The AH Debate

[Psyringe]

r_rolo1, I hope you don't mind me nitpicking a bit in your post.

what you said about Napoleone had united France internally, we could say about Hitler verbatin. Germany until the Weimar Republic ( and in it too), was a collection of german speaking countries with centuries of History ( Bavaria, Prussia, Hanover,...) sometimes united under the same banner. After the war there was a german nation ( divided by stronger foes indeed, but it was thinked to do the same to France in the Viena's treaty).

The unification of Germany was achieved between the revolution 1848 and the founding of the German Kaiserreich in 1871, both happened way befor Hitler was even born. I don't see how he contributed to it in any way. The dozens of small German countries that had existed before had lost there sovereignty decades before him. (Actually, it can be argued that the unification process contributed to the Nazi imperialism rather than the other way round: The German nationalism that was necessary to unify the country and overcome the patchwork of microstates kind of overshot and was an important factor in Germany's developing habit of overestimating its power and starting wars.)

And there is one good legacy that the Third Reich had gave to Europe: the Welfare state in is today's form ( they were national socialists ).

By the time they came to power, Hitler had transformed the party to something that was socialist only by name. You can see that by looking at the way other groups reacted to them. The German industrial elite of that time supported Hitler and his party because they feared that the other major power of that time (the social democratic party) would introduce socialist laws. Many monarchists supported Hitler too (and were instrumental in persuading Hindenburg to make him chancellor). Basically, the Nazis were seen as the bastion *against* socialism at that time.

The welfare state was introduced by Bismarck (as a reaction to the socialist movement gaining popularity among poor people) way before Hitler came to power.

I simply stated that there is no rational explanation to Hitler not being in this game ( hate is not one racional expanation). Napoleone and Hitler, in my view are in the same boat regardind contributions ( good and bad) to mankind. One of them is in Civ IV and the other is not. Why? My opinion is simple: Napoleone died earlier and the Hate to him ( just look at the british cartoons at the time) had cooled off. Hitler... probably the people in the end of the XXI century will hate him as much as the brits hate Nappy

I do agree with you that Nappy would be more controversial if his reign had been more recent, and probably Hitler will be seen less controversial (and less people will be offended by him) at the end of the century. However, I don't think history will ever place Napoleon and Hitler on the same level. I think that Hitlers ruthlessness, racial hate, inhuman ideology, and willful extermination of whole populaces, will always separate him from Napoleon.

 

[Mat777]

The destruction Genkis Khan has done to my civilization and humanity is far greater than Hitler. Not directly though. But the Tatar(huns?) have destroyed the most advanced city of its time, Baghdad. Destroyed billions of valuable literature (science, literature, cultural, historical, religious books) and killed MILLIONS of citizens. The river turned black(ink) and red(blood) because of this massacre. It is not only a massacre of humanity, but a massacre to civilization and research! You cant believe how many valuable information were lost there, these barbarian are not civilized, they are pillagers and savage.

Quote from Wiki about the destruction of Baghdad.


Yet, we see Genkis Khan recognized as a leader of a Civilization?? while the REAL civilization founders are ignored. What a shame.

I say if you want to add Genkis Khan you might as well add Hitler. But Hitler is a Taboo to WESTERN people, thus, he will not be in!

It make sell the game, Hitler don't

How could you ignore that Napoleon has brought a LOT to France ??!!?!

The French modern state is born from Napoleon's era. Actually, not only France, but the majority of European countries still use today the Judicial system inherited from Napoleon (cf. Civil code). It's only at Napoleon's times that France became truely a Nation, before that it was a Kingdom grouping a collection of strongly heterogenous regions.

Furthermore, I would say there is something cool about the guy. Too scared to see democracy spreading, all European Monarchs have declared war on France short after the Revolution sparkled. Against all of them, how much would you give to a brand new Republic which is still completely disorganized and having all its Generals having fled abroad ? Not much. And despite this, Napoleon has won against all of them. Napoleon has changed what was initially a defensive war into a war of conquest. That's what I call Epic History !

Of course, Napoleon is far to be an all bright guy. Indeed, his regime has been extremely violent in conqueered countries, and he has reestablished slavery that had been abolished few years before by the still young Republic. However, we can't say that Napoleon has reduced the influence of the French civilization.

It's a lot harder to say the same about Hitler.

Thats wierd, but before Napoléon, the whole planet was about to turn french and France was almost supreme. I heard Napoléon only won battle but never won a war.

 

[yewsef]

The issue isn't about what Genghis Kahn has done to your civilization (probably Arab If I understood correctly), but what he has done to the Mongol civilization. And I guess it's rather undisputable that he brought something to the Mongols. On the other side, Hitler has damaged the German civilization a lot more than he has raised it.

I guess Osman of the Ottomans badly damaged the Greek civilization (or at least its influence through the Byzantine Empire) but he has brought a lot to the Turkish civilization, hence I doubt he's seen by them as a bad leader, and he has all reasons to represent his civ in a game.

Frankly, I really wonder how the idea of Hitler to represent the Germans could come up in anyone's mind. One must really hate Germany to believe Hitler is its best representative.

What did Genkis Khan did to his Civilization? Mongols live in the same area now, they haven't expanded or even added anything to the world. Do you know that the grandson of Timur (Mongol Emperor) was a great Muslim Scientist? I think he was an Astronaut which means Mongols had nothing to offer, they were affected by other civilizations and not the opposite. Many of the Mongol's armies (specially Kazaks and the Turks) converted to Islam because the Islamic civilization affected them and they had nothing to offer. It was the Science, Culture, Religion and Civilization that they couldn't beat. none even speaks Mongolian in any part of their conquest. They were just conquerers and nothing more.

Look at the Roman civilization. Their culture has spread, their language and art. They did conquer the world, but at least they had ideas and culture to offer.

 

[demokratickid]

Sjaramei:The result of his leadership was total disaster for the german people, the land divided in two and infrastructure in ruins. And at the end of his mad days he ordered the army to kill the german people.

Not true. He was a ruthless bast@rd, yes, but before the war he created an industrial system seperate to help alleviate the effects of the depression on the German people. One example: So that all Germans could have cheap cars, he created the Voltswagen to be cheap, in competion to the insanely expensive Merciedes-BEnz or the BMW. It's true. He was a complete @ss and should have been killed in the bomb plot aginst him, but still, his social reforms granted him the love and adoration of Mostof the German people.

 

[r_rolo1]

Psyringe, I hope you don't mind me nitpicking a bit in your nitpicking .

The unification of Germany was achieved between the revolution 1848 and the founding of the German Kaiserreich in 1871, both happened way befor Hitler was even born. I don't see how he contributed to it in any way. The dozens of small German countries that had existed before had lost there sovereignty decades before him. (Actually, it can be argued that the unification process contributed to the Nazi imperialism rather than the other way round: The German nationalism that was necessary to unify the country and overcome the patchwork of microstates kind of overshot and was an important factor in Germany's developing habit of overestimating its power and starting wars.).

The second Reich and the Weimar Republic were very descentralized Federal states. If you read writings from that time, you'll see that they didn't felt like germans, but like Bavarian, Prussian, etc .

By the time they came to power, Hitler had transformed the party to something that was socialist only by name. You can see that by looking at the way other groups reacted to them. The German industrial elite of that time supported Hitler and his party because they feared that the other major power of that time (the social democratic party) would introduce socialist laws. Many monarchists supported Hitler too (and were instrumental in persuading Hindenburg to make him chancellor). Basically, the Nazis were seen as the bastion *against* socialism at that time..

Agreed. But for the nazi ,socialism was caring about the german society, not
making a glorious labour's revolution. That's why they made the wolkswagen, and the impressive public works they done ( following Keynes theories to the bone)

The welfare state was introduced by Bismarck (as a reaction to the socialist movement gaining popularity among poor people) way before Hitler came to power..

True, but that's why I said "in its today's form". Ther is a anedocte ( don't know if is true or false) about Bismark when discussing with his ministers about the implementation of a retirement age, where he asks the age when most of the germans died. Someone said 65 years and Bizzy says than that will be the retirement age .

I do agree with you that Nappy would be more controversial if his reign had been more recent, and probably Hitler will be seen less controversial (and less people will be offended by him) at the end of the century. However, I don't think history will ever place Napoleon and Hitler on the same level. I think that Hitlers ruthlessness, racial hate, inhuman ideology, and willful extermination of whole populaces, will always separate him from Napoleon.

Except in Russia and China, nobody hates deerly the Khans, in spite of all the destruction they made ( just read the chronicles about Baghdad or Kiev: piles of skulls). Why? Time passed. Nobody wants to know about Nappy's armies atrocities and slaving in the name of freedom.Why? Time passed. And I believe that the same will happen to Hitler, in spite of all the destructive work Germans ( and others, don't forget it) did in his name.

 

[Marla_Singer]

? That is not true: finances were in shambles, most of the youth had died somewhere else, Russian, Prussian, Swedish and English troops occupying the country... I'm not a expert in French History, but France was in better shape than that when Bonaparte came back from Egypt....

Not really, the country was actally a mess when Bonaparte started winning his first victories. The French Republic had simply too many ennemies as much domestically than abroad. The French nobility fought the regime, the Catholic church did the same. Some regions were rebelling generating a civili war. And it's in this exact context that the whole Europe declared war on France. Frankly, the situation couldn't be worse.

Thats wierd, but before Napoléon, the whole planet was about to turn french and France was almost supreme. I heard Napoléon only won battle but never won a war.

Napoleon has conqueered the whole Europe. He has won dozens of battles. It's really tough to neglect his military achievement. However, it's true that France has lost a lot in 1815. The thing is still that it was hard to avoid this anyway, since Europe had decided to destroy France's power since the revolution. France still succeeded to keep much, and remain a top power, which is not that bad considering the context.

Anyway, in continuously defending Napoleon, you will start thinking I'm a fan of him. My point is simply that we certainly cannot say that Napoleon has contributed to France's decline. Of course he's been too greedy of conquest and should have probably stopped earlier. But overall, considering what was the situation short next to the French Revolution, we can't say he's been that bad for the influence of his own country.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

Not true. He was a ruthless bast@rd, yes, but before the war he created an industrial system seperate to help alleviate the effects of the depression on the German people. One example: So that all Germans could have cheap cars, he created the Voltswagen to be cheap, in competion to the insanely expensive Merciedes-BEnz or the BMW. It's true. He was a complete @ss and should have been killed in the bomb plot aginst him, but still, his social reforms granted him the love and adoration of Mostof the German people.

Bad example.

Only few Beetles were ever delivered during Nazi reign, people must have been very happy as many had paid for them in advance.

I'm lazy, so i'll quote it from wikipedia:

"Hitler's commissioning of the "People's Car" did not necessitate a clean-sheet car design. Ferdinand Porsche had already formulated the original parameters of a car design similar to the final production version of the Beetle several years before it was commissioned, and had already built working prototypes by 1931. Erwin Komenda, Porsche's chief designer, was responsible for the design and styling of the car. However its production only became financially viable when it was backed by the Third Reich. Before the large-scale production of the "People's Car" could commence, war broke out, and available manufacturing capacity was shifted to producing military-use vehicles. Production of civilian VW automobiles did not start until after the post-war occupation began."

One part of Nazis "social reforms" was their euthanasia program - kill the "useless" (insane, retarted, disabled kids) people, save the money (or to get housing for soldiers on occupied countries, etc). Euthanasia program was illegal even within third reichs own laws..

