This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Origins of the Cold War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article could do a lot better at NOVA. Sarcasm and scare quotes should be either removed or replaced with descriptions of the rival Pavlovas. The claim that Stalin was not interested in foreign adventures and took eastern Europe only for defensive reasons is not consistent with the terms of the Hitler-Stalin pact. There is no mention of the USSR's takeover of Czechoslovakia when it agreed to take Marshall plan aid. No mention of Moscow's control of foreign communist movements. No mention of the popular front strategy! The USSR's demobilization is mentioned but the US's is not. and so on.
Yes, we are dealing with a paranoid regime that constantly saw its ideological prejudices reaffirmed. And yes, the USSR was at its heart hostile to the "bourgeois capitalist" world. However, the Soviets were never willing to compromise the survival of their for the sake of International Communism. Eben as far back as the Brest-Litovsk negotiations with Germany in the 1917, the hotheads and the romanticists in the party would give way to temporary expedients to preserve Bolshevik and later Communist rule in Russia. BTW, this isn't the thesis of the revisionist pinkos. This is essentially George Kennan's thesis on Soviet foreign policy. This school of thought is as "authorized" and "orthodox" as it comes. (BTW, his Russia and the West under Lenin and Stalin is a good abridgement, if anyone's interested).
I don't have time to continue editing the article at present (and don't want to be pushy anyway) but I will comment on a few things.
The US and Britain's desire for a healthy Germany is stated twice without justification. You seem to be hinting at a motive different from both Stalin's conspiratorial view and the anti-punitive view. Why was Germany especially important to US economic prosperity? I hope it doesn't seem far-fetched that the US should want to avoid repeating acts that it saw as contributing to the outbreak of WW2, just as Stalin wanted to avoid them from his POV.
When I referred to Stalin's control of foreign communist parties, that was without limitation. Were there any countries following WW2 where the primary communist party (Communist Party of X) did not receive its official positions and sometimes material support from Moscow? As for Stalin's use of the parties, I was not referring to diplomatic bargaining; the focus was on Stalin's use of communist parties to represent his political interests in democratic states, and to organize guerilla movements in others. This was Soviet policy before and after WW2. CNN's interview with Sergo Beria is informative on this point.
There are now three independent paragraphs on the Greek affair, which is not desirable in the long term. Of course it's appropriate to mention the character of the Greek government, but the present text seems to imply that the US and Britain liked it that way and misrepresented it publicly. Truman's speech was clear that his stated objective was not to support an idealized democracy, but to secure Greece against communist takeover so that a democratic government could develop. Of course the practical results of this theory were varied and often strained the credibility of US policy, but the article can at least present the theory accurately.
The 1948 Italian elections fall within the time period of the article and are just as important to the development of Cold War strategy as the Greek affair.
The above assessment of communist party activities in countries outside the USSR looks accurate to me. One reading of Homage to Catalonia is enough to see the manner in and extent to which Stalin used foriegn communist parties almost exclusively for the benefit of the USSR.
There was a bit of a POV creep that had gone unnoticed for a while. [1] I failed to notice it given that the vast majority of recent changes have been quite good. I removed an off-topic commentary on the contradictions of containment (while not pointing out the contradictions in the Soviets brandishing their role in leading the "anti-imperialist" and "progressive" camp) that someone had managed to stick into the subsection on the Truman Doctrine. 172 23:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The very first section which is entitled "Czarist Russia and the West". Oddly, the spelling 'tsar' occurs five times in this article while 'czar' only occurs one time (not counting the section heading). Am I just confused, or are these two separate words? I thought they were just different spellings. Anyone want to clarify/modify?
Both mean the same thing. The etymology (according to Dictionary.com) is complex, hence the multiple spellings. Tsar is the preferred spelling, as it is closest to the old Russian word "tssar". Czar most likely comes from kaiser and/or caesar.
