¹ Rosenau, James N., ed., Linkage Politics (New York: Free Press 1969), 4–5Google Scholar.

² Brooks, , “Domestic Violence and America's Wars: An Historical Interpretation,” in Graham, Hugh D. and Gurr, Ted R., eds., Violence in America (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office 1969), 407–21Google Scholar.

³ Schurmann, Franz and Schell, Orville, Republican China (New York: Vintage 1967), 148–49Google Scholar.

⁴ Gordon, , The Dimensions of Conflict in Southeast Asia (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall 1966), 86–96Google Scholar.

⁵ Clubb, O. Edmund, Twentieth Century China (New York: Columbia University Press 1972), 24–33Google Scholar.

⁶ Fainsod, Merle, How Russia is Ruled (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1963), 90–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ Burr, Robert N., “Argentina and Chile,” in Spiegel, Steven L. and Waltz, Kenneth N., eds., Conflict in World Politics (Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop 1961), 155–76;Google ScholarHolsti, Ole R. and others, , “Measuring Affect and Action in International Reaction Models: Empirical Materials from the 1962 Cuban Crisis,” in Rosenau, James N., ed., International Politics and Foreign Policy (New York: Free Press 1969), 679–96Google Scholar.

⁸ Sorokin, Pitirim A., Social and Cultural Dynamics (New York: American Book Co. 1937), iiiGoogle Scholar.

⁹ Rummel, R. J., “Dimensions of Foreign and Domestic Conflict Behavior: A Review of Empirical Findings,” in Pruitt, Dean G. and Snyder, Richard C., eds., Theory and Research on the Causes of War (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall 1969), 219–28Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Tanter, , “Dimensions of Conflict Within and Between Nations, 1958-60,” Journal oj Conflict Resolution, X (03 1966), 48–64Google Scholar.

¹¹ Coser, , The Functions of Social Conflict (New York: Free Press 1969), 87–94Google Scholar.

¹² Wilkenfeld, , “Domestic and Foreign Conflict Behavior of Nations,” in Coplin, William D., ed., A Multi-Method Introduction to International Politics (Chicago: Markham 1971), 109–204Google Scholar.

¹³ Articulated external hostility in this study indicates the hostility as expressed by mass media and mass protest.

¹⁴ Whiting, Allen S., “Foreign Policy of Communist China,” in Macridis, Roy C., ed., Foreign Policy in World Politics (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall 1972), 289–319Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Dutt, Vidya Prakash, China and the World: An Analysis of Communist China's Foreign Policy (New York: Praeger 1966), 1–2Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Ibid. Also see Halperin, Morton H. and Perkins, Dwight H., Communist China and Arms Control (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1965), 21–22Google Scholar. The authors argue that there was a close relation between a hardening foreign policy line and a similar domestic policy line in 1958, perhaps even into 1960.

¹⁷ See Liao, Kuang-sheng and Whiting, Allen S., “Chinese Press Perceptions of Threat: The U.S. and India, 1962,” China Quarterly, No. 53 (01-03 1973), 80–97Google Scholar.

¹⁸ “New Victory for the Japanese People,” People's Daily, editorial, 06 24, 1960Google Scholar.

¹⁹ “The Ugly Face of Socialist Imperialism,” People's Daily, 10 22, 1968Google Scholar; “The Soviet Revisionist All-out Collaboration with Japanese Reactionaries,” People's Daily, 12 20, 1968Google Scholar.

²⁰ Rosecrance, , Action and Reaction in World Politics (Boston: Little, Brown 1963), 298–99Google Scholar.

²¹ Haas, Ernst and Whiting, Allen S., Dynamics of International Relations (New York: McGraw-Hill 1956), 62Google Scholar.

²² Kim, Ilpyong J., “Mass Mobilization Policies and Techniques Developed in the Period of the Chinese Soviet Republic,” in Barnett, A. Doak, ed., Chinese Communist Politics in Action (Seattle: University of Washington Press 1969), 78–98Google Scholar.

²³ Mark Selden, “The Yenan Legacy: Th e Mass Line,” ibid., 99-215; Johnson, Chalmers, “Chinese Communist Leadership and Mass Response,” in Ho, Ping-ti and Tsou, Tang, eds., China in Crisis, I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1968), 397–473Google Scholar.

²⁴ Selected Worlds of Mao Tse-tung, I (Peking: Foreign Language Press 1964), 162–65Google Scholar.

