just wondering, can you decide who was better as a leader? I know that both were intelligent and clever and that both sacrificed many to stay in or achieve power. btw, is it true that mao was a romantic? But if i were to choose, i would say stalin was better because:

1: although a tyrant, he was intelligent and it seems that none of his successors ever matched his importance (as it seems to me none of the others were even importance xcept for maybe khrushchev but not too much and then onwards the economy started to stagnate)
2:his country got nuclear weapons and became a superpower
3: he sucessfully transformed the traditionally agricultural soviet economy into a heavily industrialized one in a few years(although as time soon passed, it didn't keep up with the west)

but:
1:his deliberate famines were no good
2: his great purge went too far and because of him, the soviet union was not ready 4 WWII with drastic consequences

but as for mao:

1: he created relative peace for the mainland

but:

1:because of him, china had and has an Xccessively high population
2:because of the leap 4ward and cultural revolution, many chinese starved and the red guards tried to ruin china's society and destroy its heritage and I'm not sure if there were any gains from it
3: he was too much of a player/playboy(but that shouldn't count as a bad quality for a leader right?....or should it?)

btw, is it true that mao was a romantic? because i think leaders who are would be no good because they would believe that imagination is truth...

Should give more credit to Mao, because he also did most of the same things Stalin did for Russia.

Both were outstanding individuals in certain areas.
Not without flaws and the system that they were in allowed such flaws to create major tragedies.

Dzugashvili and Mao would be remembered far more than, lets say, Henry Truman.

Stalin were a murderous paranoid oppotunist from the beginning whit a substantial talent for organization and reading people and their reactions both as individuals and as groups (Much like Hitler by the way), He was and is one of the worlds greatest tyrants ever born, and no amount of whitewashing can remove that.

Mao were not as much oppotunist as having a honest conviction as to what he did were for the greater good, especially in the beginning, later on he developed paranoia much like Stalin but not on the same level and became more focused on his own legacy than anything else, also he was quite human and made several mistakes which he sometimes had a hard time consoling himself whit, so he often tried something *new* to get the results he whised fore (Thousand flowers campaign, GLF, Cultural revolution is just the most memorable)

I agree, i think they are on about the same level. It is tricky to compare the two too much, as they both operated in different circumstances

Mao and Stalin will be better remembered than, say, Harry Truman? Of course. Tyranny does tend to get more noticed. Tyrants get plenty of attention.
Ok, on the level of their respective achievements then. So, Mao brought relative peace to the mainland. Yes, because his side defeated the other in the civil war. If the other side had defeated his side, would the other side not have brought relative peace? Mao himself did not bring relative peace, the end of civil war did.
Stalin successfully industrialised Russia? Russia was indeed a predominantly agricultural society but was developing its industry very fast over the 20-odd years leading up to WWI. If it had been able to keep going in that direction would it have not industrialised? Indeed, this industrialisation would probably have been more successful, because not concentrated all in just a few key sectors the way Soviet industry was. Soviet industry made steel, tanks, planes, built nuclear bombs and stuff like that, but the rest was dismal.
Don't forget the 'recipe' of this 'success' too: when there was a new industrial project or need to open a uranium mine or whatever, the relevant state ministries said how many people they needed as labour force and the NKVD (Stalin-era secret police) arrested the required number. There are many documents in Russian state archives with these requests and the NKVD responses. Scientists could work either the normal way, or there were also special prisons for scientists working on specific projects. Whole cities were built on gulag labour. Soviet industrialisation was a slave system.
Stalin gave Russia nuclear weapons? What's so exceptional about that? Somehow France got nuclear weapons without having Stalin around and without even being the greatest of friends with the USA. Russia has a long tradition of good scientists. How do we know it would not have managed to develop nuclear weapons without Stalin or the Soviet system?
There's a view that Stalin was just this paranoid tyrant, and Mao, he had ideals at heart? Even paranoid tyrants have their ideals at heart. Stalin, when he was young, wrote poetry and was something of a romantic. He started his revolutionary career doing bank holdups to get money for Lenin sitting comfortable in Western Europe. Lenin sat in cafes and talked, and Stalin, he was actually there in the danger, doing the revolution.
He certainly had ideals, like Mao: good of the people, strong country that would be able to take its proud place in the world, strong army to defend it, all the usual slogans. They are very similar. They are system builders, the ideology is secondary to the system-building itself. It's not about small things like tangible everyday benefits for little ordinary people, that's left to boring forgettable leaders. It's about resolute experiments with all the components for building a grand and strong system, and if you get the propaganda right, people will believe that they're more than just a bit of the expendable material but will identify themselves with this grand experiment. They might not have much to eat, but the nuclear weapons, they come to see them as 'theirs' too. You can't eat them but you can feel proud about them. You might live in barracks, but your country is strong and feared. These ideals help you survive and give your life sense, give sense to your sacrifices. That's Stalin's society anyway. The 'people's' duty is to be patriots and sacrifice themsevles when called on.
In my definition a great leader is one who bequeathes a positive legacy, one who lays a foundation that can be built on, one who can make their country not feared but respected, one for who the people and their welfare are not an abstract notion but a true motivation. Stalin's legacy is seen now the post-Soviet conflicts, in Russia's economic problems, in the distorted value system that people have emerged with from the communist period.
Mao's legacy proved little better, and that is why Deng Xiaoping set about changing it, because there was nothing positive in it, nothing that could be built on.