How do you guys suggest i add this?-- Striver 12:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The sections "major schools" and "postwar warning" must be removed. Churchill's speech, while important, does not warrant its own large section. While other parts of the article are very underdeveloped, such a section gives the speech undue weight. The "major schools" section does not fit into the structure of Wikipedia's coverage on the Cold War. Historiography is currently discussed in the main entry. 172 | Talk 06:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The following essay was entered by User:Robertson-Glasgow, but was too much for the main article. Rather than just arbitrarily enter into the main part of this article, I'm submitting it here for comment.
The Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries have, quite appropriately, been depicted collectively as the era of nationalism. New nations surfaced in Western and Central Europe all through the Nineteenth Century, in Eastern Europe and the Middle East through the early Twentieth Century, and in Asia and Africa halfway through the Twentieth Century. Thus was a multitude of states added to the family of man.
Not only did new nations materialize, however, but they also started to develop matching qualities and characters. The present-day country may be pigeonholed according to its establishments of law, government and civil service; its road and rail transportation; its agricultural and industrial development; the development of new social classes and groups; and (to complete but a brief list) the growth of its military power.
While most western states have analogous attributes, it is worthwhile noting that they do not all possess them to the same degree: some are prosperous and urbanized; others are deprived and underdeveloped. Although the quantity of European states has augmented, many of them have continued to be subjugated by the super powers of the world -- viz. before the 1920s by Russia, Hungary Germany, France, Britain and Austria, and post-WWII by the USSR and the USA.
It is not all that astounding, therefore, that relations between states prior to 1945 went against the notion of a balance of power, operating solely in the Concert of Europe and in the pacts formed by the great powers. Intercontinental teamwork in the era of nationalism had very limited importance, which meant that co-operation between countries took place on a very limited scale.
It was in the Twentieth Century, particularly after World War I, that a fresh attitude towards global associations was espoused. The peace-makers considered one way of achieving safety and harmony to be the founding of an organisation which would represent the family of man. This became known as the League of Nations.
This concept of internationalism matured at an erratic snail's pace between the two Wars. In spite of the collapse of the League, internationalism was kept active during the Second World War by the Allied Powers, who, in their assorted pronouncements (Yalta, Teheran and Moscow), were resolute in their endeavour at setting up a new international body to help to rearrange the post-War world. Thus, in 1945, the United Nations Organisation (UNO) and its diverse agencies were instituted.
The understanding has grown from 1945 that this planet is a "global village", that the nations of the world cannot subsist in seclusion of one another and that the dilemmas of the post-War epoch (racial discrimination, poverty, autonomy and civil liberties, and the use of nuclear weapons) are anxieties for all. The interdependence of the international hamlet serves to lay emphasis on the significance of the internationalism which the UNO and its affiliates seek to represent.
The initiative of internationalism in the post-War age, therefore, is far more burly than it was in the inter-War episode of 1920 to '39. Most nations, large and small, are UNO limbs, viewing the establishment as a round table on which to lay down the matters of war and peace, as well as the copious other hitches of contemporary existence. These countries understand the requirement for an organisation which views all of these human problems within the general milieu of the world community, for the problems of some are indeed the problems of all.
This coming out of the global village owed partially to the intercontinental scope of WWII, which concerned every continent -- and also, to some extent, because of the industrial and scientific progress of transportation and infrastructure, reducing physical expanses and obliterating the traditional remoteness of the little community. What happens today in one part of the world is known by the rest of the world tomorrow.
The mounting realisation of the economic independence of the global village has also had a say in forming this international standpoint. Few countries are adequately self-reliant, and world trade has served to stress the need for mankind's economic accord.
It is this broader aspect of the Twentieth-Century world that the UNO and its agencies have tried to keep going. Our world is still very much snowed-under by patriotism, but internationalism accentuates other perspectives which are important if the human community is to survive and develop.
Hires an editor 11:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the section "Conflicting visions of postwar reconstruction" is essentially identical to the passage that opens the section titled "From Cold Peace to Cold War" in Chapter One of David Reynolds' book "One World Divided". Is this acceptable?!?!
202.89.154.179 05:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
It says that President Truman issued the first peacetime military draft in 1948. That is NOT true. The first peacetime draft was by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940, one year before the U.S. entered World War II.
