Talk:Cold War

Liberal bias

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. 172 23:29, 19 Feb 2005 (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." --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. 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. 172 22:15, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anyone know why this article is being so heavily vandalised recently? Nvinen 05:44, 12 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. 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 United States foreign policy 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 C. 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?

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. 172 22:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)