If not Mao, who?

[Tingkai]

Switching Mao for Shih Huang-ti? Interesting trade. Both men can be praised for unifying China, but they can also be condemned.

Shih Huang-ti executed hundreds of Confucian scholars and ordered the burning of thousands of books that did not appeal to his tastes. Tens of thousands of people died building the Great Wall and his tomb, the famous terracotta soldiers in Xian.

There is no doubt that Mao was responsible for millions of people, although many would their deaths were the unforeseen results of poor policy decisions, as oppose to Hitler’s and Stalin’s deliberate acts of murder.

Before we condemn Mao, it should be remembered that he brought an end to a bloody civil war that had lasted about 20 years. As well, he brought an end to European rule in China and a 100-year period of unstable government during which more than 30 million people were killed, most of them before Mao arrived on the scene.

Despite the complaints on this list, Mao is not hated as much as Hitler and Stalin. Mao made mistakes, mistakes that were deadly for many people, but I don’t perceive him as having that sadistic streak that we see in Hitler and Stalin.

[kolpo]

The disadvantages of both systems (capitalism and communism) are well-known today. Communism lacks the creativity and flexibility to adapt to new situations. Coordination and responsibility, due to egoïsm are the weak points of capitalism. That's why both systems no longer exist today. Every mayor industrialized nation has a free market, but with government control and regulations, to preserve the best of both worlds.

I agree completely with you here, the best way is the middle way. Radicalism of any sort is dangerous(be it maoism,laise faire capitalism, nazism, fundamentalism they all are cruel because they are to radical)

[easy]

As a Chinese, I agree with Mao as the Chinese leader.
Though he did make many mistakes in his life, but I still view him as a hero. If you know Chinese history, you should know how miserable the China was during 19th century and begining of 20th century. Any country could sent a fleet and force China to sign a treaty, giving out huge amount of lands and money. Mao and his comrades found the new China, though it's still not rich, but at least independent and will not bow to other's power.
About other kingdoms, I don't like Qing, it's too cruel. Han and Tang are much better.

[Transcend]

Originally posted by easy
As a Chinese, I agree with Mao as the Chinese leader.
Though he did make many mistakes in his life, but I still view him as a hero. If you know Chinese history, you should know how miserable the China was during 19th century and begining of 20th century. Any country could sent a fleet and force China to sign a treaty, giving out huge amount of lands and money. Mao and his comrades found the new China, though it's still not rich, but at least independent and will not bow to other's power.
About other kingdoms, I don't like Qing, it's too cruel. Han and Tang are much better.

Qing was not the root cause for China's misery in late 19th century. China's decline began with the system Zhu Yuanzhang instituted in early Ming Dynasty. His economical policy was a huge step backward compared to the Song Dynasty and essentially stiffled competition and technological progress. On the political side, Ming system was the most oppressive and tyrannical in Chinese history, and also one of the least efficient one. Finally, Zhu's cultural policy destroyed basis for all progress by making Neo-confucianism the state philosophy.

When Manchus arrived in mid 17th century, Ming was morally, economically, militarily, and politically bankrupt. Qing gave China one last glory and trippled its territory. If it were not for Manchus, China couldn't possibly control Xinjiang, Tibet, Manchuria, and Inner Mongolia today.

Mao's role in history still has to be evaluated. It's too early to pass judgements on him now. His reorganization of Chinese peasantry was a brilliant accomplishment, finally eliminating a vicious cycle that plagued the peasants for a thousand years. But his economic policies of late 50s to 70s proved to be disastrous. Mao's personal belief in will power blinded him to the fact that economy has to be run by experts, and not by mobs. He instigated the "Giant Leap Forward" slogan in 1958 and tried to push the industrialization forward. That led to massive crop shortfalls in the coming years and death of at least 30 million people. Even though Mao beared responsibilities for these deaths, he came nowhere near the viciousness of Stalin and Hitler who intended to kill millions of people by starvation or murder.

However, I agree that there are other leaders in Chinese history that are better suited than Mao. Qin Shi-Huang-Di, Han Wu-Di, Tang Tai-Zong, Qing Sheng-Zu(Kangxi) all qualify.

[ancient]

i doubt that china would be advanced today as it is if it was not for mao, because of the conditions of peasants and the suffering in 1950 and compare them to even 1960 and you will see mass improvement, also mao despite the bad things he has done hereunited china and broke foreign oppresion. chinas agriculture and industry continuoulsy rose in his lead and yes there were famines, and yes there was oppression yet compared to what was before him its practically true democracy.