--User: cbhadha, 20 April 2008
When Immanuel Wallerstein says, that the troops of both sides faced each other on the Oder-Neisse-Line, he is wrong, hence this line is the eastern border of Germany (than the soviet occupied East-Germany) with Poland. The red army was far more west than Oder-Neisse, respectively at the line where the inner German border was. -- El bes ( talk) 01:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to contain a lot of abstract theorizing and explorations of less relevant pre-1941 history, but not too much on how the sequence of events in the five crucial post-WW2 years appeared to people at the time. In the U.S., Stalin's blatant failure to keep his promise to hold free elections in Poland was something of a shock, and this was succeeded by a whole series of events in 1948-1949 which appeared to many people (not just fringe paranoids) to be part of a concerted Communist plan of aggression -- the Czech coup, communist victory in the Chinese civil war, the Berlin crisis, etc. -- with the attack on south Korea in 1950 being the crowning blow. There's currently discussion of some of these events, but others are alluded to quite briefly, and there's no real attempt made to place them all in a coherent chronological sequence of events. AnonMoos ( talk) 03:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Origins of the Cold War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has requested assistance at
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a dispute about
Talk:Origins_of_the_Cold_War#13,000_byte_massacre_by_Volunteer_Marek. The discussion is located at
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Origins_of_the_Cold_War#13,000_byte_massacre_by_Volunteer_Marek. This template is only a talk page banner - the dispute must be listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard for editors to respond. |
Nobody butchers 13,000 bytes, sourced ones at that, out of an article without discussing it thoroughly, User:Volunteer Marek. And non-NPOV is the condition I found this article in. GPRamirez5 ( talk) 21:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
"Some historians have argued that the Cold War began"with Operation Sunrise; according to the op-ed,
"Historians speculate that the Cold War in fact started with the negotiations between Wolff and Dulles on March 8, 1945, in Lucerne."TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 23:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
I think you kids may need to step away from the holiday egg nog, or the computer, or both. Page i, among other pages, in the Cambridge University Press book on Dulles and Wolff connect it to the Cold War. GPRamirez5 ( talk) 23:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Here's a free one: The so-called "Inglorious Basterds review" is perfectly admissible because 1) the author himself is a notable historian, and 2) it only mentions the film because an OSS devotee had already publicly raised historical issues in relationship to it. This is noted in the article, but of course it's not the first time I've had to point out something which was very clear to those who spent more than thirty seconds reading the source. Cheers. GPRamirez5 ( talk) 03:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
GPRamirez5 ( talk) 15:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
How many words in Wikipedia overall wasn't what I was asking. (Otherwise you would've been remiss in not throwing in World War I and World War II)) I mean how many words—and/or bytes—does the topic "Origins of the Cold War" merit? Just a rough estimate. I'd also like User:My very best wishes to answer since he raised the issue.- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 00:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Cold War is the summary article actually. This one is expected to be more detailed. Just a rough estimate, User:My very best wishes, thanks- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 00:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Well of course, the corresponding section is barely more than a stub. But this article can only lead readers to more specific topics, like say Western intelligence recruitment of war criminals, if it actually mentions them, right?- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 01:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Side comment on Kerstin von Lingen: The link to the book by Lingen is interesting: [10]. She has a page on de.wiki ( Kerstin von Lingen) and appears to be a notable historian. I would consider her book to be an RS for the topic of Karl Wolff. There are also multiple mentions of the Cold War in the index, such as "Cold war and Operation Sunrise". This is an interesting source and should be included. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Every single one of my facts regarding Wolff and northern Italy is documented, and the event is considered relevant. They were challenged in ignorance--with not even a counter-proposal of wording offered. You need to show some interest in working cooperatively.- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 20:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Semantic nonsense, My very best wishes. 90 percent of this article isn't explicitly about the origins of the Cold War (especially the parts of the article that refer to post-1947!).
