If the PRC didn't take over Tibet could it have remained independent?
- Thread starter Malone
- Start date
Colonialism was dead after 1945. India is not going through annex another country, not after countries of European rule
(Notice I wrote European rather than British because the Portuguese and French also have colonies in India)
(Notice I wrote European rather than British because the Portuguese and French also have colonies in India)
India did take over Hyderabad, against the wishes of the local Nizam.
Crazy Boris
Banned
IIRC, there were quite a few princely state leaders in India and Pakistan who weren’t too thrilled about integration and tried to put it off as long as they could even if they agreed on paper.
Completely different situations. Hyderabad is historically part of India. The Indian annexation of Hyderabad is similar to China annexing Tibet, with both nations annexing nations that have historical and cultural ties to each other. If we are talking about colonialism like Japan and Korea or USA and the Philippines than that's an absolute no
What were the reasons for taking Tibet instead of keeping it a tribute paying state?
Phuntsok Wangyal - Wikipedia
also if you can find an online copy of this book: https://www.bookdepository.com/On-Cultural-Revolution-Tibet-Melvyn-C-Goldstein/9780520267909
It is very useful in contextualising the Cultural Revolution in Tibet, and points out that there were pretty significant pre-existing revolutionary forces, sometimes allied with elements of the Tibetan aristocracy that opposed the control of the Dalai Lama's regime.
As early as the Long March in the 1930's the CCP had reached the borderlands of ethnic Tibet in Kham. and recruited a (very) fewTIbetans.
"Tian Bao was born as Sangye Yeshi in Kham, a traditionally eastern region of Tibet which is now part of the Chinese province of Sichuan.[1]
"Tian first encountered Mao Zedong's army in 1935 as it pushed through western China when he was eighteen years old.[1] Mao was trying to escape Kuomintang government forces at the time.[1] Tian joined Mao's army and became one of the few ethnic Tibetans who participated in the Long March.." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanggyai_Yexe
Another early Tibetan Communist was Baba Phuntsog Wangyal who helped guide the PLA to Lhasa in 1951 and later served as the interpreter between Mao and the Dalai Lama when the latter visited Beijing in 1954. https://books.google.com/books?id=eR6qa-BQ8p0C&pg=PA174 BTW, the Dalai Lama actually applied to join the CCP, but was politely turned down... https://books.google.com/books?id=K3clDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA17
Last edited:
Tibet was first incorporated into China under the Yuan (Mongol) Dynasty. It then remained outside of the orbit of the Chinese Empire during the Ming period, being reincorporated under the Qing.
The primary driving force for the Qing conquest of Tibet was the competition with the Dzungar Mongols, who were their rivals in Inner Asia. Going back to the time of Nurhaci, the Manchu had long incorporated some Mongol tribes in order to bolster their numbers and protect their flank as they moved into Northern China. Whilst there were definitely some major cultural distinctions between the Jurchen/Manchu and the Mongols, they were considered to be kindred, and there was significant intermarriage between the Manchu and Mongol nobility. After securing control over northern China, there was still a great deal of uncertainty and flux on the Mongol world. The Eastern steppe was largely comprised of groups in the orbit of the Manchu, such as the Khalkha, Ordos and Chahar Mongols. Manchu hegemony was challenged by the Oirats of the West, where the steppe gives way to arid desert and mountains. The Qing entered into a number of campaigns against the Dzungars, eventually culminating in their genocide at the hands of the Qianlong Emperor in the mid-1700s. By this point, the Qing were already in control of Tibet, as they had ousted the Dzungars who had taken over Tibet in the early 1700s. Interestingly enough, the Dzungars (who were Oirats) had actually followed another Mongol group, the Khoshuud, into Tibet. The Khoshuud were Oirats who were fleeing a fratricidal war against the Dzungars. In the aftermath of the Qing conquest of Tibet, there were uprisings which killed Han Chinese and Manchu living in Lhasa, and in response the Qing enforced more direct rule. This was the height of Qing imperial power, and Tibet was also considered key for Chinese security. After all, aggressive Nepalese incursions into Tibet occurred several times in the Qing-Ghorka Wars.
For anyone interested, here is some great (and relevant) books:
-For information on the Qing's relationship with the Mongols and their means of legitimising their rule: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt6wr0c8
-For information about Qing expansion into Inner Asia in general: https://www.amazon.com/China-Marches-West-Conquest-Central/dp/0674057430
Last edited:
So far as the PRC was concered, it was not "annexation"; Tibet to them had always been a part of China (indeed, no nation had ever recognized its independence) and it was inconceivable that they would not take the opportunity to "liberate" it. (The only territory they regarded as Chinese that they did not incoporate into the PRC was Outer Mongolia--Mao did request that it be allowed to "rejoin the motherland" but Stalin turned him down, and there was nothing Mao could do about it. Tibet simply did not have any protector of its independence the way Outer Mongolia did. [1] The British may once have played that role, but they never actually recognized the independence of Tibet and were in any event gone after India became independent. As for India, Nehru wanted to cultivate good relations with the PRC and doubted there was much that India could do for TIbet, anyway.)
{1] Even though of course the independence of Outer Mongolia that the USSR protected was the independence of a satellite.
Last edited:
Crazy Boris
Banned
I think the best case scenario for Tibet would be the PRC having major difficulties consolidating their rule in China proper after the civil war and being too occupied with that to pursue territorial goals for long enough that Tibet is able to gain some allies that’ll stand up for it should Mao come knocking.
As for who those allies could be, it’s tough to say.
Britain doesn’t want to anger China, lest Hong Kong become a target. India, as previously mentioned, wants to try and keep good relations with Mao’s China, as will Pakistan, (but if Sino-Indian relations sour as in OTL, this could change). The USSR is an obvious no.
In terms of global powers, that just leaves France and the USA, but Tibet probably wouldn’t be a priority for either of them.
Smaller countries could reach out and establish relations with Tibet, like Japan, the Philippines, Canada, Australia, etc. (Bhutan would likely be open to the idea, maybe Sikkim too.) But in the event of a Chinese invasion, they don’t have nearly enough sway to do anything other than chastise Mao and make a fuss at the UN, which will likely be ignored.
As for who those allies could be, it’s tough to say.
Britain doesn’t want to anger China, lest Hong Kong become a target. India, as previously mentioned, wants to try and keep good relations with Mao’s China, as will Pakistan, (but if Sino-Indian relations sour as in OTL, this could change). The USSR is an obvious no.
In terms of global powers, that just leaves France and the USA, but Tibet probably wouldn’t be a priority for either of them.
Smaller countries could reach out and establish relations with Tibet, like Japan, the Philippines, Canada, Australia, etc. (Bhutan would likely be open to the idea, maybe Sikkim too.) But in the event of a Chinese invasion, they don’t have nearly enough sway to do anything other than chastise Mao and make a fuss at the UN, which will likely be ignored.
We might be splitting hairs here, but the absolute best case scenario for Tibet in the 20th century (assuming the goal is being a "big and strong" country relative to OTL) is a Japanese conquest of the Chinese heartland in an alt-WWII scenario where somehow Japan doesn't end up at war with the Western powers.
The Japanese had sent agents to Tibet to ascertain Tibetan desires for an alliance. The Tibetans seem to have made it clear that they would get involved if China was in a complete and total collapse. In such a scenario, Tibet would probably extend its sovereignty over Qinghai (fighting the Hui which had, by and large, sided with the Guomindang) and parts of western Yunnan.
Besides historical claims inherited from the Qing, it's mainly as buffer. Mountains are difficult to traverse and easy to defend from, and Tibet has the highest in the world, the Himalayas. Should Tibet choose to side with any other power (mainly India) against China, and that's pretty likely in order for them to guard against Chinese claims, China's entire southwestern border from Xinjiang to Yunnan becomes indefensible. Better to force any attacker to go uphill in an invasion than let him go downhill to the heartlands.
Again, it's a false equivalence to European style colonialism
Osman Aga
Banned
I think some major Rivers into China and India start from Tibet. Controlling those Rivers secures at least the Chinese side.
If Japanese invasion of China was more successful, the classic "divide and conquer" strategy will be used.
Japanese will favorise "Mandchoukuo" strategy by allowing semi independance or protectorate in Inner Mongolia, Tibet, Eastern Turkestan (Western China were lived the Ouighurs and others Turkish minorities west to the Ordos Loop). Probably also a northern/southern divide in China.
About Tibet, the lack of international recognition of the independant state was something that condemned Tibet. At least a place for Tibet in the UNO will protected it... But Nationalist China refused probably this situation and Communist China benefited from it.
Situation of Tibet was simple, last Imperial China, Republican China, Nationalist China and Communist China, all of these differents governments, all of them recognized Tibet as a Chinese province.