This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sino-Soviet border conflict article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Sino-Soviet border conflict be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in China may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I think there is a problem using the name Damansky Island in the title of this article. The Chinese have another name for it, and this title therefore appears to take the Soviet side in who owns the island. Perhaps Soviet-Chinese Border Conflict, 1969 would be better. Also the article should note the Chinese name of the island (which I have forgotten). Adam 01:25, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Does China now recognise Russian sovereignty over Damansky Island? If that is so, then that is the name we should use, though not in the title. The Chinese name was Chen-Bao Island. Adam 02:03, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
June 2, 2005, related news:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-06/02/content_3037975.htm — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
204.107.47.109 (
talk •
contribs)
19:50, 2 June 2005 (UTC)
Unless i'm wrong but China did not have Nuclear weapons at this point in history, it was only the US and Soviet Russia. In fact it was Soviet Russia's refusal to help it develop nuclear weapons that contributed to Sino-Soviet split. Perhaps whoever wrote this article should cite evidence for this or revise the article before i do as i wuldnt want to step on any1's toes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanolinsecam ( talk • contribs) 16:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Reply: Read the history of nuclear weapon programs before posting please. China has it since 1964. By the way, what about Britian and France? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons#States_that_have_tested_a_nuclear_weapon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.238.145 ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I've heard during that conflict Russians used some kind of laser contraption to "evaporate" Chinese soldiers. It was around 1968 or 1969. Doxent 11:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it look like casualty figures were provided by the Soviet. Consider it was in the 60th, it is reasonable to say the numbers were stretched at the least, after all Soviet was pretty big on Propaganda at that time. Does anyone have a more neutral source at all? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yongke ( talk • contribs) 05:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
For the Chinese casualties, the Zhenbao Island martyrs' cemetory, built in March 1969, has 68 tombs of PLA members killed in the conflict. I think this figure can be used [1] 222.131.24.246 ( talk) 20:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I found two rather detailed Chinese sources [2] [3] both giving much different figures: 71 killed and 88 wounded on China's side vs. 80 killed and 170 wounded on Soviet's side. Although one of them is a personal blog and some text of them seem identical, the number of Chinese soldiers killed matches exactly the number of tombs found in the cemetories: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] MS1337 ( talk) 16:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
References
Shouldn't the name of the page be the "Russian-Sino border conflicts" or "China-Russia border conflicts" instead? Slleong ( talk) 19:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Given China's seemingly unstoppable rise in economics, technology, population, and other components of national power; combined with Russia's seemingly irreversible decline on the global stage (most projections place the Russian Federation's population as only 110 - 115 million for the year 2050); I think it is time to consider the possibility of China acting upon Mao Zedong's claims against Russian territory referred to in this article. In 1969 the U.S.S.R. and P.R.C. could field comparable numbers of troops to their border (with the Soviets possesing clear advantages in technology, training, and military leadership (the Cultural Revolution having weakened China's "experts" on all matters)); However by 2019 the advantage is likely to be overwhelmingly Chinese in any potential CONVENTIONAL conflict. Could we eventually see a case where China uses it's 10:1 numerical advantage to "take back" eastern Siberia (there have been Chinatowns in most Siberian cities since the early 1990's). JeepAssembler ( talk) 20:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)JeepAssembler JeepAssembler ( talk) 20:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
what is the purpose of the map that does not even show the border?-- dunnhaupt ( talk) 16:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
How China could claim victory if they were unable to take control of the islands? Or did they stated that they did not intend to do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.111.133.79 ( talk) 15:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's keep the article neutral and have a good faith. Not explicitly mentioning who really controlled the area (which is disputed) won't hurt any side or anyone.-- 67.230.128.140 ( talk) 02:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I recalled some pieces of information I read in the past, that the island had no permanent population before the conflict. The only human actvity on the island was some Chinese fisher/hunters and the like who occasionally visited it. Later Soviet Union set up patrol on the island. After the conflict, the island remained uninhabited, and both Chinese fisher/hunters and Soviet border patrols ceased their operation due to the feral artillery fire from the other side. I will see if I can find some clear reference to prove this 123.123.202.233 ( talk) 04:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The Chinese controlled the territory after the conflict and the Chinese did some serious damage to Soviet mechanized units. The Soviets were clearly outperformed judging by the references I provided. They hid the truth about this conflict for many years. Don Brunett ( talk) 17:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Don Brunett
editor 65.112.214.6 deleted the following contents:
"The Chinese claim to have suffered only a few casualties, far less than Soviet losses. The Zhenbao Island martyrs' cemetery, which was built in March, 1969, located southeast to Baoqing county, hosts tombs of 68 PLA members who died in the conflict, including 5 who were credited as "battle heros" by the Central Military Committee of China, see reference <1>. "
And his reason given is "Deleted due to bias, poor writing, and lack of proper supporting citation to an authoritative and trustworthy source; inconsistent with quality standards of Wikipedia."
1st. The deleted contents were written by at least two editors, while I wrote the contents starting from the second sentence.
2nd. I expect editor 65.112.214.6 to explicitly explain which part of the deleted article can be considered as bias. It merely said what the situasion in the Zhenbao Island maytyr's cemetory is, and the part I wrote was based on contents in the reference, see comparison:
烈士陵园始建于1969年3月 The Zhenbao Island martyrs' cemetery, which was built in March, 1969
位于宝清县城东南部 located southeast to Baoqing county,
有被中央军委命名为"战斗英雄称号"的孙征民、杨林、陈绍光、王庆荣、于庆阳烈士的墓碑,还有在珍宝岛战斗中牺牲的其他63位烈士的墓碑。 hosts tombs of 68 PLA members who died in the conflict, including 5 who were credited as "battle heros" by the Central Military Committee of China
3rd. About poor writing, if editor 65.112.214.6 meant the grammar, I would welcome you to correct the mistakes, but not delete the entire section because of grammar.
4th. I agree that the reference is not fully in accordance to the Wikipedia standards, but it is acceptable due to the following reasons:
No.1, no official figure regarding the casualties in the conflict has ever been released, much like the Sino-Vietnamese border war; that means, PEOPLE WILL NEVER FIND A REFERENCE THAT TOTALLY MEETS THE WIKIPEDIA STANDARDS. If you insist that only such a reference can be used, then I am afraid we have to leave a blank here.
No.2 the original reference is an online news service, who can not benefit at all from frabricating a "fakke" fatality figure. The report was written in July 3rd, 2005, and it was merely a piece of news article telling background stories. There is no motivation for it to make fake.
Given these, I have reinstalled the deleted contents. We can discuss this if you still do not agree.
221.218.71.162 ( talk) 14:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
And I want to say that I am trying to improve Wikipedia's China-related topics as best as I can. With no official figure available, I have made every effort to select the most trust-worthy information that can be found. For the good of Wikipedia, I do hope that editor 65.112.214.6 can understand the situasion and get rid of your own bias. My English may be poor, but I have done the best to deliver information. I do not expect you to understand even a single Chinese word, but at least you can use online translation server to generally go through the reference. However, if you continue to accuse me of writing "bias" without giving me explaination, then I will have to report your vandalism.
