Talk:Cold War/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

General Secretary

Surely Gorbachev wasn't President until 1990 - before then he was General Secretary. Why does the picture caption refer to him as President? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.193.163 (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

My mother told me that you are right sir. --151.198.110.158 (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Main Image

Isn't there a better main image for the Cold War, a 40-year period of dangerous tension and bloody proxy wars during which time two global superpowers faced faced each other down occassionally to the brink of total global annihilation, than one of a smiling Gorbachev and Reagan sitting down for a fireside chat, at the beginning of a process that ended the Cold War? --Nwe (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's worth musing on the subject, even if nothing comes about in the end. There was a montage long ago, featuring these scenes: "Soviet General Secretary Nikita Khrushchev and United States President John F. Kennedy meet in a 1961 summit held in Vienna; East German border guards at the Berlin Wall; the first Soviet nuclear weapon Joe 1 is tested; American soldiers land in Vietnam during the Vietnam War; Sputnik 1 is launched into orbit (triggering the Space Race)". Consensus was to remove that. Certainly one might say Reagan-Gorbachev isn't the encapsulation of the Cold War, but then again, it is rich in symbolism, no one image is truly emblematic of a 40+ year period, and we do have another dozen photographs in the article. Anyway, it's an open question. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Also use of American flag is incorrect. It should be the Nato flag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.61.250 (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Chess: The Best Metaphor of the Cold War

Where is chess? it is not mentioned once in the cold war article! Where's Bobby Fischer? There is so much! People need to read White King, Red Queen by Daniel Johnson to fully understand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.132.98 (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Culture during the Cold War discusses the cultural elements...Hires an editor (talk) 12:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Early blows in the political Cold War New head and section added, split from Western Betrayal article. Communicat (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sport & games as Cold War propaganda

While the current article mainly focuses on military/political issues, I was wondering if anybody deems appropriate the inclusion of more domestic activities which were used as cold war propaganda, such as sports/games. One particular example that comes to mind is the 1972 World Chess Championship or women's gymnastics in the 70's and 80's. I doubt russian or american governments took these events as seriously as it is sometimes claimed, but I still think it's interesting in that it shows to what extent the Cold War trappings permeated everyday's life. 81.96.125.246 (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You have my vote. Don't forget ping pong diplomacy and also Andreas Krieger, that woman from the GDR who became a man because of the steroids they pumped her/him with. -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Further information: Culture during the Cold War

Sources cited is wrong

one of the cited sources is "Russia, the Soviet Union and the United States. An Interpretative History" While the title includes "Interpretive" not "Interpretative." See here: http://www.amazon.com/Russia-Soviet-Union-United-States/dp/0075572583/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271001491&sr=8-2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.170.183 (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Beginning of Cold War

Whatever reliable sources are ultimately selected as reflecting the starting date, this is unacceptable: "1945", Tallicfan20. If you look at the footnotes, you'll note they're all carefully crafted, not randomly dumped in there as blind links. You'll also note that the first three footnotes are in no way reliable sources, while the last two need page numbers; a mere date on the front cover is not enough to support your argument. You'd do well to learn a little about referencing before damaging this widely-viewed article. - 69.163.222.199 (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting coincidence

One thing that is interesting about the main rivals of the cold war is this. While their technical names are abbreviated as USSR and USA, their general names are abbreviated as SU and US. Is this just a coincidence, or were the two destined to be rivals.

Relevance?? 77.170.132.189 (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very SU-USpicious. (Note to self: Public education levels possibly slipping). Highvale (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Improve Link

In the Allies against the Axis (1941-45) section of the Article, a link (SOE) links to this disambiguation page: SOE I think it should link directly to the proper institution
--77.170.132.189 (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Map inaccuracies

I noticed a few inaccuracies with this map. Cote d'Ivoire [1], Egypt [2] (ninth paragraph in the link), Sudan[3], Tunisia, and Malawi are marked as non-aligned even though they were allies of the U.S. Albania is falsely labelled as a Chinese ally, even though their alliance had been terminated a few years earlier. India was an ally of the U.S.S.R. (the two countries signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation, and the latter was a major arms supplier of India). The Philippines should be marked with a red 'X' to symbolize communist guerrillas (New Peoples Army). Togo (a Western ally) is for some reason colored as if it were a NATO member. Finally, Tanzania was not a Soviet ally, but rather a neutral country. Josh (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. Moreover multiple conflicts took place in Indian subcontinent backed by US and Russia.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"Guns and butter"

You'd think in an article on the Cold War, Reagan's famous "guns and butter" quote would be included. That was the very essence of Ronald Reagan's strategy towards the Soviets, that they did not have enough capital for both "guns and butter." Someone who knows this article better than I should incorporate the quote into this article. PokeHomsar (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems I was wrong about the person who said said quote. It was actually Thatcher. It should still be incorporated into the article, but whatever. PokeHomsar (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

It would help the article, right? 71.166.45.144 (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, the Cold War is outside of the scope of traditional 'war'; there were no direct battles, no commanders, etc., so adding a 'war' template would be rather confusing IMO. Toa Nidhiki05 19:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I think that while this "Cold War" is not an actual war, it had many different battles and sometimes direct battles between NATO/UN and Warsaw Pact countries. 71.166.45.144 (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Lets have a vote.

InfoBox Useful- I feel that this would greatly help the article become more interesting. 71.166.45.144 (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't do 'votes' here; we govern by Consensus here. Regardless, the very opening sentence of this page proves my point:

The Cold War was the continuing state of political conflict, military tension, proxy wars, and economic competition existing after World War II (1939–1945), primarily between the Soviet Union and its satellite states, and the powers of the Western world, particularly the United States. Although the primary participants' military force never officially clashed directly, they expressed the conflict through military coalitions, strategic conventional force deployments, extensive aid to states deemed vulnerable, proxy wars, espionage, propaganda, conventional and nuclear arms races, appeals to neutral nations, rivalry at sports events, and technological competitions such as the Space Race.

The Cold War was a less of a military conflict then a political one. Toa Nidhiki05' 01:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well yeha, but it is less easy to organize it without the infobox. I say keep it, and people seem to have agreed. 71.166.45.144 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC).

Well, we found out the Consensus is for the infobox, so I guess it's good. Thanks for the help. 71.166.45.144 (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No, we did not; having two people voting and 1 supporting is not consensus. Consensus often involves RfCs and other steps; having two people even participating is not by any means consensus. Toa Nidhiki05 14:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Add an infobox?

There seems to be some dispute over placing an infobox on this article. From what I can tell, there WAS a discussion or two on the subject in the past, but it looks like it was a good two years ago. Being that its disputed now, I'd like to encourage the involved parties to discuss the issue, rather than edit war. Personally, I don't take any stance on the issue.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact not part of the Cold War

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact certainly happened, as did a thousand other things before the Cold War. Historians of the Cold War do not consider it part of the Cold War and it does not belong here. Rjensen (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason that it's mentioned (only mentioned), is simply to illustrate one of the list of reasons for the distrust between the East and West. The real problem is that the background section is still too big. A couple of years ago, I cut it down significantly, but obviously, not enough. Hires an editor (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, however, the distrust between the East and West existed even before that, and it was the reason for the tripartite talks failure and for the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact itself. If we need to dig so deep, why didn't we started from, e.g., the Munich agreement?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

