Talk:Cold War/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 9



There is some MAJOR vandalism on this page that needs to be cleaned up immediately! Suggest that the page be then locked down.

I find it amazing that an article on the Cold War makes no mention of the Cuban Missile Crisis. bob rulz 09:22, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Fair point-- this was r a good article. Right now the survey of the history is found in the series, which appears in the box at the top right corner of the article. The Cuban Missile Crisis is covered in the page dealing with 1953 to 1962. 172 | Talk 20:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Portal Created

{{Portal}} Because the Cold War is such a large topic, it made sense to create a portal. At this point I'm thinking about taking the template at the bottom and moving it to the portal. Same goes for the bibliography. Further down this page is some discussion about the number of references cited. Why not have a wikipage just for this as part of the portal? Hires an editor 00:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Real Battles - added again

On 4 August 2005 I made the following contribution - a new section called "Real Battles":

"For four years the United States and the Soviet Union managed to keep a dangerous secret: they had actually been involved in direct battles. During the Korean War they had fought air battles for two and a half years, in which 1,700 American and Soviet pilots were killed. To both sides it was crucial that this was not made public, since it could very well have led to World War III. The air battles occured mostly in northwest Korea, south of the Jalu river, in an area called "Mig Alley" by the American pilots. The Soviet objective was to take down the American bomber planes and their escorts, primarily F-86 Sabre fighters, in order to protect the ground transports from China to the Chinese troops in Korea. Some estimate that the American airforce lost a quarter of its total number of bombers worldwide. In total, 3,500 American and 1,000 Soviet aircraft were shot down.

Why was this kept a secret? In 1992 the British journalist Jon Halliday interviewed Herbert Brownell, one of president Eisenhower's closest men. According to Brownell, it had to swept under the rug since it otherwise would have led to demands for an open war with Russia."

It was removed by "172" on the following grounds: (this new section reads like a personal essay. on the talk page you and other editors can discuss how to incorporate some of these facts in the series, as the section is not yet ready to be posted.)

I sincerely do not understand why it "reads like a personal essay". Of course, I am a person, and I wrote it. Please clarify: Is it badly written? Are the facts questionable? Are there any POV? What's the problem? I believe these facts are very important to incorporate into the Cold War article, since until I had read about it in a book, I had no idea that any real battle had taken place between US and USSR.

Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 01:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I have now added "Real Battles" again. Before this is removed, please motivate the removal here. Regards, Dna-Dennis 14:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

At a guess, it was removed because it reads rather sensationalist - more like a newspaper article ("managed to keep a dangerous secret") than an encyclopedia entry. Further, you have given no sources for assertions that are really quite extraordinary; you are talking about more pilots and planes lost than the total casualties in the Battle of Britain, on both sides! And these would be much more modern and expensive planes, at that. 1000 dead soldiers would be a major casualty list for a land battle, much less aircraft clashes. Please give some sources, preferably more than one, for this kind of thing. --King of Men 16:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

"arms race" in opening paragraph

i think the conventional and nuclear arms race b/w the two blocs shld be mentioned in the opening paragraph. -- Doldrums 16:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

List of political figures

I suggest we simply list Category:Cold War people in the See also section, why manually duplicate it in this already long article? In case there is a consensus to keep it, the title needs to be downcased as per WP:NC#Lowercase second and subsequent words. Humus sapiens←ну? 09:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Third World War

There were several books on this subject during the Cold War period - mostly claiming (IIRC) that the West was losing to the Communists (for a variety of reasons, some of which have since been shown to be false). All that Wikipedia has on the subject is a computer game. Can something be developed?

The topic of why these predictions were wrong would be an interesting line of research (if Wikipedia decides to adopt such activities).

Jackiespeel 16:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

(Delete when done): Archive 3 has been vandalised (it appears): can someone resolve the matter as appropriate.

The Map is wrong

The map shows Iraq as pro-Soviet. The map claims it's an accurate depiction until 1959. This is very misleading because Iraq only became pro-Soviet in 1958. Prior to that it was the leading member of the Baghdad Pact (NATO but for central-south Asia). I think the map should be removed or changed to be more accurate. In the first stage of the Cold War, Iraq is very much pro-West.

I changed "up until" to "in" in order to eliminate confusion. CJK 21:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The map shows the island of Hainan as other allied of the United States. It has been administered by the P.R.C. since mid 1950. --Patlieb 01:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

To Katrina&TheWaves/LittleDeadBuddy/ (assuming these accounts have been operated by the same editor

Regarding your edits on Cold War, please read Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. The terms "free world" and "communist totalitarian regimes" are not value neutral; nor are they even clear and accurate descriptions of the often-changing and diffuse alliances that took shape throughout the Cold War period. Western-style democracies like India, for example, would at times lean closer to the Soviets while some Communist states like Tito's Yugoslavia and China following its normalization of relations with the U.S. would toward the Americans. Please discuss your changes if you're unclear of the broad survey of Cold War history instead of continuing to revert back to the problem version. 172 | Talk 18:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be neutral #but# reference should be made to the fact that terms such as "free world" and "ctr" were used at the time - and the terms that were used from the actually-existing-Communist viewpoints (to use a phrase).

Archive 3 is still vandalised (or has been revandalised since I last looked there).

Jackiespeel 21:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The terms were used at the time in Cold War propaganda, just as the Soviet bloc referred to itself as "the people's democracies." Please use neutral terminology in accord with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. 172 | Talk 07:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

There are two points - the terminology used at the time - which was not Neutral Point of View, and Wikipedia which should be. Reference should be made to the former and discussed as appropriate (the point which I was making): and there are some topics which will arouse strong feelings even among those who are otherwise neutral (including Richard III and similar long term disputes).

I note the other problem has been resolved.

Jackiespeel 20:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Shran and the dispute tag

At the time of this posting, User:Shran is the latest of the series of new and anon accounts to place a dispute tag in this article without offering an explanation of exactly what is in dispute on talk. I have removed the tag, as there can be no dispute and thus no dispute tag without a statement of what specifically is in dispute. To clear up the matter as quickly as possible, I also notified this editor individually on his/her talk page. [1] 172 | Talk 13:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Again we have reinserting the dispute tag with no explanation. I made yet another request to know what's going on on the talk page of his/her anon IP range. Looking through this editor's user talk history, it's kind of revealing to find Willmcw's warning against the usage of sockpuppets from about a month ago. [2]. It seems like we're dealing with yet another set of sockpuppets associated with the same IP range. 172 | Talk 00:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC) what are the causes?

Nuclear warfare

This article obviously needs a good and proper cleanup; I just wish I knew more about the subject so that I could help - I thought I'd just point out that Nuclear warfare has a section of some 2000 words on the Cold War - probably too much; either way they need to complement each other. I'll be campaigning for this article's featureing on the Article Improvement Drive. --BigBlueFish 22:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Beginning of the article (before the Contents section)

What's up with the beginning of the article (where the introduction paragraph is on nearly all Wikipedia articles, followed by the Contents)? It's overly long and improperly formatted. I looked in the recent history to see if it was some kind of mistake, but apparently it's been there. Is there any particular reason why it's left like this? Am I missing something? --Iten 07:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

this article is incompetent

the first half of the article is incompetent and illiterate, full of howlers (like Greece and Turkey were Communist), It has to be redone from scratch. As it stands it's the worst history article I have seen in Wiki. Rjensen 08:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The article wasn't nearly as bad a few days ago. Much of the contents were replaced by a series of personal essays that went unnoticed and did not get reverted right away. I restored the established version of the article, which is not great, but at least much better. 172 08:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks--you have improved it! It still needs lots of work, Rjensen 08:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
After those recent edits, blanking the article would have been an improvement! I restored an older version, which itself was never too good. For a while I've been wanting to write a new version of the article with a structure similar to the one you laid out in the (much needed) literature review toward the bottom. In the meantime, this article requires daily vigilance or incompetent edits, such as those recent howlers about Communists in Greece and Turkey. 172 08:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


Here is a summary of certain events in the Cold War. Read through and pick out the events that lacks in your own article, f.ex. The Vietnam War and The Iron Curtain.

The Iron Curtain: Winston Churchill, the British leader at that time, was the first to warn of the USSR communistic expansion into Europe. In a speech, he uses the expression ‘iron curtain’ to explain what was going on in east –Europe: From Stettin by the Baltic-coast to Trieste by the Aegean Sea, an iron curtain has been drawn, right through the Continent. Behind that line lays all the Capitals of central - and Eastern Europe. […] The Communism Parties, which all are in minor, searches everywhere to reach dictatorial power. This is definitively not the emancipated Europe we fought to raise. Truman agreed with Churchill. What were really Stalin’s plans? The communistic parties were the greatest in both France and Italy. The Western Powers could not compete with the army of the Soviet Union. The US had sent home most of the troops. Would entire Europe soon turn communistic? That was what the US feared. The Iron curtain went from German Baltic coast; it divided Germany in two parts (the West and the East), before it continued by the Czechoslovakia – Austrian border, and between Yugoslavia and Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Albany. All states located east of the iron curtain, belonged to the East Block (Albany changed side in 1968), and all located west of the line, belonged to the West Block. Germany was the only country which had been divided on both sides of the line (this was because of intern problems). This happened when the NATO – alliance was formed. Stalin, on his hand, forced by power all states within the block to worship communism. This was a big threat to the West, and USA, Britain, France tried to attack Soviet; but without succeeding.

It was not only in Europe the war took place. A parallel warfare was also degenerated in Asia, especially Korea, China, and Vietnam, and in the former European colonies. The well-known Vietnam War is closely linked to the Cold War. In Vietnam, there was a communistic govern, ruled by Ho Chi Minh, and most people were communists (in opposition to Greece and Turkey). North – Vietnam (Vietnam was divided into North and South in the same year as the Warsaw Patch was signed) was a former French colony, and after the 2.World War, France wanted to regain their rule there. The Vietnams wouldn’t agree to that, and the French was defeated. In South – Vietnam, things went on a little different: The Government had not much support among the people because it was corrupt and ineffective. A communistic rebellion movement was established: Vietcong. Most people in the south were non-communistic, but also here the riots were looked up upon. The community in South – Vietnam asked USA of help against the communists in the north, and they chose to fulfil the demand; in the American election campaign in 1964, the President, Lyndon B. Johnson, said: An Asia threatened by a communistic government will put even the safety of USA in danger. He was elected President with a great gram the plural. Now, a massive war against the communistic guerrilla in Vietnam began. The newest technological weapons of the richest state in the world was put into use on pour Vietnamese warriors; heavily armed helicopters, missiles, machine guns, but above all; the dreadful weapon napalm! Napalm is burning fluid that was used on farms and acres as well as at the people. It burns through your skin like liquid plastic, even under water! You die instantly if you get some of it on your body. Even today, USA is criticized because of their warfare in Vietnam, forty years ago. Here in Norway, as in many other countries, we strongly desisted from the Vietnam War.

1950ies – The French loses in north against Ho Chi Minh, who gets help from China (another communistic state).
1964 – The American President, L. B. Lyndon, sends soldiers to South – Vietnam to fight the communists in the North.
1968 – The American troops has now reached over 500 000 men. It is major protests against the American warfare in USA and Europe. Richard Nixon, the new President, promises to quit the war; bring the boys home.
1973 – Armistice. The American troops leave Vietnam.
1974 – The peace – negotiations collapses. The War breaks lose again.
1975 – North – Vietnam conquers south – Vietnam, and the Americans leave the country for good. Vietnam is united under a communistic govern.

Vemund 19:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

People's Republic of China

Why is PR of China shown as an ally of the Soviet Union on the map? China was always viewed as a wild card in the whole thing. While they were Communist, they didn't exactly agree with the USSR and during the 1980s (at least) it was thought that if the US and the USSR did go to war, they could possibly wind up on either side if they got involved at all. I do know that at least Albania (and possibly others) weren't really viewed as in the Soviet sphere of influence, they in the Chinese.Rt66lt 21:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the maps myself. Still, the map is accurate on the matter you point out above. The map deals with the year 1959, when China and the Soviet Union were still maintaining an image of alliance, though the deep rifts were becoming increasingly evident to some of the more astute Western observers at the time. 172 21:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

China was not ally of soviet in 1959


I have recently written a revised section of the cold war Historiography section for it to be returned to its previous state.

