Any history experts ? How come Tibet is under China rule but VietNam / Korea is independent?

[Geforce3]

do remember the states and asean supported ah pot even though there was a genocide going on which most historians afaik agreed that it wasn't really plan as the centre had no control of the kar kia killing peeps.

 

[ponpokku]

i dont think they knew whats actually going on with pol pot. just thought he was anti vietnamese expansion therefore = good guy. in fact, the power struggle btw china, russia and other commies wasnt really felt in most part of asia, since we didnt have much access to their inside story.

you would be surprised that there was a time some young angmohs, esp young americans and french, thought highly of the cultural revolution during the 70's too. they thought it was progressive and a different approach to tackle the problems that came along with modernisation, industralisation and urbanisation. but as the truth was revealed, nobody's interested anymore.

 

[ponpokku]

on a side note, i dont think the americans cared too. they are just interested to hit on the vietcongs with everything they can grab. direct support from friendly camps or in direct support from opposite camps, they dont care. besides, since the chinese hinted that they are switching camps, i dont think the americans would annoy the chinese by whacking their one and only kah giah.

if we look at cambodia, sihanouk tried hard to remain neutral, make friends with all sides, cos he didnt want his tiny 6 mil ppl country to be sacrificed in the struggle btw the powerful nations. thou by making use of his popularity he remained in power for 15 yrs, cambodia wasnt badly affected by the fighting, in fact pretty much prospering, even thou it was very close to the center of the conflict. later on his second in command, lon nol, removed him in a coup in 1970 and forced him to take refuge in china. lon nol got full american support in everything: training, weaponry, ammo, tens of million of cash every year, and even direct american intervention to bomb the ho chi minh trials. but lon nol couldnt stand up and face the trial for the duration of one election term. within 5 yrs, cambodia was control by the khmer rouge, which was only a small sidekick during sihanouk's time, and grew into a giant as cambodia got involved with the americans.

in the end cambodia lost 1.5 mil in 9 yrs, a quarter of the population gone, with most part of the country ruined. different scholars gave different estimates on the number of deaths, but as a general guideline from the 20 or so different estimates i saw some yrs ago, no matter what number they estimated, the khmer rouge was roughly responsible for 2/3 in the form of a copycat cultural revolution from china, while the american were roughly responsible for 1/3 deaths, in the form of aerial bombing pretty much the whole place. even CIA reports, thou quoting the deaths on the lower side, at around 0.8 to 1.2 mil, estimate that the americans were responsible for about 1/3. can you imagine a govt that allowed a foreign country to bomb its own ppl? lon nol finally fled to california, if i remember correctly, same ending with other friends of america, like the first south korea prez, or ferdinan marcos. i think during those times, whoever americans support will eventually 'turn bad' and kena shot down... even ppl like saddam hussien.

so american support actually doesnt really mean they are politically correct or they are good. as long as the americans can achieve their goals, no matter how superficial those goals may sound, they dont care if the ppl in other nations are suffering. even thou i think really highly of american technology, military strengths and probably political system, i dont think their foreign policies then were worth mentioning.

the moral behind the story is, commies always kill more of their own ppl ever since the first commie nation was founded, and their 'biggest enemy', whoever that maybe, will come in second. we can possibly say that all commies countries can be categorized in this manner: the first 30 yrs, always about killing own population.

 

[ponpokku]

back to topic.

how the chinese choose the historical time frame to validate their territorial claims? the profile they decided on was supposed to maintain things as it is. it has to tell people that china has no territorial demands on its neighbours, esp the russians, mongolians, vietnamese and north koreans. but at the same time, china is not easy to bully and will not give up any part of land they presently control. the claim would also has to be more or less 'undisputable and wel documented', and will not show ppl that the chinese govt is practising double standards or favouritism towards different nations. it also has to protect the interests and security of china, and would not raise domestic concerns on why the govt give up territories. in other words, nothing to be accused of or challenge their legitimacy.

under these guidelines, qing dynasty is definitely out. qing controlled too big a territory, part of it annexed by ussr later on, part of it became mongolia, where mao was among the first to congratulate its second or third independence announcement in the 20's. the chinese wouldnt want to slap themselves.

