# 1904 China map admits Paracel, Spratly not Chinese territory



## SpiritHS

_Chinese language expert Mai Hong points at Hai Nan Island in a 1904 Chinese map, which noted the island as Chinas southernmost tip._
*A Chinese language expert in Vietnam has an official map of China from 1904 that does not show Hoang Sa (Paracel) and Truong Sa (Spratly) islands as belonging to that country.

The map possessed by Mai Hong, former head of the archive at the Han Nom Institute that studies ancient Vietnamese language and its influence by Chinese, for more than 30 years shows Hainan Island as Chinas southernmost tip.

The two archipelagoes off Vietnams central coast are not shown in the map.

But now China claims the islands despite lots of historical evidence showing Vietnams existence on the islands before anyone else.

A Vietnamese map from 1834 includes the two islands.

Hong said the colored-paper map was made during the Qing Dynasty era and published by the Shanghai Publishing House.

Hong said the Chinese descriptions on the map indicate it took from 1708 to 1904, from the time of Emperor Guangxi to that of Guangxu, to complete it.

The kings sent scholars and experts, including Westerners such as Johann Adam Schall von Bell and Ferdinand Verbiest, to all of China's then 13 provinces for the task, he said.

The foreword was written by the then director of an observatory.

Hong had bought the map from a familiar book seller for his institute. He showed me the map and suggested that I should buy it. It cost more than my one month salary.

On July 4 he handed over the well-preserved, 115 cm x 140 cm map to the Vietnam National History Museum in Hanoi. A handover ceremony is being held Tuesday with several historians attending.

I think this map can provide some very good information for Vietnams defense at international negotiations. A proof from China themselves will save us from (verbal) attacks.*

Vietnam latest news - Thanh Nien Daily | 1904 China map admits Paracel, Spratly not Chinese territory

With narrow-minded nationalism, deception, aggression..., Chinese hope continue to deception international community. action that is trampling on international law of the chinese.

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## beijingwalker

any publication house can print their maps,there are tons of old maps published by many publication houses all across China and the world,on the same map,maybe it shows that Vietnam is part of France.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Supply&Demand

beijingwalker said:


> any publication house can print their maps,there are tons of old maps published by many publication houses all across China and the world,on the same map,maybe it shows that Vietnam is part of France.



Remember the same thing when u claim Arunachal Pradesh or Spartly or even Okinawa ,....lol!

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## auspice

We sympathize with Vietnamese people. China's aggression must be countered and it will take the unity of ASEAN with powerful nations like USA, Russia, India to neutralize China's threat to SE Asian's access to the sea and to their territories that are within the EEZ.

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## beijingwalker

auspice said:


> We sympathize with Vietnamese people. China's aggression must be countered and it will take the unity of ASEAN with powerful nations like USA, Russia, India to neutralize China's threat to SE Asian's access to the sea and to their territories that are within the EEZ.



you have overlapping claim,if China was not there ,they won't hesitate to attack a much easier foe,the Philippines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SpiritHS

beijingwalker said:


> any publication house can print their maps,there are tons of old maps published by many publication houses all across China and the world,on the same map,maybe it shows that Vietnam is part of France.



Chinese always claimed history, I hope that the Chinese will bring us in international courts, where the historical evidence will come together.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## beijingwalker

SpiritHS said:


> Chinese always claimed history, I hope that the Chinese will bring us in international courts, where the historical evidence will come together.



US,ISREAL,THE MIDDLE EAST,INDIA...WHICH LAND OR OTHER DISPUTES WERE SETTLED BY SO CALLED INTERNATIONAL COURT?I DONT REMEMBER ANY.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## truthseer

auspice said:


> We sympathize with Vietnamese people. China's aggression must be countered and it will take the unity of ASEAN with powerful nations like USA, Russia, India to neutralize China's threat to SE Asian's access to the sea and to their territories that are within the EEZ.


Yawn..same rhetoric, same old, same old


----------



## SpiritHS

beijingwalker said:


> US,ISREAL,THE MIDDLE EAST,INDIA...WHICH LAND OR OTHER DISPUTES WERE SETTLED BY SO CALLED INTERNATIONAL COURT?I DONT REMEMBER ANY.



funny, you always said history, but tremble with history.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## truthseer

SpiritHS said:


> funny, you always said history, but tremble with history.


An old map can be produced by anyone, I can produce one that says India owns Vietnam. Prove that it is scientifically that old and comes from China

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SpiritHS

truthseer said:


> An old map can be produced by anyone, I can produce one that says India owns Vietnam. Prove that it is scientifically that old and comes from China



you should go to class and learn the history, we are not only of this map. when conditions permit, we have a lot of evidence to slap into the mouths of people ''historical claims'' but tremble with the truth of history.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## beijingwalker

SpiritHS said:


> you should go to class and learn the history, we are not only of this map. when conditions permit, we have a lot of evidence to slap into the mouths of people ''historical claims'' but tremble with the truth of history.



we also have enough evidence showing you were part of China,as in the case of 1903 map,it's very recent so on the map it probably shows that you were part of France.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Korean

Chinese argument is that that map was a Qing Dynasty map, which was a Manchu empire, a foreign occupier of China, and does not represent modern day China. The Qing map is no more valid than the British map of India, the argument goes.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## INDIAISM

China want tibet
China want Arunachal Pradesh from India
China want Island from Vietnam
China Want Taiwan
China want Island from Philipines
China want Island from Japan...
China want Island from Korea 
China has territorial dispute with Bhutan...
China dispute over Sparty Island with Brunei
China want South China Sea...
China has territorial dispute with Myanmar
Did i miss something....

Dude leave something for others tooo......

and here people from our neighbor countries say that India is the most aggressive country when its come to its neighborhood....

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## GR!FF!N

they included those islands only during Kuomintang regime via "9 dotted line".no previous document shows that it was under Chinese control..



beijingwalker said:


> US,ISREAL,THE MIDDLE EAST,INDIA...WHICH LAND OR OTHER DISPUTES WERE SETTLED BY SO CALLED INTERNATIONAL COURT?I DONT REMEMBER ANY.



Indo-Bangladesh-Mayanmar EEZ dispute is in International court.even court settled the dispute of Bangladesh-Mayanmar dispute when we are waiting for next hearing.

BD-Myanmar maritime boundary dispute order Mar 14

Bangladesh vs Myanmar Maritime Boundary Dispute Verdict: A Brief Summary | Sachalayatan

no harm to fight legally if your claim is justified.

but i'm sure in very next post,a chinese member will claim "we don't need outsiders to judge which is our land" kind comment.best of luck with that attitude.


thats an image of dispute between Indo-Bangladesh-Mayanmar EEZ dispute..

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LetsGetRowdy

Korean said:


> Chinese argument is that that map was a Qing Dynasty map, which was a Manchu empire, a foreign occupier of China, and does not represent modern day China. The Qing map is no more valid than the British map of India, the argument goes.


 
Manchuria today is part of China, Britain is not part of India, so the argument goes.


----------



## Götterdämmerung

Korean said:


> Chinese argument is that that map was a Qing Dynasty map, which was a Manchu empire, a foreign occupier of China, and does not represent modern day China. The Qing map is no more valid than the British map of India, the argument goes.



The problems is, all nations recognises the ROC and later the PRC to be the legitimate successor of the Qing dynasty and that the Qing dynasty represented the Chinese nation. In all the documents with foreign countries during the Qing government was called Chinese government.

Here is one example:

Treaty of Nanjing (Nanking), 1842, UCLA Asia Institute

The British government ans well the Chinese government recognised all treaties signed during the Qing dynasty and hence the return of Hongkong after 99 years lease.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## illusion8

GR!FF!N said:


> they included those islands only during Kuomintang regime via "9 dotted line".no previous document shows that it was under Chinese control..
> 
> 
> 
> Indo-Bangladesh-Mayanmar EEZ dispute is in International court.even court settled the dispute of Bangladesh-Mayanmar dispute when we are waiting for next hearing.
> 
> BD-Myanmar maritime boundary dispute order Mar 14
> 
> Bangladesh vs Myanmar Maritime Boundary Dispute Verdict: A Brief Summary | Sachalayatan
> 
> no harm to fight legally if your claim is justified.
> 
> but i'm sure in very next post,a chinese member will claim "we don't need outsiders to judge which is our land" kind comment.best of luck with that attitude.
> 
> 
> thats an image of dispute between Indo-Bangladesh-Mayanmar EEZ dispute..



off topic: so, Griffin what was the verdict in the BD- myanmar case? and in whose favor?


----------



## shuttler

auspice said:


> We *sympathize with Vietnamese people*. China's aggression must be countered and it will take the unity of ASEAN with powerful nations like USA, Russia, India to neutralize China's threat to SE Asian's access to the sea and to their territories that are within the EEZ.



Haha, so much sympathy!

philippines-arrests-12-vietnamese-fishermen



Korean said:


> Chinese argument is that that map was a Qing Dynasty map, which was a *Manchu empire,* a foreign occupier of China, and does not represent modern day China. The Qing map is no more valid than the British map of India, the argument goes.



Manchurians are Chinese! They are living all over China. The Red Indians are Americans or Canadians. They once owned North America!


----------



## GR!FF!N

illusion8 said:


> off topic: so, Griffin what was the verdict in the BD- myanmar case? and in whose favor?



both claimed win..actually both loose few points and gain some.read here..

Judgment in Bangladesh-Myanmar Maritime Boundary Dispute | International Law Observer | A blog dedicated to reports, commentary and the discussion of topical issues of international law

Bangladesh vs Myanmar Maritime Boundary Dispute Verdict: A Brief Summary | Sachalayatan

it says..*Bangladesh demanded 107,000 square kilometres (sq-km) in the Bay of Bengal, but the ITLOS verdict awarded the country with 111,000 sq-km, according to the MoFA sources. *(though i doubt that)

here is another,more informative link...

Who Won in Bay of Bengal? Hasina! | BDINN.com


----------



## beijingwalker

it's a land map,everyone see that,and where in the map shows they belong to Vietnam?


----------



## gambit

Götterdämmerung;3221826 said:


> The problems is, all nations recognises the ROC and later the PRC to be the legitimate successor of the Qing dynasty and that the Qing dynasty represented the Chinese nation. In all the documents with foreign countries during the Qing government was called Chinese government.
> 
> Here is one example:
> 
> Treaty of Nanjing (Nanking), 1842, UCLA Asia Institute
> 
> The British government ans well the Chinese government recognised all treaties signed during the Qing dynasty and hence the return of Hongkong after 99 years lease.


Then will China concede to the Treaty of Shimonoseki regarding Taiwan?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## beijingwalker

gambit said:


> Then will China concede to the Treaty of Shimonoseki regarding Taiwan?



Japan denounced it after being defeated in WW2.


----------



## EastSea

Japan can reclaim Taiwan like China reclaim Sinkaku.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Srinivas

Chinese here won't realize the truth. They will post only communist propaganda with out even thinking about it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## faithfulguy

gambit said:


> Then will China concede to the Treaty of Shimonoseki regarding Taiwan?



Yes, and this treaty was over turned in the treaty of San Francisco.


----------



## LetsGetRowdy

sukhoi_30MKI said:


> Chinese here won't realize the truth. They will post only communist propaganda with out even thinking about it.



And what is the truth? and what is 'communist propaganda'? It looks like you made this post without even thinking about it.


----------



## beijingwalker

EastSea said:


> Japan can reclaim Taiwan like China reclaim Sinkaku.



then they need to launch another war and they also have to win that war,you may go to Japan and request them to do that,good luck.



sukhoi_30MKI said:


> Chinese here won't realize the truth. They will post only communist propaganda with out even thinking about it.



we never post anything from Chinese media,and since when Reuters,BBC,Wikipedia...become communist propaganda channels??


----------



## gambit

beijingwalker said:


> Japan denounced it after being defeated in WW2.


Denounced? Hardly. Renounce is a different issue.

San Francisco Peace Treaty


> (b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.


If I give you a plot of land and later you renounce all claims and rights to that land, its ownership does not automatically revert back to me. If I sold you a car and later you abandoned it, it does not mean its title reverts back to me. In both situations, the first renunciation of all claims and rights are not negated by the later renunciations. If we do not respect this business rule, there would be chaos because everyone will be allowed to interpret any transaction they wish.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Srinivas

LetsGetRowdy said:


> And what is the truth? and what is 'communist propaganda'? It looks like you made this post without even thinking about it.



Read some history, Intenational maritime laws and the article which was posted in the thread before jumping to post.


----------



## EastSea

beijingwalker said:


> then they need to launch another war and they also have to win that war,you may go to Japan and request them to do that,good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> we never post anything from Chinese media,and since when Reuters,BBC,Wikipedia...become communist propaganda channels??



The Qing Dynasty was defeated in the First Sino-Japanese War (1894&#8211;1895) and Taiwan and Penghu were ceded in full sovereignty to the Empire of Japan. Inhabitants wishing to remain Qing subjects were given a two-year grace period to sell their property and move to mainland China. Very few Taiwanese saw this as feasible.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## beijingwalker

EastSea said:


> The Qing Dynasty was defeated in the First Sino-Japanese War (1894&#8211;1895) and Taiwan and Penghu were ceded in full sovereignty to the Empire of Japan. Inhabitants wishing to remain Qing subjects were given a two-year grace period to sell their property and move to mainland China. Very few Taiwanese saw this as feasible.



yes,history is history,nothing can change it.just like the fact that Japan was defeated in Second Sino-Japanese War.and lost all they got so if they want to get them back they need to launch the third war,so you can ask them to do so and see if they listen to you.


----------



## faithfulguy

EastSea said:


> The Qing Dynasty was defeated in the First Sino-Japanese War (1894&#8211;1895) and Taiwan and Penghu were ceded in full sovereignty to the Empire of Japan. Inhabitants wishing to remain Qing subjects were given a two-year grace period to sell their property and move to mainland China. Very few Taiwanese saw this as feasible.





Taiwan was under the control of Qing at that time so it surrendered Taiwan to the French. But I don't see how China could have surrender Vietnam to French as Vietnam was not under Chinese control. I read some where on the post that when China lost a war to French, China ceded Vietnam to French? Wasn't Vietnam already an independent country or was Vietnam still a vassal to Qing dynasty at that time? Was China's relationship with Vietnam similar to that of Korea? I know that Chinese emperor regard the Korean king was a vassal. But I don't think Chinese emperor regard the Vietnamese emperor as a vassal. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

faithfulguy said:


> Taiwan was under the control of Qing at that time so it surrendered Taiwan to the French. But I don't see how China could have surrender Vietnam to French as Vietnam was not under Chinese control. I read some where on the post that when China lost a war to French, China ceded Vietnam to French? Wasn't Vietnam already an independent country or was Vietnam still a vassal to Qing dynasty at that time? Was China's relationship with Vietnam similar to that of Korea? I know that Chinese emperor regard the Korean king was a vassal. But I don't think Chinese emperor regard the Vietnamese emperor as a vassal. Please correct me if I'm wrong.



Whether a "vassal" or "a province" or "under the influence"... but the fact that China has run away quickly every time the French attacked Vietnam.
Conclusion: China likes bullying countries smaller and weaker, but if it faces with strong countries, the Chinese immediately wet their pants. 
What a shame for a bully but cowardice. See Nanking.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## EastSea

faithfulguy said:


> Taiwan was under the control of Qing at that time so it surrendered Taiwan to the French. But I don't see how China could have surrender Vietnam to French as Vietnam was not under Chinese control. I read some where on the post that when China lost a war to French, China ceded Vietnam to French? Wasn't Vietnam already an independent country or was Vietnam still a vassal to Qing dynasty at that time? Was China's relationship with Vietnam similar to that of Korea? I know that Chinese emperor regard the Korean king was a vassal. But I don't think Chinese emperor regard the Vietnamese emperor as a vassal. Please correct me if I'm wrong.



In the first France Vietnam war, 1858-1883 we lost this war when France troops over flooding Hanoi. One year later 1884, France Navy attacked China for open free trading only, other than stop interfer of Qing into Vietnam. In fact after losing of Hanoi, many troops of Viets went to China, are waiting for chance to regain independence for Vietnam.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sonyuke_Songpaisan

faithfulguy said:


> Taiwan was under the control of Qing at that time so it surrendered Taiwan to the French. But I don't see how China could have surrender Vietnam to French as Vietnam was not under Chinese control. I read some where on the post that when China lost a war to French, China ceded Vietnam to French? Wasn't Vietnam already an independent country or was Vietnam still a vassal to Qing dynasty at that time? Was China's relationship with Vietnam similar to that of Korea? I know that Chinese emperor regard the Korean king was a vassal. But I don't think Chinese emperor regard the Vietnamese emperor as a vassal. Please correct me if I'm wrong.



Vietnam,Korea,Ryukyu are all vassals of China. They all have Kings just like Chinese&#29579;&#65292;there is no emperor in the three vassals.


----------



## beijingwalker

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> Whether a "vassal" or "a province" or "under the influence"... but the fact that China has run away quickly every time the French attacked Vietnam.
> Conclusion: China likes bullying countries smaller and weaker, but if it faces with strong countries, the Chinese immediately wet their pants.
> What a shame for a bully but cowardice. See Nanking.



finally you admitted that your country is small and weak,good start,and we help you many times in 1970s and 1960s,why can't you just fight for selves,why do you always need outside help,just because you are small and weak?


----------



## Srinivas

beijingwalker said:


> finally you admitted that your country is small and weak,good start,and we help you many times in 1970s and 1960s,why can't you just fight for selves,why do you always need outside help,just because you are small and weak?



Just like China needed help from Great Britain and US in second world war.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sonyuke_Songpaisan

sukhoi_30MKI said:


> Just like China needed help from Great Britain and US in second world war.



I am wondering where India was in WWII? China sent many troops to Burma to help UK. Pls study history


----------



## beijingwalker

sukhoi_30MKI said:


> Just like China needed help from Great Britain and US in second world war.



we helped each other that's why we were called allies,after showing you are such a history illiterate,you still have the courage to show up,haha,you lost your bet just now.


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

beijingwalker said:


> finally you admitted that your country is small and weak,good start,and we help you many times in 1970s and 1960s,why can't you just fight for selves,why do you always need outside help,just because you are small and weak?



Because we were always bullied by a bigger neighbors. But this guy is always wet his pants when he faced with other powers.


----------



## faithfulguy

Sonyuke_Songpaisan said:


> Vietnam,Korea,Ryukyu are all vassals of China. They all have Kings just like Chinese&#29579;&#65292;there is no emperor in the three vassals.



Korea has kings. But from what I read, Vietnam has emperors that is regarded as equal to China. But at the same time, it also regard Chinese emperor as superior. That is why its confusing. There seems to be two different type of relationships between China and Vietnam. Unfortunately, the Vietnamese here would rather troll instead of answer my question. So I'm still as confused as before. finally, things I can find online are just as confusing.


----------



## beijingwalker

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> Because we were always bullied by a bigger neighbors. But this guy is always wet his pants when he faced with other powers.



we fought US in 1950s India and USSR in 1960s,what other world powers do you mean?


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

faithfulguy said:


> Korea has kings. But from what I read, Vietnam has emperors that is regarded as equal to China. But at the same time, it also regard Chinese emperor as superior. That is why its confusing. There seems to be two different type of relationships between China and Vietnam. Unfortunately, the Vietnamese here would rather troll instead of answer my question. So I'm still as confused as before. finally, things I can find online are just as confusing.



The Chinese King identified himself as "son of heaven", and wanting to surrounding smaller countries become "vassal" state. But the Kings of the dynasties of Vietnam did not accepted, so there were a lot of wars between the two feudal states of China and Vietnam.
The Vietnamese never accepted that Kings of China as "superior", except when we were defeated. And that is the cause chinese kings sent troops to invade Vietnam many times.



beijingwalker said:


> we fought US in 1950s India and USSR in 1960s,what other world powers do you mean?



It was France, 6 powers ...
USSR and India were not who have come to invade Asia.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## faithfulguy

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> The Chinese King identified himself as "son of heaven", and wanting to surrounding smaller countries become "vassal" state. But the Kings of the dynasties of Vietnam did not accepted, so there were a lot of wars between the two feudal states of China and Vietnam.
> The Vietnamese never accepted that Kings of China as "superior", except when we were defeated. And that is the cause chinese kings sent troops to invade Vietnam many times.
> 
> 
> 
> It was France, 6 powers ...
> USSR and India were not who have come to invade Asia.



At the time when French invaded Vietnam, was Vietnam a vassal state of China?


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

faithfulguy said:


> At the time when French invaded Vietnam, was Vietnam a vassal state of China?



No, but it was "under the influence"


----------



## beijingwalker

Sino&#8211;French War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sino

this war brought down then French government

Collapse of Ferry's government


> Collapse of Ferry's government


----------



## faithfulguy

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> No, but it was "under the influence"



This is confusing. What the hell is under influence?



beijingwalker said:


> Sino&#8211;French War
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Sino



From wikipedia. and this is wikipedia so we have to take it cautiously, it states

The Sino&#8211;French War, also known as the Tonkin War and Tonquin War,[2] was a limited conflict fought between August 1884 and April 1885 to decide whether France should replace China in control of Tonkin (northern Vietnam). 

Base on this, China was in control of Tonkin. Is this true? I thought Vietnam has its own emperor at the time? If so, how was the Chinese in control of Tonkin?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

faithfulguy said:


> This is confusing. What the hell is under influence?



As I said in # 44. Our Vietnamese feudal state fought to get rid of "province" or "vassal", but was still influenced by chinese feudal state many times larger.
Anyway it is pleasant than a "vassal".


----------



## WuMaoCleverbot

*1862 China map admits Paracel, Spratly not Chinese territory*









Official maps of the Yuan Dynasty and Ching
Dynasty, including but not limited to Da Qing Zhi Sheng Quan Tu
(published in 1862) and Huang Chao Yi Tong Yu Di Zen Du (published in
1894), show that the southernmost extent of China ends at Hainan islands

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

faithfulguy said:


> From wikipedia. and this is wikipedia so we have to take it cautiously, it states
> 
> The Sino&#8211;French War, also known as the Tonkin War and Tonquin War,[2] was a limited conflict fought between August 1884 and April 1885 to decide whether France should replace China in control of Tonkin (northern Vietnam).
> 
> Base on this, China was in control of Tonkin. Is this true? I thought Vietnam has its own emperor at the time? If so, how was the Chinese in control of Tonkin?



Actually it is the border conflict between the French colonial [Vietnam] and Qing.
Note it was the border war, not the whole Tonkin of Vietnam.


----------



## beijingwalker

WuMaoCleverbot said:


> Official maps of the Yuan Dynasty and Ching
> Dynasty, including but not limited to Da Qing Zhi Sheng Quan Tu
> (published in 1862) and Huang Chao Yi Tong Yu Di Zen Du (published in
> 1894), show that the southernmost extent of China ends at Hainan islands



those are land maps,even in today's China,land maps dont show much beyond the lands boundary.


----------



## WuMaoCleverbot

beijingwalker said:


> those are land maps,even in today's China,land maps dont show much beyond the lands boundary.



All the Chinese Imperial Maps that I've seen show that Hainan is the southernmost territory of China. Even the Chinese Envoy who was sent here in the Philippines to fetch the remnants of the Pirate King Limahong says that the Chinese Imperial gov't doesn't claim any island beyond Taiwan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sonyuke_Songpaisan

WuMaoCleverbot said:


> All the Chinese Imperial Maps that I've seen show that Hainan is the southernmost territory of China. Even the Chinese Envoy who was sent here in the Philippines to fetch the remnants of the Pirate King Limahong says that the Chinese Imperial gov't doesn't claim any island beyond Taiwan.



Old Maps show that there is no country named America or Philipines


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

beijingwalker said:


> those are land maps,even in today's China,land maps dont show much beyond the lands boundary.



But today the Chinese map usually added to "U-shaped" quoted in the corner of the map. But the Chinese always say loudly that its claims at SCS based on "history". lol
lol, U-shaped drawn only in 1947 -1948 under Chiang. lol chinese historical claims.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## EastSea

WuMaoCleverbot said:


> All the Chinese Imperial Maps that I've seen show that Hainan is the southernmost territory of China. Even the Chinese Envoy who was sent here in the Philippines to fetch the remnants of the Pirate King Limahong says that the Chinese Imperial gov't doesn't claim any island beyond Taiwan.



Yes, by the beginning years of last century when authority protest to China about chinese sea pirates robed on Hoangsa, Cantonese Governor answered that : *Islands not belong to China, so China didn't have responsible about such accidents.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## faithfulguy

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> Actually it is the border conflict between the French colonial [Vietnam] and Qing.
> Note it was the border war, not the whole Tonkin of Vietnam.



So it look like France was about to overrun Tonkin. So Vietnam enlisted Chinese help as the last ditch effort. But Chinese were defeated. Vietnam came under total French colonialization.


----------



## WuMaoCleverbot

Sonyuke_Songpaisan said:


> Old Maps show that there is no country named America or Philipines








1734 Murillo-Velarde Philippine Map

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## beijingwalker

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> But today the Chinese map usually added to "U-shaped" quoted in the corner of the map. But the Chinese always say loudly that its claims at SCS based on "history". lol
> lol, U-shaped drawn only in 1947 -1948 under Chiang. lol chinese historical claims.



most maps,yes,but not all the maps.some maps only show land boundary.but nowhere on our maps showing the Spratly is not ours.


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

faithfulguy said:


> So it look like France was about to overrun Tonkin. So Vietnam enlisted Chinese help as the last ditch effort. But Chinese were defeated. Vietnam came under total French colonialization.



French attacked Da Nang city of Vietnam in 1858. The Vietnamese fought against France in 25 years while the Qing china did pee its pants and fled. Only when the French defeated Hanoi and went closer to the border Vietnam-Qing china, until the time it occurred the conflict the French-Qing.


----------



## beijingwalker

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> French attacked Da Nang city of Vietnam in 1858. The Vietnamese fought against France in 25 years while the Qing china did pee its pants and fled. Only when the French defeated Hanoi and went closer to the border Vietnam-Qing china, until the time it occurred the conflict the French-Qing.



why you always need China to help you fight?we helped you many time during the last 100 years.did you ever help China in any war?


----------



## EastSea

beijingwalker said:


> most maps,yes,but not all the maps.some maps only show land boundary.but nowhere on our maps showing the Spratly is not ours.



Map of Vietnam from time of Nguyen Dynasty, when we used chinese Han Characters to writing.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

beijingwalker said:


> why you always need China to help you fight?we helped you many time during the last 100 years.did you ever help China in any war?




Because when Vietnam was not attacked by the west, the chinese have repeatedly attacked Vietnam feudal state smaller, weaker. But when the west appears, China immediately ran away, unless they threaten its southern border.
If we had not to fight constantly against China, we were not defeated by France in 1883, after 25 years of fighting.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## faithfulguy

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> French attacked Da Nang city of Vietnam in 1858. The Vietnamese fought against France in 25 years while the Qing china did pee its pants and fled. Only when the French defeated Hanoi and went closer to the border Vietnam-Qing china, until the time it occurred the conflict the French-Qing.



Actually, in 1958, China was being invaded by a joint British/French force during 2nd opium war. Qing dynasty was in no shape to help Vietnam. You cannot fault China for not helping you without have a true understanding of the whole situation.

The fact is that the whole East Asia was under European pressure during the 19th century. Only Japan was able to overturn the unequal treaty. Many countries, such as India, was completely taken over. 

French were notorious bad colonialist. The Indians were lucky that they got the British, which created their nation.


----------



## EastSea

Hoang Sa or Bai Cat Vang in Vietnamese are same meaning stating in map of Vietnam from westerners.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Srinivas

Sonyuke_Songpaisan said:


> I am wondering where India was in WWII? China sent many troops to Burma to help UK. Pls study history



The fact is Without the US and west's help China should have been in Japanese occupation, go through the history.



Sonyuke_Songpaisan said:


> Old Maps show that there is no country named America or Philipines



Old maps also show China occupied by Mongols. I mean whole of China consumed by mongols.



beijingwalker said:


> we helped each other that's why we were called allies,after showing you are such a history illiterate,you still have the courage to show up,haha,you lost your bet just now.



What ever i have stated is correct you are the illiterate here. Boy! i wonder what the what the real meaning of winning means for Chinese .

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

faithfulguy said:


> Actually, in 1958, China was being invaded by a joint British/French force during 2nd opium war. Qing dynasty was in no shape to help Vietnam. You cannot fault China for not helping you without have a true understanding of the whole situation.
> 
> The fact is that the whole East Asia was under European pressure during the 19th century. Only Japan was able to overturn the unequal treaty. Many countries, such as India, was completely taken over.
> 
> French were notorious bad colonialist. The Indians were lucky that they got the British, which created their nation.




I dont mean to blame that the Qing did not support Vietnam. I just explain the problem and answer the questions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## beijingwalker

sukhoi_30MKI said:


> The fact is Without the US and west's help China should have been in Japanese occupation, go through the history.
> 
> .



you are really a illiterate,history is history ,they are done facts.history is not ifs and buts.China won the war and as an ally force we helped each other to achieve our victory.can you read and understand historical documents at all?


----------



## beijingwalker

Allies of World War II
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Allies of World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> After 1941, the leaders of the United States of America, the British Commonwealth, and the Soviet Union known as the "Big Three",[3] held leadership of the allied powers. China,at that time, was also a major Ally.



the victory awarded China a permanent seat in the UN security concil,you are so ignorant and should really improve your history study.whatever you believe wont change the world's history book,lol..



> *The five permanent members of the Security Council were the victorious powers in World War II and have maintained the world's most powerful military forces ever since. *They annually top the list of countries with the highest military expenditures; in 2011, they spent over US$1 trillion combined on defense, accounting for over 60% of global military expenditures (the U.S. alone accounting for over 40%). They are also the only countries officially recognized as "nuclear-weapon states" under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), though there are other states known or believed to be in possession of nuclear weapons.
> 
> United Nations Security Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Srinivas

beijingwalker said:


> Allies of World War II
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> the victory awarded China a permanent seat in the UN security concil,you are so ignorant and should really improve your history study.whatever you believe wont change the world's history book,lol..



So you chinese have won the war over Japanese without US help and with out atomic explosion on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
If US had not interfered in second world war China would have struggled to overcome Japanese.

France also got UN security council seat but the fact is France was humiliated by Nazis just like Chinese were by Japanese in both the cases the Allied forces helped them both.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## beijingwalker

sukhoi_30MKI said:


> So you chinese have won the war over Japanese without US help .



who said that?are you insane?China was one of the ally forces,and how many times do you have to tell you?are you having reading problems?

China as an ally,did her part in WW2,that's why we got the permanent seat.



> In the middle and later stages of the war (after 1939) when the Japanese advanced to Central China, the Nationalists were very effective at fighting the Japanese. For instance, the Chinese fought the Japanese to a stalemate in Shangsha in 3 major battles (the battles of Changsha) in the span of 4 years (1939-1942). Note that this was NOT some guerilla fighting involving a company or two, but huge fighting involving army groups that totaled in close to half million troops from both sides in each one of these battles.
> 
> Further, the Chinese fought Japan on a second front in Burma and India. Nationalists sent the Chinese Expeditionary Forces to Burma/ India in 1942 and fought the Japanese in Southeastern China in 2 campaigns for 3 years 'til the end of the war. This was also large battles between army groups. China and Allied forces (mainly British colonial forces) lost badly in the 1st campaign. However, Chinese forces alone came back and defeated the Japanese thoroughly and effectively in the second campaign. The Chinese forces were able to push Japanese almost completely out of Burma in 1944/45.





> *Japanese casualties*
> 
> 
> The Japanese recorded around 1.1 to 1.9 million military casualties (which include killed, wounded and missing). The official death-toll according to the Japan Defense Ministry is 480,000 men, which some historians claim is an understatement due to the length of the war.[103]The combined Chinese forces claimed to have killed at most 1.77 million Japanese soldiers during the eight-year war.
> 
> Another source from Hilary Conroy claim that a total of 447,000 Japanese soldiers died in China during the Second Sino-Japanese War. *Of the 1,130,000 Imperial Japanese Army soldiers who died during World War II, 39 percent died in China.*


----------



## Srinivas

beijingwalker said:


> who said that?are you insane?China was one of the ally forces,and how many times do you have to tell you?are you having reading problems?
> 
> China as an ally,did her part in WW2,that's why we got the permanent seat.



Then why are you contradicting my earlier statements with your poor logic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## beijingwalker

sukhoi_30MKI said:


> Then why are you contradicting my earlier statements with your poor logic.



you have logic?you dont show that.China was the winner of WW2.and we got a permanent seat in UN Security Concil.what is your logic?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Srinivas

beijingwalker said:


> you have logic?you dont show that.China was the winner of WW2.and we got a permanent seat in UN Security Concil.what is your logic?



China and France lost to Germany and Japan, With the help of Britain,Russia and US(real reason behind the Japan surrender)
they have reatained the territory. 
The contribution of China and France is very little to WW2 victory, France and China relocated their capitals and worked with the help of Britain,Russia and US.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## beijingwalker

sukhoi_30MKI said:


> China and France lost to Germany and Japan, With the help of Britain,Russia and US(real reason behind the Japan surrender)
> they have reatained the territory.
> The contribution of China and France is very little to WW2 victory, France and China relocated their capitals and worked with the help of Britain,Russia and US.



This guy is insane,Japan in its heydays only managed to control less than a third of China,many Asian countries exile government was in China during that time,like Korean exile government.what is your definition of losing a war? if Japan won,why did they have to hand in this "ACT OF SURRENDER" to the Chinese government?not like France,China never signed any treaty with Japan during the war,the final treaty is Japanese surrender.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## beijingwalker

*Japan's surrender ceremony in Beijing*








*China as an ally power ,signs on Japanese surrender declaration on US battle ship USS Missouri *







> After MacArthur's signature as Supreme Commander, the following representatives signed the *instrument of surrender *on behalf of each of the Allied Powers:
> 
> Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz for the United States (9:12 a.m.).
> *General Hsu Yung-Ch'ang for the Republic of China (9:13 a.m.).*
> Admiral Sir Bruce Fraser for the United Kingdom (9:14 a.m.).
> Lieutenant General Kuzma Derevyanko for the Soviet Union (9:16 a.m.)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Srinivas

beijingwalker said:


> This guy is insane,Japan in its heydays only managed to control less than a third of China,many Asian countries exile government was in China during that time,like Korean exile government.what is your definition of losing a war? if Japan won,why did they have to hand in this "ACT OF SURRENDER" to the Chinese government?not like France,China never signed any treaty with Japan during the war,the final treaty is Japanese surrender.



The main target for any country who goes for war is capital city of the enemy country. China and France lost it. This implies both the countries are surviving against their enemies.


----------



## beijingwalker

sukhoi_30MKI said:


> The main target for any country who goes for war is capital city of the enemy country. China and France lost it. This implies both the countries are surviving against their enemies.



that's your standard of winning a war,Russia lost its capital to Napoleon so France defeated Russia?who told you that?your Indian school teacher?


----------



## Fanling Monk

Look how these idiots twixt and spin the history to glorify their former masters. If it wasn't China that boggled down Japan's major forces the Japanese would have had took the whole Asian part of Pacific territory and kicked all the white out of this area permanently, which was their original intention. 

Yeah how noble were for them for supplying arms to Chiang Kai-Shek without telling the world that they wanted the Chinese as cannon fodders for Japanese advancements toward their colonial properties.

China owed nothing to colonial powers in WWII and in fact they should thanked us for taking the brunt of Japan's awesome land power. Why do these idiots think they offered Chiang, a yellow slave, a permanent seat in the UN for without major accomplishments.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## beijingwalker

Fanling Monk said:


> Look how these idiots twixt and spin the history to glorify their former masters. If it wasn't China that boggled down Japan's major forces the Japanese would have had took the whole Asian part of Pacific territory and kicked all the white out of this area permanently, which was their original intention.
> 
> Yeah how noble were for them for supplying arms to Chiang Kai-Shek without telling the world that they wanted the Chinese as cannon fodders for Japanese advancements toward their colonial properties.
> 
> China owed nothing to colonial powers in WWII and in fact they should thanked us for taking the brunt of Japan's awesome land power. Why do these idiots think they offered Chiang, a yellow slave, a permanent seat in the UN for without major accomplishments.



our expedition force stopped Japan from further invading India,India should thank China.



> *Capture of Indian territory*
> Main articles: Invasion and occupation of the Andaman Islands during World War II, Battle of Kohima, and Battle of Imphal
> 
> By 1942, neighbouring Burma was invaded by Japan. By then it had already captured the Indian territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. As a major possession of the United Kingdom, Japan looked to invade India, as it provided natural resources and could possibly be used as a staging post for an advance into the Middle East and the British oil fields in Persia and Iraq. Japan ceded the Andaman and Nicobar islands to the Provisional Government of Free India on October 21, 1943. In March 1944, Japan initiated an offensive into India and advanced as far as Kohima in Nagaland.


----------



## Fanling Monk

beijingwalker said:


> our expedition force stopped Japan from further invading India,India should thank China.




We fought hard and fierce, as a result millions of our brave men died for protecting our country. And you have idiots here belittle our accomplishments and glorify their former white masters as saviors to us. What slave mentalities!


----------



## Fanling Monk

beijingwalker said:


> our expedition force stopped Japan from further invading India,India should thank China.




deleted for double post


----------



## beijingwalker

Fanling Monk said:


> We fought hard and fierce, as a result millions of our brave men died for protecting our country. And you have idiots here belittle our accomplishments and glorify their former white masters as saviors to us. What slave mentalities!



he is moron,hopefully not all Indians share the same mentality.


----------



## Srinivas

Fanling Monk said:


> deleted for double post



US and Russia are the Champs of WW2 not even Britain belongs in that list.



beijingwalker said:


> he is moron,hopefully not all Indians share the same mentality.



Don't troll buddy look at the statements of you and me and decide for yourself. Chinese logic of debate

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## beijingwalker

sukhoi_30MKI vs world's history ,a nice competition


----------



## Fanling Monk

sukhoi_30MKI said:


> US and Russia are the Champs of WW2 not even Britain belongs in that list.




The US yes, the Russians, NO. They just came in to take all the spoils and credits on Japan's imminent demise, nothing more than a thievery act, IMO.


----------



## faithfulguy

sukhoi_30MKI said:


> US and Russia are the Champs of WW2 not even Britain belongs in that list.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't troll buddy look at the statements of you and me and decide for yourself. Chinese logic of debate



Now, you redefining what is a champ. Please stick to one definition and stop moving the target. You sound like the Indian airforce giving new requirements to DRDO every other day for LCA? Is this a cultural trait.

The whole world owe a lot to Britain and Winston Churchill for holding on against the Nazis. They are definitely one of the major factors for victory in WWII. Their courage in battle of Britain is extraordinary. Please don't minimize the contribution of your colonial master and the founders of your nation.



Fanling Monk said:


> The US yes, the Russians, NO. They just came in to take all the spoils and credits on Japan's imminent demise, nothing more than a thievery act, IMO.



In Europe, Russia deserve the most credit. And globally, I would say they contributed and suffered the most as the front line was constantly changing, Khakov changed hands 4 different times. The battle of Stanlingrad was legendary.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DalitIndian

SpiritHS said:


> Chinese always claimed history, I hope that the Chinese will bring us in international courts, where the historical evidence will come together.


 
They must be referring to cpc propaganda as history.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ahfatzia

DalitIndian said:


> They must be referring to cpc propaganda as history.




You must be an expert on Chinese history to make such a knowledgeable comment. Care to share some of your immense capabilities?


----------



## GR!FF!N

beijingwalker said:


> our expedition force stopped Japan from further invading India,India should thank China.



chinese expedition force???  

its british and indian soldiers who fought and stopped Japan and INA(shame,because if they had not stopped them,history would be something else).


----------



## SpiritHS

beijingwalker said:


> yes,history is history,nothing can change it.just like the fact that Japan was defeated in Second Sino-Japanese War.and lost all they got so if they want to get them back they need to launch the third war,so you can ask them to do so and see if they listen to you.



You have a legacy forged, the newspapers promoting narrow-minded nationalism is happening every day, aggressive claims of PLA leadership. China will be the risk of creating WW3.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## beijingwalker

GR!FF!N said:


> chinese expedition force???
> 
> its british and indian soldiers who fought and stopped Japan and INA(shame,because if they had not stopped them,history would be something else).



moron ,do some study before sh.t,we saved those British in Burma,otherwise they will be all captured

Battle of Yenangyaung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



GR!FF!N said:


> its british and indian soldiers who fought and stopped Japan and INA(shame,because if they had not stopped them,history would be something else).



see what you brave Indians can do



> The Japanese had advanced to Burma as her army had steamrollered all before it between 1942 and 1943. The British had surrendered at Singapore and the Americans, lead by Douglas MacArthur, had left the Philippines. As the Japanese advanced west, they came to Burma. Here their supply lines were stretched to the limit and only a minority of the Japanese Army was stationed there &#8211; the majority were in the Pacific region.
> 
> *The main threat to the Japanese came from the Chinese Army in India (CAI)*. The Indian Army, under the British, had lost their best men to the campaign in North Africa. The British military hierarchy was also only prepared to take on the Japanese when it felt that British troops were sufficiently trained in jungle warfare.
> 
> In January 1943, Indian troops were given the task of advancing along the Burmese coast to the port of Akyab. This was done by the 14th Indian Division. They found only light Japanese resistance and many Japanese posts were manned by just a few soldiers. The real problem for the Allies was the environment. Burma was criss-crossed with jungle, mountains, rivers and mangrove swamps. Moving equipment was a nightmare across such hazardous terrain and worse was the constant threat of disease. Malaria was a very real problem.
> 
> Where the Japanese were stationed, they had dug themselves in. This made attacking them difficult as their bunkers had been well constructed and well camouflaged. Most could only be destroyed by heavy artillery and moving such equipment about in Burma was extremely difficult. Combined to the well-placed and well-built bunkers, was the fighting spirit of the Japanese who fought until death.
> 
> The 14th Indian Division launched a series of attacks against the Japanese at Akyab but after six weeks they had to pull back as a result of a Japanese counter-attack. The 14th Division returned to India &#8211; apparently* highly demoralised as a result of their experience.*


----------



## beijingwalker

we saved a lot of your former masters



> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> A Chinese expeditionary force annihilated the entire Japanese 33rd Division in the Battle of Yenangyaung, of the first Burma campaign. They liberated around 7,000 British prisoners, took roughly 1,000 horses, and freed 500 other prisoners, which included American journalists and missionaries captured by the Japanese forces.


----------



## Viet

auspice said:


> We sympathize with Vietnamese people. China's aggression must be countered and it will take the unity of ASEAN with powerful nations like USA, Russia, India to neutralize China's threat to SE Asian's access to the sea and to their territories that are within the EEZ.




Philippines performs very well recently in terms of economics. Now it looks to strengthen its military. VN is willing to step up its cooperations with the Philippines in all fields.


Here is a report from the Wallstreet Journal: Monday, July 23, 2012 As of 4:45 PM

*Aquino Urges Expansion of Philippine Military 
*
By CRIS LARANO

MANILA&#8212;Philippines President Benigno Aquino said Monday that the country is moving to expand its military capabilities but was quick to point out that the Southeast Asian nation isn't preparing for a fight over disputed territory in the South China Sea.

In his annual state of the nation address to Congress, Mr. Aquino urged lawmakers to pass a proposed Armed Forces modernization bill that will add 75 billion pesos ($1.8 billion) for defense spending in the next five years to acquire more cannons, personnel carriers, frigates and aircraft. The bill is pending in Congress and expected to be passed later this year, and will come on top of some 28 billion pesos his administration has already spent on military expansion since 2011.

It also comes as tensions are ratcheting up in other ways in the sea, as China pursues plans to deploy a military garrison in the newly established city of Sansha in the Xisha Islands, also known as the Paracel Islands, according to the state-run Xinhua news agency. Philippines and Vietnamese officials have protested the creation of the city, which Chinese authorities intend to use as an administration center to manage territories across the South China Sea. The sea&#8212;which is believed to contain sizable energy reserves and serves as one of the world's most important shipping lanes&#8212;is claimed in whole or in part by China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei.

The garrison will be a division-level command responsible for managing the city's national defense mobilization, military reserves and carrying out military operations, Xinhua said, though information regarding the number of soldiers or other details wasn't made available.

Even with Mr. Aquino's latest plans, the Philippines' military strength will still pale in comparison with China and some other Asian nations. But it is part of a wider arms build-up across the region which analysts worry could further raise tensions and increase the odds of a shooting war if diplomats fail to manage disputes in the sea carefully.

Mr. Aquino said more planes and attack helicopters are expected next year, while the country's second Hamilton Class cutter will soon arrive.

"Now, our 36,000 kilometers of coastline will be patrolled by more modern ships," Mr. Aquino said.

The Philippines and China recently had a two-month standoff in the disputed Scarborough Shoal&#8212;a chain of reefs and rocks in the South China Sea also known as Bajo de Masinloc&#8212;after Chinese fishermen were caught with endangered species by Philippine patrol ships. Ships involved in the standoff finally began to withdraw last month after heavy storms made it difficult for them to remain, but arguments have persisted over who controls what there.






_Philippine President Benigno Aquino III delivered his third State of the Nation address Monday in the House of Representatives in suburban Quezon City, north of Manila, the Philippines. 
_
"There are those who say that we should let Bajo de Masinloc go; we should avoid the trouble. But if someone entered your yard and told you he owned it, would you agree? Would it be right to give away that which is rightfully ours?" Mr. Aquino said.

"This is not a simple situation, and there can be no simple solutions. Rest assured: We are consulting experts, every leader of our nation, our allies&#8212;even those on the other side&#8212;to find a resolution that is acceptable to all," Mr. Aquino added.

China's Foreign Ministry didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Also during the one-and-a-half-hour-long speech that was broadcast live, President Aquino said that a highly touted anticorruption agenda put in place by his government had helped boost economic growth, helping give the Philippines the strongest growth in Southeast Asia in the first quarter of the year. He noted that the Philippines has also overseen the creation of over three million jobs and several credit rating upgrades in nearly three years, which in turn has helped restore investor confidence and boost tourist arrivals.

He said the strong investor confidence in the country was evident in the recent robust performance of the stock market and the praise the Philippines has won from international financial publications and foreign investors.

Mr. Aquino also urged Congress to pass proposed revisions to a tobacco and alcoholic drinks tax, or better known as sin tax, to generate more revenue for social services, infrastructure projects and improving military capability.

He said that as early as next year, the Philippines&#8212;which several years ago was the world's largest importer of rice&#8212;will be a net exporter of the grain, while tourist arrivals should hit a record 4.6 million this year. Mr. Aquino is hopeful that before he steps down in 2016, there will be 10 million tourists visiting the Philippines.
&#8212;Patrick Barta and Jeremy Page contributed to this article.

Aquino Urges Expansion of Philippine Military - WSJ.com


----------



## SpiritHS

faithfulguy said:


> Korea has kings. But from what I read, Vietnam has emperors that is regarded as equal to China. But at the same time, it also regard Chinese emperor as superior. That is why its confusing. There seems to be two different type of relationships between China and Vietnam. Unfortunately, the Vietnamese here would rather troll instead of answer my question. So I'm still as confused as before. finally, things I can find online are just as confusing.



Vietnam is not same as the Chinese. after the war, we always respect and friendship with Vietnam opponents.
Ex: after your ancestors more than 100,000 dead in DONG DA. we have peace with China and admiration of the Qing king.
after the battle of Dien Bien Phu, we have signed peace treaties with France.
after the war with America and the unification in 1975, Vietnam and the U.S. are strategic partners.
China is doing the opposite. Look at the way propagating narrow nationalist when talking about the Japanese, Indians, USA, Philippines, Vietnam ..., we read newspapers, watch Chinese movies, so we understand why the Chinese poisoned culture.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## GR!FF!N

beijingwalker said:


> moron ,do some study before sh.t,we saved those British in Burma,otherwise they will be all captured
> 
> Battle of Yenangyaung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



thats Burma...i was talking about India...my bad.


----------



## gpit

SpiritHS said:


> _Chinese language expert Mai Hong points at Hai Nan Island in a 1904 Chinese map, which noted the island as Chinas southernmost tip._
> *A Chinese language expert in Vietnam has an official map of China from 1904 that does not show Hoang Sa (Paracel) and Truong Sa (Spratly) islands as belonging to that country.
> 
> ...*


*


I have taught you fools 100 hundred times: get yourself educated, get yourself educated!

LOL!

According this map, the sacred origin of Qing Dynasty, which is northern east of, and including, todays HeiLongJiang province of China, is not shown, either. Does that mean Qing gave up Heilongjiang, Jili already. 

Illiterate Viets, you guys are nothing but a laughing stock in front of the world.

Why dont you produce a map that only show He Nan province and claiming this is the only China. 

And then produce a Dia Viet map up to wherever you like and claiming this is Vietnam.

Just knocking you wake-up: since your divorce with China and free to go bed with any other, the properties among you and China have never been clearly divided until recently that you demarcated land properties. But sea properties are still in dispute.

I know a tiny ripple of anti-China "evidence" will cause your blood boil like Witches Brew. Your guys are hopelessly clueless, and fre@kingly amusing! 





INDIAISM said:



China want tibet
China want Arunachal Pradesh from India
China want Island from Vietnam
China Want Taiwan
China want Island from Philipines
China want Island from Japan...
China want Island from Korea 
China has territorial dispute with Bhutan...
China dispute over Sparty Island with Brunei
China want South China Sea...
China has territorial dispute with Myanmar
Did i miss something....

Dude leave something for others tooo......

and here people from our neighbor countries say that India is the most aggressive country when its come to its neighborhood....

Click to expand...


Indian cheer leaders, get you self educated before cheering!

Do you know what are you cheering?

*


----------



## Alchemy

Just wondering whether old maps are enuf evidence in the international courts for such claims ? If so the British may open their old maps from the history museums and claim half of the world !!!!

I would rather expect all nations surronding SCS to follow EEZ according to UNCLOS instead of depending on "old maps"


----------



## gpit

EastSea said:


> In the first France Vietnam war, 1858-1883 we lost this war when France troops over flooding Hanoi. One year later 1884, France Navy attacked China for open free trading only, other than stop interfer of Qing into Vietnam. In fact after losing of Hanoi, many troops of Viets went to China, are waiting for chance to regain independence for Vietnam.



" In fact after losing of Hanoi, many troops of Viets went to China, ..." Nice. But please don't tell us, or rather change your textbook and tell your children, the next day that you occupied China. But do show your gratitude towards China.



Alchemy said:


> Just wondering whether old maps are enuf evidence in the international courts for such claims ? If so the British may open their old maps from the history museums and claim half of the world !!!!
> 
> I would rather expect all nations surronding SCS to follow EEZ according to UNCLOS instead of depending on "old maps"



It all depends.

If the Viets want Chinese islands, they will show one type of maps that everything belonged to Dai Viet. If the Viets want to show how China was aggressive, they would show another type of maps that everything was occupied by China.

For instance, they would laugh at Yuan occupation of China, obviously thinking Yuan was not Chinese. On second moment, they would proudly tell you they repelled Chinese invasion of Yuan Dynasty, now believing that Yuan is Chinese. 

As I said in other post, today anything anti-China would make their blood burn like boiling witches brew in the cauldron...

internet Vietnamese are a such laughing stock... no education , no logical reasoning,... but a bag of boiling bloody thing...


----------



## gpit

WuMaoCleverbot said:


> All the Chinese Imperial Maps that I've seen show that Hainan is the southernmost territory of China. Even the Chinese Envoy who was sent here in the Philippines to fetch the remnants of the Pirate King Limahong says that the Chinese Imperial gov't doesn't claim any island beyond Taiwan.



All what you see is like all what a frog sees from the bottom of a well.


----------



## gpit

EastSea said:


> Yes, by the beginning years of last century when authority protest to China about chinese sea pirates robed on Hoangsa, Cantonese Governor answered that : *Islands not belong to China, so China didn't have responsible about such accidents.*



If you are not lying, show us facts that Cantonese Governor said so;

When?

Where?

The name of the Governor?

The exact statement?

Don't lie blatantly in front of the world!


----------



## gambit

beijingwalker said:


> you are really a illiterate,history is history ,they are done facts.history is not ifs and buts.*China won the war and as an ally force we helped each other* to achieve our victory.can you read and understand historical documents at all?


Kinda contradictory and self praising, ya think?



beijingwalker said:


> Japan in its heydays only managed to control less than a third of China


And how large was Japan compared to China?



beijingwalker said:


> if Japan won,why did they have to hand in this "ACT OF SURRENDER" to the Chinese government?


The formal act of surrender was not to China but was to an agent of the Allied powers.

Bottom line is this: Without the naval defeat of Imperial Japan by the US, that 1/3 of China would still be under Japan's control.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Alchemy

gpit said:


> " In fact after losing of Hanoi, many troops of Viets went to China, ..." Nice. But please don't tell us, or rather change your textbook and tell your children, the next day that you occupied China. But do show your gratitude towards China.
> 
> 
> 
> It all depends.
> 
> If the Viets want Chinese islands, they will show one type of maps that everything belonged to Dai Viet. If the Viets want to show how China was aggressive, they would show another type of maps that everything was occupied by China.
> 
> For instance, they would laugh at Yuan occupation of China, obviously thinking Yuan was not Chinese. On second moment, they would proudly tell you they repelled Chinese invasion of Yuan Dynasty, now believing that Yuan is Chinese.
> 
> As I said in other post, today anything anti-China would make their blood burn like boiling witches brew in the cauldron...
> 
> internet Vietnamese are a such laughing stock... no education , no logical reasoning,... but a bag of boiling bloody thing...



Hey then what about the chinese ? they seem to be more fond of the ancient maps to claim disputed territories .... your analogy applies to china too .... 

What is your view on expect all nations surronding SCS to follow EEZ according to UNCLOS instead of depending on "old maps"


----------



## gpit

WuMaoCleverbot said:


> 1734 Murillo-Velarde Philippine Map



From the map we don't see Huangyan Island, or scarborough shoal. So you prove to us that the island belongs to China?


----------



## gpit

Alchemy said:


> Hey then what about the chinese ? they seem to be more fond of the ancient maps to claim disputed territories .... your analogy applies to china too ....
> 
> What is your view on expect all nations surronding SCS to follow EEZ according to UNCLOS instead of depending on "old maps"



Regardless of which nation, map is only one way to claim, there are lot more other factors, such as power, etc. For instance , without power, India wouldn't be able to take over Goa.

The problem with many Internet Viets is that a simple partial truth can make their blood boil recklessly. And they deny themselves from the whole truth. 

Taking their show of 1904 map for instance, the map doesn't even include Qing Dynasty's NE part where they considered as their "old home place"... it's a simple focus on mainland China. and the foolish and ill-educated bunch start to propaganda like their communist regime.

LOL, even today lots of maps China don't show it's peripheral parts as they are none essential to the point of the map. Does that mean China renounces those areas? 

It's a joke! It's just another laughing stock from the Viets...


----------



## gpit

EastSea said:


> Map of Vietnam from time of Nguyen Dynasty, when we used chinese Han Characters to writing.




According to your crooked logic, in the main map China's Hainan province is in the map. In the upper-right inset, Hong Kong is there, too, in addition to China's Hainan, Guandong provinces. So Hong Kong, Hainan and Guang Dong were all your viets?

Use your logic, and stop entertaining us, you fool!



