At the critical moment of the fall of the South Vietnamese regime in 1975, China failed to recover the Spratly islands and reefs that had been occupied by South Vietnam. The reason for this is not only related to geography and military strength, but also related to international politics and diplomatic wisdom.
After the fall of the South Vietnamese regime, there was a power vacuum in the Spratly Islands.
On April 30, 1975, the North Vietnamese army captured Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam, and the South Vietnamese regime collapsed, leaving the Spratly Islands in a power vacuum. During the period from April 30 to May 7, 1975, six islands and reefs, including Spratly Island, Hongma Island, Jinghong Island, Nanzi Island, Amber Sandbank, and Dunqian Sandbank, were uncontrolled and became islands of strategic value.
China failed to seize the opportunity for the collapse of the South Vietnamese regime.
At the beginning of 1975, discerning people had already seen that the collapse of the South Vietnamese regime was inevitable, and neighboring countries could seize the opportunity to seize the Spratly islands and reefs. However, despite the North Vietnamese regime's plans to seize the islands, China did not take substantive action when the South Vietnamese regime collapsed. Surprisingly, the Chinese Navy did not prevent North Vietnam from occupying 6 islands and reefs within a week, creating a fait accompli.
In 1974, how did the South Vietnamese regime invade and occupy the Spratly islands and reefs?
After the withdrawal of US troops, the South Vietnamese regime received a lot of American** support and increased its naval strength. South Vietnam** took military action to occupy the Nansha Islands and formulated the "Tran Hung Dao Operational Plan" and set the target at Dun Qian Sandbank. South Vietnam** took advantage of the withdrawal of troops from Taiwan to seize Spratly Island, Hung Ma Island, Jinghong Island, Nanzi Island, and An Bo Shazhou.
North Vietnam had already had a plan to take over the Spratlys.
On April 30, 1975, after North Vietnam captured Saigon, it quickly dispatched its navy to occupy the Spratly Islands within a week. Declassified information shows that North Vietnam has long had a plan to take over the Spratlys. The Vietnamese military's actions in the Spratly Islands run counter to the long-standing political claim that the Spratly Islands belong to China.
The international community has formed a fait accompli on the Spratlys.
On May 7, 1975, the North Vietnamese Navy announced the "liberation" of the Spratly Islands, which became a fait accompli. Vietnam announced that the islands would be included in the national map, claiming the right of "de jure succession" to the South Vietnamese regime, and for this purpose was supported by China. In September 1975, Vietnam's leaders first formally claimed sovereignty over islands in the South China Sea, a far cry from the previous position of North Vietnam**.
Why hasn't China recovered the Nansha islands and reefs by force?
China understands the collapse of the South Vietnamese regime and knows something about North Vietnamese operations. The Navy suggested taking the opportunity to take control of the Spratly islands and reefs, but received no response. The main reasons for China's failure to take military action included the remoteness of the Spratly Islands from Chinese mainland and the weakness and strength of China's navy at the timeIt was difficult for the Navy to hold the islands and reefs, and Vietnam was supported by the Soviet Union;China refrains from tearing its face with Vietnam.
China's wise diplomatic choices.
China has chosen to resolve its differences through friendly consultations on the issue of Nansha being regained. Although in September 1975 the Vietnamese leader made a claim to sovereignty over the Spratlys, Chinese Vice Premier *** said that there were differences between the two countries, but they could be resolved through consultations. China is not willing to completely tear itself up with Vietnam, and has maintained diplomatic wisdom.
Conclusion. China's failure to reclaim the Spratly Islands and reefs in 1975 is due to complex and diverse reasons. In addition to factors such as geography and military power, international political and diplomatic choices also play a key role. The reflection left by this history is that resolving territorial disputes requires a combination of factors, and that wise diplomatic choices are equally important.
In this article, the author provides an in-depth analysis of the reasons for China's failure to reclaim the Spratly islands and reefs after the fall of the South Vietnamese regime in 1975. The article is comprehensively and deeply examined from the geographical, military, international political and diplomatic levels.
First of all, the article pointed out that the Spratly Islands were far away from Chinese mainland, and the Chinese navy was limited at that time, and the main ships had been in disrepair for many years, and could not quickly project troops in a short time. This highlighted China's inferiority in naval equipment and long-range combat capabilities at the time, and the limited range of PLA fighter jets also limited the possibility of long-range operations. The article provides an objective analysis of China's military situation at that time and highlights the practical problems that China faced at that time.
Secondly, the article mentions that after the recovery of the Spratly Islands, it will be difficult for the Chinese Navy to hold on. The navy was inferior and lacked ship defense, while Vietnam was supported by the Soviet Union. Under such circumstances, China's naval vessels stationed in Nansha would find it difficult to resist in the face of long-range combat fighters that the Soviet Union might provide. This point underscores China's military power at the time and its concerns about the future.
The article also said that China was reluctant to tear its face with Vietnam at that time, and chose to resolve its differences through friendly consultations. The author mentions China's diplomatic wisdom and the pragmatic attitude of Vice Premier *** in the face of the Spratly issue. This reflects China's consistent stance of maintaining a calm and rational stance in handling territorial disputes, and its wisdom and prudence in pursuing the settlement of disputes through dialogue and consultation.
Overall, through an in-depth analysis, this article presents the situation and choices that China faced with the Spratly issue at the time. The author objectively and comprehensively analyzes military, geopolitical, and diplomatic factors, so that readers can better understand why China failed to recover the Nansha islands and reefs at that time. This in-depth interpretation of historical events provides useful food for us to understand international relations and historical evolution.
Disclaimer: The above content information is ** on the Internet, and the author of this article does not intend to target or insinuate any real country, political system, organization, race, or individual. The above content does not mean that the author of this article agrees with the laws, rules, opinions, behaviors in the article and is responsible for the authenticity of the relevant information. The author of this article is not responsible for any issues arising from the above or related issues, and does not assume any direct or indirect legal liability.
If the content of the article involves the content of the work, copyright**, infringement, rumors or other issues, please contact us to delete it. Finally, if you have any different thoughts about this event, please leave a message in the comment area to discuss!