Talk:NSC 68

message: I would change (add?) the quote from Robert L. Beisner, Dean Acheson: A Life in the Cold War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 238: "In Acheson’s view, Truman’s
parsimony endangered national security, and NSC-68 aimed to recruit (or force)
him to State’s strategy of building strength. Korea did that instead." which makes Korea's place in accepting NSC-68 clearer.
Ronbarak (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: Korea - Use Another Quote? 

message: I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have failed this article at this time for several reasons. An infobox would be great to add plus any image if available. The main reason for failing this article is the lack of citations. There are a few footnotes, but many sections are lacking inline citations. Go through the article and make sure to add inline citations to any statements that may be questioned about their verifiability. Also, the headings should only have the first word capitalized to meet the WP:Method of Style requirements. Full dates should also be wikilinked. Consider getting a peer review to help you get some feedback on how to further improve the  article. Once you have addressed these issues, please look over the rest of the criteria to see if the article is ready to be nominated again. If you disagree with this review, then you can seek an alternate opinion at Wikipedia:Good article review. If you have any questions about this review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 23:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA failed

message: The article states: "Truman officially signed NSC-68 on September 30, 1950." and "Truman sent it back for further review until he finally approved it in 1951."
Was he using an Alien time machine found at Roswell or what?  Hcobb (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Truman Show

message: One of the external references is to the "Truman Library Scanned Original Document," but I went to the website and could not find it there. Could someone edit the reference to refer to the specific title on the Truman Library website, or shall we delete the reference? 125.243.118.66 (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Truman Library Scanned Original Document"

message: The very last sentence fails any objectivity test:
"The strategy outlined in NSC-68 achieved ultimate victory, according to this view, with the collapse of the Soviet power and the emergence of a "new world order" centered on American liberal-capitalist values". The external reference leads to a text on jstor which is not in the public domain. The title of the text, how "we" won the Cold War, suggests a strong bias. But more importantly, the reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union are multiple and complex. To state that "the strategy outlined in NSC-68 achieved ultimate victory" is a gross shortcircuiting of historical causality.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newrat (talk • contribs) 22:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "unchecked bias"

message: This paragraph is mostly conjecture and has no substantiated facts. It seems to me to need a total rewrite.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F470:6:63:CD86:4B30:3D9E:B68D (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to US Foreign Policy 

message: I've got the impression from reading Gregory Mitrovich's "Undermining the Kremlin" (2000) that the main impetus for NSC 68 was an alarming reevaluation of the strategic situation after the Soviets acquired the atomic bomb. The "historical background" section of this article is far more vague as to the motivation. I think the basic cause is that the source used is Curt Cardwell, "NSC 68 and the Political Economy of the Early Cold War" (2011) which is an advocate of the questionable idea that early US Cold War policy was really all about the "dollar gap" (Europe needs more dollars to buy American produce, hence NATO, Marshall Plan, aiding the French in Indochina, you name it. This argument has been advanced by Gabriel Kolko. For a critical review of Cardwell's book, see here). I think this general vagueness about the impetus should be removed, and the dollar gap theory might be mentioned, although it should be made clear to the viewer that it is a fringe view. Uglemat (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree = fringe. I looked at all 6 of the scholarly reviews included in the standard guide, America: History and Life. here is a summary:
***1) "He is particularly harsh on Melvyn Leffler, who dismisses the dollar gap as a major consideration.  Cardwell's evidence for this radical revisionist interpretation is rather sparse. It is largely based on occasional comments made by Acheson and Nitze as well as discussions in two study groups formed by the Council on Foreign Relations about the threat to the world economy posed by Western Europe's balance-of-payments deficits. The fact that there is no mention of the dollar gap in Acheson's and Nitze's memoirs, nor in NSC 68 itself, suggests that there must have been a clandestine conspiracy conducted by the memorandum's architects to conceal their true motives for launching what would later be called the "National Security State." One cannot rule out that possibility. But until more credible "smoking guns" in the paper trail are identified, the revisionist argument of this lucid book deserves the Scots verdict "not proven." Keylor in Journal of American Studies Nov2012
***2) "An interesting if not entirely convincing take....in the end, the narrow focus on economic issues fall short of a complete explanation of this seminal document." Journal of World History June 2013 page 491
***3) The Journal of contemporary history Oct 2012 p 905 says Cardwell ignores Japan, France, Italy, Germany and is focused almost entirely on Great Britain
***4) "The author has two converging agendas that undermine the reliability and utility of his arguments" American Historical Review October 2012 p 1254
***5) "This provocative yet exaggerated account.... Many scholars of the Cold War will find it difficult to accept the basic framework of this book."  Journal of Cold War Studies July 2012 p 192
***6) Diplomatic History. Jan 2014, p221 "His treatment challenges standard works on the subject... On balance, Cardwell's argument is unconvincing."   Rjensen (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dollar gap" stuff 

message: Is that normal?  It reads like a blog entry.
2605:A601:A19C:DC00:ACB2:8646:6F20:D929 (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "Relation to US Foreign Policy" has no citations 

message: If it was top secret, how and when did we know about it? Error (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was declassified in 1975. See here. I will add it to the page. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 07:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top secret