I agree with you in any way possible with what you say about war. And I appreciate to be informed that there seems to be a propaganda war going on to get support for an aggressive political attempt to 'contain' Chinese influence in the Indo-pacific.
I have two not very much connected questions to your report, though.
1. If the comparison of China or its leader and their politics toward Taiwan can't be done without exaggeration, when compared to 'Hitler s' attack on Poland in 1939, and so is a propaganda trick to get support for a military action against China, could this not mean that the accusation of 'Hitler' in 1939 was a similar or the same propaganda trick to get support for the Anglo-Saxon imperial project to conquer Europe? Which Britain and the USA then indeed did to the successfull accomplishment of the mission?
2. You seem to suggest, that China indeed has the intention to 'unite' with Taiwan, even against the collective will of its population, and you seem to say that if China indeed forced this union by whatever means against the will of the population of Taiwan, you would not regard this to be a violent action that cannot be allowed, but only the natural and harmless wish to unite itself with a part that was separated from China by a civil war, an inner problem of China. So it would not be worth to make this a military conflict, since China would be content to get back what 'belongs' to it anyway. But what does 'belong' mean here? Isn't this aggressive nationalism, even if the population of the homecoming isle would give in to this wish of a longing partner waiting for the lost kid to come home?
Wouldn't this be propaganda as well?
Remember, that 'Hitler' claimed that he had enough of polish bandits massacring people of German ethnicity in Poland and promoting riots in Danzig to provoke Germany and to draw Britain and France into the war, according to the 'Nibelungentreue' they had sworn to Polish war mongeteres, who boasted, they would take Berlin in two days, and that this was the reason for the decision to intervene in Poland in the face of the consequences, that had to be borne by the people of Britain and France.
So, since my attention is before everything else directed against being duped by anyone's propaganda, and since the option is so clearly against what made Europe a colony of Anglo-Saxon conquest, followed by the intellectual colonialism of the English language intellectual products and advertising models inclusive the propaganda machines developed in the 20ties in the US, I will not follow your or anyone's commendations here, while I think it is in accord with democratic standards to hear what the people of Taiwan have to say to their case, and as I understand it, until it is revealed as another propaganda trick, when I will opt out of everything and stop to care for whatever happens to whom why and when as long as I must not be concerned about it.
And why should I. If everything is propaganda in the end, or at least cannot be discerned from it reliably, I give a damn for whatever political project.
You all should see that the inundation with an opportunistic rhetoric without clear cut connection to an identifiable notion of truth will in the end kill you all. It's
Perhaps, rather than concentrating on rebuttals to ahistorical hyperbole, your time (and those of the people reading your comment) might be better spent learning about the 20th-century history of China.
I agree with you in any way possible with what you say about war. And I appreciate to be informed that there seems to be a propaganda war going on to get support for an aggressive political attempt to 'contain' Chinese influence in the Indo-pacific.
I have two not very much connected questions to your report, though.
1. If the comparison of China or its leader and their politics toward Taiwan can't be done without exaggeration, when compared to 'Hitler s' attack on Poland in 1939, and so is a propaganda trick to get support for a military action against China, could this not mean that the accusation of 'Hitler' in 1939 was a similar or the same propaganda trick to get support for the Anglo-Saxon imperial project to conquer Europe? Which Britain and the USA then indeed did to the successfull accomplishment of the mission?
2. You seem to suggest, that China indeed has the intention to 'unite' with Taiwan, even against the collective will of its population, and you seem to say that if China indeed forced this union by whatever means against the will of the population of Taiwan, you would not regard this to be a violent action that cannot be allowed, but only the natural and harmless wish to unite itself with a part that was separated from China by a civil war, an inner problem of China. So it would not be worth to make this a military conflict, since China would be content to get back what 'belongs' to it anyway. But what does 'belong' mean here? Isn't this aggressive nationalism, even if the population of the homecoming isle would give in to this wish of a longing partner waiting for the lost kid to come home?
Wouldn't this be propaganda as well?
Remember, that 'Hitler' claimed that he had enough of polish bandits massacring people of German ethnicity in Poland and promoting riots in Danzig to provoke Germany and to draw Britain and France into the war, according to the 'Nibelungentreue' they had sworn to Polish war mongeteres, who boasted, they would take Berlin in two days, and that this was the reason for the decision to intervene in Poland in the face of the consequences, that had to be borne by the people of Britain and France.
So, since my attention is before everything else directed against being duped by anyone's propaganda, and since the option is so clearly against what made Europe a colony of Anglo-Saxon conquest, followed by the intellectual colonialism of the English language intellectual products and advertising models inclusive the propaganda machines developed in the 20ties in the US, I will not follow your or anyone's commendations here, while I think it is in accord with democratic standards to hear what the people of Taiwan have to say to their case, and as I understand it, until it is revealed as another propaganda trick, when I will opt out of everything and stop to care for whatever happens to whom why and when as long as I must not be concerned about it.
And why should I. If everything is propaganda in the end, or at least cannot be discerned from it reliably, I give a damn for whatever political project.
You all should see that the inundation with an opportunistic rhetoric without clear cut connection to an identifiable notion of truth will in the end kill you all. It's
Athens before its crash.
Perhaps, rather than concentrating on rebuttals to ahistorical hyperbole, your time (and those of the people reading your comment) might be better spent learning about the 20th-century history of China.