Anders comes out of hiding. Beijing games are like Hitler's

[Agamemnon]

If China is as bad (or worse) in their rights records than Hitler's Germany... then how can we still trade with them and remain 'moral' states? If we believe that the current China's abuses rival WW2 Germany's, shouldn't we be demanding a full-boycott of all China?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

If China is as bad (or worse) in their rights records than Hitler's Germany... then how can we still trade with them and remain 'moral' states? If we believe that the current China's abuses rival WW2 Germany's, shouldn't we be demanding a full-boycott of all China?

We should be demanding a full-boycott. However, that would put a serious financial cost to our morality, and western states and their "moral" citizens are not willing to pay it. China holds a lot of US debt in bonds, and Germany is hugely reliant on them too... boycott them, and those economies go to the toilet, let alone what happen to the rest in bloated finished goods cost, amongst other things.

Right now, the world seems to tolerate the Red Dragon being a tyrannical monster to its citizens, and hopes that soft diplomacy, appeasement and perks like the Olympics will "make them behave."

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

If China is as bad (or worse) in their rights records than Hitler's Germany... then how can we still trade with them and remain 'moral' states? If we believe that the current China's abuses rival WW2 Germany's, shouldn't we be demanding a full-boycott of all China?

You can't just 'quit' trading with them.

Unless of course, consumers in North America 'quit' buying Chinese made goods.

Which I doubt they will.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

China holds a lot of US debt in bonds, and Germany is hugely reliant on them too... boycott them, and those economies go to the toilet, let alone what happen to the rest in bloated finished goods cost, amongst other things.

Maybe it's just my extreme ignorance on the subject, but where did China get monies to buy alot of the US debt in bonds? Don't they have their own financial issues to deal with first and foremost?

Wouldn't they put themselves in debt doing that?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Muta

Maybe it's just my extreme ignorance on the subject, but where did China get monies to buy alot of the US debt in bonds? Don't they have their own financial issues to deal with first and foremost?

Wouldn't they put themselves in debt doing that?

I have no idea how they did it... I've just heard from several sources that China does indeed hold a lot of it. Maybe someone else can explain it in greater detail.

[flip]

This always reminds me of how Stalin killed something like 20-30 million of his own people yet it is far overshadowed by what Hitler did because of the sheer horribleness (not a real word i know).

Not to take anything away from Hitler's atrocities but FAR more people have died at the hands of other governments/dictators than Jews were killed but for obvious reasons the Holocaust always garners way more attn. It is certainly depressing to think that exterminating 6 million people isn't even a huge deal in the scheme of mass killings over the last 100 years.

[jammies]

The Holocaust's primacy in atrocities is dubious; the 20th century was full of major and minor genocides, repressions, and forced famines. It was the first widely documented and industrialized genocide, however, which is how it attained mythic status as uniquely horrible; and part of that myth behind it is that people don't WANT to believe it isn't unique, as the thought that such scenarios are not all that uncommon is depressing indeed.

As far as China goes, their current gov't are no better than the Nazis except in that they haven't invaded anyone lately. If Hitler had never started WWII, we'd be trading with the Nazis for cars and cameras and ignoring the (undoubtedly suppressed and contentious) evidence of their genocide of the Jews.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Azure

You can't just 'quit' trading with them.

Unless of course, consumers in North America 'quit' buying Chinese made goods.

Which I doubt they will.

Us trading with China helps our economy, stopping that trade will never in a million year happen. It would be political suicide for whoever was in charge.

Imagine *insert random electronic device here* suddenly costing 2-4X as much, or more.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Us trading with China helps our economy, stopping that trade will never in a million year happen. It would be political suicide for whoever was in charge.

Imagine *insert random electronic device here* suddenly costing 2-4X as much, or more.

Just goes to show what's really important to us consumers... human rights violations that rival Nazi Germany? Fair enough, as long as I can buy electronics cheaply... real proud society we've go here.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Just goes to show what's really important to us consumers... human rights violations that rival Nazi Germany? Fair enough, as long as I can buy electronics cheaply... real proud society we've go here.

