1904 China map admits Paracel, Spratly not Chinese territory

[Martian2]

China's maps are a lot older than yours by hundreds of years.

The nine-dashed-lines map is merely a formal representation of China's ancient maps from hundreds of years ago. China's territory did not change. The nine dashed lines merely made explicit what was already Chinese territory.

 

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

China's maps are a lot older than yours by hundreds of years.

The nine-dashed-lines map is merely a formal representation of China's ancient maps from hundreds of years ago. China's territory did not change. The nine dashed lines merely made explicit what was already Chinese territory.

How do you explain the emergence of the "nine dotted line" on the "ancient" maps of China today, but actually "nine dotted line" based on "11 dotted line" of Chiang which after omitted 2 segments in the Gulf of Tonkin, and "11 dotted line" was only drawn in 1947 and first published in 1948 in a private publication?

 

[Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ]

The Chinese nine-dashed-lines map is based on the Chinese 12th century map shown below and the 1712-1721 map from the Qing Dynasty.

----------

Spratly Islands have belonged to China since ancient times

Ocean-faring Chinese explorers had claimed the Spratly Islands a thousand years ago.

[Source: Wikipedia article on Spratly Islands with primary sources listed in footnotes]

"Ancient Chinese maps record the "Thousand Li Stretch of Sands"; Qianli Changsha (千里長&#27801 and the "Ten-Thousand Li of Stone Pools"; Wanli Shitang (萬里石&#22616,[7] which China today claims refers to the Spratly Islands. The Wanli Shitang have been explored by the Chinese since the Yuan Dynasty and may have been considered by them to have been within their national boundaries. [8][9] They are also referenced in the 13th century,[10] followed by the Ming Dynasty.[11] When the Ming Dynasty collapsed, the Qing Dynasty continued to include the territory in maps compiled in 1724,[12] 1755,[13] 1767,[14] 1810,[15] and 1817.[16] A Vietnamese map from 1834 also includes the Spratly Islands clumped in with the Paracels (a common occurrence on maps of that time) labeled as "Wanli Changsha".[17]"

By the twelfth century, names for the South China Sea islands began to appear. The Paracels and the Spratlys were referred to more consistently as Changsha and Shitang. By the mid-fourteenth century, Shitang could be accurately identified as the Spratlys. There is also evidence of Chinese naval control over some areas of the South China Sea, which resulted in complete Chinese dominion of the South China Sea in the late thirteenth century. Finally, in the fifteenth century, Zheng He's seven voyages placed the South China Sea islands on the official navigational charts. In this map, the Xisha Islands are called Shitang, and the Nansha Islands are referred to as Wansheng Shitang Yu.

The Map of South and East Ocean Sea Routes was drawn in between 1712-1721 by Qing (Ching) Dynasty Fujian (Fuchien) Province Navy Commander Shi Shibiao, the son of a famous Qing Dynasty imperial officer. This map clearly shows the sea routes, time, and descriptions from Chinese coastal ports to Japan, Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia, Brunei, Cambodia and the Philippines. On this map, the locations and names of the Southern Sea Islands (Nanhai Zhudao) are very accurate. The map shows Chinese sovereignty over the South China　Sea islands (including Nansha Islands, Xisha Islands, Zhongsha Islands and Dongsha Islands).

1834 Vietnamese map showed the islands as Chinese "Wanli Changsha."

[Note: Thank you to HuziHaidao12 for the first two pictures and captions.]

Check this out

 

[bl4ckp34rl]

ALL CHINESE DON'T WANT TO SEE THE TRUTH. IT'S SHAME FOR YOU, LOSERS !!!

 

[EastSea]

China map Ming Dynasty 1461, No where was Islands. In the time chinese didn't considered that Islands may parts of China.

 

[the_islander]

Look at the monkeys jumping up and down. Fact is, Vietnam was China's vassal state for 1000 years. The entire Vietnam territory belongs to China. Taking back Paracels and Spratlys is just the beginning. We will take back Hanoi and then Saigon and drive away all the Vietnamese so Chinese can return to our land.

well, you should return the whole china to Mongolian, or Japanese, they were your ruler once.
Or Great Britain can take over the whole America, Spain and Portugal can share South America together.
It's time to start a world war 3, chinese.

