I'm reading Mao: The Untold Story.
I'd always thought of the Chinese Communists prior to Deng as, well, almost entirely terrible in a way that even the Stalinists weren't, but reading this he seems, well, almost over the top. It's obviously polemical, but just by the facts he's reaching Reinhard Heydrich levels of non-banal evil and it's, well, actually kind of surprising.
Is this book just completely biased? Did the Chinese Communists do...anything positive prior to the fall of the Gang of Four? Was Mao some kind of psychopath?
It could be a cultural thing - Chinese Emperors were also quite known for their cruelty, that would make most medieval European monarchs wince.
Their most positive contribution probably was prior to gaining full control in 1949. And the one-child policy isn't as bad as some seem to think.
Well they did end the warlord era and restore some national pride.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2015, 04:07:53 AM
Well they did end the warlord era and restore some national pride.
Technically they have not yet achieved the job of unifying China, as another player is still kinda in the game.
The position of women in Chinese society was incredibly poor prior to the Communist takeover (no voice in whom to marry, no right to divorce, no right to inherit, no ability to own property, to vote, no education outside the upper classes, etc). The CCP did fix that.
I think that the most interesting feature of The Untold Story (which I have not read, but which I have used as a reference work) is the extent to which Mao appears to have been a sadist. That's a much harder legacy to overcome than simply being a brute.
Quote from: grumbler on August 12, 2015, 06:35:32 AM
The position of women in Chinese society was incredibly poor prior to the Communist takeover (no voice in whom to marry, no right to divorce, no right to inherit, no ability to own property, to vote, no education outside the upper classes, etc). The CCP did fix that.
No right to keep feet unbroken as well.
He was more crap than evil evil. He's not up there with Stalin and hitler.
Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2015, 07:24:40 AM
He was more crap than evil evil. He's not up there with Stalin and hitler.
Death tolls disagree with you.
Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2015, 07:24:40 AM
He was more crap than evil evil. He's not up there with Stalin and hitler.
As Norgy said, Mao killed more people and during a time of peace. He also seems to have been comfortable with sadism on a personal level in a way that neither Stalin nor Hitler was. He seems a lot less human than Stalin and a lot less pitiable than Hitler.
While I knew that basically I still found it almost comically vile that he took the failure of the Great Leap Forward as a personal attack and launched the Cultural Revolution as revenge. As if reality would have to be held responsible for his loss of face.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2015, 10:48:20 AM
While I knew that basically I still found it almost comically vile that he took the failure of the Great Leap Forward as a personal attack and launched the Cultural Revolution as revenge. As if reality would have to be held responsible for his loss of face.
IIRC it was more than just personal vindication but a political power play. There is a reason Liu and Deng were early casualties.
Quote from: Norgy on August 12, 2015, 10:38:01 AM
Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2015, 07:24:40 AM
He was more crap than evil evil. He's not up there with Stalin and hitler.
Death tolls disagree with you.
No they don't. They agree with me perfectly.
Most dead under him were down to incompetence, starvation, crazy kids going out of control, etc... not death camps or efforts at world domination.
TBH reading this makes Deng's accomplishment a lot more successful. He's like Adenauer if Adenauer had taken power in 1960 Germany after a Nazi victory. How he came out of this political culture is astonishing.
Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2015, 11:53:17 AM
Quote from: Norgy on August 12, 2015, 10:38:01 AM
Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2015, 07:24:40 AM
He was more crap than evil evil. He's not up there with Stalin and hitler.
Death tolls disagree with you.
No they don't. They agree with me perfectly.
Most dead under him were down to incompetence, starvation, crazy kids going out of control, etc... not death camps or efforts at world domination.
This was peacetime.
If you read a lot of the Nazi self-justification of the Holocaust, it was initially inspired by the idea that the Jews were biological enemies of the Reich and that their physical destruction was essential for the war effort, and later on as a kind of punishment for their role in what was increasingly obviously going to be the destruction of the Reich. By contrast Mao should have presided over unprecedented prosperity after an uninterrupted century of madness and destruction, with China unified and free of both Manchu and Western oppression. Instead the average Chinese person was worse off when Mao was dying than they were when the Japanese left.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 12, 2015, 11:57:53 AM
Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2015, 11:53:17 AM
Quote from: Norgy on August 12, 2015, 10:38:01 AM
Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2015, 07:24:40 AM
He was more crap than evil evil. He's not up there with Stalin and hitler.
