Wa-pedia Home > Japan Forum & Europe Forum

View Poll Results: Is Japan partly responsible for the Chinese invasion of Tibet ?

Voters
35. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, Japan's invasion and occupation of China was an obvious model for China' invasion of Tibet

    6 17.14%
  • Japan may have had some influence on China's dealing with Tibet

    4 11.43%
  • No, there is absolutely no connection

    16 45.71%
  • I am shocked at the very assumption in the question !

    9 25.71%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 38 of 38

Thread: Is Japan partly responsible for the Chinese invasion of Tibet ?

  1. #26
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 8, 2008
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by grapefruit View Post
    Does it mean Korea could be also claimed by China?
    Korea was never colonized by China. Only the Mongols and Japanese.

  2. #27
    No rain in Seattle! grapefruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2, 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by newd View Post
    Korea was never colonized by China. Only the Mongols and Japanese.
    I thought Qing Dynasty was also not a Han dynasty. So, technically, Tibet was reined by the Manchu people not by the Han people. Then, why do you call the Mongols as a separate non-han people but Manchus as a Han people?

  3. #28
    Junior Member Golgo 13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 18, 2008
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by grapefruit View Post
    Does it mean Korea could be also claimed by China?
    I remember some articles a couple years ago with China claiming the Northern part of Korea as a former part of her Empire. It possibly has to do with Koguryo controversy.

  4. #29
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 8, 2008
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by grapefruit View Post
    I thought Qing Dynasty was also not a Han dynasty. So, technically, Tibet was reined by the Manchu people not by the Han people. Then, why do you call the Mongols as a separate non-han people but Manchus as a Han people?
    Manchus are Han people? What do you mean by "Han"? Both Manchus and Mongols are minority populations in China, and both of them aren't Han Chinese.

    Quote Originally Posted by Golgo 13 View Post
    I remember some articles a couple years ago with China claiming the Northern part of Korea as a former part of her Empire. It possibly has to do with Koguryo controversy.
    Only Chinese history records that they claimed a very small part of the northwestern corner of Koguryo, but it's not supported by archaeological or genetic evidence from the remains there. But even if the Chinese did claim that land, they were destroyed by the Koguryo forces anyway.
    Last edited by newd; Nov 27, 2008 at 11:40. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

  5. #30
    No rain in Seattle! grapefruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2, 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by newd View Post
    Manchus are Han people? What do you mean by "Han"? Both Manchus and Mongols are minority populations in China, and both of them aren't Han Chinese.
    So, if the Han people and the Manchu people are separate peoples, what legitimate reason the Republic of China has to occupy Tibet?

  6. #31
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 24, 2008
    Posts
    10
    That is more than 2000 years ago in the West Han Dynasty. After the end of the East Han Dynasty, Korea was seperated from China and become a protected state of her. So most historian in China do not recognize Korea as part of China.

  7. #32
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 8, 2008
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by hungtakwai View Post
    That is more than 2000 years ago in the West Han Dynasty. After the end of the East Han Dynasty, Korea was seperated from China and become a protected state of her. So most historian in China do not recognize Korea as part of China.
    Korean territory was never claimed by China. Only Chinese historians think that the Han dynasty occupied a small fraction of the northwestern corner of Koguryo, but is not supported by archaeological and genetic evidence. So the claim is false.

    Quote Originally Posted by grapefruit View Post
    So, if the Han people and the Manchu people are separate peoples, what legitimate reason the Republic of China has to occupy Tibet?
    I never said Tibet should be occupied by China. In fact it shouldn't.
    Last edited by newd; Nov 27, 2008 at 21:36. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

  8. #33
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 24, 2008
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by newd View Post
    Korean territory was never claimed by China. Only Chinese historians think that the Han dynasty occupied a small fraction of the northwestern corner of Koguryo, but is not supported by archaeological and genetic evidence. So the claim is false.


    I never said Tibet should be occupied by China. In fact it shouldn't.
    Really? That contradict with the Official Hist of the Korean some years before... I will check it up for other evidences.

  9. #34
    No rain in Seattle! grapefruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2, 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by hungtakwai View Post
    As for problem of Tibet, it is so different from the Japanese Invasion in the Manchuria and northeast China at that period.
    First of all, Tibet was under Chinese's rule since the Ming Dynasty, although not direct rule, it is nominally under the control of the Chinese Empire.
    What do you mean by "Although not direct rule, it is nominally under the control of the Chinese Empire"? The term "under the control of the Chinese Empire" seems ambiguous. Wasn't Korea also under the control of the Chinese Empire?

    However, the Manchu, the Northeast provinces of China was not Japanese places afterall. The 2 issues were so differernt.
    So is Tibet, where the Han people occupy.
    Japan put Puyi as the emperor of Manchu. China installed their version of Panchen Lama and taken away the one claimed by the Tibetan side. They look similar to me.

  10. #35
    Happy 4321go's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 19, 2004
    Posts
    119
    No, there is absolutely no connection .

    This is more fovored . I think so too~'

    another things, Where is Maciamo
    ...

  11. #36
    No rain in Seattle! grapefruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2, 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by 4321go View Post
    No, there is absolutely no connection .
    You need to prove your claim. Proclaiming "no" is not enough.

  12. #37
    Happy 4321go's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 19, 2004
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by grapefruit View Post
    You need to prove your claim. Proclaiming "no" is not enough.
    majority is on it ~!

    and ~ I think the sentence of "Chinese invasion Tibet" is a misunderstanding~

  13. #38
    No rain in Seattle! grapefruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2, 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by 4321go View Post
    majority is on it ~!
    and ~ I think the sentence of "Chinese invasion Tibet" is a misunderstanding~
    No point has been made. Support is missing in your argument.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Why Tibet needs China
    By Maciamo in forum Regional issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Dec 7, 2009, 17:55
  2. China & Tibet
    By Maciamo in forum Chinese Culture & History
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Jan 1, 2007, 00:18
  3. Free Tibet!
    By retrodisease in forum Regional issues
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Nov 10, 2006, 01:16

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •