Talk:Cold War/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Mr Gorbachev - He Said The Cold War Ended In 1989

I've been very excited at finding this 2009 interview in which Mr Gorbachev states his view on the year the Cold War ended - 1989. I have also posted details on the Cold War 1985-1991 page.This is fascinating - and the detail should certainly be included in the article. https://www.thenation.com/article/gorbachev-1989/

KVH/SFC: A closely related question: when did the cold war actually end? In the United States, there are several answers: in 1989, when the Berlin Wall came down; in 1990-91, after the reunification of Germany; and the most popular, even orthodox, answer, is that the cold war ended only when the Soviet Union ended, in December 1991.

MG: No. If President Ronald Reagan and I had not succeeded in signing disarmament agreements and normalizing our relations in 1985-88, the later developments would have been unimaginable. But what happened between Reagan and me would also have been unimaginable if earlier we had not begun perestroika in the Soviet Union. Without perestroika, the cold war simply would not have ended. But the world could not continue developing as it had, with the stark menace of nuclear war ever present. Sometimes people ask me why I began perestroika. Were the causes basically domestic or foreign? The domestic reasons were undoubtedly the main ones, but the danger of nuclear war was so serious that it was a no less significant factor. Something had to be done before we destroyed each other. Therefore the big changes that occurred with me and Reagan had tremendous importance. But also that George H.W. Bush, who succeeded Reagan, decided to continue the process. And in December 1989, at our meeting in Malta, Bush and I declared that we were no longer enemies or adversaries. KVH/SFC: So the cold war ended in December 1989? MG: I think so.

KVH/SFC: Many people disagree, including some American historians.

MG: Let historians think what they want. But without what I have described, nothing would have resulted. Let me tell you something. George Shultz, Reagan’s secretary of state, came to see me two or three years ago. We reminisced for a long time–like old soldiers recalling past battles. I have great respect for Shultz, and I asked him: "Tell me, George, if Reagan had not been president, who could have played his role?" Shultz thought for a while, then said: "At that time there was no one else. Reagan’s strength was that he had devoted his whole first term to building up America, to getting rid of all the vacillation that had been sown like seeds. America’s spirits had revived. But in order to take these steps toward normalizing relations with the Soviet Union and toward reducing nuclear armaments–there was no one else who could have done that then."

(86.132.143.172 (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC))

Hi. Yeah that is all very interesting, but why are you posting here? How does it relate to this article specifically? What changes do you think should be made? RhinoMind (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the important point is that the article claims that the Cold War ended in 1991, which is a contested date. George HW Bush even claimed, at one point, that the Cold War ended in 1986 due to a summit between Gorbachev and Reagan (see "The Last Empire" by Serhii Plokhy). Should this contestation be mentioned in the article? It surely shouldn't be taken for granted that the Cold War "ended" in 1991. 209.6.136.140 (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Add A War Table

Someone needs to add a war table in this article about the Cold War showing the belligerents/participants, the commanders and leaders, and the casualties and losses, like with the articles about the First and Second World Wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesome Boi24 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Still 1945 to me

1. So I’ve browsed the archives and the history, and this article had (quite) firmly decided by 2010 that the start is 1947; because of issues such “as the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan and the Berlin Blockade” Cold War (1947–1953).

Perhaps you could squeeze that into the intro after The first phase of the Cold War began in the first two years after the end of the Second World War in 1945. Or, in the Beginnings of the Cold War (1947–1953) Section?

But can you add a sentence to say why it isn’t 1945? I imagine the back-room politics of 1945-1947 were just as “cold”.

2. Also; what is the French term from the 1930s, la guerre froide [9]. I couldn’t get the reference to tell me. Did the French mean roughly the same thing? Was there a concept of “Cold War” (in politics) before 1945?

MBG02 (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

You raise a good point MBG02. The historical consensus is actually for beginning it in 1946 as per this source. But of course the nuclear Cold War began earlier.GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Linking in a quotation

As far as I know, it is a nono to link inside quotations. But here internal links were added with the excuse of the Manual Of Style. The MOS is silent over this and only states: Quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced. This is referred to as the principle of minimal change.

Is the edit correct or not? The Banner talk 21:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

MOS:LWQ says “Be conservative when linking within quotations; link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author. Where possible, link from text outside of the quotation instead – either before it or soon after.“

I’d agree with removing the link in question, because it can be added elsewhere in the text. Calidum 21:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Calidum, perhaps I'm confused, but the link does "correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author" doesn't it?

Where do you think a good place to add the link in the text would be?GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Allied troops in Vladivostok, August 1918, during the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War

It is already linked in the description of the photo attached to the section. So, the intervention is now linked twice in one paragraph. The Banner talk 08:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

But a photo caption isn't really part of a text paragraph is it? If that were the case, it would mean that there are multiple links to the Berlin Wall in the lead text section.GPRamirez5 (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It is. And it is a better option than linking in a quotation. Beside that: the quotation is writing about the British part of the intervention, while you link to the Allied intervention. This wider intervention does not does "correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author". The Banner talk 17:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I see, so you'd support a link to the British campaign in the Baltic (1918–19). That seems reasonable.GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

No, I support not linking in a quotation. Not some twisting and turning as you are doing. The Banner talk 18:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

There's no need to cast aspersions. I'm looking for some common ground here.GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The bigger issue is that this section relies far too heavily on three long block quotes, and they do not include adequate transition to flow well from one to the next. The quotes should be reduced and paraphrased into narrative, and then the link could easily be added within text. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Laszlo Panaflex It does seem like the sort of thing that belongs in the historiography section.GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying the information does not belong, but per WP:LONGQUOTE a section should not be dominated by long block quotes. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The term Third World is used wrong

"Third World" means countries that were not under the influence of either America or Russia, hence "third". I instead propose that the term be substituted by "developing world". 71.169.140.139 (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC) John Dee

signing posts

Hello fellow contributors, If you could please sign your posts by typing four tildes ~ that would be awesome. I see that many posts at the top of this page are not signed at all. This helps us identify who said what and when so that when we reply to your comments we know whom to address. Thanks!Mgasparin (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding InfoBox

I believe that one is needed Aldan-2 (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2019

they didn't spell Kennedy's name right and that is a disgrace toward our former president. 168.216.12.5 (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. what is it spelled as currently? I couldn't find the misspelled version, but if you can tell me what it is I can Ctrl-F and search for it. DannyS712 (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Cold War for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Cold War is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cold War until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Needed change

Hey, click "Frozen Conflicts" in the timeline. Someone needs to fix this link.

