Talk:Cold War/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Cuban Revolution

Back in July, User:TheTimesAreAChanging added that "Cuba's young revolutionary leader, Fidel Castro, had been in regular contact with the KGB since 1956" to the section on the Cuban Revolution in this edit. Castro was apparently contacted by a KGB operative named Leonov during his exile in Mexico in 1956, before the revolution took place. However, according to British historian Alex von Tunzelmann's book Red Heat: Conspiracy, Murder, and the Cold War in the Caribbean (2011), p. 66:

Nikolai Leonov had. . . become the KGB resident in Mexico City, and enthusiastically renewed his acquaintance with Raul Castro. It pleased him to discover that Raul had a much increased interest in Marxism, and a new best friend, Che Guevara, who was supportive. With Fidel Castro, he was less impressed. The man's charisma was apparent, but he was, Leonov concluded, no communist. All of this was communicated carefully back to the KGB headquarters in Moscow, where it was received with displeasure. Leonov was recalled to Moscow and reprimanded for establishing contact with the Cubans without proper authorization. According to Sergo Mikoyan, the son of Khrushchev's deputy Anastas Mikoyan and a close friend of Leonov's, the KGB had heard from the Cuban communists that Fidel was "bourgeois." Leonov was ordered to end the relationship.

Apparently, then, Castro was not in "regular contact" with the KGB. And the Soviet Union did not play a role in the Cuban Revolution. In fact, the Soviet assessment of Castro was essentially accurate at the time: Castro still made a number of statements interpreted as anti-communist immediately after the revolution, before Cuba's invasion at the Bay of Pigs (see the previous discussion at Talk:Cold War/Archive 7 for the references). Zloyvolsheb (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

There's no consensus here for you to delete sourced material, even if you find sources that contradict it. The text never said the Soviets were behind the Cuban Revolution. It is, however, notable that the Soviets were promising arms as early as 1960, and that Castro had multiple contacts with the KGB from 1956 on. Your reading of history is selective. As Christopher Andrew notes on page 35 of The World Was Going Our Way: "Though initially restrained in his public utterances, Castro privately regarded the United States as 'the sworn enemy of our nation'. While American hostility was later to reinforce Castro's alliance with the Soviet Union, it did not cause it."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Was there a consensus to include your version in the first place? Saying that Castro was "in regular contact with the KGB since 1956" is contradicted by other sources, like the one I pointed to. It may also misleadingly suggest that the USSR played a part in Cuba's revolution, though it did not; how Castro privately regarded the United States had naught to do with the Soviet role during the revolution. Furthermore, I did not remove anything about the Soviets providing arms; in fact I kept that very sentence, putting it into the next paragraph for chronological order. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

If the CIA was even alleged to have had contacts with someone who later became a mass-murdering dictator, it would be repeated ad nauseum. However, it may be the case that Castro's ties to the KGB are historically insignificant or disputed to the point where they do not merit inclusion in this article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Coldwar.png

No offense to Anynobody, but I think the Coldwar.png pic is a bit ugly, particularly the mushroom cloud (which is off-center) and a bit "busy"; there's too much going on. We have like 4 or 5 layers of pictures. I'd like to suggest this simplified alternative.

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h290/Mordrorru/ColdWar.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jormunger (talk • contribs) 04:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 December 2012

The Image with the title "A U.S. Marine in the Vietnam War, 3 August 1965" is twice. 92.204.26.58 (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Already done - with this edit. Thanks for pointing it out. Begoon ^talk 02:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

South Korean Repression

• "North Korean leader Kim Il Sung created a highly centralized and brutal dictatorship, according himself unlimited power and generating a formidable cult of personality.[112][113] In the South, the corrupt American-backed strongman Syngman Rhee pursued a comparable system of totalitarian rule.[114]"

The source cited, Max Hasting's Korean War, actually says the exact opposite:

• "For all the rumors filtering down from the North, about land reform and political education, there seemed no reason to imagine that life under Kim Il-Sung was any worse than under Syngman Rhee....Syngman Rhee's creatures conducted some odious killings of alleged communist sympathizers as they fled south. Yet the behavior of the North Koreans in their first four months of dominance in the south, their ghastly barbarities and wholesale murders of their enemies, decisively persuaded most of the inhabitants of the country that whatever the shortcomings of Syngman Rhee, nothing could be as appalling as communist tyranny....To this day not a shred of evidence has been discovered of crimes by the Seoul regime on the scale the North Koreans committed during their rule in the south....The arrival of the communists unleashed a reign of terror which gave the United Nations cause in Korea a moral legitimacy that has survived to this day."

This should be changed to better reflect the source, which makes clear the level of repression was in no way "comparable."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate?

I would be very interested in seeing if there is a possibility to promote this article to be a Featured Article Candidate. This article has content that comes across as insightful and interesting to the public. The Cold War article is very well-written, already has acquired a status of a "Good Article" and meets WP:FAC criteria requirement. If this is possible, and if any user is interested in starting the nomination, I would be delighted to support the notion. Tayisiya (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 march 2013

Yugoslavia was never puppet/satelite state of SSSR becouse of their own partisan army. They were never part of Warsaw Pact. They were a part of Non-Aligned Movement and they never joined SSSR alliance ! But they were a part of eastern bloc as a communist country ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.231.91 (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I also confirm that, as a former Yugoslavian - not only was it not a part of the USSR or a puppet state, Tito, the revolutionaire who was the president/dictator, was actually very anti-stalinist, and his philosophies were closer to those of Trotski, mixing nationalism and pacifism into the marxist theory.

The historical refusal of helping the USSR expand into Bulgaria after the war should also be enough of a proof (it was for the USA and most of the west) that Tito wasn't a soviet agent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.192.40.189 (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Actual start date

I have issues with 1945. Is there evidence to show that the cold war started at the end of WWII. Because I will sources from "officals" that argue the start of the Soviet Union in 1918 or the start of Stalin in 1924 was the actual beginning of the Cold War with WWII being a stopping point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.24.73 (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

probably a majority of the RS use 1947. eg Walker, The Cold War: A History p36 (British author); Klein, Cold War Orientalism p 22; The A to Z of the Cold War (2005) p 238; Hogan, A Cross of Iron p12; but other sdates are sometimes given --such as 1946= Ross Gregory, Cold War America, 1946 To 1990; in 2nd place is the year 1946 esp Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech as in Bodden, The Cold War; 1948 is a late date--see Salmon, The Rise and Fall of Corporate America - Page 214; Russians like to use 1917-18 as the start. I don;t see any major historian using 1945 as the start (see Nargele, Endless Cold War - Page 1. Rjensen (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

1989 or 1991?

I have read many articles in connection with the Cold War and have noticed an inconsistency between both 1989 and 1991 being stated as the ending year of the war. I realize the actual end is debatable, but I still feel as though there should be some consistency in the articles. The Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, but which event truly marks the end? MarkMc1990 (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 April 2013

Citation 12 is very hard to find. IIRC, this is a problem. It should probably be tagged as such. Strugee (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Huh, that's weird. I'm not sure what happened to the "Halliday" citation. I'll look around to see if I can find it. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the citation you wanted was "Halliday, Fred. The Making of the Second Cold War (1983, Verso, London)." I found it at List of primary and secondary sources on the Cold War. I'll insert it to the references section. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Done Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Should there be Conflict infobox?

I guess there should be conflict infobox with belligerents as Cold War was a war (the name says it). Why this page doesn't already have a one? --Ransewiki (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no conflict box because this "conflict" was too amorphous, and the different things that go in a conflict box are in dispute in one way or another. If you go through the archives of the talk for this article you'll see more than adequate reasons why not. Hires an editor (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

What about an infobox for each sub page (and by sub page I mean 'Cold War (1947–53)', 'Cold War (1953–62)', etc)? --Byuntaeng (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2013

Good article?

It would be nice if this article about an important period of history (which, after all, could have caused the end of it) could try again for featured article status. I would like to try a few improvements in the next few weeks.

