120 years after birth, Mao's presence lingers

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
I guess most of u prefer to focus on "charisma" or "personality" of Mao, Deng or Chinese. That's why many adjectives such as "lazy, addicted" are poured.

Here again I wish to highlight SYSTEMATIC changes I put as "fundamental" or the so-called foundation Mao and his comrades laid down as "irrevocable" >> 1952: New China's land reform movement


"Lazy" peasants suddenly became diligent in ploughing their own lands distributed that had been promised as early as in Sun Yat-Sen's revolution overthrowing Qing Dynasty.

Wu Shang-Ying / Sun Yat-Sen and Land Reform in China -- 1955
Do educate me and I am always ready to learn.

Wasn't China a nation that was not that vibrant as it became because of Mao?

Do you really think that Deng could have mesmerised the Chinese to jump into what it is today, but for the foundation laid, even if very harshly by Mao?

If China was not lazy and opium charged, how is it that they did not have the drive and energy as it has today?

If Sun Yat Sen was the architect, how come he could not achieve what Mao could?

If I may correct you, after Mao took over the land was not that of the peasant but that of the People ie the Govt.

Are you a revisionist?

I am no Mao fan or a votary.

However, I have no qualms or shame to give credit where it is due.

If you can explain how Mao has not laid the foundation of what China has achieved or the fact that pre Mao the people were indolent and lazy, I would be most obliged.

Just a note bene;

You talk of 100 year of National Shame!

How many years were it in Mao's rule?
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
began to discuss land reform with reference to land value taxation around 1910 following the publication of a resume of Progress and Poverty in the Chinese language by the Min Pao Magazine, an official organ of the Chinese Nationalist party printed in Tokyo.
How much was put into practice?

Talking is fine, but action is what is important.

Mao did not only speak, he went into action!

Much that you may secret revile Mao, since he is dead and do you no harm, he still is the architect of whipping Chinese into shape to face its destiny!'=

You can love him or hate him, but you cannot ignore what he has done for China and its otherwise lazy and indolent people.

The fact that you talk of 100 years of National Shame is indicative of the lacklustre, lazy indolent Chinese people or else there would have been NO YEARS OF NATIONAL SHAME!
 
Last edited:

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
I wonder if Deng had he charisma to lead a lazy, addicted, agrarian, exploited people into what they became.

Leadership also requires some ruthlessness when leading sheep oif a humanity.

Deng was not of the same ruthless streak that Mao displayed.

I have no doubt that Deng can be ruthless if needed (but not crazy). Mao on the other hand has exhibited the kind of craziness attributable to some of the most notorious despots of the 20th century. I still believe that Deng would have been the better leader post Civil War between the two.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Another giant of the Chinese CCP that should be commemorated like Mao is Zhou Enlai.
 

mattster

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
1,171
Likes
870
Country flag
No, but whatever. I won't argue with your ignorance.

Keep justifying a genocide of civilians.
Dude my uncle was in Singapore during the entire period.
I have first hand accounts of the brutality of the Imperial Army,
And believe me when i say the number of killed is barely a fraction of what is recorded in history, because no one least of all the Japanese were keeping track.

The Atomic bomb ended the war in one fell swoop; millions of south East Asians would have died if the Americans & Brits had to take back each country.
As far as i am concerned the bomb saved millions of lives in Malaysia, philippines, China, Singapore.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
I have no doubt that Deng can be ruthless if needed (but not crazy). Mao on the other hand has exhibited the kind of craziness attributable to some of the most notorious despots of the 20th century. I still believe that Deng would have been the better leader post Civil War between the two.
It appears you are not at home with the English language.

Heard of a phrase - there is method in the madness?

And believe me when i say the number of killed is barely a fraction of what is recorded in history, because no one least of all the Japanese were keeping track
@mattster

Believe you me, the adversary always kept a record and even exaggerated!

Heard of the Nanking Massacre?

The Japanese are proving he mathematically it is imposable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre_denial

Heard of the Holocaust?

There are those who are proving that it is figment of imagination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
Dude my uncle was in Singapore during the entire period.
I have first hand accounts of the brutality of the Imperial Army,
And believe me when i say the number of killed is barely a fraction of what is recorded in history, because no one least of all the Japanese were keeping track.

The Atomic bomb ended the war in one fell swoop; millions of south East Asians would have died if the Americans & Brits had to take back each country.
As far as i am concerned the bomb saved millions of lives in Malaysia, philippines, China, Singapore.
Was the Japanese Imperial Army brutal? Yes. Was it necessary to nuke Japan? No. Japan was already on the verge of surrendering. The nukes were meant to warn the USSR in particular, and the world in general, that US was the superpower, and has absolutely nothing to do with "ending the war."
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Was the Japanese Imperial Army brutal? Yes. Was it necessary to nuke Japan? No. Japan was already on the verge of surrendering. The nukes were meant to warn the USSR in particular, and the world in general, that US was the superpower, and has absolutely nothing to do with "ending the war."