I'm wondering about the IQ of these chinese in this forum.

 

[Fil Pacifist]

well, you should return the whole china to Mongolian, or Japanese, they were your ruler once.
Or Great Britain can take over the whole America, Spain and Portugal can share South America together.
It's time to start a world war 3, chinese.

I'm wondering about the IQ of these chinese in this forum.

Or the CCP should return the whole of China to Kuomintang.

 

[hero5x5]

Look at the monkeys jumping up and down. Fact is, Vietnam was China's vassal state for 1000 years. The entire Vietnam territory belongs to China. Taking back Paracels and Spratlys is just the beginning. We will take back Hanoi and then Saigon and drive away all the Vietnamese so Chinese can return to our land.

i'm not good at english but i have a question for you: you have your stupidness by training or you are stupid from birth ???
if you know what i mean

ps to viet members: tụi tàu thằng nào cũng hung hãn thật

 

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

i'm not good at english but i have a question for you: you have your stupidness by training or you are stupis from birth ???
if you know what i mean

ps to viet members: tụi tàu thằng nào cũng hung hãn thật

Both of them, bro.
His words show clearly that he is not an intelligent boy, and as you know CCP has brainwashed the chinese people too much by the U-shaped line of china's claims on the East Sea (SCS), CCP printed U-shaped line in all chinese textbooks and said that it was "historical territory" of China. LOL.

But the fact U-Shap was only drawn in 1947 and published the first in 1948 in a private publication.
And as you see, they have no reasonable evidences for their claims ridiculous, baseless and illegal on the East Sea (SCS).

 

[EastSea]

i'm not good at english but i have a question for you: you have your stupidness by training or you are stupid from birth ???
if you know what i mean

ps to viet members: tụi tàu thằng nào cũng hung hãn thật

To answer to such idiot chinese, no need to to learn more English, just finish the exams for general schoole in Vietnam is enought.

 

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

If you tell the world it was Philippine or Vietnamese who first found islands in SCS. Can you convince the world? It obviously reverses common knowledge of whole world. Everybody knows it is Chinese who first explored sea world. Chinese navigation technology was once even better than European for a rather long history.

On the other hand, back to WWII, it was China who had the right to took over SCS islands from Japan. We got the privilege because we made a big contribution in the war. Much bigger than Philippine and Vietnam. This is our second evidence.

Firstly, there is no evidence to prove the Chinese were who first discovered the two archipelagoes of Hoang Sa and Truong Sa, and also in the Scarborough Shoal.

Secondly, China had never established any action to assert "its sovereignty" on the two archipelagos before the Vietnamese controlled over them. In fact the Vietnamese have controlled peacefully over the two archipelagos for hundreds of years ago, without any fight over the archipelagos with others, until 1939 has been invaded by Japan.

Thirdly, RoC received the task of disarming the Japanese troops in Vietnam including Paracels and Spratlys, that does not mean that the territory of Vietnam would be assigned to China. Remember that in 1939 Japan had invaded two archipelagos of Paracels and Spratlys from Vietnam [the time Vietnam was a French colony], not from China.
Moreover, the RoC was one of the drafter of Cairo statement, which lists of islands that Japan must return to China, but did not mention Paracels and Spratlys of Vietnam's [of course].

 

[Nestea]

So you are going to prove that Westerners are all "mistaken" real Paracel with some Vietnamese "near-coast islands"?
All I want to say is...

All you can do is avoiding my points? Oh what a pity!

