Professor
Your readers often think in cycles.
I have been watching The Wilderness Years, and feel rather like a closet Churchill.
"...Now, sadly, we are still waiting to hit bottom and begin to improve..." DK
I offer this alternative model and dynamic, a la Winston:
"A downward spiral is not a cycle, my friends. Far from it."
Your pacifist comments, in the past recent years, and those about the unlikelihood of large scale war, because most powers had dispensed with their military budgets and personnel, smacks of the Hoare, Chamberlain, Baldwin position rather closely now, it seems to me.
They thought Hitler was their stooge, much as American policy makers since long before the beginning of Pillsbury's career also have.
Not that we are even in a position to do that much about it, compared even to what Britain did in the late 30s, but there it is.
All the best
The analogies between how China and the USSR have been treated by the US has other analogies, besides those noted above, regarding how Germany and the USSR had been treated by Britain after WWI.
Think for example of how Britain considered Hitler as a weapon in their arsenal against Bolshevism after 1917.
They considered, quite rightly that Germany had been given a very raw deal in WWI, in the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, a war which, contrary to commonly held opinion in the West, was hardly the sole fault of imperial Germany at all, except in French and British Whig hindsight.
Having read Mein Kampf, they believed that Hitler only intended aggression Eastward, blithely forgetting the terrible enmity he held against France, especially, and against its Jews, re the Versailles Treaty, a stab in the front one might say.
Stalin's Molotov Ribbentrop Pact seems to show that he had not even read Mein Kampf, especially regarding his continuing disbelief that Hitler would then betray him until it actually happened.
Let's move on in the analogy to the US, in its relations with China circa 1970.
We had been watching the deterioration in relations between Russia and China with glee.
We then were enticed, although Americans and Nixon thought it had been his idea, to go into a strategic relationship with China, The Nixon Shock in 1971.
No one here, I think, except those with a Pillsbury type security clearance, really knew the full extent of the strategic, military, industrial, and commercial benefits handed to China, as a Western stooge, for free after that time, in anticipation of both defense against a Soviet attack on China, and offensively as a deterrent to Soviet aggression elsewhere in Asia.
In this sense, China seemed to us, in 1969 1970, to serve US interests against the USSR in ways very analogous to those which had seemed to serve Britain by the rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany in the 30s, as both a defense and an offense, against the ongoing rise of Soviet power both in Eastern Europe and in Asia after 1917.
Similarly to the Ribbentrop Molotov Pact, I believe, and I think it is obvious, that Russia and China have long now been in an analogous strategic alliance, each having been given a relatively free hand in respective areas of interest, agreed between them in advance.
Here was a prior post summarizing the situation back then, but a situation which had already existed, really, long before, decades before, 2011, when this was finally written in this particular way:
RE MERCILESS GLOBAL MARKETS THOMAS FRIEDMAN PICKING WINNERS THE WAR WITH NO NAME BEHIND THE COLD WAR HAS NOW BEEN LOST
Think of it as a short address I delivered somewhere, long ago, in Parliament, or Congress.
It hardly matters, now, where, or even when. It hardly matters.
Let's move on with the Germany China analogies, and talk Lebensraum again, a hundred years later, for a moment.
If anything, China is even more land starved and overpopulated than Hitlerite Germany in the 30s had been.
It has already taken very aggressive measures, in both trade and infrastructure, especially the BRI, to take over, not just New Silk Road trade with, Southern Eurasia, and then moving also into Africa, very aggressively, and has already almost made Australia a vassal state.
Similarly to the USSR in the time of Hitler, Russia as I mentioned has made an alliance with China.
I doubt, however, that Putin kids himself, as Stalin had done with Hitler's Germany, that China has expansion and migration designs only on other areas of South Eurasia and the wider world, and not also on the vast Russian land area itself along the enormous 4,500 mile border they share.
Especially so, when you consider that Russia is relatively sparsely populated, and much larger, whereas China is literally teeming, seething, to use Bobbitt's great term, a seething racial and ethnic underclass of poor desperate Chinks, long moving now under the banner of New Greater Asianism from China (Chinaism).
They have concentration camps, ostensibly only for Islamic Uighurs, who are being reprogrammed in them.
This, also, is strikingly similar to the Hitlerite concentration camp programs, and social engineering and medical interventions, regarding not only the Jews but also gypsies and others deemed genetically undesirable, retards, etc.
Another analogy between China and Germany re the US and the West is the background of prior conflicts. For Germany it was not only the WWI debacle but also the anti British feeling arising out of the Boer War, and Britain's rejection of Germany's imperial aspirations. Certainly the Franco Prussian War had not set a comfortable precedent.