In paragraph 3 there is the lack of "States" in United States: 'The Soviet Union and the United never engaged directly in full-scale armed combat.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:F00:599:35DD:9D55:2915:3BFA (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Useless sfn refs

"Smith2007", "Smith et al. 2002", "Bilinsky 1999", "Murray & Millett2001", "Spring 1986", "Hanhimaki 1997", "Plokhy 2010" do not appear to be defined. I gave up checking at that point, there ma well be more. This is a common fault with this style of citation. DuncanHill (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not an A-class article

Unsourced statements since 2014, page numbers needed since 2015, and to date 14 {{Citation not found}} tags, and more needed. There is no way this article is an A-class article. Suggest downgrading to C-class. DuncanHill (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

G'day, in this case, can I suggest that you nominate the article for an A-class re-appraisal? This can be done by following the instructions here: WP:MHR. Essentially, the process is the same as requesting an A-class review, but instead it is conducted to determine if the article stills meets the criteria. This may spark some interest in editors who can resolve the issues you highlight, or if not, will allow the article to be demoted. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I listed it for Good Article reassessment, but that has produced no interest. I changed the assessments anyway, and nobody has complained. I don't think anybody really cares. DuncanHill (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Reference formatting in really bad shape. Propose standardization with sfn

There are currently 44 Harv-template errors, 11 Harv warnings, 26 "citation not found", and other errors. References in really bad shape. I propose standardizing them with {{sfn}}. I will do so if no one objects... will wait a few days for replies. Cheers. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Fixing the errors and inadequacies is far more important than standardising them. DuncanHill (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Define "fixing", please. If you are talking about matching cites to sources cleanly and accurately, I would "fix" them in the process. If you are talking about checking the WP:INTEGRITY of the text at a given citation to the text of the original source, well, that would be a much more labor-intensive process, done at a later date. Tks ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Things like adding page numbers, adding missing sources, etc. The things the article has been tagged as needing for years. DuncanHill (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I raised this problem in June, see Talk:Cold_War/Archive_10#Useless_sfn_refs, and above in "This is not an A-class article". It's been tagged as lacking page numbers since 2015. DuncanHill (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I can fix the format whenever I have a couple hours... maybe Monday (I'm in Asia). Adding missing sources is easy, if they are cited in References but not Bibliography (this thing is a mess). I can do that too.. Adding page number is part and parcel with WP:INTEGRITY and could take weeks, but I'm willing to help. As for "this is not A class", we could take this to MILHIST A-review for a reappraisal... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Please go ahead. (Hohum ^@) 15:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

(←) I went ahead and changed it over, even though I am far from finished fixing all the errors that the change has uncovered. I actually really didn't want to change over in such an intermediate stage, but another editor just added several paragraphs copy/pasted from another Wikipedia article. I didn't want to keep chasing a moving target.. that's why I went ahead... I will be working continually to fix the many many errors that have not yet been fixed. Soon it will be considerably better than before. In fact, in one way it already is considerably better than before: it utilizes only one referencing format instead of a handful.. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm the guy that did that last major edit. Just wanted to say that I hope I didn't disrupt your work, because I really appreciate it. Please let me know if I need to do any more attribution on that imported Wikipedia material. Best, GPRamirez5 (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

GPRamirez5, I'm glad you offered to help pretty up the text from the copy/paste. You're supposed to add {{Copied}} to the top of this talk page and fill out all the details. If you have questions about how to do it, you can ask here. Cheers, and thanks! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I re-added some sources that were lost in the transition. There are still some missing.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Length and WP:INTEGRITY

We're making barnstorming process on fixing broken references. Thanks and kudos to all involved. I think it's a good time to start thinking about length in prose size and WP:INTEGRITY. Drpda's script says the current prose size is 'Prose size (text only): 99 kB (15775 words) "readable prose size"'. I agree that's getting somewhat too long... At some point we need to start checking for Integrity, but it would be a waste of effort to do that before any serious trimming of prose size... Thoughts? Thanks ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

It is very difficult to reduce the size of this article, because anyone who sees it and then sees "something missing" feels compelled to add it, and it's difficult to defend removing that "something missing" from the article and instead making sure to add it to a sub-article for the specific time period - which, by the way, should have more information, but instead those articles are neglected in favor of this one. There are so many things that people think are important, and don't think that just a mention is enough, so they add a sentence or two, and then you get article growth. Even creating a background piece was difficult because it requires cohesion with the past, accuracy, and connection to the rest of the actual article. Hires an editor (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

More of it than you might imagine can be done without reference to notability – just simple, radical trimming via summarization. As for chopping out whole subsections, I would need to do considerably more reading before I would begin to feel confident doing that. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Suggested creation "Second Cold War" and/or "Inter Cold War Period" articles and/or templates