For starters: the lead (hate the term lede) is inadequate. Too much innecessary detail , e.g. on the end of the cold war. Not enough on necessary detail like the origins of the term and context - which I have addressed. The lead also gives the impression that the war only involved the US and allies and the USSR and its zone of control, missing out the important role of China.Straw Cat (talk) 11:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from on the summary, in that it's difficult to fit it all in, and the slant should be adjusted to be a bit more inclusive. Origins of the term don't belong in the lead, only because it's also unnecessary detail. That is addressed in the first section anyway. I think you're saying contradictory things by saying leave out unneeded detail, but putting some in, and then saying other detail is too much. We should have a balance, yes, but let's not contradict ourselves. Hires an editor (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I said "Not enough on necessary detail". On your suggestion I looked up the archive and see that previous objections to FA included your own, that the social and cultural aspects, and the space race dimension, needed expansion in the main article - I agree. What about a cultural effects section citing e.g. Dr Strangelove, Dylan's songs, and the recent TV series The Americans - or has this already been considered and rejected?

Other FA objections I noticed included lack of global perspective. I note that both the French, and the Russian articles' leads include the Orwell origin of the name, the Russian in some detail. The Russian lead seems to agree with your concerns in emphasizing that the Cold War was not just a military, but an ideological conflict.Straw Cat (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

A couple of points. First, the origins of the term are not that clear-cut. Yes, Orwell used it in 1945 and he is credited by OED with the first use. However, the first use specifically referring to a conflict between the USSR and the US was by Bernard Baruch in an April 1947 speech by Herbert Bayard Swope, with the term then gaining wide currency thanks to Walter Lippmann. (See for instance here.) As a side note, the phrase "cold war" (or guerra fria) sort of (it's complicated; see the article) traces back to a 14th century Spanish text, or at least a 19th century mistake in its transcription, and refers to the Muslim-Christian conflict. In sum, it's a tad misleading to give Orwell sole credit. These aspects should probably be fleshed out in a Cold War (term) article.

We have Culture during the Cold War, and speaking for myself, I think the Cold War article and the phenomenon it describes are already complex enough without throwing that whole side into the mix. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, some of what Biruitorul said. I put the "Culture" article together myself, but have never had the energy to seriously research it, and make it better. Also, after doing some reading on WP guidelines, we're "supposed" to summarize as much as we can in this main article, and lavish more attention and detail on the individual period articles, but what has happened is that those articles get neglected in favor of what seems to be more detail on this main article. Part of that is necessary, since too many people complained when things were left out with an eye on the summary and narrative, so they ended up having to go in here...which leads me to the bit about the term: there is an edit where someone (it's been a long while) removed a big discussion about the term, because it didn't fit in with the concept of "summarize here, details go there (in the more detailed article)". So if anything, the big discussion about it should go in the detail article, and not here. And there are other detail articles that could use some help, such as the Cold War espionage article, and the Origins of the Cold War/disagreement section doesn't have a full explanation there, either, and maybe it should...Hires an editor (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

1947 crisis in France and Italy

Shouldn't the May 1947 crisis be mentioned somewhere in the article, as it was an important early development in the Cold War? Litawor (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

If you find a source linking the crisis to the Cold War, it may be a good idea. I just found four: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Note (see [5]) that it wasn't just France; Communists were also excluded from the Italian and Belgian governments. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Formulation

'In 1952, Stalin repeatedly proposed a plan to unify East and West Germany under a single government chosen in elections supervised by the United Nations if the new Germany were to stay out of Western military alliances, but this proposal was turned down by the Western powers. Some sources dispute the sincerity of the proposal.'

Need to elaborate. It is obvious that when whoever enough important in politics makes whatever enough important political claim, there are always some sources that question the claim's sincerity. So far, the sentence looks as informational as 'Some sources discuss the Cold War", and this brings the question why somebody decided to include it... - 92.100.177.12 (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

'On November 18, 1956, while addressing Western ambassadors at a reception at the Polish embassy in Moscow, Khrushchev used his famous "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you" expression, shocking everyone present. He later claimed that he had not been talking about nuclear war, but rather about the historically determined victory of communism over capitalism.'

Why 'claimed'? Just 'said'. It's nothing controversial. 'The eventual victory of communism' was the main idea of the Soviet society (otherwise why this story, by the way), so naturally Khrushchev assumed everybody's familiarity with it; in the West, his words were misunderstood, probably because they themselves believed in the idea of a crunching Asian monster, who never thinks what he does, that they made. - 92.100.177.12 (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it really over?

I mean: the essence of Cold War is a lot of uncivil remarks and mutual accusations. They actively continue up to the present day, although to a lesser degree. What is the degree that, when reached, signifies the end of the Cold War? In the beginning of the article, there are words "often dated from 1947 to 1991", and I think this should be elaborated. - 89.110.23.54 15:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the article says that it was over after the Soviet Union stopped being the Soviet Union, among other things. And the end of the intro does indicate that it was over, but maybe not so explicitly as you seem to be asking for. I personally remember George HW Bush celebrating at a speech in Europe on a rainy day by saying "We won!" and throwing away his speech, he was so happy. Maybe something like that could go in the intro, to make that distinction. "It ended when ____." Good point. Hires an editor (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Photo of the Berlin Wall text

"The Wall was built in 1961 to prevent East Germans from fleeing from Communism."

Can't we say that it was built to prevent economic depression? Sure, flight of the general population was not a positive thing, but Ulbricht constantly mentioned economic depression during meetings with the Warsaw Pact members. 84.104.151.237 (talk) 07:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Added {{Lopsided}} template to the text. ElŞahin (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Creation of infobox

The newly-created infobox by another user seems to be malformed, but I'm not sure how to fix it. What is the best and aesthetically-pleasing way to create an infobox for a conflict that suddenly gains a third combatee group during a certain period that does not appear during other periods? Ithinkicahn (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't "fix" it, as much as not have it. First, it was too complex to go in that box; second, it wasn't really a "war" as there was not a military confrontation between the two powers directly (it was proxy wars, and troops fighting in the uniforms of others)...And as for the the "third combatee", there wasn't a war between China and the USSR or between China and the US. The point of the term "Cold War" is that the nations were in a war-like state/posture, but not actually "warring" - no direct combat. So it's a name, but you can't fit what happened into that box. It's not a traditional conflict. Hires an editor (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

What about a infobox for each time period (1957-53, 1953-62, etc)? Has this been discussed? Byungtaeng (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2014

founded by Indonesia, Egypt, India, and Yugoslavia; this faction rejected association with either the US-led West or the Soviet-led East. Brianyw (talk) 08:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. I'm entirely unsure what you want added or changed here, and please back up your request with reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Technical 13 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it over?

There is some debate as to whether the Cold War has even ended in a meaningful sense, rather than just changed - do you think we should reference this in the article?

Evidense (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No. the experts treat it as a finished episode. Like the Enlightenment (did it ever end?) it had a long-term cultural and political impact. Rjensen (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

In popular culture

In my view, this section should immediately go to Culture during the Cold War. The "Cold War" article should about the Cold War, as in the "sustained state of political and military tension between powers in the Western Bloc and powers in the Eastern Bloc". In other words, Serious History. Yes, Cold War culture is a notable topic and by all means should be covered by this encyclopedia, but there is a place to do that - in the article destined for that purpose.

Also, needless to say, the section has the potential to be the constant source of edit-warring, a dumping ground for trivia and a distraction. As it stands right now, it's glaringly unbalanced, given the fact that all the works listed just happen to have been created by Americans and Britons. It's also kind of random - Argo, for instance, has nothing at all to do with the Cold War, unless the definition is stretched to encompass every politics or espionage-themed film set between 1947 and 1991.

In conclusion, this section detracts from the article, does more harm than good, and if kept at all, should be shunted into a less visible article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I admit that I started the Culture during the Cold War article because I realized that there wasn't one regarding protest songs of the 80's against nuclear weapons (and it grew from there), so I would love to see some attention go to that article since I can't figure out how to make it better, since it's now just a jumble of stuff, and I don't have time anymore to really put the love and attention it needs, nor the expertise to know anything about the non-western point of view in terms of culture. But all of that is a side note to the main argument that culture is notable in its own right, and should be noted separately from this article, except a link or two that already existed before. The bias I mentioned in my earlier deletion here is selection bias because it's too much information to include, and choosing one thing means not including something else, and who's to say what is more important, culturally? Granted, the kitchen sink approach isn't the best for the other article, but it makes more sense to have that debate there, and not here. Lists of things in this way are generally unencyclopedic. Hires an editor (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Repositioned the section

I reinstated the section, but moved it under Aftermath (following the example of Vietnam War), which I believe makes a critical difference in context, and wrote the stub of a lead. I generally agree with all of the various comments above. Notwithstanding, my thoughts on the Pro side:

• "In popular culture" sections are often interesting and useful additions to articles in general
• while the section exists here, it is open to improvement; deleted, it is...not
• the current Culture during the Cold War sounds like it deals with culture during the Cold War, while an article dealing with media portrayals of the Cold War may fit somewhere in there, but is also a separate subject in its own right.

