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

301–309 of 309 posts

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#301

Post by ffgjgf1 »

_kbh_ wrote: post #266
hutzlibu wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a historical fact, that german foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured "NATO will not expand to the east". That does not make it any binding international agreement, sure. But some of those words existed.

> It is a historical fact, that german foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured "NATO will not expand to the east". East in Germany, Context is important, how could the German foreign minister ever promise anything about any other country?.

Don’t you know? national sovereignty is a myth and great powers such as Russia (lol..) have an inherent right to impose their will on everyone between the Oder and Pacific ocean because mr. Genscher renounced Germany’s claim to Eastern Europe.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#302

Post by ffgjgf1 »

pydry wrote: post #142
chrysler wrote: post #112

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.

Mexico is a huge country, Grenada is a tiny island so no, probably not “for sure”.

Also it’s hypothetical and and entirely absurd scenario barely worth discussing.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#303

Post by HellDunkel »

selimthegrim wrote: post #242
hutzlibu wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Which national origins of these historians were you referring to?

I wanted to make sure to have native russians on the list too, not just american or european. You will have a very hard time finding historians with international publications blaming nato like nearsheimer.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#304

Post by FreshStart »

JPLeRouzic wrote: post #213
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…

> " during the period western communist parties suddenly became rabidly pro-nazi. " Please could you provide some reference?

Orwell writing?

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#305

Post by FreshStart »

cbHXBY1D wrote: post #167
KptMarchewa wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wit…

Buffer states are a debunked strategic concept from the 18 century, useless in times of nukes.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#306

Post by sh34r »

qwytw wrote: post #290
swores wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were equating those two people in terms of how people look back at each of them and see positives despite acknowledging significant negatives. I'm not somebody who can say to what extent that comparison does or doesn't make sense, but your response is irrelevant because they weren't saying that Mao and Washington were comparable in terms of their aspirations or specific actions.

> I'm not somebody who can say to what extent that comparison does or doesn't make sense It is unfortunate that you feel that way because it's not all ambiguous. I mean for instance a German person could say "that Bismarck and Hitler were comparable in terms of their aspirations or specific actions" and they would technically be correct in a certain way (much more so than someone comparing Mao and Washington anyway).…

Godwin's law strikes again...

Apply the logic for why Mao was as bad as Hitler, read up on the Bengal famine, and you'll come to the conclusion that Churchill was also Hitler. But of course he wasn't Hitler, and famines aren't on the same scale as the Holocaust.

While you're educating yourself, perhaps read up on Mao's nationalist counterpart in the Civil War, a fascist dictator and war criminal named Chiang Kai-Shek. I would find the comparison to George Washington and Chiang Kai-Shek to be quite distasteful. George Washington was not a bad man by the standards of his time, he was not a dictator, and he was not a war criminal.

Conversely, Chiang Kai-Shek was a murderous tyrant even by contemporary standards. During the White Terror of 1927, he infamously stated he'd prefer to kill 1000 innocent people "by mistake" than let one communist live. Over 300,000 people were murdered during this purge alone, and that's a floor. Some estimates put the death toll in the millions. We'll never know the true body count. Unfortunately, it was not difficult to kill people without a trace in rural China at this time. At any rate, it was a crime against humanity within an order of magnitude of Stalin's Great Purge. And this was just one of the many, many atrocities committed by Chiang Kai-Shek. I don't think anyone could fight this monster and win, without becoming a monster themselves.

And yet, I have no trouble understanding why Taiwanese people might have mixed feelings about this heinous man. Without Chiang Kai-Shek, there would be no Taiwan. As it stands, only 12 UN nations recognize Taiwan as an independent country. Nationalism is a helluva drug...

Why is it that we all know Mao Zedong's name in infamy, and not Chiang Kai-Shek? Because we are always eating from the trashcan of ideology.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#307

Post by wwtrv »

quetzthecoatl wrote: post #216
wwtrv wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably not a deranged Hindu nationalist? Seems good enough...

ahh.. isn't that sweet, a Nazi is happy he isn't a brown Hindu.

What? Nazis didn't really have much against Hindus or Arabs (well yet anyway..) in fact tried hard to appeal to them and had quite a bit of success.

Also, I don't quite get you? are you calling me a Nazi? Is that a compliment given your previous far-right rhetoric? I'm sorry you seem to be sending some mixed signals...

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#308

Post by throwaway290 »

was8309 wrote: post #170
H8crilA wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

the gall, am I right? /s

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#309

Post by FreshStart »

fullspectrumdev wrote: post #225
lenkite wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Every country protects in established order of the rights of its citizens living in another country, in accordance with commitments to documents of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and other universally recognized principles and norms of international law, agreements within the Commonwealth of Independent States." Ukraine stopped following the contents of that treaty after the US supported Ma…

> US supported Maidan coup. What a load of bollocks. The Ukrainian people made a choice to topple their corrupt government and take control of their countries destiny. Which is an inalienable right.

All those "coups" were directly followed by elections, elections even the donbas participated and was thus represented in Ukraine assembly, until Russia waltzed on. And all the western civilization mimicry will not undo what happened on the ground. Russia is as shameless a imperial power in its day to day, as the US was at its darkest hours (Vietnam, Iraq)
Post reply on HN