The AH Debate

[vicawoo]

Most non-Han Tibetans think it's a good thing the Chinese are helping them out? I don't think you've ever met a Tibetan in your life.
That's in the imagination of the Chinese. I've visited Tibet, and they hate the Chinese so much (only they won't say it in front of Chinese, because bad things happen to dissenters in the most heavily occupied province in China). They're forced to learn Chinese, their punished by death for bringing in any media of the Dalai Lama, the monks are forced to denounce him... The Dalai Lama's efforts for peaceful resolution by garnering sympathy are countered by the chinese controlling all information about him going into China. They burned down most of the trees and gunned down a lot of the animal herds for fun.
Now from Mao's point of view, he saw a feudalistic society with peasants ruled by the religious elite, and he wanted to liberate them. I'm pretty sure he actually believed that as well (along with the great leap forward and cultural revolution, which make sense from a certain idealistic point of view). It was a feudalistic society, but most Tibetans are so religious they don't care, and if you're a nomad with a herd of yaks and sheep, what does it mean to be rich?

Tibet's a part of China is pretty much the same as Korea, Mongolia, and Vietnam being part of China. I'm convinced by now that Chinese leaders only engages in moral justification to stall the west with arguments. China controls Tibet because it's strong enough. Tibet's not independent because every country in the world except China thinks it should be, but because China's powerful. It would be the same about Vietnam and Korea if it were strong enough. They have 200,000 troops in a region with a population of 2 million, doesn't sound that the real leaders are so convinced about Tibetans thinking they're part of China. Native americans, I don't think people can rationally argue that they should be part of the united states, they just sort of are and it's hard to reverse at this point.

Mao was definitely an idealist and not a pragmatist. He did get rid of prostitution and corruption (temporarily) and tried to create equality for women. Mao didn't build up the government, he was a great military leader against the nationalists, and afterwards, he undertook his massive projects to keep himself relevant. It was the pragmatic leaders later, the ones that pretended to be communist but were really capitalists, that built the lasting government.

Mao relocated the intellectuals to the countryside and the country back a long time. I know people whose parents this happened to. China itself had a meritocratic system (built into an aristocratic one) based on national exams for a long time.

I hate to be blunt, but I think this guys sources are "corrupted".

 

[vicawoo]

Due to lack of information, I turned to the god of quick information, wikipedia.

Economics of fascism-political economy of nazi germany
pre-war economy
Hitler appointed non-nazi Hjalmar Schacht. He engaged in mostly Keynesian policies to combat the great depression, notably the construction of the Autobahn. Yes, there was deficit spending, but economically that's not a valid criticism of economic policy (except for people like Reagan who compared the new deal to mussolini's economic policies). There was a major reduction in unemployment, inflation, and an expansion of consumer goods.

In 1933, there was the Reinhardt (reminds me of the character in Ellison's invisible man) program which was an ambitious transportation infrastructure program. The german construction industry expanded from 660,000 to 2,000,000 in 3 years. An effect of the infrastructure was that germans increasingly began to buy cars.

Germany imported raw goods and exported manufactured goods. To be partially self-sufficient (autarky) in case of war, they tried to limit trading to southern and southeastern europe. Later on, they would use conquered territories to supply raw materials. But notably, they weren't in a black hole of production; they were producing a lot of manufactured goods. There was more military investment than civilian, a sort of military keynesian practice.

The war
The outbreak did not initially alter germany's economic policies. Unlike most governments, they did not raise taxes. Their top income tax rate was 13.7%. They used slave labor. When germany started losing, they started converting civilian factories to military ones. Factories got bombed, which crippled their war economy.


In conclusion, I'm guessing that the german economy did at least as well as other countries. My interpretation is that german was economically worse off after hitler because they got bombed. You have to blame leaders for the outcomes of wars (somewhat reasonable) in order to argue the worse off question. So it's a more rationally explanation for winner's write history.