They also overtook all (almost) charity organizations in Germany, and aid was spread mostly to nazi party members.

About industrialization -- heavy rearming helped it to extent, but Germany was industrial power long before A.H took over. Iirc, salaries were only raised on military industry during nazi reign. It took until year 1941 to have salaries on same level where they were in 1928 for common German worker.

 

[rabidveggie]

I'm not so sure about your prediction that Hitler will be forgotten. In the days of Napoleon, or Genghis Khan their deeds were spread by word of mouth and is recorded today through writing. Its difficult to imagine or believe there were mountains of skulls and we only occasionally come across such topics so the majority of people have forgotten such leaders wrong doings. Hitler's actions on the other hand are caught on video and photographs and has become what that regime is known for. Humanity will likely associate Hitler with mass deaths upon hearing his name and his military deeds will probably be overlooked.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Rabidveggie.

The difference is simply that Napoleon and Genghis have devastated other civilizations, not theirs. The only question to ask is whether Germany was stronger after Hitler's reign than before, and I doubt we could decently consider the Germany of the Jahre Nul as being stronger than the Weimar Republic. Just to remember you, in 1945, Germany had lost Eastern Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia, and what remained German was split in half. It was fully occupied, with no army, and no independent foreign policy. What remained of Germany was only two vassal states and of its cities and industries, it remained only ruins and dust.

At the opposite of what many believe the outcome of WW2 was a lot harsher for Germany than was the outcome of WW1. Germany has lost German peopled land after WW2, it didn't have after WW1. The occupation was only of the border region after WW1, it was of the whole country after WW2. Granted there was reparation to pay after WW1, but that was the common use up untill then. The reparations had actually been calculated in order to be the equivalent of the reparations France had to pay at the Treaty of Frankfurt in 1871. The main difference is that France easily paid them thanks to the 2nd industrial revolution, whereas Germany was unable to do so because of the 1929 crash. But anyway, Germany has lost its independence in 1945, it hasn't had in 1918.

The peace of 1945 hasn't been better accepted by the Germans because it was less harsh, it has been better accepted because it couldn't be disputed, and I guess that after two world wars which both turned out into defeats, Germans finally got bored of war.

 

[Psyringe]

Psyringe, I hope you don't mind me nitpicking a bit in your nitpicking .

Not at all, I rather enjoy the discussion. It's actually refreshing to have a civil discussion about a subject that usually just gets flamed to extinction.

The second Reich and the Weimar Republic were very descentralized Federal states. If you read writings from that time, you'll see that they didn't felt like germans, but like Bavarian, Prussian, etc .

Agreed. But the post-Hitler Germany isn't very centralised either. We are still a federal republic, the federal states still have their own laws (although these cannot contradict federal law). There are still rivalries going on between several "tribes" inside Germany, e.g. the Swabian / Badensian(sp?) rivalry, or the Franconian / Bavarian one. Ask a Bavarian whether he's foremost a Bavarian or a German, you may be surprised by the answers. (Admittedly, Bavarians might be a special case in this regard. ).

Anyway, my point is: With regards to centralization, Hitler certainly did impose a very centralized government, but it didn't outlast him, and was followed by a federal republic, so I don't think we can say that he actually contributed to German centralization. And with regards to the cultural identity of the people, the regional identities are still there. I agree that they were stronger in the Weimar republic as they are now, but I think that's just a result of an ongoing cultural process that started in the early 19th century and that was driven by other factors than Hitler's politics one century later. Hitler was a beneficiary of this process rather than the one who created it.

Also, it seems odd to me to see Hitler as a substantial contributor to Germany's unification when he was the one who left it divided for 50 years.

