Nothing pro war about it. Read history books instead of making assumptions. It is referring to the mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau as a whole. It became popular with the rise of China. Try any business newspaper in the 90s. It is less relevant now as Hong Kong and Macau are now part of China.
It isn’t unlike Benelux, or Scandinavia, or Iberian, or Balkan, or Gulf countries.
When was the last time Greater Italy being used? Right.
From the book “The Concept of “Greater China”: Themes, Variations and Reservation”:
The world is suddenly talking about the emergence of “Greater China.” The term has appeared in the headlines of major newspapers and magazines, has been the topic of conferences sponsored by prominent think-tanks, and is now the theme of a special issue of the world's leading journal of Chinese affairs. It thus joins other phrases – “the new world order,” “the end of history,” “the Pacific Century” and the “clash of civilizations” – as part of the trendiest vocabulary used in discussions of contemporary global affairs.
Yeah I think you may have understood my point. If you don't like Greater Italy, replace it with Greater Netherlands, it's much more relevant today.
EDIT: it would be cool if you add "EDIT" when editing a comment or maybe think for moment before posting so that I don't reply to a different comment. Every time I reload the page I see a different comment, it's pretty funny honestly.
And I don’t understand your point. Greater China continues to be used today, like it’s been in the last 30 years. Who get to decide it’s relevant or not? UN?
My point is very simple: "Greater Nation" has been used countless times throughout history to describe irredentist movements. Given the political status between the PCR and the ROC, it's very reasonable to think that the term has negative connotations.
GP called the term “pro war”. That’s what I object. I thought it was very clear?
As for “negative connotations”, you are entitled to your opinion, but that isn’t commonly shared, judging from how often it’s being used. I’m sure there are people in Finland who don’t like being called Scandinavian, given their distinct culture and language compared to other Scandinavian countries. That doesn’t mean it is unreasonable for someone to call them that.
If you're referring to Pan-Scandinavism, there was never a serious proposal to conquer Finland. In fact, the opposite is true: Sweden sent soldiers to help Finland during World Wars I and II, making no attempt to annex the country. I have no idea how "Scandinavia" could possibly be compared to the many "Greater Nation" out there. Maybe you should take your own advice and read some history books as your example is fundamentally different.
It isn’t unlike Benelux, or Scandinavia, or Iberian, or Balkan, or Gulf countries.