tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591186784456519139.post2153976625101616393..comments2024-01-02T17:38:32.872+00:00Comments on Economics of Imperialism: The Mao-Roosevelt No Meeting, 1945Tony Norfieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03896437404164741498noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591186784456519139.post-61144401160230089142020-12-27T12:24:02.129+00:002020-12-27T12:24:02.129+00:00Reply to Harris: Yes, you are right about Cuba and...Reply to Harris: Yes, you are right about Cuba and Vietnam, and this is rarely noted by people on the left. <br /><br />I noted the China-US-Afghanistan deal briefly in the 'Xinjiang Crossing' section of my article on 'China and US Power', here: https://economicsofimperialism.blogspot.com/2020/07/china-us-power.htmlTony Norfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896437404164741498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591186784456519139.post-61365314976119882842020-12-27T08:54:35.944+00:002020-12-27T08:54:35.944+00:00"But Mao would have been happy to come to som..."But Mao would have been happy to come to some kind of deal with the US – not the colonial British and French – to get support for economic development."<br /><br />That is true, not just for Mao, but even for Castro or Ho. Eventually, such a deal was made and (unfortunately) the chinese played an opportunistic role in the arming and supplying of the mujahedeen against the Soviet Union.<br /><br />HarrisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com