
The Cold War was the open yet restricted rivalry that developed after World War II between the United States and its allies and the Soviet Union and its allies. The struggle was called the ''Cold War'' because it did not actually lead to direct fighting between the superpowers (a "hot" war) on a wide scale. The Cold War was waged by means of economic pressure, selective aid, diplomatic manoeuvre, propaganda, assassination, low-intensity military operations and full-scale war from 1947 until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The term was popularized by the U.S. political adviser and financier Bernard Baruch in April 1947 during a debate on the Truman Doctrine. ==Characteristics== [[Image:Vietcong.jpg|thumb|right|NLF casualties during the Vietnam War. After the balance of power in Europe were firmly established, proxy battles in the Third World became an ever-important arena of superpower competition.]] The Cold War is usually considered to have occurred approximately from the end of the alliance between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Second World War until the history of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. The Korean War; the Vietnam War; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; and CIA-assisted military coups against left-leaning elected governments in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), and Chile (1973) were some of the occasions when the tension related to the Cold War took the form of an armed conflict. In those conflicts, the major powers, particularly the United States, operated in good part by arming or funding surrogates, a development that lessened direct impact on the populations of the major powers. In the 1970s, the Cold War gave way to détente and a more complicated pattern of international relations in which the world was no longer clearly split into two clearly opposed blocs. Less powerful countries had more room to assert their independence, and the two superpowers were partially able to recognize their common interest in trying to check the further spread and proliferation of nuclear weapons (''see'' SALT I, SALT II, Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty). U.S.-Soviet relations would deteriorate once again in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but improved as the Soviet bloc started to unravel in the late 1980s. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia lost the superpower status that it had won in the Second World War. [[Image:Berlinwall.jpg|thumb|right|A section of the now-defunct Berlin Wall, a symbol of the Cold War-era division of Europe]] In the strategic conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union a major arena was the strategy of technology (see also deterrence theory). It also involved covert conflict through acts of espionage. Beyond the actual killing of intelligence service personnel, the Cold War was heavily manifest in the concerns about nuclear weapons. It was questioned as to if they were being mass produced and whether wars could really be deterred by the mere existence of nuclear weapons. Another manifestation was in the propaganda wars between the United States and the USSR. Indeed, it was far from certain that a global nuclear war would not result from smaller regional wars, which heightened the level of concern for each conflict. This tension shaped the lives of people around the world almost as much as the actual fighting did. One major hotspot of conflict was Germany, particularly the city of Berlin. Arguably, the most vivid symbol of the Cold War was the Berlin Wall. The Wall isolated West Berlin (the portion of the city controlled by West Germany and the Allies) from East Berlin and the territory of East Germany, which completely surrounded it. ==Arms race== A major feature of the Cold War was the arms race between the Soviet Union and NATO, especially the United States but also the United Kingdom, France, West Germany, and several other European powers. This race took place in many technological and military fields, resulting in many scientific discoveries. Particularly revolutionary advances were made in the field of rocketry, which led to the space race. (Most or all of the rockets used to launch humans and satellites and to get to the Moon were originally military designs.) Other fields in which arms races occurred include: *jet fighters, *bombers, *nuclear weapons, *chemical weapons, *biological weapons, *surface-to-air missiles, *anti-aircraft artillery, *regular artillery, *surface-to-surface missiles (including SRBMs and cruise missiles), *inter-continental ballistic missiles (as well as IRBMs), *anti-ballistic missile technology, *armored vehicles, *rifles, *rocket propelled grenades and other anti-tank weapons, *submarines and anti-submarine warfare, *submarine-launched ballistic missiles, *electronic intelligence, *signals intelligence, *reconnaissance aircraft, and *spy satellites. All of these fields required massive technological and manufacturing investment. In many fields, the West created weapons with superior effectiveness, mainly due to their lead in digital computers and reluctance to spend enough money to develop systems with brute force superiority. However, the Eastern bloc fielded a larger number of designs in each field and built a larger number of many types of weapons. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, many extremely advanced technologies became available on the open market. Fighter jets, anti-aircraft missiles, small arms, and even nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons were rumored to have changed hands. In some cases, former Soviet-bloc states seized assets such as naval vessels moored in what were now their own ports. In many of these cases, the governments were unable to staff or maintain these assets, and some even auctioned them off to the highest bidder. One prominent feature of the nuclear arms race, supported in particular by the deployment of nuclear ICBMs, was the concept of deterrence via mutually assured destruction or "MAD". The idea was that the Western bloc would not attack the Eastern bloc or vice versa, because both sides had more than enough nuclear weapons to reduce each other to nothing, and to make the entire planet uninhabitable. Therefore, launching an attack on either party would be suicidal, and so neither would attempt it. ==The role of intelligence agencies== The armies of the countries involved rarely had much direct participation in the Cold War; the war was primarily fought by intelligence agencies like the CIA (United States), MI6 (United Kingdom), Bundesnachrichtendienst (West Germany), Stasi (East Germany) and the KGB (Soviet Union). The abilities of Echelon, a U.S.-UK intelligence sharing organization that was created during World War II, were used against the USSR, China and their allies. Echelon's heavy U.S.-UK bias led to Canadian (Canadian Security Intelligence Service), New Zealander (NZSIS) and Australian (ASIO) security intelligence agencies participating in the Cold War either as signals intelligence gathering units or as initial processors of raw intelligence. ==Historiography== There have been three distinct periods in the western study of the Cold War. For more than a decade after the end of World War II, few American historians saw any reason to challenge the official U.S. interpretation of the beginning of the Cold War: That the breakdown of relations was a direct result of Stalin's violation of the Yalta conference, the imposition of Soviet-dominated governments on an unwilling Eastern Europe, Soviet intransigence, and aggressive Soviet expansionism. However, later historians, especially William Appleman Williams in his 1959 ''The Tragedy of American Diplomacy'' and Walter LaFeber in his 1967 ''America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945-1968'', articulated an overriding concern: U.S. commitment to maintaining an "open door" for American trade in world markets. Some revisionist historians have argued that U.S. provocations, aggressions, and imperial ambitions pursued by the Truman administration from 1945 to 1953 were at least equally to blame, if not more so. In short, historians have disagreed as to who was responsible for the breakdown of US-Soviet relations and whether the conflict between the two superpowers was inevitable. This revisionist approach reached its height during the Vietnam War when many began to view the American and Soviet empires as morally comparable. In the later years of the Cold War, there were attempts to forge a post-revisionist synthesis by historians, and since the end of the Cold War, the post-revisionist school has come to dominate. Prominent post-revisionist historians include John Lewis Gaddis and Robert Grogin. Rather than attributing the beginning of the Cold War to either superpower, post-revisionist historians focused on mutual misperception, mutual reactivity, and shared responsibility between the superpowers. Borrowing from the realist school of international relations, the post-revisionists essentially accepted US European policy in Europe, such as US aid to Greece in 1947 and the Marshall Plan. According to this synthesis, "Communistic activity" was not the root of the difficulties of Western Europe, but rather it was the disruptive effects of the war on the economic, political, and social structure of Europe. In addition, the Marshall Plan rebuilt a functioning Western economic system, thwarting the electoral appeal of the radical left. For Europe, economic aid ended the dollar shortage and stimulated private investment for postwar reconstruction. For the United States, the plan spared it from a crisis of over-production and maintained demand for American exports. The NATO alliance would serve to integrate