This is an archive of past discussions about Cold War. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Defense is spelled incorrectly in the first paragraph. It is -se not -ce. Page is locked, so can someone else change it? 140.180.2.125 (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Wait, the cold war was mainly between the Soviet Union and the United States; since Russians don't typically speak English, then American English should be used in this article. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Wrong! Since this is the main wikipedia it should be on british-english, becourse that's the international language.
This english wikipedia is used by peoples all over the world, and even peoples from russia use this. So the international english is the answer.
Capable of destroying the world a hundred fold
I need some clarification here. When people talk of how both blocs possessed enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world a hundred fold, what exactly do they mean? That the ENTIRE earth would be blown into tiny pieces or that all surfaces life (crust of the earth) would be destroyed? This is just once, and they were capable of doing it numerous times?
-G
they ment destroying all life blowing up the planet would take quite a bit more energy
The figures were calculated essentially by measuring the "deaths per kiloton" of Hiroshima and multiplying that by the total size of the Cold War nuclear arsenals. Obviously this is very imprecise and generally more of a propaganda statement than anything else. A full nuclear exchange would have devistated the human population of the world (mainly northern hemisphere) and caused severe environmental damage. But it wouldn't have destroyed the world or all life on it - not even close. Remember that during atmospheric nuclear testing hundreds of nuclear weapons actually were detonated, and we're all still here. Now clearly if you want any of this to end up in the article, I'll have to do a lot of digging for good sources. But it was definitely never true that the earth could have been blown apart, or even that all surface life could have been killed. See here for an amusing look at the math of actually blowing apart a planet. Vonspringer21:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. You will be surprised how many teachers (secondary school teachers anyway) believed it was the "entire" earth that could have been destroyed.
I think it IS true that civilisation would have ceased to exist though, if a nuclear war did take place.
-xlb
not sure if the 100 is exact, but most mammals (humans included) would be extinct as they need awful amount of energy to survive. it may not be possible in long term environmental damage caused by nukes. you may destroy once but can prevent new regenerations 1000 times or more.
Z001109:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
It is somewhat ambiguous saying that it was mainly propaganda and lies used by governments, the fact is that there were many bombs dropped during tests, but the main fact is that they would not have affected the atmosphere because they were held, towards the middle and end at least, underground. The fact that they were able to destroy life on earth over 100 times is not a fact that should be considered, Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was a fact, and the fact that they could have used them is not the issue, but would they have used them to try and overt a nuclear crisis? and the answer to that is yes, one must look to the Cuban nuclear situatiuon, where the Soviets were positioning Nuclear weapons in Cuba to target the eastern seaboard, Washington, New York etc. This caused an incredible amount of fear and anguish amongst the whole world as they held their collective breaths as Kennedy Said "Take your nukes out of Cuba or we will attack" the conflict was whether he was bluffing or not, and we now know that he was not in fact bluffing.--Tom.mevlie (talk) 10:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Cold War Map
Western and Eastern blocs with Third World region of contention.
I think that athe edit to replace the world map is the wrong way to go. There are too many pictures of people, and not enough showing the world-wide nature of the Cold War. I think that the map isn't simplistic. It shows with some accuracy that from the Cold War perspective, people did see the world that way. That map belongs in this article, or at least a better one that shows the whole world, and its alliances. Hires an editor00:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The photos of people are real documentary artifacts of the worldwide nature of the Cold War, not a simplification of reality like the maps. The photos are carefully chosen to supplement the text. Settings of the photos are diverse. Photos of key moments of the Cold War include the capitals of the two superpowers, from the Oval Office to the Kremlin, along with a rice growing village in Vietnam, site of the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. The photos of Cold War actors reflect the diversity of the different Cold War arenas over time. In one section there is a photo of Truman and Stalin at Potsdam. In another section there is a photo of the Non-Aligned Movement leaders like Nehru, Nkrumah, Nasser, and Sukarno. 172 | Talk22:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Maps still show something that pictures of people cannot: the world's alliances (or lack thereof), on a total, global scale. And all at once. Leaders/people didn't stand on different sides of the room, or stage, when pictures were taken to illustrate the division between east/west, Soviet/American realities. This was a geopolitical conflict, and a map would illustrate that better than pictures of people.
If a map is going to be in the intro, I would suggest it be the one below. It was the most detailed one I could find in Wikimedia Commons, and is more detailed than the "three worlds" map. 172, while I understand your concerns about the maps, especially as concerns the intro, I think this map should at least be included in the article. At the very least, it expands upon the maps of military and economic alliances in Europe. SpiderMMB19:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Cold War map (1959). The status of France within NATO would fluctuate, and China would later split with the USSR.
I don't think that map should be in the intro, and really, no map for the intro, because the subject isn't as simple as the map would make it seem. It would be better to have the more detailed map later in the article. Hires an editor10:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone with an inkling of the complexities of international relations would dream of calling the Cold War "simple," but the map at the beginning does give a basic point of reference by which to understand the conflict. In short, keep it or put the more detailed map at the begining. — BQZip01 —talk19:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The map with 3 colors is supposed to show the First World, the Second World, and the Third World. Howerver, it is factually incorrect: Turkey is not a developed nations. Laos and Kampuchea are Communist nations. Unclear what year it represent, now or some random Cold War year? Does not show Cold War alliances like US-Thailand, US-Iran, Soviet-Angola, and so on. Sweden, Austria, Ireland, Finland, and Switzerland were not US allies. Does not show the divisions among the Communist nations, like Soviet vs. China or Soviet vs. Yugoslavia.Ultramarine20:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I like the more detailed map: it has a year, doesn't show a monolithic grouping of nations, shows some of the complexity that was present, like China and the Soviet Union not exactly allies. It maybe should have a caption that expresses the fact that this a basic representation, or only partially reflects the complexity of how international relations operated at this point in history. I'm also not a fan of the map being at the beginning of the article, given this issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hires an editor (talk • contribs) 16:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
Cambodia, Laos, these were communist nations but do not show up on the map.
alex
the map
I think that the Cold War was indeed one of the worst wars every fought in America. The major dispute between the countries lead to useless deaths, declining economy, and harmful dictators.
