Mao: The Unknown Story

Cover of the British edition of Mao: The Unknown Story

Mao: The Unknown Story is an 832-page book written by the husband and wife team, historian Jon Halliday and writer Jung Chang. It was published in 2005 and depicts Mao Zedong, 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 Joseph Stalin.

The eleven years of research for the book included interviews with hundreds of people who were close to Mao Zedong at some point in his life and reveal the contents of newly opened archives. Additional knowledge comes from Chang's personal experience of living through the chaos of the Cultural Revolution. Some China academics have questioned the authors' use of these sources and the conclusions drawn therefrom, making the book controversial.

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.

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 of yet his more unexpected claims have not been examined by other historians. 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.

Debate

While receiving worldwide fame, the book is not without controversy, and the content has been widely debated and discussed outside of China.

The Crossing of Luding Bridge

Chang argues that there was no battle at Luding Bridge and that the story was simply Communist propaganda. Most historians do not deny the incident took place, though other sources have questioned the event's true nature. Jung Chang 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.

In a speech given at Stanford University, former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski mentioned a conversation that he once had with Deng Xiaoping, who commented that the taking of Luding Bridge had been extremely easy and was dramatised for propaganda..

At that point, Chairman Deng smiled and said, “Well, that’s the way it’s presented in our propaganda. We needed that to express the fighting spirit of our forces. In fact, it was a very easy military operation."

Sun Shuyun, a far less contentious writer than Chang, also wrote in her book, The Long March (London: Harper, 2006), that the Communists exaggerated what happened at Luding Bridge. She interviewed a local blacksmith who had witnessed the event and said that "when [the troops opposing the Red Army] saw the soldiers coming, they panicked and fled — their officers had long abandoned them. There wasn't really much of a battle." (161) A thorough search of archives in Chengdu revealed further documentation supporting this claim (161-165).

On the other hand, the diary of Yang Cheng-wu, who was at the battle, 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. However, none of these authors claimed they were present at the bridge when it was taken and relied on second-hand information.

In October 2005, The Age newspaper stated that it had been unable to find Chang's unamed local source used as the alleged Luding Bridge witness.[2] In addition, The Sydney Morning Herald reported to have found an 85-year old eyewitness, Li Guixiu, aged 15 at the time of the crossing, whose account disputed Chang's claims. According to Li, there was a battle: "The fighting started in the evening. There were many killed on the Red Army side. The KMT set fire to the bridge-house on the other side, to try to melt the chains, and one of the chains was cut. After it was taken, the Red Army took seven days and seven nights to cross."[3]

Communist "sleepers"

In the book some notable members of the KMT were claimed to have been secretly working for the Chinese Communists. One such "sleeper" was Hu Zongnan, a senior National Revolutionary Army general. Hu's son objected to this description, the subsequent threat of legal action resulting in Jung Chang's publishers in Taiwan abandoning the release of the book there.

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'. Estimates of the numbers of deaths during this period vary.

Analysts and historians, both Chinese and non-Chinese, mostly put the death toll from the Great Leap Forward at around 30 million people, the majority of the deaths arising from starvation. Ping-ti Ho has stated his belief that he believed "missing" Chinese from the 1950s census records never existed in the first place. Wim F. Wertheim has questioned the validity of data from that period.

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. [4] Other academics and writers have argued that similar numbers of deaths occurred during Mao's rule of China. [5]

Response to the book

The book has received mixed reviews. Some academics and commentators have publicly given credence to issues raised by Chang and Halliday, as well as expressed support for the book itself. Professor R.J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii has amended his estimates of the number of deaths that can be attributed to Mao's rule in line with Chang and Halliday's.[6]

Perry Link, Professor of East Asian Studies at Princeton University, wrote a positive review in The Times Literary Supplement.[7]

"Foreigners who cannot see past the surfaces become trophies of the system's deception and sometimes even turn into official "friends of China" (although, to the insiders, little true friendship, and even less respect, is actually involved). Part of Chang and Halliday's passion for exposing the "unknown" Mao is clearly aimed at gullible Westerners. Mao entranced Edgar Snow, Zhou Enlai charmed Henry Kissinger, and in both cases the consequences for Western understanding of China were severe... If the book sells even half as many copies as the 12 million of Wild Swans, it could deliver the coup de grace to an embarrassing and dangerous pattern of Western thinking."

Michael Yahuda, Professor Emeritus at the London School of Economics, also expressed his support in The Guardian, calling it a "magnificent book" and "a stupendous work".[8]

Other authors and academics have criticised or questioned the book for a variety of reasons. Generally complaints centre around the nature of many of the book's sources, specifically that they were either inaccessible or unreliable. Another point repeatedly raised was that the image of Mao presented by Chang and Halliday was too superficial, or that too much focus was placed on him and too little on the Chinese Communist Party itself.

