If there is a war between China - Viet Nam in SCS

[doidoi2]

The Qing Dynasty was not Chinese, but of ethnic Manchu origin, who are much more closer to the Jurchen tribal culture ; alien to the Han culture of the south.

The last Han dynasty was the Ming Dynasty , which collapsed in the late 17th century , which , in regards to Confusion political processes, lost the "Mandate of Heaven" to the foreign and barbaric Manchus (who are ethnically and linguistically related to the Mongols and Jurchen tribes of the north).

You need to read up some more on the Qing. The Qing dynasty by and large is a continuation of the Han dynasties before it. The culture, language, and governmental institutions are all Han. The ethnic makeup of the ruling class is irrelevant in determining the civilization (in fact, the Manchus themselves sinicized and lost their own culture in the process).

All things I've mentioned before, literature, customs, philosophy etc are all vastly more important than the ethnicity of the ruling class in determining heritage. If the ethnicity of a ruling class was the sole factor, then you could argue that Britain is actually German (read up on the origins of the House of Windsor). That is clearly ludicrous.

Whatever the case, Manchus and Han are all Chinese now. I dare you to find an ethnic Manchu that claims they're not Chinese. You will not be able to.

 

[USAHawk785]

Chinese are ethnic groups including Manchu, Mongols, Tibetan etc, not only Han. You don't even know what Chinese is.
If the Qing Dynasty was not Chinese, then Mughal Empire was not Indian, Germany Empire was not German.

I wonder how Bismarck the Prussian invaded his country Germany.

There never was a state called "Germany" prior to the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, which lead to the collapse of the 2nd French Empire and to the establishment of the 1st German Empire (otherwise known as the 2nd Reich) under Kaiser Wilhelm. Prior to that, centuries actually, there was a concept of "Germany" , however, there was never a single unified country. To the north was the protestant kingdom of Prussia, to the west were the kingdoms of Hannover, Bavaria, Saxony, and to the south was the Catholic Austrian Empire (also known as the Hapbsurb Empire; Austrio-Hungarian Empire).

In regards to my earlier post, it is obviously didactic what I said. The Manchus are of a different ethnic group, their language is actually related to prot-mongol, and bears similar tonation to Mongol, and Korean. An ethnic Manchu looks similar to a Mongol and a Korean, as well.

The Han (Chinese) are of a totally different and foreign language, cultural, ethnic grouping as compared to the Manchu.

The Qing Dynasty , which was established by Jurchen people of present day Jilin and Heilonjiang. The first Qing Emperor was Nurhaci, an ethnic Mongol, whose Chinese reign name is Tianming (天&#21629. The succeeding Qing Emperors were all Manchu in origin.

Prior to the conquest of China by the Jurchen tribes of Machuria, the laste Han dynasty to rule China was the Ming Dynasty. The last Ming emperor, Chongzhen, committed suicide after the city was lost in the early 17th century. Since then, China was ruled by the Qing Dynasty (the emperors were not ethnic Han, but were ethnic Manchu).

It was not until the collapse of the Qing Dynasty in 1912 did China become free of Manchu yoke, when the first "Han Chinese" became elected to office--- the respectable President Sun Yat Sen.


Please, know your own history before you try to discuss with me.

 

[Icecreamcart]

I think the situation between Vietnam and China is similar to Bangladesh and India.

India helped Bangladesh defeat Pakistan in a similar way China helped Vietnam defeat USA but given that the alliance was only temporary between these ancient enemies, now Bangladesh is buying Pakistani Arms against India in a similar way that Vietnam is now buying Arms from USA against China.

And just like Bangladesh is a thorn on India's side, Vietnam is also a thorn on China's side, impeding its growth and its ability to project power.

I always thought the unnatural borders were the main reason for the dispute between India and Bangladesh. Especially those enclaves inside enclaves. At least the Chinese-Vietnam border is much more simple.

You're right about Vietnam being in a position to threaten Chinese interests, with their strategic position lying along the main sea routes to the Malacca Strait.