USSR occupies while Allies were just stationed with their armies

You know what's funny in this article? Everytime there is a mentioning of the division of Europe between USSR, and the others, the USSR occupied eastern Europe, but the others just remained with their forces in western Europe. How convenient, isn't it? I guess West Germany was not occupied by Allied forces. Instead, Nazi Germany itself permitted all the Allied war machinery to come by and visit, as a sign of good relationship. I even might call WWII a comedy, as the explanation in this article is funny as hell! The one who was writing these peculiarities might wanna think about pursuing a career in stand-up comedy. MakedekaM (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The USSR (as well as the Western Allies) did occupy Germany and some other countries, because "occupation" means that some territory is being administered by some foreign military administration (as a rule, by the administration installed by a hostile army), and that this administration has a temporary, or provisional, character. However, as soon as civil authorities formed by local population are formed in some state, and military administration is disbanded, the occupation ends. Therefore, neither Western nor Eastern Europe was under occupation after East and West Germanys were formed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say, more to the point, that the Allies did occupy conquered territories, but only for a very brief, limited period of time after the end of WWII. Whereas, the Soviets occupied militarily (and by other means) conquered territories for some years and years after the end of WWII. And then, "what Paul said," above. Hires an editor (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Germany and Austria were occupied by several years by the United States, Russia, Britain. The US and Britain did NOT occupy or control France, the Low countries, Italy, Denmark, Norway, etc. after the surrender of the German armies in 1945. but the Russian army did occupy all the countries of Eastern Europe down to the Yugoslav border and controlled their destinies. Rjensen (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean that all these countries were under a control of Soviet military administrations? I would say, that, although initially that was the case, it would be absolutely incorrect to say that that period was long, because national governments were firmed there rather quickly. One may argue that many of Eastern Bloc countries were Soviet puppet states (at least during some periods of the bloc's history), however, they were internationally recognised states, not occupied territories. And, please, keep in mind that, besides Germany, at least four states (Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia) were the Axis members and they were at war with the USSR, whereas France, Denmark, Low Countries and Norway were not the Axis members.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

With regard to "ocupation" it is best to defer to reliable sources as opposed to our personal contentions. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you believe that the Eastern Europe was under Soviet military occupation in 50s-80s, and Soviet installed East European regimes were not recognised internationally, please, provide the sources that support your claim.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Beginning of the Eastern block section

I would like to know what source supports the first section's sentence:

"During the final stages of World War II, the Soviet Union laid the foundation for the Eastern Bloc by directly annexing several countries as Soviet Socialist Republics that were initially (and effectively) ceded to it by Nazi Germany in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact."

The closest reference is to the Roberts' book, however, he says nothing about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Von Rausch does write in Die Geschichte der baltischen Staaten (p. 239) that the incorporation of the Baltics in 1944-45 (so, final stages of WWII) was "symptomatic" (so, evidence of a process underneath) of the post-war trend to territorial groupings, particularly Stalin "[drawing] every single country into his monolithic eastern bloc." The sentence you quote above would be a fair and representative summary. Obviously, the M-R pact gave Stalin clear title as far as Hitler was concerned. (Not that either ever actually had sovereign title, different topic.) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

A "symptomatic event" is not the same as the event that "laid the foundation" for something. Before and during the war the USSR demonstrated its expansionism, and von Rausch is correct about that. However, nothing in his words suggests that by expansion of its territory the USSR "laid the foundation" for creation of the Eastern block. In my opinion, Soviet territorial expansion should not be mixed with the later (post-war) tendency: creation of the Soviet dominated political bloc composed by formally independent states.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This wording could work: "...the Soviet Union took a first step toward the subsequent formation of the Eastern Bloc by directly annexing..." would be appropriate. The significance of the Baltic states as a seed in the development of the Eastern bloc is not under dispute. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see how the process of territorial expansion is connected with the process of political expansion. I would say the opposite: after WWII the USSR changed the paradigm: whereas before Barbarossa its activity was aimed at expansion of its borders, the post-war USSR made a stress on installment of puppet regimes in various states throughout the world without attempting to annex them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Death Toll

I added up the total deaths from the Korean, Veitnam, Guatamalan, Laotian, Cambodian, Angolan, Ethiopian, Mozambique, and Afgan wars reported on thier wikipedia pages and got a figure of over 10 million, can that go anywhere on the article.--J intela (talk) 03:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"See Also" Links section

I was looking through this article - trying to explain growing up during the Cold War to my son - and wondered why the "Unethical human experimentation in the United States" link was part of the "See Also" section. It doesn't seem to relate directly to any topic discussed within this article. There is certainly some relevance as some of the more appalling experiments took place during the Cold War, but that article does not primarily focus on it and indeed several of the sections begin with experiments from the 1800s. If it belongs linked here, it would make sense to at least mention the topic and relate it to the "cold war mentality" within the US during the late 1940s-1960s. If that doesn't belong and the article is kept as it stands, the link really doesn't fit and should be removed from this article and moved to a different article. FromTheVolcano (talk) • contribs) 17:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sino-Soviet split, space race, ICBMs

At the end of the first paragraph in the 'Sino-Soviet split, space, race, ICBMS' section , insert “For his part, Khrushchev, disturbed by Mao’s glib attitude toward nuclear war, referred to the Chinese leader as a ‘lunatic on a throne.'”

Dhyeatts (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Footnotes/references

Hello

I am not a regular wikipedia editor so I'm not sure if I am doing this right.

I tried to check one of the footnotes in this article, and when I click on the reference it just takes me back to the Cold War page - rather than directing to a full citation, the actual article, or to the reference list. I'm not sure what the rules are for footnotes and referencing on wikipedia, but at the moment it seems that foot notes 233,234, and 235 are circular.

I don't know how to rectify this (if it even needs rectifying - maybe I am just reading the system wrong), as I don't know what the original reference is and I don't know anything about the cold war. I just thought I would bring it to the attention to the experts who must have written this, if they are around.

I havent registered so I don't think I can "sign" this properly.

Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.236.170 (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Suez Crisis

Should there not be some mention of the Suez Crisis, since it gave the Soviets the excuse to invade Hungary? (92.10.132.20 (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC))

Edit request from 203.184.43.63, 6 August 2011

The first sentence of the second paragraph reads "After the success of their temporary wartime alliance against Nazi Germany, the USSR and the US saw each other as profound enemies of their basic ways of life."

Please change this to: "After the success of the USSR's temporary wartime alliance against Nazi Germany, the USSR and the US saw each other as profound enemies of their basic ways of life."

The original sentence is poorly constructed, implying that BOTH the USSR and the US had a temporary wartime alliance against Nazi Germany (as both are the subject of the sentence). 203.184.43.63 (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand what concretely is wrong with current wording.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Done Topher385 (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Sorry, but I had to undo this change, because I do not think it is more accurate. The proposed version seems senseless, because any alliance can be possible between at least two parties. By mentioning the USSR only you make the text obscure. The text correctly states that both the USSR and the US had a temporary wartime alliance against Nazi Germany (which ceased to exist when the common enemy disappeared). To claim the opposite, namely that the USSR terminated its membership in the alliance against Nazi Germany, whereas the USA and other Allies remained to be the members of the anti-German alliance would be ridiculous.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like I read the sentence incorrectly the first time. After further review, and Paul's explanation, it seems that the current wording is sufficient. Topher385 (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Start Date

Changed the start date of the Cold War to 1946, due to the USA in that year sending warships to Iran to encourage the soviets to leave, worries in america already that the agreements in Yalta were being broken in Eastern Europe, and Stalin's speech 1946 suggesting the two ideologies cannot live side by side — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.65.1 (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The section on the 'Background' to the Cold War states that a majority of historians place the origin of the Cold War after the end of the Second World War. As evidence for this claim a book, published in 1990, is referenced. Clearly, at over twenty years old, this is not a fair assessment of modern historical scholarship. 81.179.247.195 (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Summit in November 1985

Here they don't write anything about Reagan and Gorbachev agreeing on reduction by 50 % on Summit in November 1985. Moreover Gaddis 2006, page 230 says it really didn't have any actual outcome. Please correct the information (I didn't want to because of my not-that-well English). Thanks. --Adam Zábranský (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Mispeled wrods

I have spotted many misspellings and mistransliterations. Could an admin/registered user fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.55.111 (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please be specific - it's a long article. - BilCat (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

These two edits [4] [5] are problematic with respect to WP:NPOV.

