Talk:Cold War/Archive 3

What's the cause?!
I find it odd that there's absolutely no discussion as to what the CAUSE of the Cold War was. 69.138.24.96 20:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoprotection
Many recent edits by anonymous users have consisted of wholesale blanking of entire sections. In certain cases the information being deleted deals with actual historic events; in other instances, reference is taken from other articles in Wikipedia. Suggest the article be submitted for dispute resolution if further such editing continues.--Pkuchinski 21:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Is it really a good idea to use an actual pseudoprotection template here? That policy was rejected.  Also, not all the editors were anonymous. -- Wisq 21:41, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Hey i just found out about Wikis and i have to say im very impressed that 250,000 people can work in harmony, but to the point i just registered AFTER i did an addition to the cold war page, under the arms race (last paragraph, rather long but i like it), if i need backup evidence for that just tell me, thanks - Ayaines 03:26 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Sides of the Cold War
The Cold War featured more then just the Eastern and Western blocs. Arguably the wars between the Arab world and Israel were part of it. Neither Vietnam nor China fit in the Eastern Bloc (usually defined as either Comecon or Warsaw Pact). Not to mention the US-supported Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afganistan. The Taliban is not at all ideologically aligned with the USA, certainly not with the Western Bloc, nonethless, were part of the armed camps of the Cold War.

I think the sides of the Cold War shouldn't be a simplistic "east VS west" but rather something like "The enduring struggle remained throughout the Cold War between the United States and its NATO allies VS the Soviet Union and the members of the Warsaw Pact. However, at varying times different states and organisations (usually revolutionary) would join, out of ideology or pragmatism, one side or the other. The more loosely aligned states and organisations were often the direct participants in "hot" conflicts of the Cold War and examples include Communist China, Vietnam, Nasser's Egypt and the Taliban." --CJWilly 21:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The Cold War featured more then just the Eastern and Western blocs. The last two articles in the series probably do more than enough to make abundantly clear the roles of the emerging nations in the Cold War. (In some places North/South tensions even get more attention than East/West tensions... At any rate, the function of the main article is only to introduce the subject in the broadest terms, so starting off with a discussion of the East/West conflict is fine. 172 22:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I second thought, I saw the need to add a note on how the Cold War eventually gave way to a more complicated pattern of international relations in which the world was no longer clearly split into two clearly opposed blocs in this article. I added a new paragraph in the "characteristics" section. 172 22:15, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW - the US never supported the Taliban, they did not exist during that time in history. We did support mujahideen (spelling?) fighters who were fighting against the Soviets, some of which later became the Taliban. Get your facts straight. --66.82.9.61 00:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The US did support the Taliban allright. They might not have that time at the time, but it was the very same group of people, ideals and politics. If I get a loan at a bank and change my name afterwards, Im still the one owns some money to the bank. The US did that because it was convinient for them, at the time, to support groups that would oppose, hinder or demoralize Soviet troops on the globe, as it is convinient, as of today, to call them all terrorists and sentencing them all to death as an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan to have a better grasp of 80%+ of the worlds oil production.LtDoc 03:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Exceptionalism?
I just finished copy-editing this and meanwhile someone removed it:

The Role of American Exceptionalism in the Cold War
Historians have given many interpretations to the cause of the Cold War. Most center upon the faults and crimes of the Soviet Union and its socialist ideology. There is no doubt that these played a large and crucial part in the Cold War. However, the faults of the United States are often overlooked. Many, if not all, of these faults can be attributed to American Exceptionalism throughout the Cold War.


 * Many, if not all, of these faults can be attributed to American Exceptionalism throughout the Cold War.


 * What we have here is inherently a personal essay and original research, arguing the thesis above, and certainly one that many users will dispute. We already touch upon what is argued in this essay in the historiography section, but in a more nuanced and balanced way. 172 07:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The idea of American Exceptionalism is a central theme in the Cold War and throughout American history. American Exceptionalism can be traced throughout American history, beginning with Perry Miller&#8217;s view of the Puritan vision of a "city upon a hill." This ideology is described by Siobhan McEvoy-Levy as the American belief in its own United States foreign policy has roots that can be traced back to this ideology.

A large part of this ideology is the American mission. The idea is that, being the most wealthiest, advanced, and moral nation, the United States has a responsibility to the rest of the world. Additionally, it is felt that the United States gains justification for this mission from God, because of their morality, and reason, because of their wealth. This idea grew and evolved with the country. As the United States&#8217; power and influence grew, so did its Exceptionalism and its need to spread its ideals to the world, remaking it as itself. the cold war is like GAY.

