| Revision as of 20:09, 10 December 2005 editJohn Smith's (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers13,813 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:54, 10 December 2005 edit undoJohn Smith's (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers13,813 edits more editsNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| Chang and Halliday argue that despite being born into a peasant family, Mao had little concern for the welfare of the Chinese peasantry. They hold Mao responsible for the famine resulting from the ] and claim that he exacerbated the famine by allowing the export of grain to continue even when it became clear that China did not have sufficient grain to feed its population. They also claim that Mao had many political opponents arrested and murdered, including some of his personal friends, and argue that he was a more tyrannical leader than had previously been thought. | Chang and Halliday argue that despite being born into a peasant family, Mao had little concern for the welfare of the Chinese peasantry. They hold Mao responsible for the famine resulting from the ] and claim that he exacerbated the famine by allowing the export of grain to continue even when it became clear that China did not have sufficient grain to feed its population. They also claim that Mao had many political opponents arrested and murdered, including some of his personal friends, and argue that he was a more tyrannical leader than had previously been thought. | ||
| Some historians have criticised their portrait of Mao, including ] and ]. Chang stated that she and her husband were shocked at what they discovered during the 10 years they spent researching the book. Halliday said that he was greatly helped by accessing ]n archives on China that were inaccessible until recently. As yet his more unexpected claims have not been examined by other historians. |
Some historians have criticised their portrait of Mao, including ] and ]. Chang stated that she and her husband were shocked at what they discovered during the 10 years they spent researching the book. Halliday said that he was greatly helped by accessing ]n archives on China that were inaccessible until recently. As yet his more unexpected claims have not been examined by other historians. Other academics have given credance to some of Chang and Halliday's points. ] of the ] stated that he agreed with Chang and Halliday's estimates over the number of deaths that can be attributed to Mao's rule of China. In addition, ] supported their argument that the CCP spent more time fighting the KMT than the Imperial Japanese Army during the Second Sino-Japanese War. | ||
| Chang travelled several times to China during the course of her research, interviewing many of those who were close to Mao, as well as alleged eyewitnesses to events such as the crossing of ]. | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| Jon Halliday is a Russian historian specializing in the ] and was a former Senior Visiting Research Fellow at King's College, University of London. | Jon Halliday is a Russian historian specializing in the ] and was a former Senior Visiting Research Fellow at King's College, University of London. | ||
| ==Disputes== | |||
| ==Historical disputes== | |||
| While receiving worldwide praise, the book is not without controversy, and several points have been disputed. | While receiving worldwide praise, the book is not without controversy, and several points have been disputed. | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| Chang claims that the KMT did the majority of the fighting, whilst the Red Army did not attempt to engage the Japanese. American generals such as ] did mention the relative | Chang claims that the KMT did the majority of the fighting, whilst the Red Army did not attempt to engage the Japanese. American generals such as ] did mention the relative | ||
| combat efficiency and good leadership of the Red Army compared to the KMT army, though Stilwell had a poor relationship with ] over many issues concerning the Chinese war effort - Stilwell was eventually replaced in 1944. |
combat efficiency and good leadership of the Red Army compared to the KMT army, though Stilwell had a poor relationship with ] over many issues concerning the Chinese war effort - Stilwell was eventually replaced in 1944. | ||
| On the other side, people like Willy Lam and Hans van de Ven have argued, as well as Chang, that the KMT contributed far more to the Chinese war effort than the Communists and that Red forces spent at least as much time fighting the KMT as they did the Japanese. | |||
| *Tactics of Chinese forces in the ] | *Tactics of Chinese forces in the ] | ||
| Line 43: | Line 45: | ||
