Why did not Communist China annex Mainland Southeast Asia?

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
6,866
#71
The CIA did propose Tibet to join the anti-Communist alliance in 1950, which was turned down by the Tibetan government because Tibet trusted the west even less than China, which it thought was Buddhist. When the ruling regime discovered that the CCP was against religion, it was already too late as they had already accepted the 17 points agreement, which accepted Chinese sovereignty. So yes, in that sense, Tibet was not in fact taken by the PRC through military force (aka invasion), they only rebelled after China tried to impose socialist reforms in Kham, which threatened the Tibetan religious order in 1957. Nationalist narratives today would like to see everything as invasions of one nation over another, except nations are forged, not pre-existing, and are often secondary to other forms of identity, such as religion.
You can believe whatever history the Chinese government spins, but China's takeover of Tibet was a military invasion of a country that believed it was independent. Sure, China had one time ruled Tibet, but the same could be said of Vietnam, the only difference was that Vietnam was no longer under Chinese rule further back in history than Tibet. When


China considered it a victory because China achieved its pre-war objectives. North Korea's performance before that are largely only of interest to the Koreans.
The US claimed a draw against the communist forces in general, but lost against China itself in the sense that China pushed the UN forces out of North Korea, with the frontier near the Yalu river right before China entered, and back at the 38th parallel after the war ended.
The Communist did not conquer all of Korea as they tried to do, and a non Communist South Korea was preserved, despite Communist attempts to destroy it, so US objectives were achieved. China's client state North Korea is a basket case, while US client South Korea is a resounding economic success, the difference between China and the US. US was tired of war, after having fought on 2 fronts in WW2, while the Chinese were as interested in fighting each other as driving the Japanese out.

The Japanese did not decisively annihilate resistance, they were stopped in their track in the 3 battles of Changsha and lost their momentum, which was why they attacked the other allies in the first place. As for Japan holding on to the rest of China, you are underestimating the growth of Communist forces throughout the war, growing from merely 50,000 in 1937 to 900,000 by 1945. The CCP defeated the Nationalists in just 4 years, something the Japanese couldn't do in 8 and defeated McArthur himself, something the Japanese also failed to do.
The Chinese were not even coming close to driving the Japanese out of China, and typical Chinese lies to the contrary, the Chinese never came close to defeating the Japanese or driving them out of Manchuria, despite the aid the US gave to China. The Japanese would still be controlling Manchuria to this day if it had been left up to the Chinese. In a decade of fighting, the Chinese had made no progress in driving out the Japanese from Manchuria or the rest of China.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
6,866
#72
Bart Dale says "Vietnam was able to o liberate itself from China" after ~500 years
Bart Dale says China was "completely conquered by the Mongols.", but didn't say China was able to liberate itself from Mongolia after ~75 years

Bart Dale says "China did not give up control of Vietnam out of the goodness of the Chinese heart "
Bart Dale says China was "completely conquered by the Mongols.", but didn't say Mongolia did not give up control of China out of the goodness of the Mongolian heart.

Bart Dale mentioned "China may have controlled Vietnam in the past, but that was in the past, and the Vietnamese repeatedly kicked out the Chinese"
Bart Dale mentioned the Jurchen conquest, which was in the past, the Mongol invasion which was in the past, and the Manchu conquest which was in the past. Did not mention how Chinese defeated them, or how Jurchens and Manchus saw themselves as Chinese. Bart Dale also mentioned how China "struggled against the Japanese in the Imjin war", but did not mention it was in the past. And in terms of struggle, the Jurchens also struggled with the Song, the Mongols struggled with the Song, the Manchus struggled with the Ming.

Bart Dale says "China failed to sustain it's conquest " despite holding on to Vietnam continuously for ~500 years, longer if we count other Chinese conquests of Vietnam.
Bart Dale says China was "completely conquered by the Mongols", but didn't mention how the Mongols failed to sustain this conquest within only ~75 years.

Logic.



How do you think most major countries insist on territorial sovereignty in the first place, Bart? You think modern arbitrary lines of statehood were drawn since the dawn of humanity?

Your entire argument justifies the question being asked by the OP of the thread. Given China's repeated attempts to annex Vietnam in the past, the question being asked by the thread is not as unreasonable as HackneyScribe tries to claim.

The question is why China did not regard Vietnam as part of China the same way it regarded Tibet as part of China? Culturally, China's historic influence on Vietnam was as great as on Tibet, and the Tibetans never adopted the Chinese script the way Vietnam did.

And it would be a lie to claim that China simply gave Vietnam its independence. He Vietnamese had to fight for their independence from China. Why does China not regard Vietnam as part of China the same way it regards Tibet as part of China? Is it simply because China's control over Vietnam was further in the past than Tibet?

