[HN Gopher] The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973
___________________________________________________________________
The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973
Author : prude
Score : 194 points
Date : 2023-06-09 23:31 UTC (23 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (gaodawei.wordpress.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (gaodawei.wordpress.com)
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| >At the top of the stairs, I glimpsed Eric Schmidt, the
| billionaire former Google CEO who co-authored a book on
| artificial intelligence with Kissinger. I asked him what it was
| like to collaborate with Dr. K, but he turned back inside.
|
| At Kissinger's birthday party a few days ago.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Absolutely fascinating, thank you.
| dontupvoteme wrote:
| Is everything every written by or about Kissinger somewhere on
| the internet?
|
| I'm pretty sure it would be one of the highest quality textsets
| you could get for this whole LLM thing.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| > somewhere on the internet
|
| if you mean free, no, I don't think so. You can buy the books,
| of course.
| woodruffw wrote:
| The memcon between Nixon and Mao (with Kissinger present) is also
| pretty interesting[1].
|
| [1]:
| https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/memorandum-...
| the_af wrote:
| 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 the right. I am
| comparatively happy when these people on the right come into
| power._
|
| > _Kissinger: [...] those on the left are pro-Soviet and would
| not encourage a move toward the People's Republic, and in fact
| criticize you on those grounds._
|
| > _Mao: Exactly that. Some are opposing you [Nixon]. In our
| country also there is a reactionary group which is opposed to
| our contact with you. The result was that they got on an
| airplane and fled abroad._
|
| (I know this is just small talk and people don't always say
| what they mean, but...)
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| 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.
| qwytw wrote:
| > Mao is looking after [..] China's interests
|
| Yes, just like during the "Great Leap Forward" and the
| cultural revolution. Sure...
| throw4847274 wrote:
| He was a complicated person and even in China people
| discuss his flaws. They see him similar to how we view
| George Washington.
|
| Washington shaped the nation, but also massacred Native
| Americans and didn't free his slaves until after his
| death.
|
| The Chinese see Mao as someone who gave them their pride
| back, but most of his socioeconomic policies were
| failures.
|
| I'm not trying to do a "whataboutism" here, just trying
| to bring some perspective of how the average Chinese
| person thinks of Mao.
| [deleted]
| FreshStart wrote:
| I deeply despise interest & realpolitik pundits. It's the
| equivalent to teenage edgelord behavior in politics. As in,
| the stated facts are true and trivial, the "follow your
| instincts" philosophy leads to quagmires and behavior loops
| and the solutions it prescribed regularly ended in worldwar
| pre nuke. If you have nothing to contribute to a
| discussion, no new strategy, no attempts to hack the
| clockwork rules of the game, why even post on a board
| calling itself hackernews?
|
| Hunger is just your bodies signal for energydemand, all the
| culinary arts and agriculture are invalid.
| licebmi__at__ wrote:
| 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 [realpolitik
| cinicism/naive idealism/insert here qualifier].
|
| But I try to be open to different alternatives if you can
| tell me.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| 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]
| WeylandYutani wrote:
| 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).
| MichaelMoser123 wrote:
| > 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.
| malermeister wrote:
| So basically Russia in 2023?
| tjoff wrote:
| > _Without friendly terms with the west they would have
| to maintain an enormously big army._
|
| They don't?
| MichaelMoser123 wrote:
| it was relatively low, for quite some time.
| steve76 wrote:
| [dead]
| irthomasthomas wrote:
| 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.
| woodpanel wrote:
| Along those lines runs the delimiter of the often times
| blurry spectrum of today's western-leftism: The Pro-Soviet
| western marxists of the past often became today's western
| pro-Russian "populists", while the western Maoists of the
| 1968s became today's Pro-NATO "progressives".
| bequanna wrote:
| > The Pro-Soviet western marxists of the past often became
| today's western pro-Russian "populists"
|
| Please expand on that. The only thing that backing the
| Soviet Union and current day Russia seem to have in common
| is that they are both aggressive, authorities regimes.
| Maybe I'm missing some nuance here.
| kachnuv_ocasek wrote:
| None of what you wrote makes any coherent sense in this
| world. I don't even know where to start...
| OfSanguineFire wrote:
| The OP's statement is perfectly coherent and sensible. A
| number of _soixante-huitards_ who flirted with Maoism are
| now in favour of strong European defense against Russia.
| Moreover, Maoism deemphasized the individual, but today
| those ex-Maoists are more likely to support individualist
| things like gender self-selection.
| tumanian wrote:
| I dont have the source at hand, but soviets also preffered
| republicans to the left, since they could always make a dral
| with republicans while the lwft was too ideological.
| ffgjgf1 wrote:
| 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 government which was in power during it's
| entire lifetime was so unstable and eventually collapsed
| because a significant proportion of the electorate
| continued voting for the bolsheviks. They wouldn't even
| cooperate to prevent the far-right from coming to power (of
| course it's not like they had a choice, moderate voters
| would have immediately shifted to the right if the
| socialists tried working with communists).
|
| So it's not that surprising. Stalin had no issue working
| with Hitler and supplying Germany with raw material which
| were necessary for their conquest of France (during the
| period western communist parties suddenly became rabidly
| pro-nazi..) until all of that blew up in his face...
|
| Of course that was already quite different in the 60s and
| 70s after the Soviet were no longer as focused on
| ideological purity (and mass murder by extension).
| gattilorenz wrote:
| > 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.
| qwytw wrote:
| > 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..
| gattilorenz wrote:
| Sad as it may be, I don't think this has ever been a real
| problem for other countries. In the case of Stalin, the
| issue was lending credibility to socialism. Herr Hitler
| looked like a respectable man because he was very much
| against socialism, sending those filthy reds to a lager.
| JPLeRouzic wrote:
| > " _during the period western communist parties suddenly
| became rabidly pro-nazi._ "
|
| Please could you provide some reference?
| KwisatzHaderack wrote:
| > the liberal/socialist government which was in power
| during it's entire lifetime was so unstable and
| eventually collapsed because a significant proportion of
| the electorate continued voting for the bolsheviks
|
| Seems to still be the case today: the far left fighting
| with the moderate left.
| MichaelMoser123 wrote:
| Looks like some game of chess: China stopped supporting North
| Vietnam, but that didn't stop North Vietnam from invading South
| Vietnam, after the pullout. However at that point no one in the
| US cared about any domino theory, because the US was now friends
| with China against the Soviet Union.
|
| I wonder what the chess pieces were all thinking...
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| The Chinese split from north Vietnam is just a consequence of
| the sino-Soviet split that began under kruschev. However, the
| Vietnamese did help with Soviet tech to preserve and display
| Mao's body, at least.
| MichaelMoser123 wrote:
| both China and the Soviet Union were supporting North Vietnam
| at the same time - up until 1968 (when they had this war over
| an island). The Sino Soviet split happened much earlier, in
| 1961.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_in_the_Vietnam_War
|
| The great friendship between China and the USA started after
| that border conflict in 1968, as China was looking for a
| counterweight.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict
|
| I mean Mao was playing Nixon and Kissinger against Brezhnev.
|
| The funny part is where Kissinger is taking all of the credit
| for the US China rapprochement.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| But 1973 things were falling apart, they would last until
| the war end with America (otherwise Mao wouldn't have
| gotten his crystal casket), but by the late 70s Vietnam and
| china were at war.
| refurb wrote:
| China and the USSR never quite "split" from North Vietnam
| until well after the end of the war in 1975 (the Sino-
| Vietnamese war in 1979 was the China aplit which was mended
| in the 80's).
|
| The Sino-Soviet split had already happened (as you mentioned)
| and North Vietnam played China and the USSR off against each
| other "who can be the best friend of an important communist
| revolutionary government?".
|
| It wasn't until the US engaged both China and the USSR in
| detente, and the war had progressed to such an extent it was
| obvious the US was leaving, that Vietnam moved way down the
| list of priorities for both the USSR and China. Both
| countries continued to support North Vietnam, but it was
| heavily tempered by what they might lose with the US.
| l3mure wrote:
| > because the US was now friends with China against the Soviet
| Union
|
| The US also got the anti-communist genocide and friendly
| dictator it desired in Indonesia, which was considered a major
| win for its interests in the region.