I'd like to ask whether anybody'd be interested in creating or contributing to templates or articles related to tensions between US-Russia and US-China during the period from 1991-2014 such as events of the Post-Soviet conflicts, expansion of NATO, termination of ABM treaty. As well as the so called "Second Cold War" tensions between US and Russia since 2014 including War in Ukraine, termination INF treaty etc... What are your thoughts on this? I'd propose for example a Cold War 2 and inter cold war template similar to the first one KasimMejia (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Second Cold War already exists, and could probably use your input.GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm slightly new and was wondering whether I'd be allowed to create a template listing events under 2nd cold war, such as termination of treaties, proxy wars etc... Wondering if it would be counted as WP:SYNTH or maybe WP:OR. What do you think @GPRamirez5:? KasimMejia (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Here put some things together, would appreciate if you could add some. KasimMejia (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Here I've put some thing together, would appreciate if anybody else contributed. KasimMejia (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Lead section

isn't the lead section a bit long? --Biscuit-in-Chief ^{(Talk – Contribs)} 16:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I posted about this on the talk page but never got any responses; I'm not sure why. Foreignshore (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Considering that we're talking about a world-historic phenomenon which extended across at least fifty years, I don't think it's long at all.GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it is far too long. Needs serious trimming. DuncanHill (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

MOS:LEADLENGTH suggest no more than four paragraphs. It's currently six, and long ones (for a lead) at that. DuncanHill (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think that's a cop-out. Compare with a few other topics of great significance and complexity:

Article	Size	vs. Cold War
Cold War	7720	+0%
Industrial Revolution	4255	-45%
Music	4036	-48%
Evolution	3217	-58%
Mathematics	2020	-74%
Bronze Age	1822	-76%

I firmly believe that there is no topic on Wikipedia that is so irreducibly complex that it doesn't admit a cogent summary of three or four paragraphs. Colin M (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions on how to limit the focus of this article and reduce its length?

I think one of the problems with this article is that it tries to talk about literally the entire world from the 1830's (The Great Game) through 1991 (and even beyond). It also suffers from a problem of people who keep coming in to offer analysis, reflection, expansion of some piece they feel doesn't get a full enough treatment on this page, or to add something that they feel is missing. It's usually well sourced and encyclopedic, too.

So the question is: how do we reduce that problem?

I took a stab at summarizing the "Background" section a very long time ago, and the result was still way too long. Looking at it again now, I think removing almost all of it in favor of a couple of sentences that say that "the Cold War is a continuation of an international competition that's been ongoing since the 19th century, and if you want to know more, click here...", and the same for the WWII piece: The allies against Germany ended up on opposite sides after the war, because the Soviet Union was hurt by WWII (lost the most soldiers and citizens of any country), and because the other allies had a different political/economic philosophy than the Soviets...from there I think going forward with some of the Key Events (TBD what those are), will help slim this down. H

How do we further summarize sections and keep people from expanding the article? We are suffering a death by 1000 cuts... Hires an editor (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

people can read the sections that interest theme. For those wanting the whole topic they are provided a remarkably short summary of world affairs. Rjensen (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the article is kinda diffuse, frankly. It's possible that I might be available to help in about 3 weeks or so. But we'll see.

Other articles about extremely complex matters manage to comply with WP:LENGTH, and there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason that this subject is any different. Removing the tag (I just re-added it) is not a solution. (Hohum ^@) 17:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Probably the biggest issue I see is that although there are already a set of lengthy related cold war articles, instead of linking to them with a "main" tag, and then summarizing them, each section still goes into intricate detail.

• Origins of the Cold War
• Cold War (1947–1953)
• Cold War (1953–1962)
• Cold War (1962–1979)
• Cold War (1979–1985)
• Cold War (1985–1991)
• Culture during the Cold War
• Effects of the Cold War

(Hohum ^@) 17:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

this is a serious article on a major world history topic that is widely taught. Making it shorter will make it harder for readers to understand what happened in multiple countries/continents/decades. Rjensen (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

It's still quite possible, see Bengal famine of 1943. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we don't want to make it harder to understand, but that doesn't mean it can't be shorter. I think we can summarize effectively a lot of what's in this article, without sacrificing clarity or completeness. Every little thing in this article likely has its own article, so I think we can weave a narrative

the provides detail without getting too detailed.

I also wonder if we can consider re-organizing the article so that it's not necessarily in time-line order, but perhaps organize in such a way that we can have (paradoxically) more detail with less verbiage. For example, we could start with the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc, then the US and NATO, then Non-aligned movement, or something else. I'm just throwing this thought out there to see what sticks, or find out if it's a terrible idea...Hires an editor (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Length and organization are separate questions and require separate discussions... The cure for WP:TOOLONG (which BTW is too outdated to refer to as an iron rule, but is somewhat useful as a gentle reminder) is firm copy editing, keeping WP:UNDUE and related in mind while doing so. That is, emphasize topics to the same degree they are emphasized across the breadth of relevant literature... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Eurocentric

This article is Eurocentric. The lead image is a map of the NATO and the Warsaw Pact, excluding the rest of the world. Most of the photos depict North America or Europe. There are eight photos of Berlin. The Berlin Blockade is given the same amount of space as the Korean War, one of the biggest wars in world history. There are two further sections on the Berlin Crisis of 1961. The Chinese Civil War only gets a paragraph. (All these subjects have their own articles.) The heading, "Competition in the Third World", implies that the events described where merely the machinations of two rival superpowers. This is clearly not true.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

West Centric

The statement "Following the Allies' May 1945 victory" should be changed to "Following the German surrender in May 1945", which is more in line with the truth. The German armed forces were defeated by the Soviet armies, which first bled the Wehrmacht dry of experienced officers at Stalingrad, destroyed the German panzers at Kursk, and went on to pursue the retreating Germans all the way back to Berlin. The German high command, following Hitler's suicide, chose to surrender to the western allies (USA and England) rather than face the revenge of the Red Army. This suited the western allies well, as they didn't want to see the Soviet Union occupy Germany and they, rather than the US obtain all the advanced technology it had developed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip) 188.148.101.177 (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Eurocentric

This article is Eurocentric. The lead image is a map of the NATO and the Warsaw Pact, excluding the rest of the world. Most of the photos depict North America or Europe. There are eight photos of Berlin. The Berlin Blockade is given the same amount of space as the Korean War, one of the biggest wars in world history. There are two further sections on the Berlin Crisis of 1961. The Chinese Civil War only gets a paragraph. (All these subjects have their own articles.) The heading, "Competition in the Third World", implies that the events described where merely the machinations of two rival superpowers. This is clearly not true.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