EastSea said:


> Hoang Sa or Bai Cat Vang in Vietnamese are same meaning stating in map of Vietnam from westerners.



No! You are completely wrong! This map shows those islands are not Vietnamese, they are French, if they so claimed!

Get your crooked self right!



Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> I dont mean to blame that the Qing did not support Vietnam. I just explain the problem and answer the questions.



Yes, you are!

Look deep into your heart. Deep in your heart, you guys whine like abandoned concubines!

So be it!



sukhoi_30MKI said:


> So you chinese have won the war over Japanese without US help and with out atomic explosion on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> If US had not interfered in second world war China would have struggled to overcome Japanese.
> 
> France also got UN security council seat but the fact is France was humiliated by Nazis just like Chinese were by Japanese in both the cases the Allied forces helped them both.



Don't if something proven none-existent!

Can I say if I was not born, half your internet folks would be born as rats?

Assuming something that never existed is perhaps one reason that India lags more and more behind China day by day since your independence.


----------



## gpit

sukhoi_30MKI said:


> The main target for any country who goes for war is capital city of the enemy country. China and France lost it. This implies both the countries are surviving against their enemies.



Your Indian logic is so funny!

The main target for any country who goes for war is the resources, the market, ...

If so , and if UK to conquer India again, I guess it would be gladly leave you sticky New Delhi along and take away all your resources as they did before.



Fanling Monk said:


> Look how these idiots twixt and spin the history to glorify their former masters. If it wasn't China that boggled down Japan's major forces the Japanese would have had took the whole Asian part of Pacific territory and kicked all the white out of this area permanently, which was their original intention.
> 
> Yeah how noble were for them for supplying arms to Chiang Kai-Shek without telling the world that they wanted the Chinese as cannon fodders for Japanese advancements toward their colonial properties.
> 
> China owed nothing to colonial powers in WWII and in fact they should thanked us for taking the brunt of Japan's awesome land power. Why do these idiots think they offered Chiang, a yellow slave, a permanent seat in the UN for without major accomplishments.



In fact, in India-Burma theater, UK was pretty counter-productive in WWII, for it feared that if China-US ally were successful, they would replace UK as new colonial master in India and Burma,as least share some interest with UK.

Let us take it that some Indians are perhaps jealousy of China, a dirty poor country at that time, poorer then India perhaps, conducted exceptional performance in beating down the Japs. In fact, "Indians" at that time were not representations of the people in a country, but perceived a collective name of suppressed people living in a region composed of various kingdoms that were colonized by UK.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## dunhill

> According to your crooked logic, in the main map China's Hainan province is in the map. In the upper-right inset, Hong Kong is there, too, in addition to China's Hainan, Guandong provinces. So Hong Kong, Hainan and Guang Dong were all your viets?
> 
> Use your logic, and stop entertaining us, you fool!



Gpit:

*YOU* are the one who was fool. East Sea brought that map, to show Chinese on Spratly, Paracel originally belong to Viet Nam. Not enitire map included Hainan, Hongkong something that made you think about.

Think twice before you making any post will you?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## terranMarine

Those maps don't say a thing you clown. Why not try to convince the whole world with those maps you posted and see if they agree with your kind of logic. You guys posted so many different maps claiming the islands why not share them with the experts around the world and ask them if they totally agree with you clowns. That's fair enough don't you think?


----------



## gpit

dunhill said:


> Gpit:
> 
> *YOU* are the one who was fool. East Sea brought that map, to show Chinese on Spratly, Paracel originally belong to Viet Nam. Not enitire map included Hainan, Hongkong something that made you think about.
> 
> Think twice before you making any post will you?



Sorry to call you and him fool but your deserved proper name, did you read the OP?

Here is one excerpt:

"The two archipelagoes off Vietnam&#8217;s central coast are not shown in the map.

But now China claims the islands despite lots of historical evidence showing Vietnam&#8217;s existence on the islands before anyone else."

This means, according to this fool&#8217;s logic of your bred, if stuffs not shown in Chinese map they are not China's, if shown they are.

Next map shows Hongkong is in Vietnamese map.

What&#8217;s your logic mean about that?

Simple, but alas too complex for your uneducated bunch.

Conclusion: your logic doesn't work.


----------



## EastSea

gpit said:


> According to your crooked logic, in the main map China's Hainan province is in the map. In the upper-right inset, Hong Kong is there, too, in addition to China's Hainan, Guandong provinces. So Hong Kong, Hainan and Guang Dong were all your viets?
> 
> Use your logic, and stop entertaining us, you fool!
> 
> 
> 
> No! You are completely wrong! This map shows those islands are not Vietnamese, they are French, if they so claimed!
> 
> Get your crooked self right!
> 
> .



You are idiot, every map for any country should drawn up his neighbor country land. In the map of Vietnam is in the same manner, it include area where today is China, Lao, Cambodia and Thailand.

France colony has been studied carefully about Vietnam before invaded in to Vietnam 1858 and taken contoll 1883. They have been known well that Islands are under control of Nguyen Dynasty Vietnam.

Vietnamese side was fortunate to find in Ph&#7911; Biên T&#7841;p L&#7909;c, *an account written by Lê Quý &#272;ôn in 1776, and mentioning the archipelagos of Hoàng Sa (Paracel Islands) and Tr&#432;&#7901;ng Sa (Spratly Islands) off the Vietnamese coast as Vietnam&#8217;s territories.* The document also relates how, once a year, the Lord Nguy&#7877;n sent out to these islands a special team on 5 small fishing boats which took 3 days and 3 nights to reach the islands. Their trips lasted about 6 months, and they lived on their abundance of fish and birds. They harvested carapaces of sea turtles, holothurians (sea cucumbers, h&#7843;i sâm) and other precious sea products, and collected from ship wrecks horses, swords, watches silverwares, china, cooking oil. At their return in the 8th lunar calendar month, they had to go directly to Phú Xuân (Hu&#7871, the Nguy&#7877;n capital to hand in the trophies directly to the government. After which, they were allowed to sell the remaining of their sea product catch. This is a direct proof that these islands belonged to &#272;àng Trong (South Vietnam) under the Nguyen Lords.[6]






This 18th-century map of Vietnam, derives from a map of southeast Asia and parts of China published in Amsterdam by the firm of Covens and Mortier around 1760. The title of this map is in French, but many of the place names and notes have been translated into Dutch.(Courtesy Wikipedia.org)

*Cochinchine refers to Dang Trong (under the Lord Nguyen) and Tonkin (from &#8220;Dong Kinh&#8221 to the Dang Ngoai under the Lord Trinh.* &#8220;Toanh oa&#8217; and &#8220;Ke hoa&#8221; refer to (respectively) Thuan Hoa and Hue (K&#7867; Hu&#7871;: people from Hu&#7871;, like K&#7867; Ch&#7907;: people from Hanoi today) where le Quy Don wrote Phu Bien Tap Luc in 1776 (the city of Hue; the name of Hue probably derived from &#8220;Hoa&#8221; in Thuan Hoa and Kehoa). Note the presence of the archipelago named &#8220;Pracels&#8217; off the coast of Cochinchine (currently Paracel Islands or Hoang Sa).

Lê Quý ?ôn

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## shuttler

EastSea said:


> Japan can reclaim Taiwan like China reclaim Sinkaku.



China can reclaim the whole Japan because we sent our earliest settlers there in Qin Dynasty!



beijingwalker said:


> Japan *denounced* it after being defeated in WW2.



...renounced


----------



## dunhill

gpit said:


> Sorry to call you and him fool but your deserved proper name, did you read the OP?
> 
> Here is one excerpt:
> 
> "The two archipelagoes off Vietnam&#8217;s central coast are not shown in the map.
> 
> But now China claims the islands despite lots of historical evidence showing Vietnam&#8217;s existence on the islands before anyone else."
> 
> This means, according to this fool&#8217;s logic of your bred, if stuffs not shown in Chinese map they are not China's, if shown they are.
> 
> Next map shows Hongkong is in Vietnamese map.
> 
> What&#8217;s your logic mean about that?
> 
> Simple, but alas too complex for your uneducated bunch.
> 
> Conclusion: your logic doesn't work.



Gpit:

I must change from *F*ool to become *S*tupid for *YOU*. Topic talking about *P*aracel, *S*pratly then when you *L*ook at the map, you have to see what the most* I*mportant* P*art that you need to see, and you just missed it. It is OK for you as a Stupid guy, I can teach you to learn more how to reading a map. (Last time, some of Stupid guys like you just missed the map point, then Russia Coast Guard gave them a very *NICE* shots.) 

Chinese people learn to read the maps with other part originally not belong to them, and what not belong to them Chinese loves to cross the lines. Once its getting shot then its claim somebody fools this ...fools that.

That's how Chinese is .... by all mean I am not surprise at all. How about *YOU*?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

gpit said:


> No! You are completely wrong! This map shows those islands are not Vietnamese, they are French, if they so claimed!
> 
> Get your crooked self right!



Idiot. The French only began to invade Vietnam in 1858 and it only beat Vietnam in 1883. Before 1858 there were many maps of Vietnamese feudal state and the European maritime showed two Paracels and Spratlys belong to Vietnam.
But even with the claims of the French the later, it was because it on behalf of its colony.



gpit said:


> Yes, you are!
> 
> Look deep into your heart. Deep in your heart, you guys whine like abandoned concubines!
> 
> So be it!




Well, you did not see the truth hidden deep in my heart. Let me tell you, it is not the whine or blame, because we had fought valiantly for 25 years before were defeated in 1883, the truth it is disdain for a big guy always bullying smaller neighbors, but cowardice when faced with opponents. Yes, exactly it is disdain for a coward.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Fanling Monk said:


> Look how these idiots twixt and spin the history to glorify their former masters. If it wasn't China that boggled down Japan's major forces the Japanese would have had took the whole Asian part of Pacific territory and kicked all the white out of this area permanently, which was their original intention.
> 
> Yeah how noble were for them for supplying arms to Chiang Kai-Shek without telling the world that they wanted the Chinese as cannon fodders for Japanese advancements toward their colonial properties.
> 
> China owed nothing to colonial powers in WWII and in fact they should thanked us for taking the brunt of Japan's awesome land power. Why do these idiots think they offered Chiang, a yellow slave, a permanent seat in the UN for without major accomplishments.



China fought the Imperial Japan for 5 1/2 years without receiving the help from the West, the US started to offer the supply to KMT until the event of Pearl Harbor.


----------



## WuMaoCleverbot

*1734 Murillo-Velarde Philippine Map*








gpit said:


> From the map we don't see Huangyan Island, or scarborough shoal. So you prove to us that the island belongs to China?



Obviously you don't know where Scarborough shoal is. Look for Panacot and you will see it on the Map. You also have a crooked logic...why would Scarborough shoal automatically belongs to China if it wasn't on the map.

I find it interesting to see that there is a gap of 656 years between Chinas 1279 record and its more recent mentions of Scarborough in official records.
It is only in 1935 when Chinese official records state that the shoal  which it mentions by its popular western name Scarborough Shoal  was part of its Zhongsha Islands. It is only in 1947 that China baptized the shoal with its first Chinese name  Minzhu Jiao or Democracy Reef.


*a Yuan dynasty map.*






China has to this day not produced for public scrutiny the 1279 map on which it bases it historical claim.


*Is China wrong?*
July 24, 2012

A Filipino maritime law expert has dug up a 1916 Philippine Supreme Court decision which shows Manila  not China  has had actual legal and maritime jurisdiction over Scarborough Shoal for at least a century.
In contrast, China imposed its legal jurisdiction over Scarborough Shoal only this week by creating a law-making body to enact laws over Sansha City, which now includes Scarborough Shoal or Huangyan Island. China started imposing its maritime jurisdiction over Huangyan this year when it asserted the rights of its fishermen to fish in and around Huangyan.

raissa robles | Is China wrong?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## dunhill

At WuMaoCleverbot:

China never wrong and not even Chinese, the only people, nations around its are wrong. Even the whole World are wrong, the whole World *WAS* belong to China based on the Quing, Song, Sui whatever dynasties are.

Now, China only able to claims in SCS due to its U-Shapes. Later on, China has more fire power capabilities, any countries which are has Chinese living then its will belong to China base on Quing, Ching, whatever dynasties are.

Luckily, China is not power like U.S nor Russia, NATO the claims will not start yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

In fact, China does not have any historical basis, legal basis, factual basis for its claims in the SCS.

The appearance of it on both the Paracels and Spratlys that taken advantage of the surrender of Japan after WW2 and it has used of force to steal from Vietnam.

The only basis for the claims of China that is it has more warships, fighters and missiles... with a big mouth.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## oct605032048

VN should go back to 1904 lying beneath the French...


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

oct605032048 said:


> VN should go back to 1904 lying beneath the French...



It is true that the French defeated us in 1883 after 25 years to attack invading Vietnamese feudal state, but in 1954 France was defeated by Vietnamese at Dien Bien Phu, Vietnam captured more 11 thousand French soldiers. The reason why we "should go back to 1904 lying beneath the French"?
Note that, the territory, territorial waters and islands which the France has received the controlling from the Vietnamese feudal state, always belong to Vietnam, though it was a French colony or not.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## EastSea

oct605032048 said:


> VN should go back to 1904 lying beneath the French...



Man controlled China in same time, no chinese...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pakistanisage

Were those maps made by Chinese or the British ?


----------



## rcrmj

EastSea said:


> Man controlled China in same time, no chinese...


in the past, China, France and U.S.A had controlled a place full of monkeys``hint``its south to China

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

rcrmj said:


> in the past, China, France and U.S.A had controlled a place full of monkeys``hint``its south to China



The difference between Vietnam and China is that while Vietnam always stand up to fight against the invaders large and powerful, China always surrendered the invaders smaller.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SpiritHS

Chinese people have a habit of ''burning books'' and '' kill student'' from the Qin Dynasty. cultural values &#8203;&#8203;and history to tell them like opening of Beethoven's music for listening pigs.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## beijingwalker

SpiritHS said:


> Chinese people have a habit of ''burning books'' and '' kill student'' from the Qin Dynasty. cultural values &#8203;&#8203;and history to tell them like opening of Beethoven's music for listening pigs.



then how come your own culture is deeply influenced by this "pig"culture?you can deny it like all you Vietnamese do but the whole world knows the truth.


----------



## dunhill

rcrmj said:


> in the past, China, France and U.S.A had controlled a place full of *monkeys*``hint``its south to China



You can not say anything better than throwing the mud on us? Is that a very best shot from Chinese?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Alchemy

beijingwalker said:


> then how come your own culture is deeply influenced by this "pig"culture?you can deny it like all you Vietnamese do but the *whole world knows the truth*.



The last resort of an incapable debater is taking the personal insults route which you seem to routinely take... 

By the way pls dont speak on behalf of the world , maybe you can speak on behalf of all the chinese !

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ephone

In 1904, Taiwan was also stolen from China. HongKong was occupied by the british and Macau was occupied by the Portuguese. 



SpiritHS said:


> _Chinese language expert Mai Hong points at Hai Nan Island in a 1904 Chinese map, which noted the island as Chinas southernmost tip._
> *A Chinese language expert in Vietnam has an official map of China from 1904 that does not show Hoang Sa (Paracel) and Truong Sa (Spratly) islands as belonging to that country.
> 
> The map possessed by Mai Hong, former head of the archive at the Han Nom Institute that studies ancient Vietnamese language and its influence by Chinese, for more than 30 years shows Hainan Island as Chinas southernmost tip.
> 
> The two archipelagoes off Vietnams central coast are not shown in the map.
> 
> But now China claims the islands despite lots of historical evidence showing Vietnams existence on the islands before anyone else.
> 
> A Vietnamese map from 1834 includes the two islands.
> 
> Hong said the colored-paper map was made during the Qing Dynasty era and published by the Shanghai Publishing House.
> 
> Hong said the Chinese descriptions on the map indicate it took from 1708 to 1904, from the time of Emperor Guangxi to that of Guangxu, to complete it.
> 
> The kings sent scholars and experts, including Westerners such as Johann Adam Schall von Bell and Ferdinand Verbiest, to all of China's then 13 provinces for the task, he said.
> 
> The foreword was written by the then director of an observatory.
> 
> Hong had bought the map from a familiar book seller for his institute. He showed me the map and suggested that I should buy it. It cost more than my one month salary.
> 
> On July 4 he handed over the well-preserved, 115 cm x 140 cm map to the Vietnam National History Museum in Hanoi. A handover ceremony is being held Tuesday with several historians attending.
> 
> I think this map can provide some very good information for Vietnams defense at international negotiations. A proof from China themselves will save us from (verbal) attacks.*
> 
> Vietnam latest news - Thanh Nien Daily | 1904 China map admits Paracel, Spratly not Chinese territory
> 
> With narrow-minded nationalism, deception, aggression..., Chinese hope continue to deception international community. action that is trampling on international law of the chinese.


----------



## Lacus Clyne

Korean said:


> Chinese argument is that that map was a Qing Dynasty map, which was a Manchu empire, a foreign occupier of China, and does not represent modern day China. The Qing map is no more valid than the British map of India, the argument goes.



you are so funny,china,From ancient times,we are multi-nationality country,any ethnic can rule china like HAN.according to you logic most of countries'territory belong to Africas.


----------



## EastSea

rcrmj said:


> in the past, China, France and U.S.A had controlled a place full of monkeys``hint``its south to China



In the past, Hunno, Mongolia, Man, Japan and Britain controlled the place to day called: China. The last pierce Hongkong was handed back 1997, recently.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## WuMaoCleverbot

Found this:

1770 Bonne Map of China






Another map showing that Hainan is the southernmost territory of China. 

When China drew those 9-dash line, they based that on what the Chinese wants with no regard for neighbors&#8217; legal rights. And also it's not about ancient Chinese heritage. Chinese heritage claims are not really supported by legal documents, strong basis in terms of history, and any international laws.


Chinese government suppress information that does not align with their claim so the general Chinese population will only see the false info their govt is spreading. In general the chinese people were not informed properly, what they know are just bias info towards their claim. So I'm not surprised of Chinese posters here who sincerely believe that they own the SCS.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Viet

gpit said:


> Regardless of which nation, map is only one way to claim, there are lot more other factors, such as power, etc. For instance , without power, India wouldn't be able to take over Goa.
> 
> The problem with many Internet Viets is that a simple partial truth can make their blood boil recklessly. And they deny themselves from the whole truth.
> 
> Taking their show of 1904 map for instance, the map doesn't even include Qing Dynasty's NE part where they considered as their "old home place"... it's a simple focus on mainland China. and the foolish and ill-educated bunch start to propaganda like their communist regime.
> 
> LOL,* even today lots of maps China don't show it's peripheral parts as they are none essential to the point of the map.* Does that mean China renounces those areas?
> 
> It's a joke! It's just another laughing stock from the Viets...





is it true or is just another chinese joke? 
If true, Chinese map leaves a lot of rooms for speculations.
Some of the Chinese are really stupid or liar, or both!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kankan326

From this map, most Northeast part of China, what we call "The Three Provinces of Northeast" , is not shown in it. This is quite unreasonable. Because the rulers of China at that time, including emperors themselves, came from Northeast, some say "Manchu". How could the map maker forgot emperors birthland when they made a whole country map? Can I say this is a fake map? Seriously.


----------



## kankan326




----------



## EastSea

kankan326 said:


> From this map, most Northeast part of China, what we call "The Three Provinces of Northeast" , is not shown in it. This is quite unreasonable. Because the rulers of China at that time, including emperors themselves, came from Northeast, some say "Manchu". How could the map maker forgot emperors birthland when they make a whole country map? Can I say this is a fake map? Seriously.



Same as pekingwalker chinese guy on PDF now, he is Manchu, but he forgot Manch Kuo, he lost his identity.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kankan326




----------



## kankan326

Same as pekingwalker chinese guy on PDF now, he is Manchu, but he forgot Manch Kuo, he lost his identity.

__________________________
The same thing would never happen in 1904. Manchus were superior at that time. They were on the top class. They didn't have to work. The whole country fed them.


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

Kankan326, Which map you're talking about? the map at Origin Post (#1) is a old paper map, it was be scanned, then print...
Above, there are many old china maps.






http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/197629-1904-china-map-admits-paracel-spratly-not-chinese-territory.html#post3220667


*
And easy to see, the ancient Chinese maps did not mention two archipelagos Paracels and Spratlys, and there were no U-Shap claim as China's claims today.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kankan326

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> Kankan326, Which map you're talking about? the map at Origin Post (#1) is a old paper map, it was be scanned, then print...
> Above, there are many old china maps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/197629-1904-china-map-admits-paracel-spratly-not-chinese-territory.html#post3220667
> 
> 
> *
> And easy to see, the ancient Chinese maps did not mention two archipelagos Paracels and Spratlys, and there were no U-Shap claim as China's claims today.*


Believe me. It's the same map we are talking about.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Srinivas

gpit said:


> " In fact after losing of Hanoi, many troops of Viets went to China, ..." Nice. But please don't tell us, or rather change your textbook and tell your children, the next day that you occupied China. But do show your gratitude towards China.
> 
> 
> 
> It all depends.
> 
> If the Viets want Chinese islands, they will show one type of maps that everything belonged to Dai Viet. If the Viets want to show how China was aggressive, they would show another type of maps that everything was occupied by China.
> 
> For instance, they would laugh at Yuan occupation of China, obviously thinking Yuan was not Chinese. On second moment, they would proudly tell you they repelled Chinese invasion of Yuan Dynasty, now believing that Yuan is Chinese.
> 
> As I said in other post, today anything anti-China would make their blood burn like boiling witches brew in the cauldron...
> 
> internet Vietnamese are a such laughing stock... no education , no logical reasoning,... but a bag of boiling bloody thing...



Just like Chinese Here They will claim as victims of Japanese invasion and unequal treaties when they want sympathy and territories. The next movement they will issue threats by showing their victories( communist history ) when they want to force their claims.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

kankan326 said:


> Believe me. It's the same map we are talking about.




But OP talks about the ancient chinese map which possessed by a Vietnamese named Mai Hong, a Chinese language expert in Vietnam. We have only seen photo of its the lower portion.

The ancient maps, today with modern technology we can fully test it is real or fake, with the help of an independent scientific unit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

gpit said:


> "
> 
> It all depends.
> 
> If the Viets want Chinese islands, they will show one type of maps that everything belonged to Dai Viet. If the Viets want to show how China was aggressive, they would show another type of maps that everything was occupied by China.
> 
> For instance, they would laugh at Yuan occupation of China, obviously thinking Yuan was not Chinese. On second moment, they would proudly tell you they repelled Chinese invasion of Yuan Dynasty, now believing that Yuan is Chinese.
> 
> As I said in other post, today anything anti-China would make their blood burn like boiling witches brew in the cauldron...
> 
> internet Vietnamese are a such laughing stock... no education , no logical reasoning,... but a bag of boiling bloody thing...



In fact, Yuan was a regime established in China by Mongolians, after the Mongols conquered China. So when Vietnam defeated Yuan 3 times, we can say that Vietnam defeated Mongols 3 times or Vietnam defeated Yuan Chinese 3 times, both are true, because Yuan has boss were Mongolians, troops were the Chinese...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kankan326

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> But OP talks about the ancient chinese map which possessed by a Vietnamese named Mai Hong. We have only seen photo of its the lower portion.
> 
> The ancient maps, today with modern technology we can fully test it is real or fake, with the help of an independent scientific unit.


Please check the background sofa. It's the same one. same person and same map.



Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> In fact, Yuan was a regime established in China by Mongolians, after the Mongols conquered China. So when Vietnam defeated Yuan 3 times, we can say that Vietnam defeated Mongols 3 times or Vietnam defeated Yuan Chinese 3 times, both are true, because Yuan has boss were Mongolians, troops were the Chinese...


It not you defeated Yuan troops. It was the jungle that did the work for you

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Srinivas

kankan326 said:


> Please check the background sofa. It's the same one. same person and same map.
> 
> It not you defeated Yuan troops. It was the jungle that did the work for you



Denying Victory in this way

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

kankan326 said:


> Please check the background sofa. It's the same one. same person and same map.



Yes, but the map possessed by Mr. Mai Hong, a Vietnamese?




kankan326 said:


> It not you defeated Yuan troops. It was the jungle that did the work for you



Maybe you are a new member of PDF so you did not know that the decisive battles did not occur in the jungle, the 3rd victory occurred at estuary Bach Dang River in 1288, it was a navy battle.



> The Battle of B&#7841;ch &#272;&#7857;ng, which took place at the Bach Dang River, near Ha Long Bay in present-day northern Vietnam, was a battle between &#272;&#7841;i Vi&#7879;t and the invading army of the Yuan Dynasty. It's considered part of the Third Mongol Invasion (1287-88).
> 
> In 1288 after the evacuation from the capital Th&#259;ng Long (present-day Hanoi), &#272;&#7841;i Vi&#7879;t's Grand Commander Tr&#7847;n H&#432;ng &#272;&#7841;o decided to launch an offensive against the Mongolians on the B&#7841;ch &#272;&#7857;ng River and immediately set to organize the battle.
> The B&#7841;ch &#272;&#7857;ng River ran through Yen Hung district (in Qu&#7843;ng Ninh province) and Thuy Nguyen (in Hai Phong) before reaching the sea. This is where the well-known battle of Ngô Quy&#7873;n against the Southern Han (Nanhan) took place in 938 A.D. It was from March, Tr&#7847;n H&#432;ng &#272;&#7841;o was already there to prepare the battlefield. He borrowed the same tactic that Ngô Quy&#7873;n used against the Chinese in 938. He studied the tidal lore, had beds of stakes planted under the water and arranged ambushes in a unified plan of campaign.
> 
> As was foreseen, the Mongolians in Th&#259;ng Long suffered an acute shortage of food. Without any news about the supply fleet, Prince Toghan found himself in a tight corner and had to order his army to retreat to V&#7841;n Ki&#7871;p. This was when &#272;&#7841;i Vi&#7879;t's Army began the general offensive by recapturing a number of locations occupied by the Mongol invaders. Groups of partisans were given orders to harass the enemy in V&#7841;n Ki&#7871;p, putting them at a loss. Toghan had to split his army into two and retreat.
> In early April the supply fleet led by Omar and escorted by infantry fled home along the B&#7841;ch &#272;&#7857;ng river. As bridges and roads were destroyed and attacks were launched by &#272;&#7841;i Vi&#7879;t's troops, the Mongols reached B&#7841;ch &#272;&#7857;ng. &#272;&#7841;i Vi&#7879;t's small flotilla engaged in battle and pretended to retreat. The Mongols eagerly pursued &#272;&#7841;i Vi&#7879;t troops and fell into their pre-arranged battlefield. Thousands of &#272;&#7841;i Vi&#7879;t's small boats from both banks quickly appeared, fiercely launched the attack and broke the combat formation of the enemy. Inflicted with a sudden and strong attack, the Mongols tried to withdraw to the sea in panic. Hitting the stakes, their boats were halted, many of which were broken and sunk. At that time, a number of fire rafts quickly rushed toward them. Frightened, the Mongolian troops jumped down to get to the banks where they were dealt a heavy blow by a big army led by the Tr&#7847;n king and Tr&#7847;n H&#432;ng &#272;&#7841;o.
> The Mongolian supply fleet was totally destroyed. Omar was captured.
> At the same time, &#272;&#7841;i Vi&#7879;t's Army made continuous attacks and smashed to pieces Toghan&#8217;s army on its route of withdrawal through L&#7841;ng S&#417;n. Toghan risked his life making a shortcut through forests to flee home.
> 
> The Battle of B&#7841;ch &#272;&#7857;ng went down as one of the greatest victories in Vietnamese military history and is a well-known event in Vietnam.
> In 1959 during excavation works in Yen Giang commune, Vietnamese archaeologists found the sharpened stakes that were used during the campaign in 1288.



Battle of B


Review the original post:


> *1904 China map admits Paracel, Spratly not Chinese territory *
> Last Updated: Sunday, July 22, 2012 05:00:00
> 
> A Chinese language expert in Vietnam has an official map of China from 1904 that does not show Hoang Sa (Paracel) and Truong Sa (Spratly) islands as belonging to that country.
> 
> The map possessed by Mai Hong, former head of the archive at the Han Nom Institute that studies ancient Vietnamese language and its influence by Chinese, for more than 30 years shows Hainan Island as China&#8217;s southernmost tip.
> 
> The two archipelagoes off Vietnam&#8217;s central coast are not shown in the map.
> 
> But now China claims the islands despite lots of historical evidence showing Vietnam&#8217;s existence on the islands before anyone else.
> 
> A Vietnamese map from 1834 includes the two islands.
> 
> Hong said the colored-paper map was made during the Qing Dynasty era and published by the Shanghai Publishing House.
> 
> Hong said the Chinese descriptions on the map indicate it took from 1708 to 1904, from the time of Emperor Guangxi to that of Guangxu, to complete it.
> 
> The kings sent scholars and experts, including Westerners such as Johann Adam Schall von Bell and Ferdinand Verbiest, to all of China's then 13 provinces for the task, he said.
> 
> The foreword was written by the then director of an observatory.
> 
> Hong had bought the map from a familiar book seller for his institute. &#8220;He showed me the map and suggested that I should buy it. It cost more than my one month salary.&#8221;
> 
> *On July 4 he handed over the well-preserved, 115 cm x 140 cm map to the Vietnam National History Museum in Hanoi. A handover ceremony is being held Tuesday with several historians attending.*
> 
> &#8220;I think this map can provide some very good information for Vietnam&#8217;s defense at international negotiations. A proof from China themselves will save us from (verbal) attacks.&#8221;

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

WuMaoCleverbot said:


> Found this:
> 
> 1770 Bonne Map of China
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another map showing that Hainan is the southernmost territory of China.
> 
> When China drew those 9-dash line, they based that on what the Chinese wants with no regard for neighbors&#8217; legal rights. And also it's not about ancient Chinese heritage. Chinese heritage claims are not really supported by legal documents, strong basis in terms of history, and any international laws.
> 
> 
> Chinese government suppress information that does not align with their claim so the general Chinese population will only see the false info their govt is spreading. In general the chinese people were not informed properly, what they know are just bias info towards their claim. So I'm not surprised of Chinese posters here who sincerely believe that they own the SCS.




In the fact, the claim "nine dotted line" of the PRC is based on "11 dotted line" was drawn the first time in 1947, first published in 1948 in a private publication under Chiang Kai-Shek regime. [After Chiang's army received the task by the Allies of disarming the Japanese troops in 1946].

And the "9 dotted line" does not have any basis, without any GPS coordinates, unstable, nobody knows the meaning of what it is.

Another strange thing is that CCP was promoting, to print the map "nine dotted line" in Chinese textbooks to brainwash chinese people. So most of Chinese people blindly believe that the waters are in the "9 dotted line" is the "sovereignty" of China. But when asked what its coordinates, nobody knows.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Cristoph

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> In the fact, the claim "nine dotted line" of the PRC is based on "11 dotted line" was drawn the first time in 1947, first published in 1948 in a private publication under Chiang Kai-Shek regime. [After Chiang's army received the task by the Allies of disarming the Japanese troops in 1946].
> 
> And the "9 dotted line" does not have any basis, without any GPS coordinates, unstable, nobody knows the meaning of what it is.
> 
> Another strange thing is that CCP was promoting, to print the map "nine dotted line" in Chinese textbooks to brainwash chinese people. So most of Chinese people blindly believe that the waters are in the "9 dotted line" is the "sovereignty" of China. But when asked what its coordinates, nobody knows.


 
thanks for ur kindly notice of our history. i am just wondering if the textbook is right about viet-nam was a vassal state of our country? moreover, our old government, the Kuomintang, did what they could after the ww2. if you were one of the deciders of ROC, i cant expect you could do better than them as a real CHINESE. 
I just been to vietnam in the last april for travelling. and i noticed the viet people are kindness and warm-hearted. i could see Chinese characters on most of the buildings all over the country. i cant believe there was a fight (or many) between our countries. Honestly, we Chinese DO NOT HATE everyone in this world, even the Japanese people. We just DO NOT WANT TO BE bullied and insulted as we had in 1900s'. 
Back to the topic, yes, we matter with the issues between our countries (or others) about the lands or islands, it is because we DO NOT WANT to be insulted anymore! And in some ways, we had make some benefits with our neighbours, including Japan, Vietnam, Phlipppens or others! but you just refused and wanted them all! and that was a really insult to our people and our belief. 
Yes! we dont want any wars! but we dont want to be insulted, either!
Last, do judge others by your own exp., caz they dont have the advantages as you had!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## EastSea

Cristoph said:


> thanks for ur kindly notice of our history. i am just wondering if the textbook is right about viet-nam was a vassal state of our country? moreover, our old government, the Kuomintang, did what they could after the ww2. if you were one of the deciders of ROC, i cant expect you could do better than them as a real CHINESE.
> I just been to vietnam in the last april for travelling. and i noticed the viet people are kindness and warm-hearted. i could see Chinese characters on most of the buildings all over the country. i cant believe there was a fight (or many) between our countries. Honestly, we Chinese DO NOT HATE everyone in this world, even the Japanese people. We just DO NOT WANT TO BE bullied and insulted as we had in 1900s'.
> Back to the topic, yes, we matter with the issues between our countries (or others) about the lands or islands, it is because we DO NOT WANT to be insulted anymore! And in some ways, we had make some benefits with our neighbours, including Japan, Vietnam, Phlipppens or others! but you just refused and wanted them all! and that was a really insult to our people and our belief.
> Yes! we dont want any wars! but we dont want to be insulted, either!
> Last, do judge others by your own exp., caz they dont have the advantages as you had!



Claim of China over Islands of Vietnam is wrong. It reported that by the last opinion servey in China only 5 % chinese deny using force with Vietnam, 95 % supported with aggressive comments. Propaganda of CPC brainwashed chinese people.
It's first your post on PDF, if you can take power in China I think two countries can solve this matter peacefully base on rules of international laws. In such case no one lost his face to his people.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

kankan326 said:


> Please check the background sofa. It's the same one. same person and same map.



Well, I have more information, the map of China published in 1904 by Shanghai Publishing House. The map possessed by Dr. Mai H&#7891;ng, a Vietnamese, a Chinese language expert in Vietnam. He has kept the map from 40 years ago, after he bought it.
This is a video of Dr. Mai H&#7891;ng and the map at his home:

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kankan326

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> Well, I have more information, the map of China published in 1904 by Shanghai Publishing House. The map possessed by Dr. Mai H&#7891;ng, a Vietnamese, a Chinese language expert in Vietnam. He has kept the map from 40 years ago, after he bought it.
> This is a video of Dr. Mai H&#7891;ng and the map at his home:


 This map is a joke! It shows that two of three Northeast provinces don't belong to China. Does that mean China gov believed the two provinces are not part of China's territory? Then whom they belonged to? Back to 1904, no country in the whole world even denied the two provinces belong to China.


----------



## Rechoice

kankan326 said:


> *This map is a joke*! It shows that two of three Northeast provinces don't belong to China. Does that mean China gov believed the two provinces are not part of China's territory? Then whom they belonged to? Back to 1904, no country in the whole world even denied the two provinces belong to China.



No joke bro. It's evident Islands belong to Vietnam. Huge Northeast area of Qing Man lost was to Russian Tzar.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

kankan326 said:


> This map is a joke! It shows that two of three Northeast provinces don't belong to China. Does that mean China gov believed the two provinces are not part of China's territory? Then whom they belonged to? Back to 1904, no country in the whole world even denied the two provinces belong to China.



*The map of China 1904:*






*The Han-Chinese map published by Shanghai Publishing House in 1904 was created across nearly two decades (1708 &#8211; 1904), from the Kangxi Emperor who ruled China from 1661 &#8211; 1722 to the Guangxu Emperor from 1875 to 1908, says Dr. Mai Hong, former head of the Library of the Institute for the Study of Chinese and Demotic Scripts and Cultures. *

Dr. Mai Hong, who bought the map in 1977, adds that this map will provide some helpful evidence that helps Vietnam get more active in resolving disputes with China over the ownership of the two islands in the East Sea. 

According to Pham Hoang Quan, a local researcher on Han-Chinese and Demotic Scripts, the map&#8217;s accuracy in terms of longitude and latitude is nearly on par with modern maps. 

*&#8220;This map, measuring 115cm long and 140cm wide, was made by experts at the Observatory of the Qing Dynasty, so it can be considered official,&#8221;* Quan says.


*A Map of Vietnam 1834:*





&#8220;&#272;&#7841;i Nam nh&#7845;t th&#7889;ng toàn &#273;&#7891;&#8221; (A map of Vietnam made in 1834 that claims Hoang Sa and Truong Sa are Vietnam&#8217;s territory). Source: Ban Do (Map) Publishing House. Photo by Viet Dung

Truong Sa, Hoang Sa not belong to China: 1904 Chinese map - Truong Sa, Hoang Sa not belong to China: 1904 Chinese map - VOVNEWS.VN

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kankan326

Rechoice said:


> No joke bro. It's evident Islands belong to Vietnam. Huge Northeast area of Qing Man lost was to Russian Tzar.


Obviously you don't know much China history. The three provinces of Northeast have never been occupied by Russia.


----------



## kankan326

Do you even know the Chinese characters' meaning in the map? "&#30343;&#26397;&#30452;&#30465;&#22320;&#33286;&#20840;&#22270;", "&#30452;&#30465;"mean "the provinces that directly controlled by central government", which definitely can not represent the whole territory. 

In Qing dynasty, people always emphasized the "18 provinces", which became core zone of the whole country. In 1911, there was a revolution aiming to overthrow Qing regime. 11 provinces out of the "18 provinces" proclaimed independence from Qing, which almost immediately ended Qing regime.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## dukelawrence

I have a question: is this guy named Subhas Chandra Bose very famous and be admired in your country???as I know he got a lot of benefit from japan during world war 2 ...I almost understand why u so fight against Chinese. we defeat those guys who ever gave your some bonds . it is ok we can give u bonds too. oh come on, Indian doggy bark bark , if u bark u will get this bond.....lmao

Can Vietnam find map in that time shows that those disputed area belong to Vietnam?


----------



## shuntmaster

LetsGetRowdy said:


> Manchuria today is part of China, Britain is not part of India, so the argument goes.



By that logic, India can claim to the territories which were part of the erstwhile British Empire...

Border disputes in China


China has more neighbours than any country in the world, bordering on 14 other countries. Only the European Union, taken as a whole, has more bordering countries. 

With so many fences to keep up, a few disputes can be expected. Here are a few from recent years. 

_India _

Two regions are claimed by both India and China. Aksai Chin is in the disputed territory of Kashmir, at the junction of Pakistan, Tibet and India. India claims the 38,000-square-kilometre territory, currently administered by China. 

Arunachal Pradesh is a state of India in the country's northeast, bordering on Bhutan, Bangladesh, Myanmar and China. Though it is under Indian administration, China calls the 90,000-square-kilometre area South Tibet. 

_Russia_ 

A dispute involving three islands on the rivers that form the border between China and Russia was resolved in October 2004, in a manner King Solomon would have been proud of. 

Each of the islands &#8211; Bol'shoi Ussuriiskii Island and Tarabarov Island at the juncture of the Amur and Ussuri rivers, near Khabarovsk, Russia, and Bol'shoi Island on the Argun River &#8211; was split 50-50, with half of the territory going to each country. 

The uninhabited islands had symbolic importance in the control over the rivers. 

_Japan _

The Senkaku Islands are five unpopulated islands in the East China Sea with a total are of seven square kilometres. They are under Japanese control and are considered part of the Japanese Southwest Islands, but the People's Republic of China and Taiwan each claim them as well, calling them the Diaoyutai Islands and Diaoyu Islands, respectively. 

In March 2004, a group of seven Chinese activists landed on one of the islands. The Japanese government arrested them for illegal entry and deported them back to China. 

_Taiwan _

The People's Republic of China claims Taiwan, but it is administered by the Republic of China. 

_Tibet _

The Government of Tibet in Exile claims not only the Tibet Autonomous Region under the control of China, but also Qinghai province and parts of surrounding provinces. Tibet in Exile calls the Chinese control of Tibet an illegitimate occupation. 

_Other disputes _

Portions of China's western border with *Tajikistan* haven't been defined. 

A section of the boundary between China and *North Korea* in the Baitou Mountain area is indefinite. 

The Paracel Islands in the South China Sea are administered by China, but claimed by *Vietnam and Taiwan*. There is also a dispute between China and *Vietnam* over the maritime boundaries in the Gulf of Tonkin. 

The rich fishing rights and possible oil reserves of the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea are claimed by China,*Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam and possibly Brunei. *


*Tibet Timeline*





Yumbu Lhakang is seen on the top of a hill of Yarlung Valley near Tsetang, about 200 kilometers, from Lhasa, Tibet, far west of China. The castle-like palace was built by Nyatri Tsanpo, the first Tibetan king, in the 2nd century B.C. The palace plays an important role in the origin of Tibetan history and culture

Tibet is an autonomous region in southwest China with a population of 2.3 million people. The capital of Tibet is Lhasa. Surrounded by mountain ranges, including the Himalayas and the Kunlun, Tibet is mostly a plateau from which the Yangtze, the Mekong and the Thanlwin rivers rise. 

The indigenous inhabitants are primarily of Mongolian stock and speak Tibeto-Burman. India, China and Central Asia had ancient trade routes through Tibet. 

Pastoral life is still prevalent in Tibet, but the nomadic lifestyle is decreasing as economic development by the Chinese is bringing people into urban centres. 

Since 1990, the number of non-Tibetan residents has risen. Until 1959, when there was an unsuccessful revolt, many of the urban dwellers were Buddhist monks. The Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama were the nominal heads of the Tibetan government. Before autonomous rule, the administration was divided between the lamas and the feudal aristocracy






Timeline

618-906
During the T'ang dynasty China establishes trade relations with Tibet. Frequent wars of conquest.

8th Century
Scholar Padmasambhava creates Tibetan Buddhism from the Mahayana Buddhism, which was practiced in the Tibet kingdom.

12th Century
Indian Buddhists come to Tibet to flee Muslim invasion.

13th Century
Tibet falls under Mongolian influence, which lasts until 18th century.

1720
Ch'ing dynasty replaces Mongol role in Tibet. China claims control over Tibet, although it is often nominal only.

1788
Gurkhas from Nepal invade Tibet.

1792
Gurkha war with Tibet

1893 
Britain obtains a trading post at Yadong.

1904
British Military expedition lead by Sir Francis Younghusband enforces granting of trade posts at Yadong, Gyangze and Gar.

1906
Britain recognizes China's control over Tibet.

1912
With the overthrow of the Ch'ing dynasty in China, Tibet expels the Chinese and reasserts independence.

1913-1914
Britain, Tibet and China hold conferences in India and tentatively work out an agreement under which China maintains control over Tibet and the region is divided into an inner Tibet to be incorporated in China and an outer autonomous Tibet. China, however, doe not ratify the agreement, and continues to claim all of Tibet as a "special territory."

October 1950
Chinese People's Liberation Army invades Tibet. One of the justications is the succession of the 10th Panchen Lama with rival candidates supported by Tibet and China.

May 1951
Tibet becomes a "national autonomous region" under the traditional rule of the Dalai Lama, but actual control is by the Chinese Communist Commission in a Tibetan-Chinese agreement.

1956
Scattered uprisings begin throughout Tibet.

March 1959
Tibetans launch an armed separatist revolt. Thousands die battling Chinese troops as the rebellion is suppressed. The Dalai Lama flees to India with 80,000 followers, establishing a "government-in-exile."

1962
China launches attack along Tibet-India border to reclaim territories it says were wrongly given to India by Britain.

1964
The Panchen Lama, who had accepted Chinese sponsorship, is deposed and replaced by a secular leader after making statements supporting the Dalai Lama.

1965
Tibetan Autonomous Region formally established.

1966
Cultural Revolution begins in China. Red Guards enter the Tibetan capital of Lhasa in a campaign designed to stamp out the so-called "Four Olds": "old customs, old habits, old culture and old thinking." Religious practices are banned and more than 4,000 monasteries are destroyed.

1976
Religious ban is lifted.

1988
Prime Minister of India Rajiv Gandhi visits Beijing, signaling a thaw in relations as New Delhi relaxes its support for complete independence of Tibet.

March 1989
China imposes martial law. Tibet's "government-in-exile" disbands to make way for greater democracy. Elections scheduled for 1991 with set five-year terms for elected representatives.

December 1991
Li Peng visits India, marking the first visit of a Chinese premier in 31 years. India detains 500 Tibetan protesters. China agrees to hold talks with exiled Tibetan leaders.

August 1992
High-level Tibetan exiles go to China to hold "open-minded" talks with Beijing.

June 1993
The Dalai Lama threatens to end the Tibetan fight for independence because of violent pro-democracy activists in Lhasa.

August 1993
The Dalai Lama holds a rare news conference to say he is fighting for political autonomy and not complete independence for Tibet, saying there are seven million Chinese and only six million Tibetans in the region.

April 1994
Mobs burn Tibetan office in Dharamsala India, alleging that a Tibetan stabbed an Indian youth to death. Tibetan activists ask Indian government for protection.

November 1996
Indian police detain 50 Tibetan exiles during Chinese President Jiang Zemin's visit.

April 1998
Tibetan activist Thupten Ngodup dies after setting himself on fire in protest against police efforts to stop a hunger strike. The event signals a growing restlessness among Tibetans.

October 1998
India indicates it would welcome talks between the Dalai Lama and authorities in Beijing.

December 1998
The Dalai Lama says he is open to talks with China "without any precondition, anytime, anywhere."

January 1999
Tibetan youth activists burn flags after invading the Chinese Embassy in New Delhi. China criticizes India for not stopping them.

March 1999
Beijing designates Tibet an "inseparable part of China" and will open the doors to the Dalai Lama provided he drops his demands for independence for Tibet.

October 1999
In front of a crowd of 1,000 in Los Angeles the Dalai Lama predicts China will soften its grip on Tibet in a few years.

October 1999
During a visit to Britain, which was marked by pro-Tibetan independence protests, Chinese President Jiang Zemin rejects demands for China to change its policies on Tibet and on human rights.

November 1999
The Dalai Lama stresses the need for good relations with Beijing and announces he is not seeking independence from China.

December 1999
Dalai Lama says self-rule would satisfy Tibetans but also accuses the Chinese of cultural genocide.

January 1999
The third ranked Tibetan lama flees China in a week-long trek across the Himalayas to India to meet with the Dalai Lama.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## dunhill

dukelawrence said:


> I have a question: is this guy named Subhas Chandra Bose very famous and be admired in your country???as I know he got a lot of benefit from japan during world war 2 ...I almost understand why u so fight against Chinese. we defeat those guys who ever gave your some bonds . it is ok we can give u bonds too. oh come on, *Indian doggy bark bark* , if u bark u will get this bond.....lmao
> 
> Can Vietnam find map in that time shows that those disputed area belong to Vietnam?



*Why are insulting Indian? Are you sure you could better than them?*

*On topic:* The maps shown that Paracel, Spratly are belong to Viet Nam for the solid time that in mid 18 century. Due to the claims from China on U-Shaped that China maps was draw on 1949 and before that just left it blank.

Until, U.S gave jobs (After Mr. Clinton got Monica BJ) for China to built China to become strong economics, then once its has money to modernize its Navy's.

After China Navy's modernize, then its starting gives out troubles to its neighbors under "Peaceful Rise". It's also strong aggression to the things its claims, most important things its does not any strong solid evident for supporting its claims in SCS. Sometimes, its said base on Ching, Quing, Yuan ....this .. that

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## shuntmaster

Border disputes in China






China has more neighbours than any country in the world, bordering on 14 other countries. Only the European Union, taken as a whole, has more bordering countries. 

With so many fences to keep up, a few disputes can be expected. Here are a few from recent years. 

_*India *_

Two regions are claimed by both India and China. Aksai Chin is in the disputed territory of Kashmir, at the junction of Pakistan, Tibet and India. India claims the 38,000-square-kilometre territory, currently administered by China. 

Arunachal Pradesh is a state of India in the country's northeast, bordering on Bhutan, Bangladesh, Myanmar and China. Though it is under Indian administration, China calls the 90,000-square-kilometre area South Tibet. 

_*Russia*_ 

A dispute involving three islands on the rivers that form the border between China and Russia was resolved in October 2004, in a manner King Solomon would have been proud of. 

Each of the islands &#8211; Bol'shoi Ussuriiskii Island and Tarabarov Island at the juncture of the Amur and Ussuri rivers, near Khabarovsk, Russia, and Bol'shoi Island on the Argun River &#8211; was split 50-50, with half of the territory going to each country. 

The uninhabited islands had symbolic importance in the control over the rivers. 

_*Japan* _

The Senkaku Islands are five unpopulated islands in the East China Sea with a total are of seven square kilometres. They are under Japanese control and are considered part of the Japanese Southwest Islands, but the People's Republic of China and Taiwan each claim them as well, calling them the Diaoyutai Islands and Diaoyu Islands, respectively. 

In March 2004, a group of seven Chinese activists landed on one of the islands. The Japanese government arrested them for illegal entry and deported them back to China. 

_*Taiwan *_

The People's Republic of China claims Taiwan, but it is administered by the Republic of China. 

_*Tibet* _

The Government of Tibet in Exile claims not only the Tibet Autonomous Region under the control of China, but also Qinghai province and parts of surrounding provinces. Tibet in Exile calls the Chinese control of Tibet an illegitimate occupation. 

_*Other disputes* _




Portions of China's western border with *Tajikistan* haven't been defined. 

A section of the boundary between China and *North Korea* in the Baitou Mountain area is indefinite. 

The Paracel Islands in the South China Sea are administered by China, but claimed by *Vietnam and Taiwan*. There is also a dispute between China and *Vietnam* over the maritime boundaries in the Gulf of Tonkin. 

The rich fishing rights and possible oil reserves of the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea are claimed by China,*Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam and possibly Brunei. *

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

kankan326 said:


> Do you even know the Chinese characters' meaning in the map? "&#30343;&#26397;&#30452;&#30465;&#22320;&#33286;&#20840;&#22270;", "&#30452;&#30465;"mean "the provinces that directly controlled by central government", which definitely can not represent the whole territory.
> 
> In Qing dynasty, people always emphasized the "18 provinces", which became core zone of the whole country. In 1911, there was a revolution aiming to overthrow Qing regime. 11 provinces out of the "18 provinces" proclaimed independence from Qing, which almost immediately ended Qing regime.



You are trying to deny clumsily the china map 1904. 
With this map, we will have more evidence to prove the world that so-called "Historical sovereignty of China" is just the lies. 



dukelawrence said:


> I have a question: is this guy named Subhas Chandra Bose very famous and be admired in your country???as I know he got a lot of benefit from japan during world war 2 ...I almost understand why u so fight against Chinese. we defeat those guys who ever gave your some bonds . it is ok we can give u bonds too. oh come on, Indian doggy bark bark , if u bark u will get this bond.....lmao
> 
> *Can Vietnam find map in that time shows that those disputed area belong to Vietnam?*



It's here. This is a map of Vietnam in 1834. 
You can read the names of two archipelagos on the map was written in Chinese characters means Hoàng Sa (Paracels) and V&#7841;n Lý Tr&#432;&#7901;ng Sa (Spratlys).
Local names along the coast of Vietnam were also specified using Chinese characters.
Note that at the time Vietnam still used Chinese characters.





&#8220;&#272;&#7841;i Nam nh&#7845;t th&#7889;ng toàn &#273;&#7891;&#8221; (A map of Vietnam made in 1834 that claims Hoang Sa and Truong Sa are Vietnam&#8217;s territory). Source: Ban Do (Map) Publishing House. Photo by Viet Dung.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## EastSea

kankan326 said:


> Do you even know the Chinese characters' meaning in the map? "&#30343;&#26397;&#30452;&#30465;&#22320;&#33286;&#20840;&#22270;", "&#30452;&#30465;"mean "the provinces that directly controlled by central government", which definitely can not represent the whole territory.
> 
> In Qing dynasty, people always emphasized the "18 provinces", which became core zone of the whole country. In 1911, there was a revolution aiming to overthrow Qing regime. 11 provinces out of the "18 provinces" proclaimed independence from Qing, which almost immediately ended Qing regime.



Not only Man Qing map 1904, bro.
In the year 1898, Chinese sea pirates robbed the Imezi Maru Japan ship transported goods under contract for Britain, was in area of hoang Sa Islands of Vietnam. Ambassador of UK in peking protested to China Man Qing. *Canton governor answered that the Hoang Sa Islands not belong to China then China don't have responsible about that*.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kafz

OMG fool, you Vietcong think you now acquire something called "evidence" ?

just look at the title of the map , 
can you read it for me and tell me what does the "&#30452;&#30465;"(zhísh&#283;ng) mean ?

its not a countrywide map but a &#30452;&#30465; map, which means it only refered to parts of the whole 

country

you know why are you making such a stupid mistake ?
that is simply because you Vietcong abolished the Chinese HANZI language system your old 

language system of the ancient times 
so you guys can't read any old Vietnam original literature and history records 
you try to erase any effects ,connections and memories which were imposed on by china 
you think that was a shame 
you do this and one obvious side effect is that you succeed in making yourself so ignorant 
about what you were&#65292;where you are from &#65292;and what's your culture ,your honor and your being

please study carefully to avoid making such an international joke anymore 
especially your Vietcong Expert !


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

kafz said:


> OMG fool, you Vietcong think you now acquire something called "evidence" ?
> 
> just look at the title of the map ,
> can you read it for me and tell me what does the "&#30452;&#30465;"(zhísh&#283;ng) mean ?
> 
> its not a countrywide map but a &#30452;&#30465; map, which means it only refered to parts of the whole
> 
> country
> 
> you know why are you making such a stupid mistake ?
> that is simply because you Vietcong abolished the Chinese HANZI language system&#8212;&#8212; your old
> 
> language system of the ancient times
> so you guys can't read any old Vietnam original literature and history records
> you try to erase any effects ,connections and memories which were imposed on by china
> you think that was a shame
> you do this and one obvious side effect is that you succeed in making yourself so ignorant
> about what you were&#65292;where you are from &#65292;and what's your culture ,your honor and your being
> 
> please study carefully to avoid making such an international joke anymore
> especially your Vietcong Expert !



Oh really? You start jumping. How can your ancestors display both of the Paracel archipelago and Spratly archipelago on the map of China while the two archipelagos belong to Vietnam?
Remember that this is just one of many an ancient map of China that we currently own, and all of them were not showing the two archipelagos....


----------



## kankan326

EastSea said:


> Not only Man Qing map 1904, bro.
> In the year 1898, Chinese sea pirates robbed the Imezi Maru Japan ship transported goods under contract for Britain, was in area of hoang Sa Islands of Vietnam. Ambassador of UK in peking protested to China Man Qing. *Canton governor answered that the Hoang Sa Islands not belong to China then China don't have responsible about that*.



U.K ambassador's first reaction was to protest to Qing, instead of France gov, which seems more convenient to deal with for them. Doesn't that reveal the fact that "these islands belonging to China" is generally accepted by the world even in 1898? Ignore what the stupid Canton official said. He is a local governor. Has no right to decide territory issues. We all know 99% Qing officials are selfish, greedy and incapable for their positions. That's why the regime collapsed. 

As far as I know, some Vienam leaders also admitted islands in SCS belong to China. not just by verbally, but by literally.


