Talk:Sino-Soviet split

我是中国的

我是中国的== —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.220.189.226 (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The Killing Fields

A foot note* for: "The Vietnamese were at first prepared to ignore the murderous domestic policies of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, but as it led to persecution of ethnic Vietnamese communities and clashes along the border, they invaded the country in 1978, removing Pol Pot's regime...."

• Pol Pot received a three way support from the Chinese, American, and Thai governments.

Reliable Source that supports such a statement?50.111.51.247 (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Old talk

This seem to be written entirely from the Chinese perspective. Perhapse someone with knowledge of the subject could give some more insight into Soviet thinking and developments. -- stewacide 03:52, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think it's widely known that Mao revered Stalin. When Krushchev started the de-Stalinization of the USSR, it offended him. If Mao had kept quiet and not have gotten in to the Soviet Union's personal business, the Sino-Soviet Split would have never happened. So it IS mostly China's fault. I personally believe Mao costliest blunder in his entire career, even more than the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, is the Sino-Soviet Split. If China had the USSR as an ally throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s, they could've very well became a Superpower. A Superpower China would've outweighed all of the previous mistakes of the CCP.

Perhaps they could, but my view is that the split arose mainly from Chinese domestic politics was largely driven by China. The Soviet role was mainly reactive and defensive. Most of the narrative therefore has to be about events in China. Adam 04:05, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC) ---- This is one of several possible interpretations, and a very Sino-centric at that. The article should indicate that there is no agreement as to the causes of the split. Radchenk (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Rename?

Should this be renamed Sino-Soviet Split like Nanjing Massacre and Japanese American Internment? The 's' in split is capitalized in many contexts [1]. --Jiang 05:24, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It won't join and split again (now that Soviet is gone), so this is a specific one. So, yes. --Menchi 00:04, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

capitalism POV

I disagree. CCP developed the theory of "Socialism with Chinese colors" mainly as rhetoric. Initially Deng Xiaoping had many enemies within the CCP, especially some old revolutionaries who survived the culture revolution. To blatantly go ahead with market reforms would cause bitter in fighting and chaos. So Deng came up with the whole set of "Deng Xiaoping Thinking". Basically it cleverly fit a round peg into a square hole, thus temporarily appeasing some of the diehard communists. Luckily, Deng outlived most of his enemies, and the newer breed of chinese leaders have all embraced Deng Xiaoping's strange ideas. Added to this, Deng's economic programs have had a dramatic effect on China, and vastly improved the people's well being. Therefore no one in the CCP today is seriously opposed to capitalism. However, they still can't call it "capitalism", even though privately everyone (educated people) knows what "socialism" really means in China. It's more like the Orwellian doublespeak. But I don't think Wikipedia should be repeating CCP rhetoric, but instead tell it like it is. To use the chinese terms would be also violate NPOV.

--James

Remove references to restoration of capitalism for NPOV reasons. The PRC has a very well developed theory of why market reform is "advancing socialism" rather than "restoring capitalism" and the definitions of capitalism and socialism in a Chinese context are completely different from Western definitions.

--Roadrunner

It is an objective fact that capitalism has been restored in China - there is a free market, production for profit, private companies, stock exchanges and all the other signs of a functioning capitalist system. That the CCP feels it has to rationalise this as some sort of detour on the road to socialism is understandable, but doesn't alter the fact. Adam 05:35, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Some of Roadrunner's edits I have no problems with, but others are just a distortion of what was actually said and done, and inserts euphemistic expressions instead of facts for no good reason. Adam 05:47, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Roadrunner's "tweak" of the last para makes it factually wrong, euphemistic and a good deal more POV that the original version. Adam 06:06, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have not reverted Roadrunner's changes, but I have corrected and de-euphemised some of them. Inserting CCP propaganda phrases into the text makes it more POV, not less. Adam 06:16, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

I use this because the Chinese have a definition of capitalism which is different from the one used in the West. In the Chinese define capitalism as the social stage between feudal society and socialism.

I'm pretty insistent on this issue for two reasons. First of all, it's a *definition*, and the Chinese definition of capitalism is not objectively better or worse than the the Western definition. It's very important however to realize that these differences in definitions exist, because to not be aware of differences in definitions makes communications difficult.

Second and more importantly, the Chinese economic system is similar in some ways to capitalism the way that the west defines it, but there are also a *lot* of differences. Just as an example, although there are private companies, there isn't *any* interest on the part of the government for wholesale privatization of state owned enterprises. Most of the companies on Chinese stock markets are state-owned and there is absolutely no intention on the part of the government to change that. (Now there is an intention to make these state-owned companies compete with each other and be generally free from governmental management, and to compete on a level playing field with private companies. But there is no intent at all to privatize most state owned companies, and there never has been.)