On the first one, the Marshall Plan is generally seen as one of the opening salvos of the Cold War and is widely discussed as such in numerous sources [6]. Additionally, the lede is suppose to summarize the contents of the article and the MP is clearly discussed in the body of the text. If there's info missing on COMECON then add that, don't remove other important info. The claim that "there has been testimony from American policymakers that the US would have suspended its offer of aid had the Soviet bloc accepted it" is unsubstantiated and plain OR.

On the second one, the Cuban section of this article doesn't really deal with this issue. But Moscow's support for the Cuban revolution dates at least back to 1959. See for example The origins of the Cuban Revolution reconsidered by Farber. Hell, there's a book which explicitly dates Soviet support for Cuba to 1959 [7]. The other part under consideration here is whether the revolt was "pro-communist". Obviously Cuba didn't become communist over night. But Raul Castro and Che were very clearly communists, though Fidel kept quiet. Soviet views on the subject - of whether this was a "socialist" or a "bourgeois" revolution changed over the course of ... 1959, not 1961 or 1962. Dating Soviet support and communism in Cuba to after the Bay of Pigs is completely flipping things around. There is nothing in Smith's book, The Cold War, 1945-1991, which would contradict the dating of Soviet support to 1959 or even of outright communism. All it says is that after BoP Soviet support increased and Castro "affirmed his personal adherence to Marxism-Leninism".

Sorry, I'm going to revert these edits. Volunteer Marek  09:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This edit [8] is not much better POV wise. Volunteer Marek  09:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Zloyvolsheb, will you please stop trying to edit war and try discussing these edits on the talk page? They are all potentially controversial and unsupported by sources. Your assertion of "I'm right, you're wrong" in reverts' edit summaries, is not very productive. Volunteer Marek  09:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's go. I hope you don't mind if I number and quote the points you made to allow us to better address them as this discussion goes on. I would appreciate it if you did the same in your response below so we can keep all of this straight.

1. "On the first one, the Marshall Plan is generally seen as one of the opening salvos of the Cold War and is widely discussed as such in numerous sources [9]. Additionally, the lede is suppose to summarize the contents of the article and the MP is clearly discussed in the body of the text. If there's info missing on COMECON then add that, don't remove other important info. The claim that "there has been testimony from American policymakers that the US would have suspended its offer of aid had the Soviet bloc accepted it" is unsubstantiated and plain OR."

The link you provide is plainly not helpful, because it's just a link to the GoogleBooks search engine. If you have a source, please be so kind as to indicate it and be able to quote it, if not actually link to it. Obviously, "Marshall Plan" and "Cold War" are going to yield plenty of results. The question here is how relevant the Marshall Plan is to an article lede that is only supposed to be a few paragraphs long.

Why do I not think that the Marshall Plan is lede-worthy? For two reasons, which I hope you'll be able to address. Firstly, it's a question of presentation: the Marshall Plan came with strings attached, including the likelihod of an American say in the internal and even foreign policies of countries participating in it (see William Appleman Williams, The Tragedy of American Foreign Policy. W.W. Norton. p. 208), so to simply mention it as an American offer of aid rejected by the Soviets in one sentence is misleading, in that the offer was hardly a generous offer of American aid to help build up the economies member states Soviet bloc. Secondly, it is a question of scope: we notably omit mentioning such events as the division of Europe at Allied conferences, the 1940s nuclear arms race, the absorption of Czechoslovakia, the Chinese Revolution, and so on, all of them central to the early history of the Cold War and arguably at least as relevant. We have to: the lede cannot incorporate every noteworthy event from the opening salvos. In fact, each of these events was arguably a contributing factor to the Cold War, whereas the Marshall Plan was not. If anything, it was a reaction to the Cold War, like many other effects (e.g. McCarthyism) that probably are not the most relevant to what should at most be a four-to-five paragraph summary of a subject spanning a nearly five-decade span of global history.

2. "The other part under consideration here is whether the revolt was "pro-communist". Obviously Cuba didn't become communist over night. But Raul Castro and Che were very clearly communists, though Fidel kept quiet. Soviet views on the subject - of whether this was a "socialist" or a "bourgeois" revolution changed over the course of ... 1959, not 1961 or 1962. Dating Soviet support and communism in Cuba to after the Bay of Pigs is completely flipping things around. There is nothing in Smith's book, The Cold War, 1945-1991, which would contradict the dating of Soviet support to 1959 or even of outright communism. All it says is that after BoP Soviet support increased and Castro "affirmed his personal adherence to Marxism-Leninism'."

It's true that some of the relevant participants, Raul and Che, were communists, but many other leaders (including, apparently, Fidel) were not, and the thing is that the revolutionaries before 1961 never proclaimed their adherence to Marxism or communism at all. The revolution was plainly anti-Batista, and many of the key rebels were simply liberals who later broke with Che, Raul, and Fidel. Castro was touring the United States at the time, seeking the support of U.S. public opinion for his revolution, and even said the following on that visit (Pedraza, Silvia. Political Disaffection in Cuba's Revoution and Exodus. Cambridge University Press. p. 59):

Throughout his visit to the United States in April 1959 and when he returned to Cuba in May, Fidel underscored that the revolution was not communist. While in the United States, Fidel repeatedly stated he was seeking only its friendship. In his appearance on the television program Meet the Press in Washington, D.C., he defined the revolution: "I am not a communist, nor do I agree with communism. . . . In Cuba, we have revolutionary power. . . . We could have repressed everyone, but we have instead allowed freedom of expression, religious freedom, and human rights. . . . To me, democracy amd communism are not the same thing. Our ideals are called humanism" (Castro 1959a:2).

And Fidel did not get any assistance from Moscow until the Bay of Pigs. I don't know why you insist on dating "Soviet support" to 1959: this is a really strange assertion that you will not find supported by any mainstream scholarship: the link you purport to give is to a book with no available preview, again apparently found by way of an indiscrimate search engine job. What Smith writes (The Cold War: 1945-1991. Oxford: Blackwell. p. 95) is that

The personal desire and political pressure for more immediate and tangible results in the battle against communism made the use of military power an attractive policy option for American presidents. This was exemplified in the rise to power in Cuba of 1959 of an avowed revolutionary regime under the leadership of Fidel Castro. American officials were initially puzzled as to whether Castro was a communist. They were certainly concerned by his determination to derease Cuba's economic dependence on the United States and interpreted this as a calculated challenge to American pre-eminence in the hemisphere. Relations grew increasingly bitter when Castro nationalzied American banks and signed a trade agreement with the Soviet Union. Eisenhower considered Castro 'a madman' and authorized the CIA to prepare a covert operation to overthrow him (Ambrose, 1984, p. 556). The attempt 'to give Castro the Guatemala treatment' took place after Eisenhower left ofice and ended in disastrous failure at the Bay of Pigs in April 1961. In calling for resistance against the invaders Castro appealed directly not to communist ideology but to Cuban nationalism and long-standing anti-American feeling. He urged: 'Forward Cubans! Answer with steel and with fire the barbarians who despise us and want to make us return to slavery' (Quirk, 1993, p. 371).

The United States was humiliated by the set-back, while Castro's prestige was enormously enhanced. Khrushchev pledged support and declared that the Soviet Union 'will not abandon the Cuban people' (Schlesinger, 1983, III, p. 536). Castro replied by affirming his personal adherence to Marxism-Leninism and aligning Cuba with the communist nations.

In other words, Cuba's only relevant connection to the USSR prior the signing of a military treaty in the wake of the Bay of Pigs invasion was a trade agreement that angered the United States of America. It was after the US broke off its relations and launched the attack -- and not before -- that Castro affirmed (here, meaning publicly declared) his commitment to Marxism-Leninism and aligned the country with the Soviet bloc. A trade agreement is not an alliance; many countries have those. If you can find something supporting "dating of Soviet support to 1959 or even of outright communism" [sic], that would be helpful. If not, this clearly reliable source should stand and the article be written based on what the source says.