Finally, with leaders, countries want leaders they can be proud of. Mongolia isn't so strong now, so there are good points of remembering the days when they on top of the world (I'll call it Putinism). And they had leaders like Genghis and, uh, Kublai, and uh, Attila. Hmmm. But Germany's had plenty of good leaders, so they're not desperate to put Hitler in their pantheon.

 

[vicawoo]

Best reason: youtube "springtime for hitler" for the scene from the producers

 

[Psyringe]

In conclusion, I'm guessing that the german economy did at least as well as other countries. My interpretation is that german was economically worse off after hitler because they got bombed.

Imho, the problem is that the German economy under Hitler had one definite goal: war preparation. Knowing full well that they would go to war, even in 1933, Hitler knew that he could be ruthless even in his economy politics. Accumulating a large deficit didn't matter because he knew that he would later fill his pockets by annexing other countries. Hurting exports by reintroducing protectionist policies didn't matter because he knew that in a couple of years, exports would be irrelevant anyways. Hitler did not apply pure Keynesian economics (that might have actually worked), instead he applied an inhuman (and sometimes outright criminal) pseudo-Keynesian system that only worked because it only had to last for a couple of years.

Some examples of Nazi economy politics are:

- Mefo bills. This is probably the most important part of the whole Nazi economy and it's basically fraud. To pay for their projects, the Nazis needed more money than they had. Raising taxes or raising interest rates wasn't an option, so they invented a bogus company (MeFo) which issued bills, the number and total value of which were kept secret. MeFo bills made up 40% of the German government deficit in 1939, and the Nazis had no intentions of ever paying them back. If war hadn't started, and the fraudulent system had continued, then the fraud would have been noticed (because at some point, enough people would have wanted to cash in on the bills), with desastrous consequences for the German economy because of the sheer magnitude of bogus money involved.

- Excessive military spending. While government spending can be used to reflate an economy, excessive military spending certainly wasn't the best way to do so, because it doesn't yield any revenue later on except when you sell your military products (which runs counter against Nazi goals) or when you use your military to rob other nations (which *was* the Nazi goal, and which worked well for a while, but can hardly be seen as successful economics). Also, after a while, the excessive military spending started to hurt the civil economy, which had to deal with resource shortages because the military required more and more resources. Imports of agrarian products had to be raised by 30% because the whole economy focused on the military.

- Conquest. As said above, military conquest is an integral part of the Nazi economic system, because Germany would have been caught in a debt trap if they hadn't been able to find *some* way to get money. What they did was annexing Austria (which brought 1.5 billion Reichsmark into their pockets), and the areas conquered later on were systematically robbed.

- Expropriation. Millions of people (mainly Jews) were expropriated, which brought considerable amounts of money into the Nazi treasury.

- Slave work. Forced labor proved to be an efficient and cheap way to increase production without having to pay much for it.

- Protectionism. Campaigns with the message "buy German goods" were started. Sooner or later, Germany's reintroduced protectionism would have necessitated economic retaliations from the other countries, hurting German exports. Germany however depended on exports (and still does, btw), and also on imports of raw resources (because Germany itself doesn't have many resources). The protectionist policy would have hurt the German economy a lot unless the German economy could somehow be made self-sufficient. To become self-sufficient, Germany (again) had to conquer other countries to get access to needed resources.

Altogether, I think that Nazi economy was based on four pillars: Conquest, expropriation, slave work, and fraud. Without conquest or expropriation, it would simply have crashed after a couple of years. Therefore, it can hardly be seen as a successful economy.

The tragedy is that Germany *did* have good chances to pull off a *real* economic miracle in the 1930s. The economy was already recovering from the depression. A dedicated implemantation of Keynesian economics *without* the elements of fraud and excessive military spending would have worked well. The Nazis just didn't consider that option - the economy was only relevant to them as a means to fuel rearmament and to increase the Nazi support in the population.