I agree that Communist China did not try to annex Vietnam and Indo China because it did not think of the area as belonging to China. But why did Communist China not believe Vietnam at any rate was part of China but it did Tibet? Was it simply because when the Qing dynasty was overthrown, Tibet was part of China and Vietnam was no longer?

And for that matter, why did China never consider Korea part of China and try to conquer it the same way it did Vietnam and Tibet? I gave my ideas, but the Chinese posters did not seem to agree, so I am curious why Korea was treated differently than Vietnam or Tibet.
 
Feb 2011
6,040
#73
Your entire argument justifies the question being asked by the OP of the thread. Given China's repeated attempts to annex Vietnam in the past, the question being asked by the thread is not as unreasonable as HackneyScribe tries to claim.

The question is why China did not regard Vietnam as part of China the same way it regarded Tibet as part of China? Culturally, China's historic influence on Vietnam was as great as on Tibet, and the Tibetans never adopted the Chinese script the way Vietnam did.

And it would be a lie to claim that China simply gave Vietnam its independence. He Vietnamese had to fight for their independence from China. Why does China not regard Vietnam as part of China the same way it regards Tibet as part of China? Is it simply because China's control over Vietnam was further in the past than Tibet?

I agree that Communist China did not try to annex Vietnam and Indo China because it did not think of the area as belonging to China. But why did Communist China not believe Vietnam at any rate was part of China but it did Tibet? Was it simply because when the Qing dynasty was overthrown, Tibet was part of China and Vietnam was no longer?

And for that matter, why did China never consider Korea part of China and try to conquer it the same way it did Vietnam and Tibet? I gave my ideas, but the Chinese posters did not seem to agree, so I am curious why Korea was treated differently than Vietnam or Tibet.
You original idea had nothing to do with "Communist China did not believe Vietnam at any rate was part of China but it did Tibet". Instead you brought up irrelevant talk about Manchus, Jurchens, Mongols, and Japanese. Only now in this post do you agree that "Communist China did not try to annex Vietnam and Indo China because it did not think of the area as belonging to China". Whereas when I first said the exact same thing in this thread (post 36), you actively disagreed with me.

Bart Dale said:
the question being asked by the thread is not as unreasonable as HackneyScribe tries to claim.
Have you read the OP? I'm not criticizing the OP, I'm criticizing your double standard which should be quite obvious in post 70 with plenty sentences beginning with "Bart Dale says..."

Bart Dale said:
And it would be a lie to claim that China simply gave Vietnam its independence.
Who in this thread claimed that?

Also you haven't addressed my response regarding your claim over Tibet:
This was what I said: The US considered Tibet a part of China until the Red Flag flew over China. Then the US switched its stance.

How is that "not true?":



^Are you saying the above video isn't made by the American government? Tibet being an independent country pre-Qing does not make the above video go away. Whatever the British empire did won't make the above video go away, nothing you said would make that video go away. It's a fact that America saw Tibet as part of China until the Red Flag flew over China.

Difference between British India and Tibet: Britain formerly relinquished India, hence Britain gave up its sovereignty to the territory. China did not
Difference between American colonies and Tibet: Britain formerly relinquished the American colonies, hence Britain gave up its sovereignty to the territory. China did not.

Difference between Western Imperialism and Tibet: The Qing was invited into Tibet by Tibetans, colonizers invite themselves against the wishes of the locals. The colonists of the Americas invited themselves, and exiled the Indians into Reservations, and then built a huge statue of the leaders who exiled them IN said reservation:



Maybe the Chinese should learn from the United States and build a huge Mao head in place of the Potala Palace? Maybe China should take a page from the first Native American schools set up by the United States. Maybe instead of forcing Tibetan students to learn Tibetan as they are doing now, they should learn from those American Indian boarding schools and take away the right of Tibetan students to speak Tibetan, like how those American boarding schools denied Native American children from speaking their native language? Mongolia is a better analogy to British India. China formerly relinquished Outer Mongolia, that's why they don't claim it anymore (except the ROC in Taiwan who haven't relinquished their claim). China never relinquished their sovereignty to Tibet.

China took Tibet by force from the Mongolians with the permission and HELP of the Tibetans. United States took North American land by force from the Native Americans, who actively resisted the encroachment

Chinese expedition to Tibet (1720) - Wikipedia

Native Americans didn't speak English, had their own government, had their own lifestyle. Why don't you give your land property to a Native American?

