china'mao = hitler/stalin

[xopenmindx]

Mao led his party and his people against Chinese warlords, the Chinese Nationalist, and the Japanese Imperialist. He was able to unify China and end almost 40 years of chaos. However, his skills as a military and rebel leader did not do well domesticly. Blunders such as the cultural revolution caused millions of lives. He refused to let go of his control of China and killed/imprisoned countless members of his own party and other left wing people. Mao tried to make himself a god and isolate his country for many years. I think of Mao as like an Asian Hilter or Stalin. Anyone agree that they should change China's leader ? heh

 

[Furry Spatula]

My goodness, you cant compare him to Hitler. Hitler didn't do anything for Germany realy. The only thing i can think of is helping them get out of reperations, But that was mostly Chamberlain. And managing to rally up most of the population against the Jews. THat isn't realy that important at all. It was Bismark who managed to join up all the Germanic Principalities together. Yes Moa mudered many many people, but he managed to put China more on the map i guess you could say. Hitler's leadership just lead Germany to fail and be literaly torn apart into 2 different sections. And as for Stalin i dont know, I guess you could call him an Asian Stalin as Stalin managed to Industrialize Russia and well not that much more. But honestly Mao is a good choice for the Chinese as he did quite a lot for China as you said

Mao led his party and his people against Chinese warlords, the Chinese Nationalist, and the Japanese Imperialist. He was able to unify China and end almost 40 years of chaos

One thing we need to understand here is that , life isn't pretty. Frankly it is a b**ch. Lots of bad stuff happens, you cant deny it. If you try to ignore it or you forget about it, it will happen again. But Mao an Asian Hitler, i think not.

 

[Zouave]

No, Mao was worse. Mao killed twenty million of his OWN people by murder, assassinations, political repressions, and mass starvation. Even Hitler didn't do that.

 

[Furry Spatula]

Well i think that if Hitler had the chance to he would have. I don't think you can say one is worse than the other after looking at this now. So is it worse to kill your own ppl b/c of beleifs than killing your own ppl who are not the same race? Hitler killed his own ppl. THe jews he murdered were German. They were German Jews, Polish Jews, Russians, Austrian Jews, French Jews, and 100% Jewish Jews. I dont think who you kill realy matters. It doesn't even matter how many ppl you kill when you hit nubmers that high. Frankly all three of them are evil. But Mao had more of an impact on China than Hitler did on Germany, Hitler singlehandedly managed to screw Germany over for over 40 years.

I still think that Mao should be in Civ 3 as the leader. Hitler, hell no, he didn't do anything except instill hate and start a giant war. Frankly that is not worthy of being included in this game, that didn't do anything positive for Germany, And yes i know he helped get Germany out of its economic rut by screwing the conditions that versialles put on Germany. Stalin actually industrialized Russia, Mao Industrialized China, Both helped make there Countries super powers, Well now Russias a declining one and CHina is on its way to be one. But Hitler didn't do anything for Germany, as i stated many times.

Bismark is the best choice for Germany, He united all the Principalities. Kaiser Wilhelm was a physco with an inferiority complex who screwed Germany over.

 

[Ironikinit]

killing their countrymen is something they all did well

while stalin gets blamed for staving the kulaks, people overlook sometimes how many soldiers' lives he cost with his crippling purges of the military and inept leadership, esp immediately prior to and after the german attack. he refused to believe that hitler was making a move, things just fell apart and the germans made their famous encirclements... so many died, the east front was inhuman two monsters fighting

 

[Blackadder]

What next...

It is said that Catherine the Great bathed in the blood of boys and girls because she thought it would make her look younger (This is before the way she looks in the game. I don't think thats what bathing in the blood of children causes your skin to do)

I think Tokugawa and his predesessors did some pretty bad things as well as good things as well (Shogunate)

As for killing countrymen, most people did that! I admit in different cotexts: Joan of Arc- Burgundy was on England's side.
Elizabeth I- Catholics.
Lincoln - civil war.

As for Hitler, remember that the first German Superhighways came into being, everyone had work (conscription as under Communism) and Germany recovered economically and militarily.
Still, I suspect it was American dollars which really helped Germany.

As for Stalin, he started the Gulaks, where work or death was the alternatives.

Mao, who should they have instead then? Shank was in my view potentally worse, Sun wasn't in power for long, and there are no well-known emperors (okay, perhaps emperor Wu Di) I believe they should have a communist leader, and Mao did do a lot of good, as well as evil (but lets face it, who hasn't? Even Gandhi's quit India program accidentally helped Japan)

Still, there is always the editor

 

[Troyens]

Now I've seen it all. Someone compared LINCOLN to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao!!

Hitler did not kill nearly as many of his own people as Mao or Stalin. And those he did kill he did not even consder Germans: Jews, Gypsies; Communists, Slavs, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc

 

[dannyevilcat]

About Hitler, I believe he DID have a profound love for Germany and it's people. Everything I've read about him points to a drive to accomplish all his plans before old age and ineffectuality set in. He wanted to be a great German leader, and while this has it's roots in egotism, the ends are still the same.
My point is that while he was sending Jews, homosexuals and gypsies, communists, etc. to the camps, all of whom were Germans, he broke them down into groups. One could not be a german and still be a christian, or a freemason... by his logic, he was not killing Germans. He was "protecting" them. Let's be honest here, Hitler didn't consider himself a psychotic meglomaniac dedicated to ruining Europe for his evil purpose. So what motivated him?

Stalin and Mao, on the other hand, were hurrying to create new socialist societies, and they were doing it by the most brutal methods. People were one expendible commodity in both China and the USSR, and they exploited it.

Different brutal leaders, different motives and methods.

More than anything, though, I hate comparing who is more "evil" than who. When you compare cruelties, it has the affect of apologizing for the lesser cruelty.

And even more than that-- History is chalk full of bastards, cheaters and murderers. That's why I love it so much! (with all due respect for those for whom these leaders actions are still a sore point.)

 

[dannyevilcat]

It is said that Catherine the Great bathed in the blood of boys and girls because she thought it would make her look younger (This is before the way she looks in the game. I don't think thats what bathing in the blood of children causes your skin to do)

By the way, are you getting Catherine the Great confused with Countess Elizabeth Bathory of... er, Hungary, I think?

 

[Furry Spatula]

"One could not be a german and still be a christian, or a freemason... by his logic, he was not killing Germans. He was "protecting" them. Let's be honest here, Hitler didn't consider himself a psychotic meglomaniac dedicated to ruining Europe for his evil purpose."

I belive that Hitler thoguth he was doing good aswell. BUt frankly he was being a monster. Also people who are meglomaniacs dont realize it. THats why its so dangerous. And, so what if he didn't consider Jews, Slavs, Gypsee's etc German. If they were German citizens they were German. And murdering thousands who are German is just as Bad as murdering those who aren't. Same thing goes with murdering one person.



"Hitler did not kill nearly as many of his own people as Mao or Stalin. And those he did kill he did not even consder Germans: Jews, Gypsies; Communists, Slavs, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc"


The number of his own people he killed doesn't realy matter. the fact that he killed them did matter. ANd also anybody who believes in a superior race is quite stupid. Anybody who tries to wipe out the "inferior" races is a phsycopath.


The reason i dont think hitler should be in this game is not because of the Holocoust, or not fully. It's b/c he did nothing that helped Germany in the long run, If he manage to help Germany in the long run, and not in terms of something realy obscure, then he would have some merit to be in the game. BUt as it stands, Nope, no way in hell should he have been shipped with the game, he did nothing for Germany.


Oh yeah, reviewing for my history exam in 2 weeks, i came across the night of long knives. Hitler murdered people himself, this was with his own hands, not an order to someone else. My goodness this guy just keeps looking worse and worse, he murdered his best friend.

 

[Feinder]

To be perfertly honest with you, I'd expect the reasons the empire leaders get put into the game are

1. Because they are recognizable.
2. They contributed something to all of civilization, not just their own empire.

Obviously, they left out Hitler, because he contributed nothing to civilization as a whole. He was, at the core, a ruthless villian. Why would Civ3 want to have anything to do with him? (I realize that no one is really advocating that he SHOULD be Civ3). As someone pointed out before, there is no occasion to put him in the same pew as Lincoln and Ghandi. To be pefectly honest with you, I'd bet that that is the same reason that Stalin was not continued from Civ2 (and replaced by Catherine). I don't claim do know much about Mao, but to my knowledge he DID set up a successful communist state (that obviously still remains). If you say that Communism was a contribution to civilization as a whole (at the Sid seems to), then it makes sense to have somebody that actually did create a successful communist state be one the empire leaders.

-F-

 

[Cruiser]

Mao's version of a Communist state failed. China now is Communist in name only. It is really a bureucratic dictatorship that has adopted the free market economic values of capitalism. Mao wouldn't be happy!

 

[SkyShagger]

In my opinion Mao is perfect for Civ III. The thing I see in common with all the leaders is that they unified their country. Tokugawa, Lincoln, Alexander, Ghandi...Mao. Who else can you say unified China. The only other option is Ghingis Kahn's grandson (forgot his name) but he wasn't a Chinese person for China. China was in such a bad situation until communism took over and equaled the classes. Just look at the numbers of people that went to his funeral. His viewing was so long his corpse started to rot! The people loved him!
That might also be a requirment. How many of the leaders in this game were hated by their people? I don't think German citizens loved Hitler or Russian citizens loved Stalin. I'm just rambling now so I'll stop, but just to reiterate, Mao is a good choice.