I think the map should be made bigger. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cc12345 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
Factual accuracy and neutrality
As the surviving superpower, the U.S. could focus its Cold War capabilities in new directions, the future "up for grabs" according to former Under Secretary of Defense for PolicyPaul Wolfowitz in 1991.[1] This list, first published by Arundhati Roy in the Manchester Guardian (10/23/01), shows 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, 2003-07), Bosnia (1995), Sudan (1998), Yugoslavia (1999), and Afghanistan (2001-07). From this, 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 Berlin Wall fell in 1989 (not counting conflicts like Colombia) the U.S. bombed at least 88% of the years into 2007. From this, the U.S.S.R.'s existence doesn't explain the U.S. pattern of war making, except negatively, as a deterrant.
The list is based on a newspaper opinion piece by a novelist. No sources are given in the article. It contains numeroues errors, like the US had no involvement with Indonesia in 1958 or Peru in 1965. Giving mlitary aid to an opposing group or the government, as in Nicaragua or El Salvador, is not bombing or a war. the US have never been at war with or bombed many of these nations. The calculation at then end and the conclusion is made by an anonymous wikipedia editor based on this newspaper opinion piece.Ultramarine14:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
She is an award-winning novelist of highest repute, and an author of several books of political analysis, also reputable. If ever in error, she publicly corrects it. The Wolfowitz quote is sourced, as is Roy's list. The years she gives are commonly known and undisputed (active duty US military flew bombing missions). All the rest is simple counting and averaging, grade school arithmetic that requires no source. If you don't know how, stop complaining and learn. If you do, it's easy to verify by simply counting the years. You are the one maintaining careful anonymity; I, on the other hand, am not. MBHiii15:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
She is still not a historican or a political scientist, in this regard she is just a non-scholar voicing her personal opinions. There are no sources in her newspaper opinion piece, it does not mention the Cold War, and she does not mention you own original research conclusion, see here: [1]. As noted above, her unsourced list contains many factual errors. Yet another is claiming that the US has been at war with or bombed China in 1945-46! Your own original research is not allowed in wikipedia, read WP:SYN. Ultramarine17:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Not only is the list POV for reasons stated by Ultramarine, it is way off-topic. This is not a general article about U.S. foreign policy. Mbhiii, stop adding the list. 172 | Talk19:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I see User:Ultramarine does not respond to my challenge to identify himself after accusing me of being anonymous. I extend the same to User:172. Who are you both? This list is hardly off-topic if Soviet Cold War machinations were mainly a defense against us, which our conduct since seems to suggest.
JSTOR cites 13 works by Roy, mostly on post-colonial themes, disarmament, globalization, cultural continuity. She's an incredably prolific writer. According to Google Scholar her works have been cited in scholarly books and papers up to 71 times in about 1380 ways (the "opinion piece" in question, 3 citations, and, incidentally, there are nearly a million Google hits on her name). What does it take for you to recognize an academic heavy hitter.
She doesn't have to mention the Cold War, the conflicts' countries and dates do that. You don't have to say it stinks when describing swatting flies in an outhouse. Her numbers are presented for those who wish to tally them, as any author doing so would intend, right? Reading according to an author's intention is not original research but simple reading and writing.
According to William Blum a former State Department employee: "China, 1945-49: (We) intervened in a civil war, taking the side of Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists, even though the latter had been a much closer ally of the United States in the world war. The U.S. used defeated Japanese soldiers* to fight for its side."[2] *(just as the US did briefly in Vietnam) MBHiii20:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with Roy's merits as a scholar. I'm not commenting on the subject right now as I am not too familar with her. The article has a discussion of Cold War revisionists critical of U.S. policy to one degree or another, mentioning William Appleman Williams, Gar Alperovitz, and Gabriel Kolko. The appear in thousands of articles that come up in Jstor, not 13. For the general entry on the Cold War, references to the very notable publications are needed, not just any paper by a PhD that happens to be published. 172 | Talk20:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This is not an article about scholarship on the Cold War, but an article about the Cold War itself; scholarship of all sorts, traditional or not, should be allowed if reliable and germain. 63.98.135.19620:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I am hard pressed to find a single exception to the US providing air support to those it had a significant investment in arms, materiel, training, and economic aspirations. 63.98.135.19621:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
So there is no evidence for bombing, as claimed. The same regarding for example Indonesia, Peru, or Nicaragua. The US never bombed those nations as falsely claimed.Ultramarine21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
During the Reagan/Bush Central American Wars, the US flew dual seat, side by side, dual controls, jet "trainers" out of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. They were armed with guns, rockets, and bombs and allowed the "instructor" to take control instantly, if needed, which was most of the time, according active duty sources cited in the news. 216.77.236.13518:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Every single one of articles in JSTOR have been written by other authors, she is only mentioned. She has not published any scholarly material. Please name any academic book or article that she has written.Ultramarine21:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
There are several that seem appropriate, but, as above, this is not an article about scholarship on the Cold War, but an article about the Cold War itself; scholarship of all sorts, traditional or not, should be allowed if reliable and germain.63.98.135.19621:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Because she has not published academic works does not make her source materials or conclusions invalid. Per Wikipedia:No original research... research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. If her theories or claims are unsourced, that's not the same as information in Wikipedia being unsourced.