Western Europe into the system of mutual defense pacts, thus providing safeguards against subversion or neutrality in the bloc. Rejecting the assumption that communism was an international monolith with aggressive designs on the "free world", the post-revisionist school nevertheless accepts US policy in Europe as a necessary reaction to cope with instability in Europe, which threatened to drastically alter the balance of power in a manner favorable to the USSR and devastate the Western economic and political system. ==Significant documents== * Franck Report: June 11, 1945. Recommended that the United States either a) keep its atomic discoveries secret for an indefinite time, or b) develop nucleonic armaments at such a pace that no other nation would think of attacking first from fear of overwhelming retaliation. Also proposed that a demonstration of the "new weapon" be made before the eyes of representatives of all of the United Nations, on a barren island or desert. * Potsdam Declaration: July 26, 1945. A formal statement issued by Harry S. Truman (US), Winston Churchill (United Kingdom), and Chiang Kai-Shek (China) which outlined the terms for a Japanese Instrument of Surrender. * Baruch Plan: 1946. A proposal by the U.S. to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to a) extend between all nations the exchange of basic scientific information for peaceful ends; b) implement control of atomic energy to the extent necessary to ensure its use only for peaceful purposes; c) eliminate from national armaments atomic weapons and all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction; and d) establish effective safeguards by way of inspection and other means to protect complying States against the hazards of violations and evasions. ''When the USSR was the only member State who refused to sign, the US embarked on a massive nuclear weapons testing, development, and deployment program''. * McCloy-Zorin Accords: 1961. Conceived by Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy, the agreement established a foundation or "roadmap" for all future negotiations between the superpowers with regard to general disarmament. * Partial or Limited Test Ban Treaty (PTBT/LTBT): 1963. Also put forth by Kennedy; banned nuclear tests in the atmosphere, underwater and in space. However, neither France nor China (both Nuclear Weapon States) signed. * Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): 1968. Established the U.S., USSR, U.K., France, and China as five "Nuclear-Weapon States." Non-Nuclear Weapon States were prohibited from (among other things) possessing, manufacturing, or acquiring nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. All 187 signatories were committed to the goal of (eventual) nuclear disarmament. * Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM): 1972. Entered into between the U.S. and USSR to limit the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems used in defending areas against missile-delivered nuclear weapons; ended by the US in 2002. * Strategic Arms Limitation Talks I & II (SALT I & II): 1972 / 1979. Limited the growth of US and Soviet missile arsenals. * Prevention of Nuclear War Agreement: 1973. Committed the U.S. and USSR to consult with one another during conditions of nuclear confrontation . * Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF): 1987. Eliminated tactical ("battlefield") nuclear devices and GLCMs from Europe. * Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty I (START I): 1991. Signed by George H. W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev; reduced the numbers of U.S. and Soviet long-range missiles and nuclear warheads from 10,000 per side to 6,000 per side. * Mutual Detargeting Treaty (MDT): 1994. U.S. and Russian missiles no longer automatically target the other country; nuclear forces are no longer operated in a manner that presumes that the two nations are adversaries. * Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) 1996. Prohibits all nuclear test explosions in all environments; was signed by 71 States (US is not signatory). * Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty II (START II): 2000. Will reduce the numbers of U.S. and Russian long-range missiles and nuclear warheads from 6,000 per side to 3,500-3,000 per side. (START III proposed for 2007). * Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (Moscow Treaty): 2002. Established bilateral strategic nuclear arms reductions and a new "strategic nuclear framework"; also invited all countries to adopt non-proliferation principles aimed at preventing terrorists, or those that harbored them, from acquiring or developing all types of WMD's and related materials, equipment, and tech. ==References== * * ==Related articles and links== *History of the United States (1945-1964) *History of the United States (1964-1980) *History of the United States (1980-1988) *History of the United States (1988-present) *History of the Soviet Union (1927-1953) *History of the Soviet Union (1953-1985) *History of the Soviet Union (1985-1991) ==External links== *[http://www.stmartin.edu/~dprice/cold.war.html A clearinghouse of web sites devoted to the Cold War] *[http://www.cold-war.info People, states and agencies figuring in the Cold War] *[http://history.ocde.us/historyday/2005/2702/ The Reagan/Gorbachev Summits] Cold War simple:Cold War th:สงครามเย็น
The Cold War (c. 1945-1990) was the open yet restricted rivalry that developed after World War II between groups of nations practicing different ideologies and political systems. On one side were the Soviet Union (U.S.S.R.) and its allies, often referred to as the ''Eastern bloc''. On the other side were the United States and its allies, usually referred to as the ''Western bloc''. Foreign relations of the U.S. Soviet external politics United States history th:Category:สงครามเย็น
User talk:Cold War/archive 1 | Talk:Cold War/Archive 2 | Talk:Cold War/Archive 3 ==Pseudoprotection== Many recent edits by anonymous users have consisted of wholesale blanking of entire sections. In certain cases the information being deleted deals with actual historic events; in other instances, reference is taken from other articles in Wikipedia. Suggest the article be submitted for dispute resolution if further such editing continues.--User:Pkuchinski 21:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :Is it really a good idea to use an actual pseudoprotection template here? That policy was rejected. Also, not all the editors were anonymous. -- User:Wisq 21:41, 2005 May 24 (UTC) ==Sides of the Cold War== The Cold War featured more then just the Eastern and Western blocs. Arguably the wars between the Arab world and Israel were part of it. Neither Vietnam nor China fit in the Eastern Bloc (usually defined as either Comecon or Warsaw Pact). Not to mention the US-supported Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afganistan. The Taliban is not at all ideologically aligned with the USA, certainly not with the Western Bloc, nonethless, were part of the armed camps of the Cold War. I think the sides of the Cold War shouldn't be a simplistic "east VS west" but rather something like "The enduring struggle remained throughout the Cold War between the United States and its NATO allies VS the Soviet Union and the members of the Warsaw Pact. However, at varying times different states and organisations (usually revolutionary) would join, out of ideology or pragmatism, one side or the other. The more loosely aligned states and organisations were often the direct participants in "hot" conflicts of the Cold War and examples include Communist China, Vietnam, Nasser's Egypt and the Taliban." --User:CJWilly 21:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) :''The Cold War featured more then just the Eastern and Western blocs.'' The last two articles in the series probably do more than enough to make abundantly clear the roles of the emerging nations in the Cold War. (In some places North/South tensions even get more attention than East/West tensions... At any rate, the function of the main article is only to introduce the subject in the broadest terms, so starting off with a discussion of the East/West conflict is fine. User:172 22:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::I second thought, I saw the need to add a note on how the Cold War eventually gave way to a more complicated pattern of international relations in which the world was no longer clearly split into two clearly opposed blocs in this article. I added a new paragraph in the "characteristics" section. User:172 22:15, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) : BTW - the US never supported the Taliban, they did not exist during that time in history. We did support mujahideen (spelling?) fighters who were fighting against the Soviets, some of which later became the Taliban. Get your facts straight. --User:66.82.9.61 00:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) ==Exceptionalism?