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

kankan326 said:


> U.K ambassador's first reaction was to protest to Qing, instead of France gov, which seems more convenient to deal with for them. Doesn't that reveal the fact that "these islands belonging to China" is generally accepted by the world even in 1898? Ignore what the stupid Canton official said. He is a local governor. Has no right to decide territory issues. We all know 99% Qing officials are selfish, greedy and incapable for their positions. That's why the regime collapsed.
> 
> As far as I know, some Vienam leaders also admitted islands in SCS belong to China. not just by verbally, but by literally.



British at that time were in China, so they asked China first, it is not surprised. But important as Chinese responded that the Paracels is not a Chinese territory.
And it is right, how can they take responsibility, while at the time the archipelago belong to Vietnam?

BTW: At that time Hong Kong was a British colony?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kankan326

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> British at that time were in China, so they asked China first, it is not surprised. But important as Chinese responded that the Paracels is not a Chinese territory.
> And it is right, how can they take responsibility, while at the time the archipelago belong to Vietnam?
> 
> BTW: At that time Hong Kong was a British colony?



Okay. British ambassador was in China. But don't you know telegram was widely used in 1898? Distance was not a problem anymore. If British wanted to talk with France gov, they would do it in the same day. But they did not. Instead, British chose a worse counterpart-----Qing, who was not familiar with International Laws. For all western countries, dealing with Qing gov on diplomatic issues was always a headache.


----------



## kafz

you know what's wrong with your logic ?
it doesnt matter you have got 1 map or 100 maps
you just need 1 "convictive" map

you want to prove china didnt own the islands you just follow 2 steps

step 1: find out 1 map which has been affirmed to be official documents of "the whole outline of country territory"
(including sea territory)

step 2: in this official countrywide map, you find out the map didnt mark those islands claimed by china

if you succeed in doing this, it will qualify you for challenging the claim of China in a small dose,
because map mistake often happens even in some developed country nowadays 


but you do nothing now but offering a "misguided proof" 
and you chatter so noisily about that "chinese dare not talk about History"
with the complete unawareness of your own knowledge defection and self ignorance.


----------



## Korean

Götterdämmerung;3221826 said:


> The problems is, all nations recognises the ROC and later the PRC to be the legitimate successor of the Qing dynasty and that the Qing dynasty represented the Chinese nation.


Not all countries.

But if one was to accept the People's Republic is the successor state of Qing, then the People's Republic has no legal claims on Paracels and Spratlys as those were not a part of Qing territory.



beijingwalker said:


> Japan denounced it after being defeated in WW2.


Then Chen Sui Ben's theory holds that Taiwan is legally a US territory acquired from Japan just like Okinawa was.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## kafz

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> Oh really? You start jumping. How can your ancestors display both of the Paracel archipelago and Spratly archipelago on the map of China while the two archipelagos belong to Vietnam?
> Remember that this is just one of many an ancient map of China that we currently own, and all of them were not showing the two archipelagos....



you know what's wrong with your logic ?
it doesnt matter you have got 1 map or 100 maps
you just need 1 "convictive" map

you want to prove china didnt own the islands you just follow 2 steps

step 1: find out 1 map which has been affirmed to be official documents of "the whole outline of country territory"
(including sea territory)

step 2: in this official countrywide map, you find out the map didnt mark those islands claimed by china

if you succeed in doing this, it will qualify you for challenging the claim of China in a small dose,
because map mistake often happens even in some developed country nowadays 


but you do nothing now but offering a "misguided proof" 
and you chatter so noisily about that "chinese dare not talk about History"
with the complete unawareness of your own knowledge defection and self ignorance.


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

kankan326 said:


> Okay. British ambassador was in China. But don't you know telegram was widely used in 1898? Distance was not a problem anymore. If British wanted to talk with France gov, they would do it in the same day. But they did not. Instead, British chose a worse counterpart-----Qing, who was not familiar with International Laws. For all western countries, dealing with Qing gov on diplomatic issues was always a headache.



British had asked the Chinese first , that doesn't mean that they did not ask other countries.



kafz said:


> you know what's wrong with your logic ?
> it doesnt matter you have got 1 map or 100 maps
> you just need 1 "convictive" map
> 
> you want to prove china didnt own the islands you just follow 2 steps
> 
> step 1: find out 1 map which has been affirmed to be official documents of "the whole outline of country territory"
> (including sea territory)
> 
> step 2: in this official countrywide map, you find out the map didnt mark those islands claimed by china
> 
> if you succeed in doing this, it will qualify you for challenging the claim of China in a small dose,
> because map mistake often happens even in some developed country nowadays
> 
> 
> but you do nothing now but offering a "misguided proof"
> and you chatter so noisily about that "chinese dare not talk about History"
> with the complete unawareness of your own knowledge defection and self ignorance.



You dont need to explain roundly. In the fact all real China's maps before 1904 did not mention both Paracels and Spratlys.
Besides, Vietnam has many evidences to prove that at the time Paracels and Spratlys belong to Vietnam.

It is difficult to the sides recognize the evidence of others, so why dont all sides around SCS together come to an international court to resolve disputes?


By the way:

*Old western maps: Hoang Sa, Truong Sa belong to Vietnam*
VietNamNet Bridge &#8211; Many old western maps show that Vietnam has established its sovereignty over the Truong Sa (Spratly) and Hoang Sa (Paracel) archipelagos for over five centuries, said a local researcher.






A map made by Jodocus Hondius in 1613.

Tran Duc Anh Son, Deputy Director of the Danang Institute for Socio-economic Development, said he has collected 56 western maps including one made by Livro da Marinjaria FM Pinnto in 1560, one by Gerard Mercetor in the late 16th century, and another made by Stielers Handatla in 1891.
All the maps, drawn in pictographs or scripts, show that both the Hoang Sa and Truong Sa are part of Vietnam, named Cauchi, Cochi, Cochinchina, or Cochinnhine by Western countries.
In the map made by Jodocus Hondius in 1613, the Frael (Hoang Sa) archipelago includes all the islands from the Tonkin Gulf to Vietnam&#8217;s southern sea, except for Condor (Con Dao) and Pulo Cici (Phu Quoc), which were drawn separately.





A map made by Bishop Jean-Louis Taberd.

In another map drawn by W. Blaeu in 1645, the Frael (Hoang Sa) archipelago is connected with Pulo Secca de Mare (Phu Quy island), Pulo Cambir (Cu Lao Xanh), and Cullo Canton (Ly Son island), creating a group of islands belonging to Dang Trong (Vietnam&#8217;s Southern region).
Especially, the caption Paracel seu Cat Vang (Paracel or Cat Vang) in a map made by Bishop Jean-Louis Taberd, which was written in Han (Chinese), Quoc Ngu (standard Vietnamese) and Latin languages, means that Hoang Sa islands belong to Vietnam.
This means, Son said, many Western cartographers, experts and discoverers have recognized the Hoang Sa archipelago as part of Vietnam, which they called Cochinchine, Cochinchina, or Annam.
These maps are precious documents which confirm Vietnam has long exercised its sovereignty over the Hoang Sa and Truong Sa archipelagos.
VietNamNet/VOV 

VietNamNet

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## kafz

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> British had asked the Chinese first , that doesn't mean that they did not ask other countries.
> 
> 
> 
> It is difficult to the sides recognize the evidence of others, so why dont all sides around SCS together come to an international court to resolve disputes?
> 
> [/url]



come to an international court?
haha ,its really dangerous for you to offer a fake/misguided proof like "&#30452;&#30465; map" in court

btw,what does these two tiny lovely picture show to us ?


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

kafz said:


> come to an international court?
> haha ,its really dangerous for you to offer a fake/misguided proof like "&#30452;&#30465; map" in court
> 
> btw,what does these two tiny lovely picture show to us ?



Oh, when the countries agreed jointly to an international court to resolve disputes, of course the sides will have to find an independent scientific organization who is able to evaluate the evidences, including maps.

With modern technology in the world today, we can completely determine the evidences are real or fake that is not too difficult.

BTW: Rest assured, we do not have the habit of making fake things...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## kafz

yeah i know you Vietnamese do not have the habit of making fake things

but unlucky you just did , you offered a wrong map and you use that thing as a fake proof

you want our maps?
check here if you can read chinese: 
http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-far-east/198092-let-s-show-1904-chinese-map-china-expert.html

btw again:what does these two tiny lovely pictures you posted show to us ?


----------



## ComeAtMeBro

Why not ask your government to show up in international court instead of bullying
Oh afraid of the truth? All you can do is claim everything and call it yours 

Poor uncivilized race stuck in ancient times

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChinaToday

ComeAtMeBro said:


> Why not ask your government to show up in international court instead of bullying
> Oh afraid of the truth? All you can do is claim everything and call it yours
> 
> Poor uncivilized race stuck in ancient times



Only hopeless and useless country go to international court


----------



## ComeAtMeBro

Typical chinese with inferiority complex detected

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## EastSea

ComeAtMeBro said:


> Typical chinese with inferiority complex detected



They are lying, lying ...and bullying, and fear from truth. China denied to submit the dispute to Internal Arbitration with Philippine. There is nature of liars, inferiority.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## asad71

Supply&Demand said:


> Remember the same thing when u claim Arunachal Pradesh or Spartly or even Okinawa ,....lol!



AP is S Tibet, historically a province of Tibet.


----------



## ComeAtMeBro

EastSea said:


> They are lying, lying ...and bullying, and fear from truth. China denied to submit the dispute to Internal Arbitration with Philippine. There is nature of liars, inferiority.



 They're mindless creature, a puppet of their government. Nobody loves them but they're own race. In fact if there's war in the near future, they're so called allies will never fight at their sides.

Nobody loves china, this is a fact but they were blinded and living in their fantasy world

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## the_islander

beijingwalker said:


> it's a land map,everyone see that,and where in the map shows they belong to Vietnam?



LOL. Land map ? where in the world they don't print island into their territory map ? 
The point of the map is showing to the world, especially chinese that you inappropriately claim your right on the things don't belong to you. That means you and your government are BIG FAT UGLY LIARS



beijingwalker said:


> most maps,yes,but not all the maps.some maps only show land boundary.but nowhere on our maps showing the Spratly is not ours.



LOL. Then china does whatever you want ? take printing a territory map is a joke ? 



> but nowhere on our maps showing the Spratly is not ours


 The most stupid comment I've ever seen.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## the_islander

kankan326 said:


> It not you defeated Yuan troops. It was the jungle that did the work for you



=)) ha ha ha ha, then the independence day of china back in 1949 is based on Jungle, too ? dont tell me china doesnt have jungle ) !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TheEastSea

We have no idea to claims that we have evidence for "&#19977;&#27801;&#24066; City". But all of you have to know: "we have bigest Army at The EastSea, that mean we are the Winner".
I'm just say about what Chine People can say now. LOL



kankan326 said:


> Okay. British ambassador was in China. But don't you know telegram was widely used in 1898? Distance was not a problem anymore. If British wanted to talk with France gov, they would do it in the same day. But they did not. Instead, British chose a worse counterpart-----Qing, who was not familiar with International Laws. For all western countries, dealing with Qing gov on diplomatic issues was always a headache.



hahaha. Have you read that Telegram before?
I think you have a baby brain.
China Gov lie their public!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

kafz said:


> you know what's wrong with your logic ?
> it doesnt matter you have got 1 map or 100 maps
> you just need 1 "convictive" map
> 
> you want to prove china didnt own the islands you just follow 2 steps
> 
> step 1: find out 1 map which has been affirmed to be official documents of "the whole outline of country territory"
> (including sea territory)
> 
> step 2: in this official countrywide map, you find out the map didnt mark those islands claimed by china
> 
> if you succeed in doing this, it will qualify you for challenging the claim of China in a small dose,
> because map mistake often happens even in some developed country nowadays
> 
> 
> but you do nothing now but offering a "misguided proof"
> and you chatter so noisily about that "chinese dare not talk about History"
> with the complete unawareness of your own knowledge defection and self ignorance.



*So provide me a map before 1904 that had those islands. The problem is you Chinese can't provide something like that*

Some of our maps:










1838 maps






Western map, Brion de la Tour, 1774


Text:








1776 book that described about our "Paracel Teams". Their misson was settling the sovereignty over Paracel, patrolling and exploiting in Paracel.



> A little gift from the French
> 
> Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique de Précis ... - Conrad Malte-Brun - Google Books
> 
> The French book "Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique du Précis de la géographie universelle en huit volumes" (volume 2) was published in Paris, 1831. Page 221 said that: "equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire". "A une egale distance de la cote de Cochinchine et de l'ile d'Hai-nan, l'archipel de Paracels est une dependance de l'empire d'Annam"





> Greeting from the United States
> 
> http://hoangsa.org/forum/downloads/37974-Modern_geography.pdf
> 
> &#8220;Modern geography: A description of the empires, kingdoms, states, and colonies with the oceans, seas, and isles&#8221; is pulished in Philadenphia, 1804. The author is John Pinkerton. In the Volume 2, at page 178, Paracels was described as a feature of the Cochin-China kingdom.





> From our Dutch friends
> 
> http://hoangsa.org/forum/downloads/45585-Algemeen_aardrijkskundig_woordenboek_tweede_deel.pdf
> 
> This is a historial book printed in Amsterdam and Leiden, 1772. In chapter XV at pages 647 to 674, the book treats of Cochin-China and islands of this country such as Pullo Sicca, Pullo Secca de Mare, Pullo Cambir, Pullo Canto. Especially, Paracels has been considered as initial part of Pullo Secca de Mare island chain. In the ancient maps, Paracels was used to draw like tail of scorpion extanding as far as Poulo Cerci de Mer forming Pullo Secca de Mare.





> Say hello to our Italian friends
> 
> Nuovo dizionario geografico universale statistico-storico-commerciale ... - Google Books
> 
> The Italian geographic dictionary "Nuovo dizionario geografico universale statistico-storico-commerciale" was published in Venezia, 1831, based on documents of famous geographers: Balbi, Cannabich, Malte-Brun, Pinkerton ... In the volume 4, part 1, at the page 680, they describes that the Paracels was equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, and the sovereignty over it belongs to Annam kingdom.





> Some German's taste
> 
> Neues Konversations-Lexikon: ein Wörterbuch des allgemeinen Wissens ... - Herrmann Julius Meyer - Google Books
> 
> The German book "Neues Konversations-Lexikon: ein Wörterbuch des allgemeinen Wissens" was written by Herrmann Julius Meyer, published in Germany, 1866. At the page 575, they said that Paracels belongs to Cochinchina, Annam.





> Or you want to meet some Spanish?
> 
> http://hoangsa.org/forum/downloads/65509-Principios_generales_de_geograf__a_matem.pdf
> 
> Spanish books printed in Barcelona in 1832 for Compania Mayoly Juaquin, including: "Principios generales de geografía matematíca ó Cosmografía", "Nociones de geografía Fisíca y de geografía Política", "La geografia moderna", "Espana en la mano, en la que se la trata", "La geografia antígua comparada con la moderna". The Paracels belong to Cochin China was confirmed in page 57 of the book "La geografia moderna"





> Remember that Vietnam already pitched the flag in Paracel before Qing dynasty claim Paracel.
> 
> https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc...qMGZ0TkpCTHZ6TVE&hl=en&authkey=COyTzIwK#gid=0
> 
> The Italian book "Del vario grado d'importanza degli stati odierni" was published in Milano, 1841. Page 421 mentions about the event Gia Long emperor pitch the flag to own Paracels in 1816 (Western standard), but Paracels belongs to Cocochina many years ago, according to Western documents.



I have more than 100 old Western books which affirm Vietnamese sovereign over Paracels, pm me if you need some more evidences. It means that when the Westerners came, they saw that Vietnamese govs and people are administrating Paracels archipelago, not Chinese. Then they wrote what they saw.

So, wanna discuss about "history" side, Chinese?

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

TheEastSea said:


> We have no idea to claims that we have evidence for "&#19977;&#27801;&#24066; City". But all of you have to know: "we have bigest Army at The EastSea, that mean we are the Winner".
> I'm just say about what Chine People can say now. LOL



So you admit that China's claims over the two archipelagoes of Hoang Sa and Truong Sa, as well as the East Sea (SCS), is unfounded, unreasonable, illegal, no so-called "historial sovereignty" of the lies...
Instead, the chinese have only a basis for the claims in the East Sea (SCS), which is the biggest army?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TheEastSea

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> So you admit that China's claims over the two archipelagoes of Hoang Sa and Truong Sa, as well as the East Sea (SCS), is unfounded, unreasonable, illegal, no so-called "historial sovereignty" of the lies...
> Instead, the chinese have only a basis for the claims in the East Sea (SCS), which is the biggest army?


I didn't say that!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

TheEastSea said:


> I didn't say that!



Yes, not you say, but from what we see here, it's true.
We have enough evidence to unmask the absurd claims and the lies of Chinese on the East Sea (SCS).


----------



## dunhill

&#272;a&#777;o*Ba&#803;ch*Long*Vy&#771;:

You have asked Chinese to provide its maps that harder than you ask them go to Mars. Originally, China has nothing, its just claims that because it depending on its fits.

Are you trying to put Chinese faces going down to the mud?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## laxuanlinh

Vietnamese always show the envidence that prove those Island belong to Vietnam meanwhile Chinese never show any picture except the words "we have many envidence" or "just search this(Chinese) on google and you can see". Sometime I think if they are too "not smart". Because every Chinese I've met say the same thing "we have...." and never can give me a real proof.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Snomannen

the_islander said:


> LOL. Land map ? where in the world they don't print island into their territory map ?



It is a "&#30452;&#30465;" map, it doesn't need to show the whole country.


----------



## brisbane

TheEastSea said:


> We have no idea to claims that we have evidence for "&#19977;&#27801;&#24066; City". But all of you have to know: "we have bigest Army at The EastSea, that mean we are the Winner".
> I'm just say about what Chine People can say now. LOL



oh yep.... "The big bullying the small" is always Chinese tradition and culture

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## notsuperstitious

Its obvious paracel belongs to Vietnam and so far the chinese have offered only threats and bullying to support their claim.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

laxuanlinh said:


> Vietnamese always show the envidence that prove those Island belong to Vietnam meanwhile Chinese never show any picture except the words "we have many envidence" or "just search this(Chinese) on google and you can see". Sometime I think if they are too "not smart". Because every Chinese I've met say the same thing "we have...." and never can give me a real proof.



Chinese have nothing any evidence because the Paracel Islands and Spratly Islands belong to Vietnam for hundreds of years ago.

The first ROC appeared on the two archipelagos only started in 1946 when it received the task from the Allies to disarm the Japanese troops in Vietnam. And PRC appeared on the two archipelagos only after it used of force to rob the islands from Vietnam in 1974 and 1988.

Any person with a clear conscience can recognize easily the claims greed, irrationality and unlawful of China in the East Sea (SCS).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HongWu

Forget about Paracels, Vietnam belongs to China.... not as a province, but as a mere vassal state. We enslaved you for 1000 years because our wise ancestors saw your inferiority and exploited it


----------



## ComeAtMeBro

brisbane said:


> oh yep.... "The big bullying the small" is always Chinese tradition and culture



And they're proud of it

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## notsuperstitious

HongWu said:


> Forget about Paracels, Vietnam belongs to China.... not as a province, but as a mere vassal state. We enslaved you for 1000 years because our wise ancestors saw your inferiority and exploited it



'we enslaved you for 1000 years' claim seems to have a cross border appeal among the scum of trolls on this forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Snomannen

HongWu said:


> Forget about Paracels, Vietnam belongs to China.... not as a province, but as a mere vassal state. We enslaved you for 1000 years because our wise ancestors saw your inferiority and exploited it


Y U NO keep silent?


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

HongWu said:


> Forget about Paracels, Vietnam belongs to China.... not as a province, but as a mere vassal state. We enslaved you for 1000 years because our wise ancestors saw your inferiority and exploited it



Yes, Vietnam was a vassal state of China for about 1000 years and therefore we have controlled both Paracels and Spratlys during hundreds of years without being harassed by china, until after WW2.

And a vassal state it does not mean that Vietnam's territory would belong to China.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Nestea

&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3237586 said:


> *So provide me a map before 1904 that had those islands. The problem is you Chinese can't provide something like that*
> 
> Some of our maps:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1838 maps
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Western map, Brion de la Tour, 1774
> 
> 
> Text:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1776 book that described about our "Paracel Teams". Their misson was settling the sovereignty over Paracel, patrolling and exploiting in Paracel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have more than 100 old Western books which affirm Vietnamese sovereign over Paracels, pm me if you need some more evidences. It means that when the Westerners came, they saw that Vietnamese govs and people are administrating Paracels archipelago, not Chinese. Then they wrote what they saw.
> 
> So, wanna discuss about "history" side, Chinese?



Five parties of the South China Sea dispute revolves around the Nansha Islands, Your examples are the Xisha Islands, No Nansha Islands! Which maps to the Nansha Islands belong to Vietnam? 1774 map, the real location depicted is more accurate, Vietnam's so-called Hoang Sa and Truong Sa are close to the islands of the coast of Vietnam, How could the Nansha Islands?


----------



## EastSea

Nestea said:


> Five parties of the South China Sea dispute revolves around the Nansha Islands, Your examples are the Xisha Islands, No Nansha Islands! Which maps to the Nansha Islands belong to Vietnam? 1774 map, the real location depicted is more accurate, Vietnam's so-called Hoang Sa and Truong Sa are close to the islands of the coast of Vietnam, How could the Nansha Islands?



Can you read Han chinese ? In the Nguyen Dynasty we used also Han Chinese for writing. For demonstration the Islands belong to Viet is clear enough.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

Nestea said:


> Five parties of the South China Sea dispute revolves around the Nansha Islands, Your examples are the Xisha Islands, No Nansha Islands! Which maps to the Nansha Islands belong to Vietnam?



See above (EastSea's image)
Trying to avoid Paracels? So it means you have agreed that our sovereignty over Paracels is right 



Nestea said:


> 1774 map, the real location depicted is more accurate, Vietnam's so-called Hoang Sa and Truong Sa are close to the islands of the coast of Vietnam, How could the Nansha Islands?



Y U NO read?



> A little gift from the French
> 
> Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique de Précis ... - Conrad Malte-Brun - Google Books
> 
> The French book "Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique du Précis de la géographie universelle en huit volumes" (volume 2) was published in Paris, 1831. Page 221 said that: "*equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire*". "A une egale distance de la cote de Cochinchine et de l'ile d'Hai-nan, l'archipel de Paracels est une dependance de l'empire d'Annam"



See? It said "Equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina (Vietnam)" 
The map-drawing technique in that period was still poor, so the map can't provide the extract distance. That's why we need texts to back-up our maps. Got it?


----------------

*BTW, where are your maps and texts? Where are your evidences and sources? What is the base of your buffalo's tongue claim? Y U NO show them?*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## starbuck

Nestea said:


> Five parties of the South China Sea dispute revolves around the Nansha Islands, Your examples are the Xisha Islands, No Nansha Islands! Which maps to the Nansha Islands belong to Vietnam? 1774 map, the real location depicted is more accurate, Vietnam's so-called Hoang Sa and Truong Sa are close to the islands of the coast of Vietnam, How could the Nansha Islands?



Do you see on *Complete map of Unified Great Viet Nam* or by Chinese *&#22823;&#21335;&#19968;&#32113;&#20840;&#22294;* , an official map by National History Institue of Nguyen Dynasty, published in 1838)? Near the Vietnam's coastline, our ancestors mark two archipelagos separately: &#40644;&#27801; (Hoàng Sa, Cát Vàng or Yellow Sandbank) and &#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801; (V&#7841;n Lý Tr&#432;&#7901;ng Sa, Ten-thousand-league Long Sandbank or Tr&#432;&#7901;ng Sa).

And we use two archipelagos's name until today. Where in your old books and maps shown Nansha? Xisha?

Just show us and we'll continue talk!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

HongWu said:


> Forget about Paracels, Vietnam belongs to China.... not as a province, but as a mere vassal state. We enslaved you for 1000 years because our wise ancestors saw your inferiority and exploited it



Really, Forget about Paracels, Spartly and Senkaku, China belongs to Japan... not as a province, but as a mere vassal state and/or dominated area in World War 2. They enslaved you because their wise ancestors saw that you will invade our islands in the future

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

Nestea said:


> Five parties of the South China Sea dispute revolves around the Nansha Islands, Your examples are the Xisha Islands, No Nansha Islands! Which maps to the Nansha Islands belong to Vietnam? 1774 map, the real location depicted is more accurate, Vietnam's so-called Hoang Sa and Truong Sa are close to the islands of the coast of Vietnam, How could the Nansha Islands?



With the knowledge and tools at the time it is difficult to paint a map with accuracy rate as today. But look at the map of Vietnam in 1838, you can read Chinese characters notes on the two archipelagos that mean "Hoang Sa" (Paracels) and "Van Ly Truong Sa" (Spratlys).
Also Vietnam is still much documentations say about the Vietnamese feudal state had set up "team of Hoang Sa" to control and exploit Hoang Sa Islands (Paracels).

Below is is some example pages that talks about the Paracel Islands of Vietnam in the book "&#272;&#7841;i Nam th&#7921;c l&#7909;c chính biên":
Note: At the time, the Vietnamese feudal state also used Chinese characters for the texts of its.










Vietnamese documents have recorded about the implementation of Vietnam's sovereignty over the Paracel Islands.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## artie

The so-called South China Sea has never belonged to the Chinese.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

artie said:


> The so-called South China Sea has never belonged to the Chinese.



Yes, that's only a name that westerners call it. It does not make sense of sovereignty.
We can refer to the Indian Ocean, which does not mean that it belongs to India.


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

A map of China under the Qing Dynasty in 1910 which also showed that China had nothing to concern to two archipelagos Paracels and Spratlys of Vietnam:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## the_islander

*Until now, I see no chinese in this thread show their "evidences" of Spratlys and Paracels. * LOL. are they trying keeping secret to surpise us ? what a style of debate !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kankan326

the_islander said:


> *Until now, I see no chinese in this thread show their "evidences" of Spratlys and Paracels. * LOL. are they trying keeping secret to surpise us ? what a style of debate !!!



There is an old Chinese saying: &#8220;&#26222;&#22825;&#20043;&#19979;&#33707;&#38750;&#29579;&#22303;&#8221;&#12290;Do you know the meaning of it? It means" All lands under the sky belong to the great Chinese emperor". That concept had been widely accepted by all Chinese for thousands years. So ancient Chinese had no motivation to draw their border line on map. It's a useless work for them. Ancient Chinese took it for granted that the land they found belongs to Chinese. 

It's quite obvious that islands in SCS were first discovered by Ancient Chinese. Ancient Chinese were far more advanced in navigation field. When Chinese ancestors crossed SCS and got to Arab countries and other SEA countries by their huge ships. Vietnamese could barely leave their coast line with their shabby boats.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...y-not-chinese-territory-14.html#ixzz21uyCEl9X


----------



## ComeAtMeBro

kankan326 said:


> There is an old Chinese saying: &#8220;&#26222;&#22825;&#20043;&#19979;&#33707;&#38750;&#29579;&#22303;&#8221;&#12290;Do you know the meaning of it? It means"* All lands under the sky belong to the great Chinese emperor"*. That concept had been widely accepted by all Chinese for thousands years. So ancient Chinese had no motivation to draw their border line on map. It's a useless work for them. Ancient Chinese took it for granted that the land they found belongs to Chinese.
> 
> It's quite obvious that islands in SCS were first discovered by Ancient Chinese. Ancient Chinese were far more advanced in navigation field. When Chinese ancestors crossed SCS and got to Arab countries and other SEA countries by their huge ships. Vietnamese could barely leave their coast line with their shabby boats.
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...y-not-chinese-territory-14.html#ixzz21uyCEl9X



So because your ancestors declare that every land is theirs, you really took it literaly? 
Now we know the reason why your government are afraid to take it into international court 

China is one hell of a funny nation 

My ancestors once declare that the world owe him a sports car

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kankan326

ComeAtMeBro said:


> So because your ancestors declare that every land is theirs, you really took it literaly?
> Now we know the reason why your government are afraid to take it into international court
> 
> China is one hell of a funny nation
> 
> My ancestors once declare that the world owe him a sports car


Don't misunderstand me, pal. In ancient time, the concept of "&#22825;&#19979;&#8220;&#65288;whole world) is different with today's. It's far more smaller one. Ancient people's ability to recognize the world is very limited. Actually this kind of philosophy also existed in other cultures.

Also because ancient Chinese believed this is a small world, they got the courage to rule the "whole world". So at that time. all the known lands were either ruled by China, or became vassal states of it.


----------



## Nestea

EastSea said:


> Can you read Han chinese ? In the Nguyen Dynasty we used also Han Chinese for writing. For demonstration the Islands belong to Viet is clear enough.



In fact can not read to understand the Chinese characters also know, on the map &#8220;&#40644;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;&#8221;, Are near the coast of Vietnam, Your picture is better verify my statement, Vietnam's so-called Hoang Sa and Truong Sa are close to the islands of the coast of Vietnam, Not real in the Nansha Islands!



&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3238533 said:


> See above (EastSea's image)
> Trying to avoid Paracels? So it means you have agreed that our sovereignty over Paracels is right
> 
> 
> 
> Y U NO read?
> 
> 
> 
> See? It said "Equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina (Vietnam)"
> The map-drawing technique in that period was still poor, so the map can't provide the extract distance. That's why we need texts to back-up our maps. Got it?
> 
> 
> ----------------
> 
> *BTW, where are your maps and texts? Where are your evidences and sources? What is the base of your buffalo's tongue claim? Y U NO show them?*




I am just saying that the South China Sea dispute five parties around the Nansha Islands, so our discussions have focused on the Nansha Islands. 

´ÓÅ·ÖÞÔçÆÚµØÍ¼ÖÐÕÒÑ°ÄÏº£µÄ×Ù¼£ Paracel/PracelÇøÓò±äÇ¨ÑÐ¾¿

Western understanding of the China Sea is the ancient Chinese map in the transmission of information, Once the central Vietnam coast not far from some of the shoals, sandbars painted a long strip, And called Parcel / Pracel (s) / Paracels, But until recent times, they discovered that the Xisha Islands of China, And began to draw in the upper right corner of the long strip of the Xisha Islands, and gave several different names, Later, a very modern (for example Plate6 1851) map began on the map to remove the long strip, But the &#8220;Paracels&#8221; this name transferred to now the real xisha islands. 

1838 Vietnam map, this map reflects the Vietnamese about the territory characteristics, But these two Islands near the coast of Vietnam, If you press the Vietnamese say, "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;&#8221; is the Nansha Islands, But a far cry from reality location. So here is a very interesting question, Why Vietnam other territories draw more accurate, However, only these two islands and the actual difference so big?


1774, Western maps, map location description is more accurate, All the islands in Southeast Asia and the reality is no longer much difference, These two islands or near the coast of Vietnam. Vietnam's so-called Hoang Sa and Truong Sa are close to the islands of the coast of Vietnam, Just some of the central coast of Vietnam sandbars and shoals.

¶«ÄÏÑó¸÷¹úÑØ¸ïÍ¼





&#8220;&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;&#8221;is the Xisha Islands, &#8220;&#21315;&#37324;&#30707;&#22616;" is the Nansha Islands.


----------



## ComeAtMeBro

kankan326 said:


> Don't misunderstand me, pal. In ancient time, the concept of "&#22825;&#19979;&#8220;&#65288;whole world) is different with today's. It's far more smaller one. Ancient people's ability to recognize the world is very limited. Actually this kind of philosophy also existed in other cultures.
> 
> Also because ancient Chinese believed this is a small world, they got the courage to rule the "whole world". So at that time. all the known lands were either ruled by China, or became vassal states of it.



Then what's your basis then?

How can you be so sure that the ancient chinese is the first to discover the island? 
Why afraid of international courts if you believe you have a strong evidence from the ancient times?

I'm amaze you don't post regarding bombin us
I'm tired of your friends reading the same post again and again saying "I will bomb you I will bomb you"

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

kankan326 said:


> There is an old Chinese saying: &#26222;&#22825;&#20043;&#19979;&#33707;&#38750;&#29579;&#22303;&#12290;Do you know the meaning of it? It means*" All lands under the sky belong to the great Chinese emperor"*. That concept had been widely accepted by all Chinese for thousands years. So ancient Chinese had no motivation to draw their border line on map. It's a useless work for them. Ancient Chinese took it for grant that the land they found belongs to Chinese.



Now that's the evidence of your claim   
BTW, according to your argument that "1904 China map is *land* map not sea map", "All* lands* under the sky belong to the great Chinese emperor" doesn't mean even seas are yours  Ya I'm just kidding never mind 




> It's quite obvious that islands in SCS were first discovered by Ancient Chinese. Ancient Chinese were far more advanced in navigation field. When Chinese ancestors crossed SCS and got to Arab countries and other SEA countries by their huge ships. Vietnamese could barely leave their coast line with their shabby boats.



Oh, you "discover" something doesn't mean that you "have the sovereignty over that thing". If you found something that doesn't have a owner and want to set your sovereignty, you need to 
1) claim it officially, by (an) official map(s) or by a declaration from your gov, but no one oppose your claim.
2) disembark your army there to set sovereignty or pitch your flag their; but no one oppose your action.
Can Spanish claim the whole America continental just because Colombo found it first? Of course no

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ComeAtMeBro

&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3239222 said:


> Can Spanish claim the whole America continental just because Colombo found it first? Of course no



Just imagine if the chinese did this rather than the spaniards
FFS our planet will be named CHINA instead of EARTH

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

Nestea said:


> In fact can not read to understand the Chinese characters also know, on the map &#8220;&#40644;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;&#8221;, Are near the coast of Vietnam, Your picture is better verify my statement, Vietnam's so-called Hoang Sa and Truong Sa are close to the islands of the coast of Vietnam, Not real in the Nansha Islands!



Y U STILL NO READ? 

Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique de Précis ... - Conrad Malte-Brun - Google Books
The French book "Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique du Précis de la géographie universelle en huit volumes" (volume 2) was published in Paris, 1831. Page 221 said that: "*equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire*". "A une egale distance de la cote de Cochinchine et de l'ile d'Hai-nan, l'archipel de Paracels est une dependance de l'empire d'Annam"

Now give me the name of what archipelago is as large and far from the coast as the archipelago in our map so Westerners can be mistaken with Paracels and described "equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire". If there is no archipelago like that, it means the archipelago in the map is Paracels, ok?



> I am just saying that the South China Sea dispute five parties around the Nansha Islands, so our discussions have focused on the Nansha Islands.



Nah, unlike you, I prefer something simple. Too many parties want Spartly, but Paracels is the problem between only Vietnam and China, so we should discuss about it first.



> ´ÓÅ·ÖÞÔçÆÚµØÍ¼ÖÐÕÒÑ°ÄÏº£µÄ×Ù¼£ Paracel/PracelÇøÓò±äÇ¨ÑÐ¾¿
> 
> Western understanding of the China Sea is the ancient Chinese map in the transmission of information, Once the central Vietnam coast not far from some of the shoals, sandbars painted a long strip, And called Parcel / Pracel (s) / Paracels, But until recent times, they discovered that the Xisha Islands of China, And began to draw in the upper right corner of the long strip of the Xisha Islands, and gave several different names, Later, a very modern (for example Plate6 1851) map began on the map to remove the long strip, But the &#8220;Paracels&#8221; this name transferred to now the real xisha islands.



Not far? Oh really? So what about this far

Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique de Précis ... - Conrad Malte-Brun - Google Books
The French book "Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique du Précis de la géographie universelle en huit volumes" (volume 2) was published in Paris, 1831. Page 221 said that: "*equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire*". "A une egale distance de la cote de Cochinchine et de l'ile d'Hai-nan, l'archipel de Paracels est une dependance de l'empire d'Annam"

and this far






One thing, our Paracel Teams (&#272;&#7897;i Hoàng Sa and &#272;&#7897;i B&#7855;c H&#7843;i) start from our near coast islands to go to Paracel. For example, Ly Son island, just go and search it on google, oh if you have google there 

This three things have completely destroyed your argument about "Vietnamese Paracels are near the coast, not real Paracels"

You see, the map which used later Western's technique provide better accuracy about distance.

And your Chinese "very modern (for example Plate6 1851) map" is too poor, I mean the technique, terrible, more like Vietnamese 15th Century map drawing technique, I can't even understand what is going on there. But you have very nice and modern typed letters  You only have one map while we have many maps with more than 100 books, so we have to have a question: Is that a fake map made by your gov recently?




> 1838 Vietnam map, this map reflects the Vietnamese about the territory characteristics, But these two Islands near the coast of Vietnam, If you press the Vietnamese say, "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;&#8221; is the Nansha Islands, But a far cry from reality location. So here is a very interesting question, Why Vietnam other territories draw more accurate, However, only these two islands and the actual difference so big?



Other territories are more accurate? How?










The size, the distance are very different because of the poor technique in that period. Notice how close is that in the map from Southern Vietnam to Western Malaysia. S




> 1774, Western maps, map location description is more accurate, All the islands in Southeast Asia and the reality is no longer much difference, These two islands or near the coast of Vietnam. Vietnam's so-called Hoang Sa and Truong Sa are close to the islands of the coast of Vietnam, Just some of the central coast of Vietnam sandbars and shoals.



So why don't they draw the "other" Paracel? It's bigger, more noticeable than some "islands near Vietnamese coast", right? They are mentally retarded or what? Or if you want to say that they "miss" the Paracel, well, hundreds, thousands of Westerners who go around South East Asia sea for 400 years but all of them "miss" the "real Paracel"? What a pity of Western's sailing :rofl"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kankan326

ComeAtMeBro said:


> Then what's your basis then?
> 
> How can you be so sure that the ancient chinese is the first to discover the island?
> Why afraid of international courts if you believe you have a strong evidence from the ancient times?
> 
> I'm amaze you don't post regarding bombin us
> I'm tired of your friends reading the same post again and again saying "I will bomb you I will bomb you"



I'm sure Chinese found the islands first. We found sank ancient Chinese ships in SCS.
Could I bring your house to the court and decide whom it belongs to? I believe this is a gesture of humiliation to you. If we agree to bring those islands to court. What if Vietnam some day claims that Hainan island also belongs to him. Should we take Hainan island to the court again? We should never get this ridiculous things started.



&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3239222 said:


> Now that's the evidence of your claim
> BTW, according to your argument that "1904 China map is *land* map not sea map", "All* lands* under the sky belong to the great Chinese emperor" doesn't mean even seas are yours  Ya I'm just kidding never mind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you "discover" something doesn't mean that you "have the sovereignty over that thing". If you found something that doesn't have a owner and want to set your sovereignty, you need to
> 1) claim it officially, by (an) official map(s) or by a declaration from your gov, but no one oppose your claim.
> 2) disembark your army there to set sovereignty or pitch your flag their; but no one oppose your action.
> Can Spanish claim the whole America continental just because Colombo found it first? Of course no


OMG, Why you asked ancient people to act according to today's rules? I believe at that time nobody did the things you listed.


----------



## ComeAtMeBro

kankan326 said:


> Could I bring your house to the court and decide whom it belongs to? I believe this is a gesture of humiliation to you. If we agree to bring those islands to court. What if Vietnam some day claims that Hainan island also belongs to him. Should we take Hainan island to the court again? We should never get this ridiculous things started.



Is that how your government want to you to believe
I pity you for the lack of information then

International court will be the neutral ground for both of us.
Your evidence, our evidence, and the other nation's evidence will be examine and make a decision based on that.

This is how "civilized" race decides


----------



## Snomannen

1. The "1904 China map" only shows a part of China (&#30452;&#30465, not the whole China;

2. The donors and the owner of the museum are careless.


----------



## kankan326

ComeAtMeBro said:


> Is that how your government want to you to believe
> I pity you for the lack of information then
> 
> International court will be the neutral ground for both of us.
> Your evidence, our evidence, and the other nation's evidence will be examine and make a decision based on that.


Territory issues are not like crimes. For instance, some sea area has been Chinese fishmen&#8216;s fishery for thousand years. Could we provide that to court? Ancient Chinese found the island and name it. Could it be a evidence at all? No, it's never as easy as crime. The evidences are right there. If I say Hawaii belongs to China, do I have the evidences for it? No. Does USA have evidences that it belongs to her. No.


----------



## EastSea

Nestea said:


> In fact can not read to understand the Chinese characters also know, on the map &#40644;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;, Are near the coast of Vietnam, Your picture is better verify my statement, Vietnam's so-called Hoang Sa and Truong Sa are close to the islands of the coast of Vietnam, Not real in the Nansha Islands!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am just saying that the South China Sea dispute five parties around the Nansha Islands, so our discussions have focused on the Nansha Islands.
> 
> ´ÓÅ·ÖÞÔçÆÚµØÍ¼ÖÐÕÒÑ°ÄÏº£µÄ×Ù¼£ Paracel/PracelÇøÓò±äÇ¨ÑÐ¾¿
> 
> Western understanding of the China Sea is the ancient Chinese map in the transmission of information, Once the central Vietnam coast not far from some of the shoals, sandbars painted a long strip, And called Parcel / Pracel (s) / Paracels, But until recent times, they discovered that the Xisha Islands of China, And began to draw in the upper right corner of the long strip of the Xisha Islands, and gave several different names, Later, a very modern (for example Plate6 1851) map began on the map to remove the long strip, But the Paracels this name transferred to now the real xisha islands.
> 
> 1838 Vietnam map, this map reflects the Vietnamese about the territory characteristics, But these two Islands near the coast of Vietnam, If you press the Vietnamese say, "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801; is the Nansha Islands, But a far cry from reality location. So here is a very interesting question, Why Vietnam other territories draw more accurate, However, only these two islands and the actual difference so big?
> 
> 
> 1774, Western maps, map location description is more accurate, All the islands in Southeast Asia and the reality is no longer much difference, These two islands or near the coast of Vietnam. Vietnam's so-called Hoang Sa and Truong Sa are close to the islands of the coast of Vietnam, Just some of the central coast of Vietnam sandbars and shoals.
> 
> ¶«ÄÏÑó¸÷¹úÑØ¸ïÍ¼
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;is the Xisha Islands, &#21315;&#37324;&#30707;&#22616;" is the Nansha Islands.




Ha ha, Chinese are liars about Island of Vietnam.

1. On your map stated in middle in chinese (near by the islands and same parallel with Vietnam &#36234;&#21335;&#26481;&#37096;, &#20132;&#36286; Vi&#7879;t Nam &#272;ông B&#7897;-Giao Ch&#7881 :*&#26481;&#27915;&#22823;&#28023; &#272;ông d&#432;&#417;ng &#272;&#7841;i H&#7843;i*, *it's related to &#26481;&#27915; &#21322;&#23707; Indo-China peninsula in English*. It means Chinese accepted that there is "East Sea - Bi&#7875;n &#272;ông" same name as we have been calling our sea from ancient time.
2. No where &#26481;&#27801; &#35199;&#27801; &#21335;&#27801;. Stop lying, bro.
3. This is map about the sea and islands with many countries are drawing, no evidents or notices for that Islands belong to China.



KirovAirship said:


> 1. The "1904 China map" only shows a part of China (&#30452;&#30465, not the whole China;
> 
> 2. The donors and the owner of the museum are careless.



There is only one. We have more evident to show that in the past Qing Dynasty China didn't considered such Islands are parts of China.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ComeAtMeBro

kankan326 said:


> Territory issues are not like crimes. For instance, some sea area has been Chinese fishmen&#8216;s fishery for thousand years. Could we provide that to court? Ancient Chinese found the island and name it. Could it be a evidence at all? No, it's never as easy as crime. The evidences are right there. If I say Hawaii belongs to China, do I have the evidences for it? No. Does USA have evidences that it belongs to her. No.



First of all "You should not compare others(USA) to you(China)"
That's a sign of inferiority complex

Regarding your post,

Not because ancient chinese named it doesn't mean they have the rights on it.
In ancient eras, you don't have telephones, television, media, and internet. 
How can you be sure the the ancient chinese where the "FIRST" one to name it?

If you do really believe that your evidences were strong then there's no point of avoiding the international court
This is how international law works my friend, you can't just claim everything

Tell your government to stand up like a MAN and stop relying on cheap dirty tactics

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kankan326

ComeAtMeBro said:


> First of all "You should not compare others(USA) to you(China)"
> That's a sign of inferiority complex
> 
> Regarding your post,
> 
> Not because ancient chinese named it doesn't mean they have the rights on it.
> In ancient eras, you don't have telephones, television, media, and internet.
> How can you be sure the the ancient chinese where the "FIRST" one to name it?
> 
> If you do really believe that your evidences were strong then there's no point of avoiding the international court
> This is how international law works my friend, you can't just claim everything
> 
> Tell your government to stand up like a MAN and stop relying on cheap dirty tactics


Ancient people can not talk for us in court&#65292; which you are very good at taking advantage of. If I'm not making it wrong. I remember there is an ancient Chinese ship under the water of Huangyan Island. Is that an evidence for us?


----------



## ComeAtMeBro

kankan326 said:


> Ancient people can not talk for us in court&#65292; which you are very good at taking advantage of. If I'm not making it wrong. I remember there is an ancient Chinese ship under the water of Huangyan Island. Is that an evidence for us?



No you're wrong, there's no better than both of us. It's the evidence that matters here
We don't care if you won in the end atleast you won in a more manly and less barbaric way rather than bullying you know 

You can use any evidence if you want to, in the end the decision is in the hand of the court

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kankan326

ComeAtMeBro said:


> No you're wrong, there's no better than both of us. It's the evidence that matters here
> We don't care if you won in the end atleast you won in a more manly and less barbaric way rather than bullying you know
> 
> You can use any evidence if you want to, in the end the decision is in the hand of the court


Even we are 100% sure that we are winning in the court. We are not going to take our land to court. As I said, this is a dangerous start. Only thieves like to try their luck on court. It's a zero risk business for them.


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

kankan326 said:


> I'm sure Chinese found the islands first. We found sank ancient Chinese ships in SCS.
> Could I bring your house to the court and decide whom it belongs to? I believe this is a gesture of humiliation to you. If we agree to bring those islands to court. What if Vietnam some day claims that Hainan island also belongs to him. Should we take Hainan island to the court again? We should never get this ridiculous things started.






kankan326 said:


> OMG, Why you asked ancient people to act according to today's rules? I believe at that time nobody did the things you listed.



Actually Spain, England, France, Portugal ... did that. Even our ancient people did both of those things. So?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ComeAtMeBro

kankan326 said:


> Even we are 100% sure that we are winning in the court. We are not going to take our land to court. As I said, this is a dangerous start. Only thieves like to try their luck on court. It's a zero risk business for them.



The only thieves here are those who took it by force


----------



## SpiritHS

ComeAtMeBro said:


> No you're wrong, there's no better than both of us. It's the evidence that matters here
> We don't care if you won in the end atleast you won in a more manly and less barbaric way rather than bullying you know
> 
> You can use any evidence if you want to, in the end the decision is in the hand of the court



Chinese people with the habit of trampling on international law, pirates will never go to court.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## starbuck

KirovAirship said:


> 1. The "1904 China map" only shows a part of China (&#30452;&#30465, not the whole China;
> 
> 2. The donors and the owner of the museum are careless.


 


kankan326 said:


> Ancient people can not talk for us in court&#65292; which you are very good at taking advantage of. If I'm not making it wrong. I remember there is an ancient Chinese ship under the water of Huangyan Island. Is that an evidence for us?



Just like a joke!
In 2003, near Cù Lao Chàm Island (Qu&#7843;ng Nam Province of Vietnam), we found a Chinese ship under the water which sank in mid 15th century, so Cù Lao Chàm is belonged to China, too?????????

I repeat to you again, any claims about sovereignty must be based on OFFICIAL, STATE-LEVEL documents. 

All of Chinese "evidences", althouth very difficult to find out, are PRIVATE, PERSONAL documents like diaries, memoirs, stories, etc. They have no value on the international court or negotiations.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kankan326

&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3239570 said:


> Actually Spain, England, France, Portugal ... did that. Even our ancient people did both of those things. So?


 It only proves that your ancient people found the island in the NEAR past. People lived in about 1000 years ago would never do that. It's like to let your ancient people who found the island use GPS to measure its coodinates.


----------



## kankan326

starbuck said:


> Just like a joke!
> In 2003, near Cù Lao Chàm Island (Qu&#7843;ng Nam Province of Vietnam), we found a Chinese ship under the water which sank in mid 15th century, so Cù Lao Chàm is belonged to China, too?????????


First of all, I have no idea what island you are talking about. If it's an island right beside to Vietnam coast line, or if it not an uninhabited island at all. It's yours. Chinese could by no means found it earlier than you Vietnamese.


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

kankan326 said:


> It only proves that your ancient people found the island in the NEAR past. People lived in about 1000 years ago would never do that. It's like to let your ancient people who found the island use GPS to measure its coodinates.



Who know did you really live there? I can say that Vietnamese people lived in Hainan about ... 5000 years ago, so who can verify that?

Remember, people around the world, Spain, England, France, Portugal ..., and even us did both of those things. We did those 2 things so we have a base to claim our sovereignty, so our sovereignty is legal. You Chinese doesn't have a base to claim, so your "sovereignty" there is illegal.

As I said, the 2 things you need are:

1) claim it officially, by (an) official map(s) or by a declaration from your gov, but no one oppose your claim.
2) disembark your army there to set sovereignty or pitch your flag there; but no one oppose your action.



kankan326 said:


> Even we are 100% sure that we are winning in the court. We are not going to take our land to court. As I said, this is a dangerous start. Only thieves like to try their luck on court. It's a zero risk business for them.



Well, it's an awkward moment when a thief like going to a court and an innocent afraid of the danger in a court

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## harryhayward

I have read Mr beijingwalker post: "any publication house can print their maps,there are tons of old maps published by many publication houses all across China and the world,on the same map,maybe it shows that Vietnam is part of France"

I disagree that any publication can publish the naitional map. How can they draw the map, where can they get data. Making the map is very complicated, and need an authorized (normally from state/govement), especially from early 20th centery. Even now, a publishing can print the map, in China, but can they print a map that unauthorized/unapproved from Chinese govement about national land? I sure it is not, cos all countries in the world, that have government , can not allow any state publishing/gov publishing house print a map that is not correct about their land. Your idea is not convincing. This map was printed by The Han-Chinese map published in 1904 by Shanghai Publishing House

The map was created across nearly two centery (1708  1904), from the Kangxi Emperor who ruled China from 1661  1722 to the Guangxu Emperor from 1875 to 1908. The emperors asked many clergymen and gifted astronomers and mathematicians to make this map. IT IS NOT EASY TO MAKE A MAP AT THAT PERIOD, and it is very hard job. Maps, in order to be pulished, need to get authority from the King/Goverment.
More specifically, in 1708, King Kangxi recruited some western clergymen to draw the map of the Great Wall. In 1711, the King continued to ask the clergymen to survey lands in 13 provinces nationwide. After that, Chinese intellectuals and western clergymen worked together for nearly 200 years to finish this map. Among famous western clergymen helping King Kangxi with the map were Matteo Bicci from Italy, Joannes Adam Schall Von Bell from Germany, and Ferdinandus Verbiest from Belgium.

In 1904, Shanghai Publishing House printed this map and distributed it to all provinces of the Qing Dynasty, the last imperial dynasty of China ruling from 1644 to 1912. The introduction of the map was written by the director of a Chinese observatory.

There are lot of evidence, still exist, cos it is history. We will find more to prove that The spratly and paracel is NOT belong to China. Every maps from Chinese Gov need to be authenticated by high reputation Institute, like verify age of map...

We, Vietnamese, are happy to bring our evidence to the world to show that our evidence is true. Dare the Chinese gov to do that? I am afraid not, cos many case they are fake.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## harryhayward

"First of all, I have no idea what island you are talking about. If it's an island right beside to Vietnam coast line, or if it not an uninhabited island at all. It's yours. Chinese could by no means found it earlier than you Vietnamese.
"

Sorry, may be that guy living in Vietnam so his E is not good and clear enough. Let me explain to you

"Ancient people can not talk for us in court&#65292; which you are very good at taking advantage of. If I'm not making it wrong. I remember there is an ancient Chinese ship under the water of Huangyan Island. Is that an evidence for us?"

That is not convincing. Chinese ancient ship did not prove that the sovereign of land/island, the right of property. That guy oppose your idea by giving an example, there are Chinese ancient ship sunk found in Vietnam, it show only that at that moment, there are Chinese businessmen/immigrants in Vietnam, or even Chinese troops who invade Vietnam in the past and defeated. Your reason is not concrete. It is better if you can show any document from the King, about some job, rulling activities in those Islands
If you said there are sunk Chinese ship there, so it is belong to China. I can disagree with that by pointing sunk ship mean there are chinese ship cross those island. But there are European ship cross the island before Chinese people so Chinese ship sunk there did not prove the property right. For example, now you live in Shanghai, you buy a house in Bejing. No one in Bejing can claim your house as his/her house because he pass your house, even he/she sleep there. In order to prove that, he/she must show property owner cerification. That kind of certification, is the document from your King, any document about rulling the Island

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Korean

kankan326 said:


> I remember there is an ancient Chinese ship under the water of Huangyan Island. Is that an evidence for us?


No, that only means Chinese sailed near Scarborough Shoals, presumably to reach Philippines, not own it. 

Just like how a Viking Ship found near Canada doesn't mean a Swedish or Norwegian ownership of Canada.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Korean

shuttler said:


> China can reclaim the whole Japan because we sent our earliest settlers there in Qin Dynasty!



   



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> China fought the Imperial Japan for 5 1/2 years without receiving the help from the West, the US started to offer the supply to KMT until the event of Pearl Harbor.


And that's the work of KMT, not the communists. Rather, the war dragged on because the communists attacked the KMT, making it difficult for the KMT to focus on Japan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Korean

kankan326 said:


> From this map, most Northeast part of China, what we call "The Three Provinces of Northeast" , is not shown in it.


Because those areas are Manchuria and not China.



> This is quite unreasonable. Because the rulers of China at that time, including emperors themselves, came from Northeast


And the Manchus did not consider themselves Chinese; rather, Manchus conquered China and ruled China as foreign rulers. This is the reason behind Manchu's segregationist policies, similar to British's segregation policy in India.



> some say "Manchu". How could the map maker forgot emperors birthland when they made a whole country map? Can I say this is a fake map? Seriously.


Because Manchus regarded Manchuria and China as two historically separate countries. China was to Manchus what India was to British; an acquisition of foreign terrotory.



WuMaoCleverbot said:


> Chinese government suppress information that does not align with their claim so the general Chinese population will only see the false info their govt is spreading. In general the chinese people were not informed properly, what they know are just bias info towards their claim. So I'm not surprised of Chinese posters here who sincerely believe that they own the SCS.


Indeed, this is why Chinese are shocked and dumb-founded when they are told of the true history when they go outside of China, because it is nothing like "Glorious China" BS that the communists feed to their population.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## harryhayward

"US,ISREAL,THE MIDDLE EAST,INDIA...WHICH LAND OR OTHER DISPUTES WERE SETTLED BY SO CALLED INTERNATIONAL COURT?I DONT REMEMBER ANY.
"
There are lot of cases that get join international court. for example, recently Malaysia vs Indonesia, Cambodia vs Thailand..
US now has no dispute with other country about land.