the song dynasty territory was the smallest, the other extreme end compared to qing, also out. tang territory stretch into modern central asia, but minus tibet. and i doubt the chinese got the stomach to fight in afghan. the han dynasty territory didnt include yun'nan, thou it controlled much of the silk road. so the only possible time frame would be ming dynasty, a time where the chinese were relatively in 'closed door' mode and had little disputes with its neighbours. the ming territory was also more or less consistent with the present. so this is time frame that will invite the least flaming from all sides, legit, and at the same time well documented. it would require the least effort to exercise, explain and maintain. the only flaw was xinjiang (east turkistan, as separatists like to called it), not really in direct control. but since the original xinjiang turks had declined into one of the 56 minorities before and during the qing dynasty which had little political influence nowdays, and the uyglurs, one of the major minority races who now occupied xinjiang, are also immigrants like the han chinese (the uyglurs always like to say that they are turks, but they are actually not), i guess all sides doesnt have a strong edge over each other. besides, the chinese nuke facility is located there and the chinese govt will not give it up.

 

[thesingingbard]

u want to know what confusion?

ok, if we go by ur definition, according to 'land owned by chinese during(and after) qing dynasty', then why china dont claim mongolia (1.564 mil sq km) or tuva republic (170k sq km), which are both under qing dynasty rule until 1911, and off and on chinese rule all the way to the late 40's? why the chinese kept tibet but gave up mongol? becos they cant fight the russians then and now, so they gave up their claims? does that mean that a superior military power took over tibet then chinese will give up too? qing dynasty controlled over 12 mil sq km, why china only want to claim 9.6 mil sq km? why give up 3 mil sq km of land? thats like the size of 5000 singapore, plus lots of natural reserves and strategic locations, and the chinese definitely have the manpower to rule.

see, ur over-simplification doesnt work here.

huh? actually it does work... China did lay claim to Mongolia, but Russia/International pressure bullied it to allow a referendum to be held for outer Mongolia which resulted in their independence. They were bullied into it, not willingly like in the case of Korea/Vietnam which (i kept saying this) aren't part of China at the end of Qing's rule.

The case of outer mongolia was a bitter lesson for China, after which China declared that if Taiwan held a similar referendum on independence, it's war.

So although it was a nice history lesson on the 3000-yrs history of Korea or Vietnam, i think it has little relevance. What is the point of complicating the issue by dragging something that happened 3000 yrs back? If that's the case, let's complicate USA, Australia, Singapore, Israel... oops! actually every single country's claim on it's borders

 

[thesingingbard]

yo Ponpokku, nice discussion... I take it you're for Tibet independence ya?

Me? I'm just answering TS's query.

 

[thesingingbard]

is it true that tibet was part of china by the end of qing dynasty? then what about the 17point agreement in 1951?

So Tibet wasn't part of China during Qing's dynasty? Or Tibet broke away from China during Qing's dynasty? If answer to both questions are negative then... isn't it true that Tibet was part of China by the end of Qing's dynasty?

So what about the 17-pt agreement?

 

[ponpokku]

huh? actually it does work... China did lay claim to Mongolia, but Russia/International pressure bullied it to allow a referendum to be held for outer Mongolia which resulted in their independence. They were bullied into it, not willingly like in the case of Korea/Vietnam which (i kept saying this) aren't part of China at the end of Qing's rule.

The case of outer mongolia was a bitter lesson for China, after which China declared that if Taiwan held a similar referendum on independence, it's war.

So although it was a nice history lesson on the 3000-yrs history of Korea or Vietnam, i think it has little relevance. What is the point of complicating the issue by dragging something that happened 3000 yrs back? If that's the case, let's complicate USA, Australia, Singapore, Israel... oops! actually every single country's claim on it's borders

nah, plz dont forget that PRC and ROC are different entities. the ROC was (in a way) tricked into the mongolia referendum, but why the PRC still recognised that? mongolia declared independence on their own in 1912, 1928, 1930s and finally 1940s, the commies supported them all the way since the second (chinese commies werent founded until 1920s), why? as i said, mao delivered open messages to congratulate mongol independence even b4 he came into power, 1920s, 20 yrs b4 the referendum, why is he in such a hurry to get rid of mongol? by ur explaination, there is no relevance, no consistancy. russians also supported independence of xinjiang, even sent troops there, while the brits supported tibet. why ROC rejected all claims, but ultimately forced into recognising mongolia (in exchange for russian denouncing their support for chinese commies and xinjiang independence), and why PRC, while rejected the rest, happily acknowledged mongolian independence b4 and after the referendum? why mao welcomed the mongolian referendum, as opposed to kmt being reluctantly forced into it, but rejected the taiwanese referendum later on?