Death tolls disagree with you.
No they don't. They agree with me perfectly.
Most dead under him were down to incompetence, starvation, crazy kids going out of control, etc... not death camps or efforts at world domination.
This was peacetime.
If you read a lot of the Nazi self-justification of the Holocaust, it was initially inspired by the idea that the Jews were biological enemies of the Reich and that their physical destruction was essential for the war effort, and later on as a kind of punishment for their role in what was increasingly obviously going to be the destruction of the Reich. By contrast Mao should have presided over unprecedented prosperity after an uninterrupted century of madness and destruction, with China unified and free of both Manchu and Western oppression. Instead the average Chinese person was worse off when Mao was dying than they were when the Japanese left.
The Nazis came to power in peacetime too. Going to war was central to their ideology and Hitler's evil.
Mao certainly wasn't all peace and love but none of his wars reached anything like the level of WW2.
The Chinese being worse off after Mao than before- highly debatable. But if true it was down to his crapness rather than him being somehow worse than Hitler.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 12, 2015, 11:35:03 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2015, 10:48:20 AM
While I knew that basically I still found it almost comically vile that he took the failure of the Great Leap Forward as a personal attack and launched the Cultural Revolution as revenge. As if reality would have to be held responsible for his loss of face.
IIRC it was more than just personal vindication but a political power play. There is a reason Liu and Deng were early casualties.
Quite. Before reading the book, I'd kind of assumed that Mao was an untouchable dictator throughout. In fact, Deng and Liu had taken control of economic policy following the failure of the GLF.
Wait you have to be worse than Hitler to be evil? That is quite a high bar.
Quote from: Gups on August 12, 2015, 12:14:50 PM
Quite. Before reading the book, I'd kind of assumed that Mao was an untouchable dictator throughout. In fact, Deng and Liu had taken control of economic policy following the failure of the GLF.
Well the reason Deng and Liu were in control was because Mao had been humiliated by the GLF. So of course part of his vengeance was to take revenge on them.
Quote from: Norgy on August 12, 2015, 03:48:39 AM
Their most positive contribution probably was prior to gaining full control in 1949. And the one-child policy isn't as bad as some seem to think.
The One Child Policy should be the law of Earth.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 12, 2015, 12:19:06 PM
Quote from: Norgy on August 12, 2015, 03:48:39 AM
Their most positive contribution probably was prior to gaining full control in 1949. And the one-child policy isn't as bad as some seem to think.
The One Child Policy should be the law of Earth.
the One Child Policy came at a moment when the birthrate in China had already decreased to around 3 or so (maybe even less). iirc
We should be rolling back the human wave a lot faster than that.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 12, 2015, 12:54:17 PM
We should be rolling back the human wave a lot faster than that.
lead by example...
Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2015, 11:53:17 AM
Quote from: Norgy on August 12, 2015, 10:38:01 AM
Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2015, 07:24:40 AM
He was more crap than evil evil. He's not up there with Stalin and hitler.
Death tolls disagree with you.
No they don't. They agree with me perfectly.
Most dead under him were down to incompetence, starvation, crazy kids going out of control, etc... not death camps or efforts at world domination.
Try to travel to the real world.
Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2015, 12:12:05 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on August 12, 2015, 11:57:53 AM
Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2015, 11:53:17 AM
Quote from: Norgy on August 12, 2015, 10:38:01 AM
Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2015, 07:24:40 AM
He was more crap than evil evil. He's not up there with Stalin and hitler.
Death tolls disagree with you.
No they don't. They agree with me perfectly.
Most dead under him were down to incompetence, starvation, crazy kids going out of control, etc... not death camps or efforts at world domination.
This was peacetime.
If you read a lot of the Nazi self-justification of the Holocaust, it was initially inspired by the idea that the Jews were biological enemies of the Reich and that their physical destruction was essential for the war effort, and later on as a kind of punishment for their role in what was increasingly obviously going to be the destruction of the Reich. By contrast Mao should have presided over unprecedented prosperity after an uninterrupted century of madness and destruction, with China unified and free of both Manchu and Western oppression. Instead the average Chinese person was worse off when Mao was dying than they were when the Japanese left.