Jonathan Spence, professor of history at Yale University critized the book in the New York Review of Books stating that their single focus on Mao's vileness had undermined "much of the power their story might have had." [9]

British writer Philip Short, author of Mao: A Life, was one of the first to respond, stating his belief that Chang was being one-sided in her views that Mao was alone to blame for China's ills.

Andrew Nathan, Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at Columbia University, published an extensive evaluation of the book in the London Review of Books.[10] Concerned that much of the authors' research was very difficult to confirm or simply unreliable, he stated that "many of their discoveries come from sources that cannot be checked, others are openly speculative or are based on circumstantial evidence, and some are untrue." Nathan stated "Her anger, deeply justified, shapes this new book.". He also felt that the authors had focused their attention too closely on Mao. Rather than the "caricature" of Mao that he felt Chang and Halliday had presented, he said that "it would have been more useful, as well as closer to the truth, had we been shown that there are some very bad institutions and some very bad situations, both of which can make bad people even worse, and give them the incentive and the opportunity to do terrible things."

However he did also say that the book made "the most thorough use to date of the many memoirs that have emerged since Mao’s death, written by his colleagues, cadres, staff and victims, and shows special insight into the suffering of Mao’s wives and children". Generally even though their various points could not be accepted as "established conclusions" at that time, it was certainly necessary to examine them in the future.

Professor Thomas Bernstein of Columbia University referred to the book as "... a major disaster for the contemporary China field... Because of its stupendous research apparatus, its claims will be accepted widely... Yet their scholarship is put at the service of thoroughly destroying Mao's reputation. The result is an equally stupendous number of quotations out of context, distortion of facts and omission of much of what makes Mao a complex, contradictory, and multi-sided leader."[11]

In the session titled the "Struggles Over Representation of History," concerning the distortions of history and representation of Mao, the Chang and Halliday book was discussed by Professor of Chinese Studies Gao Mobo[12] and Professor of Asian Studies, Kaz Ross[13], who advanced the opinion that "the Chang-Halliday book was only the latest in the genre of "faction" -- fiction with a cloak of facts." [14]

Writer John Pomfret wrote of the book in his review in the Washington Post's Book World, "when it pretends to tell us what the chairman is thinking and feeling, the book veers toward magical realism" and that its "tendency toward hyperbole damages its otherwise persuasive case against Mao." "In short, if you're hoping for staid, balanced scholarship, don't read this book. It's not history; it's a screed...when Chang and Halliday depart from their Chinese and Soviet sources and engage in historical guesswork, the book borders on the unbelievable."[15]

English language publication

File:Mao Unknown Story US cover.jpg

Cover of the American edition

• Publisher: Random House
  • Publication date: June 02, 2005
  • ISBN 0-224-07126-2

• Publisher: Knopf
  • Publication date: October 18, 2005
  • ISBN 0-679-42271-4

Mao: The Unknown Story was on the Sunday Times bestseller list at number 2, in July 2005.

External Links

• "Mao: The Unknown Story" Extract of the book from the publishers
• "Homo sanguinarius" The Economist, 26th May 2005
• "To be Attacked by the Enemy is a Good Thing" by by Robert Weil, China Study Group 31st December, 2005
• "This book will shake the world" by Lisa Allardice, The Guardian, 26th May, 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
• "Too much hate, too little understanding", by Frank McLynn, The Independent on Sunday, 5th June, 2005
• "The long march to evil", by Roy Hattersley, The Observer, 5th June, 2005
• "The inhuman touch - MAO: The Unknown Story" by Richard McGregor, The Financial Times, 17th June, 2005
• "Mao: 10 parts bad, no parts good" by Gwynne Dyer, Trinidad & Tobago Express 21st June, 2005
• "A swan's little book of ire" by Hamish McDonald, Sydney Morning Herald, 8th October, 2005
• "Jade and Plastic" by Andrew Nathan, London Review of Books, 17th November, 2005
• Guns & Butter interview part 1 part two Radio review by David Ewing
• China experts attack biography's 'misleading' sources by Jonathan Fenby, The Observer, 4th December, 2005
• "Mao: A Super Monster?" Alfred Chan, Pacific Affairs, (2006, vol. 79, No. 2)
• "China's Own Historical Revisionism" by Willy Lam, History News Network, 11th August, 2005
• Reflections on the June 9-10, 2006 Hong Kong Conference by Fred Magdoff
• Kueh, Y., Agricultural Instability in China, 1931-1990. (Oxford University Press, 1995)
• Yao, S., "A Note on the Causal Factors of China’s Famine in 1959–1961", Journal of Political Economy, (1999, vol. 107, no. 6)
• BBC 中国丛谈特辑（上）
• BBC 中国丛谈特辑（上）采访录音
• BBC 中国丛谈特辑（下）采访录音
• 開放出版社 《毛澤東：鮮為人知的故事》中文版
• Deutsche Welle 德国之声，含采访录音张戎：鲜为人知的毛泽东是怎样写成的