since the commies always say that they are the better govt than kmt, why they never protect the chinese territory? and besides mongolia, there were another 1.5mil sq km of land lost here and there, why dont the chinee claim them, if according to 'land owned during and after qing dynasty'?

why both sides of the chinese civil war parties thought mongolia was a place that can be done without, or sacrificed, whereas tibet, xinjiang or even taiwan, even thou under strong pressure from russians or brits, arent? doesnt fit your qing dynasty profile, does it?

and you seems not to get the point. the reason for the 3000 yrs history is to show that the chinese had a huge array of choices to claim land, whereas the neighbouring countries dont. the reason they choose a particular time frame and not others, is to minimise disputes yet getting the most benefits out of it. your qing dynasty claim doesnt stand cos that will invite too many repercussions, like the above questions i posted, and it is hard for the commies to explain themselves too. if they choose ming dynasty time frame, all these 'unanswered questions' became non-existant. they tell the rest of the world, we stick to ming territory, long enuff history to claim legit (600yrs ago), big enuff land, and least disputes. 'so dont come and bother us with other claims or irrelevant questions'.

as we can all see, the present chinese foreign statements with regards to territory disputes usually have their documentations from ming dynasty onwards, thou chinese occupation on such territories in earlier times were sometimes briefly mentioned.

 

[Weeping USA]

yo Ponpokku, nice discussion... I take it you're for Tibet independence ya?

Me? I'm just answering TS's query.

Nice discussion? I told you so that ponpokku is a walking encycopledia. He knows almost everything as if he is an expert. He is a good storyteller.

 

[ponpokku]

yo Ponpokku, nice discussion... I take it you're for Tibet independence ya?

huh? when did i ever say anything about tibet independence?

since u mentioned it, if one believed in self determination, self rule etc, then one should logically support tibetan independence, at least on a general basis. that applies to taiwan too. dont forget that our forefathers got independence from the brits too.

but to look at things practically (well, dreams and reality often conflict each other), then tibet probably 'has the right for independence' but 'havent got a good enuff reason/backing'. they have zero industry, bad geographical features and climate, and had to rely heavily on chinese subsidies, not to prosper, but just in order to keep their present lifestyle. if they go independence, on the assumption that there are no foreign aid and no chinese harassment, they wont be able to sustain. if we put chinese objections and military might into consideration, then there is even less ground to survive.

so its either they want to exercise their right no matter what, even to the extent of crying 'i want it i want it' like a spoilt child, or to give a thorough thought on the social well being of the tibetans, while sacrificing some autonomy. both sides would have its supporters, hard to say who's right or wrong.

taiwan would probably be very different cos the taiwanese have both the basis and the ability to survive on their own, assuming mainlanders close one eye. but if mainlanders decided not to sit back and watch, the taiwanese are in equally bad situation as the tibetans.

 

[ponpokku]

So Tibet wasn't part of China during Qing's dynasty? Or Tibet broke away from China during Qing's dynasty? If answer to both questions are negative then... isn't it true that Tibet was part of China by the end of Qing's dynasty?

So what about the 17-pt agreement?

i think some people are under the impression that, bcos commies signed(or 'forced the signing of') the 17 pt agreement with tibet to include tibet into chinese territory, it is a proof that tibet wasnt part of china b4 that.

the thing is, the 17 pt agreement is just a renewal of former contracts, the main thing being that tibetan swore loyalty to CCP instead of KMT, and CCP will preserve the tibetan lifestyle in return. it has nothing to do with the status of 'being independent or not' for tibet.

 

[Geforce3]

i dont think they knew whats actually going on with pol pot. just thought he was anti vietnamese expansion therefore = good guy. in fact, the power struggle btw china, russia and other commies wasnt really felt in most part of asia, since we didnt have much access to their inside story.

you would be surprised that there was a time some young angmohs, esp young americans and french, thought highly of the cultural revolution during the 70's too. they thought it was progressive and a different approach to tackle the problems that came along with modernisation, industralisation and urbanisation. but as the truth was revealed, nobody's interested anymore.

