North Korea Crisis

[Sumeragi]

More like old man Mao never cared for the islands, since he was too focused on the continent due to his upbringing. He never had the strategic view when it came to the sea.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

selective memory

old man Mao was the one who agreed to shelved the Diayou island issue when Nixon came calling with japan and bags of cash.

I haven't heard that one. I thought Diayou was given to Japan by Truman?

Still, given the fact Nixon opening trade with China almost made China what she is today, I would say China got the better deal out of this?

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

I haven't heard that one. I thought Diayou was given to Japan by Truman?

No, it was Chiang who said he didn't care for the islands in Cairo when offered them by Roosevelt, and Mao supported Chiang on that.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

More like old man Mao never cared for the islands, since he was too focused on the continent due to his upbringing. He never had the strategic view when it came to the sea.

Or maybe he realize the Chinese navy couldn't stand up against anything back then. It was literally "row boats and rifles".

Even when the Japanese surrendered and 1/5 of her Navy, the only "material" repatriation given to China, the ships were transferred to ROC, not PRC command.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

I haven't heard that one. I thought Diayou was given to Japan by Truman?

Still, given the fact Nixon opening trade with China almost made China what she is today, I would say China got the better deal out of this?

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

No, it was Chiang who said he didn't care for the islands in Cairo when offered them by Roosevelt, and Mao supported Chiang on that.

Truman offer, Chiang said no thanks, Mao did laid a claim after he won. But in the 70s when China and the US was trying establish a relationship. Mao and the whoever was in charge of Japan at the time decided to leave the island issue to later.

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

Or maybe he realize the Chinese navy couldn't stand up against anything back then. It was literally "row boats and rifles".

Explains why it was Deng who said the future lies in the sea and laid the foundation for the issue, something Mao never did. It's the strategic vision difference.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

No, it was Chiang who said he didn't care for the islands in Cairo when offered them by Roosevelt, and Mao supported Chiang on that.

I really would like to see the source on that one. Especially since I can't even recall anytime in history Chiang and Mao sat in the same room and agreed on the flavor of the tea to be served, much less give the islands to an enemy of the nation.

[willx]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

Mao may have done a shit-ton of harm after he got into power, but he was a good man while he was fighting for the country.

I think very few people (there are exceptions) in this world and in any conflict should be outright labeled good or bad. I think it's pretty difficult to qualify, in particular revolutionaries like Mao, as being "good" or "bad"

There was significant corruption in the government and he (Mao) gained enough popular support to effect a regime change. He had his own personal experiences and from that his own personal vision. He went about crafting this vision -- so does that make him a good man? Was Stalin a good man? Hitler? Iran's Grand Ayatollah? Castro?

Anyways, China and Taiwan are both (relatively) stable functioning societies now .. as a result of one man or one party's vision or the resilience of humankind?

(PS: I noticed an article the accuracy of which I'm unsure of, but has made the allegation that Mao's reforms resulted in more deaths than those caused by Hitler (excl. wartime deaths) and Stalin. You can find it easily if you google it, not sure if it's legitimate.)

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by willx

I think very few people (there are exceptions) in this world and in any conflict should be outright labeled good or bad. I think it's pretty difficult to qualify, in particular revolutionaries like Mao, as being "good" or "bad"

There was significant corruption in the government and he (Mao) gained enough popular support to effect a regime change. He had his own personal experiences and from that his own personal vision. He went about crafting this vision -- so does that make him a good man? Was Stalin a good man? Hitler? Iran's Grand Ayatollah? Castro?

Anyways, China and Taiwan are both (relatively) stable functioning societies now .. as a result of one man or one party's vision or the resilience of humankind?

(PS: I noticed an article the accuracy of which I'm unsure of, but has made the allegation that Mao's reforms resulted in more deaths than those caused by Hitler (excl. wartime deaths) and Stalin. You can find it easily if you google it, not sure if it's legitimate.)

I have no doubt is possible Mao have a higher body count. Since there were more Chinese than...say Germans or Russians.

[Xellos-_^]

why do people always excl wartime deaths? does it matter if it was by bullet or starvation if the cause for either was a madman?

[willx]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

why do people always excl wartime deaths? does it matter if it was by bullet or starvation if the cause for either was a madman?

Well, it excludes the soldiers, I think the total includes all the concentration camps and the prisoners, etc. Hitler caused untold destruction, but at least he didn't salt the earth (see: Rome v. Carthage)

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

Mao may have done a shit-ton of harm after he got into power, but he was a good man while he was fighting for the country.

As you said, Mao was not corrupt. But he was never a "good person" however you look at it. From the very beginning of his career with the Communists he had a habit of betraying or misleading his comrades so that he could get into a position of better power. He deliberately sent parts of his army whose commanders he didn't like into KMT traps when they were escaping to Yan'an on the Long March. At Yan'an, he forced everyone to self-criticize and thus was able to get rid of people he didn't like such as Wang Ming. You can read more if you look up the 延安整风运动. Mao was not corrupt (although he always enjoyed vast personal luxury) in the same way that Chiang and his men were, but he was extremely evil and had the ability to commit any crime.

Chiang was also a bad dude, but at least he had some reservations. After Zhang Xueliang kidnapped and threatened him in Xi'an, Chiang simply put him under house arrest and let him live out the rest of his life (he lived for 100 years). Mao on the other hand, could kill or harm anyone for any reason. Peng Dehuai was a great general who had fought the Japanese and commanded the PLA in Korea. After the Great Leap Forward, Peng felt Mao had gone overboard, and wrote him a letter about the matter. He did not kidnap or threaten him. He merely spoke up for the millions of people who had been starved to death. And what happened? Mao put Peng in detainment, criticized him, and had him tortured for years until he finally died.

That was his own comrade. I will not talk about people like Liu Shaoqi, who met an even more gruesome death.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

As you said, Mao was not corrupt. But he was never a "good person" however you look at it. From the very beginning of his career with the Communists he had a habit of betraying or misleading his comrades so that he could get into a position of better power. He deliberately sent parts of his army whose commanders he didn't like into KMT traps when they were escaping to Yan'an on the Long March. At Yan'an, he forced everyone to self-criticize and thus was able to get rid of people he didn't like such as Wang Ming. You can read more if you look up the 延安整风运动. Mao was not corrupt (although he always enjoyed vast personal luxury) in the same way that Chiang and his men were, but he was extremely evil and had the ability to commit any crime.

Chiang was also a bad dude, but at least he had some reservations. After Zhang Xueliang kidnapped and threatened him in Xi'an, Chiang simply put him under house arrest and let him live out the rest of his life (he lived for 100 years). Mao on the other hand, could kill or harm anyone for any reason. Peng Dehuai was a great general who had fought the Japanese and commanded the PLA in Korea. After the Great Leap Forward, Peng felt Mao had gone overboard, and wrote him a letter about the matter. He did not kidnap or threaten him. He merely spoke up for the millions of people who had been starved to death. And what happened? Mao put Peng in detainment, criticized him, and had him tortured for years until he finally died.

That was his own comrade. I will not talk about people like Liu Shaoqi, who met an even more gruesome death.

Well, no matter what you think, corruption is #1 concern of present day China, and thus Mao have an enduring popularity that cannot be dissuaded.

That and daring to fight anyone who get in his way.

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

Well, no matter what you think, corruption is #1 concern of present day China, and thus Mao have an enduring popularity that cannot be dissuaded.

The disturbing thing is that you seem to be defending that kind of mentality, or saying that it's normal.

It's not "no matter what I think", or even what the Chinese people think, it's what's correct. It's frankly disgusting that people like Mao can be respected while someone like Hitler is 100% the devil. In many ways Mao surpassed Hitler.

Saying "oh but Mao wasn't corrupt!" is like saying "but Hitler discouraged smoking and built the German highways, so he can't be a bad guy".

Earlier you equated Mao with Jefferson and Washington, which is exactly the kind of moral relativism that is the disgusting habit of modern Chinese. By contrast, if you went to Germany and said Hitler was "good and bad like George Washington" they would probably kick you out of the country.

[LeoXiao]

Sorry that I am writing so much. I just think it is really irresponsible for people to talk about historical figures and act like they were all the same.

Also, you mentioned corruption as the #1 problem in current China? Going back to Mao, I'm sure that his underhanded methods, total disregard for existing Chinese culture or ethics, and propensity to do anything he wanted did not do anything to improve the ethical or virtuous thinking of modern Chinese. So even if Mao was not corrupt in the same way as modern officials, he did not do anything to create a system that would stay "clean".

[Ithekro]

In US history the two presidents tha are generally held in high regard are Washington and Lincoln. Jefferson and his faults are generally known and yet he remains at least respected, but not on a pillar like the other two. We don't have a holiday for Jefferson's birthday, while we had them for Washinton and Lincoln (combined into President's Day in the last few decades).

Washington gets nation wide rememberance, while Lincoln gets decidedly less in the more Southern parts of the country.

A fourth added to the list has been Theodore Roosevelt for being a Progressive Republican that went after Big Business and moved to make the US at least a viable world power (Great White Fleet) plus negotiating the peace treaty that ended the Russo-Japanese War (he won a Nobel Prize for that).

FDR is held high by some, but still hated by others as there are still some people alive that voted for or against him.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

The disturbing thing is that you seem to be defending that kind of mentality, or saying that it's normal.

It's not "no matter what I think", or even what the Chinese people think, it's what's correct. It's frankly disgusting that people like Mao can be respected while someone like Hitler is 100% the devil. In many ways Mao surpassed Hitler.

Saying "oh but Mao wasn't corrupt!" is like saying "but Hitler discouraged smoking and built the German highways, so he can't be a bad guy".

Earlier you equated Mao with Jefferson and Washington, which is exactly the kind of moral relativism that is the disgusting habit of modern Chinese. By contrast, if you went to Germany and said Hitler was "good and bad like George Washington" they would probably kick you out of the country.

Hitler lost the war.

Mao won his :P

Also, if you use the argument that system he created left problems that are also his fault, then I think a certain carpenter who had a great message about faith 2013 years ago would also be responsible for some of the greatest genocide and mass murder known in human history.

[LeoXiao]

Jesus taught universal love, tolerance, and virtuous conduct. That people later on appropriated this teaching to commit wrongdoing was not his fault. Mao set up a system that could not be anything other than corrupt, because he denied and damaged the Chinese system of ethics and values, rewarded only behavior that was beneficial to his own political power (like Shang Yang or Qin Shihuang), and denied morality as "idealistic".

You are making an idiotic comparison again. I don't know what your intent is.

[mangamuscle]

I do not see the crisis in "North Korea Crisis"; a crisis is something that must be solved ASAP or you lose the small opportunity window you have to solve it i.e. The cuban missiles crisis. But chances are we will be talking about this issue this year, next year, etc.

[LeoXiao]

yeah North Korea is not really a crisis; it's just kinda...there. And bugging everyone else from time to time.