[forgotoldacc]

Okinawa was as much a part of China as Botswana and Argentina were. Going back centuries, they've always spoken a japonic language so your government propaganda is a strange approach for seeding justification for invasion in the future.

[adrian_b]

The Okinawans are a branch of Japanese, but the Ryukyu kingdom was tributary to the Chinese empire before being annexed by Japan in the second half of the 19th century.

Before being annexed by Japan one century and a half ago, the culture of Okinawa was much more strongly influenced by China than by Japan, which is why during the first few decades after being occupied by Japan there still were many in Okinawa who would have preferred to become a part of China instead of a part of Japan, but the new Japanese authorities have eventually succeeded to suppress any opposition.

I believe that there is no doubt that Okinawa should belong to Japan and not to China, but historically this was not so clear cut. If the Okinawans could have voted in the 19th century to whom they should belong, instead of being occupied by force, it is unknown which would have been their decision.

Therefore any comparisons with Botswana or Argentina are completely inappropriate for a kingdom that had strong ties with China for many centuries and which recognized the suzerainty of the Chinese emperor.

While for me as a foreigner, the similarities between the Ryukyuan languages and mainland Japanese are obvious and many features of shared cultural heritage with ancient Japan (Yamato) are also obvious, these were not at all obvious for the Japanese themselves, who, after occupying Okinawa tended to consider the Okinawans as foreign barbarians, so for a long time they were heavily discriminated in Japan.

[forgotoldacc]

This completely ignores a lot of history. Okinawa went from being a tributary (trade partner) of China to vassal state (occupied and controlled) by Japan in 1609. [1] What would be modern day Afghanistan and Thailand paid tribute to China as well, but for some reason, those are ignored with the Chinese claim to territory. It's simply "well the Republic of China's victory in WW2 means we get land from countries we traded with in the 1600s!", which is bizarre view of history. Frankly, it's nothing more than trying to seed the ground for opportunism, because it's a guarantee those same arguments will be used to say Vietnam, Thailand, and Afghanistan aren't independent if those become valuable lands in the future and they seem as easily seizable as small Okinawan islands.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Ryukyu

[adrian_b]

After the war from 1609, Ryukyu remained officially a vassal of China, not of Japan, even if it became secretly also a vassal of the Satsuma domain from Japan (not of the Japanese state).

This dual allegiance of Ryukyu, openly to China and secretly to Satsuma allowed Ryukyu to be an intermediary in some commerce between China and Japan, which officially was forbidden.

The official occupation of Ryukyu by Japan happened only in 1872, after the Meiji Restoration.

After 1609, there was no occupation of Ryukyu by Japanese. There was only a permanent threat of military intervention from Satsuma if the Ryukyuan king would have dared to act against the demands of Satsuma, which included a tribute and unfavorable commercial relationships.

[forgotoldacc]

Not sure where you're getting "secretly" from since there was no secret and they were openly obedient to Japan. There's nothing outside of CCP sources, and particularly no historical sources, that could even remotely claim otherwise.

And even if you goalpost shift to the Meiji Restoration, 1872 is still well before any period where Japan was required to give up any territory as a result of WW2 imperialism.

[yanhangyhy]

I never said they speak Chinese or anything like that. in ancient times they were part of China’s tributary system. The Chinese tributary system explicitly allowed different places to keep their own culture and language. It was Japan that annexed them and then systematically destroyed the local culture. The post-WWII agreements (Cairo Declaration, Potsdam Proclamation, San Francisco Peace Treaty framework) all stated that these places was to be stripped from Japan. China is only using this historical fact now to pressure Japan on the propaganda and diplomatic level. No Chinese person actually believes China should (or will) annex them.

All Chinese media are emphasizing that these places do not belong to Japan, not that they belong to China. That’s the essential difference.

[forgotoldacc]

Tributary networks were a system of trade and diplomacy. It'd be like saying the Philippines belongs to Indonesia because they're in ASEAN. And saying Okinawa doesn't belong to Japan is the exact, 100% identical argument Russia used and continues to use to justify its brutal invasions of Georgia, Ukraine, and more and more countries. It's kind of bizarre how anyone who speaks English could assume this propaganda works, though I am making the giant leap in assuming I'm not talking to Deepseek right now.

[yanhangyhy]

What I’ve always wanted to emphasize is the post-World War II agreements. That should be the real focus, right? At least according to those treaties and agreements, these territories (Okinawa/Ryukyu, etc.) explicitly do not belong to Japan.

No, i'm the lates Kimi model

[forgotoldacc]

Okinawa has been part of Japan since before the Qing Dynasty even existed. Government operatives claim a lot of things, but thinking WW2 negates 400+ year old borders is truly wild and something no human not on a government payroll would make.

[OneMorePerson]

I'm a bit confused, would love to learn. The Potsdam agreement said that Japan controls is main islands (the ones right by the mainland) and the other minor islands (anything not right next to the main island) would be determine by the Allies later. This was signed by China and obviously has been followed.

Then the Treaty of San Francisco (which didn't involve China signing or agreement or anything) said that the Allies would revert control of Okinawa to Japan, which was the Allies choice at that point given that they were in control as stipulated by the Potsdam agreement.

What's the gap between what was said and what happened? You could argue that the WW2 agreements were unfair and didn't follow historical ownership but I'm not sure which part of the agreements themselves was directly violated.

[rand17]

I respect China (in fact, in this stupid timeline more than the U.S.) but China is already huge. The whole world would be a much better place if China just chilled the fuck out and would just stop harassing border countries (I know, I know, this is true for at least two quarters of planet Earth). Let them have Taiwan if that would make them shut up, but it won't. Tributary system? Allowed to keep? Pressure Japan? How much more do you want and how long will you go back in history to justify your greed for power and territory? China is trying to look nice and they succeed in many places, they are very close to something of a heavenly kingdom in my book, but this behavior always makes me ask which face is real. The power hungry bully, or the wise emperor?

[yanhangyhy]

I think you’ve nailed it perfectly. China definitely has its imperialist side, but the way it operates is completely different from the US style. I often feel China’s foreign policy is kinda “dumb” in execution, but that’s just our national character at work. Take Myanmar as an example: if we were the US, it would be simple – send in troops, install a pro-China regime, done. But we’re not America, and we can’t do that without the entire Western media tearing us apart. So China’s approach is: “You guys fight it out yourselves, whoever wins, I’ll do business with them. Just don’t touch the projects and interests I already have.” This naturally makes ordinary people in those countries dislike China – they genuinely believe China is the root cause of many of their problems, and they think importing Western systems will let them solve everything and stand on their own. In reality, that probably won’t happen most of the time. But there’s no helping it; I don’t know what a “better” Chinese foreign policy would even look like. All I can say is China has been really lucky – thank Trump, thank Sanae Takaichi – they’ve helped us way more than people realize.

[toast0]

> Take Myanmar as an example: if we were the US, it would be simple – send in troops, install a pro-China regime, done. But we’re not America, and we can’t do that without the entire Western media tearing us apart.

The way to do it, is to propose a UN coalition invasion. Or to quietly provide arms to the side you like more (which never backfires).