La Rouge Beret
Donor
As it says on the tin is it possible for Tibet to remain independent and how could they achieve it?
AHC Independent Tibet
- Thread starter La Rouge Beret
- Start date
If the Japanese wins WWII, because both the KMT and CCP regarded Tibet as part of China. Even now, the KMT's claims of China include Tibet (and Mongolia too!
).In fact, in the dying days of the Qing dynasty, the regime sent an expedition there in order to reassert control and kick out the British IIRC.
I think another way is if Britain really becomes more assertive towards acquiring Tibet as part of their sphere of influence, like the USSR and Mongolia in the 1920s (China tried to yank Mongolia back as part of their country, but USSR stopped them from doing that).
Or China remains divided forever afterwards...which isn't that possible considering the fact that Chinese saw themselves as part of 1 country...
Last edited:
La Rouge Beret
Donor
I was thinking about a more strategic Nehru that identified the need for a stronger buffer state between India and China.
But as I said before, no matter who's in power, they won't accept this...
India using force is almost ASB territory as long as Nehru leads India in 1950-51. He was anxious to see the PRC admitted to the UN, anxious to preserve India's position as a "neutral" power that could broker a peace agreement for the Korean War, etc. Moreover, he believed that "We cannot save Tibet, as we should have liked to do, and our very attempt to save it might well bring greater trouble to it." http://books.google.com/books?id=-5z3AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA124 (He was also worried about Pakistan taking advanatage of any India-PRC conflict.)
The only POD I can see making Indian involvement more likely would be if something happened to Nehru, and Deputy Prime Minister Vallabhbhai Patel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallabhbhai_Patel became Prime Minister. Patel was much more concerned over the PRC's takeover of Tibet than Nehru was; see Itty Abraham, *How India Became Territorial: Foreign Policy, Diaspora, Geopolitics* (Stanford University Press 2014), pp. 124-6 for a summary of his views. Patel observed that previously concerns over India's security had overwhelmingly focused on the Northwest, Tibet having formed a buffer on the Northeast. This buffer was now gone, and Communist views could easily be sold by the PRC in the "weak spots" of "Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Darjeeling, [and] tribal Assam" because of serious pre-existing class and national resentments. Patel warned that "Chinese irredentism and Communist imperialism" were different from, and much more dangerous than, the imperialism of the western powers. http://books.google.com/books?id=-5z3AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA126
But there is an obvious problem with having Patel lead India into war with the PRC on account of Tibet: His health was very poor by mid-1950, and he died on December 15, 1950...
La Rouge Beret
Donor
This is both a region and a period of time that I am not particularly knowledgeable on, would Mr Patel's health last the start of a conflict and in the event that he died would there be a clear successor?
"Remain" assumes that Tibet *was* independent from 1912-1950. *De facto*, no doubt; but AFAIK no country ever recognized Tibet as independent *de jure.* This matters, because it is one reason why no nation did anything substantial to stop the PRC's takeover. (Probably they wouldn't have done so, anyway; but that Tibet never had been recognized as independent made the decision not to do anything easier.)
Actually, I think only Mongolia recognized it...but it was more akin to the current-day limited recognition states (ex. South Ossetia, Abkhazia).
According to Wiki, the KMT took measures in WWII to prevent them from declaring independence de jure...such as bombing threats...
Well...as I said before, it's not easy to keep China divided. Inevitably, the country tends to reunify again, and they would seek to reclaim territory that they lost.
That's the basis for the various island disputes-the 9-dash line was drawn up by the KMT back in the 40s, and is regarded as being "Chinese territory", as is also Taiwan and Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands...
oreocruncher said:Even now, the KMT's claims of China include Tibet (and Mongolia too!
Let us not pretend the RoC government's claims are somehow indicative of Taiwanese popular opinion regarding Tibet. If the RoC had somehow remained the government of China, they may well maintain claims to or control over Tibet. But the Taiwanese government's current 'claims' are quite obviously maintained because China has loudly and often threatened to invade if the claims were dropped. Were that not the case, I am sure any claims to Mongolia, Tibet, and even China woulf have been dropped by now. That being the case, I am not sure what 'even now' means...
I know that, but the fact that such claims were made back then kinda indicates something. And what I mean is that these claims are still held now because dropping=declaration of independence...
Of course, I would be OK with Tibetan independence, but not many of my countrymen (such as my parents) would agree...
No reason the RoC couldn't recognize the independence of Mongolia, given that the PRC has always done so.
I know that, but the fact that such claims were made back then kinda indicates something. And what I mean is that these claims are still held now because dropping=declaration of independence...
Of course, I would be OK with Tibetan independence, but not many of my countrymen (such as my parents) would agree...
Oh, I totally agree with you there--it does not matter who is in charge of China in this TL, if the experience of 1842-1945 remains more or less the same, then any government will have a strong focus on keeping anything and everything seen as Chinese territory.
However, though it would be difficult, I am not sure it is impossible. After all, in OTL there does not seem to be a strong popular focus on regaining Mongolia or Outer Manchuria. If Tibet became independent not as a direct result of foreign conquest, but simply broke away as a foreign client state in the choas of the Xinhai Revolution and its immediate aftermath, if it somehow managed to maintain that position for a long time, and if there are other threats and other territorial issues upon which the public and the media are focused, then it might just be possible for it to follow the path of Mongolia. It is a tall order indeed, though.
No, China would almost certainly regard any change to the purported claims as a change in the status quo, even if that change only brought the 'claims' into line with China's.
Last edited:
The RoC did recognize the independence of Mongolia. When on Taiwan, Chiang Kai-shel retracted this recognition since Mongolia was communist.
Well, the Mongolian People's Republic was communist when China recognized it in 1946, too. Stalin had demanded recognition as the price for a Sino-Soviet "friendship" treaty. To save face, Chiang had insisted on a referendum; when it was held on October 20, 1945, in the presence of Chinese observers who pronounced it valid, the eventual results were reported as 483,281 for independence, *zero* for China...
The RoC's recognition of Mongolia really became a dead letter after the border clashes of 1947 and especially after the MPR recognized the new PRC in 1949. Still, from what I have read, the RoC did not formally withdraw recognition of the MRP until 1953. http://books.google.com/books?id=5JN83EDDLl4C&pg=PR5
If for some reason China gets nuked in WW2? Perhaps have the KMT aligned with Japan (somehow) and Germany, join the Axis and eventually get dismembered by the allies.
They don't need to be get nuked, but the only way China's going to let go of peripheral areas is force majeur (Mongolia or Taiwan) or if it gets decapitated for a long time.
When did China drop her claims on Korea and Vietnam? Did the Qing ever claim overlordship of the latter?
They don't need to be get nuked, but the only way China's going to let go of peripheral areas is force majeur (Mongolia or Taiwan) or if it gets decapitated for a long time.
When did China drop her claims on Korea and Vietnam? Did the Qing ever claim overlordship of the latter?
No, Korea and Vietnam were tributary/vassal states, not a protectorate like Tibet was (if you look at maps showing the Qing Empire, Tibet is part of the Qing Empire, but Vietnam and Korea aren't). I don't think the Qing claimed these territories as part of their Empire...
And it's not likely for the KMT to ally with Japan in WWII...there's a reason Wang Jingwei is like our Benedict Arnold...