However, China's revolution differed because the initial democratic establishment led to opposition from the Communist party while the formation of the U.S.S.R faced minimal opposition. In China, the Qing dynasty was ineffective, instead of trying to modernized as early as possible, it squandered what remained of its wealth and in doing so led to heavy losses in influence and power. Similarly, in Russia, The Tsars became ineffective, the decision to enter World War I had brought Russia to its knees socially, politically and economically. The Tsars also faced many scandals that would deface their influence in Russian cities. It was due to these reasons that both China and Russia were seeking to replace the government in power with new ones that would appeal to the population's demands.
By the late 1960’s, the relatively recent established relationship between the USSR and China had deteriorated to the extent that disagreements resulted in armed conflicts. It is believed that this is due to the ideological differences between the two nations. The two leaders of the communist states, Mao and Khrushchev, were both in different depths of the Cold War, to such a point where Khrushchev was hoping for peaceful co-existence, while Mao thought of that as a betrayal. On the other hand, there are many other factors with may contribute to the breakdown in relations, such as their individual personalities and the cooperation of the USA. But which factor played the greatest role in the breakdown of Sino-Soviet relations in the late 1960’s?
Khrushchev’s post Stalin policies began to irritate Mao; disagreeing when Khrushchev denounced Stalin in his speech to the twentieth congress 1956 and when he restored relations with Tito the Yugoslavia leader who also denounced Stalin. These occurrences shocked Mao, who had supported Stalin ideologically and politically, because Khrushchev was dismantling Mao's support of the USSR with public rejections of most of Stalin's leadership and actions, such as announcing the end of the Cominform, and, de-emphasising the core Marxist–Leninist thesis of inevitable war between capitalism and socialism. Resultantly, contradicting Stalin, Khrushchev was advocating the idea of "Peaceful Coexistence", between communist and capitalist nations—which directly challenged Mao's "lean-to-one-side" foreign policy, adopted after the Chinese Civil War. Therefore Mao accused Khrushchev of pursing a more revisionist approach and turning away from the traditional communism in order to maintain unity at home and leading Mao to focus more on national interest as he would increase independent actions of China from Moscow due to the ideological split with the USSR. Mao attempted to challenge
American strategy remained torn between simply containing Communism or rolling it back by actively supporting the Soviet Union’s opponents. For historians of the Cold War, the great debate has been between traditionalists who tend to see the United States as the defensive power in the Cold War (and the Soviet Union as the aggressor) and revisionist historians who tend to see the United States and the Soviet Union as equally aggressive and equally at fault. Revisionists (those critical of American foreign policy) are usually accused of forgetting the ‘lessons of Munich’. It is argued that World War Two arose partly because too many historians thought Germany was unjustly treated after World War One by the Treaty of
Mao adapted Communist ideas to China and he followed in Joseph Stalin’s footsteps by abusing his power and crippling the Chinese in fear with his totalitarian rule. In this essay I will be exploring the factors contributing to one of the biggest disputes in historical knowledge. Was Mao Zedong’s role in achieving communism genuine or has it been exaggerated and morphed by the Asian populations living under absolute despotism. “Idealism is no panacea in a totalitarian regime.” 1 - Quoted by a 20th century philosopher. It wasn’t said about Mao however it adapts to his ideas and aspirations.
If the Soviet Union were to gain more power than the U.S., that power would allow the Soviet Union to take over. The last reason for U.S. involvement is nationalism, which was also left over from WWI and WWII. Nationalism is having pride in one’s own nation. The U.S. wanted Vietnam to be able to have the chance of having nationalism, but something stood in the way. Communism had divided the countries of Vietnam, causing them to never be able to have Vietnam pride.
The departure of American and Soviet troops from Korea in 1949- The Russians left the communist government in the North with a strong, Soviet-equipped army. The Americans left the pro-Western government in the south with a fairly small military which was used to suppress internal opposition. The weakness of the south was a strong incentive to nationalists in the North Korean government who wanted to reunite the country again. North Korea attacks: June 24, 1950- The role of Soviet Union in North Korea's invasion plans remains unclear however there is reason to believe the North acted without Stalin's prior approval; this was stemmed from the vulnerability of the South and the fact that the American government implied that it did not consider
Is it reasonable to blame the breakdown of East-West relations that ultimately led to the cold war, on one or two men, is this rational, but even so, what roles did Stalin and Truman play and where can the blame of this breakdown of alliance and international relations be placed on. Many can argue that in one sense the origins of this breakdown of trust can be traced back to the 1917 Bolshevik revolution which set up the Soviet system - an alternative model of political, economic and social organization which proclaimed itself an enemy of and more significantly, the successor of the capitalist system. Communism was initially viewed by capitalist governments with great suspicion and during the civil war in Russia 1918 several capitalist states aided anti-communist forces and even though they were unsuccessful Stalin was still weary of these capitalist states and believed they still hoped to destroy the USSR. (Lowe, 2008) In many ways Stalin’s paranoia had stemmed from the actions of these capitalist states and it was this paranoia that clouded his senses and led him to make decisions that made Western governments wary of Stalin and the USSR. Roosevelt was keen to encourage closer ties with the USSR and although many Americans were skeptical, Roosevelt worked hard to keep the peace between America and the USSR.
Trotsky underestimated Stalin and what he was capable of (creating a triumvirate with Zinoviev and Kamenev, using this alliance to defeat him). He lost respect by not turning up to Lenin’s funeral, allowing Stalin to act as though he was closest to Lenin. Yet, the biggest mistake which Trotsky made was when he agreed not to publish Lenin’s
If USA didn’t drop the bombs, then it will give the USSR the chance to advance to china and influence those countries to Communism, therefore resulting in possibly sharing the occupation of Japan WITH USA after the war. Besides, it would suggest that the USA was afraid to use it. The US didn’t like that idea as the Americans and the office of Strategic services believed that Stalin have other plots and intentions, such as capturing the land’s resources and land. According to James Byrnes (Truman’s personal advisor), he made a comment in 1945, stating that he is worried and fretful about Russia’s spreading influence in eastern Europe. He also said that it will be impossible to persuade Russia to remove her troops from Poland and China and the island of Sakhalin unless they are shocked and impressed by American military strength.