China's Silk Road Illusions(nybooks.com)
nybooks.com
China's Silk Road Illusions
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/10/25/chinas-silk-road-illusions/
78 comments
> Particularly with how Germany really lost the war to the Soviets in late 1942 when they failed to subdue Russia in the early invasion. The west (US/UK/Canada) largely just cleaned up the mess from 1943-45, as the Nazi's were fighting an impossible war after that point. Even then Russia did most of the work in terms of raw combat. But even when this is noted in history books Russia's success is largely dismissed as merely due to their fortunate geography and willingness to treat their soldiers like expendable fodder. But it was in fact largely due to Russia having better technology than Germany (specifically better tanks/armour [1]) and the geography was far less of an issue to the Nazi's in 1942, who unlike Napolean had highly mobile tanks, aircraft, trains, and Blitzkrieg tactics.
That greatly overstates the USSR's role. While the USSR and the Germany were basically locked in a massive conflict hemorrhaging manpower, the USSR's side was largely propped up by the US lend-lease program, which supplied crucially needed supplies of logistics, particularly trucks. Without such support, the USSR would have faced the same problem that Germany did: a critical inability to properly supply their front-line troops.
Also, Russian geography also killed the Germans. Blitzkrieg, where every 30 miles you have to wait a week for supplies to be brought up, doesn't work when you're traversing 600 miles of terrain. It works even less well when the railroad is a single-track feature that's incompatible with your rail system, even the major roads are barely passable in the best times and impassable in the season of mud, and all of your supplies are being carted by horses (which have this nasty habit of dying in -30° weather).
That greatly overstates the USSR's role. While the USSR and the Germany were basically locked in a massive conflict hemorrhaging manpower, the USSR's side was largely propped up by the US lend-lease program, which supplied crucially needed supplies of logistics, particularly trucks. Without such support, the USSR would have faced the same problem that Germany did: a critical inability to properly supply their front-line troops.
Also, Russian geography also killed the Germans. Blitzkrieg, where every 30 miles you have to wait a week for supplies to be brought up, doesn't work when you're traversing 600 miles of terrain. It works even less well when the railroad is a single-track feature that's incompatible with your rail system, even the major roads are barely passable in the best times and impassable in the season of mud, and all of your supplies are being carted by horses (which have this nasty habit of dying in -30° weather).
There are no easy shortcuts to explaining the balance of war afford in WW2. The vast majority of the fighting did happen on Russian soil. The sacrifice of Russian soldiers is enormous. It's true that the Russian command had little problems with sacrificing the lives of Russian soldiers, but it's also likely that that sacrifice may have been necessary to stop the German advance.
Lend-lease may well have been the most important US contribution to the European theatre, because it helped the USSR to mobile their forces and move them around faster.
And the Russian tanks absolutely did matter. Russia had the best tanks in the early war, and those sufficiently stumped the weaker German tanks to make them rush the overly expensive and inefficient but powerful Tiger into production.
But it was absolutely a case where every bit helped. British intelligence and bombing, taking Italy out of the war, Overlord, it all mattered. But most of the blood was spilled in Russia.
Lend-lease may well have been the most important US contribution to the European theatre, because it helped the USSR to mobile their forces and move them around faster.
And the Russian tanks absolutely did matter. Russia had the best tanks in the early war, and those sufficiently stumped the weaker German tanks to make them rush the overly expensive and inefficient but powerful Tiger into production.
But it was absolutely a case where every bit helped. British intelligence and bombing, taking Italy out of the war, Overlord, it all mattered. But most of the blood was spilled in Russia.
> And the Russian tanks absolutely did matter.
Exactly, the entire German gamble of invading Russia was a repeat of their (genius) invasion of France: highly mobile overrunning of tanks combined with lethal Luftwaffe air support.
The problem was entirely the fact the Germans were completely caught off guard by the quality of Russian tanks and anti-tank guns.
The Nazi's should never have invaded Russia, but their baises against the slavs made them feel superior. Likewise in these biases still exist in North American / European accounts of WW2, where Russia's technological and industrial dominance is downplayed.
It makes sense in the context of the Cold War but in 2017 it saddens me this is still up for debate. Although the fact anti-Russian sentiment is still highly politicized in mass media this might be expecting too much from popular culture on my part...
Exactly, the entire German gamble of invading Russia was a repeat of their (genius) invasion of France: highly mobile overrunning of tanks combined with lethal Luftwaffe air support.
The problem was entirely the fact the Germans were completely caught off guard by the quality of Russian tanks and anti-tank guns.
The Nazi's should never have invaded Russia, but their baises against the slavs made them feel superior. Likewise in these biases still exist in North American / European accounts of WW2, where Russia's technological and industrial dominance is downplayed.
It makes sense in the context of the Cold War but in 2017 it saddens me this is still up for debate. Although the fact anti-Russian sentiment is still highly politicized in mass media this might be expecting too much from popular culture on my part...
> Russia had the best tanks in the early war
But without US-provided materials and equipment Soviets will not be able to produce tanks during 1942-1944.
But without US-provided materials and equipment Soviets will not be able to produce tanks during 1942-1944.
> the USSR's side was largely propped up by the US lend-lease program
This is an oft repeated lie we tell ourselves. US contribution to USSR's military production was less than 1%. And by the time our "help" reached the soviet union, the soviets had already beaten the germans.
The battle of moscow ended in January 1942. That's when ww2 in europe was over. The rest was brutal clean up duty by the soviets.
> Without such support, the USSR would have faced the same problem that Germany did: a critical inability to properly supply their front-line troops.
Firstly, germany's problem was lack of oil. Not the number of trucks. Secondly, The soviet military industry was the largest in the world until we joined the war and their military production was never affected. And the soviets had tons of oil. Only second to the US.
The lend-lease history saving the soviet union is propaganda. If we had stayed neutral in ww2, the soviets would have beaten the germans. Other than stalin giving up, there was no way for germany to beat the soviet union. Look at the stats.
This is an oft repeated lie we tell ourselves. US contribution to USSR's military production was less than 1%. And by the time our "help" reached the soviet union, the soviets had already beaten the germans.
The battle of moscow ended in January 1942. That's when ww2 in europe was over. The rest was brutal clean up duty by the soviets.
> Without such support, the USSR would have faced the same problem that Germany did: a critical inability to properly supply their front-line troops.
Firstly, germany's problem was lack of oil. Not the number of trucks. Secondly, The soviet military industry was the largest in the world until we joined the war and their military production was never affected. And the soviets had tons of oil. Only second to the US.
The lend-lease history saving the soviet union is propaganda. If we had stayed neutral in ww2, the soviets would have beaten the germans. Other than stalin giving up, there was no way for germany to beat the soviet union. Look at the stats.
> US contribution to USSR's military production was less than 1%
Even most blatant Soviet propaganda put that into 4%.
Marshal Zhukov said that Lend-lease was critical to Soviet victory. And that was from a man who took Berlin.
Just a few facts: for USSR lend-lease accounted for 30% of trucks, more than half of aviation fuel and about 93% of railroad equipment.
So it's definetely not a propaganda.
Even most blatant Soviet propaganda put that into 4%.
Marshal Zhukov said that Lend-lease was critical to Soviet victory. And that was from a man who took Berlin.
Just a few facts: for USSR lend-lease accounted for 30% of trucks, more than half of aviation fuel and about 93% of railroad equipment.
So it's definetely not a propaganda.
> Even most blatant Soviet propaganda put that into 4%.
Does it? 4% is still nothing.
> Marshal Zhukov said that Lend-lease was critical to Soviet victory.
So did stalin. Politicians, generals, etc say a lot of things. Especially about "free" stuff.
> Just a few facts: for USSR lend-lease accounted for 30% of trucks, more than half of aviation fuel and about 93% of railroad equipment.
Facts you just made up?
> So it's definetely not a propaganda.
4% to 93%. Sounds a lot like propaganda.
Does it? 4% is still nothing.
> Marshal Zhukov said that Lend-lease was critical to Soviet victory.
So did stalin. Politicians, generals, etc say a lot of things. Especially about "free" stuff.
> Just a few facts: for USSR lend-lease accounted for 30% of trucks, more than half of aviation fuel and about 93% of railroad equipment.
Facts you just made up?
> So it's definetely not a propaganda.
4% to 93%. Sounds a lot like propaganda.
the KV-1 tank, which grinded Operation Barbarossa to a halt
The real key to the Soviet win is that they could endure 3:1 loss ratios and still outdeploy the Nazis at better than 3:1.
The KV-1 was still critically at the frontlines of the German invasion in eastern europe at many critical junctures. Not to mention the Soviet Army had large reserves deep into Russian territory, what matters was what was deployed in Ukraine and elsewhere on the eastern front in 1942.
Remember the Nazi's invasion depended on their multiple tank groups making a very fast progress through this country, until they reached Moscow. It was not total war combat until much later.
Many of them were halted or destroyed when they faced a single inantry group backed by a KV-1. That was enough to cripple their invasion (among the other equivalent Russian tanks).
If you don't believe my account I highly recommend this book which is the best coverage of the eastern front, and questions much of the popular accounts of WW2 with some great research and plenty of citation:
https://www.amazon.com/Operation-Barbarossa-Germanys-Cambrid...
Remember the Nazi's invasion depended on their multiple tank groups making a very fast progress through this country, until they reached Moscow. It was not total war combat until much later.
Many of them were halted or destroyed when they faced a single inantry group backed by a KV-1. That was enough to cripple their invasion (among the other equivalent Russian tanks).
If you don't believe my account I highly recommend this book which is the best coverage of the eastern front, and questions much of the popular accounts of WW2 with some great research and plenty of citation:
https://www.amazon.com/Operation-Barbarossa-Germanys-Cambrid...
In the early stages of the war, the USSR had a lot of very different tanks, some of which were crap, some of which were the best tanks in the world at that time. I don't think any other country had experimented as much with different types of tanks as the USSR had. In production, of course they quickly settled on the tanks that were clearly making the difference: the KV tanks and the T-34.
But even then, the KV tanks were only a small part of their arsenal; the Russians had settled on three different categories of tanks: mobile tanks (their very fast BT tanks using Christie suspension), medium tanks, and heavy tanks. The latter category included the KV-1 and KV-2 tanks, and that was the smallest and most expensive group, but also the group that would always be at the center of any attack or defense.
The reason the T-34 was such an important tank, is that it combined aspects of all three categories; it was intended as a medium tank, but it had Christie suspension like the BT tanks, making it faster than most other medium tanks. And due to its sloping armour, it was almost as tough as a heavy tank (against tanks at least; it was vulnerable from the air). This combination made it the precursor of the Main Battle Tank.
But even then, the KV tanks were only a small part of their arsenal; the Russians had settled on three different categories of tanks: mobile tanks (their very fast BT tanks using Christie suspension), medium tanks, and heavy tanks. The latter category included the KV-1 and KV-2 tanks, and that was the smallest and most expensive group, but also the group that would always be at the center of any attack or defense.
The reason the T-34 was such an important tank, is that it combined aspects of all three categories; it was intended as a medium tank, but it had Christie suspension like the BT tanks, making it faster than most other medium tanks. And due to its sloping armour, it was almost as tough as a heavy tank (against tanks at least; it was vulnerable from the air). This combination made it the precursor of the Main Battle Tank.
Unfortunately the author's analogy with the ancient silk road rings as false as the Chinese government's. For example in discussing the rail link, the author failed to note that beyond Xinjiang there lie Shaanxi and Sichuan, two of China's most populous inland provinces. And Xi'an was the ancient Chinese capital for over a millennium. The Chongqing-Europe railroad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chongqing-Xinjiang-Europe_Rail... creates real economic value, not just propaganda.
There is a lot of space to cover if we are talking about the populated parts of Sichuan and shaanxi, which are mainly east. The most western city outside of Xinjiang would be like Lanzhou, kunming, xining, etc...
The railroads to Europe are still heavily subsidized, and are coming back to china mostly empty. They'll make more sense when trade becomes more balanced, but that isn't today.
The railroads to Europe are still heavily subsidized, and are coming back to china mostly empty. They'll make more sense when trade becomes more balanced, but that isn't today.
You are right that they need to find more goods to ship on the return trip. The current route actually runs on existing tracks so didn't require a lot of investment.
For cities like Lanzhou, Xining, Urumqi etc it makes sense to develop a land route. The economics are even better than Chongqing since Chongqing actually has access to the Yangtze river.
For cities like Lanzhou, Xining, Urumqi etc it makes sense to develop a land route. The economics are even better than Chongqing since Chongqing actually has access to the Yangtze river.
The tracks aren't as important as the trains in this case; e.g. Crews and fuel as well as not using those on more productive routes. Chongqing as a gateway to the western china is a bit weird since it actually isn't that west :) Chinese geography is a bit wonky like that.
Chongqing has access to large ships: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Chongqing
The advantage of rail for Chongqing is mainly shipping time, which is important for higher value electronics.
Xinjiang is west of Shaanxi and Sichuan. Please get your facts right before playing the know-it-all.
"Beyond Xinjiang" was meant to be looking into China from outside. Xinjiang is the border province.
The only reasonable way to look at it is from the perspective of the transfer of goods along the silk road from China to central asia. That is the way the article was written.
You were fundamentally wrong, and remain wrong.
You were fundamentally wrong, and remain wrong.
> WW2 is another great example of this, no topic has had more books and films than WW2 yet the perception vs reality is incredibly wide in popular US culture.
Well, the winner writes the history books.
Well, the winner writes the history books.
> Well, the winner writes the history books.
Russia was the winner.
Russia was the winner.
Russia didn't have better tanks they had more tanks
'Better' is dependent on the viewpoint. Russian tanks were simpler mechanically, ran on diesel, which made them less flammable and in the early years the T34 was actually better than anything the wehrmacht had. The Panther is almost a direct copy of the T34 design. But you are right, at the end the quantities prevailed, it was a war of economies and Russia, having transferred most of its industry far east and out of reach, was going to win, even without the help from west. Most of the german generals knew they were toast after the initial blitz failed in the winter of '41.
> But you are right, at the end the quantities prevailed, it was a war of economies
My point was the German generals knew this well beforehand. Everyone knew they couldn't beat the Russians in a straight up one-on-one war over a long timespan. They only had a short time window to run them over with their tank/aircraft tactics. And that failed because the Nazi's largely underplayed the quality of Russian tanks/technology.
It doesn't matter if you have 10 German tanks vs 1 Russian tank if those ten tanks can't penetrate the armour of the Russian one. This is a critical difference. Especially when the Nazi's were already strapped for fuel and armaments. Which is why a small number of KV-1s would grind the invasion to a halt until reinforcements could arrive.
As soon as they had to wait for the supply lines and infantry to catch up then the Blitzkrieg tactics are no longer effective and Nazi Germany is now facing Russia on their terms.
It's amazing how this is seemingly such a controversial topic when plenty of well researched literature will back me up here...
My point was the German generals knew this well beforehand. Everyone knew they couldn't beat the Russians in a straight up one-on-one war over a long timespan. They only had a short time window to run them over with their tank/aircraft tactics. And that failed because the Nazi's largely underplayed the quality of Russian tanks/technology.
It doesn't matter if you have 10 German tanks vs 1 Russian tank if those ten tanks can't penetrate the armour of the Russian one. This is a critical difference. Especially when the Nazi's were already strapped for fuel and armaments. Which is why a small number of KV-1s would grind the invasion to a halt until reinforcements could arrive.
As soon as they had to wait for the supply lines and infantry to catch up then the Blitzkrieg tactics are no longer effective and Nazi Germany is now facing Russia on their terms.
It's amazing how this is seemingly such a controversial topic when plenty of well researched literature will back me up here...
The T-34 was better than what the Germans had at the time.
The better German tanks came too late and too little, true.
The better German tanks came too late and too little, true.
The T-34 was better than what the Germans had at the time.
If you're saying you'd rather go into battle with 5 fully operational T-34s than 5 fully operational Tigers, then we seriously disagree.
The Tiger was a response to the T-34. "At the time" means "at the start of the war". Eventually, the T-34 was overshadowed by better tanks, and the war saw enormous advancements in tank technology. Largely due to the Russians, who were ahead in tank technology at the start of the war.
At the start of the war, the Germans had nothing that could touch a T-34. Well, no they had no comparable tank; T-34s are vulnerable from the air, and the Germans had Stukas.
It's worth nothing that due to the need to churn out T-34s at a rapid pace, the quality sometimes suffered, and some T-34s were badly put together. Also, it was a very uncomfortable tank to use, and the turret of that early version was too small.
But assuming I get fully functional T-34s, I'd absolutely prefer to go to war with 5 T-34s than with 5 PzIV-Ds or PzIIIs, which was the best the Germans had at the time.
At the start of the war, the Germans had nothing that could touch a T-34. Well, no they had no comparable tank; T-34s are vulnerable from the air, and the Germans had Stukas.
It's worth nothing that due to the need to churn out T-34s at a rapid pace, the quality sometimes suffered, and some T-34s were badly put together. Also, it was a very uncomfortable tank to use, and the turret of that early version was too small.
But assuming I get fully functional T-34s, I'd absolutely prefer to go to war with 5 T-34s than with 5 PzIV-Ds or PzIIIs, which was the best the Germans had at the time.
And the Russians were defending against an invasion that critically depended on a short (~half year from summer 1942) invasion timeline.
The German generals (and to a lesser extant Hitler) knew Russia could ramp up tank production fast and had way more soldiers then them if it turned into trench warfare or even total warfare level tank vs tank or aircraft vs aircraft fights. Largely because Germany already had to deal with the UK+America+Canada on the other front and we themselves limited in their own production ability vs the much larger Russia (regardless if the Russian industry was less advanced, it was still more advanced than the biased Germans expected the slavs to be).
The simple fact the Russian's had ANY tanks that they couldn't easily deal with, let alone not destroy at all with their own tanks, totally caught the Nazi generals off guard and slowed the whole invasion down.
The technological advantage that Russia had early on can not be downplayed. It was absolutely critical.
The German generals (and to a lesser extant Hitler) knew Russia could ramp up tank production fast and had way more soldiers then them if it turned into trench warfare or even total warfare level tank vs tank or aircraft vs aircraft fights. Largely because Germany already had to deal with the UK+America+Canada on the other front and we themselves limited in their own production ability vs the much larger Russia (regardless if the Russian industry was less advanced, it was still more advanced than the biased Germans expected the slavs to be).
The simple fact the Russian's had ANY tanks that they couldn't easily deal with, let alone not destroy at all with their own tanks, totally caught the Nazi generals off guard and slowed the whole invasion down.
The technological advantage that Russia had early on can not be downplayed. It was absolutely critical.
German "strategy" certainly helped.
Had they kept Hitler's egomaniacal lust to crush Stalingrad itself at bay and instead simply encircled Stalingrad to cut off its supplies and proceed to take the Caucasus oil fields instead, the whole war could have turned differently.
Had they kept Hitler's egomaniacal lust to crush Stalingrad itself at bay and instead simply encircled Stalingrad to cut off its supplies and proceed to take the Caucasus oil fields instead, the whole war could have turned differently.
The German army used captured T-34 tanks, so they probably did not think of it as a bad piece of equipment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#German_use_of_T-34s
Also comparing very different tanks in a general manner has its problems: each has its strong and weak points, it is very difficult to say which one of the differences would be of benefit in a given battle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#German_use_of_T-34s
Also comparing very different tanks in a general manner has its problems: each has its strong and weak points, it is very difficult to say which one of the differences would be of benefit in a given battle.
Unless of course the Germans did not factor in the idea Russians would have a comparable, let alone better, tank than them when they invaded.
