this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2024
97 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13538 readers
827 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
LENINSGHOSTFACEKILLA@hexbear.net
MiraculousMM@hexbear.net
KenBonesWildRide@hexbear.net
Nakoichi@hexbear.net
itsPina@hexbear.net
corgiwithalaptop@hexbear.net
PorkrollPosadist@hexbear.net
ZoomeristLeninist@hexbear.net
EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net
InsidiousTrackers@hexbear.net
sweet_pecan@hexbear.net
a_little_red_rat@hexbear.net
97
why did the sino-soviet split have to happen? (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 1 month ago by borschtisgarbo@lemmygrad.ml to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
55 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ComradeMonotreme@hexbear.net 55 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Generally I feel with the Sino Soviet split, USSR was right for the wrong reason, PRC wrong for the right reasons.

[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@hexbear.net 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What?

[–] Redcuban1959@hexbear.net 46 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Khrushchev (Cornman) was a cringe revisionist, but he did some good stuff. China was right on being critical of Cornman, but their actions after that were cringe.

[–] ComradeMonotreme@hexbear.net 8 points 1 month ago

Yeah pretty much Krushchev and the USSR were usually on the correct side (Cuba, Vietnam etc).

The PRC were often correct in their criticism of the USSR's revisionism but lead to bad stuff like supporting Pol Pot and the Muhjahaden.