3. "This edit [10] is not much better POV wise." The Soviet proposal for a reunified Germany made in the Stalin Note is discussed in plenty of sources and has its own Wikipedia article, and my text was a clear one-sentence summary of that article: viz, Stalin repeatedly proposed German reunification in 1952 under an elected government that would stay out of Western alliances, but the Western allies did not agree, wanting West Germany to stay in NATO instead. The sources are available at Stalin Note. It would be helpful if you explained why it is not helpful POV-wise. I don't see how facts alone can be POV; if you object to the wording they are couched in, you should point out why. Without an adequate explanation, you simply cannot meet the principle of WP:BURDEN. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)

1. The reason I linked to a google books search is precisely because the Marshall Plan and the Cold War are discussed in so many sources. If you want a specific one, here you go [11]. The chapter is entitled "The Marshall Plan and the Origins of the Cold War". Removing the Marshall Plan from the lede based on the argument that it wasn't relevant to the Cold War is simply strange. More specifically

Firstly, it's a question of presentation: the Marshall Plan came with strings attached, including the likelihod of an American say in the internal and even foreign policies of countries participating in it (see William Appleman Williams, The Tragedy of American Foreign Policy. W.W. Norton. p. 208), so to simply mention it as an American offer of aid rejected by the Soviets in one sentence is misleading - so what? This is irrelevant as to whether the MP should be mentioned in the lede. The one sentence summary that was in there was accurate. If you want to add additional details to the text that's a different matter. And btw, usually almost all forms of aid come with strings attached.

it is a question of scope: we notably omit mentioning such events as the division of Europe at Allied conferences, the 1940s nuclear arms race, the absorption of Czechoslovakia, the Chinese Revolution, and so on, all of them central to the early history of the Cold War and arguably at least as relevant. - quite simply, the lede is suppose to summarize the article. The MP is discussed in the article therefore it should be mentioned in the lede, per WP:LEDE. It might be true that the lede needs to be rewritten to incorporate other parts of the article but again, that is irrelevant.

2. I don't know why you insist on dating "Soviet support" to 1959: this is a really strange assertion that you will not find supported by any mainstream scholarship. - I already gave a source which supports this claim and contradicts your assertion. Yes, originally the revolution was broad based and had support from a lot of corners, and yes, Fidel didn't proclaim himself a communist until later. However, the fact that other prominent leaders, such as Raul and Che were clearly communists early on makes it ok to describe the general revolution as pro-communist. It certainly does not make it okay to pretend that it didn't become pro-communist until after Bay of Pigs. Anyway...

the more important aspect here is the Soviet support, which I already gave a source for. Again, the quote from Smith does not support your contention that the support date only to after Bay of Pigs. All it does is talk about American perceptions of Castro and then you threw some of your own WP:OR on top of that. Did I mention that I already provided a source - which you're ignoring - which states otherwise?

3. Umm, why are you bringing in German reunification here? That's not what your edit was about. In that edit you basically POVed the sentence talking about how "Soviets were angered" and how it was US that "threatened nuclear war" (as opposed to both sides making threats). It's POV pushing plain and simple.

You're also trying to abuse WP:BURDEN. The issues are about the lede - and whether it summarizes the article or not. The article went through a GA review and this text was not highlighted as problematic. This means that we can assume a consensus exists for its inclusion. If you wish to change the consensus you can try but the burden is on you. Volunteer Marek  10:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Add after edit conflict: the link you purport to give is to a book with no available preview, again apparently found by way of an indiscrimate search engine job. - no, it's not. The preview is available and the source is reliable. And how do you know how I found it? And why does it matter? It's a reliable source which flatly contradicts your assertion. Volunteer Marek  10:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarify: here's Farber [12]. I linked to the other book to show that Soviet support is dated to 1959. Volunteer Marek  10:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

1. "The one sentence summary that was in there was accurate. If you want to add additional details to the text that's a different matter. And btw, usually almost all forms of aid come with strings attached." Yes, and as Williams writes (and many others), the strings attached were specifically designed that the Soviets would refuse to participate. Moreover, aid to the Soviet bloc would have to have been approved by Congress anyway, making Soviet bloc participation in the Marshall Plan all the more unlikely. Since the issue is a lot more complicated than described, it is probably not helpful to simply throw the Soviet rejection of the Plan at the reader as one of the first points in the lede, since this does not do much to explain the Cold War to begin with. And again: this article is replete with facts. You can't have a lede that "summarizes" the article by summarizing selected facts unless those facts give the reader the big picture, which is the point of the lede. The lede should describe what the Cold War was: a global conflict between the US-led Western states and the Soviet bloc. A few paragraphs doing that will do the job. We save the Marshall Plan, COMECON, the Chinese Revolution, Yuri Gagarin, and all that good stuff for the body of the article because it's a huge thing dealing with five decades of global history.

2. "Again, the quote from Smith does not support your contention that the support date only to after Bay of Pigs. All it does is talk about American perceptions of Castro and then you threw some of your own WP:OR on top of that. Did I mention that I already provided a source - which you're ignoring - which states otherwise?"

What Smith very plainly says is that the Soviets pledged their support after the Bay of Pigs - and sure, he does preface that with a few sentences on American perceptions on the very same page. If you are going to accuse me of OR, please find a source that actually has a preview. If you have located the relevant passages, it should be practically no trouble to reproduce them for verification on this page, as I've done with mine. (Citing an entire book is unhelpful.) Since you claim to have found the source, please quote what is says about Soviet support "dating back to 1959" - I promise that doing that will allow us to clearly resolve our dispute in your favor in a jiffy.

Saying that some principal participants in the Cuban Revolution were communists is not tantamount to saying that the revolution itself was originally "pro-communist." An analagous claim would be: "Some important participants in the civil rights movement were communists; therefore, the civil rights movement is pro-communist." The fact that the revolution was hardly a blip on the Soviet radar until the Bay of Pigs actually supports the conclusion that it was not. I would appreciate if you could also quote a source saying that the revolution was "pro-communist" in 1959, because you are now making a leap that is not backed by deductive reasoning. Since you are claiming that, the burden of doing that is exclusively on you and not your opponent.

3. Sorry, I thought you were talking about the reunificaiton proposal made in the Stalin Note because that was another edit you outright reverted here. You now say that "In that edit you basically POVed the sentence talking about how 'Soviets were angered' and how it was US that 'threatened nuclear war' (as opposed to both sides making threats)." Is it POV to say that the Soviets were angered by missiles pointed at them? It doesn't strike me as poor wording, but if "angry" is too POV, kindly suggest a less loaded formulation of this statement.

Also, it was the Kennedy administration that gave an ultimatum to the Soviets to remove their missiles during the Cuban Missile Crisis, essentially threatening nuclear war if the missiles stayed there. That's simply what happened, and it is different from "both sides making threats" (although, independent of that, it's true both sides certainly said they would nuke the other if attacked first).

Aside from the greater accuracy of the description from the additional facts, the reason I changed the wording from "Moscow. . . sent in nuclear missiles. That was intolerable to the Americans, who forced their removal in the Cuban Missile Crisis, as full-scale nuclear war threatened" to "...began to install nuclear missiles at Cuban bases in 1962. That was intolerable to the Americans, who threatening full-scale nuclear war, forced their removal in the Cuban Missile Crisis in exchange for an American promise not to reinvade Cuba and a secret withdrawal of the Jupiter missiles pointing at the Soviet Union" is that the former may imply or suggest that it was the Soviets then threatening nuclear war with the missiles they had "sent in." The actual situation, though, was that the Soviets wanted their missiles in Cuba (whether as a deterrent or threat), to which the American side replied with an ultimatum threatening to immediately shift the status quo from a "cold" war to a hot one. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Marshall Plan

The bottom line here is that the Marshall Plan needs to be mentioned in the lede as it is described as one of the events that characterized the beginning of the cold war in numerous sources. You just can't omit it.