- Encyclopedia of the Cold War (Routledge, 2013), p. 271
- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 04:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
RJensen if you're trying to be more internationalist, you're doing it wrong. Mao, and Kim, and Ho were around long before 1947. Ho Chi Minh went to lobby Wilson for self-determination at Versailles in 1919. Ready to put that in the article?- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 15:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 16:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
For the record, here is my response to yours:
The above quote is from one of my original sources cited. Being a recent monograph published by a university press, it is in fact the "standard work" on the subject, contrary to User:Rjensen's claim. What he claims is the standard work comes from the website of a lawyer, Stephen Halbrook, with no track record in Cold War history.
Also contrary to Rjensen, it can't be a "little" or "minor" episode when Roosevelt and Stalin were directly dragged into it (very peculiar logic). Their extensive correspondence is posted on Michigan State University's official Soviet history website.
Rjensen's argument actually illustrates what I'm referring to. The belittling of university level sources, and second-guessing of the peer-reviewed contents. Furthermore, Marek claimed that the source didn't connect Wolff and Sunrise to the origins of the Cold War, when in fact, it clearly does. - GPRamirez5 ( talk) 13:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah it's ironic, the only thing that paper has to do with law is Dulles' shielding of a war criminal from Nuremberg and Halbrook completely sidestepped it.- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 19:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
What is consensus on the dates of the cold war?- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 19:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I've asked a simple question, Marek, why can't you answer it?- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 22:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
...maybe it's so self-evident that you're wrong that a mea culpa would be cruel...After all, there's a longstanding article for Cold War (1947-1953). This is the first section of a dated chronological series going up to 1991, indicating that the origins of the Cold War lie prior to 1947.- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 16:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Why remove this content? My very best wishes ( talk) 20:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The idea is that the body of the
cold war is post-1946, and the *Origins* of same are 1946 or earlier. This content is all about post-1946, and belongs in
Cold War article, if anywhere. You can help me clarify that at this thread-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Cold_War#/talk/13
Cheers, GPRamirez5 ( talk) 21:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC) GPRamirez5 ( talk) 21:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Re:Outpost of Empire and 1949 - Berlin is not in Asia. But thanks for playing.- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 22:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
But that's what people on WP want right? Basic history topics not obscurity and obscurantism. A cold war with a coherent beginning and end, at least within a given article. Pick a date and stick with it. And please see WP:NOTEVERYTHING- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 23:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't knock middle-school texts--a middlebrow history professor with time on his hands could pick up some nice money writing those. In any case, we need the consensus dating, from a reputable middle school text or otherwise. WP:NOTEVERYTHING- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 00:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Right, well university texts aren't less than 50,000 words and written for neophytes. WP:UNDUE. WP:NOTEVERYTHING.- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 02:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
My complaint right now is quite simple: The Cold War didn't start in 1949. Even the assertion that it only reached Asia in 1949 is dubious considering that by 1947, the US and USSR already had distinct and opposing occupations in the south and the north of Korea. Either way, you're using the argument to defend inclusion of things which didn't happen in Asia--the Berlin blockade, the Marshall Plan, etc. - GPRamirez5 ( talk) 22:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Not fixed: nothing post-1946 should be here. In addition to the main Cold War article, there's a longstanding article for
Cold War (1947-1953). That is the first section of a dated chronological series going up to 1991, indicating that the
origins of the Cold War lie prior to 1947.
PS Why do you appear to be consciously avoiding the "Dates of Cold War" thread?- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 17:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
The argument is on the basis of consensus, which appears to have been a mass consensus determined by Wikipedia:Wikiproject Cold War. Your persistent and fringe emphasis on 1948 and 1949 seems to be designed to undermine that consensus.- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 23:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Yep, and last week you couldn't stop droning that the historical consensus about this global phenomenon known as the Cold War is that it began in 1947.- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 06:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
...primarily aimed at 16 to 18 year olds...