I agree with your definition of a great leader apart from the bit about being respected rather than feared. Julius Ceasar was a great leader of the Roman Empire but the Romans were feared as conquerers [just an example], so i do think a great leader can be someone who makes other nations scared off their country. But alot of greatness is in the legacy, as it is on their legacy that leaders need to be judged, so that we can make an assessment of their period in power. Stalin's legacy was a poor one, though i do think that there were a few positives to Mao's legacy. Mao had made China a recongised player on the international stage, after the landmark visit by Nixon in the early 1970s. He also left an established Communist regime, that did not look likely to collapse in his absence [and this regime is still in power today]. Some of Mao's policies also had positives- an end to foot-binding for women, new rights for women in marriage for example, strong international relations with major countries [Russia being the exception]. This is of course overshadowed by disasters like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, but on legacy i'd put Mao above Stalin.

Ok, my question is what was it about Mao specifically that achieved those things you list.
China became a recognised player on internaitnal stage after Nixon visited. If you have a big country like China in isolation for so long, and in the cold war climate of that time, of course China is going to make a mark when it makes some gesture of turning outwards. Ok, so China ended up with the UN security Council seat and got diplmatic recognition and became an established part of international relations system. But this was really just a return to what should have been its place anyway until it got sidetracked into civil war, and then communist isolation. Any other regime in place would surely have been able to achieve the same.
Foot binding: the Qing made attempts to stop this. Manchus did not bind the feet of their women. But they did not press the issue, forbade their own women from doing it but left Han Chinese women to do it. later in the 19th century their were foreign missioneries campaigning against it, and there were individual Chinese here and there starting to not do it and call for its end. This movement was already gathering momentum as the 20th century began. Foot binding would have ended regardless of Mao by virtue of general evolution in that direction.
Rights for women: same thing, society is generally evolving in this direction anyway. There were Chinese before Mao (men and women, people like Kang Youwei, Qiu Jin) starting to raise awareness of women's rights. Like in many countries, not something that would happen overnight, but it would have moved that direction anyway. The Soviet communist party also gave women many rights on paper, looked very good, but in practice the change was often symbolic. To this day in Russia, discriminatory attitudes remain strong even if on paper women have long had many rights.
Mao left a strongly established communist party not about to collapse: So did Stalin. He died in 1953 and the party lasted until 1991. The Chinese communist party has not beaten Stalin's legacy yet.
He built strong international relations with countries? Well, numerous 'lesser' leaders have somehow managed that. Which particular countries did you have in mind? Albania?

I appreciate your comments- its great to discuss these things. Will take each one in turn if that's okay.

Diplomacy [Nixon]: 'Any other regime in place would surely have been able to achieve the same.' We can speculate over what other regimes could achieve, but it was Mao that initiated China's return to the international community- he must be cridited for this. Other regimes with similar such leaders i am sure could achieve this, but this does not detract from the fact that Mao did achieve it.

Foot binding/Women's rights: Speculation again about the general evolution- rather than rely on a general trend, Mao made sure that the practice of binding feet was eradicated from mainstream Chinese society, for which we must give him due credit. On women's rights, Mao made positibe steps towards more rights for women, acting ahead of the general evolution. I believe that in the late 1960s the CCP was actively talking about quotas for women on party committees, and there is little doubt that Mao's rule had a positive effect on the concept of women's rights.

Strong party: Fair enough, Stalin also built a strong party. But in 50 years time i believe we will still have the CCP in power in China. Speculation i know, but in 50 years time i'll post on this forum whether i was right or wrong!

Strong relations: It is the sign of a great leader that he/she can build good diplomatic relations. I was thinking Albania, but other countries like Australia, the US. When Mao's death was announced to the international community, 52 countries flew embassy flags at half mast, including Germany, France and the U.K. A sign of respect for a great leader.


Hope that answers your question.

I don't dispute that either Mao or Stalin had achievements (or to be fairer, that not just they personally but the many people who really did make sacrifices and pursue ideals and try to build something had achievements). My fundamental point is that these same things were achieved in many other countries with a lot less 'collateral damage' on the way.
The gains are far outweighed by the losses.
I know very little about the situation in say, Taiwan, as regards womens' status and rights. It would be interesting to know how their rights and evolution of their situation progressed. Are they worse off than mainland women? I make that a question, I don't have any knowledge for making a comparison.
As for flying flags at half-mast and such like, you know, in international relations, there is a lot of protocol nicety, and until such time as a leader is made anathema (like in the case of Saddam Hussein) everyone will follow all the protocol. At that level, everyone is very respectful of each other, even if privately they have no respect at all. If you ever had a chance to be present at such events you would see what I'm talking about. In any case, what foreign countries valued was that in the cold war climate of that time there was this seeming opening up, and this chance to create new alliances that could shift the balance in the USA/USSR confrontation. This is not about geuine respect but is about opportunistic considerations.

I can see where ypu're coming from, and although alot of diplomacy may have been only a show i still believe there was some genuine respect for Mao when he died. Not all countries chose to fly the flag half mast, meaning that the diplomatic protocols weren't binding, and some of the countries that flew the flag were not those that people suspected would. I have seen some articles from the British press who treated the death with respect, although i suppose you could say that we didn't know everything that we know now. I agree with you that Mao/Stalin aren't unique in their achievements, and others achieved it with less 'collateral damage' [a good phrase], but if we had to pick between Mao or Stalin i'd pick Mao. Though i know less about Russia so my judgement is slightly impaired. I'm afraid i know little about the situation r.e. women in Taiwan- maybe a taiwanese member can help us out here...

Yes, it would be interesting to hear a Taiwanese view.
I know this is Chinese history forum, but if you are interested in learning more about Stalin, I particularly recommend the biography of Stalin by Dmitry Volkogonov. It has been translated into French I know for certain, and I'm sure it is avilable in English too. He was a communist party member and army historian, and he was officially commissioned in the 1980s to write a biography of Stalin and gained access to archives on the Stalin period that had previously been closed. What he found there set him off on a very painful journey both in personal reassessment of his ideological vision, and in rethinking the Soviet period (from the point of view of someone within the system and loyal to it).
He went on to write biographies of Lenin and Trotsky too, and I really recommend all three books to understand how the Soviet varient of communism emerged and developed. His work is carefully researched and he gives the sources.
He was a true historian and a brave man, unafraid to question even the truths that had given his entire life meaning. I don't think many people realise what a difficult process this is, and how few would give up privilege and honour to end up reviled and disgraced as he was but be true to his work as a historian. Most importantly too, among Russian historians, he really does just try to give the evidence as it is and not push some subjective line (communist, nationalist, anti-semite etc) like so many others unfortunately do.

Thanks, if i can get hold of an english copy i might take a look. Does the book contain any information on Sino-Soviet relations and the relationship between Mao and Stalin?

Yes, it covers Mao and Stalin and Sino-Soviet relations in general.

I will take a look. I think we have done this topic significant justice between us, though i'm not sure we agree... All i can say is that i'd say Mao was a better and greater leader than Stalin- look at my previous posts to see my reasoning.