They expected a repeat of the French army capitulation and found a far better army than their anti-slavic literature groomed them to believe they'd be facing.
They expected Russian farmer rednecks, not an industrialized modern army (although I refuse to extend my praise to their infantry which had plenty of issues, other than their dogged determination, which was a serious threat when Hitler was demanding quick wins, even when they did always eventually win).
They expected a repeat of the French army capitulation and found a far better army than their anti-slavic literature groomed them to believe they'd be facing.
They expected Russian farmer rednecks, not an industrialized modern army (although I refuse to extend my praise to their infantry which had plenty of issues, other than their dogged determination, which was a serious threat when Hitler was demanding quick wins, even when they did always eventually win).
TL;DR it's not like it was in the past.
TL;DR it's not what they promise.
But where is the news in this?
I think the interesting facts are that (a) they still manage to influence countries with their plan (and might for instance gain more influence over Afganistan than both US and Russia have achieved), (b) they still manage to increase internal growth through their projects. Both are really good things for China. That you need to tell a story of historical values with such a big plan is normal and should be expected. Sadly the article doesn't discuss that and instead just focusses on showing the obvious. Also it vastly underestimates the middle east. There's a reason why there's so much fighting in this area. And it's not just oil.
TL;DR it's not what they promise.
But where is the news in this?
I think the interesting facts are that (a) they still manage to influence countries with their plan (and might for instance gain more influence over Afganistan than both US and Russia have achieved), (b) they still manage to increase internal growth through their projects. Both are really good things for China. That you need to tell a story of historical values with such a big plan is normal and should be expected. Sadly the article doesn't discuss that and instead just focusses on showing the obvious. Also it vastly underestimates the middle east. There's a reason why there's so much fighting in this area. And it's not just oil.
> But where is the news in this?
The existence of an interesting article is news enough.
The existence of an interesting article is news enough.
> There's a reason why there's so much fighting in this area. And it's not just oil.
Well, do share that non-oil reason you had in mind there!
Well, do share that non-oil reason you had in mind there!
As GP said it is easy to underestimate the Middle East because of all the oil. Israel is obviously a high tech powerhouse. Iran alone has over 80 million people. Despite the tense relationship with the US, there are close to 10 thousand postgraduate Iranian students in the US, one of the largest after China and India. https://wenr.wes.org/2017/02/educating-iran-demographics-mas...
True enough, doesn't explain his "there's another reason than the oil for the fighting" suggestion. Germany is also "a high-tech powerhouse and has over 80 million people".. =)
Now readers are bound to come up with common tropes like "sectarian strife" or "tribal rivalry", but again.. he made it sound like there's a transdimensional portal hidden in the ME or something.. clearly had a non-obvious aspect in mind, that I wanted elaboration on. =)
Now readers are bound to come up with common tropes like "sectarian strife" or "tribal rivalry", but again.. he made it sound like there's a transdimensional portal hidden in the ME or something.. clearly had a non-obvious aspect in mind, that I wanted elaboration on. =)
If you read the article, OP was obviously responding to the silly claim that
"More likely, however, China’s dependence on trade, and particularly its interest in Middle East oil, may fall almost as fast as it has risen over the past thirty years."
I think OP was just pointing out that there is more than oil in the Middle East.
"More likely, however, China’s dependence on trade, and particularly its interest in Middle East oil, may fall almost as fast as it has risen over the past thirty years."
I think OP was just pointing out that there is more than oil in the Middle East.
Of course such projects have risk. Of course there is historical baggage. But while China is building an infrastructure legacy, the USA et al are using its resources to wages multiple wars.
It's likely the USA's ROI (if you will) will be increased debt and enemies for years to come. China on the other hand seems hardly interested in such things. The outlook for their ROI is much brighter.
It's likely the USA's ROI (if you will) will be increased debt and enemies for years to come. China on the other hand seems hardly interested in such things. The outlook for their ROI is much brighter.
What we're witnessing today is a chicken-and-egg problem.
USA: America is the chicken. To be a modern country, it is hypothesized that the developing country needs immediately adopt American systems, laws, behavior & structures (the Washington consensus, etc.). In essence, and to keep it short, the 'free-markets' will take over, and standards of living will boom.
China: China is the egg, because they view modernization more or less independent (i.e., democracy is not a necessary). As long as people are given economic opportunities, the rest will evolve around it, systems and laws will adapt and be in sync with the development. That is, it is willing to offer lots of infrastructure and development opportunities to very poor countries, and it is up to those countries to take the opportunity to exploit it.
As someone who enjoys studying economics, I think we're at one of the most important points in time. USA & China, under two diametrically different systems have been able to grow extremely large economically - that means more data points to understand how to modernize other parts of the world.
USA: America is the chicken. To be a modern country, it is hypothesized that the developing country needs immediately adopt American systems, laws, behavior & structures (the Washington consensus, etc.). In essence, and to keep it short, the 'free-markets' will take over, and standards of living will boom.
China: China is the egg, because they view modernization more or less independent (i.e., democracy is not a necessary). As long as people are given economic opportunities, the rest will evolve around it, systems and laws will adapt and be in sync with the development. That is, it is willing to offer lots of infrastructure and development opportunities to very poor countries, and it is up to those countries to take the opportunity to exploit it.
As someone who enjoys studying economics, I think we're at one of the most important points in time. USA & China, under two diametrically different systems have been able to grow extremely large economically - that means more data points to understand how to modernize other parts of the world.
> I think we're at one of the most important points in time. USA & China, under two diametrically different systems have been able to grow extremely large economically - that means more data points to understand how to modernize other parts of the world.
It seems to me that China is following the framework that the US has set to become a superpower.
Politics: When the US was developing, only rich, educated white men could vote. In China right now, only those who are eligible to join the CCP can be involved in politics.
Slavery: While China doesn't have de facto slavery, their province/city registration system places migrants in extremely disadvantaged positions. As for the US, well, I'm sure we all know.
Protectionism & IP Theft: During the Industrial Revolution, the US was extremely active in stealing tech from Europe. And only when the US started to develop their own tech, did they start caring about intellectual property. This is also the case in Japan and South Korea, so I can see China following this path as well.
Other issues, like eminent domain, limitations on free speech, and violating the rights of individuals as long as it's in the national interest are things that a developing superpower does.
It was only after the US became a superpower, that we start to see a really big difference in the behavior of both nations.
Though I do agree that the rhetoric of both nations was vastly different from the start. The US always espoused American values, even if those privileges only applied to a subset of people. While China keeps on emphasizing a harmonious society, they really mean that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
It seems to me that China is following the framework that the US has set to become a superpower.
