https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China
Unrelated to China, but why is the Vietnam War listed as Indecisive or unclear outcome?
As far as I know it's because both sides had pretty banal low-level and straightforward stated goals that were all "met" so there wasn't a clear "winner" and a "loser" in those strategic goals. It was really more of a 3 week skirmish than a full war. Vietnam obviously wanted to force China out of their country, and China said they wanted to bat Vietnam on the nose and force them to pull out of and not occupy Cambodia, or Laos or Thailand.
Which China left meaning Vietnamese succeeded in their strategic goals, and the Vietnamese diverted major resources and pulled out of Cambodia and didn't occupy Thailand and Laos meaning the Chinese succeeded. There weren't really any major strategic goals that were stated by either side that showed blatant failure; like China never said they intended to fully occupy Hanoi and create a Chinese puppet state and failed. Vietnam as far as I know never said they intended to continue occupying Cambodia or occupy Thailand and then failed to. So in a way they both got what they wanted and it was a status quo antebellum situation. Thus indecisive in the context of if it weren't 'indecisive' there would have been a winner or loser.
Thailand and Laos were under multi-factional civil wars whose royal governments were also US proxies; so the Vietnamese were also involved there (and involved with their local communist parties), prompting Sino-Soviet-split-related concerns with China since even though both China and USSR provided support to Vietnamese communists; the USSR became the dominant supporter and ally of Vietnam and continued to be. China also had an alliance with Cambodia dating before Khmer Rouge even; which was in part because Cambodia wanted assurance against the larger Vietnam and Thailand. The split in the Chinese Cultural Revolution era between the ultra-lefts and others had half of the CPC supporting the Prince and half of it supporting the Khmer Rouge against the prince. North Vietnam and Khmer Rouge provided support for each other for a while too. The politics were a mess. No idea what other involvements China had with Thailand and Laos other than Sino-Soviet fears.
People overstate the significance of Chinese casualties as meaning a loss when that's not how war works. Strategic objectives are all that matter. The losses (if you average the wildly disproportionate claims from all sides; impossible to actually know when you look at it) were more even than something like The Winter War between USSR-Finland; and though that war had the Soviets suffer disproportionate losses, it was still a complete strategic victory for the Soviets; they got everything they were after which had refused by Finland in previous requested land-swaps, namely gaining the Karelia buffer region.
List of wars being involved in is not a list of countries being invaded and occupied, nice try though.
Except that it's not. China's development has been overwhelmingly peaceful, and China has played a positive role around the globe helping many other nations develop and improve their standard of living. On the other hand, the US has been at war throughout all of its miserable existence, and is responsible for carrying out countless crimes against humanity around the globe. It remains the greatest threat to human existence today.
the map is far more accurate than it is not though
Come on, Yog, we can hold ourselves to a higher standard than this. It'd be so easy to just color in Vietnam and then you'd be set, but by posting it in its current form you are actively lying.
I think there's a difference between invasion/occupation and a minor border skirmish. Like yeah it could've been more accurate, but it does get the point across. 🤷
If I was just complaining about border skirmishes, then I'd mention India or something. The attack on Vietnam was more than just a "minor border skirmish".
Well, feel free to explain how the attack on Vietnam constitutes an occupation. Are you suggesting China's military action was carried out with the intent of annexing a part of Vietnam?
Come on, you're more well-read than this. You know that military occupation and annexation are not the same thing.
You still haven't answered what you think the intent of the military action was. Do you claim any military confrontation is occupation?
I'd more say that the military occupation was done for the sake of confrontation (this is similar to the official Chinese line). It was a really senseless invasion, as far as I can tell (and I disagree with the Vietnamese line that the war was expansionist).
Eh, I think you can illustrate your point a bit better, comrade. The map goes from good agitprop to bad when it is counterable by liberals and leftists alike. I agree with your general point on this post, so I don't think the point itself is bad, but it could be better elaborated on with an actual map that shows what it says it does. Just my opinion.
The top one is taken from a website called vividmaps where it's countries the USA has had some sort of conflict with
List of wars being involved in is not a list of countries being invaded and occupied, nice try though.
The bottom map is just a white map.
Garbage meme 1/5
Yep, it's pretty bad for agitprop, even if I agree that the PRC has had really peaceful development all things considered, and the US is a genocidal empire, this map gets in the way of that messaging.
