Talk:Origins of the Cold War

NOVA?
This article could do a lot better at NOVA. Sarcasm and scare quotes should be either removed or replaced with descriptions of the rival Pavlovas. The claim that Stalin was not interested in foreign adventures and took eastern Europe only for defensive reasons is not consistent with the terms of the Hitler-Stalin pact. There is no mention of the USSR's takeover of Czechoslovakia when it agreed to take Marshall plan aid. No mention of Moscow's control of foreign communist movements. No mention of the popular front strategy! The USSR's demobilization is mentioned but the US's is not. and so on.

Yes, we are dealing with a paranoid regime that constantly saw its ideological prejudices reaffirmed. And yes, the USSR was at its heart hostile to the "bourgeois capitalist" world. However, the Soviets were never willing to compromise the survival of their for the sake of International Communism. Eben as far back as the Brest-Litovsk negotiations with Germany in the 1917, the hotheads and the romanticists in the party would give way to temporary expedients to preserve Bolshevik and later Communist rule in Russia. BTW, this isn't the thesis of the revisionist pinkos. This is essentially George Kennan's thesis on Soviet foreign policy. This school of thought is as "authorized" and "orthodox" as it comes. (BTW, his Russia and the West under Lenin and Stalin is a good abridgement, if anyone's interested).


 * You're a bit off if you see "expansionist" overtones in the "popular front." The "popular front" was born out of concerns in Moscow since 1934 over the attitudes of the new Nazi Regime. First, even after Hitler came to power, there were the continued references to USSR - and particularly to Ukraine - as predestined fields of German expansion of leading Nazis. Earlier, the Soviets had expected the Nazis to moderate their public pronouncements once they had gained power. Second, officials in Soviet establishments in Germany decried Nazi persecution of communists, socialists, and Jews, thus providing a steady stream of anti-fascist activism within the USSR. Third, there were the fears over German rearmament, which were heightened in light of the Non-Aggression Pact between Germany and Poland concluded in 1/34. Stalin took this as an indication that Hitler was turning his back on the Rapallo policy, and was now seeking a revision of Germany's eastern frontiers at the expense of Russia.


 * The "popular front" owed more to Soviet reaction to Hitler's accession than genuine commitment to world socialist revolution. It was a part of the campaign to persuade the French and the British that it was they who faced the grave challenge from fascism, not Russia. Meanwhile. Stalin pushed Western Comintern parties into alliances with democratic socialists in order to neutralize opposition by rightwing elements in the West to an anti-fascist collective security pact with the Soviets. Note the exhaustive undertakings by Maksim Litvinov in the years 1934-1937.


 * Later, the Non-Aggression Pact was essentially an outgrowth of the failed moves toward collective security in 1934-37, which was patently clear at Munich. If you need me to elaborate, please ask, but I'm running short on time for now. 172 11:37, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * This was a very pro-Soviet article. I've toned that down a bit in the attempt to make it more neutral. I didn't cut out the bit where Russian Imperialism was justified, and may come back to it later. As for the Popular front strategy it was part of Stalins strategy to involve the West in war with his enemy, Hitler, and not overtly expansionist as you say. However, expansion was constantly on Stalin's mind with the first five-year plan of 1928 as the first step in that direction, any advances that he could get through it was welcome. Prezen 16:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to continue editing the article at present (and don't want to be pushy anyway) but I will comment on a few things.

The US and Britain's desire for a healthy Germany is stated twice without justification. You seem to be hinting at a motive different from both Stalin's conspiratorial view and the anti-punitive view. Why was Germany especially important to US economic prosperity? I hope it doesn't seem far-fetched that the US should want to avoid repeating acts that it saw as contributing to the outbreak of WW2, just as Stalin wanted to avoid them from his POV.

When I referred to Stalin's control of foreign communist parties, that was without limitation. Were there any countries following WW2 where the primary communist party (Communist Party of X) did not receive its official positions and sometimes material support from Moscow? As for Stalin's use of the parties, I was not referring to diplomatic bargaining; the focus was on Stalin's use of communist parties to represent his political interests in democratic states, and to organize guerilla movements in others. This was Soviet policy before and after WW2. CNN's interview with Sergo Beria is informative on this point.

There are now three independent paragraphs on the Greek affair, which is not desirable in the long term. Of course it's appropriate to mention the character of the Greek government, but the present text seems to imply that the US and Britain liked it that way and misrepresented it publicly. Truman's speech was clear that his stated objective was not to support an idealized democracy, but to secure Greece against communist takeover so that a democratic government could develop. Of course the practical results of this theory were varied and often strained the credibility of US policy, but the article can at least present the theory accurately.

The 1948 Italian elections fall within the time period of the article and are just as important to the development of Cold War strategy as the Greek affair.

The above assessment of communist party activities in countries outside the USSR looks accurate to me. One reading of Homage to Catalonia is enough to see the manner in and extent to which Stalin used foriegn communist parties almost exclusively for the benefit of the USSR.


 * If we give the western view (the original one, aka ussr=evil, usa=good) in the paragraph dealing with the origins of cold war, than, to be NPOV, we should give the eastern view as well (aggressive imperialists armed with nuclear weapons started the cold war; aka usa=evil, ussr=good). With respect, Ko Soi IX 08:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes
There was a bit of a POV creep that had gone unnoticed for a while. I failed to notice it given that the vast majority of recent changes have been quite good. I removed an off-topic commentary on the contradictions of containment (while not pointing out the contradictions in the Soviets brandishing their role in leading the "anti-imperialist" and "progressive" camp) that someone had managed to stick into the subsection on the Truman Doctrine. 172 23:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tsar or Czar?
The very first section which is entitled "Czarist Russia and the West". Oddly, the spelling 'tsar' occurs five times in this article while 'czar' only occurs one time (not counting the section heading). Am I just confused, or are these two separate words? I thought they were just different spellings. Anyone want to clarify/modify?

Both mean the same thing. The etymology (according to Dictionary.com) is complex, hence the multiple spellings. Tsar is the preferred spelling, as it is closest to the old Russian word "tssar". Czar most likely comes from kaiser and/or caesar.

Hi
How do you guys suggest i add this?--Striver 12:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of irrelvent or redundant sections
The sections "major schools" and "postwar warning" must be removed. Churchill's speech, while important, does not warrant its own large section. While other parts of the article are very underdeveloped, such a section gives the speech undue weight. The "major schools" section does not fit into the structure of Wikipedia's coverage on the Cold War. Historiography is currently discussed in the main entry. 172 | Talk 06:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Explain why regarding "major schools" and "postwar warning", instead of simply "must be removed". We can remove the speech. Historiography obviously also belongs in this article.Ultramarine 06:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The content under "postwar warning" entirely pertains to the Fulton speech. There is no way to broaden the section. What else would the heading refer to? Regarding historiography, of course it belongs here, as in every historical article. It belongs here integrated with the coverage. As far as treating it as a topic in itself, this is done in the main Cold War entry under "historiography," not in the subarticles. 172 | Talk 06:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We should certainly mention the speech, but we could trim the material. The "major schools" material is my main concern, since it extensivly discusses the origin and therefore should be in this article.Ultramarine 07:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Your section on the "major schools" was more a discussion of the different schools of thought in the general American historiography of the Cold War than a discussion of questions about the origins of the Cold War, the focus of this article. The main article on the Cold War contains the section about the historiography. I have rewritten the section in order to make it relevant to this article, and not a redundant rehashing of a section in the general entry of the Cold War. 172 | Talk 16:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The following essay was entered by User:Robertson-Glasgow, but was too much for the main article. Rather than just arbitrarily enter into the main part of this article, I'm submitting it here for comment.

The Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries have, quite appropriately, been depicted collectively as the era of nationalism. New nations surfaced in Western and Central Europe all through the Nineteenth Century, in Eastern Europe and the Middle East through the early Twentieth Century, and in Asia and Africa halfway through the Twentieth Century. Thus was a multitude of states added to the family of man. 

Not only did new nations materialize, however, but they also started to develop matching qualities and characters. The present-day country may be pigeonholed according to its establishments of law, government and civil service; its road and rail transportation; its agricultural and industrial development; the development of new social classes and groups; and (to complete but a brief list) the growth of its military power. 

While most western states have analogous attributes, it is worthwhile noting that they do not all possess them to the same degree: some are prosperous and urbanized; others are deprived and underdeveloped. Although the quantity of European states has augmented, many of them have continued to be subjugated by the super powers of the world -- viz. before the 1920s by Russia, Hungary Germany, France, Britain and Austria, and post-WWII by the USSR and the USA. 

It is not all that astounding, therefore, that relations between states prior to 1945 went against the notion of a balance of power, operating solely in the Concert of Europe and in the pacts formed by the great powers. Intercontinental teamwork in the era of nationalism had very limited importance, which meant that co-operation between countries took place on a very limited scale. 

It was in the Twentieth Century, particularly after World War I, that a fresh attitude towards global associations was espoused. The peace-makers considered one way of achieving safety and harmony to be the founding of an organisation which would represent the family of man. This became known as the League of Nations. 