| FreshStart wrote:
| It was mostly anti-Han resentment of the empires citizens and
| collaborators that last conquered them. The average citizen
| is very unidrologic during a genocide, mostly in it for
| discrimination - revenge or profit.
| l3mure wrote:
| > mostly anti-Han resentment
|
| Lying.
|
| [1]
|
| > An estimate is that around 2,000 Chinese Indonesians were
| killed (out of a total estimated death toll of between
| 500,000 and 3 million people), with documented massacres
| taking place in Makassar, Medan and Lombok island. [...]
| Ethnic Balinese and Javanese made up the vast majority of
| people who were massacred.
|
| ---
|
| > the average citizen
|
| Killings were primarily directed by the army, which did so
| with an explicitly anti-communist bent facilitated by the
| US.
|
| [2]
|
| > With very few exceptions, the killings were not
| spontaneous but carried out with a high degree of
| organisation. Most of the victims were also detainees of
| the Indonesian Army, making the killings summary
| executions.
|
| > Despite a consensus at the highest levels of the U.S. and
| British governments that it would be necessary "to
| liquidate Sukarno", as related in a CIA memorandum from
| 1962, and the existence of extensive contacts between anti-
| communist army officers and the U.S. military establishment
| - training of over 1,200 officers, "including senior
| military figures", and providing weapons and economic
| assistance - the CIA denied active involvement in the
| killings. Declassified U.S. documents in 2017 revealed that
| the U.S. government had detailed knowledge of the mass
| killings from the beginning and was supportive of the
| actions of the Indonesian Army. U.S. complicity in the
| killings, which included providing extensive lists of PKI
| officials to Indonesian death squads, has previously been
| established by historians and journalists.
|
| [1][2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_kill
| ings_of_19...
| tw1984 wrote:
| > I wonder what the chess pieces were all thinking...
|
| talk to those in ukraine and taiwan now.
| H8crilA wrote:
| 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.
| Bronze_Colossus wrote:
| Can't say I can speak for Ukraine and Taiwan as you do but
| I would imagine Taiwan wouldn't want a status qou with
| missiles striking Taipei on an almost daily basis.
| H8crilA wrote:
| No missiles are striking Taipei. "Keep status quo" means
| keep everything as it is now.
|
| It might be short-sighted, but opinion polling and
| foreign policy are more or less clear on this point.
| simonh wrote:
| I think Taiwanese are being pretty long sighted.
| Sentiment has been steadily shifting in favour of
| eventual full independence for a long time, but the
| consensus is still clearly to defer it, perhaps
| indefinitely.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_independence_movemen
| t#O...
|
| I also reject the characterisation of Ukraine or Taiwan
| as chess pieces. In both cases the western policy is not
| to push either country towards this or that decision, or
| this or that status. The policy is to support the self
| determination of Ukrainians and Taiwanese respectively.
|
| The trigger for the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine was
| not any statement or decision made in the west, it was
| the policies of the Ukrainian parliament supported by
| popular demonstrations of ordinary Ukrainians in Kyiv.
| Likewise China isn't concerned about any US inciting
| action in respect of Taiwan, it's worried about Taiwan
| itself choosing to declare independence.
| was8309 wrote:
| are you saying that Ukrainians want more than to just not
| be invaded?
| H8crilA wrote:
| Yes, they want to not be invaded now, not invaded in 5
| years, in 10 years, etc. No pieredyshka.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| But since you are the one speaking, what are your thoughts as
| a pawn?
| refurb wrote:
| "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.
| lisasays wrote:
| _The geopolitics are incredibly complicated_
|
| Not really - it's quite straightforward, actually
|
| _and there is a lot behind the scene the average person
| doesn 't see._
|
| Such as?
| ffgjgf1 wrote:
| > 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 seem to be
| pretty transparent to be fair
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "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/domain.
|
| So the west going into ukraine, helping with the coup and
| promising them EU and NATO, while knowing that russia can
| never accept it - was a clear path to war from the
| beginning.
|
| Would the US tolerate mexico become a china military ally?
| Doubtful. One of the unwritten laws.
|
| The geopolitical realities are, that it was known that
| going into ukraine would likely lead to some war.
|
| Which is why most of the world considers this war a proxy
| war between Nato russia. And it partly is.
|
| But yes, it is also a war for independence of a small
| nation against an evil empire. But the empires in the west
| seldom care about the actual people on the grounds. They
| care for their interests. And currently ukraines and Natos
| interests are mostly aligned, which is why they get
| support.
|
| If china suddenly becomes a bigger problem and now there
| would be a need to play Putin against them - then Ukraine
| would be on their own very quickly.
|
| It is already starting now, with the west medias more and
| more implying that it was indeed Ukraine that blow up north
| stream. Whether they did it, or not: this is a way of
| showing them, they can change the narrative in the west
| quite quickly. War is dirty. And also Ukraine has lots of
| dirt on their hands now. Showing some of that dirt will
| make the public change opinion. This is geopolitics in
| action.
| HellDunkel wrote:
| I tried to figure out if this reasoning is plausible by
| reading a few history books on the subject predating
| 2021- just to be sure i would not be sucked into group
| think. Turns out ALL historians tend to disagree heavily
| (Kappeler, Applebaum, Plokhy.. Checked on their national
| background too) Problem with these self proclaimed
| realists you are referring to is they dont have any
| solutions, never had (see 1993), have been wrong in the
| past, continue to be so... most reasonable among them is
| Kissinger, and even he is very much on the moderate side.
| It is up to you to reconsider or make yourself
| comfortable with Tucker Carlson.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| Historians disagree on what exactly?
|
| That USA would in fact tolerate chinese military in
| mexico?
|
| "It is up to you to reconsider or make yourself
| comfortable with Tucker Carlson"
|
| And strong disagree. I don't have to make myself
| comfortable or align with any character or movement, just
| because most of the world wants only to think in black
| and white.
| HellDunkel wrote:
| ,,Historians disagree on what exactly?" Nato expansion
| beeing the root cause of russian aggression. I recommend
| reading kappeler. He knows the russian language and
| history very well (what does nearsheimer know?),
| translated Putins essay and had no illusions about his
| intentions. We need to take those people serious who have
| been right with their predictions, not those who have
| failed and keep repeating the same talking point ad
| naseam.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| 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 precedent. Putin allmost literally
| saying: "If the US can just ignore international law and
| invade a country, so can I"
| chrysler wrote:
| >> 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.com/news/worldv
| iews/wp/2016/11/23...
| hutzlibu wrote:
| I happen to live in europe, so I am quite aware of our
| situation. But europe is not the US, as far as I know.
|
| And the US diplomatic stance towards EU inofficially was
| something like "fuck the EU".
|
| I also know how "the west" moved further east step by
| step. Which is in general very fine by me, as I do prefer
| living by western standards (and I was born in the east).
|
| So I certainly would not stand in the way, if Ukraine
| wants to go pro west. If I would not have little children
| I seriously would have considered going to the war as a
| volunteer. So much for context of "people like me"
|
| But that doesn't change one thing how the US plays this
| geopolitics game. Or our governments, sure. They are not
| better, just weaker.
| chrysler wrote:
| >> But europe is not the US, as far as I know.
|
| Doesn't really change anything in the equation. Russian
| missiles in Kaliningrad can hit key US military
| installations like Ramstein AFB and RAF Lakenheath with
| practically no warning. They are a direct threat from a
| hostile country that keeps making threats about using
| them, this is far more serious than any imagined Mexican
| alliance.
|
| And yet, the reaction is... what? Where are B52s bombing
| Kaliningrad?
|
| >> I also know how "the west" moved further east step by
| step.
|
| I am sure you do. Can you tell me why Russian apologists
| always phrase it as if a shadowy cabal in Washington
| forced countries into international cooperation, instead
| of portraying as it actually was?