West Centric

The statement "Following the Allies' May 1945 victory" should be changed to "Following the German surrender in May 1945", which is more in line with the truth. The German armed forces were defeated by the Soviet armies, which first bled the Wehrmacht dry of experienced officers at Stalingrad, destroyed the German panzers at Kursk, and went on to pursue the retreating Germans all the way back to Berlin. The German high command, following Hitler's suicide, chose to surrender to the western allies (USA and England) rather than face the revenge of the Red Army. This suited the western allies well, as they didn't want to see the Soviet Union occupy Germany and they, rather than the US obtain all the advanced technology it had developed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip) 188.148.101.177 (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Disorganized

I was just wondering if it would be a better ideal if we move the 8 pictures at the beginning of the article and put them in a gallery section on this page. Because it seems that their is to many pictures and to me, it makes the page feel disorganized.BigRed606 (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree. And I think the first picture should be returned to that of the Berlin Wall, which was only ever by far the best picture to represent the Cold War. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Not another picture of Berlin!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

...And definitely not another picture of the Berlin Wall. You know it wasn't even built until 1961, at least 14 years after the Cold War started (and by some accounts, after it had peaked)?GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

NPOV: Change the intro

> The Cold War was a period of geopolitical tension between the Soviet Union with its satellite states (the Eastern Bloc), and the United States with its allies (the Western Bloc)

Change that to "The Cold War was a period of geopolitical tension between the Soviet Union and the United States, and their respective allies."

Or something like that, so that one doesn't have "allies" and the other "satellite states". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.228.11.46 (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that would be either an improvement or neutral. Allies have the choice to be allies, satellite states have no choice, and that is pretty much how it was. DuncanHill (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

So with Nazis and their satellites fleeing from advancing USSR, that repelled their invasion; would those ex-satellites like to join USSR, huh? 81.173.233.251 (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

No change: "ally" is for a country that has a choice in the matter (UK, France, Italy, Canada etc) , and "satellite" is for one that does not have a choice (such as Poland, E Germany, Czech., Hungary etc.) Rjensen (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

UK was never an ally, its second center of power. Canada is colony of GB even today, which is much worse than "satellite", its a puppet state. France and Italy were occupied and later converted into full dependence through various warps: political, economic, monetary, media. Thus "choice" was NEVER given to them. If France wished to depart EU, abort its bounds and join USSR by democratic choice of its citizens, then you will see GB and US tanks on the streets. But this is because in all those states there were laws prohibiting the change of its current political formation in various word forms. So sending an army is actually state implementing that law, regardless which side. The east "satellites" which you mention had government democratically elected by locals and they had as much choice as western satellites. This article is great demonstration how humanity in itself is defective, that Wikipedia is a joke and that russian saying "Who pays girl - dances it" is universal. 81.173.233.251 (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Canada has been an independent country since 1931, and completely sovereign since 1982. Everything else you said was either just as wrong, or incomprehensible. (Hohum ^@) 22:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the problem with that sentence is that it seems to exclude China, North Korea, (North) Vietnam, and Cuba, especially if you look at the accompanying picture which shows the Warsaw Pact. As our article says, the term Eastern Bloc is mostly used for Eastern Europe, as is the term "satellite state". This gives a very narrow view of the Cold War.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

How do reliable sources couch it? (Hohum ^@) 01:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

in response to Hohum--quoting Ency Britannica (2010 edition) :Following the surrender of Nazi Germany in May 1945 near the close of World War II, the uneasy wartime alliance between the United States and Great Britain on the one hand and the Soviet Union on the other began to unravel. By 1948 the Soviets had installed left-wing governments in the countries of eastern Europe that had been liberated by the Red Army. The Americans and the British feared the permanent Soviet domination of eastern Europe and the threat of Soviet-influenced communist parties coming to power in the democracies of western Europe. The Soviets, on the other hand, were determined to maintain control of eastern Europe in order to safeguard against any possible renewed threat from Germany, and they were intent on spreading communism worldwide, largely for ideological reasons. The Cold War had solidified by 1947–48, when U.S. aid provided under the Marshall Plan to western Europe had brought those countries under American influence and the Soviets had installed openly communist regimes in eastern Europe." Rjensen (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the equivalent sentence in Encyclopedia Brittanica is "Cold War, the open yet restricted rivalry that developed after World War II between the United States and the Soviet Union and their respective allies."[1]. It goes on to say, "The Cold War reached its peak in 1948–53. In this period the Soviets unsuccessfully blockaded the Western-held sectors of West Berlin (1948–49); the United States and its European allies formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a unified military command to resist the Soviet presence in Europe (1949); the Soviets exploded their first atomic warhead (1949), thus ending the American monopoly on the atomic bomb; the Chinese communists came to power in mainland China (1949); and the Soviet-supported communist government of North Korea invaded U.S.-supported South Korea in 1950, setting off an indecisive Korean War that lasted until 1953." Clearly, on this view, China and North Korea were important in the Cold War.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The term "satellite states" doesn't really fit the Communist countries in Asia, Cuba, or the Soviet-aligned countries such as MPLA-run Angola. The Eastern European "satellite states" were a battlefield in the Cold War, but they didn't do much in terms of aggression against the USA and its allies. However, they can be termed "allies" if they were signatories of the Warsaw Pact, regardless of whether their populations approved of the alliance. The term "allies" is a bit problematic, though. I don't think China left the Cold War when its alliance with the Soviet Union broke down. However, it might be to hard to deal with this. It would be good to mention Communism.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support (with the inclusion of Eastern Bloc and Western Bloc). Just look up Operation Condor, or anything else on the United States involvement in regime change. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Support This seems less reductionist.GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

change United States to Purple 98.253.167.3 (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear what your request is. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Bolshevism stays undisputed: Reasons known?