What you may be trying to say is that she is not reliable as a source. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources discusses the fact that Exceptional claims require exceptional sources and since according to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories, what we're dealing with is not 'mainstream', it doesn't belong here. I agree with the assertions in this part of the article, and maybe if it becomes more evident in others' works or in the works of more scholars (and others) as time goes by, then it could be included in the article. Besides, this article is getting too long again...Hires an editor01:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Look you guys, you have to take a different view of scholarship on a topic that everyone knows something about. The fact everyone knows something about it forces publishable scholarship on it to be rather esoteric. If large numbers of people already know and agree with it, it's not notable. The resulting scholarship is then forced to be rather otherworldly and useless. You are absolutely failing to reflect informed world opinion on what we were really up to, during the Cold War, to the effect that American imperialism is totally under-reported in this article. MBHiii13:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem with "everyone knows something about" is that what everyone knows may not be true. This article is about facts, not world opinion. "If large numbers of people already know and agree with it, it's not notable." I disagree. Everyone knows that Harry Truman authorized the dropping of the atomic bomb, and it's notable. Obscure, "otherwordly and useless" scholarship doesn't belong here, either. If we can have a good grouping of facts, reliable sources, and so forth, then maybe we can reverse the under-reporting of American imperialism. But then again, that may be taking this article off its main subject...Hires an editor15:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Clearly, "notable" is used above by MBHiii in an ironic, anti-academic sense. Otherwise, what you say is fine.63.98.135.19620:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
References
^ERIC SCHMITT, "Washington at Work; Ex-Cold Warrior Sees the Future as 'Up for Grabs'" The New York Times December 23, 1991.
^William Blum, "A Brief History of U.S. Interventions: 1945 to the Present," Z magazine, June 1999.
Nostalgia..
Might we not add an article on the effects of the cold war on western pop culture? The protest songs, the films, the comic books, and the video games? What do people think? Dagnabbitt21:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so the map is wrong. But is it just because Cuba didn't ally itself with the Soviet Union until 1960 (or 1961/1962)? Are there other inaccuracies? What if we just changed the date of the map to 1960? Or can we just change Cuba from red to neutral (to reflect its status in 1959)? Or to US ally? Is there some other map that we can use? Until this gets resolved, I'm removing the map, again. And reluctantly. Hires an editor00:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Cuba was never a US ally, relations have been tensed. I guess it would be fair to say that yes Cuba allied with the USSR from 1961 there about. -H —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.75.23.219 (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
"Post-Cold War" section
Ultramarine, please do not restore the section "post-Cold War." The section is redundant. The section "legacy" broadly describes the post-Cold War era. The article already has a paragraph discussing Gaddis' 1997 (not 1998) book We Know Now: Rethinking Cold War History... Notice I am moving the Gaddis quotation to a more relevant part of the article, not deleting it. 172 | Talk12:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
"Circa 1960" map
The "circa 1960" world map inserted in the intro is far to simplistic and imprecise to be usable in an encyclopedia. To whomever this concerns, stop reinserting the map. First, the distinction between the two categories for non-NATO Western bloc states is arbitrary and factually wrong. SEATO, CENTO, and Rio Pact states appear in two different colors, with some arbitrarily colored lavender for "nations receiving aid from the U.S" and the rest colored blue for "other allies of the United States." Yet most states, whether lavender or blue, received Western military aid in one form or another. Second, no accurate distinction is offered between the two colors representing non-Warsaw Pact Eastern bloc states. "Socialist countries aligned with the USSR" appear in crimson; the rest ("other allies of the USSR") appear in bright red. On no clear basis is the maker of the map able to describe the crimson states as 'socialist' and the rest appearing in bright red ones as 'non-socialist.' Cuba is particularly problematic. Cuba appears in crimson, yet Cuba was not yet committed to Marxism-Leninism and deeply anchored in the Soviet alliance system until late 1961 and early 1962. Third, the color scheme obscures more historically relevant detail than it reveals. By the end of 1960 open clashes between the Soviet Union and China had already occurred. Yet the map completely overlooks the growing Sino-Soviet rift. Finally, even if this map were reproduced on the basis of formal alliances (e.g., SEATO, CENTO, Rio Pact, and Comecon), the categories would obviously not be mutually exclusive. Any such map would be too cumbersome and confusing to offer any value in the introduction. 172 | Talk02:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you believe that there is any map worthy of being in this article? Granted, the international relationships were convoluted and difficult, but the point is to simplify, and the bigger point is to show the worldwide nature of this whole conflict.
Maps showing membership in NATO and the Warsaw Pact plus the corresponding European economic alliances are straightfoward. Two such maps already appear in the aritcle. There is hardly a special need for a third. 172 | Talk16:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so there's two maps, of Europe. Nothing that shows that this was a world-wide conflict, though. There's nothing that shows proxy wars that occurred in Africa or Southeast Asia, or anything indicating South American conflict because of the Cold War. We need a map of the world. Hires an editor23:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
A map of Europe is sufficient. The alliance systems in Europe were real, and clear on map. For most of the postwar period, Europe was divided by regional Cold War bipolar blocs organized into competing military, political, and economic alliances. From the end of the Second World War until 1989, except for a few minor changes, the blocs largely divided Europe geographically along a line following the Oder and Neisse rivers. Western-backed alliance agreements in Africa and Asia, however, were never taken seriously and were constantly in a state of flux. The 1950s-era collective security pacts SEATO and CENTO were derided as a policy of "pactomania" of John Foster Dulles. The Non-Aligned Movement lacked cohesion, and many members of the pact happened to be closely aligned with either superpower. I suppose maps representing mutual defense arrangements and political alliances in the Third World (e.g., Rio Pact, OAS, CENTO, SEATO, NAM) can be created. But such maps will add little of value to the article, offering epresentations of short windows of time of paper tiger political pacts. 172 | Talk01:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
A MAP OF EUROPE ALONE IS ABSOLUTELY INSUFFICIENT TO DESCRIBE THE COLD WAR. FURTHERMORE IT IS PROPAGANDISTIC (IGNORING ISSUES OF "EMPIRE" OR HEGEMONY) TO PRESENT THE COLD WAR AS MERELY A EUROPEAN CONFLICT. MOST THE FIGHTING AND DYING BY EASTERN AND WESTERN BLOC PERSONNEL HAPPENED OUTSIDE EUROPE, NOT TO MENTION THE VASTLY LARGER FIGHTING AND DYING OF THEIR THIRD WORLD PROXIES. THIS ARTICLE NEEDS A WORLD MAP TO SHOW WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. 74.227.121.21712:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
HELLO ANGRY (WO)MAN ABOVE ME! the cold war wasn't primarily about fighting. yes, most of it happened outside of europe, but the entire point of a "cold" war is that there's not fighting. and i'm not in any way trying to say that fighting didn't happen during this time period, i know it did. but thats not all its about, so calm down.
Caps lock is cruise control for cool
Post-revisionism
Ultramarine, as I've pointed out several times, your edit gives a skewed picture of Gaddis' book. Whereas the paragraph selected by User 172 presents a balanced summary of Gaddis' thesis (as I requested), the two additional paragraphs that you insist on putting in give disproportionate emphasis to one particular element; the existing paragraph makes the point quite adequately, there's no need to ram the point home with two more, excessively long excerpts -- that's overkill. I would also point out that no other book referenced in the article is allotted more than a single paragraph excerpt, there's no good reason for this book to be the lone exception. Please don't keep restoring those excerpts; when you simply disregard my plainly explained objections and persist in putting them back, you are engaging in POV-pushing, which is disallowed under WP:NPOV.
And PS: in your haste to get those excerpts back in, you also (3 times) made two unrelated paragraphs of text disappear into the footnotes. Would it be asking too much to request that you take more care with your edits? Cgingold01:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
See this diff, you are incorrect. [2]. Stop distorting what the book says. What you delete is the central conclusions of the book. If there is anything that should be changed, it is the general misrepresentation in "Post-revisionism" paragraph, misleadingingly impying that views from the 70s, such as Gaddis views then, are the best current consensus and what he thinks now after being able to read the Soviet archives.Ultramarine12:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Ya know, I'm not sure what bothers me more, your persistent POV-pushing, or your utterly careless editing, which -- once again -- made two entirely innocent paragraphs of text "disappear" into the footnotes. <sigh>
How on earth can you can accuse me of "distorting what the book says"? -- that's absurd. All I've done is remove two excessively long excerpts that expanded on the very same "Stalin theme" which is nicely summarized in the other excerpt. "...and it took [Stalin] in particular, responding predictably to his own authoritarian, paranoid, and narcissistic predisposition, to lock it into place." That states things pretty plainly, if you ask me. Sorry, but you're the one who is pushing a POV here, insisting that two entire additional paragraphs are somehow required to make that point. Evidently you either haven't bothered to read, or somehow don't comprehend -- or simply don't care about -- the issue of undue emphasis.
So, how do we get beyond this impasse? There's no way I'm going to sign off on including those long excerpts in this article. However, in the interest of achieving an outcome that we both can live with, I've read over the relevant parts once again, and I have selected an additional passage that pointedly reinforces the "Stalin theme". If you can improve on this, please do -- but please don't go any longer than what I've come up with. Cgingold13:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Please give a diff for you claim of "-- once again -- made two entirely innocent paragraphs of text "disappear" into the footnotes. <sigh>" Instead of the cited paragraphs, the alternative is to change the rest of the text to reflect their content, which clearly puts most of the blame on Stalin, instead of citing the views popular during the 70s.Ultramarine14:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
First, here's the text you "disappeared" into the footnotes 4 times:
Out of the "post-revisionist" literature has emerged a new area of inquiry that is more sensitive to nuance and interested less in the question of who started the conflict than in offering insight into U.S. and Soviet actions and perspectives.[31] From this perspective, the Cold War was not so much the responsibility of either side, but rather the result of predictable tensions between two world powers that had been suspicious of one another for nearly a century. For example, Ernest May wrote in a 1984 essay:
After the Second World War, the United States and the Soviet Union were doomed to be antagonists.... There probably was never any real possibility that the post-1945 relationship could be anything but hostility verging on conflict... Traditions, belief systems, propinquity, and convenience ... all combined to stimulate antagonism, and almost no factor operated in either country to hold it back.
As to your other comment, what you are suggesting is that the views of a single historian take complete precedence over everything else that has ever been written on the subject. That's a ridiculous proposition, regardless of which historian you choose. Even if I believed that you would implement that proposal with scrupulous neutrality and balance, it would still be unacceptable to give any one author the final say on such a complex and contentious subject.
Again, give a diff for you claim regarding "disappeared". It is ridiculous to cite the views of 70s, 30 years later, after the Soviet archives were opened.Ultramarine14:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've looked over your latest edit, and I think we've made some real headway on this. It had also occurred to me that those paragraphs which you moved up probably ought to come before the Gaddis section -- at least before the latter part of it. (By the way, 2 of those paragraphs were the paragraphs that you "disappeared". Just look at each of your own diffs, and you will see that they vanished from the main body of the article, showing up in the footnotes instead.) I think what you've done with your edit is basically on the right track, but it needs a little work here and there. I will come back to it later in the day when I have the time to do it right. Cgingold14:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Historiography Split
I think that the Historiography section should go into its own article: it will first bring down the size of the Cold War article. It will second take some of the controversy out of the Cold War article, and allow the controversy to be more localized in a separate article to how these facts are to be interpreted. It will third allow for the Historiography to be more thorough, and allow for more points of view. Hires an editor12:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It would probably be very good to have a separate, full-size article on the historiography -- but I definitely would not agree to remove the historiography section from this article. Cgingold14:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The history and the historiography cannot be separated. A more detailed article on historiography is a good idea; but a copy and paste of the summary is insufficent. The summary is necessary here. 172 | Talk15:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Orwell
Regarding the origin of the term,
The term "Cold War" was introduced in 1947 by Americans Bernard Baruch and Walter Lippmann to describe emerging tensions between the two former wartime allies.[1]
I don't know if it should be included, User:172 probably knows better than me, but Orwell used this phrase in his 1945 essay "You and the Atom Bomb" (as is commented on his Wiki page). - Francis Tyers·14:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Photo montage
Both the world war articles have nifty photo montages at the top, showing iconic moments and significant pictures. Maybe something similar might be good for this, as a sort of visual introduction to the page?