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "Can you tell me why Russian apologists always phrase it
| as if a shadowy cabal in Washington forced countries into
| international cooperation "
|
| Because it was verbally promised by different high
| ranking officials, that the NATO would NOT move further
| east.
|
| This does not create trust.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| The fact that russia wishes to make some words into
| existence does not mean they existed.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| 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.
| chrysler wrote:
| >> Because it was verbally promised by different high
| ranking officials, that the NATO would NOT move further
| east.
|
| Not according to the Soviet foreign minister at the time.
| He also explains why this conspiracy theory is nonsense:
| at the time when that verbal promise was allegedly given,
| no-one could even imagine that Warsaw Pact would cease to
| exist. According to him, NATO status of Warsaw Pact
| countries was not discussed with Western officials, not
| discussed within Warsaw Pact, and not within Communist
| Party circles in Moscow either.
|
| https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-
| with-e...
|
| Nor did you answer my question. Why do Russian apologists
| try to word this as NATO was somehow forced upon Eastern
| Europe instead of integration into international
| institutions being their own long-term goal?
| hutzlibu wrote:
| It is not a conspiracy theory that german foreign
| minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured "NATO will not
| expand to the east".
| chrysler wrote:
| As Shevardnadze clarifies, all they talked about NATO was
| strictly in the context of German reunification and
| attempts to take quotes out of context are
| anarchronistic. What assurances did the USSR need if it
| had a large nuclear-equipped group of forces in Poland?
|
| And besides that, many years later, but months before
| former Warsaw Pact countries started official NATO
| negotiations, NATO and Russia signed a treaty that gave a
| green light.
|
| So one one side of the conspiracy theory, you have a
| handful of scraps arranged to look like something, and on
| the opposing side you have actual written agreements and
| recollections from key people directly involved in those
| events.
| lisasays wrote:
| The matter is murky in the details, but it certainly
| isn't a "conspiracy theory".
|
| Not surprisingly -- different participants have different
| recollections of what was said, and in what context. As a
| counterpart to the above, we also have Baker's
| assurances, made to the Soviets at the time "neither the
| President nor I intend to extract any unilateral
| advantages from the processes that are taking place". And
| that the Americans understood that "not only for the
| Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it
| is important to have guarantees that if the United States
| keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of
| NATO, not an inch of NATO's present military jurisdiction
| will spread in an eastern direction."
|
| Which certainly _sounds_ like verbal promises that "NATO
| would not move further east". There is also Gorbachev's
| famous assessment of the whole matter, after the fact:
| "It [NATO expansion] was definitely a violation of the
| spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in
| 1990".
|
| Not that these assurances had the status of signed
| treaties -- and not that any of this stuff in any way
| justifies, minimizes or "explain" the current conflict,
| which as we know has one aggressor and by this point is
| entirely one-sided.
|
| But the statements above are part of the historical
| record -- not some conspiracy theory, or the inventions
| of Russian apologists.
| chrysler wrote:
| Soviet leadership, including Gorbachev himself, have
| explicitly denied that any assurances existed. Like
| Shevardnadze, he denied that they even talked about it
| with western counterparts. In his own words: "The topic
| of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all, and it
| wasn't brought up in those years. ... Another issue we
| brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO's
| military structures would not advance and that additional
| armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of
| the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker's
| statement was made in that context..."
|
| Nobody brought the alleged assurances up when former
| Warsaw Pact joined NATO either. This narrative didn't
| exist until mid-2000, by which time NATO enlargement had
| largely ended.
|
| The spirit that Gorbachev bitterly speaks about is his
| idea of "Common European Home" that did not come to
| fruition, as Eastern Europe didn't want to have anything
| to do with Russians after half a century of oppression
| and turned their backs as soon as they could choose their
| own path.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_European_Home
| lisasays wrote:
| _Soviet leadership, including Gorbachev himself, have
| explicitly denied that any assurances existed._
|
| As regards Gorbachev -- what did he say actually, and
| when?
|
| And why would he say the exact opposite in his RBTH
| interview in 2014? (Granted, this is RBTH -- but I think
| we can be reasonably confident that the interview is not
| a fabrication and that he is being quoted correctly).
| Here's his quote again, in full context - and it's clear
| he's not not referring to the Common European Home:
|
| _The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO
| into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this
| a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely
| a violation of the spirit of the statements and
| assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany,
| they were legally enshrined and are being observed._
| chrysler wrote:
| My quote is from the same interview. I repeat: "The topic
| of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all, and it
| wasn't brought up in those years."
|
| If that interview leaves anything unclear, then Spiegel
| tried to get a "yes, assurances existed" answer from
| foreign minister Shevardnadze from several different
| angles, but he replied to every attempt with a "No."
|
| Spiegel:
| https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-
| with-e...
| lisasays wrote:
| Mmm -- my sense is that you're _also_ "arranging scraps"
| here to get them to line up and support the narrative
| that you like.
|
| By my reading, Gorbachev's later statement -- "definitely
| a violation of the spirit of the statements and
| assurances made to us in 1990" (referring to NATO's
| decisive steps towards expansion starting in 1993) -- is
| more holistic, and seals the matter.
|
| Not that there was "conspiracy" to hoodwink the Soviets
| from the beginning, per your straw-man argument. But
| still -- against the spirit of the statements and
| assurances made at the time, 'twas. Shevardnadze's
| statements might _seem_ to contradict this, but not
| really -- Shevardnadze is focusing on the details;
| Gorbachev is talking about the bigger, "moral" picture
| if you will.
| chrysler wrote:
| And that's why I call it a conspiracy theory - it relies
| on a small number of select snippets, interpreted in the
| most favorable way possible, ignoring things like
| explicit statements to the opposite from the very same
| sources. A textbook example of conspiratorial thinking.
|
| The facts are simple:
|
| 1. Possible NATO status of Warsaw Pact countries was
| never discussed.
|
| 2. There was no assurance from NATO to Soviet Union on
| possible NATO status of Warsaw Pact countries.
|
| 3. Key members of the Soviet leadership explicitly deny
| any such assurances.
|
| 4. Russia never brought up any such assurances when
| Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO.
|
| 5. Russia and NATO signed a treaty greenlighting NATO
| enlargement before any official talks with Warsaw Pact
| countries started.
|
| What was discussed in 1990:
|
| 1. Integration of East German military into NATO
| structures.
|
| 2. Size and composition of German military after
| reunification.
|
| 3. Placement of NATO forces (that is, from the US, UK,
| and elsewhere) in East Germany.
|
| This has nothing to do with NATO status of Warsaw Pact
| countries.
|
| Placement of NATO troops (discussed) and potential
| members of NATO (not discussed) should not be confused.
| [deleted]
| lisasays wrote:
| _Russia and NATO signed a treaty greenlighting NATO
| enlargement before any official talks with Warsaw Pact
| countries started._
|
| Which can't possibly be the CFE - so which treaty (and
| which specific provisions of that treaty) are you
| referring to?
|
| Your notion of "conspiracy theory" is plainly at odds
| with the commonly accepted definition of the term, BTW.
| But we'll move past that for now.
| chrysler wrote:
| I am referring to the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual
| Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the
| Russian Federation. It was signed in May 1997 during NATO
| summit in Paris. At the next summit in July, the first
| former Warsaw Pact countries were invited into NATO.
| Official negotiations began in September.
|
| I see no conflicts with commonly accepted definitions of
| conspiracy theory: "a theory that explains an event or
| set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by
| usually powerful conspirators" (Merriam-Webster).
|
| How did former Warsaw Pact countries end up in NATO?
|
| According to conventional understanding, former Warsaw
| Pact countries seeked political, economic and military
| security through cooperation in international
| organizations ranging from Council of Europe to NATO.
|
| According to the conspiracy theory, NATO and Russia made
| a secret deal to divide Europe, but the USA did not keep
| their side of the deal, intentionally misled Russia and
| forced Warsaw Pact countries into NATO in order to
| encircle, attack and destroy Russia.
| lisasays wrote:
| So ... again, you're splitting hairs here. And then some.
|
| Official "invitations" to the first round countries (PL,
| CZ, SK, HU) were issued around 1997 -- but that's the
| last step in the process. Official "talks" began much
| sooner. Already the formation of Visegrad Group in 1991
| (whose purpose was largely to get these countries ready
| to integrate into the EU and NATO).
|
| Anyway by 1993 talk of these countries joining NATO was
| already all over the news (NYT: "Yeltsin 'Understands'
| Polish Bid for a Role in NATO").
|
| So right there -- you're way off base. The Founding Act
| itself it pretty long-winded, but I'm not seeing any text
| that "greenlights" NATO expansion (other than by simply
| not mentioning the topic).
|
| As to conspiracy theories: the whole point is, what you
| were referring to was a certain line of (dubious)
| argumentation or reasoning -- "relying on snippets of
| facts". Which is certainly very often an _aspect_ of
| conspiracy theories, but nothing to do with the key
| substance of the term.
