Talk:Cold War
End of the Cold War
The Soviet Union didn't fall in 1989. Its prestige diminished, but it didn't dissolve until 1991.--All Fish Welcome 19:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
- Corrected. --Hojimachongtalk 19:33, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
- Actually the significance of the birth of Russian democracy on Christmas Day is something Western journalists tried to obscure, but we need to write about it. RobS 22:03, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
- It was the 26th, was it not? that would make it boxing day. --Hojimachongtalk 22:04, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
- It was Christmas Day that Gorby folded shop, they rung down the hammer n' sickle from the Kremilin, and Yeltsin took over. The 26th would be the first full day.
- It was the 26th, was it not? that would make it boxing day. --Hojimachongtalk 22:04, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
- Actually the significance of the birth of Russian democracy on Christmas Day is something Western journalists tried to obscure, but we need to write about it. RobS 22:03, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
- There are actually several meanings to the 25 of December, not the least of which is modernization, that is to say accepting the Gregorian calander, because as you know in parts of the former Soviet Union Christmas is still celebrated on the old calander. Then Soviet Premiers have taken in recent decades to making a sort of "State of the Union" or Christmas message, despite atheism being the official position. In all actuallity, Gorby was set to fold shop months earlier, and Yeltsin poised to take over, but they waited til Christmas, cause this is just traditionally the time Soviet people are accustomed to hearing from their leaders on non-crisis big events. And of course finally, most significant of all, the choice of using the Christmas as the new Russian "Fourth of July" was a pointed statement to the world about the new Russian democracy's stance on (1) separation of Church and State issues; (2) declaring a multicultural multi-ethnic state fundementally a Christian nation. These things, for obvious reasons, were totally ignored by Western media. RobS 22:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
On Khruschev, and the "Cold War" in general, a major factual point needs to be added.
About 1961, just as other events in the "Cold War" were becoming very evident & yet more troublesome to US leadership as well as the public, the Soviets renewed testing of nuclear weapons. After Sputnik, this event most clearly marked the open threat that Khruschev verbally expressed. Indeed, the Soviets exploded a number of huge thermonuclear bombs, obviously to boast their capabilities. They gave a propaganda warning of an explosion that would be bigger than any other--then followed through with a blast of 58 megatons! During that period, the US only exploded two or three tests.
Having lived through the period, my own impression was, and still is, that the sudden, and powerful, nuclear tests contributed more than anything to the American "Cold War" psychology--more than Khruschev's verbal rantings, more than the Berlin Wall, more than Sputnik, and showed why the Cuban crisis of 1962 was a kind of cumulation. Note that by fall 1963, the Soviets agreed to the nuclear test ban treaty that ended these explosions, except for those deeply buried. And that was part of the easing of the Cold War in the view of the US public. Possibly the sense had eased after the Cuban Crisis, and eased further when Khruschev himself fell about a year later, but the nuclear test ban was the most notable "end" of the psychology. (Of course, the new Soviet leaders were just as dangerous, but they practiced much better "PR" by avoiding such a belligerent face.)
Charles W. Miller PhD 28 Aug. 2011
Content/Causes
This article is in need of extreme lengthening and content addition. It does not take into account the full scope of the military, economic, and socio-political ramifications, not to mention its omission of John Paul II's steadfast resolve and tireless campaigning against Godless communist oppression. The religious connotations of the "conflict" should be taken into account as well. Does anyone else agree? --Deuteronomy 11:20, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
-To attribute the American victory to only Ronald Reagan is a serious understatement. As every President since FDR had added something to the pool. For example Truman commited US forces to Korea in 1950, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, and Nixon all had their hands in Vietnam trying to prevent both northern communist dictatorship and southern corruption, and Ronald Reagan with his diplomacy. --Snotbowst 17:32, 28 February 2008 (EST)
Expansion
I've reorganized the article to include a causes section, which needs content. Dchall1 17:36, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