That's fair, I like the concept of the map hence why I shared it, but I agree it would be better if it was more accurate. Perhaps worth making a better one.
I think that's a good idea! Reality speaks for itself, showing reality is the best agitprop.
I agree, and it is true that whenever agitprop has even minor inaccuracies then that's the only thing people will fixate on.
I agree, also it misses the colonial expansion of the original USA (13 small States in the East Coast), the USA should be red
Yeah, apart from other areas of china (if you can call those "invasions and occupations") there's only been one time they've invaded another country and that was Vietnam in 1979.
I’m surprised that nobody defended the Western Allies’ takeover of former Axis empires yet. I am going to write this to prevent any attempts:
The Western Allies reused the Empire of Japan’s system of forced prostitution.
Italian anticommunists pardoned Fascists while punishing thousands of partisans; there was no equivalent to the Nuremberg Trials for the Italian Fascists; the liberal bourgeoisie refused to prosecute Fascists for their atrocities in Ethiopia; and there were continuities between Fascism & the post‐1945 Italian police.
When the Western Allies took Algeria from the Axis, they let the fascists continue running the internment camps; important elements of the Fascist era survived in postwar France.
The U.S. Army continued keeping Jews in the Axis’s concentration camps (‘We appear to be treating the Jews as the Nazis treated them, except that we do not exterminate them.’ — Harry Truman, Sept. 1946); West Germany’s régime was polluted with surviving Axis personnel; fascist elements survived in West Germany.
Somebody could argue that there was no alternative to the Western Allies, but plenty of partisans were active in France, for example, and the Eastern Allies could have reached every Axis‐occupied region given enough time.
I’ll freely concede that the Western Allies were better than the Axis… but that’s not exactly saying much.
The U.S. Army continued keeping Jews in the Axis’s concentration camps (‘We appear to be treating the Jews as the Nazis treated them, except that we do not exterminate them.’ — Harry Truman, Sept. 1946)
This point specifically I think is unfair. When you liberate a prison that has prisoners from far away, you can't necessarily arrange for everyone to get sent home immediately. Honestly, with the state of anatomical atrophy the survivors had been reduced to -- such that eating a larger-than-average meal would kill them -- I'd worry about them even being able to make the trip if it was taken immediately.
I could be missing something though (and I concede that them still being there in Sept. 1946 means they were probably being unduly deprioritized)
Stark comparison but China regularly has skirmishes with India on India's side of the border.
During the first and second Afghan civil-war there were also border skirmishes
this Tibet? https://www.historicly.net/p/tibet-china-and-the-violent-reaction
@yogthos
well... if the map also shows where the US has acted clandestinely for its own imperialist purposes, the map gets a little redder.Ah. Xinjiang and Tibet should defintely be painted in red. Also Vietnam without a doubt. Korea is a matter of definition.
Tibet was a slave state when it was liberated during the revolution and this map states clearly "after the PRC was founded" piss off with this lib ass well ackshually shit.
Also Hong Kong, not really an invasion, but definitely not a welcomed rule of power after the UK left.
Ah yes, China helping Korea liberate itself from the US invasion is occupation. I'm starting to think I want whatever drugs Fleur is having.
They literally just did the same thing the US did but for the other side.
Seriously please listen to blowback season three for basic education on the Korean War you don't know wtf you are talking about.
The only difference being that the US installed a brutal dictatorship in the south and continues to occupy it to this day. Meanwhile, China helped the north liberate itself and left. But let's not get facts get in the way of your propaganda.
Right, ignoring the inconsistencies with you're interpretation of events, you're saying China and America both invaded...
Fix yo maapppppp
Yes you are being correctly called out for downplaying one of the worst crimes of humanity of the 20th century and attributing blame onto it's victims. I seriously hope @dessalines@lemmy.ml bans you for this.
Show me the comment where I did either of those things. Literally all I've been saying is the US and China intervened equally in the Korean war
Yes and that is where you are wrong, China intervened on behalf of the north after the US started meddling in what would have been a much less violent workers revolution because the US then as it is now is hell bent on not allowing any socialist revolution to succeed. You are carrying water for fascists and you should count yourself lucky I am being nice about it because the mods here are very adamant we remain civil. You do not want to know what I actually want to say to you but if you do, go make a post on hexbear talking about this bullshit and I will gladly tear you several new orifices.