Lloyd C. Gardner asserts that American Exceptionalism was at root of the United States&#8217; policy-makers decision making during the Cold War. Gardener goes on to say that the true threat of the Soviet Union was that its ideologies appeared attractive to the peoples of Europe. What if the world chose the Soviet, socialist path? The United States had to protect the world from making this "mistake". America&#8217;s Cold War crusade, McEvoy-Levy says, was legitimized by its Exceptionalism. The United States&#8217; aggression throughout the world could then be rationalized, even held in high esteem. The United States wasn&#8217;t expanding its empire; it was enlightening the world with the American dream and the ideals upon which that is built.

The interaction with Third World countries was not seen as exploitation, but helpful influence. The Cold War, or something like it, was seen as inevitable. However, it can be argued that it did not need to reach the extent that it did. Some feel that most of the blame for the length of the Cold War should fall on the United States&mdash;that because of American Exceptionalism, the US exaggerated the Soviet Unions threat and unreasonably dragged out the Cold War.

Despite the merit of many of these arguments, the fact remains that Communism failed the USSR despite what could have been advantages. For example, the command economy which allowed such feats of armament also deprived the people of their basic needs, going against the stated principals of Communism; that it is for the people. Both Communism and Capitalism can be seen to be corrupt, however those who believe in Capitalism and Democracy would point out that at least there is some form of oversight to prevent the corruption from going to the core&mdash;at the very least, the fear of those in power of losing their power. These very same fears in a Communist regime drive those in power to consolidate their power, at the expense of rather than assisting in effective governing. Perhaps the greatest failure of Communism is the dichotomy between the words and the deeds. How many of the Peoples' countries are truly looking out for their people?

Nvinen 02:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The work above is as clear an example of a personal essay/original research as anything can possibly be. It will be subject to immediate removal. 172 22:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just read the article, and I must say, I'm disappointed. This is an example of liberal bias. In the section "Exceptionalism", there is a sentence "Much, if not all, of United States foreign policy has roots that can be traced back to this ideology." Whoever made that remark needs to back it up with proof, not the opinions of a single liberal historian. Also, where is the mention of Stalin's speechs, where he basically says that global communism can never succeed until capitalism has been destroyed? This article is an attempt at making America and the USSR equally responsible for the Cold War. What a crock of shit. Is there any mention of Kruschev's (spelling?) "we will bury you" comments? What about the Cuban missile crises? Too much space is dedicated to showing how historians disagree about the cold war, and not enough is dedicated to the major events of the cold war. This article is a disappointment and needs to be fixed. Liberal bias belongs in America's public school system, not in wikipedia.

Why isnt the causes of the USSR's downfall listed?

Let me guess, if a person comes into your home and tries to kill you, they are not evil, just of a different opinion, an opinon I should respect, right?

This article is an example of why wikipedia will never make it in education, in its current form.
 * I agree with you. However, the section on "American exceptionalism" is not an established part of the article. It is just a section that has been added by a newbie/anon over the past couple of days that I keep removing... Don't worry. I will keep removing it. 172 23:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Why isnt the causes"? What has killing an intruder got to do with the Cold War? What is wrong with liberalism per se has a long tradition - and how historians interprete events is part of the issue.

As for complaining about certain areas not being covered - write them.

Is 172 too blind to realize that historians rewrite the history as their ideals see fit? Isnt obvious to anyone that the current superpower in the world today would see fit (and meta analazying, "rightful" and "natural" to do) that history to be written as would best suit and justify USAs view on the world? The "I´ll keep removing it" sounds amazingly like a Borg collective to me.LtDoc

Spain
I deleted the following because there was no supporting evidence. Could somebody verify it and put it back if they can prove it? The term Cold War has origins in Spain in the 1490s, when the word was coined by a Spanish monk to describe the state of affairs between the recently defeated Moors and (Christian) Spanish populations.. RickK 21:01, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be confusion over when the term was first used. In the beginning section of the article, it says it was first used in 1947. At the bottom, it says Orwell coined it in '45. And above is talk of it all the way back in the 15th century. Trull