Mao Zedong is the only worthy leader of the chinese, and i think chinas golden age is now.

[Transcend]

Originally posted by ancient
i doubt that china would be advanced today as it is if it was not for mao, because of the conditions of peasants and the suffering in 1950 and compare them to even 1960 and you will see mass improvement, also mao despite the bad things he has done hereunited china and broke foreign oppresion. chinas agriculture and industry continuoulsy rose in his lead and yes there were famines, and yes there was oppression yet compared to what was before him its practically true democracy.

Mao Zedong is the only worthy leader of the chinese, and i think chinas golden age is now.

Hard to say. Mao reformed the Chinese peasantry, but screwed up the education for at least 10 years. Education is paramount important, too.

Another question: would Jiang Jieshi have done a better job? Taiwan is economically more successful than the mainland, but it is smaller and easier to govern, too.

[ancient]

You see how you blame famines on the countrys leaders, how is that fair? the reason why the famines have been increesing in intensity and will continue to increase is simple..

Industry and Aggriculture compete, urban vs rural compete. The more industry is increased the more your citys expand, which cause a) a decrease in farm workers b) a decrease in farm land. population will continue to increase farm land and workers will continue to decrease, so naturally there is going to be a problem since most of the world isnt able to grow food.

So famines will become more deadly, and india you pegged there leader as good yet india is poor and people are starving yet ghandi is really good, he has done nothing to decrease the indish peoples sufferings.

You dont blame the depression on capitalism (which was the reason why it happened) why do you blame famine on communism? mao increased food production and modernized it (as much as he could) but the results couldnt meet up with the amount he didnt import. i think the only reason they didnt import much things is because of theire untrust of other nations. all western nations had taken advantage of them same with russia and japan so who could they trust to give them good trade, no one...

[ancient]

Originally posted by Transcend


Hard to say. Mao reformed the Chinese peasantry, but screwed up the education for at least 10 years. Education is paramount important, too.

Another question: would Jiang Jieshi have done a better job? Taiwan is economically more successful than the mainland, but it is smaller and easier to govern, too.

'

how can you say that, before mao there was no public educastion, education was reserved for the rich before him now every one had a chance to become litterate..

and taiwans economy more successfull than the mainland is questionable, but per sq. mile it is true. and even so since the introduction of red capitialism into chinas economy, thatr will change very soon. chinas economy is booming and new buildings are being made all over..

[Transcend]

Originally posted by ancient
'

how can you say that, before mao there was no public educastion, education was reserved for the rich before him now every one had a chance to become litterate..

I agree that general education in China improved dramatically after Communists had taken the power. But is it fair to give all credits to Mao? If he was not solely responsible for the country's famine, then he certainly shouldn't take all credits for good actions. It was fact that Mao or the Gang of 4 trashed the higher education during the cultural revolution. Students were sent to villages and factories with the purpose of "being educated by peasants and workers". University and colleges were shut down completely for a 10 years! Can America today ever afford to have all its colleges shut down for 10 years and still stay competitive?

As I said before, Mao is a controversial figure. He followed his briliant starts with utmost disastrous policies. A final judgement can not be passed on him because it's still too early. One thing is clear: he was nowhere near the viciousness of either Stalin or Hitler.

[ancient]

i completely agree with you but some education is better then none at all and at that time china had little uses for coledge/universities, especially since the country was poor and they were all government run..

and yes you can blame somethings directly to mao but other things are out of their controll... in comunist china mao had indisputable power, and his takeover power was the only change..


however i find the most reason why people want to exclude mao is because of his being communist, you cant change history or the future more... back later..

ok where i left of the future is a definately going to be mostly demo/socialist extremeist governments will not exist, atleast i think..

Mao isnt that bad, sure he did do bad things but nothing bad enough to outway what good he did.. china was a mess now it isnt quite as much of a mess, howd they get there? staring with mao...