== I just finished copy-editing this and meanwhile someone removed it: ==The Role of Amerian Exceptionalism in the Cold War== Historians have given many interpretations to the cause of the Cold War. Most center upon the faults and crimes of the Soviet Union and its socialist ideology. There is no doubt that these played a large and crucial part in the Cold War. However, the faults of the United States are often overlooked. Many, if not all, of these faults can be attributed to American Exceptionalism throughout the Cold War. :''Many, if not all, of these faults can be attributed to American Exceptionalism throughout the Cold War.'' :What we have here is inherently a personal essay and original research, arguing the thesis above, and certainly one that many users will dispute. We already touch upon what is argued in this essay in the historiography section, but in a more nuanced and balanced way. User:172 07:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) The idea of American Exceptionalism is a central theme in the Cold War and throughout American history. American Exceptionalism can be traced throughout American history, beginning with Perry Miller’s view of the Puritan vision of a "City upon a Hill." This ideology is described by Siobhan McEvoy-Levy as the American belief in its own [[moral] superiority and uniqueness. Much, if not all, of Foreign relations of the United States has roots that can be traced back to this ideology. A large part of this ideology is the American mission. The idea is that, being the most wealthiest, advanced, and moral nation, the United States has a responsibility to the rest of the world. Additionally, it is felt that the United States gains justification for this mission from God, because of their morality, and reason, because of their wealth. This idea grew and evolved with the country. As the United States’ power and influence grew, so did its Exceptionalism and its need to spread its ideals to the world, remaking it as itself. Lloyd Gardner asserts that American Exceptionalism was at root of the United States’ policy-makers decision making during the Cold War. Gardener goes on to say that the true threat of the Soviet Union was that its ideologies appeared attractive to the peoples of Europe. What if the world chose the Soviet, socialist path? The United States had to protect the world from making this "mistake". America’s Cold War crusade, McEvoy-Levy says, was legitimized by its Exceptionalism. The United States’ aggression throughout the world could then be rationalized, even held in high esteem. The United States wasn’t expanding its empire; it was enlightening the world with the American dream and the ideals upon which that is built. The interaction with Third World countries was not seen as exploitation, but helpful influence. The Cold War, or something like it, was seen as inevitable. However, it can be argued that it did not need to reach the extent that it did. Some feel that most of the blame for the length of the Cold War should fall on the United States—that because of American Exceptionalism, the US exaggerated the Soviet Unions threat and unreasonably dragged out the Cold War. Despite the merit of many of these arguments, the fact remains that Communism failed the USSR despite what could have been advantages. For example, the command economy which allowed such feats of armament also deprived the people of their basic needs, going against the stated principals of Communism; that it is for the people. Both Communism and Capitalism can be seen to be corrupt, however those who believe in Capitalism and Democracy would point out that at least there is some form of oversight to prevent the corruption from going to the core—at the very least, the fear of those in power of losing their power. These very same fears in a Communist regime drive those in power to consolidate their power, at the expense of rather than assisting in effective governing. Perhaps the greatest failure of Communism is the dichotomy between the words and the deeds. How many of the Peoples' countries are truly looking out for their people? User:Nvinen 02:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) The work above is as clear an example of a personal essay/original research as anything can possibly be. It will be subject to immediate removal. User:172 22:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) I just read the article, and I must say, I'm disappointed. This is an example of liberal bias. In the section "Exceptionalism", there is a sentence "Much, if not all, of United States foreign policy has roots that can be traced back to this ideology." Whoever made that remark needs to back it up with proof, not the opinions of a single liberal historian. Also, where is the mention of Stalin's speechs, where he basically says that global communism can never succeed until capitalism has been destroyed? This article is an attempt at making America and the USSR equally responsible for the Cold War. What a crock of shit. Is there any mention of Kruschev's (spelling?) "we will bury you" comments? What about the Cuban missile crises? Too much space is dedicated to showing how historians disagree about the cold war, and not enough is dedicated to the major events of the cold war. This article is a disappointment and needs to be fixed. Liberal bias belongs in America's public school system, not in wikipedia. Why isnt the causes of the USSR's downfall listed? Let me guess, if a person comes into your home and tries to kill you, they are not evil, just of a different opinion, an opinon I should respect, right? This article is an example of why wikipedia will never make it in education, in its current form. :I agree with you. However, the section on "American exceptionalism" is not an established part of the article. It is just a section that has been added by a newbie/anon over the past couple of days that I keep removing... Don't worry. I will keep removing it. User:172 23:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) "Why isnt the causes"? What has killing an intruder got to do with the Cold War? What is wrong with liberalism per se has a long tradition - and how historians interprete events is part of the issue. As for complaining about certain areas not being covered - write them. ==Spain== I deleted the following because there was no supporting evidence. Could somebody verify it and put it back if they can prove it? ''The term Cold War has origins in Spain in the 1490s, when the word was coined by a Spanish monk to describe the state of affairs between the recently defeated Moors and (Christian) Spanish populations.''. User:RickKUser talk:RickK 21:01, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC) There seems to be confusion over when the term was first used. In the beginning section of the article, it says it was first used in 1947. At the bottom, it says Orwell coined it in '45. And above is talk of it all the way back in the 15th century. Trull : In fact it seems that the term has first been invented by Orwell in 1945 and then popularized by Bernard Baruch and Walter Lippmann in 1947, as [http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/2605/view/print&Snip=The+term+%22cold+war%22+was+invented+by+English+novelist+George+Orwell+in+1945+and+popularized+by+American+corporate+leader+Bernard+Baruch+and+journalist+Walter+Lipmann+in+1947%2E#BTG this site] state. User:Nova77 12:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Orwell only got major recognition for that until well after he became much better known than he was in 1945. He just happened to use the term first. Even so, I'm not interested in a fight and I'll modify my additions accordingly. User:NEW WORLD ORDER 13:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Pictures == Why does this article have no pictures? I know there was minimal fighting, but I would still like to see some pictures of the times, the people, etc. --User:Zeerus 19:46, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC) Why is a picture featured twice? And why with the text 'all its glory'? --User:CJWilly 12:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC) == seventeen nuclear crisis == I added an entry. Doesnt go with the report, then again two cases are closely related. --User:Coolcat User talk:Coolcat 13:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Image:Peacekeeper missile.jpg twice == Why is the Image:Peacekeeper missile.jpg included twice? User:Nyenyec User talk:Nyenyec 17:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC) ::It ought not to be. Which one do we keep and which do we remove? -- User:Wisq 18:42, 2005 May 15 (UTC) == Spanish Civil War == "It should be noted that some historians place the beginning of the Cold War as far back as 1937, when Joseph Stalin attempted to gain control of Spain" Sounds really bizarre. First, the Spanish Civil War started in 1936; secondly, Stalin measured his support to the loyalist Republicans, since he did not want to upset his relations with Germany and Italy in the context of the non-agression pact. Stating, as a fact, that "Joseph Stalin attempted to gain control of Spain", is really bold. User:Rama 09:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC) *Reference is ''The Fifty Year War: Conflict and Strategy in the Cold War'' by Dr. Norman Friedman.