ready to defend the country should the need arise.

Also, China tried. Sino-Vietnamese War
Written May 21, 2015 · View Upvotes
Upvote18DownvoteComment1
Girish Rangaswamy
Girish Rangaswamy, Indian armed forces fanboy
1.1k Views
China did try invading Vietnam and kinda got beaten up by the battle hardened Vietnamese way back in the 80s.
Sino-Vietnamese War
Written May 12, 2015 · View Upvotes
Upvote13DownvoteComments5+
George Huang
George Huang, Not only a Chinese but a world citizen
805 Views
Well, sir. To be honest, my first reflection of your question is "Why does China want to invade Vietam"

The only principle of international affair is interest, if China invade a country, our reputation in international society will decent sharply. And we can gain nothing from Vietam, but spend a lot of money.

Nobody wants war at least. China, as far as I am concerned, is good at defense but not offense.
Written May 12, 2015 · View Upvotes
Upvote4DownvoteComment
Frank Yinan Zhang
Frank Yinan Zhang, strategic goals matter
1.1k Views
First of all it is really interesting to see people comparing the Vietnam War with the Sino-Vietnamese War. The two wars do have something similar, but there is a huge gap between their strategic outcomes. When the Americans retreat from Saigon, the South was soon conquered by the North; when the Chinese withdrew its military, there was not a single industrial plant in the north Vietnam, who also suffered a drastic decline in its population (especially male population, who were supposed to be the backbone of the Vietnamese military and its economic production). The Chinese do not deserve to be glorified for this outcome due to the brutality of the war but this is a good-enough strategic result - after the war, the Vietnamese could not possibly launch a land assault against China (and not against other Southeast Asian countries either). The resulting stalemate (or stability) ensured that China could put its major focus on the Soviet Union, who was its foremost enemy at that time.

Then let's come back to this question. Why does China have to invade Vietnam?

By definition invasion means trying to occupy the land that is widely considered not yours. The correct term for the islands in the South China Sea is "disputed territory" (involving not only Communist China and Vietnam, but also "Republic of China" (i.e. Taiwan), the Philippines, etc.)(btw Taiwan has the identical claim in the South China Sea as the Communist China as they share almost the same territorial claim, a dynasty issue), so it is not typically regarded as an invasion, unless you openly shows your support for Vietnam.

In terms of the land territory, though China had control over a large part of the northern Vietnam historically, it does not consider incorporating the Vietnamese land necessary and profitable now. After all, the territory is even far less-developed than Guangxi, a Chinese province bordering Vietnam which is typically regarded as "poor" in China. The land is not quite rich in strategically important resources and China does not have a concern for a gap in the labour force (at least not in a decade). Furthermore, unlike Russia's ambition in Crimea, China has its own ports capable of holding large fleets located on Hainan Island, and the port with similar capability in Vietnam is in Cam Ranh Bay at the southeastern coast of Vietnam. To get the port China needs a full-scale assault (or at least a strong-enough amphibious/airborne assault). However, to reach this goal China would pay more than its worth (Even if China can be considered a winner strategically in the Sino-Vietnamese War, the heavy casualties and the huge costs were factors against a second war between the two countries from the Chinese point of view, unless absolutely necessary).

Meanwhile, an invasion would echo badly on the international stage. It would give the Americans (and even the Japanese) the best excuse (by far) to reestablish their military presence in the Southeast Asia. This would also mean a breakaway from the "peaceful rise" policy of the Chinese government aimed at mitigating the suspicion against China and drag China into a situation the German Second Reich under Otto von Bismarck was in. Diplomatically, the invasion would be more than disgraceful - it would be a total disaster.

So, why bother?
Written Jun 19, 2015 · View Upvotes
Upvote9DownvoteComment1
Anurag Chandrakar
Anurag Chandrakar, Interpersonal relations, Nada International relations, oh yeah(pun intended)
499 Views
China is being portrayed as a hostile and aggressive nation as it grows powerful by the western media and countries. If China invades Vietnam it will be like playing into their hands. I believe China is not stupid, but sometimes it does things to show others who's the big daddy, Which sometimes backlashes.

