Talk:X Article

Merge from Long telegram

This text wasn't easily substituted for what was already in here, so I include it here in case it's useful to anyone. Any expansion should probably discuss the LT section by section.

• Lists the common views of prominent Soviet political figures.
• Quotes and discusses Lenin's opinion on Capitalism.
• Relates the Bolshevik Revolution to the Fall of the Roman Empire.
• Blames Stalin for the decline of Lenin's Communist theories.
• Charges that the Soviet leaders terrorize the citizens to keep the power in their own hands.
• Blames Stalin for putting down any kind of opposition.
• Warns that it would be hard for Americans to deal with the Soviets because of the ideology and other factors.
• Suggests that the Soviet Union's influence on "free" Western institutions can be stopped through the creation of conflicts and problems at various locations.
• Suggests that a power struggle within the party may change Soviet Russia from being a superpower to a much weaker country.
• Concludes by arguing that the United States must do anything it can to destroy the Soviet Union, in an unknown amount of time.

--Dhartung | Talk 15:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

X-article vs. The long telegram

According to Wikipedia, it seems as if the "X-article" (orig. titled "The Sources of Soviet Conduct") and "The Long Telegram" is infact the same submission. I don't agree with this, since "The Long Telegram" was sent to James Byrnes on the 22. Feb. 1946, while Kennan served as deputy head of the U.S. mission in Moscow. The "X-article" was indeed first published in july 1947 after Kennan had returned to the U.S. Moreover the latter was a whole lot shorter than the 16 pages Long Telegram. So, the quiestion is; why is the two documents presented as one on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drweberdk (talk • contribs) 21:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The article could be more clear, but The Long Telegram can be seen as the rough draft of the X Article. They are very similar in content, although it was pretty heavily rewritten. The major points are the same, and the historical impact is very closely related. It does make some sense to handle them in the same article, although I didn't actually support the merger myself. --Dhartung | Talk 07:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be 2 sections to the article-- one dealing with the long telegram, and one dealing with the x article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.117.218 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguity

• Socialism and social democracy were perceived as enemies, not allies;

Of the USSR, of the USA, or of each other? And perceived by Kennan, or by the Soviet government? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Townmouse (talk • contribs) 21:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• exonomic -- what exactly does this mean? it is not defined in wikipedia, or in any dictionary I can find. I'm guessing it means something like "extra-economic..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.117.218 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

NSC-68

From wikipedia's own article about NSC-68: "NSC-68 called for a massive buildup of and an increase in funding for the armed forces in an effort to contain the Soviets."

From this article: "The Long Telegram called for exonomic pressures against the USSR, whereas NSC-68 called for economic pressures."

I don't think the interpretation of NSC-68 as outlined in this wikipedia entry about the x article is entirely correct. NSC-68 called for much more than economic pressures, and is the document at the root of forgein policies that ultimitly led to the Vietnam War. In fact, I would argue that NSC-68 is primarily about direct military pressure on the Soviet Union and the uselessness of economic pressure not supported by military strength. The section on "Impact of the Long Telegram" should be reworked and expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.117.218 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Watch this article

I recently removed the sentence, "Rebecca Dulemba conquered communism," from this article. I also found that formerly the sentence read "Rebecca Dulemba conquered communism with her righteous might. Bo and Eric helped. A little." Please if you're going to edit remove all the junk, thank you. --Philip B. 00:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism is a fact of life on Wikipedia. I (and probably other editors) have the article on my watchlist, but I still can't check it every day. Your assistance is appreciated and will continue to be. --Dhartung | Talk 05:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

References subsection

• I added a References subsection, this article has sourced in the EL section, but need to be added as citations as well... Smee 23:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Alert: new book on Kennan

(Reading Wiki articles on Kennan, very grateful to all of you for the Long Telegram transcript.) John Lukacs has a major new book just out from Yale University Press, George Kennan: a Study of Character. Since Kennan only recently passed away, at 101, there probably will be material and opinions nobody cared to publish during his lifetime. On July 6, 2007 Josef Joffe gave it a strong review in WSJ. Anyone interested in raising Kennan articles to professional standards will have to deal with it, and I hope one of us will. Profhum 05:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Profhum

Publication as the X Article

This section is not accurate. It needs to be rewritten to reflect the true origin of the X Article. It was actually a private report from Kennan to Forrestal in January 1947. Only after Kennan had spoken informally at the Council of Foreign Relations (January 47 also) did Hamilton Armstrong ask for something in writing and Kennan got approval (March 47) to provide the Forrestal report anonymously for Foreign Affairs (July 47 issue). It also was not a direct public treatment of the Long Telegram but it was clearly based on the same ideas that Kennan had expressed in the Long Telegram (I wouldn't have expected his own ideas to change). I'll try to tackle this in a couple of weeks if no one else does. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 02:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I made an effort to improve the article. I still think the Long Telegram needs its own article because it is not the X Article. There should be enough of a story behind the telegram to warrant a separate article and it would reduce confusion over the subject. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 18:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)