Jump to content

Talk:Cold War (1953–1962)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment


This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Duonglamh1999.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment


This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Winterz., WWYJMMITM220.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]



172, what specific "deletions" are you concerned about? CJK 21:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the two versions. Note the removal of factual content (in some cases sentences with footnotes) in your version. You might personally feel that some of that content was irrelevant, but it was, and at times it was difficult for me to figure out what you were doing. I am going to revert back to the older version of the article again, as the burden is on you to restore the (arbitrarily?) removed content that appeared in the previous version but no longer appears in the version that you have been reverting back to. 172 | Talk 02:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the content I removed was a paragraph designed to discredit Dulles over Mao's agrarian reform, and two paragraphs in the Iran section which were irrelevant, one about recent Anglo-American competition and the other about the Revolution, which is outside the scope of this article. User:TJive has also stepped in and removed/reworded this. CJK 22:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Establishing historical context is always necessary to allow the readers to understand the people, conflicts, and relevance of a time period. Students are constantly told to start off their research by going to relevant secondary sources to get acquainted with perspectives on any given topic that they might not think of on their own. You should do the same, taking a look at some of the sources appearing in the footnotes, before you start cutting out background information deeming it irrelevant... Regarding TJive's copyedit, I think it's fine and a version that we should both settle on in order to avoid another long, unproductive exchange like the last one we had. 172 | Talk 00:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My changes consist of:

  • Rewording a sentence in the Iran section so it does not sound like the only way Iran could escape poverty was taking over the oil industry.
  • Adding two sentences of factual information in that section.
  • Establishing that CIA plans in Guatemala began in 1951.
  • Moving two sentences that are out of chronological order in the Cuba section.

What is wrong with this? CJK 14:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute, you just removed much of TJive's changes. Now we are back to where we started. CJK 21:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I saw the text that was changed around, but did not notice that so much was missing. But we are not "back to where we started." Just about all the other changes have been left the way they were in TJive's version... Please do not remove the important background information from the section on Latin America again. 172 | Talk 04:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the reality presented in the text I restored still leaves you upset (for reasons still unclear to me), then rewrite it in way that incorporates the following:

  • U.S.-British competition in Iran and how it shaped the context in which U.S. policymakers made their choices, along with the role of Herbert Hoover Jr.
  • The pattern of U.S. intervention in Latin America before the Cold War and and how it shaped the context of the Latin American arena of the Cold War
  • The rise of the left in Latin America after the Great Depression and its adjustment to the new international setting of the Cold War
  • The shift to guerrilla tactics on the part of the Latin American left after the fall of Arbenez and its response to both superpowers
  • The Platt Amendment and U.S. intervention in Cuba between 1898 and the rise of Castro

172 | Talk 04:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with these (except for the intervention in Cuba as the last occured in 1909). Unfortunately, they don't address any of my points. CJK 19:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An anon (presumably you) has objected to this. Why do they "not make sense"? CJK 20:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Occupations 'having existed' is not English prose. What is meant by 'Marxist agitation' in Guatemala is unclear. Claiming that someone is 'in search of significantly leftwing reforms' also fails to constitute English prose. There are other examples, but they are hardly worth going through unless you are willing to spend more time clarifying and proofreading your edits in the future. 172 | Talk 01:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you have no objections besides Grammar? And the "Marxist agitation" is a general reference throughout Latin America. CJK 19:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not merely grammar. The sentences in question were just nonsense. As for "Marxist agitation," it sounds like a loaded term unless you clarify what you mean. 172 | Talk 23:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is it? Is it nonsense to point out U.S. backed reforms in Iran, that the Arbenz coup was planned before UFC came in, and the factually innaccurate position of sentences in the Cuba section? Please be specific. And Marxist agitation means what it means--attempts by certain leftist groups to violently overthrow governments such as in Cuba. CJK 23:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't know why you're insisting on adding the note on the Shah's secular reforms. The section on Iran is not a survey on all of Iran's postwar history. So adding unrelated info on the Shah's regime only adds to the section unnecessary trivia. The section's domain should be limited to how (a) internal and external factors over time played a crucial role in the formation of-- and constraints on-- Cold War foreign policy for all the major actors in the '53 crisis and to (b) concluding remarks on how the Cold War foreign policy shaped Iran's development and role in the international system of states in subsequent years... In that case, adding the remarks on the Shah's secular reforms kind of implies that it's relevance falls under "b," which would be the case if the new role of the U.S. in Iran's internal affairs following the coup determined the course of the 'modernization' program. However, I fail to see evidence that this was the case. You seem to be stressing the role of U.S. power in Iranian domestic politics to a much greater extent than all of the scholarly literature on Iran and the Cold War. Ironically, I doubt that this has anything to do with your intent... Regarding the Arbenz coup, I fail to understand your point regarding the timing of the planning. If you backed up your position with a citation of a conclusion from a secondary source, it would be quite helpful... I also fail to understand what you mean regarding the "inaccuracy" on Cuba. The concern I have actually has nothing to do with a factual dispute; the concern has to do with the writing. 'Castro in search of significantly leftwing reforms' simply does not make sense. What was going on? Was he looking for the right how-to manual on "leftism" for Cuba??? Did he finally come across a copy of (say) Lenin's "What's to be Done?" and then reach an epiphany thinking, "oh, that's how I'll restructure Cuban society."? I don't mean to be flippant, but you do need to be clearer in your writing... Finally, regarding "agitation" your response attempts by certain leftist groups to violently overthrow governments such as in Cuba sounds like vitriol rather than proper historical writing. First, the reference to "Marxist agitation" was found in the section on Guatemala, not Cuba. Second, at the time when Castro 'violently overthrew' the Batista regime, he was not part of any organization calling itself "Marxist." So what you mean by "Marxist agitation" in Guatemala remains as unclear as ever. 172 | Talk 23:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Shah's reforms were pivotal in Iranian history just like Mossadiq, Arbenz, and Castro and helped contribute to the Shah's downfall.
  • A state department foreign relations source states that plans to oust Arbenz began in 1951 in Operation PBFORTUNE, which was prior to the land redistribution of UFC in 1952.
  • Nationalizing foreign industry was part of the leftist reforms Castro was implementing.

(1) Of course the Shah's reforms were pivotal in Iranian history. But have you noticed that this is an article on the Cold War. (2) What's your point? If you're trying to point to the timing as evidence of some sort of thesis, you're out of your league, given the no original research policy. If you are trying to represent a POV, be more clear on the secondary literature you are drawing on. (3) What's you're point? I know. The language you used "in search of significantly leftwing reforms" still made no sense and never will make any sense unless you're writing is more concrete and specific. (4) You mention "Marxist agitation" in the context of a sentence on Guatemala. At any rate the country hardly matters. What are the specific actions you are describing as "Marxist agitation?" 172 | Talk 22:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is wrong with just saying the Shah was not 100% for suppressing social reform or the U.S. was not interested in killing Iranian babies?
    • Do you expect a serious reply to this question? Please refrain from rhetorical questions if you expect to edit on Wikipedia in a colleaguial in compliance with policy. 172 | Talk 13:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The origins of the coup are a historical fact, not a thesis.
    • When historians study the origins of the coup, revolution, or any sort of large-scale social conflict, they are deeply engaged in theory. Why do you think that there are so many conflicting accounts of (say) the American Civil War-- so many that even academic specialists on the period are not even going to be aware of every version of the same story? Why is there so much disagreement among historians studying the same subject for decades when they are all trained to search for "the facts." Writing history is not as simple as you make it out to be. Thus, Wikipedia's policy is "no original research." You cannot simply state your own personal conclusion as fact, but instead must cite your sources in secondary literature. 172 | Talk 13:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, I will change it.
  • The sentence was of Latin America in general.

