Why not just let China core Tibet?

[Nox Aeterna]

I do not see a reason why China should not be able to core Tibet at this point. A lot of people are clearly very upset over what is essentially a very simple thing to change.

The game has diverged from plausible history so much (just look at Turan, which is a complete ahistorical fabrication, or Eva Braun being the new Fuhrer) that I genuinely do not see any reason why China can't core Tibet.

Yes, Tibet was de facto an independent polity during the game's timeframe, but it did eventually become a part of China. Not to mention that to this day, even the ROC considers Tibet an integral part of China.

I think that after completing the "One China" focus, you should unlock a decision that lets you core Tibet after reaching 70% compliance or something like that, similar to how Poland can re-create the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

[Santa Klaus]

Because :
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3435464680

[Axis of Lint]

Originally posted by Nox Aeterna:

I do not see a reason why China should not be able to core Tibet at this point. A lot of people are clearly very upset over what is essentially a very simple thing to change.

The game has diverged from plausible history so much (just look at Turan, which is a complete ahistorical fabrication, or Eva Braun being the new Fuhrer) that I genuinely do not see any reason why China can't core Tibet.

Yes, Tibet was de facto an independent polity during the game's timeframe, but it did eventually become a part of China. Not to mention that to this day, even the ROC considers Tibet an integral part of China.

I think that after completing the "One China" focus, you should unlock a decision that lets you core Tibet after reaching 70% compliance or something like that, similar to how Poland can re-create the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Because as one of your examples points out (Eva Braun), they're ahistorical paths. No-one (no-one sensible anyway) would have an objection to an alt-history path where China gets to core Tibet (or anyone else, the whole Raj, the whole world, whatever. Spain can already core the entire world on an alt-history path.

The problem is that in the real world, Tibet was independent during the years that the game takes place ('36 - 1st Jan '49).

If there are other examples of places that either should or shouldn't exist or have cores in inappropriate places for the time period, they should be corrected, not more added.

However, having said all that, prepare for this thread to get destroyed by people on both sides being offensive or spamming ridiculous messages that have no relevance.

*edit* - Before I'd even finished my post, one has already posted the same thing they've spammed in literally every thread I've seen so far as though that's helpful in any way.

[Nox Aeterna]

Originally posted by Axis of Lint:

Originally posted by Nox Aeterna:

I do not see a reason why China should not be able to core Tibet at this point. A lot of people are clearly very upset over what is essentially a very simple thing to change.

The game has diverged from plausible history so much (just look at Turan, which is a complete ahistorical fabrication, or Eva Braun being the new Fuhrer) that I genuinely do not see any reason why China can't core Tibet.

Yes, Tibet was de facto an independent polity during the game's timeframe, but it did eventually become a part of China. Not to mention that to this day, even the ROC considers Tibet an integral part of China.

I think that after completing the "One China" focus, you should unlock a decision that lets you core Tibet after reaching 70% compliance or something like that, similar to how Poland can re-create the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Because as one of your examples points out (Eva Braun), they're ahistorical paths. No-one (no-one sensible anyway) would have an objection to an alt-history path where China gets to core Tibet (or anyone else, the whole Raj, the whole world, whatever. Spain can already core the entire world on an alt-history path.

The problem is that in the real world, Tibet was independent during the years that the game takes place ('36 - 1st Jan '49).

If there are other examples of places that either should or shouldn't exist or have cores in inappropriate places for the time period, they should be corrected, not more added.

However, having said all that, prepare for this thread to get destroyed by people on both sides being offensive or spamming ridiculous messages that have no relevance.

Tibet being annexed by China before 1950 is ahistorical, yes. But if it were to happen, why not let China core it? I've palyed China many times before, it's one of my favourite regions to play in, and I almost always annext Tibet anyway.

[Axis of Lint]

Originally posted by Nox Aeterna:

Originally posted by Axis of Lint:

Because as one of your examples points out (Eva Braun), they're ahistorical paths. No-one (no-one sensible anyway) would have an objection to an alt-history path where China gets to core Tibet (or anyone else, the whole Raj, the whole world, whatever. Spain can already core the entire world on an alt-history path.

The problem is that in the real world, Tibet was independent during the years that the game takes place ('36 - 1st Jan '49).

If there are other examples of places that either should or shouldn't exist or have cores in inappropriate places for the time period, they should be corrected, not more added.

