Capitalist development vs Socialist development
Removed by mod
- cross-posted to:
- socialism@lemmy.ml
Removed by mod
Capitalist development vs Socialist development
Removed by mod- cross-posted to:
- socialism@lemmy.ml
This map is wrong; obviously China cannot be compared to the United States in terms of military invasions and occupations, but the People's Republic of China invaded and occupied parts of Vietnam in 1979 for around a month, so that should be coloured in. Likewise, China conquered and annexed the de facto independent state of Tibet in ~1950. I'd argue that "invasion" was Very Good (unlike the Sino-Vietnamese War, which was cringe) but regardless it should be on the map. Still a marked difference but pretending the PRC hasn't fought any aggressive wars is misleading and wrong.
yeah that's fair
how could you link me the historicly.net piece and then assent to this user's garbage state department take on Tibet
Well I was going with the whole it was a very good thing that China intervened and liberated Tibet. It is was an intervention though. But yeah, to be clear, I think it was absolutely the right thing to do.
even if you load up "de facto independent" to carry a huge amount of weight it's a straight-up state department take to claim a country "invaded" a place you claimed it had sovereignty over less than two years ago
EDIT: I hope I didn't go too aggro this just really rhymes with the same lies the USA used for Korea and Vietnam
This is definitely not a hill I'm going to die on. I'm willing to entertain the notion that Tibet had notional independence, but it was a nightmarish place that had to be liberated. I think the important point is whether China did the right thing here, and the answer is unarguably that yes it was.
that's probably the best way to approach it. I am filled with rage today so I probably didn't do great in this thread but best to you
no worries, and I appreciate your perspective on this as well
I haven't researched the China-Vietnam conflict enough yet but even in the fucked-up foreign policy of the Sino-Soviet split, from what I understand the motivations were punitive and not to occupy territory. three and a half weeks is not enough time to do much "occupation", I would be interested to find out if there was any meaningful interaction with the civilian population, i.e. did they have to set up any infrastructure at all
on the basis that the other map was painted, it absolutely qualifies. yankee troops were never in Bulgaria until it joined NATO, but merely being in the axis/central powers they're dark red on the map
Yeah, I don't think Vietnam counts as any sort of occupation. It is an instance of a war of aggression by China though. I do consider it to be a mistake on the part of Chinese leadership, but the reality is that every society makes mistakes. Societies run by communists aren't immune from that, and that's just life.
In my view, the question is always how these societies compare to other real world alternatives. Even if we take the most critical view of China in cases of Vietnam, it's clear that there is no comparison with the US. The path of development China took is overwhelmingly peaceful, and one that helped improved life both in China and in many other nations around the world.
Without any stated opinion on justness or otherwise, the Sino Indian war of 62 should probably have some type of representation on the map.
True; I only didn't include it in my comment since the Sino-Indian wars actually resulted in China losing territory, so not sure how that should be represented here.
:LIB:
want to check on that and try again?
It's a historical fact. Parts of Tibet were annexed by the Qing, parts weren't, but in the chaos of the breakdown of the Qing Tibet was able to wrestle some de facto independence and was governed separately, outside of control of the Chinese. The CPC brought Tibet back under control, and again I'm arguing that this invasion was a good thing and freed Tibet. But it still was an aggressive invasion.
deleted by creator
You're conflating two things. I'm talking about the PRC invasion of Tibet in 1950, after which they agreed to join China. The 1959 uprising is indeed a decade afterwards and involves the total dissolution of any Tibetan autonomy, but prior to 1950 Tibet was claiming themselves as an independent sovereign nation. I'm talking about the Battle of Chamdo in 1950, where the PRC "invaded" Tibet, after which Tibet "joined" China. The 1959 rebellion is clearly a case of the PRC putting down an internal rebellion. The 1950 invasion is a bit murkier, given the confused semi-autonomous status of Tibet at the time.
Yeah, you're right, my bad
No worries, this shit is confusing!
expand on that if you can please.
I mean they invaded Tibet and conquered it. That was "aggression." You can also interpret it as putting down an internal rebellion, but regardless deploying troops to a territory that you currently do not control and using force/violence to wrestle back control is "aggressive." Note that doesn't imply negative or positive connotations, "aggressive" is a neutral term. Again, I want to reemphasize the idea that I think this "aggression" was an unequivocally good thing.