Talk:History of the United States (1945–1964)/Archive 1

Archive 1

I'm well aware of the many gaps in this article. The 1945-1953 part is not even complete, although it is the least unfinished. So far it is a work in progress. So bare with the construction site. 172

---

This article has pervasive POV problems. A good bit of it is a Marxist rant in which America is cast as the world's bully, with only selfishness and evil as its motivations, and afterwards America is cast as solely a racist thief. The majority of the nation's population is silently wedded to the status quo and all positive change comes from outsiders and minorities. Eisenhower is mentioned in the context of Cold War strife and by the fact that there was poverty in America in his administration, and the massive federal highway project that changed the migration and life of the nation is not mentioned at all.

A way over the top hysterical charge. Sounds like JoeM. This user, however, is correct on one point in that the article's unfinished. This user could be useful and add content. I admit that I've been neglecting this article in recent weeks, but I'm not the sole contributor. Why doesn't he/she add something instead of making baseless, incendiary charges? Evil? Selfishness? Come on. Nations have economic and strategic interests. This article, like all articles, will explore these interests, along with ideological and humanitarian concerns, and eschew the hero-worship chronicling that has been rejected by historians for the past century. 172 04:52, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think it's a quite accurate charge. Yes, expose the interests and avoid cheerleading, but do you think there might have been a contingent in the US government who wanted to fight communism not for economic gain, but because it was in humanity's interest to oppose totalitarian states? (Yes, I realize most of these same people turned a blind eye to the Shah, etc., but the current POV assigns only economic goals to the participants here, and that's silly.) Unfortunately, I am in an awkward position when it comes to attempting to add to the article. I find its POV problems to demand extensive editing that I would love to contribute to, but I don't have a lot of time for. Without this editing, I am not comfortable adding to the article because I feel this would constitute supporting, in some small way, the article's POV. For example, I'd like to add something about the first half of the US / USSR space race, but in the voice of the main author, the treatment would be: "Despite the starvation every year of millions of non-capitalists and non-consumers of US goods, the United States spent billions of dollars on a wasteful space race with the Soviet Union, in order to impress the world with its military might and, ultimately, advance its economic aims." This is a wiki-wide problem, of course; if I disagree with something large then it'll take a large effort to improve it.

No. Reread the article. The article makes it clear that there were two distinct visions of the world. Nowhere does it state that there were not people "who wanted to fight communism not for economic gain." And the article has no business advocating your view that it's "humanity's interest to oppose totalitarian states," just as we cannot argue the converse point. As for the space race, feel free to add it. But keep the events in context. Yeah, it received a lot of attention, but this is a very broad article and it needs to stay focused on the key strategic developments concerning the Cold War, such as Detente, arms control, the Cuban Missle Crisis, shifts in administration foreign policy, and so on. 172 03:15, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

POV: pro-communist soviet union, anti-capitalist america.

i wanted to add my agreement to the POV issue mentioned above, but for some reason i cannot seem to edit that secion. i find it very hard to believe that the U.S. should be blamed for every wrong occurance, and that the soviet union is completely innocent of anything. this article does a tremendously good job of condemming U.S. policy with its voice though not necessarily its words. the soviet union is pictured as being entirely passive, acting only as a measure of security, and the united states/britain as being totally aggressive, defending corruption, etc. certainly, this may be the way the author views history, and i'm certain it is, however, it is not becoming in an encyclopedia, in which we are supposed to be neutral.

granted, my critique is based upon my own worldview, however i am not asking for this article to be made pro-U.S. just to be made less pro-Soviet Union, and not pro-anything. it is only when both sides believe that the article favors the other that we have reached real neutrality. --Cedric Dwarf 21:26, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

POV Problems

Yes, this article has a huge problem with point of view. True, it is never said that there weren't Americans fighting not for economic gain, but the author repeatedly tries to force the idea that this was the main concern of the American government.

Some examples of POV problems:

The rationale was obvious: What was the point of having such overwhelming productive superiority if the rest of the world could not muster effective demand? Furthermore, economic reconstruction helped create clientelistic obligations on the part of the nations receiving U.S. aid; this sense of obligation fostered willingness to enter into military alliances and, even more important, into political subservience.

There is no talking about military security of these nations or anything. It can equally be argued that the United States was trying to increase the security of allied nations, and not trying to force its foreign policy on to other countries.

The United States aimed to interfere in the internal affairs and sovereignty of other countries or impose its will upon others under the guise of "freedom," "democracy," and "human rights." In retrospect, this initiative appears largely successful: Washington brandished its role as the leader of the "free world" at least as effectively as the Soviet Union brandished its position as the leader of the "progressive" and "anti-imperialist" camp.

Come on... How can this NOT be a POV problem? The author expresses his/her opinion that the whole idealogical war was a guise to extend American political influence but yet, does the author ever say that the Soviet Union may have been doing the same thing with its "anti-imperialist" rhetoric. The answer is no.

While the Soviet Union acquiesced to Anglo-American designs to impede Soviet access to the Mediterranean (a perennial focus of British foreign policy since the Crimean War in the 1850s), the Americans heated up their rhetoric; Anglo-American aims to prop up the Greek autocracy became a struggle to protect "free" peoples against "totalitarian" regimes.