| Chang claims that 70 million people died while Mao was in power, many of which occurred during the ']'. It has been argued that she failed to take important factors into consideration, such as reports of poor weather that contributed to the famine - it has also been argued that average Chinese death rates dropped during Mao's rule. Estimates of the numbers of deaths during this period vary, people such as Wim F Werthheim suggesting inaccurate data to be the main cause. Analysts and historians, both Chinese and non-Chinese, mostly put the death toll at around 30 million people during the Great Leap Forward, with the majority of the deaths due to starvation. Dr Ping-ti Ho stated his belief that he believed "missing" Chinese from the 1950s census records never existed in the first place. | Chang claims that 70 million people died while Mao was in power, many of which occurred during the ']'. It has been argued that she failed to take important factors into consideration, such as reports of poor weather that contributed to the famine - it has also been argued that average Chinese death rates dropped during Mao's rule. Estimates of the numbers of deaths during this period vary, people such as Wim F Werthheim suggesting inaccurate data to be the main cause. Analysts and historians, both Chinese and non-Chinese, mostly put the death toll at around 30 million people during the Great Leap Forward, with the majority of the deaths due to starvation. Dr Ping-ti Ho stated his belief that he believed "missing" Chinese from the 1950s census records never existed in the first place. | ||
| ⚫ | In contrast, R.J. Rummel published updated figures on world-wide democide in 2005, stating that he believed Chang and Halliday's estimates to be mostly correct. | ||
| *The ] and the ] | *The ] and the ] | ||
| Line 55: | Line 59: | ||
| ==Extract== | ==Extract== | ||
| A few paragraphs from a much longer extract at Random House: | |||
| :"Mao was the third son, but the first to survive beyond infancy. His Buddhist mother became even more devout to encourage Buddha to protect him. Mao was given the two-part name Tse-tung. Tse, which means 'to shine on', was the name given to all his generation, as preordained when the clan chronicle was first written in the eighteenth century; tung means 'the East'. So his full given name meant 'to shine on the East'. When two more boys were born, in 1896 and 1905, they were given the names Tse-min (min means 'the people') and Tse-tan (tan possibly referred to the local region, Xiangtan). | :"Mao was the third son, but the first to survive beyond infancy. His Buddhist mother became even more devout to encourage Buddha to protect him. Mao was given the two-part name Tse-tung. Tse, which means 'to shine on', was the name given to all his generation, as preordained when the clan chronicle was first written in the eighteenth century; tung means 'the East'. So his full given name meant 'to shine on the East'. When two more boys were born, in 1896 and 1905, they were given the names Tse-min (min means 'the people') and Tse-tan (tan possibly referred to the local region, Xiangtan). | ||
| Line 75: | Line 78: | ||
| ''Mao: The Unknown Story'' was in the Sunday Times Bestseller list at number 2, in July 2005. | ''Mao: The Unknown Story'' was in the Sunday Times Bestseller list at number 2, in July 2005. | ||
| == |
==Sources== | ||
| * ''The Economist'', 26th May 2005 | * ''The Economist'', 26th May 2005 | ||
| * by Lisa Allardice, ''The Guardian'', 26th May, 2005 | * by Lisa Allardice, ''The Guardian'', 26th May, 2005 | ||
| * by Gwynne Dyer, ''Trinidad & Tobago Express'' 21st June, 2005 | * by Gwynne Dyer, ''Trinidad & Tobago Express'' 21st June, 2005 | ||
| * by Richard McGregor, ''The Financial Times'', 17th June, 2005 | * by Richard McGregor, ''The Financial Times'', 17th June, 2005 | ||
| *, by Roy Hattersley, ''The Observer'', 5th June, 2005 | *, by Roy Hattersley, ''The Observer'', 5th June, 2005 | ||
| * by Willy Lam, ''History News Network'', 11th August, 2005 | |||
| *, by Frank McLynn, ''The Independent on Sunday'', 5th June, 2005 | *, by Frank McLynn, ''The Independent on Sunday'', 5th June, 2005 | ||
| * by Simon Sebag Montefiore, ''The Times'', 29th May, 2005 | * by Simon Sebag Montefiore, ''The Times'', 29th May, 2005 | ||
Revision as of 20:54, 10 December 2005
Mao: The Unknown Story is an 832-page book written by the (married) historians Jung Chang and Jon Halliday after ten years of research. It was published in 2005 and paints Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-Tung in Wade-Giles) the former paramount leader of China and Chairman of the Communist Party of China, as being responsible for mass murder on a scale similar to, or greater than, that committed under the rule of Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin.
The ten years of research for the book includes interviews with hundreds of people who were close to Mao Zedong at some point in his life and reveals the contents of newly opened archives. Additional knowledge came from Chang's personal experience of living through the madness of the Cultural Revolution in China.
