Stalin and Mao
2014 essay by Lucien Bianco
Stalin and Mao: A Comparison of the Russian and Chinese Revolutions (French: La récidive: Révolution russe, révolution chinoise) is a non-fiction book by Lucien Bianco, published by Gallimard in 2014. Its 2018 English translation, done by Krystyna Horko, was published by the Chinese University of Hong Kong Press. It compares and contrasts the Russian Revolution and the Chinese Communist Revolution.
The English title refers to Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong while the French title is "La récidive", that is, "recidivist, or “repeat offender,” which refers to the central argument that Mao's seizure of power and revolutionary regime repeats the crimes of Stalin's.
Contents
The book has nine chapters, which each cover a different topic. The bibliography has a total of 28 pages. The book focuses on particular points common to both revolutions and does not intend to have comprehensive coverage of the two revolutions.
David Wolff, in Slavic Review described the work as "a solid diatribe against both Stalin and Mao". Bianco argues that Deng Xiaoping could have found success under Stalin's regime, in a manner that Wolff describes as "Some small gratitude" for Deng. Bianco argues that Mao had no role in China's economic ascent that occurred after Mao's death.
“Stalin and Mao” enters the record as 2014 essay by Lucien Bianco. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Stalin, essay and Lucien can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Stalin and Mao” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Stalin, essay and Lucien provides the most credible route into that argument.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 24, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q24951435. 1 of 1 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 2014 and 2018.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Stalin and Mao”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Stalin and Mao primary sources, Stalin and Mao archive and Stalin research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Stalin and Mao”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Stalin and Mao” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.