Edited sentence: As we all are, to an extent, Chang is inherently biased against a certain political system that she does not agree with.However, the arguments that Chang puts forwards are usually either A) Known anyway or B) Wrong.It is a fantastically written book, and whilst it is great that Chang is bringing Chinese History to the masses, it would be more acceptable to the historical community if she could do so with a little bit of neutrality.Mao: The Unknown Story is, without doubt, a superbly written book with a flowing prose that is perfectly suited to the mass market.Not once in the book does Chang even make so much as fleeting praise towards Mao: the post-WW2 Civil War victories were entirely down to Nationalist moles and spineless Generals prone to surrendering, not at all due to efficient Communist militarism (and support, Nationalist corruption etc).The book was obviously written for one reason, and that is to criticise Mao at every available opportunity and purport him as Stalin, Hitler and the anti-Christ all rolled into one.What Chang professes to be 'unknown' is, in many places, merely a re-hash of earlier publications and, in many instances, the book is littered with subjective quotes that are taken out of context, abstractly interpreted 'facts' (eg a pharmacist 'can't remember' a certain type of medicine so Chang concludes that she must have been constantly thinking about it for decades as she answered the question too quickly) and plain downright bias.Yet, unlike other historians, she fails to see that she may be in danger of penning an anti-Mao diatribe simply because she hates Mao from her (admittedly awful) years in Communist China