Foreigners in ancient Chinese history

[bhchao]

But I think there is a difference between leasing Cyprus to the British in 1878 versus annexing the island in 1914, which the British finally did on the outbreak of war with the Ottoman Empire in World War I.

The Ottomans leased Cyprus to the British on the condition that Britain use it as a base to protect the Ottoman Empire against Russia.

Then in 1914, Britain decided to annex the island outright when it found itself fighting alongside Russia against the Ottoman Empire.

Just like China leasing Hong Kong to Britain for 99 years, that does not mean the ownership of Hong Kong is being transferred permanently to Britain.

.

[atitarev]

Ian' date=' I highly doubt that was the case.

...

The Japanese were already giving signals that they were going to surrender right after Hiroshima, and thus the second atomic bomb attack was probably unnecessary. The Soviets declared war on Japan only after it looked very likely that Japan was going to surrender soon.

...

[/quote']

What a lie! Russia liberated the whole of Manchuria from Japanese troops long before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You in America are so brainwashed by your own media that you think that you won the war. Russia fought 4 years and lost 27.5 mln lives in WW2. All the major battles of that war happened on Russian territory.

US did take part in the war, which is appreciated but the whole war history was so twisted during the Cold War, so all the events are forgotten. Stalin's government contributed to that by not revealing all crimes against humanity on the Soviet territory. Evryone knows about 6 mln Jews, Auschwitz, etc but not about millions of Russian burned alive when towns and villages were levelled in Western Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. I don't want to start a political discussion but please be considerate with your comments and don't downplay the role of Russia in that war!

This link is biased against Russians anyway (well, Soviet involvement helped Communists come to power in China) but mentions the liberation of Manchuria.

http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/republican3.html

[bhchao]

Russia liberated the whole of Manchuria from Japanese troops long before Hiroshima and Nagasaki

atitarev, Russia invaded Manchuria on August 9, three days after Hiroshima and on the same day as Nagasaki.

[atitarev]

Yes, you're right. I made a mistake but still bombing of Japanese cities is only viewed in America as the main factor in Japan's surrender.

The Soviet army offensive in Manchuria - the Japanese troops underestimated the Red Army:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/RMF.htm

[bhchao]

But Taiwan, like Alsace-Lorraine, was involuntarily taken away from China (France) as a result of war. To China (France), the grabbing is injustice.

So at the end of another war when the defeated became the victor, naturally the victor would undo their perceived injustice and take back what they thought they were entitled to.

Ian, I find this argument difficult to comprehend and quite simplistic.

First, who gets to choose what is injustice and what is justice? Also, injustice to whom? Is it injustice to the Qing rulers, the CCP, or the people of Taiwan? Just because some leadership in the past conquered a territory does not necessarily mean that territory is part of a larger territory today. Basically your logic goes like this. "The Qing rulers (Kangxi) conquered Taiwan. The Qing rulers (Kangxi) were Manchus. Manchus are Chinese. Therefore Taiwan is part of China today".

If that logic was sound, then we can also say the same of Outer Mongolia being part of China today and Cyprus being a part of Turkey. But why is that not the case today? It is because the people of both territories decided on the course of self-determination.

Cyprus was involuntarily taken away from the Ottoman Empire in 1914 when Britain annexed it during WWI. Yet the people of Cyprus still decided on self-determination. Today Cyprus is not part of Turkey.

Taiwan was involuntarily taken away from the Qing Empire in 1895 when Japan annexed it. But one should not let anti-Japanese sentiments cloud their judgment on what is best for the people of Taiwan.

At first, Chiang claimed Outer Mongolia to be part of the ROC. Then in 1945, he reached an agreement with Stalin recognizing Outer Mongolia's independence only on the condition that the people of Mongolia choose that path, which the Mongolians did in a plebescite held that year. Strangely Chiang reversed course again after he retreated to Taiwan, insisting that Outer Mongolia was part of the ROC.

It's amazing how politicians can twist the truth to suit their own needs, and to preserve their power. Keep in mind that both Mao and Chiang supported Taiwanese independence when Taiwan was under Japanese occupation. Mao reversed course after the Nationalists retreated to Taiwan and were seeking to use the island as a base to recover the mainland. Chiang reversed course by trying to do just that. Ever since then, Mao began saying that Taiwan is part of China.

Both you and I support Taiwan being a part of China. But that's not for us to decide, nor the CCP, nor the people of mainland China. Neither is that decision up to the KMT or DPP. It is for the people of Taiwan to decide. That decision has to be respected, whether it be reunification or independence.