The book
According to Mao: The Unknown Story, "Mao Tse-tung, who for decades held absolute power over the lives of one-quarter of the world's population, was responsible for well over 70 million deaths in peacetime, more than any other twentieth century leader" and claimed that he was willing for half of China to die to achieve military-nuclear superpowerdom.
Chang and Halliday argue that despite being born into a peasant family, Mao had little concern for the welfare of the Chinese peasantry. They hold Mao responsible for the famine resulting from the Great Leap Forward and claim that he exacerbated the famine by allowing the export of grain to continue even when it became clear that China did not have sufficient grain to feed its population. They also claim that Mao had many political opponents arrested and murdered, including some of his personal friends, and argue that he was a more tyrannical leader than had previously been thought.
Some historians have criticised their portrait of Mao, including Philip Short and Andrew Nathan. Chang stated that she and her husband were shocked at what they discovered during the 10 years they spent researching the book. Halliday said that he was greatly helped by accessing Russian archives on China that were inaccessible until recently. As yet his more unexpected claims have not been examined by other historians. Other academics have given credance to some of Chang and Halliday's points. Professor R.J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii stated that he agreed with Chang and Halliday's estimates over the number of deaths that can be attributed to Mao's rule of China. In addition, Willy Lam supported their argument that the CCP spent more time fighting the KMT than the Imperial Japanese Army during the Second Sino-Japanese War.
Chang travelled several times to China during the course of her research, interviewing many of those who were close to Mao, as well as alleged eyewitnesses to events such as the crossing of Luding Bridge.
Authors
- Main articles at Jung Chang and Jon Halliday
The author Jung Chang, 张戎, (born 1952) is a British (Chinese-born) writer, best known for her autobiography Wild Swans, which became the biggest grossing non-fiction paperback in publishing history, selling over 10 million copies worldwide, except in mainland China (where it is banned).
Jon Halliday is a Russian historian specializing in the Soviet Union and was a former Senior Visiting Research Fellow at King's College, University of London.
Disputes
While receiving worldwide praise, the book is not without controversy, and several points have been disputed.
- The Crossing of Luding Bridge
Chang argues that there was no battle at Luding Bridge and that the story was simply Communist propaganda. Jung Chang is currently amongst a minority of sources that deny the incident took place. She named a witness to the event, Li Xiu-zhen, who told her that she saw no fighting and that the bridge was not on fire. In addition, she said that despite claims by the Communists that the fighting was fierce, all of the vanguard survived the battle. Chang also cited Nationalist (Kuomintang) battleplans and communiques that indicated the force guarding the bridge had been withdrawn before the Communists arrived. But diaries of several veterans of the Long March, as well as non-Chinese sources such as Harrison E. Salisbury's The Long March: The Untold Story, Dick Wilson's The Long March 1935: The Epic of Chinese Communism's Survival and Charlotte Salisbury's Long March Diary, do mention a battle at Luding Bridge.
In October 2005, The Age newspaper claimed that it had been unable to track down Chang's Luding Bridge witness.
- The role of the Red Army in the Sino-Japanese War
Chang claims that the KMT did the majority of the fighting, whilst the Red Army did not attempt to engage the Japanese. American generals such as Joseph Stilwell did mention the relative combat efficiency and good leadership of the Red Army compared to the KMT army, though Stilwell had a poor relationship with Chiang Kai-shek over many issues concerning the Chinese war effort - Stilwell was eventually replaced in 1944.
On the other side, people like Willy Lam and Hans van de Ven have argued, as well as Chang, that the KMT contributed far more to the Chinese war effort than the Communists and that Red forces spent at least as much time fighting the KMT as they did the Japanese.
- Tactics of Chinese forces in the Korean War
Chang states that China pushed back American forces by 'swamping' them with hordes of 'human waves', sourced by the actor Michael Caine. However, declassified American sources indicate that this belief was partly wartime propaganda and that Chinese forces were never deployed in numbers as large as was previously believed.
