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. [1] 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. [2] 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 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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 [3], [4], and [5].

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 [6]. 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" [7]. Not good enough.

The third source for the claim is a blog from the National Interest magazine [8]. 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)