[BSH]

The Shih Huang that is criticized above for killing scholars and burning books is exactly the right comparison for Mao, because Mao did exactly those things. How can anyone whitewash the murder of an entire class of people? How can anyone say that because Mao was not genocidal (that I know of), only killing the educated regardless of race, that he is better than Hitler? How is it acceptable, even model behavior, to suppress learning and thought? And to kill, torture, and/or imprison those who resist having their thoughts suppressed? It doesn't even matter why the revolution occurred; communist totalitarianism in China has been no better for the people than the feudalism of the Warring States era. The communists did NOT improve education; that was the whole point of the cultural revolution, to suppress the people and make them serve the party.

As they say, history is recorded by the winners, therefore Mao can be a hero to some. Just like Hamas is working for peace in the middle east.

[JellyDonut]

How about Sun Yat-Sen? He was the Gandhi of India. Or that guy who ruled during the construction of the Great Wall. I forget his name but I think there was a "q" in there somewhere.

Mao is definitely a bad choice. He and the other pseudo-communists (Lenin, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, and countless others) never supported/do not support the ideas set forth by Marx and Engels and give rise to stereotypes of us Marxists.

WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTIES, UNTIE! Hee hee hee, just a little joke my Marxist friends use to show how twisted Marxism is in the minds of those oppressed by capitalism.

WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!
PROLETARIEN ALLER LÄNDER, VEREINIGT EUCH!
PROLÉTAIRES DE TOUS LES PAYS , UNISSEZ-VOUS!
PROLETARII VSEX STRAN, SOEDINJAJTES'!
KAIKKIEN MAIDEN PROLETAARIT, LIITTYKÄÄ YHTEEN!
PROLETOJ DE CXIUJ NACIOJ, UNUIGXU!
PROLETÄRER I ALLA LÄNDER, FÖRENA ER!
¡PROLETARIOS DE TODOS LOS PAÍSES, UNÍOS!
PROLETÁRIOS DE TODOS OS PAÍSES, UNIDE-VOS!
PROLETARIËRS ALLER LANDEN, VEREINIGT U!

[Transcend]

Originally posted by BSH
The Shih Huang that is criticized above for killing scholars and burning books is exactly the right comparison for Mao, because Mao did exactly those things. How can anyone whitewash the murder of an entire class of people? How can anyone say that because Mao was not genocidal (that I know of), only killing the educated regardless of race, that he is better than Hitler? How is it acceptable, even model behavior, to suppress learning and thought? And to kill, torture, and/or imprison those who resist having their thoughts suppressed? It doesn't even matter why the revolution occurred; communist totalitarianism in China has been no better for the people than the feudalism of the Warring States era. The communists did NOT improve education; that was the whole point of the cultural revolution, to suppress the people and make them serve the party.

As they say, history is recorded by the winners, therefore Mao can be a hero to some. Just like Hamas is working for peace in the middle east.

Three things to clear:
First, Mao never introduced a policy of killing educated class. He merely wanted them to learn from farmers and peasants. You are confusing him with Pol Pot.
Second, surpressing learning and thought was common in ALL authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, from ancient into modern times. Mao was hardly the first one to practice it. Thought controls carried out by Ming and Qing emperors were magnitude worse than Mao's(Death by thousand cuts for writing something Emperors didn't like). Warring states was age long past in China, ever since the Empire began, though controls were prominent in every dynasty. It is hardly fair to only subject Mao to that criteria. Third, communists indeed improved the GENERAL education. Prior in 1949, 90% of Chinese population were illiterate. Until 1966, that number has already fallen to 40%. Cultural revolution did do its damage, but it would be unfair to say that Communists didn't do anything to improve the education. You could say that Nationalist might have done a better job.

Have you ever lived in China, or have you ever talked to any of eyewitnesses? Or do you derive your conclusions from American media and second hand account? If that's the case, you are hardly qualified to make any judgement about Mao.

[Chow Yun Fat]

I believe that Mao is the best known Chinese political leader for the westerners. If you are looking for more enlightened modern political leaders, I suggest Sun Yat-Sin(?) or Zhou Enlai(?). I think they are respected by the Chinese.

For a good replacement that signifies Chinese culture, I suggest

Bruce Lee or Chow Yun-Fat.

When I play Civ 2, I nearly always use my name as the Chinese leader.

[ancient]

hey so a (almost) real chinese is going to post in the topici don tthink they should be excepted, i like the revolutionary leader to be in, which is why i also want lenin for russia, and support joan of arc for france (she didnt lead it really but you need a girl leader..)