[Ian_Lee]

Atitarev:

I never underestimated the honor that the Soviet Red Army should be entitled to in the European Theater. In fact, the Battle of siege at Stalingrad, not the Normandy landing, was the turning point of WWII.

However, the entry of war at the Asian Theater by Soviet Red Army in the final days is not an honorable deed to mention. Why? Here are the reasons:

(1) After May Day in Europe, everybody in the world knew that the days to Japan's surrender was numbered. In fact, throughout the early summer of 1945, the Japanese cabinet begged the Russian ambassador in Tokyo to arrange a ceasefire talk with US. But attacking the low-morale Kwantung Army in Manchuria in August 1945 who were totally unprepared for a Soviet assualt, such act should be deemed equivalent to the Chinese proverb "Beating the Drowning Dog".

(2) And after the capture of Manchuria, the Soviet Red Army moved most of the machineries in those Japanese-built factories back to USSR. The ownership of those hardware should be China, not USSR.

(3) Moreover, USSR grabbed the natural gas rich southern half of Sakhalin (Karafuto) and the 4 Kurile islands from Japan during this short-lived military campaign.

Suffering limited casualty while grabbing huge rewards, Russians should not complain IMO.

[gato]

First, who gets to choose what is injustice and what is justice? Also, injustice to whom? Is it injustice to the Qing rulers, the CCP, or the people of Taiwan?

Both you and I support Taiwan being a part of China. But that's not for us to decide, nor the CCP, nor the people of mainland China. Neither is that decision up to the KMT or DPP. It is for the people of Taiwan to decide.

Well, what you're really saying is that according to a particular idea of "justice," it should be up to the residents of Taiwan to decide. There are others who believe they don't have to the right to secede. So who's right? It's hard to say like with so many questions of justice. Most times the more powerful parties end up deciding which idea of justice prevails; the rest of us get to exercise the right to complain to our friends.

[Outofin]

Regarding Taiwan, yes, I would think this is a matter of strength. If Taiwan could get widely acknowledged by the world and manage to survive, 100 years after, I could imagine that China will no longer claim it. Even that, China would closely watch over the island. Remember what happened when Soviet tried to deploy missiles in Cuba?

[Ian_Lee]

Bhchao:

Basically your logic goes like this. "The Qing rulers (Kangxi) conquered Taiwan. The Qing rulers (Kangxi) were Manchus. Manchus are Chinese. Therefore Taiwan is part of China today".

You have misinterpreted what I said.

It should be:

"Ming (Koxinga) captured Taiwan from the Dutch. Qing took Taiwan from Ming (which was China's internal political struggle). Qing Dynasty is a Chinese dynasty. And in 1943, the Allied leaders proclaimed that Taiwan should be returned to ROC at the end of the war (even though ROC had never owned Taiwan). And in 1952, Japan concluded a treaty of peace with ROC which Japan recognized ROC's legitimacy over Taiwan. ROC has established continuous rule over Taiwan since 1945 until today."

By the way, the fact that "Qing Dynasty is a Chinese dynasty" has legal basis and recognized by the international community in two facts:

(1) In Puyi's abdication edict announced in 1912, he appointed the republican government to succeed and inherit the current Qing territory to form a Chinese Republic composed of the 5 ethnic groups.

(2) The foreign powers demanded ROC to oblige to the treaties that Qing signed with them. ROC obliged and major powers like US and Britain retained the concesssions like lease territories that were ceded by Qing until 1943. If Qing was not a Chinese dynasty, then why should the new Chinese Republican government adhere to the terms signed between two "foreign" countries, i.e. Qing & U.S., on its soil?

[Ian_Lee]

Bhchao:

Moreover, I am currently talking about history and not current day politics. Please don't mix them up.

Regarding Mongolia, it is is bygone issue because:

(1) ROC recognized its independence in 1946. Though the treaty was signed under the pressure of Truman, anyhow China did render its assent.

(2) Chiang foolishly let them hold a plebscite which rendered the independence legitimacy.

(3) The succeeding PRC reaffirmed Mongolia's legitimacy again by recognizing it diplomatically.

(4) International community recognized Mongolia and then it is a done deal.

Though Chiang latter rebuked the treaty in 1950, Mongolia was like the Baltic Republics which signed away by Lenin in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918.

