[Political Interest]

Mao was a man unafraid of sacrificing his own people to pursue his aims. Unlike virtually every other third world country in the world, he was able to challenge the US and France in two separate theaters and defeat them both.

But this is surely dishonorable! To be sacrificing the lives and well being of innocent people so that China can become strong is not worth it. It is injustice merely to kill people for the sake of one's own goals and plans.

[Ombrageux]

Nets - Doesn't matter. That'd been true for a long time yet, for some reason, Imperial China through Chiang's China also get its ass handed to it by everybody from small Western expeditionary corps to upstart Japanaese imperialists.

The problem in having all those people, is using them effectively at all, what with a severe lack of infrastructure to get them around or weapons and aircraft against technologically advanced Western powers.

Mao's China, whatever the reasons, was able to overcome this defect to some extent.

[Political Interest]

Mao's China, whatever the reasons, was able to overcome this defect to some extent.

How would you enjoy it if you were to be a part of one of his schemes to 'overcome this defect'? Would you really enjoy eating stones and grass? Would you really enjoy having over 40 nuclear tests conducted on you and having your religion insulted and blasphemed?

[kamiraito]

Suggest you look more at Mao's youth.

His learning,poet.

Full of talent.

To know a person is not only the way to see what he done finally or what the consideration generally.

[Political Interest]

Suggest you look more at Mao's youth.

His learning,poet.

Full of talent.

I do care not how talented he was. Even the most colourful and beautiful mushroom can be poisnous. Do you not think that a man who caused so much suffering can be admired, merely because of his poetry? How does a poem weigh compared to the crimes against Muslims, Islam and anyone who disagreed with him? Hitler may have written great works of poetry, yet how can we admire him when he was responsible for the deaths of six million Jews? It is very bad to say that we can admire a person just because of their skills when they have done great evil in the land.

[Suska]

How does a poem weigh compared to the crimes against Muslims, Islam

whats Islam got to do with it?

Don't compare Hitler to Mao as if they did the same thing. In Mao's favor a couple things you need to understand. The leader of a movement isn't automatically responsible for everything his nation does. The Chinese are fiercely proud, their revolution was passionate and a passionate revolution is always brutal. As for the deaths due to crop failure, well there were mistakes certainly, industrializing agriculture isn't as easy as it was thought to be, remember the dust-bowl? There are climate factors as well and Mao apologized for his part. When did Hitler ever apologize for anything? I stand by what I've said and agree mostly with DumbTeen's assessment. Mao was scary, but he seemed sincerely to love his people. I don't know the facts of it, but it says something that he was interested in and able to carry that posture off.

[Political Interest]

whats Islam got to do with it?

This is not something which appears to be very much examined by the world world when studying Chinese history, particuarly under Mao. The Muslims in East-Turkestan and also China in general have suffered greatly under CCP rule. They have had Nuclear weapons tested on them, in their region, with birth defects being disastrous. One has to ask themselves why the Uyghurs are suffering such defects when this issue does not seem as apparent in the rest of China? Obviously it is because of the Nuclear testing which took place in East-Turkestan from the 1960s. Furthermore during the 'Cultural Revolution' the CCP terrorists used the Masjids for things which I do not want to repeat here. They used the Masjids for CCP propaganda purposes and meetings, which is a complete disregard for such buildings in which Allah(s.w.t.) is worshipped. Furthermore I have heard that the CCP have banned the recitation of the Qu'ran. Apparently some people were arrested in 1994 for reciting the Qu'ran and I have heard of other incidents. Furthermore the Marxists also did horrible things to try and coerce the Muslims, such as putting pork bones into the well so that they would permanantly have to drink from such water which would be in contact with the pork. Please also read about the Shadian incident of 1975, in which thousands of Hui Muslims in the village of Shadian were massacred by the shelling of the Chinese military. During the incident Islamic books and texts were burned and the whole village was razed to the ground. It is a most upsetting thing that the CCP would do these things and I have no respect for Mao for pursuing such persecution. They are evil acts which disgust me to the highest levels. I will never accept Mao as a good leader, rather I will always see him as the criminal warlord he was. If you can respect him and the CCP for perpetrating such policies then you are blinded by one sidedness.





For more information on the suffering of Muslims in East-Turkestan and China in general, please visit this website:

http://www.eastturkestan.net/

The leader of a movement isn't automatically responsible for everything his nation does.

Yes but Mao created tension and often spearheaded the campaigns. The 'Great Leap Forward' was one of his, was it not? Furthermore he ignited the 'Cultural Revolution' and actively organised it through those like Lin Biao and Jiang Qing. You also should know that Mao as an incredibly influencial leader in his country had the ability to stop the 'Cultural Revolution' at any time and the fact that he was able to call in the army to contain the Red Guards, in addition to his campaign of 'Sent Down Youth', is revealing of his ability to control it. So if he could control it then why did he not stop it all together? It is because he wanted to attack those who he deemed to be a threat, labeling them as 'counter-revolutionaries'. This could be anyone who spoke a word of criticism or disagreed with the Marxist philosophy, particuarly Mao's version.