Vietnam is not some third world, war torn, unstable, hostile and dangerous country. It is one of the world's fastest growing, prosperous, stable and beautiful country with a potential to be one of the biggest markets in the world. The Chinese know it and they have got their priorities straight ( money first, war second). That is why they won't risk an attack. But the actions it took certainly made Vietnamese a little wary and now they are beefing up their armed forces.

Who knows, maybe their will be a day when both of them will get high and get into a fight. I hope not.

VN has seen its share of war. And now it is a beautiful country again. Let them be.
Written Dec 22, 2015 · View Upvotes

Was North Vietnam communist or totalitarian?

Totalitarian with a communist badge.

The way I see it, the terms are different ingredients in the same punch.

But ingredients can mix many ways...

Communist is a term more indicative of the left end of the political spectrum. It suggests centralized government, with an emphasis of state ownership of resources and centrally planned economic and social systems, with public entitlements available to all.

Totalitarian is a term more associated with the degree to which the state exerts dominance over the individual. In a totalitarian state the civil rights of the individual are extremely diminished.

You can have a totalitarian communist state, where institutions are socialized and individuals have very limited freedom.

But you can also have a totalitarian fascist state (extreme right of political spectrum). There will be private ownership and concentration of wealth among private citizens, but again civil liberties are not guaranteed.

In both cases, the State exerts its total control over individuals, even though economic and social practices are different.
Updated Mar 31, 2013 · View Upvotes
Upvote8DownvoteComments2+
John Chesire
John Chesire, F-4 Navy combat pilot during the Vietnam War
365 Views
Correct me if I am wrong. However I thought Communism was an economic system and Totalitarianism was a political system. Apples and oranges. Yes the two are close and have an definite affinity.

As far as North Vietnam was considered, I suspect they were both, as often occurs between the two disciplines.
Written Mar 13 · View Upvotes
Upvote6DownvoteComment
Ilya Veygman
Ilya Veygman, container of multitudes
355 Views
In practice, there's little difference between the two.

Yes, Karl Marx defined "Communism" as more or less without a dictator (in terms of what we'd call a dictator), but real implementations of communist governments are typically totalitarian as well.

See: Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Yugoslavia, North Korea.
Written Mar 20, 2013 · View Upvotes
Upvote6DownvoteComment
K. Scott Helms
K. Scott Helms, Technologist
273 Views
They were a totalitarian regime that ostensibly supported Communism. There is no such thing as a Communist government since Communism is not a political system, it's an economic one.

We don't consider our government to be Capitalistic for example. We have a Republic that supports a Capitalistic economic system. Our economy has been under more and less governmental direction over its lifespan (nearly all controlled by the government during World War II) but we never morphed into a different political system.

#

Past Year
Results for hermione and luna
If the Weasleys, Harry, Hermione, Neville and Luna had to be resorted, what different houses would they be sorted into (canon - Horcruxless Harry)?
Finn Ray
Finn Ray, Avid reader and Harry Potter enthusiast since age 8
2.1k Views
JK Rowling has been asked this question hundreds of times, and many others have made educated guesses about it, too. Everyone is going to have a different opinion, but here’s mine:

Fred and George would most likely both be in Slytherin, as they're cunning and clever.

Ron (this is a toughie) would be Hufflepuff. I only say this because of his unending love for his friends and family.

Neville would surely be Hufflepuff as well. As shown throughout the series, his bravery in standing up to his friends goes hand in hand with how much he cares for them.

Luna, however well she fits in every house, would barely edge into Slytherin. She literally says that if she were Voldemort, she would isolate Harry to make him feel cut off and vulnerable. She out-thought the most villainous wizard in the series.

Hermione is kind of a no-brainer. Ravenclaw. She's one of the smartest and wisest witches of her age!

Finally, in a grand-maybe-not-so-surprising-finale, Harry would be Slytherin. Initially, the Hat thought about putting Harry in Slytherin, but decided against it. Harry had the ability to be an incredible villain, but he chose not to.
Written Jun 18 · View Upvotes
Upvote27DownvoteComments2+

Why was Hermione Granger sorted into Gryffindor and Luna Lovegood into Ravenclaw ?

Thank you, Diptendu Bhattacharya for the A2A!

How did Hermione Granger end up a Gryffindor, and Luna Lovegood a Ravenclaw?