Politics: When the US was developing, only rich, educated white men could vote. In China right now, only those who are eligible to join the CCP can be involved in politics.
Slavery: While China doesn't have de facto slavery, their province/city registration system places migrants in extremely disadvantaged positions. As for the US, well, I'm sure we all know.
Protectionism & IP Theft: During the Industrial Revolution, the US was extremely active in stealing tech from Europe. And only when the US started to develop their own tech, did they start caring about intellectual property. This is also the case in Japan and South Korea, so I can see China following this path as well.
Other issues, like eminent domain, limitations on free speech, and violating the rights of individuals as long as it's in the national interest are things that a developing superpower does.
It was only after the US became a superpower, that we start to see a really big difference in the behavior of both nations.
Though I do agree that the rhetoric of both nations was vastly different from the start. The US always espoused American values, even if those privileges only applied to a subset of people. While China keeps on emphasizing a harmonious society, they really mean that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
Personally, I'd like to see the US match China's $1T pledge to the estimated $20-30T total for all infrastructure projects proposed under the Belt and Road Initiative. We often heard during the election about the outcomes if we elected a master "deal-maker" to the oval office. And BRI is "The Great Game" of the 21st Century. With the Trump-Xi relationship being perhaps the most crucial in the world today.
No doubt it is politically, economically and militarily an unpopular notion in the current climate that seeks a tougher stance on China policy. Steve Bannon, in particular, explicitly views American policy of the last 60 years as creating a "tributary state" to the PRC here in the USA.
But an intense negotiation. With lots of concessions for American enterprises in energy, aerospace, engineering, telcom, and transportation across the Silk Road region. And even partial funding coming directly from China's dollar reserves. This could end up being the "Deal of the Century" ;)
No doubt it is politically, economically and militarily an unpopular notion in the current climate that seeks a tougher stance on China policy. Steve Bannon, in particular, explicitly views American policy of the last 60 years as creating a "tributary state" to the PRC here in the USA.
But an intense negotiation. With lots of concessions for American enterprises in energy, aerospace, engineering, telcom, and transportation across the Silk Road region. And even partial funding coming directly from China's dollar reserves. This could end up being the "Deal of the Century" ;)
The problem I see is that politics in America has essentially devolved into merely 'entertainment' and not rooted in economic reality - so even if they wanted to, it is hard to make your proposal to the American public, especially with 'America first'. With respect to the Bannon comment, America has unequivocally benefited economically with China; it is merely how America has chosen to distribute the wealth that was the problem. [1],[2] How America chooses to distribute it's wealth has nothing to do with China.
> Although increasing trade with China might have contributed to the decline in demand for production workers, it clearly wasn't the primary force behind the trend. [3]
It is merely politically convenient to exclaim "China" when talking to the public like during the Zambian elections with Sata. "Michael Sata called Chinese “infesters” rather than “investors,” threatened to kick out Chinese workers, and pledged to implement foreign exchange controls that would prevent Chinese firms from repatriating their profits [...] One month later, Sata told the Chinese ambassador to Zambia and a group of Chinese businessmen, "My dear sisters and brothers from China, you are very welcomed in Zambia because we are all-weather friends." During a one-week visit to China in April 2013, Sata signed several investment agreements and requested that Chinese companies invest in railways, agriculture, and mining. On his return, he proudly announced to residents of a rural district that Chinese companies would develop Zambian wetlands for rice production." [4]
Same with American politics, we just shot nebulous words and concepts like, "Freedom", "democracy", etc. without understanding the underlying implications. The press highlights the any negative news about China, but how often do you hear things like this from American leadership in the mainstream media:
> “I want everybody playing in Africa,” President Obama stated during a press conference in South Africa in late June 2013. “The more, the merrier. I think that’s good. . . . It gives Africans leverage” to ensure that such economic interactions are “good for Africa.” [4] (pg. 106)
[1] https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2017/may/impact-ch... [2] https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/payoff-america-g... [3] https://piie.com/commentary/op-eds/us-needs-invest-minds-not... [4] http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR521.html
> Although increasing trade with China might have contributed to the decline in demand for production workers, it clearly wasn't the primary force behind the trend. [3]
It is merely politically convenient to exclaim "China" when talking to the public like during the Zambian elections with Sata. "Michael Sata called Chinese “infesters” rather than “investors,” threatened to kick out Chinese workers, and pledged to implement foreign exchange controls that would prevent Chinese firms from repatriating their profits [...] One month later, Sata told the Chinese ambassador to Zambia and a group of Chinese businessmen, "My dear sisters and brothers from China, you are very welcomed in Zambia because we are all-weather friends." During a one-week visit to China in April 2013, Sata signed several investment agreements and requested that Chinese companies invest in railways, agriculture, and mining. On his return, he proudly announced to residents of a rural district that Chinese companies would develop Zambian wetlands for rice production." [4]
Same with American politics, we just shot nebulous words and concepts like, "Freedom", "democracy", etc. without understanding the underlying implications. The press highlights the any negative news about China, but how often do you hear things like this from American leadership in the mainstream media:
> “I want everybody playing in Africa,” President Obama stated during a press conference in South Africa in late June 2013. “The more, the merrier. I think that’s good. . . . It gives Africans leverage” to ensure that such economic interactions are “good for Africa.” [4] (pg. 106)
[1] https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2017/may/impact-ch... [2] https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/payoff-america-g... [3] https://piie.com/commentary/op-eds/us-needs-invest-minds-not... [4] http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR521.html
> politics in America has essentially devolved into merely 'entertainment'
I take it you have not read H.L.Mencken's reporting on party conventions in the 1920s. I was a bit incredulous of delegations cheering speeches by marching around the aisles for ten or twenty minutes, but I suppose there was no point in misreporting that ...
No good link in a quick search, but perhaps starting from here: https://www.dclibrary.org/node/32107
Edit: There's a sample down from the page heading "416 A Mencken Chrestomathy" in https://biblio.wiki/wiki/A_Mencken_Chrestomathy . Other books had much fuller accounts of several conventions he reported on.
I take it you have not read H.L.Mencken's reporting on party conventions in the 1920s. I was a bit incredulous of delegations cheering speeches by marching around the aisles for ten or twenty minutes, but I suppose there was no point in misreporting that ...
No good link in a quick search, but perhaps starting from here: https://www.dclibrary.org/node/32107
Edit: There's a sample down from the page heading "416 A Mencken Chrestomathy" in https://biblio.wiki/wiki/A_Mencken_Chrestomathy . Other books had much fuller accounts of several conventions he reported on.
Great link, thank you very much. I didn't even realize such things that are in the text were publicly written then.
I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. The US can be a bit too extreme is their demands to adopt US-style system, but the US system isn't perfect by any means. But I do agree that democratic freedoms are important for the sustainable development of a country. Free press in particular. But selling out your internal market to foreign multinationals seems to be a terrible idea.
I've long felt that the EU should have been doing something similar: instead of barriers around the EU market, they should have offered free trade with any developing country, as long as they follow certain basic values like free press, human rights, and at least some degree of democracy. Economic development in exchange for European values. If handled right, I think that could have done a lot of good in the world. Now China seems to beat us to it.
I've long felt that the EU should have been doing something similar: instead of barriers around the EU market, they should have offered free trade with any developing country, as long as they follow certain basic values like free press, human rights, and at least some degree of democracy. Economic development in exchange for European values. If handled right, I think that could have done a lot of good in the world. Now China seems to beat us to it.
I'm not sure who's hypothesizing that a modern country has to emulate the US. That's a kind of cold war point of view.
Many modern countries these days don't adopt the American system, but are striving towards being modern, pluralist democracies with functioning social systems, good governance, and sane judicial systems.
Many modern countries these days don't adopt the American system, but are striving towards being modern, pluralist democracies with functioning social systems, good governance, and sane judicial systems.
>I'm not sure who's hypothesizing that a modern country has to emulate the US. That's a kind of cold war point of view.
It's also the de facto point of view of western countries, and the yardstick by which they judge other countries.
(Including various "NGOs" and "world organizations" that measure the world with the same yardstick and are influenced by the same ideologies and even follow the same political goals).
It's also the de facto point of view of western countries, and the yardstick by which they judge other countries.
(Including various "NGOs" and "world organizations" that measure the world with the same yardstick and are influenced by the same ideologies and even follow the same political goals).
You're just repeating the point by the GP. So I'll simply repeat my point: the US is becoming so dysfunctional that it cannot be called a modern democracy. You have to look to other countries, who are becoming the guide.
If the US is the yard-stick for good governance, then we're all in big trouble.
If the US is the yard-stick for good governance, then we're all in big trouble.
[deleted]
> I'm not sure who's hypothesizing that a modern country has to emulate the US.
I'm just going to focus on one element due to space; one of the core pillars of American economic thinking is the idea of free markets. Through bilateral relationships or organizations like the IMF, etc., developing nations are given a road-map of how to modernize. It may not have to be a carbon copy of America (and that was not my point), but there is certainly an element of shaping developing countries to accept American ideals. However, have you ever noticed that no country has ever modernized through free markets, it always required a lot of protectionism. [1], [2]
Free-markets is a big topic that the American government likes to complain about with regards to China. Ironically, Americans seem to think protectionism doesn't exist in America. "For example, from 2008 to 2016, the US implemented over 1,000 discriminatory trade policy measures, followed by India and Russia, with both implementing nearly 600 similar policies each. Trade-impeding measures have also increased at a much faster pace than measures to liberalize trade." [3], [4], [5]. A little hypocritical if you ask me.
> Many modern countries these days don't adopt the American system, but are striving towards being modern, pluralist democracies with functioning social systems, good governance, and sane judicial systems.
I'll assume you are contrasting with China, so I'll go point by point
* Modern: Just to reiterate, my previous spiel was that China views modernization as independent to other society structures. Their experience has proven that to be the case. Without a doubt, cities like Shenzhen are modern.
* Pluralist democracies with functioning social systems, good governance: Ultimately, the purpose of a democracy is to get the voices of citizens heard. Note that surveys show almost 90% of citizens in China are satisfied with their government while in the West, we are perpetually annoyed at them. Democracy is not a panacea for stability, success, etc.
* Sane judicial systems: That depends how you view it. In America, look at the amount of people locked up for minor drug crimes. I call that insane. In China, the law is more flexible and based on circumstances. "Despite the tough laws, authorities have usually turned a blind eye to farmers growing their own low-THC varieties because they were an important source of income for some farmers." [6] It's also important to note westerners and easterners look at the concept of Law very differently. "Easterners and Westerners have fundamentally different understandings of the nature of contracts. In the West, a contract is unalterable; in the East a contract is continually renegotiable in the light of changed circumstances (Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 1993). This drastic difference of view has often resulted in conflict and bitterness between Eastern and Western negotiators." [7]
[1] PDF Warning: http://ecdpm.org/wp-content/uploads/PMR-15-Politique-Develop... (pg 38 and in French)
[2] "...free market approaches have not proven to be 'very effective' in helping countries achieve this." http://www.oliverwyman.com/our-expertise/insights/2017/oct/e...
[3] http://www.oliverwyman.com/our-expertise/insights/2017/oct/e...
[4] Is China the Most Protectionist Country? No, Not By a Long Shot https://piie.com/blogs/china-economic-watch/china-most-prote...
[5] http://www.eulerhermes.com/economic-research/blog/AllInfogra...
[6] http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2108347/green...
[7] Richard Nisbett, Kaiping Peng, Incheol Choi, Ara Norenzayan - 2001 - Culture and Systems of Thought: Holistic vs. Analytic Cognition
I'm just going to focus on one element due to space; one of the core pillars of American economic thinking is the idea of free markets. Through bilateral relationships or organizations like the IMF, etc., developing nations are given a road-map of how to modernize. It may not have to be a carbon copy of America (and that was not my point), but there is certainly an element of shaping developing countries to accept American ideals. However, have you ever noticed that no country has ever modernized through free markets, it always required a lot of protectionism. [1], [2]
Free-markets is a big topic that the American government likes to complain about with regards to China. Ironically, Americans seem to think protectionism doesn't exist in America. "For example, from 2008 to 2016, the US implemented over 1,000 discriminatory trade policy measures, followed by India and Russia, with both implementing nearly 600 similar policies each. Trade-impeding measures have also increased at a much faster pace than measures to liberalize trade." [3], [4], [5]. A little hypocritical if you ask me.
> Many modern countries these days don't adopt the American system, but are striving towards being modern, pluralist democracies with functioning social systems, good governance, and sane judicial systems.
I'll assume you are contrasting with China, so I'll go point by point
* Modern: Just to reiterate, my previous spiel was that China views modernization as independent to other society structures. Their experience has proven that to be the case. Without a doubt, cities like Shenzhen are modern.
* Pluralist democracies with functioning social systems, good governance: Ultimately, the purpose of a democracy is to get the voices of citizens heard. Note that surveys show almost 90% of citizens in China are satisfied with their government while in the West, we are perpetually annoyed at them. Democracy is not a panacea for stability, success, etc.