 * In fact it seems that the term has first been invented by Orwell in 1945 and then popularized by Bernard Baruch and Walter Lippmann in 1947, as this site state. Nova77 12:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Orwell only got major recognition for that until well after he became much better known than he was in 1945. He just happened to use the term first. Even so, I'm not interested in a fight and I'll modify my additions accordingly. NEW WORLD ORDER 13:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pictures
Why does this article have no pictures? I know there was minimal fighting, but I would still like to see some pictures of the times, the people, etc. --Zeerus 19:46, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Why is a picture featured twice? And why with the text 'all its glory'? --CJWilly 12:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

seventeen nuclear crisis
I added an entry. Doesnt go with the report, then again two cases are closely related. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Peacekeeper missile.jpg twice
Why is the Image:Peacekeeper missile.jpg included twice? nyenyec &#9742; 17:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It ought not to be. Which one do we keep and which do we remove? -- Wisq 18:42, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War
"It should be noted that some historians place the beginning of the Cold War as far back as 1937, when Joseph Stalin attempted to gain control of Spain"

Sounds really bizarre. First, the Spanish Civil War started in 1936; secondly, Stalin measured his support to the loyalist Republicans, since he did not want to upset his relations with Germany and Italy in the context of the non-agression pact. Stating, as a fact, that "Joseph Stalin attempted to gain control of Spain", is really bold. Rama 09:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Reference is The Fifty Year War: Conflict and Strategy in the Cold War by Dr. Norman Friedman.--Pkuchinski 15:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I know that that book warms the hearts of Reaganites and right-wing bloggers, and at times he is criticized for ascribing Soviet behavior too much on the imperatives of their 'expansionist' ideology. Even so, he is a serious scholar, and, stated like that, I doubt that the paraphrasing is carefully done. It seems like an over-simplified extrapolation of his argument rather than his argument. Further, even if you can substantiate your take on his work, Friedman should be passed on in favor of other authorities when it comes to this subject. His book is recognized as a standard military account, not anything near a major contribution to our understand of the origins of the Cold War. If the intro is going to cite anyone's periodiziation, someone like (say) Gaddis or LaFeber would be appropriate. 172 20:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

US, Soviet Flags and NATO/Warsaw Pact Map
Should we keep those items in the article in some way? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 13:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * No. The U.S. and the USSR were not the only actors in the Cold War. Memberships in NATO and the Warsaw Pact varied over time, which cannot be taken into account in a single map. Further, it's not that Europe was the only arena of the Cold War. 172 13:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that putting them directly above the map suggested that the U.S. controlled the majority of Europe. :) I was considering suggesting the U.S. flag be replaced by the NATO flag, but that's moot now. -- Wisq 13:45, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
 * And, to be NPOV, we have to have the flag of the Warsaw Pact. And personally, I do not think there is one that was used. I see your idea now, and I will drop the idea. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 13:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I am a high school teacher that uses Wikipedia frequently, and I've made a few contributions to it -- both on this article and on The Day After, since I teach the Cold War and it is, honestly, one of my favorite parts of history. I agree that the *map* of Cold War Europe is misleading, but at the very least, shouldn't the flags of the United States and the Soviet Union remain? Although the Cold War was *technically* between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, in the minds of many historians, it was between the USA and USSR.
 * I have in common with you, having been a contributor to Wikipedia until a couple of months ago and having taught courses on the Cold War... I agree with you that including the flags of the U.S. and USSR would make more sense; they were, of course, the principal actors in the conflict. But the problem is that they were not the only actors. Including the flags of the U.S. and the USSR, and only the U.S. and the USSR, suggests that the article is just looking at the Cold War as the East and West conflict. But this makes little sense after the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the bipolar world order of the immediate postwar period gave way to a much more complicated pattern of international relations, with (1) the Sino-Soviet Split, (2) detente, and (3) East/West competition giving way more and more to North/South competition. 172 09:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