Hey, I once read about this 14 year-old girl who published history in an academic journal. In any case, it's peer-reviewed at a university press. Better than some of that Lulu.com stuff you were slapping up. - GPRamirez5 ( talk) 04:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I deleted two sections that were based verbatim on David Reynolds's 2001 book. One World Divisible: A Global History Since 1945. It was added in 2007 by user:172, a sockpuppet of a banned user. Rjensen ( talk) 05:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Origins of the Cold War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article could do a lot better at NOVA. Sarcasm and scare quotes should be either removed or replaced with descriptions of the rival Pavlovas. The claim that Stalin was not interested in foreign adventures and took eastern Europe only for defensive reasons is not consistent with the terms of the Hitler-Stalin pact. There is no mention of the USSR's takeover of Czechoslovakia when it agreed to take Marshall plan aid. No mention of Moscow's control of foreign communist movements. No mention of the popular front strategy! The USSR's demobilization is mentioned but the US's is not. and so on.
Yes, we are dealing with a paranoid regime that constantly saw its ideological prejudices reaffirmed. And yes, the USSR was at its heart hostile to the "bourgeois capitalist" world. However, the Soviets were never willing to compromise the survival of their for the sake of International Communism. Eben as far back as the Brest-Litovsk negotiations with Germany in the 1917, the hotheads and the romanticists in the party would give way to temporary expedients to preserve Bolshevik and later Communist rule in Russia. BTW, this isn't the thesis of the revisionist pinkos. This is essentially George Kennan's thesis on Soviet foreign policy. This school of thought is as "authorized" and "orthodox" as it comes. (BTW, his Russia and the West under Lenin and Stalin is a good abridgement, if anyone's interested).
I don't have time to continue editing the article at present (and don't want to be pushy anyway) but I will comment on a few things.
The US and Britain's desire for a healthy Germany is stated twice without justification. You seem to be hinting at a motive different from both Stalin's conspiratorial view and the anti-punitive view. Why was Germany especially important to US economic prosperity? I hope it doesn't seem far-fetched that the US should want to avoid repeating acts that it saw as contributing to the outbreak of WW2, just as Stalin wanted to avoid them from his POV.
When I referred to Stalin's control of foreign communist parties, that was without limitation. Were there any countries following WW2 where the primary communist party (Communist Party of X) did not receive its official positions and sometimes material support from Moscow? As for Stalin's use of the parties, I was not referring to diplomatic bargaining; the focus was on Stalin's use of communist parties to represent his political interests in democratic states, and to organize guerilla movements in others. This was Soviet policy before and after WW2. CNN's interview with Sergo Beria is informative on this point.
There are now three independent paragraphs on the Greek affair, which is not desirable in the long term. Of course it's appropriate to mention the character of the Greek government, but the present text seems to imply that the US and Britain liked it that way and misrepresented it publicly. Truman's speech was clear that his stated objective was not to support an idealized democracy, but to secure Greece against communist takeover so that a democratic government could develop. Of course the practical results of this theory were varied and often strained the credibility of US policy, but the article can at least present the theory accurately.
The 1948 Italian elections fall within the time period of the article and are just as important to the development of Cold War strategy as the Greek affair.
The above assessment of communist party activities in countries outside the USSR looks accurate to me. One reading of Homage to Catalonia is enough to see the manner in and extent to which Stalin used foriegn communist parties almost exclusively for the benefit of the USSR.
There was a bit of a POV creep that had gone unnoticed for a while. [1] I failed to notice it given that the vast majority of recent changes have been quite good. I removed an off-topic commentary on the contradictions of containment (while not pointing out the contradictions in the Soviets brandishing their role in leading the "anti-imperialist" and "progressive" camp) that someone had managed to stick into the subsection on the Truman Doctrine. 172 23:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The very first section which is entitled "Czarist Russia and the West". Oddly, the spelling 'tsar' occurs five times in this article while 'czar' only occurs one time (not counting the section heading). Am I just confused, or are these two separate words? I thought they were just different spellings. Anyone want to clarify/modify?
Both mean the same thing. The etymology (according to Dictionary.com) is complex, hence the multiple spellings. Tsar is the preferred spelling, as it is closest to the old Russian word "tssar". Czar most likely comes from kaiser and/or caesar.