|
| No one (except fully deluded Russian apologists by this
| point) believes in that particular theory you cite. I
| certainly don't, and don't feel I need to respond to any
| ridiculous insinuations that I do.
|
| Anyway, look -- you're certainly quite adept yourself at
| pulling up snippets of fact. But across the board -- I'm
| just finding your thinking to be rather muddled; you
| extremify and hyperbolize a lot; and that you're just not
| seeing the forest for the trees (in addition to getting a
| lot of the "trees" themselves wrong). And as a result,
| this discussion just isn't very productive.
|
| So I'm going to have to bow out at this point, and let
| you hash these topics over in the privacy of your own
| thoughts. Which is a pity, sort of (since it seems we
| would probably agree on a lot of basic things about this
| conflict that other people seem to be horribly confused
| about -- such as who the aggressor is, and why they
| started it).
|
| But at the end of the day -- not really.
| chrysler wrote:
| >> Official "invitations" to the first round countries
| (PL, CZ, SK, HU) were issued around 1997 -- but that's
| the last step in the process.
|
| Not the last step at all. In July 1997, NATO invited
| Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary to accession talks, to
| be correct. Talks began in September and took until 1999
| to conclude. Full membership was achieved only in March
| 1999. Invitation to accession talks is by no means a
| formality or a last step.
|
| >> Anyway by 1993 talk of these countries joining NATO
| was already all over the news (NYT: "Yeltsin
| 'Understands' Polish Bid for a Role in NATO").
|
| ... and that was considered as far-fetched as Ukraine's
| ambitions towards EU and NATO membership were in 2021.
| Something that everyone politely nodded to, but very few
| believed would happen in any meaningful timeframe.
| Russian army was still in Poland in 1993. Poland was in a
| socio-economic disaster then. Energy crisis, insane
| inflation and organized crime, inability to even pay
| government employees' wages, let alone participate in
| international organizations as an equal. NATO membership
| and American nuclear umbrella were mythical dreams at
| that time, often ridiculed in the press, as you will
| discover if you dig deeper into old newspapers. The tone
| changed during accession talks when it began to look like
| entry into NATO was really going to happen.
|
| >> The Founding Act itself it pretty long-winded, but I'm
| not seeing any text that "greenlights" NATO expansion
| (other than by simply not mentioning the topic).
|
| From the treaty: "To achieve the aims of this Act, NATO
| and Russia will base their relations on a shared
| commitment to the following principles: /.../ respect for
| sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of
| all states and their inherent right to choose the means
| to ensure their own security, the inviolability of
| borders and peoples' right of self-determination as
| enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE
| documents;"
|
| NATO established this clear understanding with Russia in
| writing before anyone was invited to accession talks.
|
| >> But across the board -- I'm just finding your thinking
| to be rather muddled, and that you're just not seeing the
| forest for the trees (in addition to getting a lot of the
| "trees" themselves wrong).
|
| The only ones trying to muddy things are those who ignore
| a decade-long political process in European politics and
| its huge bureaucratic trail, and try to give a simple
| alternative explanation that hinges on a handful of out-
| of-context quotes from Baker and Genschler, because there
| is nothing else to back it up. It's like quoting some
| overly alarmist NASA memo questioning radiation shielding
| of Apollo spacecraft, and using that to "prove" that the
| Moon landings never happened - ignoring the immense work
| that 400 000 people and countless institutions and
| companies all across the world put into it over a decade,
| and all the trails they left behind.
|
| You have to throw away a decade worth of European
| diplomacy to subscribe to the Russian talking point about
| broken promises and encirclement.
| pydry wrote:
| Monroe doctrine has nothing to say about Kalingrad.
|
| The US invaded Grenada so for sure they would invade
| Mexico.
| RealityVoid wrote:
| 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.
| redmorphium wrote:
| > 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.
| qwytw wrote:
| 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).
| _kbh_ wrote:
| > 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).
| hutzlibu wrote:
| 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.
| qwytw wrote:
| > Also, they are really not happy about it.
|
| I think they are just inherently unhappy and miserable
| because they are Russians living in Russia.
| RealityVoid wrote:
| 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!
| _kbh_ wrote:
| > The difference is the shared history and language.
|
| I don't think a language matters with a war with NATO.
|
| > Also, they are really not happy about it.
|
| Yet there is no war, shows you that NATO really works as
| a deterrence to Russia and that it had nothing to do with
| Ukraine being close to Russia and in NATO.
| qwytw wrote:
| 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?
| RealityVoid wrote:
| 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.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "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 when the kurds were
| supported, when it fit the greater game and dropped when
| that changed. And now Ukraine is important and get
| supported and tomorrow that can change again. The
| determining factors are likely not idealism.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| "I only robbed your house because you threatened to join
| the neighborhood watch!" -- Russia
|
| Explain what "smarter politics" means in such a context.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| For starters:
|
| - not eroding and breaking international law by invading
| Iraq, setting a precedent cited by Putin
|
| - not signing the Den Hague invasion act
|
| - not getting involved in various "revolutions" in the
| east, like Ukraine
|
| - not targeting all russian people with sanctions after
| 2014, but only those in charge
|
| You know, in general leading by good example. If we want
| a international law forbidding countries to invade each
| other - it only works if the law applies to everyone.
| This I would consider smart politics.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Do you think what we did in Iraq is comparable to what
| Russia is doing in Ukraine? If so, did it hurt when you
| were dropped on your head as a child, or were you too
| young to remember?
| qwytw wrote:
| > 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.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "Like allowing Russia to take half of eastern Europe."
|
| They already had it. And they gave up on it voluntarily.
| But they think they made a bad deal as it was simply
| considered a sign of weakness by certain hawks. So now
| they try the hard way again.
|
| (obviously oversimplification, but the topic is full of
| it anyway)
| refurb wrote:
| _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.
| _kbh_ wrote:
| > 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.
|
| This war is as clear as WW2 if you don't see that then I
| don't know what to say, it's plain as day to most people.
| quetzthecoatl wrote:
| [flagged]
| _kbh_ wrote:
| > 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 outside WW2 does not mean they were not
| the good guys during WW2.
|
| Are you seriously trying to tell me the Nazis/Axis powers
| where the good guys in WW2?.
| quetzthecoatl wrote:
| >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 comprehension problems?
| I am saying both are bad. If you just look at the ww2
| alone, then Nazis were bad, but if you look at everything
| that was happening around the world, then the allies were
| much much worse. As bad as Nazis were, the Allies were
| much much worse.
| RealityVoid wrote:
| 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?
| quetzthecoatl wrote:
| not just WW2, everything that lead to it, everything that
| the allies were involved in when WW2 was going on etc. I
| mean, most of the atrocities that the Nazis did were to
| the German Jews who were not part of the WW2 at all. Does
| this mean those doesn't count? This kind of logic stumps
| me.
|
| For the record, i responded your question almost
| instantly and HN didn't let me post. Got an error saying
| i am typing too fast.
| peterfirefly wrote:
| > The Allies.
|
| The Soviets were pretty bad. Allying with the Nazis
| _against_ the Soviets would have been less wrong.
| wwtrv wrote:
| 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...).
| conradev wrote:
| > They killed more Indians (than the 6 million Nazi
| figures) in WW2 period alone
|
| Did they?
| peterfirefly wrote:
| No. The Soviets were pretty bad, though.
| quetzthecoatl wrote:
| [flagged]
| southernplaces7 wrote:
| 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 difference between a
| country deliberately targeting for extermination and then
| exterminating 11 million+ people with gas chambers, death
| squads and intentional mass starvation campaigns, and
| another country, pressed to the bone by the burdens of
| war, badly fucking up on food provision to a part of one
| of its colonies.
|
| Yes, the allied powers during the war were far from
| perfect (excluding from this the murderous USSR), but to
| say they were comparable to the Nazis is grotesquely
| absurd and shows a breathtaking lack of perspective or
| deliberate mendacity about motives and outcomes..
| quetzthecoatl wrote:
| >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.
| wwtrv wrote:
| [flagged]
| quetzthecoatl wrote:
| [flagged]
| foldr wrote:
| Are you really trying to 'both sides' WWII?
| quetzthecoatl wrote:
| 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.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| He's a Hindu nationalist. So yeah of course he is.
| quetzthecoatl wrote:
| [flagged]
| narayanbs wrote:
| And who are you to certify?? Look at yourself first.
| wwtrv wrote:
| Presumably not a deranged Hindu nationalist? Seems good
| enough...
| quetzthecoatl wrote:
| ahh.. isn't that sweet, a Nazi is happy he isn't a brown
| Hindu.
| mantas wrote:
| 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.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| And that's clear to everyone nowadays. You really see
| anyone disputing that?
| cbHXBY1D wrote:
| 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
| MichaelMoser123 wrote:
| the war in Ukraine is not funny at all, it has all the
| potential to turn into WW3.
| dralley wrote:
| 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. It was in his own interests, but he
| is dictator, so his interests win out.
| ffgjgf1 wrote:
| > 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 losing the war.
| peterfirefly wrote:
| Germany absolutely had a great casus belli against
| France. France had treated Germany horribly (and invaded
| Germany first).
|
| Very different situation from Russia/Ukraine.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| 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.
| wwtrv wrote:
| > 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...