But the Vietnamese military buildup isn't sustainable. It outpaces economic growth by a huge margin. Like buying those Kilo submarines from Russia despite the fact that maintaining them would be a huge burden for the military. Eventually something would have to give. Neither Vietnam nor the Philippines are in the position to stand up to China, especially as the US is not willing to step in in what it considers to be a internal dispute.

 

[USAHawk785]

You need to read up some more on the Qing. The Qing dynasty by and large is a continuation of the Han dynasties before it. The culture, language, and governmental institutions are all Han. The ethnic makeup of the ruling class is irrelevant in determining the civilization (in fact, the Manchus themselves sinicized and lost their own culture in the process).

All things I've mentioned before, literature, customs, philosophy etc are all vastly more important than the ethnicity of the ruling class in determining heritage. If the ethnicity of a ruling class was the sole factor, then you could argue that Britain is actually German (read up on the origins of the House of Windsor). That is clearly ludicrous.

Whatever the case, Manchus and Han are all Chinese now. I dare you to find an ethnic Manchu that claims they're not Chinese. You will not be able to.

Refer to my prior post.

I always thought the unnatural borders were the main reason for the dispute between India and Bangladesh. Especially those enclaves inside enclaves. At least the Chinese-Vietnam border is much more simple.

You're right about Vietnam being in a position to threaten Chinese interests, with their strategic position lying along the main sea routes to the Malacca Strait.

But the Vietnamese military buildup isn't sustainable. It outpaces economic growth by a huge margin. Like buying those Kilo submarines from Russia despite the fact that maintaining them would be a huge burden for the military. Eventually something would have to give. Neither Vietnam nor the Philippines are in the position to stand up to China, especially as the US is not willing to step in in what it considers to be a internal dispute.

It is quite tantamount -- it is well within American strategic interests to keep nations around China to remain antagonistic to China. As we speak, the United States is fostering greater cooperation between classical allies in the Asia-Pacific Region:
1) Japan
2) South Korea
3) Thailand
4) Philippines
5) Australia / NZ
6) Singapore
7) Taiwan

and the recent greening of relationships between Washington and Hanoi.

It is opportune for the United States and American strategic interests to have nations around China-- remain hostile to China. To the south of China, there is India, which stands to be another strategic partner. The United States will take advantage of China's territorial disputes with neighbors to maximum effect.

This of course is within American strategic calculus as we re-orient our Navy to the Asia-Pacific.

 

[doidoi2]

Refer to my prior post.

Refer to my point about how ethnicity of a Ruling class alone does not determine the heritage of a civilization.

Refute the point.

 

[Icecreamcart]

There never was a state called "Germany" prior to the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, which lead to the collapse of the 2nd French Empire and to the establishment of the 1st German Empire (otherwise known as the 2nd Reich) under Kaiser Wilhelm. Prior to that, centuries actually, there was a concept of "Germany" , however, there was never a single unified country. To the north was the protestant kingdom of Prussia, to the west were the kingdoms of Hannover, Bavaria, Saxony, and to the south was the Catholic Austrian Empire (also known as the Hapbsurb Empire; Austrio-Hungarian Empire).

In regards to my earlier post, it is obviously didactic what I said. The Manchus are of a different ethnic group, their language is actually related to prot-mongol, and bears similar tonation to Mongol, and Korean. An ethnic Manchu looks similar to a Mongol and a Korean, as well.

The Han (Chinese) are of a totally different and foreign language, cultural, ethnic grouping as compared to the Manchu.

The Qing Dynasty , which was established by Jurchen people of present day Jilin and Heilonjiang. The first Qing Emperor was Nurhaci, an ethnic Mongol, whose Chinese reign name is Tianming (天&#21629. The succeeding Qing Emperors were all Manchu in origin.

Prior to the conquest of China by the Jurchen tribes of Machuria, the laste Han dynasty to rule China was the Ming Dynasty. The last Ming emperor, Chongzhen, committed suicide after the city was lost in the early 17th century. Since then, China was ruled by the Qing Dynasty (the emperors were not ethnic Han, but were ethnic Manchu).

It was not until the collapse of the Qing Dynasty in 1912 did China become free of Manchu yoke, when the first "Han Chinese" became elected to office--- the respectable President Sun Yat Sen.