You mean thousands of Westerners who had crossed South China Sea in 400 years were all "mistaken" Paracel with some Vietnamese near-coast islands?
So why don't they draw the "other" Paracel? It's bigger, more noticeable than some "islands near Vietnamese coast", right? They are mentally retarded or what? Or if you want to say that they "miss" the Paracel, well, hundreds, thousands of Westerners who go around South East Asia sea for 400 years but all of them "miss" the "real Paracel"? What a pity of Western's sailing :rofl"

Then now they are what you had missed:

In Yesterday 02:19 PM, I said
----
Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique de Précis ... - Conrad Malte-Brun - Google Books
Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique de Précis ... - Conrad Malte-Brun - Google Books

The French book "Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique du Précis de la géographie universelle en huit volumes" (volume 2) was published in Paris, 1831. Page 221 said that: "equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire". "A une egale distance de la cote de Cochinchine et de l'ile d'Hai-nan, l'archipel de Paracels est une dependance de l'empire d'Annam"
----

An archipelago (which isEqual-spaced between Vietnam and Hainan) is near Vietnamese coast? Oh logic I had some other books with told that Paracel is equal-spaced between Vietnamese coast and Hainan, do you need more?

I also said
----
The map-drawing technique in that period was still poor, so the map can't provide the extract distance. That's why we need texts to back-up our maps.
----

Just check out these map:

compare to this

In the older map, The distance from Southern Vietnam to Western Malaysia is too close than the fact, the size of Thailand Gulf is also too small than it has to be, so do you mean there have to be another Malaysia or another Thailand Gulf?

As the time goes, the distances in maps are farther from the coast because the map-drawing technique is advancing, so the distances are more accurate.
Such as this 1833 map:

Is that too close to the coast?

And in Yesterday 07:08 PM, I said:

----
Now give me the name of what archipelago is as large and far from the coast as the archipelago in our map so Westerners can be mistaken with Paracels and described "equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire". If there is no archipelago like that, it means the archipelago in the map is Paracels, ok?

One thing, our Paracel Teams (Đội Hoàng Sa and Đội Bắc Hải) start from our near coast islands to go to Paracel. For example, Ly Son island, just go and search it on google, oh if you have google there
----

The "long bar area" you mentioned in your last paragraph is too close and our map has it too, and definitely separated from Paracel:

So in conclusion, you mean that Westerners had mistaken Paracel with some other near-coast islands, and my points are:
1) There is no near-coast archipelago which is big and far enough to be mistaken with the more noticeable Paracels. Why don't you just go to google maps and find an archipelago like that?
2) It's an awkward moment when thousands of Westerners had gone around South China Sea for 400 years but all of them just couldn't found the real Paracel "until recent times", only found some near-coast islands to draw in their maps.
3) The French book "Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique du Précis de la géographie universelle en huit volumes" (volume 2) was published in Paris, 1831. Page 221 said that: "equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire". "A une egale distance de la cote de Cochinchine et de l'ile d'Hai-nan, l'archipel de Paracels est une dependance de l'empire d'Annam". So the archipelago which was found by Westerners is real Paracel, because only Paracel is equal-spaced between Hainan and Vietnamese coast.
4) The map-drawing technique in that period was still poor, so the map can't provide the extract distance. They even drew Western Malaysia too close to Southern Vietnam than what it has to be. That's why we need texts to back-up our maps.
5) Our Paracel Teams (Đội Hoàng Sa and Đội Bắc Hải, check our 1776 book) started their annual journeys from our near-coast islands to go to Paracel. For example, Ly Son island, just go and search it on google, oh if you have google there.

And finally, if you Chinese are confident in your "evidences", why don't go to an international court instead of this:

In fact, you do not carefully read my article, Western countries are not 400 years did not find the Xisha Islands, The Vietnamese Government deliberately distorted "Parcel" this name because of the West "parcel" is different at different times. Based on available information, we can find, Prior to the 19th century, "Parcel" means with Viet Nam Central Coast Islands and shoals, Specific to 1851, Western began using "Parcel" to China's Paracel Islands. In fact, in 1613, British Captain John Sullivan, to record the "Parcel "(Viet Nam central coast of the island ) and" Les Lunet te "(Paracel Islands) specific geographic coordinates. "Parcel": a long strip of area, the shape of a foot, the foot of the thumb toward the southwest, located at latitude 12 ° ~~ 16 ° 30 east longitude 110 ° to 111 °; "Les Lunet te": in the northeast direction, showing the lateral distribution, located at latitude 16 ° to 17 °, longitude 111 ° 30 'to 112 ° 42'. From the above latitude and longitude, we can find, "Parcel" north-south direction distribution ,near the central coast of Vietnam; "Les Lunet te" east-west direction distribution, Specific latitude and longitude meet now the Xisha Islands (15 ° 42' ~ 17 ° 08' North, longitude 111 ° 10' ~ 112 ° 55).