Like in a society, there must be a rule, civilized law, not the law of forest or the law by war. Otherwise, the society will be chaos, robbery, fighting.... not like hundred of years ago. People should follow the law in a country and countries should follow the international law. Dont play like the game of rulling, killing and invading. 
China often said that it has unbeatable evidence to prove that Spratly and Parracels belong to China. If it is, the case will be simple, show the evidence to the court, and you will get these Island without argueing or fighting anymore. Vietnam, Philipin... will no longer ask for those Islands and still want to be friendly countries with China. But I am afraid that what your gov tell Chinese people and international people is not true cos now scholars outside China prove that Chinese's evidence is the weakest and the most unconvincing. I gave you and example, in June, 2012, some Chinese scholar join South China Sea Dialogue hosted by CSIS, all scholars, from all over the world but not China, laughted at the reasons spoke out by Chinese Scholars. Pls do your own reasearch if you have time or if you are not interested, that is okie. Now, most of all Asian countries ask for help from the US or seeking US's power as an counteweigh, ask yourself why. If the Chinese give them economic opportunities, not invade their land, for the countries that army power << China, if it is not their land, dare they do that? Look at your contry's history, you are always the invader. And now it is hapen again in 21st Century. 
Now is 21st Century,

We are smaller country, we dont want to use power/war, so it is better to go to the court and show our evidence , hey this is our land, we have all evidence and well convincing reason, give me back my land that China uses troops to invade while our country was having domestic war. That is.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## harryhayward

I agree with mr Korean, like new calculation of the length of China Great wall, in 2011 (recent year I dont remember exactly but i can google it), Chinese authority want to add the part (Korean Wall) in Korea to extend the length cos they argue that previously, Korea is used to be territory of China so they can count the part in Korea too. It is not good at all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## harryhayward

terranMarine said:


> Those maps don't say a thing you clown. Why not try to convince the whole world with those maps you posted and see if they agree with your kind of logic. You guys posted so many different maps claiming the islands why not share them with the experts around the world and ask them if they totally agree with you clowns. That's fair enough don't you think?



We are confident to share, and with high reputation verification institute. By the way, there are lot of maps from the Europe to show the evidence that Spratly and Paracels NOT belong to China. How do you react with the old maps from European?


----------



## harryhayward

HongWu said:


> Forget about Paracels, Vietnam belongs to China.... not as a province, but as a mere vassal state. We enslaved you for 1000 years because our wise ancestors saw your inferiority and exploited it



HongWu: We are here to argue that Spratly and Paracels not belong to China

For your new topic, I would like to emphasize something more. Your King and Government always say that China come to Vietnam to help, educated people for thousands years. But what they did? They bring troop to invade other smaller countries, killing men, sexual Assault to women, killing children, robbing property, burning education document, ruin our culture.... Other countries, like Vietnam, Korea, ...in the past, is civilized enough and need not any help/educated from China. The Vietnam is much smaller country but defeat China many times so we are very smart.There are lot of scholar, doctors, architecturers...from VietNam were invited to China and exchange medical knowledge, making good poem.. Your government come to kill, not to help. I fully aware that you know your county did terrible thing like that in the past, and I want to say here, CHinese Government always lie when they want to invade other countries, they talk about good things to the world/their people but they do/did very terribly bad things

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## harryhayward

beijingwalker said:


> we also have enough evidence showing you were part of China,as in the case of 1903 map,it's very recent so on the map it probably shows that you were part of France.



Viet Nam never be part of China. Only China invade Vietname and was defeated many times. If you said thay China invade Vietnam so Vietnam is part of China, people can say Japan occupied China early 1930's so China is part of Japan, right?

And I would like to say, do you and other Chinese feel any ashame when your contry/people invade other countries, killing men, women, children, rob property, burn books, ruin culture... 

And do you support ur goverment to invade other country even if you know that you guys have no right to do that?
Look around and see people in the world feel about the red china now. Go outside and talk to them, see how do they think about ur invasion and the way u claim ur teritory by invading/did invade in the past



beijingwalker said:


> it's a land map,everyone see that,and where in the map shows they belong to Vietnam?



The maps should be zoom in so that people can see more clearly. But is is clear enough to see Spratly and Paracels is not belong to China.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## longyi

harryhayward said:


> Viet Nam never be part of China. Only China invade Vietname and was defeated many times. If you said thay China invade Vietnam so Vietnam is part of China, people can say Japan occupied China early 1930's so China is part of Japan, right?
> 
> *And I would like to say, do you and other Chinese feel any ashame when your contry/people invade other countries, killing men, women, children, rob property, burn books, ruin culture... *
> 
> *And do you support ur goverment to invade other country even if you know that you guys have no right to do that?*
> Look around and see people in the world feel about the red china now. Go outside and talk to them, see how do they think about ur invasion and the way u claim ur teritory by invading/did invade in the past




Do you feel ashamed when your country is doing all those things you mentioned in the Middle East and other places? I do. Or you're just a hypocrite saying your country invades others for the sake of humanities.


----------



## harryhayward

beijingwalker said:


> yes,history is history,nothing can change it.just like the fact that Japan was defeated in Second Sino-Japanese War.and lost all they got so if they want to get them back they need to launch the third war,so you can ask them to do so and see if they listen to you.



If you say history is history, why you agree/or many Chinese agree that Tibet belong to China? China invade tibet hundred years ago, then they regain freedom. What is the reason why Chinese people call tibet is China's teritory? They were independent country for hundred of years before Mao's troop invade Tibet



Sonyuke_Songpaisan said:


> Vietnam,Korea,Ryukyu are all vassals of China. They all have Kings just like Chinese&#29579;&#65292;there is no emperor in the three vassals.



Vietname is belong to Vietnmese and the King of Viet Nam at that moment is Nguyen Dynasty. What is ur reason to say that King of VietNam is also King of China. We defeat China Invasion, killed more than 50k troop by Nguyen Hue, wounded a lot, to keep Independence. Only the Chinese think other country belong to them, that is ashame

It is okie if you can say at that moment, the relationship between Vietname and China, like China and North Korea now but We are still independent country. Shame one The invaders. If Vietnam King is the Chinese King, now you cant see Vietnam as an Independence country in the world map today, look at what Chinese did with Tibet, Manchu...., they wont let the Viet alive. So I would like to say, Vietnam in the past, since 938 AD, is an independent country and we defeat many invasion of the Chinese to keep our independence. Same one the invader!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## harryhayward

gpit said:


> Regardless of which nation, map is only one way to claim, there are lot more other factors, such as power, etc. For instance , without power, India wouldn't be able to take over Goa.
> 
> The problem with many Internet Viets is that a simple partial truth can make their blood boil recklessly. And they deny themselves from the whole truth.
> 
> Taking their show of 1904 map for instance, the map doesn't even include Qing Dynasty's NE part where they considered as their "old home place"... it's a simple focus on mainland China. and the foolish and ill-educated bunch start to propaganda like their communist regime.
> 
> LOL, even today lots of maps China don't show it's peripheral parts as they are none essential to the point of the map. Does that mean China renounces those areas?
> 
> It's a joke! It's just another laughing stock from the Viets...



Your statement is not convincing. Do you fully understand what is the meaning national maps? It is the map to show all of it teritories, including land and islands. 

We show you the partial of the map, cos the maps is very big, it is including all of China teritories in 1904, was made under the request of the King, and people take about 200 years to made it. IT IS a proof. Look at the national map all over the world, it all denote the teritory of that contry:

The map was created across nearly two centery (1708 &#8211; 1904), from the Kangxi Emperor who ruled China from 1661 &#8211; 1722 to the Guangxu Emperor from 1875 to 1908. The emperors asked many clergymen and gifted astronomers and mathematicians to make this map. IT IS NOT EASY TO MAKE A MAP AT THAT PERIOD, and it is very hard job. Maps, in order to be pulished, need to get authority from the King/Goverment.
More specifically, in 1708, King Kangxi recruited some western clergymen to draw the map of the Great Wall. In 1711, the King continued to ask the clergymen to survey lands in 13 provinces nationwide. After that, Chinese intellectuals and western clergymen worked together for nearly 200 years to finish this map. Among famous western clergymen helping King Kangxi with the map were Matteo Bicci from Italy, Joannes Adam Schall Von Bell from Germany, and Ferdinandus Verbiest from Belgium.

In 1904, Shanghai Publishing House printed this map and distributed it to all provinces of the Qing Dynasty, the last imperial dynasty of China ruling from 1644 to 1912. The introduction of the map was written by the director of a Chinese observatory

I would like to suggest you read about the history of the map, lot of document still in China so you can understand how that map was made!
Furthermore, the people who take order from the King, if he made anything serious problem, like missing some teritories, islands.., will be punished to the dead, all of us know that is the law of the Chinese Emperror, it is a serious problem, not a joke

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## EastSea

China printed more maps like 1904 map.

It's 1935&#20013;&#33775;&#27665;&#22283;&#20840;&#22294;.







http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-far-east/198394-south-china-sea-news-discussions-6.html

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## harryhayward

longyi said:


> Do you feel ashamed when your country is doing all those things you mentioned in the Middle East and other places? I do. Or you're just a hypocrite saying your country invades others for the sake of humanities.



You can ask Mr Obama and Mr Bush, I prefer not US troop not to go there. Just killing Bil Laden is good enough. 
By the way, I am not US citizen, just come here to work and have permanent resident. 

I believe that you live in NY so you are like Chinese international student. 

Look around and see what people fee about Chinese in real. I am pretty sure that people in America have enough informaition (not only information from the Gov like in PRC) and they are not affected much by the government.

If the gov did something wrong 100%, the president will be lost in his campaign. You can see lot of demonstration to show their opinion against the gov. Can you do that in China? Can people from China accept the fact? I strongly believe that people in the US are cos we are civilized enough to see what is right or wrong

I used to live in NYC for 8 years. I know NYC well

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## BoQ77

Hi everybody, I'm newbie here

Let's discuss in reasonable manner.

To me, all sides need to study "the map", if you disagree on it, you could do it and follow you decision and fully follow it if you agree on its correctness.

To Chinese members, when you disagree with "the national map" prepared by your former dynasty, do you think that 
from whom you get the right to declare for ownership ? ... let me guess "you derive China from previous declaration of permanent ownership from Qing dynasty ... if not you get it from whom ? 

The map itself brought more evidence to everybody all over the world and Chinese guys , much much more technical than the recent "estimated map" that China show to the world.

An old dynasty with "son of the heaven" in the period of time that someone could occupy and merge small nations into their own land, 
COULD BRING more technical evidence than a modern China , a member of UN Commitee. Does it make sense ? We are not in the era of occupation first then make up history ... 

And Your history printed that "we do not care about what below the Hainan island" because Hainan is the South pole of our country.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## harryhayward

Alchemy said:


> Just wondering whether old maps are enuf evidence in the international courts for such claims ? If so the British may open their old maps from the history museums and claim half of the world !!!!
> 
> I would rather expect all nations surronding SCS to follow EEZ according to UNCLOS instead of depending on "old maps"



The old British maps will be nonsense cos they covered other countries' land by invasion and therefor it is not accepted. Here is the map of China and the King of China made it. It state the Chinese territory in 1904 so it is convincing in the court


----------



## the_islander

kankan326 said:


> There is an old Chinese saying: &#26222;&#22825;&#20043;&#19979;&#33707;&#38750;&#29579;&#22303;&#12290;Do you know the meaning of it? *It means" All lands under the sky belong to the great Chinese emperor".* That concept had been widely accepted by all Chinese for thousands years. So ancient Chinese had no motivation to draw their border line on map. It's a useless work for them. Ancient Chinese took it for granted that the land they found belongs to Chinese.
> 
> It's quite obvious that islands in SCS were first discovered by Ancient Chinese. Ancient Chinese were far more advanced in navigation field. When Chinese ancestors crossed SCS and got to Arab countries and other SEA countries by their huge ships. Vietnamese could barely leave their coast line with their shabby boats.
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...y-not-chinese-territory-14.html#ixzz21uyCEl9X



Oh well, you can bring this to international court. this is really funny !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BoQ77

IF Chinese guys now doubt on "the map" of the Son of the heaven, you should abandon his land and sea. If you want more than what he owns, it must be robbed from other's hands, after The dynasty fallen ... means after year 1912, less than 100 years until now.

And everybody know which islands the PLA robbed in 1956 and 1974 ( Paracels ) and 1988 ( Spratlys ). Where were you before those milestones ? Until the emperor fallen 1912 you still not count above islands into yours. 

And the information that I know is, at the end of WW2 as signed with US, Japanese surrendered to Kuomintang, should we consider China belong to the ROC ( Taiwan ) ? In Manchuria, Japanese surrendered to USSR, then ... ??? ROC still be alive, either Kuomintang.

LOL so who inherit the lands and sea of the son of the heaven ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nestea

1635 Netherlands:




This figure, the top of the long strip Note Doa Javaquero, right indicate Pracel, on the left coast of Vietnam on Pulo S Polo, Pulo Cotan, Lan tam, a long strip at the bottom of Pulo Citi 

1680 Netherlands:




Long strip superscript Pracel, On the left labeled Pulo Cham, Strip form began to close to Vietnam coast , Nansha Islands in the lower right corner of display.

1747 United Kingdom:




The long rectangular label of Shoal of Pracel, The top right of a few small islands marked as "the Triangle", Xisha Islands from a long strip of "Paracels" separation, independent of an archipelago

1750 United Kingdom:




Long strip marked with "Pracel its upper right is the separation of a separate Islands labeled" of Li Ochiali

1775 United Kingdom:




Long strip marked with "Pracel its upper right is the separation of a separate Islands labeled" of Li Ochiali

1812 United Kingdom:




Long strip marked with "Pracel its upper right is the separation of a separate Islands labeled" Amphitrite, Dry Lime Shoali


1851 United Kingdom:




This diagram Note North Sh (oa) l, Paracels, Amphitrite Is, Crescent, Discovery Shoal, Bombay Shoal, Macclesfield Bank, Scarborough Shoal and other words, the various reefs group label has basically modern naming. a very modern map began on the map to remove the long strip, But the &#8220;Paracels&#8221; this name transferred to now the real xisha islands.

Western understanding of the China Sea is the ancient Chinese map in the transmission of information, Once the central Vietnam coast not far from some of the shoals, sandbars painted a long strip, And called Parcel / Pracel (s) / Paracels, But Until 1747, they discovered that the Xisha Islands of China, And began to draw in the upper right corner of the long strip of the Xisha Islands, and gave several different names, Later, a very modern (for example ,1851 United Kingdom) map began on the map to remove the long strip, But the &#8220;Paracels&#8221; this name transferred to now the real xisha islands. 

&#12298;The Complete Map of Unified Great Nam&#12299;,Longitude point of view, these two Islands is too close to the coast of Vietnam, After all, this time in the 19th century, other territories in Vietnam is probably more accurately described why such a big difference of the two Islands? Latitude and Islands and the distribution of the shape difference is also great, from the map, the two Islands together to form a long strip, but in fact the Paracel Islands and Spratly Islands are far apart, the distribution is not a long strip, At this time no matter how backward mapping technology, nor will the two Islands to draw so close! Contrast map of the Western release above, we can find, &#8220;&#40644;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;&#8221;, In fact, from the 1613 British Captain John Sullivan wrote &#12298;Sailing log &#12299;, Map described in the "long zone". Regardless of position or shape point of view, the two maps are the same. In the long strip zone on the map, The top label (Pulon Cham), Central label (Pulou Canton), Bottom marked&#65288;Pulou Gambir). It can be predicted this long zone(&#12298;The Complete Map of Unified Great Nam&#12299;&#8220;&#40644;&#27801;"and"&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;&#8221, Is along the direction parallel with the coast of central Vietnam, the distribution of some small islands and sandbars. John Sullivan in the book describes the long strip, its shaped like a foot, foot, thumb towards the southwest, located at latitude 12 °~ 16 ° 30 east longitude 110 ° ~ 111 °. In the long strip northwest, north latitude 16 ° to 17 °, longitude 111 ° 30 'to 112 ° 42', (Les Lunet tes), the island was lateral distribution. The Xisha Islands (latitude 15 ° 42 '~ 17 ° 08', longitude 111 ° 10 '~ 112 ° 55). They are able to judge, (Les Lunet te) Chinese Xisha Islands.






The Map of South and East Ocean Sea Routes was drawn in between 1712-1721 by Qing (Ching) Dynasty Fujian (Fuchien) Province Navy Commander Shi Shibiao, the son of a famous early Qing Dynasty Imperial Officer. This map shows clearly the sea routes, time and decriptions from Chinese coastal ports to Japan, Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia,Brunei, Cambodia and the Phinllipines. In this map, the locations and names of the Southern Sea Islands(Nanhai Zhudao) are very accurate. The map shows clearly Chinese sovereignty over the South China&#12288;Sea Islands including Nansha Islands, Xisha Islands, Zhongsha Islands and Dongsha Islands.Also note the "long bar area" shown in this map which locates close to the Vietnamese coast, which clearly tells that the so called "Truong Sa" and "Hoang Sa" as shown in the 1838 "Complete Map of Unified Great Nam" are not the Nansha (Spratlys) and Xisha (Paracels) Islands of China at all, but refers to the Pullo Canton near the central Vietnamese coast, which was also once been identified as "dangerous group" and named Paracels before Paracels was used to refer to China's Xisha Islands later in the history.


----------



## longyi

harryhayward said:


> You can ask Mr Obama and Mr Bush, I prefer not US troop not to go there. Just killing Bil Laden is good enough.
> *By the way, I am not US citizen, just come here to work and have permanent resident.
> *
> *I believe that you live in NY so you are like Chinese international student.
> *
> Look around and see what people fee about Chinese in real. I am pretty sure that people in America have enough informaition (not only information from the Gov like in PRC) and they are not affected much by the government.
> 
> If the gov did something wrong 100%, the president will be lost in his campaign. You can see lot of demonstration to show their opinion against the gov. Can you do that in China? Can people from China accept the fact? I strongly believe that people in the US are cos we are civilized enough to see what is right or wrong
> 
> I used to live in NYC for 8 years. I know NYC well




I don't care who you are or what you say. But if you're not an American citizen you should change one of your flag otherwise others will perceived you speak on American's perspectives. 

You talk a big game, my friend, as if you're an international geopolitical analyst and a fair worldview thinker. In truth you're nothing but a devious promoter of hates between people, and hide behind another country's flag at that.

You lost all your credibility when you presume: *"I believe that you live in NY so you are like Chinese international student". * How can you, or anyone for that matter, label me as who am I without knowing anything about me?


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

Nestea said:


> 1635 Netherlands:
> 
> This figure, the top of the long strip Note Doa Javaquero, right indicate Pracel, on the left coast of Vietnam on Pulo S Polo, Pulo Cotan, Lan tam, a long strip at the bottom of Pulo Citi
> 
> 1680 Netherlands:
> Long strip superscript Pracel, On the left labeled Pulo Cham, Strip form began to close to Vietnam coast , Nansha Islands in the lower right corner of display.
> 
> 1747 United Kingdom:
> The long rectangular label of Shoal of Pracel, The top right of a few small islands marked as "the Triangle", Xisha Islands from a long strip of "Paracels" separation, independent of an archipelago
> 
> 1750 United Kingdom:
> Long strip marked with "Pracel its upper right is the separation of a separate Islands labeled" of Li Ochiali
> 
> 1775 United Kingdom:
> Long strip marked with "Pracel its upper right is the separation of a separate Islands labeled" of Li Ochiali
> 
> 1812 United Kingdom:
> Long strip marked with "Pracel its upper right is the separation of a separate Islands labeled" Amphitrite, Dry Lime Shoali
> 
> 
> 1851 United Kingdom:
> This diagram Note North Sh (oa) l, Paracels, Amphitrite Is, Crescent, Discovery Shoal, Bombay Shoal, Macclesfield Bank, Scarborough Shoal and other words, the various reefs group label has basically modern naming. a very modern map began on the map to remove the long strip, But the &#8220;Paracels&#8221; this name transferred to now the real xisha islands.
> 
> Western understanding of the China Sea is the ancient Chinese map in the transmission of information, Once the central Vietnam coast not far from some of the shoals, sandbars painted a long strip, And called Parcel / Pracel (s) / Paracels, But Until 1747, they discovered that the Xisha Islands of China, And began to draw in the upper right corner of the long strip of the Xisha Islands, and gave several different names, Later, a very modern (for example ,1851 United Kingdom) map began on the map to remove the long strip, But the &#8220;Paracels&#8221; this name transferred to now the real xisha islands.
> 
> &#12298;The Complete Map of Unified Great Nam&#12299;,Longitude point of view, these two Islands is too close to the coast of Vietnam, After all, this time in the 19th century, other territories in Vietnam is probably more accurately described why such a big difference of the two Islands? Latitude and Islands and the distribution of the shape difference is also great, from the map, the two Islands together to form a long strip, but in fact the Paracel Islands and Spratly Islands are far apart, the distribution is not a long strip, At this time no matter how backward mapping technology, nor will the two Islands to draw so close! Contrast map of the Western release above, we can find, &#8220;&#40644;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;&#8221;, In fact, from the 1613 British Captain John Sullivan wrote &#12298;Sailing log &#12299;, Map described in the "long zone". Regardless of position or shape point of view, the two maps are the same. In the long strip zone on the map, The top label (Pulon Cham), Central label (Pulou Canton), Bottom marked&#65288;Pulou Gambir). It can be predicted this long zone(&#12298;The Complete Map of Unified Great Nam&#12299;&#8220;&#40644;&#27801;"and"&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;&#8221, Is along the direction parallel with the coast of central Vietnam, the distribution of some small islands and sandbars. John Sullivan in the book describes the long strip, its shaped like a foot, foot, thumb towards the southwest, located at latitude 12 °~ 16 ° 30 east longitude 110 ° ~ 111 °. In the long strip northwest, north latitude 16 ° to 17 °, longitude 111 ° 30 'to 112 ° 42', (Les Lunet tes), the island was lateral distribution. The Xisha Islands (latitude 15 ° 42 '~ 17 ° 08', longitude 111 ° 10 '~ 112 ° 55). They are able to judge, (Les Lunet te) Chinese Xisha Islands.
> 
> 
> The Map of South and East Ocean Sea Routes was drawn in between 1712-1721 by Qing (Ching) Dynasty Fujian (Fuchien) Province Navy Commander Shi Shibiao, the son of a famous early Qing Dynasty Imperial Officer. This map shows clearly the sea routes, time and decriptions from Chinese coastal ports to Japan, Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia,Brunei, Cambodia and the Phinllipines. In this map, the locations and names of the Southern Sea Islands(Nanhai Zhudao) are very accurate. The map shows clearly Chinese sovereignty over the South China&#12288;Sea Islands including Nansha Islands, Xisha Islands, Zhongsha Islands and Dongsha Islands.Also note the "long bar area" shown in this map which locates close to the Vietnamese coast, which clearly tells that the so called "Truong Sa" and "Hoang Sa" as shown in the 1838 "Complete Map of Unified Great Nam" are not the Nansha (Spratlys) and Xisha (Paracels) Islands of China at all, but refers to the Pullo Canton near the central Vietnamese coast, which was also once been identified as "dangerous group" and named Paracels before Paracels was used to refer to China's Xisha Islands later in the history.



So you are going to prove that Westerners are all "mistaken" real Paracel with some Vietnamese "near-coast islands"?
All I want to say is...






All you can do is avoiding my points? Oh what a pity!

You mean thousands of Westerners who had crossed South China Sea in 400 years were all "mistaken" Paracel with some Vietnamese near-coast islands?
So why don't they draw the "other" Paracel? It's bigger, more noticeable than some "islands near Vietnamese coast", right? They are mentally retarded or what? Or if you want to say that they "miss" the Paracel, well, hundreds, thousands of Westerners who go around South East Asia sea for 400 years but all of them "miss" the "real Paracel"? What a pity of Western's sailing :rofl"

Then now they are what you had missed: 

In Yesterday 02:19 PM, I said
----
Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique de Précis ... - Conrad Malte-Brun - Google Books
Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique de Précis ... - Conrad Malte-Brun - Google Books

The French book "Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique du Précis de la géographie universelle en huit volumes" (volume 2) was published in Paris, 1831. Page 221 said that: "*equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire*". "A une egale distance de la cote de Cochinchine et de l'ile d'Hai-nan, l'archipel de Paracels est une dependance de l'empire d'Annam"
----

An archipelago (which is*Equal-spaced between Vietnam and Hainan*) is near Vietnamese coast? Oh logic  I had some other books with told that Paracel is equal-spaced between Vietnamese coast and Hainan, do you need more?

I also said
----
The map-drawing technique in that period was still poor, so the map can't provide the extract distance. That's why we need texts to back-up our maps.
----

Just check out these map:





compare to this




In the older map, The distance from Southern Vietnam to Western Malaysia is too close than the fact, the size of Thailand Gulf is also too small than it has to be, so do you mean there have to be another Malaysia or another Thailand Gulf? 

As the time goes, the distances in maps are farther from the coast because the map-drawing technique is advancing, so the distances are more accurate. 
Such as this 1833 map:






Is that too close to the coast?

And in Yesterday 07:08 PM, I said:

----
Now give me the name of what archipelago is as large and far from the coast as the archipelago in our map so Westerners can be mistaken with Paracels and described "equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire". If there is no archipelago like that, it means the archipelago in the map is Paracels, ok?

One thing, our Paracel Teams (&#272;&#7897;i Hoàng Sa and &#272;&#7897;i B&#7855;c H&#7843;i) start from our near coast islands to go to Paracel. For example, Ly Son island, just go and search it on google, oh if you have google there
----

The "long bar area" you mentioned in your last paragraph is too close and our map has it too, and definitely separated from Paracel:







So in conclusion, you mean that Westerners had mistaken Paracel with some other near-coast islands, and my points are:
1) There is no near-coast archipelago which is big and far enough to be mistaken with the more noticeable Paracels. Why don't you just go to google maps and find an archipelago like that?
2) It's an awkward moment when thousands of Westerners had gone around South China Sea for 400 years but all of them just couldn't found the real Paracel "until recent times", only found some near-coast islands to draw in their maps.
3) The French book "Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique du Précis de la géographie universelle en huit volumes" (volume 2) was published in Paris, 1831. Page 221 said that: "*equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire*". "A une egale distance de la cote de Cochinchine et de l'ile d'Hai-nan, l'archipel de Paracels est une dependance de l'empire d'Annam". So the archipelago which was found by Westerners is real Paracel, because only Paracel is equal-spaced between Hainan and Vietnamese coast.
4) The map-drawing technique in that period was still poor, so the map can't provide the extract distance. They even drew Western Malaysia too close to Southern Vietnam than what it has to be. That's why we need texts to back-up our maps. 
5) Our Paracel Teams (&#272;&#7897;i Hoàng Sa and &#272;&#7897;i B&#7855;c H&#7843;i, check our 1776 book) started their annual journeys from our near-coast islands to go to Paracel. For example, Ly Son island, just go and search it on google, oh if you have google there.

*And finally, if you Chinese are confident in your "evidences", why don't go to an international court instead of this:
*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kankan326

to#253, the Vietnamese guy. Since you quoted my post. In case there is a misunderstanding. I think I have to explain more. What kind of court the thieves want to go? It's a court that would never punish thieves for their crime, but only decides who has the things stolen by thieves, thieves or victims. This kind of court is heaven for thieves, hell for victims. Unfortunately, the Philippine and Vietnamese guys are falling in love with this court.


----------



## ComeAtMeBro

kankan326 said:


> to#253, the Vietnamese guy. Since you quoted my post. In case there is a misunderstanding. I think I have to explain more. What kind of court the thieves want to go? It's a court that would never punish thieves for their crime, but only decides who has the things stolen by thieves, thieves or victims. This kind of court is heaven for thieves, hell for victims. Unfortunately, the Philippine and Vietnamese guys are following in love with this court.



Then what are you want to do?
You're government doesn't want to start a war to claim "YOUR" so called lands.
They resort to bullying which is disgustful and unrespectable to the eyes of the other nation

Dude we are not on the ancient eras anymore.
You can't just go around yelling anyone labeling them thieves

You need proofs, evidences, documents
You need to backup your claims

China is the one who avoids the court for some weird reason
Didn't they teach you political science on your school?
No offense bro but you are really blinded by your government.

The only way to end this conflict is via diplomat or war
Tell your government to grow some BALLS and stop bullying FFS

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HongWu

Look at the monkeys jumping up and down. Fact is, Vietnam was China's vassal state for 1000 years. The entire Vietnam territory belongs to China. Taking back Paracels and Spratlys is just the beginning. We will take back Hanoi and then Saigon and drive away all the Vietnamese so Chinese can return to our land.


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

kankan326 said:


> to#253, the Vietnamese guy. Since you quoted my post. In case there is a misunderstanding. I think I have to explain more. What kind of court the thieves want to go? It's a court that would never punish thieves for their crime, but only decides who has the things stolen by thieves, thieves or victims. This kind of court is heaven for thieves, hell for victims. Unfortunately, the Philippine and Vietnamese guys are following in love with this court.



Who say that the loser loose nothing? *He will loose his fame, his reputation, his honour* ... The loser will be called the invader, the bad guy, the bully, the robber ... or something like that ... so people will start to keep a way from him, guard against him, because no one can trust such a person which bad reputation like that.
It's what you are afraid of, right?



HongWu said:


> Look at the monkeys jumping up and down. *Fact is, Vietnam was China's vassal state for 1000 years. The entire Vietnam territory belongs to China.* Of course it cannot possibly own any islands, before or now.



I declare that China belongs to Mongolia, with the same reason. Anyone would like to oppose my declaration?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ComeAtMeBro

HongWu said:


> Look at the monkeys jumping up and down. Fact is, Vietnam was China's vassal state for 1000 years. The entire Vietnam territory belongs to China. Of course it cannot possibly own any islands, before or now.



You can do better than that


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

HongWu said:


> We will take back Hanoi and then Saigon and drive away all the Vietnamese so Chinese can return to our land.



It's just a ridiculous propaganda that you chinese have been saying in the last 1000 years 



HongWu said:


>








Hello? We are just out there, Mongolian. Why don't try a little bit harder? No man left to throw in the war?  

India was the defender of the South Asia, and we were the defender of the South East Asia  BTW where is China? I can't find them there

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kankan326

HongWu said:


> Look at the monkeys jumping up and down. Fact is, Vietnam was China's vassal state for 1000 years. The entire Vietnam territory belongs to China. Taking back Paracels and Spratlys is just the beginning. We will take back Hanoi and then Saigon and drive away all the Vietnamese so Chinese can return to our land.


No, brother. We Chinese just want what should belong to us. As it is.


----------



## kankan326

ComeAtMeBro said:


> Then what are you want to do?
> You're government doesn't want to start a war to claim "YOUR" so called lands.
> They resort to bullying which is disgustful and unrespectable to the eyes of the other nation
> 
> Dude we are not on the ancient eras anymore.
> You can't just go around yelling anyone labeling them thieves
> 
> You need proofs, evidences, documents
> You need to backup your claims
> 
> China is the one who avoids the court for some weird reason
> Didn't they teach you political science on your school?
> No offense bro but you are really blinded by your government.
> 
> The only way to end this conflict is via diplomat or war
> Tell your government to grow some BALLS and stop bullying FFS


If you tell the world it was Philippine or Vietnamese who first found islands in SCS. Can you convince the world? It obviously reverses common knowledge of whole world. Everybody knows it is Chinese who first explored sea world. Chinese navigation technology was once even better than European for a rather long history.

On the other hand, back to WWII, it was China who had the right to took over SCS islands from Japan. We got the privilege because we made a big contribution in the war. Much bigger than Philippine and Vietnam. This is our second evidence.


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

kankan326 said:


> If you tell the world it was Philippine or Vietnamese who first found islands in SCS. Can you convince the world? It obviously reverses common knowledge of whole world. Everybody knows it is Chinese who first explored sea world. Chinese navigation technology was once even better than European for a rather long history.
> 
> On the other hand, back to WWII, it was China who had the right to took over SCS islands from Japan. We got the privilege because we made a big contribution in the war. Much bigger than Philippine and Vietnam. This is our second evidence.



Maybe we didn't find it first, but who cares? We just set our sovereignty over there first, and this is what the world cares 
Everyone made a contribution in the war, even Vietnamese and Filipino. Not just because you had fought against Japan so you can took lands from the others.
Enough said, just go to the international court, if you are a man, China

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HongWu

kankan326 said:


> No, brother. We Chinese just want what should belong to us. As it is.


Don't worry, we will not mix blood with Viets. Just take the land, drive away the Viets, and build holiday resorts for Chinese enjoyment.


----------



## dunhill

HongWu said:


> *Don't worry*, we will not mix blood with Viets. Just take the land, drive away the Viets, and build holiday resorts for Chinese enjoyment.



*We* are *not worry* and *nothing* to worry about it. Ever since *Chinese* loves *bananas*, we also prepared for *Chinese* a lot of bananas, I think *Philippines* also prepared and ready for Chinese. Yummy ... Yummy ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Cristoph

i dont think the viet people will be satisfied if we are still arguing for this issue. i have to say, sadly, your "evidence" has noting to do to solve this issue. sorry for that~

ps: not only the ccp will deny to discuss this kind of argument between our two countries, but any kind of government of chinese will do the same. territory is not an argument, it is an absolutely a definition by the stronger one. thanks for reading~


----------



## Martian2

The Chinese nine-dashed-lines map is based on the Chinese 12th century map shown below and the 1712-1721 map from the Qing Dynasty.

----------

*Spratly Islands have belonged to China since ancient times*

Ocean-faring Chinese explorers had claimed the Spratly Islands a thousand years ago.

[Source: Wikipedia article on Spratly Islands with primary sources listed in footnotes]

"Ancient Chinese maps record the "Thousand Li Stretch of Sands"; Qianli Changsha (&#21315;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801 and the "Ten-Thousand Li of Stone Pools"; Wanli Shitang (&#33836;&#37324;&#30707;&#22616,[7] which China today claims refers to the Spratly Islands. The Wanli Shitang have been explored by the Chinese since the Yuan Dynasty and may have been considered by them to have been within their national boundaries. [8][9] They are also referenced in the 13th century,[10] followed by the Ming Dynasty.[11] When the Ming Dynasty collapsed, the Qing Dynasty continued to include the territory in maps compiled in 1724,[12] 1755,[13] 1767,[14] 1810,[15] and 1817.[16] A Vietnamese map from 1834 also includes the Spratly Islands clumped in with the Paracels (a common occurrence on maps of that time) labeled as "Wanli Changsha".[17]"





By the twelfth century, names for the South China Sea islands began to appear. The Paracels and the Spratlys were referred to more consistently as Changsha and Shitang. By the mid-fourteenth century, Shitang could be accurately identified as the Spratlys. There is also evidence of Chinese naval control over some areas of the South China Sea, which resulted in complete Chinese dominion of the South China Sea in the late thirteenth century. Finally, in the fifteenth century, Zheng He's seven voyages placed the South China Sea islands on the official navigational charts. In this map, the Xisha Islands are called Shitang, and the Nansha Islands are referred to as Wansheng Shitang Yu.





The Map of South and East Ocean Sea Routes was drawn in between 1712-1721 by Qing (Ching) Dynasty Fujian (Fuchien) Province Navy Commander Shi Shibiao, the son of a famous Qing Dynasty imperial officer. This map clearly shows the sea routes, time, and descriptions from Chinese coastal ports to Japan, Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia, Brunei, Cambodia and the Philippines. On this map, the locations and names of the Southern Sea Islands (Nanhai Zhudao) are very accurate. The map shows Chinese sovereignty over the South China&#12288;Sea islands (including Nansha Islands, Xisha Islands, Zhongsha Islands and Dongsha Islands).





1834 Vietnamese map showed the islands as Chinese "Wanli Changsha."

[Note: Thank you to HuziHaidao12 for the first two pictures and captions.]


----------



## Rechoice

In the past chinese acepted East Sea (SCS) belong to Vietnam. Old map of China stated &#20132;&#22336;&#27915;, Sea of Giao Ch&#7881;, Giao Chi (Kochi) was old name of Vietnam.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...ina-sea-news-discussions-7.html#ixzz224CTJUzv



HongWu said:


> Don't worry, we will not mix blood with Viets. Just take the land, drive away the Viets, and build holiday resorts for Chinese enjoyment.





resorts for Chinese enjoyment like this.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

Many China maps that the Chinese have painted recently, they have added "nine-dotted line" then said that it is the ancient maps. LOL

But in reality, the "11 dotted line" was only painted the first in 1947 and was first released in 1948 in a private publication.

Look at the &#8203;&#8203;"ancient" map of China which the Chinese members showed: lol 

The maps which the chinese member said "China Map 1850" LOL:










http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-far-east/190695-china-always-has-mongolia-2.html#post3113737

http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-far-east/190695-china-always-has-mongolia-9.html#post3116169


----------



## goldenfish

HongWu said:


> Look at the monkeys jumping up and down.* Fact is, Vietnam was China's vassal state for 1000 years*. The entire Vietnam territory belongs to China. Taking back Paracels and Spratlys is just the beginning. We will take back Hanoi and then Saigon and drive away all the Vietnamese so Chinese can return to our land.
> 
> [IMG-]http://www.chinahighlights.com/image/chinamap/ancient/han-dynasty-map2.gif[/IMG]


and you pround for thit ? now is 2012 loll 
why chinese hold Vietnam for them until today :ops:
because they can't
That is the weakness of the Chinese people 
Assaulted the credibility of small
Sooner or later everyone shunned and ostracized


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

Martian2 said:


> The Chinese nine-dashed-lines map is based on the Chinese 12th century map shown below and the 1712-1721 map from the Qing Dynasty.
> 
> ----------
> 
> *Spratly Islands have belonged to China since ancient times*
> 
> Ocean-faring Chinese explorers had claimed the Spratly Islands a thousand years ago.
> 
> [Source: Wikipedia article on Spratly Islands with primary sources listed in footnotes]



*Also according to Wikipedia*:

Vietnam
Vietnamese claims that it has occupied the Spratley and the Paracel islands at least since the 17th century, when they were not under the sovereignty of any state, and that they exercised sovereignty over the two archipelagos continuously and peacefully until they were invaded by Chinese armed forces.[33] In Ph&#7911; Biên T&#7841;p L&#7909;c (Miscellaneous Records of Pacification in the Border Area) by the scholar Lê Quý &#272;ôn, Hoàng Sa (Paracel Islands), and Tr&#432;&#7901;ng Sa (Spratly Islands) were defined as belonging to Qu&#7843;ng Ngãi District. In &#272;&#7841;i Nam Nh&#7845;t Th&#7889;ng Toàn &#272;&#7891; (Dai Nam Unified Map), an atlas of Vietnam completed in 1838, Tr&#432;&#7901;ng Sa was shown as Vietnamese territory.[citation needed] Vietnam had conducted many geographical and resource surveys of the islands.[citation needed] The results of these surveys have been recorded in Vietnamese literature and history published since the 17th century. After the treaty signed with the Nguy&#7877;n Dynasty, France represented Vietnam in international affairs and exercised sovereignty over the islands.[citation needed]
The Cairo Declaration, drafted by the Allies and China towards the end of World War II, listed the territories that the Allies intended to strip from Japan and return to China. Despite China being among the authors of the declaration, this list did not include the Spratlys.[citation needed] Vietnam's response to China's claim that the Cairo Declaration somehow recognized the latter's sovereignty over the Spratlys is that this claim has no basis in fact.
At the San Francisco Conference on the peace treaty with Japan, the Soviet Union proposed that the Paracels and Spratlys be recognized as belonging to China. This proposal was rejected by an overwhelming majority of the delegates. On July 7, 1951, Tran Van Huu, head of the B&#7843;o &#272;&#7841;i Government's delegation to the conference declared that the Paracels and Spratlys were part of Vietnamese territory. This declaration met with no challenge from the 51 representatives at the conference.[citation needed]
The text of the Treaty of San Francisco listed the Spratlys as not part of the list of territories to be returned to China.[34]
After the French left, the government of the Republic of Vietnam (ROV) exercised sovereignty over the islands, by placing border markers on the Spratlys to indicate South Vietnamese sovereignty over the archipelago. Up to the end of the Vietnam War the Republic of Vietnam Navy held military control over the majority of the Spratly Islands until 1975, when North Vietnamese troops attacked South Vietnamese troops and occupied the islands. After the Vietnam War, the unified Vietnam SRV (Socialist Republic of Vietnam) continued to claim the Spratly islands as an indisputably integral part of Vietnam, accordingly the Phan Van Dong DRV notice to the PRC in 1958 had not ceded the ROV and consequently the SRV claims, hence that Notice became of no effect on the ROV/SRV rights.
Vietnam currently occupies 31 islands. They are organized as a district of Khanh Hoa Province. At the 12th National Assembly Election held early in Tr&#432;&#7901;ng Sa, the people and soldiers also voted for their local district government for the first time. For the first time, Tr&#432;&#7901;ng Sa is organized like a normal inland district, with a townlet (th&#7883; tr&#7845;n Tr&#432;&#7901;ng Sa) and two communes (xã Sinh T&#7891;n, xã Song T&#7917; Tây). Forty nine people were elected to the communes' people's councils.
In July 2012 the national assembly of Vietnam passed a law demarcating Vietnamese sea borders to include the Spratly and Paracel Islands.[35][36]





*A European colonial map depicting the islands as Vietnamese territory.*


----------



## Martian2

China's maps are a lot older than yours by hundreds of years.

The nine-dashed-lines map is merely a formal representation of China's ancient maps from hundreds of years ago. China's territory did not change. The nine dashed lines merely made explicit what was already Chinese territory.


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

Martian2 said:


> China's maps are a lot older than yours by hundreds of years.
> 
> The nine-dashed-lines map is merely a formal representation of China's ancient maps from hundreds of years ago. China's territory did not change. The nine dashed lines merely made explicit what was already Chinese territory.



How do you explain the emergence of the "nine dotted line" on the "ancient" maps of China today, but actually "nine dotted line" based on "11 dotted line" of Chiang which after omitted 2 segments in the Gulf of Tonkin, and "11 dotted line" was only drawn in 1947 and first published in 1948 in a private publication?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

Martian2 said:


> The Chinese nine-dashed-lines map is based on the Chinese 12th century map shown below and the 1712-1721 map from the Qing Dynasty.
> 
> ----------
> 
> *Spratly Islands have belonged to China since ancient times*
> 
> Ocean-faring Chinese explorers had claimed the Spratly Islands a thousand years ago.
> 
> [Source: Wikipedia article on Spratly Islands with primary sources listed in footnotes]
> 
> "Ancient Chinese maps record the "Thousand Li Stretch of Sands"; Qianli Changsha (&#21315;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801 and the "Ten-Thousand Li of Stone Pools"; Wanli Shitang (&#33836;&#37324;&#30707;&#22616,[7] which China today claims refers to the Spratly Islands. The Wanli Shitang have been explored by the Chinese since the Yuan Dynasty and may have been considered by them to have been within their national boundaries. [8][9] They are also referenced in the 13th century,[10] followed by the Ming Dynasty.[11] When the Ming Dynasty collapsed, the Qing Dynasty continued to include the territory in maps compiled in 1724,[12] 1755,[13] 1767,[14] 1810,[15] and 1817.[16] A Vietnamese map from 1834 also includes the Spratly Islands clumped in with the Paracels (a common occurrence on maps of that time) labeled as "Wanli Changsha".[17]"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the twelfth century, names for the South China Sea islands began to appear. The Paracels and the Spratlys were referred to more consistently as Changsha and Shitang. By the mid-fourteenth century, Shitang could be accurately identified as the Spratlys. There is also evidence of Chinese naval control over some areas of the South China Sea, which resulted in complete Chinese dominion of the South China Sea in the late thirteenth century. Finally, in the fifteenth century, Zheng He's seven voyages placed the South China Sea islands on the official navigational charts. In this map, the Xisha Islands are called Shitang, and the Nansha Islands are referred to as Wansheng Shitang Yu.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Map of South and East Ocean Sea Routes was drawn in between 1712-1721 by Qing (Ching) Dynasty Fujian (Fuchien) Province Navy Commander Shi Shibiao, the son of a famous Qing Dynasty imperial officer. This map clearly shows the sea routes, time, and descriptions from Chinese coastal ports to Japan, Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia, Brunei, Cambodia and the Philippines. On this map, the locations and names of the Southern Sea Islands (Nanhai Zhudao) are very accurate. The map shows Chinese sovereignty over the South China&#12288;Sea islands (including Nansha Islands, Xisha Islands, Zhongsha Islands and Dongsha Islands).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1834 Vietnamese map showed the islands as Chinese "Wanli Changsha."
> 
> [Note: Thank you to HuziHaidao12 for the first two pictures and captions.]



Check this out

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bl4ckp34rl

ALL CHINESE DON'T WANT TO SEE THE TRUTH. IT'S SHAME FOR YOU, LOSERS !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## EastSea

China map Ming Dynasty 1461, No where was Islands. In the time chinese didn't considered that Islands may parts of China.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## the_islander

HongWu said:


> Look at the monkeys jumping up and down. Fact is, Vietnam was China's vassal state for 1000 years. The entire Vietnam territory belongs to China. Taking back Paracels and Spratlys is just the beginning. We will take back Hanoi and then Saigon and drive away all the Vietnamese so Chinese can return to our land.



well, you should return the whole china to Mongolian, or Japanese, they were your ruler once.
Or Great Britain can take over the whole America, Spain and Portugal can share South America together. 
It's time to start a world war 3, chinese.

I'm wondering about the IQ of these chinese in this forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Fil Pacifist

the_islander said:


> well, you should return the whole china to Mongolian, or Japanese, they were your ruler once.
> Or Great Britain can take over the whole America, Spain and Portugal can share South America together.
> It's time to start a world war 3, chinese.
> 
> I'm wondering about the IQ of these chinese in this forum.



Or the CCP should return the whole of China to Kuomintang.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hero5x5

HongWu said:


> Look at the monkeys jumping up and down. Fact is, Vietnam was China's vassal state for 1000 years. The entire Vietnam territory belongs to China. Taking back Paracels and Spratlys is just the beginning. We will take back Hanoi and then Saigon and drive away all the Vietnamese so Chinese can return to our land.



i'm not good at english but i have a question for you: you have your stupidness by training  or you are stupid from birth  ??? 
if you know what i mean 

ps to viet members: t&#7909;i tàu th&#7857;ng nào c&#361;ng hung hãn th&#7853;t

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

hero5x5 said:


> i'm not good at english but i have a question for you: you have your stupidness by training  or you are stupis from birth  ???
> if you know what i mean
> 
> ps to viet members: t&#7909;i tàu th&#7857;ng nào c&#361;ng hung hãn th&#7853;t



Both of them, bro.
His words show clearly that he is not an intelligent boy, and as you know CCP has brainwashed the chinese people too much by the U-shaped line of china's claims on the East Sea (SCS), CCP printed U-shaped line in all chinese textbooks and said that it was "historical territory" of China. LOL.

But the fact U-Shap was only drawn in 1947 and published the first in 1948 in a private publication.
And as you see, they have no reasonable evidences for their claims ridiculous, baseless and illegal on the East Sea (SCS).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## EastSea

hero5x5 said:


> i'm not good at english but i have a question for you: you have your stupidness by training  or you are stupid from birth  ???
> if you know what i mean
> 
> ps to viet members: t&#7909;i tàu th&#7857;ng nào c&#361;ng hung hãn th&#7853;t



To answer to such idiot chinese, no need to to learn more English, just finish the exams for general schoole in Vietnam is enought.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

kankan326 said:


> If you tell the world it was Philippine or Vietnamese who first found islands in SCS. Can you convince the world? It obviously reverses common knowledge of whole world. Everybody knows it is Chinese who first explored sea world. Chinese navigation technology was once even better than European for a rather long history.
> 
> On the other hand, back to WWII, it was China who had the right to took over SCS islands from Japan. We got the privilege because we made a big contribution in the war. Much bigger than Philippine and Vietnam. This is our second evidence.




Firstly, there is no evidence to prove the Chinese were who first discovered the two archipelagoes of Hoang Sa and Truong Sa, and also in the Scarborough Shoal.

Secondly, China had never established any action to assert "its sovereignty" on the two archipelagos before the Vietnamese controlled over them. In fact the Vietnamese have controlled peacefully over the two archipelagos for hundreds of years ago, without any fight over the archipelagos with others, until 1939 has been invaded by Japan.

Thirdly, RoC received the task of disarming the Japanese troops in Vietnam including Paracels and Spratlys, that does not mean that the territory of Vietnam would be assigned to China. Remember that in 1939 Japan had invaded two archipelagos of Paracels and Spratlys from Vietnam [the time Vietnam was a French colony], not from China.
Moreover, the RoC was one of the drafter of Cairo statement, which lists of islands that Japan must return to China, but did not mention Paracels and Spratlys of Vietnam's [of course].

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Nestea

&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3242221 said:


> So you are going to prove that Westerners are all "mistaken" real Paracel with some Vietnamese "near-coast islands"?
> All I want to say is...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you can do is avoiding my points? Oh what a pity!
> 
> You mean thousands of Westerners who had crossed South China Sea in 400 years were all "mistaken" Paracel with some Vietnamese near-coast islands?
> So why don't they draw the "other" Paracel? It's bigger, more noticeable than some "islands near Vietnamese coast", right? They are mentally retarded or what? Or if you want to say that they "miss" the Paracel, well, hundreds, thousands of Westerners who go around South East Asia sea for 400 years but all of them "miss" the "real Paracel"? What a pity of Western's sailing :rofl"
> 
> Then now they are what you had missed:
> 
> In Yesterday 02:19 PM, I said
> ----
> Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique de Précis ... - Conrad Malte-Brun - Google Books
> Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique de Précis ... - Conrad Malte-Brun - Google Books
> 
> The French book "Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique du Précis de la géographie universelle en huit volumes" (volume 2) was published in Paris, 1831. Page 221 said that: "*equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire*". "A une egale distance de la cote de Cochinchine et de l'ile d'Hai-nan, l'archipel de Paracels est une dependance de l'empire d'Annam"
> ----
> 
> An archipelago (which is*Equal-spaced between Vietnam and Hainan*) is near Vietnamese coast? Oh logic  I had some other books with told that Paracel is equal-spaced between Vietnamese coast and Hainan, do you need more?
> 
> I also said
> ----
> The map-drawing technique in that period was still poor, so the map can't provide the extract distance. That's why we need texts to back-up our maps.
> ----
> 
> Just check out these map:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> compare to this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the older map, The distance from Southern Vietnam to Western Malaysia is too close than the fact, the size of Thailand Gulf is also too small than it has to be, so do you mean there have to be another Malaysia or another Thailand Gulf?
> 
> As the time goes, the distances in maps are farther from the coast because the map-drawing technique is advancing, so the distances are more accurate.
> Such as this 1833 map:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that too close to the coast?
> 
> And in Yesterday 07:08 PM, I said:
> 
> ----
> Now give me the name of what archipelago is as large and far from the coast as the archipelago in our map so Westerners can be mistaken with Paracels and described "equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire". If there is no archipelago like that, it means the archipelago in the map is Paracels, ok?
> 
> One thing, our Paracel Teams (&#272;&#7897;i Hoàng Sa and &#272;&#7897;i B&#7855;c H&#7843;i) start from our near coast islands to go to Paracel. For example, Ly Son island, just go and search it on google, oh if you have google there
> ----
> 
> The "long bar area" you mentioned in your last paragraph is too close and our map has it too, and definitely separated from Paracel:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in conclusion, you mean that Westerners had mistaken Paracel with some other near-coast islands, and my points are:
> 1) There is no near-coast archipelago which is big and far enough to be mistaken with the more noticeable Paracels. Why don't you just go to google maps and find an archipelago like that?
> 2) It's an awkward moment when thousands of Westerners had gone around South China Sea for 400 years but all of them just couldn't found the real Paracel "until recent times", only found some near-coast islands to draw in their maps.
> 3) The French book "Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique du Précis de la géographie universelle en huit volumes" (volume 2) was published in Paris, 1831. Page 221 said that: "*equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire*". "A une egale distance de la cote de Cochinchine et de l'ile d'Hai-nan, l'archipel de Paracels est une dependance de l'empire d'Annam". So the archipelago which was found by Westerners is real Paracel, because only Paracel is equal-spaced between Hainan and Vietnamese coast.
> 4) The map-drawing technique in that period was still poor, so the map can't provide the extract distance. They even drew Western Malaysia too close to Southern Vietnam than what it has to be. That's why we need texts to back-up our maps.
> 5) Our Paracel Teams (&#272;&#7897;i Hoàng Sa and &#272;&#7897;i B&#7855;c H&#7843;i, check our 1776 book) started their annual journeys from our near-coast islands to go to Paracel. For example, Ly Son island, just go and search it on google, oh if you have google there.
> 
> *And finally, if you Chinese are confident in your "evidences", why don't go to an international court instead of this:
> *




In fact, you do not carefully read my article, Western countries are not 400 years did not find the Xisha Islands, The Vietnamese Government deliberately distorted "Parcel" this name because of the West "parcel" is different at different times. Based on available information, we can find, Prior to the 19th century, "Parcel" means with Viet Nam Central Coast Islands and shoals, Specific to 1851, Western began using "Parcel" to China's Paracel Islands. In fact, in 1613, British Captain John Sullivan, to record the "Parcel "(Viet Nam central coast of the island ) and" Les Lunet te "(Paracel Islands) specific geographic coordinates. "Parcel": a long strip of area, the shape of a foot, the foot of the thumb toward the southwest, located at latitude 12 ° ~~ 16 ° 30 east longitude 110 ° to 111 °; "Les Lunet te": in the northeast direction, showing the lateral distribution, located at latitude 16 ° to 17 °, longitude 111 ° 30 'to 112 ° 42'. From the above latitude and longitude, we can find, "Parcel" north-south direction distribution ,near the central coast of Vietnam; "Les Lunet te" east-west direction distribution, Specific latitude and longitude meet now the Xisha Islands (15 ° 42' ~ 17 ° 08' North, longitude 111 ° 10' ~ 112 ° 55).

With regard to the description of France 1931, we can say that the description is too general, there is no specific coordinates as a reference. Hainan Island have been very close, only more than two hundred kilometers from Vietnam. Then we look at 1831 the previous map of the Western: "Parcel" the long bar area is the distribution of north-south direction, We by 16 ° 30' north latitude, longitude 111 ° as the base point, From here to Vietnam or the distance of Hainan Island: Whether accord with(equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire)?

Vietnam 1938, I have already said a lot. Mapping technology has reached a certain level, the approximate outline of the Vietnamese territory and has been able to be portrayed. From the map, the distance from Vietnam to Malaysia there is no big mistakes(Compared to the "&#40644;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;" (the so-called Vietnam Xisha and Nansha Islands)), Compared to Vietnam to Hainan Island in the distance far away. In reality, Viet Nam to Hainan Island nearest distance is more than 200 kilometers, and Viet Nam to Malaysia is 400 km, Viet Nam to Xisha Islands are 300 km, Xisha Islands to the Nansha Islands is more than 700 km. Thus, we can see that; by the Vietnamese government to say: "&#40644;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;" (Xisha and Nansha Islands), Then we have a big problem, from the 1938 map, Why Viet Nam to Hainan Island and Malaysia's distance is generally consistent with the actual distance ratio? And the approximate outline of the Vietnamese territory and has been able to be portrayed, but despite the distance ratio of these two islands compared to other region of the map to be very different? This difference logically have a problem! Why is there this situation? In fact, this map depicts the "&#40644;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;" approximate location is not wrong, "&#40644;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;" was the 1613 British Captain John Sullivan described the bar district, They are the central Vietnam coast, islands and shoals, so from the coast of Vietnam is so close! The Vietnamese Government is deliberately confusing geographical location, Confuse the West "Parcel" name to achieve the same purpose: Has the so-called (Xisha and Nansha Islands) historical evidence!


