Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Stalin vs. Zedong

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Land of Submarines
    Posts
    669

    Default Stalin vs. Zedong

    Most likely, you've heard of Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union from Lenin's death to his own death in 1953. You might have heard of Mao Zedong, the Chinese revolutionary and eventually leader of the PRC (People's Republic of China).

    Both leaders committed horrible atrocities, but at the same time, they both introduced several reforms which helped shape their respective countries. One example would be that, although Stalin is estimated to have caused millions of Soviet deaths, he helped industrialize the country in a rather short amount of time and strengthen the economy with his Five-Year Plans. Mao Zedong ended two decades of civil war in China and introduced certain reforms, but killed millions of his regime's opponents.

    Using not just the above paragraph, but also some of your own quick research, who, in your opinion, was the better of the two leaders?


    - Off-Topic Decree Man
    - Wizard Mercenaries Archmage of Music
    An anagram of "Evony, Free Forever" is "Revere foe, envy fro."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Land of Submarines
    Posts
    669

    Default

    Dangit, I forgot the poll. Whatever. In that case, we will have a DISCUSSION.


    - Off-Topic Decree Man
    - Wizard Mercenaries Archmage of Music
    An anagram of "Evony, Free Forever" is "Revere foe, envy fro."

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The great white north.
    Posts
    4,444

    Default

    I don't know much about Zedong, but I do know a fair bit about Stalin, and he took Russia from essentially the Dark Ages, clear into present times within a very short span of time. He also instilled zealotry and bloodlust in his troops, making them a fierce (if not well-equipped) military.

    Had he not run his country the way he did, Germany would have successfully conquered it, and the whole course of the world would have been changed. Had his troops not feared to lose so much (because they'd be executed depending on how they participated in the loss. Some commanders who were in charge of the defense of either Leningrad or Stalingrad were executed for losing this city during the German push to Moscow.)

    Think about it. Russia's counterattack back into Germany left the German armored and Infantry divisions scrambling in panic to set up adequate defenses before Russia could get to the capital. And they were also trying to fend off the slow-moving but powerful Allied forces coming in from the west. Had Germany successfully taken Russia, which was held by Stalin's policies and his changes to the way things were done, they could have turned back and put a stop to the Allied advance. At which point, Europe would have been screwed.


    So, Communism, and Stalin, saved Europe from the Nazis.

    Err... that wasn't my point. Oh right, Stalin did more for the world and his own country. He was a better leader.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Raiding Your Fridge
    Posts
    4,420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Demonhero View Post
    I don't know much about Zedong, but I do know a fair bit about Stalin, and he took Russia from essentially the Dark Ages, clear into present times within a very short span of time. He also instilled zealotry and bloodlust in his troops, making them a fierce (if not well-equipped) military.

    Had he not run his country the way he did, Germany would have successfully conquered it, and the whole course of the world would have been changed. Had his troops not feared to lose so much (because they'd be executed depending on how they participated in the loss. Some commanders who were in charge of the defense of either Leningrad or Stalingrad were executed for losing this city during the German push to Moscow.)

    Think about it. Russia's counterattack back into Germany left the German armored and Infantry divisions scrambling in panic to set up adequate defenses before Russia could get to the capital. And they were also trying to fend off the slow-moving but powerful Allied forces coming in from the west. Had Germany successfully taken Russia, which was held by Stalin's policies and his changes to the way things were done, they could have turned back and put a stop to the Allied advance. At which point, Europe would have been screwed.


    So, Communism, and Stalin, saved Europe from the Nazis.

    Err... that wasn't my point. Oh right, Stalin did more for the world and his own country. He was a better leader.
    I share practically the same viewpoint as Demon here,

    Both were highly influential leaders, Both did a lot to completely overhaul their own countries. Although, one thing I have to point out is what happened after removing some of the things they did to improve their countries. Khrushchev removed a lot of Stalin ideals and weakened the USSR in return with his De-Stalinization, while attempting to make the average life of the citizen better with domestic plans. He meant well but his methods often didn't work and only made things worse for the country. While on China's end, Economic Reformation replaced a lot of Maoism policies and were much more successful in the end. Showing that Maoism could be replaced and Stalin's plans couldn't.

    Essentially it boils down to both leaders being almost equal until you add what Stalin did for the entire Eastern World by being a huge part in stopping the Nazi's.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The great white north.
    Posts
    4,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JPA32 View Post
    I share practically the same viewpoint as Demon here,
    Argument win.

    Showing that Maoism could be replaced and Stalin's plans couldn't.
    Argument win.
    Essentially it boils down to both leaders being almost equal until you add what Stalin did for the entire Eastern World by being a huge part in stopping the Nazi's.
    Argument win.

    You know, you could've stopped after the first line, lol.

    However, Stalinism might have been able to have been replaced, if it had been replaced with the right ideas, and the right plans. Not to mention Khrushchev was a fairly weak leader anyways.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Raiding Your Fridge
    Posts
    4,420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Demonhero View Post
    Argument win.


