• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
    ·
    12 hours ago

    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.

    • miz [any, any]
      ·
      11 hours ago

      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

      The American position on Tibet's sovereignty changed depending on how they felt about the current government of China. During World War II, the US government claimed China held sovereignty over Tibet. In 1948, when Tibetans claimed autonomy, the US state department accused them of having "ill-faith." Tibetan officials even possessed Chinese passports.

      However, all of this changed in 1949 after the Communists took control of China. The State Department wrestled with the question of whether or not they should strategically recognize an independent Tibet. They reasoned that it would be advantageous because “Tibet will be one of the few remaining non-Communist bastions in Continental Asia." As the People’s Liberation Army victory became imminent, the US government decided that they supported an “independent Tibet.”

      EDIT: I hope I didn't go too aggro this just really rhymes with the same lies the USA used for Korea and Vietnam

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
        ·
        11 hours ago

        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.

        • miz [any, any]
          ·
          11 hours ago

          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

    • miz [any, any]
      ·
      11 hours ago

      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

      • Dolores [love/loves]
        ·
        10 hours ago

        three and a half weeks is not enough time to do much "occupation",

        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

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
        ·
        11 hours ago

        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.