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

111–120 of 309 posts

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#111

Post by WeylandYutani »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #89
the_af wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Funny thing is that things started to go bad for Mao when he suddenly started to have ideals.

Luckily Xiaoping entered the chat and the rest is Chinese history.

(I have always liked the Chinese for their pragmatism. Americans are too far up their own ass).

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#112

Post by chrysler »

hutzlibu wrote: post #109
HellDunkel wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried to figure out if this reasoning is plausible by reading a few history books on the subject predating 2021- just to be sure i would not be sucked into group think. Turns out ALL historians tend to disagree heavily (Kappeler, Applebaum, Plokhy.. Checked on their national background too) Problem with these self proclaimed realists you are referring to is they dont have any solutions, never had (see 1993), have b…

Historians disagree on what exactly? That USA would in fact tolerate chinese military in mexico? "It is up to you to reconsider or make yourself comfortable with Tucker Carlson" And strong disagree. I don't have to make myself comfortable or align with any character or movement, just because most of the world wants only to think in black and white.

>> That USA would in fact tolerate chinese military in mexico?

This is such a poor rhethorical question. Why play with hypothethicals like Mexico and China, if Europe already has direct Russian nukes in Kaliningrad enclave in the middle of Europe with constant threats of destroying Warsaw and London? And yet, that's tolerated, unlike what people like you suggest and imagine.

Relevant maps: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/11/23...

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#113

Post by Bronze_Colossus »

H8crilA wrote: post #104
tw1984 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder what the chess pieces were all thinking... talk to those in ukraine and taiwan now.

It's pretty clear, no? Ukrainians seek the destruction of Russia as the political system that we know today, Taiwanese seek maintaining the status quo.

Can't say I can speak for Ukraine and Taiwan as you do but I would imagine Taiwan wouldn't want a status qou with missiles striking Taipei on an almost daily basis.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#114

Post by WeylandYutani »

H8crilA wrote: post #97
bullen wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aha, gotcha. Still awkward joke.

Not really. He just meant that old people find it hard to learn to speak Mandarin, even if they can read the Chinese script (which is the same for all Chinese languages). He likely saw this as a major obstacle to his vision of a grand, unified China. He's also responsible for the simplified Chinese script, which was introduced everywhere but in Hong Kong and Taiwan. They are still very mutually intelligible, from wha…

That's the dilemma with the CCP. They are a murderous regime but they also made China into a powerful centralised state that can meet as equals with any Western country. They've always been the real nationalists.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#115

Post by hutzlibu »

chrysler wrote: post #112
hutzlibu wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historians disagree on what exactly? That USA would in fact tolerate chinese military in mexico? "It is up to you to reconsider or make yourself comfortable with Tucker Carlson" And strong disagree. I don't have to make myself comfortable or align with any character or movement, just because most of the world wants only to think in black and white.

>> That USA would in fact tolerate chinese military in mexico? This is such a poor rhethorical question. Why play with hypothethicals like Mexico and China, if Europe already has direct Russian nukes in Kaliningrad enclave in the middle of Europe with constant threats of destroying Warsaw and London? And yet, that's tolerated, unlike what people like you suggest and imagine. Relevant maps: https://www.washingtonpost.…

I happen to live in europe, so I am quite aware of our situation. But europe is not the US, as far as I know.

And the US diplomatic stance towards EU inofficially was something like "fuck the EU".

I also know how "the west" moved further east step by step. Which is in general very fine by me, as I do prefer living by western standards (and I was born in the east).

So I certainly would not stand in the way, if Ukraine wants to go pro west. If I would not have little children I seriously would have considered going to the war as a volunteer. So much for context of "people like me"

But that doesn't change one thing how the US plays this geopolitics game. Or our governments, sure. They are not better, just weaker.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#116

Post by HellDunkel »

hutzlibu wrote: post #109
HellDunkel wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried to figure out if this reasoning is plausible by reading a few history books on the subject predating 2021- just to be sure i would not be sucked into group think. Turns out ALL historians tend to disagree heavily (Kappeler, Applebaum, Plokhy.. Checked on their national background too) Problem with these self proclaimed realists you are referring to is they dont have any solutions, never had (see 1993), have b…

Historians disagree on what exactly? That USA would in fact tolerate chinese military in mexico? "It is up to you to reconsider or make yourself comfortable with Tucker Carlson" And strong disagree. I don't have to make myself comfortable or align with any character or movement, just because most of the world wants only to think in black and white.