This section can hopefully grow into its own dedicated article(s); meanwhile, while there is an Aftermath to the Cold War, certainly the legacy of media about the Cold War is a significant part of that, particularly considering the abundant availability of media old and new, thanks to the Internet. --Tsavage (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to say that there is a "dedicated article" for this section, and it could use serious improvement, and it should be improved 'there', not here, where it doesn't belong. The other article is something I put together, and that article might do well to be split up into appropriate articles, because what's there is mostly what I threw up for everything I could think of (including the Kitchen Debate - yup, even the kitchen sink is included). And to another point: the article deals with both media portrayals, and the uses of culture as part of the ideological war (such as fine arts, like ballet).

So, I would say, this section has grown into its own article; yet for not very good reasons, people are choosing to edit and upgrade another article from another page on this page. Does that make sense? It does not. Maybe at most a paragraph (similar to the lede from that page) might introduce the broader subject here, for people who wish to explore it further, can go there. Hires an editor (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, I agree. If there is a distinction between Culture during the Cold War and Cold War in popular culture, by all means go ahead and dump this section in the latter place. But let's not turn part of an article on a defining facet of the 20th century - one that's been averaging 12,000 views a day since Putin went on the offensive - into Tsavage's movie trivia sandbox. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Culture during the Cold War pretty much defines itself as a runaway train. As outlined by its current content, it could be "culture during most of the second half of the 20th century", what wasn't affected or cannot be worked in there? Cold War in popular culture is considerably more focused, and ongoing, not limited to the Cold War period. I don't see that getting the former article under control has anything to do with starting the latter. I understand the desire to perfect an article, but Wikipedia is a living, real-time encyclopedia, and in this case, considering how many people's main awareness of the Cold War comes from movies and whatnot - pop culture - this aspect is in need of improvement, and I'm working on that right here. --Tsavage (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

No. First of all, we're having the wrong conversation on this page. The idea of the culture article is that limiting it to just popular culture is too limiting. If you read the talk page there, you'll get a picture of why it's a good idea. Secondly, you can't (and no one can, really) determine what is "culture" vs "popular culture". It's not a runaway train. It needs significant improvement, but it's a reasonable place to put culture related things, like the recently added piece regarding Cold War playground equipment (which I found fascinating). Thirdly, we already have an article regarding culture, be it pop or not. The culture stuff doesn't belong here, as it's too subjective, and too biased toward what should or should not be here, as I said in my previous deletion of this content. It will subject this article to a significant round of edits and re-edits b/c someone or other thinks something belongs here, or thinks it should be removed, and we have that problem already, and this article is already too long as it is.

Also, in terms of the time and attention and size in relation to the rest of the article, it's getting undue weight. If you're talking about focused, then there should be a paragraph at most to indicate that it wasn't just a political thing, that it was felt in the social sphere as well. But to include movies and books as if those are the only pop culture things, does an injustice to the way that cultural aspects were used in the ideological way, like with chess, and the jazz tours (that don't seem to appear in Wikipedia (yet)) organized by the US State Department.

Just b/c WP is a living, breathing encyclopedia does not mean that you get to come along and decide what works best for you, with no consideration for anyone else or how things are done here. Hires an editor (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be making this personal: you get to come along and decide what works best for you, with no consideration for anyone else or how things are done here. Hires an editor? I didn't start the section, I added something to it, then returned to add more and found it deleted by Biruitorul. I read the reasoning, there was no input other than yours, so I reinstated the section along with my reasons. But you know this.

There is no mystery here. "In popular culture" is a common feature in WP articles, one that I have actively looked for and found useful across a range of topics. Determining what fits can always be made a problem, but in practice isn't a problem I've noticed. Popular entertainment with a "Cold War" theme is pretty easy to identify for the most part, there are numerous lists online, news and reviews routinely identify works with the Cold War, precedent abounds.

Being able to see a comprehensive overview of how Western/American media portrayed and continues to portray the Cold War seems particularly interesting and useful when looking for Cold War info and context. Culture during the Cold War may have some of the same information, but the title alone is enough to indicate that it is intended to be about something other than Cold War in popular culture. --Tsavage (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Reinstated deleted Aftermath/In popular culture section

I don't see the justification for deletion. If you want to do the work and move the information to a separate article, that would be constructive. To delete a whole section and replace it with a throwaway stub of an intro is simply destructive (seems more like you're trying to make a point than develop consensus). If we agree that there is reason for a Cold War in popular culture article, then this is where it would start, to be moved to its own article as it develops.

"Tsavage's movie trivia sandbox"? It's a list of major films about the Cold War. How is that any less important than any other aspect of the topic? --Tsavage (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you don't see the justification. The problem is that there is an article, and you don't see that, either. You keep putting things here, as if that's justification enough for you. It makes more sense to not put all of this material in this article, which is already way too full of information. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, and this is it. If you think should be a different article for the material you include, then feel free to make one. I don't think we should. I don't think we should have all this material here in this article anyway, but you think we should. Where is the consideration for that? I'm trying to build a reasonable case for including "(Popular) Culture" in this article, but a list of movies isn't it. What would be useful and constructive is to build a paragraph regarding cultural aspects. With a "see also" link as I attempted to do, that you reverted. You don't build a good case as to why your way is any better than "I think it's a good idea - and other articles do it, so we should, too" - but there is WP guidance against this type of thinking and thought process, for good reason. Hires an editor (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

So much energy is going into this discussion, when it doesn't seem complicated at all. I'm just trying to work on this section, about Cold War portrayals in Western popular entertainment up to the present day. What's wrong with or irrelevant about that?

• I am working on a subtopic in the topic's main article, and there's a clear path to moving that subsection to its own article - I only began actively adding to it a few days ago.
• I am following WP editorial guidelines, summarizing relevant aspects of fictional plots through direct description and with citations when necessary.
• I'm building on a preexisting section, of a type common to WP articles ("In popular culture").
• The section was removed, but there was no discussion. I restored it, respectfully with a talk note explaining why.

I understand summary style - it could be a blueprint for article development from scratch, but it is also a format that an article matures into, as sections get developed. A great place for gaining collaboration on a subsection is where it will be most easily found, on the main topic page. What's the problem with that? Do yo think the informative value of the article to the 12,000 daily viewers mentioned above is decreased by the presence of this section (I can't see that)? --Tsavage (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, cheerfully ignoring my points. Excellent debate tactic. But let's try again, shall we?

• You are working on a subtopic that already has an article, yet you refuse to put the material there. Or create one you think should exist (it should not, by the way, as there is already an article).
• You are not following WP guidelines, because you are working on a list, which if you read the link, will indicate that you are not following guidelines.
• Just because the section is pre-existing does not mean that it is appropriate to add content which violates guidelines. And again, just because it's common, doesn't mean it's appropriate here.
• The section was removed as I explained in my comments deleting it. That's not "no discussion" - you didn't discuss anything with anyone regarding your desire to expand the section in this way.

Using one article to be a blueprint for another article - developing a section that it must be split off - is also inappropriate, especially when there is already a place for it. The problem with developing your pet project on a page/article with so many views is that it's still off topic, regardless of the number of views. Having a "Western POV" is also bad - we don't need the bias here. We already have too much to contend with in this article already only to have you add more. Yes, the visibility is a good thing for you, but not the article as a whole.

My counter-point is simple. If we're using summary style, then a paragraph is good. It should point to another article, with a greater amount of content. Just because you can't see why this is bad to have what you are producing also doesn't mean that it's not bad. Hires an editor (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking over the scholarly journals for the last couple years, the trend I see on Cold War studies is away from diplomacy and toward popular culture. Is there already a separate article--yes, as there is for most sections of this survey article. So I think this section should be expanded, and let's not worry if it gets pretty long. It was a VERY long episode that involved most of the world and deserves a lot of coverage. Rjensen (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hires... I assume you're well-meaning (and only unintentionally condescending), but really, arguing like this siphons off the fun. What about one of Wikipedia's basic precepts that tends to balance out the extremes: "Ignore all rules"?!

