Customer Reviews for

Mao's Great Famine: The History of China's Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958-1962

Average Rating 3
( 6 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(1)

4 Star

(2)

3 Star

(1)

2 Star

(0)

1 Star

(2)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
Sort by: Showing all of 2 review with 1 star rating   See All Ratings
Page 1 of 1
  • Posted March 8, 2012

    China's mortality during the Great Leap Forward - 24/1000 - was

    China's mortality during the Great Leap Forward - 24/1000 - was the same as India's, Pakistan's, and Indonesia's in 1960: India 24/1000, Indonesia 23/1000, Pakistan 23/1000. This was much less than China's 1949 figure (38/1000) and less than that of India's at the end of British rule (28/1000).
    Frank Dikotter adopted 10/1000 as a `normal' yearly death rate for China, and claims this as the figure for China in 1957. Deaths above this he regards as `excess' deaths. But 10/1000 was the mortality in the USA, Britain and France in 1960. Dikotter's claims imply that China reduced mortality from 38/1000 in 1949 to 10/1000 in 1957. India only reduced mortality from 28 to 23/1000, and Indonesia 26 to 23/1000 over the same period. So if Dikotter accepts a 10/1000 mortality rate for China in 1957, then he has to accept that the communists reduced mortality from 38/1000 to 10/1000 during their first eight years, thereby saving tens of millions of lives. This would have been the most dramatic, incredible reduction in mortality in human history.
    If Mao is to be condemned as a killer for presiding over a mortality rate of maximum 27/1000 say in 1960 (the worst year of the great leap forward), what do you call Churchill and other British rulers for consistently presiding over mortality rates of over 30/1000 during all the years of the British Raj? Note also that at no stage in the history of the PRC were mortality rates actually worse than any before 1949.
    That is why in the Maoist period China's population growth was about four times as fast as in the three decades leading up to 1949. In fact the fastest period of population growth in China's history happened under Mao.
    As Amartya Sen pointed out, four million more people died in India than in China in each year between 1958 and 1961.

    Joseph Ball pointed out, ""Although problems and reversals occurred in the Great Leap Forward, it is fair to say that it had a very important role in the ongoing development of agriculture. Measures such as water conservancy and irrigation allowed for sustained increases in agricultural production, once the period of bad harvests was over. They also helped the countryside to deal with the problem of drought. Flood defenses were also developed. Terracing helped gradually increase the amount of cultivated area.
    "Industrial development was carried out under the slogan of `walking on two legs'. This meant the development of small and medium scale rural industry alongside the development of heavy industry. As well as the steel furnaces, many other workshops and factories were opened in the countryside. The idea was that rural industry would meet the needs of the local population. Rural workshops supported efforts by the communes to modernize agricultural work methods. Rural workshops were very effective in providing the communes with fertilizer, tools, other agricultural equipment and cement (needed for water conservation schemes). ... Rural industry established during the Great Leap Forward used labour-intensive rather than capital-intensive methods. As they were serving local needs, they were not dependent on the development of an expensive nation-wide infrastructure of road and rail to transport the finished goods."

    2 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted December 13, 2011

    I did not receive the book.

    Grrr.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
Sort by: Showing all of 2 review with 1 star rating   See All Ratings
Page 1 of 1