Acharya wrote:What is not really told in the open source history books is the links between US and PRC top officials, US and Soviet leaders.
The links are through international power brokers. There are enough material in the internet.
IOW: Opinions from sources with no authority. Although there is value to such sources, they cannot be taken as the unvarnished truth and need to be shaken up and torn down to decipher for shreds of evidence and credibility around their view.
At a minimum, we should use appropriate qualifiers, when relying on such power brokers.
Stalin's death in 1953 had created a new situation in the Communist world. When Stalin died, Mao felt that he was now the senior leader, and he became increasingly resentful when the new Soviet leaders, Malenkov and Khrushchev, did not accord him the status he desired.
But Khrushchev's policies would begin to aggravate Mao. Mao did not openly dissent when Khrushchev denounced Stalin with his Secret Speech at the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1956, or when he restored relations with Tito's regime in Yugoslavia, which Stalin had renounced in 1947. But Mao had supported Stalin in many ways, both ideologically and politically, and Khrushchev had dismantled that support in a series of public and private speeches, deliberately rejecting virtually all of Stalin's leadership, announcing the end of the Cominform, and, most troublingly to Mao, also downplaying the core Marxist-Leninist thesis of inevitable armed conflict between capitalism and socialism.
Indeed, Khrushchev had attempted to dissolve the very condition which had made the 1950 Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship so attractive to Mao in the first place. Mao was infuriated at these actions, and increasingly felt that the Soviet leadership were retreating not only on the ideological front, fom Marxist-Leninism and from the struggle for the worldwide triumph of communism - but on the military front by no longer appearing to guarantee support to China, should the latter ever find itself in an engagement with the United States. By 1959, the stage was set for a rupture between the two Communist powers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_split
- only for nuclear technology know how transferred in spades to China - after the rupture? does not make any sense!
During 1962, international events caused a final rupture between the Soviet Union and China. Mao criticised Khrushchev for backing down in the Cuban missile crisis ("Khrushchev has moved from adventurism to capitulationism"), to which Khrushchev responded that Mao's policies would lead to a nuclear war. At the same time, the Soviets openly supported India in its brief war with China. These events were followed by formal statements of each side's ideological positions: the Chinese published The Chinese Communist Party's Proposal Concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement  in June 1963. The Soviets responded with Open Letter of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.  This was the last formal communication between the two parties.
1. Mao was criticising Kruschev for backing down on Cuba in 62 and at the same time US and PRC were talking and the US was winking at PRC for the Indo-China war, is what you suggest based on the above?
I think it is far more simple. Mao criticised Krushchev not so much for the ideological non sense but for the fact that he wanted to use the deflected US attention on Cuba for his campaign with India. He had a good read of Indian capabilities and his own and the only way India could have responded to a Chinese response was in allignment with the US. Mao did not want that as that had the potential to derail his mission. The tactic of withdrawing from NEFA, once it was known that India was considering US help in the war, speaks volumes more than any chanakian theory.
2. In the indo-china war, the Soviets did not openly support anyone, while in the back ground Kruschev had given a green light to Mao for the campaign. CCP institutional links with the USSR were far stronger than Nehru's feeble fabian socialism links.
US exploited the split long before 1972.
There was links between the PRC officials and US long before 1972.
The transcripts of Nixon, Kissinger talks with Chao En Lai shows as if they were in communication for a long time.
3. I do not see how and where these so called links existed and neither do these paragraphs suggest anything of that sort, notwithstanding your assertions.
Acharya: There are two issues here.
1. It seems, you are trying to pass suggested theories as hard fact and there is an obvious problem, when you try to do that
2. I am genuinely interested in these off beat theories but they have to sound credible, but they do not, at least to me.