Agreed. But for the nazi ,socialism was caring about the german society, not
making a glorious labour's revolution. That's why they made the wolkswagen, and the impressive public works they done ( following Keynes theories to the bone)

Hm, what impressive public works do you mean? The Volkswagen was a PR stunt rather than a feasible plan (very few cars were actually produced for the public), and some other projects (like the highway network) were motivated by military needs, not by welfare ideals.

True, but that's why I said "in its today's form". Ther is a anedocte ( don't know if is true or false) about Bismark when discussing with his ministers about the implementation of a retirement age, where he asks the age when most of the germans died. Someone said 65 years and Bizzy says than that will be the retirement age .

Yeah. Bismarck's motivation (as I pointed out in my previous post) was that he didn't want the socialist movement to become too strong among the poorer parts of the population. So he just implemented some of the socialist demands as a state policy to stabilize the country. He didn't *want* to build a welfare state, he just wanted to prevent a revolution. (Usual Bismarck style, he is the epitome of pragmatic politics anyways.)

However, Hitler was even further away from the ideals of a welfare state. Hitler's ideology was rather social-darwinistic: The strongest should survive and thrive, and the weak had to be eradicated. Hitler once mentioned that, if the weaker 800.000 of 1 million German children were killed, and only 200.000 survived, the result would still be a stronger nation. That was his ideology, and it was basically as far away from a welfare state as you can get. The gap between "help the needy" and "eradicate them" is rather large imho.

Also, as someone else has pointed out already, The Nazis basically took over the independent welfare groups that existed in Germany and instrumentalized them for war preparations (e.g., the focus was shifted from helping injured people with little money to caring for injured soldiers to make a large-scale war possible).

Anyway, your argument was that the welfare state was one of Hitler's legacies. I think I've shown that it's difficult to maintain that. Either you say that only the implementation of welfare politics counts, regardless of the motivation behind it - in that case Bismarck is the founder of the welfare state, not Hitler. Or you say that the ideology behind it is important, in that case neither of the two qualifies. In any case, I don't see how the welfare state could be seen as a legacy of Hitler.

 

[demokratickid]

About industrialization -- heavy rearming helped it to extent, but Germany was industrial power long before A.H took over. Iirc, salaries were only raised on military industry during nazi reign. It took until year 1941 to have salaries on same level where they were in 1928 for common German worker.

The reason for this immense delay, is that after the stock markets crashed in 1929, the value of the mark went WAY WAY down, like thirty billion for one US dollar! The Germany Economy was broken and the Weimar Republics could do little to stop it. This set the stage for Hitler's rise to power. Now, I can't defend my poisition correctly because I got a firsthand account of the Nazi 30's in Germany, and that was some years back. So, I'm defending this from memory. By the way, wouldn't war industry give LOTS of good jobs to Germans? It's awful what those machines did, yes, but it gave his citizenry hope for a future brighter than after the hated Versailles had been signed in 1919. Hitler? Still an insane, evil, b@stard. His refoms? Excellent for the health of his people. I must admit, you are right, though. The killing of the societal 'drop-outs' so to speak, not good. Same with killing of the Jews, Catholica, Gypsies, Royalty, Nobility, and about every one else who got under their skin and was sent to death or consintration camps.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

I don't know enough Stalin, because I couldn't read Russian, and I don't trust US sources too much. I'll speak for Mao:

- United the country. Duh - otherwise war and famine will continue forever
- Tibet: part of China since the middle Qing dynasty. You might as well tell the United States to give up all land that belongs to Native Americans. Hmm...wait a minute... Besides, before the Chinese, Tibet was a theocratic surfdom in absolute utter poverty. Most non-Han-ethnicity Tibetians said it's a good thing the Chinese are helping them out. They weren't exactly pacifists either (Bhutan).
- Declared the equal status of women, unleashing their labour power and granting them more equal status. Do you know how many female engineers there are working for the Chinese goverment? He also outlawed foot binding and child (marriage) betrothal. A lot MORE baby girls will "disappear" if it weren't for communist ideals.
- Stopped the selling off of capital equipment for low prices to their American allies, and banned foreign imports in dumping practices that would clearly be banned by WTO today. The nationalists were too corrupt to care.
- Re-structure the capital equipment and government policy to ensure that everyone at least has rice to eat (that is, unless someone does something political because he wants all the damned power...). But the foundations were there.
- (Almost) completely purged the Chinese peasentry of the opium curse by shutting down the borders that sneaked them in. Ever since the Opium War, millions of Chinese peasents died from that drug, many more families left in ruins.
- Fought off the Americans during the Korean War. Did the Chinese go on the offense? Did the Americans? The Chinese believed that the US wanted to push further than the UN, and march their way into China. Logically, why would the Chinese risk war with the US back then? They did not have nukes during that time, and MacArthur was close to ordering a nuclear bombardment, that bastard...
- Created a meritocratic bureaucracy where those in the top of the government had very little corruption. Essentially, it's a combination of representation and police state. All the corruption is in the local provincal officials, but at least none of them occupy the very top positions. Also, people quote the cultural revolution as disasterous, which is true. What people don't realise is the role that Mao played in building up a government that kept the country alive even when Mao himself was busy f***ing it up some years later.

I'm not saying I like him, oh heck no. Any leaders that believe sacrificing the lives of millions to achieve faster development should be shot a million times. I'm just saying they did achieve a lot precisely because they were so ruthless (and then there are a lot of mistakes). Same reason why Qin was included. From a percentage point of view, he was more of a bastard.

Hitler did jack s***.

 

[Psyringe]

Now, I can't defend my poisition correctly because I got a firsthand account of the Nazi 30's in Germany, and that was some years back. So, I'm defending this from memory.

That might be a problem in this case, because the one thing that the Nazis *did* excel in was propaganda. Many old people here in Germany will claim something alonmg the lines of "Hitler was a madman, but he did wonders for the German economy." This opinion is *very* common among old people here. The reason for this is that the "doing wonders for the economy" message was constantly slammed into their faces by the Nazi propaganda machine in movies, newspapers, pamphlets, and public speeches. However, that Hitler had borrowed huge amounts of money to pay for all this, without any chance of paying it back, and that his whole economy would have crashed spectacularly if he hadn't gone to war - you can bet that the Nazis remained rather quiet about that.

By the way, wouldn't war industry give LOTS of good jobs to Germans? It's awful what those machines did, yes, but it gave his citizenry hope for a future brighter than after the hated Versailles had been signed in 1919.

The war industry gave jobs to lots of Germans, but it only worked because Hitler spent so much money on it- The state did not *have* so much money, so Hitler had to borrow it. He invested that borrowed money in an industry that employed many people, but produced *no* revenue whatsoever. Hence he could never have paid the money back. As a result, the German economy would have crashed within a couple of years. Hitler certainly wasn't a brilliant economist. He was just ruthless enough to build a huge military force with mones that wasn't even his.

If you want to implement "Hitler economy" in your private life, do the following: Get some unemployed people. Take a loan from a bank. With the money, buy guns for your followers and train them in combat. Then use them to rob the bank that lent you your money. Good economic strategy? Hardly. You probably won't get away with it (Hitler didn't either), but your followers might still admire you even after all of you got caught. They just don't see the whole picture.

 

[rabidveggie]

I like your take on Hitlers economy Psyringe.

 

[demokratickid]

You know, thank you Psyringe. I hadn't counted in the propaganda factor Totally.. You're right, Hitler's economic policies were awful. I just don't understand why Chamberlin didn't see it coming? If Hitler could have slapped him across the face any harder, would he have noticed? "We shall have peacce in our time! Sound familier?" After visiting Germany in the late 30s, Chamberlain said that. His huge underetimation of the Nazi made this quote so infamous, projecting it to the high honor of being used in Civ4 as an option at the begining of first dialouge with another country. Kind of a sarcastic/soon to be true sort of greeting, eh?

 

[Psyringe]

I just don't understand why Chamberlin didn't see it coming? If Hitler could have slapped him across the face any harder, would he have noticed?

Chamberlain's role was very unfortunate, yes. In hindsight, it seems almost impossible that he could have failed to notice what Hitler was up to. But seen in the context of these times, I think he (and many other people) just desperately hoped that another war could be prevented. The wounds from WW1 were still fresh, and many people were willing to make painful concessions if that meant that a repetition of these catastrophical times could be avoided. The tragedy is that their reluctance to act against Hitler actually furthered the war that they had hoped to prevent.

Personally, I regard Chamberlain as a good man, who was horribly, horribly ill-placed. History has put him in a position where not only his weaknesses clearly showed, but where also his *strengths* worked against him. Being an honorable man is a good trait for a leader, but in his case, it prevented him from grasping the whole scope of Hitler's ruthlessness until it was too late. Likewise, deeply caring for the well-being of one's people is a good trait for a leader, but in his case, it kept him from showing strength against Hitler because Chamberlain didn't want to burden his people with another war. He could have been a good leader given a more peaceful environment, but history didn't let him.

 

[r_rolo1]

I think that Chamberlain was a little bit scared about German military power. In 1937, when Hitler anexed the Sudets, Chamberlain asked to the Brit military a report about the it was feasible to attack Germany at that time. The military sent him a report stating that at that time a war with Germany would had been lost, because of the German airpower and strategic bombing ( not true, like the 1941 events showed, but....). Chamberlain did what most of the people would do: tried to buy time.
I do not deny that Chamberlain was the wrong man at the wrong time and that the Bulldog would had declared war anyway ( and it would had been right: the failure of France and UK to help Tchechoslovakia made all eastern Europe countries ( including USSR) to make terms with Hitler). But Chamberlain was a politician, and we have to see things from that point of view.
Hitler; on the other hand, played things like a casino player: I won last time, I'll win again... And we know what happens to people that are going to casinos and play with that thought...

 

[ParkCungHee]

I don't know enough Stalin, because I couldn't read Russian, and I don't trust US sources too much. I'll speak for Mao:

- United the country. Duh - otherwise war and famine will continue forever
- Tibet: part of China since the middle Qing dynasty. You might as well tell the United States to give up all land that belongs to Native Americans. Hmm...wait a minute... Besides, before the Chinese, Tibet was a theocratic surfdom in absolute utter poverty. Most non-Han-ethnicity Tibetians said it's a good thing the Chinese are helping them out. They weren't exactly pacifists either (Bhutan).
- Declared the equal status of women, unleashing their labour power and granting them more equal status. Do you know how many female engineers there are working for the Chinese goverment? He also outlawed foot binding and child (marriage) betrothal. A lot MORE baby girls will "disappear" if it weren't for communist ideals.
- Stopped the selling off of capital equipment for low prices to their American allies, and banned foreign imports in dumping practices that would clearly be banned by WTO today. The nationalists were too corrupt to care.
- Re-structure the capital equipment and government policy to ensure that everyone at least has rice to eat (that is, unless someone does something political because he wants all the damned power...). But the foundations were there.
- (Almost) completely purged the Chinese peasentry of the opium curse by shutting down the borders that sneaked them in. Ever since the Opium War, millions of Chinese peasents died from that drug, many more families left in ruins.
- Fought off the Americans during the Korean War. Did the Chinese go on the offense? Did the Americans? The Chinese believed that the US wanted to push further than the UN, and march their way into China. Logically, why would the Chinese risk war with the US back then? They did not have nukes during that time, and MacArthur was close to ordering a nuclear bombardment, that bastard...
- Created a meritocratic bureaucracy where those in the top of the government had very little corruption. Essentially, it's a combination of representation and police state. All the corruption is in the local provincal officials, but at least none of them occupy the very top positions. Also, people quote the cultural revolution as disasterous, which is true. What people don't realise is the role that Mao played in building up a government that kept the country alive even when Mao himself was busy f***ing it up some years later.

I'm not saying I like him, oh heck no. Any leaders that believe sacrificing the lives of millions to achieve faster development should be shot a million times. I'm just saying they did achieve a lot precisely because they were so ruthless (and then there are a lot of mistakes). Same reason why Qin was included. From a percentage point of view, he was more of a bastard.

Hitler did jack s***.

I don't even know where to begin with this.

Tibet-Alternatively, you could say that Tibet was a part of China as long as Poland was a part of Germany and Russia. I didn't realize being poor was grounds for an invasion. Guess that means Tibet still needs to get invaded.
Equality of Women - You know it was Mao who initiated the policy of making female babies dissapear?
Rice to Eat - This is a claim that makes me physically ill. Saying Mao gave the Chinese rice to eat is like saying Hitler established Racial Equality. Mao created the largest famine in the history of human kind. Ever.
Why would China want war? - I don't know, ask them. They were the ones who had troops on the ground in Korea even during the initial invasion of South Korea, and then launched a massive offensive against a U.S. army that had absolutely no interest in fighting them.
Created a Meritocracy - Mao himself would argue against this. The man launched endless campaigns against meritocracy. He hated experts and those possessing knowledge and removed an imprisoned them anywhere he could. From National Orchestraes, to the Military to his own government, he deliberately and vocally opposed meritocracy.

 

[Psyringe]

Chamberlain did what most of the people would do: tried to buy time.

I just read up a bit and (contrary to what I wrote before) have to agree. I had forgotten that Chamberlain didn't come into office until 1937. By 1937, with a largely unprepared Britain military, Chamberlain's options were severely limited even if he had wanted to act more seriously against Hitler. (I still don't think he wanted to do that, but I hadn't realized that he didn't even have the option). Chamberlain apparently inherited an unprepared military from his predecessor (Baldwin), so he had to build it up before Britain could possibly act from a position of strength.

 

[r_rolo1]

The biggest problem of Chamberlain wasn't the readiness of Brit's Armed forces, but the minds of everyone in Britain in the period between WWI and WWII. People didn't wan't to fight because of another lost-in-the-haze east european crisis and wanted to prevent war at all costs. Chamberlain wasn't a pacifist, but his opinion of war was somehow twisted because of the WWI experience ( he had lost some close relatives there) and most of elite of UK didn't wan't a war and had forced previous governemets to disarm most of the army and to cut financial support to new weapons ( that's why UK had a lot of Spitfires to counter Axis bombers in 1941: the governement asked the RAF to build X planes and gave then pocket change. So they built the cheapest plane avaliable... ). That lead to somewhat erratic UK diplo: in a moment tried to force France to stop Germany, for in the next day to cut France legs " to not spite Germany into another war". France really tried to stop Germany, but they couldn't do that or their own and ( with UK out of game) they had to have some kind of agreement with Stalin ( which they weren't eager too). So they had to try a somewhat backup plan : a intricate system of treaties with eastern europe countries ( the so called la petite Entente ). Of course this required a actual will of taking military measures against Germany in case of necessity, a thing than neither France ( because lack of strenght) and UK ( lack of will) didn't want to do.
Of course when Hitler gambled the Sudets all of this cracked up in pieces. From the own Hitler sayings, he believed that UK would do something to Germany. But France ( that had their Maginot line ) and UK ( with a scared and under budget military and not so willing to war PM and king ( HRM had said to Chamberlain before he had seen Hitler that he had passed a world war and he would do anything in his hands to not live another)) did what we know: acted like cowards. In that moment, Hitler became conviced that the UK becamed a non factor ( he had tried to established a alliance with UK before and admired UK alot) and that nothing would stand in his way. And the rest we already know....