Live data from Hacker News

The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

gaodawei.wordpress.com

161–170 of 309 posts

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#161
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 s…

"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…

Russian security interests lie:

https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/t2mb0c/the...

I feel people bringing realpolitik into this fail to see the not-so-real politik of what happens when national sentiment is misaligned with their interest.

It's all a sham anyway, as if smaller countries are not worthy of self determination and are just at the whims of great powers. And a nauseous point of view.

And it's a moot point as well, considering that Russia is no longer a great power. Russia can barely keep itself together at the moment.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#162
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Luckily Xiaoping entered the chat and the rest is Chinese history. I think Deng Xiaoping is a direct result of these developments during the Mao years. Things would have been very different for China, without the rapprochement with the west. Without friendly terms with the west they would have to maintain an enormously big army. Think of a China today that is more like North Korea.

> Without friendly terms with the west they would have to maintain an enormously big army. They don't?

it was relatively low, for quite some time.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#163
From a European perspective it is really refreshing to see some direct words spoken, here.

Mao questioning the US-allegiance of Western-Europe i.e. 1) the Gaullist approach which was successfully soften by Kissinger through Pompidou and 2) the "Ost-Politik" by Brandt.

On the second point Mao pokes a little bit longer:

>You in the West have always had a policy. The beginning of both World Wars was pushing Germany against Russia.

Kissinger is excellently trying to counter any suspicion by speaking clearly to the point:

>But pushing Russia to attack China is not our policy. Because if a war breaks out in China, the danger to us is as great as a war breaking out in Europe.

But Mao still holds his ground and develops his overplayed suspicion further:

>That’s exactly what I wanted to say. Are you now pushing West Germany to make peace with Russia and then pushing Russia to move eastward? I suspect that the entire West has such a line. Eastward, mainly towards us, and also towards Japan, and partly towards you, in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

So, that Kissinger has to admit they do not have full control over the current foreign policy of Germany as in France, now, but the i.e. US-army is still very present, to give some hard dealt reassurances at the end.

>Kissinger: We don’t agree with Germany’s policy. We would rather have the opposition party in Germany come to power. The opposition party in Germany doesn’t pursue this policy.

[[Long stretch of text from US side memcon]

Chairman Mao: Yes, that’s our feeling. We are also in favor of the opposition party in Germany.

Dr. Kissinger: They conducted themselves very stupidly.

Chairman Mao: Yes, they were defeated. The whole of Europe is thinking only of peace.

Prime Minister Chou: The illusions of peace created by their leaders.

Dr. Kissinger: Yes, but we will do our best to strengthen European defenses and keep our armies in Europe.

Chairman Mao: That would be very good.

I also very much like the excursion to the German roots of Kissinger and where Mao openly albeit casually talks about Hitler's military strategy in WWII. Kissinger insights that the Germans are/were hopeless romantics and Hitler let his strategy be dictated by artistic intuition are met with Mao indirect dry mentioning of the "Treaty of Versailles" as a great humiliation for Germans; here imho weakly echoing the Opium Wars as a great humiliation for the Chinese by the hands of the then world-power Great Britain. Implying/mildly threatening that humiliation isn't always a good long term strategy in dealing with geopolitical adversaries/problems and can lead to quite dangerous out of control passions.

>Dr. Kissinger: He conducted strategy artistically rather than strategically. He did it by intuition. He had no overall plan.

Chairman Mao: Then why did the German troops heed him so much?

Dr. Kissinger: Probably because the Germans are somewhat romantic people and because he must have had a very strong personality.

Chairman Mao: Mainly because during the First World War the German nation was humiliated.

Dr. Kissinger: Yes, that was a very important factor.

Mao then entertains the half-phantasy how they would cope with the Soviets invading China - with Guerilla tactics utilizing the invasion of the terrain into their advantage - directly admitting how he can clearly see that it could play very well in the hands of the US by weakening the Soviets substantially. Interestingly a similar strategy - to create a 'Vietnam situation' for the Soviets - was deployed 6 years later, elsewhere, namely in the mountainous Afghanistan/Pakistan region through "Operation Cyclone"[0].

>Chairman Mao: If there are Russians going to attack China, I can tell you today that our way of conducting a war will be guerrilla war and protracted war. We will let them go wherever they want. (Prime Minister Chou laughs.) They want to come to the Yellow River tributaries. That would be good, very good. (Laughter.) And if they go further to the Yangtse River tributaries, that would not be bad either.