However, having said all that, prepare for this thread to get destroyed by people on both sides being offensive or spamming ridiculous messages that have no relevance.

Tibet being annexed by China before 1950 is ahistorical, yes. But if it were to happen, why not let China core it? I've palyed China many times before, it's one of my favourite regions to play in, and I almost always annext Tibet anyway.

That's literally my point. If you want to core it via focus or decision it needs to be ahistorical. You can conquer any country you want in the game, but you can't core them without focuses or decisions on historical paths unless it's also historical (I can't think of any examples off the top of my head because I mostly play ahistorical games).

[Nox Aeterna]

Originally posted by Axis of Lint:

That's literally my point. If you want to core it via focus or decision it needs to be ahistorical. You can conquer any country you want in the game, but you can't core them without focuses or decisions on historical paths unless it's also historical (I can't think of any examples off the top of my head because I mostly play ahistorical games).

Well, historically speaking China did eventually annex Tibet. They did it later, but both the communists and republicans considered Tibet as part of itself. Not to mention the Qing, from whom Tibet broke away from.

My point is, there already is a focus to deal with Tibet in the focus tree, there just isn't a way to core it, and there is no reason why there shouldn't be since there already are stranger reasons to core territory in the game for other nations.

[Santa Klaus]

Originally posted by Nox Aeterna:

My point is, there already is a focus to deal with Tibet in the focus tree, there just isn't a way to core it, and there is no reason why there shouldn't be since there already are stranger reasons to core territory in the game for other nations.

The question is did the Chinese government effect real, thorough and comprehensive administrative control over all of Tibet and did the general population, or at least a large portion of it, accept the idea of 'being Chinese' within the timeline of the game to reasonably call it a core.
And the answer is no.

[Axis of Lint]

Originally posted by Nox Aeterna:

Originally posted by Axis of Lint:

That's literally my point. If you want to core it via focus or decision it needs to be ahistorical. You can conquer any country you want in the game, but you can't core them without focuses or decisions on historical paths unless it's also historical (I can't think of any examples off the top of my head because I mostly play ahistorical games).

Well, historically speaking China did eventually annex Tibet. They did it later, but both the communists and republicans considered Tibet as part of itself. Not to mention the Qing, from whom Tibet broke away from.

My point is, there already is a focus to deal with Tibet in the focus tree, there just isn't a way to core it, and there is no reason why there shouldn't be since there already are stranger reasons to core territory in the game for other nations.

There is a reason. It wasn't a core part of China during the period of time that HoI4 takes place. It was instead an independent country.

If we go by the logic of 'historically speaking' then the UK should get cores on the whole of the US, Tibet should get cores on parts of China, Russia should get a core on Alaska etc.

The whole thing falls down when you stop imposing sensible restrictions on how you look at the core territories of countries.

[Nox Aeterna]

Originally posted by Axis of Lint:

Originally posted by Nox Aeterna:

Well, historically speaking China did eventually annex Tibet. They did it later, but both the communists and republicans considered Tibet as part of itself. Not to mention the Qing, from whom Tibet broke away from.

My point is, there already is a focus to deal with Tibet in the focus tree, there just isn't a way to core it, and there is no reason why there shouldn't be since there already are stranger reasons to core territory in the game for other nations.

There is a reason. It wasn't a core part of China during the period of time that HoI4 takes place. It was instead an independent country.

If we go by the logic of 'historically speaking' then the UK should get cores on the whole of the US, Tibet should get cores on parts of China, Russia should get a core on Alaska etc.

The whole thing falls down when you stop imposing sensible restrictions on how you look at the core territories of countries.

But some of these things already exist in the game. UK can core the US if they do the Federation after recolonizing them. It's ahistorical, yes, and so would be China annexing Tibet before they actually did historically, but I still don't see a reason why they shouldn't be able to core it.

The game lets you do a lot of wacky nonsensical stuff. Coring Tibet before it historically happened isn't that far-fetched and might as well be a feature in the game.

[Nox Aeterna]

Originally posted by Santa Klaus:

Originally posted by Nox Aeterna:

My point is, there already is a focus to deal with Tibet in the focus tree, there just isn't a way to core it, and there is no reason why there shouldn't be since there already are stranger reasons to core territory in the game for other nations.

The question is did the Chinese government effect real, thorough and comprehensive administrative control over all of Tibet and did the general population, or at least a large portion of it, accept the idea of 'being Chinese' within the timeline of the game to reasonably call it a core.
And the answer is no.