--User:Pkuchinski 15:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC) I know that that book warms the hearts of Reaganites and right-wing bloggers, and at times he is criticized for ascribing Soviet behavior too much on the imperatives of their 'expansionist' ideology. Even so, he is a serious scholar, and, stated like that, I doubt that the paraphrasing is carefully done. It seems like an over-simplified extrapolation of his argument rather than his argument. Further, even if you can substantiate your take on his work, Friedman should be passed on in favor of other authorities when it comes to this subject. His book is recognized as a standard military account, not anything near a major contribution to our understand of the origins of the Cold War. If the intro is going to cite anyone's periodiziation, someone like (say) Gaddis or LaFeber would be appropriate. User:172 20:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC) == US, Soviet Flags and NATO/Warsaw Pact Map == Should we keep those items in the article in some way? User:Zscout370 User_talk:Zscout370 13:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :No. The U.S. and the USSR were not the only actors in the Cold War. Memberships in NATO and the Warsaw Pact varied over time, which cannot be taken into account in a single map. Further, it's not that Europe was the only arena of the Cold War. User:172 13:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :Not to mention that putting them directly above the map suggested that the U.S. controlled the majority of Europe. :) I was considering suggesting the U.S. flag be replaced by the NATO flag, but that's moot now. -- User:Wisq 13:45, 2005 May 24 (UTC) ::And, to be NPOV, we have to have the flag of the Warsaw Pact. And personally, I do not think there is one that was used. I see your idea now, and I will drop the idea. User:Zscout370 User_talk:Zscout370 13:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC) I am a high school teacher that uses Wikipedia frequently, and I've made a few contributions to it -- both on this article and on The Day After, since I teach the Cold War and it is, honestly, one of my favorite parts of history. I agree that the *map* of Cold War Europe is misleading, but at the very least, shouldn't the flags of the United States and the Soviet Union remain? Although the Cold War was *technically* between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, in the minds of many historians, it was between the USA and USSR. :I have in common with you, having been a contributor to Wikipedia until a couple of months ago and having taught courses on the Cold War... I agree with you that including the flags of the U.S. and USSR would make more sense; they were, of course, the principal actors in the conflict. But the problem is that they were not the only actors. Including the flags of the U.S. and the USSR, and only the U.S. and the USSR, suggests that the article is just looking at the Cold War as the East and West conflict. But this makes little sense after the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the bipolar world order of the immediate postwar period gave way to a much more complicated pattern of international relations, with (1) the Sino-Soviet Split, (2) detente, and (3) East/West competition giving way more and more to North/South competition. User:172 09:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC) If I (or anyone) were to locate the flags/seals of NATO and Warsaw Pact, couldn't they be added *along with* the American and Soviet flags? :There is no proof that the Warsaw Pact had a seal or flag. Plus, other nations involved in the Cold War belonged to neither pact (the Koreas, Vietnam, African nations, Latin America nations). User:Zscout370 User_talk:Zscout370 02:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) =="The sixteen known nuclear crises of the Cold War"== This section is an equally obvious candidate for immediate removal. The list is generated by a relatively little-know advocacy group (Veterans Against Nuclear Arms), and not any established scholarship whatsoever. User:172 20:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :So what kind of crises can we use to put on the article that we can double check and make sure it is credible. User:Zscout370 User_talk:Zscout370 22:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC) ::These are all actual historic events-if the objection centers around the source (Veterans Against Nuclear Arms) and there being associated with that a particular POV, then removing the reference line should end the dispute in this regard.--User:Lordkinbote 23:05, May 24, 2005 (UTC) :::If we find something that comes from someone legit, then we should have no problem. User:Zscout370 User_talk:Zscout370 23:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :::Lordkinbote, removing the reference line does not end the dispute. The process by the list is generated makes it more about the advocacy group than the Cold War. (How do you know that they define "nuclear crises" in a way consident with standard scholarship? What is their understanding of under what conditions this concept of theirs is applicable? Is this consistent with general scholarship? What is their process for matching their observations to thier categeory? Is this consistent with general scholarship?) Lists might seem like they are 'objective' and 'matter-of-fact,' even when they are genenerated by activists, by non-experts. But the process by which they are generated determines the results. Adding this section would be just as much of a problem as allowing someone to post a personal essay in an article. User:172 02:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC) == The Actual Site == What the heck is this? :And what are you trying to refer to? User:Zscout370 User_talk:Zscout370 17:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==References== This section is still quite paltry. The following are essential surveys for any brief reference entry on the Cold War: *Walter LaFeber, ''America. Russia, and the Cold War. 1945-2002'' *John Lewis Gaddis, ''We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History'' *John Lewis Gaddis, ''Strategies of Containment'' *John Lewis Gaddis, ''Russia, The Soviet Union and the United States: An Interpretative History'' *George Herring, ''America's Longest War: The United States and Vietnam, 1950-1975''. *George Kennan, ''Russia and the West under Lenin and Stalin''. *William Appleman Williams, ''The Tragedy of American Diplomacy''. (1972 ed.) User:172 17:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) == The Cold War as a sham == The article Enoch Powell states that he viewed the Cold War as a sham. In the interests of NPOV, someone should expand this article to include this POV. User:Phlogistomania 21:48, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
A cold war is a state of battle between nations that does not involve direct military action but is pursued primarily through economic and political actions, acts of espionage or conflict through surrogates. The surrogates are typically states that are "satellite state" of the conflicting nations, i.e., nations allied to them or under their political influence. It might also mean giving military aid (such as weapons or economical aid, or perhaps even soldiers) to lesser nations oppressed or in guerrila war with the opposing country of a Cold War. See Cold War. warfare
If you must combine these articles, they need to be under Cold War, not Cold war, as The Cold War was a specific war and hence a proper noun. --User:Nknight 13:00 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC) ---- I don't think the Taiwan issue qualifies as a cold war. It's more of an unresolved civil war. --User:Jiang 20:44 21 Jul 2003 (UTC) ---- All linking articles about ''the'' Cold War have now been redirected to Cold War. --User:GCarty 17:30 2 Nov 2003 (UTC) ---- Regarding moving this to Wiktionary, essentially it's the equivalent of what many folks have wanted to do -- merge this with Cold War (proper) and explain the concept of a Cold war within that article. Jiang is correct re: China vs. Taiwan, is not referred to as a cold war. It's a continuation of civil war that goes back to the early part of the 20th century. Greece and Turkey were seen as critical countries during the Cold War because the USSR would see it as a NATO weakness if there was a conflict, but as such, they are not referred to widely as being involved in a cold war. That said, there is no real reason for this article to exist alone. It should be merged with the Cold War article. User:Fuzheado 07:39, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC) == Cold war and Cold War == I searched for "cold war" ended up here was loking for "Cold War" article... whats going on here? --User:Kunjan1029 05:26, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Cold_War:
Cold_War
Cold_War
Cold_War
Cold_war
Cold_war
Cold_War/archive_1
Cold_War/Archive_2
Cold_War/Archive_3
Cold_War/temp
Cold_War/temp
Cold_War:Part_1
Cold_War:Part_1
Cold_War:Part_2
Cold_War:Part_3
Cold_warrior
Cold_War_(1947-1953)
Cold_War_(1947-1953)_and_its_origins
Cold_War_(1947-1953)_and_its_origins
Cold_War_(1953-1962)
Cold_War_(1953-1962)
Cold_War_(1953-1962)/_archive1
Cold_War_(1962-1991)
Cold_War_(1962-1991)
Cold_War_aircraft
Cold_War_American_armored_fighting_vehicles
Cold_War_American_tanks
Cold_War_anti-aircraft_guns
Cold_War_anti-ship_cruise_missiles_of_China
Cold_War_anti-ship_cruise_missiles_of_the_Soviet_Union
Cold_War_anti-ship_missiles_of_the_Soviet_Union
Cold_War_anti-ship_missiles_of_the_United_Kingdom
Cold_War_anti-submarine_weapons_of_the_United_States
Cold_War_anti-tank_rockets_of_Germany
Cold_War_anti-tank_rockets_of_the_Soviet_Union
Cold_War_armored_fighting_vehicles
Cold_War_armored_personnel_carriers
Cold_War_artillery_of_the_United_States
Cold_War_attack_aircraft
Cold_War_bomber_aircraft
Cold_War_equipment
Cold_war_era
Cold_War_espionage
Cold_War_field_artillery_of_the_United_States
Cold_War_fighter_aircraft
Cold_War_films
Cold_War_firearms_of_the_United_States
Cold_War_grenade_launchers_of_the_Soviet_Union
Cold_war_history
Cold_War_howitzers
Cold_War_missiles_of_the_Soviet_Union
Cold_War_missiles_of_the_United_States
Cold_War_naval_weapons
Cold_War_Night_Life
Cold_War_Night_Life
Cold_War_people
Cold_War_people
Cold_War_propaganda_in_Germany
Cold_War_propaganda_in_Germany
Cold_War_Recognition_Certificate
Cold_War_rockets_of_the_United_States
Cold_War_ship-launched_surface-to-air_missiles_of_the_United_States
Cold_War_Soviet_armored_fighting_vehicles
Cold_War_Soviet_tanks
Cold_War_spies
Cold_War_tactical_ballistic_missiles_of_the_Soviet_Union
Cold_War_tanks
Cold_War_Treaties
Cold_War_Victory_Medal
Cold_War_weapons
Cold_War_weapons_of_China
Cold_War_weapons_of_Germany
Cold_War_weapons_of_the_Soviet_Union
Cold_War_weapons_of_the_United_Kingdom
Cold_War_weapons_of_the_United_States
Cold War