Thats sorta my point.

If consumers were aware of the situation, and actually cared....they would start boycotting things made in China.

And its not JUST electronics...there are a lot of other things too.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I have no idea how they did it... I've just heard from several sources that China does indeed hold a lot of it. Maybe someone else can explain it in greater detail.

When you don't have 1st world infratructure and social spending but get to sell the productivity of 1.5 billion workers in first world economies, the money rolls in quickly.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Thats sorta my point.

If consumers were aware of the situation, and actually cared....they would start boycotting things made in China.

And its not JUST electronics...there are a lot of other things too.

Consumers aren't aware of the situation in China? I thought human rights abuses in China were pretty public knowledge, especially since Tiananmen Square.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Consumers aren't aware of the situation in China? I thought human rights abuses in China were pretty public knowledge, especially since Tiananmen Square.

You might be surprised how many people have no idea of what is happening over there.

Either that, or they're ignoring it, and downplaying the abuses.....something that has happened here on CP in the thread HHH started about China.

[HOZ]

You don't buy products from their government. Especially electronics which are made elsewhere in asia.

Disagreeing with the Chinese government's policies and actions and then buying a product from Szuhuo's Business and Technology city(created and built with Singapore money) doesn't make you a hypocrit. If you do so choose not to buy a product from there it is certainly you free choice but do you really think it would matter to the government of China? I am not talking about the size of the penalty imposed upon China but rather the target. You are smacking the company not the regime.

Now an economic embargo WOULD make a difference but then we would have to live with an increase in clothing prices and food prices as well as the economic hardship on our own exports to that country.

So, I think these protest and China's counter protests are a great way of making China listen. I have made fun of the Free Tibetan people for years as sum of their entire movement, up until now, has been putting bumperstickers on their beemers. Now they have a legit target and I am happy to say they have done a great job of embarrassing that ordorous regime! They are losing face in a BAD way and that is killing them. This torch run is a joke.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by jammies

The Holocaust's primacy in atrocities is dubious; the 20th century was full of major and minor genocides, repressions, and forced famines. It was the first widely documented and industrialized genocide, however, which is how it attained mythic status as uniquely horrible; and part of that myth behind it is that people don't WANT to believe it isn't unique, as the thought that such scenarios are not all that uncommon is depressing indeed.

As far as China goes, their current gov't are no better than the Nazis except in that they haven't invaded anyone lately. If Hitler had never started WWII, we'd be trading with the Nazis for cars and cameras and ignoring the (undoubtedly suppressed and contentious) evidence of their genocide of the Jews.

Absolutely wrong. The English people, especially, were ready to fight Hitler and the Nazis long before the Second World War took place.

[llama64]

What a pointless comment from tool of a man.

Is he really trying to say that China is "eviler" then Hitler's Germany because the body count is higher? Any atrocity is worth heavy criticism. Body counts don't mean anything... China is just as bad as any tyrannical dictatorship.

China does not deserve the Olympic games, plain and simple. The massive protests around the world are enough evidence that most people think that way. The real victims here are going to be the athletes who have to compete amidst all this controversy.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

Absolutely wrong. The English people, especially, were ready to fight Hitler and the Nazis long before the Second World War took place.

Oh, that must be why in 1938 the British knuckled under to Hitler and gave him the Sudetenland in the Munich Accord rather than declare war. You know, the year directly preceding 1939, when the war actually started? Chamberlain, "peace in our time", appeasement - any of that sound familiar?

The only one who wanted to fight Hitler was Churchill, and at the time he was out in the political wilderness. It was only when the British (not the English, btw) realized that Hitler wasn't interested in peace that they guaranteed Poland's independence - in 1939, hardly "long before" WWII - and that triggered war when he ignored the guarantee and invaded anyway.