 

[hossam]

whats up with every body being against hitler, he conquered a lot of europe , ok and maybe he lost but napoleon did the samething and lost on the end, and maybe napoleon didnt leave the country in deep sh*t but it could have happened to anybody in fact i bet the axis power would have quite succeful if not for the u.s. and people need to get over the holocaust and the slave labor and all that the jews would never have gotten israel if not for hitler and germany is doing fine now, so everybody whose all "i wont play the game if hitlers in"(in a ******** voice) then maybe you just have to realize that lifes a b*itch and then you die so get over what he did countless men before him have done things similiar to what he did a couple are in the game"genghis khan". as four the whole bad economy thingthe war helped with getting rid of the unemployment and when he invaded other countries he robbed them and got rid of his debt, and robbing countrys you conquer has always been done throuout history.

 

[frob2900]

The reasons the Charlie Chaplin impersonator isn't in the game are:

a) He's controversial due to being the most destructive western european leader in many centuries.

b) The game is about having fun. People (me included) don't want to play with a leader that invokes so many negative feelings.

c) The germans already have two leaders, who arguably gave more positive lasting effects for the german civilization.

d) There is (as of yet) no official World War II scenario. If there is then I suppose they would have to add him. They did in Civ II.

e) He is too recent. Genghis Khan was bad, but seriously, I doubt many people get bad feelings when considering the reign of the mongols.

f) Obvious. Come on, seriously, does anyone really think he has a shot of being in any non World War II related game?

I can't help but feel that no one can seriously consider supporting including him in Civ. Then again I'm not against argument for arguments sake, so argue on!

 

[Julian Delphiki]

whats up with every body being against hitler

Have you actually read this thread at all ?

 

[rabidveggie]

whats up with every body being against hitler, he conquered a lot of europe , ok and maybe he lost but napoleon did the samething and lost on the end, and maybe napoleon didnt leave the country in deep sh*t but it could have happened to anybody in fact i bet the axis power would have quite succeful if not for the u.s. and people need to get over the holocaust and the slave labor and all that the jews would never have gotten israel if not for hitler and germany is doing fine now, so everybody whose all "i wont play the game if hitlers in"(in a ******** voice) then maybe you just have to realize that lifes a b*itch and then you die so get over what he did countless men before him have done things similiar to what he did a couple are in the game"genghis khan". as four the whole bad economy thingthe war helped with getting rid of the unemployment and when he invaded other countries he robbed them and got rid of his debt, and robbing countrys you conquer has always been done throuout history.

Nice run on sentence, first off Russia would have eventually won against Germany, Israel was in numerous wars after its founding, though not Hitler's fault. War is indeed good for the economy, but numerous members of this forum have already stated that the economy was about to recover before Hitler took power. His military achievements were impressive, but that was in part to his great generals. If so many people are against his inclusion and their are better leaders left to include then maybe he shouldn't get in. Maybe the next expansion.

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

whats up with every body being against hitler, he conquered a lot of europe , ok and maybe he lost but napoleon did the samething and lost on the end, and maybe napoleon didnt leave the country in deep sh*t but it could have happened to anybody in fact i bet the axis power would have quite succeful if not for the u.s. and people need to get over the holocaust and the slave labor and all that the jews would never have gotten israel if not for hitler and germany is doing fine now, so everybody whose all "i wont play the game if hitlers in"(in a ******** voice) then maybe you just have to realize that lifes a b*itch and then you die so get over what he did countless men before him have done things similiar to what he did a couple are in the game"genghis khan". as four the whole bad economy thingthe war helped with getting rid of the unemployment and when he invaded other countries he robbed them and got rid of his debt, and robbing countrys you conquer has always been done throuout history.

Periods. Know them. Use them. Love them.


