Why didn't Mao suffer Stalin's fate?

rvsakhadeo

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
8,924
India
#31
A
Am I supposed to lose sleep over this?

Even if I am bothered by it, and I am not because there are so much more in life to be busy and bother about, why should I want a similar situation in the USSR for China over Mao's sexual perversion and people who died under his famine?

The Chinese have it right when they act practically and pragmatically in causing a Chinese Resurgence than to nitpick over a dead man's past evils.

Between crying moaning over his crimes and taking advantage of the rare state stability his brutal early regime caused, Chinese are right to celebrate his successes and move on and continuing to rebuild China from the stability and unity a mountain of corpses had paved.

The Chinese who know are not hiding anything; crimes or good deeds. They are choosing to be practical and mature by moving forward than having to cry over alleged pedophile rape by what is now a corpse.
A fine example of how utterly insensitive a post in a history forum can possibly be.
 
Oct 2013
4,516
Canada
#34
Whether the PRC moves ahead or not in so
far as it's GDP is concerned is not the topic of this thread.
It is on topic of the thread.

I already addressed the topic, and you responded to my post by lobbing some labels on Mao and asking if the Chinese knew that.

I said assuming they do accept your descriptions and allegations of Mao as a tyrant and a pedophile rapist, Chinese people are concerned about life and Chinese progress and not a corpse.

Everything I post is 100% on topic as it explains to you why Mao didn't suffer the same fate as Stalin. Because Mao was the leader of a pragmatic people who rather move forward based on the good of Mao than to remove him based solely on his bad.

Rather than asking and trying to figure out why Mao didn't suffer the same fate as Stalin, ask why should he suffer the same fate? While Mao and Stalin are different people, but similar since to most they are just tyrants, their environments are different. Chinese are different from Soviet people. Chinese and Soviet circumstances were different. China and former SFRs are different today. It's like asking two dictators of the different countries, one now very successful and the other lagging far behind as a rump state, why they don't suffer the same fate. It makes zero sense why they should suffer the same fate, even if one was sent pedobear.

If you still don't get it I suggest stop focusing on feel bad points like whether one of them was a pedophile or not, and focus on the long reaching effects these two major figures caused.
 
Last edited:

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
15,657
Welsh Marches
#35
But in so far as the Chinese are drawing ahead nowadays, it is not on the basis of any good things introduced by Mao, but by abandoning his whole approach; and the defects of Mao's schemes were not exactly minor, they led to millions of deaths and any amount of personal suffering and destruction of cultural heritage.
 
Likes: Spartakus X

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,980
Lisbon, Portugal
#36
But in so far as the Chinese are drawing ahead nowadays, it is not on the basis of any good things introduced by Mao, but by abandoning his whole approach; and the defects of Mao's schemes were not exactly minor, they led to millions of deaths and any amount of personal suffering and destruction of cultural heritage.
From all the bad things he did, he unified the country under the rule of one stable government. He destroyed the last vestiges of "feudalism" in the country (which is imperative to modernisation, even if that required the destruction of important historical heritage) and set the country towards its industrialization.

He made China a total independent world power and made it a nuclear country. All those achievements make Mao a figure of respect among contemporary Chinese.
 

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
15,657
Welsh Marches
#37
Yes, I appreciate that, but I feel as queasy about the fact that they should 'respect' a man like that as I do about the fact that many Russians seem to respect Stalin. If you are suggesting, however. that the cultural revolution was a necessary precondition for industrialization, I wholly disagree with you.
 

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,980
Lisbon, Portugal
#38
Yes, I appreciate that, but I feel as queasy about the fact that they should 'respect' a man like that as I do about the fact that many Russians seem to respect Stalin. If you are suggesting, however. that the cultural revolution was a necessary precondition for industrialization, I wholly disagree with you.
I'm not talking about the Cultural Revolution per se. The entire rule of Mao from 1949 until 1976 was about eliminating many of the "Ancién Régime" institutions that were still present in the country, even during its First Republic period. This was fundamental to the modernisation of China.
The Cultural Revolution was indeed a failure, though.

Many Western political figures that also were directly and indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths have some respect among many as well - Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Winston Churchill, Napoleon Bonaparte or Charles V to name a few.
 
Oct 2013
4,516
Canada
#39
But in so far as the Chinese are drawing ahead nowadays, it is not on the basis of any good things introduced by Mao, but by abandoning his whole approach; and the defects of Mao's schemes were not exactly minor, they led to millions of deaths and any amount of personal suffering and destruction of cultural heritage.
What the Chinese are using today is irrelevant, because that's not the point. People are not attributing Chinese success to Maoism or his theories. Even the CCP today reject Maoism.

It's the unity and central power his regime founded that allowed subsequent growth to happen. China was on the verge of civilizational death from a century of continuous decay and racial impotency, en route to join dead civilizations in the ash heap of history. China was divided among warlords and warring Chinese and foreign invaders, with non-Chinese powers controlling the country. It was not the right environment that allows any of the growth. Forget the growth you see today - China wouldn't exist the same but a collection of states and factions. You can't grow anything on that chaos.

That's the point. The credit to Mao is not on his good governance of China (he didn't do good) but on the stability he brought.
 
Likes: robto
Dec 2018
74
Cheyenne
#40
What the Chinese are using today is irrelevant, because that's not the point. People are not attributing Chinese success to Maoism or his theories. Even the CCP today reject Maoism.

It's the unity and central power his regime founded that allowed subsequent growth to happen. China was on the verge of civilizational death from a century of continuous decay and racial impotency, en route to join dead civilizations in the ash heap of history. China was divided among warlords and warring Chinese and foreign invaders, with non-Chinese powers controlling the country. It was not the right environment that allows any of the growth. Forget the growth you see today - China wouldn't exist the same but a collection of states and factions. You can't grow anything on that chaos.

That's the point. The credit to Mao is not on his good governance of China (he didn't do good) but on the stability he brought.
China has always been split between periods of stability and civil warfare. The CCP is only 70 years old after all. In the grand scheme of Chinese history, not long at all. Who knows what calamities lay on the horizon for any country. Another reason while the Cultural Revolution with the millions of deaths is also not much out of the ordinary for the suffering Chinese have gone through in history.