The system of land use rights and the contract responsibility system have been called "capitalism" but they are different from private land ownership in some pretty significant ways (for example, that the land is reallocated every few years.)

So the reason I'm insistent that the Chinese government's actions not be labelled as a "return to capitalism" is that no one in the Chinese government sees it that way, and seeing that way leads to some pretty major misleading conclusions about Chinese economic policy. There is a common view that the Chinese government really wants to be capitalist but is unwilling to admit this, and all of this is euphemistic language to for psychological reasons. This view is totally wrong.

-- User:Roadrunner

---

Just changed the last paragraph to something that I think will satisfy everything. One of the big things is that after Deng Xiaoping, China no longer has any qualms about using capitalist means to advance socialism, whereas Gorbachev never as able to make this conceptual leap.

-- User:Roadrunner

First, I don't accept that the CCP has any right to define the word capitalist for us. Capitalism is a system defined by the exsitence of a capitalist class, private property and production for profit. All these were abolished by Mao, and restored by Deng. That is a "restoration of capitalism." I don't use the expression in a pejorative way (I happen to think it was a good thing), it is simply a description of what happened.

Sure, as long as you admit that you don't have the right to define capitalism for Chinese. The problem is that to understand the Chinese economy and Chinese politics, you have to understand that words mean something radically different.

Capitalism is a system defined by the exsitence of a capitalist class, private property and production for profit. All these were abolished by Mao, and restored by Deng. That is a "restoration of capitalism." I don't use the expression in a pejorative way (I happen to think it was a good thing), it is simply a description of what happened.

Not really. The difference between capitalism and socialism in Western terms is state ownership of the means of production. Deng didn't privatize land (which is still 100% state owned) and state enterprises didn't undergo any real at all privatization until the early 1990's. What Deng *did* do is to introduce some market mechanisms which ended the disfunctional aspects of orthodox socialist industries.

The problem with using terms like capitalist and socialist, is that you then start thinking in terms of one

is good and the other is bad. This makes it difficult to "unbundle" the different elements which are associated with capitalism and socialism. If you think of capitalism versus socialism either you privatize land or you keep it state owned. You don't end up with the system that was in use very successfully until the early 1990's, and you also find yourself unable to deal with the fact that that system is now very broken in 2003.

--User:Roadrunner

However, this is not an article about Chinese economic history, so these are only passing references in a wider narrative. I am not interested in having a big fight about it. Adam 06:44, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

"using capitalist means to advance socialism" is a piece of CCP propaganda. Adam

It makes sense if you use the Chinese definitions of capitalism and socialism. Also, it's not only associated with the CCP. Most Chinese anti-CCP democracy activists for example use the concepts of capitalism and socialism in a way that is very different from the way it is used in the West and very similar to the way that it is used by the CCP.

Roadrunner

I am perfectly aware of the Marxist theory of history by the way. It is one thing to say that Marxists believe that capitalism is stage on the way to socialism, it is quite another to say that we have to adopt that definition.

Adam

---

Re Roadrunners various comments above:

• When the CCP writes an encyclopaedia, it is free to define capitalism any way it likes. But since we are writing in the west and in English, we should use the standard definitions of words that convey mutually understood meanings between writer and reader, and not any one of many and disputed Marxist definitions of words.
• In an economy which was then 80% agricultural, the dissolution of the communes and the restoration of a free market in grain (which is what Deng did) amounts to a restoration of capitalist relations of production in the most important sector of the economy, despite the figleaf of nominal state ownership of land. The CCP may chose for political reasons to say that this is all just "socialism with Chinese characteristics" etc, but we are under no obligation to accept that.
• Anyway I think we have a mutually acceptable text now.

Adam 07:32, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Roadrunner, the definition of capitalism is not a "Chinese" thing. Mao did more to popularize the phrase "restoration of capitalism" than anyone else and during the Cultural Revolution, he targeted Deng Xiaoping for his desire to "restore capitalism." Is Mao any less Chinese for it? Quite the contrary, if anything, it was Deng Xiaoping taking the Western view. 205.179.217.195 07:09, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

I moved the rather large poster image to later in the article. It's so large that it obstructs access to the TOC and it's just plopped down without any thought to page layout. I moved it to the section of the article from the same period of time and also moved the Nixon image down a few sentences for the same reason. Adam reverted my change and I restored it. Now would be a good time for someone else to weigh in if anyone else has an opinion about the page layout. Daniel Quinlan 18:17, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)

I agree that having the large image near the TOC is rather obstructive. --`Jiang

---

Can we have a date for the photo "Mao Zedong and J V Stalin"? It's a rather unfortunate photo -- is there a better one of the two men? It looks like it's Photoshopped. (Actually the current quality looks like a Photoshopped image using daguerrotype technology.)