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

Nestea said:


> In fact, you do not carefully read my article, Western countries are not 400 years did not find the Xisha Islands, The Vietnamese Government deliberately distorted "Parcel" this name because of the West "parcel" is different at different times. Based on available information, we can find, Prior to the 19th century, "Parcel" means with Viet Nam Central Coast Islands and shoals, Specific to 1851, Western began using "Parcel" to China's Paracel Islands. In fact, in 1613, British Captain John Sullivan, to record the "Parcel "(Viet Nam central coast of the island ) and" Les Lunet te "(Paracel Islands) specific geographic coordinates. "Parcel": a long strip of area, the shape of a foot, the foot of the thumb toward the southwest, located at latitude 12 ° ~~ 16 ° 30 east longitude 110 ° to 111 °; "Les Lunet te": in the northeast direction, showing the lateral distribution, located at latitude 16 ° to 17 °, longitude 111 ° 30 'to 112 ° 42'. From the above latitude and longitude, we can find, "Parcel" north-south direction distribution ,near the central coast of Vietnam; "Les Lunet te" east-west direction distribution, Specific latitude and longitude meet now the Xisha Islands (15 ° 42' ~ 17 ° 08' North, longitude 111 ° 10' ~ 112 ° 55).
> 
> With regard to the description of France 1931, we can say that the description is too general, there is no specific coordinates as a reference. Hainan Island have been very close, only more than two hundred kilometers from Vietnam. Then we look at 1831 the previous map of the Western: "Parcel" the long bar area is the distribution of north-south direction, We by 16 ° 30' north latitude, longitude 111 ° as the base point, From here to Vietnam or the distance of Hainan Island: Whether accord with(equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire)?
> 
> Vietnam 1938, I have already said a lot. Mapping technology has reached a certain level, the approximate outline of the Vietnamese territory and has been able to be portrayed. From the map, the distance from Vietnam to Malaysia there is no big mistakes(Compared to the "&#40644;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;" (the so-called Vietnam Xisha and Nansha Islands)), Compared to Vietnam to Hainan Island in the distance far away. In reality, Viet Nam to Hainan Island nearest distance is more than 200 kilometers, and Viet Nam to Malaysia is 400 km, Viet Nam to Xisha Islands are 300 km, Xisha Islands to the Nansha Islands is more than 700 km. Thus, we can see that; by the Vietnamese government to say: "&#40644;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;" (Xisha and Nansha Islands), Then we have a big problem, from the 1938 map, Why Viet Nam to Hainan Island and Malaysia's distance is generally consistent with the actual distance ratio? And the approximate outline of the Vietnamese territory and has been able to be portrayed, but despite the distance ratio of these two islands compared to other region of the map to be very different? This difference logically have a problem! Why is there this situation? In fact, this map depicts the "&#40644;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;" approximate location is not wrong, "&#40644;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;" was the 1613 British Captain John Sullivan described the bar district, They are the central Vietnam coast, islands and shoals, so from the coast of Vietnam is so close! The Vietnamese Government is deliberately confusing geographical location, Confuse the West "Parcel" name to achieve the same purpose: Has the so-called (Xisha and Nansha Islands) historical evidence!



You cannot request an ancient map drawn a scale exactly as a modern map.
Simple, Just look at the maps of China, we did not see any mention two archipelagoes Paracels and Spratlys.
But the maps of Vietnam have always drawn the two archipelagoes, although the scale of position was not exactly the same as today.

A Map of China in 1561:





A Map of China in 1461:





A Map of China in 1635:





A Map of China in 1862:





A map of Guangdong, China in 1897:





A map of China in 1909:







*BUT:*

A map of Vietnam paited by Europeans from XV-XVI centuries:





A map of Vietnam paited by Danvilleen in 1735:

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## EastSea

Nestea said:


> In fact, you do not carefully read my article, Western countries are not 400 years did not find the Xisha Islands, The Vietnamese Government deliberately distorted "Parcel" this name because of the West "parcel" is different at different times. Based on available information, we can find, Prior to the 19th century, "Parcel" means with Viet Nam Central Coast Islands and shoals, Specific to 1851, Western began using "Parcel" to China's Paracel Islands. In fact, in 1613, British Captain John Sullivan, to record the "Parcel "(Viet Nam central coast of the island ) and" Les Lunet te "(Paracel Islands) specific geographic coordinates. "Parcel": a long strip of area, the shape of a foot, the foot of the thumb toward the southwest, located at latitude 12 ° ~~ 16 ° 30 east longitude 110 ° to 111 °; "Les Lunet te": in the northeast direction, showing the lateral distribution, located at latitude 16 ° to 17 °, longitude 111 ° 30 'to 112 ° 42'. From the above latitude and longitude, we can find, "Parcel" north-south direction distribution ,near the central coast of Vietnam; "Les Lunet te" east-west direction distribution, Specific latitude and longitude meet now the Xisha Islands (15 ° 42' ~ 17 ° 08' North, longitude 111 ° 10' ~ 112 ° 55).
> 
> With regard to the description of France 1931, we can say that the description is too general, there is no specific coordinates as a reference. Hainan Island have been very close, only more than two hundred kilometers from Vietnam. Then we look at 1831 the previous map of the Western: "Parcel" the long bar area is the distribution of north-south direction, We by 16 ° 30' north latitude, longitude 111 ° as the base point, From here to Vietnam or the distance of Hainan Island: Whether accord with(equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire)?
> 
> Vietnam 1938, I have already said a lot. Mapping technology has reached a certain level, the approximate outline of the Vietnamese territory and has been able to be portrayed. From the map, the distance from Vietnam to Malaysia there is no big mistakes(Compared to the "&#40644;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;" (the so-called Vietnam Xisha and Nansha Islands)), Compared to Vietnam to Hainan Island in the distance far away. In reality, Viet Nam to Hainan Island nearest distance is more than 200 kilometers, and Viet Nam to Malaysia is 400 km, Viet Nam to Xisha Islands are 300 km, Xisha Islands to the Nansha Islands is more than 700 km. Thus, we can see that; by the Vietnamese government to say: "&#40644;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;" (Xisha and Nansha Islands), Then we have a big problem, from the 1938 map, Why Viet Nam to Hainan Island and Malaysia's distance is generally consistent with the actual distance ratio? And the approximate outline of the Vietnamese territory and has been able to be portrayed, but despite the distance ratio of these two islands compared to other region of the map to be very different? This difference logically have a problem! Why is there this situation? In fact, this map depicts the "&#40644;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;" approximate location is not wrong, "&#40644;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;" was the 1613 British Captain John Sullivan described the bar district, They are the central Vietnam coast, islands and shoals, so from the coast of Vietnam is so close! The Vietnamese Government is deliberately confusing geographical location, Confuse the West "Parcel" name to achieve the same purpose: Has the so-called (Xisha and Nansha Islands) historical evidence!



The map Vietnam from time of Minh Mang Emperor is stating clearly two Islands are parts of Vietnam. In the past the demonstration of teritory is the most important. We have also other evident, the records and chronicles to approve about that Hoang Sa and Truong sa are under controle of Nguyen Dynasty. 
was fortunate we could find in Ph&#7911; Biên T&#7841;p L&#7909;c, an account written by Lê Quý &#272;ôn in 1776, and mentioning the archipelagos of Hoàng Sa (Paracel Islands) and Tr&#432;&#7901;ng Sa (Spratly Islands) off the Vietnamese coast as Vietnam&#8217;s territories. The document also relates how, once a year, the Lord Nguy&#7877;n sent out to these islands a *special team on 5 boats which took 3 days and 3 nights to reach the islands.*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

Nestea said:


> In fact, you do not carefully read my article, Western countries are not 400 years did not find the Xisha Islands], The Vietnamese Government deliberately distorted "Parcel" this name because of the West "parcel" is different at different times. Based on available information, we can find, Prior to the 19th century, *"Parcel" means with Viet Nam Central Coast Islands and shoals*, Specific to 1851, Western began using "Parcel" to China's Paracel Islands. In fact, in 1613, British Captain John Sullivan, to record the "Parcel "(Viet Nam central coast of the island ) and" Les Lunet te "(Paracel Islands) specific geographic coordinates. "Parcel": a long strip of area, the shape of a foot, the foot of the thumb toward the southwest, located at latitude 12 ° ~~ 16 ° 30 east longitude 110 ° to 111 °; "Les Lunet te": in the northeast direction, showing the lateral distribution, located at latitude 16 ° to 17 °, longitude 111 ° 30 'to 112 ° 42'. From the above latitude and longitude, we can find, "Parcel" north-south direction distribution ,near the central coast of Vietnam; "Les Lunet te" east-west direction distribution, Specific latitude and longitude meet now the Xisha Islands (15 ° 42' ~ 17 ° 08' North, longitude 111 ° 10' ~ 112 ° 55).
> 
> With regard to the description of France 1931, we can say that the description is too general, there is no specific coordinates as a reference. Hainan Island have been very close, only more than two hundred kilometers from Vietnam. Then we look at 1831 the previous map of the Western: "Parcel" the long bar area is the distribution of north-south direction, We by 16 ° 30' north latitude, longitude 111 ° as the base point, From here to Vietnam or the distance of Hainan Island: Whether accord with(equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire)?
> 
> Vietnam 1938, I have already said a lot. Mapping technology has reached a certain level, the approximate outline of the Vietnamese territory and has been able to be portrayed. From the map, the distance from Vietnam to Malaysia there is no big mistakes(Compared to the "&#40644;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;" (the so-called Vietnam Xisha and Nansha Islands)), Compared to Vietnam to Hainan Island in the distance far away. In reality, Viet Nam to Hainan Island nearest distance is more than 200 kilometers, and Viet Nam to Malaysia is 400 km, Viet Nam to Xisha Islands are 300 km, Xisha Islands to the Nansha Islands is more than 700 km. Thus, we can see that; by the Vietnamese government to say: "&#40644;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;" (Xisha and Nansha Islands), Then we have a big problem, from the 1938 map, Why Viet Nam to Hainan Island and Malaysia's distance is generally consistent with the actual distance ratio? And the approximate outline of the Vietnamese territory and has been able to be portrayed, but despite the distance ratio of these two islands compared to other region of the map to be very different? This difference logically have a problem! Why is there this situation? In fact, this map depicts the "&#40644;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;" approximate location is not wrong, "&#40644;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;" was the 1613 British Captain John Sullivan described the bar district, They are the central Vietnam coast, islands and shoals, so from the coast of Vietnam is so close! The Vietnamese Government is deliberately confusing geographical location, Confuse the West "Parcel" name to achieve the same purpose: Has the so-called (Xisha and Nansha Islands) historical evidence!



Yeah yeah yeah finally you mean that Vietnamese Paracels is different with real Paracels  
Before you start saying something that really hard to understand, list down your answer for all 6 of my points:

1) There is no near-coast archipelago which is big and far enough to be mistaken with the more noticeable Paracels. You have to show me an archipelago which is fitted to your argument. Why don't you just go to google maps and find an archipelago like that, capture your screen and post here? *If you can't find that archipelago on google maps or google earth, your argument is invalid.*

2) Why don't they just go and draw the real Paracel instead of some near-coast island? It's an awkward moment when thousands of Westerners had gone around South China Sea for 400 years but all of them just "missed" the real Paracels "until the year xxxx". While they couldn't found the real Paracel, they found some less noticeable "near-coast islands" to draw in their maps. Hmm, poor Westerners 

3) The French book "Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique du Précis de la géographie universelle en huit volumes" (volume 2) was published in Paris, 1831. Page 221 said that: "equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire". "A une egale distance de la cote de Cochinchine et de l'ile d'Hai-nan, l'archipel de Paracels est une dependance de l'empire d'Annam". *No near-coast islands in Central Vietnam is equal-spaced between Vietnamese coast and Hainan. So the archipelago which was drawn by Westerners is real Paracel, because in Central Vietnam only Paracel is equal-spaced between Hainan and Vietnamese coast.*
You can also search for "Nuovo dizionario geografico universale", Venezia, 1831

4) The map-drawing technique in that period was still poor, so the map can't provide the extract distance and size. They even drew Western Malaysia too close to Southern Vietnam than what it has to be. The size and appearance of the Gulf of Thailand is another problem. So some nautical miles different is not a big problem. When the technique was advanced, they drew the real distance:




*Don't argue that Western Malaysia and Gulf of Thailand are not big problem. Other people will see it's a big problem or not. Just answer why the better-technique map in 1838 has the real distance?*

5) Our Paracel Teams (&#272;&#7897;i Hoàng Sa and &#272;&#7897;i B&#7855;c H&#7843;i, check our 1776 book) started their annual journeys from our near-coast islands to go to Paracel, and it took 3 days 3 nights to reach the Paracel in sailing season (windy season). For example, Ly Son island, just go and search it on google, oh if you have google there. *Why do they go to a "near-coast islands" from the same "near-coast islands" to "set sovereignty" at where they had already lived*, and it took 3 days 3 nights in sailing season just to reach the same archipelago?

6) You said that the Paracel in Vietnamese maps is just "the near-coast island" in Central Vietnam, but that near-coast island even appeared in that map beside Paracel:





So, *your argument about "near-coast islands in the Central Vietnam" is invalid.*

7) And finally, if you Chinese are confident in your "evidences", why don't go to an international court instead of this:

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## kankan326

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> Firstly, there is no evidence to prove the Chinese were who first discovered the two archipelagoes of Hoang Sa and Truong Sa, and also in the Scarborough Shoal.
> 
> Secondly, China had never established any action to assert "its sovereignty" on the two archipelagos before the Vietnamese controlled over them. In fact the Vietnamese have controlled peacefully over the two archipelagos for hundreds of years ago, without any fight over the archipelagos with others, until 1939 has been invaded by Japan.
> 
> Thirdly, RoC received the task of disarming the Japanese troops in Vietnam including Paracels and Spratlys, that does not mean that the territory of Vietnam would be assigned to China. Remember that in 1939 Japan had invaded two archipelagos of Paracels and Spratlys from Vietnam [the time Vietnam was a French colony], not from China.
> Moreover, the RoC was one of the drafter of Cairo statement, which lists of islands that Japan must return to China, but did not mention Paracels and Spratlys of Vietnam's [of course].


In ancient time, SCS was a busy water route, which was called Maritime Silk Road. And there were several fisheries for Chinese fishermen. The odds that those islands were not found by ancient Chinese is zero. Actually, there were evidences once. On some of the islands, there were temples and tombs built by Chinese. But right after these islands were stolen, the evidences were wiped away by thief gov. And their ppl were told nothing was there. Our ancient books also mentioned these islands many times.

People lived in ancient time didn't have the concept of asserting sovereignty. I don't know to whom you claimed your sovereignty and how you maintained your sovereignty. Sounds funny that your ancestors could do the acts only modern ppl could do. And how your ancient gov managed these islands that are so far away from your mainland? There is word you guys always mentioned: brain-washed. By the way, there was no country called Vietnam in 1939. So Japan couldn't stole something from air. In 1939, China was fighting against Japan's invasion. France and Japan had not declared war to each other yet. For Japanese, there is only one explanation: They took the islands from China, not from France.

Cairo statement didn't mention Hainan island either. It always belongs to China. So we did't need Japanese to "return" us.


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

Very accurately saying of &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#297;, some small islands which near the coast of Vietnam were still shown on the map of Vietnam in 1834.

We can see, the two archipelagos Paracels and Spratlys have been noted in chinese characters mean "Hoang Sa" and "Van Ly Truong Sa", and folded around by a dotted line marks the two archipelagos, and was located close to Vietnam. Perhaps that's not the author drew a wrong scale, that is because the author deliberately drew them near the coast of Vietnam to note that the two archipelagos of Paracels and Spratlys are under the sovereignty of Vietnam.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

kankan326 said:


> In ancient time, SCS was a busy water route, which was called Maritime Silk Road. And there were several fisheries for Chinese fishermen. The odds that those islands were not found by ancient Chinese is zero. Actually, there were evidences once. On some of the islands, there were temples and tombs built by Chinese. But right after these islands were stolen, the evidences were wiped away by thief gov. And their ppl were told nothing was there. Our ancient books also mentioned these islands many times.
> 
> People lived in ancient time didn't have the concept of asserting sovereignty. I don't know to whom you claimed your sovereignty and how you maintained your sovereignty. Sounds funny that your ancestors could do the acts only modern ppl could do. And how your ancient gov managed these islands that are so far away from your mainland? There is word you guys always mentioned: brain-washed. By the way, there was no country called Vietnam in 1939. So Japan couldn't stole something from air. In 1939, China was fighting against Japan's invasion. France and Japan had not declared war to each other yet. For Japanese, there is only one explanation: They took the islands from China, not from France.
> 
> Cairo statement didn't mention Hainan island either. It always belongs to China. So we did't need Japanese to "return" us.



Obviously you are deliberately distorting the truth.
Previously China had claims that the islands from the "ancient" were owned by China, now we prove the Chinese did not control any the islands from "ancient", then you turn to deny that does not exist a Vietnam country and Japan did not invade the islands from the Vietnam!?

You think you can deny things just happen early 20th century?

If as you say, the islands listed in the Cairo statement to force Japan to give back to China because previously they were not clear belong to China?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## krusswager01

kankan326 said:


> In ancient time, SCS was a busy water route, which was called Maritime Silk Road. And there were several fisheries for Chinese fishermen. The odds that those islands were not found by ancient Chinese is zero. Actually, there were evidences once. On some of the islands, there were temples and tombs built by Chinese. But right after these islands were stolen, the evidences were wiped away by thief gov. And their ppl were told nothing was there. Our ancient books also mentioned these islands many times.
> 
> People lived in ancient time didn't have the concept of asserting sovereignty. I don't know to whom you claimed your sovereignty and how you maintained your sovereignty. Sounds funny that your ancestors could do the acts only modern ppl could do. And how your ancient gov managed these islands that are so far away from your mainland? There is word you guys always mentioned: brain-washed. By the way, there was no country called Vietnam in 1939. So Japan couldn't stole something from air. In 1939, China was fighting against Japan's invasion. France and Japan had not declared war to each other yet. For Japanese, there is only one explanation: They took the islands from China, not from France.
> 
> Cairo statement didn't mention Hainan island either. It always belongs to China. So we did't need Japanese to "return" us.


 
You're underestimating our ancestors. Ours are not that stupid as yours man. From the ancient time our ancestors knew how to protect and expand our land  And even your ancestors built some houses or temples or whatever doesn't mean it belong to china because ancient Vietnamese Empires claimed the sovereignty of those island first (please learn this point and stop saying that some monkeys just live in the jungle with no care of their land, didn't protect the sovereignty and now saying that it belongs to their descendants !!!)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kankan326

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> Obviously you are deliberately distorting the truth.
> Previously China had claims that the islands from the "ancient" were owned by China, now we prove the Chinese did not control any the islands from "ancient", then you turn to deny that does not exist a Vietnam country and Japan did not invade the islands from the Vietnam!?
> 
> You think you can deny things just happen early 20th century?
> 
> If as you say, the islands listed in the Cairo statement to force Japan to give back to China because previously they were not clear belong to China?


All I said are the truth. Ancient Chinese never claimed sovereignty to the islands. They just take it for granted that they own the water field. People at that time just didn't do it. Just like ancient people didn't play computer games. Your story is too perfect to be true. 

I agree that Taiwan was officially given up by China in 1895. It belonged to Japan in 1939. But we officially took it back in 1945.


----------



## Snomannen

&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3242909 said:


> Who say that the loser loose nothing? *He will loose his fame, his reputation, his honour*
> 
> I declare that China belongs to Mongolia, with the same reason. Anyone would like to oppose my declaration?



Hmm... I don't agree with you.
If Pakistani named their country "Mughal", could they declare that India belongs to Pakistan?



HongWu said:


> Look at the monkeys jumping up and down. Fact is, Vietnam was China's vassal state for 1000 years.



YUNO stop posting.


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

kankan326 said:


> All I said are the truth. Ancient *Chinese never claimed sovereignty to the islands*.



Yeah, so finally there is a Chinese who is brave enough to tell the truth, congratulation 



> They just take it for granted that they own the water field.


I can say that Vietnamese owned Hainan in 5000 years ago. We just take it for granted, therefore we don't need any evidence 
Just bring that argument to the international court and then people will throw shoes to your face 



> People at that time just didn't do it. Just like ancient people didn't play computer games. Your story is too perfect to be true.



So why at that time we did it, French, British, Portuguese, Spanish ... did it? Oh, maybe because we are much more advanced than you, while you were stick with your "ancient", we, along side with French, British, Portuguese, Spanish..., were playing computer games 



KirovAirship said:


> Hmm... I don't agree with you.
> If Pakistani named their country "Mughal", could they declare that India belongs to Pakistan?



I don't get it

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Snomannen

&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3242936 said:


> India was the defender of the South Asia, and we were the defender of the South East Asia  BTW where is China? I can't find them there



Of course you can, otherwise how could you find India and Vietnam? 
In fact, there were not such countries named "India", "China" and "Vietnam", 
but Delhi Sultanate (anciet Indian nation), Yuan Dynasty (ancient Chinese nation) and Dai Viet (anciet Vietnamese nation).

I know you may not agree with me, but we can chat about this topic if you want to.


----------



## Snomannen

&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3245384 said:


> I don't get it



You ridiculed that guy who declares Vietnam belongs to China by replying him "I declare that China belongs to Mongolia". 
I'm not supporting his silly comment, but I think you are using the wrong "example", since China never belongs to Mongolia.


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

KirovAirship said:


> Of course you can, otherwise how could you find India and Vietnam?
> In fact, there were not such countries named "India", "China" and "Vietnam",
> but Delhi Sultanate (anciet Indian nation), Yuan Dynasty (ancient Chinese nation) and Dai Viet (anciet Vietnamese nation).
> 
> I know you may not agree with me, but we can chat about this topic if you want to.



oh ok ok  
So:
Dai Viet was the defender of the South East Asia
Delhi Sultanate was defender of the South Asia
Han Chinese in Song dynasty had just run away 

But Yuan Dynasty wasn't ancient Chinese nation, but the government of the Mongolian rulers in China and some other parts of the Asia. Han Chinese that time were just dominated people, whose country had been lost.



KirovAirship said:


> You ridiculed that guy who declares Vietnam belongs to China by replying him "I declare that China belongs to Mongolia".
> I'm not supporting his silly comment, but I think you are using the wrong "example", since China never belongs to Mongolia.



Ok, no Vietnam, no China that time  
His ridiculous comment is: "Au Lac, Nam Viet belong to Han dynasty"
My declaration should be: "Song belongs to Mongol"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Snomannen

&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3245603 said:


> oh ok ok
> So:
> Dai Viet was the defender of the South East Asia
> Delhi Sultanate was defender of the South Asia
> Han Chinese in Song dynasty had just run away
> 
> 
> "Song belongs to Mongol"



Much better this time~

Yuan Dynasty was indeed an ancient Chinese nation, China is not only belong to Han Chinese.


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

KirovAirship said:


> Much better this time~
> 
> Yuan Dynasty was indeed an ancient Chinese nation, China is not only belongs to Han Chinese.



No, Yuan dynasty was Mongolian dynasty, under the Mongol Empire. The rulers were Mongolian, they came from Mongol and ruled Chinese. Unless you want to declare that Mongolian is in Chinese group, equivalent to Han Chinese...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Snomannen

Yuan dynasty was indeed (Chinese) Mongolian dynasty, it doesn't matter which ethnic groups the rulers were. 
China is a multinational state established (just like Vietnam) by Chinese ethnic groups such as Manchurian, Han, Mongolian, Tibetan etc.

Besides, 
The origin land of Mongolian, Holunbuyir, is belong to the PRC (native Chinese ethnic);
Mongol Empire is belong to Chinese history, just like Macedonian Empire is belong to Greek history.
The direct descendants of Genghis Khan (Golden Family) are Chinese.
More than half of Mongolian in the world are Chinese.


----------



## starbuck

kankan326 said:


> In ancient time, SCS was a busy water route, which was called Maritime Silk Road. And there were several fisheries for Chinese fishermen. The odds that those islands were not found by ancient Chinese is zero. Actually, there were evidences once. On some of the islands, there were temples and tombs built by Chinese. But right after these islands were stolen, the evidences were wiped away by thief gov. And their ppl were told nothing was there. Our ancient books also mentioned these islands many times.
> 
> People lived in ancient time didn't have the concept of asserting sovereignty. I don't know to whom you claimed your sovereignty and how you maintained your sovereignty. Sounds funny that your ancestors could do the acts only modern ppl could do. And how your ancient gov managed these islands that are so far away from your mainland? There is word you guys always mentioned: brain-washed. By the way, there was no country called Vietnam in 1939. So Japan couldn't stole something from air. In 1939, China was fighting against Japan's invasion. France and Japan had not declared war to each other yet. For Japanese, there is only one explanation: They took the islands from China, not from France.
> 
> Cairo statement didn't mention Hainan island either. It always belongs to China. So we did't need Japanese to "return" us.





kankan326 said:


> All I said are the truth. Ancient Chinese never claimed sovereignty to the islands. They just take it for granted that they own the water field. *People at that time* just didn't do it. Just like ancient people didn't play computer games. Your story is too perfect to be true.
> 
> I agree that Taiwan was officially given up by China in 1895. It belonged to Japan in 1939. But we officially took it back in 1945.




Hey Chinese, please see below to know how Vietnamese ancestors played "computer games" as you said: 

*1. Dai Nam Thuc Luc Chinh bien ( &#22823;&#21335;&#23526;&#37636;·&#22823;&#21335;&#23508;&#37636; - A true record of Great Viet Nam) - Writen by National History Institue of Nguyen Dynasty, 1848*
*Tomb 52:*
In the year of Binh Ty, the dynastic title Gia Long the 15th (1816)&#8230;.The king sent the naval force and the Hoang Sa boat team to Hoang Sa to explore the sea route:
*Tomb 165:*
In the year of Binh Than, the dynastic title Minh Mang the 17th (1836), the spring of January 1st&#8230;.Bo Cong reports: the Border of our country&#8217;s sea area has Hoang Sa (Paracels) land which is very important and vulnerable. *In the past a physical map was drawn, very large but not clear*. Every year, people were sent to explore so as to learn the sea route. 
From this year on, when the end of January came, the naval force and the guards were to be sent on a boat to go to Quang Ngai in early February, asking Quang Ngai and Binh Dinh to lease 4 boats from the people to go to Hoang Sa island, to any island, any sandbank there; when the boats came, they started to measure the length and the width, the breadth and the height, the circuit of the island and the depth of the sea, the underground dumps, if any. And then they had to draw a map. They had to think about their departure date, which estuary they started, which direction they aimed to go to the island, then based on the route to estimate the length in miles. Then from the island to look towards the shore, aim straight to certain province, then change to stand squarely towards another province, to estimate the length from there to the shore. This must be carried out without delay and report it to the court&#8221;.

&#8220;The king having heard the report sent a naval force led by Pham Huu Nhat to go the island, bringing along 10 wooden boards so as to plant as marking board there (each board is 5m long, 50cm large, 10 cm thick inscribed with the words: Minh Mang the 17th, the year of Binh Than, commander Pham Huu Nhat of the naval force, ordered by the King to go to Hoang Sa to take care and make measurements for rememberance&#8221;.

*2. Dai Nam Nhat Thong Chi (&#22823;&#21335;&#12540;&#32113;&#24535; - History of Unification of Great Viet Nam) Writen by National History Institue of Nguyen Dynasty, 1865-1910)*

&#8220;In the East of Quang Ngai province there is the sand island (Hoang Sa, Paracels) with sandy beaches adjacent to the sea, used as the moat; in the Southwest of the highlands there were solid long ramparts, the South connecting to Binh &#272;inh there was Ben Da Pass blocking, in the North adjacent to Quang Nam province there was Sa Tho rapids as a boundary&#8230;.

&#8230;. In the early time of King Gia Long, a Hoang Sa team was set up in accordance with the old custom, in early time of King Minh Mang, public boats were often sent to explore the sea route, having found a white sand bank with the circuit of 1,070 truong (one truong equals 10 metres) with green foliage all around, in the middle of the sandbank there was a well, in the Southwest, there was an ancient temple with unknown construction time, but it had a stele inscribed 4 words &#8220;Van Ly Ba Binh&#8221; (Thousands of miles with quiet waves). This sandbank was formerly called Phat Tu Son, in the East and the West of the island there were coral reefs with a 340-truong large sandbank coming to the surface called Ban Than Thach. In the year of Minh Mang the 16th, the king sent public boats to carry bricks and stones to build a temple and plant a stele there on the left of the temple to mark and put the tree seeds on the right, the left and behind the temple. While building the temple, the workers had found copper leaves and iron of 2,000 kilos in weight&#8221;.

*3. Any Vietnamese here can translate some info from Châu B&#7843;n Tri&#7873;u Nguy&#7877;n (Imperial archives of the Nguyen dynasty) - UNESCO World Heritage Documents about our sovereignty activities to the whole WORLD and CHINA (separately)?*. Sorry for my bad English

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SpiritHS

KirovAirship said:


> Yuan dynasty was indeed (Chinese) Mongolian dynasty, it doesn't matter which ethnic groups the rulers were.
> China is a multinational state established (just like Vietnam) by Chinese ethnic groups such as Manchurian, Han, Mongolian, Tibetan etc.
> 
> Besides, The origin land of Mongolian, Holunbuyir, is belong to the PRC.



We are not surprised with the way you say, because we know that the media and propaganda by the Chinese government with a long time propaganda was that: Japanese, Indians, USA, Russians, Vietnam, the Philippines, South Korea ..., stealing their resources.
Results Chinese government has created human with narrow nationalism, lies, and aggressive in the eyes of the international community.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Snomannen

SpiritHS said:


> We are not surprised with the way you say, because we know that the media and propaganda by the Chinese government with a long time propaganda was that: Japanese, Indians, USA, Russians, Vietnam, the Philippines, South Korea ..., stealing their resources.
> Results Chinese government has created human with narrow nationalism, lies, and aggressive in the eyes of the international community.



What I said are all true, besides the media and propaganda from the CCP are not welcome and popular in my hometown.


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

KirovAirship said:


> Yuan dynasty was indeed (Chinese) Mongolian dynasty, it doesn't matter which ethnic groups the rulers were.
> China is a multinational state established (just like Vietnam) by Chinese ethnic groups such as Manchurian, Han, Mongolian, Tibetan etc.
> 
> Besides,
> The origin land of Mongolian, Holunbuyir, is belong to the PRC (native Chinese ethnic);
> Mongol Empire is belong to Chinese history, just like Macedonian Empire is belong to Greek history.
> The direct descendants of Genghis Khan (Golden Family) are Chinese.
> More than half of Mongolian in the world are Chinese.


 
I know what you are trying to do: pull us out of the Paracels archipelago's discussion, by attracting us to your ridiculous point (Mongolian is Chinese). If it's true, even Japanese is Chinese for the same reason. Then it goes, Korean, Vietnamese, Russian, Indian, Laotian ... are Chinese, and then all people of this world are Chinese because of some ridiculous statement like monkey come from Beijing or something like that.
You want to save your country-mate from the lost of Paracels archipelago's discussion?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Snomannen

&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3245935 said:


> I know what you are trying to do: pull us out of the Paracels archipelago's discussion, by attracting us to your ridiculous point (Mongolian is Chinese). If it's true, even Japanese is Chinese for the same reason. Then it goes, Korean, Vietnamese, Russian, Indian, Laotian ... are Chinese, and then all people of this world are Chinese because of some ridiculous statement like monkey come from Beijing or something like that.
> You want to save your country-mate from the lost of Paracels archipelago's discussion?



You are getting it all wrong, all wrong my friend.

First of all, what I have said are completely not related to the main topic (islands, maps blah blah blah), 
I'm not into this game at all.

Secondly, why do you think that I was "attracting" you? I'm so confused.


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

KirovAirship said:


> You are getting it all wrong, all wrong my friend.
> 
> First of all, what I have said are completely not related to the main topic (islands, maps blah blah blah),
> I'm not into this game at all.
> 
> Secondly, why do you think that I was "attracting" you? I'm so confused.



I have to be careful, especially with Chinese. 
So it's time for your country-mates to get back to the discussion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Snomannen

&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3245935 said:


> I know what you are trying to do: pull us out of the Paracels archipelago's discussion, by attracting us to your ridiculous point (Mongolian is Chinese). If it's true, even Japanese is Chinese for the same reason. Then it goes, Korean, Vietnamese, Russian, Indian, Laotian ... are Chinese, and then all people of this world are Chinese because of some ridiculous statement like monkey come from Beijing or something like that.
> You want to save your country-mate from the lost of Paracels archipelago's discussion?



You think it is a ridiculous point, think about it:
1. Is Mughal Empire belong to India or Pakistan?
2. Alexander, the well known hero, is he a Greek or Macedonians&#65311;

Again:
1. The origin land of Mongolian, Holunbuyir, is belong to the PRC (native Chinese ethnic);
2. Mongol Empire is belong to Chinese history, just like Macedonian Empire is belong to Greek 
history.
3. The direct descendants of Genghis Khan (Golden Family) are Chinese.
4. More than half of Mongolian in the world are Chinese.

are Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese or other nations suit to any list above?


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

KirovAirship said:


> You think it is a ridiculous point, think about it:
> 1. Is Mughal Empire belong to India or Pakistan?
> 2. Alexander, the well known hero, is he a Greek or Macedonians&#65311;



Create another thread, and I will answer your questions. It's off-topic here


----------



## Snomannen

&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3246095 said:


> Create another thread, and I will answer your questions. It's off-topic here



Would you mind PM me instead of opening a new thread? I'm new here anyway.


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

KirovAirship said:


> Would you mind PM me instead of opening a new thread? I'm new here anyway.


Until your post count is 10000 you will be able to send PMs to Staff only. The same as wall-post.
So if you want to discuss about the Mongol, create another thread.


----------



## Snomannen

&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3246132 said:


> Until your post count is 10000 you will be able to send PMs to Staff only. The same as wall-post.
> So if you want to discuss about the Mongol, create another thread.



I think I would just leave this here until someone is interested to create another thread and continue the topic. Well I will stop chipping in from now, you may back to your game with your neighbors.

Yeah always be careful with Chinese, it could save your life.


----------



## lilo123

I can see that there are a lot of *reasonable*chinese people in this thread, I used to think that all of the chinese people are aggressive and stubborn, but apparently, for now, I can see that I was wrong. 
I just want you to answer me one and just one question:

Do you find this map reasonable and acceptable ?





If yes, please, i would love to know the reason.

If no... now you have the exact point of view of the rest of the world. All of this map stuffs, the arguments, the hatred are here because of this, we are just trying to do anything we could to reclaim what belongs to us ! 

Why do we have to make a fake map ? *Obviously, you guys are bigger, you guys are stronger and for sure we don't want to start any conflict with you just because of a thing that not belong to us.*

We vietnamese and *so do chinese people *- I believe - know better than any other countries in the world the cost of war. Although, we were born in peace, but we could still see the pain of war everywhere in our country. Can you feel the *pain* of your people when the japanese killed millions of them ? Can you see the *misery* in the eyes of the mothers who lost their sons, the wife who lost their husbands ?

*I know you are ! *
*Because we do* too, millions of my people were killed, leaving the relentless pain to others...

We know very well in war, no one wins. We all lose, we lose things that could never be replaced ! 

That's why we need you - the chinese people - to stop this pointless war, only you guys could do it.

You could say we are afraid of fighting you. So let me give you the answer : Yes, yes we are.
But if the war comes, no matter how scared we will have to stand and fight *as brave as possible*. 

We are a small country, we already gave up a lot of benefits to buy peace from your country, but your government keep pushing us... 

You may,no , actually you can win this war, but please... take look at history. 
Greeds itself has taught we, human, many lessons, I presume that both of us don't want to be a new one.
To not let this happen, it depends on us, the young, to respect others and to change the wrong attitude of others, which could lead to war !

~ Words from a new guy ~

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Rechoice

KirovAirship said:


> You think it is a ridiculous point, think about it:
> 1. Is Mughal Empire belong to India or Pakistan?
> 2. Alexander, the well known hero, is he a Greek or Macedonians&#65311;
> 
> Again:
> 1. The origin land of Mongolian, Holunbuyir, is belong to the PRC (native Chinese ethnic);
> 2. Mongol Empire is belong to Chinese history, just like Macedonian Empire is belong to Greek
> history.
> 3. The direct descendants of Genghis Khan (Golden Family) are Chinese.
> 4. More than half of Mongolian in the world are Chinese.
> 
> are Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese or other nations suit to any list above?



Idiot chinese with false flag.
Mongolian conquered China and ruled China very long time in Yan Dynasty. Today Mongolia is independence state.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

KirovAirship said:


> You think it is a ridiculous point, think about it:
> 1. Is Mughal Empire belong to India or Pakistan?
> 2. Alexander, the well known hero, is he a Greek or Macedonians&#65311;
> 
> Again:
> 1. The origin land of Mongolian, Holunbuyir, is belong to the PRC (native Chinese ethnic);
> 2. Mongol Empire is belong to Chinese history, just like Macedonian Empire is belong to Greek
> history.
> 3. The direct descendants of Genghis Khan (Golden Family) are Chinese.
> 4. More than half of Mongolian in the world are Chinese.
> 
> are Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese or other nations suit to any list above?



In the fact the Mongols defeated China and established the Yuan dynasty in China.
In the Yuan dynasty, all management positions held by Mongolians, in other words, the Mongolians ruled over China. So Mongolians migrated to China.
And luckily for you, Genghis Khan is also the same color skin.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kieumon

KirovAirship said:


> You think it is a ridiculous point, think about it:
> 1. Is Mughal Empire belong to India or Pakistan?
> 2. Alexander, the well known hero, is he a Greek or Macedonians&#65311;
> 
> Again:
> 1. The origin land of Mongolian, Holunbuyir, is belong to the PRC (native Chinese ethnic);
> 2. Mongol Empire is belong to Chinese history, just like Macedonian Empire is belong to Greek
> history.
> 3. The direct descendants of Genghis Khan (Golden Family) are Chinese.
> 4. More than half of Mongolian in the world are Chinese.
> 
> are Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese or other nations suit to any list above?




invaders is considered ancestral species

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Snomannen

Rechoice said:


> Idiot chinese with false flag.
> Mongolian conquered China and ruled China very long time in Yan Dynasty. Today Mongolia is independence state.



You cannot even tell what flag I'm carrying, don't you?

Mongolian never conquer "China", just like Prussian never conquer "Germany". Same stories. 
Macedonia is also an independence state nowadays, can you say that "Macedonia" conquered Greece and ruled Greece very long time?
If Pakistani people change their country name to Mughal, it is also reasonable to say "Mughal" conquered India and ruled India very time?


----------



## Snomannen

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> In the fact the Mongols defeated China and established the Yuan dynasty in China.
> In the Yuan dynasty, all management positions held by Mongolians, in other words, the Mongolians ruled over China. So Mongolians migrated to China.
> And luckily for you, Genghis Khan is also the same color skin.



In fact, there were not such a country named "China", but "Chinese nations", such as Mongolia, Dali, Song, Jing etc. Same story in Germany before the expansion of Prussia and India.
In fact, during the Yuan dynasty Mongolians, Han and other races were free to get into the management position (except the throne of course).


----------



## Snomannen

kieumon said:


> invaders is considered ancestral species



For the Half of the Mongols in the world (Chinese), 
for the Golden Family the direct descendants of Genghis Khan (Chinese), and
for the origin land (China) where Mongols came from, 
those "invaders" are indeed considered as their ancestral species.


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

KirovAirship said:


> You cannot even tell what flag I'm carrying, don't you?
> 
> Mongolian never conquer "China", just like Prussian never conquer "Germany". Same stories.
> Macedonia is also an independence state nowadays, can you say that "Macedonia" conquered Greece and ruled Greece very long time?
> If Pakistani people change their country name to Mughal, it is also reasonable to say "Mughal" conquered India and ruled India very time?


 


KirovAirship said:


> In fact, there were not such a country named "China", but "Chinese nations", such as Mongolia, Dali, Song, Jing etc. Same story in Germany before the expansion of Prussia and India.
> In fact, during the Yuan dynasty Mongolians, Han and other races were free to get into the management position (except the throne of course).



The events, relationships have different characteristics, should not be compared between them.

Mongol Empire conquered whole China, established Yuan Dynasty. It is the true indisputable, unless you can prove that "Mongols (Outer Mongolia) is a indisputable territory of China."

Mongol Empire had conquered China and a large part of Asia, and even a part of Europe.

Only 3 close places where Mongol Empire could not to conquer, it's Vietnam, Japan and Java. Particularly in Vietnam, Yuan-Mongolia got all 3 failed after 3 times it did try to invade Vietnam.

BTW: Not deny the failure of the Chinese because of the name of the country. "China" is the name known today, although in the history it has many different names.






*Mongol Empire map*


----------



## the_islander

KirovAirship said:


> You cannot even tell what flag I'm carrying, don't you?
> 
> *Mongolian never conquer "China"*, just like Prussian never conquer "Germany". Same stories.
> Macedonia is also an independence state nowadays, can you say that "Macedonia" conquered Greece and ruled Greece very long time?
> If Pakistani people change their country name to Mughal, it is also reasonable to say "Mughal" conquered India and ruled India very time?


 
LOL, appoving enemy as ancestor. how low !



> After becoming the ruler of Mongolia, *Genghis Khan set out to conquer China. He first attacked a kingdom in northwestern China called Xi Xia (also spelled Hsi Hsia). He then invaded northeastern China and in 1215 took Beijing (Peking), the capital of the Jin (Chin) Empire.*
> 
> In 1218, Genghis Khan broke off his assault on China and swept into central Asia. He crushed the kingdom of Khorezm, also spelled Khwarezm, in what are now Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. In 1220, he destroyed the cities of Bukhara and Samarqand (Samarkand) in present-day Uzbekistan and Neyshabur (Nishapur) in modern Iran. Two smaller armies invaded the plains north of the Caspian Sea. By 1223, they had conquered the Kipchaks, and had defeated the Russians at the Kalka River. From 1225 until he died in 1227, Genghis Khan again attacked Xi Xia. His grandson, Kublai Khan, completed the conquest of China.





> By 1279, the Mongol leader Kublai Khan had established the Yuan Dynasty in China and crushed the last Song resistance, which marked the onset of all of China under the Mongol Yuan rule. This was the first time in history that the whole China was conquered and subsequently ruled by a foreign or non-native ruler,[2] compared with the Manchus (who established the Qing Dynasty) who did so a few centuries later.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Snomannen

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> The events, relationships have different characteristics, should not be compared between them.
> 
> Mongol Empire conquered whole China, established Yuan Dynasty. It is the true indisputable, unless you can prove that "Mongols (Outer Mongolia) is a indisputable territory of China."
> 
> Mongol Empire had conquered China and a large part of Asia, and even a part of Europe.
> 
> Only 3 close places where Mongol Empire could not to conquer, it's Vietnam, Japan and Java. Particularly in Vietnam, Yuan-Mongolia got all 3 failed after 3 times it did try to invade Vietnam.
> 
> BTW: Not deny the failure of the Chinese because of the name of the country. "China" is the name known today, although in the history it has many different names.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Mongol Empire map*



You cannot say that because Greece nowadays is far smaller than the Macedonian Empire; therefore the Empire of Macedonia is not belong to Greek history. 

Outer Mongolia is also called "Khalkha Mongolia", Khalkha people were not even Mongolian during the Yuan Dynasty.

China is a "adj." before the Republic, even Japan and Korea called themselve "China" (Middleland). I think Vietnam also did.


----------



## starbuck

*For the Chinese who always claim other's territory belong to China. Look at Chinese Map 1904, read carefully the caption of the map to find what your ancestors wanted to tell descendants.* 





Or you can download here


----------



## Snomannen

the_islander said:


> LOL, appoving enemy as ancestor. how low !




What's the matter?
Babur is also an "enemy", but the Empire he established still goes to India, not Pakistan.


----------



## kkacer

*China Map 1842*


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

kkacer said:


> *China Map 1842*



*This is "made in china" 2012?* WOW *as usual* !!!


----------



## Snomannen

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> *This is "made in china" 2012?* WOW *as usual* !!!


He/She means the first map maybe?


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

KirovAirship said:


> He/She means the first map maybe?



U-shaped line, also known as "nine dotted line" claims of PRC is based on "11 dotted line" was painted in 1947, the first it published in a private publication in 1948, under Chiang Kai Shek regime
CCP just officially announced it to the UN in 2009.

But here a "ancient" map of China in 1842 shown U-Shap line at the corner of the map? it is made in China in 20...?


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

kkacer said:


> *China Map 1842*



Since when Manchu conquered Vietnam/Dai Viet?  Or they are just in the same colour?



>


Wow, that technique in 1842? Modern colour, beautiful typed character ... You Chinese were much more advanced than the European that time! 






So me where do you get that map.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Snomannen

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> U-shaped line, also known as "nine dotted line" claims of PRC is based on "11 dotted line" was painted in 1947, the first it published in a private publication in 1948, under Chiang Kai Shek regime
> CCP just officially announced it to the UN in 2009.
> 
> But here a "ancient" map of China in 1842 shown U-Shap line at the corner of the map? it is made in China in 20...?



Well I cannot see the U-shaped line from the 1842 Qing Dynasty map, 
but I can find it from the 19xx or 20xx one.



&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3247900 said:


> Since when Manchu conquered Vietnam/Dai Viet?  Or they are just in the same colour?
> 
> 
> Wow, that technique in 1842? Modern colour, beautiful typed character ... You Chinese were much more advanced than the European that time!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So me where do you get that map.



I believe that he/she didn't mean that both maps are all from 1842, but only comparing the old map to the new map. It is just a misunderstanding.


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

kieumon said:


> invaders is considered ancestral species



Don't worry, if they claim Yuan Dynasty as their "history" (for the "legal sovereignty" over Tibet, Mongolia), we can also claim Nam Viet kingdom of Trieu Da (Chinese: Nanyue kingdom of Zhao Tou) as our history, then go and claim Guangdong, Guangxi 

End of story.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Snomannen

&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3247941 said:


> Don't worry, if they claim Yuan Dynasty as their "history" (for the "legal sovereignty" over Tibet, Mongolia), we can also claim Nam Viet kingdom of Trieu Da (Chinese: Nanyue kingdom of Zhao Tou) as our history, then go and claim Guangdong, Guangxi
> 
> End of story.



Any good reasons that Vietnam can claim Nanyue kingdom?


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

KirovAirship said:


> Well I cannot see the U-shaped line from the 1842 Qing Dynasty map,
> but I can find it from the 19xx or 20xx one.



You are right, because it was painted in 1947.



KirovAirship said:


> Any good reasons that Vietnam can claim Nanyue kingdom?



The "Nanyue" was not Vietnam.


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

KirovAirship said:


> Any good reasons that Vietnam can claim Nanyue kingdom?



The same reason: just like Yuan dynasty belongs to China. Nam Viet (Mongol) which was from China today (Mongolia today), came and invaded Au Lac kingdom (Song dynasty). After that they created new government which had Au Lac people (Song people) in it.

--------------
*Now get back to the maps and islands.*


----------



## Snomannen

&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3247987 said:


> The same reason: just like Yuan dynasty belongs to China. Nam Viet (Mongol) which was from China today (Mongolia today), came and invaded Au Lac kingdom (Song dynasty). After that they created new government which had Au Lac people (Song people) in it.
> 
> --------------
> *Now get back to the maps and islands.*



Could you find posterity of NamViet agree your opinion?


----------



## Rechoice

KirovAirship said:


> You cannot even tell what flag I'm carrying, don't you?
> 
> Mongolian never conquer "China", just like Prussian never conquer "Germany". Same stories.
> Macedonia is also an independence state nowadays, can you say that "Macedonia" conquered Greece and ruled Greece very long time?
> If Pakistani people change their country name to Mughal, it is also reasonable to say "Mughal" conquered India and ruled India very time?



Ma cau flag, but you are mainlander brainwashed by CPC. Comparation is not relative. Stop at China's situation.
Mongolian invaded and ruled chinese. Chinese given up and accepted Mongolian to rule you. Kings of Yuan Dynasty were Mongolian. They used Chinese to rule Chinese. Haha. You are typical Ah Q chinese, have a habitat to do masturbation themselves. The same thing Manchus did with Chinese. You are chinese have been following the hairdo cut from Man Qing...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Snomannen

Rechoice said:


> Ma cau flag, but you are mainlander brainwashed by CPC. Comparation is not relative. Stop at China's situation.
> Mongolian invaded and ruled chinese. Chinese given up and accepted Mongolian to rule you. Kings of Yuan Dynasty were Mongolian. They used Chinese to rule Chinese. Haha. You are typical Ah Q chinese, have a habitat to do masturbation themselves. The same thing Manchus did with Chinese. You are chinese have been following the hairdo cut from Man Qing...



Firstly I'm not a mainlander, secondly I'm not brainwashed,

1. It is Emperors of Yuan, not Kings;
2. Mongolian and Manchus are both Chinese, you really don't know the concept of "Chinese".

Tell me when did the Yuan Dynasty and Qing Dynasty occupied a regime called "China"? The both regimes above are all established by indigenous people in the territory of modern China.


The correct way to say is [Han] have been following the hairdo cut from [Manchus]

Of course it is relative to compare with others, they have the same story. Please answer me: 
Have Prussian ever conquered Germany and enslaved German?


----------



## Rechoice

This map made after 1948, 11 dach claimed by KMT- ROC (Taiwan) and ROC claim also Mongolia.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Snomannen

Rechoice said:


> This map made after 1948, 11 dach claimed by KMT- ROC (Taiwan) and ROC claim also Mongolia.



It is a map of Qing Dynasty, and it is not from the KMT.


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

KirovAirship said:


> Firstly I'm not a mainlander, secondly I'm not brainwashed,
> 
> 1. It is Emperors of Yuan, not Kings;
> 2. Mongolian and Manchus are both Chinese, you really don't know the concept of "Chinese".
> 
> Tell me when did the Yuan Dynasty and Qing Dynasty occupied a regime called "China"? The both regimes above are all established by indigenous people in the territory of modern China.
> 
> 
> The correct way to say is [Han] have been following the hairdo cut from [Manchus]



Are you confused between Mongolians ethnic in "Inner Mongolia" with Mongol country?

Manchukuo was a different story.


----------



## Snomannen

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> Are you confused between Mongolians ethnic in "Inner Mongolia" with Mongol country?
> 
> Manchukuo was a different story.



No, to make it simple, Inner Mongolians (Chinese) have the right to inherit the heritage.

As for Manchukuo, are you going to say sth?


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

KirovAirship said:


> No, to make it simple, Inner Mongolians (Chinese) have the right to inherit the heritage.
> 
> As for Manchukuo, are you going to say sth?



But we are talking about Mongol country and the rule of the Mongol Empire over whole China, not Inner Mongolia or Manchuria.


----------



## Snomannen

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> But we are talking about Mongol country and the rule of the Mongol Empire over whole China, not Inner Mongolia or Manchuria.



The ruler of the Yuan Dynasty is both the emperor of the Great Yuan and the Khan of the whole Mongol Empire. 
Just like Li Shimin who was the Tang emperor and the Great Khan at the same time.


I know the opinion may be "weird" and new to you, but, as I always say to my friends, 
exchange of ideas.


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

KirovAirship said:


> The ruler of the Yuan Dynasty is both the emperor of the Great Yuan and the Khan of the whole Mongol Empire.
> Just like Li Shimin who was the Tang emperor and the Great Khan at the same time.
> 
> 
> I know the opinion may be "weird" and new to you, but, as I always say to my friends,
> exchange of ideas.



What is your point?
Do you want to say that Mongolian Emperor, Genghis Khan, who ruled China and established the Yuan Dynasty in China, is a Chinese?
If so, I admit it is weird.


----------



## Snomannen

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> What is your point?
> Do you want to say that Mongolian Emperor, Genghis Khan, who ruled China and established the Yuan Dynasty in China, is a Chinese?
> If so, I admit it is weird.



First of all, what is "Chinese" and "China"?

China (&#20013;&#22283;/ &#20013;&#33775;/ the Middle Land) has official become a country name since the Republic was formed, 
before that there was not a country named "China", same story with India and Germany.
Don't you think that the Emperors of Mughal Empire are Indians? 
Don't you think that Alexandria the Great, who established the Macedonia Empire, is a Greece?
Don't you think that Bismarck, the Eiserner Kanzler from Prussia who established German Empire, is a German?

Besides, Japan, Korea and Vietnam used to called themselves "China" (&#20013;&#22283;/ &#20013;&#33775;/ the Middle Land), were they not?

as for "Chinese", same as "Vietnamese", which is a huge ethnic groups mixed with lots of different ethnics. 
Since China is a nation established by Chinese ethnics including Manchurian, Han, Mongolian, Hui, Tibetans etc. Why do you think that the Yuan Dynasty, established by Mongolian, is not belong to China?


----------



## EastSea

KirovAirship said:


> It is a map of Qing Dynasty, and it is not from the KMT.



Man Qing didn't have idea about 11-dash. Don't lie.



KirovAirship said:


> No, to make it simple, Inner Mongolians (Chinese) have the right to inherit the heritage.
> 
> As for Manchukuo, are you going to say sth?



Manchu Kuo and Manchu People here.


----------



## Snomannen

EastSea said:


> Man Qing didn't have idea about 11-dash. Don't lie.
> 
> 
> 
> Manchu Kuo and Manchu People here.
> 
> 
> 
> I said it is a Qing Dynasty map, not a Qing Dynasty map drawn from Qing Dynasty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meet King Pu-tsung, the Real Manchu People here.
> 
> and please mind your own problem from Montagnards.


----------



## kieumon

Create another thread, It's off-topic Mongolia here, please!
back to the discussion.


----------



## EastSea

KirovAirship said:


> EastSea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man Qing didn't have idea about 11-dash. Don't lie.
> 
> 
> 
> Manchu Kuo and Manchu People here.
> 
> 
> 
> I said it is a Qing Dynasty map, not a Qing Dynasty map drawn from Qing Dynasty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meet King Pu-tsung, the Real Manchu People here.
> 
> and please mind your own problem from Montagnards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is true Manchu: Sason Adam Tonis
Click to expand...


----------



## Snomannen

EastSea said:


> KirovAirship said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is true Manchu: Sason Adam Tonis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Age, nationality, Parents' origin, Flag (the Eight Banners), position, job?
Click to expand...


----------



## starbuck

*Look at these Chinese Map below to know, Hoang Sa and Truong Sa archipelagos (Paracels and Spratlys), and so-called "nine-dotted line" had never been recognized as China's territory!*
*
1. Chinese map 1850: &#20108; &#20140; &#21313;&#20843;&#30465; &#32317;&#22294; in the book "&#28165;&#20108;&#20140;&#21313;&#20843;&#30465;&#30086;&#22495;&#20840;&#22294;"*






*2. Chinese map 1850: &#24291;&#26481;&#20840;&#22294; in the book "&#28165;&#20108;&#20140;&#21313;&#20843;&#30465;&#30086;&#22495;&#20840;&#22294;"*






*3. Chinese map 1905: &#22823;&#28165;&#24093;&#22283 in the book "&#28165;&#20195;&#22320;&#22270;&#38598;, &#28165;&#20809;&#32490;&#19977;&#21313;&#19968;&#24180;&#65288;1905&#24180;&#65292;&#19978;&#28023;&#21830;&#21153;&#21360;&#20070;&#39302;&#32534;&#21360;&#20986;&#29256"*






*4. Chinese map, May 1907: &#22823;&#28165;&#22283;&#20840;&#22294 in the book "&#22823;&#28165;&#24093;&#22283;&#20998;&#30465;&#31934;&#22294;"*






*5. Chinese map in the book "&#22823;&#28165;&#24093;&#22283;&#20998;&#30465;&#31934;&#22294;"*






*6. Chinese map, 1908 &#22823;&#28165;&#24093;&#22283; in the book "&#22823;&#28165;&#24093;&#22283;&#20840;&#22294;, &#23459;&#32113;&#20803;&#24180;,&#19978;&#28023;&#21830;&#21209;&#21360;&#26360;&#39208;"*






*7. Chinese map, Guangdong 1908 in the book "&#22823;&#28165;&#24093;&#22283;&#20840;&#22294;, &#23459;&#32113;&#20803;&#24180;,&#19978;&#28023;&#21830;&#21209;&#21360;&#26360;&#39208;"*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## starbuck

*8. Chinese map, (&#28165;&#22283;&#22823;&#22320;&#22294;&#38761;&#21629;&#21205;&#20098;&#22320;&#40670;&#27880 1912, California Museum*






*9. Chinese map, &#20013;&#33775;&#27665;&#22283;&#20840;&#22294; 1926, in the book "&#20013;&#33775;&#26032;&#24418;&#21218;&#19968;&#35261;&#22294;"*






*9. Chinese map, &#20013;&#33775;&#27665;&#22283;&#20840;&#22294; 1933, in the book "&#20013;&#33775;&#27665;&#22283;&#20998;&#30465;&#22320;&#22294;&#20874;"*






*10. Chinese map, &#20013;&#33775;&#27665;&#22283;&#20840;&#22294; 1935, in the book "&#26368;&#26032;&#20013;&#33775;&#24418;&#21218;&#19968;&#35261;&#22294;"*







*11. Chinese map, Guangdong province 1939, in the book "&#20013;&#22283;&#22320;&#22294;&#20874;", author &#26494;&#30000;&#22781;&#30007;*







*Hey Chinese, what do you want to say when you see those maps?

Where are your "historical territories"??????????

Where are your NANSHA, XISHA, ZHONGSHA, SHANSHA????????

I'm please here to hearing you!*

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## the_islander

Only thief, robber, criminal are afraid of going to court, they're afraid of facing the truth and punishments, innocent people aren't !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fanling Monk

I laugh at the thief, who stole 40 islands quietly, wants to take the victims to court, perhaps &#24694;&#20154;&#20808;&#21578;&#29366; is a perfect term to describe that particular thief. The worst thing for him is he thinks everybody is on his side. LOL


----------



## truewords

I could not understand the Chinese government and Chinese people
Their economic development based on copying
They cheered and communication based on fallacies, lies and hiding informations
They are cynical to produce toxic products. Even harmful to their families and children.
They aggressively with all neighbor countries from small countries to large countries: Laos, Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, Korea, Russia, India, ....

While they praised the film production of meaning, causality, honesty. They export &#23380;&#25945;to other countries. But the Chinese government does not comply with any international legal norms.

I don't understand why a country that was once a victim of World War II, pinched, suffering by the war. Aggressively always been at war with the world and pinched around the country and to appropriate the property of their legal.

Why, Why, Why.
China please wake up!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rechoice

Fanling Monk said:


> I laugh at the thief, who stole 40 islands quietly, wants to take the victims to court, perhaps &#24694;&#20154;&#20808;&#21578;&#29366; is a perfect term to describe that particular thief. The worst thing for him is he thinks everybody is on his side. LOL



don't say idiot thing.
In the past nearly thousand years Vietnam controlled Islands peacefully because Islands belong to Viet. Qing Man Dynasty didn't considered a Islands are parts of China. The evident is that Map made in China didn't drawn up.


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

Fanling Monk said:


> I laugh at the thief, who stole 40 islands quietly, wants to take the victims to court, perhaps &#24694;&#20154;&#20808;&#21578;&#29366; is a perfect term to describe that particular thief. The worst thing for him is he thinks everybody is on his side. LOL



Wow a thief was talking about stealing  

Check this out: 
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...el-spratly-not-chinese-territory-13.html#post
3237586

As you shall see, French, American, Dutch, Italian, Spanish, German ... support us. See, they clearly said that Paracel belongs to Vietnam 

A thief is the one whose ancestors never claim sovereignty in the history but always using his big mouth to throw out the repeating propaganda: "We had 2000-year-old sovereignty".
But who never claim those islands? He is:



kankan326 said:


> Ancient Chinese never claimed sovereignty to the islands

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## asean_2015

Fanling Monk said:


> I laugh at the thief, who stole 40 islands quietly, wants to take the victims to court, perhaps &#24694;&#20154;&#20808;&#21578;&#29366; is a perfect term to describe that particular thief. The worst thing for him is he thinks everybody is on his side. LOL


It is not logic when China is the victim and afraid of going to court. Based on the maps posted in this forum, I think that Vietnam, Philippine are the victims.

Other guys, who are from or at least support China, tried to show at least some papers although they are only for fun. I hope that you can show the envidences showing that China is the victim.


----------



## laman12345

Vietnam just a little monkey

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Snomannen

laman12345 said:


> Vietnam just a little monkey



&#22823;&#20332;&#21780;&#35442;&#20320;&#21780;&#22909;&#24171;&#20498;&#24537;&#21862;&#12290;&#12288;&#12288;&#12288;&#12288;&#12288;&#12288;


----------



## Nestea

&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3244823 said:


> Yeah yeah yeah finally you mean that Vietnamese Paracels is different with real Paracels
> Before you start saying something that really hard to understand, list down your answer for all 6 of my points:
> 
> 1) There is no near-coast archipelago which is big and far enough to be mistaken with the more noticeable Paracels. You have to show me an archipelago which is fitted to your argument. Why don't you just go to google maps and find an archipelago like that, capture your screen and post here? *If you can't find that archipelago on google maps or google earth, your argument is invalid.*
> 
> 2) Why don't they just go and draw the real Paracel instead of some near-coast island? It's an awkward moment when thousands of Westerners had gone around South China Sea for 400 years but all of them just "missed" the real Paracels "until the year xxxx". While they couldn't found the real Paracel, they found some less noticeable "near-coast islands" to draw in their maps. Hmm, poor Westerners
> 
> 3) The French book "Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique du Précis de la géographie universelle en huit volumes" (volume 2) was published in Paris, 1831. Page 221 said that: "equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire". "A une egale distance de la cote de Cochinchine et de l'ile d'Hai-nan, l'archipel de Paracels est une dependance de l'empire d'Annam". *No near-coast islands in Central Vietnam is equal-spaced between Vietnamese coast and Hainan. So the archipelago which was drawn by Westerners is real Paracel, because in Central Vietnam only Paracel is equal-spaced between Hainan and Vietnamese coast.*
> You can also search for "Nuovo dizionario geografico universale", Venezia, 1831
> 
> 4) The map-drawing technique in that period was still poor, so the map can't provide the extract distance and size. They even drew Western Malaysia too close to Southern Vietnam than what it has to be. The size and appearance of the Gulf of Thailand is another problem. So some nautical miles different is not a big problem. When the technique was advanced, they drew the real distance:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Don't argue that Western Malaysia and Gulf of Thailand are not big problem. Other people will see it's a big problem or not. Just answer why the better-technique map in 1838 has the real distance?*
> 
> 5) Our Paracel Teams (&#272;&#7897;i Hoàng Sa and &#272;&#7897;i B&#7855;c H&#7843;i, check our 1776 book) started their annual journeys from our near-coast islands to go to Paracel, and it took 3 days 3 nights to reach the Paracel in sailing season (windy season). For example, Ly Son island, just go and search it on google, oh if you have google there. *Why do they go to a "near-coast islands" from the same "near-coast islands" to "set sovereignty" at where they had already lived*, and it took 3 days 3 nights in sailing season just to reach the same archipelago?
> 
> 6) You said that the Paracel in Vietnamese maps is just "the near-coast island" in Central Vietnam, but that near-coast island even appeared in that map beside Paracel:
> 
> So, *your argument about "near-coast islands in the Central Vietnam" is invalid.*
> 
> 7) And finally, if you Chinese are confident in your "evidences", why don't go to an international court instead of this:




1.You are a fool ? When I say that the West 400 years did not find true of the Paracel Islands? I have already said very clearly: In 1613, the English captain discovered that the Xisha Islands, At that time he will Xisha Islands named "LES Lunet TES", The geographic coordinates: latitude 16 ° to 17 °, longitude 111 ° 30 'to 112 ° 42'. "Pracel" long region (central Vietnam coast, islands and sandbars), East to West Wide 106.5km, North-South length 500km, geographic coordinates: 12 ° ~ 16 ° 30 North, longitude 110 ° ~ 111 °. You need to use Google Maps, View them geographic coordinates where in the South China Sea!

2. Western countries define Pracel, Representative regions are different at different times. Before 1851,Western countries will be the bar area (central Vietnam coast, islands and sandbars) called "Pracel, After 1851, Western remove long strips of area, "Pracel" transferred to the Xisha Islands now. (See the previous Western map evolution)

3. France 1831 description "Pracel" for long region. This area: wide 106.5km long 500km. Use Google Maps to view the northern part of the region, To Vietnam and hainan island almost equal distance.

4. 1838 Map of Vietnam, Approximate outline of Vietnam can draw out, why only these two Islands and scale such a big difference? Vietnam to the actual distance of hainan island for more than 200 kilometers, the xisha islands to the actual distance for 300 km, to the distance to nansha more than 700 km, and the xisha islands to the spratly islands is more than 700 kilometres. If according to this map scale, Vietnam to the xisha islands distance to hainan island ,should be almost. Vietnam to the Nansha Islands in the distance, equal to the distance of two Vietnam to Hainan Island. The xisha islands to the distance of the nansha islands, More than Hanoi to Hoi An distance. If according to this ratio, the Vietnamese side as long as necessary, Can put the coast of Vietnam some islands , Apply to become Java and Timor. It is simply not yet reached the time.

5. In 1776, when Vietnam in coastal sailing ships, general is "&#32005;&#33337;" or "&#30000;&#22993;&#33337;", the ship is not only small, and the speed is slow. "&#32005;&#33337;":&#20854;&#33337;&#39636;&#29433;&#38263;,&#29376;&#22914;&#40845;&#33311;,&#26114;&#39318;&#23614;&#20025;&#28422;&#20043;,&#33337;&#19978;&#19981;&#33021;&#23481;&#28810;&#20855;,&#20677;&#36142;&#28129;&#27700;&#19968;&#32568;,&#33337;&#19978;&#25481;&#36557;&#36196;&#39636;&#26292;&#28872;&#26085;&#20013;,&#28212;&#21063;&#21242;&#39154;&#39297;&#33145;, Physical exertion, the speed is slow can be imagined. For example, in July 1795, Guangzhou monk da shan chang weng, "ready to return from Vietnam, Vietnamese officials are preparing a 40 ship&#30000;&#22993;&#33337;" for his farewell. The monks Ride "&#32418;&#33337;", at noon on the 19th, set sail from Hoi An, until the next morning to arrive at the "&#21344;&#23110;&#23798;", Ride "&#27915;&#33337;". From "&#24291;&#21335;&#27743;&#21475;" to "&#21344;&#23110;&#23798;", a distance of about 12 km, more than Half a day, day and a half of the voyage can only go up to more than 30 km. Vietnam so-called the Xisha fleet, from now (Qu&#7843;ng Ng&atilde;i Bình S&#417;n) Departure: geographic coordinates: latitude 15 ° 22'51 ", longitude 109 ° 07'03, For three days and three nights to reach the Xisha Islands ", in fact, only sailed about 100 km.. From here through the Pracel the so-called Vietnam: "&#40643;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;", Need 197.5km, reach the Xisha Islands would need at least 250.75km.

6. It seems you do not have the exact geographical concept. Vietnam's most eastern longitude 109 ° 50 ', "Pracel", the so-called Vietnam: "sand" and "&#40643;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;", its geographical coordinates of longitude 110 ° to 111 °.Paracel Islands east longitude 111 ° 30 ' to 112 ° 42'. In this region, a longitude of approximately equal to 106.5km, In other words: Vietnam closest to the "&#40643;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;"17.75km, But do not forget, this long bar district wide 106.5km, Even if the Paracel Islands, also in this region in eastern 53km.

7. Many Chinese map is no Marked south China sea islands, because the Chinese territory too big, If the land and the sea to draw together, Can not show in detail the geographic profile of the South China Sea islands, We specialize in drawing the map of the South China Sea, Oath of China's sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands!






The Map of South and East Ocean Sea Routes was drawn in between 1712-1721 by Qing (Ching) Dynasty Fujian (Fuchien) Province Navy Commander Shi Shibiao, the son of a famous early Qing Dynasty Imperial Officer. This map shows clearly the sea routes, time and decriptions from Chinese coastal ports to Japan, Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia,Brunei, Cambodia and the Phinllipines. In this map, the locations and names of the Southern Sea Islands(Nanhai Zhudao) are very accurate. The map shows clearly Chinese sovereignty over the South China&#12288;Sea Islands including Nansha Islands, Xisha Islands, Zhongsha Islands and Dongsha Islands.Also note the "long bar area" shown in this map which locates close to the Vietnamese coast, which clearly tells that the so called "Truong Sa" and "Hoang Sa" as shown in the 1838 "Complete Map of Unified Great Nam" are not the Nansha (Spratlys) and Xisha (Paracels) Islands of China at all, but refers to the Pullo Canton near the central Vietnamese coast, which was also once been identified as "dangerous group" and named Paracels before Paracels was used to refer to China's Xisha Islands later in the history.

Republic of China 1935&#65306;





Republic of China 1937&#65306;





Republic of China 1946&#65306;





I personally do not support an international court.As the victors in World War I, China is fully justified reasons, Recovery of the German concession in Shandong, but because at that time China national small and weak, from western countries the manipulation of the Paris peace conference was prescribed by Japan in the shandong inherited Germany all right. Now though China began to rise, but western society has been looking for opportunities to contain China, China can't take the second risks, will Its own sovereignty, Handed over to the Western countries to control international court.


----------



## the_islander

Fanling Monk said:


> I laugh at the thief, who stole 40 islands quietly, wants to take the victims to court, perhaps &#24694;&#20154;&#20808;&#21578;&#29366; is a perfect term to describe that particular thief. The worst thing for him is he thinks everybody is on his side. LOL



LOL. chinese is really good at turning culprit to victim and vice versa. it's not really surprise to see china has proplems all around its border. even the north korea is trying to escape from the evil influence of china. 
Until this time, china only relies on force, weapons to claim its stolen islands. a greedy nation raises its citizents by seeds of lie, distortions of history.



laman12345 said:


> Vietnam just a little monkey



you're not so evolved than us, dude. You're not bigger than a monkey.
At least we're not so hated as chinese


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

Nestea said:


> 1.You are a fool ? When I say that the West 400 years did not find true of the Paracel Islands? I have already said very clearly: In 1613, the English captain discovered that the Xisha Islands, At that time he will Xisha Islands named "LES Lunet TES", The geographic coordinates: latitude 16 ° to 17 °, longitude 111 ° 30 'to 112 ° 42'. "Pracel" long region (central Vietnam coast, islands and sandbars), East to West Wide 106.5km, North-South length 500km, geographic coordinates: 12 ° ~ 16 ° 30 North, longitude 110 ° ~ 111 °. You need to use Google Maps, View them geographic coordinates where in the South China Sea!
> 
> 2. Western countries define &#8220;Pracel&#8221;, Representative regions are different at different times. Before 1851,Western countries will be the bar area (central Vietnam coast, islands and sandbars) called "Pracel, After 1851, Western remove long strips of area, "Pracel" transferred to the Xisha Islands now. (See the previous Western map evolution)
> 
> 3. France 1831 description "Pracel" for long region. This area: wide 106.5km long 500km. Use Google Maps to view the northern part of the region, To Vietnam and hainan island almost equal distance.
> 
> 4. 1838 Map of Vietnam, Approximate outline of Vietnam can draw out, why only these two Islands and scale such a big difference? Vietnam to the actual distance of hainan island for more than 200 kilometers, the xisha islands to the actual distance for 300 km, to the distance to nansha more than 700 km, and the xisha islands to the spratly islands is more than 700 kilometres. If according to this map scale, Vietnam to the xisha islands distance to hainan island ,should be almost. Vietnam to the Nansha Islands in the distance, equal to the distance of two Vietnam to Hainan Island. The xisha islands to the distance of the nansha islands, More than Hanoi to Hoi An distance. If according to this ratio, the Vietnamese side as long as necessary, Can put the coast of Vietnam some islands , Apply to become Java and Timor. It is simply not yet reached the time.
> 
> 5. In 1776, when Vietnam in coastal sailing ships, general is "&#32005;&#33337;" or "&#30000;&#22993;&#33337;", the ship is not only small, and the speed is slow. "&#32005;&#33337;":&#20854;&#33337;&#39636;&#29433;&#38263;,&#29376;&#22914;&#40845;&#33311;,&#26114;&#39318;&#23614;&#20025;&#28422;&#20043;,&#33337;&#19978;&#19981;&#33021;&#23481;&#28810;&#20855;,&#20677;&#36142;&#28129;&#27700;&#19968;&#32568;,&#33337;&#19978;&#25481;&#36557;&#36196;&#39636;&#26292;&#28872;&#26085;&#20013;,&#28212;&#21063;&#21242;&#39154;&#39297;&#33145;, Physical exertion, the speed is slow can be imagined. For example, in July 1795, Guangzhou monk &#8220;da shan chang weng&#8221;, "ready to return from Vietnam, Vietnamese officials are preparing a 40 ship&#8221;&#30000;&#22993;&#33337;" for his farewell. The monks Ride "&#32418;&#33337;", at noon on the 19th, set sail from Hoi An, until the next morning to arrive at the "&#21344;&#23110;&#23798;", Ride "&#27915;&#33337;". From "&#24291;&#21335;&#27743;&#21475;" to "&#21344;&#23110;&#23798;", a distance of about 12 km, more than Half a day, day and a half of the voyage can only go up to more than 30 km. Vietnam so-called the Xisha fleet, from now (Qu&#7843;ng Ngãi Bình S&#417;n) Departure: geographic coordinates: latitude 15 ° 22'51 ", longitude 109 ° 07'03, For three days and three nights to reach the &#8220;Xisha Islands ", in fact, only sailed about 100 km.. From here through the &#8221;Pracel&#8220; the so-called Vietnam: "&#40643;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;", Need 197.5km, reach the Xisha Islands would need at least 250.75km.
> 
> 6. It seems you do not have the exact geographical concept. Vietnam's most eastern longitude 109 ° 50 ', "Pracel", the so-called Vietnam: "sand" and "&#40643;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;", its geographical coordinates of longitude 110 ° to 111 °.Paracel Islands east longitude 111 ° 30 ' to 112 ° 42'. In this region, a longitude of approximately equal to 106.5km, In other words: Vietnam closest to the "&#40643;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;"17.75km, But do not forget, this long bar district wide 106.5km, Even if the Paracel Islands, also in this region in eastern 53km.
> 
> 7. Many Chinese map is no Marked south China sea islands, because the Chinese territory too big, If the land and the sea to draw together, Can not show in detail the geographic profile of the South China Sea islands, We specialize in drawing the map of the South China Sea, Oath of China's sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands!
> 
> The Map of South and East Ocean Sea Routes was drawn in between 1712-1721 by Qing (Ching) Dynasty Fujian (Fuchien) Province Navy Commander Shi Shibiao, the son of a famous early Qing Dynasty Imperial Officer. This map shows clearly the sea routes, time and decriptions from Chinese coastal ports to Japan, Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia,Brunei, Cambodia and the Phinllipines. In this map, the locations and names of the Southern Sea Islands(Nanhai Zhudao) are very accurate. The map shows clearly Chinese sovereignty over the South China&#12288;Sea Islands including Nansha Islands, Xisha Islands, Zhongsha Islands and Dongsha Islands.Also note the "long bar area" shown in this map which locates close to the Vietnamese coast, which clearly tells that the so called "Truong Sa" and "Hoang Sa" as shown in the 1838 "Complete Map of Unified Great Nam" are not the Nansha (Spratlys) and Xisha (Paracels) Islands of China at all, but refers to the Pullo Canton near the central Vietnamese coast, which was also once been identified as "dangerous group" and named Paracels before Paracels was used to refer to China's Xisha Islands later in the history.
> 
> Republic of China 1935&#65306;
> 
> Republic of China 1937&#65306;
> 
> Republic of China 1946&#65306;
> 
> I personally do not support an international court.As the victors in World War I, China is fully justified reasons, Recovery of the German concession in Shandong, but because at that time China national small and weak, from western countries the manipulation of the Paris peace conference was prescribed by Japan in the shandong inherited Germany all right. Now though China began to rise, but western society has been looking for opportunities to contain China, China can't take the second risks, will Its own sovereignty, Handed over to the Western countries to control international court.



1) You haven't done what I asked: *Go to google maps and find the archipelago which you think was mistaken with Paracels, capture your screen and post here.*




And if you post here the same islands with my 1834 map, your argument is still invalid, and you will lost number 1).

2) You said


> Western countries define &#8220;Pracel&#8221;, Representative regions are different at different times. *Before 1851,Western countries will be the bar area (central Vietnam coast, islands and sandbars)* called "Pracel"



But in *1831*: 
The French book "Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique du Précis de la géographie universelle en huit volumes" (volume 2) was published in Paris, 1831. Page 221 said that: "equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire". "A une egale distance de la cote de Cochinchine et de l'ile d'Hai-nan, l'archipel de Paracels est une dependance de l'empire d'Annam". *No near-coast islands in Central Vietnam is equal-spaced between Vietnamese coast and Hainan, according to 1).*

Also, in our maps, the near-coast islands in the Central Vietnam are also drawn and totally separated from Paracel:





So, your argument about "Vietnamese Paracel is the bar area (central Vietnam coast, islands and sandbars)" is invalid, you lost in number 2.

3) So you agree that the French mentioned the real Paracel, not the near-coast islands, because of the undeniable fact: No near-coast islands in Central Vietnam is equal-spaced between Vietnamese coast and Hainan.
Problem solved, you lost in number 3).

4)




So you still mean that Paracel (Cát Vàng) in this map is just near-coast islands?
Ok so problem solved, you failed, you lost in number 4).

5) Yes, around 200 km, that why we need 3 days 3 nights continuously. 
Just do math. 3 days 3 night continuously -> 72 hours.
Speed of a small sailing ship is around 4~6 km/h. With 72 hours continuously in sailing season (you have heavy wind to support you), we can even go for 288~432 km! Nothing is impossible there.

6) Just go to google map and capture the screen that archipelago 




Wait a minute, you have that "near-coast islands" here separated from Paracel while you can't provide other islands. So your argument about "near-coast islands in the Central Vietnam" is invalid. You lost in number 6).

7) I see, you afraid of losing so you don't want to go to international court.
So you loose number 7).

Your 193x maps mean that 193x is the first time you claim Paracel 

*In conclusion, you have number 1, 5 left to argue. Come on, I know you can't do it*


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

Nestea said:


> 1.You are a fool ? When I say that the West 400 years did not find true of the Paracel Islands? I have already said very clearly: In 1613, the English captain discovered that the Xisha Islands, At that time he will Xisha Islands named "LES Lunet TES", The geographic coordinates: latitude 16 ° to 17 °, longitude 111 ° 30 'to 112 ° 42'. "Pracel" long region (central Vietnam coast, islands and sandbars), East to West Wide 106.5km, North-South length 500km, geographic coordinates: 12 ° ~ 16 ° 30 North, longitude 110 ° ~ 111 °. You need to use Google Maps, View them geographic coordinates where in the South China Sea!
> 
> 2. Western countries define &#8220;Pracel&#8221;, Representative regions are different at different times. Before 1851,Western countries will be the bar area (central Vietnam coast, islands and sandbars) called "Pracel, After 1851, Western remove long strips of area, "Pracel" transferred to the Xisha Islands now. (See the previous Western map evolution)
> 
> 3. France 1831 description "Pracel" for long region. This area: wide 106.5km long 500km. Use Google Maps to view the northern part of the region, To Vietnam and hainan island almost equal distance.
> 
> 4. 1838 Map of Vietnam, Approximate outline of Vietnam can draw out, why only these two Islands and scale such a big difference? Vietnam to the actual distance of hainan island for more than 200 kilometers, the xisha islands to the actual distance for 300 km, to the distance to nansha more than 700 km, and the xisha islands to the spratly islands is more than 700 kilometres. If according to this map scale, Vietnam to the xisha islands distance to hainan island ,should be almost. Vietnam to the Nansha Islands in the distance, equal to the distance of two Vietnam to Hainan Island. The xisha islands to the distance of the nansha islands, More than Hanoi to Hoi An distance. If according to this ratio, the Vietnamese side as long as necessary, Can put the coast of Vietnam some islands , Apply to become Java and Timor. It is simply not yet reached the time.
> 
> 5. In 1776, when Vietnam in coastal sailing ships, general is "&#32005;&#33337;" or "&#30000;&#22993;&#33337;", the ship is not only small, and the speed is slow. "&#32005;&#33337;":&#20854;&#33337;&#39636;&#29433;&#38263;,&#29376;&#22914;&#40845;&#33311;,&#26114;&#39318;&#23614;&#20025;&#28422;&#20043;,&#33337;&#19978;&#19981;&#33021;&#23481;&#28810;&#20855;,&#20677;&#36142;&#28129;&#27700;&#19968;&#32568;,&#33337;&#19978;&#25481;&#36557;&#36196;&#39636;&#26292;&#28872;&#26085;&#20013;,&#28212;&#21063;&#21242;&#39154;&#39297;&#33145;, Physical exertion, the speed is slow can be imagined. For example, in July 1795, Guangzhou monk &#8220;da shan chang weng&#8221;, "ready to return from Vietnam, Vietnamese officials are preparing a 40 ship&#8221;&#30000;&#22993;&#33337;" for his farewell. The monks Ride "&#32418;&#33337;", at noon on the 19th, set sail from Hoi An, until the next morning to arrive at the "&#21344;&#23110;&#23798;", Ride "&#27915;&#33337;". From "&#24291;&#21335;&#27743;&#21475;" to "&#21344;&#23110;&#23798;", a distance of about 12 km, more than Half a day, day and a half of the voyage can only go up to more than 30 km. Vietnam so-called the Xisha fleet, from now (Qu&#7843;ng Ngãi Bình S&#417;n) Departure: geographic coordinates: latitude 15 ° 22'51 ", longitude 109 ° 07'03, For three days and three nights to reach the &#8220;Xisha Islands ", in fact, only sailed about 100 km.. From here through the &#8221;Pracel&#8220; the so-called Vietnam: "&#40643;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;", Need 197.5km, reach the Xisha Islands would need at least 250.75km.
> 
> 6. It seems you do not have the exact geographical concept. Vietnam's most eastern longitude 109 ° 50 ', "Pracel", the so-called Vietnam: "sand" and "&#40643;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;", its geographical coordinates of longitude 110 ° to 111 °.Paracel Islands east longitude 111 ° 30 ' to 112 ° 42'. In this region, a longitude of approximately equal to 106.5km, In other words: Vietnam closest to the "&#40643;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;"17.75km, But do not forget, this long bar district wide 106.5km, Even if the Paracel Islands, also in this region in eastern 53km.
> 
> 7. Many Chinese map is no Marked south China sea islands, because the Chinese territory too big, If the land and the sea to draw together, Can not show in detail the geographic profile of the South China Sea islands, We specialize in drawing the map of the South China Sea, Oath of China's sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands!
> 
> The Map of South and East Ocean Sea Routes was drawn in between 1712-1721 by Qing (Ching) Dynasty Fujian (Fuchien) Province Navy Commander Shi Shibiao, the son of a famous early Qing Dynasty Imperial Officer. This map shows clearly the sea routes, time and decriptions from Chinese coastal ports to Japan, Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia,Brunei, Cambodia and the Phinllipines. In this map, the locations and names of the Southern Sea Islands(Nanhai Zhudao) are very accurate. The map shows clearly Chinese sovereignty over the South China&#12288;Sea Islands including Nansha Islands, Xisha Islands, Zhongsha Islands and Dongsha Islands.Also note the "long bar area" shown in this map which locates close to the Vietnamese coast, which clearly tells that the so called "Truong Sa" and "Hoang Sa" as shown in the 1838 "Complete Map of Unified Great Nam" are not the Nansha (Spratlys) and Xisha (Paracels) Islands of China at all, but refers to the Pullo Canton near the central Vietnamese coast, which was also once been identified as "dangerous group" and named Paracels before Paracels was used to refer to China's Xisha Islands later in the history.
> 
> Republic of China 1935&#65306;
> 
> Republic of China 1937&#65306;
> 
> Republic of China 1946&#65306;
> 
> I personally do not support an international court.As the victors in World War I, China is fully justified reasons, Recovery of the German concession in Shandong, but because at that time China national small and weak, from western countries the manipulation of the Paris peace conference was prescribed by Japan in the shandong inherited Germany all right. Now though China began to rise, but western society has been looking for opportunities to contain China, China can't take the second risks, will Its own sovereignty, Handed over to the Western countries to control international court.



1) You haven't done what I asked: *Go to google maps and find the archipelago which you think was mistaken with Paracels, capture your screen and post here.*





And if you post here the same islands with my 1834 map, your argument is still invalid, and you will lost number 1).

2) You said


> Western countries define &#8220;Pracel&#8221;, Representative regions are different at different times. *Before 1851,Western countries will be the bar area (central Vietnam coast, islands and sandbars)* called "Pracel"



But in *1831*: 
The French book "Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique du Précis de la géographie universelle en huit volumes" (volume 2) was published in Paris, 1831. Page 221 said that: "equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire". "A une egale distance de la cote de Cochinchine et de l'ile d'Hai-nan, l'archipel de Paracels est une dependance de l'empire d'Annam". *No near-coast islands in Central Vietnam is equal-spaced between Vietnamese coast and Hainan, according to 1).*

Also, in our 1834 map, the near-coast islands in the Central Vietnam are also drawn and totally separated from Paracel:





So, your argument that "Vietnamese Paracel is the bar area (central Vietnam coast, islands and sandbars)" is invalid, you lost in number 2).

3) So you agree that the French mentioned the real Paracel, not the near-coast islands, because of the undeniable fact: No near-coast islands in Central Vietnam is equal-spaced between Vietnamese coast and Hainan.
Problem solved, you lost in number 3).

4)




So you still mean that Paracel (Cát Vàng) in this map is just near-coast islands?
Ok so problem solved, you failed, you lost in number 4).

5) Yes, around 200 km, that why we need 3 days 3 nights continuously. 
Just do math. 3 days 3 night continuously -> 72 hours.
Speed of a small sailing ship is around 4~6 km/h. With 72 hours continuously and we start the journey in sailing season (we have the wind support us), we can even go for 288~432 km! Nothing is impossible there.

6) Just go to google map and capture the screen that archipelago 




Wait a minute, you have that "near-coast islands" here separated from Paracel. So your argument about "near-coast islands in the Central Vietnam" is invalid. You lost in number 6).

7) I see, you afraid of losing so you don't want to go to international court.
So you lost number 7).

Your 193x maps mean that 193x is the first time you claim Paracel 

*In conclusion, you have number 1, 5 left to argue. Come on, I know you can't do it*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

Maps which prove that Vietnamese Paracel is far from the coast and *"equal-spaced between Hainan and Vietnamese Central coast"*, but Chinese still want to argue that they are just "near-coast islands":






1838 map





Western map, 1774






Western map, 1754





Western map 1735 





Western map 1760

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## asean_2015

Nestea said:


> 7. Many Chinese map is no Marked south China sea islands, because the Chinese territory too big, If the land and the sea to draw together, Can not show in detail the geographic profile of the South China Sea islands, We specialize in drawing the map of the South China Sea, Oath of China's sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands!


Although Chinese territory is too big, in &#20013;&#22283;&#22320;&#22294;&#20874; 1939, China can still fit to one page. In page 1, neither Paracel nor Spratly is included. 




even in smaller maps, for example page 16

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Hoangsa_vietnam

Create another thread, It's off-topic Mongolia here, please!
back to the discussion.


P/s: Anh em chú ý b&#7885;n kh&#7921;a &#273;ang t&#7893; lái, anh em hãy quay v&#7873; ch&#7911; &#273;&#7873; chính,  t&#7899; kém EN lên ch&#7881; ng&#7891;i ng&#7855;m thôi, anh em hãy t&#7853;p trung b&#7887; qua th&#7857;ng lái &#273;i vào vi&#7879;c chính!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## asean_2015

Nestea said:


> Republic of China 1946&#65306;


The dispute with Vietnam and Phillipine started from this map. I do not know where it came from since the previous maps did not show the cow's tongue. I suppose the one created the map was an expansionist. His imagination really caused a lot of troubles for Chinese.

Now I might get the point and edit some more texts about the Chinese expansionist. The second world war finished in 1945. As the winners in the second world war, US UK France USSR had right to ''divide'' the world again. However, China did not have this right since the contribution of China to the victory of the second world war was very small. Going back to the Chinese expansionist. This guy had responsibility to creat the map of republic of China. He though that China was also a winner and it was unfair for republic of China if China did not get anything. He decided himself to draw above map according to his imagination. He though that the sea in the south of China should be considered as a bonus for republic of China. His idea was approved by other Chinese expansionists. In 1946, this map was published. Do you think this story is logic? Remember, it is only a story imagined by me to explain for the above map.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## viking02

I enter here by chance from the forum hoangsa.org of VN and I'm a Vietnamese. 
Well, why you suggest China go to the international maritime court? You should be aware that criminals are always afraid of going to the court. Just simply because they will lose when facing the truth. That is why China has always refused to go to an international court regardless Vietnam and the Philippine has suggested not only one time. 

Just a quick reminder, our Vietnam ancient governments took control Hoang Sa (Paracel Islands) and Truong Sa (Spratly Islands) since 16th century. Every year those governments dispatched solders and administrative teams to go there to maintain sovereignty of Vietnam. They sailed to Hoang Sa and Truong Sa to collect bird nests, fishing, marine measurement, etc and live there for a limited time then come back the mainland. Every year, there were several teams to be dispatched to Hoang Sa and Truong Sa. 
However, in 1956, when Vietnam was engaging in the war with French and in 1974 when Vietnam was involving in the war the US, China took advantages of these two events by invading the Eastern part of Hoang Sa (Paracel Islands) in 1956 and the Western part in 1974. Similarly, in 1988, when Vietnam was focusing on the fight with Khmer Rouge in Cambodia (which was backed by Chinese and had man-slaughtered more than 3 million Cambodian people (3,000,000) in accordance with the calls of Cambodian people, they invaded a part of Truong Sa (Spratly Islands), China attached those islands by its navy. 
In brief, Vietnam lost Hoang Sa totally in 1956 and 1974 and a part of Truong Sa in 1988 to China. 
More dangerously, such "criminal" is not conscious of shame. They have been creating many so-called "evidences" to support for illegal invasion of them. Thus I suggest you, international friends, should be aware of this and be able to clarify which is true and which is fake.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SinoChallenger

asean_2015 said:


> The dispute with Vietnam and Phillipine started from this map. I do not know where it came from since the previous maps did not show the cow's tongue. I suppose the one created the map was an expansionist. His imagination really caused a lot of troubles for Chinese.
> 
> Now I might get the point and edit some more texts about the Chinese expansionist. The second world war finished in 1945. As the winners in the second world war, US UK France USSR had right to ''divide'' the world again. However, China did not have this right since the contribution of China to the victory of the second world war was very small. Going back to the Chinese expansionist. This guy had responsibility to creat the map of republic of China. He though that China was also a winner and it was unfair for republic of China if China did not get anything. He decided himself to draw above map according to his imagination. He though that the sea in the south of China should be considered as a bonus for republic of China. His idea was approved by other Chinese expansionists. In 1946, this map was published. Do you think this story is logic? Remember, it is only a story imagined by me to explain for the above map.


 Western powers weren't dividing "the world" after WW2. They were dividing up inferior monkey countries like yours while giving China the UN Security Council permanent membership.

That's why nobody objected when China grabbed Taiping Island in 1945, when China grabbed Paracels in 1974 and when China grabbed Spratlys in 1988. Now in 2012 we just grabbed Scarborough Shoal!

You think anybody is going to save monkey nations from China's naval power in 2012 when our nation is at our peak of power? Keep deluding yourselves 

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/199349-happy-pla-day-aug-1-a.html

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

SinoChallenger said:


> Western powers weren't dividing "the world" after WW2. They were dividing up inferior monkey countries like yours while giving China the UN Security Council permanent membership.
> 
> That's why nobody objected when China grabbed Taiping Island in 1945, when China grabbed Paracels in 1974 and when China grabbed Spratlys in 1988. Now in 2012 we just grabbed Scarborough Shoal!
> 
> You think anybody is going to save monkey nations from China's naval power in 2012 when our nation is at our peak of power? Keep deluding yourselves
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/199349-happy-pla-day-aug-1-a.html



So finally you have admitted that your country had just gone an grabbed islands from others' nations

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Peter

Maps??

If those HoangSa and TruongSa are yours, then why don't you defend them? Instead, recently "*about 30 Chinese fishing vessels arrived at Zhubi shoal in the Spratlys in the South China Sea as Beijing reasserted its sovereignty in the disputed region*" where are your (Vietnameses and VN's governments) responses to that?



SinoChallenger said:


> Western powers weren't dividing "the world" after WW2. They were dividing up inferior monkey countries like yours while giving China the UN Security Council permanent membership.
> 
> That's why nobody objected when China grabbed Taiping Island in 1945, when China grabbed Paracels in 1974 and when China grabbed Spratlys in 1988. Now in 2012 we just grabbed Scarborough Shoal!
> 
> You think anybody is going to save monkey nations from China's naval power in 2012 when our nation is at our peak of power? Keep deluding yourselves
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/199349-happy-pla-day-aug-1-a.html



SinoChallenger, you're fools! 

So, China has shown to the world that she is a grabber heh? Great, then the world has a reason to slap her hands and handcuffs her hands.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dunhill

Peter said:


> Maps??
> 
> If those HoangSa and TruongSa are yours, then why don't you defend them? Instead, recently "*about 30 Chinese fishing vessels arrived at Zhubi shoal in the Spratlys in the South China Sea as Beijing reasserted its sovereignty in the disputed region*" where are your (Vietnameses and VN's governments) responses to that?



What make you think that Viet Nam is not defend it? Yes, the light Naval battle in 1974.

More than likely, Viet Nam only claims the Islands not entire SCS? This is mean, China fishermen can do whatever its need to do, Viet Nam will not allow them to getting close to VN EZZ.

Like other nations, Viet Nam agreed that SCS is Free Navigation Route and once again SCS is not belong to Viet Nam. Paracel, Spratly are belong to Viet Nam from time to time.

For now, China is power and stronger more than Viet Nam. It is a foolish to start a war with China, but it is not good for China if its starting first. From time to time, Viet Nam only standing on 1 possition that is "DEFEND". China can have it, but keep them up for good that a very hard thing for its does.


----------



## asean_2015

SinoChallenger said:


> Western powers weren't dividing "the world" after WW2. They were dividing up inferior monkey countries like yours while giving China the UN Security Council permanent membership.
> 
> That's why nobody objected when China grabbed Taiping Island in 1945, when China grabbed Paracels in 1974 and when China grabbed Spratlys in 1988. Now in 2012 we just grabbed Scarborough Shoal!
> 
> You think anybody is going to save monkey nations from China's naval power in 2012 when our nation is at our peak of power? Keep deluding yourselves
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/199349-happy-pla-day-aug-1-a.html


According to your comment, China is one of inferior monkey countries, not mine. Think about the Chinese civil war with several million dead after 1945 and Taiwan was separated from mainland as an independent country. The reason was that Mao Zedong obeyed USSR while Chiang Kai-shek was controlled by US at that time. Is it not a dividing? Inform me if I wrote somthing wrong.

I suppose the reason the republic of China (not people republic of China) got a seat in the UN security council have been mentioned in another topic. Nothing is permanent. That's why PRC ''grabbed'' the seat from Taiwan. 

Anyway, you more or less agreed with my story. The grab started with the map published in 1946 by republic of China. The map helped republic of China and then people republic of China to grab other islands.

China is very powerful now because of the brave people like you. I totally agree with you. Only the very brave Chinese people admitted that China grabbed islands from other countries.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Rechoice

Hoangsa_vietnam said:


> Create another thread, It's off-topic Mongolia here, please!
> back to the discussion.
> 
> 
> P/s: Anh em chú ý b&#7885;n kh&#7921;a &#273;ang t&#7893; lái, anh em hãy quay v&#7873; ch&#7911; &#273;&#7873; chính,  t&#7899; kém EN lên ch&#7881; ng&#7891;i ng&#7855;m thôi, anh em hãy t&#7853;p trung b&#7887; qua th&#7857;ng lái &#273;i vào vi&#7879;c chính!



Nguyên là mông b&#7841;n à, có ý &#273;&#7845;y,



SinoChallenger said:


> Western powers weren't dividing "the world" after WW2. They were dividing up inferior monkey countries like yours while giving China the UN Security Council permanent membership.
> 
> That's why nobody objected when China grabbed Taiping Island in 1945, when China grabbed Paracels in 1974 and when China grabbed Spratlys in 1988. Now in 2012 we just grabbed Scarborough Shoal!
> 
> You think anybody is going to save monkey nations from China's naval power in 2012 when our nation is at our peak of power? Keep deluding yourselves
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/199349-happy-pla-day-aug-1-a.html



Taiwan withdrawn 1946 after Chongqing agreement signed With France. And occupied Itu Aba 1956 with force when South Vietnam was busy with govt changed.
Chinese is illegally occupied Islands of Vietnam.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## truewords

Peter said:


> Maps??
> 
> If those HoangSa and TruongSa are yours, then why don't you defend them? Instead, recently "*about 30 Chinese fishing vessels arrived at Zhubi shoal in the Spratlys in the South China Sea as Beijing reasserted its sovereignty in the disputed region*" where are your (Vietnameses and VN's governments) responses to that?


 
We have send feback to China goverment, all diplomatic channels and publishing information against to international. 

We are a small country, so we have no other method. And:
- Vietnam is peace-loving country and do not want war.
- We are a responsible country and keeping commitments leaders of both parties for not complicating the situation.
- We and all the world that understand the characteristic of Chinese is aggression and lie evidence, and using that to conduct the conflic.

Please see China, countries with large population and area in the world, the world's No. 2 about economy, permanent members of Security Council UN. But we are very disappointed in their behavior. We can not believe the role and their contribution to the development and prosperity of the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

Peter said:


> Maps??
> 
> If those HoangSa and TruongSa are yours, then why don't you defend them? Instead, recently "*about 30 Chinese fishing vessels arrived at Zhubi shoal in the Spratlys in the South China Sea as Beijing reasserted its sovereignty in the disputed region*" where are your (Vietnameses and VN's governments) responses to that?



We have opposed their action. What do you want else? Go and bomb their vessels? We are not stupid enough to declare a war with China at the moment. 

I know you hate communism. But sometime Vietnamese people have to unite together and fight for our Motherland.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BoQ77

If those islands belong to China few centuries ago.
Why you are not the first who keeping Paracels and Spratlys ? 
but robbed from other hands ? 

We would be unable to find any protest from China or other name of it to Paracels occupation of South of Vietnam. China just come and grabbed it from South of Vietnam ...

Why you do not dare to attack other island in Spratlys those Philippine and Vietnam occupying ?

I guess you still doubt in your theory ? and some Chinese still protesting that theory ...


----------



## the_islander

SinoChallenger said:


> Western powers weren't dividing "the world" after WW2. They were dividing up inferior monkey countries like yours while giving China the UN Security Council permanent membership.
> 
> That's why nobody objected when China grabbed Taiping Island in 1945, when China grabbed Paracels in 1974 and when China grabbed Spratlys in 1988. Now in 2012 we just grabbed Scarborough Shoal!
> 
> You think anybody is going to save monkey nations from China's naval power in 2012 when our nation is at our peak of power? Keep deluding yourselves
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/199349-happy-pla-day-aug-1-a.html



LOL. chinese style, doggy nation, doggy style, bites anyone touch it.


----------



## BoQ77

It's very strange to see a Chinese prime minister proposed to joint-exploring Spratly islands ( a so-called a undisputed Chinese territory ) with ASEAN countries in 1990 . He is Li Peng

Simple answer, that's not Chinese islands, any share of them to China benefits Chinese..
Now they want to take all. I guess they would lose all.


----------



## kankan326

BoQ77 said:


> If those islands belong to China few centuries ago.
> Why you are not the first who keeping Paracels and Spratlys ?
> but robbed from other hands ?
> 
> We would be unable to find any protest from China or other name of it to Paracels occupation of South of Vietnam. China just come and grabbed it from South of Vietnam ...
> 
> Why you do not dare to attack other island in Spratlys those Philippine and Vietnam occupying ?
> 
> I guess you still doubt in your theory ? and some Chinese still protesting that theory ...


The reason why the islands were occupied by Vietnam first, is because the China civil war broke out right after WW2. Navies from both sides were all thrown into civil war. So you sneaky Vietnamese got chance to steal our islands.
In 1974, China's navy was even much weaker than S Vietnam. But we still sank S Vietnam's cruisers by our small ships. This because our soldiers knew they were doing the right thing. They are willing sacrifice their lives to recover our lost islands.
Do you guys really think that China is a paper dragon that only bullies small countries? You are absolutely wrong. We fought against USA, Soviet Union once. How could we be afraid of fighting against you?


----------



## asean_2015

kankan326 said:


> The reason why the islands were occupied by Vietnam first, is because the China civil war broke out right after WW2. Navies from both sides were all thrown into civil war. So you sneaky Vietnamese got chance to steal our islands.
> In 1974, China's navy was even much weaker than S Vietnam. But we still sank S Vietnam's cruisers by our small ships. This because our soldiers knew they were doing the right thing. They are willing sacrifice their lives to recover our lost islands.
> Do you really think that China is a paper dragon that only bullies small countries? You are absolutely wrong. We fought again USA, Soviet Union once. How could we be afraid of fight again you?


You should spend time to look at the maps and 26 pages of comments before saying something. Vietnam ocuppied continuously the islands much longer before WW2. Anyway, you are not brave as other Chinese who willingly admitted that China robbed the islands from Vietnam and Philippine.

I am sure, China is not a paper dragon. I know that China tried to grab Russia's land in 1969.


----------



## Fanling Monk

asean_2015 said:


> *You should* spend time to look at the maps and 26 pages of comments before saying something. Vietnam ocuppied continuously the islands much longer before WW2. Anyway, you are not brave as *other Chinese who* *willingly admitted that China robbed the islands from Vietnam and Philippine*.




The usually bullshyte from a false flagger.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kankan326

viking02 said:


> Just a quick reminder, our Vietnam ancient governments took control Hoang Sa (Paracel Islands) and Truong Sa (Spratly Islands) since 16th century. Every year those governments dispatched solders and administrative teams to go there to maintain sovereignty of Vietnam. They sailed to Hoang Sa and Truong Sa to collect bird nests, fishing, marine measurement, etc and live there for a limited time then come back the mainland. Every year, there were several teams to be dispatched to Hoang Sa and Truong Sa.


 
Please show me the original documents that Vietnam have maintained SCS islands sovereignty since 16th century. Don't bring me the map shown here before. It could prove nothing. Show me the history books written by ancient Vietnamese that record the events. I guess the book are written in Chinese. I can read them without any problem.


----------



## asean_2015

kankan326 said:


> Please show me the original documents that Vietnam have maintained SCS islands sovereignty since 16th century. Don't bring me the map shown here before. It could prove nothing. Show me the history books written by ancient Vietnamese that record the events. I guess the book are written in Chinese. I can read them without any problem.


Look at the topic. The maps shown here proved the topic. I think there should be another topic where Vietnamese can prove the sovereignty since 16th centery. I also want to join discussion of that topic.


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

kankan326 said:


> *The reason why the islands were occupied by Vietnam first, is because the China civil war broke out right after WW2. Navies from both sides were all thrown into civil war. So you sneaky Vietnamese got chance to steal our islands.*
> In 1974, China's navy was even much weaker than S Vietnam. But we still sank S Vietnam's cruisers by our small ships. This because our soldiers knew they were doing the right thing. They are willing sacrifice their lives to recover our lost islands.
> Do you really think that China is a paper dragon that only bullies small countries? You are absolutely wrong. We fought again USA, Soviet Union once. How could we be afraid of fight again you?


lol we had those islands before 18th Century since there was no definition of "Communism" or "Capitalism" in China to have a civil war there 

Stop your propaganda about your "right". If you are "right", why you just can't prove your legal sovereignty there? Why you just don't know how on earth you could ever have an evidence? Why you always avoid my points? Why you are afraid of international court? The correct answer is you never have any "right" sovereignty there!

Yeah fighting with Soviet and US, don't tell me that you beat either Soviet or US 



kankan326 said:


> Please show me the original documents that Vietnam have maintained SCS islands sovereignty since 16th century. Don't bring me the map shown here before. It could prove nothing. Show me the history books written by ancient Vietnamese that record the events. I guess the book are written in Chinese. I can read them without any problem.



Oh I had posted them for a long time, you guys just always avoid:



&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3252434 said:


> "Your" islands?  So just tell me about the base of your buffalo's tongue claim
> 
> 1) Your argument about "2000-year-old claim" is ridiculous, you said you "discovered" those islands, but in fact the "discovery" has nothing to do with sovereignty. Look at Colombo and his country, Spain.
> 
> 2) We have a strong base of evidences to prove that we had sovereignty over those islands before 18th-19th century.
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...tly-not-chinese-territory-13.html#post3237586
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...tly-not-chinese-territory-25.html#post3249921
> 
> 
> 
> 3) There are many many maps from your gov before 193x which also don't have Paracel and Spartly:
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...lippines-if-china-attacks-11.html#post3244021
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...tly-not-chinese-territory-24.html#post3248733
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...tly-not-chinese-territory-24.html#post3248736
> 
> 1 or 2 maps isn't a problem. But so many maps is a different story
> 
> 4) Vietnam and Philippines have been asked you to go to international court, but you always avoid. Why? You know that you don't have evidence, so if you go there, you will loose. End of story
> 
> In conclusion, they have never be your islands, you just came and invaded them in 1956, 1974, 1988. So China is the thief, the robber, the bully.


----------



## kankan326

asean_2015 said:


> Look at the topic. The maps shown here proved the topic. I think there should be another topic where Vietnamese can prove the sovereignty since 16th centery. I also want to join discussion of that topic.


I had discussed the map issues from Page 14. We have maps too.


----------



## asean_2015

Fanling Monk said:


> The usually bullshyte from a false flagger.


Do you admit that China grabbed the islands of Vietnam and Philippine?


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

kankan326 said:


> I had discussed the map issues from Page 14. We have maps too.



Sorry but your map were failed  194x was too late to join this debate 
And your country-mate Nestea had lost all of his arguments in trying to prove that "Vietnamese Paracel is near-coast islands in the Central of Vietnam".


----------



## asean_2015

kankan326 said:


> I had discussed the map issues from Page 14. We have maps too.


Your comment about ''All lands under sky ... '' is so funny, at least for me. If you have any map, please upload it. It brings knowledge to all of us.



laman12345 said:


> Monkey Vietnam go back to your jungle


It is not nice to Vietnamese with such a comment. Do you admit that China robbed the islands from Vietnam?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fanling Monk

asean_2015 said:


> Do you admit that China grabbed the islands of Vietnam and Philippine?




Such an ignorant question. What makes you think you're right? By those phony maps the Viets brought out? China can produce them in thousands if there's need to be. Same arguments by you guys, over and over, give it a rest!


----------



## kankan326

Why I ask you Vietnam to offer me the original documents? Things or events that happened in ancient time. Only if they were recorded by ancient ppl. We can say they did happen once. Otherwise, they are just tales. You can't prove events several hundred years ago by today's ppl.


----------



## asean_2015

Fanling Monk said:


> Such an ignorant question. What makes you think you're right? By those phony maps the Viets brought out? China can produce them in thousands if there's need to be. Same arguments by you guys, over and over, give it a rest!


I am not sure that I am right. So I only asked you if you agree with my conclusion. If you say that the Chinese maps shown here are toilet papers, then I am wrong.


----------



## asean_2015

kankan326 said:


> Why I ask you Vietnam to offer me the original documents? Things or events that happened in ancient time. Only if they were recorded by ancient ppl. We can say they did happen once. Otherwise, they are just tales. You can't prove events several hundred years ago by today's ppl.


I understand what you mean. However, we have a map (original document) here and are dicussing about it. Let your doubts about Vietnamese's sovereignty since 16th century in another topic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

Fanling Monk said:


> Such an ignorant question. What makes you think you're right? By those phony maps the Viets brought out? *China can produce them in thousands if there's need to be*. Same arguments by you guys, over and over, give it a rest!



You don't need to declare, I know you will do that   Fake up documents is the only way chinese can do to prove their "historical sovereignty" 



kankan326 said:


> Why I ask you Vietnam to offer me the original documents? Things or events that happened in ancient time. Only if they were recorded by ancient ppl. We can say they did happen once. Otherwise, they are just tales. You can't prove events several hundred years ago by today's ppl.



Oh I had posted them for a long time, you guys just always avoid:



&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3252434 said:


> "Your" islands?  So just tell me about the base of your buffalo's tongue claim
> 
> 1) Your argument about "2000-year-old claim" is ridiculous, you said you "discovered" those islands, but in fact the "discovery" has nothing to do with sovereignty. Look at Colombo and his country, Spain.
> 
> 2) We have a strong base of evidences to prove that we had sovereignty over those islands before 18th-19th century.
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...tly-not-chinese-territory-13.html#post3237586
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...tly-not-chinese-territory-25.html#post3249921
> 
> 
> 
> 3) There are many many maps from your gov before 193x which also don't have Paracel and Spartly:
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...lippines-if-china-attacks-11.html#post3244021
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...tly-not-chinese-territory-24.html#post3248733
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...tly-not-chinese-territory-24.html#post3248736
> 
> 1 or 2 maps isn't a problem. But so many maps is a different story
> 
> 4) Vietnam and Philippines have been asked you to go to international court, but you always avoid. Why? You know that you don't have evidence, so if you go there, you will loose. End of story
> 
> In conclusion, they have never be your islands, you just came and invaded them in 1956, 1974, 1988. So China is the thief, the robber, the bully.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fanling Monk

asean_2015 said:


> I am not sure that I am right. So I only asked you if you agree with my conclusion. If you say that the Chinese maps shown here are toilet papers, then I am wrong.