* Sane judicial systems: That depends how you view it. In America, look at the amount of people locked up for minor drug crimes. I call that insane. In China, the law is more flexible and based on circumstances. "Despite the tough laws, authorities have usually turned a blind eye to farmers growing their own low-THC varieties because they were an important source of income for some farmers." [6] It's also important to note westerners and easterners look at the concept of Law very differently. "Easterners and Westerners have fundamentally different understandings of the nature of contracts. In the West, a contract is unalterable; in the East a contract is continually renegotiable in the light of changed circumstances (Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 1993). This drastic difference of view has often resulted in conflict and bitterness between Eastern and Western negotiators." [7]
[1] PDF Warning: http://ecdpm.org/wp-content/uploads/PMR-15-Politique-Develop... (pg 38 and in French)
[2] "...free market approaches have not proven to be 'very effective' in helping countries achieve this." http://www.oliverwyman.com/our-expertise/insights/2017/oct/e...
[3] http://www.oliverwyman.com/our-expertise/insights/2017/oct/e...
[4] Is China the Most Protectionist Country? No, Not By a Long Shot https://piie.com/blogs/china-economic-watch/china-most-prote...
[5] http://www.eulerhermes.com/economic-research/blog/AllInfogra...
[6] http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2108347/green...
[7] Richard Nisbett, Kaiping Peng, Incheol Choi, Ara Norenzayan - 2001 - Culture and Systems of Thought: Holistic vs. Analytic Cognition
>> Many modern countries these days don't adopt the American system, but are striving towards being modern, pluralist democracies with functioning social systems, good governance, and sane judicial systems.
> I'll assume you are contrasting with China, so I'll go point by point
No, I'm saying the US is not a pluralist democracy with good governance etc. Obviously, China isn't either. If you're trying to find a modern democracy, look at some EU countries, to a lesser extend Canada, maybe New Zealand, Australia. I think those countries are becoming a guide on what to emulate, while the US is becoming more and more dysfunctional.
> I'll assume you are contrasting with China, so I'll go point by point
No, I'm saying the US is not a pluralist democracy with good governance etc. Obviously, China isn't either. If you're trying to find a modern democracy, look at some EU countries, to a lesser extend Canada, maybe New Zealand, Australia. I think those countries are becoming a guide on what to emulate, while the US is becoming more and more dysfunctional.
> However, have you ever noticed that no country has ever modernized through free markets, it always required a lot of protectionism.
I think attributing this to protectionism is not really helpful. There are many protectionist states (or states with a "strong industrial policy") that don't develop at all economically.
The examples of Europe before the early 20th Century and Far Asia in the late 20th century are certainly prominent but what about the other protectionist countries during that time or today?
You can find the "most protectionist" (by some measure) countries here:
http://www.heritage.org/index/explore (Click on "Trade Freedom" and then check the top vs bottom of the list)
So we have examples and counter examples, not a strong case in favor of protectionism IMO.
I think attributing this to protectionism is not really helpful. There are many protectionist states (or states with a "strong industrial policy") that don't develop at all economically.
The examples of Europe before the early 20th Century and Far Asia in the late 20th century are certainly prominent but what about the other protectionist countries during that time or today?
You can find the "most protectionist" (by some measure) countries here:
http://www.heritage.org/index/explore (Click on "Trade Freedom" and then check the top vs bottom of the list)
So we have examples and counter examples, not a strong case in favor of protectionism IMO.
he still has a valid point - no country has ever modernized through free markets. he never argued that protectionism is the key to success.
in fact, after WWII, not any country modernised itself after becoming a democracy. South Korea was in a military dictatorship, Singapore is run by a single family.
in fact, after WWII, not any country modernised itself after becoming a democracy. South Korea was in a military dictatorship, Singapore is run by a single family.
> The outlook for their ROI is much brighter
I agree that American ROI on military spending is negative, though the degree to which this is true is debatable. (The American defense industry doubles as a federal jobs and R&D program.) I do not see how China building an expensive, low-throughput transportation mode that is uncompetitive, even without a traversable Arctic Ocean, is productive.
I agree that American ROI on military spending is negative, though the degree to which this is true is debatable. (The American defense industry doubles as a federal jobs and R&D program.) I do not see how China building an expensive, low-throughput transportation mode that is uncompetitive, even without a traversable Arctic Ocean, is productive.
Stills orders of magnitude more productive than killing people and destroy nations.
Fifty cents on the dollar versus negative fifty cents on the dollar. With the first approach, you lose 50 cents but you still have 50 cents.
If it helps, think of it as China's man on the moon. It's a trophy the gov can point to. Think of it as a single point of (financial) focus with long term commitment. Now imagine what the USA would do with that money. How is China's choice not productive
[deleted]
The US is using very little of its resources to wage wars. Military spending as a percentage of GDP is down to pre-WW II levels.
And you're underestimating the extent to which China is making enemies in the South China Sea region. These are countries with potentially significant military capability, too, like the Philippines and Japan, not bands of goat herders.
And you're underestimating the extent to which China is making enemies in the South China Sea region. These are countries with potentially significant military capability, too, like the Philippines and Japan, not bands of goat herders.
> Military spending as a percentage of GDP is down to pre-WW II levels
No it's not[1]. As a % of the total budget it's around 16%, which is huge. And furthermore the appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are mostly not included - they have been funded by "supplemental" spending bills, which total well into the 10 figures.
The Philippines doesn't really have a navy worth talking about. Japan can defend itself but that's a different (also kinda dicey) sea - they could only really go on offence in cooperation with the USA. China's main military threats are on land and come from its western borders - Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, and of course India. With the possible exception of India I don't see any of them picking a fight anytime soon.
[1] https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1792_201...
No it's not[1]. As a % of the total budget it's around 16%, which is huge. And furthermore the appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are mostly not included - they have been funded by "supplemental" spending bills, which total well into the 10 figures.
The Philippines doesn't really have a navy worth talking about. Japan can defend itself but that's a different (also kinda dicey) sea - they could only really go on offence in cooperation with the USA. China's main military threats are on land and come from its western borders - Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, and of course India. With the possible exception of India I don't see any of them picking a fight anytime soon.
[1] https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1792_201...
Perhaps. But the USA spends more on "defense" than the next 8 countries combined. Obama said so in his 2016 State of the Union address.
If all but one of those (i.e., Russia) are "friendly" (i.e., most would say China v US is unlikely given the shared financial interests), who / what exactly is the USA so heavily armed for? Is military force as a proxy for diplomacy wise?
So regardless, of the percentage of X or Y it's pretty clear these weapons are an enabler. Yet infrastructure is crumbling? Schools not as competitive? Etc.
If all but one of those (i.e., Russia) are "friendly" (i.e., most would say China v US is unlikely given the shared financial interests), who / what exactly is the USA so heavily armed for? Is military force as a proxy for diplomacy wise?