The photo would have been taken either during Mao's 1950 visit to Moscow or at the 1952 CPSU Congess: I don't know which. All Soviet leadership photos of that era look like that, because they were airbrushed to make Stalin look younger. I don't recall seeing one which looks any better. Adam 04:11, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Re: "restoring capitalism" and all the stuff adam and roadrunner talked about above: I don't think we should include any of the text starting with "the great irony..." Regardless of whether you believe it's ironic or not, it's not really wikipedia's place to be pointing out ironies. DanKeshet

---

The parts of the end I removed was out of left field. The first part made a conclusion, then discredited that conclusion as superficial, thus making the whole part pointless. The latter part I removed (in "Conclusion") did not follow from the article. Rather than acting purely out of national self-interest (aside from ideological adherence) and internal power struggles, the article certainly conveys that that the split was largely because of ideology and clear-cut changes in leadership. Treating "the Soviet Union" and "China" as a single monolithic body, like a single person, over several decades and without distinction between the people and the actual government, is absurd. This generalization is semantically reflected throughout the article; I fixed several, but there are more which need remedy. Centrx 09:17, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

---

This is one of the most well written articles I have read on Wikipedia. The writers should kindly take it upon themselves to rewrite some of the science and technology articles that are poorly done. I think references to the Chinese abandoning socialism for capitalism should be removed. The Chinese have transitioned from a planned economy to a market economy. A market economy is not the same thing as capitalism. The government only privatized personal property (not factories, land, etc.) and made arrangements for foreign investment. This development is congruent with socialism in Europe, which occurs under the context of a market economy. Therefore I beleive that Adam's assertion that under the English definition of socialism, China has abandoned socialism is false. I will not edit the article because I am not as eloquent as the above writers, but I think this change should be made. --Anon 163

Well I disagree with you. A market economy, in which goods and services are produced and sold for profit, is a capitalist economy. China has a property owning class, it has a stock market, it has production for profit. What other criteria for capitalism can there be? The fact that some industries are still state owned is irrelevant. That is true in many capitalist countries. You only have to compare China with North Korea to see the difference between capitalism and socialism. When you refer to "European socialism," what countries are you refering to? Germany? Sweden? A mixed economy with some measure of state planning a la Sweden is not socialism. Socialism is the opposite of capitalism, it entails at a minimum the abolition of private property and the common ownership of the means of production. There have been no socialist countries in Europe since 1991. (But thanks for your overall praise of the article, by the way). Adam 02:03, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I must agree with the first part of your statement "A market economy, in which goods and services are produced and sold for profit, is a capitalist economy" but unfortunatly China is still an example of a socialist country and not a capitalist one. Before, I get on to my point I would like to state that "Capitalsim", "Socialism", "Fuedalism", and "Communism" are not mutally exlusive; therfore it is possible to have elments of both - for example the USA. China's economy is still heavly dependent on the state which inturn is dependent (although often not accountable) to the people. A defining factor of "Socialism" is who controls what Adam Smith would refer to as "labor". In the case of China "labor" is controlled by individuals who often are not responsible,incapable, or unwilling to administer and control production. Furthermore, many companies are not directly accountable to their financiers but exist only to enrich society (which we can see by all the highly uncompetive companies).

Yet, china can not be classified as "Communist" because they have property that "can not be enroched upon". Furthermore it is legal to participate in, what could be called by a "Communist", speculation. Strong goverment control coupled with a strong undertone of social advancement and nationism are hallmarks of "Socialism". While China may have "Capitalistic" features, such as investment and private industries, and even some "Communistic" features, such as goverment business control, China remains a Socialistic society with a healthy dose of Communism and Capitalism.--Frozenport 03:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Economic system of China is capitalistic, no matter how the meaning of the word is altered. To be strict, every economy is a mixed economy - there is no purely capitalistic or socialist economy. But one could still describe an economy as capitalistic or socialistic, based on which style dominates. In China, there is (somehow flawed) protection of private or property and means of production. This fact alone shows which style is dominating in China. To elaborate, the government buys and sells business according to the business laws (with privileges), instead of confiscating them. If the country is socialistic, there would be laws recognising the government's claim to all property.Lowerlowerhk (talk) 08:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Capitalism