I think they and we knew, just that Vietnam was seen more as a threat than Cambodia and with ah Pot deciding that the Vietnamese were to blame for all kind of ****, it was sort of a buffer state. The *********s of course wanted 'revenge'

 

[thesingingbard]

nah, plz dont forget that PRC and ROC are different entities. the ROC was (in a way) tricked into the mongolia referendum, but why the PRC still recognised that? mongolia declared independence on their own in 1912, 1928, 1930s and finally 1940s, the commies supported them all the way since the second (chinese commies werent founded until 1920s), why? as i said, mao delivered open messages to congratulate mongol independence even b4 he came into power, 1920s, 20 yrs b4 the referendum, why is he in such a hurry to get rid of mongol? by ur explaination, there is no relevance, no consistancy. russians also supported independence of xinjiang, even sent troops there, while the brits supported tibet. why ROC rejected all claims, but ultimately forced into recognising mongolia (in exchange for russian denouncing their support for chinese commies and xinjiang independence), and why PRC, while rejected the rest, happily acknowledged mongolian independence b4 and after the referendum? why mao welcomed the mongolian referendum, as opposed to kmt being reluctantly forced into it, but rejected the taiwanese referendum later on?

since the commies always say that they are the better govt than kmt, why they never protect the chinese territory? and besides mongolia, there were another 1.5mil sq km of land lost here and there, why dont the chinee claim them, if according to 'land owned during and after qing dynasty'?

why both sides of the chinese civil war parties thought mongolia was a place that can be done without, or sacrificed, whereas tibet, xinjiang or even taiwan, even thou under strong pressure from russians or brits, arent? doesnt fit your qing dynasty profile, does it?

and you seems not to get the point. the reason for the 3000 yrs history is to show that the chinese had a huge array of choices to claim land, whereas the neighbouring countries dont. the reason they choose a particular time frame and not others, is to minimise disputes yet getting the most benefits out of it. your qing dynasty claim doesnt stand cos that will invite too many repercussions, like the above questions i posted, and it is hard for the commies to explain themselves too. if they choose ming dynasty time frame, all these 'unanswered questions' became non-existant. they tell the rest of the world, we stick to ming territory, long enuff history to claim legit (600yrs ago), big enuff land, and least disputes. 'so dont come and bother us with other claims or irrelevant questions'.

as we can all see, the present chinese foreign statements with regards to territory disputes usually have their documentations from ming dynasty onwards, thou chinese occupation on such territories in earlier times were sometimes briefly mentioned.

You seriously think the present govt has to answer for why 3000 yrs of "array of choices" didn't our ancestors lay claim, and if they did not lay claim then so now they also have no rights? Is that really your argument? And your point of dragging 3000 yrs of history?
Anyhow, our ancestors did lay claim, at least in the Qing's dynasty... but maybe not before that. So? Still no claim then?


They use Ming dynasty documents only to dispute nonsensical claims that these lands (or island: Taiwan) never belonged to China.

btw, the referendum was held in 1945, the fact that Mao sent a congratulatory note was new to me.

I use end of Qing Dynasty becoz shortly after 1911, the country was in chaos so lands that were craved away (like outer Mongolia under ROC rule) should've been included in the current China (which was not). But you're right, PRC shouldn't have agreed to outer Mongolia independence. Why did they... well... perhaps Russia was too strong, or as Commies, they had to listen to big bro Russia? Who knows?

But i cannot agree with your point that since CCP allowed outer Outer Mongolia to go independence means they should allow Tibet, Taiwan, XinJiang. Just becoz it happened, it should be allowed to happened again? Why not just let UK have Hong Kong then? Esp Taiwan... what? KMT lost a civil war, retreat to one part of the country and declare independence? Is that how it works? No country in this globe would willingly allow their countries to be split like this. I may not agree with PAP, but if SDP thinks it can retreat to Tekong and form a new country, is sorely mistaken. And btw, i haven't heard of any country that supports independence for XinJiang, Tibet or Taiwan (and pls dun quote unheard of African countries bought over by Taiwan).