The Chinese are fiercely proud, their revolution was passionate and a passionate revolution is always brutal.

It is still unjust. Just because it is a characteristic doesn not make it a good characteristic.

As for the deaths due to crop failure, well there were mistakes certainly, industrializing agriculture isn't as easy as it was thought to be, remember the dust-bowl? There are climate factors as well and Mao apologized for his part.

Well he may have apologised, but then why did he so strongly oppose the subsequent reforms? Also Mao was a prime factor in the famine because he encouraged Lysenkoism, even with Soviet warnings that Lysenko's theories of agriculture were not to be relied on. Nevertheless Mao did what he wanted and did not care for the consequences. Do not forget that because people were so scared to criticise him, or even allow him to see the reality of what was happening, he never heard about any of the issues and this most definitely led him to be re-confirmed in the success of his own failing policies.

When did Hitler ever apologize for anything?

I am not aware that he apologised, but did Mao really apologise? He did not seem to change his policies or approach to Chinese affairs.

[canchin]

As for Mao...he can truly be called the "Father" of modern China.

Before he took up the fight against foreign oppression and the invasion of China he was the Dean of Humanities at Beijing University. After the vile act of Woodrow Wilson at the end of the First World War when Wilson - arguably one of the worst excuses for a human being let alone a country's leader - gifted the former German "concessions" in China to the Japanese - without of course asking China, he realized that honor was not something China could ever expect from a foreign government of the time.

He saw the 30 million deaths by starvation by the corrupt, nepotism of the GMD and their American puppets and the hated invader, and he left his cushy post and took up the fight against the heinous crimes being committed for money.

When the so-called "leader" of the GMD had the vile gall to announce that it was a crime for Chinese people to resist the rapacious Japanese he felt he was left with no choice and he became the warrior that defined his life to the point of excluding all that had gone before.

When he saw the evil that was not only the Japanese invasion of China and the corruption of the GMD/America alliance, but also the oppression and murder of Chinese people by the GMD/America alliance in concert with the Japanese, it was he that brought together the Chinese people to throw off that Axis of Evil.

It was he that helped China throw off the yoke of slavery to foreign tyrants and their syncophantic puppets in the GMD.

It was he that raised the people of China from the mud of foreign oppression.

It was he for whom his later adult life was spent fighting against those that were trying to destroy China.

It was he, after the freeing of China from the foreign invasion, who then had to rebuild China - a China devastated by that foriegn invasion; stripped of most of her wealth by the thieves as they ran away with the help of the Americans; left near penniless by the thieves as they scurried away.

It was he, along with others drawn to the cause of fighting against the foreign oppression and slavery being visited upon the people of China, that spent years of his life slogging in mud, living in abject poverty, marching and fighting for his people through mountains and across rivers to raise China from the ashes left by foreigners.

It was he that told the people of China to "Stand Up" to the evil of the foreign invasion and the corrupt nepotism and cowardice of the GMD.

It was he that brought about the first free leadership of the nation of China in concert with Zhou Enlai, Zhu De, Deng Xiaoping and others, throwing off centuries of corrupt royalty and their evil.

Today's China began with him - so naming him the Father of China is not only historically correct it is morally sound.

Of course, the vacuous voices of those for whom knowledge of the past is so pitiful they believe only bad was a result still rings out; hollow though it is for those for whom knowledge of the past is not so clouded.

Grim reality? Here's the "grim reality" as far as those vacuous foreigners are concerned anyway: He freed China from the oppression and slavery of foreign powers - the same foreign powers of those that now so blithely attack him, his legacy, the China of today and the Chinese people. He gave the people of China not only a fighting chance to find their greatness again but also the will to do so.

What the foreigners gloss over is all that happened to improve China before the 60's - as is their wont of course; find a point in time at which there were problems and focus on that, ignoring completely all that went before and even what has taken place since. Ignore completely the ridding of China of much of the superstitions that were holding her down. Pay no attention to the development of the people of China ruling their own country and not just being slaves to foreign dominance. Ignore completely the evil those foreigners perpetrated on the people of China that saw the need for him and those fighting with him.

Poor pitiful foreigners. As useless today as they have ever been. Even more hypocritical now than at any time in the history of the world. As large a stain on humanity as is the blood flow of the innocents in other countries they have murdered over the last 200 years to try and force their dominance over others.

If it were not for Mao, there would probably be today a China only in name, and much smaller.

Poor pitiful foreigners. Grasping at any straw they possibly can to soothe their fear of their growing insignificance. Looking hither, thither and yon desparately to find a way to obfuscate the evil that has been and continues to be perpetrated by them around the world.