CJK 22:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Whatever you meant, if you cannot state the concrete historical events you were referring to, do not reinsert the content. What specific historial examples are you pointing to? 172 | Talk 13:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, why are you continuing to make the same sweeping deletions? I already went over the need to include information on the following: (1) U.S.-British competition in Iran and how it shaped the context in which U.S. policymakers made their choices, along with the role of Herbert Hoover Jr. (2) The pattern of U.S. intervention in Latin America before the Cold War and and how it shaped the context of the Latin American arena of the Cold War (3) The rise of the left in Latin America after the Great Depression and its adjustment to the new international setting of the Cold War (4) The shift to guerrilla tactics on the part of the Latin American left after the fall of Arbenez and its response to both superpowers (5) The Platt Amendment and U.S. intervention in Cuba between 1898 and the rise of Castro. If you are going to continue to delete information on the topics listed, please have the courtesy to explain your reasoning. 172 | Talk 13:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exchange on 20 September 2005

  • Once again, the Shah's reforms show he was not entirely brutal and evil as the article portrays him.
  • It is a FACT that coup plotting began in 1951. I did say this proves anything, it was just stating a fact.
    • Again, this says nothing about the issue that I have been discussing with you-- your removal of content concerning United Fruit. I was well aware of Operation PBFORTUNE. Still, what you seem to be suggesting-- that the fact that it was authorized by Truman in 1952 renders any discussion of the U.S.-Central American relations before 1951-52 irrelevant along with U.S. interests in the region-- makes hardly any sense at all. The CIA is always drafting contingency plans that are never passed on to administrations, officials in other departments, or allies abroad for implementation. The process of going from planning to presidential authorization and then to acting on the plans is far more complicated than you make it out to be. That's why there's a need to insist on a secondary source backing up your perspective if you are going to insist that we exclude some information that a number of specialists on the Cold War in Central America do stress in their accounts of the ouster of Arbenz but not other information. On a related note, I must comment on your fundamental misunderstanding of what facts and theory are. In history there really are no facts independent of theory. If that assertion is unclear, you should probably do some reading on what theory is. 172 | Talk 18:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not remove any info about UFC co. And again the wording makes clear that I am NOT suggesting anything. The CIA was not merely drafting contingency plans it was urging Truman to remove Arbenz before the land reform took place. It is unfair to imply that the result was directly because of U.S. economic hegemony in the region. And I must comment on the disproportionately large sections about the CIA backed coups compared to the Hungarian Revolution (dealt in two sentences) and the Chinese Communist invasion of Tibet (which receives no attention whatsoever). There is no debate whatsoever about whether Soviet moves against Hungary or Czechoslovakia was motivated by uranium resources in the area. CJK 19:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • (1) At no point in the article did it state that the coup was a direct result of of U.S. economic hegemony in the region. However, no serious scholar can be found who will deny that economics does not at least structure a range of socially and political comprehensible actions. Please be more clear and avoid "straw man" misrepresentations of what the article says (2) Your point on length of coverage of the U.S. next to the USSR might be true (I haven't bothered to compare word count), but it's irrelevant. Dealing with the subject matter is not a matter of giving equal time and space to both superpowers. For one, there were additional players in the Cold War. Moreover, the subject can only be addressed on a case-by-case basis, with each section being held to the standards of conveying as much relevant information as possible, not the length or structure of a section on an entirely different subject... Further, it comes as little surprise that there is going to be "disproportionate" attention given to the U.S. It was the more powerful of the two superpowers; Yalta divided up the world into a Soviet zone that was about a third of the world, and the U.S. zone that was two-thirds. The U.S. had more allies, and thus naturally sponsored more interventions than the Soviets. There's simply more to say about coups taking place in America's bloc because there were more of them. (3) Regarding Tibet, I rarely see the invasion of Tibet even mentioned in the literature on the Cold War. (Check Gaddis or LaFaber's surveys if you want to take a look for yourself.) That's because the invasion hardly hurt Chinese-U.S. relations: the PRC did not have a relationship with the U.S. to begin with, and Tibet was not much of a strategic concern to the U.S. at all at the time. The invasion of Tibet is usually brought up in the context of discussion of Sino-Indian tensions, but not the Cold War. At any rate, if you can find a source making the case that the invasion of Tibet was indeed an important episode in the Cold War that finally deserves to get some scholarly attention, I'll be more than happy to take a look. The material would be new to be and quite interesting. 172 | Talk 01:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • 1) Once again, no info about UFC was removed and there was no implication of motivation. 2) While the U.S. did intervene more than the U.S.S.R. the article devotes the vast majority of its structure to the U.S. and much less to the USSR. Also, the vast majority of Western interventions were conducted by the U.S. while the Communists used proxy troops in different nations--China in Tibet, Korea, India; North Vietnam in South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia; Cuba in Angola and Ethiopia. 3) Whether or not Tibet directly concerned the US is irrelevant as technically Guatemala did not concern the USSR. The invasion is generally seen as a prelude to the Chinese attack on India which did involve the US. CJK 20:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Review your Cold War timeline. This article deals with the period before the Cuban Missile Crisis. Laos, Angola, and Ethiopia become focal points of the Cold War later. As for the other examples, the "fall of China" is already dealt with in the previous page of this article (1947-1953), Indochina mostly in the subsequent page, and the civil wars in Africa again in the susequent page. As for Tibet, the invasion was largely forgotten by the international community at the time. Your assertion that it was seen "as a prelude" to the Sino-Indian War does not make the case for elevating the invasion of Tibet to same status in the Cold War of (say) the Hungarian Revolution of the coup ousting Arbenz. The role of both superpowers in the brief border war was minimal. If anything, the invasion of Tibet could be mentioned in the section dealing with South Asia, which covers Sino-Indian tensions, but it would be overkill to give it an entire section. 172 | Talk 01:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Once again, the Arbenz coup involved only the U.S. and not anyone else, so logically that should not be mentioned as well. CJK 22:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • The U.S. saw it as Latin America as an emerging Cold War arena of conflict-- one of the most important trends of the Cold War in the 1950s. It is highly relevant, especially keeping in mind the rise of Castro just 6 years later. 172 | Talk 02:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • But the US saw EVERYTHING as a Cold War arena conflict. I see nothing more than you trying to weasel out of expanding more information of the negative actions of communism. Right above I said how Tibet was somewhat of a prelude to India, much more relevant than Arbenz>Castro. CJK 19:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • trying to weasel out of expanding more information of the negative actions of communism I am a professional historian whose salary is paid by the State of Florida. Your suggestion that I have a pro-Communist agenda is a personal attack of the worst kind. You will be reported on grounds of violating the policy against personal attacks if you continue to fail to respond to the substance of my comments and engage in ad hominems... Regarding your point on Tibet, if you cite a source I will consider it. But so far you continue to spew your own personal opinions, without reference to academic sources. 172 | Talk 21:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then again, I am second thoughts on the context of intervention. I believe that "intervention" should be used as strictly a military intervention and not covert or supporting. For instance, the Soviets and Chinese gave aid to the Viet Minh which assisted their rise to power in Indochina, but rarely is this cast as "intervention". Simultaneously, Cuba covertly assisted the Sandinista's rise to power in Nicaragua, but it is not mentioned. The coups in Iran and Guatemala, although they were assisted by the CIA, were actually conducted by non-American personnel. Therefore I think these parts should be scaled back if not removed entirely. CJK 22:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "historical examples" are insurgencies like Castro.
    • As I have already mentioned, Castro was not a part of any Marxist movement when he was in the Sierra Maestra trying to overthrow Batista. He was not a part of Cuba's fairly large and active Communist Party at the time. He was even denying that he was a Marxist at the time. Further, as mentioned, you use the term in a context that does not refer to Castro. The following is the context in which you use the term: "By the mid-20th century... much of the region passed through a higher state of economic development, which bolstered the power and ranks of the lower classes, and left calls for social change and political inclusion more pronounced, thus posing a challenge to foreign corporations in the region and increasing Marxist agitation." The calls for social change and political inclusion that are being referred to here predate the rise of Communist guerrilla movements in Central America, South America, and the Caribbean inspired by the Cuban Revolution. They are the ones associated with the populism and nationalism of the earlier period from roughly 1910 to the early 1950s: the Mexican Revolution, Vargas' reforms in Brazil, the trienio in Venezuela (the 1945-48 democratic socialist regime), and Peron's Argentiana, etc... On a related note, I think you misunderstand the definition of "agitation," and in particular how the term is used by Marxists. The term does not refer to the violent overthrow of governments when it is used by Marxists and non-Marxists alike. It refers to strategy used to influence and mobilize public opinion. Hence when you read Marxist tracts, you will sometimes see the term used coextensively with "agitprop," a Communist shorthand for "agitation and propaganda. 172 | Talk 18:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well given Castro's later statements I think we can conclude that he was a Marxite and not any ordinary social reformer. CJK 19:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • What you and I think does not matter, given Wikipedia:No original research. Cite secondary interpretations if you have them, or just stick to reporting the facts: although he is now head of the Cuban Communist Party, he was not an avowed Marxist when he was in the Siera Maestra. 172 | Talk 01:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do we know he was not a Marxist? Actions speak louder than words, and clearly Castro was not being entirely honest then. CJK 20:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, we know that. It's not the business of historians, let alone Wikipedia editors, to psychoanalyze historical figures. We know that his public political stance at the time was that of a non-Marxist and non-Communist. Further, while there were some individual Marxists among his 26th of July Movement, its membership was diverse, with large populist, nationalist, and social democratic elements within it. It is incorrect to describe his movement as "Marxist" before its radicalization after Castro came to power. 172 | Talk 01:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CJK 19:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

