 |
|
ahenobarb
|
|
I'd recommend Kissinger's "Diplomacy". It goes well beyond Sino-Soviet-Us relations during the period, but gives a very good understanding of what was going on.
Also, "A Preponderance of Power" by Melvyn P. Leffler goes in depth about the early US approach to both the USSR and Communist China.
You'll have a hard time finding a book on that subject that isn't overly specific (Sino-Soviet rift) or overly broad (Cold War history). I'd try to pin down a good all around Cold War history and read that, then decide what particular events interest you the most.
What I have studied were books about particular events or periods, rather than a broad compendium.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
ahenobarb
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Andy-Man
Thats interesting, would you like to explain further your opinion?
Personaly, the Soviet-sino split was a great example of the splits in Socialist ideology. I mean, there are so many interpretations of how to spread marx's ideas, and even more so many interpretations on what he actually meant. Really, the USSR and PRC seemed to miss the point of co-operation.
Another group of Communists would have probably united the PRC and USSR is a 'Peaples Federated Republic' or something - as communism is internationalist. |
States don't work together over broadly shared ideology, they work together because they have common interests (this was the mistake the US made at the beginning of the CW they thought the USSR & China were going to work closely together). The USSR (and the US) believed that they, the Soviet Union, were the Communist champions in the world and China should toe the line. China didn't want to play second fiddle to anyone.
Also China and the Vietnamese are traditional rivals, so China eventually cutoff USSR supplies going through China to Vietnam. The Russian had to ship everything in after that.
Sort of like France and the US today, the US sees itself as the leader of the free world. But France wants to assert its foreign policy independence. Or like the Ba'athist parties in Syria and Iraq: they split in the 50's because each saw themselves as the true leader of the movement.
Last edited by ahenobarb on 18-03-2003 at 23:31
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ahenobarb
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Andy-Man
I agree entirley, states co-operate through interests, not ideology. But communism is specificly an internationalist ideology, and i think the original idea of 'world communism' meant that 2 communist nations are one nation, if you see what i mean. |
The original idea did mean that, but it was a false assumption. Check out "A prepondance of power" if you're interested in how that presumption came about. It may be a bit thick (cir. ~400 pags), but its a good read.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-03-2003 04:11
|