Same as above. The tone (and quotes) really make this a huge POV problem.

But this vision was equally a vision of national self-interest.

Can the author read Truman's mind? Can he or she read the minds of politicians? Who knows what aspects of the vision they valued more?

In short, there are terrible problems.

NPOV Edits

I attempted to remove much of the editorializing mentioned above, though there is still more work to be done. I removed the POV tag, though. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

CJK

In response to your edit summaries, first, the deaths of 30 million people in Eastern Europe following the Nazi onslaught was "horrendus," regardless of what we think about the regime in Moscow that ruled them.

Be that as it may, it is an emotionally tinged word and the rest ignores allied contributions in Italy and assumes that the allies had purposefully delayed the invasion. CJK 22:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Somehow I expect that if the U.S. suffered a death toll around a thousdand times as high as that suffered on Sepetmeber 11 you the term "horrendus" would not be sufficently strong for you... Regarding figting in Italy before D-Day, the fighting was largley in Sicily and other islands, not the continental mainland. 172 | Talk 00:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Ignoring your snide comment, that does not change the fact that the mainland was attacked and that the allies were not deliberately planning to make the Soviet Union suffer as many casualties as possible before invading. CJK 00:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to tell me that because I'm not making that argument. The article, however, should mention it because it was how the operation of the war was perceived by the Soviets, and a view that a few Western historians considered worhty of further research. 172 | Talk 01:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It should not be stated as the undisputed truth. Don't forget the allies had many qualms with the Soviets buddying up with Nazi Germany in the beginning. CJK 19:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It is the truth that the Western Allies did not open up a second front on the continent until D-Day, which led to longstanding resentment on the part of the Russians. Whether or not the Western Allies made the rights choices is beyond the point. 172 | Talk 20:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It is true that the allies had been in Italy for a year (a sort of "second front"), heavily bombed Germany, and gave extensive aid to the Russians. Should that not be mentioned? CJK 20:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The fighting in Mediterranean was not a second front on the continental mainland against the Germans. Further, the notion of a "second front" in World War II on the European stage is culturally and historically associated with D-Day. D-Day was the "second front." To call the North African campaign "a sort of 'second front'" is your own personal neologism and original research. No one denies that the North African Campaign drew Axis forces away from the Eastern front and "Fortress Europe," but it was not the "second front" for which the Russians were pleading since 1942... I am not a military historian, so I have little idea about whether or not the U.S. could have or should have followed another strategy. Neither are you, I assume. Nevertheless, I am versed on the literature on the origins of the Cold War; and I can assure you that no one disputes that the delay as it was perceived by the Russians was a sore spot on their part and highly relevant to the coming of tensions between the two former allies after the war. In addition, now that I have clarified the text from the original version, the stuff on the second front should no longer be an issue of dispute. 172 | Talk 00:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The U.S. was IN ITALY IN 1943! This is indisputable, there was a "second front". The (flawed) Soviet criticism does not deserve much commentary, particularly since no counter-arguement is presented in your version. CJK 01:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

We're now not talking about the "flawed Soviet criticism." We're now talking about how the war is remembered in the U.S. after I changed the wording. The North Africa Campaign and was not known in the U.S. as the "second front" at the time nor is is now. Yes, Allied troops landed in Sicily in July 1943 and in September 1943 landed in the mainland. Everyone knows this, or at least should, as I assume it's still taught in grade schools, or at least it was in my time. Nevertheless, Sicily is much closer to North Africa than the heart of the Nazi "Fortress Europe." The campaign was not close to the scale of the landing of 150,000 troops on D-Day in the heart of continental Europe. Hence, if you do a Google search for "opening of the second front" allied you will not find references to the fighting in the Mediterranean but to the invasion of Normandy. [1] To call the landing in Sicily the "second front" is a neologism and original research. 172 | Talk 01:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, ITALY, not just SICILY. And there WAS a FRONT. The problem is that the criticism creates an impression that the allies were doing absolutely nothing useful to help out the Russians in Europe. CJK 17:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to shout. I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I am aware that Allied troops landed in the Italian mainland in September 1943. No one calls this landing, however, the opening of the "second front" except you. If you think that the world's collective memory is wrong, and that military historians are wrong, then write a book. But on Wikipedia you'll have to consider WP:NOR. And, no, the text does not make it sound as if the U.S. was doing nothing until D-Day. It reads as follows: While the U.S. was involved in fighting in the Mediterranean, a largescale Allied invasion of the continental mainland did not occur until D-Day on June 1944. 172 | Talk 19:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Shout?... When two armies face each other accross a continuous line, I call that a front. Nevertheless, the US was not ONLY involved in the Mediterranean. Tons of cash had been given to Russia and there was a massive air offensive on the continent. If we are going to hear the Soviet criticism, we should at leat reaccount how the Soviets divided Poland, watched as Hitler destroyed France, watched some more as Britain was almost destroyed, and did nothing against Japan until the last few weeks of World War II. CJK 20:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The content was reworded. I don't know how many times I have to keep telling you that. It no longer has to do with the Soviet criticism. Instead, it's just a simple statement of the chronology. So your other observations can go in the 1918-1945 article... And you're not telling me anything new about the war. The few remaining members of my family were in refugee camps in Europe after the war. I was born not too shortly afterwards. The points you bring up are taught in grade school, not to mention that I professionally study this period as a historian... You are making matters very frustrating. Please focus on reporting the history, not pushing your view of 'good guys and bad guys'. 172 | Talk 21:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It is better, but stil does not tell the whole story. I'll try to re-work it. CJK 13:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Just leave it alone. No one paragraph is not going to tell the whole story of the Cold War and World War II. The rest of details are found in the 1918-1945 page or elsewhere on this page. 172 | Talk 23:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Second, the sentence on Yalta was an undisputable statement of reality. Read up on bipolarity in international relations and the Cold War. Yalta was the principal treaty that would go on to codify the divison of Europe between the two blocs.