So regardless, of the percentage of X or Y it's pretty clear these weapons are an enabler. Yet infrastructure is crumbling? Schools not as competitive? Etc.
In addition, look at China and the North Korea situation. Best I tell, China isn't interested. Sure it has a military. But it's not wanting to get involved unless it's absolutely necessary (despite the USA's insistence they do get involved).
it would be considered as suicidal for india to pick up a fight. Chinese can fire cheap guided rockets within its border to hit india's capital, india will have to use long range ballistic missiles to achieve the same.
also note that Chinese design/build/operate advanced weapons like anti satellite missiles, anti aircraft carrier ballistic missiles, ballistic missile launch early warning systems, J-20 stealth fighters, military grade satellite navigation system on its own, india can not even build self-propelled artillery on its own.
Both nations know this full well, that is why there will be long lasting peace in the region/border.
also note that Chinese design/build/operate advanced weapons like anti satellite missiles, anti aircraft carrier ballistic missiles, ballistic missile launch early warning systems, J-20 stealth fighters, military grade satellite navigation system on its own, india can not even build self-propelled artillery on its own.
Both nations know this full well, that is why there will be long lasting peace in the region/border.
Chinese and Indian troops clash all the time! Most recently is the "Doklam" dispute [1] where they share a border with Bhutan. Last I heard they were literally throwing rocks at each other (not a joke). There's no love lost between the countries, that's for sure.
But I do agree that neither will risk a major confrontation.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_China%E2%80%93India_borde...
But I do agree that neither will risk a major confrontation.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_China%E2%80%93India_borde...
those so called "enemies" are now basically Vietnam alone.
Japan has "significant military capability"? with an aging and shrinking population and a GDP growth lower than 1%? nice joke.
Japan has "significant military capability"? with an aging and shrinking population and a GDP growth lower than 1%? nice joke.
Other than the historical facts, this article is kind of a weird read. The author seems to be guilty of the same thing he's accusing the Chinese president, namely using history to support their version of how this might play out.
I get a similar impression that the article was a little odd - I think the author seems to be confusing the intent of the message coming from China's leadership.
China is saying, here is a 'story' to help you understand what we're trying to do with the Belt & Road Initiative. In essence, the focus is not on the truth claims of history, but it is a guidepost of what they want to do in the future.
The author on the other-hand seems to be saying, because the history is inaccurate, the corollary is that the Belt & Road initiative will not succeed (which is not a logically consistent argument).
China is saying, here is a 'story' to help you understand what we're trying to do with the Belt & Road Initiative. In essence, the focus is not on the truth claims of history, but it is a guidepost of what they want to do in the future.
The author on the other-hand seems to be saying, because the history is inaccurate, the corollary is that the Belt & Road initiative will not succeed (which is not a logically consistent argument).
Also its all a matter of interpretation: you can look at aid to central Asia and Africa as a long term investment. If these regions take off then that would be beneficial to China - it would create markets and natural allies. Creating a win win situation with foreign aid is also a bit novel (so far it was more an attempt get them into neocolonialist dependency, let's see if the Chinese do any better than that)
Agreed. Definitely a very one-sided and biased presentation of even the "facts".
This is not a very scholarly article, and very disparaging to say the least. It claims that Zheng He "did little to develop trade" and "contributed nothing to navigational knowledge" and that all he effectively did was assist in "the gradual spread of Islam". Have we considered to evaluate ourselves, on how we perhaps may be suppressing the reality of Chinese historical accomplishments by elevating such articles? It ignores many of his tangible accomplishments, like clearing the waters of pirates that plagued Chinese maritime trade.
[deleted]
The author seems to think because it Silk Road 2.0 won't directly ship to China it has little value?
All the railways, shipping ports etc also add value to the countries they are in. The same as China is building so many dams around the world. There's a lot of power being played here benefiting China and locally.
Do these countries really care is there's a border dispute in the Caucasus?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunming%E2%80%93Singapore_rail...
All the railways, shipping ports etc also add value to the countries they are in. The same as China is building so many dams around the world. There's a lot of power being played here benefiting China and locally.
Do these countries really care is there's a border dispute in the Caucasus?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunming%E2%80%93Singapore_rail...
I don't know how much culture China exported along the ancient silk road but I do know that China imported a lot of culture along it (e.g. Buddhism and other religions), so its importance on the Chinese culture can hardly be over-emphasized. The problem with the author's critiquing of Chinese propaganda is that he adopted a chauvinistic framework. In reality for the Chinese people cultural import is likely more important than cultural export.
Again if we remove the fixation on Chinese export and view the situation more objectively: Pakistan and the Middle East have the youngest populations in the world. If they can develop into manufacturing centers, it will not only alleviate the potential for radicalism. It will also compensate for the aging demographics of China, whether that is what China intends or not.
Again if we remove the fixation on Chinese export and view the situation more objectively: Pakistan and the Middle East have the youngest populations in the world. If they can develop into manufacturing centers, it will not only alleviate the potential for radicalism. It will also compensate for the aging demographics of China, whether that is what China intends or not.
[deleted]
Somehow I believe that Chinese will be able to pull this off and the author will regret his wishful thinking.
It's fascinating how much we romanticize about past cultures and how much if it is wrong. I love reading history and this almost always turns out to be the case. Digging into any topic reveals they are always far more complex and multilayered than the the common caricatures you find in media and in generalized accounts.
China's popular understanding of the Silk Road seems to be way off, which is inspiring bad policy descisions.
WW2 is another great example of this, no topic has had more books and films than WW2 yet the perception vs reality is incredibly wide in popular US culture.
Particularly with how Germany really lost the war to the Soviets in late 1942 when they failed to subdue Russia in the early invasion. The west (US/UK/Canada) largely just cleaned up the mess from 1943-45, as the Nazi's were fighting an impossible war after that point. Even then Russia did most of the work in terms of raw combat. But even when this is noted in history books Russia's success is largely dismissed as merely due to their fortunate geography and willingness to treat their soldiers like expendable fodder. But it was in fact largely due to Russia having better technology than Germany (specifically better tanks/armour [1]) and the geography was far less of an issue to the Nazi's in 1942, who unlike Napolean had highly mobile tanks, aircraft, trains, and Blitzkrieg tactics.
The silk road and China's alleged cultural dominance seems to be no different. Being of far less importance in actual trade volume and influence than is commonly understood.
[1] particularily the KV-1 tank, which grinded Operation Barbarossa to a halt https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Kliment_Voroshilov_tank
> In certain situations, even a single KV-1 or KV-2 supported by infantry was capable of halting large German formations. German tank armament was too poor to deal with the "Russian Colossus".