22 September


I have just posted a new version avoiding the problems I keep on spelling out over and over again in your version while incorporating your points on the Shah's secular reforms, Cuba's government structure, Alliance for Progress, and PBFORTUNE and PBSUCCESS. We should now be able to other articles, which promise to be more productive pursuits. 172 | Talk 01:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My problems are:
    • The Iran section should be shortened and merged with the Middle East Section.
      • No, it shoudln't. The Middle East second deals mostly with Egypt and the Arab-Israeli conflict. To make things clearer, though, perhaps we could change the heading of the title of the second on the "Middle East" to "Arab World and the Cold War." 172 | Talk 02:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Iran is part of the Arab world. The section is way too long to justify its relevancy in the Cold War. CJK 19:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it is not. Farsi-speakers are not Arabs; Arabs are only a tiny minority in Iran along the border with Iraq. Further, the mass blanking of huge sections borders on vandalism. Iran is a huge country in a part of the world of immense strategic importance with over 70 million people-- more than much of Eastern Europe put together-- and how the Cold War determined the course of its history is extremely relevant. 172 | Talk 21:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • The vast majorit of people do not know what Farsi speakers are. There were not 70 million Iranians back in 1953. CJK 22:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • This is an encyclopeida. If most people are ignorant and thus believe that Iranians are Arabs (they are not), then they can go ahead and get the facts by reading an encyclopedia. Iran is not a part of the Arab World. 172 | Talk 23:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Popular anger" really only developed in the late 1970s. Also, there is no mention of religious conservative disatisfaction with Mossadiq.
      • Because religious fundamentalists were not nearly as powerful and active in the political arena at the time. Hence the fact that broad surveys on the Cold War in Iran in the 1950s hardly ever go in detail on the origins of the Islamic Revolution-- a topic better addressed in portions of the series dealing with the Cold War in the 1970s. 172 | Talk 02:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence about the U.S. overthrowing governments in Latin America makes it sound like the U.S. overthrew more than one government whereas there is only one mentioned.
      • Well, the U.S. had played a role in overthrowing more than one government in Latin America, but the second hardly needs to be a survey on U.S.-Latin American relations in the 19th and 20th centuries. 172 | Talk 02:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • In this time period the US overthrew 1 government in Latin America. CJK 19:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • This observation is irrelevant (though the U.S. would play a role in helping to overthrow around half-a-dozen governments in the subsequent decade). It is important to establish historical context in each section, especially for readers like you who are very unfamiliar with U.S. diplomatic history and international relations. 172 | Talk 21:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]
            • The section says "governments such as..." which implies more than 1, which is cleary untrue for this section (unless you can find incriminating evidence to the contrary). CJK 22:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Incriminating evidence? Who says that overthrowing hostile regimes through covert means is "criminal?" Certainly those are not my words; you're saying it, not me... Regarding the substance of your point, I have changed the sentence to the following: Throughout the Cold War years, the US acted as a barrier to socialist revolutions and targeted populist and nationalist governments that were aided by the Communists. Now it is clear that we are referring to the Cold War years in general, not just the 1953-1962 period. And, by the way, there are many more examples other than Guatemala. The coup in 1964 that ushered in the longest period of military dictatorship in Brazilian history was a perfect example. The U.S. backed the overthrow of Joao Goulart, a non-communist nationalist in the tradition of Getulio Vargas when he was suspected of forming an alliance with the Communist Party, which ironically never regained its strength after it was violently repressed by Vargas, Goulart’s own mentor. 172 | Talk 07:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • I have already looked into the Brazilian matter and it turns out the US just prepared to back the coup, but in actuality they played no role in it. CJK 14:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The political backing was crucial. See Benjamin Keen and Thomas Skidmore's surveys on Brazil. At any rate, Brazil is out of scope for this article. No that the article is referring to the general Cold War period, this is a moot and dead point. 172 | Talk 20:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "military oligarchs" who ruled Latin America is factually incorrect for this time period.
      • All governments ruled through the alliances with the military elite-- historically a powerful actor in Central American politics. Please read the references provided in the article on Latin America. 172 | Talk 02:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • But you imply that the military controlled more than any government, despite many democracies. Is Latin America now "ruled by oligarchs"? CJK 19:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, the military's role in national politics is now less significant than at any point in Latin American history. Read up on civilian-military relations in Latin America. If you want a reading list, I will provide you one. 172 | Talk 21:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Whatever the case, in this section reletively few Latin American nations were governed by the military. CJK 22:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Take a class on comparative politics. Then you would be familiar with some of the more complicated regime configurations in terms of the relationships between civilian and military elites. Throughout much of Latin America, the military has a long history of political activity. Even when a country is not under direct military rule, it is common for high-ranking figures in the military to emerge as arbitrators of disputes in civilian politics, especially in disputes over succession. Military involvement in politics was common in every country in Central America with the possible exception of Costa Rica at the time. Let me know if you want a reading list covering Central American politics. 172 | Talk 07:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, but they were not "ruled" by military oligarchs. CJK 14:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I did not say that they were. The point was that civilian regimes depended on their support from the military. Do you want sources on the subject? There's no need to bullshit if one reads the leading scholarship on the subject. 172 | Talk 20:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Please stop your personal attacks. It said specifically they were "ruled by oligarchs". CJK 21:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The folowing is the sentence in dispute: "Throughout much of Latin America, reactionary oligarchies ruled through their alliances with the military elite and United States." Again, this makes reference to oligarchic civilian regimes that depended on their alliances with military rulers, not direct rule by the military. This is now a moot point. Stop removing the sentence. 172 | Talk 15:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calling the Guatemalan regime a "brutal dictatorship" and then turning around and calling Castro & co. "social revolutionaries" amazes me.