I ask myself, if I have read, that the Bolshevists ("Communists") had gained the power in Russia / Sovietunion by illegal manners: The so-called Mensheviks would have won the elections in October (?) 1917 with 22 million votes; and the Bolshevists would just have gained 9 or 9.6 million votes. And after that election, Mr. Lenin had made a coup with the army. And I ask myself, if anyone ever questioned, why no one had raised some questions to the origin of the folloging points. --217.149.170.41 (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a chat forum. --MarioGom (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2020

Change the image caption "American astronaut Thomas P. Stafford and Soviet cosmonaut Alexei Leonov shake hands in outer space, 1975" to "American astronaut Thomas P. Stafford (right) and Soviet cosmonaut Alexei Leonov (left) shake hands in outer space, 1975" QoopyQoopy (talk) 06:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I discovered it done despite this not being marked answered=yes. QoopyQoopy (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2020

Grammar and spelling mistakes 115.189.91.43 (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Not done, please be specific. Acroterion (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2020

The quote "The conflict was based around the ideological and geopolitical struggle for global influence by the two powers, following their temporary alliance and victory against Nazi Germany in 1945." should be changed to "The conflict was based around the ideological and geopolitical struggle for global influence by the two powers, following their temporary alliance and victory against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in 1945.", because Imperial Japan was the other major Axis power remaining. -- 186.213.3.68 (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes but the Soviet Union was not that involved in defeating Japan; they were focused on Nazi Germany. Marking request as  Not done. — MRD2014 (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Soviet Union defeated Japan in August Offensive 1945. so you should mention it.213.230.78.90 (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2020

2601:444:8280:87E0:EC9E:6CA:999D:5ACC (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Bad War

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Bad War? it was better and less bloodier than WW2.213.230.83.13 (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

So was there no fighting

Why call it a war if there is no fighting. Thats a bit stupid imo

1914-1918 - Warm War, 1939-1945 - Hot War, 1946-1991 - Cold War. Did you understand it now?84.54.93.195 (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Icy relations... but you had also the Korean War and border incidents here and there. Plus a few planes shot down. The Banner talk 11:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Greek Civil War, the Chinese Civil War, the Angolan Civil War, the Nicaraguan Civil War etc, plus an espionage war, an arms race, and a space race.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Lost nukes out of place

At the end of the Aftermath section, there is a random factoid about 50 missing nuclear weapons. This feels like a non sequitur. I propose deleting or moving it somewhere else. TheArcane03 (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Removed. It is just a random fact.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

3rd to last Paragraph in Aftermath needs rewrite

The third from last paragraph in the Aftermath section needs edited or rewritten, especially the bit about Russian casualties. That sentence is unclear and grammatically incorrect. TheArcane03 (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I have removed the grammatical error.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Improvement to pictures and Box

Hi I was just wondering if any improvements can be mad to the pictures and the box because the look a little cluttered, perhaps we could make event infobox for the page? BigRed606 (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2020

The cold war began when the Soviet Union acquired the nuclear bomb ProGamer1113 (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Declined* as this request does not follow the request guidelines, and does not include a cited source. Besides, this is not when the Cold War began...Hires an editor (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

"Farms Race"

Just came across a fascinating podcast that makes the case that American Agriculture, and US Government investment and intervention in it, is part of what won the Cold War for the West. And based on this podcast, it deserves its own article. Unfortunately, it requires more work than I can put into it. Here's the link to the podcast: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/farms-race/ Hires an editor (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2020

Please, I want to change Soviet Union to Russia NuvolaBrain123 (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Not unless you give a pretty damn good reason why. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2020

In the first paragraph of the Aftermath section it is wrongly stated that only 5 or 6 countries are on the path to become rich capitalist states while the majority will take several decades to catch up to where they were before the collapse of communism. This is easily proven to be wrong, if you look at the GDP evolution from 1989 until today (I'm writing this in 2020. If there is any country that does not already have a significantly higher GDP than in 1989, that is the exception not the rule, as the majority have higher economic output.

I will give the following source:

but one can also easily check World bank, eurostat or any organization site that gathers data on GDP. TheHistorian122 (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Interpretation of raw data to make predictions like that would violate WP:NOR. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

References

The data I provided are not used to make any prediction they are used to state the current GDP per capita of those countries. I'm not interpreting them in any way. Beside this wikipedia has pages which are almost entirely composed of raw data for example the list of countries GDP per capita. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHistorian122 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

We have two citations for that claim. You are providing raw data to refute the claim, so, yes, that is "original research". Yes, there are Wikipedia articles that have OR, but that is undesirable. We certainly don't want to remove text with citations with OR. In this case, I think the text is talking about the relative positions of countries, and whether they are joining the ranks of "rich" countries. Generally speaking, GDP increases every year. If a country really did have negative growth for 30 years, it would experience mass starvation, and probably cease to exist. I don't think anyone has suggested that has happened. Perhaps the text should be reworded, but I would like to see what the sources actually say.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• President Nixon meets with China's Communist Party Leader, Mao Tse- Tung, 02-29-1972 - NARA - 194759.tif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Needs major help

This article is 10x better than the Wikipedia entry for Cold War: https://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/cold-war-history

It doesn't have a 5 paragraph rambling introduction. It is focused on the cold war and doesn't have huge sections on WW2 (why, even have any?) 24.236.92.77 (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

References

why have WW2 you say? because Cold War begun RIGHT AFTER WW2 ended - in September 3, 1945 and ended on October 3, 1990, thus Cold War lasted 45 years.84.54.77.22 (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox?