The Nazis came to power in peacetime too. Going to war was central to their ideology and Hitler's evil.
Mao certainly wasn't all peace and love but none of his wars reached anything like the level of WW2.
The Chinese being worse off after Mao than before- highly debatable. But if true it was down to his crapness rather than him being somehow worse than Hitler.
Germany was the wealthiest, most powerful nation on by far the wealthiest, most powerful continent on the planet and the inheritor of 400 years of Prussian army tradition. China had been shat on and misruled for 300 years and was in total chaos for a hundred prior to Mao taking power.
I always thought that Mao chaotic rule of China was similar to what Trotsky's rule of Soviet Union would be like. A man who was infatuated with his own intelligence was disinterested in details and without the ability to maintain personal authority.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 12, 2015, 12:19:06 PM
Quote from: Norgy on August 12, 2015, 03:48:39 AM
Their most positive contribution probably was prior to gaining full control in 1949. And the one-child policy isn't as bad as some seem to think.
The One Child Policy should be the law of Earth.
Bite me
He's crazier then I am.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 12, 2015, 03:03:30 PM
Germany was the wealthiest, most powerful nation on by far the wealthiest, most powerful continent on the planet and the inheritor of 400 years of Prussian army tradition. China had been shat on and misruled for 300 years and was in total chaos for a hundred prior to Mao taking power.
I'm not certain Europe was wealthier per capita than North America or Australia. The US and Canada were way ahead of western europe at the time, and southern and eastern europe were unstable (to put it mildly).
If we aren't talking per capita, North America and Asia might be able to have given Europe a run for its money (Asia just because of the massive population).
1) I'm guessing that all of Western and Central Europe combined would have had a higher GDP than the US.
2) The Reich was able to draw on the human resources of the best educated people on the planet. The KMT ruled over many, many more Chinese people than the Japanese did Japanese people, but the KMT basically destroyed itself butting its head in to the IJA because the leadership and industrial capacity wasn't there.
3) I don't think the US and Canada were "way ahead" of Germany in all respects even in 1928. Germany had a much larger peasant population, and was substantially less developed than we think of it today, but it was still, as I said, able to draw on a depth of human talent and military tradition that no one else could. Even some of our best scientists, engineers and artists were exiled Germans.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 13, 2015, 11:46:36 AM
1) I'm guessing that all of Western and Central Europe combined would have had a higher GDP than the US.
2) The Reich was able to draw on the human resources of the best educated people on the planet. The KMT ruled over many, many more Chinese people than the Japanese did Japanese people, but the KMT basically destroyed itself butting its head in to the IJA because the leadership and industrial capacity wasn't there.
3) I don't think the US and Canada were "way ahead" of Germany in all respects even in 1928. Germany had a much larger peasant population, and was substantially less developed than we think of it today, but it was still, as I said, able to draw on a depth of human talent and military tradition that no one else could. Even some of our best scientists, engineers and artists were exiled Germans.
No, the US was away ahead of Germany by 1928. The US had surpassed both the UK and Germany before WWI and the devastation form those wars set Europe back tremendously. I remember reading that Germany industrial output in WWII didn't even match the output of Germany in WWI.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 13, 2015, 11:46:36 AM
1) I'm guessing that all of Western and Central Europe combined would have had a higher GDP than the US.
2) The Reich was able to draw on the human resources of the best educated people on the planet. The KMT ruled over many, many more Chinese people than the Japanese did Japanese people, but the KMT basically destroyed itself butting its head in to the IJA because the leadership and industrial capacity wasn't there.
3) I don't think the US and Canada were "way ahead" of Germany in all respects even in 1928. Germany had a much larger peasant population, and was substantially less developed than we think of it today, but it was still, as I said, able to draw on a depth of human talent and military tradition that no one else could. Even some of our best scientists, engineers and artists were exiled Germans.
I was really honing in on the "wealthiest" part.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
The charts here frustrating either leave out the interwar period, or in the chart that includes it, the US.