How do you guys suggest i add this?-- Striver 12:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The sections "major schools" and "postwar warning" must be removed. Churchill's speech, while important, does not warrant its own large section. While other parts of the article are very underdeveloped, such a section gives the speech undue weight. The "major schools" section does not fit into the structure of Wikipedia's coverage on the Cold War. Historiography is currently discussed in the main entry. 172 | Talk 06:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The following essay was entered by User:Robertson-Glasgow, but was too much for the main article. Rather than just arbitrarily enter into the main part of this article, I'm submitting it here for comment.
The Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries have, quite appropriately, been depicted collectively as the era of nationalism. New nations surfaced in Western and Central Europe all through the Nineteenth Century, in Eastern Europe and the Middle East through the early Twentieth Century, and in Asia and Africa halfway through the Twentieth Century. Thus was a multitude of states added to the family of man.
Not only did new nations materialize, however, but they also started to develop matching qualities and characters. The present-day country may be pigeonholed according to its establishments of law, government and civil service; its road and rail transportation; its agricultural and industrial development; the development of new social classes and groups; and (to complete but a brief list) the growth of its military power.
While most western states have analogous attributes, it is worthwhile noting that they do not all possess them to the same degree: some are prosperous and urbanized; others are deprived and underdeveloped. Although the quantity of European states has augmented, many of them have continued to be subjugated by the super powers of the world -- viz. before the 1920s by Russia, Hungary Germany, France, Britain and Austria, and post-WWII by the USSR and the USA.
It is not all that astounding, therefore, that relations between states prior to 1945 went against the notion of a balance of power, operating solely in the Concert of Europe and in the pacts formed by the great powers. Intercontinental teamwork in the era of nationalism had very limited importance, which meant that co-operation between countries took place on a very limited scale.
It was in the Twentieth Century, particularly after World War I, that a fresh attitude towards global associations was espoused. The peace-makers considered one way of achieving safety and harmony to be the founding of an organisation which would represent the family of man. This became known as the League of Nations.
This concept of internationalism matured at an erratic snail's pace between the two Wars. In spite of the collapse of the League, internationalism was kept active during the Second World War by the Allied Powers, who, in their assorted pronouncements (Yalta, Teheran and Moscow), were resolute in their endeavour at setting up a new international body to help to rearrange the post-War world. Thus, in 1945, the United Nations Organisation (UNO) and its diverse agencies were instituted.
The understanding has grown from 1945 that this planet is a "global village", that the nations of the world cannot subsist in seclusion of one another and that the dilemmas of the post-War epoch (racial discrimination, poverty, autonomy and civil liberties, and the use of nuclear weapons) are anxieties for all. The interdependence of the international hamlet serves to lay emphasis on the significance of the internationalism which the UNO and its affiliates seek to represent.
The initiative of internationalism in the post-War age, therefore, is far more burly than it was in the inter-War episode of 1920 to '39. Most nations, large and small, are UNO limbs, viewing the establishment as a round table on which to lay down the matters of war and peace, as well as the copious other hitches of contemporary existence. These countries understand the requirement for an organisation which views all of these human problems within the general milieu of the world community, for the problems of some are indeed the problems of all.
This coming out of the global village owed partially to the intercontinental scope of WWII, which concerned every continent -- and also, to some extent, because of the industrial and scientific progress of transportation and infrastructure, reducing physical expanses and obliterating the traditional remoteness of the little community. What happens today in one part of the world is known by the rest of the world tomorrow.
The mounting realisation of the economic independence of the global village has also had a say in forming this international standpoint. Few countries are adequately self-reliant, and world trade has served to stress the need for mankind's economic accord.
It is this broader aspect of the Twentieth-Century world that the UNO and its agencies have tried to keep going. Our world is still very much snowed-under by patriotism, but internationalism accentuates other perspectives which are important if the human community is to survive and develop.
Hires an editor 11:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the section "Conflicting visions of postwar reconstruction" is essentially identical to the passage that opens the section titled "From Cold Peace to Cold War" in Chapter One of David Reynolds' book "One World Divided". Is this acceptable?!?!
202.89.154.179 05:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
It says that President Truman issued the first peacetime military draft in 1948. That is NOT true. The first peacetime draft was by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940, one year before the U.S. entered World War II.
--User: cbhadha, 20 April 2008
When Immanuel Wallerstein says, that the troops of both sides faced each other on the Oder-Neisse-Line, he is wrong, hence this line is the eastern border of Germany (than the soviet occupied East-Germany) with Poland. The red army was far more west than Oder-Neisse, respectively at the line where the inner German border was. -- El bes ( talk) 01:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to contain a lot of abstract theorizing and explorations of less relevant pre-1941 history, but not too much on how the sequence of events in the five crucial post-WW2 years appeared to people at the time. In the U.S., Stalin's blatant failure to keep his promise to hold free elections in Poland was something of a shock, and this was succeeded by a whole series of events in 1948-1949 which appeared to many people (not just fringe paranoids) to be part of a concerted Communist plan of aggression -- the Czech coup, communist victory in the Chinese civil war, the Berlin crisis, etc. -- with the attack on south Korea in 1950 being the crowning blow. There's currently discussion of some of these events, but others are alluded to quite briefly, and there's no real attempt made to place them all in a coherent chronological sequence of events. AnonMoos ( talk) 03:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Origins of the Cold War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has requested assistance at
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a dispute about
Talk:Origins_of_the_Cold_War#13,000_byte_massacre_by_Volunteer_Marek. The discussion is located at
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Origins_of_the_Cold_War#13,000_byte_massacre_by_Volunteer_Marek. This template is only a talk page banner - the dispute must be listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard for editors to respond. |
Nobody butchers 13,000 bytes, sourced ones at that, out of an article without discussing it thoroughly, User:Volunteer Marek. And non-NPOV is the condition I found this article in. GPRamirez5 ( talk) 21:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
"Some historians have argued that the Cold War began"with Operation Sunrise; according to the op-ed,
"Historians speculate that the Cold War in fact started with the negotiations between Wolff and Dulles on March 8, 1945, in Lucerne."TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 23:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
I think you kids may need to step away from the holiday egg nog, or the computer, or both. Page i, among other pages, in the Cambridge University Press book on Dulles and Wolff connect it to the Cold War. GPRamirez5 ( talk) 23:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Here's a free one: The so-called "Inglorious Basterds review" is perfectly admissible because 1) the author himself is a notable historian, and 2) it only mentions the film because an OSS devotee had already publicly raised historical issues in relationship to it. This is noted in the article, but of course it's not the first time I've had to point out something which was very clear to those who spent more than thirty seconds reading the source. Cheers. GPRamirez5 ( talk) 03:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
GPRamirez5 ( talk) 15:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
How many words in Wikipedia overall wasn't what I was asking. (Otherwise you would've been remiss in not throwing in World War I and World War II)) I mean how many words—and/or bytes—does the topic "Origins of the Cold War" merit? Just a rough estimate. I'd also like User:My very best wishes to answer since he raised the issue.- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 00:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Cold War is the summary article actually. This one is expected to be more detailed. Just a rough estimate, User:My very best wishes, thanks- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 00:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Well of course, the corresponding section is barely more than a stub. But this article can only lead readers to more specific topics, like say Western intelligence recruitment of war criminals, if it actually mentions them, right?- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 01:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Side comment on Kerstin von Lingen: The link to the book by Lingen is interesting: [10]. She has a page on de.wiki ( Kerstin von Lingen) and appears to be a notable historian. I would consider her book to be an RS for the topic of Karl Wolff. There are also multiple mentions of the Cold War in the index, such as "Cold war and Operation Sunrise". This is an interesting source and should be included. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Every single one of my facts regarding Wolff and northern Italy is documented, and the event is considered relevant. They were challenged in ignorance--with not even a counter-proposal of wording offered. You need to show some interest in working cooperatively.- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 20:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Semantic nonsense, My very best wishes. 90 percent of this article isn't explicitly about the origins of the Cold War (especially the parts of the article that refer to post-1947!).
