Hitler wins in the US because of 2 factors: (1) His murders were more active. Mao and Stalin killed a lot of people indirectly with social policies, intentionally and unintentionally. Their active kills in purges, etc, are smaller than Hitler's who got most of his by actually having people shot, gassed, etc. (2) Germany is in the West, so we identify much more strongly with Hitler and with Hitler's victims. Russia and China are in the East, foreign to us, and we don't identify with the players or the cultures. We can abstract and sterilize those deaths. Personally, I give the crown to Stalin, who had a more balanced, all-around game. Hitler was highly intentional, but got the fewest kills. Mao got the most kills but with the least intention. Stalin holds the middle ground. Good idea!
The thing is, the real figures about the number that Stalin murdered were "state secrets" and were generally unknown until the end of the Soviet Union. So in that case it isn't so much about winners writing history, as losers losing control of their secrets. Same thing with Hitler, to a lesser degree. Until the Nazis were getting rolled up all across Europe, the truth of what was going on in Auschwitz-Birkenau and all the other "summer camps" was not known. It was only when Hitler lost control of his secrets that the true nature of his crimes became clear. Maybe somewhere in some vault there are documents showing that Gerald Ford is the greatest evil mastermind and mass murderer of all time. I doubt it, but you don't know. The US system makes secrets harder to keep, but not impossible.
Mao wins hands-down in terms of civilian death of his own country. But honestly, it's unfair to compare Hitler's 10 million to Mao's 50 million as the later was a projected number based the birth rate gap in the turns of 50/60, and that loss is indirectly caused by his crazy policies. Ok, if we use the same method, Hitler's number would be the total of military/civilian death in WWII and the population that could have been born and raised during that time if there was no war, then multiply by the percentage you think Hitler should be responsible for. I bet it's close to Mao's number.
You can't call stoppage of education, and sending 16 year olds away to farms measures to get country back on track.
Mao is an idiot when it come to how to run a country. He did unify china behind a strong central government, which allow Deng to reform the country later. He should have died in 1950, the country would have been so much better off.
:grin: Mao changes the rule by himself Stalin kills the refs and players he dislikes randomly Hitler mobs his players to kill to others players attempting to replace Stern
Mao would have made Al Capone look like Al Iglesias had he lived in the States. He is a ruthless genius. And of course idiots and geniuses are alike.
Guess whole China have to thank Mao he did not kill Deng during the cultural revolution, that man pretty much made China what it is today by himself. That's how important a truely great leader can change a country's fate.
Exactly, I'm glad I'm not the only knows this. It's ridiculous but many historian estimate Mao's death toll with people could have been born but didn't because of his policies. That's like saying 6 people died when only two died, but they would had 4 kids. I've seen numbers range from 15 million all the way 70 million (a near impossible number). Mao was evil but during his early years, he genuinely thought his policies were for the good of the nation. Stalin was evil but without his modernization, the Germans would've rolled over Russia. Hitler... was just plane evil.
Here's a good article on how the death toll for Mao is calculated, done during the 80's. Essentially, it's based on the birth gap flattening during the great leap forward period. Chinese officials still admitted to 10s of millions dying and Mao is no saint, but the estimates need to be revised. http://www.monthlyreview.org/0906ball.htm
Not at all. He went against years of mao policy and appointed many top level officials that knows what they are doing. There is nothing more you can do as a leader (set the right policy and appoint good executives).
Deng is a great leader, no doubt. But one line of argument is that Mao set too low of a bar. While focus what Deng did do, also focus on areas he fell short. Also the hardworking Chinese people contributed a lot to the rise of China post Mao.
Of couse the people did the work, but without great leadership the ship sails no where. Just look at N.K. If they have someone like Deng after old Kim died the country would be in so much better shape now, there could even be unification already.
Indeed they were forced to work as peasants. Should Deng get credits for giving people chances to better themselves? Absolutely. Should Deng get credits for every economic success China had post Mao? I say probably not. But Deng will always be a great leader in my heart.