But in the chart with the US, you can see:
Country 1913 1950
Germany $3,648 $3,881
Western Europe $3,457 $4,578
US $5,301 $9,561
So in 1913, an average german national would need a 45% increase in purchasing power to equal the average American, and in 1950 246%.
FWIW, using the data in a lower chart, the 1938 value for Germany was $5,528. There isn't an easy way to derive the American value, but you can see the trend in US growth and that is not significantly above where the US was way back in 1913.
Germany was certainly poorer and had less human capital than the US at its foundation in 1870 and ever after. How is that even a question...?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 13, 2015, 12:01:31 PMI remember reading that Germany industrial output in WWII didn't even match the output of Germany in WWI.
I doubt that. Industry was considerably more developed and Germany did not use tens of millions of slaves in WW1 to support its industry.
In 1950 US GDP was greater than all of Western Europe (including Germany, Austria, Med, Scandinavia, etc) combined.
1928: per capita GDP in Germany was 4090 in 1990 dollars, putting Germany behind France, UK, Benelux, Denmark.
US was at 6569, i.e. more than 50% greater.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 13, 2015, 07:08:39 PM
In 1950 US GDP was greater than all of Western Europe (including Germany, Austria, Med, Scandinavia, etc) combined.
Queeq says you are wrong, and by a "wide margin." I'll believe the guy who is so adamant.
In 1945 US GDP was equal to the rest of the world combined.
So what went wrong? :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 13, 2015, 08:03:32 PM
So what went wrong? :hmm:
The bombed out countries got better.
Quote from: Zanza on August 13, 2015, 01:18:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 13, 2015, 12:01:31 PMI remember reading that Germany industrial output in WWII didn't even match the output of Germany in WWI.
I doubt that. Industry was considerably more developed and Germany did not use tens of millions of slaves in WW1 to support its industry.
It was run by incompetents though and didn't go into full war production until 1943.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 13, 2015, 07:08:39 PM
In 1950 US GDP was greater than all of Western Europe (including Germany, Austria, Med, Scandinavia, etc) combined.
That's after the war. I'd bet the numbers look a bit more similar in 1940.
In 1940 Western Europe combined would be higher than the US, yes.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 14, 2015, 12:35:25 PM
In 1940 Western Europe combined would be higher than the US, yes.
January or December? Cause a lot of Western Europe came under new ownership that year.
My point was that in August 1939 Germany's belief that they had the human and industrial capacity to take Europe wasn't unrealistic. They came really close. If they'd just been Bonapartist jerks rather than genocide-happy maniacs they might have done it.
The figure for Western Europe includes the UK; take out the UK and it's about even for 1940. Add the UK to the US and Canada and there is a big gap again.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 14, 2015, 02:13:33 PM
My point was that in August 1939 Germany's belief that they had the human and industrial capacity to take Europe wasn't unrealistic. They came really close. If they'd just been Bonapartist jerks rather than genocide-happy maniacs they might have done it.
You should read the Adam Tooze book if you haven't already.
I think it's more accurate to say that by 1937 the German economic model was unsustainable absent successful conquests, peaceful or otherwise.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 14, 2015, 02:13:33 PM
My point was that in August 1939 Germany's belief that they had the human and industrial capacity to take Europe wasn't unrealistic.
We understand that that was your point. We also understand that you are incorrect.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 12, 2015, 12:19:06 PM
Quote from: Norgy on August 12, 2015, 03:48:39 AM
Their most positive contribution probably was prior to gaining full control in 1949. And the one-child policy isn't as bad as some seem to think.
The One Child Policy should be the law of Earth.
Of all the people on the forum, I would not have thought you'd be in favor of the infanticide of Asian girls. :sleep:
We need more humans on Earth. Many billions more.
Quote from: Monoriu on August 14, 2015, 09:38:47 PM
We need more humans on Earth. Many billions more.
No thanks.
Maybe a billion less than current numbers. But better distributed.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 14, 2015, 02:26:58 PM
You should read the Adam Tooze book if you haven't already.
I think it's more accurate to say that by 1937 the German economic model was unsustainable absent successful conquests, peaceful or otherwise.
That makes sense. By 1937 Hitler was well on his path towards "Greater Germany". Supercharging the economy in anticipation of the expansion was only logical.
It's what any half-decent HOI player does. :P