I'm just trying to assemble an Aftermath subsection of the Cold War article that deals with the Cold War as portrayed through historical and current popular art - pop media, pop culture, movies, TV, books, etc. It may seem list-like at the moment, but I'll hopefully keep at it the best I can. I'm not a historian or a Cold War expert nor fan...but I can read and write, and I'm interested, and a fresh, encyclopedic section will maybe start to emerge. Others may join in in a significant way. And so forth. What's the hurry? Please give it some time! Nothing bad will happen... --Tsavage (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Position of Historiography section

The Historiography section would seem to be most useful located near the beginning of the article, perhaps between Origins and Background, where it can give more context to the rest. Is there a reason why it's right at the end? --Tsavage (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

i feel it should be at the end because it is for advanced users and is likely to confuse most readers. The people who know what the word "historiography" means can find it without trouble. Rjensen (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense, accessibility! I found the bit about the various schools of thought as to who was responsible for setting it all off interesting. Even if the account is kinda neutral, being reminded that the question of responsibility isn't clear is good. It's maybe implied already, but perhaps it could fit in the introduction? --Tsavage (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Article needs a Cultural impact section

Background: Till a couple weeks ago, there was a "Cultural impact" section that was removed because it was an arbitrary and incomplete list of movies and other media. I restored it, but moved it to Aftermath/In pop culture, thinking to develop it mainly with regard to the ongoing cultural impact of movies and other pop media made during and after the Cold War.

However, I think that "Cultural impact" needs to be a first level section (in addition to presence in Aftermath), given the unique set of circumstances that came together at the time:

• the start of the Cold War coincided with the rise of television in the US and elsewhere, inextricably entwining the two
• the start of the Cold War coincided with the start of the youth culture rebellion: in the 1950s, in the climate of Cold War paranoia, formal constraints were put on comic books, movies, music, and these encouraged a formal resistance that grew into the 1960s
• the Cold War framed the rapid rise of technology, explicitly with the Space Race and Arms Race, and by extension through everything else high tech, from computers onward, right through to ARPANET/Internet
• the Cold War period encompassed two generations: within that, there are the anti-communism hunt, the two major wars (Korea, Vietnam), the Berlin Wall, MAD/Cuban missile crisis, detente, Reagan Star Wars era, and finally, the fall of the Wall - huge cultural markers for most of the world
• in the US, at least, the Cold War underlined the explicit American policy of consumerism from the 1950s, by providing a clearly contrasting opposite world, where consumer goods were of poor quality and in short supply

The scope is broad, and some sorting has to be done to properly differentiate "Western", world, and more strictly US aspects, still, I think starting with the above broad strokes, a manageable and encyclopedic overview can be presented. That in turn could help shape the Culture during the Cold War article, which has remained more or less a collection of lists for the last eight years.

I think this is important, it could really transform the article, adding a practical, accessible context to complement the linear recounting of the political and military facts that it is now. --Tsavage (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the analysis here. (eg TV -- Cold War was very well established by 1950 when TV took off. The Youth Rebellion came much later in the Vietnam war era. Consumerism was not a factor in Britain, Europe & Japan. I strongly recommend using the scholarly literature as a base rather than this sort of speculation, Rjensen (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't imagine I have a scholarly grasp of the situation, however, whatever I mentioned is bolstered some sort of scholarly research. For example:

"Television emerged as America's prime medium of entertainment and information at exactly the moment the nation became deeply embroiled in the Cold War. The United States was forced to adapt video to its social reality at the same time it was experiencing the anxieties of the East-West confrontation, fighting a limited war in Korea, and learning to live with John Foster Dulles' diplomatic philosophy of "brinkmanship," "massive retaliation," and the "liberation of captive peoples." Within this tense atmosphere TV was assimilated and became the most important vehicle through which citizens learned the latest developments in a rivalry that, in simplified terms, matched good Democracy against evil Communism." - The Cold War As TV Entertainment

"Hajdu convincingly frames the panic that would flare over this material as a prequel to an emerging youth culture: if not a forerunner it served as an early-warning sign of the oncoming generational clash that, most dramatically via rock and roll, would usher the mid-1950s into a very different 1960s. ... Hajdu’s research is at its most vivid when his interviews disclose the compelling voices of the artists, writers, editors, and readers who made or used comic books as an everyday affair. Years later, these writers and artists still relish the freedom associated with their youthful days as makers of comics, and readers recall them with the pleasure that attends memories of youth. And both producers and consumers recall their bafflement at learning in the mid-1950s that investigators had determined comic books were morally corrupting and had to be restricted by a code of conduct.'" - Cold War Comics

" This paper examines the role American department stores played in propagating consumerism both at home and abroad during the Cold War. It is part of a larger dissertation project focusing on the career of the pioneering Lord & Taylor executive, Dorothy Shaver ... In early 1945, Shaver spearheaded a major advertising campaign in newspapers and women’s fashion magazines titled, “The American Look.” Shaver argued that the “American Look” successfully wedded functionalism with beauty ... she claimed were “an unmistakable announcement of the difference between Communist rule and democratic government.” She hoped that women around the world would copy the American Look and spread America’s democratic fashions and high standard of living. Shaver developed this vision in advertising and also through work with Cold War organizations including the Marshall Plan’s Economic Cooperation Administration and the Crusade for Freedom. Like many in American business and government, she believed the Cold War could be won with goods rather than guns. This paper analyzes the Cold War’s gendered dynamics and the ways in which business people within consumer industries worked to spread American consumerism." - Fighting Communism with Clothes: Cold War Fashion and American Consumerism, 1945-1959”

My point is that every "what is the Cold War" article I google says about the same thing, and no-one really covers an obvious aspect, the aspect that would seem to have most affected the majority of people, which is the cultural impact, which can be clearly documented, at the very least, through the actual artifacts, and the reviews and analyses of them.

On a specific point, I realize the problem a topic like this causes with WP:NPOV, however, America is a central factor here, where the USA went, so did the world to greater or lesser degree, so to for example ignore the Cold War and consumerism in America seems to be form over function. What is the scholarly way to deal with this reality? --Tsavage (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

As I suggest, get some RS not a blog. TV was much less important than newspapers and magazines in the 1945-55 era. Far more influential were TIME, LIFE, NY TIMES, etc. Hajdyu is talking about the "prequel" -- the 1950s era before the youth rebellion of the 1960s. The first task of the historian is to get the chronology right.  :) Rjensen (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I am strongly in favor of a culture section, and i agree with Tsavage that NPOV is a big issue. On the TV issue--it had little impact in the first critical years of the Cold War in the late 1940s and into the 1950s. TV news became influential at the time of Vietnam. (The MacDonald blog cited above agrees: "TV news seems to have had little importance for early audiences. A survey in 1948 showed that more than 46 percent of set owners preferred comedy-variety programs. The rate for TV news was 2.3 percent. When asked what they would like to see on television that was not then available, 22.7 percent named new and better movies, while those wanting more of the latest news totaled 1.2 percent."). I suggest there is MUCH more mileage out of spy stories/books/movies/comic books. They are not US-centric the way TV was (the US was way ahead of other countries in TV usage, and they typically purchased US TV shows.) As for consumerism, that was a dominant thread in American life since the 1920s, long before the Cold War. What I think is interesting is the link between American style consumerism and the Cold War in Europe and Japan. Rjensen (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: I wrote this as you were writing the above and got an edit conflict so I will post anyway:

Hahaha, I was just pasting in some stuff. The "blog" is by an e-book a Dr. J. Fred MacDonald, PhD History, 27 year professor of history at Northeastern Illinois University, whatever that's worth. The chronology follows the Cold War timeline, which is approximatley 1947–1991, so the prequel of the youth rebellion as well as the youth rebellion itself are fully within the period. The magazines you mention were influential in the 50's then blown away by (Americans) watching 6-8 hours of TV a day a few short years later, TV shaped in the 50s and all in the timeline. Etc.

FYI, I came to this article because I watched an episode of The Americans and wanted to know more about the Cold War. Typically, this was one of those topics where I was in great part specifically looking for a pop culture section, a cool feature of many WP articles. Often, surveying the media and other pop references to a topic gives way more context and connection to the rest of the material than the cold dry academic facts. Since that section didn't exist here, I put in some time. So you could say this effort is very much user-centric. --Tsavage (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

J. Fred MacDonald is pretty well known for his dissenting views from the left. so that's a NPOV issue. I suggest that other media were much more important in shaping the popular culture of the cold war 1945-60 in the USA than was TV. Outside the USA TV had even less influence. Rjensen (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggested bibliog: there are three reference books with MANY contributors from across the spectrum.