If I (or anyone) were to locate the flags/seals of NATO and Warsaw Pact, couldn't they be added *along with* the American and Soviet flags?
 * There is no proof that the Warsaw Pact had a seal or flag. Plus, other nations involved in the Cold War belonged to neither pact (the Koreas, Vietnam, African nations, Latin America nations). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The sixteen known nuclear crises of the Cold War"
This section is an equally obvious candidate for immediate removal. The list is generated by a relatively little-know advocacy group (Veterans Against Nuclear Arms), and not any established scholarship whatsoever. 172 20:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * So what kind of crises can we use to put on the article that we can double check and make sure it is credible. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * These are all actual historic events-if the objection centers around the source (Veterans Against Nuclear Arms) and there being associated with that a particular POV, then removing the reference line should end the dispute in this regard.--Lordkinbote 23:05, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * If we find something that comes from someone legit, then we should have no problem. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Lordkinbote, removing the reference line does not end the dispute. The process by the list is generated makes it more about the advocacy group than the Cold War. (How do you know that they define "nuclear crises" in a way consident with standard scholarship? What is their understanding of under what conditions this concept of theirs is applicable? Is this consistent with general scholarship? What is their process for matching their observations to thier categeory? Is this consistent with general scholarship?) Lists might seem like they are 'objective' and 'matter-of-fact,' even when they are genenerated by activists, by non-experts. But the process by which they are generated determines the results. Adding this section would be just as much of a problem as allowing someone to post a personal essay in an article. 172 02:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The Actual Site
What the heck is this?
 * And what are you trying to refer to? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Cold War as a sham
The article Enoch Powell states that he viewed the Cold War as a sham. In the interests of NPOV, someone should expand this article to include this POV. Phlogistomania 21:48, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Justification for changes in Cold War: 1953-1962
Looking at the original contents in the 1953-1962 made me feel like I was reading an article by Fidel Castro. The article starts out good with factual statements on leadership and MAD. Then when it comes to the Third World it takes an ugly turn by implying America mistook nationalism for communism--on purpose. The article repeatedly said the Soviets had no interest in affairs outside of their Eastern bloc. This is POV bullshit. The Soviets gave weapons, supplies, propaganda, money, and established bases all over the world. Every communist party in the world was subordinated to the Soviet communist party. But apparently the revisionist view is "realist". Then we come to Dulles. The article claims him to be a misguided fool who was "laughed at". Well, many people laugh at Saddam Hussein's propaganda, but I don't see that in Wikipedia. Going on it says Dulles changed the facts to suite his needs by calling Mao a "Communist" rather than "agrarian reformer" as earlier. Whats wrong with that? Mao was an agrarian reformer, he just did it the communist way. The article then says Dulles exaggerated by saying communism wanted to take over the Eurasian landmass. Again, there is nothing wrong with that statement. Does anyone seriously believe that the Berlin crises, Korean War, Indochina War, the invasion of Afghanistan, the Malayan insurgency, the Taiwan Strait crisis, the Turkish crisis, and the Marxist/Leninist STATED GOAL of world wide revolution against capitalism a COINCIDENCE?!? I am all for both sides on this, but to imply one side is right and the other side is wrong is insane. Then we come to the 1953 coup in Iran. According to the article the evil American imperialists ousted a heroic figure for no other reason than to steal oil from the Iranian children. No consideration is given to the American arguement that Iran was in danger of falling under communism. Mossadiq, I believe, was indeed a nationalist and not a communist. However, much of his support was drawn from the Tudeh, Iranian communist party. Who in turn drew their support from the Soviets. Indeed by 1953 the Tudeh was THE strongest communist party in the entire Middle East. And by then they had taken to denounce Mossadiq himself as an American puppet. Given what happened in Czechoslovakia where a neutralist government had been ousted by the communists in 1947, a coup was really not unlikely particularly considering that Iran was contiguous to the Soviet Union. Again communism would have seized power if it could, and in Iran it would be disastrous. Pretty much the same thing applies to Latin America. The U.S. supported violent human rights abusers in order to ensure equally bad (in economic terms) Marxist governments did not take power. When America saw that the Guatamalan government was leftist and accepted Eastern bloc aid, it got rid of it. We could not choose the "nice" way to solve the problem because few options were available. What I mean is that we did not really condone human rights abuses in governments we supported, simply their anti-communism. The Soviets were eager to gain a foothold in the Western Hemisphere (as would be demonstrated in Cuba), and that would be a disaster for the "containment" policy. So while they were not the "root" of the problem they helped plant the seeds and ensure its growth. Amazingly, no one had anything about the Hungarian revolution in the beginning, just some repetitive statements how America imagined the Cold War and the Soviets were weak even though they supported a huge army in Eastern Europe and had the largest regional nuclear stockpile in the world. To conclude, I'm not asking that everyone except my POV, just that it would be more NPOV to have the other side of the story in the article. --User:24.210.183.105 26 June 2005

Agree
I agree with the previous post. Virtually all of Africa adopted Marxist/socialist/protectionist economic and social policies after their independence. Soviets, East Germans, Cubans, Palestinian terrorists, North Koreans, Japanese Red Army etc. sent troops and material and economic aid all over the world. Looking at Cuba, can one honestly say there was no Soviet penetration? Please. I'm generally against American interventionism, seeing as how it does more harm than good, but that doesn't mean the Soviets were peace-loving. Also the idea that the USSR had no poverty is laughable: EVERYONE was poor in the Soviet Union, that's what socialism does, let's look at modern-day Cuba again (the real Cuba, not the fantasy version). The Cold War wasn't a simple matter of good vs. evil or USSR vs. USA, certainly, but trying to be "cool" or whatever and make the US the "bad guys" all the time is ridiculous.