This concept of internationalism matured at an erratic snail's pace between the two Wars. In spite of the collapse of the League, internationalism was kept active during the Second World War by the Allied Powers, who, in their assorted pronouncements (Yalta, Teheran and Moscow), were resolute in their endeavour at setting up a new international body to help to rearrange the post-War world. Thus, in 1945, the United Nations Organisation (UNO) and its diverse agencies were instituted.  The understanding has grown from 1945 that this planet is a "global village", that the nations of the world cannot subsist in seclusion of one another and that the dilemmas of the post-War epoch (racial discrimination, poverty, autonomy and civil liberties, and the use of nuclear weapons) are anxieties for all. The interdependence of the international hamlet serves to lay emphasis on the significance of the internationalism which the UNO and its affiliates seek to represent. 

The initiative of internationalism in the post-War age, therefore, is far more burly than it was in the inter-War episode of 1920 to '39. Most nations, large and small, are UNO limbs, viewing the establishment as a round table on which to lay down the matters of war and peace, as well as the copious other hitches of contemporary existence. These countries understand the requirement for an organisation which views all of these human problems within the general milieu of the world community, for the problems of some are indeed the problems of all. 

This coming out of the global village owed partially to the intercontinental scope of WWII, which concerned every continent -- and also, to some extent, because of the industrial and scientific progress of transportation and infrastructure, reducing physical expanses and obliterating the traditional remoteness of the little community. What happens today in one part of the world is known by the rest of the world tomorrow. 

The mounting realisation of the economic independence of the global village has also had a say in forming this international standpoint. Few countries are adequately self-reliant, and world trade has served to stress the need for mankind's economic accord. 

It is this broader aspect of the Twentieth-Century world that the UNO and its agencies have tried to keep going. Our world is still very much snowed-under by patriotism, but internationalism accentuates other perspectives which are important if the human community is to survive and develop.

Hires an editor 11:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced quotation?
The first paragraph of the section "Conflicting visions of postwar reconstruction" is essentially identical to the passage that opens the section titled "From Cold Peace to Cold War" in Chapter One of David Reynolds' book "One World Divided". Is this acceptable?!?!

202.89.154.179 05:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

First Peacetime draft?
It says that President Truman issued the first peacetime military draft in 1948. That is NOT true. The first peacetime draft was by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940, one year before the U.S. entered World War II.

--User:cbhadha, 20 April 2008


 * This article has (and had even more) several unsourced factual errors. For example, it stated that the U.S. government and military maintained their same state as during the war, while in reality, the U.S. cuts in military size after World War II were literally nearly 90% in two years (12 million to 1.5 million by 1947).  I didn't even really address this in changes so far, except to note the massive cuts near the odd sentences talking as if the  military in 1948 looked like that of 1945, which it most certainly did not.  They're still there.


 * Perhaps even more odd in an article about the origins of the Cold War in the 1940s, it somehow contained nearly no mention of the formation of the Eastern Bloc. I added a small section on this, but one would think given that it pretty much dominated relations between the Soviet Union and the outside world during this time period that a huge section of the article would have addressed it.Mosedschurte (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * By all means, please go through and make the needed corrections to this article. Hires an editor (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oder-Neisse-Line
When Immanuel Wallerstein says, that the troops of both sides faced each other on the Oder-Neisse-Line, he is wrong, hence this line is the eastern border of Germany (than the soviet occupied East-Germany) with Poland. The red army was far more west than Oder-Neisse, respectively at the line where the inner German border was. --El bes (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was an odd quote. I think he mixed up the Elbe.  British, French and U.S. forces weren't even allowed into Berlin (in which they had a sector) for two months.  Maybe he was referring to the tiny number of U.S. troops east of the Elbe thereafter, though it wouldn't have made sense anyway.


 * A better question might have been why a long (must have been 3-4 sentences) direct quote from Immanuel Wallerstein was sitting in the middle of a Wikipedia article not related to his life anyway.Mosedschurte (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

possibly a little less abstract theorizing, a little more on the concrete sequence of events?
This article seems to contain a lot of abstract theorizing and explorations of less relevant pre-1941 history, but not too much on how the sequence of events in the five crucial post-WW2 years appeared to people at the time. In the U.S., Stalin's blatant failure to keep his promise to hold free elections in Poland was something of a shock, and this was succeeded by a whole series of events in 1948-1949 which appeared to many people (not just fringe paranoids) to be part of a concerted Communist plan of aggression -- the Czech coup, communist victory in the Chinese civil war, the Berlin crisis, etc. -- with the attack on south Korea in 1950 being the crowning blow. There's currently discussion of some of these events, but others are alluded to quite briefly, and there's no real attempt made to place them all in a coherent chronological sequence of events. AnonMoos (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Origins of the Cold War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090317090544/http://www.ndtv.com:80/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080069304 to http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080069304