Anyhow, back to the issue (title). And let me make it even easier... if one day SDP got into a civil war with PAP, and won. I suppose it is only natural that SDP would stick to the Singapore borders that PAP has drawn. Why didn't SDP include Johor? Becoz Johor wasn't part of Singapore under PAP rule. And why did SDP include Pulau Hantu? Becoz it was part of Singapore under PAP rule. [replace SDP with CCP, PAP with KMT, Singapore with China, Johor with Korea/Vietnam, Pulau Hantu with Tibet]

And to your other points raised... And why did it allow christmas islands to be sold to UK... well whatever the reason, it doesn't mean Singapore should sell off other islands like Pulau Hantu as well. And if PAP retreated to Pulau Tekong and tried to declare it as ROT (Republic of Tekong), i'm pretty sure SDP would send SAF over. 3000 years back? This island belonged to Monkeys... and the point being?

Is that really that hard to understand why every country in this globe now recognizes China sovereignty over Tibet, Xin-Jiang, Taiwan?

 

[Kiwi8]

Is that really that hard to understand why every country in this globe now recognizes China sovereignty over Tibet, Xin-Jiang, Taiwan?

It's more of the present-day pragmatism rather than lengthy history that causes most (yes most, not all of the countries as u said) countries to recognise China sovereignty over those territories.

First, China is widely known as the world's factory, while none of the other three disputed lands offer anything remotely equivalent to the benefits China can offer (not even what Taiwan can offer, due to the sheer magnitude of size). Any country pissing off China over these lands is not making a good deal in terms of economic benefits.

 

[thesingingbard]

i think some people are under the impression that, bcos commies signed(or 'forced the signing of') the 17 pt agreement with tibet to include tibet into chinese territory, it is a proof that tibet wasnt part of china b4 that.

the thing is, the 17 pt agreement is just a renewal of former contracts, the main thing being that tibetan swore loyalty to CCP instead of KMT, and CCP will preserve the tibetan lifestyle in return. it has nothing to do with the status of 'being independent or not' for tibet.

oic... tks for the clarification.

I suppose CCP didn't stick to the agreement rite?

 

[ponpokku]

You seriously think the present govt has to answer for why 3000 yrs of "array of choices" didn't our ancestors lay claim, and if they did not lay claim then so now they also have no rights? Is that really your argument? And your point of dragging 3000 yrs of history?
Anyhow, our ancestors did lay claim, at least in the Qing's dynasty... but maybe not before that. So? Still no claim then?

They use Ming dynasty documents only to dispute nonsensical claims that these lands (or island: Taiwan) never belonged to China.

too bad to disappoint u, yes they have to. cos 1, the famous CCP quote was 'according to historical records, here and here were under chinese rule during when and when', and 2, CCP take their mianzi more seriously than u thought. they always want everything to look swee swee from the outside.

since china had a long history and they dont always control every part of china they have now, the same logic can be used against them. people can also use the same trick, 'according to ur chinese history records, u dont control here and here during when and when, so spit it out'. so it is best to choose a point in history that others cannot use it back on them. no matter u agree or not, ming dynasty territory is the official stand point CCP took. u can argue all day and thats not gonna change. even for taiwan, CCP doesnt use the fact that sun quan during the 3 kingdoms already sent expeditions there. CCP took koxinga, or zheng cheng gong, as the starting point of chinese control over taiwan.

the point for the history part was just to explain briefly how things bcame the way it is today. its easier to put things on the table wholesale than to answer individual question here and there. satisfied?

btw, the referendum was held in 1945, the fact that Mao sent a congratulatory note was new to me.

I use end of Qing Dynasty becoz shortly after 1911, the country was in chaos so lands that were craved away (like outer Mongolia under ROC rule) should've been included in the current China (which was not). But you're right, PRC shouldn't have agreed to outer Mongolia independence. Why did they... well... perhaps Russia was too strong, or as Commies, they had to listen to big bro Russia? Who knows?

thats simply bcos 1, ur info was limited, plz dont forget that sg dont allow commie publications. and 2, CCP systematically revised mao's documents and literature after 1950, to cover up their politically incorrect statements.