Possible pictures could be:
The US evacuating Saigon by helicopter
The berlin wall at the Brandenburg gate
Soviet parade in Red square
The Tsar bomba nuke test
Apollo 11 in space
I'd attempt to do it myself, but my computer skills are appalling...
From "Containment" through the Korean War (1947–1953)
What are people's feelings about removing the line: But the US gradually became entangled in another civil war. In Vietnam, the US supported the South Vietnamese government against North Vietnam, which was backed by the Soviet Union and China from the end of the 1947-1953 segment. The war in Vietnam is discussed in the 1962–1979 segment, but it seem a little disjointed to mention it in 1947-1953, then talk for 7 paragraphs about 1953–1962 when the US involvement in Vietnam was minimal. - Occasional Reader14:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Itobo06:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC) I agree there's a problem in the timeline, but it wasn't major enough for me to be overly concerned about it. I was much more concerned about the earlier part of the paragraph, with the Korean War dismissed in one short sentence. I did some research on the public sentiment at the time, and added in a quote that showed both the controversy around the war, as well as a good quotation indicating the sentiment of western leaders to the "communist menace". (The addition was removed earlier by 172 without explanation. I'm restoring it because it demonstrates from a contemporary source the actual sentiment of a leader conveying the prevailing sentiment of the time.)
Please Add Eye Witness Website Link
I would like to link my website from this article in Wikipedia. I want to have Wikipedia point ot my website as follows: Cold War First Hand Documentary. I can add this link if the page is unprotected for my editing, or you can add the link for me.
I've deleted long, unsourced sections from both the introduction and the section "From Containment through the Korean War." They contained phrases such as:
"The USSR's army served as an effective instrument of political pressure, and, while both sides utilized espionage, the Soviets had the advantage of operating in the open, free-moving western countries. The USA used its economic wealth to bring relief to poverty-stricken areas threatened by Communism, and it often formed alliances with these territories, establishing naval and air bases there."
"The Communists also gained control in Hungary, crushing all opposition. Thus, in 1948, another "peoples' democracy" was established, with a Soviet constitution."
The use of such language is strongly pro-American, and while such an opinion is not without merit, it's ultimately an opinion and unencyclopedic. Just as a fly-by example, anyone studying the history of our foreign bases knows that in certain countries these "alliances," and our presence there, are not without controversy (think Saudi Arabia).
Finally, such language is entirely out of place and unsourced in what was (IMHO) one of the better written, properly cited, and even-handed articles on Wikipedia. I'm not sure which editor is responsible for the extensive research and citations throughout, but it's very well done. What I deleted only distracted from that, and I hope it will remain left out. SpiderMMB06:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
Could someone change {{pp-semi-protected}} to {{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}}? This is a pretty visible article, and a large bulky protection tag draws unneeded attention to the fact that the page is protected. --69.118.235.9722:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Lead paragraph under post-revisionist opinion-based?
The lead paragraph under the post-revisionist section currently contains the following:
'The "revisionist" interpretation produced a critical reaction of its own. In a variety of ways, "post-revisionist" scholarship, before the fall of Communism, challenged earlier works on the origins and course of the Cold War, and some American academics continue to deny the existence of an American empire.[50][51]'
This is making an assumption that there exists an American empire and only a few academics "deny" it. The existence of an American empire is an academic agrument at best, not a fact. The sources listed in the article go to a blog from Daily Kos and a very poorly written article that even includes exclamation points in the middle of sections to provide emphasis. Both articles referenced are written with regards to current US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and seem mostly focused on criticising the current US administration--nothing to do with the cold war at all. The final sentence is non-factual, linked to sources that do not substantiate the claim, does not have anything to do with the article, seems to be politically charged, provides a non-neutral point-of-view, and the last clause ". . .and some American academics. . ." is lead-into with weasle words. Why is it here?
Removed the sentence at the end of the paragraph. Feel free to revert if there are appropriate, fact-based references that have to do with the cold war and not the current situation in Iraq, if the wording can be made neutral, and it grammatically fits into the preceding clause.
This article has been relatively stable for a while now, and then suddenly it's full of edits, and major ones at that. What happened to cause this sudden burst of activity?
The size of this page has suddenly grown from 68 KB to 82! There have been significant additions and changes in the text. Sometimes it seems that details would be better suited to the subsections, where such detail is warranted. This article should shrink in size, since it's supposed to be an overview anyway. The fact that the origins part of the article is significantly larger than the rest of the sections definitely show something is unbalanced...
We need to determine the most important details and events. Anyone have an idea on how to determine what's "the most important" thing? Or is there some way to create a scale of importance? And should it be done over a timeline? Or in terms of the whole Cold War? Anyone have some thoughts? Hires an editor01:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Since there are supporting articles, it does seem that there's a lot of extra and seemingly irrelevant information or detail best left in footnotes for readability: for example, "The Wisconsin school of interpretation..." is better all in a footnote--"Leading scholars" would be fine.
The whole "Cold War" term section does seem to throw in everything including the kitchen sink. There's almost enough to make a "Historical uses of the term Cold War" article. Something simpler like (I've tagged spots which would require references in keeping with good article writing)...