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| The Sino-Soviet split came to mind when listening to Xi swear
| to be Putin's BFF and blood brother forever. Is Putin really
| stupid enough to fall for that? He will be polishing Xi's boots
| with his tongue soon enough.
| MichaelMoser123 wrote:
| Depends on what Xi is planning over Taiwan, that is where
| things get complicated.
|
| They are all trying to build alliances for that contingency.
| Lio wrote:
| It also depends on if Xi is planning to take Primorsky Krai
| from Russia in the future or not.
|
| When Russia celebrated its 160 year anniversary of taking
| Vladivostok from China, there were descenting voices in
| Beijing calling to reverse another so called "humiliation".
|
| Countries are allied until they are not.
|
| Putin signed a treaty to protect Ukraine, it didn't stop
| him from attacking them in 2014 or escalating that again
| last year.
| lenkite wrote:
| "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 Maidan coup.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| _Ukraine stopped following the contents of that treaty
| after the US supported Maidan coup._
|
| Sounds like the Ukrainian people should have harbored a
| lot of resentment against the US for interfering with
| their democratic process, if true. Was that the case?
|
| In any event, what concern was this of Russia's? Russia
| has problems of its own, and for a nuclear-armed nation,
| external threats are a long way down the list. Maybe they
| should worry more about how to improve their own country
| and less about how to wreck everybody else's.
| fullspectrumdev wrote:
| > 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.
| revskill wrote:
| Xovietian materials is alway high quality, with reasonable
| pricing. Our family still kept some things from those days,
| they're high quality !
|
| Nowdays, i couldn't buy anything except for some forced computer
| for work. Reason: materialism sucks my ** that most of them is
| bad quality on purpose for you to rebuy/repair for some time.
| liverpoolandy wrote:
| I'll just leave this here
|
| http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4640773.stm
| Invictus0 wrote:
| What's interesting about this?
| dontupvoteme wrote:
| 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.
| samstave wrote:
| You left out the Evil multiplier.
|
| These are also two of the most vile things to live in the
| last 500 years. Their great minds are what allowed them to
| get away with the murder hundreds of millions.
| cryptonector wrote:
| That doesn't make these memos not interesting. Quite the
| contrary!
| samstave wrote:
| I didnt claim that, yes these evil POSs are fascinating,
| but that doesnt make them any less despicable :-)
| dang wrote:
| 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.
| dontupvoteme wrote:
| Yes that was out of line, apologies.
| cryptonector wrote:
| I don't think u/dontupvoteme meant it the way you took it.
| "Are you daft?" didn't come across as a swipe but as a bit
| of a British-like exclamation on their point. Could be a
| language thing.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| Considering how understated British insults are, this
| looks like a slap to the face comparatively speaking.
| totetsu wrote:
| > What brings us together is a recognition of a new situation
| in the world and a recognition on our part that what is
| important is not a nation's internal political philosophy. What
| is important is its policy toward the rest of the world and
| toward us
| woooooo wrote:
| It's a major turning point in geopolitics, involving two
| political genius war criminals having a remarkably frank and
| honest exchange of views.
|
| They're batting around the idea of Japan going Soviet at one
| point. I was fascinated.
| Invictus0 wrote:
| Frank and honest? There's so much bullshitting in this convo
| I can smell it 50 years later.
|
| Anyway, my comment was not to say that this is document is
| stupid but rather "could someone please point out the
| interesting bits".
| ggm wrote:
| There's a hold out Japanese communist movement, from pre ww2
|
| There's also a truly bizarre subculture of pro North Korean
| longterm Japanese resident people.
|
| It would not surprise me that in the 70s anyone in politics
| could believe a soviet Japan was possible. The Baath party
| slaughtered the Iraqi communists in the sixties, Indonesia
| slaughtered The Sukharno supporting communists along with
| passive support from the UK and Australia and USA, British
| forces in Malaysia were expelling 40,000 villagers for
| communist sympathies, communist rebels in the Philippines
| were firing up, and the Vietnam war embroiled Vietnam, Lao,
| Cambodia in the same torment. Allende would die in Chile
| inside the next two years: a Marxist government had been in
| power for a year.
| [deleted]
| MPlus88 wrote:
| [dead]
| gedy wrote:
| Also that Henry Kissinger is still alive and turned 100 few
| weeks ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger
| DirectorKrennic wrote:
| Fun fact: Kissinger has lived for so long that Commodore
| BASIC, SQL, Apple DOS, and the TCP/IP protocol were all
| created after he retired from government service. Not after
| he was _born_ , but after he _retired_.
| secondary_op wrote:
| People like Kissinger never retire, he still shape our
| world
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Bilderberg_Conference
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| When you're just so damned good at the job that Satan won't
| let you retire.
| sfmike wrote:
| These men had the ability to make a whimsical comment that
| might snowball into absolute government policy for
| decades(centuries) to come that sort of butterfly effect is
| intriguing and not commonplace.
| givemeethekeys wrote:
| Man, the word "interpreter" was used far too liberally.
| ggm wrote:
| I'm not entirely sure I get what this tells us. A degree of
| cynicism in politics is inevitable, for the players. And,
| Kissinger was undoubtedly playing. As was Mao, with other people.
|
| Interesting Edgar Snow was brought up, I read his long March
| piece as a child, it's pretty accessible. ("Red Star over China"
| 1937)
|
| Zhou EnLai was a survivor and a moderating force in the bad
| times. The national museum in Tienanmen square celebrates his
| life quite quietly. I saw photos of Zhou all through China on
| shop walls, drinking tea and having a smoke with people. Deng
| somehow less so. There's a rather odd fashion statement moment
| when all three of Deng, Mao and Zhou can be seen separately in
| photos, sporting a western style golf cap like Bing Crosby. "I'll
| get back to par on the ninth hole, just after I finish
| reconstructing steel industry furnaces and representing the farm
| sector in a standup" -I doubt they had much time for golf, but
| maybe they liked listening to Bing on 78s?
|
| Ironic that Kissinger talked about US hopes for Iran, they
| royally fucked up with the Shah, and what followed pretty much
| defined the US/USSR battle lines in the middle east. So much can
| be laid at the door of misplaced US diplomacy.
|
| But it was good to engage with China, and I think most Chinese
| now would be happy a pair of cynical bastards met and talked it
| out.
|
| Nixon wasn't much more than a figurehead in this.
|
| Christopher Hitchens was right: Kissinger was a war criminal so I
| tend to regard this kind of verbatim report as reflecting two
| criminally minded geniuses shooting the breeze together.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| The fascinating thing with Kissinger is that he's still alive,
| still wields political influence, and has been active for
| eighty years and was wielding his influence in essentially all
| major conflicts during that time. He just published another
| book and just celebrated his 100th birthday.
|
| He started out as a German Jewish refugee. Fought in WW II and
| became an American, ended up being part of the post WW II
| effort to administer Germany, and then started his career in
| political science and international politics.
|
| The nineteen sixties and seventies were a complicated era. The
| war in Vietnam was an ugly affair, and Kissinger's involvement
| with negotiating the peace deal is what earned him a
| controversial Nobel peace price. It was also the peak of the
| cold war and Kissinger was basically coordinating policy in a
| number of proxy wars across the world. Iran/Iraq, Chile,
| Vietnam, etc. and projecting US power everywhere he could.