The Cold War was the open yet restricted rivalry that developed after World War II between the United States and its allies and the Soviet Union and its allies. The struggle was called the ''Cold War'' because it did not actually lead to direct fighting between the superpowers (a "hot" war) on a wide scale. The Cold War was waged by means of economic pressure, selective aid, diplomatic manoeuvre, propaganda, assassination, low-intensity military operations and full-scale war from 1947 until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The term was popularized by the U.S. political adviser and financier Bernard Baruch in April 1947 during a debate on the Truman Doctrine. ==Characteristics== [[Image:Vietcong.jpg|thumb|right|NLF casualties during the Vietnam War. After the balance of power in Europe were firmly established, proxy battles in the Third World became an ever-important arena of superpower competition.]] The Cold War is usually considered to have occurred approximately from the end of the alliance between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Second World War until the history of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. The Korean War; the Vietnam War; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; and CIA-assisted military coups against left-leaning elected governments in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), and Chile (1973) were some of the occasions when the tension related to the Cold War took the form of an armed conflict. In those conflicts, the major powers, particularly the United States, operated in good part by arming or funding surrogates, a development that lessened direct impact on the populations of the major powers. In the 1970s, the Cold War gave way to détente and a more complicated pattern of international relations in which the world was no longer clearly split into two clearly opposed blocs. Less powerful countries had more room to assert their independence, and the two superpowers were partially able to recognize their common interest in trying to check the further spread and proliferation of nuclear weapons (''see'' SALT I, SALT II, Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty). U.S.-Soviet relations would deteriorate once again in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but improved as the Soviet bloc started to unravel in the late 1980s. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia lost the superpower status that it had won in the Second World War. [[Image:Berlinwall.jpg|thumb|right|A section of the now-defunct Berlin Wall, a symbol of the Cold War-era division of Europe]] In the strategic conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union a major arena was the strategy of technology (see also deterrence theory). It also involved covert conflict through acts of espionage. Beyond the actual killing of intelligence service personnel, the Cold War was heavily manifest in the concerns about nuclear weapons. It was questioned as to if they were being mass produced and whether wars could really be deterred by the mere existence of nuclear weapons. Another manifestation was in the propaganda wars between the United States and the USSR. Indeed, it was far from certain that a global nuclear war would not result from smaller regional wars, which heightened the level of concern for each conflict. This tension shaped the lives of people around the world almost as much as the actual fighting did. One major hotspot of conflict was Germany, particularly the city of Berlin. Arguably, the most vivid symbol of the Cold War was the Berlin Wall. The Wall isolated West Berlin (the portion of the city controlled by West Germany and the Allies) from East Berlin and the territory of East Germany, which completely surrounded it. ==Arms race== A major feature of the Cold War was the arms race between the Soviet Union and NATO, especially the United States but also the United Kingdom, France, West Germany, and several other European powers. This race took place in many technological and military fields, resulting in many scientific discoveries. Particularly revolutionary advances were made in the field of rocketry, which led to the space race. (Most or all of the rockets used to launch humans and satellites and to get to the Moon were originally military designs.) Other fields in which arms races occurred include: *jet fighters, *bombers, *nuclear weapons, *chemical weapons, *biological weapons, *surface-to-air missiles, *anti-aircraft artillery, *regular artillery, *surface-to-surface missiles (including SRBMs and cruise missiles), *inter-continental ballistic missiles (as well as IRBMs), *anti-ballistic missile technology, *armored vehicles, *rifles, *rocket propelled grenades and other anti-tank weapons, *submarines and anti-submarine warfare, *submarine-launched ballistic missiles, *electronic intelligence, *signals intelligence, *reconnaissance aircraft, and *spy satellites. All of these fields required massive technological and manufacturing investment. In many fields, the West created weapons with superior effectiveness, mainly due to their lead in digital computers and reluctance to spend enough money to develop systems with brute force superiority. However, the Eastern bloc fielded a larger number of designs in each field and built a larger number of many types of weapons. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, many extremely advanced technologies became available on the open market. Fighter jets, anti-aircraft missiles, small arms, and even nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons were rumored to have changed hands. In some cases, former Soviet-bloc states seized assets such as naval vessels moored in what were now their own ports. In many of these cases, the governments were unable to staff or maintain these assets, and some even auctioned them off to the highest bidder. One prominent feature of the nuclear arms race, supported in particular by the deployment of nuclear ICBMs, was the concept of deterrence via mutually assured destruction or "MAD". The idea was that the Western bloc would not attack the Eastern bloc or vice versa, because both sides had more than enough nuclear weapons to reduce each other to nothing, and to make the entire planet uninhabitable. Therefore, launching an attack on either party would be suicidal, and so neither would attempt it. ==The role of intelligence agencies== The armies of the countries involved rarely had much direct participation in the Cold War; the war was primarily fought by intelligence agencies like the CIA (United States), MI6 (United Kingdom), Bundesnachrichtendienst (West Germany), Stasi (East Germany) and the KGB (Soviet Union). The abilities of Echelon, a U.S.-UK intelligence sharing organization that was created during World War II, were used against the USSR, China and their allies. Echelon's heavy U.S.-UK bias led to Canadian (Canadian Security Intelligence Service), New Zealander (NZSIS) and Australian (ASIO) security intelligence agencies participating in the Cold War either as signals intelligence gathering units or as initial processors of raw intelligence. ==Historiography== There have been three distinct periods in the western study of the Cold War. For more than a decade after the end of World War II, few American historians saw any reason to challenge the official U.S. interpretation of the beginning of the Cold War: That the breakdown of relations was a direct result of Stalin's violation of the Yalta conference, the imposition of Soviet-dominated governments on an unwilling Eastern Europe, Soviet intransigence, and aggressive Soviet expansionism. However, later historians, especially William Appleman Williams in his 1959 ''The Tragedy of American Diplomacy'' and Walter LaFeber in his 1967 ''America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945-1968'', articulated an overriding concern: U.S. commitment to maintaining an "open door" for American trade in world markets. Some revisionist historians have argued that U.S. provocations, aggressions, and imperial ambitions pursued by the Truman administration from 1945 to 1953 were at least equally to blame, if not more so. In short, historians have disagreed as to who was responsible for the breakdown of US-Soviet relations and whether the conflict between the two superpowers was inevitable. This revisionist approach reached its height during the Vietnam War when many began to view the American and Soviet empires as morally comparable. In the later years of the Cold War, there were attempts to forge a post-revisionist synthesis by historians, and since the end of the Cold War, the post-revisionist school has come to dominate. Prominent post-revisionist historians include John Lewis Gaddis and Robert Grogin. Rather than attributing the beginning of the Cold War to either superpower, post-revisionist historians focused on mutual misperception, mutual reactivity, and shared responsibility between the superpowers. Borrowing from the realist school of international relations, the post-revisionists essentially accepted US European policy in Europe, such as US aid to Greece in 1947 and the Marshall Plan. According to this synthesis, "Communistic activity" was not the root of the difficulties of Western Europe, but rather it was the disruptive effects of the war on the economic, political, and social structure of Europe. In addition, the Marshall Plan rebuilt a functioning Western economic system, thwarting the electoral appeal of the radical left. For Europe, economic aid ended the dollar shortage and stimulated private investment for postwar reconstruction. For the United States, the plan spared it from a crisis of over-production and maintained demand for American exports. The NATO alliance would serve to integrate Western Europe into the system of mutual defense pacts, thus providing safeguards against subversion or neutrality in the