[Sun Zi 36]

I would go for Sun Yat-Sen. Actually, it's more accurate to call him Sun Wen. Anyway, he led the revolution against Qing. I think he is the "cleanest" Chinese great leader you can use. There are more flaws in Mao or Shih Huang or Cheng Kai Shek. And Cheng Ho was a eunuch by the way so I don't think it would be very good to make him a leader. There are also other leaders which are "clean" but they are not as well known (to the outside world). Sun Wen is the one which you can really look up to and say: he is a great leader without any secong thoughts.

I agree Mao have achieved quite a lot. But one has to look at the situation the leader is in. By the time the Japanese surrendered, it's pretty inevitable that the civil war would end one way or the other. I don't think it's his credit for ending the civil war. True, his achievements after the war, ie industrial progress, nuclear technology etc is impressive but is it the best that a great leader could achieve in the circumstances he is in? In my view, under the circumstances he is in, ie in power and control of post-war China, he could have done better. The "sacrifices" eg cultural revolution, famines, didn't have to occur.

I think the golden age for China is from around 200BC to about 1750AD. At about 1750AD Chinese manufacturing output as a percentage of the world is still nearly twice that of the West. And it began to drop only after about 1800. It's too early to say now is the time of Chinese golden age. The world is still dominated by Western culture in all aspects, ie economic, trade, commuications, political infuence, social influence, military etc. Maybe in 15 yrs time.

Anyway, are you guys talking about the name of the leader that controls the civilisation of the leader unit that randomly pops up when u win a battle? If you are talking about the name of the leader of the civilisation, i think it would be very easy to change it.

[BSH]

This is what Mao brought to education in China.

http://www.cnd.org/CR/english/articles/violence.htm

I'll make no interpretation. Let the words of those who were there speak for themselves.

[Uffty]

Originally posted by tniem

However, the Russian power was biggest during the Cold War. One of the top two nations on Earth, controlling half the world, and at any moment nuclear war could have broken out.

Well,....I dont know what you know, but I DO know that Russia has more nuclear warheads than the US (Russia: 27000, US: 17000 (1995) just a small lack of conventional and a little lack of motivation.

So I would rather take Gorbachev, he won the Nobel prize for Peace and he was a great leader of the Soviets end of the 80s. He is much better than Stalin and Peter together.

[tniem]

Originally posted by Uffty
So I would rather take Gorbachev, he won the Nobel prize for Peace and he was a great leader of the Soviets end of the 80s. He is much better than Stalin and Peter together.

But couldn't the argument be made that Gorbachev policies directly led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. So in essence you would be picking the leader of a nation as the person that brought about its dimise economically.

[Transcend]

Originally posted by BSH
This is what Mao brought to education in China.

http://www.cnd.org/CR/english/articles/violence.htm

I'll make no interpretation. Let the words of those who were there speak for themselves.

This topic didn't contradict with my assertion that communists did a good job on education from 1949 to 1965, but screwed it up between 1966 and 1977.

You got to give them credits for the first 16 years in that area. To judge someone's leadership, you have to take his overall performance into account, not just part of it. You don't earn any credibility by doing so.

[Uffty]

The Soviet Union wasnt actually broken down by Gorbachev. he changed a lot in humanity questions and he became -to right- Nobel Prize holder for Peace.

It's hard to see for a one-way-educated american, but the Soviet Union and especially Gorbachev didnt really fall cuz of the americans. Germany's people unthroned the eastern block and set free a wave of revolution. It could have ended in a war 1989 but the Soviets accepted and thats why they fell. They were just tolerate (not like in Prague 68, Hungary 58). You'll never understand this. By the way, I'm German.

It's not in my intention to teach history here. I wanna hear something about the GAME Civ 3.

And in my opinion Gorbachev is one good russian leader.
And for a German leader to choose Friedrich (Frederick in engl.) is simply funny. He didnt do a lot. And ALSO was he just King of Prussia, not whole Germany.
Germany's leader should be Otto von Bismarck.

[BSH]

Originally posted by Transcend

You got to give them credits for the first 16 years in that area. To judge someone's leadership, you have to take his overall performance into account, not just part of it. You don't earn any credibility by doing so.

Okay, assuming there was practically no education in China before Mao, which is an assumption that is far from demonstrated, then Mao gets approximately zero credit for education, as the condition it was in when he left power was essentially the same as when he started. The cultural revolution utterly destroyed much of China, education in particular. I AM taking his overall performance into account.