The "two-thirds" part was the thing that bothered me. Yalta was not a voting body, and it reflected accurately the world powers at the time (Britain, U.S., U.S.S.R.). CJK 22:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course it wasn't a voting body; it was a summit meeting reaching a set of agreements by negotiation. I don't know what your claim that it "reflected accurately the world powers at the time" has to do with the postwar division of the world into two hostile blocs. The point about the "two thirds" refers to the fact that the areas of U.S. influence were over twice the size territorially and in terms of population than the Soviet bloc. Keep in mind also that we are still dealing with when over a quarter of the world's population lived in colonies under the rule of Western European allies of the U.S. 172 | Talk 00:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The U.S. does not suddenly own Western Europe and Yalta barely concerned anything outside of Europe, so why act like the U.S. was generously given 2/3 at Yalta? CJK 00:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

No one is talking about "ownership." The article is talking about how the U.S. was the preeminent power in the bloc comprising Western Europe and just about the rest of the international system outside Soviet influence. Further, no one is saying that anyone was "generously given" anything. Yalta just codified the existing balance of power determined by political and economic inflence and where troops were to be stationed after the war. 172 | Talk 01:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yalta had almost nothing to do with anything outside Europe. This would be the equivilant of writing about the 1938 Munich conference and saying "in effect Britain and France reigned over half of the world while Germany reigned over 1/100". CJK 19:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yalta shaped relations between the world's two leading powers following the war, which in turn affected the rest of the world. In that sense there is no doubt that Yalta's significance goes well beyond the Allies Powers themselves. Your point on the Munich Conference is neither here nor there because, as you might be aware, it did not lead to a stable balance of power for too long (an understatement). 172 | Talk 20:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The Yalta agreement had nothing to do with dividing the world, just mainly Europe. Therefore, to insert "2/3" is off topic at best. CJK 20:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

We're going in circles here. Yalta was of global importance, not just of European importance in that it was an understanding between the world's two superpowers that did not challenge the supremacy of the stronger of the two in East Asia and in the Third World. The U.S. emerged as the core of an international system comprising the entrie world except the Soviet bloc in the aftermath of the Second World War. It is not until the Chinese Communist Revolution in 1949 that the Soviets gained significant influence over a huge part of Asia. By the way, again I clarified the text in order to reach some sort of middle ground between the two of us. So I expcet that you will stop the reversions. 172 | Talk 00:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The entire world political system was not discussed at Yalta. Yalta was about ending World War II, not setting "status quos". And I suppose that blockading Berlin and supporting mass revolution would not involve "challenging the stronger power". And the US was not stronger, the Soviets by far had the largest army in Europe. CJK 01:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not clear that you noticed the change I made to the text. It now reads as follows With the onset of the Cold War, Yalta came to be seen as having the effect of establishing a postwar status quo So there should be no confusion that we are not making the claim that the treaty officially discussed areas outside Europe. This point should no longer be an issue now. 172 | Talk 01:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

That is more acceptable, but such a "status quo" only lasted worldwide for a few more years. CJK 17:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Third, there was no "anti-IMF rant"; instead, the content was an explantion of the IMF's own official founding goals. The IMF was founded with the goal of preventing the future breakdown of international trade and monetary relations between capitalist economies that went along with the Great Depression, despite your removal of a statement to that effect in the article.

That is true, but the version you reverted to makes it sound like the U.S. founded it solely for its own gain and greed. CJK 22:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't ascribe personal characteristics to abstract legal and political entities. That being said in this case there are no grounds for you to remove the content if you cannot contest the factual accuracy. If the for some reason or another turns you off, change it. But don't remove it. 172 | Talk 00:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Do I have to quote it to prove its obvious POV? Its fine to state how the IMF was founded, but the heated rhetoric needs to go:

"United States also led the effort to impose its Washington-dominated vision of the world with new international agencies: the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, which were created to ensure an open, capitalist, pro-American, international economy. The Soviet Union opted not to take part."

Do you seriously think this would remotely qualify as "NPOV"? CJK 00:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Everything written above is an indisputable of reality. The vision of the world being described is the one laid out in the Atlantic Charter. As for whether or not the World Bank and IMF had the effect of ensuring an open, capitalist, pro-American, international economy, I suggest you read up on the construction of the Bretton Woods system, as they were the most basic goals associated with the forging of the postwar system of monetary and trade relations. I have no idea why you seem to think that these things sound 'bad', unless you consider the development of a liberal world economic order based on free trade, commerce, and investment 'bad'. 172 | Talk 01:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

"United States also led the effort to impose its Washington-dominated vision...".............................................................................. You don't find that a shade POV? CJK 19:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

And what is with Ruy Lopez reverting my edits when I have disputes with you? I suppose he's just your sockpuppet comrade fighting the "McCarthyist scum" like me. CJK 19:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to take your comment above serious. You've always struck me as much too perceptive than to seriously believe something so silly after so much time working with us both. Our differences in style in both articles and talk pages (not to mention our political background) are immediately obvious...