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

13,000 byte massacre by Volunteer Marek
Nobody butchers 13,000 bytes, sourced ones at that, out of an article without discussing it thoroughly, User:Volunteer Marek. And non-NPOV is the condition I found this article in. GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was going through all your edits one by one. Aside from POV rhetoric, the first two cases I checked involved a complete misrepresentation of sources. The first one claimed that Stalin turned to Hitler because "the West" wouldn't aid him against the Japanese during/after Khalkin Gol. The three sources provided were, , and.
 * The first one just says that the Soviets won at Khalkin Gol. Ok. Of course. What it doesn't say is that this had anything to do with the Hitler-Stalin pact. (And that source is trash too)
 * The second one doesn't even mention Khalkin Gol.
 * The third one, again, just says that the Soviets won at Khalkin Gol. And then speculates ahistorically in a "what if" kind of way of what would've happened if they hadn't.
 * So none of these sources actually supports what you are trying to insert into the article. Indeed, you are misrepresenting sources.
 * The other edits I checked were no better.  Volunteer Marek   22:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Second example. The addition of info about Karl Wolff, the Nazi war criminal and the claim that "Some historians have argued that the Cold War began when the US negotiated a separate peace with Nazi SS General Karl Wolff in northern Italy". The source given for this claim is this NY Times obituary . All that the source actually states is that Wolff was indeed a war criminal and that he surrendered in Italy. It does NOT say anything about Operation Sunrise, it does NOT say that this is when the Cold War began, it does NOT mention any correspondence between Stalin and Roosevelt, it does NOT say anything about "Soviet Union not being allowed to participate" in the negotiations. All of that is pure WP:OR, with a citation tacked in at the end to make it look like it's not.  Volunteer Marek   22:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Then the text claims "(Wolff) appears to have been guaranteed immunity at the Nuremberg Trials by Office of Strategic Services (OSS) commander (and later CIA director) Allen Dulles when they met in March 1945 . Wolff and his forces were being considered to help implement Operation Unthinkable, a secret plan to invade the Soviet Union which Winston Churchill advocated during this period."
 * The source given for that is this book. The book does say that Wolff was likely promised immunity by OSS. It does NOT say anything about this being the origin of the Cold War. And with regard to Dulles the source rightly notes that any such conclusions are mere speculation.
 * The other sources for the claim are a... an opinion piece about the movie "Inglorious Bastards" . Not good enough.
 * The third source for the claim is a blog from the National Interest magazine . Aside from it too being a sketchy source it also doesn't support any of the claims, aside from mentioning Operation Unthinkable.  Volunteer Marek   22:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Why are you putting "the West" in scare quotes when the Western bloc is long-consensed to be an actor in the Cold War? And the Anglo-American alliance is known to have existed since WWI?-GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like the Inglourious Basterds op-ed is indeed GPRamirez5's primary source for the statement that "Some historians have argued that the Cold War began" with Operation Sunrise; according to the op-ed, "Historians speculate that the Cold War in fact started with the negotiations between Wolff and Dulles on March 8, 1945, in Lucerne."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is not good enough for making that claim.  Volunteer Marek   23:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, if this is a notable view among historians, then GPRamirez5 should provide additional sources to substantiate that.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you kids may need to step away from the holiday egg nog, or the computer, or both. Page i, among other pages, in the Cambridge University Press book on Dulles and Wolff connect it to the Cold War.GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Among what other pages? And lay off the personal attacks please.  Volunteer Marek   01:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * And you still haven't addressed the first issue (and there are many more) regarding Khalkin Gol.  Volunteer Marek   01:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * So what I hear you saying User:Volunteer Marek, is you're feeling attacked. I was merely making a friendly joke among my honorable colleagues, so my apologies. Is there anything you would like to apologize for?


 * I'll be happy to address more issues once you've re-reverted the edit.GPRamirez5 (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How about sticking to the topic and answering the questions?  Volunteer Marek   02:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's a free one: The so-called "Inglorious Basterds review" is perfectly admissible because 1) the author himself is a notable historian, and 2) it only mentions the film because an OSS devotee had already publicly raised historical issues in relationship to it. This is noted in the article, but of course it's not the first time I've had to point out something which was very clear to those who spent more than thirty seconds reading the source. Cheers. GPRamirez5 (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It *is* a review of Inglorious Basterds, not a "so-called review". Is it admissible? Not per WP:REDFLAG. And your link to the bio of the author doesn't quite inspire confidence either. I guess by some stretch you could call him a "historian" - a "historian" working and publishing under the communist regime in Hungary. At best this just establishes this as a WP:FRINGE view.  Volunteer Marek   06:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Damn, well somebody better alert the ardently anti-communist Hungarian George Soros that this fringe Stalinist historian has infiltrated the highest reaches of his Open Society Institute -


 * István Rév is a professor of history and political science at Central European University in Budapest and director of the Open Society Archives...Rév was also a fellow of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton and a research fellow at the Getty Center in Los Angeles and at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford. In 1995, he was the recipient of the New Europe Prize.

GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)




 * Edits to reduce the size of the page were good improvements. 2nd paragraph in the lead (the "capitalist-communist schisms") was ridiculous. The content prior to WWII must be described only very briefly. And so on. If anyone disagree with any specific change, he should explain with refs what exactly was wrong with that specific change, not to revert everything without discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, now I can see what had happen: all reverted edits were actually made by GPRamirez5 . Definitely, they were not an improvement. Agree with reverting them. My very best wishes (talk) 02:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm feeling really attacked right now My very best wishes ! GPRamirez5 (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you don't wish to approach the subject seriously, that's your business.  Volunteer Marek   06:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * @GPRamirez5. The title of thread you started speaks for itself. It does not matter how many byte and who made changes. One problem with your version is balance. The page was already too long. Why should we make an enormously long section "Western appeasement and the rise of the Axis (1935-1938)", etc.? This page should be made shorter to improve readability. Second problem I think is agenda-driven editing on your part when you are trying to overemphasize the "guilt" on the part of Western powers by selectively using and quoting sources of your choice. My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:my very best wishes, the origins of the Cold War encompass two world wars, a dozen countries and several decades. How many words (and/or bytes) do you think such an article topic merits? This is a 100% serious question.GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * it requires thousands of words are needed and they all appear in Wikipedia. You can read them at International relations (1919–1939), Diplomatic history of World War I, Revolutions of 1917–1923,Soviet Union–United States relations,Germany–Soviet Union relations before 1941, Russia–United Kingdom relations, History of U.S. foreign policy, History of the foreign relations of the United Kingdom, History of the Soviet Union etc etc . Rjensen (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

How many words in Wikipedia overall wasn't what I was asking. (Otherwise you would've been remiss in not throwing in World War I and World War II)) I mean how many words—and/or bytes—does the topic "Origins of the Cold War" merit? Just a rough estimate. I'd also like User:My very best wishes to answer since he raised the issue.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * it's only a summary article -- it's useful chiefly in pointing readers to the other articles that cover the topic in depth. Rjensen (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Cold War is the summary article actually. This one is expected to be more detailed. Just a rough estimate, User:My very best wishes, thanks-GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * this article runs about 6500 words of main text but is much longer than the corresponding part of Cold War, it leads readers to more specific topics--there are over 300,000 scholarly books and articles on "cold war" origins listed at google.scholar. Rjensen (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Well of course, the corresponding section is barely more than a stub. But this article can only lead readers to more specific topics, like say Western intelligence recruitment of war criminals, if it actually mentions them, right?-GPRamirez5 (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Kerstin von Lingen
Side comment on Kerstin von Lingen: The link to the book by Lingen is interesting:. She has a page on de.wiki and appears to be a notable historian. I would consider her book to be an RS for the topic of Karl Wolff. There are also multiple mentions of the Cold War in the index, such as "Cold war and Operation Sunrise". This is an interesting source and should be included. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with the source. I do think the other editor is, um, taking some liberties, with how he uses it.  Volunteer Marek   02:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My use was to connect the event to the origins of the Cold War User:Volunteer Marek, a connection which K.e.coffman notes is explicit in the book.


 * How do you justify its removal?-GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, I've demonstrated above that Istvan Rev is an award-winning mainstream historian who was writing in an award-winning mainstream publication. In conjunction with von Lingen's Cambridge U. Press book, this constitutes multiple high-quality sourcing directly connecting Operation Sunrise and Wolff to the Cold War.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Three days later. Still waiting for a response. And I notice my upstanding critics have been quite active on WP in that period.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Response to what? Make one small specific edit that you think would be non-controversial and improvement. Wait if others will agree. Maybe they will. If not, you can try to discuss this small specific edit or make another edit. My very best wishes (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Every single one of my facts regarding Wolff and northern Italy is documented, and the event is considered relevant. They were challenged in ignorance--with not even a counter-proposal of wording offered. You need to show some interest in working cooperatively.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Please post here any specific text you would like to include or show a diff. My very best wishes (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No reply? Well, I did look at your edits, such as that one . One problem: I do not see direct connection in quoted sources of these events to the origins of Cold War. That's important. Second problem: this is clearly a one-sided editing to promote anti-Western agenda. My very best wishes (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Be collaborative and constructive My very best wishes, and show me how you'd word it in NPOV. I can't read your mind, after all. Cold War relevance is stated on page i and 281 of van Lingen.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, Cold War was mentioned on the page 281, but the text does not make any connection between the prosecution of Nazi criminals and the origins or the reasons for the Cold War. Moreover, summarizing content of the source in the way it was done in the diff was wrong. Not only this is POV editing, but possibly WP:OR, at least based on the content of 281. This is not a legitimate edit. My very best wishes (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Semantic nonsense, My very best wishes. 90 percent of this article isn't explicitly about the origins of the Cold War (especially the parts of the article that refer to post-1947!).