But i cannot agree with your point that since CCP allowed outer Outer Mongolia to go independence means they should allow Tibet, Taiwan, XinJiang. Just becoz it happened, it should be allowed to happened again? Why not just let UK have Hong Kong then? Esp Taiwan... what? KMT lost a civil war, retreat to one part of the country and declare independence? Is that how it works? No country in this globe would willingly allow their countries to be split like this. I may not agree with PAP, but if SDP thinks it can retreat to Tekong and form a new country, is sorely mistaken. And btw, i haven't heard of any country that supports independence for XinJiang, Tibet or Taiwan (and pls dun quote unheard of African countries bought over by Taiwan).

never said that. but it would provide an excuse for others and put CCP in a difficult position. so the easiest method to solve this was to claim everything from a safe spot: mongol wasnt part of china in ming dynasty. so allowing mongol to go independence is showing friendship to the mongol people, a support for the liberation of the mongol ppl from the evil manchu and kmt imperialist. see the point? not only they shed the burden of explaination, they gained legitimacy in overthrowing the previous govt.

HK was part of china during ming dynasty, and so is taiwan, so the chinese dont have to give it up. in fact they were either leased or annexed under 'unequal treaties' so to speak. why they have to give it up? the simple rule of negotiation is to have a common ground. u dont argue compare apples to oranges. just like in physics or economics models we set the required assumptions then we go on to analyse and illustrate. we dont anyhow bring in variables.

so if CCP pick a particular time frame for a particular territory dispute, they have to use the same time frame for all disputes. u have to be consistent, not double standards. if not mongols could just claim all of china since kublai khan succeeded in conquering the chinese.

Anyhow, back to the issue (title). And let me make it even easier... if one day SDP got into a civil war with PAP, and won. I suppose it is only natural that SDP would stick to the Singapore borders that PAP has drawn. Why didn't SDP include Johor? Becoz Johor wasn't part of Singapore under PAP rule. And why did SDP include Pulau Hantu? Becoz it was part of Singapore under PAP rule. [replace SDP with CCP, PAP with KMT, Singapore with China, Johor with Korea/Vietnam, Pulau Hantu with Tibet]

And to your other points raised... And why did it allow christmas islands to be sold to UK... well whatever the reason, it doesn't mean Singapore should sell off other islands like Pulau Hantu as well. And if PAP retreated to Pulau Tekong and tried to declare it as ROT (Republic of Tekong), i'm pretty sure SDP would send SAF over. 3000 years back? This island belonged to Monkeys... and the point being?

Is that really that hard to understand why every country in this globe now recognizes China sovereignty over Tibet, Xin-Jiang, Taiwan?

partially correct and partially incorrect, cos again you are over-simplifying things.

what if, say hypothetically speaking, johor was part of PAP singapore for 300yrs, and PAP lost it to some foreign powers recently. then SDP went on to defeat PAP. now in order to prove that SDP was the better guy, the righteous one, shouldnt SDP take back johor? probably they should consider.

to make things worst, say PAP singapore lost even some more land besides johor, to other different foreign powers. now should the new SDP just sit back and pretend nothing happened? then what is good in SDP compared to PAP? if they behave the same way, what makes SDP the legit one? now lets say SDP want to claim back certain territories, can he say to A, ubin was mine 50 yrs ago, then say to B, tekong was mine 150 yrs ago, and to C, johor was mine 300 yrs ago. do u think A, B and C foreign powers will agree to this differential treatment? definitely not. look at the chinese disputes with japan, vietnam, philippines, malaysia, korea and russia, and u will know. the chinese made a uniform territorial claim on all disputed land, with ming documents. when a country with a long and unbroken history like china want to claim 'territorial integrity', the logical and immediate question will undoubtly be 'territorial integrity' of 'when'? and china is presently the one and only civilisation with thousand yrs of unbroken history, so one cannot simply dump its past if one would like to talk about its territorial changes and its relevance to present territory.

so back to ur scenarion SDP will not choose 3000yrs to claim ROT, cos they dont own it. the malays own it. SDP will specifically choose a time frame that suits them best. and this is exactly what the chinese did. they chose ming dynasty. u just answered ur own question.

recognising chinese control over its territories and denouncing the right to self governance are two different things altogether. so if msia one day became powderful enuff to take over sg, u also lan lan change to malaysian citizen?

the point is u have no idea what 3000 yrs is and u cannot appreciate the history and culture of ur ancestors, simple as that. just like some angmohs had no idea about 'tibet is in chinese control for 600 yrs' really really meant. their nation is only 300 yrs old. the insect that lived for a week cannot appreciate seasonal changes, its beyond their understanding, get it?