Please, know your own history before you try to discuss with me.

The Jurchens may not have been Chinese proper then, but because the fact they proclaimed themselves the Qing Dynasty, under the mandate of Heaven, they have become an integral part of Chinese culture.

Do you consider Norman England as English or Frankish? The ruling class doesn't change the integral identity of the main population, or you could consider England as part of the French until they lost the 100 years war?

 

[USAHawk785]

In the end, they are part of what is today known as "China".

Incorrect. There remains an independent nation called Mongolia, who remains ever-close to Russia. This nation has a capital, too, named Ulan Bataar.

Refer to my point about how ethnicity of a Ruling class alone does not determine the heritage of a civilization.

Refute the point.

Of course it does. Russian ruling class determined the Russian Tzardom for a thousand years. The French ruling class maintained the French kingdom for over a thousand years. The same as how the Han culture dominated the ancient chinese kingdoms starting from qin till ming.

Refute that counter point.

It is irrevocably undeniable that the identity of the Manchus are not han, but are actually related to proto-mongol; even their language is similar to urguic in tonation. The amalgamation of some Manchu regions with Han people does not refute the point that Manchus are ethnically, culturally and linguistically alien to the Han people of the South.

 

[Icecreamcart]

Refer to my prior post.
It is quite tantamount -- it is well within American strategic interests to keep nations around China to remain antagonistic to China. As we speak, the United States is fostering greater cooperation between classical allies in the Asia-Pacific Region:
1) Japan
2) South Korea
3) Thailand
4) Philippines
5) Australia / NZ
6) Singapore
7) Taiwan

and the recent greening of relationships between Washington and Hanoi.

It is opportune for the United States and American strategic interests to have nations around China-- remain hostile to China. To the south of China, there is India, which stands to be another strategic partner. The United States will take advantage of China's territorial disputes with neighbors to maximum effect.

This of course is within American strategic calculus as we re-orient our Navy to the Asia-Pacific.

A strategic partner is not the same as a military ally. The US is hesitant to enter the murky waters of the SCS dispute, much like it was hesitant to directly intervene with the Soviet Union. It's a fine game of brinksmanship and because of that Vietnam, the Philippines, even India, won't be able to get the level of co-operation as with S.Korea, Australia/NZ and Japan.

If it was otherwise, Taiwan would of already been hosting US military bases.

 

[doidoi2]

It is quite tantamount -- it is well within American strategic interests to keep nations around China to remain antagonistic to China. As we speak, the United States is fostering greater cooperation between classical allies in the Asia-Pacific Region:
1) Japan
2) South Korea
3) Thailand
4) Philippines
5) Australia / NZ
6) Singapore
7) Taiwan

In the medium term yes... But what about a decade later when China overtakes the US in economic size? You'll be left with the biggest economic entity in the world as an enemy.

The other nations you list are also not stupid. At the same time America is trying to get them to confront and contain China, they are trying to play off the US and China against each other without getting involved and getting benefits from both sides. In the end, what will likely happen is that the status quo will continue. America and its "allies" will continue their exchange of words. While China grows stronger by the day.

What's gonna happen when China's military becomes too strong for the US to contain? It will happen eventually, you know. It's the inevitable conclusion of economic progress. Then the US is left with a pissed-off China with a huge military, and a world war will ensue.

That path you state, the path of containing China, is the path to world war 3. Make no mistake about it. The better approach is to both take a step back and establish rules now and resolve all territorial conflicts now, before it's too late.

 

[USAHawk785]

A strategic partner is not the same as a military ally. The US is hesitant to enter the murky waters of the SCS dispute, much like it was hesitant to directly intervene with the Soviet Union. It's a fine game of brinksmanship and because of that Vietnam, the Philippines, even India, won't be able to get the level of co-operation as with S.Korea, Australia/NZ and Japan.

If it was otherwise, Taiwan would of already been hosting US military bases.

The United States Navy patrols the waters of the South China Sea on regular basis; the traversing of the 6th, 5th and 7th fleets is testament to this. Our classical alliances in Asia-Pacific serve our purpose of maintaining our hegemony in the region and in containing China.

