• 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