Shouldn't this article have an infobox, as all other "war" pages are configured?Personnongratia (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Nope. See the archives for discussion about why not. But the short answer is: it's not a "war" as war is usually defined, which means that the various details don't fit neatly into an infobox. Hires an editor (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Ideology

I think it will be more detailed if we state the ideologies of the two sides, in general, the cold war is an ideological war rather than a national war between the Americans and the Russians. Right-wing politics (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, and I apologise for reverting you [2] on this issue. What I do ask, however, is if "liberalism" is the proper term for one of those ideologies. Attic Salt (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Attic Salt: In your opinion, should the ideological part be put in brackets or in a separate sentence? Right-wing politics (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Attic Salt: Thank you, and I think the word "liberalism" makes more sense than "capitalism" or "democracy" because capitalism is just an economic system while democracy is a political system , here we are talking about the general part ie ideology, liberalism is an ideology that includes democracy and capitalism, liberalism is often understood as the opposite of communism, including the Cold War era we're talking about here. Right-wing politics (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I think I'll keep it in brackets for brevity, goodbye. Right-wing politics (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Right-wing politics: Actually correct but you spelled it wrong. Baiyue01 (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

And the typo has been corrected, concluding that I agree that the ideological information should be kept for detail at the beginning. Baiyue01 (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I have a couple of problems with this. Firstly, the article doesn't seem to frame the cold war a conflict between ideologies, but as a conflict between two superpowers and their allies. The lead should only summarize the article contents, not have unique statements in it - liberalism is only mentioned once in the article as far as I can see. I also don't see any sources to support the view.

So, firstly, the article needs to have text which is reliably sourced, framing the conflict as of one between those two ideologies, and it needs to be of sufficient weight to be summarized in the lead. (Hohum ^@) 00:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hohum: Sorry to delete the discussion because I thought it was not important, so keep it here for reference, over, bye. Right-wing politics (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

A number of US-aligned states were distinctly illiberal (in fact highly authoritarian) so the distinction does not really apply as “blocs”. I’m not seeing “free bloc” in the literature. Cambial foliage❧ 02:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I see. Right-wing politics (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the first part should keep the current version, goodbye. Baiyue01 (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Africa NATO??

In that map they showed Angola, Namibia, Mozambique and Sa as part of NATO maybe SA was an ally but Angola, and Mozambique were communist so Soviet allies Nlivataye (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

If you mean File:Cold War alliances mid-1975.svg it appears to be treating Angola and Mozambique as part of Portugal, which they were. DuncanHill (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Let's talk about the Restart of the Cold War

Russia invaded Crimea, Ukraine on 2014 and are currently planning on invading all of Ukraine. Also China invaded Hong Kong and is close to invading Taiwan. Those 2 started a new Cold War that we are having right now on 2022.

Should we add add another date for the Cold War? 2014-incumbent

Or should we update the 2nd Cold War page?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Cold_War

We 2A0D:5600:41:3001:0:0:0:BFE9 (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Not here.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thatcher’s Significant Contribution Missing from Article

I’m shocked to discover that there is absolutely no mention of the United Kingdom’s prime minister Margaret Thatcher and her contribution in ending the Cold War.Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Yugoslavia and Albania

We know that Albania and used to be soviet satellite however can we mention in the article that they broke off to give more clarity about what actually the "iron curtain" was and to give even more clarity on some of the pictures in the article that include Yugoslavia and Albania. The Duke of Mars (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

European Integration textual problem (Crisis and Escalation)

Under Crisis and Escalation, there is a mention of the beginnings of European Integration through the initiatives of U.S. foreign policy. There are two significant problems. First, the subject itself is only mentioned in passing and deserves more analysis, esp. in regards to its significance to ensuing diplomatic relations. Second, the link to the term forwards to the non-Cold War version, that is, European Integration in relation to the foundations and formation of the EU. Cold War version please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retrospector87 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's talk about the end of the Cold War

Disclaimer: I have RS for everything I am about to say below, though as this isn't an article, I won't list them. I'll give them on request, or maybe I'll pile them in my sandbox.

From what I've found, the end of the Cold War as given in December 1991 is an unnecessary stretch. If we are mainly talking about military alliances, then it truly was over by July 1990, as NATO itself implied in its statement at the July 1990 summit: "The Atlantic Community must reach out to the countries which were our adversaries in the Cold War". It is quite clear that it was a past event by July 1990. I'd also like to propose that perhaps the binary view of Soviet Union-USA relations as single determinant for the end of the Cold War might be inadequate. A better question is: which Warsaw Pact/CMEA country with which Western organization? The European Economic Community offered Trade and Cooperation Agreements (TCA) to Eastern countries as the first agreements following the end of the Cold War. Meaning, that the EEC viewed the Cold War as being over with that country upon the signing of the TCA. This would give a range of over 2 years (September 1988 for Hungary to October 1990 for Romania). With the Council of Europe, the first step of rapprochement was the granting of Special Guest status. This was first achieved by Poland, Hungary and the Soviet Union on 8 June 1989 and by Romania as late as February 1991. Then, again, it's NATO itself. Following the July 1990 summit whose rhetoric clearly placed the Cold War in the past, the Warsaw Pact (minus East Germany) were invited to establish diplomatic relations with NATO. This was achieved between 18 July (USSR and Hungary) and 23 October (Romania).

None of my sources states the end of the Cold War verbatim, but it is implied in quite a few of them (chiefly the July 1990 NATO declaration and the granting of TCAs by the European Community - "The first agreements offered to the Central and Eastern European Countries after the end of the Cold War were TCAs."). All this being said, I am not going to make rash decisions. I wish to talk the best way to use all this information. But it seems quite hard to still refer to the Soviet Union as being in a Cold War after it was granted special guest status in the Council of Europe, the oldest of the main post-war Western organizations. SGS should not be taken as a first step out of the Cold War, though, because for some WP members, the first step was the TCA. Personally, I view the combination of SGS status in the CoE, TCA with the European Community, and diplomatic relations with NATO as the end of the Cold War between the country in question and the West. But I do wish to hear your take on all this. Transylvania1916 (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I firmly agree 1990 should be the end date of the Cold War. the Truman Doctrines goal was to contain Soviet geopolitical expansion during the Cold War. Not to bring about the collapse of the Soviet state. Keep in mind the Soviet union existed before WW2 and there was no Cold war --Aaron106 (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The question is when do the experts say the cold war ended--they are the ones we rely upon.. The scholarly book titles are split between 1989, 1990 and 1991. 1989: Japan and South East Asia: The Cold War era 1947-1989 1990: Cold War America, 1946 to 1990 1991: The cold war: 1945-1991 --and some hedge: "Armed conflict at the end of the cold war, 1989-92." Journal of Peace research Rjensen (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Well I would definitely would not go with the one who said 1992 haha :) --Aaron106 (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Archie Brown puts the end of the Cold War already into 1988/89 and quotes George Shultz who commented on Gorbachev’s UN speech on 7 December 1988 as the end of the Cold War.

Brown, Archie (2010). "The Gorbachev revolution and the end of the Cold War". In Leffler, Melvyn P.; Westad, Odd Arne (eds.). Endings. The Cambridge History of the Cold War. Vol. III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 245, 253–254. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521837217.013. ISBN 978-0-521-83721-7.

However, the Cold War was over by then – over, indeed, by the end of 1989, by which time the countries of Central and Eastern Europe had become independent and non-Communist. Thus, it is Gorbachev’s outlook and the change in Soviet policy up to 1989 that is the major focus of this chapter.
[...]
Three years after he came to power, Gorbachev appeared to go further on the issue of Soviet hegemony over other states. In his major speech to the Nineteenth Conference of the CPSU in the summer of 1988, he emphasised each country’s right to choose its political and economic system. That point attracted somewhat more attention when he repeated it in his UN speech in December of the same year. Even then, as US secretary of state George Shultz later observed, the press was captivated by the ‘hard news’ of the Soviet armed forces being cut by half a million men, including substantial troop withdrawals from Eastern Europe. The media, he noted, largely missed the ‘philosophical’ content of Gorbachev’s speech, ‘and if anybody declared the end of the Cold War, he did in that speech’.

--Jo1971 (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: War and the Environment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 May 2022 and 6 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Littlee0804 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: LeenOnMe, Ahhykz, Fujia0801.

— Assignment last updated by Karanaconda (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Wladiwostok Parade 1918.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Weather

The cold war is unrelated to the weather. Is there any need to add that? Cwater1 (talk) 07:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

No.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't think so.Cwater1 (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Request to add new link to archives

Cold War Conversations Open Source Oral History project https://coldwarconversations.com/ Coldwarpod (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2023

The Soviet union considered Libya as their closest ally in the arab world, For example Chadian–Libyan War and Toyota War where soviet union supported libyan axis against chadian axis (supported by usa), This was a proxy war between the two global super powers. Libya is also considered second world since it leans to the Soviet Union more. this suggests to fix the error in the picture displaying countries world stage, libya is shown as “neutral” and this is wrong, Chadian-Libyan War Was a part of the Cold War, Shows Libya wasn’t nowhere to be neutral at that time. also Gaddafi strong relation with fidel castro and soviet union and his socialist ideology (branch of Communism) etc.. Adds in the cherry top. + Add events of Chadian Libyan war. Realityishere (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. A09 (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Infobox collages for Cold War for each year from 1945 to 1992 and decades

Fellow editors, please assist in creating from available Commons photos Cold War year collages for each year from 1945 to 1992 + 6 for decades (1940s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s) infoboxes, each containing six or eight photos per collage, like the one pictured here

Infobox collage sample

, It is necessary both for Wikipedia and for Wikidata items "Cold War in 1945," "Cold War in 1946," "Cold War in 19..," and so on until the end. Best regards, 95.158.43.89 (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

ok 103.240.79.237 (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Photo caption

With her brother on her back, a Korean girl trudges by a stalled American M46 Patton tank, at Haengju, South Korea during the Korean War, 1951. Huh? That photo is not a girl but boy in my opinion.2404:8000:1027:85F6:A140:91BB:6B11:B462 (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a girl and she's wearing a traditional Korean dress.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Too long

Even before the latest addition, this page was at the limit for readable prose size, but now it is far beyond it. This is necessarily a summary article, which should briefly touch on the most important aspects of the cold war, and rely on other articles to flesh them out. (Hohum ^@) 17:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The Cold War was such a multifaceted conflict that its chronology cannot be oversimplified. Sure, some paragraphs might be trimmed for better readability (decommunization, for instance), but key events such as American aid during the Soviet famine of 1921–1922 and the Lend-Lease program, the fundamental differences between the Munich Agreement and Molotov–Ribbentrop pact, Soviet forcible extraction of reparations from their post-war satellites etc. shouldn't be reduced to several sentences or not mentioned at all. Previously, the article used to be slanted towards Latin American conflicts and US involvement there; I believe a more worldwide view of the subject should be presented. Additionally, the 1917–1939 section was riddled with inaccuracies (like the suggestion the Allies "invaded" Russia instead of organizing a chaotic intervention aimed primarily at securing supplies previously shipped there) and omissions (such as independent movements during the Russian Civil War and the Russian SFSR's relations with them). Pizzigs (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

No comment on the editorial issue, but if you are going to copy and dump text from another article please make sure to copy all the references correctly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Those are different articles, so I might have missed something, but yes, I will double-check next time. Pizzigs (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how complicated the issue is, no one will understand that nuance it it's too long to read. Right now, at a bit over 20,000 words, it could take about 1.5 hours to read in full (varying based on the reader, of course). There's probably not a lot of places that major trimming can take place, but I definitely think this is an issue worth discussing. Wracking ^💬 08:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The Background section is too long. After all it's supposed to be background.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Gaddis accused of rudeness and incompetence!

Not really, but a dangling modifier in the Missile Crisis section suggests that he was. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Fixed.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Can we add the list of nations,parties or miltias on each side?

This would be constructive in my aspect 198.38.50.46 (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Can...