China did not invade and the north did not start the war. This is fucking hitler levels of excusing a crime against humanity orchestrated by the united states.
This is literally the dumbest thing that's been said on this site in a long time.
Curious I've actually got a source right here proving you wrong KoreanWar.org
Educate yourself on the Korean war. https://youtu.be/XJ0kBLCCE7c
Is the blue in the bottom image the seas and oceans of the world or areas that China claims as the South China sea?
Ramming Philippines ships in Phillipines waters is hardly peaceful conduct.
Don't get me wrong, USA are horrific and absolutely need to be held to account but that doesn't mean China are good guys. All major world powers act like dicks to maintain their own interests.
Oh, and since when is China socialist? The wealth disparity there is hardly people's ownership of the means of production.
Look, can't we agree that neither country gives a shit about the working class? Nation states are so 20th century. Why not try something new and try dissolving the state and self organizing into communes that best reflect our beliefs and values?
That said... What do the different shades of colors mean in the top image? Only half fucked over?
No we can't because that's demonstrably false. The state in China clearly represents the interests of the majority.
90% of families in the country own their home giving China one of the highest home ownership rates in the world. What’s more is that 80% of these homes are owned outright, without mortgages or any other leans. https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2016/03/30/how-people-in-china-afford-their-outrageously-expensive-homes
The real (inflation-adjusted) incomes of the poorest half of the Chinese population increased by more than four hundred percent from 1978 to 2015, while real incomes of the poorest half of the US population actually declined during the same time period. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23119/w23119.pdf
From 1978 to 2000, the number of people in China living on under $1/day fell by 300 million, reversing a global trend of rising poverty that had lasted half a century (i.e. if China were excluded, the world’s total poverty population would have risen) https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/China’s-Economic-Growth-and-Poverty-Reduction-Angang-Linlin/c883fc7496aa1b920b05dc2546b880f54b9c77a4
From 2010 to 2019 (the most recent period for which uninterrupted data is available), the income of the poorest 20% in China increased even as a share of total income. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.DST.FRST.20?end=2019&locations=CN&start=2008
By the end of 2020, extreme poverty, defined as living on under a threshold of around $2 per day, had been eliminated in China. According to the World Bank, the Chinese government had spent $700 billion on poverty alleviation since 2014. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/31/world/asia/china-poverty-xi-jinping.html
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/lifting-800-million-people-out-of-poverty-new-report-looks-at-lessons-from-china-s-experience
People in China also enjoy high social mobility https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/18/world/asia/china-social-mobility.html
And finally, they have record household savings https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-dow-jones-bank-earnings-01-12-2024/card/chinese-household-savings-hit-another-record-high-xqyky00IsIe357rtJb4j
Why not try something new and try dissolving the state and self organizing into communes that best reflect our beliefs and values?
The real question is why do anarchists have nothing to show aside from rhetoric for over a century. I'll take a functional worker state that actually improves lives of the people instead of living under dictatorship of capital while dreaming about unachievable utopia.
Why not try something new and try dissolving the state and self organizing into communes that best reflect our beliefs and values?
Go ahead. If that works, I'd be delighted. Seems that all it ever ends up producing is a 15 person sex commune. When self-organizing commune lift a billion people from poverty and outmaneuver the US empire, I'll become an anarchist.
Because i want rail roads crossing the world and massive buildings and a global shipping network and all the things that are only possible because of states. If u want to return to monkee feel free but the rest of us would like to have a civilization. Fundamentally i disagree with ur stupid ideals even IF we put aside the reality of defending anything that working people build from capital.
Personally I think a gradual transition towards statelessness is necessary, because people are currently used to living in a state and are generally quite skeptical of sudden rapid change, even if it would be purely positive. Even if the capitalists were eliminated tomorrow and their propaganda networks shut down immediately, the general populace would still be infected by their brainworms for at least a generation.
Look, can't we agree that neither country gives a shit about the working class?
I have almost the exact opposite take on China.
Shit government, surveil people, torture people, no internet-freedom.
Their huge massive redeeming feature os that they REALLY give a shit about their working class.
Brazil should be painted. The US is known to be sparked the 1964 military coup and, if I remember correctly, the Alcântara Launch Center is used by US. There are also military exercises involving US Army using Brazilian military bases (such as Formosa).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War