First off, this article is truly excellent, and possibly the best that I've read on Wikipedia. I have to agree with Roadrunner on this issue though, because I don't think that you can really characterize what has happened in the Chinese economy as a transition to capitalism. Its more of a transition to a market economy. The Chinese government has no intent to denationalize industries. I believe that many, if not most, of Chinese workers are still employed by state enterprises. I still think that Jiang Zemin's explanation that this is an essential step in the transition to true socialism is a sham; its an admission that central planning failed. Still though, in Western understanding capitalism involves the majority of economic decisions made by private interests. That certainly is not happening in China. Tom3 23:16, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lopez's Deletions

rv: Lopez's deletions. Before deleting material, justification must be presented. None has been presented. Stargoat 02:43, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

seconded. please justify any changes here. --Jiang

I left a note for him on his talk page. Perusing it, it seems several other users have made the same complaint about lack of discussion when deleting. Apparently, Lopez is upset about a perceived institutional/systemic bias against communism and edits pages accordingly. I don't care one way or the other, but I do hope he comes and discusses the changes with us. —thames 03:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• A point-of-view is given in the reasons for the Sino-Soviet split, basically, the side of Russia over that of China. Calling Mao militant, hypothesizing about wars he might start and so forth are an attempt to contribute to a point of view. This article still favors the USSR over the PRC despite my removing or changing the most egregious parts.

Mao was militant. He made Kruschev and others in the Soviet Leadership very uncomfortable. Stargoat 18:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• This sentence is a POV statement about the Cultural Revolution - "After 1967, China descended into chaos, while Mao used the Cultural Revolution as a pretext to remove all his rivals from power and overthrow the existing structures of state and party." One could just as easily say that China was on a disastrous road before 1967, which was saved by the Cultural Revolution which was the workers of China rising up to take back the system or something like that.

The Cultural Revolution was an unmitigated disaster. Any claim about China being saved by the cultural revolution is a baldfaced lie. Stargoat 18:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your perception (which was the Kremlin party line) that the Cultural Revolution was an unmitigated disaster does not belong in the article, it is POV. Everything else you say here is either uninformed or wrong, but this is the most wrong as it is so obviously pushing a point of view, that of the CCP bureaucrats and Kremlin over that of the Chinese people.Ruy Lopez 22:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The fact is that the Cultural Revolution was an unmitigated disaster. The millions who died, and the billions who suffer today as a result would also agree with me, as well as current Chinese leadership. That you are arguing this at all is ridiculous. You've also not addressed any of my other points. Lopez, you have not presented any evidence of proof of your claims and deletions of material. Stargoat 03:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• "Small Maoist parties were formed in many countries but they held little influence." seems flat-out wrong. First of all the dismissed Communist Party of Indonesia was the largest communist party in any capitalist country. Further, what influence did non-CPSU communist parties have that Maoist parties didn't? A Maoist party succeeded in taking over the largest socialist organization in the US, Students for a Democratic Society, in the late 1960s.

It might seem to a POV pusher to be flat out wrong, but it is in fact correct. Students for a Democratic Society would be an organization of little influence. The Communist Party of Indonesia will only be remembered as a footnote in history. If you want to though Ruy, the article could use some work. Stargoat 18:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Perceived causalities are stated as facts. The Great Leap Forward caused the Sino-Soviet split. The Cultural Revolution removed almost all international communist support from China. I certainly wouldn't disagree that these things may have been contributing factors on some level, but the causality expressed is not factual. Another persepctive on the USSR breaking its deal to give nukes to China could be the USSR saying, "we made a deal with the US, you're on your own, screw you". Ruy Lopez 04:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Great Leap Forward did not cause the Sino-Soviet split. Mao's arrogant attitude towards Kruschev, the Soviet Union and his own people caused it. Stargoat 18:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez, why are you reverting to your deletions without making comments on the talk page? Stargoat 14:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not reverting deletions without making comments on the talk page, I have made prolific statements, more than once. I'm not sure what the point of arguing how many angels dance on the head of a pin endlessly is. And I don't know what more to say to a person who thinks statements such as that the opinion that the Cultural Revolution was an unmitigated disaster would belong in the article.