- Number of deaths under Mao
Chang claims that 70 million people died while Mao was in power, many of which occurred during the 'Great Leap Forward'. It has been argued that she failed to take important factors into consideration, such as reports of poor weather that contributed to the famine - it has also been argued that average Chinese death rates dropped during Mao's rule. Estimates of the numbers of deaths during this period vary, people such as Wim F Werthheim suggesting inaccurate data to be the main cause. Analysts and historians, both Chinese and non-Chinese, mostly put the death toll at around 30 million people during the Great Leap Forward, with the majority of the deaths due to starvation. Dr Ping-ti Ho stated his belief that he believed "missing" Chinese from the 1950s census records never existed in the first place.
In contrast, R.J. Rummel published updated figures on world-wide democide in 2005, stating that he believed Chang and Halliday's estimates to be mostly correct.
- The Sino-Indian War and the McMahon Line
Chang says that Mao deliberately violated a treaty concerning the Sino-Indian border, even though it had been rejected by all Chinese factions, including the KMT.
British historian Philip Short stated his belief that Chang was being one-sided in her views that Mao was alone to blame for China's ills:
"I fear this is a case of writing history to fit their own views; doing what the Chinese call cutting the feet to fit the shoes. Mao was ruthless and tyrannical enough in real life that there's no need to reduce him to a cardboard cut-out of Satan... He was a great poet, a visionary and, I would argue, a military strategist of genius... It was not just one man who caused all this pain."
Andrew Nathan also published an extensive evaluation of the book in the London Review of Books criticising the authors methods, arguments and conclusions.
Extract
- "Mao was the third son, but the first to survive beyond infancy. His Buddhist mother became even more devout to encourage Buddha to protect him. Mao was given the two-part name Tse-tung. Tse, which means 'to shine on', was the name given to all his generation, as preordained when the clan chronicle was first written in the eighteenth century; tung means 'the East'. So his full given name meant 'to shine on the East'. When two more boys were born, in 1896 and 1905, they were given the names Tse-min (min means 'the people') and Tse-tan (tan possibly referred to the local region, Xiangtan).
- These names reflected the inveterate aspiration of Chinese peasants for their sons to do well - and the expectation that they could. High positions were open to all through education, which for centuries meant studying Confucian classics. Excellence would enable young men of any background to pass imperial examinations and become mandarins - all the way up to becoming prime minister. Officialdom was the definition of achievement, and the names given to Mao and his brothers expressed the hopes placed on them.
- But a grand name was also onerous and potentially tempted fate, so most children were given a pet name that was either lowly or tough, or both. Mao's was 'the Boy of Stone' - Shi san ya-zi. For this second 'baptism' his mother took him to a rock about eight feet high, which was reputed to be enchanted, as there was a spring underneath. After Mao performed obeisance and kowtows, he was considered adopted by the rock. Mao was very fond of this name, and continued to use it as an adult. In 1959, when he returned to Shaoshan and met the villagers for the first - and only - time as supreme leader of China, he began the dinner for them with a quip: 'So everyone is here, except my Stone Mother. Shall we wait for her?'" Random House extract
English language publication
- Publisher: Random House
- Publication date: June 02, 2005
- ISBN: 0224071262
- Publisher: Knopf
- Publication date: October 18, 2005
- ISBN: 0679422714
Mao: The Unknown Story was in the Sunday Times Bestseller list at number 2, in July 2005.
Sources
- "Homo sanguinarius" The Economist, 26th May 2005
- "This book will shake the world" by Lisa Allardice, The Guardian, 26th May, 2005
- "Mao: 10 parts bad, no parts good" by Gwynne Dyer, Trinidad & Tobago Express 21st June, 2005
- "The inhuman touch - MAO: The Unknown Story" by Richard McGregor, The Financial Times, 17th June, 2005
- "The long march to evil", by Roy Hattersley, The Observer, 5th June, 2005
- "China's Own Historical Revisionism" by Willy Lam, History News Network, 11th August, 2005
- "Too much hate, too little understanding", by Frank McLynn, The Independent on Sunday, 5th June, 2005
- "History: Mao by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday" by Simon Sebag Montefiore, The Times, 29th May, 2005
- "Bad element" by Michael Yahuda, The Guardian, 4th June, 2005
- "Jade and Plastic" by Andrew Nathan, London Review of Books, 17th November, 2005
- "Jung Chang: Of gods and monsters" by Julie Wheelwright, The Independent, 3rd June, 2005