Srsly: What's up with the Hitler praise? Honestly, he wasn't anything all the special. He only took power because of a slew of coincidences in his favour. The Nazi government was terribly innefficient (assigning multiple groups to the same task and encouraging the "laws of the jungle" to promote infighting), and their economy was not very sustainable. Hitler managed to boost the economy and create jobs, but it wasn't going to last. I honestly don't understand Hitler love, I've seen it in my own town, it's scary. He was a great orator, sure, but as a leader he was nothing great.

That, and he's been so demonized by the winners of WW2, that the masses wouldn't stand for it.

[Edit] He wasn't all that great at military decisions, either. It was him ignoring his generals and making his own calls that lost him some key battles.

 

[Yeekim]

There was a comparison of Napoleon and Hitler a while ago, so this anecdote should be right on topic
So:

After capturing Paris, Hitler visits the tomb of Napoleon at Les Invalides, and starts conversation with the ghost of emperor.
To introduce himself, Hitler boasts of having taken Poland within two days.
Napoleon is quite impressed and deals out ample recognition.
Hitler, encouraged, tells about having taken France within two weeks.
Napoleon becomes a bit sad, but admires the conqueror even more.
Finally, Hitler pledges to take Russia within two months.
At once, Napoleon starts to turn and make noise within his sarcophagus.
"What are you doing?" asks Hitler in surprise.
"I am preparing a place for you in this same sarcophagus, right next to myself..."

EDIT: Somebody also commented on Jews being widely persecuted in Europe well before Hitler, so there's another one on that topic.

During WWI, a troop of cossacks succeeds in retaking a small hamlet from German forces, only to discover, that all Jewish inhabitants have promptly been hung.
"Look at these German bastards!", exclaims the commander. "They've hung every last Jew! Well, only wait boys! Once we take Germany, we shall hang all THEIR Jews!"

 

[crazy_achmed]

Very Funny.
Its just too simple, the reason why hitler should be in, is not because of he was such a gread leader, but because of he represends a phase of german history in wich they got enourmous and impressive military prosperities. and military is in fact an important part of this game. I mean, why, yes why, the german UU is the tiger tank, since civ 3? This is undoubtedly an tribute to their military history during WWII.

 

[Holycannoli]

I do have to wonder who Germany's leader will be in the BtR WWII scenarios? Some nameless leader with just a questionmark for a face? What WWII scenario would be complete without him? (Pacific theater aside)

C'mon, forget Germany's law banning anything nazi and Hitler related! Give me the famed WWII leader as an AI who likes to make war with his neighbors but makes bad military decisions, and let Germany edit him out if they don't like it. Why should I, across the Atlantic, be denied him as an AI leader just because one country won't allow him? Look what China did with their version! It's censored to hell!

Unless...hmm. Does anyone know of a mod that adds him? The more I read this thread the more I want him in the game, if only for historical purposes.

Oh, and I like how some people say that Hitler and the nazis are villified only because they lost the war. Well guess what? They'd have been villified if they had won too! They were evil people and there's no denying it. Not everyone who wins a war sheds his evil perception. Some people seem to think that if the nazis won then they wouldn't have gone down in history as some of the most evil people ever. Perhaps it's partly true...between propaganda and the ability to cover their tracks they may have gotten away with it for a while.

 

[Psyringe]

I do have to wonder who Germany's leader will be in the BtR WWII scenarios?

Firaxis chose someone else to represent Germany in the WW2 scenario. This will (understandably) feel odd for many people, so I guess that one of the first mods for BtS will be one that puts Hitler into the WW2 scenario. I'll probably use it myself when (if ever) I play that scenario.

C'mon, forget Germany's law banning anything nazi and Hitler related!