It also involved, for China, other imperial policies, even though the US had sided with China for much of that history. We certainly sided with the imperial powers re the Boxer Rebellion. The Chinese blamed the US especially for the Taiping Rebellion, a stupendous Chinese civil war and blood bath which began over Christianity in China.
Think for example of how Britain considered Hitler as a weapon in their arsenal against Bolshevism after 1917.
They considered, quite rightly that Germany had been given a very raw deal in WWI, in the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, a war which, contrary to commonly held opinion in the West, was hardly the sole fault of imperial Germany at all, except in French and British Whig hindsight.
Having read Mein Kampf, they believed that Hitler only intended aggression Eastward, blithely forgetting the terrible enmity he held against France, especially, and against its Jews, re the Versailles Treaty, a stab in the front one might say.
Stalin's Molotov Ribbentrop Pact seems to show that he had not even read Mein Kampf, especially regarding his continuing disbelief that Hitler would then betray him until it actually happened.
Let's move on in the analogy to the US, in its relations with China circa 1970.
We had been watching the deterioration in relations between Russia and China with glee.
We then were enticed, although Americans and Nixon thought it had been his idea, to go into a strategic relationship with China, The Nixon Shock in 1971.
No one here, I think, except those with a Pillsbury type security clearance, really knew the full extent of the strategic, military, industrial, and commercial benefits handed to China, as a Western stooge, for free after that time, in anticipation of both defense against a Soviet attack on China, and offensively as a deterrent to Soviet aggression elsewhere in Asia.
In this sense, China seemed to us, in 1969 1970, to serve US interests against the USSR in ways very analogous to those which had seemed to serve Britain by the rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany in the 30s, as both a defense and an offense, against the ongoing rise of Soviet power both in Eastern Europe and in Asia after 1917.
Similarly to the Ribbentrop Molotov Pact, I believe, and I think it is obvious, that Russia and China have long now been in an analogous strategic alliance, each having been given a relatively free hand in respective areas of interest, agreed between them in advance.
Here was a prior post summarizing the situation back then, but a situation which had already existed, really, long before, decades before, 2011, when this was finally written in this particular way:
RE MERCILESS GLOBAL MARKETS THOMAS FRIEDMAN PICKING WINNERS THE WAR WITH NO NAME BEHIND THE COLD WAR HAS NOW BEEN LOST
Think of it as a short address I delivered somewhere, long ago, in Parliament, or Congress.
It hardly matters, now, where, or even when. It hardly matters.
Let's move on with the Germany China analogies, and talk Lebensraum again, a hundred years later, for a moment.
If anything, China is even more land starved and overpopulated than Hitlerite Germany in the 30s had been.
It has already taken very aggressive measures, in both trade and infrastructure, especially the BRI, to take over, not just New Silk Road trade with, Southern Eurasia, and then moving also into Africa, very aggressively, and has already almost made Australia a vassal state.
Similarly to the USSR in the time of Hitler, Russia as I mentioned has made an alliance with China.
I doubt, however, that Putin kids himself, as Stalin had done with Hitler's Germany, that China has expansion and migration designs only on other areas of South Eurasia and the wider world, and not also on the vast Russian land area itself along the enormous 4,500 mile border they share.
Especially so, when you consider that Russia is relatively sparsely populated, and much larger, whereas China is literally teeming, seething, to use Bobbitt's great term, a seething racial and ethnic underclass of poor desperate Chinks, long moving now under the banner of New Greater Asianism from China (Chinaism).
They have concentration camps, ostensibly only for Islamic Uighurs, who are being reprogrammed in them.
This, also, is strikingly similar to the Hitlerite concentration camp programs, and social engineering and medical interventions, regarding not only the Jews but also gypsies and others deemed genetically undesirable, retards, etc.
Another analogy between China and Germany re the US and the West is the background of prior conflicts. For Germany it was not only the WWI debacle but also the anti British feeling arising out of the Boer War, and Britain's rejection of Germany's imperial aspirations. Certainly the Franco Prussian War had not set a comfortable precedent.
It also involved, for China, other imperial policies, even though the US had sided with China for much of that history. We certainly sided with the imperial powers re the Boxer Rebellion. The Chinese blamed the US especially for the Taiping Rebellion, a stupendous Chinese civil war and blood bath which began over Christianity in China.
Another analogy has to do with substituting China for Japan, when comparing China's extensive trade strategic and financial relations with the West in Asia and around the world, while at the same time allying with Russia against the West regarding their respective interests, West and East, at the same time.
This is the same thing Stalin had done with Japan in the non aggression pact with japan during WWII which allowed Japan a free hand to attack Western assets in Asia even while Stalin was the West's ostensible ally in Europe.
No comments:
Post a Comment