Talk:Sino-Soviet split

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

message: 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)
thread_title: The Killing Fields

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Old talk

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Capitalism 

message: 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)
thread_title: Return to Normality

message: 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)
thread_title:  Zedong and Stalin Picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  causality of Sino-Soviet split 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Fake treaty"? 

message: 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)
thread_title: note on 1962

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Destroy soviet revisionists.jpg

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

message: 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 . 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)
thread_title: removed

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Serious POV problems

message: 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)
thread_title:  Map  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Russian advice on Chinese civil war^ 

message: 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)
thread_title: ignore value statements

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Soviet support for East Turkestan separatists 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Zimbabwe 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chronology  

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Perdured" or "persisted"? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ended 1966? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Issues with tri-polar order claims 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Khruschev's Denunciation of Stalin