bloc. Rejecting the assumption that communism was an international monolith with aggressive designs on the "free world", the post-revisionist school nevertheless accepts US policy in Europe as a necessary reaction to cope with instability in Europe, which threatened to drastically alter the balance of power in a manner favorable to the USSR and devastate the Western economic and political system. ==Significant documents== * Franck Report: June 11, 1945. Recommended that the United States either a) keep its atomic discoveries secret for an indefinite time, or b) develop nucleonic armaments at such a pace that no other nation would think of attacking first from fear of overwhelming retaliation. Also proposed that a demonstration of the "new weapon" be made before the eyes of representatives of all of the United Nations, on a barren island or desert. * Potsdam Declaration: July 26, 1945. A formal statement issued by Harry S. Truman (US), Winston Churchill (United Kingdom), and Chiang Kai-Shek (China) which outlined the terms for a Japanese Instrument of Surrender. * Baruch Plan: 1946. A proposal by the U.S. to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to a) extend between all nations the exchange of basic scientific information for peaceful ends; b) implement control of atomic energy to the extent necessary to ensure its use only for peaceful purposes; c) eliminate from national armaments atomic weapons and all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction; and d) establish effective safeguards by way of inspection and other means to protect complying States against the hazards of violations and evasions. ''When the USSR was the only member State who refused to sign, the US embarked on a massive nuclear weapons testing, development, and deployment program''. * McCloy-Zorin Accords: 1961. Conceived by Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy, the agreement established a foundation or "roadmap" for all future negotiations between the superpowers with regard to general disarmament. * Partial or Limited Test Ban Treaty (PTBT/LTBT): 1963. Also put forth by Kennedy; banned nuclear tests in the atmosphere, underwater and in space. However, neither France nor China (both Nuclear Weapon States) signed. * Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): 1968. Established the U.S., USSR, U.K., France, and China as five "Nuclear-Weapon States." Non-Nuclear Weapon States were prohibited from (among other things) possessing, manufacturing, or acquiring nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. All 187 signatories were committed to the goal of (eventual) nuclear disarmament. * Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM): 1972. Entered into between the U.S. and USSR to limit the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems used in defending areas against missile-delivered nuclear weapons; ended by the US in 2002. * Strategic Arms Limitation Talks I & II (SALT I & II): 1972 / 1979. Limited the growth of US and Soviet missile arsenals. * Prevention of Nuclear War Agreement: 1973. Committed the U.S. and USSR to consult with one another during conditions of nuclear confrontation . * Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF): 1987. Eliminated tactical ("battlefield") nuclear devices and GLCMs from Europe. * Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty I (START I): 1991. Signed by George H. W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev; reduced the numbers of U.S. and Soviet long-range missiles and nuclear warheads from 10,000 per side to 6,000 per side. * Mutual Detargeting Treaty (MDT): 1994. U.S. and Russian missiles no longer automatically target the other country; nuclear forces are no longer operated in a manner that presumes that the two nations are adversaries. * Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) 1996. Prohibits all nuclear test explosions in all environments; was signed by 71 States (US is not signatory). * Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty II (START II): 2000. Will reduce the numbers of U.S. and Russian long-range missiles and nuclear warheads from 6,000 per side to 3,500-3,000 per side. (START III proposed for 2007). * Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (Moscow Treaty): 2002. Established bilateral strategic nuclear arms reductions and a new "strategic nuclear framework"; also invited all countries to adopt non-proliferation principles aimed at preventing terrorists, or those that harbored them, from acquiring or developing all types of WMD's and related materials, equipment, and tech. ==References== * * ==Related articles and links== *History of the United States (1945-1964) *History of the United States (1964-1980) *History of the United States (1980-1988) *History of the United States (1988-present) *History of the Soviet Union (1927-1953) *History of the Soviet Union (1953-1985) *History of the Soviet Union (1985-1991) ==External links== *[http://www.stmartin.edu/~dprice/cold.war.html A clearinghouse of web sites devoted to the Cold War] *[http://www.cold-war.info People, states and agencies figuring in the Cold War] *[http://history.ocde.us/historyday/2005/2702/ The Reagan/Gorbachev Summits] Cold War simple:Cold War th:สงครามเย็น
Cold War
The Cold War (c. 1945-1990) was the open yet restricted rivalry that developed after World War II between groups of nations practicing different ideologies and political systems. On one side were the Soviet Union (U.S.S.R.) and its allies, often referred to as the ''Eastern bloc''. On the other side were the United States and its allies, usually referred to as the ''Western bloc''. Foreign relations of the U.S. Soviet external politics United States history th:Category:สงครามเย็น
Cold War
User talk:Cold War/archive 1 | Talk:Cold War/Archive 2 | Talk:Cold War/Archive 3 ==Pseudoprotection== Many recent edits by anonymous users have consisted of wholesale blanking of entire sections. In certain cases the information being deleted deals with actual historic events; in other instances, reference is taken from other articles in Wikipedia. Suggest the article be submitted for dispute resolution if further such editing continues.--User:Pkuchinski 21:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :Is it really a good idea to use an actual pseudoprotection template here? That policy was rejected. Also, not all the editors were anonymous. -- User:Wisq 21:41, 2005 May 24 (UTC) ==Sides of the Cold War== The Cold War featured more then just the Eastern and Western blocs. Arguably the wars between the Arab world and Israel were part of it. Neither Vietnam nor China fit in the Eastern Bloc (usually defined as either Comecon or Warsaw Pact). Not to mention the US-supported Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afganistan. The Taliban is not at all ideologically aligned with the USA, certainly not with the Western Bloc, nonethless, were part of the armed camps of the Cold War. I think the sides of the Cold War shouldn't be a simplistic "east VS west" but rather something like "The enduring struggle remained throughout the Cold War between the United States and its NATO allies VS the Soviet Union and the members of the Warsaw Pact. However, at varying times different states and organisations (usually revolutionary) would join, out of ideology or pragmatism, one side or the other. The more loosely aligned states and organisations were often the direct participants in "hot" conflicts of the Cold War and examples include Communist China, Vietnam, Nasser's Egypt and the Taliban." --User:CJWilly 21:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) :''The Cold War featured more then just the Eastern and Western blocs.'' The last two articles in the series probably do more than enough to make abundantly clear the roles of the emerging nations in the Cold War. (In some places North/South tensions even get more attention than East/West tensions... At any rate, the function of the main article is only to introduce the subject in the broadest terms, so starting off with a discussion of the East/West conflict is fine. User:172 22:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::I second thought, I saw the need to add a note on how the Cold War eventually gave way to a more complicated pattern of international relations in which the world was no longer clearly split into two clearly opposed blocs in this article. I added a new paragraph in the "characteristics" section. User:172 22:15, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) : BTW - the US never supported the Taliban, they did not exist during that time in history. We did support mujahideen (spelling?) fighters who were fighting against the Soviets, some of which later became the Taliban. Get your facts straight. --User:66.82.9.61 00:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) ==Exceptionalism?