Compare and Contrast Two Historians’ Perspectives on the Causes of the Chinese Revolution. Explain Why There Are Differences in Interpretation

...

drop in the ocean compared with Mao’s” (Chang et al, Pg. 391, 2007). Nevertheless, they do tentatively agree that some Communists support was gained by this Nationalist coercion, suggesting “some even thought that the Reds were the lesser of two evils”, and therefore “willed themselves to give Mao the benefit of the doubt” (Chang et al, Pg. 391, 2007). Evidently, Fenby proposes that Mao achieved the support of the people due to the failures of the Nationalists regime, a contention directly contradicted by Chang and Halliday’s assertion that Mao deceived and terrorised the people into backing his cause. Excellent

These historians therefore differ significantly in their regard for Mao during this period in China’s history. Whilst Fenby ultimately balances the failures of the Nationalists with the tactical prowess of Mao’s Communists in explaining the Chinese revolution, Chang and Halliday offer a strong criticism of Mao, suggesting he carried out a harsh policy of terrorisation which succeeded only because of the ineptness of the Nationalists. These radically alternative perspectives are ultimately as a result of the origin and purpose of each source. Within his work, British historian Jonathan Fenby presents a clinical analysis of the events in question, utilising a comprehensive array of statistics and quotes from reputable sources to support his arguments. As the title of his book suggests, Fenby includes no explicit focus on Mao, and thus tends to offer a much wider perspective on the leader. Conversely, Chang and Halliday present a considerably more negative view of the Communist ruler, with Chang having grown up through Mao’s brutal Cultural Revolution in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. Their work attempts to enlighten readers on “The Unknown Story” of Mao, and thus carries a significantly more persuasive tone, often relying on anecdotal evidence from mostly unidentified sources such as “one Nationalist veteran” or “one woman official”. However, Western historian Philip Short suggests there may be some truth behind Chang and Halliday’s strong portrayal of Mao’s callousness, highlighting his 1941 Rectification Campaign, in which over 1000 enemies were detained (Short, Pg. 391, 1999), as an earlier depiction of the Communist leader’s violent tendencies. Origin of Fenby?

Ultimately, whilst both Fenby, and Chang and Halliday, seem to neglect certain aspects of this phase in China’s history when presenting their assertions, the more balanced and proven contentions of Fenby are ultimately more compelling. The truth, however, is likely to be an amalgamation of both interpretations. Rather bland conclusion – define further.

Words count: 1060

(102 words are in text referencing)

Bibliography

Chang J., Halliday J., 2007, Mao: The Unknown Story, New Ed Edition, Vintage Books, London, United Kingdom

Fenby, Jonathan, 2008, The Penguin History of Modern China, Second Edition, Penguin UK Publishers, London, United Kingdom

Short, Philip, 1999, Mao: A Life, First Edition, Henry Holt and Co, New York City, United States.