You have a way of putting your questions and they are offensive at times. All evidences are no good in this forum because people, from all sides, have their minds made up already. I knew that for a fact because, months ago, I was naive and presented many third party evidences and they all fell into death ears. 

There's no need to ask my opinions for mine are just as bias as the rest of you.


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

Fanling Monk said:


> You have a way of putting your questions and they are offensive at times. *All evidences are no good in this forum because people, from all sides, have their minds made up already. I knew that for a fact because, months ago, I was naive and presented many third party evidences and they all fell into death ears. *
> 
> There's no need to ask my opinions for mine are just as bias as the rest of you.



So you mean that chinese people are all brainwashed so that they can't take the truth?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fanling Monk

&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3253763 said:


> So you mean that chinese people are all brainwashed so that they can't take the truth?




Keep on spinning and purposely misinterpret others words. You are good at it.


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

Fanling Monk said:


> Keep on spinning and purposely misinterpret others words. You are good at it.



So it's YES or NO?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fanling Monk

&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3253813 said:


> So it's YES or NO?




YES all Viets, at least the ones in this forum, are brainwashed by the Communist Party of Vietnam. And you all sound the same in fact.


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

Fanling Monk said:


> YES all Viets, at least the ones in this forum, are brainwashed by the Communist Party of Vietnam. And you all sound the same in fact.



First, I have asked about Chinese, not Viet.
Second, we prove our sovereignty by facts and logics, through a lot of strong evidences, and you chinese prove your sovereignty by propaganda only. Therefore, people can see who is brainwashed.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## the_islander

asean_2015 said:


> You should spend time to look at the maps and 26 pages of comments before saying something. Vietnam ocuppied continuously the islands much longer before WW2. Anyway, you are not brave as other Chinese who willingly admitted that China robbed the islands from Vietnam and Philippine.
> 
> I am sure, China is not a paper dragon. I know that China tried to grab Russia's land in 1969.


 
and left 600 dead bodies over Russia's border.



Fanling Monk said:


> YES all Viets, at least the ones in this forum, are brainwashed by the Communist Party of Vietnam. And you all sound the same in fact.



Too bad, we had all other nations's support ! Communist Party can't brainwash other nations' people.

china is a coward nation, don't dare to go to international court to protect so called "stolen islands" from a very ver very weak country.
chinese, we knew your expansionism

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nestea

&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3249900 said:


> 1) You haven't done what I asked: *Go to google maps and find the archipelago which you think was mistaken with Paracels, capture your screen and post here.*
> 
> And if you post here the same islands with my 1834 map, your argument is still invalid, and you will lost number 1).
> 
> 2) You said
> 
> 
> But in *1831*:
> The French book "Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique du Précis de la géographie universelle en huit volumes" (volume 2) was published in Paris, 1831. Page 221 said that: "equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire". "A une egale distance de la cote de Cochinchine et de l'ile d'Hai-nan, l'archipel de Paracels est une dependance de l'empire d'Annam". *No near-coast islands in Central Vietnam is equal-spaced between Vietnamese coast and Hainan, according to 1).*
> 
> Also, in our 1834 map, the near-coast islands in the Central Vietnam are also drawn and totally separated from Paracel:
> So, your argument that "Vietnamese Paracel is the bar area (central Vietnam coast, islands and sandbars)" is invalid, you lost in number 2).
> 
> 3) So you agree that the French mentioned the real Paracel, not the near-coast islands, because of the undeniable fact: No near-coast islands in Central Vietnam is equal-spaced between Vietnamese coast and Hainan.
> Problem solved, you lost in number 3).
> 
> 4)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you still mean that Paracel (Cát Vàng) in this map is just near-coast islands?
> Ok so problem solved, you failed, you lost in number 4).
> 
> 5) Yes, around 200 km, that why we need 3 days 3 nights continuously.
> Just do math. 3 days 3 night continuously -> 72 hours.
> Speed of a small sailing ship is around 4~6 km/h. With 72 hours continuously and we start the journey in sailing season (we have the wind support us), we can even go for 288~432 km! Nothing is impossible there.
> 
> 6) Just go to google map and capture the screen that archipelago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a minute, you have that "near-coast islands" here separated from Paracel. So your argument about "near-coast islands in the Central Vietnam" is invalid. You lost in number 6).
> 
> 7) I see, you afraid of losing so you don't want to go to international court.
> So you lost number 7).
> 
> Your 193x maps mean that 193x is the first time you claim Paracel
> 
> *In conclusion, you have number 1, 5 left to argue. Come on, I know you can't do it*



1. It seems that the Vietnamese IQ is generally not high! I said many times, now you do not understand: What is the geographic coordinates. let me tell you how to use Google Maps to show the accurate location!






2 .In 1831 ,Pracel is a long strip region (this region: wide 106.5km long 500km). French description is too simple, there is no geographic coordinates as a reference. We do not know what geographic coordinates as a starting point, get equal distances of conclusion. Using Google Maps, starting from the northern "Pracel", arrived in Vietnam or on Hainan Island, the distance is over 200 kilometers (see satellite map). For example, people says that Korea is close to the distance from China, this proposition is established. But the problem is that China's territory is large, The fact that only in northeastern China is relatively close distance of Korea.






3. View map, Viet Nam arrived Hainan Island or Malaysia map scales roughly correct. According to Viet Nam&#65292;"&#40643;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;" is the Xisha and Nansha Islands, and then you will find: The map scale is a serious error! if According to this map scale,The Vietnamese side as long as necessary, Can put the coast of Vietnam some islands , Apply to become Java and Timor. It is simply not yet reached the time.

4. This map of the Chinese character meaning Annan ancient map, time for 1938, Appear the European Latin characters. Closer look, we can find a lot of serious problems: 1. Annan 1803 was renamed in Vietnam, but this 1838 map, why do you show Annan? 2. French 1858 invasion of Vietnam in 1885 colonial Vietnam, why this 1938 map appear Latin characters? 3.This map source is unknown, the production time is confusing, draw loosely and there have been many significant errors. So, can we suspect that this map is a fake?

5-6. How do you know "&#32005;&#33337;" or "&#30000;&#22993;&#33337;"speed? You said the speed is no real basis. Your premise is not that established, how can we reach the right result? As I have described in very clear, in 1776, when the ship's features are: small size, poor endurance, speed is very slow! In July 1795, From "&#24291;&#21335;&#27743;&#21475;" to "&#21344;&#23110;&#23798;", a distance of about 12 km, Chinese monks in the after noon (16:00) starting, The second day morning (24:00) reach. The journey time of eight hours, an average speed of 1.5km / h, sailing 72 hours, the voyage also 108km. From here through the Pracel the so-called Vietnam: "&#40643;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;", Need 197.5km, reach the Xisha Islands would need at least 250.75km.

7. I have the front that very clear, China's destiny by their own Control. China is not Vietnam, a poor and backward country, Can only be a pawn of big powers(	The China in World War I), Country's destiny is not controlled by your own! Also, I would like to say: you are not only low-IQ, and eye problems. I have already released the 1712 map, does your eyes blind ?Do not see?






The Map of South and East Ocean Sea Routes was drawn in between 1712-1721 by Qing (Ching) Dynasty Fujian (Fuchien) Province Navy Commander Shi Shibiao, the son of a famous early Qing Dynasty Imperial Officer. This map shows clearly the sea routes, time and decriptions from Chinese coastal ports to Japan, Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia,Brunei, Cambodia and the Phinllipines. In this map, the locations and names of the Southern Sea Islands(Nanhai Zhudao) are very accurate. The map shows clearly Chinese sovereignty over the South China&#12288;Sea Islands including Nansha Islands, Xisha Islands, Zhongsha Islands and Dongsha Islands.Also note the "long bar area" shown in this map which locates close to the Vietnamese coast, which clearly tells that the so called "Truong Sa" and "Hoang Sa" as shown in the 1838 "Complete Map of Unified Great Nam" are not the Nansha (Spratlys) and Xisha (Paracels) Islands of China at all, but refers to the Pullo Canton near the central Vietnamese coast, which was also once been identified as "dangerous group" and named Paracels before Paracels was used to refer to China's Xisha Islands later.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nestea

&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3249921 said:


> Maps which prove that Vietnamese Paracel is far from the coast and *"equal-spaced between Hainan and Vietnamese Central coast"*, but Chinese still want to argue that they are just "near-coast islands":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Western map, 1774
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Western map, 1754
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Western map 1735
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Western map 1760



This proves that your IQ is really low, you have the picture clearly support my point of view, But own not found. Western countries define Pracel, Representative regions are different at different times. Before 1851,Western countries will be the long bar area (central Vietnam coast, islands and sandbars) called "Pracel, After 1851, Western remove long strips of area, "Pracel" transferred to the Xisha Islands now. Note that in 1613,British Captain John Sullivan described ("LES Lunet TES") (Xisha Islands), In the long bar area ("Pracel") northeast. And then view your map, and now feel stupid?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kankan326

asean_2015 said:


> I understand what you mean. However, we have a map (original document) here and are dicussing about it. Let your doubts about Vietnamese's sovereignty since 16th century in another topic.


 
Why you are so keen on showing the maps again and again? Do you mean if a place was shown in your ancient map, the place would magically become yours? Your ancestors must have gotten Harry Potter's wand.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SinoChallenger

asean_2015 said:


> According to your comment, China is one of inferior monkey countries, not mine. Think about the Chinese civil war with several million dead after 1945 and Taiwan was separated from mainland as an independent country. The reason was that Mao Zedong obeyed USSR while Chiang Kai-shek was controlled by US at that time. Is it not a dividing? Inform me if I wrote somthing wrong.
> 
> I suppose the reason the republic of China (not people republic of China) got a seat in the UN security council have been mentioned in another topic. Nothing is permanent. That's why PRC ''grabbed'' the seat from Taiwan.
> 
> Anyway, you more or less agreed with my story. The grab started with the map published in 1946 by republic of China. The map helped republic of China and then people republic of China to grab other islands.
> 
> China is very powerful now because of the brave people like you. I totally agree with you. Only the very brave Chinese people admitted that China grabbed islands from other countries.


   Of course China grabs islands.... we grab it so they don't fall into the hands of inferior nations like yours. We grab it so our fisherman can continue fishing there as we did for hundreds of years.

 but we are not done yet -- these islands are just a forward military base to launch attacks on your country so we can subjugated you like your favorite Western powers did for hundreds of years.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## asean_2015

SinoChallenger said:


> Of course China grabs islands.... we grab it so they don't fall into the hands of inferior nations like yours. We grab it so our fisherman can continue fishing there as we did for hundreds of years.
> 
> but we are not done yet -- these islands are just a forward military base to launch attacks on your country so we can subjugated you like your favorite Western powers did for hundreds of years.


Grab is grab. However, your explaination for China's grab is quite interesting. Imagine one simple situation, you spend a night at your neiborgh's house, and then you rob the house because you want to continue to sleep there. For me, it is not reasonable but it may be reasonable for the brave Chinese like you. 

I am not supprise if China continues trying to rob other islands of Vietnam, Japan, Philippine ... but it is not the topic to be discussed here. You, a brave Chinese, agreed China is a robber. That's enough.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

Nestea said:


> 1. It seems that the Vietnamese IQ is generally not high! I said many times, now you do not understand: What is the geographic coordinates. let me tell you how to use Google Maps to show the accurate location!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 .In 1831 ,&#8221;Pracel&#8221; is a long strip region (this region: wide 106.5km long 500km). French description is too simple, there is no geographic coordinates as a reference. We do not know what geographic coordinates as a starting point, get equal distances of conclusion. Using Google Maps, starting from the northern "Pracel", arrived in Vietnam or on Hainan Island, the distance is over 200 kilometers (see satellite map). For example, people says that Korea is close to the distance from China, this proposition is established. But the problem is that China's territory is large, The fact that only in northeastern China is relatively close distance of Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. View map, Viet Nam arrived Hainan Island or Malaysia map scales roughly correct. According to Viet Nam&#65292;"&#40643;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;" is the Xisha and Nansha Islands, and then you will find: The map scale is a serious error! if According to this map scale,The Vietnamese side as long as necessary, Can put the coast of Vietnam some islands , Apply to become Java and Timor. It is simply not yet reached the time.
> 
> 4. This map of the Chinese character meaning Annan ancient map, time for 1938, Appear the European Latin characters. Closer look, we can find a lot of serious problems: 1. Annan 1803 was renamed in Vietnam, but this 1838 map, why do you show Annan? 2. French 1858 invasion of Vietnam in 1885 colonial Vietnam, why this 1938 map appear Latin characters? 3.This map source is unknown, the production time is confusing, draw loosely and there have been many significant errors. So, can we suspect that this map is a fake?
> 
> 5-6. How do you know "&#32005;&#33337;" or "&#30000;&#22993;&#33337;"speed? You said the speed is no real basis. Your premise is not that established, how can we reach the right result? As I have described in very clear, in 1776, when the ship's features are: small size, poor endurance, speed is very slow! In July 1795, From "&#24291;&#21335;&#27743;&#21475;" to "&#21344;&#23110;&#23798;", a distance of about 12 km, Chinese monks in the after noon (16:00) starting, The second day morning (24:00) reach. The journey time of eight hours, an average speed of 1.5km / h, sailing 72 hours, the voyage also 108km. From here through the &#8221;Pracel&#8220; the so-called Vietnam: "&#40643;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;", Need 197.5km, reach the Xisha Islands would need at least 250.75km.
> 
> 7. I have the front that very clear, China's destiny by their own Control. China is not Vietnam, a poor and backward country, Can only be a pawn of big powers(	The China in World War I), Country's destiny is not controlled by your own! Also, I would like to say: you are not only low-IQ, and eye problems. I have already released the 1712 map, does your eyes blind ?Do not see?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Map of South and East Ocean Sea Routes was drawn in between 1712-1721 by Qing (Ching) Dynasty Fujian (Fuchien) Province Navy Commander Shi Shibiao, the son of a famous early Qing Dynasty Imperial Officer. This map shows clearly the sea routes, time and decriptions from Chinese coastal ports to Japan, Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia,Brunei, Cambodia and the Phinllipines. In this map, the locations and names of the Southern Sea Islands(Nanhai Zhudao) are very accurate. The map shows clearly Chinese sovereignty over the South China&#12288;Sea Islands including Nansha Islands, Xisha Islands, Zhongsha Islands and Dongsha Islands.Also note the "long bar area" shown in this map which locates close to the Vietnamese coast, which clearly tells that the so called "Truong Sa" and "Hoang Sa" as shown in the 1838 "Complete Map of Unified Great Nam" are not the Nansha (Spratlys) and Xisha (Paracels) Islands of China at all, but refers to the Pullo Canton near the central Vietnamese coast, which was also once been identified as "dangerous group" and named Paracels before Paracels was used to refer to China's Xisha Islands later.



1) Great, so now you have the map. *And where are the islands in your "Long region"? * There is not a single archipelago in your "long region", so definitely your argument is failed.
I asked you to *find the archipelago in Central Vietnam which you think was mistaken with Paracels*, not to find the sea.
You lost in number 1.
2) lol are you using ruler to measure the distance in old maps and then ... calculate? You failed 
*I asked you to find an archipelago that is equal-spaced between Hainan and Vietnamese coast in Central Vietnam, you haven't done it, so you still lost un number 2*
3) Yes, the "scale" between Paracels, and Central Vietnamese coast is wrong because of bad technique. That what I've said a long time ago. Then?.
The fact is still there: *No near-coast islands in Central Vietnam is equal-spaced between Vietnamese coast and Hainan.*
Problem solved, you lost in number 3
4) You are confused with your number. It's 1838 map. 
- We were never named An Nam officially, it's kind of "nick name" we used in diplomacy with China, because it was given by Tang dynasty. The Westerners also used that name. Our official names in Medieval age and Modern Age are &#272;&#7841;i C&#7891; Vi&#7879;t -> &#272;&#7841;i Vi&#7879;t -> &#272;&#7841;i Ngu -> &#272;&#7841;i Vi&#7879;t -> Vi&#7879;t Nam -> &#272;&#7841;i Nam -> Vi&#7879;t Nam.
- It's drawn with the help Westerners so it had Latin characters.
- Jean-Louis Taberd drew it under Minh Mang of Nguyen Dynasty, then the map is re-printed in _Dictionarium Latino-Annamiticum completum et novo ordine dispositum_, 1838.
Any question?
*That map definitely shows that Vietnamese Paracels is not Near-Coast islands.* So you lost in number 4.
5) *Your Chinese monks didn't go in sailing season (windy season), didn't go continuously without rest like us, didn't have the same kind of sailing boat*. Why you can say what kind of boat did our Paracel Team use? Example are not matched, so your example is failed. With the favourable wind (so the boat can go around 4-6 nautical miles per hour) and go continuously, it's possible. Unless you have the data that say what kind of boat we used with its parameter, you can't deny the Paracel Team with "speed" argument.
6) Try to group this with your "speed" argument?




*Yeah you have that "near-coast islands" here separated from Paracel. So your argument about "near-coast islands in the Central Vietnam" is invalid.* You lost in number 6)
7) I see, you afraid of losing so you don't want to go to international court.
So you lost number 7).



Nestea said:


> This proves that your IQ is really low, you have the picture clearly support my point of view, But own not found. Western countries define &#8220;Pracel&#8221;, Representative regions are different at different times. Before 1851,Western countries will be the long bar area (central Vietnam coast, islands and sandbars) called "Pracel, After 1851, Western remove long strips of area, "Pracel" transferred to the Xisha Islands now. Note that in 1613,British Captain John Sullivan described ("LES Lunet TES") (Xisha Islands), In the long bar area ("Pracel") northeast. And then view your map, and now feel stupid?



Why the "real Paracel" is just *next to* the "Vietnamese near-coast islands", not even a small distance? :And then "real Paracel" is much more smaller in both size and quantity and less noticeable than "near-coast islands" 

So it's completely not the real Paracel. Exactly *it's Macclesfield Bank*. We don't claim it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## asean_2015

kankan326 said:


> Why you are so keen on showing the maps again and again? Do you mean if a place was shown in your ancient map, the place would magically become yours? Your ancestors must have gotten Harry Potter's wand.


I only suppose that a national map is a strong evidence of the sovereignty of that country. If you look at the map 1904, it clearly shows that Hainan island belongs to China. Or do you mean although Hainan island was in the national map of China, it belonged to Vietnam or Philippine?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

kankan326 said:


> Why you are so keen on showing the maps again and again? Do you mean if a place was shown in your ancient map, the place would magically become yours? Your ancestors must have gotten Harry Potter's wand.



I think that "ancient map" is also your "evidence". The difference is we have real maps and you have fantasy maps in your dream.



SinoChallenger said:


> Of course China grabs islands.... we grab it so they don't fall into the hands of inferior nations like yours. We grab it so our fisherman can continue fishing there as we did for hundreds of years



You went fishing there but we didn't?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## laman12345

Vietnam only can big talk in front of a monitor

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

laman12345 said:


> Vietnam only can big talk in front of a monitor



And in international court if china ever dares to go there to solve the problem.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## lilo123

laman12345 said:


> Vietnam only can big talk in front of a monitor



So you want to start a war instead and let people die ? Don't you people see that being aggressive is pointless ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## asean_2015

laman12345 said:


> Vietnam only can big talk in front of a monitor


This means you did not know or did not hear the international conferences or workshops about the south china sea. For example First International Workshop

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## harryhayward

"named Paracels before Paracels was used to refer to China's Xisha Islands later in the history"

This is what an ashame. Paracels is not refer to China, it is refer to Vietnam. The King of Vietnam bring troop to the Islands hundred of years ago. There is ancient maps from European navigators state that Paracels belong to Vietnam, I will post the evidence here.

Can you give evidence that Paracels refer to China? I am pretty sure that you cant, cos Paracels never belong to China. But I can find, cos it is belong to Vietnam

"I don't care who you are or what you say. But if you're not an American citizen you should change one of your flag otherwise others will perceived you speak on American's perspectives."

When I choose the flag, the forum ask me what language I use and where I live, both of my choices are correct so the way you state seem illogical here. 

Next year I can become US citizen. But it does not a matter if I am Amecian or not, this is the freedom of speed and arguement. I live in the US for 12 years and of course I consider it is very important for me. 

How do you understand the word "speak for US people" who is people here? there are about 400mil people in the US and not all people have the same opinion. I cant agree with your statement

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

I suggest you guys worry less about some old maps and start looking at the new Chinese military installations. They are a lot more interesting and relevant in a real war.

*China builds its military infrastructure in the South China Sea*






AFP/Getty Images - *A newly constructed radar dome on Chinese-controlled Subi Reef*, around 15 nautical miles northwest of the Philippine-controlled Pag-asa Islands on the disputed Spratly Islands.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## harryhayward

Nestea said:


> 1635 Netherlands:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This figure, the top of the long strip Note Doa Javaquero, right indicate Pracel, on the left coast of Vietnam on Pulo S Polo, Pulo Cotan, Lan tam, a long strip at the bottom of Pulo Citi
> 
> 1680 Netherlands:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Long strip superscript Pracel, On the left labeled Pulo Cham, Strip form began to close to Vietnam coast , Nansha Islands in the lower right corner of display.
> 
> 1747 United Kingdom:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The long rectangular label of Shoal of Pracel, The top right of a few small islands marked as "the Triangle", Xisha Islands from a long strip of "Paracels" separation, independent of an archipelago
> 
> 1750 United Kingdom:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Long strip marked with "Pracel its upper right is the separation of a separate Islands labeled" of Li Ochiali
> 
> 1775 United Kingdom:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Long strip marked with "Pracel its upper right is the separation of a separate Islands labeled" of Li Ochiali
> 
> 1812 United Kingdom:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Long strip marked with "Pracel its upper right is the separation of a separate Islands labeled" Amphitrite, Dry Lime Shoali
> 
> 
> 1851 United Kingdom:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This diagram Note North Sh (oa) l, Paracels, Amphitrite Is, Crescent, Discovery Shoal, Bombay Shoal, Macclesfield Bank, Scarborough Shoal and other words, the various reefs group label has basically modern naming. a very modern map began on the map to remove the long strip, But the Paracels this name transferred to now the real xisha islands.
> 
> Western understanding of the China Sea is the ancient Chinese map in the transmission of information, Once the central Vietnam coast not far from some of the shoals, sandbars painted a long strip, And called Parcel / Pracel (s) / Paracels, But Until 1747, they discovered that the Xisha Islands of China, And began to draw in the upper right corner of the long strip of the Xisha Islands, and gave several different names, Later, a very modern (for example ,1851 United Kingdom) map began on the map to remove the long strip, But the Paracels this name transferred to now the real xisha islands.
> 
> &#12298;The Complete Map of Unified Great Nam&#12299;,Longitude point of view, these two Islands is too close to the coast of Vietnam, After all, this time in the 19th century, other territories in Vietnam is probably more accurately described why such a big difference of the two Islands? Latitude and Islands and the distribution of the shape difference is also great, from the map, the two Islands together to form a long strip, but in fact the Paracel Islands and Spratly Islands are far apart, the distribution is not a long strip, At this time no matter how backward mapping technology, nor will the two Islands to draw so close! Contrast map of the Western release above, we can find, &#40644;&#27801;" and "&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;, In fact, from the 1613 British Captain John Sullivan wrote &#12298;Sailing log &#12299;, Map described in the "long zone". Regardless of position or shape point of view, the two maps are the same. In the long strip zone on the map, The top label (Pulon Cham), Central label (Pulou Canton), Bottom marked&#65288;Pulou Gambir). It can be predicted this long zone(&#12298;The Complete Map of Unified Great Nam&#12299;&#40644;&#27801;"and"&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;), Is along the direction parallel with the coast of central Vietnam, the distribution of some small islands and sandbars. John Sullivan in the book describes the long strip, its shaped like a foot, foot, thumb towards the southwest, located at latitude 12 °~ 16 ° 30 east longitude 110 ° ~ 111 °. In the long strip northwest, north latitude 16 ° to 17 °, longitude 111 ° 30 'to 112 ° 42', (Les Lunet tes), the island was lateral distribution. The Xisha Islands (latitude 15 ° 42 '~ 17 ° 08', longitude 111 ° 10 '~ 112 ° 55). They are able to judge, (Les Lunet te) Chinese Xisha Islands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Map of South and East Ocean Sea Routes was drawn in between 1712-1721 by Qing (Ching) Dynasty Fujian (Fuchien) Province Navy Commander Shi Shibiao, the son of a famous early Qing Dynasty Imperial Officer. This map shows clearly the sea routes, time and decriptions from Chinese coastal ports to Japan, Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia,Brunei, Cambodia and the Phinllipines. In this map, the locations and names of the Southern Sea Islands(Nanhai Zhudao) are very accurate. The map shows clearly Chinese sovereignty over the South China&#12288;Sea Islands including Nansha Islands, Xisha Islands, Zhongsha Islands and Dongsha Islands.Also note the "long bar area" shown in this map which locates close to the Vietnamese coast, which clearly tells that the so called "Truong Sa" and "Hoang Sa" as shown in the 1838 "Complete Map of Unified Great Nam" are not the Nansha (Spratlys) and Xisha (Paracels) Islands of China at all, but refers to the Pullo Canton near the central Vietnamese coast, which was also once been identified as "dangerous group" and named Paracels before Paracels was used to refer to China's Xisha Islands later in the history.



This is what an ashame. Paracels is not refer to China, it is refer to Vietnam. The King of Vietnam bring troop to the Islands hundred of years ago. There is ancient maps from European navigators state that Paracels belong to Vietnam, I will post the evidence here.

Can you give evidence that Paracels refer to China? I am pretty sure that you cant, cos Paracels never belong to China. But I can find, cos it is belong to Vietnam

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## harryhayward

longyi said:


> Do you feel ashamed when your country is doing all those things you mentioned in the Middle East and other places? I do. Or you're just a hypocrite saying your country invades others for the sake of humanities.



For the case of Libya, The dictator kill its people so the people call for help from the UN. The US help Libya people to kick out the dictator, we, the US, did not get any piece of land
For Iraq, the reason originally from terrorism, not invade.
For Vietnam war, it is the South fight the North,...

All case, the US did not get any piece of land from those contries, not like the PRC, invade Tibet, invade partially other neighbor countries. Now planning to invade its neighbor countries on the EEZ and seem want all international sea too.



ComeAtMeBro said:


> Then what are you want to do?
> You're government doesn't want to start a war to claim "YOUR" so called lands.
> They resort to bullying which is disgustful and unrespectable to the eyes of the other nation
> 
> Dude we are not on the ancient eras anymore.
> You can't just go around yelling anyone labeling them thieves
> 
> You need proofs, evidences, documents
> You need to backup your claims
> 
> China is the one who avoids the court for some weird reason
> Didn't they teach you political science on your school?
> No offense bro but you are really blinded by your government.
> 
> The only way to end this conflict is via diplomat or war
> Tell your government to grow some BALLS and stop bullying FFS



Not only the Chinese gov, but also lot of Chinese people who only get infor from their gov. They want to invade other contries without any worry about they wrong.

All they want is killing people who are not follow them:

???????? - ?? - ?

With google translation:Google Translate

While the Chinese gov speak to the world that they are peaceful, but it is not true. All they want is killing, as many post on globaltimes.cn

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## dunhill

harryhayward said:


> For the case of Libya, The dictator kill its people so the people call for help from the UN. The US help Libya people to kick out the dictator, we, the US, did not get any piece of land
> For Iraq, the reason originally from terrorism, not invade.
> For Vietnam war, it is the South fight the North,...
> 
> All case, the *US did not get any piece of land from those contries*, not like the PRC, invade Tibet, invade partially other neighbor countries. Now planning to invade its neighbor countries on the EEZ and seem want all international sea too.



If there is a choice 2 old enemies China and U.S, I'll pick U.S for best. At least, Vietnamese people could learn from U.S the high technologies, democracy rather than always put the *meter* for every time you want to *make love* due to its "One child policy". That's how China is.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## harryhayward

kankan326 said:


> In ancient time, SCS was a busy water route, which was called Maritime Silk Road. And there were several fisheries for Chinese fishermen. The odds that those islands were not found by ancient Chinese is zero. Actually, there were evidences once. On some of the islands, there were temples and tombs built by Chinese. But right after these islands were stolen, the evidences were wiped away by thief gov. And their ppl were told nothing was there. Our ancient books also mentioned these islands many times.
> 
> People lived in ancient time didn't have the concept of asserting sovereignty. I don't know to whom you claimed your sovereignty and how you maintained your sovereignty. Sounds funny that your ancestors could do the acts only modern ppl could do. And how your ancient gov managed these islands that are so far away from your mainland? There is word you guys always mentioned: brain-washed. By the way, there was no country called Vietnam in 1939. So Japan couldn't stole something from air. In 1939, China was fighting against Japan's invasion. France and Japan had not declared war to each other yet. For Japanese, there is only one explanation: They took the islands from China, not from France.
> 
> Cairo statement didn't mention Hainan island either. It always belongs to China. So we did't need Japanese to "return" us.



"And how your ancient gov managed these islands that are so far away from your mainland?"

The fact is that Vietnamse Emperor did rule that island with troop. There are evidence, boat, documents... All evidence are ready to bring to the court and welcome to be verified by high reputation lap whether or not it is true.

You cant say Paracels belong to China because you have no convincing reason, evidence for that. How can you claim Paracels belong to china? by some sink boats? some equipments? it is not convincing cos now CHinese gov can put any items on the offshore of Paracels and say, it found evidence. Even true evidence, if found, is not convincing cos it only state that china boat used to pass the island, not the owner of the island. You guy need rulling documents and evidence. That you guy never have because in the past, China never owe Paracels

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## harryhayward

KirovAirship said:


> You ridiculed that guy who declares Vietnam belongs to China by replying him "I declare that China belongs to Mongolia".
> I'm not supporting his silly comment, but I think you are using the wrong "example", since China never belongs to Mongolia.



I understand what the guy Dao Bach Long Vy mean, it is an analogy, to show the illustration. 

If China invaded Vietnam, and claim Vietnam as territory of China. So statement will come to any invader can claim its invaded countries as territory.
According to this statement, Mongolia, at the age of great Khan, who invade European, Asian countries, including China, did invade China for hundred of years, so now Mongolia can claim China as its territory.

Also, Japan who invade China in 1930's, can claim China as Its territory , if the statement "China invade Vietnam thousand years ago so Vietnam is territory of China" is true

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## harryhayward

Rechoice said:


> Ma cau flag, but you are mainlander brainwashed by CPC. Comparation is not relative. Stop at China's situation.
> Mongolian invaded and ruled chinese. Chinese given up and accepted Mongolian to rule you. Kings of Yuan Dynasty were Mongolian. They used Chinese to rule Chinese. Haha. You are typical Ah Q chinese, have a habitat to do masturbation themselves. The same thing Manchus did with Chinese. You are chinese have been following the hairdo cut from Man Qing...



Pls have neutral tone here, to all people. I believe that Macao, HK, originally from China but they know what is right or wrong better than people in PRC, who got info mostly from Chinese gov, and the way they think is not critical thinking



Fanling Monk said:


> I laugh at the thief, who stole 40 islands quietly, wants to take the victims to court, perhaps &#24694;&#20154;&#20808;&#21578;&#29366; is a perfect term to describe that particular thief. The worst thing for him is he thinks everybody is on his side. LOL



That's only your rude opinion, who rob here, the guy bring troop to invade violently while vietnam having domestic war, or the owner with documents and evidences?

Can you guys argue with convincing documents and evidence rather than a stupid statement like thief.. YOu live in Hongkong, get enough education, can you argue in scholar way,cos seem pet, just raise the opinion, not educated people?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Snomannen

harryhayward said:


> I understand what the guy Dao Bach Long Vy mean, it is an analogy, to show the illustration.
> 
> If China invaded Vietnam, and claim Vietnam as territory of China. So statement will come to any invader can claim its invaded countries as territory.
> According to this statement, Mongolia, at the age of great Khan, who invade European, Asian countries, including China, did invade China for hundred of years, so now Mongolia can claim China as its territory.
> 
> Also, Japan who invade China in 1930's, can claim China as Its territory , if the statement "China invade Vietnam thousand years ago so Vietnam is territory of China" is true



I know it is an analogy, a wrong analogy. 
As I said, there was not a country named "China" before the Republic. How could the ancient Mongolia invaded a country that is not even exist? Same story to German, how could Bismarck even invade Germany?
Modern China is a multinational state established by Chinese ethnic groups including Tibetan, Han, Manchu, Mongol etc. AlthoughOuter Mongolia (Khalkha Mongolia) betrayed the family and become an independent state "Mongolia", Outer Mongolian (Khalkha people) has no rights to claim China in front of Inner Mongolian (Chinese, Golden Family, successors of Genghis Khan).

and yes it is a off-topic which is not related to the maps and evidences, actually I have to keep silence to the main topic since I don't know the true. However, there's concept has to be fixed here.


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

*Old map proves China&#8217;s claims are worthless*






Last update 01/08/2012 11:00:00 SA (GMT+7)

*VietNamNet Bridge &#8211; An old Chinese map published during the Qing dynasty in 1904 indicates that the most southerly point of China is Hainan Island and it does not include the Hoang Sa (Paracel) and Truong Sa (Spratly) Archipelagoes.*

The aged Chinese map, an administrative boundary map of provinces, is historical evidence and a legal proof that confirms Vietnam&#8217;s sovereignty over Hoang Sa and Truong Sa.
It was in the possession of Dr. Mai Ngoc Hong, a former head of the Han-Nom Institute&#8217;s Library and Documentation Department and Director of the Vietnam Family Annals Scientific Application and Research Centre. He presented it to the Vietnam National Museum of History on the morning of July 25.
Hong, who had owned the map for 35 years, said that in 1904 it was the most modern map of China , after Emperors from the Qing Dynasty had directed clergymen, astronomers and surveyors to produce it. It was created across almost two centuries (1708-1904) from the Emperor Kangxi to the Emperor Guangxu.
More specifically, in 1708, the 47 th Emperor Kangxi, recruited several western clergymen, including Joachim Bouvet, Petrus Pierre Jartoux, Jean Baptiste Regis and Xavier Ehrenbert Fridelli, who were initially charged with drawing a map of the Great Wall.
However in 1711, the Emperor asked them to survey the 13 provinces he was ruler of.
From that date onwards, for almost 200 years, Chinese and western intellectuals have together collected and researched China&#8217;s administrative boundary maps to supplement the original ones made by clergymen. The prestigious western clergymen that helped China to produce the map included Matteo Ricci, Joannes Adam Schall Von Bell, and Ferdinandus Verbiest.
Hong said the map&#8217;s accuracy and scientific features are reflected in the fact that it in a serious manner by scientists under the close guidance of the emperors.
The map has coordinates, meridians, latitudes and longitudes, showing its legality. It indicates that the southernmost point of China is Hainan Island and it does not include Hoang Sa and Truong Sa.
According to the researcher of ancient Chinese script, Pham Hoang Quan, under the reign of the Qing dynasty, the majority of China&#8217;s administrative maps show the nation&#8217;s exact territorial boundaries to scale.
Apart from the above-mentioned map, there were other maps such as a national map of China completed in 1719. The project was initiated by Emperor Kangxi and carried out by western clergymen. The map clearly states the southernmost point of China&#8217;s territory as Ya Zhou, now Hainan , at latitude of 18 degree 21&#8217;36 north.
The map is of special significance and lays the foundation in terms of the longitude and latitude for most subsequent administrative maps, even the Qing dynasty&#8217;s map in 1904, stressed Quan.
Regarding the historical evidence confirming Vietnam&#8217;s sovereignty over the Truong Sa and Hoang Sa archipelagoes, historian Duong Trung Quoc said that ever since the Nguyen Dynasty, Vietnam has controlled and managed the Hoang Sa and Truong Sa archipelagos.
Bibliographies and maps of Vietnamese dynasties mention the Nguyen Lords, who sent the Bac Hai and Hoang Sa naval forces to the islands. In 1834, the Minh Mang dynasty had produced a map showing the Truong Sa strip clearly positioned in the East Sea, said the historian.
According to East Sea researcher Dinh Kim Phuc, the discovery of the 1904 map made by the Chinese themselves and published over 100 years ago is of great significance.
&#8220;This is even more ammunition for our dossier of evidence confirming Vietnam&#8217;s sovereignty over Hoang Sa and Truong Sa, *which will be submitted to the United Nations in the future*&#8221;, he said.

VietNamNet

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BoQ77

Let focus on the subject, 

Look at the 1904 map of Qing Dynasty, could you see any evidence showing that Paracel islands belong to Chinese ?
tell me Chinese pals ???

Whether Paracel islands belong to Vietnam or not, it's another subject, those need Vietnamese showing their evidences ...

Chinese men are smart, do not think that the nine dashed line map without any exact figures could lure them ... you could draw by pencil onto an existent map easily ... We could give you the eraser, 
all kids could be superior than you in drawing the line without dashed ... 

What happen to the gap between those nine dashed lines ?? It confirm the doubt of the Chinese , right ?

Think again ... why 9 dashed lines ??


----------



## Snomannen

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> *Old map proves China&#8217;s claims are worthless*
> 
> VietNamNet Bridge &#8211; An old Chinese map published during the Qing dynasty in 1904 indicates that the most southerly point of China is Hainan Island and it does not include the Hoang Sa (Paracel) and Truong Sa (Spratly) Archipelagoes.[/B]
> 
> The aged Chinese map, an administrative boundary map of provinces, is historical evidence and a legal proof that confirms Vietnam&#8217;s sovereignty over Hoang Sa and Truong Sa.



They still don't realize that it is just a "&#30452;&#30465;" map, not a full map like those you have posted above?


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

KirovAirship said:


> They still don't realize that it is just a "&#30452;&#30465;" map, not a full map like those you have posted above?



lol so post your "full map" here 
You guys just don't have a single "full map" before 1904?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Snomannen

&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3257520 said:


> lol so post your "full map" here
> You guys just don't have a single "full map" before 1904?




Why?
You are the one who display an old "*MIDDLE LAND* OF CHINA" map in a MUSEUM as an evidence.
I repeat, you are using the WRONG map, that's it.

Again, if you want to show evidence, submit a CHINA MAP (like those maps you have posted above in this thread) to the UN, not a PART-OF-CHINA MAP. 
Is it clear enough?


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

KirovAirship said:


> Why?
> You are the one who display an old "*MIDDLE LAND* OF CHINA" map in a MUSEUM as an evidence.
> I repeat, you are using the WRONG map, that's it.
> 
> Again, if you want to show evidence, submit a CHINA MAP (like those maps you have posted above in this thread) to the UN, not a PART-OF-CHINA MAP.
> Is it clear enough?



Lol I think China call itself "Midde land", am I wrong? 
And if you mean "China's full map" is the map that has Paracels, then China had had no "full map" until 193x

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Snomannen

&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3257652 said:


> Lol I think China call itself "Midde land", am I wrong?
> And if you mean "China's full map" is the map that has Paracels, then China had had no "full map" until 193x




Vietnam, Korea and Japan also used to call themselves "Middle Land&#65288;&#20013;&#33775;/&#20013;&#22283;&#65289;", so? 

YUNo read? --> [those maps you have posted above in this thread]

I'm pointing out the mistake, I give you advise, I'm HELPING you, but look at your attitude.


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

KirovAirship said:


> They still don't realize that it is just a "&#30452;&#30465;" map, not a full map like those you have posted above?



So, Which province of China which Hoang Sa (Paracel) Islands and Truong Sa (Spratly) Islands belong to? 
Wasn't that province shown on the map of China 1904?



KirovAirship said:


> Vietnam, Korea and Japan also used to call themselves "Middle Land&#65288;&#20013;&#33775;/&#20013;&#22283;&#65289;", so?
> 
> YUNo read? --> [those maps you have posted above in this thread]
> 
> I'm pointing out the mistake, I give you advise, I'm HELPING you, but look at your attitude.



What the hell was "Middle Land"?
We only know "China" or "Trung qu&#7889;c" was transcribed from "&#20013;&#22269;". What the hell "Middle Land"?


----------



## Snomannen

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> So, Which province of China which Hoang Sa (Paracel) Islands and Truong Sa (Spratly) Islands belong to?
> Wasn't that province shown on the map of China 1904?
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell was "Middle Land"?
> We only know "China" or "Trung qu&#7889;c" was transcribed from "&#20013;&#22269;". What the hell "Middle Land"?



I don't know, but you can't find Mongolia and other territories from the map either, that's why I suggest using a "full map" instead of this one in order to avoid unclear factors.

Middle Land is just a direct translation of "&#20013;&#22283;" from your history books: 

"&#33258;&#21476;&#22839;&#29380;&#28858;&#24739;*&#20013;&#22283;*" 
(Since ancient times, barbarians have always been trouble to the *Middle Land*)
---- Le Thanh Tong

the "&#20013;&#22283;" here clearly means "Vietnam"


also in Japanese history book:

[&#20013;&#26397;&#20107;&#23526;]

&#12288;&#24658;&#35264;&#33980;&#28023;&#20043;&#28961;&#31406;&#32773;&#65292;&#19981;&#30693;&#20854;&#22823;&#65307;&#24120;&#23621;&#21407;&#37326;&#20043;&#28961;&#30054;&#32773;&#65292;&#19981;&#35672;&#20854;&#24291;&#12290;&#26159;&#20037;&#32780;&#29379;&#20063;&#65292;&#35912;&#21807;&#28023;&#37326;&#20046;&#24858;&#12290;&#29983;*&#20013;&#33775;*&#25991;&#26126;&#20043;&#22303;&#65292;&#26410;&#30693;&#20854;&#32654;&#65292;&#23560;&#21980;&#22806;&#26397;&#20043;&#32147;&#20856;&#65292;&#22032;&#22032;&#24917;&#20854;&#20154;&#29289;&#12290;&#20309;&#20854;&#25918;&#24515;&#20046;&#12290;&#20309;&#20854;&#21930;&#24535;&#20046;&#12290;&#25233;&#22909;&#22855;&#20046;&#65311;&#23559;&#23578;&#30064;&#20046;&#65311;&#22827;&#20013;&#22283;&#20043;&#27700;&#22303;&#21331;&#29246;&#26044;&#33836;&#37030;&#65292;&#32780;&#20154;&#29289;&#31934;&#31168;&#20110;&#20843;&#32024;&#12290;&#25925;&#31070;&#26126;&#20043;&#27915;&#27915;&#65292;&#32854;&#27835;&#20043;&#32220;&#32220;&#12290;&#29029;&#20046;&#25991;&#29289;&#65292;&#36203;&#20046;&#27494;&#24503;&#65292;&#20197;&#21487;&#27604;&#22825;&#22756;&#20063;&#12290;&#20170;&#27506;&#20908;&#21313;&#26377;&#19968;&#26376;&#65292;&#32232;&#30343;&#32113;&#20043;&#23526;&#20107;&#65292;&#20196;&#20818;&#31461;&#35494;&#28937;&#65292;&#19981;&#24536;&#20854;&#26412;&#20113;&#29246;&#12290;
(...Born in the *Middle Land* the civilization...)

---- Yamaga Soko


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

KirovAirship said:


> I don't know, but you can't find Mongolia and other territories from the map either, that's why I suggest using a "full map" instead of this one in order to avoid unclear factors.
> 
> Middle Land is just a direct translation of "&#20013;&#22283;" from your history books:
> 
> "&#33258;&#21476;&#22839;&#29380;&#28858;&#24739;*&#20013;&#22283;*"
> (Since ancient times, barbarians have always been trouble to the *Middle Land*)
> ---- Le Thanh Tong
> 
> the "&#20013;&#22283;" here clearly means "Vietnam"



I know you do not know, because it not belong to any province of China. 
Do you know why? Because the two archipelagos belong to Vietnam, so you cannot find them belongs to any province of China.
Do you understand?


----------



## Snomannen

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> I know you do not know, because it not belong to any province of China.
> Do you know why? Because the two archipelagos belong to Vietnam, so you cannot find them belongs to any province of China.
> Do you understand?



or they were just not need to be shown on the "part-of-China" map just like missing the part of Mongolia, 
this can be used as a excuse to against your evidence, right? 
As an evidence, it has to be all clear to avoid any unclear factor, right? 
So why do they use a "trouble-making' map as an evidence instead of using other "full map" have been posted in this thread?
Again, I'm helping you, HELP.


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

KirovAirship said:


> or they were just not need to be shown on the "part-of-China" map just like missing the part of Mongolia,
> this can be used as a excuse to against your evidence, right?
> As an evidence, it has to be all clear to avoid any unclear factor, right?
> So why do they use a "trouble-making' map as an evidence instead of using other "full map" have been posted in this thread?
> Again, I'm helping you, HELP.



OK, I'm happy to help you,
Look at photo of the map of China in1904 below, and can you read the letters "Mongolie" at the upper of the map?
But you cannot find the two archipelagos Hoang Sa (Paracels) and Truong Sa (Spratlys), Right?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## EastSea

KirovAirship said:


> They still don't realize that it is just a "&#30452;&#30465;" map, not a full map like those you have posted above?



Look at the map, idiot chinese, two Han chinese character by the left. What does it means *&#20840;&#22294; : Full map: Toàn &#272;&#7891; .*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Snomannen

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> OK, I'm happy to help you,
> Look at photo of the map of China in1904 below, and can you read the letters "Mongolie" at the upper of the map?
> But you cannot find the two archipelagos Hoang Sa (Paracels) and Truong Sa (Spratlys), Right?



Oops, the "whole" Mongolia, my bad.



EastSea said:


> Look at the map, idiot chinese, two Han chinese character by the left. What does it means *&#20840;&#22294; : Full map: Toàn &#272;&#7891; .*



&#20840;&#22294; = full map
&#30452;&#30465;&#20840;&#22294; = full map of the middle land of China


Problem?


----------



## EastSea

KirovAirship said:


> Oops, the "whole" Mongolia, my bad.
> 
> 
> 
> &#20840;&#22294; = full map
> &#30452;&#30465;&#20840;&#22294; = full map of the middle land of China
> 
> 
> Problem?





middle land of China: *&#20013;&#21407;*. Do you know where is this land ?


----------



## Snomannen

EastSea said:


> middle land of China: *&#20013;&#21407;*. Do you know where is this land ?



Depends on which dynasty of China. 
During the Southern Song, "middle land" = Jin Dynasty = "&#20013;&#22283;"
During the Qing Dynasty, It means &#30452;&#30465; (provinces directly under control of the central government)


----------



## EastSea

KirovAirship said:


> Depends on which dynasty of China.
> During the Southern Song, "middle land" = Jin Dynasty = "&#20013;&#22283;"
> During the Qing Dynasty, It means &#30452;&#30465; (provinces directly under control of the central government)



Don't get away, answer my question first: Where is &#20013;&#21407; ?


----------



## Snomannen

EastSea said:


> Don't get away, answer my question first: Where is &#20013;&#21407; ?


 
How many degrees of short-sighted are you?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Diamond_Gold

KirovAirship said:


> How many degrees of short-sighted are you?



All the while he has been contracted with Selective blindness and a Very serious myopia. LOLOL...


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

KirovAirship said:


> Vietnam, Korea and Japan also used to call themselves "Middle Land&#65288;&#20013;&#33775;/&#20013;&#22283;&#65289;", so?
> 
> YUNo read? --> [those maps you have posted above in this thread]
> 
> I'm pointing out the mistake, I give you advise, I'm HELPING you, but look at your attitude.



What's your point with "Middle land"? "Middle land" is the phrase which was used by a country to call itself if that country think it's more advanced than their neighbours. It's referring to politics, not geography, so you can't say "there is "Middle Land" in the map, so the map is only about land". It's as ridiculous as one of your compatriots argument: "All lands under sky belong to China".
And I'm also pointing out the mistake: *If you mean "China's full map" is the map that has Paracels, then China had no "full map" until 193x.* So why I can "submit China's full map" if there is nothing like that?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## BoQ77

You narrow your land just into Zhongyuan huh ? 
As I know, in this case Zhongyuan is not just the geography meaning.

&#30452;&#30465; means all the provinces controlled by the Emperor ...

Clearly that, Vietnam, Mongolie, Coree, Tibet , including Paracels ... are not under control of the Qing Emperor,. It's more clear than your words

Pals, could you help to translate all the description at the top of the Map ? Thanks in advance

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BoQ77

KirovAirship said:


> Depends on which dynasty of China.
> During the Southern Song, "middle land" = Jin Dynasty = "&#20013;&#22283;"
> During the Qing Dynasty, It means &#30452;&#30465; (provinces directly under control of the central government)



You make sure what you said ? Zhongyuan means all provinces under control of the Qing dynasty ??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Snomannen

&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3258735 said:


> What's your point with "Middle land"? "Middle land" is the phrase which was used by a country to call itself if that country think it's more advanced than their neighbours. It's referring to politics, not geography, so you can't say "there is "Middle Land" in the map, so the map is only about land". It's as ridiculous as one of your compatriots argument: "All lands under sky belong to China".
> And I'm also pointing out the mistake: *If you mean "China's full map" is the map that has Paracels, then China had no "full map" until 193x.* So why I can "submit China's full map" if there is nothing like that?



You still didn't get it right and keep misunderstanding my opinion, I never say something like these:

[There is "Middle Land" in the map, so the map is only about land.], and
[China's full map" is the map that has Paracels.]
your argument is not even valid.

Also:
1. The phrase "Middle Land" is not only for "outside", but also for "inside". 
For example, we people from the SAR are accustomed to call northerners "Mainlander". 
2. No mistake from me, what I have said are all true. 
The fact is, the title of the 1904 map in the museum is "The Map of the whole &#30452;&#30465; (provinces directly under control of the central government) of the Empire". In simple words, it is just a "part-of-China" map. So, again, here is my suggestion I have been explaining for hours: Instead of displaying this map, use a full map (which you have already posted them in this thread).
And again, I'm just trying to HELP you.


----------



## Snomannen

BoQ77 said:


> You make sure what you said ? Zhongyuan means all provinces under control of the Qing dynasty ??



Yes I'm totally sure, you just misunderstand the point.
The range and the meaning of "middle land" (&#20013;&#22283;&#65295;&#20013;&#21407;&#65295;&#20013;&#33775has been changing for thousands years. 

As I said, 
during the Southern Song Dynasty, Jin Dynasty is the "middle land"(&#20013;&#22283;&#65295;&#20013;&#21407;
during the Qing Dynasty, &#30452;&#30465; is the "middle land" (&#20013;&#21407;
nowadays, we HKese, Mese and Tese call the PRC "Mainland".

and sorry for my poor language skill.


----------



## asean_2015

KirovAirship said:


> You still didn't get it right and keep misunderstanding my opinion, I never say something like these:
> 
> [There is "Middle Land" in the map, so the map is only about land.], and
> [China's full map" is the map that has Paracels.]
> your argument is not even valid.
> 
> Also:
> 1. The phrase "Middle Land" is not only for "outside", but also for "inside".
> For example, we people from the SAR are accustomed to call northerners "Mainlander".
> 2. No mistake from me, what I have said are all true.
> The fact is, the title of the 1904 map in the museum is "The Map of the whole &#30452;&#30465; (provinces directly under control of the central government) of the Empire". In simple words, it is just a "part-of-China" map. So, again, here is my suggestion I have been explaining for hours: Instead of displaying this map, use a full map (which you have already posted them in this thread).
> And again, I'm just trying to HELP you.


As I understand, the map was named the map of all provinces belonging to the empire. The main reason is the Qing Dynasty, which replaced the Shun and Ming dynasties in China, was founded by Manchus from Manchuria (modern Northeastern China). However, the Manchu emperors did not fully integrate their homeland into China. Am I right?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

KirovAirship said:


> You still didn't get it right and keep misunderstanding my opinion, I never say something like these:
> 
> [There is "Middle Land" in the map, so the map is only about land.], and
> [China's full map" is the map that has Paracels.]
> your argument is not even valid.
> 
> Also:
> 1. The phrase "Middle Land" is not only for "outside", but also for "inside".
> For example, we people from the SAR are accustomed to call northerners "Mainlander".
> 2. No mistake from me, what I have said are all true.
> The fact is, the title of the 1904 map in the museum is "The Map of the whole &#30452;&#30465; (provinces directly under control of the central government) of the Empire". In simple words, it is just a "part-of-China" map. So, again, here is my suggestion I have been explaining for hours: Instead of displaying this map, use a full map (which you have already posted them in this thread).
> And again, I'm just trying to HELP you.



It's too complicated, I don't understand what you have said. So please post a "full map" before 1904 here as an example, so I can understand what is a "full map" in your definition. And please translate the title of that map.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## asean_2015

KirovAirship said:


> Yes I'm totally sure, you just misunderstand the point.
> The range and the meaning of "middle land" (&#20013;&#22283;&#65295;&#20013;&#21407;&#65295;&#20013;&#33775has been changing for thousands years.
> 
> As I said,
> during the Southern Song Dynasty, Jin Dynasty is the "middle land"(&#20013;&#22283;&#65295;&#20013;&#21407;
> during the Qing Dynasty, &#30452;&#30465; is the "middle land" (&#20013;&#21407;
> nowadays, we HKese, Mese and Tese call the PRC "Mainland".
> 
> and sorry for my poor language skill.


&#30452;&#30465; is &#30452;&#30465;. It is not &#20013;&#21407;. you can blame your ancestor since they did not write &#20013;&#21407; to the map. They were honest. You should not betray your ancestor.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Snomannen

&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3259071 said:


> It's too complicated, I don't understand what you have said. So please post a "full map" before 1904 here as an example, so I can understand what is a "full map" in your definition. And please translate the title of that map.



You have ALREADY posted the "full map", please go back to the lower floors and find them back.



asean_2015 said:


> As I understand, the map was named the map of all provinces belonging to the empire. The main reason is the Qing Dynasty, which replaced the Shun and Ming dynasties in China, was founded by Manchus from Manchuria (modern Northeastern China). However, the Manchu emperors did not fully integrate their homeland into China. Am I right?



The map is nothing related to the differences of ethnics. 
and can you tell me how did you come to this conclusion? 
[the Manchu emperors did not fully integrate their homeland into China.]


----------



## asean_2015

KirovAirship said:


> You have ALREADY posted the "full map", please go back to the lower floors and find them back.
> 
> 
> 
> The map is nothing related to the differences of ethnics.
> and can you tell me how did you come to this conclusion?
> [the Manchu emperors did not fully integrate their homeland into China.]



Yes, it is very related. 
You can look again at the history of Manchukuo. Manchukuo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Snomannen

asean_2015 said:


> &#30452;&#30465; is &#30452;&#30465;. It is not &#20013;&#21407;. you can blame your ancestor since they did not write &#20013;&#21407; to the map. They were honest. You should not betray your ancestor.



Of course it is, &#30452;&#30465;=&#20013;&#21407;=Middle Land. 
The difference is, &#30452;&#30465; is a official phrase, &#20013;&#21407; is only a concept of region.



asean_2015 said:


> Yes, it is very related.
> You can look again at the history of Manchukuo. Manchukuo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The history of Manchukuo is not related to ethnics either.


----------



## asean_2015

KirovAirship said:


> Of course it is, &#30452;&#30465;=&#20013;&#21407;=Middle Land.
> The difference is, &#30452;&#30465; is a official phrase, &#20013;&#21407; is only a concept of region.
> 
> The history of Manchukuo is not related to ethnics either.