I was merely saying he exhibits the behavior of a sockpuppet by making unexplained reverts in your favor. A while back you gave him an award for "fighting McCarthyism" so I assumed you and him would be closely aligned on the political spectrum. CJK 20:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

You're not in the position to throw stones when it comes to unexplained reverts. But that's probably a point that can be dropped so that we can focus on the content instead of the personalities. By the way, being against McCarthyism is not going to tell you much about where someone 'aligns on the political spectrum'. That's a distinction that's going to unite moderate Eisenhower Republicans, liberals, neoconservatives, socialists and communists. There's just as much political diversity among those who are against McCarthyism as just about any random grouping of people. 172 | Talk 00:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

In an encyclopedia where 90% of contributors are from the left, you would think "fighting McCarthyism" would be the least of anyone's worries. But anyway, "McCarthyism" was being used in a fashion to smear people on the right. There is no literal "witch hunt" going on here, I can only assume you are referring to people who dislike attempts to blame every Third World problem on America alone. CJK 01:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

You don't know the context of the conversations between the two of us on McCarthyism. It was not on "blaming America for Third World problems." The subject of those conversations was the McCarthy-era investigations. That's all I wish to say on that to you right, as we're off the topic of the article. Further, I don't think that it's helpful for people to characterize Wikipedia's biases with sweeping generalizations without hard empirically tested information. That too is all I wish to say, as we're off topic here. 172 | Talk 01:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Washington-dominated, there's no problem there. The bulk of international relations theorists have long considered the emergence of a dominant power to lead a system of international monetary and trade relations and a miltary pact essential for world peace and stability, in other words as a 'good thing'. Certainly that is what we saw in the leading role in NATO constructed for the U.S. and in the leading position of the U.S. in international economic institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. 172 | Talk 20:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It is POV to say outright that the IMF was created to create a "Washington dominated world". We should stick to the facts, not opinions. CJK 20:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Leadership of NATO and the international financial system set up by the Bretton Woods Conference relied on a dominant power to lead the system in order to confine the number of actors whose agreement was necessary to establish rules, institutions, and procedures for the new postwar global political economy. It is no mere "opinion" that this leader was the United States. After the war, the U.S. held a majority of world's investment capital, manufacturing production and exports; it produced half the world's coal, two-thirds of the oil, and more than half of the electricity. The U.S. had overwhelming dominance in coventional military forces, capable of producing great quantities of ships, airplanes, land vehicles, armaments, and machine tools. The U.S. not only had a powerful army but also a monopoly on the atomic bomb. The U.S. held 80 percent of the world's gold reserves. Its currency emerged as the standard of the international financial system. The U.S. was the only major power in the war spared from extreme economic and humanitarian crisis. In 1945 Washington was indeed "dominant" across the board. Here the term "dominant" refers to the structural realities, which has nothing to do with implying that the U.S. was aggressive, engaging in empire-building, or what have you, which is the impression that I have of what you are taking from the text. At any rate, I removed the reference to 'Washington's domination' because, based on your reaction, I think I may be able to understand how earlier version could have been misunderstood. So your contention should now be rendered moot. 172 | Talk 00:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Just because Washington was dominant does not mean the IMF was founded solely to keep it that way. And "impose" implies outright aggression. CJK 17:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Just because Washington was dominant does not mean the IMF was founded solely to keep it that way. You're point? No one is saying this. And "impose" does not imply aggression but just take into account the leading role of the U.S. 172 | Talk 19:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

"Impose" most certainly implies forceful means. CJK 20:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

By "forceful means," I assume you mean violence. In that case, impose does not imply what you may think it implies but rather the word just tells us something about the power relations. I cannot read your mind and figure out your understandings about what the terms force and power mean; but I do know what the terms are understood to mean among historians and social scientists. There is a distinction between "power to" and "power over" with which you may not be familiar. Following the war the U.S. indeed had the power to impose its vision of the world. This does not mean that the U.S. 'coerced' and 'bullied' other countries that would have preferred a somewhat different postwar order. It means that U.S. economic power after the war meant that the U.S. was the only power in the world that had the capacity to set up a new international financial system. Outside the Soviet orbit, some other countries would have done things much differently; but they accepted the reality that the Bretton Woods Conference was essentially a rubber-stamp for a plan drafted by the U.S. Treasury Department. Someone had to do it in order to avoid an unending period of gloal war and depression, meaning that there were no alternatives to U.S. hegemony for the world outside the Soviet bloc. 172 | Talk 21:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I have to say it, impose is a very negative word which DOES imply coerciveness or aggression. I'll re-work this when I get to it. CJK 13:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You could say, "I think it sounds bad." If we are talking about people's subjective takes on words, then I will go ahead and change it. In the article the term can be replaced with "established." 172 | Talk 23:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Your blanket reversions are leaving problematic holes in the article on the devastion of Europe, Yalta, and the construction of the Bretton Woods system are important topics, which are key topics in understanding U.S. history in the period. 172 | Talk 22:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The "crony capitalism" line was a piece of vandalism that I had not noticed until now. With no question, that insertion should have been removed immediately. 172 | Talk 22:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Done?

