Talk:History of the United States (1945-1964)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


I'm well aware of the many gaps in this article. The 1945-1953 part is not even complete, although it is the least unfinished. So far it is a work in progress. So bare with the construction site. 172

This article has pervasive POV problems. A good bit of it is a Marxist rant in which America is cast as the world's bully, with only selfishness and evil as its motivations, and afterwards America is cast as solely a racist thief. The majority of the nation's population is silently wedded to the status quo and all positive change comes from outsiders and minorities. Eisenhower is mentioned in the context of Cold War strife and by the fact that there was poverty in America in his administration, and the massive federal highway project that changed the migration and life of the nation is not mentioned at all.

A way over the top hysterical charge. Sounds like JoeM. This user, however, is correct on one point in that the article's unfinished. This user could be useful and add content. I admit that I've been neglecting this article in recent weeks, but I'm not the sole contributor. Why doesn't he/she add something instead of making baseless, incendiary charges? Evil? Selfishness? Come on. Nations have economic and strategic interests. This article, like all articles, will explore these interests, along with ideological and humanitarian concerns, and eschew the hero-worship chronicling that has been rejected by historians for the past century. 172 04:52, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I think it's a quite accurate charge. Yes, expose the interests and avoid cheerleading, but do you think there might have been a contingent in the US government who wanted to fight communism not for economic gain, but because it was in humanity's interest to oppose totalitarian states? (Yes, I realize most of these same people turned a blind eye to the Shah, etc., but the current POV assigns only economic goals to the participants here, and that's silly.) Unfortunately, I am in an awkward position when it comes to attempting to add to the article. I find its POV problems to demand extensive editing that I would love to contribute to, but I don't have a lot of time for. Without this editing, I am not comfortable adding to the article because I feel this would constitute supporting, in some small way, the article's POV. For example, I'd like to add something about the first half of the US / USSR space race, but in the voice of the main author, the treatment would be: "Despite the starvation every year of millions of non-capitalists and non-consumers of US goods, the United States spent billions of dollars on a wasteful space race with the Soviet Union, in order to impress the world with its military might and, ultimately, advance its economic aims." This is a wiki-wide problem, of course; if I disagree with something large then it'll take a large effort to improve it.
No. Reread the article. The article makes it clear that there were two distinct visions of the world. Nowhere does it state that there were not people "who wanted to fight communism not for economic gain." And the article has no business advocating your view that it's "humanity's interest to oppose totalitarian states," just as we cannot argue the converse point. As for the space race, feel free to add it. But keep the events in context. Yeah, it received a lot of attention, but this is a very broad article and it needs to stay focused on the key strategic developments concerning the Cold War, such as Detente, arms control, the Cuban Missle Crisis, shifts in administration foreign policy, and so on. 172 03:15, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

POV: pro-communist soviet union, anti-capitalist america.

i wanted to add my agreement to the POV issue mentioned above, but for some reason i cannot seem to edit that secion. i find it very hard to believe that the U.S. should be blamed for every wrong occurance, and that the soviet union is completely innocent of anything. this article does a tremendously good job of condemming U.S. policy with its voice though not necessarily its words. the soviet union is pictured as being entirely passive, acting only as a measure of security, and the united states/britain as being totally aggressive, defending corruption, etc. certainly, this may be the way the author views history, and i'm certain it is, however, it is not becoming in an encyclopedia, in which we are supposed to be neutral.

granted, my critique is based upon my own worldview, however i am not asking for this article to be made pro-U.S. just to be made less pro-Soviet Union, and not pro-anything. it is only when both sides believe that the article favors the other that we have reached real neutrality. --Cedric Dwarf 21:26, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

POV Problems

Yes, this article has a huge problem with point of view. True, it is never said that there weren't Americans fighting not for economic gain, but the author repeatedly tries to force the idea that this was the main concern of the American government.

Some examples of POV problems:

The rationale was obvious: What was the point of having such overwhelming productive superiority if the rest of the world could not muster effective demand? Furthermore, economic reconstruction helped create clientelistic obligations on the part of the nations receiving U.S. aid; this sense of obligation fostered willingness to enter into military alliances and, even more important, into political subservience.

There is no talking about military security of these nations or anything. It can equally be argued that the United States was trying to increase the security of allied nations, and not trying to force its foreign policy on to other countries.

The United States aimed to interfere in the internal affairs and sovereignty of other countries or impose its will upon others under the guise of "freedom," "democracy," and "human rights." In retrospect, this initiative appears largely successful: Washington brandished its role as the leader of the "free world" at least as effectively as the Soviet Union brandished its position as the leader of the "progressive" and "anti-imperialist" camp.

Come on... How can this NOT be a POV problem? The author expresses his/her opinion that the whole idealogical war was a guise to extend American political influence but yet, does the author ever say that the Soviet Union may have been doing the same thing with its "anti-imperialist" rhetoric. The answer is no.

While the Soviet Union acquiesced to Anglo-American designs to impede Soviet access to the Mediterranean (a perennial focus of British foreign policy since the Crimean War in the 1850s), the Americans heated up their rhetoric; Anglo-American aims to prop up the Greek autocracy became a struggle to protect "free" peoples against "totalitarian" regimes.

Same as above. The tone (and quotes) really make this a huge POV problem.

But this vision was equally a vision of national self-interest.

Can the author read Truman's mind? Can he or she read the minds of politicians? Who knows what aspects of the vision they valued more?

In short, there are terrible problems.


NPOV Edits

I attempted to remove much of the editorializing mentioned above, though there is still more work to be done. I removed the POV tag, though. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)