    Argument win.

    Argument win.

    You know, you could've stopped after the first line, lol.

    However, Stalinism might have been able to have been replaced, if it had been replaced with the right ideas, and the right plans. Not to mention Khrushchev was a fairly weak leader anyways.
    Don't think you made many comparisons about Maoism and Stalinism. You even said you didn't know much about him. :P

    True, the USSR had some pretty weak leadership right after Stalin died, not just Khrushchev. But still, Stalinism did a whole helluva lot to improve the USSR and had it been kept around longer the USSR would have been a much more impressive place, even with the bad leadership that followed Stalin's death, it wasn't that bad. With time better idea's could have been thought up to replace Stalinism rather than Khrushchev's sudden bad actions.
    Last edited by JPA32; 04-10-2010 at 02:34 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The great white north.
    Posts
    4,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JPA32 View Post
    Don't think you made many comparisons about Maoism and Stalinism. You even said you didn't know much about it. :P

    True, the USSR had some pretty weak leadership right after Stalin died, not just Khrushchev. But still, Stalinism did a whole helluva lot to improve the USSR and had it been kept around longer the USSR would have been a much more impressive place, even with the bad leadership that followed Stalin's death, it wasn't that bad. With time better idea's could have been thought up to replace Stalinism rather than Khrushchev's sudden bad actions.
    Well, yea, once you get up past Chinese imperialism, my interest in the history tends to fade as far as China is concerned.

    That's what I was saying, just less detailed lol.

    Stalinism eventually would have been replaced by something better, had they not been replaced by something that sucked.

    I love how we've essentially turned this into a discussion about Stalin and Stalinism.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Raiding Your Fridge
    Posts
    4,420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Demonhero View Post
    Well, yea, once you get up past Chinese imperialism, my interest in the history tends to fade as far as China is concerned.

    That's what I was saying, just less detailed lol.

    Stalinism eventually would have been replaced by something better, had they not been replaced by something that sucked.

    I love how we've essentially turned this into a discussion about Stalin and Stalinism.
    I've always been more interesting in history around WWI and II events and leaders over most other history myself.

    I tend to do that though. I'll just pop my thoughts on the subject into the discussion without realizing that I'm essentially just detailing what the last person just said with some extra personal opinions, theory's and thoughts.

    Gotta love Stalin, sure he killed a few million people, but he was a great leader, and stopped the Nazi's. Until someone actually brings relevance to what Mao did, I decree that Stalin owns this thread.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The great white north.
    Posts
    4,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JPA32 View Post
    I've always been more interesting in history around WWI and II events and leaders over most other history myself.

    I tend to do that though. I'll just pop my thoughts on the subject into the discussion without realizing that I'm essentially just detailing what the last person just said with some extra personal opinions, theory's and thoughts.

    Gotta love Stalin, sure he killed a few million people, but he was a great leader, and stopped the Nazi's. Until someone actually brings relevance to what Mao did, I decree that Stalin owns this thread.
    WWII is a pretty interesting time. But I tend to prefer Greek and Roman history myself (Not nearly to the level Conrad does mind you, but well enough), or Feudal Europe even.

    I'll do that alot, but I tend to say something all arrogant like "I'm going to expand on your thoughts here". It seems to irritate some people... I wonder why? lol

    Stalin wins.



    (While this seems to be in mockery of Obama's nobel peace prize, I believe in the context it is still relevant.)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Raiding Your Fridge
    Posts
    4,420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Demonhero View Post
    WWII is a pretty interesting time. But I tend to prefer Greek and Roman history myself (Not nearly to the level Conrad does mind you, but well enough), or Feudal Europe even.

    I'll do that alot, but I tend to say something all arrogant like "I'm going to expand on your thoughts here". It seems to irritate some people... I wonder why? lol

    Stalin wins.



    (While this seems to be in mockery of Obama's nobel peace prize, I believe in the context it is still relevant.)
    I've always been a sucker for the stories my grandfather told about war when I was 6 and 7, looked into it and found it to interest me. Last year in World History class I was quite displeased to learn that WWII wouldn't be in the curriculum. I completely ignored a whole other section to read about it, even though I knew most of it. As for Greek and Feudal Europe, I don't know as much as I should. I've really neglected a lot of my History, Rome I'm decently knowledged in. Conrad would pwn everyone on this forum combined in history of that time. lol

    I usually do it without thinking about it. Although expanding on idea's is technically the point, not really sure why it would bother people. Even if it's worded arrogantly. People have such weak skin. :P

    Heil Stalin,
    Wait that's not right...

    (About that picture, I can see the point but really neither would deserve the Nobel Peace prize for different reasons, Obama had done very little at that point to deserve it and Stalin killed to many people to deserve it. Maybe I'm just thinking in a narrow perspective here.)
    Last edited by JPA32; 04-10-2010 at 03:10 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •