Talk:Cold War/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

How many Cold wars?

Someone in Russia said that war in Gruzia was similar turning point for Russia as 9/11 for US.

 Russia is starting new round of arms race to match the buildup of PNAC years.

Most people call it Second Cold War or CWII. There is now many hits in a Google search for this string "Second Cold War" . But according to wikipedia it would be third CW. There was no CW so technically it's the first

I suggest looking at this graph of US defense spending http://www.alternet.org/story/83555/?page=entire and perhaps give all three buildups a name.

Rename the whole article into Cold Wars, name them , rather then number them,

e.g. Reagan-BushI phase, Dubja or PNAC phase ... etc.

Right now we do not what will happen after Obama is elected, but we should not ignore the issue of Osetia in context of a CW.

Any opinion on such solution Petr (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC).

Vietnam and Containment

I deleted the two bits about Vietnam at the end of the containment section, since it didn't seem appropriate. On the other hand, Vietnam was at least as significant as Korea, but doesn't get as much attention. Also, the beginning of US involvement in Vietnam was in 1950 or so, as assistance to the French fighting a colonial war. So I'm wondering if something needs to be put into the beginning of the next section that mentions the slow build-up to that war, just as the Korean war was ending. I liked the hint before, but because Vietnam was such a large issue, it would have been ignored had even the foreshadowing been put there, because focussing on that instead of the CW stuff wouldn't have made sense, and would have detracted from the flow. Thoughts? Hires an editor (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Cold War Montage

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

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

Please tell me what your contradictions might be. I also added an infobox and campaignbox here to show what I've done. Chris Iz Cali (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Cold War
File:Montage Cold War.png Clockwise from top: The 38th Parallel; T-54 Tank in Saigon; Chinese communists entering Beijing; American and South Korean troops in Seoul; A U.S. EB-66 Destroyer and four F-105 Thunderchiefs dropping bombs on North Vietnam; Armed Mujahideen Afghans return to a destroyed village
Date 1946 – 1991 Location Europe, Middle East, Asia (and briefly in Cuba) Result Dissolution of the Soviet Union, Communism & Democracy in various states, etc.
Belligerents
United States United Nations NATO & other Democratic states	Soviet Union Warsaw Pact & other Communist states
Commanders and leaders
Soviet leaders	U.S. leaders
Casualties and losses
(Proxy wars' casualties)	(Proxy wars' casualties)

Please see the archived discussion [1] and [2] relating to the montage. This article has many many images, and while it might be interesting, the montage does not really do justice to the complexity of the Cold War. For example, how does the montage address the psychological aspect? Or how does it address the Space Race? It can't be complete enough, or comprehensive enough, to be a good idea. No matter what, it will be unbalanced in what it shows.

Also, discussion about the article should remain here on the talk page. Hires an editor (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

More critique of the infobox: how many casualties? No matter what you say, it will be inaccurate. Even if you put "undeterminable" it will still be inaccurate. You could say, "there's some disagreement"...and the beginning dates? Not 1946, since there's disagreement as to the actual start date. And almost all the other info listed in the box is general. So what the box is saying, in essence, is, "It happened everywhere, had an unknown number of casualties, we can't be sure of the start date, there are too many leaders to name, so it includes everyone..." Hires an editor (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• We appreciate your entusiasm Chris, but as previously discussed, this article should not have an infobox or an campaign box. Therefore, please do not add them anymore as they can disrupt article's quality. Thanks, --Eurocopter (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for talking it out! Chris Iz Cali (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"From Containment Section"

This section in the Joseph Stalin article is much better written regarding the post-WWII time frame than the "From Containment Section" of CW article describes. And it's more neutral, though its focus is necessarily on the Stalin/Soviet perspective. I'm thinking of cribbing that section and replacing wholesale the section here. Or integrating the two, and then shrinking the whole thing down, because I think this section is too big already. Thoughts? Hires an editor (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Integrating the two of them should be ok. Unfortunately I can't do anything to balance those two sections, as I don't have access to my sources until saturday. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on just using what's already here, and in the Stalin article, and making them fit well together. We'll see how far I get. The more I work on it though, the more I think the Stalin part should be sprinkled with the stuff from the CW article. Hires an editor (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Government reorganization

So the US reorganized its government to fight the CW, but did the Soviets do the same? Hires an editor (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Rapallo

It's been asked whether mention of the Treaty of Rapallo, 1922 as a factor leading to increased suspicion of the USSR by the West is a joke. The answer is no. (And by the way, note that no one is saying Rapallo in any way was a proximate cause of the Cold War. Neither, for that matter, was Ribbentrop-Molotov. No, but they were factors that increased Western suspicion of the Soviets, already high after 1917.)

1. LaFeber does not even mention Munich, and neither should he - the USSR was not a participant.

2. * Geoffrey Roberts (Stalin's Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953) calls the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact the "New Rapallo"; Stalin himself referred to the "Rapallo precedent" in 1939.

• William Wohlforth (The Elusive Balance: Power and Perceptions During the Cold War) refers to Rapallo under the heading "The Origins of Old Thinking".
• Melvyn P. Leffler (A Preponderance of Power) notes American fear in 1948 or so that the Germans might align with Moscow, "as they did at Rapallo in 1922".
• David Reynolds (The Origins of the Cold War in Europe), again referring to this fear: Rapallo and the Nazi-Soviet Pact "cast long shadows".

3. If you have a better example than Rapallo, by all means use it, but Munich isn't one. Biruitorul ^Talk 13:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Polaris Missiles

I miss mention of the belated U.S. scramble for second strike capability that the successful Soviet missile program led to. Permanently airborne bomberfleets , and the mad rush to develop submarine launched missiles. Since development time was at a premium their range was sacrificed, meaning they had to be stationed very close to the intended target, hence the secret military alliance with Sweden, see History_of_Sweden_(1945–1989)#Swedish_neutrality_in_the_Cold_War. --Stor stark7 ^Speak 15:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on a quotation

This reasoning was conditioned by Russia's historical experiences, given the frequency with which the country had been invaded from the West over the previous 150 years

This is referenced, but not all references are correct. How many times was Russia invaded over that period? Were these invasions of unusual frequency? Were these invasions more numerous than invasions of other countries? Wasn't Russia also the invader on several occasions? I have serious doubts about this statement. Awaiting comments. Tymek (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, this article is supposed to be a summary, with more detailed information in the "Sub-article" reference. We don't need this level of detail here. Also, where are you getting information that makes you doubt this statement? Hires an editor (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

My hunch is that it was Russia that invaded its neighbors in the last 150 years more often than the neighbors attacking Russia. Perhaps somebody could make a comparison. Tymek (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if Russia had invaded other countries a lot, that is a different matter. Even the CIA Factbook used to mention in their Russia article that Russia had endured "massive invasions by Swedes, French, and Germans".[3]--Miyokan (talk) 10:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

3rd paragraph in the lead

This discussion stems from that of #Introduction above.

I have reverted a revision by User:Miyokan about the end of the Cold War, etc. The version I favor encompasses both the sides of the US and USSR, and talks about Reagan's and Gorbachev's respective roles in ending the war. The other is completely USSR-centric, not mentioning the US at all, Reagan's military buildup and persuasion of the Saudis, or the Reagan-Gorbachev summits. Instead, we have lengthy descriptions of glasnost and perestroika. In an earlier effort to compromise, I kept the text written by Miyokan regarding Gorbachev's policies and placed it in the "End of the Cold War" section. Keeping it in the lead would be a violation of WP:LEAD, which recommends providing a gist of the article, not delving into specifics.

I am bringing this up here to alert other editors of my reversion, and the striking differences in content between the two versions. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. I know that you are a big fan of Reagan but this is an encyclopedia. Of course it is USSR-centric, it is up to us to write the facts. Please, do not try to compare Reagan, the man who "convinced Saudi Arabia to raise oil production" with Gorbachev, the man who actually controlled the USSR and democratized the USSR through his policies. The cold war ended because the USSR had democratized, through internal policies implemented by its own leaders - it was the USSR that did the changing, not the US. It was Gorbachev's internal policies that democratized the USSR, that is why it is important to actually list what perestroika and glasnost did in the lead. Reagan's "convincing" to increase the oil production was not the sole reason the oil price decreased - that is factually wrong. It decreased because of a number of factors, namely reduced global oil demand, increased oil production by non-OPEC countries, the US increased their domestic oil production and were switching to alternative energy sources. Please read 1980s oil glut for example. The reason the INF treaty was signed was because Gorbachev "transformed Soviet foreign policy" and "convinced foreigners that the USSR was no longer an international threat". "His changes in foreign policy led to the democratization of eastern Europe and the end of the Cold War". Now, the reason Gorbachev implemented perestroika was because he wanted the USSR economy to catch up with the West. He initially thought the economy was basically sound and only reforms were needed. After two years, however, Gorbachev came to the conclusion that deeper structural changes were necessary. In 1987–88 he pushed through reforms that went less than halfway to the creation of a semi-free market system. Now, the reason he implemented glasnost was because democratizing the country was the only way to overcome inertia in the inefficient political and bureaucratic apparatus and because he believed that the path to economic and social recovery required the inclusion of people in the political process. Encyclopedia Britannica--Miyokan (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Miyokan, you can't use Encyclopedia Britannica as your only source of information regarding the end of the CW. I'm sure that it's well researched and such, but still, it's another encyclopedia. I've mentioned this to you several times in reversions of your edits to the lead. As for Happyme22's concept that Reagan is the only reason for the 1980's oil glut, I have to disagree. Reagan may have helped the situation along, but it was happening anyway. Certainly the US actions in the 1980s contributed to the Soviet's change in course, but the Soviets were stagnant anyway. We've got to come up with a more neutral stance on the end of the CW. The Soviets were failing anyway, and Reagan (and others) helped that process along through various means. Hires an editor (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The current first paragraph within the lead seems just fine to me and does not need any changes. So, if you really want to improve this article, try to fix any of the issues within its FAC. Thanks, --Eurocopter (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Eurocopter, I never said that Reagan was the only reason that the price of oil went down. According to Yegor Gaider, former Prime Mininister of Russia after the fall of the USSR, it does appear that he was the driving force behind the persuasion of Saudi Arabia, though (see Gaidar, Yegor. "Public Expectations and Trust towards the Government: Post-Revolution Stabilization and its Discontents". Retrieved 2008-03-15. and Gaidar, Yegor (2007). Collapse of an Empire: Lessons for Modern Russia (in Russian). Brookings Institution Press. pp. 190–205. ISBN 5824307598. And let's not get into a "well he likes Reagan so he's a partisan" kind of thing, because those are merely preconceived notions; I was never and will never be a partisan editor. My contributions will attest to that.

Miyokan, Encyclopedia Brittanica is a fine source, but it can't be your only source. I have gathered sources from all over and used them to create a comprehesive thrid paragraph. Admitting that it is USSR-centric was not a very good idea either, because that will causes article to fail FA criteria 1b regarding it being comprehensive and neglecting no major details. Your lengthy descriptions of glasnost and peretroika are wonderful additions - for the correct section "End of the Cold War". The lead should mention glasnost and perestroika for sure, but delving into their specifics is in violation of WP:LEAD and may cause problems with FA critera 2a regarding a concise lead. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Happyme, as a FAC reviewer please tell us exactly what should be changed and what doesn't make you happy with the current form of the article/lead. Also, editors are kindly requested not to do any major changes to this article/lead during its FAC without discussing them first on the talk page, as their actions might be disruptive to this process. Thanks, --Eurocopter (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with Hires and editor's new lead revision. It does not delve into great specifics, thus abiding by WP:LEAD, but at the same time does present a fair picture of the end of the Cold War. As such, I can now support the article. Happyme22 (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, cheers. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comparison Chart

To Krawndawg: please stop reverting the changes to the Comparison between USSR and US economies (1989) according to 1990 CIA The World Factbook[160], as the source is referenced, and is verified personally by myself. Please access the reference and verify that the information is valid. The only thing that needs to be changed is GDP to GNP. It is not a mistake that this information is there, nor that it is correct. Again, the only mistake is that it should be listed as GNP, not GDP. Hires an editor (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If it is supposed to be GNP, than I would support someone changing it to reflect such. Happyme22 (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"The only thing that needs to be changed is GDP to GNP." Exactly. Until that's done, the article is presenting factually incorrect information which should be noted and eventually corrected. That's what tags are for. GNP and GDP aren't the same thing, if you want to keep the comparison it should be made clear that these are different measurements being compared, and as it stands, that would require a revamp of the chart which I was planning on getting around to. Additionally, the article should also make mention of this from the source: "cutbacks in Soviet reporting on products included in sample make the estimate subject to greater uncertainty than in earlier years." - The numbers themselves are questionable, which makes the comparison even more dubious. Krawndawg (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Heres my "two cents" as it were, just looking at this for a second, so like i said its nothing really...but the CIA Factbook? Ever hear of the phrase history is written by the victors? I would try and source a few other more neutral sources. I mean...the CIA?

• Prima "Yes but it is the CIA Factbook"
• Secunda "...exactly."

Seriously, are you (Hires an editor) only going by what the CIA Factbook is saying? Ill say again i really dont know anything about this apart from this section here at the bottom and what you three have said, but i would say i have enough info from this to be able to fairly make that point, i mean it is the cold war... and now I bid you adue, thanks. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 07:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the table, only because the CIA factbook, which is a neutral source, isn't even sure about the data it gets from the Soviets. The fact that the CIA factbook was brought to my attention by Krawndawg, because he was reverting edits over and over without any discussion as to why. When it was explained, I took action. Hires an editor (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Start of the Cold War pre WWII according to some historians

In resurching the Australian exclusion of Egon Kisch I found one historian agruing his 1934 story was an example of the Cold War and that "although some people still claim that the Cold war began after World War II, it seems clear that it started when Bolshevik (Communist) forces seized control of Russia in the Bolshevik Revolution of October 1917. Western nations including the USA, Britain and Australia believed that it was not in their interests for a Communist nation (the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or USSR) to emerge from the turmoil of Russia. It's still not widely known, for example, that US and British troops went to Russia in 1919, after World War I ended, to try to defeat the new Bolshevik regime. Three hundred Australian troops joined a volunteer British force, and two of them won Victoria Crosses fighting the Bolsheviks." Are there other examples of pre WWII cold war events and should we edit this article to show a more accurate historical record?--Godianus the Finder (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No. This information should go into the Origins of the Cold War article. It is interesting, worthy/worthwhile, but a bit too much of a detail to go here. There's so much that happened during the CW that it's hard to keep the main article down to a reasonable size. Hires an editor (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Where did all the notes dissapear from the 3rd and 4th paragraph of the Europe subsection? --Eurocopter (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I substantially rewrote this part, and since I don't have any direct access to any references at the moment, I left that alone. I'll work on fixing this next week, since I will be able to hit the library and take the appropriate amount of time to properly note and reference these items. Hires an editor (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, although i'm pretty sure that these points were cited before. Maybe you could put some of the notes back in their proper place - just have a look at the older versions (especially regarding the COMECON and Berlin Blockade, i'm sure i've added myself several Gaddis notes). --Eurocopter (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The line about sports in the first paragraph feels a little out of place with the massive importance of the statements around it. Does anyone agree? Lukesed (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The article New Cold War has been nominated for deletion

The deletion debate over the article New Cold War can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Cold_War

Any input is greatly appreciated.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Grammatical eyesore

"As soon as the term "Cold War" was popularized to refer to postwar tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union, interpreting the course and origins of the conflict has been a source of heated controversy among historians, political scientists, and journalists."

/s/r/

"For as long as the term "Cold War" has been used to refer to postwar tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union, interpreting the course and origins of the conflict has been a source of heated controversy among historians, political scientists, and journalists." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruineye (talk • contribs) 07:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

South ossetian war

should the south ossetian war be considered a continuation of the cold war? or should it at least be noted that this war has ignited cold war fears? the page says "end of the cold war" but can we now be positive it is over, Russia's use of force in georgia should at least get some notice in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.207.103 (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Can WWII be considered a continuation of WWI? Sure, but they're separated by time. Same thing here. This isn't the same thing as what was happening before in the CW, since Russia isn't trying to impose communism, it's just trying to impose its will. It's like saying Soviet interference in other countries before WWII was a part of the CW, too...Or that US interference in Kosovo/Serbia was a continuation of the CW, just because Russia didn't like that their "brothers" (for lack of a better word) were under attack...I think the US and Russia will be at odds for a long time to come, but it won't be like before... Hires an editor (talk) 04:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Recentism

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Cold War for the discussion about OR. This new section smacks of OR, and if the article that contained this material should be deleted, then this material doesn't need to be in this article either. Just because newspapers put it out there doesn't make it true. Hires an editor (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Historiography

I'm kicking off a copyedit and I started at the bottom to break my expectations. Why is Historiography notable? Surely a See Also is all that is required. Alternatively, please call it Causes of the Cold War and add some more notable / interesting content. Dhatfield (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's notable because without this information, the schools of thought and interpretation that are subjects of the article, and sited sources need to be there to express that there may be bias, and what those biases are...Hires an editor (talk) 05:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

I have rewritten Legacy and would like a knowledgeable editor to go over it to check for changes in meaning. In some cases nuance of meaning may have changed - this is intentional, I like to think it is a slight improvement in neutrality. However, if I have mangled something beyond the bounds of citability, please edit it further: I'm not an expert in the subject. Dhatfield (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting discussion, Dhatfield (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

End of the Cold War

I have problems with many parts of this section, primary verification and POV issues. Please ensure consistency between this section and the relevant linked articles:

End of the Cold War (1985–91)

By the time the comparatively youthful Mikhail Gorbachev

• what is the relevance of his relative youth?

had ascended to power in 1985, the Soviets suffered from an economic growth rate close to zero percent, combined with a sharp fall in hard currency earnings as a result of the downward slide in world oil prices in the 1980s.

• 'hard currency' should be 'foreign currency'. This implies that perestroika was meant to address these issues, but does not explicity say so. The article perestroika makes no mention of causes. Please clarify.

To restructure the Soviet economy, Gorbachev announced an agenda of economic reform, called perestroika, or restructuring. Within two years, however, Gorbachev came to the conclusion that deeper structural changes were necessary.

• According to perestroika, Gorbachev introduced perestroika in June 1987. How does that fit with these two statements?

Gorbachev redirected the country's resources from costly Cold War military commitments to more profitable areas in the civilian sector.

• perestroika makes no mention of redirecting resources from military to civilian sectors. One or the other needs to give.

Many US Soviet experts and administration officials doubted that Gorbachev was serious about winding down the arms race, but the new Soviet leader eventually proved more concerned about reversing the Soviet Union's deteriorating economic condition than fighting the arms race with the West.

• This statement is badly POV and the opinion of US Soviet experts is irrelevant in this context.

Also introduced was glasnost, or "openness", which allowed for criticism of the Soviet government, and Soviet institutions to be more transparent.

• According to the relevant article, glasnost was integral to perestroika. Please clarify the causes of glasnost and perestroika in this context. Glasnost may also have had an important impact on the USSR-West relations.

The Kremlin made major military and political concessions

• What concessions? Looks like POV as it stands.

in response Reagan agreed to renew talks on economic issues and the scaling-back of the arms race. The first was held in November 1985 in Geneva, Switzerland. There, Reagan invited Gorbachev to take a walk to a nearby boathouse and leave their aides. The two men, with only a translator, agreed on a proposal calling for 50 percent reductions of each country's respective nuclear arsenal. The second summit was held the following year in Reykjavík, Iceland. Talks went well, except for when the focus shifted to Reagan's proposed SDI, which Gorbachev wanted eliminated and Reagan refused. The negotiations ended in failure, but achievements were made at the third summit in 1987 with the signing of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which eliminated all nuclear-armed, ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers (300 to 3,400 miles) and their infrastructure. It was the first treaty to reduce nuclear arms.

• How does this relate to their prior informal agreement?

The East–West tensions that had reached intense new heights earlier in the decade rapidly subsided through the mid-to-late 1980s, culminating with the final summit in Moscow in 1988. The following year, the Soviets officially declared that they would no longer intervene in the affairs of allied states in Eastern Europe: oil and gas subsidies, along with the cost of maintaining massive troops levels, represented an economic drain and the security advantage of a buffer zone was so reduced that by 1990 Gorbachev consented to German reunification.

• That is horribly phrased, but that's my problem

In 1989, Soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan.

In December 1989, Gorbachev and Reagan's successor, George H. W. Bush, declared the Cold War over at a summit meeting in Malta; a year later, the two former rivals were partners in the Gulf War against longtime Soviet ally Iraq.

By 1989, the Soviet alliance system was on the brink of collapse, and, deprived of Soviet military support, the Communist leaders of the Warsaw Pact states were losing power; Gorbachev's "Common European Home" began to take shape when the Berlin Wall itself came down in November, the only alternative (as he later admitted) being a Tiananmen scenario.

• This is the second mention of German reunification - can you merge these references?

In the USSR itself, Gorbachev had tried to reform the party to quash internal resistance to his reforms, but, in doing so, ultimately weakened the bonds that held the Soviet Union together.

• This was Glasnost, as far as I can see. Please clarify.

By February 1990, the Communist Party was forced to surrender its 73-year-old monopoly on state power.

• What happened? Elections?

At the same time, the festering "nationalities question" increasingly led the Union's component republics to declare their autonomy from Moscow, with the Baltic states withdrawing from the Union entirely. (At first, Gorbachev's permissive attitude toward Eastern Europe did not extend to Soviet territory; even Bush, who strove to maintain friendly relations, condemned the January 1991 killings in Latvia and Lithuania, privately warning that economic ties would be frozen if the violence continued.)

• There's no reason that sentence needs to be in parentheses.

On December 25, 1991, with a growing number of SSRs, particularly Russia, threatening to secede, the USSR (fatally weakened by an August coup attempt) was declared officially dissolved.

• SSRs is unclear.
• Again, what were the consequences? How did the end of the USSR cause the end of the Cold War?

• • Done, your issues have been adressed. Please check again in order to see if I missed something. --Eurocopter (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Another version

Since this article is undergoing review, I have placed my suggested rephrasing here for your review. When edits are completed please delete this section of the talk page:

End of the Cold War (1985–91)

Main article: Cold War (1985–1991)

Further information: Economy of the Soviet Union

Ronald Reagan (right) and Mikhail Gorbachev sign the INF Treaty at the White House, 1987

By the time Mikhail Gorbachev became General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1985, the Soviet economy was stagnant and a sharp fall in foreign currency earnings as a result of weak oil prices in the 1980s prompted Gorbachev to investigate measures to revive the ailing state. An inneffectual start led to the conclusion that deeper structural changes were necessary and in June 1987 Gorbachev announced an agenda of economic reform, called perestroika, or restructuring. Perestroika relaxed the production quota system, allowed private ownership of businesses and paved the way for foreign investment. These measures were intended to redirect the country's resources from costly Cold War military commitments to more profitable areas in the civilian sector. Despite initial scepticism in the West, the new Soviet leader proved to be committed to reversing the Soviet Union's deteriorating economic condition instead of continuing the arms race with the West.

Gorbachev simultaneously introduced glasnost, or openness, which increased freedom of the press and the transparency of state institutions. Glasnost was intended to reduce the corruption at the top of the Communist Party and moderate the abuse of power in the Central Committee. Glasnost also enabled increased contact between Soviet citizens and the western world, particularly with the United States, contributing to the accelerating détente between the two nations.

In response to the Kremlin's military and political concessions, Reagan agreed to renew talks on economic issues and the scaling-back of the arms race. The first was held in November 1985 in Geneva, Switzerland. At one stage the two men, accompanied only by a translator, agreed in principle to reduce each country's nuclear arsenal by 50 percent.

File:Evstafiev-afghan-apc-passes-russian.jpg

Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1988

The second summit was held the following year in Reykjavík, Iceland. Talks went well until the focus shifted to Reagan's proposed Strategic Defense Initiative, which Gorbachev wanted eliminated: Reagan refused. The negotiations failed, but the third summit in 1987 led to a breakthrough with the signing of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). The INF treaty eliminated all nuclear-armed, ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers (300 to 3,400 miles) and their infrastructure. East–West tensions rapidly subsided through the mid-to-late 1980s, culminating with the final summit in Moscow in 1988. During the following year it became apparent to the Soviets that oil and gas subsidies, along with the cost of maintaining massive troops levels, represented a substantial economic drain. In addition, the security advantage of a buffer zone was recognised as irrelevant and the Soviets officially declared that they would no longer intervene in the affairs of allied states in Eastern Europe. In 1989, Soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan and by 1990 Gorbachev consented to German reunification, the only alternative being a Tiananmen scenario. When the Berlin Wall came down, Gorbachev's "Common European Home" began to take shape.

By 1989, the Soviet alliance system was on the brink of collapse, and, deprived of Soviet military support, the Communist leaders of the Warsaw Pact states were losing power. In the USSR itself, glasnost weakened the bonds that held the Soviet Union together and by February 1990, with the dissolution of the USSR looming, the Communist Party was forced to surrender its 73-year-old monopoly on state power.

At the same time freedom of press and dissent allowed by glasnost and the festering "nationalities question" increasingly led the Union's component republics to declare their autonomy from Moscow, with the Baltic states withdrawing from the Union entirely. Gorbachev's permissive attitude toward Eastern Europe did not initially extend to Soviet territory; even Bush, who strove to maintain friendly relations, condemned the January 1991 killings in Latvia and Lithuania, privately warning that economic ties would be frozen if the violence continued. The USSR was fatally weakened by a failed coup and as a growing number of Soviet republics, particularly Russia, threatened to secede the USSR was declared officially dissolved on December 25, 1991.

Two years earlier, in December 1989, Gorbachev and Reagan's successor, George H. W. Bush, had declared the Cold War over at the Malta Summit; a year later, the two former rivals were partners in the Gulf War against longtime Soviet ally Iraq. Dhatfield (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), dates and names of countries should not be linked, unless the link is highly relevant. Just a note. Dhatfield (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding origins of the term

From George Orwell

Although the origins of the term are debatable, Orwell may have been the first to use the term cold war. He used it in an essay titled "You and the Atomic Bomb" on 19 October 1945 in Tribune, he wrote:

"We may be heading not for general breakdown but for an epoch as horribly stable as the slave empires of antiquity. James Burnham's theory has been much discussed, but few people have yet considered its ideological implications — this is, the kind of world-view, the kind of beliefs, and the social structure that would probably prevail in a State which was at once unconquerable and in a permanent state of 'cold war' with its neighbours."

I realize its not an explicit reference to the relationship between the USA and USSR, but I think its clear that's what Orwell had in mind. I'm surprised there is no mention of it in this article, or in the discussion page, and as such I'm hesitant to add it without bringing it up first. Kiolden (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Semantics of the term

Pardon my ignorance, but I am still unclear on what exactly is meant by the use of the word 'cold' in the name 'cold war'. Can this be explained in the article> For instance, is it because Russia is close to the North Pole; or is it to do with the attitudes of the parties involved? 130.194.78.161 (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

FAKE LINK

The external reference # An archive of UK civil defence material links to http://www.cybertron-systems.com/index_1.html. Since the page is locked I cannot correct it, some admin should. Gio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.50.253 (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

I had the idea to add an infobox with an image montage like what we have with other wars here. I was halfway through making it when I saw this idea had been shot down before. However, I finished making it and put it up anyway -- in fact, I used the template of the previously rejected infobox as a guide. I have two reasons for doing this:

-The image and infobox, even if they do not fully encapsulate the complexity of the cold war, certainly do a better job of informing than the previous lead image, which was just a picture of Reagan and Gorbochev.

-I do not see why the infobox cannot provide an adequate at-a-glance summary of the cold war for readers, when similar infoboxes exist for other truly global conflicts like WWII. It also makes the article more interesting, as was pointed out the first time around. I think my montage also does a better job of showing that the cold war was in fact mostly "cold" but with "hot" proxy wars like Vietnam, which the first one apparently failed to do.

Please do not remove it without at least discussing it here. I think it adds to the article. As an aside, I have an alternate montage using this image: [4] However, it appears copyrighted and I don't know how to contact the holder for permission to use it. Help on that would be appreciated, if someone can find contact info. I think it would be better than the current bottom image of the wall. --The Sultan of Surreal. (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone reverted this without any discussion because of some consensus from the last one, which centered more on how "interesting" it made the article. Please explain how an infobox showing the results, competing nations, and main conflicts of the cold war is somehow deleterious to the informational power of the article itself, and how similar boxes for other wars are not. Why are some people so dead-set against this? Yes there is some disagreement, but it is not as if the death toll or start date of WWII are universally accepted either -- some people think WWI and WWII were one continuous conflict! Disagreement and uncertainty is no excuse for not providing an accurate-as-possible quick summary. The article can expound upon what is contained in the infobox, which is the case with articles everywhere on wiki. --The Sultan of Surreal. (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the changes that were made without discussion. There's consensus on the fact that the infobox is woefully incomplete, misleading, not enough detail, summaries can't accurately or adequately express the complexity of this conflict, because it was not a conventional war. Please see the previous discussion about why the infobox is not a good idea. The same thing goes for the image montage: there were too many events over too long a period for the montage to be a good idea. It's something to fight over, and it's hard enough to get consensus on the text of this article.

About the lead image, I agree that it could be changed to something different, as there are a thousand different choices that could reasonably be made. But there's really nothing wrong with the picture that's there. I don't see any good reason to change it. Hires an editor (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The same thing could be said about the infobox for almost any war. A quick summary like that never paints a completely accurate, universally agreed-upon picture of the conflict in question. That's not the point of it and I think it's disingenuous to claim that an infobox must necessarily tell the reader everything there is to know about the Cold War (or any other subject it depicts).

The same goes for the image montage. I think it does a good job showing various major themes and events from the Cold War, certainly better than a picture of Reagan and Gorbachev, which offers a pretty myopic view of the war as a lead photograph. What's wrong the montage/caption as a lead? No single image is ever going to depict every aspect of a global conflict spanning four decades, but the montage gets a far sight closer than the current lead. Where would any article ever get if edits were reverted because there could be a modicum of disagreement over them? --The Sultan of Surreal. (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I should also add that most of the information in the infobox is fairly well agreed-upon. The major results of the Cold War are known, the major opponents are certainly known, the picture and caption are accurate, and the "commanders" can be said to be the US Presidents and Soviet Premiers who led their countries through it. The start and end dates are iffy, and so are the casualties, though on that latter point, it at least bears mentioning somewhere that a non-zero, though not easily-determinable, number of people died as a result of the many proxy wars, nuclear tests, espionage, and etc. Maybe a campaign box isn't necessary, and maybe the standard infobox for wars is inadequate, but I think an infobox of some sort can be worked out in such a way that it's as accurate as possible and not misleading. The Cold War article certainly deserves something like this, so readers can see the most pertinent info at a glance, then read the article itself for more detail.

As far as that lead picture goes, it needs to be replaced with something even if no infobox is added. I like the montage idea, but almost anything would be better, honestly. The current picture absolutely doesn't cut it. It's uninteresting, uninformative, and underwhelming. You still haven't told me in what way, if the montage doesn't do a good job depicting many events over the course of decades, a single picture of Reagan and Gorbachev do. I think this whole thing deserves the opinion of other editors, so I may put it up in RfC (if you don't think there's any sort of compromise here). --The Sultan of Surreal. (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC: addition of infobox and change of lead picture

Hires and Editor never responded to my comments above, so I've taken this to RfC to see what others think. My proposed version of the article is in the history page, if you want to take a look. Hires an Editor reverted my changes.

A couple things, from my point of view:

1. Like the articles for other wars, this article should have an infobox which lists the major players, the years it was fought over, the results, the winner, and so forth. A campaign box is also a good idea in my opinion, though not strictly necessary (since most of the "campaigns" are proxy wars).

The argument against an infobox that the Cold War is unique among wars, and such an infobox is inherently misleading. I disagree; first of all, most of the facts in the infobox I originally created are pretty well agreed upon and accurate, with only the start/end dates and number of casualties really arguable. Perhaps the Cold War deserves a unique template, however, instead of the generic template we use for other "hot" wars. But I think a general summary of the most pertinent facts can be worked into the article without a deleterious effect.

2. Whether the infobox is deemed necessary or not, I think the lead image really needs to be changed. As I said before, it is uninformative, uninteresting, and underwhelming. The Cold War is a conflict that lasted four decades and nearly caused the destruction of all humanity, I think we can find a more compelling image to act as the article's pictorial summary. I made and am therefore partial to the image here: [[5]] But if this doesn't cut it for some reason, I think a different montage with different pictures could be made to work.

The argument against a montage is that a series of pictures can't accurately summarize the complexity of the Cold War and could lead to in-fighting over what pictures were used. As to the first point: maybe this is true, but a montage certainly doesn't do a poorer job of summary than a single picture of Reagan and Gorbachev -- and at least the former is more compelling, if nothing else. As to the second point: if changes were rescinded because they could conceivably lead to controversy, no article would ever get anywhere.

Outside of this, if for some reason the idea of a montage is not well-liked... well, anything would be better than the current lead, really. Perhaps a picture of an atomic test, or some propaganda piece from one of the belligerent parties.

Comments/thoughts on anything here are appreciated, of course.--The Sultan of Surreal. (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Against info box The word 'war' is used in a figurative sense here. Would we expect a war infobox for the 'war on want, or the 'war on drugs'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment the Cold War was an actual conflict between nations, unlike the war on drugs or the war on terror. It had actual hostilities, casualties, and geopolitical effects. Even if it doesn't quite fit in the usual template for wars, it deserves an infobox of some sort. --The Sultan of Surreal. (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to RfC: 1. Generally agree. What not a traditional war, it did have sides, and very roughly a beginning and an end. I would be more hesitant about saying who won though. An purpose built infobox might be the most appropriate. 2. The image is extremely boring. An iconic image would be much more fitting. The first thing which springs to mind is the Berlin wall. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 00:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment War on hunger isn't a good parallel, after all, this was an ideological war aligned by countries. That said, the Baltics and Eastern Europe (generally, Warsaw Pact) were unwilling participants, which may present problems on how they should be presented. Also, it can be argued the war is not over, only one of the primary antagonists is defunct with its propaganda living on in its successor state. The more I consider it, the more minefields I see.
I do absolutely agree on the Berlin Wall being a far more appropriate iconic image. PetersV       TALK 06:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Against. After due consideration, the Cold War is not over. Soviet propaganda lives on stronger now than a decade ago. An infobox communicates an alignment of antagonists and a closure to confrontation that are, respectively, too simplistic and frankly misleading. PetersV       TALK 22:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

AGAINST Infobox This article doesn't need an infobox as it wasn't really a war per se, but a wrestling match over idealogies and position in the world. I can see no legitimate reason why it needs is, but the format of the picture is not appealing, and that box with the timeline is hideous. I would support a new box with a much more appealing timeline of events- who would like to work with me on making that happen? I'd be willing to create one in space and just maybe it will fix the problem. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 20:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The work in progress is Template:History_Of_The_Cold_War, and any comments are welcome! It is a vast improvement over what is on the Cold War pages now. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 17:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Support. As long as it is succinct and structured, it will be an excellent addition. Compare conceptually with Cold War Timeline (too detailed) and Cold War Topics in the Portal (lacks structure). Dhatfield (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead Picture

I have added this section for discussion of the second subject of the RFC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I thing the current picture is rather too friendly and could be improved. Something a bit harder is needed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Why move the picture back? It looks crowded on the right, and I moved it to the left to balance out the look of the article. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 21:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it was moved back to the right because you don't want an article to start w/ an image. I'm sure there's a guideline about this somewhere. Hires an editor (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Coldwar2.JPG is brilliant in terms of content, but it needs to be at the highest possible resolution. The low-res image components should be upscaled to match the highest resolution source. Sources should be provided in detail; they should link to all components. Dhatfield (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Second Cold War" map

The picture includes Egypt as sympathetic to the U.S. However, it is important to point out that Egypt was initially allied with the Soviet Union, and became pro-U.S. only after the Camp David Accords. How would it be possible to mark or to note a country as having switched sides? Thanks. --Shamir1 (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the term 'Cold War'

The earliest use of the term as a description of a none shooting war between two nuclear powers seems to be an essy by George Orwell in October 1945

http://orwell.ru/library/articles/ABomb/english/e_abomb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.229.73 (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The above citation is correct. George Orwell coined the phrase "cold war" in the Tribune Oct 19 1945. Interestingly, Orwell puts the phrase in quotations himself, so it is possible that he was citing another writer (James Burnham??). Hexag1 (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, but, per WP:PSTS, we need a secondary source citing Orwell; we can't say ourselves that Orwell was the first to use the term. - Biruitorul ^Talk 11:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree that a secondary source its needed. To quote the policy: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation" (my italics). But I'd query that any real "interpretation" is required here, unless you count the "interpretation" that 1945 came before 1947. It would seem odd to have a rule that could potentially lead to an article having to include information which nobody denied was untrue (?).

Here are some sources, though:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/jan/28/featuresreviews.guardianreview7 (6th para)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=c&p=19 (under "cold")

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/05/news/edsafire.php (11th para)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/oct/29/georgeorwell.society (4th para)

Would it be okay to edit the article accordingly? --82.69.202.14 (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Another source is Christopher Hitchens, Why Orwell Matters (Basic Books 2002, p.86): “It is superfluous for Conservatives to claim Orwell as an ally in the Cold War. … Indeed, he is credited with coining the term ‘cold war’, in a paragraph that deserves quotation. On 19 October 1945, in an essay entitled ‘You and the Atom Bomb’ …”

Hitchens then quotes the following paragraph from Orwell: “We may be heading not for general breakdown but for an epoch as horribly stable as the slave empires of antiquity. James Burnham’s theory has been much discussed, but few people have yet considered its ideological implications – that is, the kind of world-view, the kind of beliefs, and the social structure that would probably prevail in a State which was at once unconquerable and a permanent state of ‘cold war’ with its neighbours.”

So there is ample evidence that Orwell used the phrase before Baruch and Lippmann. I would mention all three in the article, since Baruch and Lippmann were responsible for the widespread adoption of the phrase in America.

As for James Burnham, it is not clear from the above whether he used the precise phrase ‘cold war’ or some related idea which influenced Orwell. Perhaps someone could check his “The Managerial Revolution” to see what exactly he wrote. Dirac66 (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have sources, please feel free to make additions to the main article. If you make anything wrong we will talk care and correct it. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have inserted two sentences about Orwell with a link to the original essay in Tribune. Since we are not certain he was the first to use the term, I have just said that he used it prior to Baruch and Lippmann, which is clear from the dates. However since Baruch and Lippmann referred to more clearly to the US-Soviet conflict that we now call the Cold War, I have placed the mention of Orwell in the next paragraph as a prior but vaguer use of the term. Dirac66 (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Dirac66, I respectfully disagree with your insertion of the Orwell mention (at least as formulated), because the majority of authoritative sources on the subject continue to cite Baruch and Lippmann as the first to use the term in its current meaning. See for instance [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Yes, a few sources give Orwell tentative credit ([14], [15]), but, per WP:PSTS and WP:NOR, it's our job to apply what the majority of scholars have to say, not search for earlier mentions ourselves.

Hence, I've gone ahead and reformatted somewhat; I hope the current version is acceptable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the current version is sort of okay, but if Orwell used the term "Cold War" earlier than Baruch or Lippman then he did, and only one source is needed in order to back this up. The others then become irrelevant because they are wrong. This is not OR or SYN, because whether 1945 comes before 1947 cannot reasonably be said to be a matter of opinion.

The syntax is a bit odd. Could it be changed by someone with an account as follows: "However, While contemplating a world living in the shadow of nuclear war and warning of a "peace that is no peace", which he called a permanent "cold war",[5] Orwell did directly referred to that war as the ideological confrontation between the Soviet Union and the western powers.[6]

Thanks. --78.150.233.143 (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

Misleading use of the term Britain In the introduction (above the table of contents), the article states, "Despite being allies against the Axis powers, the USSR, the US, Britain, and France disagreed, during and after World War II". Respectfully, I request that the authors substitute the term UK in place of Britain in order to be accurate. The term Britain refers to a geographical region of three out of the four British HomeNations, whereas UK refers to all four. Many thanks, Atre09 (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Andrew

Exchaoordo (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Is there some reason that the timing (mid 1940s to early 1990s) is so vague? Why not 1947 to 1991.

Because it's highly debatable. The beginning was anywhere from 1945 to 1949, the end anywhere from 1988 to 1991. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the view on the end of the Cold War is not something that has widespread currency in, for example, modern Russia. I think any analysis of Reagan's (and Gorby's) respective roles could do with some citations; my concern however is that the article intro doesn't provide an accurate summary of the complex situation narrated in the article body. Anyway, I am happy to thrash out an alternative form of wording. Slac speak up! 04:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for starting this discussion. I too am interested in the Cold War, and that interest is what brought me to this article. I am the main contributor at the Ronald Reagan article; if you take a look at the Cold War section on that page, you will get a pretty good idea of what happened at the end of the Cold War and Reagan's contributions. Here's a general outline of the end of the Cold War, from what I've read about and discussed with several Russians:

The Soviets built up their military, surpassing that of U.S. but it left them in very poor economic shape. Reagan came to office, built up the U.S. military, and beefed up anti-Soviet, anti-communist rhetoric. In response to Reagan's military buildup, the Soviets did not further build up their military because the enormous military expenses, along with collectivized agriculture and inefficient planned manufacturing, were a heavy burden for their economy. Reagan also persuaded the Saudis to increase oil production, further crippling the Soviet economy. As a result of their stagnant economy, Gorbachev implemented perestroika and glastnost in an attempt to get it back on track. He and Reagan then met in arms limitations talks and agreed to reduce nuclear arsenels.

All of the above is cited here and here. So can we agree with that? And if so, are there any suggestions to go about wording it better in the lead? Happyme22 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've made an attempt to summarize what I wrote above and put it in. Thoughts? Happyme22 (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Never a direct military engagement"

This is repeated in a number of sources and is true, depending on how one defines "engagement". Still, would it be worth having the following footnote?:
"While no full-blown shooting war ever took place between the superpowers, Soviet involvement in Korea and possibly Vietnam saw direct clashes with American forces. In Korea, Soviet pilots engaged in every major air battle from 1950 on and inflicted heavy casualties on US/UN air units.^[1] In Vietnam, the Soviets provided weapons, advisors and ground-based air defense personnel;^[2] one source claims they sent over 985 pilots and additional aviation support personnel to North Vietnam, where they often sortied against American aircraft conducting air strikes".^[3]
(I do have the sources for this.) Or is it too technical? Biruitorul ^Talk 05:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe for the intro this is too technical, but maybe just leaving the first sentence all by itself? It is a shocking statement to see that they did fight each other, but only by proxy, rather than in their own names. So perhaps, we could say that they did fight each other directly, but in the names of others..."While no full-blow shooting war ever took place between the superpowers, Soviet and American forces did face each other on the battlefield, in the names of their respective "client states."" That's the idea. The wording could be a little different...Hires an editor (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I certainly didn't want to put that right on top in the lead - more something like this, if you see what I mean. I could also support a rephrase, though as I said, the "no direct military engagement" line is pretty standard in texts about the Cold War. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is very important to note that the 1972 Canada-Russia Hockey series took place during this Cold War Period - and this involved Russian fans traveling to Canada and Canadian fans traveling to Russia. Ronald Reagan did not win the cold war - Paul Henderson did! [16] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.81.154 (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Extreme POV at the start

"During the war, the Soviets strongly suspected that the English and Americans had opted to let the Russians bear the brunt of the war effort, and to join the fight only at the last minute so as to influence the peace settlement and dominate Europe. Thus, Soviet perceptions of the West and vice versa left a strong undercurrent of tension and hostility between the Allied powers."

The war started in 1939. For 3 years Soviet Union helped Germans to avoid British blockade that in WW1 shattered German economy. It provided needed resources. And before 1939 SU supplied Germans with technical skills, facilities to rebuild German army, while Soviet agents infiltrated Western countries.

The above sentence is extremely pro-Soviet and avoids mentioning how Soviet Union helped the war to start and its actions in 1939-1941 when it cooperated with Nazi Germany against the Allies.--Molobo (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a phrase: "the second half" of the war...Hires an editor (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

@Molobo: Utter nonsense. The sentence simply states the what the Soviet "suspected", without any further comment on its justification or lack of it. "The war started in 1939." Depends on the definition of "the war": For the Americans, it didn't begin until Pearl Harbor (several months after Germany's invasion into the Soviet Union), and didn't end until the Japanese capitulation (more than three months after V-E day). The roots of the Cold War are in the time when the U.S. and the USSR were simultaneously fighting the Axis. Hires an editor's change doesn't make that clear; at worst, it can be misread as saying that the West and the Soviets had been merrily fighting Germany together all along. Therefore I'm going to change it to something less ambiguous. The fact that the Soviet Union had earlier collaborated with Nazi Germany is commonly known and thoroughly covered in other articles. It doesn't need to be referenced in a sentence addressing the emergence of the rivalry between the U.S. and the USSR in the latter part of WW II. --Thorsten1 (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No viewpoint at all

Although a Wikipedia article should strive to avoid POV statements as fact, the introduction to this article can be said to avoid the presentation of viewpoints at all. This protracted conflict was far more than rivalry, as the current intro describes it. The overall objectives of the two sides should be described right at the top. Furthermore, the intro reads as though the Cold War were a weather front that passed through. There is not much flavor here of the intensity of the events nor of the forcefulness of the opposed veiwpoints.

Furthermore, the intro claims that the cold war had only two primary participants, the US and the USSR. Although these were the two strongest powers during the period, many other powers were involved and many significant events were not originated by either of them (although their influence may have been felt during the course of events). --Zeamays (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

They were the two primary participants. Because they were the strongest and largest is what makes them the primary participants. Without them, there wouldn't have been the CW as it was.

As far as the viewpoint, it's supposed to be "from a bird's eye view", but I see what you're saying. We had some issues with stronger words from others, but I'm okay with trying to convey a stronger feeling of conflict between the two. So make some changes, and we'll see what happens... Hires an editor (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Primacy of domestic policy

Does anyone have any sources for the proposition the the Cold War was a myth connived at by both 'sides' for domestic political mobilisation?Keith-264 (talk) 08:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

suggestion regarding background

Congratulations on getting the article promoted. I thought several times of signing up to review this, but didn't quite feel up to it. If I had signed up, there is one thing I would have asked for that I still think would be a valuable addition -- a discussion in the background section of the strategic factors that stayed constant throughout the cold war period. Among these, (1) the Soviets consistently had a big advantage in conventional forces, (2) the West consistently had a policy of responding to a conventional attack in Europe with first use of nuclear weapons, but always had doubts that it would actually do this if push came to shove, (3) the West consistently had a large economic advantage, (4) the West had a large political advantage in Europe in that the NATA members were democracies whereas the eastern bloc was only held together by Soviet military force, (5) the Soviets consistently had an ideological advantage in former colonial nations of the third world. There may be others that I can't think of right now. Yes, (6) the West consistently had a nuclear advantage in that their forces were distributed among several modalities and hence nearly invulnerable to a first strike, whereas the Soviet armaments were almost entirely missile-based, and smaller in number for most of the period. Looie496 (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's an idea worth discussing, assuming a list of this sort is somewhere to be found. I'm sure one of Gaddis's or Garthoff's books analyzes the matter, and if not, well, many hundreds of books have been written on the Cold War and it's bound to be somewhere. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, what put this into my head is recently reading the last volume of Kissinger's memoirs -- he discusses all the factors that I have mentioned. Looie496 (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Geography

I suggest to reconsider the geographical names. In particular, I believe that the term "Eastern Europe" should be replaced by "Central and Eastern Europe" wherever appropriate. Since not everybody is familiar with the fact that people in some contries consider their inclusion into Eastern Europe as offensive, I propose to read both articles Central Europe and Eastern Europe in Wikipedia. (KremilekzParezu (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

Oh, please. Is there anything someone won't find "offensive"? - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the fact that some people consider something as offensive does not mean that commonly used terminology should be replaced. Nevertheless, it can be an indication that some terms are not precise or are even wrong. I believe that the distinction betweem Central and Eastern Europe is not only geographical and cultural one, but it is also a very important part of the Cold War. Since only in the Central European countries, i.e. those with strong cultural and historical ties with the Western Europe, any opposition against Communist rule was seen (Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, Poland 1980). (KremilekzParezu (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

OK, that's a fairer point. But whether or not it's strictly accurate, "Eastern Europe" is routinely used to refer to the entirety of Communist Europe in Cold War historiography; see eg here. As explained here, that may be somewhat off the mark, but it's become standard practice. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You know what, gentlemen? Before taking the rather tiresome debate about what is Eastern Europe, how about using Eastern bloc, which defines those countries precisely, wherever it is possible to use it in this context. Upon first mention in the text, explain that it includes "communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe [and list them, perhaps]". I do believe this is accurate and efficient, as opposed to taking offense over marginalia and claiming that one form of subjective is more objective than the other (expecting a boastful, Romantic and empty motto like "those with strong cultural and historical ties with the Western Europe" to be the universally-accepted definition of "Central Europe" and to shut everybody up is part of an age-old game of musical chairs that I for one have grown tired of). Btw, the concept of an "Eastern bloc" is currently mentioned several times in the article, but never linked. Why is that?

I have my own questions about the article (a lot of problems pop out even during a cursory review), but I'll maybe ask them when I have more energy to deal with them. Until then: why on earth does the Cold War template include a mention of Nicholas II of Russia? If you really need to provide context for that period in reference to this article (and I seriously doubt it), why not link the generic concept (Russian Empire)? It currently looks childish. Dahn (talk) 05:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Intro

As others stated above, the focus solely on the U.S. and USSR alone clearly does not accurately reflect the events in question. Such an inaccurate simplification would be like calling World War II a war between Germany and the US (or Soviet Union) "and their allies." I won't belabor the point as the facts are literally all over the article itself and others have commented upon it already.

The intro also contains (contained) numerous factual errors, such as that the "Great Powers" were devastated by WWII leaving the Soviet Union and US as the only technological, economic and political superpowers -- literally wrong on almost every count given that the Soviet Union was probably the most devastated country not only in WWII but of any country in any war in history (both in terms of record deaths and infrastructure), neither the US or USSR was considered a technological superpower (at least by any large margin) compared to rest of Western Europe at the time (and most certainly not the Soviets by any measure) and, in terms of economics, I think the Soviet Union might have literally been dead last against almost every country in western Europe except Germany (and maybe even Germany) in terms of per capita GDP. Really, at the time, the only characteristic in which both the US and USSR shared superpower status was militarily, with both having gargantuan well-armed militaries in 1945, though even the U.S. military shrunk to almost nothing (1.5 million) by 1947, but it of course was the only country to have nukes until 1949. And both countries' relative large militaries weren't because the of the "devastation" and "exhaustion" of others like Britain, which was relatively unscathed from 1940 onward and had built up one of its larger militaries.

And some smaller ones, e.g., actually only allied for last four years of WWII (Soviet-German M/R pact from 1939-41), "unipolar" characterization of post-Soviet world (many call it mutlipolar, etc.).Mosedschurte (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought Britain was exhausted both in terms of finances (their inability to deal w/ the Greek Civil War in 1947, for example), and inability to maintain their empire. If we can have some good sources about this, we could rework the intro to include some of this information. Hires an editor (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

They were, but so was everyone (running on massive gov't deficit fumes). But as far as the sentence went, in terms of devastation, as explained, not only were the Soviets suffering the most, but the most of any country in any war in history (both dead and infrastructure) because of the horrilbe obliteration inflicted by Nazi troops, which was far far more nasty than anything done in the West (some of which flowed from twisted Nazi racial ideology about Slavs, but that's a different topic). Technologically, neither was really considered technoligically leaps and bounds superior to western Europe at the time (at least not so much you'd call them a "technological superpower"), with the Soviet Union being considered a complete technological backwater at the time. And as mentioned, economically, at the time, The Soviets might have been dead last in GDP per capita compared to everyone else in Western Europe, and if not they would have been close, though the U.S. was the per capita leader (and obviously a huge total size lead) over everyone then. The only really massive advantage both the US and USSR shared in 1945 over the rest of the world then was military size -- both were gargantuan. As mentioned, the U.S.'s military quickly shrink to a tiny fraction of its size (all the way down to 1.5 mil by 1947), but it remained the only country with any realistically wieldible nukes until about 1950.

Realistically, at the end of the war, the reason both countries (along with Britain) had a huge hand in the post-war shaping of Europe wasn't their 1945 technological wizardry over western Europe or economic prowess (at least of the USSR at the time) but the pretty straigtforward reason that the US, USSR and UK occupied most of war-torn Europe, which lacked any form of government or trading infrastructure after being under Nazi rule, and those occupying countries would have to be relied upon for post-war administration. In the months immediately after, they also had the most massive (by far) militaries with which to help with that administration. The biggest immediate conflict came over the Eastern Bloc creation beginnings (Iron Curtain speech) and whether to ecnomically knock Germany back to a pastoralized economy (Morgenthau Plan). Mosedschurte (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned Cites

I cleaned up some cites (e.g., some cross-mixed spellings of (La/Le)feber)and put some cites in the clickable Harvard format, along with specifying years so they can still be useable if other publications from those authors are added, but there are some old cites for which I can't determine a specific reference:

• "Gaddis, p. 100" - which Gaddis publication?
• "Odom, p. 1" - don't know to what that refers (not in ref list)
  • Odom, William E. The Collapse of the Soviet Military (1998)
• "Wood, p. 105" - which Wood? James or Alan?
• "Dobrynin, pp. 438–439" - don't know to what that refers (not in ref list)
  • Dobrynin, Anatoly. In Confidence (1995)
• "Maynes, pp. 1–2" - don't know to what that refers (not in ref list)
  • Maynes, Charles W. The World in 1980 (1980)
• "Blum, p. 87" - don't know to what that refers (not in ref list)
  • William Blum. Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower.

There are also subcats and main/see tags needed for a summary article such as this one.Mosedschurte (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources

CNN Cold War Knowledge Bank http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/

Is no longer online, is there a cache anywhere on the internet or should the link be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.186.32 (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Soviet POV in Intro

"In other regions of the world, such as Latin America and Southeast Asia, the Soviet Union fostered Communist revolutionary movements, "

In fact, the Soviet Union did not sponsor a single communist revolutionary movement in Latin America nor in Southeast Asia. The Vietnam war had little to do with the USSR - Ho Chi Minh originally asked for US help as an anticolonial revolution, not a worldwide conspiracy. Most of the other "communist revolutionary movements" in SE Asia and Latin America were also anticolonial and anti-US, not necessarily pro-Soviet. The USSR simply did not have the resources to foster a global shadow network dedicated to overthrowing the US.

Also, the part about the Soviet client states and members of the Warsaw pact smacks of POV, with no mention of the US client states and dictators propped up in Latin America. Either the members of the warsaw pact also need to be referred to as "allies" of the USSR or the nations of Latin America must be referred to as client states or some other term that takes into account the US-sponsored dictatorships. ThrassLives (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the Soviet Union did not sponsor a single communist revolutionary movement in Latin America nor in Southeast Asia. I must disagree with you on that. They may not have directly intervened in communist revolutions, but sponsor can mean anything from intervention, to lending to money, to sending military advisers to help the movement. see this source [17], and this one [18], it may offer some insight. This one is from the same website, but is for Southeast Asia [19]. The website is rather helpful, although I am not sure if it is a reliable source or not. Thanks, Ono (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

May I ask what form exactly this "fostering" took? I see some allegations on your first link, a very short statement on your second one, and nothing on your third. I guess one could find a lot of Cuban involvement in Southern America. But Cuba is not the Soviet Union. Is there anything that involved the Soviets as much as the Iran-Contra affair involved the US?

Re. the OP's client states concerns, even if we agree that the only somewhat artificial Eastern Bloc country was East Germany and that none of these countries created itself, I guess one could still easily argue that US influence/hegemony in Southern America was a lot less direct and less universal? Just as one example, not so many special events on July 4th in Southern America as opposed to regular commemoration of November 7th in Eastern Europe?

Would a Nicaragua or Cuba-like situation have been conceivable in Eastern Europe?

Yaan (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Ono, and this isn't even really a question of serious debate. No scholar disagrees that the Soviets helped to foster communist movements in Latin America and Southeast Asia and that the West countered with their own attempted "rollbacks", many times fostering anti-communist opposition therein. Re the Warsaw Pact member states, these were Eastern Bloc created states where the Soviets installed non-democratic governments run by permanent ruling Communist parties. The history isn't seriously debated on this issue, with the methods of coming to power now quite famous in literally thousands of books.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

We touch on Operation Condor and a couple of specific interventions. Sure, we might say more, but a) this is an overview article and b) while important, Latin America was, compared to Eastern Europe or even Asia, a peripheral theatre of the Cold War. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is a POV problem with the intro and most of the enture Cold War article. It's almost entirely written to portray everything being done first by the Soviets, than only reacted to by the Americans. The US was very proactive in its anti-communism, but this article misleads readers into thinking that US involvement overseas was another reluctant move, which it clearly was not. For the intro to emphasize Soviet "fomenting" revolution without laying equal emphasis on US funding and installation of authoritarian rejimes is something I'd expect in The Economist, not here. Another example of the POV is in the Containment section. If you read it, I'm sure you'll notice the implied justification of the Truman Doctrine. Whether or not you think that Doctrine was in fact justified shouldn't matter; the article ought not to imply so. Can you imagine if the Russian version of this article is written in just the opposite fashion, with descriptions of American actions always followed by Soviet reactions? That would be considered POV, hands-down. So I ask the rest of you to review this article appropriately, not through the victor's lens.

As well, I've noticed many of the citations are very much US-affiliated and, while scholarly, were clearly not written by sources who were free to be objective, but by people who were brainwashed by Cold War era propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadphonescell (talk • contribs) 07:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to add: often this POV is in terms like "puppet Satellite state", which pass off every communist state as illegitimate, totally ignorant of the movements within those countries for communism. There is also a line where all American communists are said to be "paid by the KGB" - this is laughable. There are too many such instances of POV to even list here. Why is this article even locked? It is currently so over-the-top POV that any Wikipedian should be embarassed. Deadphonescell (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Short video with Stephen E. Ambrose calling

This site: [[20]] has something about how Cold war began.Agre22 (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)agre22

"Controversial" Deaths

"...the controversial death of 6-8 million people in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in the 1932-3 Ukrainian famine..."

I'm not anywhere near an expert or even an armchair buff on the Cold War, but I don't think this point requires me to be: the labeling of 6-8 million deaths as "controversial" seems rather callous and detached even for an unbiased encyclopedia. It is true that we should not label these deaths "horrendous" or "stupefying", for that would be hyperbole in the opposite direction, but "controversial" makes it sound trifling, as if comparable to a racial comment made by a celebrity or something. I don't know if I'm authorized to edit this article, but even if I was I want to get people's opinions first as to whether we should at the very least just remove the world "controversial" from that paragraph. That's a whole, whole lot of people, people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.132.162 (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The term refers to the Holodomor genocide question - there's still significant controversy over whether the deaths were caused by the Communists or natural. However, I agree it could be read the wrong way, and personally, I don't have a problem rewording or removing. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Cuba Missile Crisis

I am surprised that this crisis did not lead to World War Three. The way JFK acted and responded was exceptional. The generals were so forceful toward JF Kennedy trying to convince him to initiate an air-strike against Cuba which again would ultimately end to World War Three. Fidel Castro also angered the American's by taking over American owned business'. This basically added insult to injury.

I am currently in year ten and studing the Cold War.

11yancazosj (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

the British and especially the Americans resented that the Soviets had stayed out of the war with Japan?

I am not sure what this unsourced statement :"Similarly, the British and especially the Americans resented that the Soviets had stayed out of the war with Japan, only declaring war after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima made it likely that Japan would surrender to the US only, shutting the Soviets out." came from, but it directly contradicts to the sources. It was obvious for most Allied leaders that the focus of WWII was in Europe, therefore it would be stupid to distract the USSR's war efforts from this extremely important theatre. For instance, on 12 Dec 1941 Churchill wrote:

"Chiefs of Staff considered views are as follows: Russian declaration of war on Japan would be greatly to our advantage, provided, but only provided, that the Russians are confident that it would not impair their Western front either now or next spring" (Winston Churchill, The Grand Alliance. Contributor John Keegan, Edition: reissue, llustrated. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1985. ISBN 0395410576, 9780395410578, p. 557).

Hitler's views were similar. According to him, the primary Japan's objective was just to withstand against the USA ans the UK in Pacific, allowing the European Axis members to defeat the USSR and to establish the land connection with Japan. After that the Axis would become invincible. One way or the another, both parties agreed that the key theatre was Europe, and, more concretely the Eastern front. Therefore, I don't understand what resentments the para is telling about.

With regards to the second part of the sentence, it is also controversial. Yes, the idea that by spring of 1945 Japan was almost defeated by the Americans is very popular, however, that was not as simple as people used to think. For instance, Donald E. Shepardson ("The Fall of Berlin and the Rise of a Myth". The Journal of Military History, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Jan., 1998), pp. 135-153) describe the situation as follows:

"The situation in the Pacific was grim. The future looked even worse. The atomic bomb was a theory to be tested; fighting the Japanese was a reality to be dreaded. When the fighting ended on Iwo Jima on 16 March the U.S. Marine Corps had suffered 25,000 casualties with over 6,000 dead.31 The Philippines campaign had been costlier still, and was not yet completed. Operation Iceberg, the invasion of Okinawa, began on 1 April and encountered fanatical resistance in the south. At sea, Japanese defenders employed Kamikaze attacks in force against American ships, adding to the carnage. When it finally ended in June, 75,000 American soldiers and sailors had been killed or wounded. Losses in material were staggering, with 38 ships sunk, another 368 damaged, and over 700 aircraft lost.

Following the Yalta conference, the War Department formulated plans for the final assault on Japan. Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu, was scheduled for December 1945. Operation Coronet, the invasion of Honshu, would follow in April 1946. Both operations, and especially Coronet, depended on transferring men and material from Europe. Approximately 400,000 Army Air Forces, Army Ground Forces, and Army Security Forces were scheduled for direct transfer from Europe to the Pacific from September 1945 to April 1946, with another 400,000 allowed a delay en route in the United States, with all projections subject to available shipping.

Conquest of the Home Islands might take until the end of the year, still leaving the Japanese in control of Burma, Formosa (Taiwan), Manchuria, and large parts of China. The Kwantung army in China and Manchuria had lost much of its strength, but still had a million men. For those Americans who survived Okinawa, as well as those who joined them later, "The Golden Gate in '48" might be the best they could hope for."

In other words, according to Shepardson, conquest of Japanese Home islands or other attempt to force Japan to surrender would take enormous efforts had the US continue to fight alone.

Let's see what the Japanese themselves think about that. Sadao Asada, in his article "The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan's Decision to Surrender: A Reconsideration". (The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 67, No. 4 (Nov., 1998), pp. 477–512.) writes:

"The effects of the "twin shocks"-the atomic bombing and the Soviet entry-were profound. Early that morning, Togo visited Suzuki to inform him of the Soviet entry. Suzuki con- curred that the government must end the war at once. On his way back to the Foreign Ministry, Togo stopped at the navy min- istry and told Navy Minister Yonai what he had said to Suzuki."

In other words, according to Asada, the Soviet entry was at least as important as the atomic bombing were.

I conclude, the whole sentence is highly disputable and should be deleted.
Paul Siebert (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like that sentence was added here without a source.

There was some friction, with Stalin demanding the precondition of American recognition of Mongolian independence from China (and some Asian rail and docking interests) before the Soviets would agree to enter (all of which happened), but I'm not sure this rose to "resentment" or is worthy of mention in this article. A many years dead FDR was beaten up a bit by it years later, but that doesn't particularly seem worth mentioning here.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No one claims that there were no frictions between the Western Allies and the USSR. My point is that the wrong reasons have been presented for western dissatisfaction.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree that none of it rises to the level of needing to be mentioned in a high level article on the Cold War.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

coldwar topics a-z

does anyone know of a coldwar topic that starts with a Q and X I have all other letter topics66.27.138.75 (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Space Race Chart Confusing

I don't know what it is, but I love this chart. Having said that, it is extremely confusing, and seems to detract from the overall cohesion of the section.

1) The chart includes timelines for unmanned lunar spaceflight, manned lunar spaceflight and interplanetary probes. The line-style and placement lack any sort of uniformity.

2) The list of 'context' events includes (among others) 'the assassination of Malcom[sic] X' and 'Atari markets Pong home console'. Interesting and important events in their own right, but completely unrelated to the Space Race.

3) The contrast, color scheme and fonts are oddly reminiscent of an 80's computer game--delightfully campy, but doesn't really fit in with the feel of Wikipedia.

I can't read this article without spending at least 30 min. looking at this oddly peculiar chart. It's really cool, but I'm kind of amazed no one has commented on it by now...

Aksuman (can't login @ work)

204.155.96.2 (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree: it's out of place, hard to understand, and looks at least 20 years out of date. But fun at the same time. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Unclear sentences

Here's one

I have twice edited this sentence but it is back again: "At war's end, those countries' militaries occupied most of Europe, with the US Army and the Red Army remaining as the most powerful military forces."

This sentence, as written, claims the US and Red Armies (not "armed forces") were the "most powerful" military forces. This is, at best, misleading. The US had a massive Navy and, although the US Air Force was formally a part of the US Army until 1947, in fact it operated mostly as a separate service even during WW2. The Soviet air force was a separate service, not formally subordinate to the Red Army, although operationally it was far more tied to the ground forces than the US air forces were.

The sentence should be altered to be more general, simply saying the two powers' armed forces were the most powerful. The current emphasis on ground forces is unnecessary to the article and lacks accuracy. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This sentence was the subject of a mass edit by MHazard9 about 45 minutes ago. I am correcting some of the factual errors in this mass edit, including this sentence.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's another

Here's another. Can someone kindly explain what this means or should we re-write it so it makes sense? "In the event, the principals détente (ca. 1971–80),[1] to relieve political tensions and deter direct military attack, which guaranteed their mutual assured destruction with nuclear weapons." I tried re-writing this twice but have been reverted. Someone kindly explain the revert. Thanks. DMorpheus (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This sentence was the subject of a mass edit by MHazard9 about 45 minutes ago. I am correcting some of the factual errors in this mass edit, including this sentence.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I'll step aside then. DMorpheus (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Berlin Airlift--Operation Vittles

The description of the Berlin Airlift currently describes that the USAF accidentally began "Operation Vittles," identified as the provision of candy to the children of Berlin. This is incorrect. "Operation Vittles" was the American part of the airlift. The candy lift became "Operation Little Vittles" after it was officially endorsed by American political and military leadership. I'd change it but the article is locked. I would suggest that any reference to "Little Vittles" would require a reference to "Vittles" proper, to make the "Little" more understandable. However, this might open up the need to identify "Vittles" as the USAF effort, as opposed to "Pelican" and "Plainfare," the RAAF and RAF contributions, respectively. 165.91.64.240 (talk) 03:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)RKH

Vietnam was not part of the cold war —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davo123123 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)