The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973 • Hacker News Board

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#151

Post by quetzthecoatl » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 1:07 PM UTC

southernplaces7 wrote: post #128

quetzthecoatl wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

By all means, please cite your sources for the pile of revisionist idiocy you just spewed. The British killed more people than the Nazis during WW2? I'd love to see the source for that in particular at least. Yes, there was the Bengal famine of 1943, and Churchill's callous initial response to it, but this was not a deliberate attempt at starving 3 million bengalis to death. That doesn't excuse it, but there is a dif…

>By all means, please cite your sources for the pile of revisionist idiocy you just spewed.

Ah yes, ignorance and white supremacist history is total bliss. Just because you think you are a hero doesn't mean you are one.

The British caused famines during WW2 alone killed millions in India (estimates go from 1 to 6 million). That's just the famines.

As for the rest of the total figures of british raj casualty - the estimates go from 100 to 200 million. Literally the very first link on google search i am pasting below:

https://mronline.org/2022/12/14/british-empire-killed-165-mi...

Anyone who thinks Allies were the "good guys" are white supremacists who thinks black and brown dead figures and cruelty towards them just don't matter. I want to know how brits who killed hundreds of millions of people worldwide are the good guys.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#152

Post by quetzthecoatl » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 1:07 PM UTC

Gibbon1 wrote: post #121

foldr wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really trying to ‘both sides’ WWII?

He's a Hindu nationalist. So yeah of course he is.

[flagged]

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#153

Post by quetzthecoatl » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 1:09 PM UTC

foldr wrote: post #110

quetzthecoatl wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Are you really trying to ‘both sides’ WWII?

No. I am telling you the allies were much worse. They become the good guys only if you think the atrocities the allies committed on rest of the world doesn't matter because the victims were not whites - which by definition is white supremacy.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#154

Post by peterfirefly » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 1:10 PM UTC

_kbh_ wrote: post #118

quetzthecoatl wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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 ou…

> The Allies.

The Soviets were pretty bad. Allying with the Nazis against the Soviets would have been less wrong.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#155

Post by peterfirefly » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 1:11 PM UTC

conradev wrote: post #123

quetzthecoatl wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> They killed more Indians (than the 6 million Nazi figures) in WW2 period alone Did they?

No. The Soviets were pretty bad, though.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#156

Post by quetzthecoatl » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 1:13 PM UTC

conradev wrote: post #123

quetzthecoatl wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> They killed more Indians (than the 6 million Nazi figures) in WW2 period alone Did they?

[flagged]

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#157

Post by irthomasthomas » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 1:14 PM UTC

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…

Not surprising given Marx's theory, that capitalism, unchecked, was bound to become centralised, and monopolised. Thus, creating the conditions for a revolutionary transition to totalitarian dictatorship of the proletariat. But leaping too soon to communism retards that process.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#158

Post by peterfirefly » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 1:19 PM UTC

ffgjgf1 wrote: post #88

dralley wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Germany absolutely had a great casus belli against France. France had treated Germany horribly (and invaded Germany first).

Very different situation from Russia/Ukraine.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#159

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 1:22 PM UTC

KptMarchewa wrote: post #143

licebmi__at__ wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also agree with your hate of realpolitik excuse and comment; yet I have to ask... What is the alternative? idealism? a mix of both? I find the idealist to be useful fools for propaganda. I find the mix of both even worse as it mostly becomes "it's right when we do it". I guess in my view where I see these are the only alternatives, I just hate whoever disagrees with me and create a reason post-facto like [realpolit…

The problem is when those "realpolitik" enthusiast become surrender monkeys. What should be known as "real" is acknowledging evil, genocidal intent of some dictatorships and working towards undermining them, not strengthening them by trade deals and allowing them to enforce their claims.

[deleted]

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#160

Post by dontupvoteme » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 1:24 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #21

dontupvoteme wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you daft? It's two of the greatest/most-importants minds of the 20th century meeting in the post ww2 era. From the western side - Kissinger is arguably right up there with Machiavelli, his influence is immutable. and Mao sort of made modern china.

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.

Yes that was out of line, apologies.