As to the details, actually both Poland and Czechoslovakia were going to accept aid via MP until Soviets forbid it. The original sentence which you removed was: "The US funded the Marshall Plan to effectuate a more rapid post-War recovery of Europe, while the Soviet Union refused to allow participation by Eastern Bloc members."

This is factual and to the point. Details should be discussed in the body of the article. How about instead of removing it, you propose an alternative wording which would keep the Marshall Plan in the lede.

 Volunteer Marek  22:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. How about this description of the Plan in the lede:

Post-war recovery to Western Europe was facilitated by the United States' Marshall Plan, while the Soviet Union, wary of the conditions attached, declined to participate and prompted its satellite states to do likewise. An alternative, COMECON, was set up by the Soviets instead.

The source on which I'm basing this short-summary wording is Geoffrey K. Roberts, The Soviet Union in world politics: coexistence, revolution, and cold war, 1945-1991. Routledge, p. 24:

"Molotov went to Paris to find out from the Americans' British and French allies what the Marshall Plan was all about. What he found were proposals for a co-ordinated European recovery programme, involving multilateral (i.e. regional) agreements, institutions and procedures. Moscow saw that as opening the door to western interference in the affairs of its sphere of influence in eastern Europe."

I will also add some facts on the COMECON into the body of the article.

Since you don't seem to be providing the excerpts I was asking about, I take it you have come around to seeing that the Cuban revolution was not "pro-communist" in 1959, and the Soviets did not provide military aid to the Cubans from the beginning. Actually, User:Hires an editor just removed the lede's reference to Cuba and the Missile Crisis unilaterally and entirely [13], which I will address in a later section on this talk page. We can, however, discuss the question of whether the Cubans were pro-communist or Moscow in 1959 separately. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

MP - Yes, that wording's fine. Can you put it in?

Since you don't seem to be providing the excerpts I was asking about - no, I felt it better to deal with one issue at the time. Volunteer Marek  21:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

How to refer to each side

The Soviet Union is refered to as part of the Communist World whereas The United States is refered to as the Western World instead of Capitalist. Also Other communist countries and those aligned to the Soviet Union are refer to as satelite states but Pro-American cuntries are refer to as allies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.13.204 (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the Western countries weren't all capitalist. Some were socialist in various degrees, which prevented them from going completely over to communism, such as France. Meanwhile, satellite states they were, because they could not control their own destiny in the same way as the western nations did. The US was all carrot, and the Soviets were all stick.

NPOV - does this really apply to the WHOLE article?

Surely a few disputed points does not justify a banner that stains the entire article as NPOV. Shouldn't the banner be more accurately placed? Mdw0 (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Coldwar.png

What is the meaning of File:Coldwar.png? Why is flag of China (PRC) combined in that?115.78.193.169 (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC) If nothing else it China's flag would be represented due to the fact that they supplied troops during the Korean War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.97.98 (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

China was the largest communist nation, therefore it would be mentioned under Cold War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.164.43 (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Reagan persuaded Saudi Arabia to increase oil production,[221]

"Reagan persuaded Saudi Arabia to increase oil production,[221]" Unless there is another reference for this, the mention of Reagan should be removed. As near as I can tell the linked article does not say that Reagan influenced Saudi. Indeed, it states clearly "Oil prices collapse in mid 1980-s had to do with fundamental market factors that made it impossible to maintain the prices formed in the early 1980-s. But the scope and timeframe of the collapse can be comprehended in the political context only." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcdruid (talk • contribs) 09:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Great Article

Is there any reason why this article isn't featured? Vought109 (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, look above under the article mile-stones, and there were two FAC reviews, and both were failed. Lately, the article is under a neutrality dispute, which I can see some merit in, but don't know how to address. I don't think this article will ever get to FA status, it's too complex and there are too many points of view and not enough sources (a lot of this article is from a single historian source)...

Hires an editor (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Quip

The sentence

The Soviets were not helped by their aged and sclerotic leadership either: Brezhnev, virtually incapacitated in his last years, was succeeded by Andropov and Chernenko, neither of whom lasted long. After Chernenko's death, Reagan was asked why he had not negotiated with Soviet leaders. Reagan quipped, "They keep dying on me".

seems rather misleading.

In the first place, this is clearly a facetious remark. If taken seriously as a response to "why Reagan did not negotiate", it is clearly misleading because Brezhnev died in 1982, Gorbachev came in 1985, and there was ample time to do some negotiating in a three-year span. Moreover, while it is true that the Soviet leaders were pretty old, Reagan was onlyfive years younger than Brezhnev and actually older than both Chernenko and Andropov. The "sclerotic" is also a tad excessive for an encyclopedia. It would be enough to say that both Soviet leaders were in poor health and did not last long. Incidentally, this seems completely out of place in a subsection concerning the geopolitical situation surrounding the intervention in Afghanistan. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

we go with the RS and we use quotes from top people explaining their viewpoint. The statement that Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko were old sick, dying and sclerotic is well supported in the RS. Thus: 1) "Andropov and Chernenko realized better than the others that the Brezhnev regime had become tired and sclerotic." in Ilya Zemtsov, Policy dilemmas and the struggle for power in the Kremlin: 1985 p 37; 2) "Brezhnev's sclerotic rule" Hitchcock, The struggle for Europe (2004) p 350; 3) "the sclerotic regimes of Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko" Ruggie, Multilateralism matters (1993) p 456; 4) "Gorbachev was eager to bring energy and innovation to a state that was widely perceived to have become sclerotic." Bobbitt, The shield of Achilles: war, peace, and the course of history (2002) - Page 615. On Reagan: "Late in 1985, while preparing for the first of his five meetings with Gorbachev, Reagan said he had always been willing to negotiate with Soviet leaders and would have done so earlier in his presidency except that they 'kept dying on me'" [Cannon, President Reagan' (2000) p 258]; "Only when Chernenko was succeeded by Mikhail Gorbachev did serious dialogue become possible." [Rodman, Presidential Command: Power, Leadership, and the Making of Foreign Policy (2010) Page 154. Reagan's statement, while humorous, was precisely accurate and makes the point (as Rodman says) that the Soviets were unable to negotiate at the top level. Rjensen (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I've only had time to look at a couple of the reliable sources, but those do seem to support that what is being contested is reliably sourced. Perhaps it would help if other sources were added to directly support the statement, in addition to the John Karaagac one? - SudoGhost 07:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that I do not dispute that the Soviet leaders were old, sick, and dying - I noted my agreement right away. I think that saying that somewhere appropriate, like the section dealing with Gorbachev's selection as General Secretary, would be appropriate, and without unnecessary quips would be fine. The point is that "sclerotic" carries connotations - unless you actually intend to use it as a term of strict medical diagnosis - and word choice is relevant to writing a neutral article. But you then need more sources to connect whatever is relevant in that to the appropriate political developments in the Cold War in the same way as done by reliable sources. I see no connection made in the context of the Afghan war. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that Reagan's quip is actually quite telling of his relationship with the Soviets, and his general attitude toward them: serious, yet a bit irreverent. It was a bit of political theater on his part, even if he did have time to negotiate, because he can make himself seem competent, and them seem ineffectual. (I actually remember the quip when he made it...but I'm not a reliable source! ;-) Anyway, I believe that the sentence should be there. In fact, the evaluation and use of "sclerotic" is appropriate, too. The organization was old, the people in it were old. It lacked energy and ability, which is why it's a good way to contrast that with Gorbachev who came later...Hires an editor (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Minor Grammatical Issue

Just a minor error here,

In the following sentence, the noun agreement is unclear:

"In the 1980s, the United States increased diplomatic, military, and economic pressures on the Soviet Union, at a time when the nation was already suffering economic stagnation."

It should read:

"In the 1980s, the United States increased diplomatic, military, and economic pressures on the Soviet Union which, at the time, was already suffering economic stagnation."

This second sentence is now more comprehensible because the reader now knows that the Soviet Union was experiencing a financial downturn rather than the U.S.

Pykaboo 17:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pykaboo (talk • contribs)

So change it instead of putting this on the talk page. :) 24.107.102.129 (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Mention of two books

I cut the passage below for the time being. At the very least, it should be rewritten in correct English and with proper formatting, but the larger issue is if this really is worth mentioning in our main article on the Cold War. After all, thousands of books were written on the subject: are these two all that remarkable? - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

In 1974 and 1975 were published two memorable books about the Cold War the "Soviet conquest from space" and "The Air Force Mafia" by the intelligence expert Peter N. James, who described also a meeting between KGB and CIA in Dubrovnik. It came to the first joint U.S.-Soviet space flight the Apollo–Soyuz Test Project after this meeting between CIA and KGB in Dubrovnik and after these two books. Apollo-Soyuz was a big deal. It was the middle of the Cold War at that point, the whole thing was very serious and it marked a brief thaw in the Cold War, because it was the first time that the two rivals cooperated in a manned space mission.

I agree the books do not belong. the first describes the Soviet Union's shuttle program--the one the US now uses for its astronauts. It had very minor role indeed in the Cold War in the detente stage. The second book is all about how the author wrote the first book! Neither book adds much and the major studies and bibliographies leave them out. Rjensen (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Article neutrality

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWUfw9Db2dE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u4lsfwmv_s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8zVDrCqBDg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmv8N9gIkaY

Please watch the above videos. They may be a wake up call for some of you here. They use cited internal documents from American internal discussions and so on, the last three are respectively: 2 one hour films and one film split in parts really long (over 3 hours I believe). I believe these cover the Cold War more factually than what is currently provided. I am interested in an article rewrite especially the introduction sentence which ridiculously states that the USSR supported and fostered revolutions in Latin America and Southeast Asia, they mostly happened independently. Please leave any thoughts, ideas, thanks --JTBX (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't watched the videos yet, but I definitely agree about the part that says the USSR supported and fostered revolutions. 24.107.102.129 (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The Nation quote

My problem with this edit isn't the content, it's the venue. Per WP:NEWSORG, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces ... are rarely reliable for statements of fact". I think that's generally taken to mean we shouldn't cite political magazines, whether on the right (National Review, The American Conservative, The Weekly Standard) or on the left (Mother Jones, The Progressive and, surely, The Nation). Thoughts? - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I will be honest and admit that I was not aware of that rule, or that interpretation of it, which I will assume is correct. I think that it's hard to draw such a firm distinction between political magazines and (for example) newspapers, which are hardly without bias. Editorial commentary can appear in the form of a piece by Paul Krugman in The New York Times, a syndicated column by Walter Williams, a rant by Rush Limbaugh, a book by Noam Chomsky, or Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points." If we can only cite articles about politics from nonpolitical magazines, a question is raised: Is any magazine that covers politics truly nonpolitical? Are any such magazines devoid of editorials? The fact that The Nation is a far-left periodical, to me, doesn't indicate that it would have any political incentive to lie in defense of U.S. foreign policy. My understanding is that Alterman interviewed Shulman for the column. I doubt that he made up the quote. But to speak about this topic more broadly, when I saw that blockquote from Brzezinski cited as undisputed fact and as justification for the Soviet war, my reaction was essentially that this article was giving undue weight to an interview that Brzezinski personally disavows as illegitimate--and that is not supported by any personal accounts from any Americans involved, from Gates to Carter to Vance. Indeed, the CIA's records do not support the claim, nor do a majority of journalists. Brzezinski regularly appears in the U.S. media, writes books, talks on CSPAN, and is a very prominent figure; he is a living person, and nothing he says makes him sound like anything but a moderate liberal. This was a claim that needed some balance. To be clear, if this quote must go, then I will accept that; Brzezinski's self-defense is now cited here, and Wikipedia's goal is not to tell the truth, but to consider every point of view in a neutral fashion. Nevertheless, I'm aware of plenty of Wikipedia articles that cite editorial commentary for factual claims, but they are not good articles--like this one. Sorry for wasting your time if The Nation is indeed a completely unacceptable source for Wikipedia in any context.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's "completely unacceptable" — I wouldn't have included it myself, but your thorough explanation makes it clear you're well-intentioned and not promoting a polemical agenda. Regarding the examples you mentioned above, there's also WP:PSTS, which (at footnote 3) defines primary sources as, among others, "editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews". Primary sources aren't totally forbidden, they just need to be handled with care. Chomsky may fall under WP:FRINGE (not saying he isn't interesting or even worth quoting at times, but his very raison d'être is to be outside the consensus view). The only thing I might suggest is, before "Cyrus Vance's close aide", to include the phrase "Interviewed by Eric Alterman in The Nation,". That way we put the source up front - and, since the source isn't a standard history book or paper, it's probably relevant to do so - and let readers decide how much weight they want to give the quote. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I added the source to the article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thematic sections?

At the moment ([14]) the article is divided chronologically (1945–47, 1947–53, 1953–62, 1962–79, 1979–85, 1985–91) with "Origins of the term" and "Historiography" being the only "thematic" sections... Maybe we should have more of those? For example, for nuclear weapons, conventional troops, intelligence..? Specifically, I was going to add an image showing expected directions of Soviet attack (File:Probable Axes of Attack.jpg), but couldn't find a suitable section... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about doing it that way, but it would require that the whole article be rewritten, for starters. I think that the chronological way of doing this is really the way to go, mainly because it's a "standard history". Now, what we could do, if you're interested, is rewrite the article in a sandbox somewhere, in the thematic fashion, and see how that goes. It might be interesting. Another thing about that is where would we put it? "Cold War (by theme)" ? Something else? "Cold War Themes"? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but it's something to think about. "Cold War (alt)" ?

Honestly, I think that more time and effort should go into diversifying the sources of this article, as it relies too heavily on one source/historian (Gaddis), even though there are a ton of sources. And there's that neutrality dispute we have to figure out, too. Hires an editor (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

We could also, assuming the topic has been addressed in reliable sources (a safe bet when it comes to something as well documented as the Cold War), cover the material in various sub-articles. Just as we have Horses in World War I, Strategic bombing during World War I and Aviation in World War I, we could have, say, Cold War espionage (actually we do have that one, but it should be vastly expanded) or Nuclear weapons and the Cold War. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Syria

The Syrian Civil War is an example of how this is NOT OVER. Drlf (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Russia's reasons for wanting to remain an ally of Syria relate to something simple: sovereignty. China is the same way. I don't think this is a proxy for any other conflict between ideologies, as much as Russia defending its own right to slaughter its own citizens (Chechnya)...But Russia is nominally a democracy, unlike Syria. I really don't think we need to address this subject further, as it does not further the article. Hires an editor (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed NPOV tag

I am removing the NPOV tag from the top of the article. I looked back through the talk pages and it appears to date from a dispute about the discussion of the Marshall Plan that was resolved. I do not see any significant live controversies over the article's POV. I do not think the article needs to be stained with the NPOV tag. Elliotreed (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Should a conflict infobox be shown? There were multiple proxy wars within the "Cold War"

As there were proxy wars during Cold War between NATO and its non-affiliated supporters versus Warsaw Pact and its non-affiliated supporters, should a conflict infobox be created to represent those proxy conflicts? There was the wars in East and Southeast Asia from the 1940s to the 1970s such as the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Cambodian Civil War; also there was the Greek Civil War, the Angolan Civil War (China backed the US on one side due to the Sino-Soviet split), and the war between the Soviet Union and the pro-Soviet communist regime in Afghanistan versus the US-backed Mujahadeen. The intro says that this was merely a period of "tension", that may be more-or-less the case in the last four years of the existence of the Warsaw Pact, but there was substantial violence involving the conflict between pro-Warsaw Pact forces and pro-NATO forces via proxy conflicts between the two factions.--R-41 (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

By all means, no. The conflict infoboxes for each such proxy war belong to the articles about those wars. Trying to write a common summary will result in an infobox that is far too large to be useful, too hard to make neutral (OK, how will one fit Arab-Israeli wars or Iran-Iraq war in such infobox?) and too likely to include original research (for example, how will one get the strengths of the sides?). In short, this article must have no infobox. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

CIA "Backed" Augusto Pinochet in Coup?

"After more than thirty years, no evidence has come to light in either country that the United States played a direct role in the overthrow of the Allende government, but it was certainly a geopolitical bonanza for the United States, as Allende was cavorting with Castro with a particularly irritating relish."-Black, Conrad (2007). Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full. Public Affairs. pp. 921–922. ISBN 978-1-58648-519-1.

"Was the United States DIRECTLY involved, covertly, in the 1973 coup in Chile? The Committee has found no evidence that it was. There is no hard evidence of direct U.S. assistance to the coup, despite frequent allegations of such aid. Rather the United States - by its previous actions during Track II, its existing general posture of opposition to Allende, and the nature of its contacts with the Chilean military- probably gave the impression that it would not look with disfavor on a military coup. And U.S. officials in the years before 1973 may not always have succeeded in walking the thin line between monitoring indigenous coup plotting and actually stimulating it."-Frank Church et al. (18 December 1975). "Covert Action in Chile 1963-1973". US Government Printing Office.

"On 10 September 1973 -- the day before the coup that ended the Allende government -- a Chilean military officer reported to a CIA officer that a coup was being planned and asked for US government assistance. He was told that the US Government would not provide any assistance because this was strictly an internal Chilean matter."-CIA (19 September 2000). "CIA Activities in Chile". Chile Documentation Project. National Security Archive. p. 13.

"The United States did play a role in Chile, though not precisely the one ascribed to it. It attempted--unsuccessfully--to forestall Allende's confirmation by the Chilean congress. But once he was in office, the thrust of U.S. policy shifted to sustaining a democratic opposition and an independent press until Allende could be defeated in the presidential elections scheduled for 1976. To the extent that this opposition was able to survive under extraordinarily difficult economic circumstances--winning control of the Chilean congress in March 1973--one might even credit the Nixon administration with preventing the consolidation of Allende's "totalitarian project" (to use the apt expression of Eduardo Frei). What then followed--a right-wing dictatorship that crushed not merely the Allende regime but Chilean democracy itself--was not and could not have been predicted, partly because of the military's own apolitical traditions and partly because, by mid-1973, the opposition to Allende was dominated by forces of proved democratic provenance. To the contrary, Washington's presumption--that in the 1976 elections, if they were allowed to take place, the opposition would win decisively--was amply supported by the facts. It was only the savagery of the subsequent Pinochet dictatorship that in hindsight altered the historical picture."-Falcoff, Mark, Kissinger and Chile, Commentary, 2003

On July 4, 1973, Kissinger and Nixon discussed a failed revolt against Allende. There was no further discussion in the Nixon White House of Chile until after the coup. The US role in Chile can be debated, but it's clearly false to say that the CIA collaborated with Pinochet personally and was directly involved in carrying out the coup (although it did offer support to his government until 1974). And Falcoff may have written in Commentary, but his book Modern Chile is surely a WP:RS and the kind of historical work we need.

• Since no source was provided for the claim, there is little evidence to support it, and the article still notes that the US welcomed the coup and (at least initially) supported the new government; I see no need to assert that Pinochet was personally "backed by the CIA" during the coup, as it isn't literally true.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The source providing a detailed discussion of the issue is ZAKIA SHIRAZ. Review Essay. CIA Intervention in Chile and the Fall of the Allende Government in 1973Journal of American Studies (2011), 45 : pp 603-613. The author says that the issue of CIA involvement has not been resolved yet, and, whereas some recent authors (Gustafson) argue that CIA involvement was much smaller then it was thought previously, others, such as Haslam, "seek to challenge two myths surrounding events in Chile : first, that the coup was entirely a domestic matter ; second, that Allende was a ‘‘Chilean Willy Brandt’’ directly overthrown by the CIA, a view which dominates leftist literature".

Obviously, we can speak about some CIA involvement, however, its extent is still not clear.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not object to claims of American enthusiasm for the coup. Only one sentence was devoted to the issue, thus it wasn't very specific. We could (if you prefer) add another sentence, stating that the CIA had (in 1970) previously attempted to sway the Chilean Congress against Allende, while contacting generals and informing them that the US would not intervene if they moved against Allende, and that it subsequently gave large sums to various Chilean dissidents.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There's also the question of Cuban involvement in the packages scandal, KGB funds for Allende, and Allende's condemnation by the Congress and Supreme Court. Of course it isn't true that the US played no role or that it did everything. There are many conspiracy theories about the CIA for which there is little evidence; there are also well-documented CIA actions. Chile is one of the best documented, through massive media attention and the Church report--not to mention the Nixon Tapes. I think we know as well as we can know anything what actions the CIA took in Chile. The question is really what effect they had. Without the CIA, would Chile have become a communist dictatorship? Without the CIA, would Chile have remained a beacon of democracy in Latin America? Did the CIA make any difference?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, the involvement of the KGB and CIA on various fronts of the Cold War must be described much better. Did you notice that article KGB is significantly less developed than CIA? My very best wishes (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Second paragraph

I think 2nd paragraph in Intro should be rewritten as factually incorrect. Military forces of US and USSR directly fought in at least three major regional wars during Cold War. Did they fought directly against each other? Yes, many Soviet pilots fought on MIG planes against US aviation during the Korean War, and a smaller number of Soviet pilots "secretly" fought during Vietnam War; few survived. My very best wishes (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Cambodia?

I'm really surprised that Cambodia is not mentioned in this article. It's one of the countries most obviously affected by the Cold War. It should really get at least a sentence or two.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I added a paragraph.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

One of the problems this article has is that it's too big already. It really should be summarized more, and more details left to the individual section/time-period articles that exist to house these details. But it's extremely difficult to do that, because so much happened that you can't just leave out of even the summary. I think the Vietnam war gets only a sentence or two, for example, because there's already a whole series of articles on that conflict, and it was only a part of the CW, too...Hires an editor (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Vietnam war is two or three sentences. I don't think the Cambodia section is excessive. Cambodia is more significant than many other countries mentioned. But I'll keep your concerns in mind in the future.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

RS material removed

This edit [15] (two edits) by TheTimesAreAChanging removes well-sourced material on Afghanistan, although one of the edit summaries describes some of the sourced material as WP:OR. I don't quite see what is OR; the material removed was a well-sourced summary of the events in Afghanistan between the Saur Revolution and the Soviet invasion in December 1979. I propose we initiate a discussion to establish a consensus for removing it. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing was removed, and you know perfectly well it was your alteration of the sourced material that I characterized as original research. What sourced facts are not still intact?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

As can be seen in the diff I've linked to, the section previously began with a link to Saur Revolution, stating After the Saur Revolution brought a communist regime to power in Afghanistan, the US began offering financial aid to the anti-communist Afghan mujahideen guerillas. These funds indirectly furnished arms for the mujahideen through Pakistani weapons purchases. Your edit removed that whole paragraph, so that it now reads: During December 1979, approximately 75,000 Soviet troops launched an incursion into Afghanistan in order to support the Marxist government formed by ex-Prime-minister Nur Muhammad Taraki, assassinated that September by one of his party rivals. According to Bob Gates, the Carter administration had anticipated the invasion and began providing financial aid to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence several months in advance. So: 1. The Saur Revolution -- the very event that first began the conflict between the communists and the mujahideen in Afghanistan as well as the proxy involvement of the USSR and the US -- was removed. 2. The statement that American aid enabled the indirect acquisition of arms by the mujahideen through Pakistani purchases (Gates, p. 147) was removed. 3. The claim that Gates said that the invasion had been anticipated was inserted instead, with no citation to a referenced source for that. So, please explain what you actually mean here. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Both Gates and Brzezinski explicitly mention anticipating the invasion. There's even a lengthy quote to that effect. Gates doesn't say what you claim he says on page 147, although the Pakistanis obviously used the money to buy weapons.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I added the Saur Revolution to further information. It doesn't really fit into the main text. The reason for the invasion was to remove Amin.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It should not be too onerous to insert a mention of the Saur Revolution at the beginning of the section, if only for chronology's sake. Then we provide a clear reference for Gates saying that the invasion was anticipated in author, work, page number format, which you leave outright unsourced.