I would like to put forward my case; what the other author has done is use what is know a ten year old method of thinking about the Cold War. The "Three Camps" approach was fine up untill the post war history were it now no longer applies in the say way.

The most obvious error i corrected was the Gaddis as a post-revisionst; he blames the cold war on Stalin how is that in anyway post-revisionst. He was once but that is a out of date, he is catagorically no longer in that camp.

My entry was based upon the writings of several emminent historians, unfortunalty its not published on the web but i would be happy to provide names if needs be.

See Wikipedia:No original research. Personal essays critiquing the traditional scholarly approaches on the Cold War are not appropriate on Wikipedia. The insertions of comments like "to paraphrase Freddy Mercury ... superpowers always fight" does not inspire too much confidence in your edits to the historiography section. 172 22:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

My entry is by no means a personal critique, when do i critisise the any of the works, i merely explain them in more depth showing how there is more than just one orthodox theory. Weather or not you like the "superpowers always fight" comment or not is beside the point, i would be happy to agree to its removal as it's most likely not appropriate, nevertheless it does help to explain the phrase "super power rivialry" with out course to bias.

The issue i have with your attempt is both its lack of depth and its complete admission of the new cold war history, which is obviously essential as it was written ten years ago it is hardly untested!

In refrence to the no original research i would be more than happy to provide names and books which i have taken all of this information from, i assure you i have made no orginal research, just me and a few texts which discuss the topic!

I unfortunatly feel that you will not agree with me and i not with you is there a way to apply for arbitration? I feel a revert war is rather sad waste of time!

It would be most usefull if another wikipedian could take a look at the situation for us!TGoldsmith 23:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

TGoldsmith, this is just the general Cold War entry. There are thousands of related entries on the subject and three entries in a series on Cold War history. The longstanding breakdown of Cold War historiography into traditionalist, revisionist, and post-revisionist camps is still dominant, making your edits quite idiosyncratic. Hence the fact that the classic surveys on the Cold War by Gaddis and LaFeber are still the most commonly found texts found in college course syllabi on the Cold War, which I follow closely since I teach classes on the Cold War and assign Gaddis and LaFeber quite often. 172 00:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you teach only what is clearly old hat? surely it is right to mention we know know, it is considered a valid interpretaion is it not? Gaddis himself has pointed to the fact that there is "old" cold war history and his attempts at post-revisionist were "ill-definied" and "mushy".

I dont doubt that they are on the college course syllabus, i know i am a student! but why does this make the "new" cold war history invalid??

Past research on any field of history is constantly critiqued. Such critiques are not at all unusual. For the purposes of this article, noting Gaddis' recent critiques of his own work are going into much way too much detail. Instead, we need to introduce a very basic overview of the historiography to readers who probably are not at all familiar with the historical literature. If you do not belive my claim that the surveys on the Cold War by LaFeber and Gaddis are still common on course syllabi, do a Google search reutring results from the .edu domain with key words "Cold War" and "syllabus" and confirm it for yourself.
You asked why you edits were idiosyncratic in an edit summary. First, the 1893 Bernstein quotation is interesting trivia, but completely irrelevant to an entry in the general Cold War article. Second, the Orwell quotation again is not relevant. His comments were not very notable at the time. Only with hindsight, as his popularity as an author grew, have they generated much interest. Third, starting the article off with an extended discussion of work by Anders Stephanson is inappropriate. I regard his work highly myself; however, he is not one of the most notable figures in the historiography. Forth, the note on the 'Korean peninsula remaining a Cold War hotspot' does not contribute much in the way of substance. Countless international disputes that flared up during the Cold War are still latent or active to this day. The proper place to discuss them is the section on the legacy of the Cold War toward the end of the Cold War history series. Finally, your apparently arbitrary removals of chunks of the historiography section do not inspire too much confidence in the merits of some of your attempted changes to article. 172 01:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The Korean addition has nothing to do with me. The removal was hardly arbitrary what have those last two paragraphs got to do with the historiography exactly? TGoldsmith 23:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that you restored the Korean addition in one or more of your edits. The last two paragraphs of the historiography section are relevant in that they explain why the post-revisionist school nevertheless accepts U.S. policy in Europe in the 1945-49 period as a necessary reaction to cope with instability in Europe, one of the key themes that generally sets the post-revisionists apart from the revisionists. 172 23:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes in your idosyncratic view!! TGoldsmith 00:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Insults are not going to be persuasive here. 172 00:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Then quit throwing them around yourself, and be a better Wikicitizen. 16:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a question: Why has nobody mentioned, at least in passing, the quite possible origin of the Cold War as being the Potsdam conference? After reading H.R. Shapiro and the numerous sources he cites, it seems likely that a major root of the Cold War began in Truman's domestic political crisis (i.e., filling the post-FDR gap while not having a solid base) and his attempt to create an anti-Soviet bloc to consolidate his power. There are many sources cited in Shapiro (A Political History of the U.S.) that seem to back up this assertion, including many of the sources used elsewhere in this article. I would like to propose adding a small sentence or two on this matter unless someone has a valid academic reason not to. 99th Percentile 04:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm feeling a little miffed about Rjensen's removal of my edit to the Cold War page. I posted a suggestion about what I was about to do on this Talk page and received no comments for 5 months. I went ahead and added Shapiro's theories with the appropriate citation. We may not agree with Shapiro (and, I admit, his theories aren't popular or common). However, his book is masterly in its scope and directly cites numerous historians (e.g., Ambrose, Gaddis, Paterson) and politicians (Harriman, Stalin and Truman themselves) for the source of 80-90% of his material. In addition, this book is cited by Gore Vidal as a critical source of 20th century history--hardly a "fringe" source as Rjensen asserts. I strongly recommend that Rjensen finds or offers some way to edit or improve this material rather than unilaterally removing it. 99th Percentile 16:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
If Gore Vidal the novelist is the only one who approves Shapiro, then he has a LONG way to go to get scholarly consensus that his outlandish theories are acceptable. Wiki can wait until Shapiro convinces the experts. Rjensen 21:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so you really had no scholarly reason, you just wanted to punish someone that reads Shapiro and/or Vidal? Can you please provide a more mature rationale before I restore my edit? Thanks! 99th Percentile 22:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I rechecked Shapiro yesterday. He died in 2002 and was known as a left-wing political activist; he was not a specialist in the Cold War -- the book in question rambles over 200 years of history. As far as I can tell not a single scholarly article (in JSTOR) cites his book, which was published by some unknown press and not by a major publisher. In fact I could only find mention of one review in the history journals, so the editors as well as the scholars and the publishers have not considered his book important. Why should Wiki consider him important? There are hundreds of off-beat polemics out there and they simply don't pass muster as reliable sources. Rjensen 23:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, a more reasoned response, but your arrogance is still counterproductive. This isn't Encyclopedia Britannica and relying on JSTOR as the de facto litmus test for citations is unbelievable. First of all, I'm not a fan of Shapiro, so saying he's "left-wing" illuminates your biases more than mine. Second, where does Wikipedia say that you have to be a "specialist" to either write or be cited here? Obviously, we don't want to cite crap, but nobody here is doing that. Third, I'm sure that one of the driving forces for Wikipedia, whether intentional or not, is to capture important information outside of the mainstream. For "ivory tower" academic subjects, this seems even more crucial; thus, the importance of including contrary opinions AND voices. Lastly, you're right, there are countless polemics out there. However, isn't it important to include those that offer merit, and, even more importantly, for us to trust others' opinions about posting them just as much as they implicitly trust us? I disagree with megabytes of information on Wiki, but I don't feel the need to jump in unless its demonstrably false or wrong. I warned the community on this page that my edit was coming for 5 months; the sources in Shapiro are top-notch; Shapiro adds a relatively small percentage of editorializing to the sources he cites; for the most part; I did not include Shapiro's thoughts, just a high-level summary of the concepts he introduces; I have not read anything on the Internet or elsewhere that refutes Shapiro; Gore Vidal, one of the most competent writers (and writer/historians) of the 20th century (whether you like him or not is irrelevant) believes this is a vital resource. Again, I don't think you have justified anything, and have only demonstrated your personal biases against Shapiro, Vidal, left-wing(ers), and non-academic journals. Please try harder or I will re-post. 99th Percentile 19:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Introduction and Definition

Thanks Fenice for that edit, I think that was the right move! TGoldsmith 23:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not reinsert the photo of the atomic blast. It's too cliched and sensational. Besides, the Cold War never came to that. 172 00:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that all my edits are considered idosyncratic by one user and are remove, surely User: 172 has now broken the more that 4 reverts in 24 hours rule? TGoldsmith 22:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR does not limit measures against possible sockpuppet vandalism. When an anonymous IP range such as makes a sweeping change with an edit summary "revert control freak vandalism" without engaging in the discussion on talk, established users will assume that the IP range is a sockpuppet possibly vandalizing an article. Now, I already attempted to answer your question regarding why I consider your edits earlier idosyncratic. Please try to engage in those content concerns, as opposed to the personal ones. 172 23:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

My edits were not sockpuppet and you have broken that rule with me !

To be totaly honest the only reason you are behaving like this is because you have a sad attachment to what you ahve written on this page - I am so bored of you pathetic whinging that i will never bother contributing to this page again, let the Cold War entry be defined by one one outdated so-called historian! TGoldsmith 00:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I wrote most of the content in the Cold War series, but not on the Cold War page. Right now I am monitoring the page for problematic edits because no other established Wikipedia user is doing it. By the way, you may want to take note of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. 172 00:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Concept: AID-collaboration

Before having more revert wars, lets settle upon a basic concept for this article: What changes need to be made during the AID-collaboration, especially in terms of outline and contents?--Fenice 08:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This is premature. As of this writing, the the article is not subject to an AID. The nomination may still fail. 172 08:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think it would hurt to discuss what changes might be undertaken if / when the article goes AID... Such discussion will assist the future direction of the article and its sub-articles even without AID status. Let's try to be more positive / proactive! Paul James Cowie 08:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As I have suggested elsewhere, I believe some of the first changes that should be made would be within the overall periodisation, which bears huge relevance to many of the sub-articles. It seems odd that we have two reasonably short sub-periods, followed by a vast concluding period.... We need, I believe, a more finely-grained periodisation. Paul James Cowie 08:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have tried, and failed to make worthwhile additions to this article due to the view of one user - hence the problem of wikipedia, tyranny of the person with the most time on his hands! The whole reason behind this article being a nomination for aid is that it is not good! How can constant reverts to old editions ever improve it!

I am more than happy to concede that some of my edits where not quite what were looking for but perhaps editing them is more appropriate that simple deletion.

On the point of the definition I offered, its not orginal research, it is a highly agreeable definition and it sheds light on exactly what the Cold War was 172 has called it idosyncratic, what part of my work was involved and how is it perosonal to me?. I would use a definiton from a more popular historian if there was one! TGoldsmith 13:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is simple. The solution is not. User 172 thinks he/she owns the page, and stifles any thought that doesn't conform with his/her own. 172 is not interested in collaboration, only domination. 14:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely! I would most appreciate it if someone would take the time to compare each of our entrys and see if mine has any merit because accoding to 172 it dosent. Perhaps it would be a good idea to briefly summise the historiography on the front page and then inculde a more detailed article? TGoldsmith 15:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

TGoldsmith, I already explained to you why your edits were idyosincratic in my 01:10, 18 January 2006 post. You have not engaged in those concerns. The echo by, who may or may not be a sockpuppet, is not persuasive. 172 22:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Now you are entering into the sublime - accusing me of using a sockpuppet! this is offensive and i would kindly ask you to retract that comment unless you have some evidence! which i can assure you there wont be!