 

[EmprorCoopinius]

I think Mao is a pretty good choice as Chinese leader as well, but some of the others confuse me. Joan of Arc for instance. Isn't that giving her a little bit too much credit. What about, I dunno, Napoleon, or Louis XIV, or Charles DeGaulle? Someoene who actually ruled France perhaps...

As for the Americans, I think the obvious choice was George Washington. Lincoln bothers me. I hardly think that the only president who sparked a rebellion deserves to represent the Americans....but maybe I'm just biased.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by SkyShagger
In my opinion Mao is perfect for Civ III. The thing I see in common with all the leaders is that they unified their country. Tokugawa, Lincoln, Alexander, Ghandi...Mao. Who else can you say unified China.

There are better choices over Mao, unfortunately he's probably the best known Chinese leader to most people. Well, it's a toss up between Mao and Chiang-Kai-Sek (sp?), and neither is exactly whiter than white.

Originally posted by SkyShagger
The only other option is Ghingis Kahn's grandson (forgot his name) but he wasn't a Chinese person for China.

There are 'good' Emperors out there, only nobody knows them

Originally posted by SkyShagger
China was in such a bad situation until communism took over and equaled the classes. Just look at the numbers of people that went to his funeral. His viewing was so long his corpse started to rot! The people loved him!

Mao's policies resulted in many, many deaths and were often a failure: The cultural revolution etc. Similar to Stalin in many respects.

People 'loved' Stalin.

People generally do under dictatorships.

Originally posted by SkyShagger
That might also be a requirment. How many of the leaders in this game were hated by their people?

I don't think German citizens loved Hitler or Russian citizens loved Stalin.

Stalin and Hitler were both hugely loved by their peoples at various points during their reigns. Stalin was hugely popular at his point of death, thanks to the cult of personality he built up. Defenitely more so than Mao ever was. Hitler was once seen as the saviour of Germany; he was, unfortunately relatively succesful in peacetime and people liked him for it. They never knew about the genocide that would result, though

Originally posted by SkyShagger
I'm just rambling now so I'll stop, but just to reiterate, Mao is a good choice.

I think Mao was included for the simple reason that most people know who he was, not any other reasons.

 

[SkyShagger]

I don't care what you're reasons are, just as long as we agree.

 

[Blackadder]

My apoligies for my earlier post, didn't mean for everyone to get such an impression as Lincoln equaling Hitler, Stalin or Mao.

I just stated that bloodshed always occurs. Funnily enough, it says on my Brittanica that the civil war need not have started, had Lincoln not rejected a peace proposal from the Confederates and the confederates wouldn't have attacked first.

Dannyevilcat- Probably, but I have also heard tales of Catherine being a nymphomaniac and these stories too have been duplicated everywhere. I guess these 'facts' are too shacky to rely on. My apoligies for being wrong.

Let me re-iterate my point, if you do not like Mao, call him something else. If people wanted to, they could make Stalin, and Hitler, in fact some people are producing programs for them right now! So why have they chosen Mao? Well known Chinese leaders, anyone?

[Posted by Dannyevilcat}And even more than that-- History is chalk full of bastards, cheaters and murderers. That's why I love it so much! (with all due respect for those for whom these leaders actions are still a sore point.)

Fully agree, though I perfer the way nations double cross allies and expand to incorperate other states.

 

[xopenmindx]

People, what im sayin is that if you are forced to have one face for each civ, mass murderers like mao shouldnt be for china. dont give me those ******** excuses, claiming other civ's leaders to be worse, who cares. what im saying is mao doesnt represent china, was a horrible person and shouldnt be there. china is still communist in many aspects actually- the no. 1 problem in china right now is corruption and corruption alone. poverty, unemployment, and no freedom of speech comes after corruption is resolved. (thats my opinion on the what is china now thing someone brought up) ive been to china 3 times in the past 6 years and i have friends in the communist party, proffessors, and people with jobs like running their shops.

mao was defently "as bad as" hitler. maybe not in numbers, but made too too many people suffer an die.

 

[dannyevilcat]

No offense to anyone, but this is really a ridiculous debate, and I can't believe anyone is going to read it, and think: "You know... I hadn't thought of it like that... That's it! I'm going to create my own Buddha leaderhead, and make my special unit a Rainbow..."

 

[cegman]

Now anyone here is a American or a european could be say that there ancesters were phycopaths because they believed they were better than African Americans I am a American and I am not say my ancesters were good but I am warning you that if you say someone that thinks there is a master race is a phycopath then you could be calling your ancestor one