Can someone explain me why China felt the need to invade and

File: rivers in Asia.jpg (140KB, 1100x806px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1100x806px

>>3001789
Supposed reason: Defense against India
Actual reason: Control of all the major rivers in Asia

>>3001789

Unifying propaganda coup to ease the pains of the recent civil war.

File: image.jpg (38KB, 379x313px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 379x313px

>discussing china as if it were ever a real empire

pic so fkn related

File: 800px-Qing_Dynasty_1820.png (496KB, 800x593px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 800x593px

>>3001789
Because China was merely retook the divided soil. Both KMT and CCP had given such promise to public back then. Just like the old saying: "The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide."

>China adhers some bullshit claim that Tibet has always been part of China
This is where your problem is and very typical brainwashed Western mindset. Tibet really is China's soil during Qing dynasty, that's not bullshit, in contrast, modern Western countries trying so hard to deny this and rewrite history are more like bullshit.

And You want to know why the world didn't intervene? There were nearly no countries acknowledged Tibet's unilateral "independence" after Qing dynasty collapsed other than British, why did the world intervene something they didn't acknowledge and didn't care in the first place?

>>3001789

Tibet is better off under Chinese rule.

File: eurivers.jpg (84KB, 700x876px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 700x876px

this >>3001829

File: tumblr_inline_o2tl39my4A1qe66o3_540.png (7KB, 498x353px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 498x353px

>>3001789
>Tibet it's not chinese rightful clay

>>3002248
>This is where your problem is and very typical brainwashed Western mindset. Tibet really is China's soil during Qing dynasty, that's not bullshit, in contrast, modern Western countries trying so hard to deny this and rewrite history are more like bullshit.

So your argument is that because the Qing dynasty owned it, Tibet should be under Chinese rule in perpetuity? So Ireland, the 13 Colonies and India should be under British rule?

>>3001789
Eternal chink butthurt from Tibetan Empire days.

>>3003622
That is the legal basis for China's claim basically, but the real reason it matters today is
>>3001829, theres no way china will give up tibet even if its the right thing to do.

>>3001789
>>3003622
PRC has an internationally recognized legal claim to Tibet. Qing legally owned it, and the RoC and PRC are the successors of the Qing.
Since 1971, the PRC has inherited all legal responsibilities (claims, treaties, debts, obligations) of the RoC.

That is a fact and is recognized international law. The People's Republic of China is the successor of the Qing Dynasty.

>>3004038
>inb4 no citation

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_2758

>>3003622
Remember, The UK can't actually exert control over any of these territories. Two of those you just mentioned are nuclear powers to boot

File: map.png (852KB, 1082x808px) Image search: [Google]

852KB, 1082x808px

>Of course the border is really the Tibetan–Indian border – and that is precisely why China has always wanted to control it. This is the geopolitics of fear.

>If China did not control Tibet, it would always be possible that India might attempt to do so. This would give India the commanding heights of the Tibetan Plateau and a base from which to push into the Chinese heartland, as well as control of the Tibetan sources of three of China’s great rivers, the Yellow, Yangtze and Mekong, which is why Tibet is known as ‘China’s Water Tower’. China, a country with approximately the same volume of water usage as the USA, but with a population five times as large, will clearly not allow that.

>It matters not whether India wants to cut off China’s river supply, only that it would have the power to do so. For centuries China has tried to ensure that it could never happen. The actor Richard Gere and the Free Tibet movement will continue to speak out against the injustices of the occupation, and now settlement, of Tibet by Han Chinese; but in a battle between the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan independence movement, Hollywood stars and the Chinese Communist Party – which rules the world’s second-largest economy – there is only going to be one winner.

>When Westerners, be they Mr Gere or Mr Obama, talk about Tibet, the Chinese find it deeply irritating. Not dangerous, not subversive – just irritating. They see it not through the prism of human rights, but that of geopolitical security, and can only believe that the Westerners are trying to undermine their security. However, Chinese security has not been undermined and it will not be, even if there are further uprisings against the Han. Demographics and geopolitics oppose Tibetan independence.

Source: Marshall, T, "Prisoners of Geography"

It's called an Expanditure Clause.
Shitty Countries always know that somewhere down the line they'll mismanage everything and need to expand to survive.
So they attempt to take over little Countries first in order to make the claim their later expansions aren't expansions but they're just reclaiming areas they own and have neglected.
Germany did this to Poland.
China did this to Tibet.
Serbia did this Montenegro.
Russia ttried this with the Ukrain.
It's setting up for further expansions by claiming they TAKE BACK things all the time.
It's to set a precident.

>>3001829
Why can't both the reasons be the same reason? Defense against India also includes making sure India can't take over or conspire with Tibet to poison all of China's major rivers.

>>3003622
Ireland, the 13 Colonies, and India rebelled and defeated the UK.

>So the CSA should not be under USA rule?

>>3001789
They had ceded administrative control and retained only religious control to one Chinese dynasty hundreds of years ago.

Internal Chinese CB was restoring of historical Chinese borders/functions, actual reasons
>>3001829
they used the Defense against India thing as an outward facing justification.

>>3002248
The world would've intervened, believe me. No one, literally no one, not even the USSR liked China's unification, rise to power and aggressive expansion. Mao was a smart fellow though, he realized he had one of the largest countries in the world with the highest population. A coalition of powers was unlikely to fuck with him, especially so soon after WW2.

>>3004754
>aggressive expansion
What? The PRC is smaller than both ROC and Qing dynasty.

>>3004820
Invading Tibet is by definition aggressive expansion, no matter how large or small China is.

File: Tibet 1912-51.png (106KB, 290x1194px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 290x1194px

>>3004754
>The world would've intervened

Daily reminder the west and much of the world with the exception of India and Mongolia did not see Tibet as an independent country when it *was independent." Mongolia recognized Tibet because many Mongs are Tibetan Buddhist in addition to recently independent Mongolia and Tibet recognizing each other's existence to help each other's claims to sovereignity in 1920. India recognized Tibet in '47 basically as a bulwark to China.

As for the rest, 1912 to 1950 far as many overseas countries were concerned, it was an unrecognized state because it was one of the Chinese Warlords that followed the collapse of the Qing Period and the Chinese Republic was in its rights to demand it back.

Tibetan independence only started to matter when CCP ended up uniting China instead of KMT in '49. And suddenly it was "hurdurr they wuz independent n shiet" in the west.

>>3004833
Was the USA invading the Confederate States considered expansion?

>>3004937
>the confederate states
>of the united states
>in a civil war
Compare that to a nation that's been independent for 40 years

>>3005334
Most of China had spent decades at that point as a collection of basically independent warlord territories that had to be pacified and reconquered. Why was Tibet more independent than them?