I thought I already said that Hitler isn't "banned" unless he's used to glorify Nazism. The only thing that's really declared illegal is a couple of Nazi symbols, an understandable decision which was made by the allies after winning the war.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Most non-Han Tibetans think it's a good thing the Chinese are helping them out? I don't think you've ever met a Tibetan in your life.
That's in the imagination of the Chinese. I've visited Tibet, and they hate the Chinese so much (only they won't say it in front of Chinese, because bad things happen to dissenters in the most heavily occupied province in China). They're forced to learn Chinese, their punished by death for bringing in any media of the Dalai Lama, the monks are forced to denounce him... The Dalai Lama's efforts for peaceful resolution by garnering sympathy are countered by the chinese controlling all information about him going into China. They burned down most of the trees and gunned down a lot of the animal herds for fun.
Now from Mao's point of view, he saw a feudalistic society with peasants ruled by the religious elite, and he wanted to liberate them. I'm pretty sure he actually believed that as well (along with the great leap forward and cultural revolution, which make sense from a certain idealistic point of view). It was a feudalistic society, but most Tibetans are so religious they don't care, and if you're a nomad with a herd of yaks and sheep, what does it mean to be rich?

Tibet's a part of China is pretty much the same as Korea, Mongolia, and Vietnam being part of China. I'm convinced by now that Chinese leaders only engages in moral justification to stall the west with arguments. China controls Tibet because it's strong enough. Tibet's not independent because every country in the world except China thinks it should be, but because China's powerful. It would be the same about Vietnam and Korea if it were strong enough. They have 200,000 troops in a region with a population of 2 million, doesn't sound that the real leaders are so convinced about Tibetans thinking they're part of China. Native americans, I don't think people can rationally argue that they should be part of the united states, they just sort of are and it's hard to reverse at this point.

Mao was definitely an idealist and not a pragmatist. He did get rid of prostitution and corruption (temporarily) and tried to create equality for women. Mao didn't build up the government, he was a great military leader against the nationalists, and afterwards, he undertook his massive projects to keep himself relevant. It was the pragmatic leaders later, the ones that pretended to be communist but were really capitalists, that built the lasting government.

Mao relocated the intellectuals to the countryside and the country back a long time. I know people whose parents this happened to. China itself had a meritocratic system (built into an aristocratic one) based on national exams for a long time.

I hate to be blunt, but I think this guys sources are "corrupted".

i agree. the communists screwed everything. even today the communists are still committing human rights abuses, like torturing clergy. this is not a contreversial thing, it is true, but because China is too powerful, no one can really go against it. that is one reason why i don't like the Chinese commies. no Tibetan i know likes the Chinese. i even know a Buddhist monk, and he hates the Chinese (and when you're a monk, you're not supposed to hate (that much))

any source that says the Tibetans love the Chinese government is obviously made by or supported by the Chinese government itself.


another reason i don't like the Chinese communists is because of the Cultural Revolution. destroying thousands of years of culture in just ten years? heavens, at least you could've sold all that "useless" cultural junk on the black market to buy nukes!

Mao, as someone put it, "knew how to start a revolution but not how to use it". even though he did, in the end, arguably "get the job done", he didn't need to do it the way he did.

and on Vietnam... if China ever invaded Vietnam, they may win the battle and even the war, but they're still screwed either way.

anyhow, this is off topic... back to Hitler...

 

[cybrxkhan]

off topic, but may i add this at Genghis Khan bashers.

okay, Genghis Khan was an inhuman barbarian that rampaged through civilized nations and killed a lot of people, like Hitler.

however, he was a good administrator and empire manager. he supported freedom of religion, had a strict code of laws, was one of the best military organizers in history, and started a postal system (based on riders) that was arguably the most effective in history until modern day. the empire he founded was so "calm" that a historian of the time wrote "a man can walk with a gold plate on top of his head from one end of the empire to another without any interruption"

and, unlike Hitler, he actually had (amazingly) a positive, well, maybe not positive, but at least an influence on the future development of civilization, even if it was not his own Mongol Empire. in fact, the Europeans owe their very world dominance to the Mongols (even though the Mongols were about to beat the crap out of them). it is because of the Mongols that the civilized, powerful, well-developed states in the Middle East and Asia crumbled or at least went into serious decline, allowing the Europeans to gain an advantage. it is because of the Mongols that the Europeans discovered that an Asia did exist (think Marco Polo), and that because of this, the Europeans wanted to get there (and thats how they discovered America).