|
| Calling him a war criminal is a bit rich. But undeniably some
| of the decision making at the time backfired in a big way and
| Kissinger was at the core of a lot of that. Both during the
| Nixon era and long after when he advised administrations all
| the way until now.
|
| Particularly the decision to prop up a lot of corrupt despots
| in order to prevent the Russians from gaining influence has
| caused a lot of long lasting conflicts that continue to play
| out today. You could make the point that the US ultimately won
| the cold war. Albeit at the cost of triggering a lot of other
| ugly conflicts.
|
| The Iranian revolution is probably one of his bigger failings.
| Triggered directly by him backing the wrong horse in Iran,
| which ultimately lead to the Iranian revolution, the US
| providing military aid to Iraq, the Iran/Iraq war, the Iran
| contra affair (where the US provided weapons to Iran) the
| Russian/Afhanistan conflict where they US also provided lots of
| military aid, both Gulf wars, more recently the Afghanistan and
| Syrian conflicts. And there's of course the decades long
| support for the brutal regime in Saudi Arabia, the US
| involvement in various revolutions across Africa and South
| America. There's a pattern there of the US backing the worst
| regimes in order to divide and conquer and gain/expand its
| influence and power. That's what big countries do.
|
| Was Kissinger involved with and personally responsible for all
| of that? Probably not but he was definitely advising a lot of
| politicians and this soft power via military aid, diplomacy,
| meddling, propping up despots, etc. definitely is his style.
| But he was only in office for a few years and during that time
| his big focus was ending an ugly war in Vietnam that he did not
| start. There were hard line politicians before and after that.
| He certainly has been on the sideline advising many of them for
| decades. Especially the hard line policies under the Reagan and
| both Bush presidencies have his finger prints all over them and
| he also consulted Democratic presidents like Carter, Clinton,
| Obama, and Biden. But does that make him a criminal? If so,
| there are a lot of other war criminals. And they are enabled by
| voters who keep voting for this sort of thing.
| [deleted]
| Hikikomori wrote:
| This is disgusting, Kissinger is absolutely a war criminal.
|
| He played both sides and helped sabotage the 68' peace talks
| by leaking information to Nixon, just to get a job within
| either administration. So great, he helped end a war he
| prolonged for years and was involved with the bombing of
| neighboring countries.
| hindsightbias wrote:
| Well, Chris didn't have any problem killing a lot of baby
| killing in Iraq. Made Pol Pot proud.
| baybal2 wrote:
| [dead]
| cryptonector wrote:
| > Christopher Hitchens was right: Kissinger was a war criminal
| so I tend to regard this kind of verbatim report as reflecting
| two criminally minded geniuses shooting the breeze together.
|
| Perhaps, but the trade arrangements made at that meeting have
| essentially been policy for every Administration since. That's
| _very_ interesting. What to make of that? Why have no U.S.
| Presidents (except, maybe, maybe in rhetoric, Trump) wanted
| something different? The point is that Kissinger figured out
| something very important, and got it done, and it 's lasted
| half a century. Policy momentum is a fascinating thing, and how
| to arrange for it.
|
| Another question I have is why Mao's intense hostility to the
| Soviets. Yes, Kruschev's Secret Speech was the cause of their
| schism, but why did all the premiers who followed Kruschev fail
| to right things with the Chinese? And why did Kruschev not find
| a way to smooth things with Mao? "Look, that Speech is not an
| attack on you, it's just me shoring up support in the USSR by
| attacking Stalin, and that works because Stalin made himself so
| feared, m'kay?" And why wouldn't that work, as long as the
| Speech stayed Secret and even if not, as long as it stayed out
| of the public eye in China? Well, ok, Kruschev couldn't keep it
| that secret, but still, the premiers that followed him could
| have denounced that speech and made things ok with China. But
| this hostility survived Mao's death, even when Deng Xiaoping
| essentially (but not overtly) accepted Kruschev's position
| against personality cults! Why? Only now, maybe, the Russians
| are finally repairing that schism.
|
| Really, TFA is _extremely_ interesting.
|
| And yes, it's clear that to some degree Mao and Kissinger were
| playing roles, being flattering and saying things they probably
| didn't really mean.
|
| And then there's Mao's quip about Americans not being
| "awakened". Who knows what he meant, but Kissinger either did
| or pretended. Mao might have meant something very pedestrian,
| or perhaps something sinister, or perhaps something very good
| -- it'd be good to know.
|
| I'm not all the way through reading this and I'm just full of
| questions.
|
| Say what you will about the protagonists, but these memos are
| riveting.
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| _> Perhaps, but the trade arrangements made at that meeting
| have essentially been policy for every Administration since.
| That 's very interesting. What to make of that? Why have no
| U.S. Presidents (except, maybe, maybe in rhetoric, Trump)
| wanted something different? The point is that Kissinger
| figured out something very important, and got it done, and
| it's lasted half a century. Policy momentum is a fascinating
| thing, and how to arrange for it._
|
| It's no great secret, the US business community wanted access
| to China's huge market. That's been true since the 1800s.
| Nixon and Kissinger, and their successors, especially
| Clinton, were just acting in their political donors'
| interest. That's why it happened and why it lasted, until Xi
| and Trump at least.
| ggm wrote:
| The soviets were patronising. Mao resented Stalin's
| operatives telling him what to do all the time pre 49. Post
| 49, nothing much Russia did was in China's longterm interest.
| China and India were in border dispute which still rancours
| yet the soviets wanted some degree of amity with India,
| leading the non aligned nations in the UN there was much for
| them to profit from not supporting China across that boundary
| dispute. The Korean war probably started overt resentments
| which had things like inner/outer Mongolia to stew over since
| day 1. When Russia blew hot, China was cold, and vice versa.
| When Russia went with peaceful coexistence China was still
| militant. In the end, they were "much too much in love to get
| along"
| ffgjgf1 wrote:
| Kruschev was explicitly attacking cults of personality and
| individuals hoarding too much power at the expense of the
| party.
|
| It's hard to imagine how could Mao have not taken this
| seriously.
| blast wrote:
| > Kissinger was a war criminal so I tend to regard this kind of
| verbatim report as reflecting two criminally minded geniuses
| shooting the breeze together.
|
| Of course he was / they were. But guilt v. innocence is too
| crude a distinction to say anything meaningful about history.
| There's a lot going on that that distinction can't account for.
| In the end, they're all guilty, and we're all guilty, and only
| a childish craving to see oneself as innocent and project all
| badness onto others imagines otherwise.
|
| p.s. This is not a criticism. I enjoyed your comment.
| skinnymuch wrote:
| Everyone isn't guilty to the same degree. Seeing guilt at
| different degrees doesn't necessitate innocence. Casting
| blame evenly or vaguely isn't good.
|
| There are many instances of guilty vs less guilty throughout
| history. The current world is built off of the colonizing of
| the Americas and the lessons and reactions from that. There's
| no both sides to that. The west was and has always been wrong
| with imperialism. Kissinger doesn't need to be white washed.
| shakil wrote:
| Exactly this. There's people responsible for not paying
| their parking tickets on time, and then there's folks such
| as Kissinger and Madeleine Albright that have the blood of
| hundreds of thousands of people on their hands. Lets not
| sweep it all under the same rug.
| panosfilianos wrote:
| The issue here is that, when you live in the same
| society, the effects of these killings tend to trickle
| down to benefits towards you.
|
| Not being able to see that the shoes we wear can be the
| product of child exploitation on the other side of the
| world is the problem, that allows people on the top to
| act the way they do.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Plenty of people today are aware of things like clothing
| being made in unsavory conditions. Few can afford
| clothing themselves in the alternatives, however. Even in
| the grocery store, you have to pay sometimes double for
| free range eggs. Not everyone has the disposable income
| to pay extra for the morally conscious choice. We are
| limited to what the market makes available at our own
| price points, you never have much choice in the matter.
| skinnymuch wrote:
| > But it was good to engage with China, and I think most
| Chinese now would be happy a pair of cynical bastards met and
| talked it out.
|
| Is this referring to Mao and Kissinger? Calling Mao and
| Kissinger collectively cynical doesn't fit. The imperialist war
| criminal being a cynical bastard makes sense. Not the eastern
| revolutionary leftist. That necessitates optimism.