In all probability because, as Harry Potter told his son, Albus Severus Potter, the Sorting Hat takes the student’s choice into account.

“Do either of you know what house you’ll be in?... I hope I’m in Gryffindor, it sounds by far the best; I hear (Albus) Dumbledore himself was in it, but I suppose Ravenclaw wouldn’t be too bad…” (Hermione to Harry and Ron Weasley on the Hogwarts Express)

Harry Potter & the Philosopher’s Stone – J.K. Rowling

Polar opposites, Ms. Granger and Ms. Lovegood strike some as having been sorted into houses incongruent to their personalities.

Hermione’s study habits at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft & Wizardry became legendary; it surprised no one when the future Mrs. Ron Weasley became Deputy Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement.

Yet, Hermione, ever the lady Galahad to the roles of Bors and Percival filled so aptly by Ron and Harry, clearly felt courage was of greater value than the accumulation of knowledge.

Ms. Lovegood was no less confident than our Hermione, though hers was a different type of self-assurance, born of the experience that gave Luna the less-than-desirable ability to see Thestrals – witnessing the death of her mother, Pandora Lovegood, in a magical experiment accident.

The daughter of Xenophilius Lovegood was made of her own resilient substance.

Pointedly, it wasn’t just books smarts that placed a student into the House of Ravenclaw, but the ability to think outside the box, which Luna visibly excelled at.

…the beak of an eagle opened… a soft musical voice asked, “Which came first, the phoenix or the flame?”

…said Luna… “…I think the answer is, that a circle has no beginning.”

"Well reasoned,” said the voice, and the door opened.

Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows – Rowling

Not unlike Neville Longbottom, Luna dealt daily with her own boggart, facing Pandora’s death with a quirkiness and the questioning of even the most basic laws of logic.

The propensity is to suggest that a student not sorted into the House of Gryffindor cannot be courageous, or a student who becomes a Slytherin requires a nefarious future.

Luna might have simply argued that courage is overly valued, particularly when it cannot bring back the ones we love.

Yet, that is not to say Ms. Lovegood lacked any intestinal fortitude. Her willingness to aid her friends at the Battle of the Department of Mysteries, as well as the Battle of the Lightning Struck Tower, and the Battle of Hogwarts, speaks to her readiness to rise and stand strong in favor of her beliefs.

Luna simply realized at an uncommonly young age that the realities of life and death are beyond the definitions we, as humans, extoll on those two great unknowns, definitions we create as a means to wade through life without throwing caution and common sense to the wind.

Harry… had just remembered that she (Luna) too could see thestrals… “…has anyone you’ve known ever died?”

“Yes,” said Luna simply, “my mother. She was quite an extraordinary witch… but… one of her spells went rather badly wrong one day…”

“I’m sorry,” Harry mumbled.

“Yes, it was rather horrible,” said Luna… “I still feel sad about it sometimes…”

Harry Potter & the Order of the Phoenix – Rowling

How did Luna Lovegood and Hermione Granger end up in seemingly asymmetrical houses?

Perhaps placed accurately to begin with, they grew into people who might have been sorted otherwise, had the choice come later; on the other hand, maybe their placement was inaccurate, but their personalities grew to the form and length of where they were placed.

What we, as adults and maturing children fail to realize is that, at a young age, personalities are still developing.

Principles glommed onto at a young age change and reform, like the water colors of the Whomping Willow leaves from spring to autumn.

The late headmaster, Professor Dumbledore, his finger ever on the pulse of Hogwarts, recognized what is at the heart of this question.

“(Igor) Karkaroff intends to flee…” (Severus Snape)

...said Dumbledore… “And are you tempted to join him?”

“No,” said Snape… “I am not such a coward.”

“No,” agreed Dumbledore. “You are a braver man… You know sometimes I think we Sort too soon….”

Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows – Rowling

We could find reason to question Hermione’s and Luna’s placement by the Sorting Hat, but in the end, they were both capable and honorable members who would have made Godric Gryffindor and Rowena Ravenclaw more than proud to have such passionate representatives of the Houses of Ravenclaw and Gryffindor.

Whatever the reasons, it is more than fair to state, Hermione and Luna had amounts of intelligence and courage to have carried them equally to either house.

View more of Peter's essays, reviews and conjecture on his blog at Collective Observation.