In my reading, Gates does seem to say what I believe he says at the very top of p. 147 -- perhaps it can be read differently and he does not. Nevertheless, here is an academic source that unambiguously discusses the U.S. aiding the mujahideen with military equipment before December 1979: Jagmohan Meher (2004). America's Afghanistan War: The Success That Failed. [16]: e.g., "So, by the mid-1979, when the United States slowly started supporting the resistance by giving them light weapons. . . ." (pp. 68-69), "As stated in the previous chapter, the United States was involved in supplying light weapons, ammunition, and money to the Afghan forces even before the Soviet invasion." (p. 94)

Gates' book is a first-person work (a memoir by a U.S. administration official) that doesn't seem to contradict this broader claim. I'm not certain as to what extent that's in dispute in other academic writing, but if you have a secondary source ("Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources") that rules out American assistance with weapons or funding that was used to procure weapons (the same thing in practical effect), we'd need to work it out. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I added the pages from Gates. Does your source claim that the US gave weapons directly to the Pakistanis? Because nobody denies that the Pakistanis must have purchased some weapons with the cash we gave them.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the page numbers. I don't believe Meher discusses the US giving weapons directly to the Pakistanis before December 1979, though he clearly does state that U.S. aid enabled the mujahideen to acquire "light weapons" and "ammunition" (besides other things). It seems the best way to put things would be something like: the Saur Revolution brought communists to power in Afghanistan --> a mujahideen insurgency ensued --> US and Pakistan gave mujahideen aid --> Soviet forces replace Amin --> conflict escalates. I'll try to think of a succinct way of wording this kind of summary once I have a bit more time. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. I have no objections to your proposal at this time. Thanks, TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Here's my proposed version:

In April 1978, the communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) assumed power in Afghanistan in the Saur Revolution. Within months, opponents of the communist government launched an uprising in eastern Afghanistan that quickly expanded into a civil war waged by guerrilla mujahideen against government forces countrywide. The Pakistani government provided these rebels with covert training centers, while the Soviet Union sent thousands of military advisers to support the PDPA government.[1] Meanwhile, increasing friction between the competing factions of the PDPA – the dominant Khalq and the more moderate Parcham – resulted in the dismissal of Parchami cabinet members and the arrest of Parchami military officers under the pretext of Parchami coup. By mid-1979, the United States had started a covert program to assist the mujahideen.[2]

In September 1979, Khalqist President Nur Muhammad Taraki was assassinated in a coup within the PDPA orchestrated by fellow Khalq member Hafizullah Amin, who assumed the presidency. Distrusted by the Soviets, Amin was assassinated by Soviet special forces in December 1979. A Soviet-organized government, led by Parchm's Babrak Karmal but comprised of both factions, filled the vacuum. Soviet troops were deployed to stabilize Afghanistan under Karmal in more substantial numbers, although the Soviet government did not expect to do most of the fighting in Afghanistan. As a result, however, the Soviets were now directly involved in what had been a domestic war in Afghanistan.[3]

Carter responded to the Soviet incursion by withdrawing the SALT II treaty from the Senate, imposing embargoes on grain and technology shipments to the USSR, and demanding a significant increase in military spending, and further announced that the United States would boycott the 1980 Moscow Summer Olympics. He described the Soviet intervention as "the most serious threat to the peace since the Second World War".[4]

The sources are:

• [1] Rizwan Hussain (2005). Pakistan and the Emergence of Islamic Militancy in Afghanistan. London: Ashgate. pp. 108-109.
• [2] Jagmohan Meher (2004). America's Afghanistan War: The Success That Failed. Delhi: Gyan Books. pp. 68-69, 94.
• [3] Artemy Kalinovsky (2011). A Long Goodbye: The Soviet Withdrawal from Afghanistan. Harvard University Press. pp. 25-28.
• [4] is the same as now.

This addresses the aforementioned issue of the background/chronology of the early war, without going into excessive detail, such as e.g., what types of weapons were provided and whether Pakistan always served as the middleman, which may be controversial. Pakistan's early involvement is still addressed. Note that I have removed all three claims from primary sources - Gates, Brzezinski, and Shulman. The disagreements among U.S. officials as to whether the U.S. should have intervened seem like a little too much detail for a summary-style article such as this, though they would be interesting to mention in a subarticle like Soviet war in Afghanistan. More importantly, each of these is a claim made by a person close to the events, rather than a secondary summary of what occurred (WP:SECONDARY). The last paragraph, dealing with Carter's reaction, is unchanged. I think this is a reasonable version, but let me know if there are concerns. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Good text. Meanwhile, I noticed that the Soviet occupations article describes this story as Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Consider preparation of the section for that article also.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Some authors do call it an occupation, others an invasion, a regime change, etc. The interesting thing is that the Afghan government lasted long enough to outlive the Soviet Union, collapsing three years after the Soviets withdrew, in 1992. Apparently, that occupation government was more stable than the occupier. I've commented on that over at the talk page for the Soviet occupations article, but I'm not sure we should have articles amounting to a vast collection of unrelated "occupation by X" all under one roof, since German occupations would be very long, covering two world wars, the occupation of French Alsace and Lorraine in 1871, and the colonial occupations of the Second Reich elsewhere. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Your proposed text meets and surpasses my expectations, and I agree that it is more appropriate to avoid excessive commentary from primary sources in this (quite lengthy) article. Thanks a lot,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Re "I'm not sure we should have articles amounting to a vast collection of unrelated "occupation by X" all under one roof..." That is exactly what how I see it. However, the argument have been put forward that "occupation by X" is a list, not the article. I myself is not comfortable with that, however, there seems to be a hole in our policy that allows such tricks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you also uncomfortable with articles like Covert United States foreign regime change actions, Open U.S. regime change actions, United States involvement in regime change, and United States support of Authoritarian regimes?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not. Upon looking through the first article I found that the source #1 contains the claim that there was some significant commonality between those actions, and this commonality is non-trivial (more then just "covert US actions were the actions where the US were involved secretly"). Therefore, the subject of the article does exist, and that WP article does not create a new term or concept. In contrast, "Occupation by X" does create a new concept, unless some reliable source can confirm that the connection between different events was non trivial, and this connection was described in some reliable source. However, no sources have been presented that describe a non-trivial connection between, e.g., Soviet occupation of Iran and occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1968. Moreover, the Covert United States foreign regime change actions is a full article, but Soviet occupations is ostensibly a list. However, I see no difference in structure and shape between those two articles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

PS. Regarding two other articles, the second one is not an article at all: no text, no references. If noone will be able to expand it in close future, I see no problem with its deletion. The third article contains the ref 1, which seems to support some general claim about the subject of that article. If this source really supports that claim, and some other secondary (not tertiary) source exists that says the same, I see no problem with that article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

PPS Please refrain from article X needs deletion soapboxing in discussions pertaining to other articles. Thank you. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Would it be valid to create an article on Soviet support for authoritarian regimes? After all, the U.S. is not unique in supporting authoritarian regimes.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hard to tell... It depends on what mainstream sources tell about that. I haven't read much on that account, however, as far as I know, to get Soviet support authoritarian regimes, such as Ethiopian, resorted to the following trick. They declared adherence to Communist ideas, and being nominally Marxist, obtained massive help from the USSR. As a result, most sources speak about Soviet support of Communist regimes. That is how I see it. However, again, everything depends on what mainstream sources say about that. If you have time, you may try to spent it for this research.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I do appreciate your replies.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)