Comparative Analysis Of Chinese And Russian Standpoints Regarding The Reasons Of Sino-soviet Diplomatic Frictions In 1950-1960

From 1950 till 1960, when China and the Soviet Union maintained ? friendly ? relationship, sino-soviet diplomatic relationship went from coalition to conflict (it was when all soviet specialists have left China). Chinese and Russian historians did a lot of research to understand the reasons of this conflict, and many different conclusions have been drawn.The first part of this article exposes sino-soviet relationship during Stalinist period (1950-1953). During this period both countries had common interests, somehow, there already existed some frictions. Chinese and Russian historians working on that period were concentrating their research on 3 main points.The first point concerns the sino-soviet treaty of friendship and mutual help and the agreement that corresponds to that treaty. Chinese and Russian specialists consider this treaty as strategic, and the only ambiguous points were Manchurian railway and Port-Arthur, for which soviet government finally made concessions. The main difference in Chinese and Russian point of view was the fact that Chinese historians consider this treaty as not equal while Russians are denying that. Chinese think that Mao Zedong didn't want to sign the treaty at the beginning and Russians think that Mao wanted to sign, but asked to modify some parts of the agreement. Other Chinese sources indicate that the name of the treaty was designed by Chinese counterpart while Russian historians claim that Soviet part produce it by themself after the discussion with the Chinese counterpart. Finally, Russian specialists think that Chinese government didn't want to keep the text of the sino-soviet treaty of 1945 as it was and asked to change it because soviet government signed it with the Guomindang.The second point concerns soviet specialists sent to China. Chinese and Russians think that specialists were very useful in China. Chinese historians do not deny that it was great help but claim that Russians"ideologically inspired Chinese population"and that was one of the main reasons of sino-soviet diplomatic conflict. Russian historians insist on great help soviet specialists brought to the Chinese economy at that time and claim that all the conflicts in this area were instigated by the Chinese side.The third point concerns the"material"help that Soviet Union was providing to China. Russians claim that Soviet Union's economy after the Second World War was weak and that's why Soviet Union was limiting provision of goods to China. Chinese are denying that. Chinese historians consider that the loan that Soviet Union provided to China was strictly related to compensation for China getting involved in the Korean War and was nothing to do with helping China to revive its economy. Regarding the creation of joint-stock companies, Chinese historian claim that Soviet Union wanted to dominate Chinese economy. Russian historians claim that the loan was given strictly for strategic purposes and that the creation of four joint stock companies was mutually beneficial.The second part of this article highlights the differences of Chinese and Russian publications in their interpretations of sino-soviet diplomatic relationship during the early Khrushchev period (1953-1956). During this period sino-soviet diplomatic relations were officially good, but some frictions existed at the same time. Regarding these frictions Chinese and Russian historians maintain different points of view.At first, after the 20th Assembly of the Soviet Union communist party, there were several criticism from the Chinese side. Many historians think, that Khrushchev's thesis about socialist countries and capitalist countries peaceful coexistence broadcasted during the communist party assembly was one of the reasons the sino-soviet diplomatic relationship degradation in 60s. It indicated that that Soviet and Chinese policy on capitalism were different at that time.Later came the political crisis in Poland and Hungary. Chinese historians think that China as a socialist country should helped USSR to solve the political crisis in Eastern Europe. Russian historians maintain the position that this was not necessary and claim that Chinese historic books are exaggerating the Chinese contribution into handling Polish and Hungarian events.The third part of this article describes Chinese and Russian differences in points of view on historiography of Khrushchev's late ruling period (1957– 1960). This is a crucial point in sino-soviet diplomatic relationship, after which, two countries joint path separated. This chapter debates three following points.Firstly, soviet government criticism of China regarding"Big leap"and"Popular communes"policy. Soviet government was never optimistic about Mao's policy, but at the beginning it chosed to do not show it. Russian sources show, that soviet government didn't like Chinese political orientation at the end of 50s and claimed it created a tension in sino-soviet diplomatic relationship.Secondly, the claims of ideological disagreement between China and USSR were hyper inflated by Chinese side. Thirdly, differences in national interests and international strategy for both countries lead to frictions between China and the USSR. Chinese historians claim that these friction was the pretext for both countries to"break up". Russian historians claim that it is not due to both countries internal politic but the fact that USSR was more developed economically.In conclusion, we can say, that despite differences in Chinese and Russian publication concerning the question of sino-soviet frictions during the Cold War during, there are many common and objective points of view on the subject.