If China had not taken Tibet the US would have installed nukes there and China would have never been more than a few minutes away from US nuclear attack. I agree it is tragic the cultural effect- but comparable roughly in terms of cultural aggression perhaps to the absolutely criminal treatment if indigenous American tribes. BTW you write as if I am Chinese- this is not true and you know it. I live in New Zealand, am of UK/Irish blood and have no affiliation with China. I have not worked for any employer except myself for over 40 years so please stop insulting me and readers with assertions that I am Chinese or in any way other than a neutral observer interested in politics history and the growing and significant conflict that has developed between the US and China. Now to the other conflicts - starting with Korea- when the CCP swept to power after the US nuked Japan and airlifted the Japanese occupying forces out of eastern China and Korea, where Japanese had enslaved the populations to servitute and support of the Japanese WW2 efforts, the CCP still faced considerable opposition from within China- many groups especially ethic groups with strong religious beliefs feared the Communists. But the US occupation of Korea and the advance of US troops through Korea toward China gave Mao the perfect opportunity to unite China in the purpose of self defense- China united to prevent the US who had taken over from the brutal Japanese occupation of Korea and pushed back the US occupying troops to where they remain today. WW2 literally never ended in Korea. To this day the two sides remain in a state of ceasefire. the threat of US invasion via Korea unite China under the CCP and to this day the threat of US imperialism remains a strong uniting force within the narrative and beliefs of Chinese people. It is for good reason as Chinese can see the US has since WW2 become the global super power- taking over from the British Empire. The other border dispute between China and India and Vietnam go back centuries. Today China is reclaiming its traditional sphere of regional hegemony over countries it shares a land border with- Laos and Cambodia and most of Myanmar are already tribute states to China. The big question that interests me is from what we know to date is China as aggressive militarily as US? The answer historically is clearly No. Modern China has been predominantly defensive in its use of military force- as the examples you gave mostly show...mostly defensive ultimately from real or perceived US sourced military threats. In the past (pre Opium Wars) China had expected tribute from nations on its border but those further afield of economic importance usually had Chinese settlements (Chinatowns) well established and co existing, often for hundreds of years to facilitate that trade. In future if China continues to gain on and overtake US economic and military power how would China behave as a dominant power? This interests me hugely as a New Zealander- we have traditionally been a UK/US Five Eyes aligned military and economic ally, but today like many countries enjoy most of our mercantile trade growth is with China whom we have a free trade agreement and highly complimentary economies. How will modern China behave as a global super power? Will it be forced into the pattern of militaristic power projection and interference with other nations in the same way as the US has done or might China operate on a different model? Historically it seems possible China might be less inclined toward military aggression and more inclined toward economic ties, but imo the imperatives of empire are often ultimately brutal in terms of needing to assert ones 'property rights' as the recent kidnapping of the Venezuela president by the US and the dozens of US military and espionage attacks upon other nations since WW2 demonstrates. Whether China could operate on a different model is a fascinating question with global implications. Is it even possible that the nature of future Chinese hegemony might in some way be shaped by events as they unfold over coming decades and that we might have influence over? Only, perhaps, if we consider the possibilities and take action preemptively.
If China had not taken Tibet the US would have installed nukes there and China would have never been more than a few minutes away from US nuclear attack. I agree it is tragic the cultural effect- but comparable roughly in terms of cultural aggression perhaps to the absolutely criminal treatment if indigenous American tribes.
BTW you write as if I am Chinese- this is not true and you know it.
I live in New Zealand, am of UK/Irish blood and have no affiliation with China.
I have not worked for any employer except myself for over 40 years so please stop insulting me and readers with assertions that I am Chinese or in any way other than a neutral observer interested in politics history and the growing and significant conflict that has developed between the US and China.
Now to the other conflicts - starting with Korea- when the CCP swept to power after the US nuked Japan and airlifted the Japanese occupying forces out of eastern China and Korea, where Japanese had enslaved the populations to servitute and support of the Japanese WW2 efforts, the CCP still faced considerable opposition from within China- many groups especially ethic groups with strong religious beliefs feared the Communists. But the US occupation of Korea and the advance of US troops through Korea toward China gave Mao the perfect opportunity to unite China in the purpose of self defense- China united to prevent the US who had taken over from the brutal Japanese occupation of Korea and pushed back the US occupying troops to where they remain today. WW2 literally never ended in Korea. To this day the two sides remain in a state of ceasefire. the threat of US invasion via Korea unite China under the CCP and to this day the threat of US imperialism remains a strong uniting force within the narrative and beliefs of Chinese people.
It is for good reason as Chinese can see the US has since WW2 become the global super power- taking over from the British Empire.
The other border dispute between China and India and Vietnam go back centuries.
Today China is reclaiming its traditional sphere of regional hegemony over countries it shares a land border with- Laos and Cambodia and most of Myanmar are already tribute states to China.
The big question that interests me is from what we know to date is China as aggressive militarily as US? The answer historically is clearly No.
Modern China has been predominantly defensive in its use of military force- as the examples you gave mostly show...mostly defensive ultimately from real or perceived US sourced military threats.
In the past (pre Opium Wars) China had expected tribute from nations on its border but those further afield of economic importance usually had Chinese settlements (Chinatowns) well established and co existing, often for hundreds of years to facilitate that trade.
In future if China continues to gain on and overtake US economic and military power how would China behave as a dominant power?
This interests me hugely as a New Zealander- we have traditionally been a UK/US Five Eyes aligned military and economic ally, but today like many countries enjoy most of our mercantile trade growth is with China whom we have a free trade agreement and highly complimentary economies.
How will modern China behave as a global super power?
Will it be forced into the pattern of militaristic power projection and interference with other nations in the same way as the US has done or might China operate on a different model?
Historically it seems possible China might be less inclined toward military aggression and more inclined toward economic ties, but imo the imperatives of empire are often ultimately brutal in terms of needing to assert ones 'property rights' as the recent kidnapping of the Venezuela president by the US and the dozens of US military and espionage attacks upon other nations since WW2 demonstrates.
Whether China could operate on a different model is a fascinating question with global implications. Is it even possible that the nature of future Chinese hegemony might in some way be shaped by events as they unfold over coming decades and that we might have influence over?
Only, perhaps, if we consider the possibilities and take action preemptively.