China cannot blatantly attack Vietnam and the Philippines , else it will receive global condemnation. The United States will take advantage of this diplomatic situation by increasing military cooperations with said nations -- and continue to arm regions.

In the end, the surroundng nations : Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, Australia/ New Zealand, India -- all view China as a threat; an aggressive threat.

It legitimizes American naval buildup in our sphereas of interests in the region. It also legitimizes any American military intervention in the future.

In the medium term yes... But what about a decade later when China overtakes the US in economic size? You'll be left with the biggest economic entity in the world as an enemy.

The other nations you list are also not stupid. At the same time America is trying to get them to confront and contain China, they are trying to play off the US and China against each other without getting involved and getting benefits from both sides. In the end, what will likely happen is that the status quo will continue. America and its "allies" will continue their exchange of words. While China grows stronger by the day.

What's gonna happen when China's military becomes too strong for the US to contain? It will happen eventually, you know. It's the inevitable conclusion of economic progress. Then the US is left with a pissed-off China with a huge military, and a world war will ensue.

That path you state, the path of containing China, is the path to world war 3. Make no mistake about it. The better approach is to both take a step back and establish rules now and resolve all territorial conflicts now, before it's too late.

It would be wise to think in classical statistics and analyze the quantitative data that is ominious to some. China's economic progress has faltered from double digit growth rates to 6-7% growth. I truly doubt that China will surpass the United States in economic might. You economy, afterall, is dependent on the United States. We are you largest trading partner. We stop investing in China, your economy collapses.

Speaking of the latter, i think the CHinese economy is already beginning to collapse.

 

[doidoi2]

Of course it does. Russian ruling class determined the Russian Tzardom for a thousand years. The French ruling class maintained the French kingdom for over a thousand years. The same as how the Han culture dominated the ancient chinese kingdoms starting from qin till ming.

It is irrevocably undeniable that the identity of the Manchus are not han, but are actually related to proto-mongol; even their language is similar to urguic in tonation. The amalgamation of some Manchu regions with Han people does not refute the point that Manchus are ethnically, culturally and linguistically alien to the Han people of the South.

so you're saying that ethnicity of a ruling class determines the heritage of a civilization? you're entitled to your opinion, of course. But just saying that most historians will not agree with you.

On the second point I agree with you partially. Of course the Manchus were not Han, but the Qing dynasty is very clearly Chinese. The Qing court spoke Chinese, and customs were Chinese. Both Han and Manchu assimilated into a greater empire we call China today, so it's irrelevant. It's a bit like saying the Saxons conquered the Britons and Angles in England. It's true, but no one cares. Today there's only English, no Saxon or Angle. As I said, try to find one Manchu today that deny they're Chinese. You won't be able to find one.

 

[ahfatzia]

The arrogant Americans think everyone is stupid! They just don't see, aside from ANZ, how these Pacific nation despite them from their bones and use them to counter China for the meantime. Eventually on their way to soothe their egos as the policemen of the world they'll bankrupt themselves.

 

[Icecreamcart]

The United States Navy patrols the waters of the South China Sea on regular basis; the traversing of the 6th, 5th and 7th fleets is testament to this. Our classical alliances in Asia-Pacific serve our purpose of maintaining our hegemony in the region and in containing China.

China cannot blatantly attack Vietnam and the Philippines , else it will receive global condemnation. The United States will take advantage of this diplomatic situation by increasing military cooperations with said nations -- and continue to arm regions.

In the end, the surrounding nations : Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, Australia/ New Zealand, India -- all view China as a threat; an aggressive threat.

It legitimizes American naval buildup in our spheres of interests in the region. It also legitimizes any American military intervention in the future.

You're right, that's if any future conflict arises out of Chinese desires for direct subjugation of all surrounding nations in an attempt to achieve regional hegemony. This idea is far-fetched, nothing short of fear-mongering. The Soviets only got away with Eastern Europe because it was during WW2. China has been pressing its SCS claims along with Taiwan on this matter so there's always the competing claims. If you see the SCS claims map, both Vietnam and the Philippines claim a large chunk of the SCS, not to mention Malaysia.