I feel your concern is not a legitimate one my edits are not idosyncratic, that definition is widely excepted by virtually every published historian, i certianly have never heard and strong dissagreements with it - would you care to point them out to me if there are any than just saying idosyncratic, idosyncratic, idosyncratic to any thing up there. To be honest i feel as if i could put the sun shines in the day and you would call it idosyncratic - irrelevant maybe, certainly not idosyncratic. TGoldsmith 23:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of being a sockpuppet. I was referring to This page chronically attracts sockpuppets an anonymous IP ranges, which is what I am keeping in mind. Your edits were idosyncratic because of the insertion of a coincidence of random pieces of information that are not directly relevant to the summaries provided in prominent parts of the article. For example, the Bernstein and Orwell references in the intro may be interesting anecdotes to start off an essay on the Cold War; but they are off topic in the intro of an encyclopedia's general article on the Cold War. 172 23:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with the definition though? TGoldsmith 00:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

A "definition" section is not standard to the WP:MOS. Further, the contents of the section were redundant considering the content already contained in the intro and the historical overview. 172 00:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Oxymoronic (?) Adjectives in Introduction

The adjectives "open yet restricted" have previously been applied to the Cold War within the introduction this article. This may appear to be oxymoron to some readers. Could the use of these adjectives be clarified / elaborated upon? Paul James Cowie 18:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The opening sentence has been simplified, now referring to the post-World War II struggle between the United States and its allies and the Soviet Union and its allies. 172 23:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Would it perhaps be a good idea to change the word allies from the soviets and replace it with a more accurate term perhpas sphere of influnce or areas of distict soviet control. It is just that the word allies implies amicable agreement which i dont think the peoples of those countries would have seen it. TGoldsmith 23:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No. Not all Soviet allies were describable as Soviet satellite states. Not even all Warsaw Pact-member states were describable as Soviet satellites. Romania under Ceausescu, most notably, often asserted an independent line on intenational affairs, with its close ties to China and denunciations of certain Soviet actions such as the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. 172 23:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No but some of them were and certainly were not soveit allies! TGoldsmith 00:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The regimes that controlled Warsaw Pact member states were aligned with the Soviet Union. The term does not necessarily carry the connotations that you seem to be suggesting. BTW, the Cold War entry in Encarta uses the term "allies" in the same context in its intro. [3] 172 00:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


I've been attempting to slightly expand the introduction to the Cold War article, building on what was there previously, generally clarifying the nature and range of the struggle and incorporating additional internal links to relevant articles. Unfortunately, my edits have not been debated, but rather reverted wholesale without discussion, together with a number of other editors contributions, similarly reverted. Could we engage in more discussion please, particularly as we approach a probable period of work under an AID? Paul James Cowie 08:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I welcome your input. I regret your statement that you'd felt as if some of your edits were reverted with excessive haste. When the page history of an article is as unstable as that of this article, at times edits get reverted with insufficient deliberation. I will take care to avoid that habit. I know that you are a legitimate contributor, as opposed to a one of the sockpuppet ranges like al vandalizing this article. I will make sure that I give your subsequent edits and input on the article proper consideration. 172 23:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Long list

The article has an extremely long list of books and other materials which are not refernced in the article. This seems to be a violations of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. As such, I propose removing this list.Ultramarine 13:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

If the list seems unreasonable long, then don't read all the books. The goal here is to point users to the main authoritative studies that cover most of the world over 40+ years. The is NOT an indiscriminate grab-bag. I activelt searched for authoritative references, by going through the scholarly reviews and surveys and chose the most-recommended titles. (I did not include my own recent book on the Cold War.) The Wiki rules call for 1) using the standards of the relevant discipline (history and international relations), and 2) "In general, even if you are writing from memory, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite." I prepared the list on the assumption that people who are seriously interested in the Cold War -- or who have to write a history or political science termpaper--would appreciate help on where to turn for more depth than an encyclopedia can provide. Rjensen 15:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
If any of the material is used as reference for the article, then use the appropriate standard for Wikipedia citation. In particular, there should be an inline reference to a particular source. Otherwise is should be removed as per the Wikipedia policy. However, I can accept that we move it to a special list article. Ultramarine 15:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
History articles need bibliographies, and this one now has one. As for references, several hundred previous contributors ignored the rule of putting in their sources--hardly anyone did. The article covers one of the longest and most wide-ranging events in the last 200 years so we need to help users with resources they need. I just quoted the Wiki policy: in a nutshell it says GO OUT AND GET BEST SOURCES. So they definitely belong. Rjensen 15:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
That Wikipedia policy has been violated previously is no excuse for continuing to do it. Please use inline references. Again, I propose moving the section to special list article. It is very strange and not encyclopedic that an unexplained list of books is longer than the article itself. Ultramarine 15:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Therefore, I propose a bibliography of at most 10 good books, and preferably less, that may be of interest to a layman who want to learn more. Ultramarine 16:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Bibliographies are a necessary part of this article. Encyclopedias are designed to help readers and the bibliog does that, Why is it long? It is short: there are tens of thousands of books out there on the topic, and indeed too many for beginners to handle. Why is the article so short? Because this is the OVERVIEW historiographical article on the Cold War, not the detailed narratives that already are separate. I suggest we move instead the Documents. Any problems with that? Rjensen 15:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, there can be bibliography. But the current one is much too long, compare with other articles. Your list is by far too long for those who want to read more, Wikipedia is primarily for the public, not for an academic researcher with unlimited time and interest. I do agree that we should move the documents. Ultramarine 16:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Therefore, I propose a bibliography of at most 10 good books, and preferably less, that may be of interest to a layman who want to learn more. Ultramarine 16:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Rjensen; for this particular topic, the appropriate bibiography is considerably longer than it would be for most articles. The documents are more appropriate to move to subarticles.--ragesoss 16:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, looking over it again, it is kind of excessive, considering that it has separate lists for many separate aspects and periods which might be better left to the subarticles. That, and the bibliography doesn't even include William Appleman Williams, even though that is probably still one of the most influential origins of the Cold War books. And I'm not sure about calling the three historiography division "periods". Williams wrote in 1959, and Gaddis and others were still doing "traditional" Cold War history into the 70s.--ragesoss 16:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I moves the sources. As for how many books--the idea is not that people will read all of them! Rather that they will zero in on a subtopic and want to follow it in depth. If they want a survey, those are listed too. If they don't want to read a book, they can ignore the bibliography. Who is Wiki for? Actually it has thousands of reasonably technical articles and that is its strength. Wiki is "for the public" yes, and for 15 million college students writing papers. Generally profs insist that students use books (see the discussions on H-TEACH on for evidence) and therefore they need bibliographies. Rjensen 18:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you overall. But I do think that the more narrow books would be more appropriate for the subarticles. And in general, the article should point people to the best places to start, the most authoritative or influential works, rather than supply a complete bibliography. Too many choices can be overwhelming and actually reduce the usefulness of the article to students writing papers.--ragesoss 19:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we're agreed. the Big bibliographies run 20 to 100 pages, but I tried to give 10-20 books per section. Students at small colleges will discover their library only has a couple of these books...and those at big universities will discover most are checked out! Rjensen 19:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the Williams stuff, btw. Shouldn't Tragedy of American Diplomacy be under the origins section rather than historiography? I realize that it is mainly of interest historiographically (i.e., it was the foundation of a massive amount of further work, much of it by Williams's students) but the book itself is more historical argument than historiographical analysis, and I think a fair number of historians still accept the book's general premise, despite the rise of post-revisionism (at least, my professor did in the class where I wrote a Cold War historiography paper).--ragesoss 19:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe there should be a separate Cold War historiography article; if there is any topic that would merit a separate article just on historiography, this is it, as the different ways of writing about and conceptualizing the Cold War are significant in and of themselves.--ragesoss 19:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
William can of course go either way--I suspect most historians today look at Williams as of historiographical importance and cite later works on specific historical episodes. This Cold War article has become historiography, as well it should. Question: Should we spin off ARMS RACE as a separate article (where people are more likely to find it). It is even more a miltary history topic than diplomatic. Rjensen 19:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the Cold War article could do with a couple more spin-offs, Arms Race among them. I would also say Origins of the Cold War (reaching back to before WWII) could be separate from the first temporal article.--ragesoss 19:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear arms race already exists; it should probably be incorporated into the Cold War series.--ragesoss 19:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC) (It needs some heavy copyediting, though.)--ragesoss 19:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, Rjensen's list is not unreasonably long. It is broken up into distinct areas of study of the Cold War, with the main authoritative studies that cover each area listed under the sub-heading. Please do not remove the contents of the reading list. 172 20:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I support ragesoss proposal to create a separate historiography article. Ultramarine 20:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
A main article on the historiography is a great idea. The existing section on the historiography in the Cold War article will serve as the summary of a main article on the historiography. 172 20:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
In case someone is going to write an historiography article, I've put an old paper I wrote (on historiography of the origins of the cold war) on my talk page: User:Ragesoss/Cold War. It's not great by any stretch, probably biased in significant ways, too detailed, and too colloquial, but some of it may be salvagable (or not). I don't know enough about Cold War historiography to assess its merit, but for someone who does, a few parts of it may save them some writing.--ragesoss 21:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! that will help. I hope to work on the historiography soon. Rjensen 21:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Cold War Beginnings in 1944, 1945 or 1947?

Some say beginnings of the Cold War can be observed in the so-called Warsaw Uprising of 1944. The USSR disallowed US (and UK?) bombers to land in Soviet territory, a necessary stop as Warsaw was too far east to leave, attack, and return to western airfields. Stalin's intention was, it is argued, to insert a sympathetic and soviet friendly government in Poland; for this purpose he harboured the 'Lublin Government' in Moscow throughout the war. England, with an historic association to the Poland, supported a different group. Just a thought.

I think someone should take the time to go through the online documents at the UK national archives, for instance the war cabinet meetings protocols. I unfortunately, have to make a living, so time is limited.

At the Cabinet meeting in April 1945 the PM welcomed representatives of the Dominions to the meeting during which they reviewed the world situation. The PM and Jan Smuts, the South African Prime Minister, made some interesting comments on how they saw the world at the time:


R. relations have deteriorated since Yalta…Hope we shall get through: but only by unity. New balance (or lack of balance) of power in Europe. These are the dominating world facts. How can we match them? Only by our superior statecraft & experience & above all by our Unity… Smuts. …World needs our maturity & experience. Danger of power suddenly acquired w´out experience & mature responsibility – exemplified by Germany & Japan. Hope won´t be true of U.S. & Russia. We have renounced Imperialism. But what of the economic imperialism of U.S.A. & the ideological imperialism of U.S.S.R. Eire is a warning tht. we may easily break up, as did Roman Empire.

W.M.(45)39th Meeting held on 3 April 1945.

At the meeting of the caretaker Cabinet in June 1945 the PM gave his views of de Gaulle and the Russian advance into the heart of central Europe. The latter is almost a forerunner of his Iron Curtain speech:


But no hope of trustworthy relations with France until we are rid of de Gaulle. This advance of R. into heart of central Europe will be one of most terrible events in history. Don´t believe they will willingly go back at least in this generation. 10 European capitals fall into R. hands.

W.M.(45)7th Meeting held on 11 June 1945. Stor stark7 23:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Origins of term "COLD WAR"

Is there a reference to it being a 600 year old term? George Orwell used it specifically to the developing international relationships wrt the development of the atomic bomb (read the essay on his page!), the USSR was included in this. It seems absurd to suggest that it wasn't in reference to what we call the "cold war"! it couldn't have been anything else!. "General usage" is also POV terminolgy, "general usage" with respect to whom exactly? The term in the context of post WWII international relationships and the atomic bomb was first used by George Orwell. I edited the page to reference that, almost anyone can be claimed to have "popularised" the term or brought it into "general usage", is there going to be an argument between advocates of Baruch and Lippmann regading which individual was the most "famous" or "important" (and hence deserves credit for bringing it to the attention of the hoi polloi?). The page is about what happened post WWII, the first person to use the term in the context of those times and events was Orwell.