Let's say that there was no famine, no Great Leap Forward, and no Cultural Revolution. Let's pretend those things didn't ever happen and Mao wasn't responsible for more deaths than any other human being who has ever lived. At that point Mao is no longer a vile monster, but instead is merely incompetent. Drifting from one failure to the next, with no concept of how to achieve industrial and economic growth or scientific progress. That's one area in which Hitler greatly outperformed Mao as a despot.

Simply saying that before Mao, China had nothing, so the fact that he brought the nation mediocrity shows great progress is still oversimplification and exaggeration. Look at the rest of Asia over the last 50 years - Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore. These nations have had fantastic growth, dramatically improving the lives of the people (with VERY little bloodshed, one might add). But the PRC, with all its resources, was stagnant. They have enjoyed tremendous growth in the PRC in the past 20 years, but still the per capita income is a very third-worldly $600. The bottom line is that Mao was not in any way a great leader (except in body count); he is merely the most notorious leader from China. To be completely blunt, he's not even worth including in the game for his body count; after all, how hard is it to kill unarmed peasants, anyway? There are both greater tyrants and more enlightened leaders in China's history.

[BSH]

Originally posted by Transcend

You got to give them credits for the first 16 years in that area. To judge someone's leadership, you have to take his overall performance into account, not just part of it. You don't earn any credibility by doing so.

Okay, assuming there was practically no education in China before Mao, which is an assumption that is far from demonstrated, then Mao gets approximately zero credit for education, as the condition it was in when he left power was essentially the same as when he started. The cultural revolution utterly destroyed much of China, education in particular. I AM taking his overall performance into account.

Let's say that there was no famine, no Great Leap Forward, and no Cultural Revolution. Let's pretend those things didn't ever happen and Mao wasn't responsible for more deaths than any other human being who has ever lived. At that point Mao is no longer a vile monster, but instead is merely incompetent. Drifting from one failure to the next, with no concept of how to achieve industrial and economic growth or scientific progress. That's one area in which Hitler greatly outperformed Mao as a despot.

Simply saying that before Mao, China had nothing, so the fact that he brought the nation mediocrity shows great progress is still oversimplification and exaggeration. Look at the rest of Asia over the last 50 years - Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore. These nations have had fantastic growth, dramatically improving the lives of the people (with VERY little bloodshed, one might add). But the PRC, with all its resources, was stagnant. They have enjoyed tremendous growth in the PRC in the past 20 years, but still the per capita income is a very third-worldly $600. The bottom line is that Mao was not in any way a great leader (except in body count); he is merely the most notorious leader from China. To be completely blunt, he's not even worth including in the game for his body count; after all, how hard is it to kill unarmed peasants, anyway? There are both greater tyrants and more enlightened leaders in China's history.

[Urban Ranger]

Sun Zi 36,

Sun Wen was a clean leader but a weak leader. He led the revolution that toppled the Manchus, but he didn't complete it so the warlords were left in place, creating the chaoes that was to ensue for the next 4 decades.

"By the time the Japanese surrendered, it's pretty inevitable that the civil war would end one way or the other. I don't think it's his credit for ending the civil war. "

You have to remember that Mao lied down the policy of establishing "liberated areas" to unit the peasants and gain their support. It should be to his creadit that the Red Army grew from being driven around like a dog during the Long March (1934 - 1936) to a force that could stand up to KMT's best, and it's very good in terms of equipment - all bought from the US mind you.

"In my view, under the circumstances he is in, ie in power and control of post-war China, he could have done better. The "sacrifices" eg cultural revolution, famines, didn't have to occur."

He was too much of a revolutionary and not enough of a pragmatist. Unfortunately he also had a strangle hold on power until his death, so some things he did was not good in practice, and even have dire consequences. However he did unite the peasants and grant them status that they never had before. He also managed to complete the work that Sun Wen had started by finally destroying all the warlords.

"If you are talking about the name of the leader of the civilisation, i think it would be very easy to change it."

But not if you also get a picture


Simon Loverix,

"Peasants are like sesame seed: the harder you press, the more you get out of them."

Never heard that before.


Transcend,

"Qin Shi-Huang-Di, Han Wu-Di, Tang Tai-Zong, Qing Sheng-Zu(Kangxi) all qualify."