...the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union be called Cold War I, since a new one started between the US, it's allies and Russia, China, Iran and their alles, and could the new one be called Cold War II? Nuclear Sergeant (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Have you evidence (i.e. reliable sources) that the present period is called a Cold War? The Banner talk 09:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

All I have are a series of old and current news items on various media. Can't use that, can I Nuclear Sergeant (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC) 🥰

Not really. We need reliable sources that call it with so many words "Cold War". The Banner talk 13:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Second Cold War is the article you're seeking. "Cold War" is this topic's common name though so it may not be moved. –Vipz (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Westad, Odd Arne (27 March 2018). "Has a New Cold War Really Begun? Why the Term Shouldn't Apply to Today's Great-Power Tensions". Foreign Affairs.

At its peak, the Cold War was a global system of countries centered on the United States and the Soviet Union. It did not determine everything that was going on in the world of international affairs, but it influenced most things. At its core was an ideological contest between capitalism and socialism that had been going on throughout the twentieth century, with each side fervently dedicated to its system of economics and governance. It was a bipolar system of total victory or total defeat, in which neither of the main protagonists could envisage a lasting compromise with the other. The Cold War was intense, categorical, and highly dangerous: strategic nuclear weapons systems were intended to destroy the superpower opponent, even at a cost of devastating half the world.
Today’s international affairs are in large part murky and challenging, but they are a far cry from Cold War absolutes. Calling twenty-first-century great-power tensions a new Cold War therefore obscures more than it reveals. It is a kind of terminological laziness that equates the conflicts of yesteryear, which most analysts happen to know well, with what takes place today. Although many echoes and remnants of the Cold War are still with us, the determinants and conduct of international affairs have changed.
[...]
Whatever international system is being created at the moment, it is not a Cold War. It may turn out to be conflict-ridden and confrontational, but using “Cold War” as common denominator for everything we don’t like makes no sense. Instead, we should try to understand how perceived lessons from the past influences thinking about the present. If we want to apply history to policymaking, we must learn to be as alert to differences as we are to analogies.

--Jo1971 (talk) 08:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

President Hoover

… wasn’t President in 1921. 47.199.80.203 (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Fixed.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2023

change complicate to complicated It's a grammatical error on the 2nd line of the 4th paragraph Krishnavalluri (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cold war (term) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Fall 2023 HIST 401

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CiretheHistoryMan (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by CiretheHistoryMan (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

1945-1991 (article) 1947-1991 (sidebar)

on the article it says the cold war began in 1945 after the end of WW2, but the sidebar says 1947-1991, saying that the cold war began after the start of the Truman Doctrine, can the sidebar say the cold war started in 1945 to match up with the article? 2600:1700:3680:8B70:6104:95D3:7DD9:DD4D (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I would say 1945, given the Division of Korea as well as tension in Berlin and the death of Roosevelt. But we need to form a consensus as to which date is right. This is hard because scholars differ.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

PS You could also say that the Cold War still exists in Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

so true, and were still having a cold war against China as well 99.152.112.156 (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

When the cold war really began

the description says it began in 1945, but the infobox says it began in 1947, give a clear description on when it began either change the infobox beginning to 1945, or change the description to 1947 99.152.112.156 (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It would make more sense to change the date to September 3, 1945 because most people wouldn't consider the relations between the two major powers in September 1945-March 1947 to be 'friendly'.84.54.73.230 (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe the article needs to be way shorter. It's hard to read with so many words

the article is way too long to read. It's very hard to just keep scrolling. Wikipedia, Cold War ZoeyThePupper3 (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Why is this too long?

Why is this article too long? I think such a topic needs this long of an article to be explained Pksois23 (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The cold war has a lot of things happened in a span of 40+ years, so making it shorter is a lot harder than you expect Very different name (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2024

Adding a reference Aftergood, S. (2017). Cybersecurity: The cold war online. Nature, 547(7661), 30–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/547030a Zlukeeramo (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Question: Where exactly should this reference be added? Please also note that Cold war (term) exists and may be more appropriate, as this source doesn't appear to discuss the 20th century US vs Soviet cold war. Jamedeus (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2024 (2)

Adding a reference Zlukeeramo (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Question: Where exactly should this reference be added in the article? Jamedeus (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The French Indochina War of 1946 to 1954

The article on the "Cold War" jumps immediately into the subject of U.S. involvement from 1959 to 1975, but completely ignors that fact that from 1946 to 1954 the French had been fighting a War in French Incochina (What was Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia) to retain their Pre World War II Colonies in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. By 1948 Truman had decided not to support Ho Chi Minh (the head of the Viet Minh, the fighting force of the Vietnamese Communist Pary). The U.S. began spending alomost $1 billion a year in providing Military Aid the France from 1950 onward thru 1954. The US in fact established a Millitary Assistance Command (MACV) in Saigon in 1950 to assist supplying the French and providing Logistic Support. The US CIA provided Air Support thru a company call Civil Air Transport, a CIA shell company, to the French, and in fact flww C-119 Parachute and Supply drop planes over Dien Ben Phu near Laos in 1954. The French, seeing since 1951 that the best they could hope for was a negotiated settlement "Sued for Peace" at the Geneva Conventions which were convened in 1954 and included the Soviet Union, France, China, and the U.S. From 1950 onward the Chinese and the Soviet Union had been supplying Ho Chi Minh trucks with missle launchers, 105 milimeter cannon, antiaircraft guns, and other weapons to fight the French. In May 1954 the French suffered a major defeat at Dien Ben Phu, near Laos, and quickly thereafter agreed to the division of Vietnam between North and South Vietnam and accepted a government with HGo Dinh Diem as president of South Vietnam, and free elections in South Vietnam in 1955. The failure to hold free elections in South Vietnam by Diem in the South in 1955 resulted in Ho Chi Minh reactivating Viet Minh forces in the South of Vientnam and a low intensity war with Car Bombings, Rail Road Bombings, Assasinations, and low level Guerilla War in the South thru 1959. 2600:1700:E821:3280:E980:84B2:207B:2BFA (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

agreed! ZoeyThePupper3 (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Lots of yapping, but nice info 2600:1700:4C58:110:480:35:1BC:67E5 (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)