If Hitler had been content with absorbing Austria, the Sudetenland and Memel, WWII (in Europe, anyway) would never have happened, unless it had ended up being a war strictly between Germany and the USSR, which is also doubtful as Stalin wasn't originally interested in expansion by war, but rather by revolution.

The British and French would NEVER have declared war on a peaceful Germany - for what purpose would they have done so? To save the Jews? Yah, just like we declared war on the Soviets for the gulags, on the Turks for when they tried to finish off the Armenians, or the Belgians for genocide in the Congo.

To relate this back to the original thread, the truth is that the democracies are all too willing to tolerate just about anything from evil regimes - like China's - as long as there is money in it and our interests aren't at stake. Nazi Germany would have been no different: as long as they kept to themselves, they could have done whatever they pleased and the most they would have gotten would have been some "strongly worded protests" and maybe some damning articles in the free newspapers. Meanwhile, the Volkswagens would still be in the showrooms...

[peter12]

Oh, that must be why in 1938 the British knuckled under to Hitler and gave him the Sudetenland in the Munich Accord rather than declare war. You know, the year directly preceding 1939, when the war actually started? Chamberlain, "peace in our time", appeasement - any of that sound familiar?

The only one who wanted to fight Hitler was Churchill, and at the time he was out in the political wilderness. It was only when the British (not the English, btw) realized that Hitler wasn't interested in peace that they guaranteed Poland's independence - in 1939, hardly "long before" WWII - and that triggered war when he ignored the guarantee and invaded anyway.

If Hitler had been content with absorbing Austria, the Sudetenland and Memel, WWII (in Europe, anyway) would never have happened, unless it had ended up being a war strictly between Germany and the USSR, which is also doubtful as Stalin wasn't originally interested in expansion by war, but rather by revolution.

The British and French would NEVER have declared war on a peaceful Germany - for what purpose would they have done so? To save the Jews? Yah, just like we declared war on the Soviets for the gulags, on the Turks for when they tried to finish off the Armenians, or the Belgians for genocide in the Congo.


You should read about the Tory government and Chamberlain's dictator-like grip over his own caucus. There were plenty of dissidents within British politics who opposed Hitler as soon as he was elected in 1933. To suppose that Chamberlain's appeasement policies were representative of the whole of British politics is naive.

As well, read about the Fascist Party in Britan, The British Union of Fascists, did employ significant support among the upper classes, but was constantly at odds with the majority of English society.

Read about the The Battle of Cable Street, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cable_Street, where hundred of thousands of Londoners from all walks of life banded together to stop a fascist march on the Jewish District in 1936.

[jammies]

^Irrelevant almost in entirety

You claimed that the "English" people were ready to fight Hitler, and that I was wrong in saying if he hadn't invaded Poland, there would have been no WWII. To support that, you are saying:

1. Chamberlain had a dictator-like grip on his caucus.
2. Plenty of dissidents opposed Hitler on his election in '33.
3. The Fascist Party in Britain was at odds with the majority of English (again!) society.

None of this supports your original assertion - at all. Thanks, but I don't need to read anything about Cable Street, as I was already conversant with it, nor is it all relevant to your original argument. What you need to prove is that Britain would have declared war on Germany without the provocation of his invasion of Poland. To do so, you need to refute or explain:

- How the British would have convinced the French to join in, bearing in mind they needed some kind of base on the Continent to prosecute an offensive against Germany.
- Why the supposedly bellicose British people didn't rise in righteous anger at the sellout of the Czechs and cause Chamberlain's government to fall.
- Why the British didn't do more than weakly protest at Hitler's reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936, despite that clearly violating the Treaty of Versailles and being a valid casus belli that they obviously had no wish to take advantage of - yet a few years later they would supposedly launch an unprovoked attack on his regime when the German armed forces were far more formidable.

Dissidents and marchers don't formulate policy or start wars. Nor does disliking fascism compel countries to war against it any more than the distaste for communism led the West to war on the USSR. Or the Chinese, for that matter.