With regard to the description of France 1931, we can say that the description is too general, there is no specific coordinates as a reference. Hainan Island have been very close, only more than two hundred kilometers from Vietnam. Then we look at 1831 the previous map of the Western: "Parcel" the long bar area is the distribution of north-south direction, We by 16 ° 30' north latitude, longitude 111 ° as the base point, From here to Vietnam or the distance of Hainan Island: Whether accord with(equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire)?

Vietnam 1938, I have already said a lot. Mapping technology has reached a certain level, the approximate outline of the Vietnamese territory and has been able to be portrayed. From the map, the distance from Vietnam to Malaysia there is no big mistakes(Compared to the "黄沙" and "萬里長沙" (the so-called Vietnam Xisha and Nansha Islands)), Compared to Vietnam to Hainan Island in the distance far away. In reality, Viet Nam to Hainan Island nearest distance is more than 200 kilometers, and Viet Nam to Malaysia is 400 km, Viet Nam to Xisha Islands are 300 km, Xisha Islands to the Nansha Islands is more than 700 km. Thus, we can see that; by the Vietnamese government to say: "黄沙" and "萬里長沙" (Xisha and Nansha Islands), Then we have a big problem, from the 1938 map, Why Viet Nam to Hainan Island and Malaysia's distance is generally consistent with the actual distance ratio? And the approximate outline of the Vietnamese territory and has been able to be portrayed, but despite the distance ratio of these two islands compared to other region of the map to be very different? This difference logically have a problem! Why is there this situation? In fact, this map depicts the "黄沙" and "萬里長沙" approximate location is not wrong, "黄沙" and "萬里長沙" was the 1613 British Captain John Sullivan described the bar district, They are the central Vietnam coast, islands and shoals, so from the coast of Vietnam is so close! The Vietnamese Government is deliberately confusing geographical location, Confuse the West "Parcel" name to achieve the same purpose: Has the so-called (Xisha and Nansha Islands) historical evidence!

 

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

In fact, you do not carefully read my article, Western countries are not 400 years did not find the Xisha Islands, The Vietnamese Government deliberately distorted "Parcel" this name because of the West "parcel" is different at different times. Based on available information, we can find, Prior to the 19th century, "Parcel" means with Viet Nam Central Coast Islands and shoals, Specific to 1851, Western began using "Parcel" to China's Paracel Islands. In fact, in 1613, British Captain John Sullivan, to record the "Parcel "(Viet Nam central coast of the island ) and" Les Lunet te "(Paracel Islands) specific geographic coordinates. "Parcel": a long strip of area, the shape of a foot, the foot of the thumb toward the southwest, located at latitude 12 ° ~~ 16 ° 30 east longitude 110 ° to 111 °; "Les Lunet te": in the northeast direction, showing the lateral distribution, located at latitude 16 ° to 17 °, longitude 111 ° 30 'to 112 ° 42'. From the above latitude and longitude, we can find, "Parcel" north-south direction distribution ,near the central coast of Vietnam; "Les Lunet te" east-west direction distribution, Specific latitude and longitude meet now the Xisha Islands (15 ° 42' ~ 17 ° 08' North, longitude 111 ° 10' ~ 112 ° 55).

With regard to the description of France 1931, we can say that the description is too general, there is no specific coordinates as a reference. Hainan Island have been very close, only more than two hundred kilometers from Vietnam. Then we look at 1831 the previous map of the Western: "Parcel" the long bar area is the distribution of north-south direction, We by 16 ° 30' north latitude, longitude 111 ° as the base point, From here to Vietnam or the distance of Hainan Island: Whether accord with(equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire)?