221.218.71.162 ( talk) 17:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know soviet casualties are right but chinese look somewhat too small. They still have a lot of propoganda-for example take their "museum of warriors glory", or how they call it. The real number of chinese casualties is near/more than a 1000 given their poor equipment and tactics. Also when the reinforcements came russians used reactive artillery-soviet "grads" which eliminated nearly all of the chinese forces. I understand that an article must be neutral but why there is no mentioning of russian/soviet heroism as there were only 100+ soviet board guards fighting one batallion and two companys of PLA until the reinforcements arrival?
I ll state the sources later. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
202.146.236.4 (
talk)
11:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The military strengths given are excessive. There were not hundreds of thousands involved, but rather hundreds.
203.184.41.226 (
talk)
07:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys how can there be 105-200 russian casualties when ther were only 64 border guards fighting?Heres the list of all russian casualties:
List of soldiers killed in action on 2 March 1969. 1 frontier of 57-th border detachment
Sergeant Ермолюк Виктор Михайлович. -- Private Коржуков Виктор Харитонович. -- Private Ветрич Иван Романович. -- Private Гаврилов Виктор Илларионович. -- Private Змеев Алексей Петрович. -- Private Изотов Владимир Алексеевич. -- Private Ионин Александр Филимонович. -- Private Сырцев Алексей Николаевич. -- Private Насретдинов Исламгали Султангалеевич (died on 15 of March).
2 frontier of 57-th border detachment Senior lieutenant Стрельников Иван Иванович.
-- Sergeant Дергач Николай Тимофеевич. -- Corporal Давыденко Геннадий Михайлович. -- Private Денисенко Анатолий Григорьевич. -- Private Данилин Владимир Николаевич. -- Private Егупов Виктор Иванович. -- Private Золотарев Валентин Григорьевич. -- Private Исаков Вячеслав Петрович. -- Junior lieutenant Колодкин Николай Иванович. -- Private Каменчук Григорий Александрович. -- Private Киселев Гавриил Георгиевич. -- Private Кузнецев Алексей Нифантьевич. -- Junior sergeant Лобода Михаил Андреевич. -- Corporal Михайлов Евгений Константинович. -- Private Нечай Сергей Алексеевич. -- Private Овчинников Геннадий Сергеевич. -- Private Пасюта Александр Иванович. -- Private Петров Николай Николаевич. -- Sergeant Рабович Владимир Никитич. -- Private Шестаков Александр Федорович. -- Private Шушарин Владимир Михайлович. -- Corporal Акулов Павел Андреевич. -- Senior lieutenant Буйневич Николай Михайлович. -- Colonel Демократ Владимирович Леонов -- senior lieutenant Лев Маньковский
List of soldiers of MSD DVO killed in action on March 15
-- Junior sergeant Владимир Викторович Орехов -- Private Александр Васильевич Бедарев -- Private Алексей Алексеевич Кузьмин -- Junior sergeant Анатолий Власов -- Private Александр Гельвих -- Sergeant Виктор Карамзин -- Private Сергей Колтаков -- Private Владимир Потапов -- Private Владимир Штойко —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.167.108.205 ( talk) 01:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Clearly chinese win because chinese be able to take control land an recovered t-62 tank-- Alibaba445 ( talk) 01:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100508460 144.172.12.14 ( talk) 05:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
The article needs to mention the soviet KGB support for East Turkestan Independence Movement, both military and propaganda.
The soviet formation of uyghur nationalism and history
http://books.google.com/books?id=8FVsWq31MtMC&pg=PA208#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA39#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA40#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA41#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=IAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA188#v=onepage&q&f=false
Clashes in Xinjiang
http://books.google.com/books?id=mXXnd81uoMoC&pg=PA240#v=onepage&q&f=false
KGB Agent Victor Louis (journalist) wrote a book about his support for Uyghur, Mongol and Tibetan separatists, he encouraged the Soviet Union to try to wage war against China to allegedly "free" those nationalities from China's rule
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZavAkGUNdSkC&pg=PA175#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=cEdQ1IuJFH4C&pg=PA172#v=onepage&q&f=false
During the Ili Rebellion
http://books.google.com/books?id=IAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA178#v=onepage&q&f=false russian participation in the rebellion
http://books.google.com/books?id=IAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA185#v=onepage&q&f=false Ishaq Beg commanded GPU against Ma zhongying along with white russian polinov
http://books.google.com/books?id=IAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA188#v=onepage&q&f=false cyrillic writing soviet admission of support for east turkestan republic
Rajmaan ( talk) 01:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
There is an inconsistency between the sidebar and the article on the number of Soviet deaths. On the sidebar it claims 59 deaths, while in the article it claims that 59 Soviets were killed initially and later the tank commander was killed. Tweisbach ( talk) 01:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Based on the dictionary meanings, I'm not certain that this has the meaning of 'Zhenbao Island incident'. The meaning appears to be roughly 'Zhenbao Island self-defence counterattack war'. Also, perhaps an inclusion of the Russian name for the conflict would be useful?
-- Korikisulda ( talk) 14:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The source you provided did not mention Soviet won a tactical victory at all ! No where in the source mentioned that. However, it does mentioned that Russia later on ceded half of the island to China, and the border agreement resulted in China's favor ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.167.71.30 ( talk) 16:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
there were a lot of wrongs about that battle back at soviet times after the chinese ambushed the soviet border guards at march 15 1969 the soviets retaliated with artillery fire which resulted 1000 chinese dead and the chinese withdrew and they came back at september but soviet border guards received the order not to open fire against them so it was a soviet victory i hope this site wont be biased or whatever just because some retarded chinese made some illusions this was the example of how wrong it was this is what the wikipedia said On March 2, 1969, a group of Chinese troops ambushed Soviet border guards on Zhenbao Island. The Soviets suffered 59*dead, including a senior colonel, and 94*wounded. They retaliated on March 15 by bombarding Chinese troop concentrations on the Chinese bank of the Ussuri and by storming Zhenbao Island. The Soviets sent four then-secret T-62 tanks to attack the Chinese patrols on the island from the other side of the river. One of the leading tanks was hit and the tank commander was killed. On March 16, 1969, the Soviets entered the island to collect their dead, the Chinese held their fire. On March 17, 1969, the Soviets tried to recover the disabled tank, but their effort was repelled by the Chinese artillery. On March 21, the Soviets sent a demolition team attempting to destroy the tank. The Chinese opened fire and thwarted the Soviets. With the help of divers of the Chinese navy, the PLA pulled the T-62 tank onshore. The tank was later given to the Chinese Military Museum. but the missing piece is this On March 15, 1969, the Chinese troops were repelled from Zhenbao Island (Damansky Island) with significant losses and did not return until September of that year, when Soviet border guards received the order to not open fire against them. so it was a soviet military victory— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis767 ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
China was granted control over Tarabarov Island (Yinlong Island) and approximately 50% of Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island (Heixiazi Island) near Khabarovsk. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.167.71.30 ( talk) 18:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
That is exactly the point. The Soviet controlled these islands and area only later ceded them to China !!
This means that in the long run China got what it wanted and achieved its strategic goals: 1. Stopping Soviet/Russians in the border. 2. Maintain border control. 3. Gain those islands and area back!!
The later Sino-Russian border agreement resulted hugely in China's favor, which China gained more than 700Km^2 of area including those islands you listed !
-- 67.175.16.150 ( talk) 13:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Spartacus, the source you provided has merely 1 page of a blurry picture !! Do you use this as your "reliable" source?
No where in your source mentioned any details about the conflicts !!
I have already notified the admins and I suggest you stop your nonsense !
-- 67.175.16.150 ( talk) 13:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
@IP, I have replied to your above comment about sources here [6]. And about your comment "That is exactly the point..." IP, here we're talking about who won the border conflict of 1969 militiary? It was soviet union as the source says. I agree after the fall of USSR, border agrement was signed on 2004 which resolved the dispute, and have added it in infobox. Spartacus! ( talk) 14:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Spartacus, since you were already debunked in the Sino-Vietnamese talk page; therefore, your source was also unreliable in this article. You use the exact same source !
I will quote from Rajmaan a well respected editor.
" Spartacus! has zero concept of what reliable source means. A source is not reliable if it includes a table or if it cites from other reliable sources. A source is reliable if the author has credentials in the field he is writing in, such as a military historian writing about war. An economist's field is in economy. The main topic of The Global Rise of Asian Transformation: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics is mainly about economy where the war is briefly mentioned and the main topic is not about war. It can be cited in an article about economy but not war in contentious cases. Just like a person with a degree in pottery and writing a book on pottery where he briefly mentions a war where soldiers destroyed pottery, is not a qualified source on that war even if that pottery book is published by Springer. A journal on medical injuries by a doctor describing injuries soldiers suffered during the war, is not a RS on the outcome of that war. Its only an RS on injuries and casualties but not who an RS on who won the war. Doesn't matter if it was published in a scientific medical journal, its not about military science. Its an RS on medicine, the work on economics Spartacus! cites is an RS on economics, neither of them are RS on war. An RS would be a military historian writing in a military journal. The author of the source Spartacus! uses has zero credentials in the field- modern warfare in Southeast Asia. If citing from reliable sources made a source RS, then any random person can start writing blogs by citing reliable sources and get considered a reliable source.Rajmaan (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC) " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.16.150 ( talk)
-- 67.175.16.150 ( talk) 19:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
China indeed won this engagement; it retained control of the island. Please see the reference below from Oxford.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100508460 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.172.12.14 ( talk) 05:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
References
Under the section "Border conflict of 1969" and sub-section "Eastern border", the text read "The Soviets sent four then-secret T-62 tanks to attack the Chinese patrols on the island from the other side of the river.".
The sole reference cited for the paragraph in which this sentence occurs is in Chinese and I cannot read it to confirm the source said the T-62 was secret in 1969. Our article T-62 makes no allusion to the tank being secret (although it had advanced features unknown to the West until T-62s were captured during the Yom Kippur War). This tank was produced from 1961 to 1975, so it would have been available not only to Soviet troops but to numerous foreign countries such as Egypt, and even Israel (which had captured hundreds of T-62s and deployed them as the "Tiran-3" and "Tiran-6"). The whole idea of T-62s being secret weapons in 1969 is questionable and requires better sourcing.
Under WP:BOLD I deleted the words "then-secret" as that description of T-62 tanks in the year 1969 requires better source material (preferably, a secondary source in English). loupgarous ( talk) 03:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
The text in this article under the heading "Border negotiations in the 1990s and beyond":
"Border Negotiations in the 1990s
Serious border demarcation negotiations did not occur until shortly before the end of the Soviet Union in 1991. In particular, both sides agree that Damansky/ Zhenbao Island belongs to China. (Both sides claimed the island was under their control at the time of the agreement.) On October 17, 1995 an agreement over the last 54 km stretch of the border was reached, but the question of control over three islands in the Amur and Argun rivers was left to be settled. In a border agreement between Russia and China, signed on 14 October 2004, that dispute was finally resolved. In the agreement, China was granted control over Tarabarov Island (Yinlong Island) and approximately 50% of Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island (Heixiazi Island) near Khabarovsk. China's Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ratified this agreement on April 27, 2005 with the Russian Duma following suit on May 20, 2005. The transfer was finalized on June 2, 2005, when the agreement was signed by Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing and Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov.
cited as its source a Chinese-language article in xinhuanet according to our article's reflist. That citation doesn't direct the reader to a particular article, but to a page shwwing more recent articles in a magazine-like format. Searching the English-language portion of that xinhuanet did not yield any matches for the article name given in our article's reference list.
In short, xinhuanet appears to be a primarily foreign-language periodical web site in which the article cited for this text is not easy to find for non-Chinese speakers. In short, it has many of the same issues as sputnik.ru that reduce its value as a reliable and verifiable source for statements in wikipedia articles.
The text in question is also a word-for-word copy of a block of text from "Exploring Chinese History - Soviet Aggression - Border negotiation in the 1990s This is a copyrighted Web site ("Copyright 1998-2016 Richard R. Wertz" is at the bottom of the page).
We have to
If I was able, just surfing, to discover this, another reader might, as well. This is our chance to fix this before the next reader finds it. loupgarous ( talk) 05:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I recently removed a lot of seeming vandalism from this article, but this is really not my area and I'm not sure I got it all, or that the remaining content is legit. I reverted nearly every change made since August 31, 2021. I'd appreciate it if an expert in this topic could take a look. Thank you, Jessicapierce ( talk) 14:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
after 1969 china retreat but soviet is losing,soviet don't reclaim back soviet failed to make t62 gone.soviet lost to control zhenbao island again after 1969.clearly chinese victory over military and diplomatic
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
/info/en/?search=1991_Sino-Soviet_Border_Agreement#Relation_to_Taiwanese_mainland_claim After 1969 china control zhenbao island de facto Russia History classes ( talk) 07:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
References to videos from YT must be replaced with Reliable Sources. 50.111.48.23 ( talk) 15:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
when reading this on wikipedia app on Android, all citations pointing to Lüthe come up with an error message "sfn error: no target: CITEREFLüthi2012". All others seem to function. I have no idea what that means but thought giving a heads-up is in order so someone can fix it. 84.215.194.30 ( talk) 12:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
In the infobox section titled Casualties and losses it states Soviet sources: 58 killed 95 wounded and then later says Soviet sources: 800 killed. Also the Chinese and Soviet sources are switched to the wrong column. Dream Focus 11:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Was the us a supporter of china in this conflict? i remember that as the cold war went on, china became more and more pro US so there is a chance the us supported china in this conflict. Thehistorianisaac ( talk) 13:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
"Result" is obviously the most contested line in the whole article. I still think "Indecisive" is most appropriate here as it is strange to see one "victors" to surrender their claims on land but in the same time there is little evidence that other "victors" have taken the aforementioned land as a direct result of actual combat and not as a result of the later diplomatic resolution. The Damansky (Zhenbao) island case is especially notorious because the island is very small and close enough to both river's banks for both sides to easily thwart other side's attempts to land on it, thus effectively turning the island into no man's land until it was effectively transferred to China. The problem is that I don't know sources that state it directly but I have no doubts that that is exactly what happened because I see no other way to reconcile Chinese and Soviet versions. DestructibleTimes ( talk) 20:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Some citations of the Neville Maxwell article contain incorrect page specification. The article spans from page 229 to page 253 and it doesn't contain page 66. @ Crows Yang, please correct the citations. DestructibleTimes ( talk) 11:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
"On the other hand, China was able to deter the Soviet Union due to China's non-nuclear military capabilities, yet it was the Soviets nuclear advantage that caused Mao to fear full-scale conflict."
This statement obviously doesn't satisfy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view criterias "Avoid stating opinions as facts" and "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.". Deterring somebody from something implies that one wanted to do something in first place which is not really a proven fact. Please rewrite this statement to make it satisfy these criterias. DestructibleTimes ( talk) 19:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
"The conflict resulted in a Soviet victory. A ceasefire was declared and led to a return to the status quo."
This statement fails to comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view criterias. "Victory" is never clearly defined on this page, it could refer to favorable situations resulted from battles, or achieving strategic goals such as controlling the disputed territories, gaining national prestige, winning support from the international and so on). However in this case, the definition of Victory is never precisely confirmed. Sino-Soviet's border conflict contains not only the hot clashes occurred between the military personnel of these two nations, but also a series of political and diplomatic confrontations. The result for this type of even is usually controversial because there are too many elements that need to be considered. Sources from the West, Russia, China and other areas in the world severely differ from each other regarding to the result of this event. Some said the Soviet won the battles, some others said China won the battles in the eastern sector and lost in the western sector, some also said China won its strategic goals by building up its connection with the West and gaining actual controls of the disputed territories. Therefore, unilaterally claiming victory on either side will result in a biased judgment. Being victor of Sino-Soviet conflict has never been a proven fact. Crows Yang ( talk) 13:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
On 2 March 1969, Chinese and Soviet forces clashed on Obscure Demansky Island in the Ussuri River and the Soviets suffered thirty-four killed. These Chinese claimed victory, but the evidence indicates that the Soviets brought up reinforcements and reoccupied the island. Then, in a note delivered to the Soviet embassy and published in Beijing on 13 March, the Chinese charged new Soviet aggressions in the disputed sector. On 15 March, there was a new and much bigger, armed clash on that battle ground. But what appears to have happened was that the Chinese had again attacked the Soviet position on Demansky Island. The Soviets effected a withdrawal, thus leading the Chinese to mass in the Demansky sector, whereupon the Soviets, who had anticipated the attack, opened up on the Chinese along a front several km in length with artillery, missiles, tanks and air power. Chinese lost 800 men as compared with about 60 Soviet dead."
evidence points to the conclusion that the second clash on March 15 on the island , which was more serious than the first , was initiated by the Soviets and resulted in a clear - cut Soviet victory." [7]
In March 1969, particularly, the Soviets employed far greater strength than the Chinese, including heavy use of artillery and rockets; and thus produced the anticipated bloody Chinese defeat." [8]
References
Comment This article is about the Sino-Soviet border conflict as a whole. It is not specifically about just the incidents (plural) at Zhenbao (Damansky) Island or any one particular incident. The sources generally describe either two or three incidents over the island, with the last of these on 15 March being a Soviet artillery barrage, which is alleged to have killed 800 Chinese. The number of Chinese casualties appears to be the metric by which sources ascribe a Soviet victory in this instance since they did not hold the ground.
All of the sources cited above, referring to a Soviet victory are referring to a victory for this incident. They are not asserting that the Soviets won the border conflict as a whole. The island remained contested and when the ceasefire was declared, the Chinese withdrew their presence from the island. In terms of territory, the outcome was the status quo ante bellum. I am not seeing sources that say anybody won the border conflict as a whole. The immediate military result at the end of the conflict (11 September 1969) was without a conclusion. Per MOS:MIL, there are three alternatives where there is no victor: declare it inconclusive, direct the reader to the assessment section (See Assessment section) or leave the result parameter blank. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Extorc, you recently made changes to the lead/infobox
here with the comment: rv censorship; results are reliably sourced
. I would ask that you read my comment immediately above. I would suggest that the result described in the sources is being misrepresented as the result of the broader conflict. Please contribute to the discussion here.
Cinderella157 (
talk)
23:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Sino-Soviet Border Conflict (1969-1969) Victorious: Soviet Union / Defeated: China. This source can be downloaded fully here. A text search for "border conflict" gives that map as the only hit for the term. Quite clearly, this source is making only a very passing reference to the conflict. It is certainly not dealing with the conflict or its result in any depth whatsoever. It is quite reasonably not fit for purpose. The second source ( Weiss) is only available in snippet view but searching for "pyrrhic victory" shows a section dealing with the conflict as a pyrrhic Soviet victory - not an unqualified victory. It does not support reporting "Soviet victory" in the infobox as an unqualified victory. MOS:MIL does not support adding qualifiers. The third link is to a communist tract, Party Life. Given the factional nature of global communism following the Sino-soviet split, I cannot see how this can ipso facto be characterised as an unbiased source. The link is in snippet view but it is clear from the limited context that can be seen, the article is not primarily about the Sino-Soviet border conflict, and not reasonably fit for purpose.
As to the Soviet border troops, they only defended their own territory from invasion and occupation. And every time, the Chinese were defeated." [9]
For its part, Beijing did not rub in its victory by boasting of it, this restraint being taken of course as admission of defeat.He also observes:
So every effort was made to convince the Soviet people—and the international community as well—that the battle ended in a crushing Soviet victory- with the assertion that it wasn't. So no, every source does not agree and then, 2 March is a clear contradiction of "all the battles". It is not a case of some sources support a Soviet victory but the consensus of sources and the context of the overall conflict, which is ostensibly a political conflict. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
some sources support a Soviet victory but the consensus of sources" is incorrect because no sources say that China won this conflict. We clearly have enough sources to mention this was Soviet victory.
The crisis finally ended on 20 October 1969 when the Chinese finally agreed to sit down for negotiations over the border (Gerson 2010). Most scholars and analysts consider this crisis a Soviet victory, as the crisis was not over what a final border deal between the Soviets and Chinese would look like, but instead whether they would hold talks over the border at all (Kroenig 2018)."
Kenneth G. Weiss's book [11] and this one are enough to state "Soviet victory" in infobox. I will write it on article body soon. Editorkamran ( talk) 13:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
DestructibleTimes, the rollback by
Editorkamran was made with the edit summary: Given the falsification of sources by Crows Yang ...
This rollback captured (constructive) edits made by others and this unilateral decision shows (IMO) a lack of respect for those edits. I have said as much on their TP and strongly suggested that the rolledback material be reinstated and that contested material alone, be removed. As this largely affects your work, your opinion is valued. I think that this should be resolved first before making any other changes.
Cinderella157 (
talk)
11:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, @144.172.12.14, I'm pinging you here so I can get an idea of where in this talk page you got the consensus from. Thanks. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 05:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Russia under Putin ceded 700 square kilometer of land to China" has nothing to do with this conflict that was fought in 1969. It was USSR that won the conflict at that time. Whatever settlements happened later on have nothing to do with the results produced by the leaders and commanders of this 1969 conflict. Azuredivay ( talk) 13:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
The inclusion of the PRC flag is essential in this instance to distinguish between the PRC and ROC.
