Did Mao "murder millions of Chinese?"

**gunnut** · 16 Aug 12,, 00:34

Someone argued that Mao did not murder millions of Chinese because The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution was not intended to kill people.

How do I argue against that?

**Double Edge** · 16 Aug 12,, 00:52

There are intentions and what actually happens.

What happened was not what was intended.

What was intended does not change what happened.

This record gets played over many times all over the world and its going to keep on being played.

**gunnut** · 16 Aug 12,, 02:13

Originally Posted by Double Edge

There are intentions and what actually happens.

What happened was not what was intended.

What was intended does not change what happened.

This record gets played over many times all over the world and its going to keep on being played.

So...did he or didn't he? I am very bad at riddles.

**Officer of Engineers** · 16 Aug 12,, 02:39

He did. He initiated torture and execution policies on those trying to hide crop caches (ie, trying to flee the starvation). He didn't believe there was starvation and exported more crops than his people had. The people who starved voluntarily, ie obey his every whim, he did not murdered. But those he tortured and forced back to the starvation areas, he did.

But that's around 2 million, not the 30 million that is claimed.

**RollingWave** · 16 Aug 12,, 09:47

There were also a large number of folks beaten to death by mobs or essentially forced to suicide during to Cultural revolution. a few million is not a stretch in that regard.

I am quite sure that amongst my relatives that was left on the mainland after 49, everyone on my paternal Grandfather's side were killed (they were land lords from a classic gentry family ) and at least one of my maternal uncle was beaten stupid. though given that my maternal grandmom's side was a family of reasonablly well off academics (who manged to gave her a full education all the way through college, she was probably one of the very few women in Taiwan that could speak fluent french on top of fluent english in it's early days.... of course to the dismay of her brother the education also lead to indepedent thinking and thus she married a poor white collar guy around her age instead of an older influential politician that he was arranging for her

) the fact that they weren't all beaten stupid was quite an accomplishment. (on the maternal grandpa's side, it was lucky that he was the only well edcuated one of their family and managed to get out before it all went down)

**Double Edge** · 16 Aug 12,, 10:40

Originally Posted by gunnut

So...did he or didn't he? I am very bad at riddles.

When the word murder is used it implies intent that it was pre-meditiated. I don't think it can be said that he set out to murder people. But there are degrees of murder. Even murder can be qualified.

So the next question is how aware was he about his policies.

Did his subordinates keep the real picture away from him. If he does not know the real extent then he thinks any casualties are acceptable collateral damage that is inevitable.

or was he still cavalier enough about it to continue anyway which implies no cost was too great.

If the former then its manslaughter.

If the latter is what the historians agree on then continuing a policy regardless of the consequences means acting with knowledge of one's actions. In your state of DPRK, a charge of third degree murder could be made.

Under state of mind (iii), an "abandoned and malignant heart", the killing must result from defendant's conduct involving a reckless indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury. An example of this is a 2007 law in California where an individual could be convicted of third-degree murder if he or she kills another person while operating a motor vehicle while being under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or controlled substances.

Inerestingly enough out of the 'four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice"', just one applies in this case.

Colloquially speaking, when one charges another with 'murder' the implication is that its first degree. Otherwise the degree should be specified.

**Triple C** · 17 Aug 12,, 05:23

Originally Posted by RollingWave

I am quite sure that amongst my relatives that was left on the mainland after 49, everyone on my paternal Grandfather's side were killed (they were land lords from a classic gentry family ) and at least one of my maternal uncle was beaten stupid.

Yeah, the branch of my family on my father's side that stayed there, practically went extinct.

**cdude** · 17 Aug 12,, 23:44

Not to defend mao or to give any new insights on how many died under his rule, but you guys are obviously doing some biased sampling.

Originally Posted by Triple C

Yeah, the branch of my family on my father's side that stayed there, practically went extinct.

**cdude** · 17 Aug 12,, 23:46

Originally Posted by gunnut

Someone argued that Mao did not murder millions of Chinese because The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution was not intended to kill people.

How do I argue against that?

You cannot, because that someone has a point, neither the great leap forward nor the cultural revolution was intended to kill nobody. Of course lots of people died because of his policies. But that's that.

**Tarek Morgen** · 18 Aug 12,, 04:11

Originally Posted by cdude

You cannot, because that someone has a point, neither the great leap forward nor the cultural revolution was intended to kill nobody. Of course lots of people died because of his policies. But that's that.

Even if one would agree with this (and for the record, I certainly don't), he would still at the least be responsible for the unnecessary death of millions. That might sound a bit nicer than outright saying he killed them, but in the end doesn't affect the outcome and his guilt in the matter in the least.

**cdude** · 18 Aug 12,, 21:24

Originally Posted by Tarek Morgen

Even if one would agree with this (and for the record, I certainly don't), he would still at the least be responsible for the unnecessary death of millions. That might sound a bit nicer than outright saying he killed them, but in the end doesn't affect the outcome and his guilt in the matter in the least.

being partially responsible for others' death and being the murderer are different things, in any country.

**Doktor** · 18 Aug 12,, 22:36

Originally Posted by cdude

being partially responsible for others' death and being the murderer are different things, in any country.

Being partially responsible?

Maybe it is different but while making "law and order" throughout USSR Stalin killed how many people? Following your logic, he is not a murderer, but only partially responsible.

OTOH, still following same logic, the executioners (or whatever they call them now) would be all murderers.

**cdude** · 19 Aug 12,, 02:04

Yeah, you got it right on your second sentence. It's different. So Stalin was a murderer or not is irrelevant to whether or not Mao was a murderer.

Why don't you pull out a German while you are at it? What stopped you making that comparison?

Originally Posted by Doktor

Being partially responsible?

Maybe it is different but while making "law and order" throughout USSR Stalin killed how many people? Following your logic, he is not a murderer, but only partially responsible.

OTOH, still following same logic, the executioners (or whatever they call them now) would be all murderers.

**Officer of Engineers** · 19 Aug 12,, 02:16

Originally Posted by cdude

being partially responsible for others' death and being the murderer are different things, in any country.

There is no partial about it. The famine went on for years. And he did nothing to correct his mistakes nor reverse his torture and execution policies. People were dying and he did nothing to stop it and added policies to accelerate it.

**citanon** · 19 Aug 12,, 02:17

Originally Posted by cdude

being partially responsible for others' death and being the murderer are different things, in any country.

Yeah, Mao was not stupid nor did he have any illusions about what would happen when Red Guard thugs were beating the living crap out of the fifty, sixty, seventy year old men who were his closest former comrades at his behest and on his continuing approval. I'm pretty sure he didn't mean to kill 30 million, but you take off a 0 or two and you get closer to the number he actually meant to murder. He wanted to get rid of the 1% (who at that point happened to be his former comrades in the revolution). I'm sure he might have felt OK for them to be in labor camps or otherwise contritely on their knees, but it was ok with him to have them killed too. The other 99% he cared, just not enough to let them live.