Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

  1. 222
  2. 132
  3. 48
  4. 38
  5. 36
  6. 30
  7. 29
  8. 20
  9. 16
  10.  @Airdrifting  You missed my point. I'm talking about optics. China losing hundreds of thousands of troops to the Americans? That's a worthy nation to die against; even if it was demobilized prior to the war. (Something CCP propaganda neglects to mention). But dying to equal number to the lowly Vietnamese? That's a national embarrassment waiting to happen. For reference, the US lost about 2,000 troops in Afghanistan within 20 years. US lost 58,000+ in Vietnam in the whole war of about 10 years and it was through entirely vicious guerilla warfare. China's literal objective was to prevent the destruction of its ally in the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, dude. "The reason cited for the attack was to support China's ally, the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia, in addition to the mistreatment of Vietnam's ethnic Chinese minority and the Vietnamese occupation of the Spratly Islands which were claimed by China" Bruh, even using your own metric, China lost the war. It was not able to destroy Vietnam's capability to make war and continued to destroy Cambodia until the Khmer Rouge was ousted. Neither Chinese or Vietnamese sources can be trusted since they are both dictators that have every reason to fudge the numbers. Western estimates place the death toll of Chinese forces to be about 26k men, and Vietnamese to be about 30k men. Chinese also claim that "the gate to Hanoi was open"...except the place where they stopped, Lang Son, was closer to the Chinse border than it was to Hanoi. So CCP propaganda really is kinda obvious here. Not to mention that 300k reserves were near Hanoi prepared for a counter-attack when China withdrew. So let's be real here; China withdrew to save face, but lost literally ALL of its objectives. All while suffering a ratio similar to Vietnam's war dead.
    15
  11. 12
  12. 11
  13. 9
  14. 9
  15. 8
  16. 7
  17. 7
  18. 6
  19. 6
  20. 5
  21. 5
  22. 5
  23. 5
  24. 5
  25. 5
  26. 4
  27.  @Airdrifting  There is no evidence to back up anything if you're a crazy nationalist anyway. But the rest of the world knows though. The West was, if anything, pro-China by the time of the Sino-Vietnamese War, so had more reason to act like less Chinese died than they did. And yet they found a similar number of dead to the Vietnamese. No, I'm saying that China already suffered heavy casualties only facing a few regular Vietnamese troops and would have gone on to fact the main Vietnamese reserve forces near Hanoi, and wisely decided to withdraw before it humiliated itself in losing massive numbers. It lost about half the number in a month what the US lost in 10 years as it is. Nothing about guesswork; China already lost a lot of troops and would only then be facing the main reserve when approaching Hanoi. That's just clear deductive reasoning. I ain't even white, but that's the cope you'll use this time, huh? 😂 Yes, that's exactly my point. China should NOT have been suffering such casualties, and yet they did. That's why it was prudent for them to declare victory and leave while their propaganda worked overtime proclaiming it as a victory...despite not accomplishing any objectives. Huh??? Tiny Vietnam did NOT have such objectives. Vietnam's objective was literally only based on Cambodia at the time. Vietnam barely had the means to invade Cambodia, let alone invade the rest of Asia, nor did it ever express such ideas. Where are you getting this from? Vietnam's objective at the time was ONLY Cambodia. Besides, we were talking about the Sino-Vietnamese War, and China's objective was to stop Vietnam's invasion, which it failed. That's it. Within the realm of that war, China lost. Why do you think the local government or the CCP would ever allow information of lost Chinese soldiers to be spread across China? Dude. It's a country which represses media. It's absurd to think that Chinese people can know things that their government doesn't want them to know. Especially without the internet. Considering I'm arguing that Vietnamese killed more Chinese, thus Asians killed more Asians, your claims of racism are not only funny, but braindead. That being said, I am not saying that Chinese are doing this specifically for Vietnam...they did it with every conflict ever. Vietnam does it too. In the case of this war, neither Vietnam or China "officially" released any true statistics of the losses of the war. Vietnam claimed China killed 100,000 civilians, though. That's also likely an exaggeration.
    4
  28. 3
  29. 3
  30. 3
  31. 3
  32. 3
  33. 3
  34. 3
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 1