It is not. Simply, &#30452;&#30465; is belonged provinces. Manchukuo was a country of Manchus from Manchuria. 

According to Wiki
The Qing Dynasty, which replaced the Shun and Ming dynasties in China, was founded by Manchus from Manchuria (modern Northeastern China). However, the Manchu emperors did not fully integrate their homeland into China. This legal and, to a degree, ethnic division continued until the Qing dynasty began to fall apart in the 19th century.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

KirovAirship said:


> You have ALREADY posted the "full map", please go back to the lower floors and find them back.




Which one of them do you mean?
http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...lippines-if-china-attacks-11.html#post3244021
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...tly-not-chinese-territory-24.html#post3248733
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...tly-not-chinese-territory-24.html#post3248736

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Snomannen

asean_2015 said:


> It is not. Simply, &#30452;&#30465; is belonged provinces. Manchukuo was a country of Manchus from Manchuria.
> 
> According to Wiki
> The Qing Dynasty, which replaced the Shun and Ming dynasties in China, was founded by Manchus from Manchuria (modern Northeastern China). However, the Manchu emperors did not fully integrate their homeland into China. This legal and, to a degree, ethnic division continued until the Qing dynasty began to fall apart in the 19th century.



You do know that Manchukuo was a puppet state, founded by Japanese, right?

Division happened in every dynasties.



&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3259222 said:


> Which one of them do you mean?
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...lippines-if-china-attacks-11.html#post3244021
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...tly-not-chinese-territory-24.html#post3248733
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...tly-not-chinese-territory-24.html#post3248736



http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...tly-not-chinese-territory-24.html#post3248736

Found it, &#20013;&#33775;&#27665;&#22283;&#20840;&#22294;, the map of the (whole) ROC.


----------



## asean_2015

KirovAirship said:


> You do know that Manchukuo was a puppet state, founded by Japanese, right?
> 
> Division happened in every dynasties.


Manchukuo was a country anyway and has its own history. Due to the divison, the name of the map was all provinces belonging to the Manchu empire or we can say the Han-Chinese.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Snomannen

asean_2015 said:


> Manchukuo was a country anyway and has its own history. Due to the divison, the name of the map was all provinces belonging to the Manchu empire or we can say the Han-Chinese.



Sorry but I need to confirm one thing first, can you tell me your understanding of Manchukuo?


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

KirovAirship said:


> http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...tly-not-chinese-territory-24.html#post3248736
> 
> Found it, &#20013;&#33775;&#27665;&#22283;&#20840;&#22294;, the map of the (whole) ROC.



Ok. No Paracels at all. Problem solved, mate

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## asean_2015

KirovAirship said:


> Sorry but I need to confirm one thing first, can you tell me your understanding of Manchukuo?


Just looking at the link I gave you, then you will understand of the Manchukuo. I use the history of Manchukuo to give the explaination for the name of the map.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Snomannen

&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3259310 said:


> Ok. No Paracels at all. Problem solved, mate



Finally you understand, now I can rest in peace.



asean_2015 said:


> Just looking at the link I gave you, then you will understand of the Manchukuo. I use the history of Manchukuo to give the explaination for the name of the map.



I have read the period of that history more than once, I just don't understand your explanation.


----------



## Fireaxe888

Sonyuke_Songpaisan said:


> I am wondering where India was in WWII? China sent many troops to Burma to help UK. Pls study history



By the end of the war the Indian Army was the largest volunteer force in history. It fought with distinction in Burma, North Africa and Italy.


----------



## asean_2015

KirovAirship said:


> Finally you understand, now I can rest in peace.
> 
> 
> 
> I have read the period of that history more than once, I just don't understand your explanation.


The name of the map was all provinces belonging to the empire i.e. Manchu empire. Am I right?


----------



## Snomannen

asean_2015 said:


> The name of the map was all provinces belonging to the empire i.e. Manchu empire. Am I right?



Yes, the Qing Empire.


----------



## Snomannen

Fireaxe888 said:


> By the end of the war the Indian Army was the largest volunteer force in history. It fought with distinction in Burma, North Africa and Italy.



Nice Avatar.


----------



## Snomannen

Post deleted blablabla


----------



## Fireaxe888

KirovAirship said:


> Nice Avatar.



What can I say: For The New Lunar Republic!


----------



## EastSea

asean_2015 said:


> The name of the map was all provinces belonging to the empire i.e. Manchu empire. Am I right?



Manchu Kuo is in this map, here.








and Manchu People, they ask for independence of Manchu Kuo.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

KirovAirship said:


> Oops, the "whole" Mongolia, my bad.



Why a China's map must show "whole Mongolia"?
Are you dumb?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Snomannen

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> Why a China's map must show "whole Mongolia"?
> Are you dumb?



Again? Ask &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;.



EastSea said:


> Manchu Kuo is in this map, here.
> 
> and Manchu People, they ask for independence of Manchu Kuo.



It is funny because the word behind the unidentified, so-called "Manchu" People's head is traitor.


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

KirovAirship said:


> Again? Ask &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;.



I am discussing with you: you said that the old map [paper] of China in 1904 [right now Vietnam holds one] is fake because it has not Mongolia. After that I just show you on the map has "Mongolie", but obviously it has no Paracels and Spratlys of Vietnam [of course]. Then you say "whole Mongolia," *what does it mean?*






China's map 1904


----------



## Snomannen

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> I am discussing with you: you said that the old maps [paper] of China in 1904 [right now Vietnam holds one] is fake because it has not Mongolia. After that I just show you on the map has "Mongolie", but obviously it has no Paracels and Spratlys of Vietnam [of course]. Then you say "whole Mongolia," *what does it mean?*



Never said that it is fake.


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

KirovAirship said:


> Never said that it is fake.



Good, then do you find Mongolia on the map yet?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Snomannen

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> Good, then do you find Mongolia on the map yet?



Not explaining it again, pls ask good Mr. &#272;&#7843;o&#272;&#7843;o.


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

KirovAirship said:


> Not explaining it again, pls ask good Mr. &#272;&#7843;o&#272;&#7843;o.



I will not ask him, but I can understand that you cannot answer my question. 
You owe me two questions.

Good luck in the casinos.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Snomannen

Battle of Bach Dang River said:


> I will not ask him, but I can understand that you cannot answer my question.
> You owe me two questions.
> 
> Good luck in the casinos.



I admit that I don't wanna answer your question because of the slander you just made at #468.

Locals don't go to casino, have you ever seen drug traffickers buy their own product.


----------



## EastSea

KirovAirship said:


> Again? Ask &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;.
> 
> 
> 
> It is funny because the word behind the unidentified, so-called "Manchu" People's head is traitor.



Sun Yat-sen was traitor, wanted, But he made to Qing collapsed.



KirovAirship said:


> How many degrees of short-sighted are you?



Idiot chinese, you didn't know where is &#20013;&#21407;, don't make hilarious things about "&#20013;&#22283;".

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BoQ77

Anyone could help to repost picture of description on the map only 
( separate into some smaller pic to make it more clear to see ), 
then someone could help to translate into English ... and post here 


Ban oi, dung sa da vao Trung Nguyen nua, ban do no ghi la truc tinh, hay tinh truc thuoc trieu Thanh ( chiu dieu khien cua chinh quyen Trung Uong ), dung bao gio trich dan Trung Nguyen nua ...
vi ko lien quan gi ca ...

Truc tinh, ma ko bao gom Vietnam, Tibe, Caoly, Man Chau, Mong Co, va HS ... vay la no thua roi ...

Luu y dung co to ra hung hang qua, nhu vay "cac ban" TQ se khong noi ly le nua, ... vay la khong hay


----------



## Snomannen

EastSea said:


> Sun Yat-sen was traitor, wanted, But he made to Qing collapsed.
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot chinese, you didn't know where is &#20013;&#21407;, don't make hilarious things about "&#20013;&#22283;".



So you are trying to comparing Sun Yat-sen with a unidentified, no-name, up-to-nothing, so-called "Manchu" People who joined in the fun in Japan, raised a flag of the puppet state and attracted attention from people like you?

Still haven't find your glasses?


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

Don't worry Bach Dang river, EastSea and other compatriots, the Macau guy Kirov Airship had accepted that even all the "full maps" of China before 1904 don't have Paracels. 
And the chinese guy kankan had accepted that ancient China never claim Paracels.
*So problem solved, chinese people have accepted the fact that in Paracel, China had never owned or claimed Paracels before us. We don't have to discuss about Mongolia or Manchu or something like that anymore.*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## EastSea

Self deleted.
Thks for Bach Long.


----------



## Snomannen

&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3261624 said:


> Don't worry Bach Dang river, EastSea and other compatriots, the Macau guy Kirov Airship had accepted that even all the "full maps" of China before 1904 don't have Paracels.
> And the chinese guy kankan had accepted that ancient China never claim Paracels.
> *So problem solved, chinese people have accepted the fact that in Paracel, China had never owned or claimed Paracels before us. We don't have to discuss about Mongolia or Manchu or something like that anymore.*



I always think that Vietnam managed those islands first, this is the reason why I keep telling you about the "full map" for hours, but some of you guys just keep using insulting language and ignore the obvious fact I reminded, @#$%&*.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## asean_2015

KirovAirship said:


> I always think that Vietnam managed those islands first, this is the reason why I keep telling you about the "full map" for hours, but some of you guys just keep using insulting language and ignore the obvious fact I reminded, @#$%&*.


I guess they did not get your idea of ''full map'', neither did I. For me, the map of all provinces belonging to the empire is a full map. The misssing parts in comparison to others or the full map of China now a days are only due to the fact that the Qing empire did not consider them as the Chinese territory at that time. Hence, Manchu region was not also considered as the Chinese territory. They could therefore found Manchukuo exactly in the historical homeland of the Manchus.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nestea

&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3254864 said:


> 1) Great, so now you have the map. *And where are the islands in your "Long region"? * There is not a single archipelago in your "long region", so definitely your argument is failed.
> I asked you to *find the archipelago in Central Vietnam which you think was mistaken with Paracels*, not to find the sea.
> You lost in number 1.
> 2) lol are you using ruler to measure the distance in old maps and then ... calculate? You failed
> *I asked you to find an archipelago that is equal-spaced between Hainan and Vietnamese coast in Central Vietnam, you haven't done it, so you still lost un number 2*
> 3) Yes, the "scale" between Paracels, and Central Vietnamese coast is wrong because of bad technique. That what I've said a long time ago. Then?.
> The fact is still there: *No near-coast islands in Central Vietnam is equal-spaced between Vietnamese coast and Hainan.*
> Problem solved, you lost in number 3
> 4) You are confused with your number. It's 1838 map.
> - We were never named An Nam officially, it's kind of "nick name" we used in diplomacy with China, because it was given by Tang dynasty. The Westerners also used that name. Our official names in Medieval age and Modern Age are &#272;&#7841;i C&#7891; Vi&#7879;t -> &#272;&#7841;i Vi&#7879;t -> &#272;&#7841;i Ngu -> &#272;&#7841;i Vi&#7879;t -> Vi&#7879;t Nam -> &#272;&#7841;i Nam -> Vi&#7879;t Nam.
> - It's drawn with the help Westerners so it had Latin characters.
> - Jean-Louis Taberd drew it under Minh Mang of Nguyen Dynasty, then the map is re-printed in _Dictionarium Latino-Annamiticum completum et novo ordine dispositum_, 1838.
> Any question?
> *That map definitely shows that Vietnamese Paracels is not Near-Coast islands.* So you lost in number 4.
> 5) *Your Chinese monks didn't go in sailing season (windy season), didn't go continuously without rest like us, didn't have the same kind of sailing boat*. Why you can say what kind of boat did our Paracel Team use? Example are not matched, so your example is failed. With the favourable wind (so the boat can go around 4-6 nautical miles per hour) and go continuously, it's possible. Unless you have the data that say what kind of boat we used with its parameter, you can't deny the Paracel Team with "speed" argument.
> 6) Try to group this with your "speed" argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yeah you have that "near-coast islands" here separated from Paracel. So your argument about "near-coast islands in the Central Vietnam" is invalid.* You lost in number 6)
> 7) I see, you afraid of losing so you don't want to go to international court.
> So you lost number 7).
> 
> 
> 
> Why the "real Paracel" is just *next to* the "Vietnamese near-coast islands", not even a small distance? :And then "real Paracel" is much more smaller in both size and quantity and less noticeable than "near-coast islands"
> 
> So it's completely not the real Paracel. Exactly *it's Macclesfield Bank*. We don't claim it.




I found that you always play hide and seek, and I obviously I have already explained things, you will "forget" The conversation no matter how much in vain. Last let me answer your amnesia Vietnam! Many Vietnamese can not read Chinese characters in the Vietnamese ancient books, resulting in the error of today's understanding of Vietnamese history. You can not understand the characters, how to pick up some old books or maps with Chinese characters, to challenge China? For example this theme, the mentally handicapped Vietnam can not read Chinese characters in this 1904 map, and thought it was China's entire territory. Do not know "&#30452;&#30465;" means the map is the direct jurisdiction of the Central Government.

"Pracel" (1613-1851):long bar area, rocks and sandbars composition. Whether Western or Chinese, Described as Viet Nam central coast of the danger zone,. There's a lot of rocks, sandbars and reefs, undercurrent complex, If the vessel strayed into, it is easy to run aground or become disoriented.

French missionaries Jean Louis Taberd "You say to help the Vietnamese drawn 1938 map of the Frenchman,1837Journal of Ryal Asiatic Society of Bengalpublished papers, Entitled (Note on the Geography of Cochin China). The article describes: Paracel is a group of rocks and sandbars composed labyrinth, From latitude 11 ° to longitude 109 ° 10'.(Xisha Islands / latitude 16 °~17 °,longitude 111 °30 '~112 °42') Some sailors bravely crossed the part of the sandbar, Cannot be said to be cautious, in fact, is luck, While others attempt failed. Cochin Chinaman said these islands as "Cotuang". Although these islands there was nothing else in addition to rock and deep sea, And only cause inconvenience to no other benefits, However, "&#22025;&#38534;" emperor thought that, Increase the land less, but also enlarge its territory. In 1816, he solemnly plug where the banner, and possession of these rocks, Estimates that there won't be anyone to the objection. Frenchman Jean Baptiste Chaigneau, Been confirmed in the article published in 1820 entitled "Cochinchina travelogue". He writes: Cochinchina, its king, now known as the Emperor, Including Cochinchina headquarters, Tokyo, part of the Khmer, Several inhabited islands not far from the coast and uninhabited sandbars, rocks composed of the Paracel Islands. It was until 1816 the current emperor took possession of the islands. Note the French missionaries"Jean Louis Taberd" described Pracel, Compared to help draw the 1838 Annan map, "Pracel" have a specific geographic coordinates. The geographical coordinates for the central Vietnam coast eastward extension of the danger zone(Describe and 1613 England captain consistent). Vietnam so-called precision-drawn 1838 the Annan map, "Pracel" is not the Xisha Islands, and not to mention the show Spratly Islands.

In 1795, the Chinese monk describe the danger zone(long bar area): &#33995;&#27915;&#28023;&#20013;,&#27243;&#20120;&#27801;&#30875;,&#36215;&#26481;&#21271;&#65292;&#30452;&#25269;&#35199;&#21335;,&#39640;&#32773;&#22721;&#31435;&#28023;&#19978;,&#20302;&#25110;&#27700;&#24179;,&#27801;&#38754;&#31895;&#30828;&#22914;&#37444;,&#33337;&#19968;&#35320;&#21363;&#25104;&#40785;&#31881;&#12290;&#38346;&#30334;&#35377;&#37324;,&#38263;&#26080;&#31637;,&#21517;&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;,&#28218;&#28961;&#33609;&#26408;&#22914;&#29017;,&#19968;&#22833; &#39080;&#27700;&#28418;&#33267;,&#32317;&#24478;&#30772;&#22750;,&#20154;&#28961;&#27700;&#31859;,&#20134;&#25104;&#39297;&#39740;&#30691;
Meaning: are in the sea, there are a lot of rocks, ranging from northeast to Southwest, Some in the rock sea level, some sink in water, the rocks surface as hard as steel, ship contact moments become fragmented. 100 km wide, length not marginal, name for the &#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801; . even if they can avoid the reef, and if no fresh water and food, will eventually turn into a ghost!

October 2, 1835, Chinese students "&#34081;&#24311;&#34349;" ,the examination is completed, From fujian to return to Taiwan , on the way encountered a typhoon In Marine drift up to 10 days, Finally to Viet Nam "&#24291;&#32681;&#30465;" coastal "&#33756;&#33465;&#27739;". The local fishermen are very surprised, Said: &#38750;&#31070;&#38728;&#31070;&#28789;&#40664;&#35703;,&#32993;&#33021;&#23572;&#23572;?&#21021;&#21040;&#23567;&#23679;,&#23679;&#26481;&#35199;&#20247;&#27969;&#28608;&#23556;,&#20013;&#19968;&#28207;&#29978;&#31364;,&#33337;&#38750;&#20056;&#28526;&#19981;&#24471;&#36914;,&#35320;&#30707;&#31435;&#27785;&#12290;&#30001;&#35199;&#32780;&#21335;,&#21487;&#25269;&#20869;&#28207;,&#26693;&#31735;&#24050;&#28357;,&#36870;&#27969;&#19981;&#33021;&#21040;&#20063;&#12290;&#20854;&#26481;&#35199;&#19968;&#24118;&#65292;&#33267;&#27492;&#31281;&#26997;&#38570;,&#28023;&#24213;&#30342;&#26263;&#30977;&#12289;&#26263;&#32447;(&#28023;&#24213;&#30707;&#26352;&#30977;, &#27801;&#26352;&#32218 ,&#32218;&#38271;&#25976;&#21313;&#37324;&#65292;&#28207;&#36947;&#36802;&#36852;,&#32769;&#28417;&#23578;&#19981;&#31252;&#35782;,&#19968;&#25269;&#30977;,&#40785;&#31881;&#30691;!
Meaning: If you do not have gods protection, how can reach here. Undercurrent of many and intense, the water depth is very low, Undercurrent of many and intense, the water depth is very low, If not at high tide, boats can not pass through, Otherwise, hit the reef, it will be destroyed! Sailing from west to south, can reach the port, But the sails have been damaged, counter-current can not reach here. From east to west, Ship sailing is very dangerous, submarine there are many reefs. The reef rock area, tens of kilometers in length, Circuitous waterway, even if the old fisherman can not understand, if the reef is an encounter, the ship is turned into powder!

These records confirmed that the Danger zone very large range, and the sailing is extremely dangerous. Because unfortunately wrecked Shipwreck brought together here,Therefore, the Vietnamese emperor often Send people the salvage cargo, Published by the Vietnamese (Do Ba) "&#31609;&#38598;&#22825;&#21335;&#22235;&#33267;&#36335;&#22294;" in the "&#24291;&#32681;&#22320;&#21312;&#22270;", This description: &#38446;&#27663;&#27599;&#24180;&#20908;&#23395;&#26376;&#25345;&#33337;&#21313;&#20843;&#21482;,&#20358;&#27492;&#21462;&#36008;,&#22810;&#24471;&#37329;&#37504;&#12289;&#37666;&#24163;&#12289;&#38131;&#24377;&#31561;&#29289;. Meaning: Nguyen Thi winter organizations annually 18 ships, Come here to salvage sunken ships cargo, Most cargo is gold, silver and coins.

1776 "&#25771;&#37002;&#38620;&#37636;" describes: &#24291;&#32681;&#24179;&#23665;&#32291;&#23433;&#27704;&#31038;&#22823;&#28023;&#38272;&#22806;&#26377;&#23665;&#21517;&#21164;&#21171;&#21737;,&#24291;&#21487;&#19977;&#21313;&#20313;&#37324;&#12290;&#33290;&#26377;&#22235;&#25919;&#22346;&#23621;&#27665;&#35910;&#30000;,&#20986;&#28023;&#22235;&#26356;&#21487;&#21040;&#12290;&#20854;&#22806;&#22823;&#38263;&#27801;&#23798;,&#33290;&#22810;&#28023;&#29289;&#33337;&#36008;,&#31435;&#40644;&#27801;&#38538;&#20197;&#37319;&#20043;&#12290; &#40644;&#27801;&#38538;&#27599;&#27506;&#20197;&#27491;&#26376;&#21463;&#31034;&#34892;&#24046;&#65292;&#40779;&#20845;&#26376;&#31975;&#65292;&#39381;&#31169;&#23567;&#37347;&#33337;&#65292;&#20986;&#27915;&#19977;&#26085;&#19977;&#22812;&#65292;&#22987;&#33267;&#27492;&#23798;&#65292;&#20843;&#26376;&#22238;&#33267;&#33136;&#38272;&#65292;&#32371;&#32013;&#25152;&#37319;&#35576;&#29289;&#12290;

Means: &#24291;&#32681;&#24179;&#23665;&#32291;&#23433;&#27704;&#31038;&#22823;&#28023;&#38272; (Qu&#7843;ng Ngãi Bình S&#417;n)east of the reef area, Length of 30 kilometers. In this region in eastern have "&#22823;&#38263;&#27801;&#23798;". Here there are many shipwrecks of cargo, So ,create &#40644;&#27801;&#38538;go there to Salvage. Every January fleet accept command, carry six months of food, Driving &#23567;&#37347;&#33337;, Sailed three days and three nights, Reach island. Wait until August to return &#33136;&#38272;"(th&#7883; xã Thu&#7853;n An), Payment of salvage cargo. 

Each year in January, February, is the northeaster season (against the wind) . From Nguyen dynasty of the capital Hue arrived th&#7883; xã Thu&#7853;n An, Driving &#23567;&#37347;&#33337;. that time Boat speed is very slow, "A day and a night" as the calculating unit, Unlike big ships as "&#26356;" as the calculating unit. These small boat,also known as "&#28096;&#33293;&#33337;" or "&#32005;&#33337;". According to the Chinese monks description: &#30435;&#23448;&#25765;&#32005;&#33337;&#28096;&#33293;&#65292;&#21517;&#20843;&#22836;&#65292;&#36939;&#36617;&#34892;&#26446;&#65292;&#33337;&#38957;&#22352;&#19968;&#23448;&#65292;&#23614;&#31435;&#19968;&#23432;&#33333;&#32773;&#12290;&#27599;&#33337;&#26873;&#36557;&#20849;&#21313;&#22235;&#20154;&#65292;&#20013;&#35373;&#26417;&#32005;&#22235;&#26609;&#40845;&#26550;&#65292;&#27178;&#38346;&#19968;&#26408;&#22914;&#26758;&#23376;&#65292;&#19968;&#36557;&#22352;&#20987;&#20043;&#65292;&#26873;&#32893;&#20197;&#28858;&#31680;&#65292;&#33337;&#24212;&#24038;&#21017;&#24038;&#65292;&#24212;&#21491;&#21017;&#21491;&#65292;&#25110;&#32822;&#35768;&#65292;&#25110;&#38931;&#36275;&#65292;&#26080;&#19968;&#21443;&#37679;&#32773;&#65292;&#24713;&#20197;&#26758;&#23376;&#21629;&#20043;&#12290;&#33337;&#38263;&#29421;&#65292;&#29376;&#22914;&#40845;&#33311;&#65292;&#26114;&#39318;&#23614;&#65292;&#20025;&#28422;&#20043;&#65292;&#19981;&#33021;&#23481;&#29224;&#20855;&#12290;&#31363;&#35766;&#22810;&#20154;&#39154;&#39135;&#65292;&#28961;&#25152;&#24478;&#20986;&#12290;
Means: Can only carry 14 people, By human paddle as power, No Cooking utensils, no larger freshwater storage device, Only one bucket of water to provide drinking, sailing is not too long, must find a place to get fresh water. Therefore, Ride this ship from Viet Nam Central Coast Set sail, Can only reach the coast of Vietnam near the island, Can not reach far from the coast of Vietnam's Paracel Islands.

Ridiculous Vietnamese, can not read Vietnamese ancient books, come here to challenge the Chinese .Downwind sailing? 4-6km / h speed? Is all a lie! Like I said above : Many Vietnamese can not read Chinese characters in the Vietnamese ancient books, resulting in the error of today's understanding of Vietnamese history.


Macclesfield Bank: north latitude 15 ° 24 '~ 16 ° 15', longitude 113 ° 40 '~114 ° 57', All sunk under the sea, approximately 10~26 metres distance the Sea level. They are reefs, not Island. Does not match the geographic coordinates and the 1613 British Captain John Sullivan described "LES Lunet TES".(Xisha Islands / latitude 16 °~17 °,longitude 111 °30 '~112 °42') This is just some basic geographic knowledge, Vietnamese IQ failed to understand difference between islands and reefs, do not know what is the geographic coordinates. This is really the tragedy of the Vietnam Education!


----------



## asean_2015

Nestea said:


> For example this theme, the mentally handicapped Vietnam can not read Chinese characters in this 1904 map, and thought it was China's entire territory. Do not know "&#30452;&#30465;" means the map is the direct jurisdiction of the Central Government.


Is the following explaination right or wrong? 

"&#30452;&#30465;" is the map of all provinces belonging to the empire and is the full map. The misssing parts in comparison to others or the full map of China now a days are only due to the fact that the Qing empire did not consider them as the Chinese territory at that time. Hence, Manchu region was not also considered as the Chinese territory.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Snomannen

asean_2015 said:


> I guess they did not get your idea of ''full map'', neither did I. For me, the map of all provinces belonging to the empire is a full map. The misssing parts in comparison to others or the full map of China now a days are only due to the fact that the Qing empire did not consider them as the Chinese territory at that time. Hence, Manchu region was not also considered as the Chinese territory. They could therefore found Manchukuo exactly in the historical homeland of the Manchus.



Of course the Qing Empire consider them as Chinese territory, how could those emperors not considered Manchu (the land that the dragon thrived) as their country's land?
Provinces were not the only administrative areas of the Empire, but also "autonomous regions" (Provinces not directly under control of the central government). 
As for Manchukuo, it was not established by Manchu people, it was formed by Japanese. "Manchukuo" can never on behalf of the will of Manchu people.



asean_2015 said:


> Is the following explaination right or wrong?
> 
> "&#30452;&#30465;" is the map of all provinces belonging to the empire and is the full map. The misssing parts in comparison to others or the full map of China now a days are only due to the fact that the Qing empire did not consider them as the Chinese territory at that time. Hence, Manchu region was not also considered as the Chinese territory.



In Chinese language, 

"&#30465;"= "provinces"; 

"&#30452;&#30465;" = "provinces *directly*(under control of the central government)"


----------



## asean_2015

KirovAirship said:


> Of course the Qing Empire consider them as Chinese territory, how could those emperors not considered Manchu (the land that the dragon thrived) as their country's land?
> Provinces were not the only administrative areas of the Empire, but also "autonomous regions" (Provinces not directly under control of the central government).
> As for Manchukuo, it was not established by Manchu people, it was formed by Japanese. "Manchukuo" can never on behalf of the will of Manchu people.
> 
> 
> 
> In Chinese language,
> 
> "&#30465;"= "provinces";
> 
> "&#30452;&#30465;" = "provinces *directly*(under control of the central government)"


I think it is more clear with provinces belonging to than ''Directly''. I did not hear province directly before.

The Manchu state was founded in the early 17th century. If the Qing empirors did not integrate it into China, it was still a state. That's why I said that Qing empirors did not consider their Manchu state as the terriory of China. 

Manchukuo was formed by Qing Dynasty officials (Manchu people) with the help of Japanese. Puyi was also Manchu. So you cannot conclude that Manchukuo can never on behalf of the Manchu people.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

Nestea said:


> I found that you always play hide and seek, and I obviously I have already explained things, you will "forget" The conversation no matter how much in vain. Last let me answer your amnesia Vietnam! Many Vietnamese can not read Chinese characters in the Vietnamese ancient books, resulting in the error of today's understanding of Vietnamese history. You can not understand the characters, how to pick up some old books or maps with Chinese characters, to challenge China? For example this theme, the mentally handicapped Vietnam can not read Chinese characters in this 1904 map, and thought it was China's entire territory. Do not know "&#30452;&#30465;" means the map is the direct jurisdiction of the Central Government.
> 
> "Pracel" (1613-1851):long bar area, rocks and sandbars composition. Whether Western or Chinese, Described as Viet Nam central coast of the danger zone,. There's a lot of rocks, sandbars and reefs, undercurrent complex, If the vessel strayed into, it is easy to run aground or become disoriented.
> 
> French missionaries Jean Louis Taberd "You say to help the Vietnamese drawn 1938 map of the Frenchman&#8221;,1837&#8221;Journal of Ryal Asiatic Society of Bengal&#8221;published papers, Entitled (Note on the Geography of Cochin China). The article describes: Paracel is a group of rocks and sandbars composed labyrinth, From latitude 11 ° to longitude 109 ° 10'.(Xisha Islands / latitude 16 °~17 °,longitude 111 °30 '~112 °42') Some sailors bravely crossed the part of the sandbar, Cannot be said to be cautious, in fact, is luck, While others attempt failed. Cochin Chinaman said these islands as "Cotuang". Although these islands there was nothing else in addition to rock and deep sea, And only cause inconvenience to no other benefits, However, "&#22025;&#38534;" emperor thought that, Increase the land less, but also enlarge its territory. In 1816, he solemnly plug where the banner, and possession of these rocks, Estimates that there won't be anyone to the objection. Frenchman Jean Baptiste Chaigneau, Been confirmed in the article published in 1820 entitled "Cochinchina travelogue". He writes: Cochinchina, its king, now known as the Emperor, Including Cochinchina headquarters, Tokyo, part of the Khmer, Several inhabited islands not far from the coast and uninhabited sandbars, rocks composed of the Paracel Islands. It was until 1816 the current emperor took possession of the islands. Note the French missionaries"Jean Louis Taberd" described &#8220;Pracel&#8221;, Compared to help draw the 1838 Annan map, "Pracel" have a specific geographic coordinates. The geographical coordinates for the central Vietnam coast eastward extension of the danger zone(Describe and 1613 England captain consistent). Vietnam so-called precision-drawn 1838 the Annan map, "Pracel" is not the Xisha Islands, and not to mention the show Spratly Islands.
> 
> In 1795, the Chinese monk describe the danger zone(long bar area): &#8220;&#33995;&#27915;&#28023;&#20013;,&#27243;&#20120;&#27801;&#30875;,&#36215;&#26481;&#21271;&#65292;&#30452;&#25269;&#35199;&#21335;,&#39640;&#32773;&#22721;&#31435;&#28023;&#19978;,&#20302;&#25110;&#27700;&#24179;,&#27801;&#38754;&#31895;&#30828;&#22914;&#37444;,&#33337;&#19968;&#35320;&#21363;&#25104;&#40785;&#31881;&#12290;&#38346;&#30334;&#35377;&#37324;,&#38263;&#26080;&#31637;,&#21517;&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;,&#28218;&#28961;&#33609;&#26408;&#22914;&#29017;,&#19968;&#22833; &#39080;&#27700;&#28418;&#33267;,&#32317;&#24478;&#30772;&#22750;,&#20154;&#28961;&#27700;&#31859;,&#20134;&#25104;&#39297;&#39740;&#30691;&#8221;
> Meaning: are in the sea, there are a lot of rocks, ranging from northeast to Southwest, Some in the rock sea level, some sink in water, the rocks surface as hard as steel, ship contact moments become fragmented. 100 km wide, length not marginal, name for the &#8220;&#33836;&#37324;&#38263;&#27801;&#8221; . even if they can avoid the reef, and if no fresh water and food, will eventually turn into a ghost!
> 
> October 2, 1835, Chinese students "&#34081;&#24311;&#34349;" ,the examination is completed, From fujian to return to Taiwan , on the way encountered a typhoon In Marine drift up to 10 days, Finally to Viet Nam "&#24291;&#32681;&#30465;" coastal "&#33756;&#33465;&#27739;". The local fishermen are very surprised, Said: &#8220;&#38750;&#31070;&#38728;&#31070;&#28789;&#40664;&#35703;,&#32993;&#33021;&#23572;&#23572;?&#21021;&#21040;&#23567;&#23679;,&#23679;&#26481;&#35199;&#20247;&#27969;&#28608;&#23556;,&#20013;&#19968;&#28207;&#29978;&#31364;,&#33337;&#38750;&#20056;&#28526;&#19981;&#24471;&#36914;,&#35320;&#30707;&#31435;&#27785;&#12290;&#30001;&#35199;&#32780;&#21335;,&#21487;&#25269;&#20869;&#28207;,&#26693;&#31735;&#24050;&#28357;,&#36870;&#27969;&#19981;&#33021;&#21040;&#20063;&#12290;&#20854;&#26481;&#35199;&#19968;&#24118;&#65292;&#33267;&#27492;&#31281;&#26997;&#38570;,&#28023;&#24213;&#30342;&#26263;&#30977;&#12289;&#26263;&#32447;(&#28023;&#24213;&#30707;&#26352;&#30977;, &#27801;&#26352;&#32218 ,&#32218;&#38271;&#25976;&#21313;&#37324;&#65292;&#28207;&#36947;&#36802;&#36852;,&#32769;&#28417;&#23578;&#19981;&#31252;&#35782;,&#19968;&#25269;&#30977;,&#40785;&#31881;&#30691;!&#8221;
> Meaning: If you do not have gods protection, how can reach here. Undercurrent of many and intense, the water depth is very low, Undercurrent of many and intense, the water depth is very low, If not at high tide, boats can not pass through, Otherwise, hit the reef, it will be destroyed! Sailing from west to south, can reach the port, But the sails have been damaged, counter-current can not reach here. From east to west, Ship sailing is very dangerous, submarine there are many reefs. The reef rock area, tens of kilometers in length, Circuitous waterway, even if the old fisherman can not understand, if the reef is an encounter, the ship is turned into powder!
> 
> These records confirmed that the Danger zone very large range, and the sailing is extremely dangerous. Because unfortunately wrecked Shipwreck brought together here,Therefore, the Vietnamese emperor often Send people the salvage cargo, Published by the Vietnamese (Do Ba) "&#31609;&#38598;&#22825;&#21335;&#22235;&#33267;&#36335;&#22294;" in the "&#24291;&#32681;&#22320;&#21312;&#22270;", This description: &#8220;&#38446;&#27663;&#27599;&#24180;&#20908;&#23395;&#26376;&#25345;&#33337;&#21313;&#20843;&#21482;,&#20358;&#27492;&#21462;&#36008;,&#22810;&#24471;&#37329;&#37504;&#12289;&#37666;&#24163;&#12289;&#38131;&#24377;&#31561;&#29289;&#8221;. Meaning: Nguyen Thi winter organizations annually 18 ships, Come here to salvage sunken ships cargo, Most cargo is gold, silver and coins.
> 
> 1776 "&#25771;&#37002;&#38620;&#37636;" describes: &#8220;&#24291;&#32681;&#24179;&#23665;&#32291;&#23433;&#27704;&#31038;&#22823;&#28023;&#38272;&#22806;&#26377;&#23665;&#21517;&#21164;&#21171;&#21737;,&#24291;&#21487;&#19977;&#21313;&#20313;&#37324;&#12290;&#33290;&#26377;&#22235;&#25919;&#22346;&#23621;&#27665;&#35910;&#30000;,&#20986;&#28023;&#22235;&#26356;&#21487;&#21040;&#12290;&#20854;&#22806;&#22823;&#38263;&#27801;&#23798;,&#33290;&#22810;&#28023;&#29289;&#33337;&#36008;,&#31435;&#40644;&#27801;&#38538;&#20197;&#37319;&#20043;&#12290; &#40644;&#27801;&#38538;&#8220;&#27599;&#27506;&#20197;&#27491;&#26376;&#21463;&#31034;&#34892;&#24046;&#65292;&#40779;&#20845;&#26376;&#31975;&#65292;&#39381;&#31169;&#23567;&#37347;&#33337;&#65292;&#20986;&#27915;&#19977;&#26085;&#19977;&#22812;&#65292;&#22987;&#33267;&#27492;&#23798;&#8221;&#65292;&#20843;&#26376;&#22238;&#33267;&#33136;&#38272;&#65292;&#32371;&#32013;&#25152;&#37319;&#35576;&#29289;&#12290;
> 
> Means: &#8220;&#24291;&#32681;&#24179;&#23665;&#32291;&#23433;&#27704;&#31038;&#22823;&#28023;&#38272;&#8221; (Qu&#7843;ng Ngãi Bình S&#417;n)east of the reef area, Length of 30 kilometers. In this region in eastern have "&#22823;&#38263;&#27801;&#23798;". Here there are many shipwrecks of cargo, So ,create &#8220;&#40644;&#27801;&#38538;&#8221;go there to Salvage. Every January fleet accept command, carry six months of food, Driving&#8221; &#23567;&#37347;&#33337;&#8221;, Sailed three days and three nights, Reach island. Wait until August to return &#8220;&#33136;&#38272;"(th&#7883; xã Thu&#7853;n An), Payment of salvage cargo.
> 
> Each year in January, February, is the northeaster season (against the wind) . From Nguyen dynasty of the capital Hue arrived &#8221;th&#7883; xã Thu&#7853;n An&#8221;, Driving&#8221; &#23567;&#37347;&#33337;&#8221;. that time Boat speed is very slow, "A day and a night" as the calculating unit, Unlike big ships as "&#26356;" as the calculating unit. These small boat,also known as "&#28096;&#33293;&#33337;" or "&#32005;&#33337;". According to the Chinese monks description: &#8220;&#30435;&#23448;&#25765;&#32005;&#33337;&#28096;&#33293;&#65292;&#21517;&#20843;&#22836;&#65292;&#36939;&#36617;&#34892;&#26446;&#65292;&#33337;&#38957;&#22352;&#19968;&#23448;&#65292;&#23614;&#31435;&#19968;&#23432;&#33333;&#32773;&#12290;&#27599;&#33337;&#26873;&#36557;&#20849;&#21313;&#22235;&#20154;&#65292;&#20013;&#35373;&#26417;&#32005;&#22235;&#26609;&#40845;&#26550;&#65292;&#27178;&#38346;&#19968;&#26408;&#22914;&#26758;&#23376;&#65292;&#19968;&#36557;&#22352;&#20987;&#20043;&#65292;&#26873;&#32893;&#20197;&#28858;&#31680;&#65292;&#33337;&#24212;&#24038;&#21017;&#24038;&#65292;&#24212;&#21491;&#21017;&#21491;&#65292;&#25110;&#32822;&#35768;&#65292;&#25110;&#38931;&#36275;&#65292;&#26080;&#19968;&#21443;&#37679;&#32773;&#65292;&#24713;&#20197;&#26758;&#23376;&#21629;&#20043;&#8221;&#12290;&#8220;&#33337;&#38263;&#29421;&#65292;&#29376;&#22914;&#40845;&#33311;&#65292;&#26114;&#39318;&#23614;&#65292;&#20025;&#28422;&#20043;&#65292;&#19981;&#33021;&#23481;&#29224;&#20855;&#12290;&#31363;&#35766;&#22810;&#20154;&#39154;&#39135;&#65292;&#28961;&#25152;&#24478;&#20986;&#12290;&#8221;
> Means: Can only carry 14 people, By human paddle as power, No Cooking utensils, no larger freshwater storage device, Only one bucket of water to provide drinking, sailing is not too long, must find a place to get fresh water. Therefore, Ride this ship from Viet Nam Central Coast Set sail, Can only reach the coast of Vietnam near the island, Can not reach far from the coast of Vietnam's Paracel Islands.
> 
> Ridiculous Vietnamese, can not read Vietnamese ancient books, come here to challenge the Chinese .Downwind sailing? 4-6km / h speed? Is all a lie! Like I said above : Many Vietnamese can not read Chinese characters in the Vietnamese ancient books, resulting in the error of today's understanding of Vietnamese history.
> 
> 
> Macclesfield Bank: north latitude 15 ° 24 '~ 16 ° 15', longitude 113 ° 40 '~114 ° 57', All sunk under the sea, approximately 10~26 metres distance the Sea level. They are reefs, not Island. Does not match the geographic coordinates and the 1613 British Captain John Sullivan described "LES Lunet TES".(Xisha Islands / latitude 16 °~17 °,longitude 111 °30 '~112 °42') This is just some basic geographic knowledge, Vietnamese IQ failed to understand difference between islands and reefs, do not know what is the geographic coordinates. This is really the tragedy of the Vietnam Education!



I'm tired in discussing with a troll. You think that with that old technique people can have the exactly same ordinate as today? A shame on you  
Your argument about the difference between reefs and islands: *Even Paracel and Spartly have reefs, why they call them "islands", "archipelago"*? If the small things you marked is "real Paracel", Why the "real Paracel" is just *next to* the "Vietnamese near-coast islands", not even a small distance? And then "real Paracel" is much more smaller in both size and quantity and less noticeable than "near-coast islands"? Because your "real Paracel" is just the reefs or bank near Paracels, less noticable, smaller in size and quantity. So it have to be Macclesfield Bank.
So now *find the archipelago in Central Vietnam which you think was mistaken with Paracels*. Such an easy question.

5) Why do you know the kind of boat you told is what the Paracel Team use? You can't prove Paracel Team use that kind of boat, so you failed. Your last argument has failed. Unless you have an evidence which said "Paracel Team used a boat which can go 2 km per hour", you are still failed. 

*You have lost 7 out of 7 arguments. You are just short in arguments so you have stopped to talk about 6 of them. You have failed.*

6 points you have just avoided due to short in arguments:



&#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;;3254864 said:


> 1) Great, so now you have the map. *And where are the islands in your "Long region"? * There is not a single archipelago in your "long region", so definitely your argument is failed.
> I asked you to *find the archipelago in Central Vietnam which you think was mistaken with Paracels*, not to find the sea.
> You lost in number 1.
> 2) lol are you using ruler to measure the distance in old maps and then ... calculate? You failed
> *I asked you to find an archipelago that is equal-spaced between Hainan and Vietnamese coast in Central Vietnam, you haven't done it, so you still lost un number 2*
> 3) Yes, the "scale" between Paracels, and Central Vietnamese coast is wrong because of bad technique. That what I've said a long time ago. Then?.
> The fact is still there: *No near-coast islands in Central Vietnam is equal-spaced between Vietnamese coast and Hainan.*
> Problem solved, you lost in number 3
> 4) You are confused with your number. It's 1838 map.
> - We were never named An Nam officially, it's kind of "nick name" we used in diplomacy with China, because it was given by Tang dynasty. The Westerners also used that name. Our official names in Medieval age and Modern Age are &#272;&#7841;i C&#7891; Vi&#7879;t -> &#272;&#7841;i Vi&#7879;t -> &#272;&#7841;i Ngu -> &#272;&#7841;i Vi&#7879;t -> Vi&#7879;t Nam -> &#272;&#7841;i Nam -> Vi&#7879;t Nam.
> - It's drawn with the help Westerners so it had Latin characters.
> - Jean-Louis Taberd drew it under Minh Mang of Nguyen Dynasty, then the map is re-printed in _Dictionarium Latino-Annamiticum completum et novo ordine dispositum_, 1838.
> Any question?
> *That map definitely shows that Vietnamese Paracels is not Near-Coast islands.* So you lost in number 4.
> 5) *Your Chinese monks didn't go in sailing season (windy season), didn't go continuously without rest like us, didn't have the same kind of sailing boat*. Why you can say what kind of boat did our Paracel Team use? Example are not matched, so your example is failed. With the favourable wind (so the boat can go around 4-6 nautical miles per hour) and go continuously, it's possible. Unless you have the data that say what kind of boat we used with its parameter, you can't deny the Paracel Team with "speed" argument.
> 6) Try to group this with your "speed" argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yeah you have that "near-coast islands" here separated from Paracel. So your argument about "near-coast islands in the Central Vietnam" is invalid.* You lost in number 6)
> 7) I see, you afraid of losing so you don't want to go to international court.
> So you lost number 7).
> 
> 
> 
> *Why the "real Paracel" is just next to the "Vietnamese near-coast islands", not even a small distance? :And then "real Paracel" is much more smaller in both size and quantity and less noticeable than "near-coast islands*"
> 
> So it's completely not the real Paracel. Exactly *it's Macclesfield Bank*. We don't claim it.


So just *find the archipelago in Central Vietnam which you think was mistaken with Paracels, capture the screen in Google Map and post the image here.* Otherwise, we stop, because you have failed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Diamond_Gold

asean_2015 said:


> I think it is more clear with provinces belonging to than ''Directly''. I did not hear province directly before.
> 
> The Manchu state was founded in the early 17th century. If the Qing empirors did not integrate it into China, it was still a state. That's why I said that Qing empirors did not consider their Manchu state as the terriory of China.
> 
> *Manchukuo was formed by Qing Dynasty officials (Manchu people) with the help of Japanese.* Puyi was also Manchu. So you cannot conclude that Manchukuo can never on behalf of the Manchu people.



So are you a manchurian then? 

Yeah, *only man like you with such "high moral(self proclaimed) *will make use of such cheap and irresponsible statement to glorify the imperialist jap in WW2 in order to achieve your own personal aim to undermine the chinese. PHEW!

Unit 731 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

P.S.:In the above quoted link, the chinese there referred to chinese people of han and as well as of manchus ethicity etc.


----------



## &#272;&#7843;o B&#7841;ch Long V&#7929;

I think it's the time to stop discussing about Mongolia, Manchu or something like that. It's

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## asean_2015

Diamond_Gold said:


> So are you a manchurian then?
> 
> Yeah, *only man like you with such "high moral(self proclaimed) *will make use of such cheap and irresponsible statement to glorify the imperialist jap in WW2 in order to achieve your own personal aim to undermine the chinese. PHEW!
> 
> Unit 731 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> P.S.:In the above quoted link, the chinese there referred to chinese people of han and as well as of manchus ethicity etc.


I am very sorry if I hurt you or others. However, I am not the one to bring up the problem of Manchu. I will not continue to dicuss about it.


----------



## Snomannen

asean_2015 said:


> I think it is more clear with provinces belonging to than ''Directly''. I did not hear province directly before.
> 
> The Manchu state was founded in the early 17th century. If the Qing empirors did not integrate it into China, it was still a state. That's why I said that Qing empirors did not consider their Manchu state as the terriory of China.
> 
> Manchukuo was formed by Qing Dynasty officials (Manchu people) with the help of Japanese. Puyi was also Manchu. So you cannot conclude that Manchukuo can never on behalf of the Manchu people.



1. In the Cabinet of the Manchukuo, only 2 of 11 members were Manchu people.
2. Pu Yi's actions can never on behalf of Manchu people and also Manchu aristocracy:
Here are the anti-Japanese heroes from Manchu patriciate:
Shen Shuang, Zhào chéngj&#299;n, Zhao Dong, Huáng zh&#333;ng, etc.
3. If Puyi can on behalf of the Manchu people, then Pétain can also on behalf of the French people.
4. There was not such a thing called Manchu state in the 17th century, but a state divided from the Ming Empire named "Later Jin" (renamed to Qing) in the 16th century.
5. You Sir need to apologize to those Manchu people (especially to Northeast Anti-Japanese Volunteers) who sacrificed themselves from defending China during the Sino-Japan War.


----------



## laxuanlinh

Why the Chinese guys always avoid the evidences from the map that we show? If you guys wanna object it, just give us a Chinese map that point out Chinese had known about these Island before 19th century? It's simple as well as we go to find a Vietnamese map right? Unless you guys can't find out one cuz it doesn't exist=)) lol. Comon, just focus on the trustest proofs- the maps, we've spent 33 pages in explaining those maps and Chinese don't want to undetstand or they just object very weakly. Every point that they have said are all denied. Oh, btw, there is a guy saying that Vietnamese made up this map right? I've found this map on a CHINESE WEBSITE. If you wanna object, you will slap your self.
auction.artxun.com/pic-134949226-0.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

*Maps &#8211; tool to demonstrate knowledge on territory*
06/08/2012 | 18:44:00

For every nation, maps are a special language and tool to demonstrate knowledge on territory. All maps drawn by Chinese people before 1909 indicate that the southernmost point of China is Hainan Island. Meanwhile, Vietnamese made maps and European navigation charts since the 17th century, have depicted that the Hoang Sa (Paracel) and Truong Sa (Spratly) Archipelagos belong to Vietnam.

According to historian Duong Trung Quoc, China&#8217;s oldest map in contemporary times, &#8220;Hoang trieu truc tinh dia du toan do&#8221; (an administrative map of provincial boundaries) published in 1904, reflects China&#8217;s perception of its territory during the Qing Dynasty. This shows that by the early 20th century, the Chinese feudal administration had not yet intended to claim sovereignty over the two archipelagos of Hoang Sa and Truong Sa of Vietnam. 

&#8220;This is important significant evidence and supplements the historical evidence proving Vietnam&#8217;s sovereignty over the Hoang Sa and Truong Sa Archipelagos,&#8221; Quoc said.

In fact, China only started claiming Hoang Sa from 1909 and Truong Sa from 1935 while Vietnam held much earlier evidence of its sovereignty in the East Sea , at least from the 17 th century.

According to East Sea researcher Nguyen Hong Thao, the evidence Vietnam has collected is overwhelming. They are recorded in royal historical works compiled by the Office of National History and printed during the Nguyen Dynasty. 

They include &#8220;Dai Nam thuc luc chinh bien&#8221; (The Main Part of The Chronicles of Dai Nam, 1848), &#8220;Kham Dinh Dai Nam hoi dien su le&#8221; (The Dai Nam Administrative Records, 1843-1851), &#8220;Dai Nam nhat thong chi&#8221; (The Geography of the Unified Dai Nam, 1865-1882), &#8220;Lich trieu hien chuong loai chi&#8221; (Classified Rules of Dynasties, 1821), &#8220;Hoang Viet dia du chi&#8221; (Geographical Treatise of Imperial Vietnam, 1833), and &#8220;Viet su cuong giam khao luoc&#8221; (Brief History of Vietnam, 1876). 

The oldest publication describing the existence of the islands is the &#8220;Toan tap Thien Nam tu chi lo do thu&#8221; (The Collection of Route Map from the Capital to the Four Directions, 1630-1653), compiled by a man named Do Ba alias Cong Dao. 

*The document consists of maps of An Nam from the 15th century. Of them, one clearly shows the Paracel and Spratly Archipelagos in the East Sea with the names of Bai Cat Vang and Truong Sa in Quang Nghia prefecture. Under King Minh Mang&#8217;s reign, Hoang Sa and Van Ly Truong Sa were clearly depicted in the &#8220;1834 Dai Nam nhat thong toan do&#8221; (The Complete Map of the Unified Dai Nam).*

According to historian Duong Trung Quoc, Vietnam&#8217;s geographical location is between the Chinese and Indian civilisations and lies on one of the world&#8217;s main shipping lanes. So it is necessary to pay attention not only to maps from Vietnam or China, but also the navigation charts of other navigation powers, regarding related issues.

Sharing the view, Dr. Tran Duc Anh Son, Vice Director of Da Nang City&#8217;s Socio-Economic Development Research Institute, said that not only old Vietnamese and Chinese maps but many old Western maps also clearly show that Hoang Sa and Truong belong to Vietnam.

Son has just completed a research project on Vietnam&#8217;s sovereignty over the island district of Hoang Sa.

One of the biggest successes for his research group is a collection of 56 western maps drawn over a period of more than three centuries. Some maps are very old, such as the one drawn by Livro da Marinharia FM Pinnto in 1560, another by Gerard Mercator (1512-1594) dating to the latter half of the 16 th century, while some are more recently such as the map by Stielers Handatla drawn in 1891.

In particular, the &#8220;An Nam Dai Quoc Hoa Do&#8221; or Map of the Great Country of An Nam, published in 1838 in three languages of Chinese, Vietnamese and Latin, by Bishop Taberd, bears the words &#8220;Paracel seu Cat Vang&#8221; (Paracel or Cat Vang), affirming Vietnamese sovereignty.

This proves that as early as the 16th century, many Westerners already knew the area around Hoang Sa and regarded it as part of Vietnamese territory. 

&#8220;Western cartographers, navigators and explorers have noted Vietnam&#8217;s sovereignty over these archipelagos in their geographic map and navigation charts. Therefore, the maps are valuable documents that help confirm Vietnam&#8217;s indisputable sovereignty over the Hoang Sa and Truong Sa Archipelagos that are disputed by other regional nations,&#8221; Son said.-VNA

Maps

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

*Old atlas affirms Vietnam&#8217;s sovereignty over Hoang Sa, Truong Sa*
28/08/2012 | 18:34:00






The Vietnam Buddhist Sangha Central Committee on August 28 announced an atlas under the Guangxu reign of the Chinese Qing dynasty, proving Hainan Island to be the last Chinese strip of land in the region.

The book was kept in the Phuoc Trang bookcase at the house of Tran Dinh Ba (1867-1933), who copied it when he worked as the Minister of Justice under the Khai Dinh reign (1916-1925). 

The book is now preserved by Ba&#8217;s descendant, researcher Tran Dinh Son, who is currently living in Ho Chi Minh City . 

The &#8220;Dia du do khao&#8221; (geographical and administrative atlas) has a hardback covered with red silk. It includes 65 pages with Chinese characters on both sides and is divided into 20 sections with 20 detailed maps attached.

Prof. Cao Huy Thuan, lecturer of Law and Politics at the French Picardi University , described researcher Son&#8217;s contributions as providing new evidence to affirm Vietnam &#8217;s sovereignty over Hoang Sa and Truong Sa archipelagoes and that China itself recognised Hainan Island as the last strip of its border. 

According to Son, there are still big rocks in Yu Lin, the southern most point of Hainan Island, carved with the words &#8220;ends of the world&#8221; and &#8220;boundless sea and sky&#8221; proving that the Chinese government, since the Qing dynasty, did not recognised Hoang Sa (called Xisha by China) as its territory.-VNA

Old atlas affirms Vietnam

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## WuMaoCleverbot

*G7 leaders agree on sending strong message on South China Sea *
May 27, 2016 - 10:52am






MANILA, Philippines — The leaders of the Group of Seven (G7) advanced economies have agreed that there is a need to send a strong message on China's maritime claims in the South China Sea.

China is locked in territorial disputes with Japan and several Southeast Asian nations including the Philippines and Vietnam. 

"Prime Minister (Shinzo) Abe led discussion on the current situation in the South China Sea and East China Sea. Other G7 leaders said it is necessary for G7 to issue a clear signal," Japanese Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroshige Seko said. 

According to reports, this agreement prompted a sharp rejoinder from China, which is not a member of the G7. 

China warned the G7 that it should not meddle with the South China Sea issue and suggested that the group should focus on itself and "not poke its nose into other countries or matters beyond its remit." "I have made it very clear that the South China Sea issue has nothing to do with the G7 and its members. We believe that the G7 should focus its time and energy on coping with issues within it, and not poke its nose into other countries or matters beyond its remit.

This is also good for the G7 itself," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said in a press briefing on Thursday. 

Hua said that come countries are only taking advantage of the G7 and stressed that China is against certain countries hyping up the issue on the sea dispute.

"The South China Sea issue is none of the business of the G7 and its members," Hua said. The G7 — composed of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States — recently wrapped up their two-day annual leaders' summit in Japan. - 

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2...-agree-sending-strong-message-south-china-sea


----------



## OrionHunter

*Chinese Map of 1904 Proves China's Territory Is Up To Hainan Island Only.*


----------

