Oops,just realized this thread is called "The leader of the russians shouldn't be Catherine, it should be Lenin!" not Napoleon or Joan d´Ark.Erm Cathy ( ) is fine,or Peter,but definitely not Lenin.Everything has been said on him in this thread.
Dirk Aurel,
I didn't say Mao's 'good'. I just said that he's not that terrible.
Many great leaders did or tolerated bad things. Like slavery under Washington, Opium trading under Elizabeth. They just didn't do it to their own people. But think about Mao's situation, he couldn't do it to another country since China was too weak. If a country is strong the leader can treat its own people well while tolerating bad things happen out side the country. But a weak country does not have this choice. Sincerely I can't find a leader who treats its own people well, and treats other people well, and be great!
So he might aswell treat his own ppl badly if he can´t do it to other countries ppl?Agree a lot of great leaders tolerated things, just comes with the job I guess,didn´t object to that in my original post either,just think that some things weren´t tolerated by Mao but initialised by him,that´s why I´m not sure if he really can be defined as "tolerating" it,since it was his fault,and he didn´t really strengthen his country by doing so.Argueing the aims justify the means doesn´t count either since I can´t see what possible aim or benefits his cultural revolution gave the Chinese ppl.
Agree with you on him not being as terrible as his western counterparts though, but that might aswell be only because I know too little of his "deathcount" to be honest.The numbers flying around these threads sound pretty terrible to me.From what I know though, esp on the cultural revolution,I wouldn´t refer to him as not being terrible.
And calling a leader just not as terrible as the rest,isn´t really a compliment.
Originally posted by Xin Yu Dirk Aurel,
I didn't say Mao's 'good'. I just said that he's not that terrible.
Many great leaders did or tolerated bad things. Like slavery under Washington, Opium trading under Elizabeth. They just didn't do it to their own people. But think about Mao's situation, he couldn't do it to another country since China was too weak. If a country is strong the leader can treat its own people well while tolerating bad things happen out side the country. But a weak country does not have this choice. Sincerely I can't find a leader who treats its own people well, and treats other people well, and be great!
Also Mendela of South Africa. Both of them adopted a peaceful way of struggle. Chinese communists would have done that as well, if their demonstrators weren't killed by the authorities en mass.
Gandhi was great. But just like George Washington tolerated Slavery, Gandhi tolerated classes in India -- some people were higher than others just because of their families.
It sholud be Peter the Great! He did for Russia what Elizabeth I did for Britain! And to all you Russian folk, I don't know his exact name whether it was Petir, or Pietr, or something.... So cut me some slack on that if its wrong. And if that isn't how his name is spelled/pronounced I'd appreciate a correction.
for people who like to go to war from turn 1 of the game,
most of u sound pathetic. people die in war....real people.
the superficial comparison between hitler and mao and stalin
is at best annoying.
russia - i would have preferred peter the great or stalin.
stalin transformed a backward
country on the brink of destruction from western europe
into a mordern power capable of basic self defense.
china - there is nothing wrong with mao. if u were leading
1 billion people, even a few million in the sacrifice of
progress is nothing. before mao, china had had to endure
imperialism from both the west and japan. but for
extreme measures that the communists took when they
came to power, china would be like india. have you ever
wondered why india, independet since 1947 and a democracy
is so much behind china?
egypt - cleopatra is a bad choice. she did nothing
to advance egypt.
gandhi - was never a state leader. indira gandhi was
probably a better choice or her father jawarlal nehru.
Originally posted by wohmongarinf00l stalin transformed a backward
country on the brink of destruction from western europe
into a mordern power capable of basic self defense.
when it comes to nations, the ends always justify the means - ALWAYS. the press of the time can spin the story for folks like u so u can live with urself.
basically there are always just two choices for a nation that is backward in relation to the rest of the world. (1) get a plan ready, neutralise opposition (ie kill a few folks) and get on the way to progess ala china or (2) organise a quick military and invade ur nearest neighbour and the next neighbour ..and..etc....ala japan, germany. either way, lots of folks die.
somehow u have made it so "killing ur own folks" is worse than killing other people. it is taking human life in both cases. human life, one would think, is valuable to the same degree irrespective of origin.
Originally posted by wohmongarinf00l when it comes to nations, the ends always justify the means - ALWAYS. the press of the time can spin the story for folks like u so u can live with urself.
Originally posted by wohmongarinf00l basically there are always just two choices for a nation that is backward in relation to the rest of the world. (1) get a plan ready, neutralise opposition (ie kill a few folks) and get on the way to progess ala china or (2) organise a quick military and invade ur nearest neighbour and the next neighbour ..and..etc....ala japan, germany. either way, lots of folks die.
One word that completely eliminates that theory: America.
Originally posted by wohmongarinf00l somehow u have made it so "killing ur own folks" is worse than killing other people. it is taking human life in both cases. human life, one would think, is valuable to the same degree irrespective of origin.
Okay, in keeping with new Civilizations forum policy (see announcement) I'm shutting this thread down. We're trying to clense this forum of excessive historical/political debate.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
) is fine,or Peter,but definitely not Lenin.Everything has been said on him in this thread.