China has not annexed Tibet before 1950 but a player can still do it. There is a focus in the Chinese tree to do it. Why not make it available for players to core it? Turkey can form "Turan" and core a ton of stuff that makes absolutely 0 sense.

The game already expects you to deal with Tibet, otherwise there wouldn't be a focus for it.

[Santa Klaus]

Originally posted by Nox Aeterna:

Originally posted by Santa Klaus:

The question is did the Chinese government effect real, thorough and comprehensive administrative control over all of Tibet and did the general population, or at least a large portion of it, accept the idea of 'being Chinese' within the timeline of the game to reasonably call it a core.
And the answer is no.

China has not annexed Tibet before 1950 but a player can still do it. There is a focus in the Chinese tree to do it. Why not make it available for players to core it? Turkey can form "Turan" and core a ton of stuff that makes absolutely 0 sense.

The game already expects you to deal with Tibet, otherwise there wouldn't be a focus for it.

You're implying that the moment Tibet was annexed in real life it became a 'core' if you think it happening a year or two earlier is not much different, you could argue it became a 'core' several decades later in real life or even argue it's just a 'high compliance non-core' today.

[Axis of Lint]

Originally posted by Nox Aeterna:

Originally posted by Santa Klaus:

The question is did the Chinese government effect real, thorough and comprehensive administrative control over all of Tibet and did the general population, or at least a large portion of it, accept the idea of 'being Chinese' within the timeline of the game to reasonably call it a core.
And the answer is no.

China has not annexed Tibet before 1950 but a player can still do it. There is a focus in the Chinese tree to do it. Why not make it available for players to core it? Turkey can form "Turan" and core a ton of stuff that makes absolutely 0 sense.

The game already expects you to deal with Tibet, otherwise there wouldn't be a focus for it.

Because the focus isn't historically accurate. Prioritise the interior allows you an annexation wargoal on Communist China as well as Tibet. Historically, neither fell in that time period and communist china went on to take control of the country so clearly it's not an accurate focus and should be reworked.

I misspoke here, there are two ways of dealing with Tibet, historical (integration, which they should refuse) or ahistorical (conquering).

This is my point, there are some focuses that should be changed, not more things added that don't make sense.

[Axis of Lint]

Originally posted by Nox Aeterna:

Originally posted by Axis of Lint:

There is a reason. It wasn't a core part of China during the period of time that HoI4 takes place. It was instead an independent country.

If we go by the logic of 'historically speaking' then the UK should get cores on the whole of the US, Tibet should get cores on parts of China, Russia should get a core on Alaska etc.

The whole thing falls down when you stop imposing sensible restrictions on how you look at the core territories of countries.

But some of these things already exist in the game. UK can core the US if they do the Federation after recolonizing them. It's ahistorical, yes, and so would be China annexing Tibet before they actually did historically, but I still don't see a reason why they shouldn't be able to core it.

The game lets you do a lot of wacky nonsensical stuff. Coring Tibet before it historically happened isn't that far-fetched and might as well be a feature in the game.

I don't know how else to keep saying this. I am absolutely fine with China coring Tibet but only in an ahistorical path if it's before 1951 (which is well after the game ends).

[Nox Aeterna]

Originally posted by Santa Klaus:

Originally posted by Nox Aeterna:

China has not annexed Tibet before 1950 but a player can still do it. There is a focus in the Chinese tree to do it. Why not make it available for players to core it? Turkey can form "Turan" and core a ton of stuff that makes absolutely 0 sense.

The game already expects you to deal with Tibet, otherwise there wouldn't be a focus for it.

You're implying that the moment Tibet was annexed in real life it became a 'core' if you think it happening a year or two earlier is not much different, you could argue it became a 'core' several decades later in real life or even argue it's just a 'high compliance non-core' today.

The game already lets you do that with other nations. Are you arguing that all the other instances of this should be removed? I mean, if your main concern is historical plausibility then sure, but the game has waaay more pressuing issues in that regard than China potentially coring Tibet.

[Nox Aeterna]

Originally posted by Axis of Lint:

Originally posted by Nox Aeterna:

But some of these things already exist in the game. UK can core the US if they do the Federation after recolonizing them. It's ahistorical, yes, and so would be China annexing Tibet before they actually did historically, but I still don't see a reason why they shouldn't be able to core it.

The game lets you do a lot of wacky nonsensical stuff. Coring Tibet before it historically happened isn't that far-fetched and might as well be a feature in the game.

I don't know how else to keep saying this. I am absolutely fine with China coring Tibet but only in an ahistorical path if it's before 1951 (which is well after the game ends).

I think you are misunderstanding me. The focus tree for all of the Chinas and every single path ends with dealing with Tibet. If you play long enough (way past 1945) every China is going to do the focus. All I'm saying is there should be a decision unlocked after doing it that you can click that lets you core it after getting enough compliance.

If you really want to, you could make the AI never click it, but it boils down to the same thing.

[Ahren]

The Paradox of Institutional Equality and Systemic Discrimination
The Advancement of the Legal Framework
In European and American countries, anti-racial discrimination legal systems have been generally established (such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the United States and the Racial Equality Directive of the European Union), constructing a relatively complete protection mechanism at the institutional level. According to the report of the UK's Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities in 2021, the legal system has curbed 83% of explicit discrimination.
The Continuation of Structural Inequality
Data from the Federal Reserve in the United States in 2023 shows that the median net worth of white households ($188,200) is 7.8 times that of African American households ($24,100). Since the 1960s, this wealth gap has only narrowed by 3%. Research from Harvard University reveals that African American job applicants with the same educational background are 33% less likely to receive interview opportunities compared to white applicants.
The Disconnect between Cognitive Bias and Social Practice
Results of Implicit Bias Tests
The Implicit Association Test (IAT) at Harvard University shows that 72% of the subjects have subconscious negative associations with African Americans. This cognitive bias has a substantial impact in fields such as law enforcement, healthcare, and education. For example, research in the New England Journal of Medicine indicates that African American patients are 40% less likely to receive painkillers than white patients.
The Contradiction in the Cultural Discourse System
Data from the European Court of Human Rights shows that between 2015 and 2022, racially motivated hate crimes increased by an average of 9% per year. During the same period, public opinion polls showed that 85% of the public considered themselves "non-racist." This gap between perception and practice is reflected in the social reality where the discourse of "political correctness" coexists with everyday microaggressions.
The Path Dependence of Colonial History and Contemporary Governance
The Contemporary Reflection of Historical Debts
Among the 45,000 African cultural relics collected in the British Museum, only 0.5% have certificates of legal origin. This cultural appropriation forms a satirical contrast with the current propaganda of "inclusiveness" towards immigrant cultures. In 2024, the Constitutional Council of France ruled that the colonial compensation bill was unconstitutional, exposing the limitations of historical reckoning.
The Double Standards of Immigration Policies
In 2022, Germany accepted over one million Ukrainian refugees, with an approval rate of 98%. In contrast, the approval rate for Syrian refugees in 2015 was only 52%, demonstrating selective humanitarianism in crisis response. This difference has been referred to by the academic community as "racialized asylum politics."
The Progressive Movement and the Backlash Effect
The Economic Impact of the BLM Movement
In 2020, the BLM movement prompted American companies to pledge $45 billion in investments for racial equality. However, tracking by McKinsey shows that less than 30% of the promised funds have actually been disbursed. So-called "woke capitalism" appears more as a brand marketing strategy.
The Rise of the Discourse of Reverse Discrimination
After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the affirmative action policy in colleges and universities in 2023, the number of white students' complaints of "reverse discrimination" surged by 300%, reflecting the complex social and cognitive game surrounding racial issues.
The Particularity from a Global Comparative Perspective
Nordic countries consistently rank high in the United Nations Human Development Index, but the unemployment rate among ethnic minorities in these countries is still 2 to 3 times higher than that of native residents. This systemic exclusion in high-welfare societies is more hidden compared to the explicit conflicts in the United States, and has been referred to by scholars as the "Scandinavian paradox."
Conclusion
The racial issues in European and American societies essentially represent a concentrated manifestation of the paradox of modernity: they have given birth to the most radical ideas of equality, yet are deeply embedded with the most stubborn structural discrimination. This contradiction should not be simply attributed to individual hypocrisy but should be understood as an inevitable outcome of the collision between capitalist modernity, the legacy of colonial history, and multiculturalism. To break through this dilemma, it is necessary to go beyond moral condemnation and carry out institutional innovation in deep-level areas such as historical compensation, the reconstruction of educational resources, and the redistribution of economic power. As W.E.B. Du Bois predicted in The Souls of Black Folk, "The problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color line." In the twenty-first century, this problem continues to evolve in more complex forms.