Surely the most obvious and non-pov statement to make would be to state 'who said it first' and leave it at that. I don't want to get into a revert war over this, so im not re-editing anything until some sort of discussion has taken place. All thoughts welcome, etc. 21:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Read the footnote [4]

from a definitive source, explaining the term is 600 years old. Orwell did NOT mention US and USSR--he was being hypothetical and his usage was NOT picked up by the media or anyone else. Rjensen 21:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Orwell's reference was ignored and did not influence the language says [5]

further: the Oxford English Dictionary (under "COLD") has this quote from British Parliament in 1948 that clearly says the term came from USA, and not from Orwell: "1948 Hansard Commons CCCCXLVI. 411 The British Government..should recognize that the ‘cold war’, as the Americans call it, is on in earnest, that the third world war has, in fact, begun. " Rjensen 03:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Good explanation! fair enough then, although Baruch should probably be included to round everything off. Could you also put TCGTTCW book as a citation in the text? 20:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
ok - done Rjensen 21:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

New Look

I just started an article called New Look (policy) (out of info that used to be on New Look!). It needs some help. Also, what do people think about the term pactomania? I have no idea where it came from, but Googling from it seems to turn up the term on bunches of tests. -HiFiGuy 01:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Cold War Picture Box

Kudos to whomever inserted the Cold War picture box at the top of the article, à la those found at the top of World War One and World War Two. Had been meaning to do one myself for a bit, but didn't find time to get around to it.

I wonder if we could discuss / debate the pictures to be included, however? The top / main image, for example, currently shows Reagan and Gorbachev in a warm fireside meeting - not what I would call typical of the Cold War.... My suggestion would be a Featured Picture-worthy image of the Berlin Wall, perhaps, symbolic of the East-West divide, of the enduring (non-hostile) hostility within the Cold War, and of both the origins (ashes of WWII) and the end (Fall of the Wall) of the Cold War as a global struggle.

What do others think? Paul James Cowie 17:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I like it, but I decided to replace the images of Khruschev and the ICBM with images of Sputnik and Joe 1, the first Soviet atomic test to represent the space race and show a better example of the Soviet-US nuclear arms race. -- Clevelander 23:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the fireside chat Gorbachev/Reagan photo should not be at the top of the article. If youre going for the two main leaders, Kennedy and Kruschev would be better: Image:Kennedy and Khrushchev in Vienna 1961.png -- Astrokey44|talk 06:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
As you can see, I fixed up the image a bit and added new images of Sputnik, ther Berlin Wall, and Kennedy and Khrushchev instead of Reagan and Gorbachev. I felt that the suggested image of Kennedy and Khrushchev was too dark, so I decided to use another one from a free-use site (which also, IMO better represents both leaders - and it's another photograph from the same 1961 Vienna summit). -- Clevelander 02:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes thats a much better picture thanks. I had only said that one because it was the only one I could find on commons of the two together. -- Astrokey44|talk 11:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The Box at the Bottom

How does one edit the "navigate through history" for the Cold War, because there are two things I think that need added. Under the 1980s, I think that glasnost and perestroika should be mentioned, and in the "other" column for world leaders, Margaret Thatcher should be added, and also possibly Pope John Paul II (both had several meetings with Gorbachev over the years).

Welcome to Wikipedia! In order to edit templates such as the one at the bottom, you must access this page:
I'll make the necessary additions and revisions that you requested. Indeed Pope John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher had a great impact on the Cold War. -- Clevelander 03:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

New Formatting

I don't think the new formatting introduced by Robeyk (moving the introduction to below the TOC and putting US and Soviet allies in bullet point form) is an improvement, but I don't want to change it back unless most others feel the same way.--ragesoss 23:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As much as I like the listing, I don't care much for the new "Introduction" heading. I think it might be better if the introduction said something like this:
The Cold War was the strategic, economic and ideological struggle between the global superpowers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America, supported by their allies of the Warsaw Pact and NATO respectively.
We can list all of the US and USSR allies in another section of the article. -- Clevelander 23:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I see. ;-( -- Jason Palpatine 01:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed New Periodisation

So, I've finally come up with a proposed new periodisation, in line with the improvements I suggested when I nominated Cold War for the Wikipedia:Article_Improvement_Drive back in early January 2006..... Following is my rationale / explanation.... Please comment / discuss:

Origins of the Cold War - to deal with the immediate post-war superpower relations (1945-46) and relevant preceding events

1947-1953 - from the generally recognised start date to the change in leadership for both superpowers (Truman >> Eisenhower and Stalin >> Kruschev)

1953-1962 - from the dual change in superpower leadership to the Cuban Missile Crisis

1962-1969 - from the Cuban Missile Crisis to the start of Détente / arms talks, US moon landing

1969-1979 - from start of Détente to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

1979-1985 - the so-called Second Cold War, from the Soviet invasion of Afghanisation to the rise of Gorbachev

1985-1991 - from the rise of Gorbachev to the collapse of the Soviet Union

This periodisation will supersede the massive span of time (1962-1991 = 29 years!!) that featured in the current 3rd sub-period article.... Clearly unworkable!

Paul James Cowie 19:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

looks good to me, A bit too heavy on Russsian namesRjensen 05:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I have merged Cold War (1962-1991) into these articles. Wasnt sure about which references/significant documents to use for each so I added them to all of them -- Astrokey44|talk 03:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

End of the Cold War

I don't think this bit has gotten enough attention. It's a huge piece of history, and the information on how the Cold War ended was skeletal as best. I added some genreal info about the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union by the arms race that was forced by Reagan, but if someone with some real expertise could do some touch up on my generalizations I'd appreciate it. Brihard 09:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I am adding to it, mostly from the more specific article covering 1985-1991. - Huangdi

Is it an established fact that the breakup of the USSR was due to it becoming bankrupt by the arms race, escalated by Reagan? Seems that people in the US keep on bringing this up because they want to feel that they caused the break up directly. Certainly the the arms race did put pressure on the Soviet economy but was it what led to economic troubles? Was the Soviet recession worse than the recessions in the US and Britain a few years earlier? Did the USSR really need the kind of reforms made by Gorbachev? These questions have to be considered before writing a non-biased section.

the economic crisis was spectacular. The USSR had world power pretensions and could barely feed and house its own people. Workers would take the train 100 miles to shop for ordinary canned foods in Moscow. (trains were cheap--food was cheap--there just was not much on the shelves. It was an event in Moscow when stores had apples or oranges. They never had bananas.) The military had huge rockets but that was old 1960s technology--the Soviet bloc was unable to make computer chips and the few new computers in use had been smuggled in. It knew it could not build the new computerized military technology? Rjensen 10:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be very mistaken about your view of the USSR. The Soviets could built computerized military technology; just look at their tanks, aircraft, missiles, and space achivements of the 80's. I don't know what you mean by rockets, but their rockets were not worse, if not better, than the US ones. I think you are talking about the shortages of the late 80's and early 90's. We are talking about just before Gorbachev.

[6]Ultramarine 11:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
No I'm pretty serious. The Soviets by 1980 had failed to make the transition to the computer age. All their technology was old analog stuff. They were years behind and it was getting worse. It was not possible to catch up by squeezing the civilian sector (which was in dreadful shape). Example: I personally visited the computer science department at the leading university MGU in April 1986. They had two Apple computers as their best technology. They had a mainframe and it was running FORTRAN that was a version 15 years old (1970s)--that had been stolen in Ceylon. America meanwhile announced plans to spend hundreds of billions on computerized star wars technology. This I suggest explains why the military demanded reform of the sort Gorbachev offered. Rjensen 12:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What do Gorbachev's reforms have to do with technology? Your point that they needed such drastic change because they were falling further and further behind in computers seems wrong. Even if they were so much behind, which is always exaggerated, they still could get their hands on Western computers (the West was not willing to sell much of its computer technology to socialist countries). I don't understand how they could have developed something like the Buran if they were so much technologically behind?

The failure to match the computer revolution meant that USSR would fall further and further behind. It was already behind South Korea of all places. When Reagan announced a very high tech, very expensive star wars weapons systems, the USSR had to match it, or surrender its military pretentions and its empire. Reagan refused to let high tech be sold to USSR. Their main university in 1986 was able to buy two little Apple computers for its computer science department--that was it. Other departments had none. How could they train the next generation of computer scientists? they couldn't and so fell even further behind. Reagan's people (esp Schulz at State) realized that the computer revolution was a major turning point in world history, and the Soviets agreed. So they had to get out of the arms race as fast as possible. Rjensen 13:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The structural problems of the Soviet economy went far beyond computer technology, and they certainly didn't start as late as Reagan's term of office. However, SDI ("star wars") was a clever way to escalate the rivalry in financial terms with a minimum of strategic risk, so it may have accelerated the process. Peter Grey 15:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Funny how I keep hearing the same Reagan myths over and over. I can't really blame you since you all hear the same things from US sources. After the initial scare, everyone realized that SDI could only be realized far in the future. When did the Soviets want to get out of the arms race? Maybe Gorbachev later did, because he got the country in so much economic trouble. Again, they were behind in computers, but not as much as being said. Stop jumping to conclusions. If a university you visited had 2 PCs as you say (you sure? they showed you everything they had?), that does not mean much. Your point that they were behind so much they gave up does not make sense. And stop bring up South Korea; that country benifited from Western trade and investment. Technology that was developed there was based on the knowledge aquired from Western countries; they did not have to reinvent the wheel.

i believe the last section is very biased andd anti-us. also the world chioce denotes unprofessionalism such as " bombed somewhere". I hope this section can be revised and change so it does not denouce the UNited states or any other country.

Continuing implications for U.S. foreign policy

"The following is based on a list published by Arundhati Roy in the Manchester Guardian (10/23/01) of the countries the U.S. has been at war with - and bombed - since WWII: China (1945-46, 1950-53), Korea (1950-53), Guatemala (1954, 1967-69), Indonesia (1958), Cuba (1959-60), Vietnam (1961-73), the Belgian Congo (1964), Laos (1964-73), Peru (1965), Cambodia (1969-70), Nicaragua (the 1980s), El Salvador (the 1980s), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), Panama (1989), Iraq (1991-99, 2003-present), Bosnia (1995), Sudan (1998), Yugoslavia (1999), and Afghanistan (2001-present). The years 47-49, 55-57, 74-79, 1990 and 2000 were the only peaceful ones. 73% of the years, from WWII's end to 1989, the U.S. bombed somewhere. After the Iron Curtain fell in 1989 (not counting conflicts like Colombia where governing elites request help against rebellious subpopulations) the U.S. bombed at least 88% of the years.

The U.S.S.R.'s existence doesn't explain the U.S. pattern of war making, except negatively, as a deterrant. What the U.S. may have faced all along is a series of nationalist insurgencies (for want of better explanation) against U.S. pirating the world's natural resources using a political device it invented, colonialism by proxy, whereby it organizes and arms elite minorities in countries to be pillaged, who then let U.S. companies and military in. Soviet use of the same device, in this view, was largely reactive. The nearly inevitable insurgencies against the elites, and U.S. or Soviets, have been linked out of necessity, with religion or political ideology being only secondary.

Mere practical necessity explains much. Soviet advisors helped set up the Kuomintang who then allied with the U.S. when Japan threatened. Ho Chi Minh patterned his Vietnamese constitution on the U.S. until turning to the Soviets and Chinese for aid against the U.S. Only immediate, practical necessity explains such apparently fundamental shifts in ideology. The U.S. must note what similar necessities it may continue to create."


"The USSR was a Socialist state and a ruthless dictatorship that sent tens of millions to their death for displeasing Stalin. The USA was a democratic capitalist state."

This seems just a little biased, dont you think? While mostly true (with Stalin instigating a famine in parts of Russia) it shouldn't be used in such a direct, tact-less way. In addition, it really should be qualified with specific evidence. It seems really unproffesional and biased in general.

