/lit/ - Literature

>In a long conversation that stretched past midnight at Mao's residence on February 17, 1973, he referred to the dismal trade between the two countries, saying China was a 'very poor country' and 'what we have in excess is women'.

>He first suggested sending 'thousands' of women, but as an afterthought proposed '10 million', drawing laughter at the meeting, also attended by premier Zhou Enlai .

>Dr Kissinger, who was president Richard Nixon's national security adviser at the time, told Mao that the US had no 'quotas' or 'tariffs' for Chinese women, drawing more laughter.

>Dr Kissinger then tried to highlight to Mao the threat posed by the Soviet Union and other global concerns of the era.

>But Mao dragged the talks back to the topic of Chinese women.
'Let them go to your place. They will create disasters. That way you can lessen our burdens,' he said. 'Do you want our Chinese women? We can give you 10 million.'

Kissinger: “Paper tiger.” Yes, that was all about us. (Laughter)

Mao: But you are a German from Germany. But your Germany now has met with an ill fate, because in two wars it has been defeated.

Kissinger: It attempted too much, beyond its abilities and resources.

Mao: Yes, and it also scattered its forces in war. For example, in its attack against the Soviet Union. If it is going to attack, it should attack in one place, but they separated their troops into three routes. It began in June but then by the winter they couldn’t stand it because it was too cold. What is the reason for the Europeans fear of the cold?

Kissinger: The Germans were not prepared for a long war. Actually they did not mobilize their whole forces until 1943. I agree with the Chairman that if they had concentrated on one front they would almost certainly have won. They were only ten kilometers from Moscow even by dispersing their forces. (Chairman Mao relights his cigar.)

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.

Kissinger: After Dunkirk.

Mao: They were entirely unprepared.

Kissinger: And Hitler was a romantic. He had a strange liking for England.

Mao: Oh? Then why didn’t they go there? Because the British at that time were completely without troops.

Kissinger: If they were able to cross the channel into Britain … I think they had only one division in all of England.

Zhou: Is that so?

Kissinger: Yes.

Zhou: 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 Hitler 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.

Kissinger: It also shows what a courageous man can do because Churchill created by his personality much more strength than they possessed.

Mao: Actually by that time they couldn’t hold.

Zhou: So Hitler carried some romantic feelings about Britain?

Kissinger: I think he was a maniac, but he did have some feelings about Britain.

Mao: I believe Hitler was from the Rhine area?

Kissinger: Austria.

Zhou: He was a soldier in the First World War.

Kissinger: He was in the German Army, but he was a native of Austria.

Zhou: From the Danube.

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

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

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

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

Kissinger: Yes, that was a very important factor.

>>20039046
They're idealists.

Realists like Mearsheimer hold that the international system is anarchic, but states behave RATIONALLY (they want to survive) and respond to incentives. State behavior is predictable, which leads to "balance of power" theory. In a balanced system, theoretically, rational states should balance each other and pursue peace. Peace is the goal and war is failure even though the anarchic nature of the world means war is inevitable. Nations at the top become hegemons and can influence the policies of other nations in their vicinity. Individual leaders ("Putin") don't matter so much.

Liberal idealists believe that peace comes from the political alignment of liberal democracies and the more liberal the world is, the more peace. This is extremely important for them. This goes back to the French Revolution which saw the world through the lens of political alignment and if you weren't in alignment with their new republic then you were an enemy.

I think there's an added thing where if you're a liberal and you're taught to be critical of everything, you paradoxically become less critical of liberalism. I noticed vis-a-vis NATO expansion that liberals have adopted this line that "these countries CHOSE to be part of NATO." They apply a "'rights" discourse as if states have "rights." Mearsheimer would see this as absurd. NATO has a right to reject Ukraine, Ukraine does not have a right to join NATO and this is plainly obvious, but libs don't realize that by arguing for the possibility of Ukraine joining, even if they are constantly rejected, serves to draw Russia into war. For Putin, it doesn't matter what NATO's "intentions" are, what matters are capabilities.

Also, there are Marxists who see war as economic in nature. Inequality in the world leads to conflict and reducing inequality = more peace. That applies domestically and internationally, so the actions of individual states and leaders doesn't matter as much as material inequality across the board. There are also some similarities between realists and Marxists, which might be why China today is perhaps the most "realist" country in the world. Like the realists, Marxists view the world as unequal (some states are more powerful than others), which ensures there is no harmony of interests between nations, which backs up the realists' view that nations only work to pursue their own interests and increase their relative power. But Marxism tends to focus more on the political-economic sector than the political-military sector.

Marxists also tend to focus on agents of imperialism (like how the West funds NGOs, and the NED and CIA and MI6 fund and train "activists" in countries against their interests) and "the center vs. the peripheral." This has some similarity with realism which also argues that it's the nation-state that is pulling the strings of those international institutions and corporations to oppress the poor and the weak nation-states.