Is Japan partly responsible for the Chinese invasion of Tibet ?

[Maciamo]

Absolutely NOT,Tibet question is two-fold.
Tibet's historic ties to Qing Dynasty's Manchu Royal House of Aisin-Giron with earlier emperors practiced Tibetan Llama religious beliefs and there was a gentlemen agreement on Tibet's acceptance of China's position as " Mandate of Heaven " during this Chinese dynastic period.

So what ? Japan imported its Buddhism from China, as well as most of its traditional culture. This only reinforces the connection between the relation Japan-China and China-Tibet. What's more, DNA tests have shown the the Tibetans were genetically closer to the Japanese than to the Chinese.

British military meddlings in the territory through it's colonial stronghold in the India sub-continent traced back to later decades of Qing Dynasty before Manchu Empire collapsed in 1910.

British presence in China was mostly limited to Hong Kong and Shanghai. China was never a colony of the West, neither were Japan or Tibet. What is your point ?

LOL,Tibet is a deep hole with very little resources and many non-natives can't live under such high-altitude levels.That place is a loss cause for China,Beijing pours millions and billion into Tibet.

OK (so what ?)

[nurizeko]

At this Rate Maciamo we could link tibet with the Norman invasion of England or any other invasion.

[Maciamo]

At this Rate Maciamo we could link tibet with the Norman invasion of England or any other invasion.

I am listening what is your theory ? This surely takes more steps than Japan's invasion of China, repeated only 13 years later in Tibet by the same Chinese who had endured the Japanese invasion with the same official arguments for invading them. Have you ever seen the film Kundun (the life of the current Dalai-Lama until his exile to India after the Chinese invasion) ? It is while wacthing it that it dawned on me that the Chinese propaganda was too similar to the one that Imperial Japan used to occupy East Asia to be just a coincidence. For you need to have a good knowledge of WWII in East Asia, then watch Kundun, then tell me your opinion again.

[nurizeko]

I dont have a theory, my point is you dont either.
Mao might have remembered a Few Japanese tactics he remembered from the Japanese invasion (though how much tactics are required to crush and subjigate a sparesly populated peaceful nation when you have one of the largest armies on earth?) but Japan ultimately had no say or effect over Mao's urge to occupy Tibet and subjigate it.
China has long considored Tibet part of China, even if for many lengths of time it was independent in reality.
China would have invaded and occupied Mongolia if it wasnt a communist state strongly allied to the soviet union.
The Japanese invasions gave the kinda chaos that no doubt helped mao in the long run for his bid to be leader of a communist China, but nah, they didnt cause any invasion of Tibet.
WW2 changed the world if thats what you mean, but no, no direct or even real indirect imput by the Japanese.
If we all thought like that we could blame Japan for the asian tsunami.
Why?
Because the word Tsunami is Japanese.

Have you ever seen the film Kundun

I try and make a habit of basing my knowledge of history and important things on reputable academic sources rather then "a good movie".
However, for entertainment purpouses I will gladly watch the movie for you and get back to you with my criticisms and thoughts on the movie as a vehicle for entertainment and emotional/ethical lessons.
I find Movies less fit for purpouse of education then more fit for conveying a message or lesson about emotion and morals.
Interesting theory though, keep up the good work with new threads, someone has to post something worth discussing.
Edit: It occured to me to possibly be a bit rude to leave the thread without myself providing a movie Wiki link aswell.
I found I enjoyed this particular movie myself, its up to you to decide if you appriciate it.
Wiki Link

[pipokun]

Japan=>Mao=>Maoists in Europe=>The cold war ended=>RER/metro on strike=>Japanese tourists are at a loss=>Korean tourists demand reparation not from RER, but from Japan Railway company
continued...

[Maciamo]

Japan=>Mao=>Maoists in Europe=>The cold war ended=>RER/metro on strike=>Japanese tourists are at a loss=>Korean tourists demand reparation not from RER, but from Japan Railway company
continued...

Maoists in Europe ? Who ?

What is the connection between the end of the cold war and RER strikes ?

[pipokun]

Maoists in Europe ? Who ?
What is the connection between the end of the cold war and RER strikes ?

The first story is that it blows.
*snip*
And in the end, Okeya, a cooper, makes money.

I don't know which is more reasonable, wind-cooper story or your Japan-Maoism, though there still remains ideological dinosaurs here.

[hungtakwai]

I am from Hong Kong and I am thus so familiar of how the British rule over my home in the pass 100 years. The British, in fact, did not turn the whole China to her colony like India but only Hong Kong and a very little part of Shanghai before the WWII.
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. In the Qing Dynasty, the relationship between Dalai Lama (not today's) was very close to the Manchurian rulers of the Empire. Many Historians stated that it was the pirvate agenda of the Manchurain (the Royal family of Qing Empire) to separate the Hans, Mongolians, Tibet people, Muslisms, and other races of the Southwest areas of the empire in order to mandate the whole nation.
However, the Manchu, the Northeast provinces of China was not Japanese places afterall. The 2 issues were so differernt.
Besides, President Mao, although he had brought disasters to China, did not emphasize in the open of Tibet. He had so much to due with already, Tibet was actually under PRC's controll in the very begining of the Mao's period.
Another evidence to show Tibet was under China's controll was that Dalai Lama the 13th had claimed to respect the central government of China in 1933 by himself. He had given up Tibet's independent already before the establish of PRC. As the Lama said, he was actually the same person. The Dalai lama was transferring from one body to another, so, he got to admit his declaration of giving up independent.

Chinese "imperialism" is more of an example of "manifest destiny" than a sort of infinitely expansionist ideal. The idea is that each dynasty (including the present government, which I sometimes jokingly refer to as the "Mao Dynasty") will strive for suzerainty over a specific area. This is why successive dynasties will usually fill in the same borders on the map that the Qin/Han dynasties did. The invasion of Tibet is an extension of that. Although never directly ruled by China before the nineteenth century, Tibet has become a part of China's manifest destiny, and the current government will seek to encompass all the lands that it deems within that sphere of Chinese suzerainty.

In other words, in my opinion, Japan has little to do with causing the Chinese invasion of Tibet. Indeed, the Japanese "model" for invasion/occupation (if you can call it a "model") has only been halfheartedly adhered to throughout China's occupation of Tibet.

It is already not the "Mao Dynasty" there had been "Deng Dynasty", "Jiang Dynasty" and now the "Wu-Wan Dynasty"

[grapefruit]

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. In the Qing Dynasty, the relationship between Dalai Lama (not today's) was very close to the Manchurian rulers of the Empire. Many Historians stated that it was the pirvate agenda of the Manchurain (the Royal family of Qing Empire) to separate the Hans, Mongolians, Tibet people, Muslisms, and other races of the Southwest areas of the empire in order to mandate the whole nation.

Does it mean Korea could be also claimed by China?

[hungtakwai]

Does it mean Korea could be also claimed by China?

That's differnet. The Qing Empire did not send officiers to Korea, but Tibet

[newd]

Does it mean Korea could be also claimed by China?

Korea was never colonized by China. Only the Mongols and Japanese.

[grapefruit]

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?

[newd]

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.

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.

[grapefruit]

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?

[Golgo 13]

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.

[hungtakwai]

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.

[newd]

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.

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.

[hungtakwai]

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.

[grapefruit]

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.