CJK, are we done here and ready to archive this talk page. I'd like to get it out of the way. This conversation was as tedious as any of our previous ones. 172 | Talk 19:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

After the rest of my points are addressed. CJK 20:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Those points have no merit. I'm starting to wonder if your strategy is just to wear me down while we keep going in circles so that I give up on this article and take it off my watchlist. 172 | Talk 21:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

in violation of the Yalta agreement.

CJK, I noticing you sticking in this line in your reversions. This is clearly POV. This is a major topic in international law with a huge number of comepeting interpretations. It is important to cite specific documents and declarations at the time from the U.S. claiming that certain Soviet actions were violations of one treaty or another; but it is not our place to insert our own arguments about international law. 172 | Talk 00:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, I thought the Yalta provided free elections in Eastern Europe. That's what the textbooks say, at least, but I supppose that could be wrong. CJK 01:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but then there point of when certain provisions became irrelevant when the matter of who broke whichever other provisions first comes up. That debate is the source of huge fault lines in the Cold War historiography in the U.S. that could fill up an entire library, not just in Russian interpetations in their literature, which are disregarded in Wikipedia because that's a practice of all Western encyclopedias. So it's best that the article not make any blanket assertions one way or another. 172 | Talk 01:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

If Stalin promised free elections in Eastern Europe and then held none, we can logically concluded he violated the Yalta agreement. CJK 17:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you; but there are writers fitting into the realm of reasonable discourse on the subject who disagree with your assertion one way or another and/or point to U.S. violations in postwar treaties. The topic of international law and the Cold War is far more complicated than you seem to realize. The early literature on the causes of the Cold War focused heavily on the question of 'who broke certain provisions of which treaties and when were they broken'. As a result, a secondary literature was generated that inspired so many books that that they could fill up more an entire library; yet no consensus whatsoever emerged. The only thing resembling a consensus that emerged was perhaps a consensus against asking that question, as it left people going in an unending set of circles in reason. As Kennedy wrote to Khrushchev in a 1961 exchange, "I will save for a more appropriate time and place my comments in answer to yours as to who armed which part of Germany first, who violated the Potsdam agreements, why you ended the four-power administration of all Berlin, who is now abusing their presence in Berlin, or whether the Japanese Peace Treaty is a precedent for a 'treaty' with only part of Germany." Kennedy and Khrushchev, of course, could not start talking about problems in 1961 until they managed to set aside questions about which side was responsible for starting the Cold War in 1945-1947. Unlike that particular exchange between Khrushchev and Kennedy, however, the currently dominant school of thought on the causes of the Cold War among historians does not just 'save for a more appropriate time' the questions of 'who broke which treaty first'; instead, it tries to eschew advocacy altogether. In other words, that neither side in the Cold War could agree on the causes of the tensions is now seen itself a major factor in the coming of the Cold War. 172 | Talk 20:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree. Elections were held in Eastern Europe, contrary to CJK's claims. Whereas in Western Europe, you had the open fraud of Italian elections, banning of all but capitalist parties in West Germany etc. Also, one of the key violations of Yalta was by the US vis-a-vis the rearmament of Germany. The US and UK agreed to the disarmament of Germany, but in less than a decade they had already begun re-arming Germany, reinstalled former Nazis to powerful positions and considered giving Germany the A-bomb. The major violations of Yalta were by the US/UK, particularly with regards to their violation of the agreements regarding German rearmament. Ruy Lopez 21:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh huh. Just like the Vietnamese elections, right? CJK 00:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

While I appreciate the great length of your response, I am puzzled by you logic. Just because some people have developed "a consensus against asking that question" and some politicians put it aside for purely political reasons does not mean we can censor relevant information from an encyclopedia. If any of the examples Kennedy gave were "violations of the Yalta agreement" they had only came after the Soviets had disregarded the treaty. Thus, why would the Americans abide by the treaty if the other side had already broken it? So clearly it is appropriate to say that Stalin violated the Yalta agreement. CJK 13:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

To paraphrase Nixon, I know that you believe you understand what you think I wrote, but I'm not sure you realize that what you concluded is not what I meant. I brought up the Khrushchev-Kennedy correspondence not to support my point but as an interesting anecdote. My point was not that some politicians put aside these questions for political reasons and thus we should do the same, but rather that historians working outside the political process disagree on these questions. In other words, it is POV to assert that the U.S. violated Postdam by arming Germany or that the Soviets violated Yalta in Eastern Europe by not facilitating fair elections because some historians are going to have different takes on these questions. The Kennedy quotation was meant just to illustrate the point that overly pedantic academics were not the only ones who started to realize just how complicated some of these questions were. Further, it is original research to make arguments on international law on Wikipedia without citing the scholarly authorities on the subject. It is fine to point to when an official X from the U.S. claimed that the Soviets violated treaty Y, and in turn when a Soviet official Z disagreed with American official X because of Moscow's stance N. But formulating your own personal arguments about international law is an inherent violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. 172 | Talk 23:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh... the reason that Kennedy said that to Krushchev was to improve Soviet-American relations. He was not going to improve anything by insisting (justly) that his side was right (which had not worked in the 50s) so he goes for some muddled middle ground for political reasons.