As per MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS, the use of flag icons in infoboxes is deemed appropriate for summarizing military conflicts. Skylisan ( talk) 02:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. ... Situations where flag icons may be used in infoboxes include: Summarizing military conflicts ...They serve a useful purpose where there are more than two belligerents and they act as a key for information presented against different parameters of the box. This is not such a case. The ROC is commonly known as Tiawan and there is no reasonable confusion. Furthermore, if there were, it would not be resolved for our vision impaired readers by adding flags. Cinderella157 ( talk) 05:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
... comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case..., The inclusion of flags in military conflict infoboxes, even when only two parties are involved, is deemed appropriate, as are demonstrated by the featured articles Battle for Henderson Field, Battle of Tory Island and Battle of Schliengen.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sino-Soviet border conflict article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Sino-Soviet border conflict be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in China may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I think there is a problem using the name Damansky Island in the title of this article. The Chinese have another name for it, and this title therefore appears to take the Soviet side in who owns the island. Perhaps Soviet-Chinese Border Conflict, 1969 would be better. Also the article should note the Chinese name of the island (which I have forgotten). Adam 01:25, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Does China now recognise Russian sovereignty over Damansky Island? If that is so, then that is the name we should use, though not in the title. The Chinese name was Chen-Bao Island. Adam 02:03, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
June 2, 2005, related news:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-06/02/content_3037975.htm — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
204.107.47.109 (
talk •
contribs)
19:50, 2 June 2005 (UTC)
Unless i'm wrong but China did not have Nuclear weapons at this point in history, it was only the US and Soviet Russia. In fact it was Soviet Russia's refusal to help it develop nuclear weapons that contributed to Sino-Soviet split. Perhaps whoever wrote this article should cite evidence for this or revise the article before i do as i wuldnt want to step on any1's toes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanolinsecam ( talk • contribs) 16:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Reply: Read the history of nuclear weapon programs before posting please. China has it since 1964. By the way, what about Britian and France? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons#States_that_have_tested_a_nuclear_weapon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.238.145 ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I've heard during that conflict Russians used some kind of laser contraption to "evaporate" Chinese soldiers. It was around 1968 or 1969. Doxent 11:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it look like casualty figures were provided by the Soviet. Consider it was in the 60th, it is reasonable to say the numbers were stretched at the least, after all Soviet was pretty big on Propaganda at that time. Does anyone have a more neutral source at all? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yongke ( talk • contribs) 05:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
For the Chinese casualties, the Zhenbao Island martyrs' cemetory, built in March 1969, has 68 tombs of PLA members killed in the conflict. I think this figure can be used [1] 222.131.24.246 ( talk) 20:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I found two rather detailed Chinese sources [2] [3] both giving much different figures: 71 killed and 88 wounded on China's side vs. 80 killed and 170 wounded on Soviet's side. Although one of them is a personal blog and some text of them seem identical, the number of Chinese soldiers killed matches exactly the number of tombs found in the cemetories: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] MS1337 ( talk) 16:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
References
Shouldn't the name of the page be the "Russian-Sino border conflicts" or "China-Russia border conflicts" instead? Slleong ( talk) 19:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Given China's seemingly unstoppable rise in economics, technology, population, and other components of national power; combined with Russia's seemingly irreversible decline on the global stage (most projections place the Russian Federation's population as only 110 - 115 million for the year 2050); I think it is time to consider the possibility of China acting upon Mao Zedong's claims against Russian territory referred to in this article. In 1969 the U.S.S.R. and P.R.C. could field comparable numbers of troops to their border (with the Soviets possesing clear advantages in technology, training, and military leadership (the Cultural Revolution having weakened China's "experts" on all matters)); However by 2019 the advantage is likely to be overwhelmingly Chinese in any potential CONVENTIONAL conflict. Could we eventually see a case where China uses it's 10:1 numerical advantage to "take back" eastern Siberia (there have been Chinatowns in most Siberian cities since the early 1990's). JeepAssembler ( talk) 20:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)JeepAssembler JeepAssembler ( talk) 20:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
what is the purpose of the map that does not even show the border?-- dunnhaupt ( talk) 16:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
How China could claim victory if they were unable to take control of the islands? Or did they stated that they did not intend to do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.111.133.79 ( talk) 15:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's keep the article neutral and have a good faith. Not explicitly mentioning who really controlled the area (which is disputed) won't hurt any side or anyone.-- 67.230.128.140 ( talk) 02:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I recalled some pieces of information I read in the past, that the island had no permanent population before the conflict. The only human actvity on the island was some Chinese fisher/hunters and the like who occasionally visited it. Later Soviet Union set up patrol on the island. After the conflict, the island remained uninhabited, and both Chinese fisher/hunters and Soviet border patrols ceased their operation due to the feral artillery fire from the other side. I will see if I can find some clear reference to prove this 123.123.202.233 ( talk) 04:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The Chinese controlled the territory after the conflict and the Chinese did some serious damage to Soviet mechanized units. The Soviets were clearly outperformed judging by the references I provided. They hid the truth about this conflict for many years. Don Brunett ( talk) 17:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Don Brunett
editor 65.112.214.6 deleted the following contents:
"The Chinese claim to have suffered only a few casualties, far less than Soviet losses. The Zhenbao Island martyrs' cemetery, which was built in March, 1969, located southeast to Baoqing county, hosts tombs of 68 PLA members who died in the conflict, including 5 who were credited as "battle heros" by the Central Military Committee of China, see reference <1>. "
And his reason given is "Deleted due to bias, poor writing, and lack of proper supporting citation to an authoritative and trustworthy source; inconsistent with quality standards of Wikipedia."
1st. The deleted contents were written by at least two editors, while I wrote the contents starting from the second sentence.
2nd. I expect editor 65.112.214.6 to explicitly explain which part of the deleted article can be considered as bias. It merely said what the situasion in the Zhenbao Island maytyr's cemetory is, and the part I wrote was based on contents in the reference, see comparison:
烈士陵园始建于1969年3月 The Zhenbao Island martyrs' cemetery, which was built in March, 1969
位于宝清县城东南部 located southeast to Baoqing county,
有被中央军委命名为"战斗英雄称号"的孙征民、杨林、陈绍光、王庆荣、于庆阳烈士的墓碑,还有在珍宝岛战斗中牺牲的其他63位烈士的墓碑。 hosts tombs of 68 PLA members who died in the conflict, including 5 who were credited as "battle heros" by the Central Military Committee of China
3rd. About poor writing, if editor 65.112.214.6 meant the grammar, I would welcome you to correct the mistakes, but not delete the entire section because of grammar.
4th. I agree that the reference is not fully in accordance to the Wikipedia standards, but it is acceptable due to the following reasons:
No.1, no official figure regarding the casualties in the conflict has ever been released, much like the Sino-Vietnamese border war; that means, PEOPLE WILL NEVER FIND A REFERENCE THAT TOTALLY MEETS THE WIKIPEDIA STANDARDS. If you insist that only such a reference can be used, then I am afraid we have to leave a blank here.
No.2 the original reference is an online news service, who can not benefit at all from frabricating a "fakke" fatality figure. The report was written in July 3rd, 2005, and it was merely a piece of news article telling background stories. There is no motivation for it to make fake.
Given these, I have reinstalled the deleted contents. We can discuss this if you still do not agree.
221.218.71.162 ( talk) 14:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
And I want to say that I am trying to improve Wikipedia's China-related topics as best as I can. With no official figure available, I have made every effort to select the most trust-worthy information that can be found. For the good of Wikipedia, I do hope that editor 65.112.214.6 can understand the situasion and get rid of your own bias. My English may be poor, but I have done the best to deliver information. I do not expect you to understand even a single Chinese word, but at least you can use online translation server to generally go through the reference. However, if you continue to accuse me of writing "bias" without giving me explaination, then I will have to report your vandalism.