Native American population pre-colonization (North America): 2-18 million
Native American population in United States in ~1800: 600,000
Native American population in United States in ~1900: 250,000

Tibetan population in ~1950: 1 million
Tibetan population now: 6 million in TAR, 10 million in all of China

Now let's look at what British Prime Minister Churchhill viewed the locals who are supposed to be under his protection:

I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.
-Churchill addressing the Peel Commission (1937) on why Britain is justified in deciding the fate of Palestine

I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes
-Churchill on how Britain should deal with the Iraqi revolution against British rule in 1920

I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.
-Entry dated to September 1942 on a conversation held with Churchill in Leo Amery : Diaries.

I hope it would be bitter and bloody!
-Churchill, upon hearing news of conflict between the Muslim League and Indian Congress, July 1940

If food is scarce, why isn't Gandhi dead yet?
-Churchill's witty retort to British Secretary of State for India Leo Amery's telegram for food stock to relieve the famine of Bengal in 1943 (4 million peopled starved to death.)

And here's the kicker:
Relief would do no good, Indians breed like rabbits and will outstrip any available food supply
-Leo Amery records Churchill's stance on why famine relief was refused to India, 1944, when British mouths were filling up on imported Indian grain

^So here's another difference. The Indians were treated as less than human. When the Qing and PRC took over Tibet I don't see any talk about how the new arrivals belonged to a "stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place", which was how Churchhill described white people in regards to "Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia", and no doubt he viewed his own Indian subjects in India along the same line.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2012
4,177
#74
You can believe whatever history the Chinese government spins, but China's takeover of Tibet was a military invasion of a country that believed it was independent. Sure, China had one time ruled Tibet, but the same could be said of Vietnam, the only difference was that Vietnam was no longer under Chinese rule further back in history than Tibet. When
Don'g blame your ignorance of the topic on propaganda, blame it on your own negligence of source materials.
For your information, I am not using Chinese government sources in any of my debates. Unlike you (who often doesn't even use sources, but like to spew your baseless opinions), I only use scholarly material and primary sources in my argument. What I stated comes from Melvyn Goldstein's "A History of Modern Tibet", you can read an actual academic book on the matter for a start.
Tibet turning down the US assistance and agreed to the 17 point agreement accepting Chinese sovereignty in 1951 is not a propaganda, its a historical fact. Whether the Tibetan regime wanted it signed does not change the fact that it was in fact signed without the use of force by the PLA at the time.



The Communist did not conquer all of Korea as they tried to do, and a non Communist South Korea was preserved, despite Communist attempts to destroy it, so US objectives were achieved. China's client state North Korea is a basket case, while US client South Korea is a resounding economic success, the difference between China and the US. US was tired of war, after having fought on 2 fronts in WW2, while the Chinese were as interested in fighting each other as driving the Japanese out.
US objectives were achieved against North Korea, Chinese objectives were achieved against the US. We've already been through that several times.



The Chinese were not even coming close to driving the Japanese out of China, and typical Chinese lies to the contrary, the Chinese never came close to defeating the Japanese or driving them out of Manchuria, despite the aid the US gave to China. The Japanese would still be controlling Manchuria to this day if it had been left up to the Chinese.
No one said the Chinese were close to driving the Japanese out of China before the war ended; typical strawman from you. You are the one who said Japan's victory was decisive and that it was certain it would not have been driven out of China by the Chinese, so you made a claim which was either unverifiable or just outright incorrect. Japan wasn't even close to overwhelming all resistance and its not at all certain it could hold on to China considering the growth of the Communist forces and their reluctance to engage the Japanese in an all out front throughout the war. However, in the battles they did fight in, the Japanese regarded the Communists as a very dangerous foe.

Shiroda's collected memoirs of the war against the Chinese communists:

"In regard to the Japanese army directly confronting the Chinese communist forces, facing their slowly growing strength, without further reinforcements, their battles became exceedingly difficult. Even if some small reinforcements arrive, because of the seriousness of the battle, soldiers who came are instantly gone."

"In regard to the 8th route army, if we have a superiority in force, they will never come close, but when we are at a disadvantage, they will send huge forces at once to encircle and completely annihilate. In another word, they either do not fight, or if they fight, their objective is the total annihilation of the enemy."

The Shanxi Japanese Collaborationist government's Newspaper "Xinmin bao" in 1943, article by Zhang Wenxin:

"The notoriously cunning communist army, they truly have a unpredictable unique way of fighting...the communist army have not been completely annihilated after several years is truly the result of their unique style of fighting; their proud guerrila warfare...our central army, if they gather, they are in disarray, if they disperse, they have no fighting ability, their annihilating is easy to accomplish, but the communist army, when they gather, they are orderly, when they disperse, they dissappear; and their smaller dispersed units all mobile units."

