Posted on 06/30/2006 12:24:49 PM PDT by Nextrush
History marks many anniversaries but this year marks the 50th Anniversary of events that showed how impotent the free world at that time was in the face of Communist expansion.
It took the West time to regain moral and political strength to take on the relatively easy job of standing ground and seeing the Communist "Evil Empire" led by the Soviet Union collapse in Europe. Fortunately that happened in the 1980's.
But in the 1950's the "Cold War" was in full swing. "Cold War" I guess because that the name the liberal elites in media, education, politics etc. have given it. But it certainly was cold in terms of what the United States would do to confront it.
Communism, led by the Soviet Union, tried to dominate and control the world in spite of its relatively weak economy. What helped them move forward was the impotence of Western powers. No one was really interested in taking on the Soviets head on.
The official United States policy was "containment," practiced through money and weapons given to third countries sometimes openly and sometimes secretly. Covert operations were sometimes used to stop Communist takeovers in various countries.
But unlike the Nazis of Germany, the Communists of the Soviet Union were not to be fought against and be defeated. Why?
The most common reason given was "war weariness." After two world wars no one wanted to fight the Soviets.
One notable execption to that view was General George S. Patton, who unfortunately died in 1945.
Patton said: "Lets keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened and present a picture ot force and strength to the Russians. This is the only language they understand and respect. If you fail to do this, then I would like to say that we have had a victory over the Germans and have disarmed them, but we have lost the war." ("The Unknown Patton" Pg. 190)
When Winston Churchill made his now famous "Iron Curtain" speech in 1946 it was not a hit with Harry Truman, who sat in the audience. The Truman Adminsitration snubbed Churchill for the rest of his visit.
We now know how deeply Roosevelt's and Truman's adminstrations were deeply penetrated by Soviet agents and or sympathizers with the revealing of Soviet documents and communications from the period.
How those people influenced policy of the period can not be underestimated but there were no doubt many still in leadership like Congressmen and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover who saw Communism and the Soviets as a real threat.
In the end perhaps George Kennan's policy of "containment" was a way to compromise the various views being batted around Washington post-World War II.
The war enabled the Soviet Union to be propped up by 11 billion dollars in American aid and 5 billion dollars in British aid. (Over 200 billion dollars at todays value)
Beyond war weariness, a major "fear factor" all over the Western world was the fear of "the bomb." (Nuclear war).
It was said in the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that the bomb made future war "unthinkable." This idea was very convenient for the pro-Soviet elements in the West.
In the 1945-49 period, the United States stood alone as the only nuclear power and could have easily dictated the end of Communism as much as it dictated the surrender of Japan in 1945.
But with the help of spies like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in our nuclear program, the Soviets had their own atomic bomb in 1949.
This changed the equation and the propaganda campaign of the left in the West. We suddenly were hit with the fear of nuclear war as a means of preventing any tough stance against the Soviet Union and Communist expansion.
(Ironically it was Eisenhower's threat of nuclear weapons that secured the cease fire of the Korean War in 1953 and Nixon's bombing campaign of Hanoi and Haiphong that secured a Vietnam "Peace Treaty" in 1973)
Fear of the bomb led to novels, stories on TV, movies all with a nuclear war "end of the world" theme. It reached its zenith in comments like those of British philosopher Bertrand Russell "I'd rather be Red than dead" meaning that Communism was better than dying in a nuclear war.
In this context, political leaders had to play to public opinion in 1956. No more so than in the United States where an election campaign was underway in 1956. Eisenhower had staged a summit with the Soviets in 1955 at Geneva and the so-called "Spirit of Geneva" was now supposed to be alive and well.
But world events in 1956 showed a different picture that confronted Eisenhower at a time when the last thing he wanted was an open war or conflict with the Soviet Union................
More to follow.......
The American state department was marching to a different drummer in those days- and nothing's changed!
Thank God for McCarthy then and Limbaugh now, two great Americans fearlessly rooting out domestic traitors.
Our Muslim "friends" don't have much memory of that one either. Suez was bad enough but Hungary was a disgrace to the "free world."
bttt
Needless to say.....dittos.....
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.