You keep on making my arguments into straw men. The Kennedy quotation was not the crux of my point. So I'll just drop it since it's not getting us anywhere. 172 | Talk 02:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

That the Soviets violated Yalta is blindingly obvious. Yes, we re-armed Germany, but that was YEARS AFTER the Soviets established themselves in Eastern Europe, hence breaking the agreement. Therefore, the agreement had already been dead and buried by the Russians so of course we are going to take countermeasures. No country in the world would be accused of "violating an existing peace treaty" by resisting an invasion, since the peace treaty had already been violated. This is a simple matter of cause and effect, not some complex mutual misgivings. Therefore, saying Stalin did not violate the Yalta agreement makes as much sense as saying "Hitler did not start WWII".

You are stating your own POV. I have no reason to argue with your POV because it is not necessarily a POV with which I disagree; but I do strongly disagree with the disregard for WP:NOR and WP:NPOV that you are advocating above. There is a huge volume of academic literature on the causes of the Cold War inspired by William Appleman Williams problematizing your claim above that the Cold War started because of Stalin's violation of Yalta, or that he was the first one to violate it. Contemporary works on the Cold War do not accept all of Williams' conclusions; but as a result of his work, neither do they accept just as many, if not more, aspects about the "traditionalist" interpretation that he was criticizing... I'm not going to respond to your arguments like: That the Soviets violated Yalta is blindingly obvious. Yes, we re-armed Germany, but that was YEARS AFTER the Soviets established themselves in Eastern Europe, hence breaking the agreement. These debates were already played out years ago in a public debate among historians, leaving no reason for Wikipedia editors to rehash them. Wikipedia editors are instead supposed to report their findings from the authoritative research, which in this particular case has not reached a consensus behind a kind of assertions that you are making... As I said earlier, if you want to pursue your point, the way to do it is as follows: It is fine to point to when an official X from the U.S. claimed that the Soviets violated treaty Y, and in turn when a Soviet official Z disagreed with American official X because of Moscow's stance N. If not, violations of WP:NOR and WP:NOV will have to be removed on sight. 172 | Talk 02:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

My own POV? This is utterly rediculous. If you can't dispute that:

1. Stalin promised free elections in Eastern Europe
2. He held none
3. He was the first party to violate the Yalta agreement

then using our logical thinking abilities we can conclude he violated the Yalta agreement. I don't see how anyone could argue differently. THIS IS A FACT NOT AN OPINION, as anyone can see. CJK 20:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

If you don't see how anyone could argue differently, read up on the literature that followed the work of William Appleman Williams, Gabriel Kolko, and Walter LaFaber. I am not going to argue with your "logical thinking abilities" because (1) they are not views with which I necessarily disagree and (2) as a Wikipedia editor, the rule is to leave one's POV and original research at the doorstep... I doubt that you would care for the work of Williams, Kolko, and LaFaber, or even Gaddis (who synthesized the "traditionalist" and "revisionist" accounts); but the good news for you is that their work is not the only POV on the subject. It is possible to offer the conclusions of various historians, some of whom support your assertions, so long as conclusions stemming from other schools of thought are represented as well... If you are uninterested in familiarizing yourself with the scholarly literature on the causes of the Cold War, another possibility is for you to follow the acceptable formulation that I suggested earlier: It is fine to point to when an official X from the U.S. claimed that the Soviets violated treaty Y, and in turn when a Soviet official Z disagreed with American official X because of Moscow's stance N. 172 | Talk 21:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Please, point to one specific arguement that asserts the Soviets did not violate Yalta and you may have a point. CJK 21:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You could easily look up these works. They are quite well known even outside academia. You can look these people up if you are not familar with who they are... In principle I feel as though I should not have to do the homework of other editor.

I am not going to spend the time and energy finding these works, as the person who is making the claim should cite sources for their arguements, not the person questioning the claim. CJK 20:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

But if you insist on my summary of their arugments, Gar Alperovitz argued that within just three months following the conference it was the U.S. that mooted the relevant previsions of Yalta by the dropping of the atom bomb on Japan, which he considered to be primarily used to demonstrate to the Russians the enormous power the U.S. would have in its possession during subsequent negotiations. I don't accept Alperovitz conclusion. But elements of his interpretation last in the works of a number of historians who still are leading authorities on the Cold War.

Alperovitz proves nothing, as atomic bombs was not the subject of Yalta. You can argue that we were mean about showing our power, that does not prove that we violated Yalta. CJK 20:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

So it deserves consideration. Second, Williams and Kolko saw the Western protests against conduct of elections in Soviet-occupied Europe as politicized. They argued that it clearly was a fait accompli at Yalta that the Soviets were going to set up Soviet-style regimes under Red Army, that this had been clear for months, and that both sides knew it.

Williams and Kolko also prove nothing. It does not matter even if the deal was all politicized and everyone knew no one was going along with it, they STILL violated their promise. Otherwise, we can use this to excuse every treaty violation in the history of the world. CJK 20:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

For their part, the Soviets argued that they did not violate Yalta because they asserted that they set up "people's democracies" and thus did hold fair elections. I do not agree with the above assertions; obviously you do not either. But that's irrelevant, given WP:NPOV. 172 | Talk 20:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

No response. CJK 20:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You can personally dispute scholarly interpretations with which you (and I) happen to disagree, but you are not free to disregard them. Your edits will continue to be unacceptable and reverted until you bring up the charges of violation of Yalta in the context of quoting key U.S. policy-makers making the allegations. The burden is on Wikipedia editors to follow WP:NOR, WP:CITE, and WP:NOV; convincing you is not one of the requirements. 172 | Talk 23:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, none of the claims you gave made the arguement that the Soviet Union did not violate the Yalta agreement. Instead it justs insists American injustice which has nothing to do with the promises of the conference, as stated above. CJK 23:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The agreement said that Germany would not be re-armed. Within a decade of the Yalta agreement, the US began re-arming Germany. This is a violation of the Yalta agreement, plain and simple. You said the USSR violated the Yalta agreement because territories its army was in did not hold elections in Eastern Europe, but that is not correct, the countries of Eastern Europe did have elections in the late 1940s. You're incorrect that the US did not violate Yalta and you're incorrect that elections were not held. You are also attempting to mislead people by calling reversions of your addition regarding Yalta "vandalism". It is obviously not vandalism, and you are very obviously trying to find some loophole so you can violate the 3RR. Ruy Lopez 23:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this a joke? CJK 00:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

When a user is criticizing your work, keep in mind the civility policies. You made the change to the article; so you owe Ruy Lopez a serious response. 172 | Talk 00:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt you would if roles were reversed. CJK 00:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The roles have been reversed many times. Wikipedia editors always have to work with editors whom they dislike who hold views with which they disagree. 172 | Talk 08:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

CJK, the fundamental misunderstanding here is that international law is not something said in stone. International law can mean anything that great powers want it to mean. Thus from the point of view of Kolko and Williams, had better relations been maintained, the elections in Eastern Europe would not have become an international political issue while the Soviets claimed that elections in Eastern Europe were free and fair in their own way. 172 | Talk 23:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again, even if you were right, you still did not provide an arguement that proves your point. Even if the US was hostile to the USSR, this does not change the fact that Stalin violated the agreement. You can make the case that it was neccessary to do, but it was still a violation. CJK 00:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing "proving a point" and personally convincing you that your opinions on the Cold War are not the only ones that deserve consideration. Their point was that under different circumstances Yalta would have been interpreted differently, and thus the Soviet Union not left in violations of key provisions of the treaty. 172 | Talk 00:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

No one can mis-interpret what free elections mean. CJK 00:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If that is true, I guess you have correctly interpreted that countries the US armed forces were in after World War II such as West Germany (where people could not vote for a communist party) or Italy (whose phony elections was thrown on so enormous a scale that it was done in a fairly openly) did not have free elections. Ruy Lopez 01:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

CJK, people can disagree on what treaties mean and what kind of electoral systems are fair. The world is not as simplistic and black and white as you make it out to be. 172 | Talk 08:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ruy, I'm pretty sure you wrong about the Italian elections, but maybe professional historian 172 could shed some light on that. And you would still be wrong because that occured only after the Soviets consolidated themselves.

172, when someone promises something then breaks it, it is a violation. You can argue forever on how they "had to violate it" but that doesn't change the fact that they violated it. I suppose its POV now to say Hitler violated the treaty of Versailles? CJK 20:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You're argument is not with me. I happen to to agree with most of your points on the Soviets and Yalta myself. I am merely pointing out that there are other persectives on the subject. Ruy Lopez's comments are a good example of a perspective matters differently. Neither of us have the authority to impose our POVs on Wikipedia. You are fine to cite the relavant authorities who argued that the Soviets violated Yalta; but your edits must be reverted per the NPOV policy when you make this assertion in the article yourself. 172 | Talk 22:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not POV to assert that Stalin broke his word at Yalta any more than Hitler broke his word at Munich. CJK 22:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

CJK, quit changing the subject. If you have nothing left on related matters to add to our previous discussions, stop reverting the article. I am not going to discuss Munich with you. 172 | Talk 08:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It is utterly rediculous to claim "POV" when it says Stalin violated Yalta, because HE DID! Nobody disputes this, just whether or not it was a neccessary thing to do. CJK 20:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Repeating yourself in caps is not going to give you the authority to assert your POV in the article. You might not agree with the other prespectives on the subject; but you cannot disregard them in the article, given the NPOV policy. 172 | Talk 20:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Fine. Then we'll just have to remove "violation" from every article in this encyclopedia... CJK 20:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

No, quit trying to change the subject. The differences with the other examples you bring up is that no historians offer any alternative explanations. In this case, some do; and we have to follow NPOV and NOR in this article, as in any article. 172 | Talk 22:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

No one offered an alternative explanation, as stated again and again. They just said it was a natural thing for Stalin to do. CJK 13:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

CJK, here is a NPOV way of inserting your point into the article. [2] Now that I have cleaned up your own work on your behalf, we are ready to conclude this conversation and archive the talk page. 172 | Talk 22:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the new paragraph added because it seems to insinuate that the modern historical view is mainly that the Cold War was caused by "American Imperialism" and that pro-American viewpoints pretty much only existed in the early years.

