- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 1,624
- Likes
- 423
Nothing surprising as they claim the whole of the South China Sea based on some cartographer of the 14th century Ming dynasty!! Lol!This is a new low - using some privately published atlas to support your illegitimate claims. I have atlas maps that show Tibet to be free - how about that!
From a book which has been thrown away by a fisherman living In China because he didn't think it was important enough.Nothing surprising as they claim the whole of the South China Sea based on some cartographer of the 14th century Ming dynasty!! Lol!
Tibet is not independent. It's a province of China.A 1942 US map which shows Tibet as Independent:
This particular map also shows Leh-Ladhak correctly and not as occupied by China
View attachment 9346
Tibet is not independent. It's a province of China.
The United States has unequivocally recognized Tibet as part of China.
Reference: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ment-recognizes-tibet-as-part-of-china.76624/
----------
Your 1942 map is archaic and not relevant. World War II did not end until 1945.
However, the Rand McNally map is fairly recent and dates back to only 1994. It is relevant to the current discussion on the South China Sea islands.
No. I am right."Repeat a lie a thousand times and it becomes the truth."
This seems to be the typical strategy of the communist govt in China. However, a thousand lies and maps which lack any standing cannot let PLA own the sea which belong to no man.
I just created a map which shows Beijing as part of my fiefdom, and it is quite recent.No. I am right.
It is pointless to discuss a map of Tibet from 1942.
In 1942, all maps show India as a part of the British Empire. This proves pre-World War II maps are outdated.
However, the Rand McNally map of the South China Sea is from 1994. It is a POST World War II map and is still relevant.