Vietnam 1938, I have already said a lot. Mapping technology has reached a certain level, the approximate outline of the Vietnamese territory and has been able to be portrayed. From the map, the distance from Vietnam to Malaysia there is no big mistakes(Compared to the "黄沙" and "萬里長沙" (the so-called Vietnam Xisha and Nansha Islands)), Compared to Vietnam to Hainan Island in the distance far away. In reality, Viet Nam to Hainan Island nearest distance is more than 200 kilometers, and Viet Nam to Malaysia is 400 km, Viet Nam to Xisha Islands are 300 km, Xisha Islands to the Nansha Islands is more than 700 km. Thus, we can see that; by the Vietnamese government to say: "黄沙" and "萬里長沙" (Xisha and Nansha Islands), Then we have a big problem, from the 1938 map, Why Viet Nam to Hainan Island and Malaysia's distance is generally consistent with the actual distance ratio? And the approximate outline of the Vietnamese territory and has been able to be portrayed, but despite the distance ratio of these two islands compared to other region of the map to be very different? This difference logically have a problem! Why is there this situation? In fact, this map depicts the "黄沙" and "萬里長沙" approximate location is not wrong, "黄沙" and "萬里長沙" was the 1613 British Captain John Sullivan described the bar district, They are the central Vietnam coast, islands and shoals, so from the coast of Vietnam is so close! The Vietnamese Government is deliberately confusing geographical location, Confuse the West "Parcel" name to achieve the same purpose: Has the so-called (Xisha and Nansha Islands) historical evidence!

You cannot request an ancient map drawn a scale exactly as a modern map.
Simple, Just look at the maps of China, we did not see any mention two archipelagoes Paracels and Spratlys.
But the maps of Vietnam have always drawn the two archipelagoes, although the scale of position was not exactly the same as today.

A Map of China in 1561:

A Map of China in 1461:

A Map of China in 1635:

A Map of China in 1862:

A map of Guangdong, China in 1897:

A map of China in 1909:

BUT:

A map of Vietnam paited by Europeans from XV-XVI centuries:

A map of Vietnam paited by Danvilleen in 1735:

 

[EastSea]

In fact, you do not carefully read my article, Western countries are not 400 years did not find the Xisha Islands, The Vietnamese Government deliberately distorted "Parcel" this name because of the West "parcel" is different at different times. Based on available information, we can find, Prior to the 19th century, "Parcel" means with Viet Nam Central Coast Islands and shoals, Specific to 1851, Western began using "Parcel" to China's Paracel Islands. In fact, in 1613, British Captain John Sullivan, to record the "Parcel "(Viet Nam central coast of the island ) and" Les Lunet te "(Paracel Islands) specific geographic coordinates. "Parcel": a long strip of area, the shape of a foot, the foot of the thumb toward the southwest, located at latitude 12 ° ~~ 16 ° 30 east longitude 110 ° to 111 °; "Les Lunet te": in the northeast direction, showing the lateral distribution, located at latitude 16 ° to 17 °, longitude 111 ° 30 'to 112 ° 42'. From the above latitude and longitude, we can find, "Parcel" north-south direction distribution ,near the central coast of Vietnam; "Les Lunet te" east-west direction distribution, Specific latitude and longitude meet now the Xisha Islands (15 ° 42' ~ 17 ° 08' North, longitude 111 ° 10' ~ 112 ° 55).

With regard to the description of France 1931, we can say that the description is too general, there is no specific coordinates as a reference. Hainan Island have been very close, only more than two hundred kilometers from Vietnam. Then we look at 1831 the previous map of the Western: "Parcel" the long bar area is the distribution of north-south direction, We by 16 ° 30' north latitude, longitude 111 ° as the base point, From here to Vietnam or the distance of Hainan Island: Whether accord with(equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire)?