Mikhail Gorbachev signaled the dénouement of the Cold War with his initiation of perestroika and glasnost, arguably putting in motion events which eventually led to the collapse of the Soviet Union[citation needed] in 1991 and, with it, the end of the Cold War. However, tensions have resurfaced as the West increasingly sees Russia as rehabilitating its Soviet past[citation needed] and pursuing foreign and energy policy aimed at reestablishing itself as a global power.[citation needed]
...perhaps? I think it's important to note "Iron Curtain" with the genesis of the Cold War, and equally important to note that tensions between Russia and the West--some of which go directly back to the Cold War--remain and appear to be on the rise, particularly between the EU and Russia. — Pēters J. Vecrumba21:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with new contributors getting registered and looking around at the article, and the rest of Wikipedia, before making a contribution. Especially in the face of the rampant vandalism that this article suffers.Hires an editor12:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Robertson-Glasgow at one point earlier tried to include an entire essay into the "Origins" part of the article, which I reverted and advised him/her to integrate into the main "Origins" article, because that extra amount of detail is too much for the main Cold War article. This time, the essay was integrated into this article, rather than the Origins article. So I reverted again to take all of that out. The article now is back to its equal-ish treatment of all parts of the Cold War, rather than being heavily lopsided with information about the origins of the Cold War. Hires an editor12:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I added back the true origins of the term Cold war. Baruch and Lippman did not originate the term. My information was sourced with an actual book (published in 2006), not some dubious website. If there is information to contradict what I added, then give a source. And having a section on the origins are "too much" to read? A couple of extra paragraphs are too much information? Let the readers decide, not you. WordsExpert21:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I do think alternate use/origin of "Cold War" belongs in an alternate place. If every section becomes a complete brain dump of its respective aspect of the Cold War, the article will lose all cohesion and lose the reader as well. — Pēters J. Vecrumba22:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Page Size, Part II
Okay, so the "History" section for the Cold War article is 45 KB long, yet the "Origins of the Cold War" article is 30 KB long. It should be the other way around. If I'm reading it right, the "Containment" article is 20 KB, the section is only 10 KB, so that's okay. The rest of the article's sections are of a similar bent: they are smaller than the full articles. The History section needs to be reduced, and many of its parts fed into the "Origins of the Cold War" article. Hires an editor20:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
History Section seems slightly biased towards United States
To me ,describing the United States with words like "advanced capitalist economy" ,and the Soviet Union with "initiative was all but outlawed" seems a bit unbalanced to me. Mattva0113:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I think I see some possible bias too.
There was severe disagreement between the Allies about how Europe should look following the war. Both sides, moreover, held very dissimilar ideas regarding the establishment and maintenance of post-war security. The Americans tended to understand security in situational terms, assuming that, if US-style governments and markets were established as widely as possible, countries could resolve their differences peacefully, through international organizations.[8] Soviet leaders, however, tended to understand security in terms of space.[9] This reasoning was conditioned by Russia's historical experiences, given the frequency with which the country had been invaded over the last 150 years.[10]
The United State's possition seem to be explained a bit better than the Soviet one. (disclosure:I'm from the USA)--Zerothis (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Major Condensing of Origins Section
Okay, so I condensed the Origins section. I added the two sections "Pre-Cold War" and "WWII and Post-War", just to make it easier to navigate. I took the remaining text that I excised, and put it into the "Origins" article, which has also undergone a significant edit. The goal is to keep the main article a reasonable size, and to have the extra details in the sub-articles. I didn't keep all of the references, but it's not intentional. I hope I left the important touch-point details in, and took out the information that is better put in the sub article. Hires an editor02:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Page Protection
I think that this page should be protected permanently. 8 of 20 changes were vandalism, which means that 16 of 20 changes were the vandal(s), and reverts. 14 out of 20 changes were made by anonymous IPs, and the other 6 by a named contributor. Only 2 anonymous IPs reverted any vandalism. 2 other anonymous IPs made genuine, meaningful changes. If my numbers are wrong, please say so, as this is just a quick count to ask that the page be protected. The vandalism edits are just cluttering up the page history...The first vandalism did take approximately 15 hours to show up, but it has become more frequent since then.
I reckon this article should mention the Chinese civil war was part of Cold War since ROC and PRC are heavily influenced by the US and USSR in terms of ideologism and militarism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profession (talk • contribs) 11:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree this too. Though the Chinese Civil War had not much influenced the world, but the result brought a great change to the world's communism expansion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profession (talk • contribs) 13:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Cold War veterans
Not sure if this section expresses POV or not. Certainly, veterans of the Cold War should be recognized, but showing only the American perspective on this probably needs to be corrected. This section almost seems like advocacy, too, but others should chime in one way or another regarding this aspect. Certainly there are Cold War veterans, but they were from various countries, not just the United States. Hires an editor20:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Reduction of article size
This article's size should be reduced, by editing and summarizing more carefully each of the sections as they are. The most recent major edits were an effort to do just that, but I believe that they should be discussed first, and we should do it in sections, rather than pell-mell throughout the whole article all at once. Hires an editor16:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
To make the article thinner, for what reason exactly? THe information should all be there, this website should be help to students for exams as well, who need more information to aid them in their studies, and at present, wikipedia has a bad reputation for faulty information. --Tom.mevlie (talk) 11:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This article isn't even a Good Article, it's rated as B. It's got too much information that could be better left to the other, more detailed articles. This website is meant to be an encyclopedia, nothing more. Having less information in this article presents a better chance that information here will be accurate, and well cited. It provides for better readability. Having the more detailed information where it belongs, too, will help those that are interested in greater detail. It will help those that aren't interested in greater detail to keep a high level understanding of this rather broad topic. Hires an editor (talk) 17:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Containment to Korean War section
By aiding Greece, Truman set a precedent for US aid to regimes, no matter how repressive and corrupt, that requested help to fight communists.