and anyhow, surprisingly to some, Genghis Khan actually didn't set his goals on World Domination, unlike Hitler. in fact, in the beginning, he just united the Mongol tribes much like Washington and the founding fathers founded America. then, he attacked North China because of personal revenge. after that, he didn't really want to do anything, but then, some of his envoys to the middle east were butchered, and because Genghis Khan had great respect for diplomacy (surprisingly), he got pretty pissed off. he sent another envoy demanding apologies, but these guys were also killed. he took this as a hostile act, and decided to attack first. thats how his rampaging started.

and the only reason all those cities burned to the ground was because he was a nomad. seriously, whats the point of keeping the city if you have no use for it? if you try to protect it, thats even a more waste of your time.


okay, this was off topic and confusing, but i hope to make my point: Genghis Khan is not Hitler, Genghis Khan was good but bad, ridiculously brilliant but barbaric.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

I'm not saying Mao did not commit atrocities such as cultural revolution (which was, in truth, more vile than your depiction, actually) or great leap backwards.

Vicawoo: I acknowledge all that you've said, and I still believe there is a world of difference between Mao and Hitler. I also applause you for accusing that my sources are corrupt - although I disagree with you, that sentence could've easily became "this guy's a corrupted bastard". I shall think through my response carefully.

Mao, right from the beginning, rejected the Soviet style of dictatorship communism, and called for "communism with Chinese characteristics". For Mao, this meant away from dictatorship, the lack of government, spreading out resources, and self-sustainence. To the Chinese, communism was not a governmental system, but an economic system. They never took much thought to the governmental system, so they simply assumed a Chinese-styled bureaucracy with lots of Mandarins and an "emperor" that was elected from the ruling circle, and later really tried to be emperor. These ideas run directly counter to the Soviet style, but of course, also explains his failure in the great leap backwards when he tried to create mini-workshops and people's communes. The Soviets even used it as a strong excuse to plan a massive attack on the Chinese (that, and "loans", kinda weird, as money wasn't involved in trades between Communist nations) which Mao barely prevented by a secret plea to the US, resulting in a secret threat to the USSR about the consequences of ignoring the Uncle Sam the world police.

The 200000 troops in China (more like 20000, as most of them are factory workers providing resources for the army, and simply kept there for giving jobs to the Tibetians there) are not there for surpressing the Tibetians. Tibetians are far too poor and weak to face against 500 armed policeman. No; rather, those troops are there to hold off against India, as border defenders. Against a nation of almost a billion people, 200000 is really nothing more than a defensive force, and only surgically, mostly there to support Pakistan skirmishing along the Indian borders should the Indians try to attack Tibet. China and India are still struggling today, for oil, of course. Lord knows when oil pipelines will "accidentally" leak. In world history, border troops are everywhere, no matter how friendly nations eventually become, such as the entirety of the Canadian military along US borders.

About Tibetians not hating the theocratic feudal rule, I should make the point that according to the Western standards that claim Tibetians should be independent, they would be horrified at the living conditions and treatment of these serfs/slaves had they witnessed it first hand. I also quoted the Bhutan example because they were a lot more cruel and barbaric than even the Crusaders. Two wrongs don't make a right, but Chinese imperialism is, for the wrong reasons, a lot more benevolent, even considering the atrocities that ARE committed during the past 70 years.

Here's what I really dislike about the media: they make people sympathize more about 1000 people imprisoned and tortured for human rights issues than about millions of people starving and dying every day. Besides, when it comes to Chinese imperialism, their cultural imperialism is a lot more brutal than the military, as the former completely eradicates any chances of revolt.

Why am I talking so much about Mao? I'm just trying to demonstrate why Mao is different from Hitler. That's the purpose of this thread.

