That was 1964, if this was a diagram from 1964 fine, but this is 2020 200km/h isn't high speed rail today, also 210km/h > 200km/h.
My problem with this diagram is western countries that want their rail lines that are "technically" built for up to 200km/h operation but only ever run trains at 140km/h or lower categorised as high speed rail.
It's the old liberal trick of re-categorising what something is by ignoring modern technology. Another good example of this is broadband speed in the US, where ISDN lines were for a long time classified as high speed broadband to make the FTC look like it was doing a good job.
That was 1964, if this was a diagram from 1964 fine, but this is 2020 200km/h isn't high speed rail today, also 210km/h > 200km/h.
My problem with this diagram is western countries that want their rail lines that are "technically" built for up to 200km/h operation but only ever run trains at 140km/h or lower categorised as high speed rail.
It's the old liberal trick of re-categorising what something is by ignoring modern technology. Another good example of this is broadband speed in the US, where ISDN lines were for a long time classified as high speed broadband to make the FTC look like it was doing a good job.
To be fair here a lot of Chinese high speed rail is also 200kph
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/86/Rail_map_of_China_%28high_speed_highlighted%29_WP.svg
It's also a boon to China to include it.