Talk:Rollback

message: I'm not sure all of the examples really are rollback, as some fall pretty far from the cold war sense.  Although the idea of reconquering all of Japan's gains and then attacking the main islands metaphorically fits an image of "rolling back," I don't think a war of attrition when attacked first count as rollback.  Likewise, coming to an ally's defense during a war of attrition (WWI) doesn't seem to fit.  Finally, the civil war wasn't an attempt to "force change in the major policies" of the confederacy, it was an attempt to end the confederacy - and thus isn't a good example of rollback.
Even if there's debate on one or two of these wars, encyclopedias, especially in the introductory paragraphs, are meant for someone who doesn't know much about what the term they're looking up.  It's confusing to introduce such dissimilar and disputed examples without explanation, which doesn't belong in the introduction.RantingRaven (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: rollback covers ending the regime in question--such as rolling back to the previous regime (Confederacy, Napoleon's empire). Rjensen (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening examples 

message: I've massively edited the Reagan Administration section due to breaches of NPOV and basic accuracy bordering on the delusional. Aid to Afghan rebels is not rollback, it is containment, in the same way that an apple is not an orange. Also, this policy was started by the Carter Administration, not Reagan.
--82.32.130.14 (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You should not put new comments here.  Your removal of content about Angola, Cambodia, ect., is unexplained and will have to be reverted.  Aid to the Afghans was absolutely rollback, and reliable sources commonly refer to it as such.  Afghanistan was communist, and its government wanted Soviet aid; it wasn't a matter of "containing" Afghanistan by preventing the spread of communism to Pakistan.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. Which "reliable" sources refer to Afghanistan as Rollback? And whom of? The Afghan government, or the Soviet? There is a lot of political polemic disguised as history on the cold war / Carter / Reagan pages.  For example the "Background" on Operation Cyclone cites as a source  a polemical article by Christopher Hitchens which describes President Carter in outright abusive terms - hardly scholarly, and certainly not reliable. --82.32.130.14 (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: here's the RS that explain it well: (1) "The U.S. provided funds, supplies, and training to the Mujahideen, a conglomeration of anti-communist rebels working to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan. Rollback was underway." ; (2) "Afghanistan: Consensus,. Cooperation,. and. the. Quest. for. "Rollback". Without question, the longest and least controversial application of the Reagan Doctrine occurred in Afghanistan." ; (3) "The Carter administration's decision to help arm the Afghan rebels constituted the genesis of what would become known as the Reagan Doctrine, a synthesis of rollback and the Nixon Doctrine." [Richard A. Melanson American foreign policy since the Vietnam War (2005) Page 142]; (4) "The third (Rollback) view, which ultimately won out, was the Reagan doctrine: extend maximum support to "freedom ... to a settlement rather than a sellout could occur only after the Soviets paid much greater military costs in Afghanistan" [Rubin, The search for peace in Afghanistan 1996 p 64]. Rjensen (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV in the "Reagan Administration" section 

message: When was it first used? -- TheMightyQuill 14:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but in UK politics it is called a "U-turn" and is a pejorative expression.  --P123ct1 (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  origin of the term? 

message: Hello everyone!
When I read this article and had a look at the references, I was wondering to which text the footnotes 1 and 10 refer to. Number 1 refers to a text by "Stöder from 2004." There is no text by  "Stöder" in the further reading list, only one by an author which had the name "Bernd Stöber". I dont know a cold-war historian with that name, only one who is called "Bernd Stöver", not "Stöber", I think this was a mistake so I changed the name to Stöver. Does reference number 1 refer to Stöver? I think so, so I too changed the name from "Stöder" in the note to "Stöver".
How about reference 11? There's a page number given which doesnt match any of the given texts/authors (it says "Stöder, p. 98"). Did the person who used this footnote refer to this text : Stöver, Bernd. "Rollback: an offensive strategy for the Cold War," in Detlef Junker, ed. United States and Germany in the era of the Cold War, 1945 to 1990, A handbook: volume 1: 1945--1968 (2004) pp. 111-117.)? The page numbers don't match. I think we should fix this, otherwise this footnotes doesnt make much sense... =)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.191.109 (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: well that's a sharp eye for detail! The Bibliog should read:
Stöver, Bernd. "Rollback: an offensive strategy for the Cold War," in Detlef Junker, ed. United States and Germany in the era of the Cold War, 1945 to 1990, A handbook: volume 1: 1945--1968 (2004) pp. 97-102.  Rjensen (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I took the liberty of qualifying earlier descriptions of the Grenadan coup government, the Revolutionary Military Council, at the time of the US invasion as "communist" or "Marxist", since the sources given only documented that it was labelled so by the Reagan administration (hardly an NPOV source...). The sections have since been rewritten, but the "communist tag" reappeared. I then reinserted a qualifier ("perceived"). Now do anyone actually have a non-Reagan administration source that unambiguously labels the Revolutionary Military Council as "communist", "Marxist" or similar? Also note that nothing is mentioned about the Revolutionary Military Council being communist in the Invasion of Grenada article, so if a case can be made for the Revolutionary Military Council being communist, that article will need to be rewritten as well.
: Mojowiha (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The RS call Coard a staunch Marxist (he led the coup that killed Bishop). 1) here's a a British view "On October 13, 1983, former deputy prime minister Bernard Coard led the Grenadian army in a bloody coup, arresting and then executing Bishop and his as- sociates. Even more hard-line a Marxist than Bishop, Coard sent shock...."  Kaufman = prof @ University of Central Lancashire, England.  2) "Maurice Bishop and Bernard Coard, leaders of the New Jewel Movement in Grenada, were the most prominent examples of the transition in the English-speaking Caribbean from Black Power to Marxism." [from ] Lewis = a Professor in Jamaica. 3) Here's an Australian Marxist view: "The Coard faction considered itself to be the "genuine" Marxist- Leninist wing of the NJM. It expressed dissatisfaction with the pace of the revolutionary process and advocated the immediate implementation of "socialist" measures." [from ] Rjensen (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grenadan communism at the time of the US invasion: Real or Perceived? 

message: As described, "rollback" is not a "strategy". Changing the government's policies is a goal for which there are many possible strategies that you could try to achieve that goal. Besides, "rollback" is not restricted to politics. Maybe this is a term of art within politics. If so, this article does not make it clear how "rollback" in a political context is different from "rollback" in a general context. For example, Merriam-Webster defines "rollback" as "the act of reversing or undoing something", which is a pretty good description of the sorts of things that this article is about.  Danielx (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: in military history it means destruction of a regime (like Confederacy in 1865, Nazi Germany & Japan 1945), ISIL (2014). Rjensen (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a distinct political topic? 

message: Should it be noted that this hasn't worked? Hcobb (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  end the power of the Taliban