Editing Sino-Soviet split (section)

=== Monolithic communism fractured ===
[[File:Jupiter IRBM.jpg|thumb|right|250px|In late 1962, the [[Cuban Missile Crisis]] concluded when the US and the USSR respectively agreed to remove intermediate-range [[PGM-19 Jupiter]] nuclear missiles from Italy and Turkey, and to remove intermediate-range [[R-12 Dvina]] and [[R-14 Chusovaya]] nuclear missiles from Cuba. In the context of the Sino-Soviet split, Mao said that the USSR's military stand-down was Khrushchev's betrayal of Marxist–Leninist geopolitics.]]

In late 1961, at the [[22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union|22nd Congress of the CPSU]], the PRC and the USSR revisited their doctrinal disputes about the orthodox interpretation and application of Marxism–Leninism.<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,873466,00.html One-Third of the Earth] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110204212557/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,873466,00.html |date=4 February 2011 }}, ''Time'', 27 October 1961</ref> In December 1961, the USSR broke diplomatic relations with Albania, which escalated the Sino-Soviet disputes from the political-party level to the national-government level.

During the [[Yi–Ta incident]] from March to May 1962, over 60,000 Chinese citizens, mostly ethnic Kazakhs driven in part by uncertainty over the Sino-Soviet split, crossed the border from [[Xinjiang]] into [[Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic|Soviet Kazakhstan]].<ref>{{cite journal |last=Kraus |first=Charles |title=Laying Blame for Flight and Fight: Sino-Soviet Relations and the 'Yi–Ta' Incident in Xinjiang, 1962 |journal=The China Quarterly |date=June 2019 |volume=238 |doi=10.1017/S0305741018001789 |s2cid=159226403 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/abs/laying-blame-for-flight-and-fight-sinosoviet-relations-and-the-yita-incident-in-xinjiang-1962/D22C7C77E535CCE504AE7512D2C9015F |language=en |issn=0305-7410 |access-date=13 January 2024 |archive-date=5 January 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240105022350/https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/abs/laying-blame-for-flight-and-fight-sinosoviet-relations-and-the-yita-incident-in-xinjiang-1962/D22C7C77E535CCE504AE7512D2C9015F |url-status=live |pages=516–517|url-access=subscription }}</ref> In late 1962, the PRC broke relations with the USSR because Khrushchev did not go to war with the US over the [[Cuban Missile Crisis]]. Regarding that Soviet loss-of-face, Mao said that "Khrushchev has moved from adventurism to capitulationism" with a negotiated, bilateral, military stand-down. Khrushchev replied that Mao's belligerent foreign policies would lead to an East–West nuclear war.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ibiblio.org/chinesehistory/contents/03pol/c05s04.html|title=Exploring Chinese History: Politics: International Relations: Sino- Soviet Relations|author=Richard R. Wertz|website=ibiblio.org|access-date=15 April 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160407175611/http://www.ibiblio.org/chinesehistory/contents/03pol/c05s04.html|archive-date=7 April 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> For the Western powers, the averted atomic war threatened by the Cuban Missile Crisis made [[nuclear disarmament]] their political priority. To that end, the US, the UK, and the USSR agreed to the [[Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty]] in 1963, which formally forbade [[Nuclear weapons testing|nuclear-detonation tests]] in the [[Atmosphere of Earth|Earth's atmosphere]], in [[outer space]], and [[under water]] – yet did allow the underground testing and detonation of atomic bombs. In that time, the PRC's nuclear-weapons program, [[Project 596]], was nascent, and Mao perceived the test-ban treaty as the nuclear powers' attempt to thwart the PRC's becoming a nuclear superpower.{{sfnp|Chi-Kwan|2013|pages=53–55}}

Between 6 and 20 July 1963, a series of Soviet-Chinese negotiations were held in Moscow. However, both sides maintained their own ideological views and, therefore, negotiations failed.<ref>Mihai Croitor, Sanda Borşa (2014), Moscova 1963: eşecul negocierilor sovieto-chineze, Editura Eikon & Editura Mega, p.23-299</ref> In March 1964, the [[Romanian Communist Party|Romanian Workers' Party]] publicly announced the intention of the Bucharest authorities to mediate the Sino-Soviet conflict. In reality, however, the Romanian mediation approach represented only a pretext for forging a Sino-Romanian rapprochement, without arousing the Soviets' suspicions.<ref>Mihai Croitor, (2009) România şi conflictul sovieto-chinez (1956-1971), Editura Mega, p.250-284;Mihai Croitor, From Moscow to Beijing Romania and the Mediation of the Sino-Soviet Split, Transylvanian Review, Vol. 21, p. 449-459</ref>

Romania was neutral in the Sino-Soviet split.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NWwRzLr-Y7MC&q=%22they+remained+neutral%22|title=Civilization in the West|first1=Crane|last1=Brinton|first2=John B.|last2=Christopher|first3=Robert Lee|last3=Wolff|date=24 January 1973|publisher=Prentice-Hall|isbn=9780131350120|via=Google Books|access-date=28 July 2021|archive-date=28 July 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210728220404/https://books.google.ro/books?id=NWwRzLr-Y7MC&q=%22they+remained+neutral%22|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lnBnN7tqFSoC&q=%22Soviet-led+efforts+at+condemning+China%22|title=Today's Isms: Communism, Fascism, Capitalism, Socialism|first1=William|last1=Ebenstein|first2=Edwin|last2=Fogelman|date=24 January 1980|publisher=Prentice-Hall|isbn=9780139243998|via=Google Books|access-date=28 July 2021|archive-date=28 July 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210728221749/https://books.google.ro/books?id=lnBnN7tqFSoC&q=%22Soviet-led%2Befforts%2Bat%2Bcondemning%2BChina%22|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8ExpAAAAMAAJ&q=%22strict+neutrality%22|title=Romania: Politics, Economics and Society : Political Stagnation and Simulated Change|first=Michael|last=Shafir|date=24 January 1985|publisher=Pinter|isbn=9780861874385|via=Google Books|access-date=28 July 2021|archive-date=28 July 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210728220407/https://books.google.ro/books?hl=en&id=8ExpAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22strict+neutrality%22|url-status=live}}</ref> Its neutrality along with being the small communist country with the most influence in global affairs enabled Romania to be recognized by the world as the "third force" of the communist world. Romania's independence - achieved in the early 1960s through its [[De-satellization of the Socialist Republic of Romania|freeing from its Soviet satellite status]] - was tolerated by Moscow because Romania was surrounded by socialist states and because its ruling party was not going to abandon communism.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hafLHZgZtt4C&pg=PA1075,|title=Europe Since 1945: An Encyclopedia|first1=Bernard A.|last1=Cook|first2=Bernard Anthony|last2=Cook|date=24 January 2001|publisher=Taylor & Francis|isbn=9780815340584|via=Google Books|access-date=28 July 2021|archive-date=28 July 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210728214456/https://books.google.ro/books?id=hafLHZgZtt4C&pg=PA1075,|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=j2KzAAAAIAAJ&q=%22third+force%22|title=The Reporter|first=Max|last=Ascoli|date=24 January 1965|publisher=Reporter Magazine, Company|via=Google Books|access-date=28 July 2021|archive-date=28 July 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210728214457/https://books.google.ro/books?hl=en&id=j2KzAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22third%2Bforce%22|url-status=live}}</ref> [[North Korea]] under [[Kim Il Sung]] also remained neutral because of its strategic status after the [[Korean War]], although it later moved more decisively towards the USSR after [[Deng Xiaoping]]'s [[reform and opening up]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Cha |first=Victor D. |url=http://archive.org/details/impossiblestaten0000chav_j2c1 |title=The Impossible State: North Korea, Past and Future |publisher=Ecco |year=2013 |isbn=978-0-06-199850-8 |location=New York |pages=29–30 |language=en}}</ref>

The [[Italian Communist Party]] (PCI), one of the largest and most politically influential communist parties in Western Europe, adopted an ambivalent stance towards Mao's split from the USSR. Although the PCI chastised Mao for breaking the previous global unity of socialist states and criticised the Cultural Revolution brought about by him, it simultaneously applauded and heaped praise on him for the People's Republic of China's enormous assistance to [[North Vietnam]] in its war against [[South Vietnam]] and the United States.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Clivio |first1=Carlotta |date=20 December 2018 |title=Neither for, nor against Mao: PCI-CCP interactions and the normalisation of Sino-Italian Relations, 1966–71 |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14682745.2018.1529758 |journal=[[Cold War History (journal)|Cold War History]] |volume=19 |issue=3 |pages=383–400 |doi=10.1080/14682745.2018.1529758 |s2cid=158702260 |access-date=13 February 2023}}</ref>

As a Marxist–Leninist, Mao was much angered that Khrushchev did not go to war with the US over their failed [[Bay of Pigs Invasion]] and the [[United States embargo against Cuba]] of continual economic and agricultural sabotage. For the Eastern Bloc, Mao addressed those Sino-Soviet matters in "Nine Letters" critical of Khrushchev and his leadership of the USSR. Moreover, the break with the USSR allowed Mao to reorient the development of the PRC with formal relations (diplomatic, economic, political) with the countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.{{sfnp|Chi-Kwan|2013|pages=53–55}}