      • It should not. If you know anything about social revolutionaries, with the French and Russian Revolutions as the classic example, you would not think for a minute that a regime could be revolutionary and a brutal dictatorship. 172 | Talk 02:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Revolutionary, but Social Revolutionary? "Social Revolutionaries" promote human rights and democracies, not Castroite states. CJK 19:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Look up the term in a sociology or political science text. The term refers to revolutionaries who seek to totally restructure social relations, which describes just as well as any term the Bolsheviks in Russia or the Jacobians during the French Revolution. You seem very unfamiliar with the terminology. 172 | Talk 21:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Usually social reform does not calll for mass execution and dictatorships. CJK 22:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I said social revolution, not social reform. When considering the French, Russian, and Mexican, and Chinese Revolutions, with which scholars often compare the Cuban Revolution, they all saw their share of mass executions and dictatorial rule on a far larger scale than what was seen in Cuba. If you actually want to do some reading on comparative revolutions, one of my professional areas of expertise, I can draft a comprehensive reading list for you. 172 | Talk 07:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • I have never heard the French, Cinese, or Russian Revolutions called "social revolutions".
                • Then do some reading on the subject. 172 | Talk 20:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Why don't you tell me what major historian calls these "Social Revolutions". Others may call them something else, anyway. CJK 21:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • To start, I'll cite Theda Skocpol's 1979 States and Social Revolution - A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. You don't even have to pick up the book at the library to check my citation. The title says everything for our purposes here. By the way, I have taught college courses on comparative historical study of social revolutions, so I can go into a lot more detail if you insist.172 | Talk 16:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Hungarian Revolution should become an independent section and expanded.
      • Take a look at LaFeber's survey of the Cold War. The Hungarian Revolution is only mentioned in passing. In fact, it's addressed in a book that's around 500 pages in hardly greater detail than what we have here. That's because both superpowers were much more focused on what was going on in the Middle East with the Suez Crisis during in October '56. 172 | Talk 02:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Great, lets delete the Arbenz and Mossadiq sections then, where actual Soviet involvement was small. CJK 19:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Deleting the sections on Iran and Guatemala borders on vandalism. If you can point out material pertaining to Hungary that is missing in this article, I will consider it. But if I see other sections vandalized, I will immediately revert bad-faith edits. 172 | Talk 21:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Unless you can prove that there was Soviet involvement in these two incidents I don't know what your point is. CJK 22:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • There was little significant Soviet involvement, just as there was little to no U.S. role in the uprising in Hungary. However, each incident was a Cold War conflict. The U.S. feared that instablity in Latin America would open the door to a Soviet footing in the Americas, just as the Soviets believed that instablity and liberalization in Eastern Europe would open the door to the expansion of American influence to its own border. 172 | Talk 07:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You just proved my point for me. CJK 14:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The point is that any survey on the Cold War will need to mention Hungary (which you seem to be emphasizing), Iran, and Guatemala. If you remove any of those three sections, it will constitute vandalism. 172 | Talk 20:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Guatemala is under "Latin America". Hungary is under "Eastern Europe". Tibet and India are under "South Asia". Therefore, Iran should be under "the Middle East". CJK 21:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                        • The section title was "Suez Crisis and the Middle East," which I have changed to "Suez Crisis and the Arab World." [1] The Suez Crisis and the crisis in Iran in 1953 involved a very different set of actors, with the pan-Arab nationalism of Egypt no role in Iran, which, despite the common misunderstanding in the U.S., is not an Arab country. So it is not odd at all that the two episodes are treated in two different sections. Really, it makes no difference one way or another; there is almost an infinite array of options for structuring an article on such a complex and global topic, so there is no single correct way to outline it. Thus, the claim that we need to consolidate the headings is hardly a compelling reason to delete a considerable amount of valuable historical perspective on Iran and thus relegate Iran to a brief note after dealing with Egypt. 172 | Talk 16:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Something about Tibet and the Sino-Indian war should be mentioned.
    • The Indochina section should also be expanded.
                  • Yes, but you are missing the point. It was leaning closer and closer to the Soviets. At any rate, this conversation is pointless. I will add some content on Tibet if you would stop sniping at me on talk and vandalizing the sections on Iran and Guatemala. 172 | Talk 20:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • How do you "snipe" on talk? CJK 21:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I was using it in a non-literal sense to refer to your general hostile tone directed toward me. For example, in the above dialogue I noted how I considered your points on Tibet and promptly drated new content dealing with the subject of the 1959 invasion and the Sino-Indian War; yet, you respond only to a tangential comment. You know, I have been researching this subject professionally before most Wikipedia editors were born; and I am as committed in principle to quality and neutrality as any editor. We'd make much more progress if you didn't treat me like an enemy. 172 | Talk 16:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CJK 19:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CJK's mass deletions


Your mass deletions border on vandalism. I will work with you on expanding some sections where you think information might be missing, but bad-faith edits will be reverted immediately. 172 | Talk 21:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just expanded the section on Eastern Europe. I am willing to expand other sections in order to address some of your concerns, but blanking content on Asia and Latin America is unacceptable. It is frankly ethnocentric to suggest that conflicts in Europe are important, while conflicts taking place in non-European parts of the world are not worth attention. 172 | Talk 21:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Iran section is just way too large for its actual role in the Cold War. The CIA may have helped the Shah gain power, but there weren't any American troops there and Soviet involvement was also minimal. Subsequently, 0 attention is paid to Tibet, India, Taiwan, the second Berlin crisis, Soviet gains in Iraq and Somalia, the East German food riots, and Laos not to mention the tons of Marxist insurgencies. That is not ethnocentric. Meanwhile we detail what percentage of the profits going to which companies and when in the Iran section. CJK 22:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Adding information on Tibet has nothing to do with Iran. The construction of the Berlin Wall is already mentioned in the section on the founding of the Warsaw Pact. For details on India, see the large section on South Asia. If you didn't already know, India is in South Asia. Taiwain is covered in the previous page of this article. Regarding Somalia, the Soviet Union did not gain influence in East Africa until later in the Cold War, so this is outside the scope of a page dealing with the period framed by the death of Stalin and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Laos is also addressed in the subsequent page, which is the one that covers the Vietnam War... I am just as open to adding content as you are, but nothign will be added at the expense of important information already in the article. 172 | Talk 23:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why should Iran be mentioned and not Tibet? The South Asia section does not cover the Sino-Indian war. The two Taiwan strait crises were in 1954 and 1958. There was a major conflict in Laos in the late 50s and early 60s. There is no information about Africa in the next article. CJK 15:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would have time to write some content on the invasion of Tibet and the crises in Taiwan if you would stop vandalizing the sections on Guatemala and Iran. I would also have time to expand the coverage on Africa in the next article. The solution to improving the weak parts of the article series is not vandalizing the comprehensive parts of the article series. 172 | Talk 20:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New material on Hungary, Tibet, and India