 

[Holycannoli]

I thought I already said that Hitler isn't "banned" unless he's used to glorify Nazism. The only thing that's really declared illegal is a couple of Nazi symbols, an understandable decision which was made by the allies after winning the war.

Well then there is no reason not to include him now is there? If the main reason for not including him is actually untrue then they should include him.

Now I will sit back and wait for them to add Hitler to BtS. There is no legal/financial reason not to, so they must. As I decree, so shall it be.

 

[cybrxkhan]

The 200000 troops in China (more like 20000, as most of them are factory workers providing resources for the army, and simply kept there for giving jobs to the Tibetians there) are not there for surpressing the Tibetians. Tibetians are far too poor and weak to face against 500 armed policeman. No; rather, those troops are there to hold off against India, as border defenders. Against a nation of almost a billion people, 200000 is really nothing more than a defensive force, and only surgically, mostly there to support Pakistan skirmishing along the Indian borders should the Indians try to attack Tibet. China and India are still struggling today, for oil, of course. Lord knows when oil pipelines will "accidentally" leak. In world history, border troops are everywhere, no matter how friendly nations eventually become, such as the entirety of the Canadian military along US borders.

About Tibetians not hating the theocratic feudal rule, I should make the point that according to the Western standards that claim Tibetians should be independent, they would be horrified at the living conditions and treatment of these serfs/slaves had they witnessed it first hand. I also quoted the Bhutan example because they were a lot more cruel and barbaric than even the Crusaders. Two wrongs don't make a right, but Chinese imperialism is, for the wrong reasons, a lot more benevolent, even considering the atrocities that ARE committed during the past 70 years.

pfft. ask any Tibetan and they'll think China is anything from benevolent. ask any living Tibetan if they think their old ways were that bad. they didn't care if they were serfs or slaves, the great thing about the Tibetans is that they care more about the spiritual side of life. and if China is to "protect" Tibet from India, Tibetans don't care about protection, all they care is about religion.

Here's what I really dislike about the media: they make people sympathize more about 1000 people imprisoned and tortured for human rights issues than about millions of people starving and dying every day. Besides, when it comes to Chinese imperialism, their cultural imperialism is a lot more brutal than the military, as the former completely eradicates any chances of revolt.

its more than a thousand people.

and when twenty+ million people died from Mao's awesome agricultural policies, when the most conservative estimates of those killed during his regime in the world are about 30 million (most liberal i seen is about 70 million, at least), the Western media didn't care at all. thats pretty sad.

and, i suppose we can agree on one thing though. i hate the Cultural Revolution. no, i loathe it. no, it is beyond loathing and hating. there are few things i detest more than it. it is the greatest modern tragedy, far surpassing anything in recent times. it was the beginning of the end of the great traditions of China, and pretty much Asia for that matter. how are there suddenly so many Atheists in China? i mean, theres nothing wrong with Atheism, but suddenly when they just pop up, there must be something wrong...

Why am I talking so much about Mao? I'm just trying to demonstrate why Mao is different from Hitler. That's the purpose of this thread.

i can agree with that. Mao doesn't equal Hitler. he killed more people, first of all. but more importantly, he actually IMPROVED china, if you can call i improving at all. he was a VICTOR, unlike Hitler. he is a symbol of MODERN CHINA. and not because he killed more, or was a more brutal dictator, but because people actually like him these days, and he is viewed as a father of modern china, thats why he is in, and not Hitler.

so, in conclusion, Mao is in because he is a victor, Hitler is not because he is a loser.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

I'm beginning to think about your points, and you do have a point that I really have to think about, in that the Tibetian peasent is even more single-minded about their religious life than even the natives in North America, so even the latter cannot be used to compare with the former about material gains and spiritual losses. The cultural revolution was a catastrophe, no question about it, and obviously NOT just because of the physical artifacts that was lost, but the human lives.

