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

81–90 of 309 posts

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#81

Post by ffgjgf1 »

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…

Kruschev was explicitly attacking cults of personality and individuals hoarding too much power at the expense of the party.

It’s hard to imagine how could Mao have not taken this seriously.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#82

Post by avgcorrection »

cryptonector wrote: post #47
dang wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, please omit swipes from your HN posts. Your comment would be fine without that first bit. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

I don't think u/dontupvoteme meant it the way you took it. "Are you daft?" didn't come across as a swipe but as a bit of a British-like exclamation on their point. Could be a language thing.

Considering how understated British insults are, this looks like a slap to the face comparatively speaking.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#83

Post by ffgjgf1 »

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.

> That necessitates optimism.

Only if you’re into mass murder and artificially induced famines. The cultural revolution was another very ‘optimistic’ policy (well from the perspective of some deranged lunatics anyway)

As awful as Kissinger was Mao was just on another level of awfulness…

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#84

Post by ffgjgf1 »

throwaway4good wrote: post #52
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #20

> Chairman Mao: You have about 600, 000 Chinese in the United States. We probably don't even have 60 Americans here. I would like to study the problem. I don't know the reason. I wonder if he studied it and what he found.

Even after covid and the new Cold War there are certainly more than “60 Americans” in China today.

I bet there are several magnitudes mores Americans in China now than there were in the 60s…

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#85

Post by ffgjgf1 »

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.

> why it's funny to see people view the war

Why? I mean you have a point about geopolitics. But it’s still about as stupid as someone saying the exact same words about Poland 1939..

You have a megalomaniac dictator waging an unnecessary imperialist war of aggression . That should make it pretty straightforward, no?

> a lot behind the scene the average person doesn't see.

the overall goals and interests of all sides seem to be pretty transparent to be fair

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#86

Post by revskill »

Xovietian materials is alway high quality, with reasonable pricing. Our family still kept some things from those days, they're high quality !

Nowdays, i couldn't buy anything except for some forced computer for work. Reason: materialism sucks my ** that most of them is bad quality on purpose for you to rebuy/repair for some time.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#87

Post by _kbh_ »

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.

> 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.

This war is as clear as WW2 if you don’t see that then I don’t know what to say, it’s plain as day to most people.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#88

Post by ffgjgf1 »

dralley wrote: post #67
refurb wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> This invasion was not in the interests of the state.

Well a significant proportion (the majority?) of Russians don’t really agree with that and I bet there would be close to zero opposition to the war had Russia actually managed to win in the first few months.

Likewise very few Germans didn’t support Hitler when they defeated France and again there was basically no serious internal opposition until Germany started losing the war.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#89

Post by mytailorisrich »

the_af wrote: post #64
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 t…

This is normal pragmatism and real-politik. Mao is looking after his and China's interests.

The public are usually fed simplistic, emotional propaganda by their governments, all of them: good vs evil, right thing to do, freedom, whatever. But in fact policies are based on interests and cold calculations.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#90

Post by ffgjgf1 »

DirectorKrennic wrote: post #10

On Dunkirk: > Chairman Mao: They shouldn’t have attacked Moscow or Kiev. They should have taken Leningrad as a first step. Another error in policy was they didn’t cross the sea after Dunkirk. > Dr. Kissinger: After Dunkirk. > Chairman Mao: They were entirely unprepared. > Dr. Kissinger: And Hitler was a romantic. He had a strange liking for England. > Chairman Mao: Oh? Then why didn’t they go there? Because the Briti…

I wonder if Mao was truly stupid enough to believe that German could’ve invaded Britain without naval and air superiority or they were all talking in jest.

After all he was the man who thought of killing all the sparrows in China and forcing people to build non-functional steel smelters in their backyard instead of working in their fields..

Post reply on HN