- Encyclopedia of the Cold War (Routledge, 2013), p. 271
- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 04:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
RJensen if you're trying to be more internationalist, you're doing it wrong. Mao, and Kim, and Ho were around long before 1947. Ho Chi Minh went to lobby Wilson for self-determination at Versailles in 1919. Ready to put that in the article?- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 15:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 16:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
For the record, here is my response to yours:
The above quote is from one of my original sources cited. Being a recent monograph published by a university press, it is in fact the "standard work" on the subject, contrary to User:Rjensen's claim. What he claims is the standard work comes from the website of a lawyer, Stephen Halbrook, with no track record in Cold War history.
Also contrary to Rjensen, it can't be a "little" or "minor" episode when Roosevelt and Stalin were directly dragged into it (very peculiar logic). Their extensive correspondence is posted on Michigan State University's official Soviet history website.
Rjensen's argument actually illustrates what I'm referring to. The belittling of university level sources, and second-guessing of the peer-reviewed contents. Furthermore, Marek claimed that the source didn't connect Wolff and Sunrise to the origins of the Cold War, when in fact, it clearly does. - GPRamirez5 ( talk) 13:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah it's ironic, the only thing that paper has to do with law is Dulles' shielding of a war criminal from Nuremberg and Halbrook completely sidestepped it.- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 19:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
What is consensus on the dates of the cold war?- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 19:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I've asked a simple question, Marek, why can't you answer it?- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 22:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
...maybe it's so self-evident that you're wrong that a mea culpa would be cruel...After all, there's a longstanding article for Cold War (1947-1953). This is the first section of a dated chronological series going up to 1991, indicating that the origins of the Cold War lie prior to 1947.- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 16:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Why remove this content? My very best wishes ( talk) 20:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The idea is that the body of the
cold war is post-1946, and the *Origins* of same are 1946 or earlier. This content is all about post-1946, and belongs in
Cold War article, if anywhere. You can help me clarify that at this thread-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Cold_War#/talk/13
Cheers, GPRamirez5 ( talk) 21:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC) GPRamirez5 ( talk) 21:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Re:Outpost of Empire and 1949 - Berlin is not in Asia. But thanks for playing.- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 22:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
But that's what people on WP want right? Basic history topics not obscurity and obscurantism. A cold war with a coherent beginning and end, at least within a given article. Pick a date and stick with it. And please see WP:NOTEVERYTHING- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 23:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't knock middle-school texts--a middlebrow history professor with time on his hands could pick up some nice money writing those. In any case, we need the consensus dating, from a reputable middle school text or otherwise. WP:NOTEVERYTHING- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 00:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Right, well university texts aren't less than 50,000 words and written for neophytes. WP:UNDUE. WP:NOTEVERYTHING.- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 02:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
My complaint right now is quite simple: The Cold War didn't start in 1949. Even the assertion that it only reached Asia in 1949 is dubious considering that by 1947, the US and USSR already had distinct and opposing occupations in the south and the north of Korea. Either way, you're using the argument to defend inclusion of things which didn't happen in Asia--the Berlin blockade, the Marshall Plan, etc. - GPRamirez5 ( talk) 22:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Not fixed: nothing post-1946 should be here. In addition to the main Cold War article, there's a longstanding article for
Cold War (1947-1953). That is the first section of a dated chronological series going up to 1991, indicating that the
origins of the Cold War lie prior to 1947.
PS Why do you appear to be consciously avoiding the "Dates of Cold War" thread?- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 17:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
The argument is on the basis of consensus, which appears to have been a mass consensus determined by Wikipedia:Wikiproject Cold War. Your persistent and fringe emphasis on 1948 and 1949 seems to be designed to undermine that consensus.- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 23:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Yep, and last week you couldn't stop droning that the historical consensus about this global phenomenon known as the Cold War is that it began in 1947.- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 06:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
...primarily aimed at 16 to 18 year olds...
Hey, I once read about this 14 year-old girl who published history in an academic journal. In any case, it's peer-reviewed at a university press. Better than some of that Lulu.com stuff you were slapping up. - GPRamirez5 ( talk) 04:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I deleted two sections that were based verbatim on David Reynolds's 2001 book. One World Divisible: A Global History Since 1945. It was added in 2007 by user:172, a sockpuppet of a banned user. Rjensen ( talk) 05:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)