Yes, poor pitiful foreigners. Lacking any historical personage of equal stature they can only resort to sniping from the sidelines at those who truly were great.

If it had not been for Mao and those with him - there would not be the China of today. He, and they, laid the groundwork. He, and they, did the suffering so that today the people of China are becoming so dominant in the world that the poor pitiful foreigners can do nothing but try to insult in their quest to maintain the lie that they are the "great" ones.

The stench of fear from these poor pitiful foreigners reeks. They, themselves, know they are no longer of singular importance in the world and the gnashing of teeth and tearing of clothes from within their pitiful ranks is a sound the like of which has never been heard before.

Poor pitiful foreigners. Go ahead; continue your whining and moaning and crying about China. Continue apace with your attempts to insult the past, present and future of China. Continue your attempts to insult Chinese people past, present and future.

It only shows the level of your fear and cowardice.

You have lost - and the world is the better for it.

[Far-Right Sage]

How in Christ's name can you "like" someone who you never even met. I'm taking a wild guess here and estimating that 90% of the people on this forum were still in diapers after Mao croaked.

Even for those of us who were around for the "era", as you would call, it's obvious that no one here had a personal relationship with the Chairman.

[rickychennk]

It is still difficult to judge or evalue Mao in the "great leap" and "cultural revolution". But without Mao, China may has already divided into several parts. When the CCP control the northern China in the war with KMT in year of 1949, Stalin request CCP not to attack the China south to Yangtse River. The USSR was much stronger than China, and if Mao was afraid of the threat at that time, then China is another Korea now. After the PRC established, China win several combat with American, Russian and Indian. If without Mao, we don't think we could win these battles and the time for the contruction.

[dutchrob]

according to what I read, the first thing his successor Hua Guofeng, who died this week, did,was to put an end to the cultural revolution.
Generally speaking I believe every other decade there are new views on history. By learning new information, and forgetting some known information, reinterpretation and so on.

[resilient]

His intentions were good, but his ideas are horrible.

[Igor Antunov]

His intentions were good, but his ideas are horrible.

I agree however 'some' of his ideas and the execution of those ideas was bad, not horrible. Most of his ideas were grand, because they lead to today's china. He is a national hero. He fought not for lebensraum or extermination of entire races of people's. He fought to keep his country alive. He fought against imperialism and conquest, not alongside it, not for it.

He is a more worthwhile man than Napoleon or Alexander the great were, mere conquerors, and who we consider heroes/great men of some kind. Both were intent on dominating others, Mao was intent on throwing out the dominators, and he, like they did, succeeded.

Big difference in their intentions however. Mao stood for something higher than either of those too. Stalin is down there with napoleon, hitler, alexander, caesar.

Mao stands above them. Of course he made mistakes, only amplified by the scale of his monumental task, but so did they all, and for worse intentions.

[FreeStyle]

mao did a relentless massacre in china. he had been killing for most of his life, and he was a real killer.

[Mike Powell]

mao did a relentless massacre in china. he had been killing for most of his life, and he was a real killer.

If you really wish for a warlord-era China in 1920's then I won't stop you, but make sure you don't ever regret your decision. Because there's no free lunch in this world, and every wish you make, has its price to pay.

[FreeStyle]

I can not imagine mao as a hero, there would be a genuine insult on the word "hero"

[Igor Antunov]

To many he is a hero, to many he is a villain.

[Mike Powell]

I can not imagine mao as a hero, there would be a genuine insult on the word "hero"

There's nothing heroic about a leader, only achievement. And history will not always judge on a leader's heroic act.

Mao Ze Dong may not a leader that everyone like, but at very least he transform China from a warlord-ruled quasi-feudal society into a true united country with great industrial and agricultural potential.

[FreeStyle]

There's nothing heroic about a leader, only achievement. And history will not always judge on a leader's heroic act.

A man is defined by what he did. mao had been killing for most of his life, and playing political games which leaded to massive lost of Chinese national's lives. So he was a human butcher at the first place, at the second, a devilish game player whose only will was, by taking the chinese people as hostages, to illiminate those who dare to challenge his political power.

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, different assholes, but the same shit.

Mao Ze Dong may not a leader that everyone like, but at very least he transform China from a warlord-ruled quasi-feudal society into a true united country with great industrial and agricultural potential.

This "transformation" was at the cost of millions of human lives. Anyone with an army and a killing will can do this kind of transformation.

Industrial and agricultural potential? are you joking? China has always been such a potential during her entire history....

[HoniSoit]

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, different assholes, but the same shit.

This is a bit misleading. Mao, as opposed to Hitler and Stalin, didn't deliberately pursue policies and programs that would result in mass killing/death. Nevertheless, mass starvation and killings did occur, and Mao (it would more accurately to say the leadership, and the institutions as well) certainly should be held responsible - but not to the same extent as Stalin, let along Hitler.