„Historians disagree on what exactly?“ Nato expansion beeing the root cause of russian aggression. I recommend reading kappeler. He knows the russian language and history very well (what does nearsheimer know?), translated Putins essay and had no illusions about his intentions. We need to take those people serious who have been right with their predictions, not those who have failed and keep repeating the same talking point ad naseam.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#117

Post by addcommitpush »

cryptonector wrote: post #49
dang wrote: post #36

This reminded me of the great story where Kissinger, on that trip, asks Zhou Enlai "What do you think of the French Revolution" and Zhou replies "It's too soon to tell." I love that, and it is what I say when people ask "how are you" too early in the morning. But I've also been trained by a passion for too-good-to-be-true quotes and that one definitely sounds too good to be true. Guess what - it is. But for an intere…

Zhou might have meant something important by that. If you think that La Terreur set the pattern for many other terrors since, then the fact that the struggle against La Terreur hadn't (probably hasn't) finished quite yet might make that retort quite frank and meaningful.

Side note - I always wondered why English speakers tend to 1. keep the original language article and 2. capitalise it even though it is not in the original language. Why is it “La Terreur” and not “la Terreur” or “the Terreur”?

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#118

Post by _kbh_ »

quetzthecoatl wrote: post #105
_kbh_ wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[flagged]

> tell me who were the good guys in WW2? The ones that killed hundreds of millions more than the Nazis?

The Allies.

The Nazis, the ones committing genocide, they are the bad guys.

> The notion that Allies were good guys is just pure white supremacy - that non white causalities don't count.

The notion that the Allies were the good guys in WW2 is not white supremacy. The fact that the Allied countries did bad things outside WW2 does not mean they were not the good guys during WW2.

Are you seriously trying to tell me the Nazis/Axis powers where the good guys in WW2?.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#119

Post by hutzlibu »

HellDunkel wrote: post #116
hutzlibu wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historians disagree on what exactly? That USA would in fact tolerate chinese military in mexico? "It is up to you to reconsider or make yourself comfortable with Tucker Carlson" And strong disagree. I don't have to make myself comfortable or align with any character or movement, just because most of the world wants only to think in black and white.

„Historians disagree on what exactly?“ Nato expansion beeing the root cause of russian aggression. I recommend reading kappeler. He knows the russian language and history very well (what does nearsheimer know?), translated Putins essay and had no illusions about his intentions. We need to take those people serious who have been right with their predictions, not those who have failed and keep repeating the same talkin…

I will read Kappeler then.

But I think I was clear that I have no illusions about Putin. He probably still dreams of a eurasian empire led by him. And he respects only raw power.

I still think, it could have gone all very different. For example by sanctioning the russian people in charge and not the whole russian population after 2014. Or not getting involved in Maidan. Or by not invading Iraq, setting a often cited precedent. Putin allmost literally saying: "If the US can just ignore international law and invade a country, so can I"

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#120

Post by _kbh_ »

redmorphium wrote: post #103
hutzlibu wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You have a megalomaniac dictator waging an unnecessary imperialist war of aggression ." Yes, one that was raised by the KGB, and his work possible consisting of coordinating left wing terrorists in the west. "That should make it pretty straightforward, no?" Sadly no. Because his character and the general political ideas and red lines of the russian establishment were known. Ukraine was russias sphere of interest/dom…

> Would the US tolerate mexico become a china military ally? Doubtful. One of the unwritten laws. Exactly. The Ukraine situation would be tantamount to Canada or Mexico entering into a military alliance with Iran -- not acceptable and a direct cause of war.

> Exactly. The Ukraine situation would be tantamount to Canada or Mexico entering into a military alliance with Iran -- not acceptable and a direct cause of war.

How is it any different to Finland joining NATO? (which they just did).

Post reply on HN