3 ms·

There's also the fact that the Soviets over-extended themselves militarily at the same time, Afghanistan comes readily to mind. China has a large, powerful and

There's also the fact that the Soviets over-extended themselves militarily at the same time, Afghanistan comes readily to mind. China has a large, powerful and I would assume expensive militarily, but has not deployed significant number of troops in the past few decades (since Korea?), and in any case has never occupied a foreign country. That's a huge amount of resources available to spend on infrastructure and "soft" power. The Chinese approach seems much more likely to succeed than the Soviet one.

seanmcdirmid 8y ago
China has been far more worried about (a) internal security, the party is deathly afraid of its own people, and (b) its border countries. On the latter point, China and Russia have even fought some skirmishes over their vast border, and have only been recently back on friendly terms. China did make it all the way to Hanoi during the Sino-Vietnam war back in 1979. I'm not sure what definition of occupy you want to use here.
AnimalMuppet 8y ago
> China ... has never occupied a foreign country. I'm not sure that Tibet would agree with you.
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  It is China's position that they never invaded Tibet. The Yuan dynasty invaded and conquered Tibet, but they don't count since they were Mongolians. It is weird logic to be sure, but there it is. Otherwise Tibet was supposed to be Chinese territory afterwards even if the Chinese dynasties following the Yuan didn't actively govern it and mostly left them to their own devices.
  - Latteland 8y ago
    Well then based on what actually happened (invading a county where there were other countries people & troops there since before the founding of modern china) it's not true to say that they haven't invaded anyone. Will they 'not invade' taiwan next? Invading and then declaring it was ours historically is still invading.
    - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
      It’s not called the People’s invading army, it’s called the People’s Liberation Army. Now who needs liberating?
- nickserv 8y ago
  You're quite right in the sense that the military invaded, but it was not so much an occupation with a puppet government and continuous guerilla warfare , like the Soviets in Afghanistan, the Nazis in France or the US in Iraq. It was more of an anexation of adjoining territory based on historical claims (fabricated or not), like Germany with Alsace Lorraine, Russia with Crimea or the US with certain parts of northern Mexico. The point was not so much about seizure of territory but the huge cost of a prolonged occupation with local resistance. I was definitely not trying to legitimize the invasion of Tibet nor downplaying the suffering of the Tibetan people, so thank you for bringing this up.

seanmcdirmid 8y ago

China has been far more worried about (a) internal security, the party is deathly afraid of its own people, and (b) its border countries. On the latter point, China and Russia have even fought some skirmishes over their vast border, and have only been recently back on friendly terms. China did make it all the way to Hanoi during the Sino-Vietnam war back in 1979. I'm not sure what definition of occupy you want to use here.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

> China ... has never occupied a foreign country. I'm not sure that Tibet would agree with you.

seanmcdirmid 8y ago
It is China's position that they never invaded Tibet. The Yuan dynasty invaded and conquered Tibet, but they don't count since they were Mongolians. It is weird logic to be sure, but there it is. Otherwise Tibet was supposed to be Chinese territory afterwards even if the Chinese dynasties following the Yuan didn't actively govern it and mostly left them to their own devices.
- Latteland 8y ago
  Well then based on what actually happened (invading a county where there were other countries people & troops there since before the founding of modern china) it's not true to say that they haven't invaded anyone. Will they 'not invade' taiwan next? Invading and then declaring it was ours historically is still invading.
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    It’s not called the People’s invading army, it’s called the People’s Liberation Army. Now who needs liberating?
nickserv 8y ago
You're quite right in the sense that the military invaded, but it was not so much an occupation with a puppet government and continuous guerilla warfare , like the Soviets in Afghanistan, the Nazis in France or the US in Iraq. It was more of an anexation of adjoining territory based on historical claims (fabricated or not), like Germany with Alsace Lorraine, Russia with Crimea or the US with certain parts of northern Mexico. The point was not so much about seizure of territory but the huge cost of a prolonged occupation with local resistance. I was definitely not trying to legitimize the invasion of Tibet nor downplaying the suffering of the Tibetan people, so thank you for bringing this up.