In addition to adding content on the invasion of Hungary, I have just added content on the 1959 invasion of Tibet and the Sino-Indian War. Deleting the sections on Iran and Guatemala would constitute just as much an act of vandalism as deleting the new material on Tibet and Hungary... More is coming on Taiwan and Laos. 172 | Talk 21:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not DELETING the section on Iran, merely relocating it and reducing its massive size. I barely touched Guatemala, simply removing redundancy and emotionally laced POV. Iran is in the MIDDLE EAST. Therefore it should go under the MIDDLE EAST section while removing pointless info about the turn of the century and other redundant material. CJK 22:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I now see that you have attempted this time to summarize the section on Iran, but it still lacks lacks perspective. Keeping in mind that space is not limited and that we can even add a fourth page to the article series. What we should be doing is discussing each individual point that you personally feel that the reader ought not know and deliberate on whether or not content left in the article for over a year before you came along it is relevant. By the way, I have incorporated some of your changes, while preserving structure that addresses Iran (1953) before Guatemala (1954) in order to keep a sort of chronological order to the presentations on each region. [2] 172 | Talk 16:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought we were separating the conflicts by geographical region rather than nation. Anyway, the material about what foreign companies got what %, the turn of the century, and the Islamic Revolution do not belong here. CJK 20:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ruy Lopez is now rving my edits with no justification. I dearly hope he will halt his knee-jerk reaction to against anything that doesn't make America look like the great satin. CJK 21:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid making issue of ideological differences between you and other editors. Regarding the substance of your points, the historical persepctive on Iran, mentioning who controlled what shares of the country's oil and the legacy of the 1953 crisis throughout the remaining years of the Cold War, is essential and should not be removed. It's essential in the same sense that the statement I added to the section on Hungary in order to elaborate on the realities of Soviet power in Hungary: Soviet military power and occupation forces were the main guarantees of suppressing Western influence within Communist Eastern Europe. In Iran Western power historically was not ensured by the presence of a large occupation force, but in Western domination in capital investment in the country's leading industries, much the same way that the British ruled India for centuries without stationing many troops there. 172 | Talk 23:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see an Hungary-Iran comparison here. But anyway, the section should not include irrelevant information on the turn of the century and the Islamic revolution. It is also excessive to include "this company got x %". What should be mentioned in addition is the reforms and that the British founded the company in the first place. CJK 19:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Shakespeare, the past is prologue. Taking into account historical context in explaining the course of history is not "excessive" or "irrelevant"; indeed, it is the core reason that the profession of history even exists. Without the perspective informed by historical context, the past is just a nonsensical flux consisting of an infinite array of data with no order and meaning. One cannot understand Soviet actions in Hungary without understanding that the outcome of World War II left Soviet military power and occupation forces the main guarantees of suppressing Western and liberal influence within its new bloc. In the same sense, without understanding the economic supremacy of the advanced industrialized countries, one cannot understand how the U.S. and Britain had so much influence in many countries in the "Third World," despite the lack of the kind of troop presence that the Soviets had in Hungary. On that note, notice how all the secondary academic sources used in the section on Iran are all from accounts of the Cold War, not Iranian history. Cold War scholars have never the context of Anglo-Iranian relations as "irrelevant." The same goes for Latin America. The background in both sections is essential for understanding the emergence of the U.S. as a global power shaping the political fortunes of countries in every region of the world which felt that fighting communism in distant parts of the globe was essential for its own freedom at home. If you are interested in reading up on the origins of the Cold War in the Middle East and Latin America, let me know. The material is quite interesting and worth reading; so I am very happy to recommend material. 172 | Talk 02:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking about "historical background" here, I am talking about things that occured after the coup. Information about the turn of the century and the Islamic Revolution is important but does not pertain to this particular article. CJK 19:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that you are acknowledging that it is important, but I must take issue with your final point. The information provided here on the early 20th century pertains directly to the notable events covered in this page. To start, this information is essential for answering the following question: why were U.S. policymakers concerned that Latin America would fall to communism in the early Cold War years? One would have to look further back into the past. It was in the late 19th century and early 20th century that economic development in the United States magnified its power relative to the rest of the hemisphere. So we get the U.S. preoccupied with its responsibility of containing communism in Latin America, not (say) South America's giant Brazil responsible for containing communism in North America. By the end of World War I U.S. bankers became Latin America's principal creditors; and the U.S. displaced Britain as the major economic and political power in the region. So the U.S. has been the dominant economic power in the region since then, not the older dominant powers in the hemisphere like Spain, France, or Britain. Moreover, the origins of this communist threat are also worth noting. Since the Mexican Revolution, much of Latin America-- suffering from poverty and a maldistribution of wealth long before the U.S. was anywhere near Latin America's principal creditor-- was increasingly unstable and home to radical movements. So the increasing radicalization of Latin America's political opposition from the 1910s into the World War II years is definitely a trend with implications for the Cold War in the region in the 1950s worth noting for context... Regarding Iran, I don't see why it would be a big deal to follow your advice and move the following into the subsequent entry in the section on the Islamic Revolution: Popular anger in Iran, seething and repressed for a generation, combined with the Shah's secular reforms, eventually culminated in the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which led to a hostage crisis. Secretary of State Madeline Albright expressed regret in 2000 for the '53 CIA role, stating ): "...it is easy to see now why so many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs." Really, this sentence could serve either as a concluding remark on one of the unintended consequences of the 1953 incident in the 1953-1962 page of the series, or as the historical context to the section dealing with the Islamic Revolution in the 1962-1991 page. It hardly matters, as none of these pages are self-standing entries but components of a single article. So, I will move if it means that we can both wrap up our at times acrimonious discussions on this article and then take a nice break from editing it for a while. 172 | Talk 01:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really talking about Latin America. The last 2 paragraphs in the Iran section need to be moved or deleted for reasons already stated. The "popular anger" was not "seething" for a generation, it only really occured in the late 1970s. CJK 20:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we're getting closer to an agreement. Perhaps you didn't notice, but toward the end of my last post I stated why it doesn't matter one way or another if the content I quoted above on Iran is moved to the next page of the series (in short why I would not oppose moving the material stated above on Iran). Regarding the last sentence in your post above, I suppose that the point could be clearer, but as it stands "seething" is not inaccurate, as it implies that the problems were latent and thus not having yet reached surface. 172 | Talk 21:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Seething" implies that the Shah was extremely unpopular during his entire reign, which would not be true. CJK 22:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not to say that there weren't any, but at least I'm not aware of reliable outside scientific research to approximate the Shah's popularity among the population as a whole. It is not a guess, though, that he was always hated by a least some sectors of the population. While the text does not make any unverifable claims (e.g., that among a majority of the population he was always unpopular), I agree that it is unclear. I'll change it to the following: Popular anger among sectors of the population opposed to the Shah's rule, seething and repressed for a generation, combined with the Shah's secular reforms, eventually culminated in the 1979 Islamic Revolution... 172 | Talk 00:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but again portions of this article need to be moved/reduced/removed, including that line. CJK 19:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary misrepresented what we agreed to. Do not remove the content on the Iranian oil industry. It is thoroughly sourced, and the literature to which the references will direct the reader will elaborate on the significance of these matters to the Cold War. I did, however, move the content that we did agree to move-- the stuff on '79 that could go into the subsequent entry. 172 | Talk 21:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not only did you remove some of the perspective, but some of the specific events occurring in this period. You removed the following, the crux of what we're reporting in the section: the U.S. provided guns, trucks, armored cars, and radio communications in the CIA-assisted 1953 coup, which elevated Pahlevi from his position as that of a constitutional monarch to that of an absolute ruler. This is the single most important sentence in the section, actually. 172 | Talk 21:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That part is redundant, it already says above that Eisenhower aided the coup, so it should be rearranged. Besides that, the "reactionary oligarch" bit still should be modified. CJK 21:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Aided the coup" could mean anything from launching (say) a D-Day-style invasion or simply providing it political legitimacy by diplomatically recognizing the transfer of power. It's important to be concrete and specific when writing history... Regarding your second sentence, we already went through that matter, when we established the military's historic influence in politics throughout much of Latin America. 172 | Talk 23:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't remove that part about the coup, just relocated it. The governments in Latin America were not all "oligarchs" even if they ruled in an alliance with the military. CJK 19:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the case but no one is making that claim. They were oligarchic in the sense that they generally lacked institutionalized popular channels for affecting state policies. Uruguay and Costa Rica, along with revolutionary Mexico, are perhaps the only two exceptions. Elsewhere suffrage was very limited and mass political parties only starting to develop. 172 | Talk 22:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, other nations like Chile and Brazil (I believe?) had democratic governments. For the sake of compromise, however, I'm not going to contest it. CJK 19:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was an electoral system in Chile, but landlords largely determined how their peasants would vote in rural areas. Brazil had an electoral system from the late 1940s until the 1964 military coup, but its system was even more oligarchic than Chile's. In fact the '64 coup was triggered in part by Goulart's alleged "radical" plot to make suffrage universal. 172 | Talk 07:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I'm done with this article, although the Iran section still seems a little too big with the turn of the century and the company %s while simultaneously making no mention of the reforms. CJK 18:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's because this article focuses on the period leading up to the Shah gaining power; what had happened earlier-- not in the future-- helps explain why history unfloded the way it did. 172 | Talk 23:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I was referring to was information about what happened after the coup, not before it. CJK 17:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First Indochina War being part of the Cold War