221.218.71.162 ( talk) 17:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know soviet casualties are right but chinese look somewhat too small. They still have a lot of propoganda-for example take their "museum of warriors glory", or how they call it. The real number of chinese casualties is near/more than a 1000 given their poor equipment and tactics. Also when the reinforcements came russians used reactive artillery-soviet "grads" which eliminated nearly all of the chinese forces. I understand that an article must be neutral but why there is no mentioning of russian/soviet heroism as there were only 100+ soviet board guards fighting one batallion and two companys of PLA until the reinforcements arrival?
I ll state the sources later. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
202.146.236.4 (
talk)
11:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The military strengths given are excessive. There were not hundreds of thousands involved, but rather hundreds.
203.184.41.226 (
talk)
07:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys how can there be 105-200 russian casualties when ther were only 64 border guards fighting?Heres the list of all russian casualties:
List of soldiers killed in action on 2 March 1969. 1 frontier of 57-th border detachment
Sergeant Ермолюк Виктор Михайлович. -- Private Коржуков Виктор Харитонович. -- Private Ветрич Иван Романович. -- Private Гаврилов Виктор Илларионович. -- Private Змеев Алексей Петрович. -- Private Изотов Владимир Алексеевич. -- Private Ионин Александр Филимонович. -- Private Сырцев Алексей Николаевич. -- Private Насретдинов Исламгали Султангалеевич (died on 15 of March).
2 frontier of 57-th border detachment Senior lieutenant Стрельников Иван Иванович.
-- Sergeant Дергач Николай Тимофеевич. -- Corporal Давыденко Геннадий Михайлович. -- Private Денисенко Анатолий Григорьевич. -- Private Данилин Владимир Николаевич. -- Private Егупов Виктор Иванович. -- Private Золотарев Валентин Григорьевич. -- Private Исаков Вячеслав Петрович. -- Junior lieutenant Колодкин Николай Иванович. -- Private Каменчук Григорий Александрович. -- Private Киселев Гавриил Георгиевич. -- Private Кузнецев Алексей Нифантьевич. -- Junior sergeant Лобода Михаил Андреевич. -- Corporal Михайлов Евгений Константинович. -- Private Нечай Сергей Алексеевич. -- Private Овчинников Геннадий Сергеевич. -- Private Пасюта Александр Иванович. -- Private Петров Николай Николаевич. -- Sergeant Рабович Владимир Никитич. -- Private Шестаков Александр Федорович. -- Private Шушарин Владимир Михайлович. -- Corporal Акулов Павел Андреевич. -- Senior lieutenant Буйневич Николай Михайлович. -- Colonel Демократ Владимирович Леонов -- senior lieutenant Лев Маньковский
List of soldiers of MSD DVO killed in action on March 15
-- Junior sergeant Владимир Викторович Орехов -- Private Александр Васильевич Бедарев -- Private Алексей Алексеевич Кузьмин -- Junior sergeant Анатолий Власов -- Private Александр Гельвих -- Sergeant Виктор Карамзин -- Private Сергей Колтаков -- Private Владимир Потапов -- Private Владимир Штойко —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.167.108.205 ( talk) 01:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Clearly chinese win because chinese be able to take control land an recovered t-62 tank-- Alibaba445 ( talk) 01:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100508460 144.172.12.14 ( talk) 05:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
The article needs to mention the soviet KGB support for East Turkestan Independence Movement, both military and propaganda.
The soviet formation of uyghur nationalism and history
http://books.google.com/books?id=8FVsWq31MtMC&pg=PA208#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA39#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA40#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA41#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=IAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA188#v=onepage&q&f=false
Clashes in Xinjiang
http://books.google.com/books?id=mXXnd81uoMoC&pg=PA240#v=onepage&q&f=false
KGB Agent Victor Louis (journalist) wrote a book about his support for Uyghur, Mongol and Tibetan separatists, he encouraged the Soviet Union to try to wage war against China to allegedly "free" those nationalities from China's rule
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZavAkGUNdSkC&pg=PA175#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=cEdQ1IuJFH4C&pg=PA172#v=onepage&q&f=false
During the Ili Rebellion
http://books.google.com/books?id=IAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA178#v=onepage&q&f=false russian participation in the rebellion
http://books.google.com/books?id=IAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA185#v=onepage&q&f=false Ishaq Beg commanded GPU against Ma zhongying along with white russian polinov
http://books.google.com/books?id=IAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA188#v=onepage&q&f=false cyrillic writing soviet admission of support for east turkestan republic
Rajmaan ( talk) 01:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
There is an inconsistency between the sidebar and the article on the number of Soviet deaths. On the sidebar it claims 59 deaths, while in the article it claims that 59 Soviets were killed initially and later the tank commander was killed. Tweisbach ( talk) 01:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Based on the dictionary meanings, I'm not certain that this has the meaning of 'Zhenbao Island incident'. The meaning appears to be roughly 'Zhenbao Island self-defence counterattack war'. Also, perhaps an inclusion of the Russian name for the conflict would be useful?
-- Korikisulda ( talk) 14:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The source you provided did not mention Soviet won a tactical victory at all ! No where in the source mentioned that. However, it does mentioned that Russia later on ceded half of the island to China, and the border agreement resulted in China's favor ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.167.71.30 ( talk) 16:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
there were a lot of wrongs about that battle back at soviet times after the chinese ambushed the soviet border guards at march 15 1969 the soviets retaliated with artillery fire which resulted 1000 chinese dead and the chinese withdrew and they came back at september but soviet border guards received the order not to open fire against them so it was a soviet victory i hope this site wont be biased or whatever just because some retarded chinese made some illusions this was the example of how wrong it was this is what the wikipedia said On March 2, 1969, a group of Chinese troops ambushed Soviet border guards on Zhenbao Island. The Soviets suffered 59*dead, including a senior colonel, and 94*wounded. They retaliated on March 15 by bombarding Chinese troop concentrations on the Chinese bank of the Ussuri and by storming Zhenbao Island. The Soviets sent four then-secret T-62 tanks to attack the Chinese patrols on the island from the other side of the river. One of the leading tanks was hit and the tank commander was killed. On March 16, 1969, the Soviets entered the island to collect their dead, the Chinese held their fire. On March 17, 1969, the Soviets tried to recover the disabled tank, but their effort was repelled by the Chinese artillery. On March 21, the Soviets sent a demolition team attempting to destroy the tank. The Chinese opened fire and thwarted the Soviets. With the help of divers of the Chinese navy, the PLA pulled the T-62 tank onshore. The tank was later given to the Chinese Military Museum. but the missing piece is this On March 15, 1969, the Chinese troops were repelled from Zhenbao Island (Damansky Island) with significant losses and did not return until September of that year, when Soviet border guards received the order to not open fire against them. so it was a soviet military victory— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis767 ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
China was granted control over Tarabarov Island (Yinlong Island) and approximately 50% of Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island (Heixiazi Island) near Khabarovsk. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.167.71.30 ( talk) 18:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
That is exactly the point. The Soviet controlled these islands and area only later ceded them to China !!
This means that in the long run China got what it wanted and achieved its strategic goals: 1. Stopping Soviet/Russians in the border. 2. Maintain border control. 3. Gain those islands and area back!!
The later Sino-Russian border agreement resulted hugely in China's favor, which China gained more than 700Km^2 of area including those islands you listed !
-- 67.175.16.150 ( talk) 13:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Spartacus, the source you provided has merely 1 page of a blurry picture !! Do you use this as your "reliable" source?
No where in your source mentioned any details about the conflicts !!
I have already notified the admins and I suggest you stop your nonsense !