However, in the case of Tibet, China

(1) never recognized its independence;

(2) didn't sign any treaty even invited;

(3) made claim in the international community that it has been a part of China.

Then when the time is ripe, China could still legitimately take back Tibet.

P.S. In the case of Cyprus, you forget that Ottoman Empire was the defeated nation of WWI. In the Versailles Conference in 1919, the Ottoman Empire was dissected across, thru and diagonally. And the annexation of Cyprus by Britain was then legitimized.

And after WWII, Cyprus gained independence. But in early 1970s, under the urge of Pro-Turkey Cypriots, Turkey invaded the island and since then Cyprus has been partitioned.

Since you cite the example of Cyprus, do you mean you prefer PRC to invade Taiwan and let the island partitioned like Cyprus has been?

[bhchao]

Since you cite the example of Cyprus, do you mean you prefer PRC to invade Taiwan and let the island partitioned like Cyprus has been?

Definitely no

But in early 1970s, under the urge of Pro-Turkey Cypriots, Turkey invaded the island and since then Cyprus has been partitioned.

Just a reminder that the partition of the island by Turkey received worldwide unanimous condemnation. I think Turkey is the only country today that recognizes the partition of Cyprus. The northern half of the island (about 32%) is under the control of the Pro-Turkey Cypriots backed by Turkey, while the remaining southern half of the island (68%) is under a separate rule called the Republic of Cyprus. Today the Republic of Cyprus is the internationally recognized government of the island. So in fact the partitition of Cyprus is illegal.

[Ian_Lee]

Bhchao:

Now the topic is deviating farther and farther from what we discussed. And it involves too much with modern day politics which should fall under another category.

And I know that you are too emotional about Taiwan. But actually what I wrote here is basically identical to what is narrated in Taiwan's government website.

Here is an excerpt from Taiwan's 2004 Year Book about Taiwan's history:

http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5-gp/yearbook/P033.htm

My writing about Taiwan's history is almost the same as what DPP government printed.

But your version is quite different when you doubt over the legitimacy on Taiwan's return to ROC rule at the end of WWII.

[bhchao]

And I know that you are too emotional about Taiwan. But actually what I wrote here is basically identical to what is narrated in Taiwan's government website.

Not really. If you look closely at my posts, I analyze historical trends and use logic to objectively determine what happened in the past, confirm and rebut arguments, and tie the current situation to an objective analysis of history. That is what history is all about. Emotion has nothing to do with it.

I also would like you to view history objectively and look beyond the surface of the facts presented to you, and not be biased towards one position based on 'nationalistic tendencies'. I'm not saying that you have been biased in such a way, but your posts seem to indicate that you have not been able to see both sides of the picture through an objective analysis of history.

For example, you wrote:

Chiang foolishly let them hold a plebscite which rendered the independence legitimacy.

You seem to be judging history through a subjective lens on a nationalistic basis.

Regarding Taiwan, I may seem emotional, but actually I am stating the facts of what really happened, and then scratch my head in wonder (or bewilderment) when a particular 'party' distorts historical facts to serve their own purpose. When I say 'party', I am not referring to you.

Actually I do not think this topic is deviating at all. Everything we talked about is related to foreigners in Chinese history. For example, Stalin's role in the Outer Mongolia issue, and Japan's role in the Taiwan issue and how that affects the current situation. Otherwise you would not have participated this far in the discussion.

Regarding Cyprus, I was illustrating the close analogy between Cyprus and Taiwan, and how foreign intervention in both cases resulted in the current situation today; just like how you illustrated the analogy between Alsace-Lorraine and Taiwan.

Also I just noticed that you wrote in another thread:

"When Sun died in 1925 and Mao talked with Edgar Snow in 1936, they might never imagine that one day China could defeat Japan and recover Taiwan."

[大肚子]

Based on the succession of state theory, the succeeding government has the right to inherit the former state's rights as well as obligations.

The problem with the case of China is which succeeding government? The PRC or the ROC? The succession of state theory does not work in this case because there is no one succeeding state. The situation now is in many ways less like the Ming-Qing transition and more like the Han-Three Kingdoms transition where there are competing, equally legitimate, regimes. In this case no one regime has absolute authority and so the situation can only be resolved on a de facto basis, that is if one regime controls an area then they legitimately control it. Or else by using some other theory of justice and/or legitimacy to decide who has most right.

I'd also like to ask who you think has the most legitimate cliam to Tibet under the succession of state theory, the PRC or the Tibetan government-in-exile?