| dralley wrote:
| I don't know how to describe the great leap forwards if not
| cynical. Nor Stalin's collectivization of agriculture.
|
| Their brand of idealism permitted the sacrifice of millions
| for what they believed was the greater good. I suppose there
| is a certain kind of optimism there, but it's still deeply
| cynical.
| ffgjgf1 wrote:
| > That necessitates optimism.
|
| Only if you're into mass murder and artificially induced
| famines. The cultural revolution was another very
| 'optimistic' policy (well from the perspective of some
| deranged lunatics anyway)
|
| As awful as Kissinger was Mao was just on another level of
| awfulness...
| bullen wrote:
| > 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.
|
| ?
| H8crilA wrote:
| 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.
| bullen wrote:
| Aha, gotcha.
|
| Still awkward joke.
| H8crilA wrote:
| 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 what I understand.
|
| I mean the part about actually bombing people is of course
| a joke, I think even such an exceptional psychopath-
| stateman like him wouldn't do it.
| WeylandYutani wrote:
| 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.
| H8crilA wrote:
| 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.
| peterfirefly wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| hguant wrote:
| 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 with that in Beijing
| (minus the accent) but the characters for the language
| are radically different, to the point where someone
| knowing simplified Chinese is essentially illiterate in
| Taipei and vice versa.
| peterfirefly wrote:
| 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.
| KwisatzHaderack wrote:
| > 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.
| [deleted]
| adrian_b wrote:
| 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.
| hguant wrote:
| 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.
| sfmike wrote:
| many would say the white terror was far worse then the
| japanese
| hutzlibu wrote:
| Only partly.
| cronix wrote:
| > 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
| [deleted]
| onetokeoverthe wrote:
| [dead]
| dang wrote:
| This reminded me of the great story where Kissinger, on that
| trip, asks Zhou Enlai "What do you think of the French
| Revolution" and Zhou replies "It's too soon to tell." I love
| that, and it is what I say when people ask "how are you" too
| early in the morning.
|
| But I've also been trained by a passion for too-good-to-be-true
| quotes and that one definitely sounds too good to be true. Guess
| what - it is. But for an interesting reason:
|
| https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/06/it...
|
| https://mediamythalert.com/2011/06/14/too-early-to-say-zhou-...
| cryptonector wrote:
| 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.
| addcommitpush wrote:
| 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"?
| cryptonector wrote:
| I've no idea why I capitalized "La".
| JPLeRouzic wrote:
| English is not my native tongue but I believe that in
| English "the" preceding a name means something specific,
| something near a proper name, while the absence of "the"
| means something common.
|
| " _they were all struck by lightning but John was killed by
| _the_ final lightning* "_
| dang wrote:
| He was talking about the student protests of May 1968. The
| quote later got misunderstood to be about the French
| Revolution.
|
| From https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/0
| 6/it...: "I distinctly remember the exchange. There was a
| misunderstanding that was too delicious to invite
| correction."
| throwawqy99 wrote:
| Was this before mao killed millions of Chinese or after?
| cryptonector wrote:
| After.
| RetroHippyNimby wrote:
| [dead]
| kristopolous wrote:
| I think this is what is being referred to
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward
|
| AFAIK, the biggest problem is some influential "scientists",
| especially this guy
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko, advocated for
| a kind of "communist farming" with some really strange idea
| of how plants work which led to some horrible results.
|
| I'm sure it's more complicated but upon closer inspection I
| haven't seen any real evidence of the deaths being an
| intrinsic result of leftist ideology
| jigsmar-2222 wrote:
| [flagged]
| dav_Oz wrote:
| 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
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| > Chairman Mao: You have about 600, 000 Chinese in the United
| States. We probably don't even have 60 Americans here. I would
| like to study the problem. I don't know the reason.
|
| I wonder if he studied it and what he found.
| throwaway4good wrote:
| Even after covid and the new Cold War there are certainly more
| than "60 Americans" in China today.
| ffgjgf1 wrote:
| I bet there are several magnitudes mores Americans in China
| now than there were in the 60s...
| arbuge wrote:
| The full context of that quote sheds some light on this:
|
| > Chairman: The Chinese people are quite xenophobic [Pai Wai De
| Hen ]. You can accommodate many ethnic groups. We don't have
| many foreigners in China. You have many different ethnic
| groups. You have 600,000 Chinese in the United States, but we
| probably don't even have 60 Americans. I don't know why.
|
| I think by the last sentence he meant he didn't know what the
| reason for the xenophobia was.
| makotech221 wrote:
| [dead]
| hayst4ck wrote:
| I thought about moving to an Asian country as a white person. I
| asked myself: What does it mean to be Korean? What does it mean
| to be Taiwanese? What does it mean to be Malaysian?
|
| In most Asian countries ethnicity not a wildly different
| concept than nationality. So to be Korean means you share a
| history with other Koreans.
|
| America, at least the liberal side of America, has tried to
| push the definition of being American towards a set of ideals
| and values. Someone is not American because they had ancestors
| who killed british and grew up in a church, but because they
| believe in human rights and freedom, and that those are things
| worth sacrificing for.
|
| Without a values based idea of nationality, it means that other
| nationalities come to exploit your opportunities and you as a
| country are letting them in to exploit them.
|
| If you've never contemplated the question "What does it mean to
| be an american?" this is one of the most interesting
| political/structure of society reads I've read to date:
| https://www.amacad.org/publication/what-does-it-mean-be-amer...
|
| This "are we an ethnic society", "are we a grouping of ethnic
| societies", or "are we a values based society" idea makes the
| state of modern American politics make a lot more sense.
| contrarian1234 wrote:
| While your central thesis probably has merit, I just want to
| point out that the way you present it sounds incredibly
| ignorant and simplistic to anyone in Asia. Maybe Japan and
| Korea are more ethnostates.. but it's sorta ridiculous to say
| it's an Asian things
|
| Within 5 minutes of arriving in Kuala Lumpur you will see
| more diversity than in most American cities - with equal
| parts Indian, Chinese and Bumi (ethnically Indonesian). I
| mean.. maybe they all just look "asian" to you, but they're
| distinct to anyone from the region. On top of that you will
| regularly see people from the middle east and elsewhere.
|
| The Chinese, outside of han-nationalist circles, typically do
| not see themselves as an ethnostate (but by contrast the
| Taiwanese sort of do) - that was sort of the central theme of
| the 2008 olympics.. and I've met many minorities in China
| that would be confused and maybe offended if you suggested
| they weren't Chinese
|
| So by extension Taiwanese also view themselves as Chinese,
| but typically not part of China geopolitically. ( a lot of
| the issues here stem from linguistics.. b/c in Chinese there
| are many separate terms to distinguish things like ethnic
| Han, culturally Chinese, Chinese citizens of the PRC and
| other subtleties - I'm not going to pretend to understand all
| of them)
|
| Thailand is also incredibly pluralistic, though minorities
| are more integrated into one culture.
|
| There isn't typically "founding father" hero worship and the
| same ideological cohesion as in the United States, but it's
| also simplistic to say that doesn't exist at all. You have
| for instance Sun Yat-sen who is .. sort of founding-father-
| like (his ideology doesn't seem as coherant as in the US
| though) . If you want ideological though, the most obvious is
| Maoism. Ideological purity is sort of unacceptable in the
| post-Cultural Revolution period, but it's still a powerful
| force in their society
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| 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.
| contrarian1234 wrote:
| 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 demographics involved I don't
| imagine you'd really get anyone other than Han executives
| most of the time
|
| Though in the end it's a bit besides the point. The state
| and the people concerned for the most part don't perceive
| themselves as an ethnostate - and it's their
| selfidentification which is at play here. I could see it
| changing - but a Han ethnostate would be a bit scary.
| It'd mean loosing legitimacy over minority areas - but
| there are huge Han minorities in most Asian countries. So
| far the Chinese state hasn't pushed the line that it's
| got an obligation to represent their interests (though
| it's come up)
|
| It's interesting that by contrast in my experience in
| Taiwan there is much more of a perception that they're a
| Han ethnostate. There are a few "aboriginal" and other
| minorities - but it's mostly viewed as a curiosity
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| 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.
| hayst4ck wrote:
| Paternalism is just a different word for oppression. It
| encodes the power relationship, but with the implication
| of care.
