Sorry, I have to answer all the people the quoted my post.
Firstly I wasn't even thinking about the islands issue.
Read the bold part again, this proves that you are completely out of tune with me because I always focus on the China-Vietnam issue since it's related to the topic matter. If you want to discuss world history, I know a bit but unfortunately do not have time to follow you.
Secondly, I said big countries fail from conquering small nations is a "normal" story based on other samples doesn't mean that I am defending anyone.
So stop punching a scarecrow in front of us.
You should read my comment again, I laid out 2 ifs statement. The first if assume that you are an independent observer, therefore, you cannot understand the feelings involve in those historical victories.
The second if does assume that you are bias. If you are not defending anyone, I'm sorry that I view you as such
Thirdly, you are just considering anything that you don't want to believe, don't suit your own taste or don't want to hear as a "defending". Since you think you are the one who is the holy God.
Emotional statement from you, but I can understand that. However, you accuse me of boasting as "holy God," which I have to disagree.
Yeah sure of course and yet you still think that a country gave you a thousand year of "servitude" wasn't a "wealthy opponent" (yeah yeah that was long time ago).
Sorry, you may have misunderstood me since my concern was about the "control of your whole country for thousand year" part and "serious internal problems."
Let me make myself clear, I consider China a worthy opponent and a worthy friend to have if they stop bullying us
I suppose you know that that was simply a sample. Just like I was using Finland comparing with Vietnam.
And your example is irrelevant when victory/defeat is concerned. I don't think we should try to split hair here anymore.
Oops sorry, I mistyped a "0" and misread the book. There was 150,000 of casualties out of 200,000 solders + workers/ suppliers, you were right.
No prob, glad to help
Sigh, you refuted nothing since you never try to read and remove your wrong concept.
I was talking replying with multiple people at the time. Since you can see that my post tick a lot of people off. I understood their feelings, so I stayed to talk with them. By the time I got to you, I have not had sleep the entire night. I saw that you were talking about the same thing anyways.
Let's see how your logic works:
Taksin is not Thai because there is a Chinese country in the world right now.
Catherine the Great is not Russian because there is a German country in the world right now.
If Pakistan called themselves "Mughal", "Mughal" can takes over the history of Mughal Empire.
If Kaliningrad became a country and named themselves "Prussia", "Prussia" would have the right to take over Prussia's hisory. Since there is a "Prussian country" in the world right now.
In the eyes of objective history you say, I don't think that you have such a thing.
And yes the originated lands you say. Mongolian's origin Hulunbeier is China's land. Seems like China doesn't need the whole Mongolia to have Genghis Khan.
I'm happy to obligate
Taksin is second generation Chinese-Thai heritage, did he brought an army to conquer Siam from China?
Catherine married to Russian Court, she is Russian
Pakistan can call themselves whatever, as long as they don't claim Mongolian. China can all itself Yuan, but it does not mean Yuan was not the conquerors of China.
What's with the reverse logic? If the people of Kaliningrad can rebel to recover their lost country, then yeah, history of Prussia should belong back to the new Prussia. So you are saying Mongolian were not a country before the Mongol empire invaded Han China created a huge Yuan country?
There is an objective history my friend. People used to say history is written by the winner, but it's not entirely true as it has to be based on irrefutable facts. For example:
-History acknowledged that Pilgrims took over and murder Native Americans for their lands. That's a fact in history even though early British Empire's book denied it.
-History acknowledged Genghis Khan a Mongolian hero, not some Chinese's minority ruler like many Chinese claims
My logic you say. No no no, that is yours logic, as I have said that you never the concept right and even try to mess up my meanings.
Does India have the Golden Family.
Is Mongolian part of the "Indian Ethnics Group".
Are these Mongolian part of the "Indian Ethnics Group" are the direct descendant of Genghis Khan.
"Golden Family," you mean "Golden Horde, which is a totally different branch of Mongol Empire?" or you mean direct descendants from Genghis Khan? So now you can claim the granddad Chinese hero because the grandson somehow became the Yuan Emperor by conquering China
There are Mongolians in Russia, and Kazakhstan who are descendants of Orda Khan, ruler of the Golden Horde country. Orda Khan is also the grandson of Genghis Khan. Can Russia claims Genghis Khan their hero?
Is India the originated land of Mongolian.
4 no's my friend, 4 no's.
William the Conqueror was the first Norman King of England, yet British people
never consider him as a non-British and
claim that Norman dynasty was a subjugation period.
Indian is not where the Mongol come from, but so is China. Remember that ancient Han Chinese countries are a lot smaller than they are today. Furthermore, Mongols people are the collection of wandering tribes that live throughout Russia, Mongolia, and present-day China as well.
So William is somehow a British and a subjugator at the same time? I have to question your "never consider him as a non-British" statement, since you claim to know the thinking of many nations in the world, yet two statement in one sentence are contradictory
In conclusion, I oppose your claim that Genghis Khan is Chinese based on:
- Mongolian is still a country in the world so no one can take away that country's hero. You gave me a bunch of hypothetical question regarding various nations. I have answered all of them
- You claimed there are Mongolian living in China, and Yuan Emperor is direct descendant of Genghis (grandson), thus, you claim his granddad. For the sake of argument we assume grandson dictates the ethnicity of granddad, although that is ridiculous. I gave you the case of Russia where another direct descendant (grandson) control it, and Mongol people are living in Russia as well. How come I don't see Russia claim Genghis Khan?
- You claimed origination determine belongs. By asking me if Mongol people were from India, you were implying that Mongol people originated from China, thus Genghis is Chinese. I refuted by saying that ancient Han China was not that big to cover Mongol's land up north, as well as pointing out that the Mongols were wandering tribes who lived everywhere from East Russia, Mongolia, and present-day China. Again I don't see Russia claim Genghis Khan?
- You claimed Inner Mongolia are true Mongol while Outer Mongolia (present-day Mongolia) are not on the other thread. I cannot stress enough how ridiculous that sounds. It's like you claim Viet people Chinese and people who live in Vietnam right now are not true Viet??
- The fact is, if you ask anyone not indoctrinated by Chinese Textbooks who is Genghis Khan, they will answer Mongolian.
- Lets me ask you this, Japan Emperor Akihito never got that far at conquering China just like Genghis Khan, if his grandson were to succeed, would you then call Akihito Chinese?
All in all, your theory is nice and I appreciate the conversation. But sometimes I don't see the point of discussing anymore when something is so off the scale like this. Poor Mongolians, there are Chinese who claim Mongolians are not real Mongolians, their national Hero is actually Chinese, and their land actually belongs to China as well.