It's easy for you to say that. Try to put yourself on the shoes of the Truman, you have a super weapon that your government has spent billions to develop in order to help win the war and you the prospect of sacrificing hundreds of thousands of "boys" in order to invade Japan to win the war. Would you send your boys into certain death or would you spare them by sending a couple of your super weapon to tell the Imperial Japanese forces that their war is futile?

Estimated casualties[edit]

Because the U.S. military planners assumed "that operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population",[11] high casualties were thought to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates, but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions, and purposes, which included advocating for and against the invasion. Afterwards, they were reused in the debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, drawing different lessons:

In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.[45]

In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.[46]

A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.[47] A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days.[48] When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.[49]

In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties).[50] Adm. Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000).[51] Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.[51] Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa,[52] and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.[1]

Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in a memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and those were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."[53]

The Battle of Okinawa ran up 72,000 US casualties in 82 days, of whom 12,510 were killed or missing (this is conservative, because it excludes several thousand US soldiers who died after the battle indirectly, from their wounds.) The entire island of Okinawa is 464 sq mi (1,200 km2). If the US casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had been only 5% as high per unit area as it was at Okinawa, the US would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing).

Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan; the number exceeded that of all American military casualties of the 65 years following the end of World War II, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.[54] There were so many in surplus that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan were able to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to soldiers wounded on the field.

Operation Downfall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
It's easy for you to say that. Try to put yourself on the shoes of the Truman, you have a super weapon that your government has spent billions to develop in order to help win the war and you the prospect of sacrificing hundreds of thousands of "boys" in order to invade Japan to win the war. Would you send your boys into certain death or would you spare them by sending a couple of your super weapon to tell the Imperial Japanese forces that their war is futile?
I am sure one could put himself in the shoes of Truman, or Hitler for that matter, and try to justify what he did.

No, thank you Sir!
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
I am sure one could put himself in the shoes of Truman, or Hitler for that matter, and try to justify what he did.

No, thank you Sir!

SO you're just criticising because it suits your fancy? Or is it because Americans are always arrogant and dumb? :rolleyes:
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
One wonders if spreading Freedom and Democracy is arrogance or being plain dumb.

One should not misunderestimate one for the other. ;)
 

mattster

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
1,171
Likes
870
Country flag
Was the Japanese Imperial Army brutal? Yes. Was it necessary to nuke Japan? No. Japan was already on the verge of surrendering. The nukes were meant to warn the USSR in particular, and the world in general, that US was the superpower, and has absolutely nothing to do with "ending the war."
This response is too damn funny for me to even respond.

So if General PMaitra was leading the US forces in the Pacific..he would tell the President not to use the A-bomb.
Instead he is going to do a Normandy like invasion of Japan, China, Malaysia, singapore and the Philipines and fight the Japs until they reach the doorsteps of the Emperor Hirohito palace.

LOL......its a good thing you kept your day job !!
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
Try to put yourself on the shoes of the Truman, you have a super weapon that your government has spent billions to develop in order to help win the war and you the prospect of sacrificing hundreds of thousands of "boys" in order to invade Japan to win the war. Would you send your boys into certain death or would you spare them by sending a couple of your super weapon to tell the Imperial Japanese forces that their war is futile?
That to my mind is the usual and expected 'justification' given to cover up unethical acts in war.

Even conducting war is based on some basic ethics.

War is combat and not mass manslaughter.

Even the Mỹ Lai Massacre which was a mass murder of between 347 and 504 unarmed civilians in South Vietnam on March 16, 1968. and committed by the U.S. Army soldiers from the Company C of the 1st Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 11th Brigade of the 23rd (Americal) Infantry Division could be because Second Lieutenant William Calley Jr., a platoon leader in C Company thought that it would help win the war and eliminate the prospect of sacrificing hundreds of thousands of "boys"!

Interestingly, he was convicted and not praised!
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
Claude Robert Eatherly an officer in the U.S. Army Air Forces during World War II, and the pilot of a weather reconnaissance aircraft Straight Flush that supported the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan had written to Günther Anders, a Austrian philosopher and pacifist, who became his friend in a battle to promote the abolition of nuclear weapons the following:

Whilst in no sense, I hope, either a religious or a political fanatic, I have for some time felt convinced that the crisis in which we are all involved is one calling for a thorough reexamination of our whole scheme of values and of loyalties. In the past it has sometimes been possible for men to "coast along" without posing to themselves too many searching questions about the way they are accustomed to think and to act — but it is reasonably clear that our age is not one of these. On the contrary, I believe that we are rapidly approaching a situation in which we shall be compelled to reexamine our willingness to surrender responsibility for our thoughts and our actions to some social institution such as the political party, trade union, church or State. None of these institutions are adequately equipped to offer infallible advice on moral issues and their claim to offer such advice needs therefore to be challenged.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top