|
| Ask the Uighers, Tibetans, and the Hong Kongers, or even
| the Taiwanese what they think of china's "Paternalism,"
| or if they feel China is a caring "parent."
|
| > A lot of the ethnic tension simply comes from
| minorities seeing such paternalism as condescending.
|
| This is an equivocated way of saying ethnic minorities
| feel oppressed by the ethnic ruling class.
|
| > the Han see themselves as best apt to govern and guide
| the other ethnic groups
|
| This statement seems like barely concealed "Han
| supremacy".
|
| Your words say the architecture of china is an ethnostate
| while the phrasing is a facade of benevolence.
| hayst4ck wrote:
| I agree with your criticism and should have called out
| Malaysia's multiculturalism instead of going with the
| (wrong) implication expressed by where I asked that
| question; that in Malaysia ethnicity = nationality.
|
| FWIW, my experience of Malaysia, admittedly as very much an
| outsider, is that it is multiple ethnicities living
| together, rather than a society bound by a set of shared
| values so I would assume the primary lens of politics is
| still ethnicity. Are various ethnicities vying for
| dominance, or are people vying for specific ideals? When
| "Indian, Chinese and Bumi" look at each other do they first
| experience "us" or do they first experience "them?"
|
| America is dealing with these problems and it would be
| charitable to say that America is a values first country,
| although I think America is doing better than most. My
| experience is that Malaysia is probably doing the best in
| Asia.
|
| > There isn't typically "founding father" hero worship and
| the same ideological cohesion as in the United States
|
| That touches on the fundamental idea I am trying to convey
| (the one I am conveying much much much more poorly than the
| article I linked).
|
| Are people deifying a "founding father" or are they
| deifying the ideals for which they stood? Do they engage
| with their history (of having founding fathers and what
| they did) or their values (influenced by and reasoned about
| by their founding fathers).
|
| > I've met many minorities in China that would be confused
| and maybe offended if you suggested they weren't Chinese
|
| Are they experiencing being Chinese through sharing the
| Chinese history, or are they being Chinese through sharing
| Chinese values? Could black people go to China and share
| those values and experiencing being Chinese or does the
| fact that black people do not share Chinese history make
| them ineligible to be Chinese?
| contrarian1234 wrote:
| > Are they experiencing being Chinese through sharing the
| Chinese history, or are they being Chinese through
| sharing Chinese values?
|
| I don't think that'd be a meaningful distinction for most
| people. The history is deeply intertwined with the values
|
| > Could black people go to China and share those values
| and experiencing being Chinese or does the fact that
| black people do not share Chinese history
|
| I'm actually not quite sure what "share history" really
| means in practical terms. Most people don't in a personal
| capacity connect with historical events.. But the reason
| you don't see black people "become Chinese" is mostly
| because the culture is basically too big and deep to
| integrate with. Maybe a rabid sinophile could learn to
| live like a local - but that's so exceedingly rare that
| it'd always be a novelty.
|
| Europeans often joke that America doesn't have culture
| and history , and the reality is that it's pretty bare
| bones and you can "catch up". Western individualism is
| easy to swallow and for the rest we're pretty flexible.
|
| To give you a more concrete motivating counterexample.
| I've met American born Chinese in Taiwan - locals always
| view them as "other" bc they didn't grow up immersed in
| the culture and history and its always obvious. They
| ethnically match, but they aren't local
| carlosjobim wrote:
| Are you a society? Or just people living within the same
| economic zone and with the same language?
| cryptonector wrote:
| I mean, just read on!
| haunter wrote:
| Not gonna lie this is the first time I've read the term "memcon"
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_conversation
| fuzzybear3965 wrote:
| Thanks. This was really un-Google-able.
|
| Edit: ChatGPT was able to answer:
| https://chat.openai.com/share/7dd3589f-7cf7-4c37-b613-63b57b...
| .
| photochemsyn wrote:
| Probably the most consequential outcome of US-China cordiality in
| the early 1970s was that China contracted with US firms to build
| ammonia-fertilizer factories:
|
| > "In the early 1970s, China negotiated contracts with foreign
| firms for construction of thirteen large nitrogenous-fertilizer
| plants. By 1980 all thirteen plants had been completed, and ten
| were fully operational."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_and_industrial_h...
|
| By the early 1980s, China's food production was finally on a
| stable footing, and this was largely due to the import of "Green
| Revolution" technology enabled by the opening up of trade with
| the West:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture_in_Chin...
|
| It can be said with a fair degree of certainty that both the
| Soviet and Chinese systems of Communist authoritarianism
| prevented the kind of innovative approaches to agricultural
| production that the more open academic research environment in
| the United States encouraged. The contrast between Norman
| Borlaugh and Trofim Lysenko is somewhat instructive in that
| regard, and it seems Mao's China had no shortage of Lysenko
| types.
|
| Of course, the consequences of the Green Revolution, i.e. steep
| population growth and increased reliance on fossil fuels, were
| not really understood at the time, either. Now we sort of have
| the tiger by the tail, while steadily increasing climate stress
| is starting to undercut agricultural production, in China, India,
| Africa, Europe, the USA...
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| > Of course, the consequences of the Green Revolution, i.e.
| steep population growth
|
| The Green Revolution didn't cause population growth. That
| happens on its own.
|
| It did prevent massive famines. You have to be pretty far out
| in whackadoodle land (or a psychopath, or perhaps both) to
| think that's a bad thing. As an atheist, I can't really tell
| the Pope how to run his religion, but if there's anyone who
| deserves to be canonized I think it's probably Borlaug. He's
| even got a miracle under his belt.
| wahern wrote:
| How does China's Yuan Longping
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_Longping) stack up
| against Borlaug, in your opinion?
| DirectorKrennic wrote:
| On Dunkirk:
|
| > Chairman Mao: They shouldn't have attacked Moscow or Kiev. They
| should have taken Leningrad as a first step. Another error in
| policy was they didn't cross the sea after Dunkirk.
|
| > Dr. Kissinger: After Dunkirk.
|
| > Chairman Mao: They were entirely unprepared.
|
| > Dr. Kissinger: And Hitler was a romantic. He had a strange
| liking for England.
|
| > Chairman Mao: Oh? Then why didn't they go there? Because the
| British at that time were completely without troops.
|
| > Dr. Kissinger: If they were able to cross the channel into
| Britain... I think they had only one division in all of England.
|
| > Prime Minister Chou: Is that so?
|
| > Dr. Kissinger: Yes.
|
| > Prime Minister Chou: Also Sir Anthony Eden told us in Germany
| at that time that a Minister in the Army of Churchill's
| Government said at that time if Hilter had crossed the channel
| they would have had no forces. They had withdrawn all their
| forces back. When they were preparing for the German crossing,
| Churchill had no arms. He could only organize police to defend
| the coast. If they crossed they would not be able to defend.
|
| Mao making fun of the idea of the USSR invading China and getting
| the Chinese treatment:
|
| > 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.
| ffgjgf1 wrote:
| I wonder if Mao was truly stupid enough to believe that German
| could've invaded Britain without naval and air superiority or
| they were all talking in jest.
|
| After all he was the man who thought of killing all the
| sparrows in China and forcing people to build non-functional
| steel smelters in their backyard instead of working in their
| fields..
| ggm wrote:
| Angus Calder has a quote I can't recall about the "fight them
| on the beaches" speech Churchill gave, somebody in the house of
| commons said something to the effect "well we will be flinging
| beer bottles at them, it's all we've bloody got" and indeed the
| home guard was being taught how to make Molotov cocktails by ex
| Spanish civil war volunteers, and parading with pikes. A three
| man suicide squad technique was deviced to jam tank tracks with
| a baulk of wood, climb onto the tank top and set off a sticky
| bomb or a Molotov cocktail.
|
| Getting 350,000 men and some materiel back from Dunkirk was a
| big deal.
|
| Mao had similar concerns in the long March. Just surving was
| half his battle.
| cryptonector wrote:
| 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.
| ffgjgf1 wrote:
| But Germans didn't even have the naval to capacity to
| successfully execute a mostly uncontested landing unless
| there was perfect weather.
| ggm wrote:
| Eric Hobsbawm notoriously said counterfactual history is
| shit but that said, who knows what a demoralised British
| government might have done with a successful German
| landing even if small.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-10 23:02 UTC)