-- 67.175.16.150 ( talk) 13:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
@IP, I have replied to your above comment about sources here [6]. And about your comment "That is exactly the point..." IP, here we're talking about who won the border conflict of 1969 militiary? It was soviet union as the source says. I agree after the fall of USSR, border agrement was signed on 2004 which resolved the dispute, and have added it in infobox. Spartacus! ( talk) 14:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Spartacus, since you were already debunked in the Sino-Vietnamese talk page; therefore, your source was also unreliable in this article. You use the exact same source !
I will quote from Rajmaan a well respected editor.
" Spartacus! has zero concept of what reliable source means. A source is not reliable if it includes a table or if it cites from other reliable sources. A source is reliable if the author has credentials in the field he is writing in, such as a military historian writing about war. An economist's field is in economy. The main topic of The Global Rise of Asian Transformation: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics is mainly about economy where the war is briefly mentioned and the main topic is not about war. It can be cited in an article about economy but not war in contentious cases. Just like a person with a degree in pottery and writing a book on pottery where he briefly mentions a war where soldiers destroyed pottery, is not a qualified source on that war even if that pottery book is published by Springer. A journal on medical injuries by a doctor describing injuries soldiers suffered during the war, is not a RS on the outcome of that war. Its only an RS on injuries and casualties but not who an RS on who won the war. Doesn't matter if it was published in a scientific medical journal, its not about military science. Its an RS on medicine, the work on economics Spartacus! cites is an RS on economics, neither of them are RS on war. An RS would be a military historian writing in a military journal. The author of the source Spartacus! uses has zero credentials in the field- modern warfare in Southeast Asia. If citing from reliable sources made a source RS, then any random person can start writing blogs by citing reliable sources and get considered a reliable source.Rajmaan (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC) " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.16.150 ( talk)
-- 67.175.16.150 ( talk) 19:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
China indeed won this engagement; it retained control of the island. Please see the reference below from Oxford.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100508460 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.172.12.14 ( talk) 05:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
References
Under the section "Border conflict of 1969" and sub-section "Eastern border", the text read "The Soviets sent four then-secret T-62 tanks to attack the Chinese patrols on the island from the other side of the river.".
The sole reference cited for the paragraph in which this sentence occurs is in Chinese and I cannot read it to confirm the source said the T-62 was secret in 1969. Our article T-62 makes no allusion to the tank being secret (although it had advanced features unknown to the West until T-62s were captured during the Yom Kippur War). This tank was produced from 1961 to 1975, so it would have been available not only to Soviet troops but to numerous foreign countries such as Egypt, and even Israel (which had captured hundreds of T-62s and deployed them as the "Tiran-3" and "Tiran-6"). The whole idea of T-62s being secret weapons in 1969 is questionable and requires better sourcing.
Under WP:BOLD I deleted the words "then-secret" as that description of T-62 tanks in the year 1969 requires better source material (preferably, a secondary source in English). loupgarous ( talk) 03:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
The text in this article under the heading "Border negotiations in the 1990s and beyond":
"Border Negotiations in the 1990s
Serious border demarcation negotiations did not occur until shortly before the end of the Soviet Union in 1991. In particular, both sides agree that Damansky/ Zhenbao Island belongs to China. (Both sides claimed the island was under their control at the time of the agreement.) On October 17, 1995 an agreement over the last 54 km stretch of the border was reached, but the question of control over three islands in the Amur and Argun rivers was left to be settled. In a border agreement between Russia and China, signed on 14 October 2004, that dispute was finally resolved. In the agreement, China was granted control over Tarabarov Island (Yinlong Island) and approximately 50% of Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island (Heixiazi Island) near Khabarovsk. China's Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ratified this agreement on April 27, 2005 with the Russian Duma following suit on May 20, 2005. The transfer was finalized on June 2, 2005, when the agreement was signed by Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing and Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov.
cited as its source a Chinese-language article in xinhuanet according to our article's reflist. That citation doesn't direct the reader to a particular article, but to a page shwwing more recent articles in a magazine-like format. Searching the English-language portion of that xinhuanet did not yield any matches for the article name given in our article's reference list.
In short, xinhuanet appears to be a primarily foreign-language periodical web site in which the article cited for this text is not easy to find for non-Chinese speakers. In short, it has many of the same issues as sputnik.ru that reduce its value as a reliable and verifiable source for statements in wikipedia articles.
The text in question is also a word-for-word copy of a block of text from "Exploring Chinese History - Soviet Aggression - Border negotiation in the 1990s This is a copyrighted Web site ("Copyright 1998-2016 Richard R. Wertz" is at the bottom of the page).
We have to
If I was able, just surfing, to discover this, another reader might, as well. This is our chance to fix this before the next reader finds it. loupgarous ( talk) 05:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I recently removed a lot of seeming vandalism from this article, but this is really not my area and I'm not sure I got it all, or that the remaining content is legit. I reverted nearly every change made since August 31, 2021. I'd appreciate it if an expert in this topic could take a look. Thank you, Jessicapierce ( talk) 14:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
after 1969 china retreat but soviet is losing,soviet don't reclaim back soviet failed to make t62 gone.soviet lost to control zhenbao island again after 1969.clearly chinese victory over military and diplomatic
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
/info/en/?search=1991_Sino-Soviet_Border_Agreement#Relation_to_Taiwanese_mainland_claim After 1969 china control zhenbao island de facto Russia History classes ( talk) 07:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
References to videos from YT must be replaced with Reliable Sources. 50.111.48.23 ( talk) 15:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
when reading this on wikipedia app on Android, all citations pointing to Lüthe come up with an error message "sfn error: no target: CITEREFLüthi2012". All others seem to function. I have no idea what that means but thought giving a heads-up is in order so someone can fix it. 84.215.194.30 ( talk) 12:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
In the infobox section titled Casualties and losses it states Soviet sources: 58 killed 95 wounded and then later says Soviet sources: 800 killed. Also the Chinese and Soviet sources are switched to the wrong column. Dream Focus 11:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Was the us a supporter of china in this conflict? i remember that as the cold war went on, china became more and more pro US so there is a chance the us supported china in this conflict. Thehistorianisaac ( talk) 13:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
"Result" is obviously the most contested line in the whole article. I still think "Indecisive" is most appropriate here as it is strange to see one "victors" to surrender their claims on land but in the same time there is little evidence that other "victors" have taken the aforementioned land as a direct result of actual combat and not as a result of the later diplomatic resolution. The Damansky (Zhenbao) island case is especially notorious because the island is very small and close enough to both river's banks for both sides to easily thwart other side's attempts to land on it, thus effectively turning the island into no man's land until it was effectively transferred to China. The problem is that I don't know sources that state it directly but I have no doubts that that is exactly what happened because I see no other way to reconcile Chinese and Soviet versions. DestructibleTimes ( talk) 20:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Some citations of the Neville Maxwell article contain incorrect page specification. The article spans from page 229 to page 253 and it doesn't contain page 66. @ Crows Yang, please correct the citations. DestructibleTimes ( talk) 11:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
"On the other hand, China was able to deter the Soviet Union due to China's non-nuclear military capabilities, yet it was the Soviets nuclear advantage that caused Mao to fear full-scale conflict."
