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

191–200 of 309 posts

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#191

Post by KwisatzHaderack »

peterfirefly wrote: post #169
hguant wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> sometimes used in West Taiwan

LOL. I was confused and thought you meant the Western part of Taiwan, which made no sense. But I get your joke now: West Taiwan = mainland China.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#192

Post by qwytw »

gattilorenz wrote: post #137
ffgjgf1 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on what do you mean by the ‘left’ bolsheviks often viewed social-democratic and (to a lesser extent) liberal parties as their greatest threats. They were all appealing to the same demographics but were diametrically opposed on certain core points (democracy, free speech, political oppression etc.) making any real cooperation impossible. The Weimar republic was a great example of that, the liberal/socialist go…

> Stalin had no issue working with Hitler To be honest, the other european powers (France, but especially the UK) also had a big trust issue with Stalin, and provably had a big role in making the unthinkable (the communist-nazi alliance) happen.

> also had a big trust issue

Stalin spent the last few years murdering millions of people. Without the benefit of hindsight Hitler clearly seemed like the more benign options prior to 1939..

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#193

Post by kjkjadksj »

ffgjgf1 wrote: post #91
cryptonector wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The British Navy was intact though, and the Germans did not have air superiority. Had they had air superiority they'd have been able to keep the British Navy at bay and then invaded. It was a close-run thing.

But Germans didn’t even have the naval to capacity to successfully execute a mostly uncontested landing unless there was perfect weather.

Suppose the germans just forced the local french fisherman at gunpoint to take them over. Would the royal navy lay waste to thousands of french fisherman in the same seas as thousands of british fisherman loaded with their soldiers? I’m surprised the germans also didn’t just lay waste to them at dunkirk with indirect fire.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#194

Post by qwytw »

hutzlibu wrote: post #102
ffgjgf1 wrote: 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…

So you believe that the Ukrainian people are fundamentally incapable of making their own decisions. Clearly it was a very divided country with multiple swings back and forth without the assistance of NATO/EU/US. How was 2014 that different from 2004?

> Would the US tolerate mexico become a china military ally?

US and China are global superpowers. Without the nukes Russia is a regional power at best.

> But the empires

What empires? Why do you think US cares about Ukraine that much, prior to 2014 it was a sideshow at best. They'd prefer to focus on the Pacific/China but Russia doesen't let them.

> If china suddenly becomes a bigger problem and now there would be a need to play Putin against them

How does that make any sense? Why would Russia side with US/EU if China hypothetically invaded Taiwan? Makes no sense...

> implying that it was indeed Ukraine that blow up north stream

Where do you get these things?

> they can change the narrative in the west quite quickly

Who is "they"? The illuminati? Lizard people?

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#195

Post by qwytw »

hutzlibu wrote: post #174
RealityVoid wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Russia can barely keep itself together at the moment." Which is the reason why they started the war in the first place. They feel cornered. And a smarter politics by the west, would not have pushed them so much. But I am all for self determination of even the smallest states. But I do not really see this as the goal or applied politics of the US, nor EU, nor obviously russia. It can happen as a side product, like wh…

> They feel cornered

They put themselves in that corner.

> And a smarter politics by the west,

Like allowing Russia to take half of eastern Europe. If anything Europe was way to soft with Russia, they should started moving away from their over reliance on Russian gas in the early 2000s.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#196

Post by qwytw »

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.

Ukraine did not enter any military alliances with anyone they just wanted to stop being a puppet/client state of Russia.

Also the only two things Russia has going for it are their energy resources and their nukes. It's a poor second tier/regional power without that (even with the oil/gas/etc. it still has a 2.5x lower GDP than Germany despite an almost 2x higher population).

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#197

Post by qwytw »

hutzlibu wrote: post #126
_kbh_ wrote: 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.

> Also, they are really not happy about it.

I think they are just inherently unhappy and miserable because they are Russians living in Russia.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#198

Post by wwtrv »

quetzthecoatl wrote: post #151
southernplaces7 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 est…

[flagged]

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#199

Post by wwtrv »

peterfirefly wrote: post #154
_kbh_ wrote: 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 Soviets were pretty bad. Allying with the Nazis against the Soviets would have been less wrong.

The thing is that there a lot of direct victims of Soviet crimes or their relatives who are still alive and remember their atrocities.

The Nazis on the other-hand generally just murdered everyone they hated (losing all of your property + 10 years in the gulag wasn't really an option if you were a Jew in eastern Europe...).

Post reply on HN