Dr. Kissinger: But if they use bombs and do not send armies? (Laughter)

Chairman Mao: What should we do? Perhaps you can organize a committee to study the problem. We’ll let them beat us up and they will lose any resources. They say they are socialists. We are also socialists and that will be socialists attacking socialists.

Dr. Kissinger: If they attack China, we would certainly oppose them for our own reasons.

Chairman Mao: But your people are not awakened, and Europe and you would think that it would be a fine thing if it were that the ill water would flow toward China.

Dr. Kissinger: What Europe thinks I am not able to judge. They cannot do anything anyway. They are basically irrelevant. (In the midst of this Chairman Mao toasts Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Lord with tea.) What we think is that if the Soviet Union overruns China, this would dislocate the security of all other countries and will lead to our own isolation.

Chairman Mao: (Laughing) How will that happen? How would that be? Because since in being bogged down in Vietnam you met so many difficulties, do you think they would feel good if they were bogged down in China?

Dr. Kissinger: The Soviet Union?

Miss Tang: The Soviet Union.

Chairman Mao: And then you can let them get bogged down in China, for half a year, or one, or two, or three, or four years. And then you can poke your finger at the Soviet back. And your slogan then will be for peace, that is you must bring down Socialist imperialism for the sake of peace. And perhaps you can begin to help them in doing business, saying whatever you need we will help against China.

Dr. Kissinger: Mr. Chairman, it is really very important that we understand each other’s motives. We will never knowingly cooperate in an attack on China.

Chairman Mao: (Interrupting) No, that’s not so. Your aim in doing that would be to bring the Soviet Union down.

Dr. Kissinger: That’s a very dangerous thing. (Laughter)

[0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#164
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.…

Monroe doctrine has nothing to say about Kalingrad. The US invaded Grenada so for sure they would invade Mexico.

I invite you to look at a map if you think the US would be so cavalier about invading Mexico as it was about Grenada. I'm not saying it couldn't, I'm just saying it's not a thing you do lightly.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#165
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

The difference is the shared history and language. (also true for border regions with finnland, but way less overall as finnish is a different language family) Russian nationalism consideres Kiev the root of the russian culture (but they might change that narrative soon). Also, they are really not happy about it.

Yes but then this very statement directly contradicts the "realpolitik" as pect so loudly touted earlier.

It's not about pragmatism, it's a sort of nationalistic fervor!

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#166
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Nazis, the ones committing genocide, they are the bad guys. Except, the allies killed way more people. They just happened to be non white. You are a white supremacist for downplaying it - essentially saying those genocides don't matter as it happened to brown and black people. >Are you seriously trying to tell me the Nazis/Axis powers where the good guys in WW2?. Do you have some serious reading co…

Can you please clarify who are the more people non-white people the allies killed? I am utterly confused. You are talking about WW2 here, right?

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#167
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talking about WW2, a lot of people still think Soviets were the good guys. Forgetting how nazis and soviets split eastern europe. And later soviets forgot to leave.

And that's clear to everyone nowadays. You really see anyone disputing that?

I will dispute that. Double genocide theory is a debunked right wing nationalist myth, sorry. [1]

I'm not saying they were saints but they were on the same moral plane of the Allies, wishing to set up buffer states instead of absorbing them fully into the USSR. Political repression was a real issue in the eastern bloc countries but it's no where near as bad as what the US, France, or UK did in the post war period with their colonies, segregation, bombings, or coups.

[1] https://jewishcurrents.org/the-double-genocide-theory

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

China has been a unified empire before Europeans traded seashells with each other (I'm exaggerating here a bit). It is about 10 times older than the United States or Russia in its current post-mongolian iteration. China being weak was unusual in the history of civilizations. While I am firmly in the western camp, not recognizing reality is foolish.

Exaggerating a lot. The first unified empire (Qin dynasty) is comparable to Alexander the Great's empire and didn't last much longer.

China being weak is also remarkably common -- but there often wasn't a strong enough nearby power to exploit the situation.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#169
post #122
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Just to touch on this - Cantonese is not really mutually intelligible with modern Chinese, that's CCP propaganda. They're big on the idea that there's only one Chinese language, and there are "regional dialects" but...those dialects meet an awful lot of criteria for being a different language. It's very similar to their push to make all Chinese culture and history Han Chinese. The mandarin spoken in Taiwan is 1:1 wit…

I wouldn't say it's quite that bad. The simplified characters are a lot older than the CCP and are often used in handwriting all over the Sinosphere. The traditional characters are still sometimes used in West Taiwan for things like shop signs.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#170
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.

are you saying that Ukrainians want more than to just not be invaded?
Post reply on HN