== I just finished copy-editing this and meanwhile someone removed it: ==The Role of Amerian Exceptionalism in the Cold War== Historians have given many interpretations to the cause of the Cold War. Most center upon the faults and crimes of the Soviet Union and its socialist ideology. There is no doubt that these played a large and crucial part in the Cold War. However, the faults of the United States are often overlooked. Many, if not all, of these faults can be attributed to American Exceptionalism throughout the Cold War. :''Many, if not all, of these faults can be attributed to American Exceptionalism throughout the Cold War.'' :What we have here is inherently a personal essay and original research, arguing the thesis above, and certainly one that many users will dispute. We already touch upon what is argued in this essay in the historiography section, but in a more nuanced and balanced way. User:172 07:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) The idea of American Exceptionalism is a central theme in the Cold War and throughout American history. American Exceptionalism can be traced throughout American history, beginning with Perry Miller’s view of the Puritan vision of a "City upon a Hill." This ideology is described by Siobhan McEvoy-Levy as the American belief in its own [[moral] superiority and uniqueness. Much, if not all, of Foreign relations of the United States has roots that can be traced back to this ideology. A large part of this ideology is the American mission. The idea is that, being the most wealthiest, advanced, and moral nation, the United States has a responsibility to the rest of the world. Additionally, it is felt that the United States gains justification for this mission from God, because of their morality, and reason, because of their wealth. This idea grew and evolved with the country. As the United States’ power and influence grew, so did its Exceptionalism and its need to spread its ideals to the world, remaking it as itself. Lloyd Gardner asserts that American Exceptionalism was at root of the United States’ policy-makers decision making during the Cold War. Gardener goes on to say that the true threat of the Soviet Union was that its ideologies appeared attractive to the peoples of Europe. What if the world chose the Soviet, socialist path? The United States had to protect the world from making this "mistake". America’s Cold War crusade, McEvoy-Levy says, was legitimized by its Exceptionalism. The United States’ aggression throughout the world could then be rationalized, even held in high esteem. The United States wasn’t expanding its empire; it was enlightening the world with the American dream and the ideals upon which that is built. The interaction with Third World countries was not seen as exploitation, but helpful influence. The Cold War, or something like it, was seen as inevitable. However, it can be argued that it did not need to reach the extent that it did. Some feel that most of the blame for the length of the Cold War should fall on the United States—that because of American Exceptionalism, the US exaggerated the Soviet Unions threat and unreasonably dragged out the Cold War. Despite the merit of many of these arguments, the fact remains that Communism failed the USSR despite what could have been advantages. For example, the command economy which allowed such feats of armament also deprived the people of their basic needs, going against the stated principals of Communism; that it is for the people. Both Communism and Capitalism can be seen to be corrupt, however those who believe in Capitalism and Democracy would point out that at least there is some form of oversight to prevent the corruption from going to the core—at the very least, the fear of those in power of losing their power. These very same fears in a Communist regime drive those in power to consolidate their power, at the expense of rather than assisting in effective governing. Perhaps the greatest failure of Communism is the dichotomy between the words and the deeds. How many of the Peoples' countries are truly looking out for their people? User:Nvinen 02:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) The work above is as clear an example of a personal essay/original research as anything can possibly be. It will be subject to immediate removal. User:172 22:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) I just read the article, and I must say, I'm disappointed. This is an example of liberal bias. In the section "Exceptionalism", there is a sentence "Much, if not all, of United States foreign policy has roots that can be traced back to this ideology." Whoever made that remark needs to back it up with proof, not the opinions of a single liberal historian. Also, where is the mention of Stalin's speechs, where he basically says that global communism can never succeed until capitalism has been destroyed? This article is an attempt at making America and the USSR equally responsible for the Cold War. What a crock of shit. Is there any mention of Kruschev's (spelling?) "we will bury you" comments? What about the Cuban missile crises? Too much space is dedicated to showing how historians disagree about the cold war, and not enough is dedicated to the major events of the cold war. This article is a disappointment and needs to be fixed. Liberal bias belongs in America's public school system, not in wikipedia. Why isnt the causes of the USSR's downfall listed? Let me guess, if a person comes into your home and tries to kill you, they are not evil, just of a different opinion, an opinon I should respect, right? This article is an example of why wikipedia will never make it in education, in its current form. :I agree with you. However, the section on "American exceptionalism" is not an established part of the article. It is just a section that has been added by a newbie/anon over the past couple of days that I keep removing... Don't worry. I will keep removing it. User:172 23:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) "Why isnt the causes"? What has killing an intruder got to do with the Cold War? What is wrong with liberalism per se has a long tradition - and how historians interprete events is part of the issue. As for complaining about certain areas not being covered - write them. ==Spain== I deleted the following because there was no supporting evidence. Could somebody verify it and put it back if they can prove it? ''The term Cold War has origins in Spain in the 1490s, when the word was coined by a Spanish monk to describe the state of affairs between the recently defeated Moors and (Christian) Spanish populations.''. User:RickKUser talk:RickK 21:01, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC) There seems to be confusion over when the term was first used. In the beginning section of the article, it says it was first used in 1947. At the bottom, it says Orwell coined it in '45. And above is talk of it all the way back in the 15th century. Trull : In fact it seems that the term has first been invented by Orwell in 1945 and then popularized by Bernard Baruch and Walter Lippmann in 1947, as [http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/2605/view/print&Snip=The+term+%22cold+war%22+was+invented+by+English+novelist+George+Orwell+in+1945+and+popularized+by+American+corporate+leader+Bernard+Baruch+and+journalist+Walter+Lipmann+in+1947%2E#BTG this site] state. User:Nova77 12:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Orwell only got major recognition for that until well after he became much better known than he was in 1945. He just happened to use the term first. Even so, I'm not interested in a fight and I'll modify my additions accordingly. User:NEW WORLD ORDER 13:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Pictures == Why does this article have no pictures? I know there was minimal fighting, but I would still like to see some pictures of the times, the people, etc. --User:Zeerus 19:46, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC) Why is a picture featured twice? And why with the text 'all its glory'? --User:CJWilly 12:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC) == seventeen nuclear crisis == I added an entry. Doesnt go with the report, then again two cases are closely related. --User:Coolcat User talk:Coolcat 13:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Image:Peacekeeper missile.jpg twice == Why is the Image:Peacekeeper missile.jpg included twice? User:Nyenyec User talk:Nyenyec 17:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC) ::It ought not to be. Which one do we keep and which do we remove? -- User:Wisq 18:42, 2005 May 15 (UTC) == Spanish Civil War == "It should be noted that some historians place the beginning of the Cold War as far back as 1937, when Joseph Stalin attempted to gain control of Spain" Sounds really bizarre. First, the Spanish Civil War started in 1936; secondly, Stalin measured his support to the loyalist Republicans, since he did not want to upset his relations with Germany and Italy in the context of the non-agression pact. Stating, as a fact, that "Joseph Stalin attempted to gain control of Spain", is really bold. User:Rama 09:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC) *Reference is ''The Fifty Year War: Conflict and Strategy in the Cold War'' by Dr. Norman Friedman.