So it's not a clear black and white dispute between a clear aggressor and innocent defenders.

Assuming that China would blatantly attack Vietnam or the Philippines is a dangerous notion. It makes no sense when it already has credible claims in the dispute. How would the US react if a conflict arises out of an escalation due to a fault from both competing parties? How would the SCS be divided up (officially) between the competing claimants? With such uncertainty, the US would only step in for mediation, not to join any conflict.

 

[doidoi2]

It would be wise to think in classical statistics and analyze the quantitative data that is ominious to some. China's economic progress has faltered from double digit growth rates to 6-7% growth. I truly doubt that China will surpass the United States in economic might. You economy, afterall, is dependent on the United States. We are you largest trading partner. We stop investing in China, your economy collapses.

Speaking of the latter, i think the CHinese economy is already beginning to collapse.

hahahahaha, ok. So you mean the US will stop trading its useless treasury paper for actual goods and services from China? and that the lack of this money will cause China to collapse? good. I look forward to the day. Right now China is providing goods to Americans for bits of virtual money that the Fed can print at whim.

Also, you should look at US investments in China (here's a hint, it's a very, very small portion of overall Chinese investment).

That said, I like your proposition. You should perpetuate that theory whenever possible, because when it's realized, then that's the exact moment when your living standards suffer and you're forced to live within your means (which is not that bad, in fact). It'll be good for both China and the US to stop sending goods to the US for practically nothing.

 

[Snomannen]

There never was a state called "Germany" prior to the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, which lead to the collapse of the 2nd French Empire and to the establishment of the 1st German Empire (otherwise known as the 2nd Reich) under Kaiser Wilhelm. Prior to that, centuries actually, there was a concept of "Germany" , however, there was never a single unified country. To the north was the protestant kingdom of Prussia, to the west were the kingdoms of Hannover, Bavaria, Saxony, and to the south was the Catholic Austrian Empire (also known as the Hapbsurb Empire; Austrio-Hungarian Empire).

You don't need to post the German history to confirm my (people's) basic concept, as I said, there never was a state called "China" before the Republish was established. That's why I said these two nations had the experience alike.

In regards to my earlier post, it is obviously didactic what I said. The Manchus are of a different ethnic group, their language is actually related to prot-mongol, and bears similar tonation to Mongol, and Korean. An ethnic Manchu looks similar to a Mongol and a Korean, as well.

The Han (Chinese) are of a totally different and foreign language, cultural, ethnic grouping as compared to the Manchu.

The Qing Dynasty , which was established by Jurchen people of present day Jilin and Heilonjiang. The first Qing Emperor was Nurhaci, an ethnic Mongol, whose Chinese reign name is Tianming (天&#21629. The succeeding Qing Emperors were all Manchu in origin.

Nation is nation, ethnic is ethnic, basic concept.
Tell our Indian friends that Mughal Empire is not Indian.
Besides, Nurhaci, an ethnic Manchu, was an officer of the Ming Dynasty.

Prior to the conquest of China by the Jurchen tribes of Machuria, the laste Han dynasty to rule China was the Ming Dynasty. The last Ming emperor, Chongzhen, committed suicide after the city was lost in the early 17th century. Since then, China was ruled by the Qing Dynasty (the emperors were not ethnic Han, but were ethnic Manchu).

Is doesn't matter which ethnic the ruler is, since they are Chinese.
Besides:
1. Qing Emperors call themself Chinese Emperor (中國皇&#24093, just like every emperors in the Chinese history did;
2. Qing Dynasty legally inherited its predecessor Ming Dunasty;
3. Qing Emperors admitted themselves are Chinese, after hundreds of year you from modern are telling them they were wrong.

It was not until the collapse of the Qing Dynasty in 1912 did China become free of Manchu yoke, when the first "Han Chinese" became elected to office--- the respectable President Sun Yat Sen.

Sun Yat Sen was an nationalist, read the major principle of Five Races Under One Union.

Please, know your own history before you try to discuss with me.

All you are trying to do here is to post the history that everybody knows and being rude to change the simple, basic concept of "Chinese".