I was invited to (re)post here (instead of the First Indochina War talk Pt.1 | Pt.2 | Pt.3 section) my new sources and request about accepting the First Indochina War as part of the Cold War and not only as a regular independence conflict since this war involved US-backed French & French-loyalist Vietnamese forces against China & USSR-backed communist Viet Mihn. Intellectual honesty makes me confess I'm a French citizen hence a different perspective than the American and English Wikipedians. I have no personal interest in accepting this conflict as a Cold War but the satisfaction of telling the historical truth.

  • Broken Taboo: A lot of things have been said in America and France about this "dirty war" which was until recently a classified taboo. Now the truth is being told in France, the war is now viewed as a Cold War episode in France, so I think it's time to update the old view about the conflict using modern reliable sources in the English Wikipedia too.
  • Official Source: The following notes are directly taken from a 50th Commemoration documentary. I did add nothing to the official statements[¹].
    • 1: The USA have financed 80% of the First Indochina War, supplying money ($400.000.000) and war material to France (uniform, helmet, rifle, tank were all US).
    • 2: The French were named (and considered themselves as) "the only rampart of the Free World against the evil of communism" by the US government.
    • 3: The US government has supported the French as a way of stopping the Communist expansion in South-East Asia.
    • 4: The French used US Douglas Dakota supply airplanes while the Viet Mihn used Soviet AA cannons.
    • 5: 1954 Operation Vulture (Opération Vautour) implies US B-29 raid planned to set things at Dien Bien Phu to save the losing French soldiers, the US president did accepted the French proposal of dropping the H-bomb but Churchill refused to save the remaining French soldiers from the H-Bomb's backeffects and to maintain the upcoming Geneva Meeting, so the Vulture Operation was cancelled at last.
  • [¹]"Diên Biên Phu, chronique d'une bataille oubliée" (Dien Bien Phu: Chronicles of a Forgotten Battle) 2004 documentary written and directed by Peter Hercombe and produced by Transparences Productions. It features French & Vietnamese armies archive footages and veteran interviews. It was broadcasted on the French national public TV "France 2" the 4th of May 2006.
  • 2004 American expertise can be found on this Air Force Magazine article | printable PDF article (so you cannot accuse me of being partisan).
    • 6: "Washington wanted to help. The question was how far President Dwight D. Eisenhower would go to prevent a communist triumph at Dien Bien Phu."
    • 7: "USAF B-26s loaned to France [...] still wear the nose art they carried in Korean action, mere months before."
    • 8: "France’s goal was a mirror image — total destruction of communist forces."
    • 9: "France had roughly 200,000 troops in the field. Some 200,000 Vietnamese troops fought with them as allies."
    • 10: "[Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap] brought in Chinese-supplied heavy artillery and Chinese advisors to further train his Viet Minh gunners."
    • 11: "Giap had in place [...] the fearsome “Stalin Organs,” Soviet-built Katyusha rocket launchers."
    • 12: "Yet America already was involved. President Harry S. Truman reluctantly had provided military aid to French forces in Vietnam, and, now, the US was picking up as much as 75 percent of the cost of France’s adventure in Indochina."
    • 13: "In October 1949, China’s communists won their own civil war and started sending aid southward."
    • 14: "French forces had borrowed and were using a US Navy aircraft carrier, 10 US Air Force B-26s, several C-47s and C-119s, and hundreds of US Air Force personnel."
  • Additional informations (though not necessarily neutral) and archive documents (site's interest) can be found on the Bien Phu Battle Org site. EnthusiastFRANCE 19:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 1st Indochina war belongs under Cold War--it should get one paragraph in this article and a much longer treatment in its own article. Correction: Eisenhower at no time considered using nuclear weapons in Indochina. (He DID threaten to use them in Korea in 1953.) Rjensen 15:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you (if i can tell thank you for this), I know about MacArthur in Korea but Eisenhower's acceptance of dropping the bomb at Dien Bien Phu is not my personal misunderstanding but a direct quote from Peter Hercombe's documentary. Churchill was the only one to refuse the use of the weapon as stated in the documentary. Air Force Magazine doesn't mention Churchill and states 75% of aids instead of 80% in the documentary. Someone in the talk quoted 78% from US scholar books, I guess the closer you are to this "stinky" affair, the more you have interest to reduce statistics and to revise intention/facts and vice versa for the French, of course. I mean additional sources are needed to state about the US acceptance of H-bomb use or not. EnthusiastFRANCE 16:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was former French Foreign Minister Georges Bidault who claimed that Dulles made the offer of two tactical nuclear weapons to lift the seige; it has been fairly clearly established that while Dulles did mention something about nuclear weapons to Bidault, it appears that the French Foreign Minister (whom Dulles described as "rambling" and "close to breaking point") misunderstood. Cripipper 20:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining Cripipper, actually this episode is subject to debate in US and France, I've posted multiple French Historians clearly statings that the Vulture Atomic plan was Radford's idea not French. Currently i personaly think that the so-called "misunderstanding" was actually Eisenhower's try to cover Radford promising strategical initiatives without Ike's official agreement (i've already posted this POV and the source somewhere on this page). Do you really think a professional translator would make a such important mistake? I don't. There is the US book (quoted somewhere on this page) detailing the 2 Operation Vulture i have to check. BTW can your release your sources please? The more sources we have the easier the historical truth will be determined? Also Rjensen and I would like to check Prados' theory before concluding. In other hand, I would like to produce all together a chronological event timeline, a bit like it was done about Pearl Harbor in Tora! Tora! Tora! not that detailed though, with Bidault's Washington meeting, US Ambassy in France/Ike telegramm, Churchill/Eisenhower call/telegramms, Eisenhower's domino theory (private talk/officialy unveiled) etc (i've seen such events exposed in a US book) EnthusiastFRANCE 16:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is for you Cripipper, look at this quoted from Timothy J. Botti's Ace In The Hole p.57: "Sensing a golden opportunity to take the wraps off the nuclear arsenal, Radford amended Operation Vulture to provide for the use of three atomic bombs to break up the siege." As you can see, I'm affraid things cannot be concluded that easily as a "misunderstanding". EnthusiastFRANCE 16:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GOD already one year has passed since this discussion; little improvement has been made though. but i'll not abandon. the truth will be told anyway. Shame On You 07:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Vulture's US nuclear strike at Dien Bien Phu debate