 

[boucyfirebal]

nah, plz dont forget that PRC and ROC are different entities. the ROC was (in a way) tricked into the mongolia referendum, but why the PRC still recognised that? mongolia declared independence on their own in 1912, 1928, 1930s and finally 1940s, the commies supported them all the way since the second (chinese commies werent founded until 1920s), why? as i said, mao delivered open messages to congratulate mongol independence even b4 he came into power, 1920s, 20 yrs b4 the referendum, why is he in such a hurry to get rid of mongol? by ur explaination, there is no relevance, no consistancy. russians also supported independence of xinjiang, even sent troops there, while the brits supported tibet. why ROC rejected all claims, but ultimately forced into recognising mongolia (in exchange for russian denouncing their support for chinese commies and xinjiang independence), and why PRC, while rejected the rest, happily acknowledged mongolian independence b4 and after the referendum? why mao welcomed the mongolian referendum, as opposed to kmt being reluctantly forced into it, but rejected the taiwanese referendum later on?

since the commies always say that they are the better govt than kmt, why they never protect the chinese territory? and besides mongolia, there were another 1.5mil sq km of land lost here and there, why dont the chinee claim them, if according to 'land owned during and after qing dynasty'?

why both sides of the chinese civil war parties thought mongolia was a place that can be done without, or sacrificed, whereas tibet, xinjiang or even taiwan, even thou under strong pressure from russians or brits, arent? doesnt fit your qing dynasty profile, does it?

and you seems not to get the point. the reason for the 3000 yrs history is to show that the chinese had a huge array of choices to claim land, whereas the neighbouring countries dont. the reason they choose a particular time frame and not others, is to minimise disputes yet getting the most benefits out of it. your qing dynasty claim doesnt stand cos that will invite too many repercussions, like the above questions i posted, and it is hard for the commies to explain themselves too. if they choose ming dynasty time frame, all these 'unanswered questions' became non-existant. they tell the rest of the world, we stick to ming territory, long enuff history to claim legit (600yrs ago), big enuff land, and least disputes. 'so dont come and bother us with other claims or irrelevant questions'.

as we can all see, the present chinese foreign statements with regards to territory disputes usually have their documentations from ming dynasty onwards, thou chinese occupation on such territories in earlier times were sometimes briefly mentioned.

simple. Mongolia was not of a important piece of land. Beside during WW2 period it was independent with a pro soviet goverment

 

[ponpokku]

wah lan, luckily u are not some country leader or something. not important then can throw away territory? what are the 3 things that made up a nation? population, territory and sovereignty, never learn that in school? what are sg schools teaching nowadays?

and who tell u mongolia not important? brush up ur general knowledge leh, people got rich natural resources, esp gold, copper, coal, tungsten, molybdenum and even got oil production. u know who said something like this b4? the russians who sold alaska to the americans, at 2 cents per acre. now alaska gdp is at 40 bil a yr, with petroleum as major product.

time to wake up. no land on this earth is 'not important', not b4 u can migrate to some distant planet.

 

[_bEar_]

Ok I hate to use wiki for this, but it does provide us with a history time line for what happened.

Vietnam was under the Han empire. They manage to gain their independence. But fell back under the Ming Dynasty breifly and gained their independence again. Apparently civil war raged between the different Lords, some of whom were supported by the Chinese, Eventually the French came in and helped to establish the Nguyen dynasty. However they soon lost their independence to the French who then imposed political and cultral changes.

China came back into the picture after WWII when they helped the Viet Commies in the North to fight the French. This resulted in time the seperation of North and South Vietnam which also resulted in the toppling of the Vietnamese emperor. This was followed in time by the invasion of the Vietcong in a drive to 'merge' the 2 halves of the country and the rest as they say... is history!

So why is Vietnam not part of China? Because the Ming Dynasty failed to maintain control and the Qing Dynasty were too weak to retake Vietnam. Throw in the fact that CCP were probably not interested in running Vietnam as long as their commie comrades were in charge,

Yah.. if the North nvr move in, Vietnam now also like Korea divided by others into 2

 

[_bEar_]

Cheh, he plagarized the inverse ninja law.


Basically Chinese are like Ninjas...........

no wonder in movies the hero always can win so many thousand troops but the thousand ppl troop cannot capture 1 person