I know that in practice the U.S. did end up aiding many corrupt regimes during the Cold War, but I feel that this sentence throws in weasel words in implying that this was the intent of the U.S. government to begin with. I think it'd be better if it were re-worded Masterblooregard (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
USSR was a socialist country, not a communist country
You have to have a better reason than that to unilaterally decide that they weren't communists. Their intentions were communistic, their philosophical underpinnings and theories were communist. Socialist is what Europe was and is. Marx didn't write the "Socialist Manifesto" after all. Throughout their history, they've been called "Communist" in spite of the name they gave themselves. Hires an editor (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I am currently working on getting the article to FA however a comment at Talk:Winston Churchill recommended that Churchills role in the Cold War and his relationship be expanded. Although the Cold War and Stalin is covered well until his Iron Curtain speech, we are lacking knowledge, references and notable events/examples for after that period. I would greatly appreciate anyone with knowledge to come to the article and help expand on Churchills post ww2 role in the Cold War. Thank you!! LordHarris15:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
in the early 1990 one of the worlds great power blocs ,the soviet union ,broke up into many different couintries,taking away some of the threat of nuclear war that had hung-over the world for more than 40 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.201.2 (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hanging reference to WWII
In the second paragraph, the article refers to Nazi Germany and the "postwar world" without having ever mentioned World War II as the precursor to the Cold War. Someone with access privileges should correct this with a minor edit. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.151.171 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
"Although the US and the Soviet Union had been allied against Nazi Germany, the two sides differed on how to reconstruct the postwar world even before the end of World War II." This sentence's subject is inverted in that WWII comes after, rather than before, the intro of the WWII reference. Nazi Germany is part of the context, and is fully expanded on by the end of that sentence.
You must be careful when you say that WWII is the precursor to the cold war, it is one of many factors that contributed to the cold war, but is was not the only one. Had the US not entered the war, and the Soviets found out about the potentcy of the bomb somehow, there still would have been a cold war. And you must also remember, the cold war was not only the arms race, it was chiefly the fight against international communism, with Russia at the helm, with many sattelite states. Which is also another cause of the Vietnam war, The Korean war, and many other wars that the AMericans have started to halt the flow of Communism, and to spread democracy farther.
I have tagged the article; this section seems to suffer from bloat. In particular, the entire Special interest section is a bit dubious, in my view, and the Archives section could do with a trim. The other sections need looking at too. I'll get on it later if no-one objects. EyeSereneTALK10:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Although the theme of proliferation fits in well with the article, I don't think it needs to apply to this section. I've now drastically trimmed the links per WP:LINKS and WP:NOT#LINK. To be honest I think more could go, but we'll see how things pan out ;) EyeSereneTALK09:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Reagan, Gorbachev, and "Winning" the Cold War
On the line towards the beginning of the current article that states that "Reagan has been credited with having won" the Cold War:
I think that the article by Fred Kaplan which is cited here to support the statement is a good piece of history, but it's a bit more complicated than the sentence suggests. Kaplan writes in that article that Reagan did indeed "win" the Cold War, but then he adds: "Reagan the well-known superhawk and Reagan the lesser-known nuclear abolitionist are both responsible for the end of that era —- along with his vital collaborator Mikhail Gorbachev." I propose to edit the article so as to cite Kaplan's sentence after the statement about Reagan. I think Kaplan nicely splits the difference between advocates of Reagan who would wish to give him sole credit for winning the Cold War, and those who point out that Gorbachev's reforms set the stage for the last act of the drama (not to mention the severe Soviet budget crises of those years, produced by a disastrous decline in the price of petroleum, one of their few reliable sources of hard currency). Citation of Kaplan's summary statement would then make the beginning of the article in harmony with the section "End of the Cold War" later on in this article -- which I think is very nicely done.
Any objections?
Ajrocke (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
In light of this, I think taking out the last two sentences about Reagan in the intro might be justified. Besides, George H. W. Bush was in office when the Cold War ended, not Reagan. This kind of fine shading isn't appropriate for the intro to the subject. Or just changing it to Reagan being a 'contributor' to the end of the war? Hires an editor (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Inappropriate usage of "Russian" instead of "Soviet"
I believe there is an inappropriate usage of "Russian" instead of "Soviet" in this part:
"The end of the Cold War gave Russia the chance to cut military spending dramatically, but the adjustment was wrenching. The military-industrial sector employed at least one of every five Soviet adults."
So it was before the End Of The Cold War or after?
If it was before that, than you should write "... gave Sovet Union the chance...".
If it was after that, than you should write "every five Russian adults."
You are stating that you think there should be continuity within articles in the way they refer to the subject of the article. The end of the cold war was when the Soviet union collapsed, because they were not accumulating enough wealth to support a population as large as the one they had, and because most income was speant on competing in the arms race.
At the end of the cold war there was no Soviet Union, so in the context mentioned above, that is;
"...end of the Cold War gave Russia the chance to cut..."
This is perfectly acceptable use, but when it does apply, i completely agree with you, there should definately be continuity in one article, unless of course the context calls for a different word that means a similar thing, e.g. Russia and the U.S.S.R
--Tom.mevlie (talk) 10:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Military History
Why is this article featured on the militart history project? There were no military conflicts between the Soviets and the Americans during that time. Tom.mevlie (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Just because there was no direct military confrontation in terms of shooting at each other does not mean that the militaries of both countries weren't ready for war with each other. Besides, when you consider that proxy wars occurred over the roughly 40 years of the conflict and rivalry, Soviets and Americans did in fact fight each other directly, but by proxy: in Afghanistan the Americans used the Mujahadeen to fight the Soviets, and the Soviets did their part in other parts of the world to fight American interests. It was just an open secret that they were fighting each other directly, yet disguised as some other force, in order to prevent open war between the superpowers. Proxy wars killed many, but prevented even larger total (nuclear) war. Another thing to consider is the Able Archer incident which brought us close to nuclear war, since the Soviets didn't know what the Americans were up to, even though they had been notified...BTW, correction: the Cuban Missile Crisis was a direct confrontation, but no shots were fired, though they could have been. Hires an editor (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh no, Soviet and US military fought directly during the Korean War. Thousands of Soviet military pilots fought at the North Korean side actually not against US, but against UN forces led by US. Fewer Soviet pilots fought in the Vietnam war, but I happened even to talk with one of them. I agree about Able Archer. We should mention that "Cold War" was not always "Cold" but very real war, with millions killed, in particular during North Korean, Vietnam, and Afganistan wars.Biophys (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Ronald Reagan
A significant discussion about Reagan's contribution to the end of the Cold War is occurring in that article's discussion page. I am thinking it is better off being discussed here, where the emphasis is in fact on the Cold War (hence the name of the article), and not on Reagan (of which the Cold War is but a part of the guy's life). I'll be shifting the conversation here. The results of the discussion here should determine the wording in the article on the subject. - Arcayne(cast a spell)14:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the the widely pulicized match between representatives of Russia and U.S. be mentioned somewhere, such as the timeline? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.45.241 (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Bloodless?
