China's historical grand strategy: defensive or offensive?


t2contra

Major
The sole purpose of this thread by the OP is to accuse China of being a military aggressor that deserves destruction, and del


I for one do not trust the OP's intentions whatsover regarding the purpose of this thread from the get-go, as it seems far more an exercise in finding things to fit his preconceptions than any interest in truth.
Maybe, an Aussie of Vietnamese ancestry would be keen to dig up his roots.
 

Max Demian

Junior Member
Registered Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #82
I think the evidence presented thus far is abundantly clear: Ming annexed Annam.

I am still waiting for evidence to disprove this.
 

PiSigma

"the engineer"
I think the evidence presented thus far is abundantly clear: Ming annexed Annam.

I am still waiting for evidence to disprove this.
Yep and what about it? Give it another 50 years, northern Vietnam could be called jiaozhi again just like during the Han dynasty, you know its proper name. And the south can be called Cham, and given to Cambodia, like the proper thing to do.
 

solarz

Brigadier
I think the evidence presented thus far is abundantly clear: Ming annexed Annam.

I am still waiting for evidence to disprove this.
What exactly is your point? Your own source admits that the Ming expedition to Annam was a just cause. Given that the rightful ruling family was entirely massacred by the usurper, and that no suitable replacement could be found, the Confucian thing to do was to take over the rulership. What Ming did was entirely compatible with the Confucian philosophy of duty and responsibility. It's only you who seems to be incapable of comprehending this simple fact.
 

Max Demian

Junior Member
Registered Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #85
What exactly is your point? Your own source admits that the Ming expedition to Annam was a just cause. Given that the rightful ruling family was entirely massacred by the usurper, and that no suitable replacement could be found, the Confucian thing to do was to take over the rulership. What Ming did was entirely compatible with the Confucian philosophy of duty and responsibility. It's only you who seems to be incapable of comprehending this simple fact.
Ming was justified in the intervention only. There was no justification for the annexation of Annam.

Example. After the US and Allies defeated Japan in ww2 the US established a military government over the Japanese home islands that lasted until 1952. Following the military occupation, a Japanese civilian government was established and full sovereignty restored to Japan. The US would not have been justified had it annexed Japan and renamed it into New Appalachia.
 

Gatekeeper

Major
Registered Member
Ming was justified in the intervention only. There was no justification for the annexation of Annam.

Example. After the US and Allies defeated Japan in ww2 the US established a military government over the Japanese home islands that lasted until 1952. Following the military occupation, a Japanese civilian government was established and full sovereignty restored to Japan. The US would not have been justified had it annexed Japan and renamed it into New Appalachia.
The last paragraph sums up the thinking and naivety of the poster.

So Japan has gain full sovereignty then? Lol
I think every one here would agreed that having foreign troop on your soil is not everyone's idea of full sovereignty.
 

solarz

Brigadier
The last paragraph sums up the thinking and naivety of the poster.

So Japan has gain full sovereignty then? Lol
I think every one here would agreed that having foreign troop on your soil is not everyone's idea of full sovereignty.
Exactly, but I don't think he's being naive. He's deliberately trying to gaslight readers.

Ming was justified in the intervention only. There was no justification for the annexation of Annam.

Example. After the US and Allies defeated Japan in ww2 the US established a military government over the Japanese home islands that lasted until 1952. Following the military occupation, a Japanese civilian government was established and full sovereignty restored to Japan. The US would not have been justified had it annexed Japan and renamed it into New Appalachia.
Tell us, what exactly is non-Confucian about taking over the rulership of a kingdom that would otherwise fall into chaos?

What is the relevance of the US actions in Japan? Is the US a Confucian country now? I thought your argument was that China does not act Confucian? Or are you trying to say that ancient China did not act according to the theoretical moral standards of the 20th century western civilization? In that case, yeah, guilty as charged! :D
 

Hendrik_2000

Brigadier
The last paragraph sums up the thinking and naivety of the poster.

So Japan has gain full sovereignty then? Lol
I think every one here would agreed that having foreign troop on your soil is not everyone's idea of full sovereignty.
Don't forget Plaza accord that practically kill Japanese semiconductor industry, forcing Japanese automobile company to open factory in US and plunge Japan into malaise that to this day she never recover . Yup independent in the name only But practically Japan is vassal state of the US. She cannot have independent foreign policy
 

solarz

Brigadier
I realize that from a Western perspective, destroying a country's government and then leaving the people to fend for themselves as society descends into anarchy and civil war is a perfectly moral and ethical act. That is their modus operandi for bringing Freedom and Democracy to the world.

Sorry if Confucius would disagree.
 

Max Demian

Junior Member
Registered Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #90
You can beat around the bush as much as you want, but the evidence presented is unequivocal: Ming annexed Annam, thereby violating the mandate of their original wargoal. The evidence also makes it clear that the Annamese did not welcome their occupier and repeatedly rebelled against them. Therefore, the war between Ming and Annam was a war of aggression. This is a factual, not an ethical judgment.
 

Top