Frank got all his information from the Party's own Archives so he knows what he is talking about.

The condescension and lack of basic logic shown by the gentleman in Rome is rather extraordinary.
He casually dismisses the oppression of over 1.4 billion people and goes as far as to suggest that they don't have any desire for the very freedoms in the absence of which they stand bereft of the ability to express a desire for them.

You cannot tell the truth if your living and paycheck depends on lying.

The danger of speaking the truth while living in Beijing is too high. How is that not obvious for news media interviewing people there about topics like these?

I think Einar didn't get the point made by Dikotter. The latter has argued that by the time Mao was out of the scene, ordinary people were disregarding the collectivisation project and doing their business to survive, farming etc on such a large scale that the regime could do little to put an end to this. By this time millions were dead and people had had enough...so the regime went along with it. They couldn't force back collectivisation. Based on the experience of the cultural Revolution, the regime did, however, ensure that people weren't allowed to criticise the State and the main communist structures were retained. So, what contradiction is Einar talking about?

“The professor from Hong Kong,” and “Those who sell books,” very condescending.  Superb anchor.  She is the interesting person.

When you have western scholars willing to LIE about Mao and lift him up as a accomplished hero, what makes you think people in China are willing to speak up about Mao.

I don’t know what the deal is with the Einer guy but its crazy to say Mao made all those accomplishments when its already set by Chang kai-shek

Tangen: "Let's stick to facts not opinions." After Dikotter handed him his ass with facts all day. 😅

The moment the Einar guy said Mao was a dreamer I realized he was playing a propagandist for the CCP.  Mao's rise to power was based on the purges of tens of thousands CCP members in the 1930s and 1940s. After 1949, he repeated his old tricks and concentrated power in his own hands, causing the deaths of tens of millions of people in China. He was literally a demon. The Einar guy's idea of ​​how the CCP defeated the Japanese was purely a lie concocted by the CCP in textbooks to brainwash citizens, and as Frank pointed out, pure nonsense. It's almost laughable that he lied to the television audience. This Einar guy is a very skilled liar and can convince anyone who knows nothing about China's modern history. He even had the nerve to say that Frank was using "opinions" to refute his "facts." How shameless

What Professor Dikotter is referring to at the end is the period after the C. Revolution, which nearly tore the country apart, in which villages and entire communes decollectivized on their own with local cadres looking the other way via bribes or otherwise; rather like Russians starting black markets after the Soviets created famine and chaos by banning money and property. And just like Lenin's New Economic Policy, the party leadership went with the flow. China's pivot towards capitalism had zip to do with leadership, it was just people dong what they do: Business.

Accidentally CONFIRMED by Chinese-born “Academic” & Western-educated Lawyer™️, Victor Gao:

“I would say, uhh, China need to make more, uhh, take more prompt actions in, uhh, dealing with, uhh, dramatic, uhh, aging population in China and the dramatic, uhhhh, population decline.”

“Corruption is RAMPANT in China!”

-Victor Gao, August 2024 in front of a live international audience.

Geraci finirò nel girone degli ignavi. Figura politica che beneficia delle libertà occidentali giustificando un regime leninista e lavorando per gli interessi del medesimo regime. Una vergogna nazionale italiana.

Frank Dikotter exemplifies excellence

Most people can sense which one been more truthful and factual amd has done lots of homework, researched work. But there always some prefer opposites to a degree. ive a mother suspected suffer from ODD, because she can flip either sides for the sick of it but always be opposite, a very disagreeable type. But in this case may be best not to lose the job in Beijung.

What's the matter with the two talking heads (not Dikotter) ? Did they not understand the point of the interview? The interview is about the celebration of Mao. So, discussing the legacy of Mao is not only relevant, it's the entire point of the interview.

Watch 3:22 for the communist raised fist.

KO 15:45

Einar Tangen sounded like a CCP stooge and wasn’t able to understand what Dikotter was saying at the end trying to make up a contradiction to discredit him. That was embarrassing for him to say that. He almost sounds uneducated and even insulted Dikotter by saying his facts were used to sell books.

Tangen tried to say Mao defeated Japan when in fact he liked the invasion from them so he could take the country later. That was pretty blatant propaganda. Mao didn’t unite China either. He helped divide it by not agreeing to unite peacefully after WW2 so the Civil War had to continue. Mao was an opportunist who always benefited from foreign powers that either wanted to divide or take over China.

This interview got on my nerves.

The great cause of the famine was Western propaganda. Dikotter frames his analysis from the perspective that ignores the initial conditions of China and what they achieved through their plight (literacy from 10% to 80% under Mao, radical improvements in healthcare, etc). Dikotter’s figures of 40 or 20 million starving are cyclically referenced (pseudoscientific) and primary sources are selected to match the desired conclusion (confirmation bias). The figures are  trumpeted because of our real qualm over Mao - we were unable to maintain or take control of China. The phrase “Loss of China”’ was in our newspapers frequently in the 1950s, which is telling, as it assumes you have to own something before you can lose it. Regarding deaths, look up the increase in life expectancy from 1950 until 1978 - it rose dramatically from Mao’s reforms, so he saved lives almost radically. If you think about it you have to respect for China successfully fending of western imperialism prior to 1948, a profoundly difficult achievement. Look at the result of the other major regions that failed in this regard (Africa, India, even aboriginal Australia, etc). Respect to Mao and vast bulk of the ordinary population for protecting China from outside interference. Mao also did the forgotten but crucial work of rural health development programmes saving 100 million lives and modernizing architecture which set the conditions to make the industrialisation that followed being possible. Life span increased dramatically, rights of females and literacy increased from 10% to 90% under Mao. Rather than cherry picking setbacks give respect where respect is due.

Ooops, I accidentally killed 84 million people.
Western Elites love Mao, Stalin etc because that level of sadistic murderous control is the model they are implementing around us  today.