Vietnam 1938, I have already said a lot. Mapping technology has reached a certain level, the approximate outline of the Vietnamese territory and has been able to be portrayed. From the map, the distance from Vietnam to Malaysia there is no big mistakes(Compared to the "黄沙" and "萬里長沙" (the so-called Vietnam Xisha and Nansha Islands)), Compared to Vietnam to Hainan Island in the distance far away. In reality, Viet Nam to Hainan Island nearest distance is more than 200 kilometers, and Viet Nam to Malaysia is 400 km, Viet Nam to Xisha Islands are 300 km, Xisha Islands to the Nansha Islands is more than 700 km. Thus, we can see that; by the Vietnamese government to say: "黄沙" and "萬里長沙" (Xisha and Nansha Islands), Then we have a big problem, from the 1938 map, Why Viet Nam to Hainan Island and Malaysia's distance is generally consistent with the actual distance ratio? And the approximate outline of the Vietnamese territory and has been able to be portrayed, but despite the distance ratio of these two islands compared to other region of the map to be very different? This difference logically have a problem! Why is there this situation? In fact, this map depicts the "黄沙" and "萬里長沙" approximate location is not wrong, "黄沙" and "萬里長沙" was the 1613 British Captain John Sullivan described the bar district, They are the central Vietnam coast, islands and shoals, so from the coast of Vietnam is so close! The Vietnamese Government is deliberately confusing geographical location, Confuse the West "Parcel" name to achieve the same purpose: Has the so-called (Xisha and Nansha Islands) historical evidence!

The map Vietnam from time of Minh Mang Emperor is stating clearly two Islands are parts of Vietnam. In the past the demonstration of teritory is the most important. We have also other evident, the records and chronicles to approve about that Hoang Sa and Truong sa are under controle of Nguyen Dynasty.
was fortunate we could find in Phủ Biên Tạp Lục, an account written by Lê Quý Đôn in 1776, and mentioning the archipelagos of Hoàng Sa (Paracel Islands) and Trường Sa (Spratly Islands) off the Vietnamese coast as Vietnam’s territories. The document also relates how, once a year, the Lord Nguyễn sent out to these islands a special team on 5 boats which took 3 days and 3 nights to reach the islands.

 

[Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ]

In fact, you do not carefully read my article, Western countries are not 400 years did not find the Xisha Islands], The Vietnamese Government deliberately distorted "Parcel" this name because of the West "parcel" is different at different times. Based on available information, we can find, Prior to the 19th century, "Parcel" means with Viet Nam Central Coast Islands and shoals, Specific to 1851, Western began using "Parcel" to China's Paracel Islands. In fact, in 1613, British Captain John Sullivan, to record the "Parcel "(Viet Nam central coast of the island ) and" Les Lunet te "(Paracel Islands) specific geographic coordinates. "Parcel": a long strip of area, the shape of a foot, the foot of the thumb toward the southwest, located at latitude 12 ° ~~ 16 ° 30 east longitude 110 ° to 111 °; "Les Lunet te": in the northeast direction, showing the lateral distribution, located at latitude 16 ° to 17 °, longitude 111 ° 30 'to 112 ° 42'. From the above latitude and longitude, we can find, "Parcel" north-south direction distribution ,near the central coast of Vietnam; "Les Lunet te" east-west direction distribution, Specific latitude and longitude meet now the Xisha Islands (15 ° 42' ~ 17 ° 08' North, longitude 111 ° 10' ~ 112 ° 55).

With regard to the description of France 1931, we can say that the description is too general, there is no specific coordinates as a reference. Hainan Island have been very close, only more than two hundred kilometers from Vietnam. Then we look at 1831 the previous map of the Western: "Parcel" the long bar area is the distribution of north-south direction, We by 16 ° 30' north latitude, longitude 111 ° as the base point, From here to Vietnam or the distance of Hainan Island: Whether accord with(equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire)?