  • "The clear implication was that the United States was prepared to resort to nuclear weapons." quoted fom US Air Force Magazine aug.2004.
    • "In fact, Eisenhower put US airpower at the heart of all secret discussions of US assistance to France. This was consistent with President Eisenhower’s so-called “New Look” defense policy, which emphasized airpower—especially strategic nuclear airpower—as the centerpiece of US military power." source: idem

EnthusiastFRANCE 16:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No the article clearly says Ike never suggested using nuclear weapons, and he rejected the use of conventional weapons by US forces as well. From the article: "In his book Eisenhower: Soldier and President, Ambrose recounted the situation this way:

“On the morning of April 5, Dulles called Eisenhower to inform him that the French had told [the US ambassador to Paris] that their impression was that Operation Vulture had been agreed to and hinted that they expected two or three atomic bombs to be used against the Viet Minh. Eisenhower told Dulles to tell the French ... that they must have misunderstood Radford.”" Rjensen 16:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this Rjensen, but I already know about this paragraph. That's what I meant by "additional sources are needed" and "US/French revision". However, I agree to "temporary" use these USAF mag's statements as a basic view for the upcoming articles. Meanwhile, I will do more searches to find additional reliable sources concerning the Operation Vulture in order to determine if the US nuclear strike was a "misunderstanding" (USAF mag) or a "revision" (Peter Hercombe's doc). I invite everyone here, to do searches as well just because building theories upon a single source is not wise nor democratic. EnthusiastFRANCE 17:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes you are doing the right thing. I will look around too. Rjensen 17:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
important sources: George C. Herring and Richard H. Immerman, "Eisenhower, Dulles, and Dienbienphu: 'The Day We Didn't Go to War' Revisited," Journal of American History 71 ( Sept. 1984), pp. 347-348 online at JSTORJohn Prados, The Sky Would Fall, Operation Vulture: The U.S. Bombing Mission in Indochina, 1954 ( New York: Dial Press, 1983), (not online) Rjensen 17:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ike certainly never approved nuclear--on Joint Chiefs only Radford was supportive. see [3] Rjensen 17:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a jul.2004 interview (w/Dominique Bari), historian, Indochina specialist, & 1978-80 Vietnam correspondent Alain Ruscio states that:
    • 1: Vice-president Richard Nixon and admiral Radford were both hard-liners against communism, the first proposed a direct intervention of the GIs in Indochina, while the second planned Operation Vulture (March 1953 Washington).
    • 2: It is now known that Foster Dulles (US Secretary of State) made a very clear proposition of using the atomic bomb to Georges Bidault (Foreign Affair Ministry, in Joseph Laniel's French Government), US Navy carriers were there in the Tonkin Gulf and it is prouved that the nuclear weapons were there.
    • 3: Eisenhower used his political veto. He didn't want to risk a new World War because of Indochina. Eisenhower was supported by Churchill, which latter strongly criticized Bidault seen as one of the strongest bellicist.
    • Historian Ruscio had published several reference Indochina books including
  • Analyse sur les accords de Genève et sur la fin d'une guerre qui conduit à une autre
  • Dien Bien Phu, la fin d'une illusion ISBN:2858027986
  • Dien Bien Phu, Mythes et réalités : Cinquante ans de passions françaises (1954-2004) ISBN:2846540608
  • Communistes Français et la Guerre d'Indochine: 1944-54 ISBN:2858024510
  • Ho Chi Minh: Textes, 1914-1969 ISBN:2738405371
  • Premiere Guerre d'Indochine 1945-1954 Bibliographie ISBN:2858028311
  • 1945-1954, la guerre française d'Indochine ISBN:2870274572
  • La guerre française et d Indochine 1945 1954 les sources de la connaissance bibliographie ISBN:2846540179
  • Viêt nam ISBN:2738404170
  • Vivre au Vietnam ISBN:2209054079
  • Le procès de la colonisation française : Hô Chi-Minh ISBN:2841092151

EnthusiastFRANCE 21:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks i've registered G-mail to access your link. Hopefully I'll be able to read it in a few moments. But unfortunately i cannot access to your link (server error) and i cannot use the G-mail service because of a loading page failure (maybe because G-mail is still in BETA test in France). I will try later anyway. EnthusiastFRANCE 22:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EnthusiastFRANCE 22:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've found something about Operation Vulture: In his 1960 Full Circle/Memoirs (ISBN:B0000DXU5K/B0000DLQP3) Anthony Eden (British Foreign Officer) states that when French General Paul Ely (supported by some Saigon based US officers) met Foster Dulles and Amiral Radford on the 19th of March, 1954 (Washington- DBF battle has started on the 13th), both american officials agreed on both the US support and Operation Vulture (in case of a Chinese airforce intervention) but the Vulture Operation was later cancelled due to the British opposition. Which confirms Peter Hercombe's documentary except the H-bomb.
  • The nuclear option is not clear in US mag as there are still classified files: "Radford, the top American military officer, gave this nuclear option his backing.", "Eisenhower [...] certainly knew of the JCS option", "Declassified material confirms that Operation Vulture was seriously considered—and that it had room for both conventional and atomic weapons".
    • USAF mag choose Stephen E. Ambrose's supposed 5th April, 1954, Eisenhower quote (exposed in the Eisenhower: Soldier and President 2003 biography) who claims the French have misunderstood. But it is possible that Eisenhower has changed his mind since the 19th of March and the British opposition. Farther searches are still needed, especially what do they mean by "technical preparation of the strategical airforce for Dien Bien Phu" which actually started (not just planned!) under Radford's orders. EnthusiastFRANCE 19:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A different but argumented and detailed perspective opens new perspectives.
    • "25 March: U.S. Army G3 Section proposes use of atomic weapons in Vietnam"
    • "10 April: President Eisenhower sends Secretary of State Dulles and Admiral Radford to Europe to push Operation VULTURE, which Prime Minister Churchill opposes (and disagrees with the Domino Theory)."
    • "23 April: French Foreign Minister Bidault refuses Dulles' offer of 2 atomic bombs"
    • "27 April: Dulles falsely hints to French that Eden of UK supports Operation VULTURE"
    • "30 April: Eisenhower to Cutler of NSC, "We might give the French atomic bombs.""