--User:Pkuchinski 15:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC) I know that that book warms the hearts of Reaganites and right-wing bloggers, and at times he is criticized for ascribing Soviet behavior too much on the imperatives of their 'expansionist' ideology. Even so, he is a serious scholar, and, stated like that, I doubt that the paraphrasing is carefully done. It seems like an over-simplified extrapolation of his argument rather than his argument. Further, even if you can substantiate your take on his work, Friedman should be passed on in favor of other authorities when it comes to this subject. His book is recognized as a standard military account, not anything near a major contribution to our understand of the origins of the Cold War. If the intro is going to cite anyone's periodiziation, someone like (say) Gaddis or LaFeber would be appropriate. User:172 20:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC) == US, Soviet Flags and NATO/Warsaw Pact Map == Should we keep those items in the article in some way? User:Zscout370 User_talk:Zscout370 13:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :No. The U.S. and the USSR were not the only actors in the Cold War. Memberships in NATO and the Warsaw Pact varied over time, which cannot be taken into account in a single map. Further, it's not that Europe was the only arena of the Cold War. User:172 13:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :Not to mention that putting them directly above the map suggested that the U.S. controlled the majority of Europe. :) I was considering suggesting the U.S. flag be replaced by the NATO flag, but that's moot now. -- User:Wisq 13:45, 2005 May 24 (UTC) ::And, to be NPOV, we have to have the flag of the Warsaw Pact. And personally, I do not think there is one that was used. I see your idea now, and I will drop the idea. User:Zscout370 User_talk:Zscout370 13:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC) I am a high school teacher that uses Wikipedia frequently, and I've made a few contributions to it -- both on this article and on The Day After, since I teach the Cold War and it is, honestly, one of my favorite parts of history. I agree that the *map* of Cold War Europe is misleading, but at the very least, shouldn't the flags of the United States and the Soviet Union remain? Although the Cold War was *technically* between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, in the minds of many historians, it was between the USA and USSR. :I have in common with you, having been a contributor to Wikipedia until a couple of months ago and having taught courses on the Cold War... I agree with you that including the flags of the U.S. and USSR would make more sense; they were, of course, the principal actors in the conflict. But the problem is that they were not the only actors. Including the flags of the U.S. and the USSR, and only the U.S. and the USSR, suggests that the article is just looking at the Cold War as the East and West conflict. But this makes little sense after the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the bipolar world order of the immediate postwar period gave way to a much more complicated pattern of international relations, with (1) the Sino-Soviet Split, (2) detente, and (3) East/West competition giving way more and more to North/South competition. User:172 09:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC) If I (or anyone) were to locate the flags/seals of NATO and Warsaw Pact, couldn't they be added *along with* the American and Soviet flags? :There is no proof that the Warsaw Pact had a seal or flag. Plus, other nations involved in the Cold War belonged to neither pact (the Koreas, Vietnam, African nations, Latin America nations). User:Zscout370 User_talk:Zscout370 02:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) =="The sixteen known nuclear crises of the Cold War"== This section is an equally obvious candidate for immediate removal. The list is generated by a relatively little-know advocacy group (Veterans Against Nuclear Arms), and not any established scholarship whatsoever. User:172 20:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :So what kind of crises can we use to put on the article that we can double check and make sure it is credible. User:Zscout370 User_talk:Zscout370 22:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC) ::These are all actual historic events-if the objection centers around the source (Veterans Against Nuclear Arms) and there being associated with that a particular POV, then removing the reference line should end the dispute in this regard.--User:Lordkinbote 23:05, May 24, 2005 (UTC) :::If we find something that comes from someone legit, then we should have no problem. User:Zscout370 User_talk:Zscout370 23:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :::Lordkinbote, removing the reference line does not end the dispute. The process by the list is generated makes it more about the advocacy group than the Cold War. (How do you know that they define "nuclear crises" in a way consident with standard scholarship? What is their understanding of under what conditions this concept of theirs is applicable? Is this consistent with general scholarship? What is their process for matching their observations to thier categeory? Is this consistent with general scholarship?) Lists might seem like they are 'objective' and 'matter-of-fact,' even when they are genenerated by activists, by non-experts. But the process by which they are generated determines the results. Adding this section would be just as much of a problem as allowing someone to post a personal essay in an article. User:172 02:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC) == The Actual Site == What the heck is this? :And what are you trying to refer to? User:Zscout370 User_talk:Zscout370 17:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==References== This section is still quite paltry. The following are essential surveys for any brief reference entry on the Cold War: *Walter LaFeber, ''America. Russia, and the Cold War. 1945-2002'' *John Lewis Gaddis, ''We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History'' *John Lewis Gaddis, ''Strategies of Containment'' *John Lewis Gaddis, ''Russia, The Soviet Union and the United States: An Interpretative History'' *George Herring, ''America's Longest War: The United States and Vietnam, 1950-1975''. *George Kennan, ''Russia and the West under Lenin and Stalin''. *William Appleman Williams, ''The Tragedy of American Diplomacy''. (1972 ed.) User:172 17:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) == The Cold War as a sham == The article Enoch Powell states that he viewed the Cold War as a sham. In the interests of NPOV, someone should expand this article to include this POV. User:Phlogistomania 21:48, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Cold war
A cold war is a state of battle between nations that does not involve direct military action but is pursued primarily through economic and political actions, acts of espionage or conflict through surrogates. The surrogates are typically states that are "satellite state" of the conflicting nations, i.e., nations allied to them or under their political influence. It might also mean giving military aid (such as weapons or economical aid, or perhaps even soldiers) to lesser nations oppressed or in guerrila war with the opposing country of a Cold War. See Cold War. warfare
Cold war
If you must combine these articles, they need to be under Cold War, not Cold war, as The Cold War was a specific war and hence a proper noun. --User:Nknight 13:00 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC) ---- I don't think the Taiwan issue qualifies as a cold war. It's more of an unresolved civil war. --User:Jiang 20:44 21 Jul 2003 (UTC) ---- All linking articles about ''the'' Cold War have now been redirected to Cold War. --User:GCarty 17:30 2 Nov 2003 (UTC) ---- Regarding moving this to Wiktionary, essentially it's the equivalent of what many folks have wanted to do -- merge this with Cold War (proper) and explain the concept of a Cold war within that article. Jiang is correct re: China vs. Taiwan, is not referred to as a cold war. It's a continuation of civil war that goes back to the early part of the 20th century. Greece and Turkey were seen as critical countries during the Cold War because the USSR would see it as a NATO weakness if there was a conflict, but as such, they are not referred to widely as being involved in a cold war. That said, there is no real reason for this article to exist alone. It should be merged with the Cold War article. User:Fuzheado 07:39, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC) == Cold war and Cold War == I searched for "cold war" ended up here was loking for "Cold War" article... whats going on here? --User:Kunjan1029 05:26, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
C
CA | CB | CD | CE | CF | CG | CH | CI | CJ | CK | CL | CM | CN | CO | CP | CR | CS | CT | CU | CW | CX | CY | CZ |Words begining with Cold_War:
Cold_War
Cold_War
Cold_War
Cold_war
Cold_war
Cold_War/archive_1
Cold_War/Archive_2
Cold_War/Archive_3
Cold_War/temp
Cold_War/temp
Cold_War:Part_1
Cold_War:Part_1
Cold_War:Part_2
Cold_War:Part_3
Cold_warrior
Cold_War_(1947-1953)
Cold_War_(1947-1953)_and_its_origins
Cold_War_(1947-1953)_and_its_origins
Cold_War_(1953-1962)
Cold_War_(1953-1962)
Cold_War_(1953-1962)/_archive1
Cold_War_(1962-1991)
Cold_War_(1962-1991)
Cold_War_aircraft
Cold_War_American_armored_fighting_vehicles
Cold_War_American_tanks
Cold_War_anti-aircraft_guns
Cold_War_anti-ship_cruise_missiles_of_China
Cold_War_anti-ship_cruise_missiles_of_the_Soviet_Union
Cold_War_anti-ship_missiles_of_the_Soviet_Union
Cold_War_anti-ship_missiles_of_the_United_Kingdom
Cold_War_anti-submarine_weapons_of_the_United_States
Cold_War_anti-tank_rockets_of_Germany
Cold_War_anti-tank_rockets_of_the_Soviet_Union
Cold_War_armored_fighting_vehicles
Cold_War_armored_personnel_carriers
Cold_War_artillery_of_the_United_States
Cold_War_attack_aircraft
Cold_War_bomber_aircraft
Cold_War_equipment
Cold_war_era
Cold_War_espionage
Cold_War_field_artillery_of_the_United_States
Cold_War_fighter_aircraft
Cold_War_films
Cold_War_firearms_of_the_United_States
Cold_War_grenade_launchers_of_the_Soviet_Union
Cold_war_history
Cold_War_howitzers
Cold_War_missiles_of_the_Soviet_Union
Cold_War_missiles_of_the_United_States
Cold_War_naval_weapons
Cold_War_Night_Life
Cold_War_Night_Life
Cold_War_people
Cold_War_people
Cold_War_propaganda_in_Germany
Cold_War_propaganda_in_Germany
Cold_War_Recognition_Certificate
Cold_War_rockets_of_the_United_States
Cold_War_ship-launched_surface-to-air_missiles_of_the_United_States
Cold_War_Soviet_armored_fighting_vehicles
Cold_War_Soviet_tanks
Cold_War_spies
Cold_War_tactical_ballistic_missiles_of_the_Soviet_Union
Cold_War_tanks
Cold_War_Treaties
Cold_War_Victory_Medal
Cold_War_weapons
Cold_War_weapons_of_China
Cold_War_weapons_of_Germany
Cold_War_weapons_of_the_Soviet_Union
Cold_War_weapons_of_the_United_Kingdom
Cold_War_weapons_of_the_United_States
Sponsored links: praca, nurkowanie.
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