Vietnam 1938, I have already said a lot. Mapping technology has reached a certain level, the approximate outline of the Vietnamese territory and has been able to be portrayed. From the map, the distance from Vietnam to Malaysia there is no big mistakes(Compared to the "黄沙" and "萬里長沙" (the so-called Vietnam Xisha and Nansha Islands)), Compared to Vietnam to Hainan Island in the distance far away. In reality, Viet Nam to Hainan Island nearest distance is more than 200 kilometers, and Viet Nam to Malaysia is 400 km, Viet Nam to Xisha Islands are 300 km, Xisha Islands to the Nansha Islands is more than 700 km. Thus, we can see that; by the Vietnamese government to say: "黄沙" and "萬里長沙" (Xisha and Nansha Islands), Then we have a big problem, from the 1938 map, Why Viet Nam to Hainan Island and Malaysia's distance is generally consistent with the actual distance ratio? And the approximate outline of the Vietnamese territory and has been able to be portrayed, but despite the distance ratio of these two islands compared to other region of the map to be very different? This difference logically have a problem! Why is there this situation? In fact, this map depicts the "黄沙" and "萬里長沙" approximate location is not wrong, "黄沙" and "萬里長沙" was the 1613 British Captain John Sullivan described the bar district, They are the central Vietnam coast, islands and shoals, so from the coast of Vietnam is so close! The Vietnamese Government is deliberately confusing geographical location, Confuse the West "Parcel" name to achieve the same purpose: Has the so-called (Xisha and Nansha Islands) historical evidence!

Yeah yeah yeah finally you mean that Vietnamese Paracels is different with real Paracels
Before you start saying something that really hard to understand, list down your answer for all 6 of my points:

1) There is no near-coast archipelago which is big and far enough to be mistaken with the more noticeable Paracels. You have to show me an archipelago which is fitted to your argument. Why don't you just go to google maps and find an archipelago like that, capture your screen and post here? If you can't find that archipelago on google maps or google earth, your argument is invalid.

2) Why don't they just go and draw the real Paracel instead of some near-coast island? It's an awkward moment when thousands of Westerners had gone around South China Sea for 400 years but all of them just "missed" the real Paracels "until the year xxxx". While they couldn't found the real Paracel, they found some less noticeable "near-coast islands" to draw in their maps. Hmm, poor Westerners

3) The French book "Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique du Précis de la géographie universelle en huit volumes" (volume 2) was published in Paris, 1831. Page 221 said that: "equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire". "A une egale distance de la cote de Cochinchine et de l'ile d'Hai-nan, l'archipel de Paracels est une dependance de l'empire d'Annam". No near-coast islands in Central Vietnam is equal-spaced between Vietnamese coast and Hainan. So the archipelago which was drawn by Westerners is real Paracel, because in Central Vietnam only Paracel is equal-spaced between Hainan and Vietnamese coast.
You can also search for "Nuovo dizionario geografico universale", Venezia, 1831

4) The map-drawing technique in that period was still poor, so the map can't provide the extract distance and size. They even drew Western Malaysia too close to Southern Vietnam than what it has to be. The size and appearance of the Gulf of Thailand is another problem. So some nautical miles different is not a big problem. When the technique was advanced, they drew the real distance:

Don't argue that Western Malaysia and Gulf of Thailand are not big problem. Other people will see it's a big problem or not. Just answer why the better-technique map in 1838 has the real distance?

5) Our Paracel Teams (Đội Hoàng Sa and Đội Bắc Hải, check our 1776 book) started their annual journeys from our near-coast islands to go to Paracel, and it took 3 days 3 nights to reach the Paracel in sailing season (windy season). For example, Ly Son island, just go and search it on google, oh if you have google there. Why do they go to a "near-coast islands" from the same "near-coast islands" to "set sovereignty" at where they had already lived, and it took 3 days 3 nights in sailing season just to reach the same archipelago?

6) You said that the Paracel in Vietnamese maps is just "the near-coast island" in Central Vietnam, but that near-coast island even appeared in that map beside Paracel:

So, your argument about "near-coast islands in the Central Vietnam" is invalid.

7) And finally, if you Chinese are confident in your "evidences", why don't go to an international court instead of this: