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

201–210 of 309 posts

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#201

Post by wwtrv »

peterfirefly wrote: post #158
ffgjgf1 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Very different situation from Russia/Ukraine.

That's a bizarrely absurd attitude.

> and invaded Germany first

So if Russia now invaded Poland or the Baltic States and France/US/UK 'attacked' Russia in response that would not be a justifiable thing to do? Because that's exactly what you're saying...

> France had treated Germany horribly

1. Yes. But that happened 20 years ago as a response to a German invasion of France (and Belgium but why would anyone care about the people that get caught in between...). And both countries were on a path towards reconciliation after Locarno. This does not make Nazi actions in any way more justifiable...

> a great casus belli

The world thankfully does not work like a Paradox grand strategy game...

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#202

Post by refurb »

ffgjgf1 wrote: post #85
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.

> 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…

That should make it pretty straightforward, no?

It's a simplistic viewpoint that misses a lot of factors.

You can't really understand the conflict, where it might go and how it might end if you don't under the history of the region, what drives each state, and what their aims are.

It's like saying "iPhone sells well because it's a better phone". That's true, but tells you nothing.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#203

Post by cryptonector »

addcommitpush wrote: post #117
cryptonector wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”?

I've no idea why I capitalized "La".

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#204

Post by CamperBob2 »

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…

"I only robbed your house because you threatened to join the neighborhood watch!" -- Russia

Explain what "smarter politics" means in such a context.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#205

Post by reducesuffering »

peterfirefly wrote: post #158
ffgjgf1 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

France required Germany to pay for all the destruction that Germany caused by first invading France in WW1. France and Poland knew Germany was a belligerent nation, and in 1921 signed a mutual defense pact. Germany knew this and invaded Poland, knowing France would attempt to defend Poland.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#206

Post by seanmcdirmid »

contrarian1234 wrote: post #150
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Han runs China with a strong majority. For western provinces where minorities are a majority, the symbolic governor will always be an ethnic minority (eg Tibet will have a Tibetan governor), but the real power will be held by the Han party secretary. Some of the party secretaries that have run Tibet and Xinjiang are famous hardliners that have probably created more problems than they’ve solved.

Interesting stuff. I won't pretend to understand the inner workings of the party haha. I have heard they very aggressively rotate party members so that they don't establish deep rooted regional networks - and that you aren't ever assigned from the region you're from. So that seems to be in line with what you illustrate. I also know they have intense quotas for minorities and affirmative action - but with the demograp…

I think the ethnostate label isn’t really accurate in China. Paternalistic state is more accurate, Confucian values still hold. The goal isn’t create a monoethnic state, rather the Han see themselves as best apt to govern and guide the other ethnic groups. A lot of the ethnic tension simply comes from minorities seeing such paternalism as condescending.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#207

Post by cronix »

H8crilA wrote: post #94
bullen wrote: post #93

> Chairman Mao: (Gestures with his hand and points to his books.) But if the Soviet Union would throw its bombs and kill all those over 30 who are Chinese, that would solve the problem for us. Because the old people like me can’t learn Chinese. We read Chinese. The majority of my books are Chinese. There are very few dictionaries over there. All the other books are in Chinese. ?

Mao is responsible for spreading Mandarin over all the provinces. He himself spoke with such a bad accent that towards the end of his life there was only one person that could understand him, his secretary or nurse or someone like this. Joke says that she was running China for a while since no one could verify her translation. Also, I am guessing a lot of people were still illiterate at the time.

> towards the end of his life there was only one person that could understand him, his secretary or nurse or someone like this

> Mao had been in poor health for several years and had declined visibly for at least six months prior to his death. There are unconfirmed reports that he possibly had ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease.[1]

[1] https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#208

Post by hguant »

adrian_b wrote: post #184
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…

Moreover, I doubt that the use of Mandarin was widespread in Taiwan before 1949 when Kuomintang occupied Taiwan. Before that, most people from Taiwan were either natives, who spoke an Austronesian language, or Chinese immigrants who had come during the previous 4 centuries from Fujian, who spoke a Hokkien dialect very different from Mandarin.

Yeah if you want to shut down a conversation in Taipei, or suddenly run into "oh no I don't understand your English," bring up the treatment of the native Taiwanese.

To be fair to the ROC, the Japanese colonial era was FAR worse to them than anything that happened post 1949, but still.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#209

Post by steve76 »

WeylandYutani wrote: post #111
mytailorisrich wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

[dead]

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#210

Post by sfmike »

hguant wrote: post #208
adrian_b wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moreover, I doubt that the use of Mandarin was widespread in Taiwan before 1949 when Kuomintang occupied Taiwan. Before that, most people from Taiwan were either natives, who spoke an Austronesian language, or Chinese immigrants who had come during the previous 4 centuries from Fujian, who spoke a Hokkien dialect very different from Mandarin.

Yeah if you want to shut down a conversation in Taipei, or suddenly run into "oh no I don't understand your English," bring up the treatment of the native Taiwanese. To be fair to the ROC, the Japanese colonial era was FAR worse to them than anything that happened post 1949, but still.

many would say the white terror was far worse then the japanese
Post reply on HN