Despite its rapid and relatively bloodless end, the Cold War was fought at a tremendous cost globally over the course of more than four decades. It cost the U.S. up to $8 trillion in military expenditures, and the lives of nearly 100,000 Americans in Korea and Vietnam.[44] It cost the Soviets an even higher share of their gross national product. In Southeast Asia, local civil wars were intensified by superpower rivalry, leaving millions dead.[citation needed]
This opening line sounds like speculation. It's also contradictory and uses sweeping statements. I'm not sure rapid is the best way to describe four decades of deliberation by two superpowers. It is stated that the war was relatively bloodless, but then contradicts itself by acknowledging the death of Americans. The Cold War was bloodless relative to what? the World Wars? The Vietnam and Korean wars, coupled with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan led to mass bloodshed, and were set back to said countries. I thought it best to remove the opening statement and begin the sentence with: "The Cold War was fought". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry! (talk • contribs) 02:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Despite its rapid and bloodless 'end'...what is meant here is that the war ended rather quickly and without bloodshed, in short order. Hires an editor (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Added table on nuclear arsenals
Hi, I just added a table for the nuclear arsenals of the US and USSR from 1964-1982. If someone has information about megatonnage or anything post-1982 please add. Wiki1609 (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's better to discuss things before removing them. Anyway, I propose adding the table back, with only four years mentioned for comparisons (1964,1970,1976 and 1982 for example). --Eurocopter (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't just delete something. I thought it would be a good addition that can give readers a kind of concrete picture of how the balance between the US and USSR was in the Cold War. I think that the nuclear aspect was a core element of the Cold War, numerous confrontations were assessed primarily on the risk of nuclear escalation and the perceived nuclear strength of the adversary. For instance, during the famous Cuba crisis Kennedy based his course of actions almost entirely on the perceived risk of a number of atomic bombs being able to hit the US. Although the odds of escalation were perceived to be low, Kennedy opted for a compromising attitude instead of confrontation, based largely on the (incorrect) assessment of Soviet nuclear striking capability. What I mean is that a simple graph like this can give a little insight on the distribution of hard power between the two major players. I added the whole graph but anyone feel free to shorten it a little or decrease the overall size of the graph. Maybe it could be converted to a .jpg and put in the corner? PS I'll add the whole graph to Nuclear arms race. Wiki1609 (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I've added the graphic back as I also think it represents a good addition for comparisons regarding the balance between the two superpowers. We can discuss now how to adapt it to this article - maybe a shorter version would be better. Thoughts? --Eurocopter (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
This table should be deleted, and the Nuclear Balance section removed as well. I agree that nuclear weapons were a big part of the Cold War, but that's not to say that this information, which is way too detailed, and badly placed, should go in this article. It might make sense to put a subsection on nuclear balance in the "History" section, since it is an overview of the whole time period in question, and provides some background...but the small graphic U.S. and USSR/Russian nuclear weapons stockpiles, 1945-2006 would make more sense, and be more in flow of the article. But the problem with the whole concept is that it begs for more sections, like the Space Race (should we have a section for that, too?) or proxy wars, or a section on Communism vs. Capitalism (or democracy)...we have separate articles for these things. This article gives a time-line history, going through important events in the CW with a period by period approach. What you're proposing is to rewrite the article with a much different organization, one that focuses individually on each of the conflicts in the CW, and leaves the time-line somewhere else. Hires an editor (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, this graphic seems more suitable for our article than the Nuclear Balance section. I'm going to put it in the article, at the middle of the "end of the Cold War" section. If anybody thinks there's a better place for it, feel free to move it. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Outbreak of Korean War
... is missing in section "From 'Containment' through the Korean War". It is not only "To Stalin's surprise, Truman committed US forces to drive back the North Koreans." The reader is surprised just as well. North Koreans? Where? Why? --84.161.139.67 (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This is true! So I fixed it, by adding a sentence or two. I'll add more information about this aspect if someone else doesn't first, such as one of the reasons is that the Soviets were boycotting the UN, and so could not veto the decision to go to war in Korea in the first place. Hires an editor (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Ordering the list
I think that this list should be ordered:
Throughout this period, the rivalry between the two superpowers unfolded in multiple arenas: military coalitions; ideology, psychology, and espionage; sports; military, industrial, and technological developments, including the space race; costly defense spending; a massive conventional and nuclear arms race; and many proxy wars.
in this way
Throughout this period, the rivalry between the two superpowers unfolded in multiple arenas:
military coalitions;
ideology,
psychology,
and espionage;
sports;
military,
industrial and technological developments, including the space race;
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 see the archived discussion [3] and [4] relating to the montage. This article has many many images, and while it might be interesting, the montage does not really do justice to the complexity of the Cold War. For example, how does the montage address the psychological aspect? Or how does it address the Space Race? It can't be complete enough, or comprehensive enough, to be a good idea. No matter what, it will be unbalanced in what it shows.
Done and thanks! - Philippe | Talk 22:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