I know Tibetians do not like FOREIGN rule. Nobody does. My line of argument is that despite the widely publicized atrocities against Tibet, it's surely not worse in any way than the long-term deprivation the people suffered under Tibetian theocratic and feudal rule.

Which does bring me to a thought: what did Hitler intend to do with his non-Jewish subjects if he did conquer Europe and Russia? He was against communism, certainly against free market... so what does he plan to do after killing all non-blonde, non-whites and non-blue-eyed people? What was his vision, and would it have been better or worse than Stalin and Mao had it succeeded? We never knew because, as you said, he lost.

A point about failed policies: it's not a (fair) game of numbers becuase any failed policy would kill more people in China than anywhere else. Heck, once the Chinese stock market crashes there'll be over 2000 people jumping out of the building, and over 100000 children becoming malnutritioned and homeless. Is that "worse" than the Kobe earthquake in 1995?

 

[vicawoo]

For more clarification, there are 200.000 troops because of the Indian border. I don't know if most of them are in factories, as the military personnel I met in Tibet, where, well, military personnel. Some of them were handling checkpoint/administrative matters. There were a lot of checkpoints, the PSB (police) maintained a strong presence in every town, and some of the larger towns (Saga and Ali) were military towns. Chamdo is notorious for being crawling with police, and you can't even rent a room because people are afraid of the consequences.

I don't quite understand the second part of that, I know that Tibetans are resentful that many of the new higher level jobs are earmarked for the Chinese. I've seen a few construction crews with Chinese managers and Tibetan workers. Tibet will never be independent under its current state, so the ability of Tibetans to take control of their economy (even under chinese rule) is the most pivotal issue for the region.

From what I've read, the takeover was bloodless (or relatively so, can't remember exactly). The Chinese outmaneuvered them and cut them off, and tibetans realized they were completely outmatched against well-equipped veterans of the chinese civil war.

The Tibetan Autonomous Region is under a strict communist/authoritarian regime. They take away freedoms, and having taken them for granted it gets really unnerving. You're right in that everyday life is not brutal. But monks disappear after contact with westerners (because other monks report on them). Nobody has Tibetan flags in Tibet. Story about some Tibetans from Amdo/Qinghai (where they are big and rugged and look like they could break you in half). One guy from Amdo was saying how he hates Chinese and loves George Bush. My friend asked what George Bush had ever done for Tibet. The guy doesn't really know, but screw the chinese! I'm ethnically Korean, and let me tell you, they treat you a lot nicer when you tell them you're not Chinese.

I'm getting off topic, but the old system was a theocracy, with all the inherent religious bureacracy. Westerners are definitely hypocritical about it, but books about the bad old days don't sell. A pragmatic problem: The 13th dalai lama visited the western world after the fall of the qing and Tibet regained its independence (or thought it did, not going to argue). He realized that Tibet had to modernize or it would get trampled on. He then instituted changes with the system, but a lot of the monasteries fought these changes, as they had nothing to do with maintaining the theocracy. So the reforms (such as modernizing the military) got torpedoed and they were left to the whims of the first power to roll over it. From everything I've seen, Tibet needed a wakeup call. The lesson might cost its existence though.

And China can not let it be independent, because if it let it do so, then the largest province, Xinjiang would be next, then inner mongolia, maybe the korean autonomous region, and then those parts would splinter off faster than post-soviet states. So if that means controlling all information about the dalai lama, tracking all potentially trouble causing foreigners, and telling everybody how united and peaceful china is, then they're going to do it.

There are all these big things going on, and it's hard to say how much any individual person, who's probably just trying to survive or adapt to the new system, buys into the resentment or believes in one revolution. I won't say that all Tibetans hate Chinese, but to deny that there is widespread resentment is to oversimplify part of a very complex problem.

And Maoism is drastically different from traditional chinese bureacracy. Later leaders were more in line with it, my theory is, their viewpoint is, "we secretly like the ways of our culture, but mao's the hero, so let's salute the statues while chucking the philosophy".