1. Americans At War: Society, Culture, And The Homefront: vol 4 1946 to present (2004) ...ok Confession: I was coeditor :)
2. The Guide to United States Popular Culture by Ray B. Browne and Pat Browne (2001) 1000pp, very comprehensive for entire US history
3. Encyclopaedia of Contemporary American Culture ed by Gregg, McDonogh, and Wong, (2005) 850pp, focused on 1945-2000 era with hundreds of articles related to Cold War topics. Rjensen (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

another edit conflict. Thanks, and thank god those books are likely fully digitized and searchable via Google Books.

re MacDonald, I suspected he might be on an extreme from the search results for his name. Nonetheless, it was just one source example. I have dozens of sources from reading stuff over the last few days. :)

re consumerism being USA-centric, the excerpt I added on to my comment above, Like many in American business and government, she believed the Cold War could be won with goods rather than guns. This paper analyzes the Cold War’s gendered dynamics and the ways in which business people within consumer industries worked to spread American consumerism." - Fighting Communism with Clothes: Cold War Fashion and American Consumerism, 1945-1959” seems to support the active, deliberate exportation of American pop culture along with the goods, be it fashion, movies, etc. If this is supportable, then the America NPOV issue could be nullified. Also, wasn't it during the 1950s that the US administration explicitly embraced consumerism, publicly endorsing things like planned obsolescence, all fueled by post-WWII prosperity?

I guess there is also a line between original research and encyclopedic research. I find that often when looking for something, I know pretty much what I want, I just need the details or the confirmation. It may be a small detail, like the proper name of something or an exact formula, or a broader thing, like insight into the cultural impact of the Cold War. When I don't find it, I'm still equipped to outline what I was looking for, and then maybe fill in those blanks. Original research? --Tsavage (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's more on Cold War and 1950's TV, not from MacDonald, from a different revisionist:

"A learned and astute historian, Thomas Doherty has written an extraordinary book about the close relationship between the Cold War and the rise of television...Doherty has demonstrated that the medium—a various and even feisty forum in its early days—would often challenge the prevailing creed of paranoid anti-communism....An exhilarating work of scholarship, revealing that there was another, livelier, and more complex dimension to the period of 'brinksmanship' and blacklists." — Mark Crispin Miller, New York University, and author of Boxed In: The Culture of TV In this provocative and nuanced cultural history, Doherty chronicles some of the most fascinating and ideologically charged episodes in television history: the warm-hearted Jewish sitcom The Goldbergs; the subversive threat from I Love Lucy; the sermons of Fulton J. Sheen on Life Is Worth Living; the anticommunist series I Led 3 Lives; the legendary jousts between Edward R. Murrow and Joseph McCarthy on See It Now; and the hypnotic, 188-hour political spectacle that was the Army-McCarthy hearings. Cold War, Cool Medium

--Tsavage (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

most historians date consumerism MUCH earlier in the US. there is an interesting debate going on re West Europe: "In arguing that West Germany was not “Americanized” after the war, Logemann joins a long debate about American consumer capitalism’s power, sweep, and depth of influence in the developed world through the second half of the twentieth century. In pointed contrast to Reinhold Wagnleitner’s Coca-colonization and the Cold War (1994) and Victoria de Grazia’s Irresistible Empire (2005), Logemann argues that, for all the noisy commentary, pro and con, about postwar Americanization, West Germans shaped their version of the affluent society according to deeply held and distinctly un-American values. Rather than a sweeping homogenization of the developed world, postwar affluence ran along “different paths to consumer modernity”....Instead of the “consumer-as-citizen” (whom Lizabeth Cohen, in The Consumer’s Republic [2003], defined as the main social type in postwar America), West Germans promoted the social consumer who practiced “public consumption,” which Logemann defines as “the provision of publicly funded alternatives to private consumer goods and services in areas ranging from housing to transportation or entertainment” (p. 5). " from David Steigerwald's review of Jan L. Logemann. Trams or Tailfins? Public and Private Prosperity in Postwar West Germany and the United States. (2012) in Reviews in Am Hist (March 2014) online.... On Doherty--it's a good book with a focus on 1950s (after the Cold War was well underway). My point is not that TV did not exist but that a) it became important in 1950s after the Cold War was set in place; b) it was less important in shaping ideas & moods than other media before the 1960s & therefore should not get too much attention. Rjensen (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the material. I'm reading a bunch of stuff that will hopefully circle back to the main point of a Culture section. My little bullet point outline for such a section (above) I still think makes sense, so I'm trying to refine it. The intention was to list the broad the areas that I, for one, had some idea about, but am not clear on, like, Cold War effect on TV programming, on how we perceived science and technology, on being big consumers (living with the idea of drab goods and empty shelves in the other powerful half of the world), and so forth. Even people who grew up post-Cold War would wonder about these things, given the first bit of general understanding of what the Cold War was. I also found interesting recent comments that Cold War themes are popular now because we have very similar fears and insecurities currently, minus the black and white us and them set-up of the US-USSR stand-off. --Tsavage (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

On topics, look at the table of contents of RETHINKING COLD WAR CULTURE ed by Peter J. Kuznick (2010) contents. The topics should reach far beyond the media. Think about family life, housing, interstate highways (explicit as a cold war strategy to disperse targets), impact on universities, issues of the draft/manhood/avoidance/Canada, etc.

Endless reductionist thinking will be the death of us. :) It never gets to the bottom of things, or not for long. My list above was misleading, I'm still trying to figure out the...encyclopedic way of covering all of that via the various pop media products built around the popularized Cold War themes: US-vs-USSR, nuclear weapons/MAD, conspicuous consumption-vs-Soviet austerity, technological juggernaut, and of course clandestine and cover ops/spying and such. Fail-Safe to Rocky IV. I think the scope there is manageable for a start: "In popular culture..." Trying here to tackle all of "culture" during the Cold War period in a section seems crazy, it's...everything. --Tsavage (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Communist League of the Caribbean

I'd welcome help with Anti-Communist League of the Caribbean if anyone has any expertise here. An anti-Castro group with some links to Guy Bannister of JFK assassination conspiracy theory fame. I simply don't know enough to do the article justice. Ulcerspar12 (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Neutralizing

What is a capitalist democracy? It doesn't even have a Wikipedia page buts is featured prominently in the lead. I've heard on the other hand of liberal democracy.. Another strangely unneutral remark, what does totalitarian communism mean? In general writes disagree if the Eastern Bloc or the Soviet Union were totalitarian, some call them authoritarian and some simply refer to them as dictatorships... Even if the use of these terms can be defended, it smells of POV pushing; the term "totalitarian" / "authoritarian" and "capitalist democracy" are highly ideological... I would say I live in a liberal democracy, not a capitalist democracy (without question there are far more right-wingers who use the term "capitalist democracy" then none right-wingers of any shade).

Other problems;

• "Meanwhile the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 was brutally crushed by the Soviets" - my problem here is brutally crushed, why not "was repressed by the Soviets".. The use of the word brutally clearly proves that Wikipedia is taking a side, the anti-communist side. Last time I checked the point of Wikipedia was to be neutral.. TO be clear, I agree with the view that the revolution was brutally crushed, but to actual write "brutally crushed" breaks all Wikpedia procedures against neutrality/bias.
• "The USSR crushed the 1968 Prague Spring liberalization program in Czechoslovakia and the Vietnam War (1955–1975) ended with a defeat of the US-backed Republic of South Vietnam, prompting further adjustments." - Again with the word crush, another word... Should we write that the wast majority of Vietnamese fought against what they perceived as a corrupt vassal state (that is South Vietnam)? ... Again, for some strange reason we seem to condem every wrongful action made by the communists, while neutrally on what the capitalists/liberals did ("the Vietnam War (1955–1975) ended with a defeat of the US-backed Republic of South Vietnam, prompting further adjustments"'" is neutrally written...)
• A multi-party system was introduced in the Soviet Union in 1990, which seems notable enough to mention...
• I get the strange feeling that the lead in written in a very capitalist/liberal sided view (which is of course understandable since not many former Soviets are active here, but still...)