In a decade of fighting, the Chinese had made no progress in driving out the Japanese from Manchuria or the rest of China.
The Communists never engaged the Japanese in an all out war other than the brief 100 regiments offensive, and by 1945, they were over twice the size they were in 1941 and had a vastly wider base in area and peasant population. As for no progress, towards the end of the war, the CCP already infiltrated a huge chunk of rural Shandong. In purple is the land formally under the Japanese but the Communists already infiltrated:
8b13632762d0f7034566ef2f02fa513d2797c569.jpg

Throughout August, right before and after Japan surrendered, the Communist took the districts of Luzhong, Lunan, Binhai, Jiaodong, and Bohai, with some 125,000 sq miles and 24 million people from the Japanese. Even after Japan surrendered, the US government ordered that they do not surrender to the Communists and the 8th route army had to take Rizhao, Lingjin, Pingdu, Huimin, Jiyang, Qidong, Yanshan, Ningjing, Shanghe and other towns by force from Japan and the collaborationist forces.

The only place the CCP had trouble infiltrating during the war was Manchuria, most CCP attempts have failed because the locals weren't very receptive. Even in the first few decades of the establishment of the PRC, locals of Manchuria were often bitter about Communist rule. It is quite likely then that the CCP could drive Japan out of most of China other than Manchuria provided the Soviets start to provide equipment to arm the CCP in resisting the IJA. Further fighting would be unpredictable.
 
Mar 2012
4,177
#75
Having read your post, it seems now that the PRC is truly a state that has never lost a war, except... apparently being crushed by, surrendered to, and withdraw from India in 1967.
Not in a formal war, but China did seem to have gotten the worse end of the deal in the 1967 skirmish with India (yet it also got the better end in the skirmish with the Soviets at Damansky/Zhenbao island in 1969 as well as with Vietnam near the Spratleys in 1988). China really didn't gain much of anything in the subsequent years after the 1962 war with India, but gained plenty in the subsequent years after the war with Vietnam.
 

heylouis

Ad Honorem
Apr 2013
6,209
China
#76
the northeastern china (Manchuria) is connected to other parts of china via the shanhai pass.
other options to enter notheastern china is to travel through outer mongolia or soviet union. that in fact was just one single option.
due to the silent peace between soviet union upon japanese, in their attempt to avoid the war on two lines, the soviet union did not grant reinforcement from central china to northeastern china, except from an escape option for the existed northeastern troops

as long as japanese occupied the huabei, none of chinese forces can effectively aid northeastern china anti-japanese movements.

this is all because of the geography.

so the northeastern china can be battle at last, and any chinese forces, including CCP and KMT, can enter there only in the end.
 
Feb 2016
527
ROK
#77
Vietnam is always very sinicized, and sinicized states are never fond of each other. You can check up the relationships between Japan, North Korea, South Korea, China.
It had nothing to do with being Sinicized. And those countries didn't always have a bad relationship.
 
Mar 2012
4,177
#78
Even ignoring the growth of Communist forces, the Nationalist force itself was growing in numbers and combat experience compared to the start of the war. In 1937, Chiang only had 2.02 million forces with little experience, by 1945, he had 4.4 million, many of which were battle hardened veterans. From 1937-1938, Japanese forces often bested Nationalist forces even being outnumbered 3-4 times (Battle of Wuhan), sometimes as much as 10. By 1940, Nationalist forces could defeat Japan with just a 2:1 numerical superiority (Battle of Changsha), and by 1944, there are cases of Nationalist armies doing well or defeating Japan with equal or even less numbers in Burma and Southwestern China (Changsha, Heyang, Henan). Operation Ichi Go and the Chinese counter thrust in Guangxi decisively proved that the tide of the war already turned and Japan could not advance any further even if they took new territory because they simply did not have the numbers to hold their conquests. Japan's total military in China Proper did not change significantly from its initial number of around 1.2 million, although the Kwantung army did increase its size by several folds to over 700,000 (at 1.3 million at one time) by the end of the war, but these Japanese forces were being replaced by inexperienced recruits due to their military deaths in China and being drawn else where to fight. Collaborationist Chinese forces numbered near 2 million in the early 1940s, but reduced to around 1 million by the end of the war (much of it annihilated and incorporated into Communist forces). Communist forces grew the fastest, from a mere 50,000-60,000 to 1.2 million by August of 1945 (with over 2 million militia reserves which would only grow as the CCP's rural base expands). The war was already going against Japan by 1945, and both the Nationalist and Communist knew it was only a matter of time before a counter attack and neither wanted to risk their forces in an all out confrontation with the Japanese since they now viewed each other as the greater contender.
 
Last edited: