1. China invaded as part of a Tibetan civil war over the way that Amdo (or maybe Kham, can’t recall which right now) was governed by Lhasa and the Dali Lama. It was hostile to the Lhasa government and partisan on the side of the faction that asked for China’s help to win the war, and promised obedient vassalage in return.

2. The society in pre-PRC conquest of Tibet was similar to Nepal. Yes, it involved indentured labour, but it had already began a process of legislating against many of the worst practices in the decades prior to 1951. Should (or should have) the PRC, or any nation, invade Nepal?

3. Imagine if the US says that Iran, North Korea, or China’s treatment of its citizens is cassus belli and annexes them after an overwhelming show of force (similar to the post WW2 vassalage of South Korea, when the USSR and USA bilaterally agreed to take split control of finally independent Korea).

4. The Bourbon survivors, such as the Duke of Orleans, were literally taken in by other nations in Europe and treated as a government in exile. Can you not see how that’s a logical understandable choice. Claiming the Duke of Orleans was an Austrian stooge for accepting aid from Austro-Hungary would be, I think you’d agree, ridiculous.

Edit bonus point 5:

5. We can’t even get good studies on Tibetan culture or history since the PRC heavily controls who has access, and requires all results to fit Dialectic Materialism with Chinese Characteristics and show unambiguously, and uncomplicatedly, that de-facto independent Tibet was hell on earth; where serfs (not peasants, nor a more complex less easily mapped onto European term people) were slaves and mutilated and/or sexually abused regularly with by evil primitive government that was peacefully liberated by 100,000 soldiers which made everything better for everyone forever.

Ahh yes, a literal state of war is equivalent to an unprovoked invasion.

Wasn’t expecting your dumbest take ever line to be about what you’d written. But thanks for the heads up.

I’m sorry for the harm, the scars, and legacy of fascism that Franco left. The USSR and Germany helping him are more to blame than the UK and France not invading, but I sympathise with wishing something had been done (can’t see them supporting the Communists or Anarchists though, so probably not involvement is due to seeing the Nationalists as the best of the options) . From the way that Franco’s legacy and supporters are, at best merely controversial does make me think that it’d’ve been a very bloody and destructive continuation of the Civil War.

Alas, I think most of the world for most of recorded history has had child sex slaves.

So it’s not really a home run, more just an emotive appeal.

Have you seen the size of the “torture prison” in Lhasa where the atrocities of the Tibetan government were carried out?

Additional: Do we know how weird it was seen in Ü-Tsang, if not greater Tibet?

I think it’s a little racist to remove agency from people who’ve made moves equally validly explained as self-defence and preservation against a hostile invader.

I didn’t realise that human rights violations were justification for invasion and conquest.

Imperialism is wrong no matter who is doing to conquering or being conquered.