I could say more things, but I'm tired (and I'm having a really really hard time writing grammatically correct sentences at the moment). I've only read the introduction, but from the look of it the article is highly capitalist-liberal centric (maybe even American centric) .. For instance, China is relegated to a minor role in the article (considering that China is the only country were students are forced to learn why the Soviet Union collapsed, you would have thought they would get a bigger mentioned - they themselves seem to believe it be of upmost importance..). --TIAYN (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is taking a side???? NOT. Wikipedia is reflecting the consensus of experts. That is the role here: Wiki is neutral regarding debates among the experts. words like "crush" and "brutal" are in standard use--no RS calls them benign. The pro-USSR position is now a fringe view, even in Moscow. as for "liberal" and "capitalist" -- all the countries on the one side were capitalist but not all were liberal. for some evidence look at the cites to 2800 books that say that in 1956 Hungary was "brutally crushed" Rjensen (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing that "brutal" and "crushed" are neutral and usable in Wikipedia? And even if such things were to be decided by numbers, the number you gave is not accurate because of the nature of the query, which is too inclusive - as was pointed out below. Zozs (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Rjensen: When did I say we should refer to the USSR's position? I said, the words "brutally crushed" are highly emotional.. They should be replaced with "repressed".. Repressed and "brutally crushed" give the same meaning, the major difference is that brutally crushed sounds emotional and repressed doesn't... "The pro-USSR position is now a fringe view, even in Moscow" - jupp, that's why Putin delivered a speech on the day that Crimea was formally annexed that stated more-or-less denounced the Western interpretation of history the last half century, or the fact that the communist party is the second largest party in Russia and the third largest party in Ukraine (if considering votes).. But oh well.. And of course, let's not forget China - nah, they didn't care at all that a communist party lost power did they? No.. There's no reason at all for why students are forced to learn the reasons of the Soviet Union's collapse, why it was bad (they are even told that it was victory by the imperialist camp headed by the United States)... Blahblahblah, I could go on and on.... Yes, from leading the lead, its very clear that WP is taking sides, at least morally... The term "brutally crushed", when I read them, it feels like it condeming something. Last time I checked Wikipedia can't condemn something can they?

Second, if you type correctly Hungary 1956 "brutally crushed" you only get 820 hits, but of course, if you cheat as you did, you get a lot more... But you are right, its clear that authors like to use the word "crushed" instead of "repressed".. But its also clear that the majority doesn't like to use "brutally crushed".. Only 820 hits. Thats not enough.--TIAYN (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I think emotive words are best avoided. I notice that actions by the West in Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Guyana, Congo, and Vietnam, Chile and many other places which arguably could be described in some cases as even more brutal are narrated in neutral terms. Incidentally, is it still considered accurate to say, "By the early 1980s, the USSR had built up a military arsenal and army surpassing that of the United States." TFD (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that the sentence is just left as "leaving the USSR and the US as two superpowers with profound economic and political differences" without mentioning communism, capitalism, or anything else. It is very questionable to what degree the USSR actually followed "communism". And it certainly was not a communist society. Zozs (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The neutrality rule in Wikipedia means neutrality between competing interpretations in the reliable secondary sources. Zozs misunderstands this and thinks it means neutrality between historical actors (USA, USSR). What are the competing RS that Zozs is using?? He has not told us so we can't do much with his complaints. Rjensen (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

was this not the third world war?

The term WWIII obviously sounds too fantastical to call it that and the cold war is more politically realistic and all that, but this sentence: "It was "cold" because there was no large-scale fighting directly between the two sides, although there were major regional wars in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan that the two sides supported. "

Yes of course the third war was still fought but not in terms humans could still consider of the same as wwi and wwii, because people expect the ussr and the usa to have fought a pitched war. A pitched war would have resulted in nukes and there is no more planet. Of course this accepted "vision" of how WWIII should have happened as a nuke war makes it this "mythical" thing that could never have or had happened. But then the Cold War merely took it to another level using proxy wars, entire other countries such as Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan is where WWIII was fought "smartly" in the only way a pitched WWIII could be fought without charring the planet into a black plain. So in conclusion yes WWIII was already fought, but way more intelligently, precisely from the lessons learned from the previous two wars. Heck even the term that was accepted in the 20th century, the "Cold War" is a very abiding and neutral toned one and World War III could never be accepted as a term for political reasons as the two sides are still alive and well unlike the bad guys of wwi and ii. 99.106.108.246 (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are proposing a change in this article. This is not supposed to be a place to just talk about the Cold War. Are you simply supporting the present lead? Sounds like it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead

This sentence obviously has to be removed from the lead:

profound economic and political differences over totalitarian communism and capitalist democracy.

1. The USSR was not a communist society.
2. It would be highly biased to call the USSR "totalitarian" without question.
3. Actual communism is not totalitarian. Obviously.
4. Capitalism is not always democratic. Yet this sentence is meant to make it look like capitalism implies democracy, ven if it is referencing the USA.
5. How is USSR's totalitarianism connected to the ideology of communism? And who makes this link? Original research?
6. This sentence is not even sourced.
7. How is it known if the USA is really democratic or not? Is it this article's job to determine if the USA is "democratic"? Is that accepted by all sources? Meanwhile some editors prune all references to Venezuela being "democratic", for the USA it has to be accepted without question. Nice work.
8. It is an attempt to put communism in a bad light while putting capitalism in a good light.
9. It is often contested what "totalitarianism" actually means, and in reliable sources there is much debate about what or who actually constitutes totalitarianism and who not.

I would find 1000 reasons more but this should not even need discussion. Really boring that progress on Wikipedia is so slow because there are a few political propagandists everywhere who stop even the slightest changes which deal with obviously non-neutral content. Zozs (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This is your own idiosyncratic POV which you have been trying to push across half a dozen articles. And on none of those article have you been able to get consensus for the changes nor even been able to present reliable sources to support your POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem with Zozs's line of thinking is first of all the word "obviously" - Meanwhile, s/he makes good points, but the problem is that the conflict is over the perceptions of each side and what they thought of the other. For the USA/Western Europe, they thought of themselves this way, and the Soviets the same way, in spite of strict definitions that may say otherwise. I see the problem with the implication of the way it's written, and a better way could be come up with...Hires an editor (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm unpolitical so I try to answer these questions neutrally:

1. False, UdSSR was offically communist.

2. "Totalitarian" commonly means that it's forbidden to speak in public against the government without being imprisoned. So yes, UdSSR was totalitarian.

3. "True", but then it would be called socialism. Communism is per se totalitarian and doesn't accept property rights (you should really learn about property rights and some basic economics as such as the Maslow pyramid)

4. True, capitalism only describes the economy and the relationsship of a state towards the economy, usually protecting property rights.

5. Not accepting propert rights, idea that the state must own and plan everything, total control of the economy, not allowing to speak openly and in public, aso. That's communism.

6. --

7. True, modern USA isn't a democracy anymore. Capitalism has not much to do with politics, as I said above.

8. Again: Capitalism means that the state protects property rights, communism does the opposite. Which one would you prefer? The true opposite of communism is democracy, not capitalism: Modern China for instance is communistic and capitalistic. China is no democracy. In the other hand, USA is an alleged democracy. In reality, USA is much more communistic as it seems: It's rather a pseudo-democracy.

9. See my answer under 2., 3. and 5.

After all, I don't know much about Venuezuela and if the governments accepts and protects property rights. But if it does, it's not communistic, rather socialistic. However, there exists also totalitarian socialism. Actually "totalitarism" is the true opposite of democracy: No elections, or forged elections, are also totalitaristic. Moreover, what most people don't understand: Karl Marx was not a socialist, but a communist (actually the inventor of communism). However, not everything he said was wrong, especially that capitalism won't work without socialism. In a highly developed, socialistic society, people have basic right for food and shelter, no matter how poor they are. A state which doesn't provide this is not only unsocial, but actually very incapable. All of our political system have huge limitations and incapabilities, though. That's because there are still only a few people in power, and they are mostly the wrong ones, because they're usually not wise guys but often corrupt criminals. A minority on earth is fighting a war against the majority: A war against humanity. In a functioning system, power leads to responsability and peace, but in our world it usually leads to abuse and war. That's how it is.

Hope this helped, 178.197.236.97 (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that the local team of right-wing propagandists at this article keep from removing tags such as "disputed" or "citation needed" in order to protect unsourced, POV original research. Zozs (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you read up on WP:CIV and WP:NPA, because you're pretty close to drawing administrative intervention if you don't mind your language.