Which is you going into a pointless argument anyhow - I stated that I would *not* insert the opposite perspective into the article, that the Cultural Revolution was a success, and then you go off on a tangent of whether or not the Cultural Revolution was a success or a disaster. My position is neither of the (or, if I'm backed against a wall, both) perspectives belong in the article. You are complaining that I am not taking your bait in debating by explaining the positive aspects of the Cultural Revolution. My point is that the article should not incorporate one or the other bias but be balanced and neutral.

Anyone with knowledge of these events would realize you are arguing the Kremlin party line and that this article is entirely derived from the Kremlin reporting of events. I tried to remove some of the Kremlin biased remarks, and insert some of the CPC's perspective but you do not want this.

One indication of your desire to just cause a problem is your reversion of everything I wrote. Mao must be called militant. That "Mao used the Cultural Revolution as a pretext to remove all his rivals from power" can be unquestioned. The perspective that Maoist parties had any influence is discarded. Ridiculous statements that Students for a Democratic Society had little influence are stated.

Of everything in the article, your defense of the statement "After 1967, China descended into chaos, while Mao used the Cultural Revolution as a pretext to remove all his rivals from power and overthrow the existing structures of state and party." is the most egregious. Your comment on top of this is the Cultural Revolution was an "unmitigated disaster". As I said earlier, I don't really know what to say to someone who takes this position. Ruy Lopez 16:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I looked thru the first batch of Lopez's corrections, and I have to agree with most of his deletions: guesswork and evaluations must be deleted. Mikkalai 19:00, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 20:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Return to Normality

This section name seems a poor choice for summing up all the later part of the Sino-Soviet Split Jztinfinity 04:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the direct translation of china's official statement. Classic91 (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Zedong and Stalin Picture

It says "Joesph" like the English way. However, it needs to be changed to "Josef" the way that, in English, Stalin's name is actually spelled.

Also on this picture it says Stalin's 17th birthday, shouldn't that be Stalin's 27th b-day. He looks a bit older than 17. Trickse (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

causality of Sino-Soviet split

This article documented an important event that affected the lives of millions of people, I believe that it lacks some of the insights of the Sino-Soviet split. While it's difficult to go into the heart of the matter without the source of any Chinese and Russian politburo person(s), the inclusion of some coherent theories would make this article better. One of which is that Russia wanted to place missiles with nuclear capacity in inland China and not delegate the launch authorization to the Chinese leaders. I also want to note that the Sino-Soviet split affected China more than it did Russia. The Chinese loan repayment plan following the Sino-Soviet split, coupled with the failure of the 'Great Leap Forward', was directly reponsible for millions of deaths across China. Sino-Soviet split also had an integral part in reshaping the landscape during and after the Cold War with far-reaching implications. Efnethore 15:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Mao disobeyed Soviet direction since day 1; his militant attitude posed nuclear threats to Soviets; De-stalination upset Mao; Mao saw Khushchev as weak and Khushchev saw Mao as ruthless; Mao ideologically supported the breakdown of government and wanted to replace Soviets as the leader of the communist world. Unfortunately these are unreferenced opinions.Lowerlowerhk (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

"Fake treaty"?

In 1993, the two nations reluctantly signed a fake treaty that formally demarcated the mysterious border and officially ended all outstanding disputes.

That China and Russia would have signed a fake treaty seems like a pretty monumental thing, that probably would deserve an article all by itself! Furthermore, how could a fake treaty cause a border to be demarcated? Hpa 00:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

note on 1962

international events did not "cause" the Sino-Soviet split in 1962, as this article seems to say. The same paragraph contains a claim that the Soviet Union supported India in the 1962 war, this is not the case. Khrushchev in fact sided with China initially, eventually turning to neutrality. Differents arguments exist as to the reasons for his ambigous position, but the fact remains - this should be changed in the article. Radchenk (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Destroy soviet revisionists.jpg

Image:Destroy soviet revisionists.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Mao focus

The lead up seems to be unbalance mao felt this or mao did that Gnevin (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

removed

This was highly successful; the interminable war in Afghanistan did much to weaken the Soviet system in its later years. REASON - irrelevant

China was also involved in secretly supplying aid to the Contras fighting the Soviet-backed Sandinista government in Nicaragua [2]. REASON. China supported anti-Soviet forces in quite a few conflicts. Why not list Angola? Takes attention away from the more important points.

However, the ideological issues of the 1960s were not resolved, and official relations between the two Communist parties were not resumed.REASON. First part unclear - there were no longer any ideological issues at stake in the 1980s. Second part incorrect. Party relations were restored when Gorbachev met Zhao Ziyang on May 16, 1989. Radchenk (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Serious POV problems

While this article isn't bad, and is pretty informative overall, it is has a lot of pro-PRC POV at the moment. Phrases like "in cultural disrespect to China’s legitimate historic territorial claims" will ensure that this article will never make it back to FA. A more balanced article would be nice, and hopefully someone can include sources discussing the event from the Soviet view, as well as some sources that are equally critical (or supportive) of both sides. Otebig (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. For example, It refers to Sino-Soviet Border Conflict merely as the 1969 Clashes as a means of distorting and diluting a border war without making specific mentioning to that. It's like revisionist history here. Whatever doesn't sounds good, Pro-PRC supporters "dilute" the article etc... etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phead128 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Map The map shown on this page of the territory under PCR control may be correct, but since the international borders between India and China are disputed it should be so mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.110.131 (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Map

The map shown on this page of the territory under PCR control may be correct, but since the international borders between India and China are disputed it should be so mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.110.131 (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Russian advice on Chinese civil war^

The article states:

"China, unlike Russia, had no great urban working class, thus he organized the peasants and farmers to fight the Chinese Revolution."

But at the time of the Russian revolution, this was the exact situation in Russia. This was the reason Lenin adapted Marxism to the situation in Russia in what was later dubbed "Marxism-Leninism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.95.255.66 (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No. Russia had started an industrial 'revolution' in many of the big cities. They were able to build a large navy, railroads, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.51.247 (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

---

The article reads:

"Nevertheless, communist pragmatism allowed both to aid the Vietnamese communists, led by Ho Chi Minh. The Chinese permitted Soviet matériel across China to North Vietnam, to aid the prosecuting of war efforts against South Vietnam, in the Vietnam War (1945–75)."

China was being 'pragmatic' by allowing itself to be sandwiched in between the USSR to the north and the USSR's ally, North Vietnam, to the south? What's pragmatic about that? It's silly. If there were really a Sino/Soviet split then China would have ensured that North Vietnam remained weak in the war with America by blocking North Vietnam's sanctuaries in Laos, not allowing North Vietnam into Laos. This illogical behavior on the part of China (aiding the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War) is proof that KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn was correct when he warned the West in the 1960s that the Sino/Soviet split was a strategic ruse used by the Communists to deceive the West as to the real strength of World Communism. See Golitsyn's book 'New Lies for Old' for sourcing. The book is now up at Internet Archive.

Also not mentioned in the article is the introduction of Chinese PLA troops into North Vietnam assisting the NVA in the war with America. The Wikipedia article on the Vietnam War mentions this relatively new information stemming from Chinese documents. Here is the pertinent section from the Wikipedia article:

"In the summer of 1962, Mao Zedong agreed to supply Hanoi with 90,000 rifles and guns free of charge. Starting in 1965, China sent anti-aircraft units and engineering battalions to North Vietnam to repair the damage caused by American bombing, rebuild roads and railroads, and to perform other engineering works. This freed North Vietnamese army units for combat in the South.

Sino-Soviet relations soured after the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia in August 1968. In October, the Chinese demanded North Vietnam cut relations with Moscow, but Hanoi refused.[212] The Chinese began to withdraw in November 1968 in preparation for a clash with the Soviets, which occurred at Zhenbao Island in March 1969. The Chinese also began financing the Khmer Rouge as a counterweight to the Vietnamese communists at this time. China's withdrawal from Vietnam was completed in July 1970.[213]"

Here we also have the Chinese preparing to leave North Vietnam in preparation for a clash with the USSR, but the Chinese don't do so completely until July 1970, sixteen months after the Chinese clash with the USSR (March 2 – September 11, 1969) begins! This behavior makes no sense if there were a real Sino/Soviet split.173.73.132.227 (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

---

ignore value statements

In May 1989, President Gorbachev visited the People’s Republic of China, where the government was doubtful about his reform programs of perestroika and glasnost. Since the PRC did not officially recognise the USSR as a socialist state, it had no official opinion about how Gorbachev might reform Soviet socialism; yet privately, the Chinese leaders believed that it was too early for President Gorbachev’s political reform without first economically reforming the country — whereas Paramount Leader Deng Xiaoping effected economic reform, via a mixed economy, without weakening the political power of the Chinese Communist Party. Ultimately Gorbachev's reforms ended communist government in USSR, and provoked the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.

The last sentence seems to be implying that the PRC stayed communist even after turning into a full fledged capitalist country while the USSR was no longer communist even before they started their economic reforms. Both these countries were failed communist states, both ideologically and economically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.104.182 (talk) 07:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

Is there really a need for every picture in this article to begin in the same way with "The Sino-Soviet split"? It seems like more than a bit of overkill. 68.44.116.199 (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's the name of the article, so none of them need to say it again. --GwydionM (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Soviet support for East Turkestan separatists

The article needs to mention the soviet KGB support for East Turkestan Independence Movement, both military and propaganda.

The soviet formation of uyghur nationalism and history

http://books.google.com/books?id=8FVsWq31MtMC&pg=PA208#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA39#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA40#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA41#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=IAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA188#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=dM9BAAAAYAAJ&q=inauthor:%22Rais+Abdulkhakovich+Tuzmukhamedov%22&dq=inauthor:%22Rais+Abdulkhakovich+Tuzmukhamedov%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_VrFULiZE6uz0QHHvoH4Cg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ

KGB Agent Victor Louis (journalist) wrote a book about his support for Uyghur, Mongol and Tibetan separatists, he encouraged the Soviet Union to try to wage war against China to allegedly "free" those nationalities from China's rule

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZavAkGUNdSkC&pg=PA175#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=cEdQ1IuJFH4C&pg=PA172#v=onepage&q&f=false

Clashes in Xinjiang

http://books.google.com/books?id=mXXnd81uoMoC&pg=PA240#v=onepage&q&f=false

During the Ili Rebellion

http://books.google.com/books?id=IAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA178#v=onepage&q&f=false russian participation in the rebellion

http://books.google.com/books?id=IAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA185#v=onepage&q&f=false Ishaq Beg commanded GPU against Ma zhongying along with white russian polinov

http://books.google.com/books?id=IAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA188#v=onepage&q&f=false cyrillic writing soviet admission of support for east turkestan republic

Rajmaan (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC) mao is cruel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.90.207.208 (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Victor Lewis's book, The coming decline of the Chinese Empire, is available, more or less free, at ABE or Amazon. Given his background, it is obviously KGB misinformation. I think it may be more a result of the split than a cause, but I doubt there is any source that plainly says that. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Refimprove|date February 2015

There are a number of bold, and questionable, assertions, in this article which do not have, and never could have, a good source. This article has fallen far from being a featured article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sino-Soviet split. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130926184147/http://book.sina.com.cn/excerpt/sz/rw/2011-11-24/0951293044_2.shtml to http://book.sina.com.cn/excerpt/sz/rw/2011-11-24/0951293044_2.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/mao/polemics/sevenlet.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Zimbabwe

What was Zimbabwe's orientation under Mugabe? He was supported by the Chinese during the Rhodesian Bush War --Donenne (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Chronology

There is something wrong with chronology here. First the article says: "In 1958, guided by soviet economists, the PRC applied the USSR's model of planned economy,"... Later: "Yet, by 1955, consequent to Khrushchev's having repaired Russian relations with Mao and the Chinese, 60 per cent of the PRC's exports went to the USSR, by way of the Five-year plans of China, begun in 1953."

The first five years plan could not possibly predate the planned economy with five years...Kiremaj (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

PS. The article states : "In late 1962, the PRC broke relations with the USSR, because Khrushchev did not go to war with the U.S. over the Cuban Missile Crisis (16–28 October 1962)." What is meant by "broke relations"? Surely not diplomatic relations, since there was still a Soviet embassy in China in 1967, which was attacked by angry red guards. As far as I know, the diplomatic relations between USSR and China were never broken, even if the party relations were.Kiremaj (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

"Perdured" or "persisted"?

I have reverted the use of the word "perdured" as likely to be wholly unknown and incomprehensible to the average reader (diff here). I have reverted it to the previously used term "persisted", which is a common word which all readers will understand and which seems to be correct in this context. Rather than get into an edit war over this, I would like any further discussion to take place here. If anybody believes that "perdured" has a significantly different meaning and that "persisted" is not correct then we can discuss that and, if this does turn out to be the case, I'm sure that we can find some other word or phrase that explains what we mean while remaining comprehensible to the readers? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Questionable restoration

This edit by Rjensen [3] restores material I previously deleted as incorrectly cited and questionable. First, the date range of 1956-1966 does not appear on page 1 of the source as cited, as can be seen in GoogleBooks. (The original reference indicated page 1 (see previous version, if there is another page stating the conflict spanned from 1956 to 1966, then the burden is on Rjensen to specify that before restoring the same.) Further, if the date range was 1956-1966, the inclusion of "methods" as proxy war is also silly, as there was no proxy war between the USSR and China in 1956-1966. In general, questionable material may be removed for any reason, so I politely request that Rjensen please follow his own advice of utilizing the talk page to discuss first before restoring it. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The infobox summarizes the article. The date was from a standard history by Luthi--I added a more explicit cite. There were indeed several proxy wars during that period and they played a major role. It's much too vague to say that Geopolitical and ideological caused the split--those factors cause most 20th century disputes and tell readers zero. Much more useful and precise = De-Stalinization of the Soviet Union, Marxist revisionism and Maoism. Rjensen (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Fine, I see the cut-off date of 1966 as arbitrary. The USSR and China had already broken relations off before then (right now, the article states in 1962), and the Sino-Soviet border conflict took place after (in 1969). But if you insist and can source it, fine. That does not address the rest. Can you indicate what proxy war occurred between the USSR and China between 1956 and 1966? Are you aware that "Marxist revisionism" is a silly thing to put in the infobox, given that is essentially a partisan insult employed against the Soviet-aligned communists by the Maoists, who had themselves in a sense self-evidently "revised" communist ideology? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

1966 is a key date for China/Mao turning inward in Cultural Revolution and so paying much less attention to the split. Insults? yes the intense insulting rhetoric was a big part of the dispute. The biggest proxy conflict = USSR arming India in its border confrontations w China esp 1962-63. Rjensen (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and that "insulting rhetoric" should not occupy part of the infobox in Wikipedia's own voice. Regarding the Sino-Indian conflict, according the lede of our article on that subject the Soviet Union was not providing assistance to India in the Sino-Indian War. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

the serious non-wikipedsia RS on India-USSR-China tensions after 1962 emphasize that Moscow made a major effort to arm India (with Mig) because of USSR-CHina split --see Chari, P. R. "Indo-Soviet Military Cooperation: A Review." Asian Survey 19.3 (1979): 230-244 online. As for rhetoric, the recent trend (last 30+ years) is "cultural" historiography = to emphasize language, rhetoric and tone even more than material factors such as number of jet warplanes. see https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/532855 If you leave the hatred and anger out and call it "geopolitics" or "ideology" you miss the real fight. Rjensen (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I am actually not deeply familiar with the brief Sino-Indian War, so perhaps there was some minor Soviet assistance to India that would be outside of my knowledge. That would take deeper research to review. The significant proxy conflicts involved Vietnam, Cambodia, and a few African nations in the '70s.

I maintain that the current infobox presentation is too fixated on details, employs biased political terminology ("revisionism"), and is not very helpful. In the bigger picture even de-Stalinization was less a factor in the split than geopolitical interests. China initially ignored de-Stalinization; de-Stalinization was promoted by Khrushchev by the time of the "Secret Speech" in 1956, whereas China continued to closely collaborate with the de-Stalinized Soviet Union for at least several years after; the bitter public debate on de-Stalinization between China and the USSR only took place in 1960-1962. And there already had been political differences between the Chinese communists and the USSR going back decades before that, to the 1920s and 1930s (Stalin had encouraged Mao to collaborate with Chiang Kai-shek instead of seeking to defeat him). However once Soviet and Chinese economic and geopolitical interests diverged more and more, Mao began attacking the Soviet Union using the cover of an ideological pretext, namely his opposition to de-Stalinization. He also alleged "Soviet revisionism" such as Khrushchev's pursuit of conciliatory policies toward the US and the West, which Mao himself went on to adopt in the 1970s, when China made its famed pivot to Richard Nixon. The reasons for the split would be better summarized as geopolitical and ideological differences, in that order. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Ended 1966?

Even after 1966 Sino and Soviet relations remained tense and they were still at ideological odds up till the Soviet collapse. So isn't it wrong to write 1956-1966 in the infobox? --Weaveravel (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Issues with tri-polar order claims

Hello The introduction and 'Resulted in' section of this article claim that the Sino-Soviet split resulted in a tri-polar cold war. This piece of information isn't directly cited anywhere and appears to be directly contradictory to the broadly accepted view of academics in International Relations. This is only a small piece of information, but it is untrue. Could somebody with more time and experience in formally editing Wikipedia pages please review these claims? I'm sure you'll find that it is widely accepted that the Cold War and international order remained bi-polar following the Sino-Soviet split. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.189.44 (talk) 08:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Khruschev's Denunciation of Stalin

I think there should be more about Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin, which angered Mao. Chinese Communists have often considered Stalin to be the last "good" Soviet leader.CessnaMan1989 (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)