No that's straight facts. If Stalin were a little more tactful and nice to people Wiki could be nicer to him. There no longer is any need whatever to hide the facts to keep the Soviets happy: no one lives in fear of Stalin anymore. In fact it was the Russians starting with Nikita Khrushchev who exposed the horrors. Bias would consist in hiding the facts to keep a government happy. Rjensen 19:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree factually with you, I just think the presentation is a little biased. If we're using these adjectives with the Soviets, why don't we qualify "Americans" with adjectives as well like "Capitalist Pig, Commie-Scared, Democracy bent on continuing an arms race to create weapons powerful enough to destroy the world several times over." I dont disagree with the facts; its the presentation. It doesn't belong there. Placing it there sounds immature and antagonistic.

for many years people softpeddaled Soviet atrocities to avoid heating up the arms race. That POV is no longer necessary. (note that the solution was not to be equally nasty to the Americans.) And yes we do call the Americans "capitalist" and do mention they built a lot of weapons. The "pig" word perhaps is less useful to readers. "commie scared" is not really a word, but the article does indeed say the Americans were afraid of the Communists. Rjensen 22:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


I read this part of the article and I disagree, it comes across as POV. I've reworded it a little, which makes the statement about the killing of millions into a comma'ed parenthesis, qualifying the USSR's status as a ruthless dictatorship rather than qualifying the USSR, where it is not really relevant. The USA doesn't get an equivalent example about what a democracy they are. I also removed the word ruthless, which is biased. I would still like to see a source cited for the tens of millions killed. I'm also doubtful as to whether the statement is really useful in summarising the origins of the Cold War. If it is the conflict of ideals, and the desire for the exclusive triumph of one political ideal that is being got at, and maybe this is an important factor in the start of the Cold War, then this needs to be made clearer, and preferably cited.
Rjensen, I think it's clear from these talk pages that you have a strong opinion on the Cold War. I think you have acted in excellent faith and have done little to harm the NPOV of the article, but remember to be cautious when dealing with such topics. No matter how badly the USSR may have behaved, it should not be slanted that way in articles. The truth is what they did, and if it's universally condemned then this is reported as other people's opinions not as fact. If you haven't already, you might want to read WP:TIGERS. I hope I'm not being too harsh, this is a genuinely a pre-emptive note. BigBlueFish 22:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Americans committed Genocide against the Native Americans, why isn't that included? (I am American, if that matters). It just seems out of place there. --Joe K 00:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC) (Just figured out the sig)

this article is about the period since 1917. Lots of things happened in the world before then--they have their own articles. Rjensen 00:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course it's biased, it's american. All their media revolves around propaganda -G —This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
As a Canadian you are just as much entitled to edit the article as an American, or as myself, a Brit. BigBlueFish 15:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I find that the neutrality of this article is disputable from beginning to end. "after stalin switched sides in 1941" is a gross overstatement, as his 1939 agreement with Hitler had merely been a neutrality pact in case either country was attacked by a third party. There had been no decisions to gang up on the allies, or anything of the sort.:: Sonyadragonfruit 02:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)sonyadragonfruit
I agree; the way it is presented makes it incredibly biased, factually accurate or not.

The claim that the Non-Aggression Pact between Stalin and Hitler was "merely" a "neutrality pact" is dubious at best. The pact included a now-infamous "secret" annex (albeit a badly-kept secret) that not only assigned spheres of infuence to each power but also included terms for the Third Partition of Poland. In practice, the agreement led directly to the Soviet occupation of the Baltic States and Bessarabia (assigned to the Soviet sphere of influence). It also, of course, resulted in the Red Army coordinating its occupation of eastern Poland with the Wehrmacht's invasion in September, 1939 -- an invasion which Hitler could not begin until he secured the Soviets' acquiescence.

I would agree, however, that the statement, "after Stalin switched sides in 1941" is misleading. Stalin viewed the pact as a way to buy time, allowing the Soviets to prepare for a still-inevitable confrontation with the Germans. While the Soviet Union supplied the Germans with vast quantities of raw material, including oil and metal ores, literally until the morning of the German invasion of the Soviet Union, Stalin was interested above all in buying time to prepare for just such an attack. Although Stalin viewed war between Germany and the Soviet Union as inevitable, his most disastrous error was underestimating Hitler's willingness and ability to turn on him before 1942 or 1943 at the earliest. Mstuartm 02:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


Personally I think the War infobox for the Cold War adds nothing to the page and actually detracts somewhat given the hugely complex and global nature of the Cold War, which was primarily fought by non-military means. I removed the ridiculously huge one yesterday or whenever it was; I have left this one in but shall await a consensus before acting on it. Cripipper 19:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

My vote on the infobox is no. Even though I updated it, the infobox gives a false impression of the "war", and is contradicted anyway by the text in the intro: that it wasn't a "hot" war. Few people died as a direct result, and the proxy wars are where most lives were lost, e.g., the Korean War. People in China didn't die from the war, they died because of some bad decisions by the Chinese government, and certainly weren't "combatants." Hires an editor 01:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Add External Links to Missle Silo Museums

I think two External Links should be added:

The Titan Missile Silo in Arizona:

The Minuteman Missle National Historic Site in S. Dakota:

Visiting these sites offers a tangible experience of the resources, money, manpower, ingenuity, fear and much more that went into the massive, never used and rarely seen, Cold War Military systems.

I don't think this is very controversial...I am just posting it here because I didn't see an edit button for the External Links on this article and couldn't figure how else to do it. I'm hoping someone will take a moment and add the links.


Iran and Malawi

Should be labelled as being allies of the United States. And, depending on the time period of the map, so should Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.

And Botswana, while pro-Western, was pretty much non-aligned.

The map is of 1980. Malawi is shown as a U.S. ally, and by this time Iran was not and neither was Zimbabwe. Cripipper 23:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


In 1959, Indonesia was a Soviet ally and Ethiopia was a U.S. ally.

They are both shown thus on the map already. (Although I would argue that Indonesia is the wrong colour in that it wasn't a socialist state).

On both maps, Cote d'Ivoire should be a U.S. ally. (check the Felix Houphouet-Boigny article for details)

Ivory Coast didn't become independent until 1960 and it is already shown as a U.S. ally in the 1980 map.

Changing the map

Actually I see that it was you who changed the map. I am not sure I agree with your changes to Venezuela and Indonesia. Cripipper 00:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The map definitely needs changed, however upon closer inspection I think what it really requires is a new colour system for countries that were officially non-aligned, but which were tacit allies of one side or another (i.e. such as India in the 1980 version). Looking at the map as it currently stands, the reader could be led to believe that the countries in grey were the members of the non-aligned movement, and leading them to conclude that those countries 'committed' by the colour-coding (such as India and Indonesia) were not.
And BTW, Indonesia is still the wrong colour in 1959, and I am still not sure why Venezuela is grey in 1980. Cripipper 10:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


I just reverted the bolded addition to the Historiography section:

The end of the Cold War opened many of the archives of the Communist states which has increased the support for the traditionalist position. Many of the archives showed that the U.S.S.R had little to no 'secret agenda' that Truman and other presidents seemed paraniod about.

Does anyone think this might be a valid statement? It sure needs sourcing if it is though. BigBlueFish 19:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The archives show that North Korea asked and received permission from Moscow to invade the South. Rjensen 20:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

this achievement with the soviet union, is wat lead to the cold war —This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .


Clockwise from top: United States President John F. Kennedy and Soviet General Secretary Nikita Khrushchev meet in a 1961 summit held in Vienna; East German border guards at the Berlin Wall; the first Soviet nuclear weapon Joe 1 is tested; American soldiers land in Vietnam during the Vietnam War; Sputnik 1 is launched into orbit (triggering the Space Race).

I replaced the photos above (taken from the upper right corner of the article) with a series box. I'm leaving the photos here until I can-- or someone else can-- figure out a new place for them. Apologies in advance to everyone. 172 | Talk 02:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

good solution: the montage is useless without detailed captions. Rjensen 03:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Exactly what is the objection to the images? Ultramarine 03:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I posted a detailed explanation on Clevelander's talk page a couple of weeks ago. Please refer to it if you are interested. 172 | Talk 03:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Please post it here so everybody can see it and discuss it. Ultramarine 03:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The link is here. [7] 172 | Talk 03:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the images, the objection is "The box is also problematic in that obscures a more complicated pattern of international relations in which the world was not two clearly opposed blocs led by two rival superpowers. The selection of the particular grouping of images, for instance, strikes me as encouraging the myth that the Cold War was a clear-cut struggle between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The Cold War was global and multi-sided. While the particular images chosen might be the most memorable to the American public, other peoples might recall a very different set of images. We see in the box Khrushchev and Kennedy and the Berlin Wall. But one could also make the case for focusing on the leaders who shattered the assumptions of Americans of a biploar world pitting communism against the free world, such as Mao, Nehru, Nasser, Tito, Arafat, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and Khomeini." Essentially your objection is that the selction is POV. That can be easily fixed, add other images in other places in the article. Ultramarine 03:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
RJsensen also added "the montage is useless without detailed captions." The better solution is adding other images with captions in relevant parts of the article. Further, the montage takes up the space better used for the series box, which is necessary for making the text on Cold War history usable for readers. The utilitarian value of the series box trumps the aesthetic enhancement offered by the montage. 172 | Talk 04:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

172 | Talk 04:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Introduction is too long

I have just looked at the article, and in my view the introductory section is too long. Few articles have such a detailed first section as this one does. Perhaps it would be better to restrict the introduction to a paragraph or maybe two, then move more of the information from the current introduction to the sections of the body. Maybe it would be possible to create an overview section at the beginning of the body. This way the first part of the article will present a brief and concise overview, this will be followed by the table of contents and finally by the more detailed sections. TSO1D 23:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The old summary went on and on. I condensed it so that readers get a quick, clear overview. (All the deleted points are well covered in the article itself.) Rjensen 10:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
This is in fact much better, well done Rjensen. TSO1D 02:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Replace all "neo-conservative(s)" with conservative(s)

"Neo-Conservative(s)" is an emotionaly charged POV word sometimes used by the political left to discribe their opponents on the converative. Conservative(s)is a netural objective NPOV word used by both themselves and their opponents. Joncnunn 16:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The term "neoconservative" is in common use and is not POV. It refers to a specific subgroup of conservatives (especially influential in Bush II). Rjensen 16:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Neither term is really very satisfying, especially since they're both being used with a US-specific meaning, but 'neo-conservative' is at least a little more precise than 'conservative'. Perhaps it would be better to identify more explicitly what groups and/or belief systems are being referred to. Peter Grey 23:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The standard term is "neoconservative" and it is immediately understood by all English speakers to mean a very specific set of policies and leaders. The term "conservative" can be used for internal domestic affairs but it is ambiguous in terms of foreign affairs--it includes both isolationists and interventionists. Wiki's mission is to report on the world as it is, and not on what it would look like if we could make some aterations here and there. Rjensen 23:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC

First Indochina War being part of the Cold War

Thank you. EnthusiastFRANCE 02:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

cold war

send to my email address.

Sorry? You can join the free discussion by clicking HERE (if this is what you were refering to). The more we are to debate the better it is.

EnthusiastFRANCE 16:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it amusing how so many experts say that the cold war is 'over', then cover their butts by calling the current detente the 'new cold war'. Time for people to face facts - the cold war did not end in 1991 and is still going: 1 - the war started between the USSR and the USA; people think the war ended because the USSR and the Warsaw Pact no longer exist. What they dont understand is that the USSR and WP were never important. Geographic positioning is only a small element of teh cold war. The conflict was always between the Russian Republic portion of the USSR and the USA, with the WP and NATO only proxies in the battle. As long as the two entities known as 'Russia' and 'USA' exist, the war continues. 2 - the war is kept alive through power projection and influence over other nations. Russia is as active militarily as it was prior to 1990. Russia continues to conduct espionage against NATO countries. Russia continues to act in political opposition to the US and NATO whenever it serves their purpose. 3 - although the country has gone through several upheavals politically, it is still an authoritarian government operating under the guise of a democratic system. Always was, still is. 4 - too many academics and military 'experts' have set their reputation by the phrase 'the cold war is over'. They are no longer defending the truth of the event, only their professional reputations. None of them want to admit they were wrong. NFW 29Jul06

LOL...'finally, someone who clearly has some real insight -- not moonbat brains -- speaks the TRUTH. Nicely done. I guffhaw at those who think that the Cold War is over with ZERO direct knowledge on the subject. Just put those folks in the same category as the morons who use the pejorative "neocons" and think that they've accomplished something. It's all just amazing. -- 00:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately this revelatory truth overlooks the fact that what epitomized the Cold War was two competing ideological visions of how countries should be internally structured. The Soviet Union and the communist system it headed is now defunct, ergo so is the Cold War. Don't confuse competition, as has always existed between nation states, with what were the unique characteristics of the Cold War. Wingnuts. Cripipper 00:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. It's 'guffaw'. Cripipper 00:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


This page seems to be a magnet for vandalism. It gets vandalized nearly every day. I just had to go back and get rid of it...somebody wrote "PENIS" at the top of the page.

Neutrality and factual accuracy

Sourced material regarding the origin and end of the conflict is removed and unsourced incorrect material is inserted instead. Why is the following sourced information removed?

"The causes of the conflict are disputed. The end of the Cold War opened many of the archives of the Soviet Union, providing documentation which has increased the support for the traditionalist position. John Lewis Gaddis has written that Stalin's "authoritarian, paranoid and narcissistic predisposition" locked the Cold War into place. "Stalin alone pursued personal security by depriving everyone else of it: no Western leader relied on terror to the extent that he did. He alone had transformed his country into an extension of himself: no Western leader could have succeeded at such a feat and none attempted it. He alone saw war and revolution as acceptable means with which to pursue ultimate ends: no Western leader associated violence with progress to the extent that he did."[8]"

"Research shows that the fall of the USSR was accompanied by a sudden and dramatic decline in total warfare, interstate wars, ethnic wars, revolutionary wars, the number of refugees and displaced persons and an increase in the number of democratic states. The opposite pattern was seen before the end." [9]Ultramarine 22:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)"

The current version of the page presents a balanced and general analysis of the origins of the Cold War. The passage discusses the geo-political as well as the ideological roots of the conflict, explaining how various key events set the stage for the rivalry. Your version, on the other hand, merely presents a one-sided and narrow view of the conflict. The entire passage is taken out of a book and all it discusses is how Stalin was responsible for the conflict, completely neglecting the other roots. And as for your second source, you should realize that an AOL user page is not a credible source under most circumstances. TSO1D 22:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The current version has no sources for its claims. As such, it violates Wikipedia:Verifiability and disputed material can removed by any editor. The above material has sources. If something is missing, add it, with reliable sources. Please follow Wikipedia policy. I will change the second source to the scholarly report instead.Ultramarine 22:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is a better link for the second paragraph: [10]Ultramarine 22:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
You are mistaken. The passage solely contains common knowledge, thus sources are not required. In any case, the passage you provided is extremely narrow in scope to present a viable introduction of the roots of the Cold War. TSO1D 22:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The causes and effects of the Cold War is extensively disputed and researched by scholars. Certainly not "Common knowledge". If you argue that it is, then I can argue that the sourced material is also "Common knowledge".Ultramarine 22:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
To some extent, yes, but that passage does include personal opinion in a large degree. Nevertheless, you are missing the point, that material does not explain the roots of the Cold War as much as it explains how Stalin was autoritarian and escalated the conflict. TSO1D 22:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
A view by a very prominent scholar of the Cold War. A sourced explanation for how the conflict was locked in place certainly deserves mention. Why is this removed and replaced by unsorced views? The same with material regarding the effects on general warfare. I have now provided a reliable source.Ultramarine 22:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Gaddis:"The Western democracies sought a form of security that would reject violence or the threat of it: security was to be a collective good, not a benefit denied to some in order to provide it to others. Stalin saw things very differently: security came only by intimidating or eliminating potential challengers. World politics was an extension of Soviet politics, which was in turn an extension of Stalin's preferred personal environment: a zero-sum game, in which achieving security for one meant depriving everyone else of it.Ultramarine 22:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not stating that your source is not relevant, just that you cannot use a small passage taken directly out of a book that only represents one theory and one side of the story and replace the entire summary paragraph on the roots of the Cold War. If you want to you can edit Origins of the Cold War and in a concise manner present this theory and cite the author. You cannot, however, replace the entire paragraph found on the general page with that passage. TSO1D 23:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
But why are people deleting this well-sourced views. I originally just added this material to the already existing. Then people started asking for sources, so I gave them and removed the unsourced material. Also, please follow Wikipedia:Verifiablity. Add sources, otherwise disputd material can be removed by any editor. Please respect Wikpedia policy. All views should be reprresented, not just those that suit one side.Ultramarine 23:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The summary paragraph simply gives an overview of Origins of the Cold War, where you will find plenty of sources for the material used. And as I said before most of it is common knowledge thus not requiring sources, and frankly I don't see how it can be disputed. TSO1D 00:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I find your arguments very strange. The Cold War is an extremely disputed area and you state that no sources are needed. At the same time you want to exclude a sourced view. At the very least, Gaddies view should be mentioned and that it represent new research from the archives. Regardless of what should be stated about the origins, why was the material of the effect on general warfare removed?Ultramarine 00:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Did you even read my replies? I said that sources do exist in the detailed article and that where they don't exist, that is because the information is common knowledge (e.g. WWII ended in 1945). Again, you can add Gaddies to the Origins of the Cold War article and in the summary, but in a condensed version. You completely deleted the former text that was achieved through a long process in conformity with the rules and policies of Wikipedia and with the consensus of most users and replaced it with a brief passage from a book that did not even cover the origins of the conflict. I am talking about this edit. As for the warfare information, I did not intend to remove that part, I just reverted your en-masse edits. Nevertheless, you might consider adding that information to Post-Cold War era as that appears to be a more proper place for the information. TSO1D 00:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Why should William Appleman Williams's pov be mentioned but not that of Gaddis who use much more recent material? Why should not the extremely large effect on all kinds of warfare not be mentioned? Ultramarine 00:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Did I not say: all means, use the material?. I simply emphasized the point that any addition to the general page should be concise. At Origins of the Cold War you can go into more detail (with reasonable limits of course). As for the warfare material I said use it also if you find a proper place for it. For example in the part about the end of the war or in its subsection found here: Cold War (1985-1991)#Legacy, or Post-Cold War era. TSO1D 00:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, are you aware that this very long-standing material was removed by an anonymous user: [11]? Why not again include it? Ultramarine 00:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I actually am not against the historiography section. What I did not like was that you added a great deal of information to the Origins section and removed the existing paragraph which gave a better overview. I mean look at this this diff]. As for the historiography part, I will put it back myself. TSO1D 00:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Bricker Amendment

For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article. I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1. I'd welcome comments. I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Operation Urgent Fury

Should the Grenada invasion be added to that infobox at the bottom? 03:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes to this article

I'd like to remove the template, pare down the bibliography. Both of these have been duplicated at the recently created Portal. The bibliography has its own page, and the template is at the bottom of the Portal page. I've seen the template at the bottom of other Cold War pages, which could be replaced by the portal link...which would have the template at the bottom. Any comment on either of these two/three things? Hires an editor 18:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Vietnam War

Whether the Vietnam War started in 1957 or 1959 is a matter of debate, but either way I think it should be moved in the list of Cold War events from the 1950s to the 1960s. It may have started in the late 1950s, but it is by any reckoning a Cold War event of the 1960s. Oh yes, and add the Cambodian Civil War to the 1970s. Cripipper 13:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

And what has happened to the fact box now? It only contains US and USSR politicians? One of the defining events of the Cold War was China's break with the Soviet Union and later decision for rapprochement with the United States. Mao at least deserves to be on the list of dramatis personae Cripipper 10:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The section concerning the Vietnam War is heavily POV and full of inaccuracy. US Forces were not defeated. They withdrew because Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 which cut off all funding to the South Vietnamese. This was not a military defeat, but a political one. A military defeat would have been one military soundly defeating the other with tactical strategy. In other words, had Congress not passed the FAA of 1974, the outcome would have been different as we know it today. Military defeats do not hinge on Legislators, but rather on military tactics or lack thereof.Corporaljohnny 20:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

MInor issue regarding one of your edits:
"Johnson stationed 575,000 troops in Southeast Asia to defeat the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (NLF) and their North Vietnamese allies, but his costly policy and an uncooperative US Congress weakened the U.S. economy and, by 1975, ultimately culminated in the withdrawal of U.S. Forces from South Vietnam."
This could be misconstrued by a reader as to state that 'an uncooperative US Congress' participated in weakening the US economy as opposed to forcing the US out of Vietnam. I don't think that's where you were going - if not, it just needs to be reworded. Fedallah 22:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
As I have pointed out to User:Corporaljohnny in Talk:Vietnam War, American troops were all completely withdrawn from Indochina by the end of March 1973. The reduction in funding for the GVN in December 1974 had no role to play in this matter. The Vietnamese strategy had depended on America, just like the French before them, tiring of the war and withdrawing. As Ho Chi Minh had said in 1946, "You can kill 10 of my men for every one I kill of yours, yet even at those odds, you will lose and I will win." And so it proved to pass. Having worked twice, it would appear to be a rather effective strategy, and a fairly clear strategic victory. Cripipper 00:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edit is heavily POV. There was no crushing or humiliating military defeat of US Forces. Please stick to the facts and keep your personal views out of the article.Corporaljohnny 13:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Incidentally, your inserted text that "due to lack of funding from Congress, all US Forces were withdrawn from South Vietnam by 1975" is completely ahistoric. See above. All American combat troops were withdrawn before the end of 1972 and the remainder were withdrawn by Nixon by April 1973 under the terms of the Paris Peace Accords Cripipper 14:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Firstly it was not my edit; secondly, the text does not say it was a humiliating military defeat of US forces (nor does the word 'crushing' appear anywhere - it says it was a humiliating defeat for the U.S., which was how it was seen globally (just as was the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan). The US sent over half a million men to South Vietnam to stop it going communist; 58,000 Americans died to prevent South Vietnam going communist; hundreds of thousands of Americans were injured in the attempt to prevent South Vietnam going communist. South Vietnam went communist. This was, correctly, viewed as a defeat for the U.S. Cripipper 14:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

All US Forces were withdrawn in 1975. US Forces does not exclusively mean 'combat troops'. There were US Forces in Saigon in 1975. On the 27th of April, 1975 100,000 North Vietnamese troops encircled Saigon and the US Ambassador pleaded with the US Government for 700 million dollars in emergency aid, but he never got it. The funding was gone because of the internal politics of the US. On 30 April 1975, the final US Forces, Marines at the US Embassy, withdrew. Saigon fell, not because the US Military was defeated, but because the US Military had been withdrawn in 1973 and finally all support in 1975. You are right that the communist won. But their victory was achieved not through military victories. As far as how it was seen globally, that is POV. The facts should be cited. The article is skewed and makes it appear as if the US Military was defeated by a superior foe. The US Military was defeated by internal US politics. I won't edit the article anymore because you seem insistant on pressing your POV in it and I don't have time to go back and forth editing it.Corporaljohnny 14:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The text does not say that the US was defeated militarily; you seem to presume that the only form of defeat is military. The surrender of South Vietnam was a strategic defeat for the U.S. by anyone's standards, given the amount of men and money that the U.S. poured into Indochina, or do you believe that the surrender of South Vietnam to North Vietnamese forces was a victory for the United States? Now, why this defeat came about is quite another question, and one that is explored in the appropriate article.
As regards the question of U.S. Forces - they were all withdrawn by the end of March 1973, not just the combat troops, who had all already left. The Marines who remained were there to protect the U.S. embassy, which was sovereign U.S. territory. Technically there were no U.S. forces in South Vietnam. However, if you want to argue that the Marines count as American troops in South Vietnam, then would it not be more accurate to say that the U.S. Marines fled from Saigon in April 1975 in the face of a massive and inevitable North Vietnamese victory? Of course that would not be an accurate representation of what happened, though technically correct.
I have no POV position on this - just a regard for the historical facts which seems to be absent from your edits. Cripipper 15:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