This statement obviously doesn't satisfy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view criterias "Avoid stating opinions as facts" and "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.". Deterring somebody from something implies that one wanted to do something in first place which is not really a proven fact. Please rewrite this statement to make it satisfy these criterias. DestructibleTimes ( talk) 19:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
"The conflict resulted in a Soviet victory. A ceasefire was declared and led to a return to the status quo."
This statement fails to comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view criterias. "Victory" is never clearly defined on this page, it could refer to favorable situations resulted from battles, or achieving strategic goals such as controlling the disputed territories, gaining national prestige, winning support from the international and so on). However in this case, the definition of Victory is never precisely confirmed. Sino-Soviet's border conflict contains not only the hot clashes occurred between the military personnel of these two nations, but also a series of political and diplomatic confrontations. The result for this type of even is usually controversial because there are too many elements that need to be considered. Sources from the West, Russia, China and other areas in the world severely differ from each other regarding to the result of this event. Some said the Soviet won the battles, some others said China won the battles in the eastern sector and lost in the western sector, some also said China won its strategic goals by building up its connection with the West and gaining actual controls of the disputed territories. Therefore, unilaterally claiming victory on either side will result in a biased judgment. Being victor of Sino-Soviet conflict has never been a proven fact. Crows Yang ( talk) 13:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
On 2 March 1969, Chinese and Soviet forces clashed on Obscure Demansky Island in the Ussuri River and the Soviets suffered thirty-four killed. These Chinese claimed victory, but the evidence indicates that the Soviets brought up reinforcements and reoccupied the island. Then, in a note delivered to the Soviet embassy and published in Beijing on 13 March, the Chinese charged new Soviet aggressions in the disputed sector. On 15 March, there was a new and much bigger, armed clash on that battle ground. But what appears to have happened was that the Chinese had again attacked the Soviet position on Demansky Island. The Soviets effected a withdrawal, thus leading the Chinese to mass in the Demansky sector, whereupon the Soviets, who had anticipated the attack, opened up on the Chinese along a front several km in length with artillery, missiles, tanks and air power. Chinese lost 800 men as compared with about 60 Soviet dead."
evidence points to the conclusion that the second clash on March 15 on the island , which was more serious than the first , was initiated by the Soviets and resulted in a clear - cut Soviet victory." [7]
In March 1969, particularly, the Soviets employed far greater strength than the Chinese, including heavy use of artillery and rockets; and thus produced the anticipated bloody Chinese defeat." [8]
References
Comment This article is about the Sino-Soviet border conflict as a whole. It is not specifically about just the incidents (plural) at Zhenbao (Damansky) Island or any one particular incident. The sources generally describe either two or three incidents over the island, with the last of these on 15 March being a Soviet artillery barrage, which is alleged to have killed 800 Chinese. The number of Chinese casualties appears to be the metric by which sources ascribe a Soviet victory in this instance since they did not hold the ground.
All of the sources cited above, referring to a Soviet victory are referring to a victory for this incident. They are not asserting that the Soviets won the border conflict as a whole. The island remained contested and when the ceasefire was declared, the Chinese withdrew their presence from the island. In terms of territory, the outcome was the status quo ante bellum. I am not seeing sources that say anybody won the border conflict as a whole. The immediate military result at the end of the conflict (11 September 1969) was without a conclusion. Per MOS:MIL, there are three alternatives where there is no victor: declare it inconclusive, direct the reader to the assessment section (See Assessment section) or leave the result parameter blank. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Extorc, you recently made changes to the lead/infobox
here with the comment: rv censorship; results are reliably sourced
. I would ask that you read my comment immediately above. I would suggest that the result described in the sources is being misrepresented as the result of the broader conflict. Please contribute to the discussion here.
Cinderella157 (
talk)
23:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Sino-Soviet Border Conflict (1969-1969) Victorious: Soviet Union / Defeated: China. This source can be downloaded fully here. A text search for "border conflict" gives that map as the only hit for the term. Quite clearly, this source is making only a very passing reference to the conflict. It is certainly not dealing with the conflict or its result in any depth whatsoever. It is quite reasonably not fit for purpose. The second source ( Weiss) is only available in snippet view but searching for "pyrrhic victory" shows a section dealing with the conflict as a pyrrhic Soviet victory - not an unqualified victory. It does not support reporting "Soviet victory" in the infobox as an unqualified victory. MOS:MIL does not support adding qualifiers. The third link is to a communist tract, Party Life. Given the factional nature of global communism following the Sino-soviet split, I cannot see how this can ipso facto be characterised as an unbiased source. The link is in snippet view but it is clear from the limited context that can be seen, the article is not primarily about the Sino-Soviet border conflict, and not reasonably fit for purpose.
As to the Soviet border troops, they only defended their own territory from invasion and occupation. And every time, the Chinese were defeated." [9]
For its part, Beijing did not rub in its victory by boasting of it, this restraint being taken of course as admission of defeat.He also observes:
So every effort was made to convince the Soviet people—and the international community as well—that the battle ended in a crushing Soviet victory- with the assertion that it wasn't. So no, every source does not agree and then, 2 March is a clear contradiction of "all the battles". It is not a case of some sources support a Soviet victory but the consensus of sources and the context of the overall conflict, which is ostensibly a political conflict. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
some sources support a Soviet victory but the consensus of sources" is incorrect because no sources say that China won this conflict. We clearly have enough sources to mention this was Soviet victory.
The crisis finally ended on 20 October 1969 when the Chinese finally agreed to sit down for negotiations over the border (Gerson 2010). Most scholars and analysts consider this crisis a Soviet victory, as the crisis was not over what a final border deal between the Soviets and Chinese would look like, but instead whether they would hold talks over the border at all (Kroenig 2018)."
Kenneth G. Weiss's book [11] and this one are enough to state "Soviet victory" in infobox. I will write it on article body soon. Editorkamran ( talk) 13:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
DestructibleTimes, the rollback by
Editorkamran was made with the edit summary: Given the falsification of sources by Crows Yang ...
This rollback captured (constructive) edits made by others and this unilateral decision shows (IMO) a lack of respect for those edits. I have said as much on their TP and strongly suggested that the rolledback material be reinstated and that contested material alone, be removed. As this largely affects your work, your opinion is valued. I think that this should be resolved first before making any other changes.
Cinderella157 (
talk)
11:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, @144.172.12.14, I'm pinging you here so I can get an idea of where in this talk page you got the consensus from. Thanks. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 05:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Russia under Putin ceded 700 square kilometer of land to China" has nothing to do with this conflict that was fought in 1969. It was USSR that won the conflict at that time. Whatever settlements happened later on have nothing to do with the results produced by the leaders and commanders of this 1969 conflict. Azuredivay ( talk) 13:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
The inclusion of the PRC flag is essential in this instance to distinguish between the PRC and ROC.
As per MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS, the use of flag icons in infoboxes is deemed appropriate for summarizing military conflicts. Skylisan ( talk) 02:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. ... Situations where flag icons may be used in infoboxes include: Summarizing military conflicts ...They serve a useful purpose where there are more than two belligerents and they act as a key for information presented against different parameters of the box. This is not such a case. The ROC is commonly known as Tiawan and there is no reasonable confusion. Furthermore, if there were, it would not be resolved for our vision impaired readers by adding flags. Cinderella157 ( talk) 05:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
... comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case..., The inclusion of flags in military conflict infoboxes, even when only two parties are involved, is deemed appropriate, as are demonstrated by the featured articles Battle for Henderson Field, Battle of Tory Island and Battle of Schliengen.