Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

gaodawei.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 309 posts

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#61

Post by skinnymuch »

blast wrote: post #42
ggm wrote: post #7

I'm not entirely sure I get what this tells us. A degree of cynicism in politics is inevitable, for the players. And, Kissinger was undoubtedly playing. As was Mao, with other people. Interesting Edgar Snow was brought up, I read his long March piece as a child, it's pretty accessible. ("Red Star over China" 1937) Zhou EnLai was a survivor and a moderating force in the bad times. The national museum in Tienanmen squa…

> Kissinger was a war criminal so I tend to regard this kind of verbatim report as reflecting two criminally minded geniuses shooting the breeze together. Of course he was / they were. But guilt v. innocence is too crude a distinction to say anything meaningful about history. There's a lot going on that that distinction can't account for. In the end, they're all guilty, and we're all guilty, and only a childish cravi…

Everyone isn’t guilty to the same degree. Seeing guilt at different degrees doesn’t necessitate innocence. Casting blame evenly or vaguely isn’t good.

There are many instances of guilty vs less guilty throughout history. The current world is built off of the colonizing of the Americas and the lessons and reactions from that. There’s no both sides to that. The west was and has always been wrong with imperialism. Kissinger doesn’t need to be white washed.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#64

Post by the_af »

woodruffw wrote: post #3

The memcon between Nixon and Mao (with Kissinger present) is also pretty interesting[1]. [1]: https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/memorandum-...

It's very interesting how Mao claimed he preferred "rightists" in power in the West, because leftists were usually pro-Soviet.

> Mao: That is to say, I voted for you [Nixon] during your election. [...] I like rightists. People say you are rightists, that the Republican Party is to the right, that Prime Minister Heath is also to the right. [...] They also say the Christian Democratic Party of West Germany is also to the right. I am comparatively happy when these people on the right come into power.

> Kissinger: [...] those on the left are pro-Soviet and would not encourage a move toward the People’s Republic, and in fact criticize you on those grounds.

> Mao: Exactly that. Some are opposing you [Nixon]. In our country also there is a reactionary group which is opposed to our contact with you. The result was that they got on an airplane and fled abroad.

(I know this is just small talk and people don't always say what they mean, but...)

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#65

Post by SkyMarshal »

cryptonector wrote: post #40
ggm wrote: post #7

I'm not entirely sure I get what this tells us. A degree of cynicism in politics is inevitable, for the players. And, Kissinger was undoubtedly playing. As was Mao, with other people. Interesting Edgar Snow was brought up, I read his long March piece as a child, it's pretty accessible. ("Red Star over China" 1937) Zhou EnLai was a survivor and a moderating force in the bad times. The national museum in Tienanmen squa…

> Christopher Hitchens was right: Kissinger was a war criminal so I tend to regard this kind of verbatim report as reflecting two criminally minded geniuses shooting the breeze together. Perhaps, but the trade arrangements made at that meeting have essentially been policy for every Administration since. That's very interesting. What to make of that? Why have no U.S. Presidents (except, maybe, maybe in rhetoric, Trump…

> Perhaps, but the trade arrangements made at that meeting have essentially been policy for every Administration since. That's very interesting. What to make of that? Why have no U.S. Presidents (except, maybe, maybe in rhetoric, Trump) wanted something different? The point is that Kissinger figured out something very important, and got it done, and it's lasted half a century. Policy momentum is a fascinating thing, and how to arrange for it.

It's no great secret, the US business community wanted access to China's huge market. That's been true since the 1800s. Nixon and Kissinger, and their successors, especially Clinton, were just acting in their political donors' interest. That's why it happened and why it lasted, until Xi and Trump at least.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#66

Post by dralley »

skinnymuch wrote: post #60
ggm wrote: post #7

I'm not entirely sure I get what this tells us. A degree of cynicism in politics is inevitable, for the players. And, Kissinger was undoubtedly playing. As was Mao, with other people. Interesting Edgar Snow was brought up, I read his long March piece as a child, it's pretty accessible. ("Red Star over China" 1937) Zhou EnLai was a survivor and a moderating force in the bad times. The national museum in Tienanmen squa…

> But it was good to engage with China, and I think most Chinese now would be happy a pair of cynical bastards met and talked it out. Is this referring to Mao and Kissinger? Calling Mao and Kissinger collectively cynical doesn’t fit. The imperialist war criminal being a cynical bastard makes sense. Not the eastern revolutionary leftist. That necessitates optimism.

I don't know how to describe the great leap forwards if not cynical. Nor Stalin's collectivization of agriculture.

Their brand of idealism permitted the sacrifice of millions for what they believed was the greater good. I suppose there is a certain kind of optimism there, but it's still deeply cynical.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#67

Post by dralley »

refurb wrote: post #56
MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #32

Looks like some game of chess: China stopped supporting North Vietnam, but that didn't stop North Vietnam from invading South Vietnam, after the pullout. However at that point no one in the US cared about any domino theory, because the US was now friends with China against the Soviet Union. I wonder what the chess pieces were all thinking...

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." This is why it's funny to see people view the war in Ukraine as a "good guy vs bad guy". The geopolitics are incredibly complicated and there is a lot behind the scene the average person doesn't see.

The problem with that view of geopolitics is that not all leaders or states (and in the case of dictatorships these are the same) are rational about their interests.

Sometimes you're dealing with a Hitler, and you cannot deal with those in terms of "interests", and the interests of the dictator may differ from the interests of the state.

Such is the case with Putin. This invasion was not in the interests of the state. It was in his own interests, but he is dictator, so his interests win out.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#68

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

photochemsyn wrote: post #28

Probably the most consequential outcome of US-China cordiality in the early 1970s was that China contracted with US firms to build ammonia-fertilizer factories: > "In the early 1970s, China negotiated contracts with foreign firms for construction of thirteen large nitrogenous-fertilizer plants. By 1980 all thirteen plants had been completed, and ten were fully operational." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological…

> Of course, the consequences of the Green Revolution, i.e. steep population growth

The Green Revolution didn't cause population growth. That happens on its own.

It did prevent massive famines. You have to be pretty far out in whackadoodle land (or a psychopath, or perhaps both) to think that's a bad thing. As an atheist, I can't really tell the Pope how to run his religion, but if there's anyone who deserves to be canonized I think it's probably Borlaug. He's even got a miracle under his belt.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#69

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

gedy wrote: post #8
Invictus0 wrote: post #4

What's interesting about this?

Also that Henry Kissinger is still alive and turned 100 few weeks ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger

When you're just so damned good at the job that Satan won't let you retire.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#70

Post by shakil »

skinnymuch wrote: post #61
blast wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Kissinger was a war criminal so I tend to regard this kind of verbatim report as reflecting two criminally minded geniuses shooting the breeze together. Of course he was / they were. But guilt v. innocence is too crude a distinction to say anything meaningful about history. There's a lot going on that that distinction can't account for. In the end, they're all guilty, and we're all guilty, and only a childish cravi…

Everyone isn’t guilty to the same degree. Seeing guilt at different degrees doesn’t necessitate innocence. Casting blame evenly or vaguely isn’t good. There are many instances of guilty vs less guilty throughout history. The current world is built off of the colonizing of the Americas and the lessons and reactions from that. There’s no both sides to that. The west was and has always been wrong with imperialism. Kissi…

Exactly this. There's people responsible for not paying their parking tickets on time, and then there's folks such as Kissinger and Madeleine Albright that have the blood of hundreds of thousands of people on their hands. Lets not sweep it all under the same rug.
Post reply on HN