I also suggest you read some Archie Brown. Obviously when we (echoing reliable sources) talk about the USSR or East Germany or Benin being "Communist", we don't imagine for a second that these places embodied the realization of Marx' vision. However, they had ruling parties that called themselves communist and that claimed to be working toward that objective. That is the common meaning of "Communist state", and no amount of semantic games is going to change that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The lead doesn't have any references as a stylistic choice, which is our option for leads. WP:CITELEAD for more on that topic. Hires an editor (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that using Wikipedia is a device for pushing a political POV and sabotaging articles by e.g. removing tags which ask for citations would be a bigger offense than calling out editors in that their editing seems to be biased, using completely civil language in fact. This discussion is not personal however, so that is irrelevant.

First of all, if it isn't communism, don't call it communism just because that's a favorite term of the media. Use the term Marxist-Leninist state. You can't re-define words to mean what you want. If people don't understand it, that's fine, this is not Simple English Wikipedia.

Second, don't call the ideology (communism) "totalitarian", putting it in contrast with capitalism being "democratic": state that the states were totalitarian.

Third, don't put all the Marxist-Leninist states and all the stages they went through in the same bag and call them totalitarian, because the degree of authoritarianism was different in East Germany as it was in the USSR and it varied radically in different stages (for example: Stalin era contrasted to Gorbachev era).

Fourth, don't affirm that any of these states, at any stage, were totalitarian, without question, in the lead of an article which is not even the main article for these states, because that's incredibly biased, because it's original research, because what totalitarianism even means, or who constitutes it, is fully contested by reliable sources.

Fifth, don't do all of this without any sources.

Sixth, don't use the Cold War article to push a POV, at the behest of the rest of the editor base, who may not have noticed it.

Understand? Zozs (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I also suggest that, from the following paragraph:

"Photograph of the Berlin Wall taken from the West side. The Wall was built in 1961 to prevent East Germans from fleeing Communism and to stop an economically disastrous drain of workers. It was an iconic symbol of the Cold War and its fall in 1989 marked the approaching end of the War."

The word Communism is removed, which would make it pretty much perfect. Zozs (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Zozs has a peculiar set of personal views that are not shared by the reliable sources. Indeed he gives no sources whatever. That means they are personal POV and our job as editors is to transcend this and rely on the reliable sources. Rjensen (talk) 03:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

So which sources assert that the Cold War was a battle between "totalitarianism and democracy"? How can that be an universal and not a biased view? And even if presented as so - the current state of the article still tries to make a link between communism and totalitarianism, and capitalism and democracy. It is not this article's job to make that link.

On the Cold War as the confrontation of cold war liberty and totalitarianism, start with Isaiah Berlin: George Crowder (2004). Isaiah Berlin: Liberty, Pluralism and Liberalism. Polity. p. 43. Rjensen (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If we are going to take that source seriously then why not add in the Marxism article that it is an "ideology fundamentally opposed to individual liberty", which it argues as well as it argues that the Cold War was the fight between "freedom" and the opposite? Come on. Ridiculous. Zozs (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

. Goodness, Zozs read that book in six minutes! Amazing. that source is MUCH better than using zero sources. Isaiah Berlin was one of the most influential historians of ideas of the 20th century. Rjensen (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately or not you cannot take one or a few whole books and sum them up your own way to end up with the sentence: "as two superpowers with profound economic and political differences over totalitarian communism and capitalist democracy", as that would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. Anyway, your source seems to be talking about one POV, one way to look at it. Zozs (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that from the current sentence: "leaving the USSR and the US as two superpowers with profound economic and political differences over totalitarian communism and capitalist democracy", either "over totalitarian communism and capitalist democracy" is removed, or it is changed for: "over Marxism-Leninism and capitalism". Zozs (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we can ignore Zozs' personal pov. He repeatedly refuses repeated requests to identify the reliable sources he ought to be using. Perhaps he has none, in which case we have only his random thoughts. Rjensen (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The Cat-Dog war was a war which happened in the year 2504 and a battle between cats and dogs. I am now going to start to write an article on it which cannot be removed until someone finds a reliable source disproving it. Zozs (talk) 04:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

That indeed is exactly the right project for Zozs to spend his energies on. Rjensen (talk) 06:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

So, in a very quick, brief look at the communism article, I see where Zozs is coming from: partly an incomplete understanding of what the full breadth and depth of what the word communism means as opposed to Marxism-Leninism (M-L is a big driver in Soviet thought for how they should proceed in world affairs, by going out and being imperialist in their own right and make the world over into a communist system, which they succeeded in doing to some degree via their satellite/buffer states), and partly misunderstanding who the Soviets thought of themselves, and how the West thought of them, which is to say: communists. They were the Communist Party, after all, espousing communism, not just M-L. Communism is a broader (and so, more correct) term that explains who the Soviets thought they were, and who their enemies thought they were, too. And, the same thing on the flip side: even though Britain and France and Germany (and other Western European states) were more on the Socialist side of things, they were definitely still capitalist in their ideology, and the Americans took a few pages from the Socialist play book, too. The Western side was also definitely democracies in one way or another, even though "republican" is a more accurate term, it's not how they style themselves. While the Soviets and company would never style themselves as "totalitarian", that is in fact what they were. Authoritarian is not a strong enough term, in my opinion. It just doesn't adequately describe what the situation on the ground was. Hires an editor (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think I perfectly understand both what communism, socialism, Marxism-Leninism and the authoritarian conditions of the Soviet system were. Now, if we're talking about "communist states" being totalitarian that's fine, but the word "totalitarian communism" just makes it look like there's this evil "communism" thing which is out to get you and there's this "capitalist democracy" to save you. But that's not even the main point here. Claiming that the USSR was "totalitarian" like it is done in this article is ridiculously POV. Not to mention subject to time. The authoritarianism of, say, the Stalin era, was completely different to that of the Kruschov era, or Gorbachev era. Zozs (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, when you say it like that, you show me that you haven't even read the article on totalitarianism, so you can't speak to what was going on there. Now, can you find a source to back up your idea that the Soviets were not a totalitarian regime? If you can, and post it here, I might be persuaded to propose rewording some of the profound differences in a more neutral way, but when the facts are still stated in a way that reflects reality, and you're not happy with that, either, what will you do?

And by the way, you understand "perfectly"? Really? That's insulting the rest of us who think we have a clue about this whole thing, and still disagree about what happened, how it should be worded, etc. I certainly have my own edits/opinions that have been reverted because someone didn't like them, and others have seen the same from me. You need to take yourself down a notch and realize this isn't going to be "perfectly" representative of any individual's opinion or thought process. We do the best we can together. It's not up to any one person alone. Hires an editor (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

This is starting to get annoying. This is a discussion about an article, not a discussion about editors. First you accuse me of having argumented based on "incomplete knowledge", then I claim that I think I haven't, then somehow I am insulting everyone. Somehow now I do not even know what the word "totalitarianism" means. Whatever, I have no time for such stuff. The point here is that the proof lies upon the claimant, and this is a principle here on Wikipedia. You can't claim that the sky is green even if there are no reliable sources which dispute that assertion. And yes, there may be one or two serious, independent sources (I'd be glad if someone posted them) which call the Soviet Union "totalitarian", but the vast majority of material written on it doesn't. Rjensen's particular source isn't very good, as the book itself admits that it is displaying one POV. "Totalitarianism" is a hotly contested word and mostly used by the mainstream media or POV sources, and mostly avoided by serious historiography. Let's put ourselves in the situation that there was enough material here to be able to actually call the "USSR" totalitarian - so far there is not, accordnig to what has been brought up in this talk. Even in that theoretical case, using the lead of the "Cold War" article to display that information is abusive. Given the controversy of this, it is a subject which would better belong discussed in some section of the article. And even in this case, "profound economic and political differences over totalitarian communism and capitalist democracy" is a non-neutral sentence which could be much better reworded, made to not abuse WP:SYNTH and stick to what reliable sources say. The "Cold War" article has existed on Wikipedia for what, a decade? But that sentence is at most about two weeks old. It clearly was never essential for it to be there. Zozs (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

In fact it is embarrassing that this is attempted in the Cold War article when, for the Soviet Union article, talk archives, with discussions which keep repeating themselves, from 9 years ago were already arguing about including the word totalitarianism and the consensus, every single time, is that the word totalitarianism was and is not to be included in the Soviet Union article - much less in the Cold War article's lead. I suggest editors here to review the talk archives of the Soviet Union article about "totalitarianism", because this stuff has already been argued ad infinitum and common sense - what I am suggesting to do - is what has been done, both now and years ago, in related articles. Zozs (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a biased description of the conflict, and one which one would not expect to find in a neutral source. Few of any of the countries attacked by Western powers during the Cold War could be described as Communist, and the regimes that they appointed were not democracies. Few of the countries supported by the Soviet Union could be described as Communist, although many were capitalist and/or democratic. TFD (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

That is a good point. A few allies of the USA in the Cold War were dictatorships. You definitely can't sum this war up as "totalitarianism vs. democracy". Zozs (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

In the third world it was virtually all of them, and was defended at the end of the Cold War by the Kirkpatrick Doctrine. TFD (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm...a couple of things: we are discussing a particular editor's behavior in trying to accomplish a change. First is his arrogance, second is his lack of diplomacy in trying to build consensus or find a way to come up with wording that might be satisfactory to all parties, third is his seeming lack of knowledge of the things he is talking about. Second thing: the way it's written needs to be fixed. I agree. But it's hard to agree when you take such an emphatic, adamant stand and refuse to work with anyone, and treat us like we don't know what we're talking about. You have STILL not produced anything to support your viewpoint, except for discussion archives of what other people think on another article about how to portray something. You're wasting keystrokes trying to make your point unless you can show that you have done your homework and put some effort into this thing you claim to care so much about. Hires an editor (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not getting lured into your "discussion about persons rather than the article". I have already thoroughly explained multiple arguments. And I have suggested two ways to make it neutral. Another major point is that many of the Western countries were NOT democracies - whereas the current way it is worded makes it sound like the opposite. Zozs (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Your arguments are unpersuasive, and your demeanor is worse. Try to come up with a better alternative on this talk page, and take down the tone/fervor of your frustration. The way you're handling this is not accomplishing your goals. Try to work with the rest of us, instead of dictating what you want to see happen. And you still haven't produced a reliable source to support your arguments. Hires an editor (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop trying to focus this discussion on myself. I will ask you one question: are you in favor or against removing the phrase "totalitarian communism and capitalist democracy"? And why? And if you are, then why not do it? It seems that you are stuck in thinking that there must be something to replace it. Zozs (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It is sad that this biased phrase in the lead is being kept by 2 people who refuse to make any arguments here but immediately revert. Zozs (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It's even sadder that one editor has no RS to support his position. Everyone here will find it valuable to read the epilogue to Abbott Gleason, Totalitarianism pp 211-16 when after Communism fell the Russians came to realized they had lived in a totalitarian regime. the chapter is online at Amazon Rjensen (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I tried to answer all your question 1.-9., have a look above. You should really read the books or at least some Wikipedia articles. Not everything on Wikipedia is propaganda... --178.197.236.97 (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The USSR was NOT a communist society. The idea of a communist country is nonsense, as a communist society would have no state. Most articles on Wikipedia are full of propaganda, most of it from supporters of the American regime. 81.129.175.158 (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of biased sentence needed

• "The United States remained as the world's only superpower"

Cuckoo?! Please remove this sentence because it's all wrong. Otherwise go travelling to China, modern Russia, India or Brazil. And also the EU should be considered a super power. With that sentence the author just proved his lack of geography and international knowledge. But there is a world outside the USA, did you know? You may write: "In the aftermath the United States sees itself as the alleged world's only superpower.'' Stay neutral. Our planet has 6 superpowers, that's an undeniable fact --178.197.236.97 (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The "only thing wrong" is your assertion for multiple reasons. First, you claiming that the US is not a superpower is an opinion as well. Second, the EU is not a nation, it is an alliance of nations. You would not claim that organizations such as the EU and the UN are superpowers because they are only alliances of nations committed to preserving the peace in their respective areas. Third, by claiming that the world has "6 superpowers", AND THEN CLAIMING THAT IT IS "undeniable fact" AND "international knowledge" is VERY MUCH biased. You are a hippocratic and have no personal opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.62.178.9 (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

let's stick with the experts: Prof Dr Sven Biscop, ‎& Thomas Renard - 2013 say " the United States is likely to remain the only superpower for years to come"; Martin SMITH 2013 says "As the world's only superpower the US is bound to be...."; Holsti (2013) says ", given America's unquestioned status as the world's only superpower"; etc etc Rjensen (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

We discussed this before. Before 1989 there were two superpowers, and after 1989 only the U.S. remained. While it could be that since the end of the Cold War a multi-polar world has emerged or the concept of a superpower is no longer meaningful, the sentence itself is correct. TFD (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Karabell references

There are several references in this article named "Karabell", which I assume is Zachary Karabell. However, the title(s), ISBN(s), etc. don't seem to be present. (Or if they are, I am missing them.) Can someone more familiar with the gathering of these citations take a look at this? Thanks KConWiki (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Other Proxy Wars

I feel that other proxy wars, such as those on the playing field should be included. Those such as the American-Soviet gold medal basketball game of 1972, the Philadelphia Flyers vs. Soviet Red Army Game of 1976, and the American "Miracle Team" vs. Soviet Olympic Team of 1980. This is only a suggestion, however. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.62.178.9 (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sports is listed in the Culture during the Cold War article. Please feel free to add/edit material in that article related to the events that you list. Hires an editor (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Venezuelan Cold War

The Caribbean was very significant globally during the Cold War and venezuelan president Romulo Betancourt had an important and controversial role. The political environment was very complex because two sometimes conflicting political currents had then become important. The Caribbean nations were experiencing significant national political revolutions and changes and they were also often deeply embroiled within the Cold War tensions.

As a young man Betancourt was expelled from Venezuela for radical agitation and he moved to Costa Rica where he founded and led a number of radical and Communist student groups. In the early 1930s, while in Costa Rica, he became at age 22, the leader of that country's Communist Party. In 1937, after resigning from the Comunist Party and returning to Venezuela, he founded the Partido Democrático Nacional, which became an official party in 1941 as Acción Democrática (AD). The Colombian leader Jorge Eliécer Gaitán claimed that Betancourt had "offered him arms and money to launch a revolution in Colombia" which was part of Betancourt's apparent plan to build a solid phlanx of leftwing regimes in the Caribbean. It was alleged by Azula Barrera and Columian President Mariano Ospina Pérez that Betancourt had helped lead the armed rising at the 1948 Inter-American Conference that left more than a thousand people dead, and among these was the political asassination of Jorge Eliécer Gaitán.

Betancourt was a strong advocate for armed insurrection and revolution, but his focus was upon national and regional priorities rather than Cold War priorities. Fidel Castro took a contrasting perspective and following the Cuban Revolution lead Cuba directly into the center of the Cold War. Betancourt did support the Cuban revolution initially with fifty million dollars, but would later distance himself and Venezuela from Castro's Cold War focus.

As president of Venezuela (1959-1964) Betancourt also faced determined opposition from extremists and rebellious army units, yet he continued to push for economic and educational reform. A fraction split from the AD and formed the Revolutionary Left Movement (MIR). When leftists were involved in unsuccessful revolts at navy bases in 1962 (El Carupanazo, (Carúpano) and El Porteñazo Puerto Cabello) and El Barcelonazo, Betancourt suspended civil liberties. Elements of the left parties then formed the Armed Forces for National Liberation (FALN), a communist guerrilla army to fight him. The FALN were engaged in rural and urban guerrilla activities, including sabotaging oil pipelines, bombing a Sears Roebuck warehouse, Alfredo Di Stefano kidnapping, and bombing the United States Embassy in Caracas. FALN failed to rally the rural poor and to disrupt the December 1963 elections

After numerous attacks, he finally arrested the MIR and Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV) members of Congress. It became clear that a leftist Fidel Castro had been arming the rebels, so Venezuela protested to the Organization of American States (OAS) and Cuba was fired of hemispheric organization.

Raggz (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[Stalins] ... hope that the weapon would be used against Japan. note 36 b

Gaddis 2005, p. 25 writes the contrary: "The Soviet leader showed little surprise, therefore, when Truman gave him the news at the Potsdam Conference — he had learned about the bomb long before the new American president had done so. But Stalin reacted strongly when the United States went ahead and used the weapon against the Japanese three weeks later. A test in the desert was one thing. An actual weapon actually employed was something else again. 'War is barbaric, but using the A-bomb is a superbarbarity,' Stalin complained after learning how Hiroshima had been destroyed." --194.230.159.164 (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Sokratztes