²⁵ For the Japanese role in peasant mobilization, see Johnson, Chalmers, Peasant Nationalism and Communist Power (Stanford: Stanford University Press 1962), 21–70Google Scholar.

²⁶ “Selected Readings from the Works of Mao Tse-tung (Peking: Foreign Language Press 1967), 130–32Google Scholar.

²⁷ Solomon, Richard, Mao's Revolution and the Chinese Political Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press 1971), 388Google Scholar.

²⁸ On China's foreign relations, see Gurtov, Melvin, “The Foreign Ministry and Foreign Affairs during the Cultural Revolution,” China Quarterly, No. 40 (10-12 1969), 65–102Google Scholar.

²⁹ On internal political struggles, see Rice, Edward E., Mao's Way (Berkeley: University of California Press 1972)Google Scholar.

³⁰ In 1966, when Mao began to intensify his control, power struggles were taking place in the Propaganda Department of the Central Committee and in the institute of People's Daily. The first reorganization of the Propaganda Department took place in June 1966, when Lu Ting-i was replaced by Tao Chu as Minister. However, this change in the staff of the Propaganda Department did not put the Department under Mao's control. Tao Chu was reported to have close links with the Liu-Teng group and resisted Mao's direction. Consequently, Mao launched a second reorganization of the Propaganda Department in January 1967, in which he replaced Tao Chu and put Wang Li in charge. But this new arrangement lasted only about three months. In April 1967, Mao dissolved the Propaganda Department and put its affairs under the direct control of the Central Cultural Revolution Group, led by Chiang Ch'ing and Ch'en Po-ta. Consequently, all mass media have been under the direct supervision of Mao and his close associates in the Central Group since April 1967. After seizing control of the Propaganda Department and the mass media, the Maoists lost no time in utilizing the media as a powerful weapon to arouse support for their programs and opposition to the Liu-Teng group.

³¹ It may be argued that serious disputes among Maoists existed. However, there is little evidence that they concerned foreign policy problems.

³² Haas and Whiting (fn. 21), 62.

³³ See People's Daily, editorial, February 10, 1967; also Chang, Parris H., “The Revolutionary Committee in China, Two Case Studies: Heilungkiang and Honan,” Current Scene, VI, No. 2 (06 1, 1968), 1–22Google Scholar.

³⁴ This includes U.S. military activities in Thailand, the Philippines, Laos, Cambodia, Taiwan, and Japan.

³⁵ There were two practical difficulties that prevented me from obtaining data for the actual activities of the Soviet Union and the United States. First, these actions were not completely disclosed by the two governments. Reports in Soviet and American newspapers are clearly conditioned by governmental suppression of news and by editors' interests and prejudices. Second, Soviet and U.S. activities varied substantially in nature. The great variety of these activities and the lack of detailed material make it extremely difficult to use any single criterion of measurement. To avoid these problems I used reports in People's Daily, treating them as perceived rather than actual external factors.

³⁶ Reports by People's Daily might be biased due to the geographical distance, the nature of communication between the local region and People's Daily, and the emphasis of the editor. Because of these possibilities the data are not considered as factual; instead, they represent the attitude and the encouragement of the press in these local struggles.

³⁷ In the power-seizure campaign, the factor analysis reveals five important groups of provinces. The first group is best represented by Ninghsia and includes Tientsin, Hopei, Kirin, Kiangsu, Anhwei, Kiangsi, Hupei, Kwantung, and Kansu. The second group includes Shansi and Heilungkiang. The third group is best represented by Szechwan and includes Shensi, Kwangsi, and Honan. The fourth group includes Shanghai and Peking. The fifth group consists of Kweichou alone.

With reference to the denunciation campaign, the factor analysis reduces 29 provinces into six major groups. The first group is best represented by Shanghai and includes Peking, Shansi, and Inner Mongolia. The second group is best represented by Kwangtung and includes Kirin, Shantung, Honan, Szechwan, and Kiangsu. The third group is best represented by Liaoning and includes Kiangsi and Hupei. The fourth includes Kansu and Tsinghai. The fifth includes Kweichou and Heilungkiang. The sixth includes Hopei and Hunan. My paper, “China's Internal Power Struggle and Articulated Hostility Toward the Soviet Union, 1967-February 1969” (unpub.), provides a detailed discussion of these groups.

³⁸ Stepwise Regression Program in MIDAS package of the Statistical Research Laboratory of the University of Michigan.

³⁹ See fn. 12.