Qin Shihuang did some nasty things, Han Wu was some person who's interested mainly in expanding territory, Tang Tai-Zong murdered his brothers to become emperor, and Kangxi was a foreigner and head of the oppressor.



"Can America today ever afford to have all its colleges shut down for 10 years and still stay competitive?"

Isn't that why the US imports lots of experts for other countries?

"That led to massive crop shortfalls in the coming years and death of at least 30 million people."

I can't find a number like that. Not even in John King Fairbank's books.


BSH,

"The Shih Huang that is criticized above for killing scholars and burning books is exactly the right comparison for Mao, because Mao did exactly those things. How can anyone whitewash the murder of an entire class of people?"

As somebody else pointed out Mao did no such thing.

"The communists did NOT improve education; that was the whole point of the cultural revolution, to suppress the people and make them serve the party."

Again, not true. Mao's purpose was to flush out the counter-revolutionaries. That Cultural Revolution would spiral out of control was not something that he could have foreseen.

" Okay, assuming there was practically no education in China before Mao, which is an assumption that is far from demonstrated, then Mao gets approximately zero credit for education, as the condition it was in when he left power was essentially the same as when he started."

That's again untrue. Mao understood the value of education and promoted it among the common folk. He had a problem with the intellectuals who didn't see eye-to-eye with him, and Mao tried to "re-educate" them.

"Look at the rest of Asia over the last 50 years - Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore. These nations have had fantastic growth, dramatically improving the lives of the people (with VERY little bloodshed, one might add)."

That's such a joke. Japan has its hands full of blood from WWII and the Japanese government still isn't going to do something about it. South Korea was probably more of an oppressive regime than Mao, you just never heard it because it's an ally of the US. Taiwan likewise. Singapore is alo quite a totalitarian country.

Japan was in a recession for the last decade. South Korea is still suffering from the Asian Economic Turmoil and their third largest conglomerate (the Daewoo Group) went bankrupt. Both counties have lots of unemployed people in the streets. Taiwan took a major hit in the Asian Economic Turmoil, and their economy is on the backslide after their new "democratically" elected president got in power.

"But the PRC, with all its resources, was stagnant."

That's not a lot of resources if you divide everything by 1.2 billion. Anyway, a great deal of improvement has been made in the last two decades.

"They have enjoyed tremendous growth in the PRC in the past 20 years, but still the per capita income is a very third-worldly $600."

So was it stagnant or not?

"The bottom line is that Mao was not in any way a great leader (except in body count); he is merely the most notorious leader from China."

Let me quote Transcend:

"Have you ever lived in China, or have you ever talked to any of eyewitnesses? Or do you derive your conclusions from American media and second hand account? If that's the case, you are hardly qualified to make any judgement about Mao."

[Sun Zi 36]

I don't really agree that Sun Wen is a weak leader. How much patience and determination do u think it takes to topple an oppressive imperialistic regime starting with a group of twenty something people? (I don't know the name of the organization in English). Qing might appear weak, indeed very weak, to the outside world but it was still a vast state machinery in China. He, or more accurately the group which he led, tried to establish a foothold for revolution for ten times over 16 years before he finally succeeds in Wuchang in 1911.

It probably was a mistake to surrender presidency to Yuan Shi Kai but to me this mistake counts little when compared with the mistakes committed by Qin Shi Huang or Mao. It was in Sun Wen's consideration that it would be very difficult or even threatening to the revolution to defeat the military in the north and that is the reason why he gave up. If he didn't give up, civil war would happen anyway. Therefore I don't think you could say he "created" the civil war.

His death prevented completion of the revolution, so you can't evaluate whether he would have been a great leader in trying to unifying China.

By the way, I don't think a great leader have to be strong in the sense that he lusts for power and control over the nation and its people. He could be strong in the sense that he is determined with whatever costs to achieve an ideal for his people, even willing to give up all that he has achieved in order to preserve it for his people.

As for Mao, quote from Urban Ranger:

"He also managed to complete the work that Sun Wen had started by finally destroying all the warlords."

As I said b4, someone ultimately would reunite China. How we evaluate the "greatness" of the leader should not be what he achieved, but how he achieved it. I agree how the Red Army grew from being driven around like a dog during the Long March into a strong force, especially how the communists saved the villages from the Japanese and did sabotages in occupied China to gain peasant support is to the credit of Mao's leadership. Nevertheless, the bad things he did in trying to hold power offset his good qualties. So I still think Sun Wen is a greater leader.

