Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJoffe, Ellis
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-23T15:15:19Z
dc.date.available2020-09-23T15:15:19Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifierONIX_20200923_9780472902132_22
dc.identifier.urihttps://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/41826
dc.description.abstractThe origins of the Cultural Revolution are still shrouded in uncertainty. Crucial questions either remain unanswered or have been given answers which derive from conflicting interpretations. To what period can the direct origins of the Cultural Revolution be traced? What issues, if any, divided the leadership, and how deep were these divisions? What was the state of power relations and what was Mao’s position? Why did developments in the period preceding the Cultural Revolution reach a climax in such a convulsion? Between Two Plenums examines these questions as they apply to the years 1959–1962. At base, the perspective of pre-Cultural Revolution politics adopted therein is that of “conflict” rather than “consensus.” From this vantage point, the Eighth and Tenth Plenums loom in retrospect as important watersheds in the development of the intraleadership conflict which culminated in the great upheaval.
dc.languageEnglish
dc.relation.ispartofseriesMichigan Monographs In Chinese Studies
dc.subject.classificationthema EDItEUR::N History and Archaeology::NH Historyen_US
dc.subject.otherHistory
dc.titleBetween Two Plenums
dc.title.alternativeChina’s Intraleadership Conflict, 1959–1962
dc.typebook
oapen.identifier.doi10.3998/mpub.19256
oapen.relation.isPublishedBye07ce9b5-7a46-4096-8f0c-bc1920e3d889
oapen.relation.isFundedBy0314e571-4102-4526-b014-3ed8f2d6750a
oapen.relation.isFundedBy0cdc3d7c-5c59-49ed-9dba-ad641acd8fd1
oapen.imprintU OF M CENTER FOR CHINESE STUDIES
oapen.series.number22
oapen.pages89
oapen.place.publicationAnn Arbor
oapen.grant.number[grantnumber unknown]
oapen.grant.number[grantnumber unknown]
peerreview.anonymityDouble-anonymised
peerreview.idd98bf225-990a-4ac4-acf4-fd7bf0dfb00c
peerreview.open.reviewNo
peerreview.publish.responsibilityScientific or Editorial Board
peerreview.review.decisionYes
peerreview.review.stagePre-publication
peerreview.review.typeFull text
peerreview.reviewer.typeExternal peer reviewer
oapen.review.commentsThe proposal was selected by the acquisitions editor who invited a full manuscript. The full manuscript was reviewed by two external readers using a double-blind process. Based on the acquisitions editor recommendation, the external reviews, and their own analysis, the Executive Committee (Editorial Board) of U-M Press approved the project for publication.


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record