3 ms·

china is not know for invading

by ysofunny 2y ago

reducesuffering 2y ago
Tibet, India, and Vietnam would like a word.
- defrost 2y ago
  China's imitation of the Monroe Doctrine shows deep respect for traditional US values.
  - 082349872349872 2y ago
    The parallel is a little rougher if one believes the Monroe Doctrine (1823) had been motivated by the anti-slave-trade resolution (1815) annexed to the Congress of Vienna treaties. (which among other things mentioned "putting an end to a scourge, which has so long desolated Africa, degraded Europe, and afflicted humanity.") https://hhr-atlas.ieg-mainz.de/articles/weller-vienna https://hhr-atlas.ieg-mainz.de/articles/weller-vienna
    - defrost 2y ago
      That's an interesting connection that, to be honest, I don't think played a great role in being opposed to further European colonisation and|or influence in the New World. I see it more as the beginnings of US regional Hegemony and notable for two things, how it began and future attitudes to world affairs. In the beginning (from the wikipedia link): Great Britain shared the general objective of the Monroe Doctrine, and even wanted to declare a joint statement to keep other European powers from further colonizing the New World. The British feared their trade with the New World would be harmed if the other European powers further colonized it. In fact, for many years after the doctrine took effect, Britain, through the Royal Navy, was the sole nation enforcing it, the U.S. lacking sufficient naval capability. This is a reality of just how intertwined the actual USofA and the actual Great Britain were, despite that whole little hiccup with "Independence". In real politik the thirteen colonies were business investment startups by British Venture Capitalists who retained contacts, contracts, and business ties after reducing the meddling abilities of that pesky king in finnancial arrangements. The now independent colonies and new independent nation remaind largely Anglophile while the old order saw no conflict of interest in the use of their navy in the defence of mutual interest.
      - 082349872349872 2y ago
        > just how intertwined the actual USofA and the actual Great Britain Foggy Bottom* has always been a part of Oceania? * pedantry: the actual State Dep't were in Philadelphia at the time Lagniappe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Influence_of_Sea_Power_upon_History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Influence_of_Sea_Power_upo... EDIT: looking at en.wikipedia's entry for the results of the War of 1812, it offers pretty heavy evidence for your position: - Anglo–American status quo ante bellum - Spanish control over West Florida weakened and Mobile territory claimed - Tecumseh's confederacy decisively defeated and dissolved I think it strange to have a war that doesn't alter the positions of the principals, but does allow them to take a few third parties off the board; on the other hand that just may be my naivete.
        082349872349872 2y ago
        > in the use of their navy Come to think of it, the causus belli of 1812 was Royal Navy impressment of US sailors: I can easily imagine some Sir "stick close to your desks and never go to sea" Joseph being surprised and wondering why the americans had been so confused as to miss the main point: providing manpower for Britannia's rule of the waves was in their own best interests, after all.
    - DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
      That explanation doesn't make sense, given that the US had already banned the international slave trade in 1808.
- DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
  China hasn't fought a war in more than 40 years. China fought limited border wars with India many decades ago. The Sino-Vietnam war was 1979. The invasion of Tibet is the most relevant example here. Tibet was internationally recognized as part of China, but was de facto independent, similarly to Taiwan nowadays. The PRC invaded as soon as it won the civil war, because it was one of the last parts of China that was still beyond the control of the central government. However, I think it's clear that the PRC today views an invasion of Taiwan as a last resort, not as the policy of choice.

china is not know for invading

reducesuffering 2y ago

Tibet, India, and Vietnam would like a word.

defrost 2y ago
China's imitation of the Monroe Doctrine shows deep respect for traditional US values.
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  The parallel is a little rougher if one believes the Monroe Doctrine (1823) had been motivated by the anti-slave-trade resolution (1815) annexed to the Congress of Vienna treaties. (which among other things mentioned "putting an end to a scourge, which has so long desolated Africa, degraded Europe, and afflicted humanity.") https://hhr-atlas.ieg-mainz.de/articles/weller-vienna https://hhr-atlas.ieg-mainz.de/articles/weller-vienna
  - defrost 2y ago
    That's an interesting connection that, to be honest, I don't think played a great role in being opposed to further European colonisation and|or influence in the New World. I see it more as the beginnings of US regional Hegemony and notable for two things, how it began and future attitudes to world affairs. In the beginning (from the wikipedia link): Great Britain shared the general objective of the Monroe Doctrine, and even wanted to declare a joint statement to keep other European powers from further colonizing the New World. The British feared their trade with the New World would be harmed if the other European powers further colonized it. In fact, for many years after the doctrine took effect, Britain, through the Royal Navy, was the sole nation enforcing it, the U.S. lacking sufficient naval capability. This is a reality of just how intertwined the actual USofA and the actual Great Britain were, despite that whole little hiccup with "Independence". In real politik the thirteen colonies were business investment startups by British Venture Capitalists who retained contacts, contracts, and business ties after reducing the meddling abilities of that pesky king in finnancial arrangements. The now independent colonies and new independent nation remaind largely Anglophile while the old order saw no conflict of interest in the use of their navy in the defence of mutual interest.
    - 082349872349872 2y ago
      > just how intertwined the actual USofA and the actual Great Britain Foggy Bottom* has always been a part of Oceania? * pedantry: the actual State Dep't were in Philadelphia at the time Lagniappe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Influence_of_Sea_Power_upon_History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Influence_of_Sea_Power_upo... EDIT: looking at en.wikipedia's entry for the results of the War of 1812, it offers pretty heavy evidence for your position: - Anglo–American status quo ante bellum - Spanish control over West Florida weakened and Mobile territory claimed - Tecumseh's confederacy decisively defeated and dissolved I think it strange to have a war that doesn't alter the positions of the principals, but does allow them to take a few third parties off the board; on the other hand that just may be my naivete.
      - 082349872349872 2y ago
        > in the use of their navy Come to think of it, the causus belli of 1812 was Royal Navy impressment of US sailors: I can easily imagine some Sir "stick close to your desks and never go to sea" Joseph being surprised and wondering why the americans had been so confused as to miss the main point: providing manpower for Britannia's rule of the waves was in their own best interests, after all.
  - DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
    That explanation doesn't make sense, given that the US had already banned the international slave trade in 1808.
DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
China hasn't fought a war in more than 40 years. China fought limited border wars with India many decades ago. The Sino-Vietnam war was 1979. The invasion of Tibet is the most relevant example here. Tibet was internationally recognized as part of China, but was de facto independent, similarly to Taiwan nowadays. The PRC invaded as soon as it won the civil war, because it was one of the last parts of China that was still beyond the control of the central government. However, I think it's clear that the PRC today views an invasion of Taiwan as a last resort, not as the policy of choice.