Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Mao: The Unknown Story" in English language version.
It may be argued that these are quibbles; factual errors occur in the best books. However, Dikötter's errors are strangely consistent. They all serve to strengthen his case against Mao and his fellow leaders.
Rummel has been criticized for exaggerating the losses. Even if the criticisms were valid, a figure lower by 10 or 20 or even 30 percent would make absolutely no difference to the general conclusions that Rummel draws.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (link){{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (link){{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (link){{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (link){{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (link){{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (link){{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (link){{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (link){{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (link){{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (link){{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (link)It could, quite rightly, be claimed that the opinions that Rummel presents here (they are hardly an example of a serious and empirically-based writing of history) do not deserve to be mentioned in a research review, but they are still perhaps worth bringing up on the basis of the interest in him in the blogosphere.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (link){{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (link){{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (link){{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (link){{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (link){{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (link)In this reviewer's opinion, and those of China specialists including Perry Link ('An Abnormal Mind,' Times Literary Supplement, 8/14/2005), Jonathan Spence ('Portrait of a Monster,' New York Review of Books, 11/3/2005), Andrew Nathan ('Jade and Plastic,' London Review of Books, 11/17/2005), Arthur Waldron, and Jeffrey Wasserstrom ('Mao as Monster,' Chicago Tribune, 11/6/2005), this is a much-needed corrective. But, excluding Waldron's laudatory review ('Mao Lives,' Commentary, 10/2005), scholarly reviewers found many problems with their research and citation methodology and blatant political axe to grind. Specifically, unhelpful citations, manipulated interpretation of sources to suit their argumentation, and blatantly-unsourced assertions mar a seminal study of Mao based on a decade of research and geared towards an important political re-evaluation of a horrible tyrant.
If Chang and Halliday's historical research is true (although for the above reasons many assertions defy scholarly examination), this book will sound the death-knell of Mao's legacy. Jonathan Spence noted 22 separate instances of historical revisionism that could challenge much of our understanding of Mao and the Chinese Revolution (Spence, 24). Notable but inexhaustive examples include Mao's lack of caring for the plight of Chinese peasants; Stalin and the Comintern's crucial role in founding and funding the CCP and Mao's rise to power; Mao's destruction of the Jinggang revolutionary base for political ends; the Red Army's legendary Long March as a product of Chiang Kai-shek's willingness to let them escape so his son would be returned from captivity in the Soviet Union; the utter fabrication of the most famous tale of the Long March, the battle at the Luding Bridge; Mao's agreement to partition China with Stalin – the list goes on and on.