 * “Operation Sunrise was also one of the early episodes of the Cold War, stoking Soviet fears that the Allies were signing a separate peace with Germany and ultimately leading to a tense exchange between President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin.”

- Encyclopedia of the Cold War (Routledge, 2013), p. 271

-GPRamirez5 (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * False = 90 percent of this article isn't 'explicitly' about the origins of the Cold War. The Cold War started AFTER 1947 in much of the world (such as China, India, Australia, and most of Africa, Middle East &  Latin America)  Rjensen (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

RJensen if you're trying to be more internationalist, you're doing it wrong. Mao, and Kim, and Ho were around long before 1947. Ho Chi Minh went to lobby Wilson for self-determination at Versailles in 1919. Ready to put that in the article?-GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * @User:GPRamirez5 previously you just seemed to be taking some odd stances on what should and what should not be included in the article. Now you seem to be either arguing for its own sake, or trying to goad an editor who appears to be a subject matter expert and imho is doing a great job of improving the article.  Please be constructive.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I am allowing User:rjensen to derail us by dropping in issues from other threads. So back to the matter at hand Gravuritas : Will the Dulles-Wolff negotiations be restored to the article?


 * “Operation Sunrise was also one of the early episodes of the Cold War, stoking Soviet fears that the Allies were signing a separate peace with Germany and ultimately leading to a tense exchange between President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin.”


 * - Encyclopedia of the Cold War (Routledge, 2013), p. 271

-GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * For the record here is my statement on the dispute at "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard" --- For months now User:GPRamirez5 has been a difficult editor to work with--he routinely deletes fully sourced material with no explanation, and routinely distorts the sources he used. In this case, it was a minir episode. For a few weeks before WW2 ended Stalin was worried the US-UK were making a separate peace with Germany. Stalin discovered a few weeks later that there was no basis whatever for his fears.   The Soviets were falsely informed to the effect that the Americans were Negotiating a surrender behind their back--They demanded that a Soviet general be present for any surrender negotiations. FDR in the last days of his life strongly informed Moscow that it was mistaken.  All negotiations in Switzerland were ended by the U.S. in order to placate Moscow and meet its demands.  Let me quote a standard history that explains what happened: At Caserta [in Italy] on April 28-29 [1945], an unconditional surrender document was quickly drafted.  Generals Lemnitzer and Airey were present, as was Russian Major General A.P. Kislenko. Terms were dictated by the Allies. [ p 25] ....on May 2 at 4:00 a.m., Kesselring approved the surrender. At 2:00 p.m. Wehrmacht troops in Italy and the western areas of Austria began to lay down their arms. " [ p 27 source = "Operation Sunrise: America’s OSS, Swiss Intelligence, And The German Surrender 1945" by Stephen P. Halbrook (2006) at http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/sunrise.pdf and  cited at Operation Sunrise (World War II) ] There were no further complaints from Moscow since there misunderstandings had been cleared up, and their demands for a Russian general the involved had been accepted and implemented.  It appears to me that User:GPRamirez5 has ignored this and instead an encyclopedia source that only devotes a few sentences to the situation  and does not explain how it was resolved by April 1945.  Does this little episode represent an important contribution to the article on the origins of the Cold War?? --several years later did Stalin mis-remembered it??  No RS mentions any such effect. The dispute between the Soviets and the US in this case is one of dozens of minor episodes that irritated one side or the other– in this case it was firmly and finally resolved long before the Cold War cecame operational in 1947.  Rjensen (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

For the record, here is my response to yours:


 * The case of [Nazi General] Karl Wolff illustrates how political considerations that foreshadowed the coming of the Cold War began to dominate as the war ended and the Alliance crumbled…The importance of the Wolff case within…the political interests of the Western Allies…are particularly evident in the prominence of the members of the Sunrise group who protected him.


 * -Kerstin von Lingen, Allen Dulles, the OSS, and Nazi War Criminals (Cambridge University Press, 2013), page 281

The above quote is from one of my original sources cited. Being a recent monograph published by a university press, it is in fact the "standard work" on the subject, contrary to User:Rjensen's claim. What he claims is the standard work comes from the website of a lawyer, Stephen Halbrook, with no track record in Cold War history.

Also contrary to Rjensen, it can't be a "little" or "minor" episode when Roosevelt and Stalin were directly dragged into it (very peculiar logic). Their extensive correspondence is posted on Michigan State University's official Soviet history website.

Rjensen's argument actually illustrates what I'm referring to. The belittling of university level sources, and second-guessing of the peer-reviewed contents. Furthermore, Marek claimed that the source didn't connect Wolff and Sunrise to the origins of the Cold War, when in fact, it clearly does. -GPRamirez5 (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * sorry--that's a misreading of the book. the author says it "foreshadowed the coming of the Cold War" (as done numerous other episodes) he does NOT say it was one of the origins of the war. The main issue was a separate peace with Germany/US-UK  STalin was badly misinformed and when FDR realized that he immediately apologized for the misunderstanding, ended the Swiss connection, and made sure a Soviet general took part in the surrender of Italy, as Stalin demanded.  All that happened before the war ended. It was a successful end to a misunderstanding and shows US-UK working hard to remove frictions with Moscow.  the Halbrook article on how the war ended in Italy is from an Italian scholarly law review--a RS Rjensen (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah it's ironic, the only thing that paper has to do with law is Dulles' shielding of a war criminal from Nuremberg and Halbrook completely sidestepped it.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Dates of Cold War?
What is consensus on the dates of the cold war?- GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 48 hours later and still no debate and no consensus. And yet nearly a dozen dubious edits acting as if it's settled.- GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Because you haven't really convinced anyone, provided any sources, or made an actual case?  Volunteer Marek   22:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I've asked a simple question, Marek, why can't you answer it?-GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

...maybe it's so self-evident that you're wrong that a mea culpa would be cruel...After all, there's a longstanding article for Cold War (1947-1953). This is the first section of a dated chronological series going up to 1991, indicating that the origins of the Cold War lie prior to 1947.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this edit resolves the question, meaning there was a period of several years during which Cold War had started. That period should be covered in most detail on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Important background info
Why remove this content? My very best wishes (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The idea is that the body of the cold war is post-1946, and the *Origins* of same are 1946 or earlier. This content is all about post-1946, and belongs in Cold War article, if anywhere. You can help me clarify that at this thread-

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Cold_War#/talk/13

Cheers,GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC) GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Did I answer your question My very best wishes or are you replying at Dates of Cold War thread?-GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1946 is NOT a consensus date--1947-48 is more often used. The Cold War involves diplomatic, Economic and military confrontations. The diplomatic confrontations go back earlier, the economic confrontations are highlighted by the Marshall plan in 1948, and the military confrontation starts with the Berlin blockade in 1948.  Berlin is important because it was the first and most dramatic military confrontation --That threatened the hot war. Therefore the origins of the  military side of the Cold War belongs here. Rjensen (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC


 * Sources on consensus dates of cold war please.
 * better work through this article's bibliography--you will obviously be surprised how much info is there and many of the cites deal with the dating issue. Try Fink (2014) for a good start.  If you want a Russian view see  "The Historical Memory of Twentieth-Century Wars as an Arena of Ideological, Political, and Psychological Confrontation." : Aleksandr S.  Seniavskaia, et al Russian Studies in History (2010), Vol. 49 Issue 1, p53-91.  A bit older is Michael F. Hopkins, "Historiographical Reviews Continuing Debate And New Approaches In Cold War History" Historical Journal. 2007, Vol. 50 Issue 4, pages 913-934  Rjensen (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * And remember the UK National Archives aren't a reliable source! (Lol).-GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * unsigned commentaries by staff members of an archive is not RS quality. Rjensen (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Rjensen if you keep responding on behalf of user:my very best wishes people are going to think you're working together. That's not correct, is it?-GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Re:Outpost of Empire and 1949 - Berlin is not in Asia. But thanks for playing.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Lots of people are angry with carelessness but I'm not in cahoots with anyone. You should find someone who can help with basic history topics and sources, Rjensen (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

But that's what people on WP want right? Basic history topics not obscurity and obscurantism. A cold war with a coherent beginning and end, at least within a given article. Pick a date and stick with it. And please see WP:NOTEVERYTHING-GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry-wrong. We editors do not pick the dates. the RS do that and we report on them. That's your job if you really want to be a Wikipedia contributor. The readers who don't want complexity should read a middle-school textbook.  Rjensen (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't knock middle-school texts--a middlebrow history professor with time on his hands could pick up some nice money writing those. In any case, we need the consensus dating, from a reputable middle school text or otherwise. WP:NOTEVERYTHING-GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Middle school texts are not written to provide the scholarly consensus, and they do not do so. university text have that role and they include a lot of debate and complexity. Rjensen (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Right, well university texts aren't less than 50,000 words and written for neophytes. WP:UNDUE. WP:NOTEVERYTHING.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * your complaint is garbled.  There was indeed a cold war outside Europe, but its starting points in Iran, China, Korea, Vietnam, Malaya, Mideast, West Africa etc have  different trajectories than Europe. You need to read up on the rest of the world and   Steven Lee, Outposts of Empire: Korea, Vietnam, and the Origins of the Cold War in Asia, 1949-1954 (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press; 1996) is a good place to begin for dating issues.  Rjensen (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

My complaint right now is quite simple: The Cold War didn't start in 1949. Even the assertion that it only reached Asia in 1949 is dubious considering that by 1947, the US and USSR already had distinct and opposing occupations in the south and the north of Korea. Either way, you're using the argument to defend inclusion of things which didn't happen in Asia--the Berlin blockade, the Marshall Plan, etc. -GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Some historians do say the Cold War began in 1949--you need to read more widely and not expect some simple middle school textbook somewhere has all the "correct" dates. As for Asia & Middle East scholars have different dates for different countries.  The division of Korea was decided by FDR and Stalin came BEFORE the cold war began.  Russians often date Cold War from 1949--see https://books.google.com/books?id=EBlmeZB_BrQC&pg=PA169   Martin McCauley, also likes 1949 : Russia, America & the Cold War, 1949-1991 (2004)  this complaint is garbled: inclusion of things which didn't happen in Asia--the Berlin blockade, the Marshall Plan, etc.  the point is that there was a cold war in Europe that started before the cold war in Asia.  there is also a late start to cold war in Africa and Latin America.  Rjensen (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And still you refuse to respect WP:FRINGE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING - GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not even sure what you are talking about: the opinions about 1947 are currently included on the page. But returning to my initial comment (on the top of this thread), thanks to Rjensen and others - this has been mostly fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Not fixed: nothing post-1946 should be here. In addition to the main Cold War article, there's a longstanding article for Cold War (1947-1953). That is the first section of a dated chronological series going up to 1991, indicating that the origins of the Cold War lie prior to 1947.

PS Why do you appear to be consciously avoiding the "Dates of Cold War" thread?-GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If that's your argument, then you are wrong. Quite obviously, some significant content related to Cold War itself must be included on the page. Consider page about "Origin of dinosaurs" that does not tell anything about dinosaurs. My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * the argument the 'first' section of a dated chronological series going up to 1991, indicating that the origins of the Cold War lie 'prior' to 1947. violates Wiki rule: do not not use Wiki articles as a reliable secondary source.  Rjensen (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The argument is on the basis of consensus, which appears to have been a mass consensus determined by Wikiproject Cold War. Your persistent and fringe emphasis on 1948 and 1949 seems to be designed to undermine that consensus.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * there is no global consensus.-- it depends on national perspective. the 1947 cold war article you mention was created in 2001 without any footnotes or references.  In fact 1947 is a reasonable date, but it is an American consensus based on a Yankee perspective (esp re Truman Doctrine). Russian histories use 1949 from a Moscow perspective that emphasizes NATO. (Chinese and Russians date the cold war in China from 1949 because Stalin supported Chiang before then.)  Korean writings look to 1945 when the country was split at the 38th parallel between US and USSR. In Latin America the stress is 1950s.  In Australia 1950 is used (with some support for 1949).  GPR amirez 5 a few days ago stated "the *Origins* of same are 1946 or 'earlier'. '' -- he never said what RS or perspective that was based on, if any.

Yep, and last week you couldn't stop droning that the historical consensus about this global phenomenon known as the Cold War is that it began in 1947.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Rjensen said:


 * There is no global consensus...Yankee perspective...
 * The International Baccalaureate curriculum says the Cold War started in '46 and the origins extend before WWII. Students of the world unite!-GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No it does not say that--it says "the turning point came in Feb 1947" --this is a high school textbook, by the way: The International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (IBDP) is a two-year educational programme primarily aimed at 16 to 18 year olds. The program provides an internationally accepted qualification for entry into higher education and is recognized by many universities worldwide. Rjensen (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

...primarily aimed at 16 to 18 year olds...

Hey, I once read about this 14 year-old girl who published history in an academic journal. In any case, it's peer-reviewed at a university press. Better than some of that Lulu.com stuff you were slapping up. - GPRamirez5 (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

copy vio deleted
I deleted two sections that were based verbatim on David Reynolds's 2001 book. One World Divisible: A Global History Since 1945. It was added in 2007 by user:172, a sockpuppet of a banned user. Rjensen (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)