In addition, you called the Yalta view of Britain and the U.S. as from "Cold War Warriors". CJK 13:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

sentences

The Origins of the Cold War section ends:

The Soviets, too saw their vital interests and national security at stake in the post-war world, which motivated their determination to shape postwar Europe. Stalin set up pro-Moscow regimes in Poland, Romania, East Germany, and Bulgaria, which Cold Warriors in the U.S. and Britain considered a violation of the Yalta accords. Winston Churchill, long a staunch anticommunist, condemned Stalin for cordoning off a new Russian empire with an "iron curtain."

Within the previous three decades, Russia had already twice been invaded by Germany. Russia did not want to be invaded by Germany a third time, and this was one of their main points during Yalta. Thus the agreement said Germany would be disarmed, just like Japan was for the decades following WWII, and to some extent still is. But of course, the US and UK did not hold to that and almost immediately began re-arming Germany after they had re-installed "former" Nazis to power in West Germany.

Sorry, re-armament began YEARS AFTER the Soviets consolidated themselves in Eastern Europe, which broke Yalta. The Nazi thing is not worth a response. CJK 16:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The sentences above say silly things like "Stalin set up pro-Moscow regimes in Poland, Romania, East Germany...". As if Stalin did this singlehandedly. I don't understand people who write as if 100% of the population of Poland, Romania etc. have no hand in this, nor 99.999..% of Russians, and if Stalin did this all singlehandedly. It's just CJK's bad writing.

Stalin enabled certain segments of the communist population to take power, so it was effectively single-handedly done. CJK 16:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Then there's the word "regimes" which is POV, more POV writing by CJK.

POV indeed. CJK 16:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Even if this was changed to "The USSR set up pro-Moscow regimes in Poland, Romania, East Germany...", it would still be wrong and POV, it would be like saying "The US set up pro-US regimes in Italy, West Germany etc."

They were democratic, not Stalinist. CJK 16:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I am changing this. 70.23.236.53 15:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

CJK, look up the definition of "regime." The term is one of the most basic concepts in the study of concepts to refer to patters of that define the typical behavior and interaction of government and society. It refers to political systems of all kinds. In popular discourse in the West, the term "regime" is associated with nondemocratic political systems. But this association is rooted in a somewhat common misunderstanding. In the West we tend to assume that liberal democratic systems are legitimate, so we borrow the language used in their own legal and constitutional and lexicon to describe themselves when we are describing them, thus calling them "parliaments," "administrations," or "governments." In contrast, the term "regime" refers to observable set of patterns of power without presupposing the political and cultural legitimacy of these arrangements. In the West, those who consider all nondemocratic political systems illegitimate avoid terms that presuppose their legitimacy and instead opt for something neutral like "regime." However, as a term that does not presuppose any value-laden presuppositions, "regime" is always a value-neutral term that can be used accurately to define all systems of rule. Thus, it is absolutely no violation of NPOV to refer to pro-Moscow regimes, or pro-U.S. regimes for that matter. 172 | Talk 19:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I sense a double standard going on here. CJK 20:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Then what you sense has nothing to do with the meaning of the written text in front of you. What I said above is that regime is a neutral term no matter where it is applied. No double standards apply at all. 172 | Talk 21:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

All I'm getting here is that you deal with certain users differently then certain others, regardless on how much sense they make. CJK 21:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I was disagreeing with you both. The anon said it was POV to say that the USSR set up pro-Moscow regimes in Poland, Romania, East Germany...," just as it would be to mention the U.S. setting up "pro-U.S. regimes in Italy, West Germany, etc." You said the difference was that the pro-U.S. regimes were democratic, not Stalinist. I replied with an explantion that the term regime is neutral no matter what the context, liberal democratic or Stalinist. 172 | Talk 04:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you have done so while conveniently ignooring the rest of his outrageous remarks. CJK 14:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you Ruy Lopez? CJK 16:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

CJK, mind the Wikipedia etiquette in subsequent replies to 70.23.236.53, and for that matter Ruy Lopez. You may disagree with their statements; but no one has given you more authority to edit Wikipedia than other of these two individuals. 172 | Talk 19:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say I did. CJK 20:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Your tone was obviously sarcastic and dismissive. 172 | Talk 21:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Tone????...... Um, I was seriously asking if the anon was just Ruy Lopez who forgot to log in. CJK 21:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it and take back my comments. 172 | Talk 04:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Stalin and Yalta

It is a fact that Stalin went to Yalta, promised free elections, and held none. Whether or not some historians dispute if he was "forced to" do that is beyond the point. CJK 14:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

CJK, we just had this dicussion. You are repeating yourself. Accept the compromise language that does not contradict your POV so that we can just move on from this article and archive the talk page. By now this is getting pretty tiresome. By the way, this will be my only comment under this heading. If we are still going to discuss this topic, we will pick up from where the last conversation left off. There is no need to start the same discussion over again. 172 | Talk 15:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Fine. But when you do, get an arguement that disputes the above, not one that says the big bad USA forced Stalin to do it, or that it was just all "politicized". CJK 15:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)