(source: Victoria Peace Coalition, Canada - though this version is plausible, is it a reliable source?) EnthusiastFRANCE 23:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The US military prepared a contingency plan that involved nuclear weapons. (It prepares many contingency plans all the time.) The nuclear part was rejected by the Joint Chiefs, and by Ike. Rjensen 05:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"It prepares many contingency plans all the time" yes i guess that's true, i also believe that the Radford-planned Operation Vulture would had been launched only if the Chinese have attacked Dien Bien Phu, BUT that time, Amiral Radford had "given orders to technically prepare the Dien Bien Phu intervention to the strategic airforce based in Manila" ("L'amiral Radford fait même préparer techniquement l'intervention de l'aviation stratégique de Manille sur Dien Bien Phu") according to Maurice Faivre, which is a reliable source. What do you mean by Joint Chief? Acording to reliable sources Radford and Dulles were for the Nuclear strike (cited before), only Eisenhower and Churchill seems to have refused. Also, I'm curious to see Prados' theory, I guess Prados is not an amateur right? Do you have a valid link please, the one you gave me once doesn't work for me (google books sample pages links integrate individual ID number which is personal and only works when the user's account is activated! only the summary page can be accessed without ID). Thanks.
Prados is a highly regarded historian. Sorry about the google link. Rjensen 07:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • according to Ace In The Hole p57 (Ace in the Hole- Why the United States Did Not Use Nuclear Weapons in the Cold War, 1945 to 1965) - : there were actually two versions of Operation Vulture (hence the different theories!!), one involving conventional bombing and another involving atomic strike. I will read this deeper as soon as I get time. EnthusiastFRANCE 07:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Acting without presidential approval, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Arthur Radford presented the French general with a plan (code named Operation Vulture) for the use of twenty-five American B-29s from the Philippines and aircraft carriers in the South China Sea to break the siege by destroying the Vietminh artillery positions. Radford also hinted that if conventional bombing did not do the trick, nuclear weapons might be considered as a last resort." so it appears it wasn't a French misunderstanding at all but instead Eisenhower covering his own cabinet acting unofficially!

quoted from A World of Nations- The International Order Since 1945 by William R Keylor p.221 EnthusiastFRANCE 08:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indochina War article material

  • MCE European Navigator French/English Chronology of events in Indochina 1945-1956 (search keyword: Dien bien Phu): "06.03.1946: Agreement between Ho Chi Min and the French Governement. France recognises the Democraric Republic of Vietnam as a free state within the French Union with Ho Chi Mihn as its president." etc. highly recommended official chronology giving a nice overview EnthusiastFRANCE 20:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Operation Vulture being cancelled because of the British opposition, two replacement solutions are planned: Operation Condor (ground rescue operation) and Albatros Operation (escape toward Laos operation), both failed and the battle ends on the 7th of May 1954. source: Maurice Faivre in General Paul Ely EnthusiastFRANCE 19:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • French General Navarre's November 1953 plan for Dien Bien Phu was dual: 1:to counter the Viet Minh offensive in Laos. 2:to develop National Armies in charge of pacifying their countries. source: Maurice Faivre in General Paul Ely EnthusiastFRANCE 19:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a note I found on Wikipedia while searchin' about material lended by the US, as expected the US involvement was wrapped into "CIA's secret": "The C-119 would go on to see extensive service in Vietnam, beginning in 1954 with aircraft secretly loaned by the CIA to French forces for troop support. These aircraft were generally flown in French markings by American CIA pilots often accompanied by French officers and support staff. The C-119 was to play a major role during the siege at Dien Bien Phu, where they flew into increasingly heavy fire while dropping supplies to the besieged French forces. In a famous incident occurring on May 6, 1954 Lt. James McGovern, a hulking 260 lb WWII fighter ace nicknamed "Earthquake McGoon," and his co-pilot Lt. Wallace A. Buford were lost when their C-119 was shot down by North Vietnamese anti-aircraft fire while attempting to drop an artillery cannon during the last day of the siege. The aircraft flew another 75 miles before crashing on the banks of a river in Laos. McGovern, Buford and Life magazine photographer Robert Capa, killed later that month, were the only Americans known to have died in the French conflict in Indochina" EnthusiastFRANCE 18:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fall of Dien Bien Phu audio subtitled archive RTL french radio 7~9 May 1954, journalist: Yves Desjacques: General Cogny (Hanoi based) contact bessieged garrison's CIO Gen de Castries (DBF) to litt: "let die the affair by itself, in serenity" (document used in Peter Hercombe's 2004 documentary). Following is a commentary about the DBF battle. I can produce a full-lenght translation of the Cogn/de Castries short conversation for the article (official source: MCE European Navigator)
  • TRIVIA: de Castries received his' General uprank stars by airmail! (from a supply Dakota) source: RTL audio documentary

EnthusiastFRANCE 20:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radford was the chair of the joint chiefs which included the heads of army, navy, af and marines. The other 4 opposed any intervention in Indochina. "To the man, the chiefs of staff of the United States Army, Navy, and Air Force, and the commandant of the Marine Corps, turned thumbs down to Radford's plea" for conventionional air strikes. Decision Against War: Eisenhower and Dien Bien Phu, 1954 by Melanie Billings-Yun pp 70, 78, available on books.google.com Rjensen 07:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)~[reply]
I see, thank you. I'll check this article on google book too. EnthusiastFRANCE 08:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New leadership in Soviet Union


The section on how Khruschev took over power is too brief. If I remember correctly, he wrested power from Malenkov in 1953. It may not be very relevant for the whole article, but I think it could be clarified. --Glacierfairy 14:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

did anyone of you has ever heard about the domino theory?


of course you didn't or else you would had added the first indochina war into the cold war era. the U.S. supported the french, 2 americans died at dien bien phu, and the russians gave hundred of trucks to the communist viet minh. i have gathered multiple evidences in these articles but censorship is still rampant here. not for long actually. Shame On You 07:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:On the Beach DVD cover.jpg


Image:On the Beach DVD cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four Protocols


The discussion in Culture and Media does not list the "four protocols" that are mentioned.


The image Image:Castro Khrushchev.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

use of the term "cold war"


It says The administration attempted to reconcile the conflicting pressures from the "Asia firsters" and pressures to cut federal spending while continuing to fight the Cold War effectively. but did the American goverment see it as a cold war at the time? They could have just thought of it as a freezing of relations. I probably dont know as much as some of you guys but that seemed to me as being odd. Deadlyfish (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cold War (1953–62). 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cold War (1953–62). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]