New Infobox

Cold War
Date c. 1947-1991
Location Worldwide; major standoffs in Berlin, Cuba, Zhenbao Island; proxy wars in Greece, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Angola, El Salvador, Nicaragua, others.
Result Dissolution of the Soviet Union following major easing in tensions
Division of Korea, reunification of Germany, formation of 24 new nations in Eurasia
United StatesUnited States
United KingdomUnited Kingdom
and allied nations and guerillas
30px Warsaw Pact:
Soviet UnionUnion of Soviet Socialist Republics
and allied nations and guerillas
ChinaPeople's Republic of China
and allied nations and guerillas
The Cold War took the form of an arms race, mutual espionage, economic warfare, proxy wars, and support for opposing sides in various civil wars worldwide, rather than open hostilities between the major powers.
History of the Cold War
Origins - 1947–1953
1953–1962 - 1962–1979
1979–1985 - 1985–1991

I have created a new infobox that I think addresses many of the issues raised against previous infoboxes. I used phrases and information from the article's lead section and tried to reflect the ambiguities inherent in this topic. I went ahead and boldly inserted it, but I thought it prudent also to discuss it here. I actually created four boxes: User:Fishal/ColdWarbox, User:Fishal/ColdWarbox2, User:Fishal/ColdWarbox3, and User:Fishal/ColdWarbox4. The boxes are identical except for their images. I think that ultimately someone should create a composite image similar to the infobox for World War I and World War II. Let me know if you think they can be used in the article. Fishal 01:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

On a related but tangential note, is there any estimate on the total death toll resulting from the Cold War? The article doesn't even comment. Fishal 02:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it might have been too bold, but I found the orphaned image (see "Picture Box," above) used in an old infobox. The article history says that a user removed the infobox, including the image, last spring. The edit summary alludes to a discussion here, which I cannot find. I feel that the new box visually enhances the page and provides some basic information without oversimplifying the issues. I welcome any criticism and appologize if my edits are seen as a disruption. Fishal 02:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

We had a discussion about the infobox and photo montage earlier this year. (Someone seems to have deleted it.) Please see this discussion for reasons for the removal. 172 | Talk 04:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, see my note to the author of the info box for additional reasons for the removal:

... The collage is attractive and a nice piece of work. Still, I don't think it's too helpful to follow the template of the military history battle boxes that have been becoming standard on Wikipedia in articles about wars ...
The Cold War does not fit neatly into a military history box understood by following military conflict from one shifting geographical point to another war. The notion suggested by the Cold War battle box that the Cold War played out from one "location" to the next ("Proxy wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Korea...") is too simplistic. Political and economic struggles do not always fit neatly into particular geographic arenas.
The box is also problematic in that obscures a more complicated pattern of international relations in which the world was not two clearly opposed blocs led by two rival superpowers. The selection of the particular grouping of images, for instance, strikes me as encouraging the myth that the Cold War was a clear-cut struggle between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The Cold War was global and multi-sided. While the particular images chosen might be the most memorable to the American public, other peoples might recall a very different set of images. We see in the box Khrushchev and Kennedy and the Berlin Wall. But one could also make the case for focusing on the leaders who shattered the assumptions of Americans of a biploar world pitting communism against the free world, such as Mao, Nehru, Nasser, Tito, Arafat, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and Khomeini.
The box's summary of the "result" of the Cold War ("Dissolution of the Soviet Union and the collapse of most Communist states in the late 1980s and early 1990s.") is also too simplistic. Did the Cold War result in the collapse of the Soviet bloc? That question is hotly debated. I certainly do not have an answer. Ignoring the debate suggests triumphalism. What about some of the 'results' stressed by Walter LaFeber: "[The Cold War] cost Americans $8 trillion in defense expenditures, took the lives of nearly 100,000 of their young men and women, ruined the careers of many others during the McCarthyite witch hunts, led the nation into the horrors of the Southeast Asian conflicts, and in the 1980s helped trigger the worst economic depression in forty years. It was the most satisfying chapter in American diplomatic history." [12]
The "date" row in the box is also somewhat problematic. LaFeber, among others, complicates the notion of a clear 'beginning' and an 'end' of the Cold War: "The conflict did not begin in 1945 or even with the communist victory in Russia during 1917. The two powers did not initially come into conflict because one was communist and the other was capitalist. Rather, they first confronted each other on the plains of north China and Manchuria in the late nineteenth century." .... 172 | Talk 19:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC) comment found here

172 | Talk 04:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the new infobox. It's much less simplistic. It's supposed to be a summary, and the disclaimer does much to address the "simplistic" notion that it was a 'standard' war. Hires an editor 13:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
That was my goal in creating it. I would assert, 172, that many or most of your concerns are addressed by my new, more equivocal infobox. I put a version here on this talk page without the image, since it seems that the image was one of your chief concerns. I just want some more discussion before we decide to throw the whole thing out, because I think a box like this is useful for this article. Fishal 17:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The "new, more equivocal infobox" is not too different at all. The image montage is not the only concern. The same problems are present in the rows dealing with "dates," "location," "result," and "combatants" (see the 2nd, 4th, and 5th paragraphs of my reply to the original author I pasted above). 172 | Talk 21:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

So, how many of the things in the infobox are not true? Did the SU fall apart? Yes. The reasons why may or may not be related to the Cold War is the assertion, right? But the Cold War ended because of its dissolution. No more Soviets, no more 'fighting'. It's always a result that nations at war spend money, so that's not a "result" either. But the result of the Cold War was what, then? What happened as a result of the Cold War? From the American perspective, I'd say that they thought they won, since George H. W. Bush gave a speech I saw live on CNN where he celebrated with the crowd saying how "we'd won!" The American economy is still in debt from all the spending that Reagan and the US Congress did in the 80' that a result? Advances in technology--a result? Results could be that America was defeated in Vietnam, the Soviets in Afganastan, more equivical results in other regions, such as Angola. If the goal of the Soviets in the Cold War was to spread Communism, then they failed ultimately in most of the world, except China and Vietnam...If the goal of the Americans was to stop the spread of Communism, then they succeeded for the most part. I'd say from the American perspective, the dissolution of the Soviet Union was the (un)intended result. The real goal would have been the defeat of Soviet Communism, in whatever form it was supposed to take. We don't yet have a complete idea of what the Soviets' view of victory would have looked like, since the archives haven't been open long enough to get the required perspective/information.
From the Nuclear War perspective, it was a stalemate, since nobody nuked anybody else. That's a result. Hires an editor 20:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
You keep going through a series of rhetorical questions, asking me if a series of things is "a result" of the Cold War. I gather I'm supposed to conclude that none of them make as much sense as the "dissolution of the Soviet Union," which is the "result" of the Cold War that fits neatly into a tiny 'info box.' My point is the consequences of many decades of global history are not reducible to an explanation of 'a result' consisting of a couple or several words. From differnet points of views there are going to be many different results. From some, the "dissolution of the Soviet Union" is not even one of them, following the argument that the Cold War help sustain the legitimacy of a regime which was able to mobilize its population against the idea of some sort of external threat. 172 | Talk 10:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
That's why I took care not to use the words "NATO victory" or similar language in this version of the infobox, just "Dissolution of the Soviet Union following major easing in tensions." I suppose an even less assertive statement might be worded "Major easing in tensions, followed shortly by dissolution of the Soviet Union."
172, I think that in seeing the complexities of the Cold War you are missing some of the basic truths about it. It is true that there was a major standoff between the USA, the USSR, and their allies (in which the PRC was a third major player) that occurred following World War II. It is true that the nature of this conflict was profoundly different from the conflict that began "on the plains of Manchuria" in the previous century, and also profoundly different from the tension between the USA and uSSR during or before the world war. It is also true that the superpowers played out their conflict in many hapless nations worldwide; hence the statement "Worldwide" under "location." The wording of the infobox hints at further complexities through terms like "circa" and "others."
Obviously an infobox will not comprehensively cover a topic like the Cold War, but for that matter neither will an encyclopedia article. The article summarizes the basic facts and concepts behind the Cold War: the ideological struggle, whether real or perceived; the nuclear arms race; espionage and counterespionage; proxy wars and interference in the internal politics of the "Third World;" the seemingly bipolar power structure of the world between the forties and the eighties. Obviously it was more complex than this, but the article (and the infobox) focus on these issues. That is why the lead section of this article does not read "The Cold War began at an unknown time and was fought (or not) in unknown locations by persons unknown." There is some information necessary to a basic understanding of the Cold War, and the infobox provides such info in a way that is fast, accessible, and visual. I don't care what the wording is, but I think that a box of some kind belongs at the top of the page. Fishal 22:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not forgetting the basic truth that throughout most of the Cold War the world was not divided into two clearly opposed blocs led by two rival superpowers. The box is U.S.-centric, and can be removed on groups of the NPOV policy alone. 172 | Talk 10:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The box doesn't say that the entire world was joined up with either the USA, USSR, or PRC, only that those blocs represented the major sides of the conflict. The World War I box doesn't suggest that the entire world was an Ally or a Central Power. Fishal 22:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
As 172 has demonstrated, there is a broad array of viewpoints regarding the dates, locations, results, and combatants of the Cold War. You seem to be arguing, Fishal, that it is acceptable to ignore these differing viewpoints and to only include the "basic truths", in order to help the reader grasp the fundamentals of the war. But some of these "basic truths" of yours, as 172 has shown, are hotly contested, and not just by a lunatic fringe. Thus, by compacting the Cold War into a neat little info-box and thereby disregarding these contrasting viewpoints, you would be violating WP:NPOV, which has primacy over all considerations of accessibility. That said, I oppose the info-box. -- WGee 00:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Everything in the infobox is true, which is what makes this difficult. The "rhetorical questions" I posed above are partially me thinking out loud, and partially to make the point I was trying make. After all, I think that we're defending points of view rather than thinking this through. There were conflicts around the world that the two superpowers 'glommed' onto to make their points. There were two (IMO) main powers with supporting casts. I don't understand how the infobox makes this into a bipolar world. It was a bipolar conflict, however. Doesn't mean that it was a bi-polar world, though. I don't see how it's US-centric, either.

What exactly are the 'hotly' contested items? The starting date of the war? Circa... The result? Okay, so the result could also be inderminate (among other things). Participants? Clearly muli-sided. And addressed by the info box. It is supposed to be a simplified version of things. By comparison, could the Hundred Years' War infobox be too simplistic? The infobox there doesn't hint at the complexity that the article shows. Just because it's a complex conflict (or be complex) doesn't mean that it can't be boiled down. Hires an editor 17:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

172 has already told you that prominent American historian Walter LaFeber, for one, disagrees with your proposed starting date of the war; he also disagrees with the purported results. Moreover, since "the" result of the Cold War is indeterminate, as you say, we should not be misleading readers to think that it can be clearly and uncontroversially defined, nor should we be imposing on the reader our version of history. As for the combatants, again 172 has demonstrated (see paragraph 3 of his italicized post) that perceptions of them vary among countries, and that it is inaccurate to portray the war as bipolar. You argue that "Just because it's a complex conflict (or be complex) doesn't mean that it can't be boiled down." I'm arguing, however, that it shouldn't be boiled down, because doing so results in the neglection of significant differing viewpoints.
Why is there such a preoccupation with condensing complex events into little boxes, anyway? It's actually purpose of the lead to summarize the conflict, so that different viewpoints can be properly explained in paragraphs; history doesn't need to be further compacted into a neat visual package. If readers cannot or will not read the four short paragraphs of the lead, then they should not be accommodated. If you feel that the lead does not adequately prepare the reader for the content of the article, then you should fix it rather than circumvent its purpose. None of this is to suggest, however, that info-boxes should be eschewed entirely or that they are never helpful; I'm simply saying that they cannot be used to accurately depict such a multifaceted era as the Cold War, especially when there is no academic consensus regarding its basic variables.
-- WGee 23:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The argument can be made that infoboxes provide a visual cohesiveness among related articles, and I think that there is value to that. Would it be possible to use something like:
  • Dates: debated, but generally considred to start after World War II, and to end prior to the close of the 20th Century.
  • Location: Several and varying. The nature of the Cold War has led to difficulties in determining whether certain events are truly connected or are simply contemporaneous
  • Combatants: initially, Capitalism and Communism
  • etc?
This would provide the visual conformity but make clear, or at least hint at the complicated nature of the Cold War --Badger151 01:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Listing "capitalism" and "communism" as "combatants is reall problematic on many levels, the most glaring of which is the role of countries like Yugoslavia. Your proposals for the dates and locations are better in their wording. But if we're going to have sentence-long explanations, there's no point in having an infobox; readers can just read the intros. 172 | Talk 04:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Why is there such a preoccupation with condensing complex events into little boxes, anyway?" OK, you've convinced me. I suppose that the benefits of visually summarizing the basics of the Cold War are outweighed by the fact that everyone seems to disagree as to what those basics are. I would still contend that such a summary is appropriate: I will repeat that acknowledging that the conflict had 2 or 3 major sides does not mean that every nation on earth was tied up with one of those sides. However, it is also true that an infobox for its own sake is silly. That being said, some kind of visual belongs at the top of the article, whether an image, visual timeline, or stripped-down infobox of some kind. The sterile box of dates that currently sits up there is just no good. Fishal 05:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Aesthetics is not an issue here. Our goal is creating a usable, written encyclopedia. The "sterile box of dates" serves a key function in directing readers to our series covering the history of the Cold War. An infobox does not serve a key function. The intro, not an infobox, is the part of the article that is supposed to present basic information. 172 | Talk 06:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The contents provide the same data as the "sterile box of dates." The infobox provides a visual basis for the article, and should be reinstated. BlueLotas 19:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Fishal 21:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Vandal Bot

It seems that when vandalism that deletes the entire page (or most of the page), that when the damage is repaired, only part of it gets replaced, and not the whole article. I've seen this happen twice now. Is there any way of fixing this? Hires an editor 21:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Constant vandalism there any reason why this page in particular seems to attract so much anon vandalism? The reverting is incessant. Fedallah 04:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

See Also to Main Article for Further Reading

Since the Further Reading on the actual article is a portion of all the sources actually used, shouldn't the article with all the sources be the 'main' article rather then a 'see also'? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Btg2290 (talkcontribs) 11:22, 24 November 2006.


The quality of this article was always poor, and a complete rewrite has been needed for a long time. I had considered doing so for several years, but honestly hoped someone else would do the work. But that didn't seem to be happening, so I just went ahead and did it today.

The rewrite is not a finished product, just like any Wikipedia article. A lot of content can be expanded or modified, but the structure is clear enough to serve as a basis for new contributions. This article has footnotes and inline citations, unlike the old one. I made an effort to use citations of professionally written encyclopedias and sourcebooks and widely used survey textbooks for nearly all the references. Although I consider the specialist literature a lot more interesting, I understand that an article on an extremely broad topic geared toward the broadest readership reasonably possible should use information that is very easy for any intelligent reader to verify on his/her own. 172 | Talk 10:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

rewrite is good idea, but needs a less POV outlook (the Hallowell-LaFeber "revisionist" school interpretation is a minority view these days and can't be goven preference). The pre-1917 era can be safely ignored and well-known facts (like recognition in 1933) do not need footnoting. Rjensen 10:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Coincidentally, just a few days ago, I was explaining to several other users why elementary facts do not require citations on the talk page of the communism entry. There was a consensus against me on the talk page, so I gave up, although I knew I was right. Hence, I decided to cite external sources for basic facts here, figuring that Wikipedia users, despite not understanding the real function of footnoting, would expect me to do so. To make a long story short, I completely agree, and I'm quite pleased to see you comment on that matter here. Regarding LaFeber's work on the pre-1917 era, I understand your point. That interpretation currently is not the dominant view. But it is still a major one, and it at least indirectly influenced current postrevisionist scholarship. So I reinserted the paragraph on the pre-1917 era, but this time with a note clarifying that the interpretation is LaFeber's, and not necessarily a consensus in the field. Thanks for the feedback. 172 | Talk 11:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow. I'm impressed with it, that's all I can say. It appears to be far better than what was there before, I'll have to take a closer look at it later. Fedallah 12:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

let's drop Post-Cold War era

The Cold War ends and the article ends. Some other article should take up the story, but it is a different story and does not belong here. (Some of the legacy items can be salvaged). Rjensen 01:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. TSO1D 01:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Concur. Fedallah 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I had the same thought when drafting the section. I did think to myself 'Cold War ends and the article ends' as I wrote it. The problem is that the issues mentioned under that heading should be addressed somewhere. After thinking about the problem, I decided a 'post-Cold War' section was the easiest way we could deal with the legacy issues on Wikipedia. I also considered inserting a "legacy" section. But I decided against it, worrying some users would see the section as space where they can post their own personal essays. Then, I considered addressing the issues in and expanded historiography section organized by topic rather than by approach. But I worried such a structure would make the historiography section way too long. Each possible structure has its relative benefits and drawbacks. So I really don't have a strong opinion on the matter. For now, though, I suggest changing the name of the heading to "legacy," but keeping the heading under the history section as a quick fix. 172 | Talk 03:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ending of the Cold War

In the article it is stated that the Cold War was ended when Gorbachev launched the perestroika and glasnost programs. Perestroika and glasnost were internal changes in the USSR, especially economical to help the staggering economy of the Sovjets. This might have been a first step to the end of the Cold War or contributed to the downfall of the Sovjet-Union, but the Cold War wasn't over by then. During the 80s there were still hard-lining communists that saw the changes with much suspicion. I cannot cite any good sources, but according to several history books NATO was in a alarmed fase at the end of the USSR. Internal struggles can lead to a coup d'état. I suggest someone changes it more appropriatly. --Soetermans 10:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

POV debate

No I did not expres my 'opinion', I just gave the quote of the Pentagon Papers, Section 1, pp. 242-69, The Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Volume 1, Chapter 5, "Origins of the Insurgency in South Vietnam, 1954-1960". Bryad gis his opinion, I note you posted wiothout proof. If you were to post 'In the 1950's France was defending Algeria', yeah, that's an opinion, even if you provide a quote(say from a French writer who's pro-war). You're the one who's inserting opinion, not me. User:Green01 3:23, Dec. 1 2006 (UTC).

The paragraph in question is addressing the Vietnam War in general, not the southern insurgency alone. Stating that China and particularly the USSR did not back North Vietnam by way of military advisors, money and materiel is simply not true. Saying that the US 'attacked' South Vietnam - well, I suppose there's an argument for that, but it'd be a very controversial position to take. Byrd's opinion is a very well-established one, check the list of references. Fedallah 04:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


"The Cold War ended in the late 1980s following the launching of Mikhail Gorbachev's reform programs, perestroika and glasnost"

This is a completely ridiculous statement. It hands Gorbachev all the credit, when it wasn't even his intention. It also completely ignores Reagan and Bush's contributions to the process. A more accurate sentence would be roughly 'The Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union. This was due to its economic collapse along with the pressures imposed by US economically strategic warfare from the mid 80's on." There needs to be a full accounting of how the USSR collapsed because of both the impractical system of the Soviet communist system and the pressure from the USA during the Reagan years. Monty2 15:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Its a lot more complex that that, don't you think? Did the Soviet system suddenly become a lot more impractical in the late 1980s or did Gorbachev give it a big giant (albeit unintended) shove? What exactly did the bumbling Reagan do other than make one good speech and sit on the sidelines? I always thought the Poles had something to do with it. DMorpheus 16:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Monty, I also said that the statement is nonsense.
Reagan did in fact put a lot of pressure on the USSR during the 80's, calling it a "Evil Empire", making plans for the so-called Star Wars project and putting a lot of money into the military. The USSR could no longer keep up with the arms-race by then. A staggering economy and the economic crisis of the 80's were one of the reasons.
But to say that the Cold War ended because of the US Presidents's foreign policy, is too much. The main reason was that the communist economy could no longer be up held. In the capitalist world manufacturers are constant looking for cheaper and more effective ways of producing. Factory owners in the USSR were employees of the authorities and had no profit target (why would you, if you would gain the same salary?), so there were no innovations there. Eventually leading to a downwards economy.
Poland wasn't part of the USSR. During Gorbachev's reign, they became more indepedent of Moscow and began to reform their economy. --Soetermans 22:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone revet the previous edits - please


The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program.

Thanks, ffm 23:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


Is there any particular reason that there are nine years missing from this account of the war...? Cyril Washbrook 23:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why, yes. There is a reason. It's called Vandalism. If I had time right now, I would go back through the edit history and locate the deleted section, and restore it to its proper place in the article. Please do so yourself, if you care to lend a hand. Cgingold 15:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested Semi-protection

I've requested Semi-protection of the article to spare those of us who are serious editors from the ceaseless onslaught of vandalism by multiple anonymous users. This is long overdue. Cgingold 15:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Cold War History discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals

A project to foster better coordination and collaboration on articles relating to Cold War history.
Interested Wikipedians
  1. Nobs02 21:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. KarlBunker 22:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Eleland 13:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. --Jimbo Herndan 04:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. A mcmurray 09:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Destructo 087 22:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Chris 04:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC) let's jumpstart this bad boy
  8. Crested Penguin 08:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but wouldn't just calling it "WikiProject Cold War" be easier? Kirill Lokshin 10:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, we are faced now with divergent schools regarding the roots of the Cold War [13]; we now find ourselves bringing in a large group of articles pre-1945 that had an important impact on policy decisions in whats called the early Cold War period. The two editors that have signed on are already working in this particular area. Nobs02 17:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Meh. I meant that "history" was implicit; the Cold War being over, everything dealing with it is by definition an aspect of history. It doesn't really matter too much, though. (In any case, it ought to be Wikipedia:WikiProject Cold War history, as WikiProject titles follow sentence case.) Kirill Lokshin 19:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You may want to check out the Cold War portal.... NDCompuGeek 16:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The Cold War

The Cold War was a war faught between U.S.A and U.S.S.R. It was a war fought by scaring the other country. For example the if The U.S. makes a weapon the the U.S.S.R. would make a bigger and better weapon. The U.S had more and better weapons but Russia kept biulding. The war doesn't really have a winner, but now the U.S and the U.S.S.R. are in peace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

The Cold War

According to my studies The Cold War was fought in the 1940's to the early 1970's: Alot of information conterbalances that: I'm not sure when exactly did it start: It was a conflict between we, the U.S and Russia( or as they were called then the U.S.S.R.). There were no shooting in this war, there were actually no shooting at all( except for spies, there were a lot of spies). The Cold War was more of scaring the other countury. Russia biult nuculear weapons to scare the U.S, and we biuld more to scare them. It kept going on for a long time. I havn't goten to the end of my book so I can't tell how it ended but I know that we now have peace. The President even has a hotline to Russia to contact them on an emergancy.

                                                        History Feak =)

Cold War Montage and Infobox

I'm sorry if I added the montage and infobox on the Cold War without consent but I thought that it would make the Cold War article very interesting. I present two arguements for this:

  • It seems to me strange that, for example, on the Vietnam War, the infobox says "Part of The Cold War", but then you go to the Cold War and find no infobox, it seems very too dull.
  • I would also like to say that when I say the word 'dull' I mean that it is too uninteresting and if it had an infobox and image montage it makes the article stand out and look more interesting due to the imagery shown (this is, of course, in the eye of the beholder). For example, when I first heard about World War I and World War II (and the American Civil War), I thought nothing interesting, but when I turned to the article I saw the imagery, it really makes the article enjoyable - especially to a person that doesn't know anything about the subject - including myself because I had no interest in WWI or WWII, but when I saw the montage and infobox, it truely summarizes the events and gives visual imagery, which is very appealing. So I ask of you what you think on the subject, because even though the two countries of the United States and the Soviet Union never directly went to war, it seems appropriate that an infobox and montage such as the ones in the World War I and World War II articles.

Please tell me what your contradictions might be.Chris Iz Cali (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)