Article contents
A Reply to the Kremlinologists
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2009
Abstract
![Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'](https://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS0305741000052292/resource/name/firstPage-S0305741000052292a.jpg)
- Type
- Comment
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The China Quarterly 1972
References
1. Michael, Yahuda, “Kremlinology and the Chinese Strategic Debate, 1965–66.” The China Quarterly, No. 49 (01–03 1972), pp. 32–75. The replies were published in No. 50 (April–June 1972), pp. 343–50.Google Scholar
2. Uri, Ra'anan, “Peking's Foreign Policy ‘Debate’, 1965–1966,” pp. 23–71; Donald S. Zagoria, “The Strategic Debate in Peking,” pp. 237–68. Both in Tang, Tsou (ed.) China in Crisis, Vol. 2 (University of Chicago Press, 1968).Google ScholarZagoria, Donald S., Vietnam Triangle (Pegasus N.Y., 1967).Google Scholar
3. See for example, Ionescu, G., Communism in Rumania 1944–1962 (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 316Google Scholar, or David, Floyd, Rumania; Russia's Dissident Ally (London and N.Y., 1965), pp. 72–75Google Scholar, or Ulam, Adam B., Expansion and Coexistence (London: Secker and Warburg, 1968), pp. 711–14.Google Scholar
4. John, Gittings, Survey of the Sino-Soviet DisputeGoogle Scholar, Griffith, W. E., Sino-Soviet Relations, 1964–1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Yahuda, , p. 74, for detailed analysis, see also pp. 66–7 and p. 59.Google Scholar
6. , Zagoria, Vietnam Triangle, pp. 67–8.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by