[Sun Zi 36]

I don't really agree that Sun Wen is a weak leader. How much patience and determination do u think it takes to topple an oppressive imperialistic regime starting with a group of twenty something people? (I don't know the name of the organization in English). Qing might appear weak, indeed very weak, to the outside world but it was still a vast state machinery in China. He, or more accurately the group which he led, tried to establish a foothold for revolution for ten times over 16 years before he finally succeeds in Wuchang in 1911.

It probably was a mistake to surrender presidency to Yuan Shi Kai but to me this mistake counts little when compared with the mistakes committed by Qin Shi Huang or Mao. It was in Sun Wen's consideration that it would be very difficult or even threatening to the revolution to defeat the military in the north and that is the reason why he gave up. If he didn't give up, civil war would happen anyway. Therefore I don't think you could say he "created" the civil war.

His death prevented completion of the revolution, so you can't evaluate whether he would have been a great leader in trying to unifying China.

By the way, I don't think a great leader have to be strong in the sense that he lusts for power and control over the nation and its people. He could be strong in the sense that he is determined with whatever costs to achieve an ideal for his people, even willing to give up all that he has achieved in order to preserve it for his people.

As for Mao, quote from Urban Ranger:

"He also managed to complete the work that Sun Wen had started by finally destroying all the warlords."

As I said b4, someone ultimately would reunite China. How we evaluate the "greatness" of the leader should not be what he achieved, but how he achieved it. I agree how the Red Army grew from being driven around like a dog during the Long March into a strong force, especially how the communists saved the villages from the Japanese and did sabotages in occupied China to gain peasant support is to the credit of Mao's leadership. Nevertheless, the bad things he did in trying to hold power offset his good qualties. So I still think Sun Wen is a greater leader.

[BSH]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Mao's purpose was to flush out the counter-revolutionaries. That Cultural Revolution would spiral out of control was not something that he could have foreseen.

Mao personally encouraged the lawlessness and abuse of the Red Guards. (yes, I read accounts from people who were actually there, meaning I have it second-hand) I'm sure you can find other sources to dispute that. "Flush out the counter-revolutionaries" is propaganda-speak for silencing those who disagree with the party/leader to maintain absolute power and suppress the freedom of the people.

He had a problem with the intellectuals who didn't see eye-to-eye with him, and Mao tried to "re-educate" them.

This is a polite way to describe what sickens me about Mao; you will agree with him, if it takes torture or death to make it happen. This is also, though you may not realize, a very toned-down restatement of my own criticism of Mao.

Japan has its hands full of blood from WWII and the Japanese government still isn't going to do something about it.

Let's change those words just a tiny bit: The PRC has its hands full of blood from the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, and the Chinese government still isn't going to do something about it.

Japan, since WWII, has been a free democratic society with industry, technology, and education that greatly outstrips anything the PRC has ever accomplished. Your point seems to be that because other, more advanced, nations have had varying degrees of badness that Mao is not a monster. The implication is that Mao is not so bad because other leaders have done bad things.

There are people in the PRC who kept their noses clean and avoided the pitfalls of Maoism, and there are others who did not. I still maintain that Mao is not good enough to be the visual representation for the Chinese civilization in Civ III, and I hope there's an alternative available when the game is complete.

[Transcend]

Urban Ranger, the emperors in my list all committed atrocities. So what? They all made great accomplishments and those were the things people are going to remember. Who cares if Li Shiming murdered his brothers in a palace coup while the country's population tripled(population growth is a measure of peace and properity in ancient times) under his rule?
You shouldn't list Kangxi as a foreign oppressor because then you will feed ammunitions to separatists who claim Tibetans are not Chinese.

As for BSH's arguments against Mao, I will no longer argue with someone who has no first-hand experiences and is still completely biased. Many of his "facts" were simply false. Some basic facts need to be straightened out:

First, 90+% of Chinese peasants, who constituted 90+% of Chinese population in 1949, were illiterates. There were few universities in big cities, but that was all education China could offer back then. Communist rule changed that, by 1965 less than half of peasants were still iliterate. Don't you say that's a great accomlishment? We can also compare China's development to the development in India. Both countries had about the same percentage of literate people in 1940s, by today China's literacy rate lies around 80%, while India's hovers around 55%, and that included ten wasted years of cultural revolution. Which government is more effective to provide education for its people?

Second, China had virtually no industry at beginning of 50s. The first aircrafts that flew over Tiananmen Square in October 1 1949 were made out of woods. By end 50s China was able to produce large numbers of jet fighters. In 1949, China had far less railroads compared to India. By end 50s China had almost pulled even. Today, "made in china" can be found in every retail stores in the US. Can you find as many Indian products? Today, China's freeway system includes 16,000 kilometers, third longest in the world behind US and Canada. Even German Autobahns are that extensive. Which government is more successful in building the infrastructure and industry for their countries?

Third, the nutrition. I don't know the exact numbers. But UNICEF published that India has the most starving population in any country, and that China has almost a negligible number compared to India. Despite several droughts and floods in last few years, China has harvested so much grain that it doesn't know what to deal with. One proposal includes turning excess grains into methanol/propane, a fuel that's cleaner than the usual petroleum. Which government is more effective organizing the food production of their countries?

[Urban Ranger]

Sun Zi 36,

"It probably was a mistake to surrender presidency to Yuan Shi Kai but to me this mistake counts little when compared with the mistakes committed by Qin Shi Huang or Mao. It was in Sun Wen's consideration that it would be very difficult or even threatening to the revolution to defeat the military in the north and that is the reason why he gave up. If he didn't give up, civil war would happen anyway. Therefore I don't think you could say he "created" the civil war."

Sun Wen or the KMT failed to establish control after the revolution. It might seem painful to Sun Wen that forces would have to be used to subdue the warlords, but he failed to he that if he didn't, chaos was going to reign. Which was what happened. I didn't say he "created" the civil war as in CCP vs KMT, but a virtual civil war where the warlords squared off each other.

"His death prevented completion of the revolution, so you can't evaluate whether he would have been a great leader in trying to unifying China."

He didn't even try.

"By the way, I don't think a great leader have to be strong in the sense that he lusts for power and control over the nation and its people. He could be strong in the sense that he is determined with whatever costs to achieve an ideal for his people, even willing to give up all that he has achieved in order to preserve it for his people."

I agree, that's why I said Sun Wen was weak while Mao was strong. Sun didn't go through with his goal of establishing a democracy as he let the warlords reign. On the other hand, Mao kept pushing for communism. That's why there were the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. He did those things because he was a dreamer, thinking that the common peasant could be rushed into a lofty ideal.

"So I still think Sun Wen is a greater leader."

I am not saying that Sun Wen wasn't a great leader, it's just that what he did was incomplete, with terrible consequences. I don't think even Japan would have invaded if China was a unified whole instead of in a state of virtual balkanisation.

[Urban Ranger]

BSH,

"Mao personally encouraged the lawlessness and abuse of the Red Guards. (yes, I read accounts from people who were actually there, meaning I have it second-hand) I'm sure you can find other sources to dispute that."

Other more reliable sources such as my parents, my grandparents, a large number of my relatives, and their friends.

Mao intended to completely break down the old institutes and wash away the filth that has been accumlating for thousands of years. That the movement got totally out of hand wasn't something he expected.

""Flush out the counter-revolutionaries" is propaganda-speak for silencing those who disagree with the party/leader to maintain absolute power and suppress the freedom of the people."

Your statement is propaganda-speak for the counter-revolutionaries

" This is a polite way to describe what sickens me about Mao; you will agree with him, if it takes torture or death to make it happen."

He didn't have them tortured or killed, he just had them sent to the villages to learn from the peasants. I know exactly what's going on here, straight from my parents. Oh, before you object, my parents were sent to the villages.

Japan has its hands full of blood from WWII and the Japanese government still isn't going to do something about it.

Let's change those words just a tiny bit: The PRC has its hands full of blood from the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, and the Chinese government still isn't going to do something about it.

None can do. Clearly there is nothing analogical between the Japanese invasion of East and SE Asia and the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

"Japan, since WWII, has been a free democratic society with industry, technology, and education that greatly outstrips anything the PRC has ever accomplished."

A "free democratic" country that:

- Was ruled by a corrupt LDP for most of the time
- Refused to admit atrocities committed during WWII
- High ranking government officials worships war criminals
- Revisionist history is allowed
- The "Peacetime" constitution is being blatantly violated

Let me remind you that Japan was propped up by the US, while the PRC got up the ground all by herself.