As I think everyone knows, China played a major role in the US-Soviet rivalry during the Cold War, especially impacting the superpowers’ presence in the Third World.

And, it’s playing a major role today as this year’s American presidential election gets closer.

What do the American people think of China today?

. . . a Pew survey conducted in June and July (of 2020) found that Americans have an increasingly unfavorable view of China, with Democrats especially wary of the U.S.’s close economic relationship with the country and keen to press its leaders on human rights concerns, like the Chinese government’s abuse against Uighurs. Democratic officials are eager to highlight Trump’s record of flattering Chinese President Xi Jingping and overlooking Xi’s failure to uphold his side of Trump’s much-touted trade deal by buying more U.S. goods.” (The Huffington Post, August 22, 2020)

Although the Republicans have chosen not to publish a party platform, President Trump has made clear that being tougher with China would be a top priority in his second term if he is reelected. (Politico, August 23, 2020)

The Democratic party platform, on the other hand mentions China 22 times in largely adversarial terms compared to 7 references in the 2016 document. (The Huffington Post, August 22, 2020)

The Early Cold War

Let’s look back to the early Cold War for some insight.

The Chinese Revolution of 1949 was an especially traumatic event. Both President Roosevelt and President Truman supported Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist China, hoping for a democratic China that would be a pillar of peace in the Far East.

The United States stepped up its economic and military assistance to the Nationalist government, even though American military advisers like General Joseph Stilwell thought that Chiang’s regime was so corrupt that it was not salvageable.

Since Stalin also made his peace with the Nationalist leader, both the Americans and the Soviets were hoping for a reconciliation between the two Chinese factions – Mao Zedong’s Communists and Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists. Nevertheless, all efforts failed.

Mao engaged in a form of guerilla warfare that he called the “people’s war,” combining Marxist-Leninist  political and economic theory with insurgent warfare.

The Communists’ base of power was dependent on the peasantry in the countryside, and the strategy was to strangle urban areas by gradually isolating them. Mao was successful.

Chiang’s regime fell, and the People’s Republic of China was proclaimed on the mainland on October 1, 1949.

American Political Division

In the US, conservative Republicans accused President Truman and Secretary of State Dean Acheson of appeasement of communism, although it was obvious to many that Chiang could not have been saved without massive American military intervention. 

As Acheson noted in a State Department White Paper released in the summer of 1949

The unfortunate but inescapable fact is that the ominous result of the civil war in China was beyond the control of the government of the United States. Nothing that this country did or could have done within the reasonable limits of its capabilities could have changed the result; nothing that was left undone by this country has contributed to it. It was the result of internal Chinese forces, forces which this country tried to influence but could not.

Growing Friction

Gradually, China began to play a more independent role on the world stage. Even though Moscow and Beijing signed a Treaty of Alliance in 1950, they became increasingly antagonistic toward each other.

The US was aware of the growing friction.

In November 1950, John Foster Dulles noted:

. . . our best defense lies in exploiting potential jealousies, rivalries, and disaffections within the present area of Soviet Communist control . . .

China on the World Stage

At the Geneva Conference on Indochina in 1954, the Chinese are said to have played an important diplomatic role, persuading North Vietnam to accept the compromise with the French that divided Vietnam at the 17th parallel.

In April 1955, Premier Zhou Enlai was a prominent force at the Bandung Conference of Nonaligned Nations in Indonesia. His speech congratulated the new nations in their struggle for national sovereignty and their growing independence from colonialism.

It’s been reported that the Soviets were jealous of China’s appeal to the nonaligned. As a developing country itself, China could claim solidarity with many nations struggling for national identity and modernization.

China’s economic performance in the 1950s outstripped India’s and seemed more relevant than the Soviet Union’s. At any rate, the Soviets were considered a developed industrial power, a part of the so-called Second World along with its Eastern European satellites. China could claim that it was part of the Third.

As early as 1956, Nikita Krushchev declared:  

. . . in 10 years’ time, the Soviets’ chief enemy in the world [will] be China.

Mao Speaks

In November 1957, Khruschev convened a world conference of 64 Communist parties in Moscow to try to ensure unity in the international Communist movement. It was Mao’s first time in the spotlight on an international stage. (Previously Premier Zhou Enlai had represented the People’s Republic of China.)

In his message, Mao argued that the new strength of the Communist bloc should be an unrelenting campaign against imperialism. He asserted:

It is my opinion that the international situation has now reached a new turning point . . . There is a Chinese saying, ‘Either the East wind prevails over the West wind or the West wind prevails over the East wind.’ It is characteristic of the situation today, I believe, that the East wind is prevailing over the West wind. That is to say, the forces of socialism are overwhelmingly superior to the forces of imperialism.<

Mao went beyond this, though, and argued that there was no reason even to be afraid of nuclear war. 

What if a nuclear war destroyed half of mankind . . . The other half would survive — and so would socialism.

The Soviets React

Khruschev was shocked. The Soviets had earlier promised to help China develop a nuclear arsenal of its own. Now they decided that this was a ‘no go.’

Soon after, the Chinese began harassing the Soviet specialists in their country.  The Soviets responded by pulling all of their 12,000 advisers out of China.

By the summer of 1960, the Sino-Soviet dispute was out in the open. 

The impact of these activities on the Third World was to push the Soviets into a more competitive stance in order to stave off Chinese inroads as well as dampen Western influence.

The Soviets moved to cultivate countries like Indonesia, India, and Burma, both to contain Chinese influence and to counter the Americans. They also provided aid to African countries like Tanzania and Ghana where the Chinese were active.

The Third World

In the Third World, then, both Moscow and Beijing were trying to negate Western influence, with the Chinese spurring on increased Soviet activity.

To the Americans, all the talk about “wars of national liberation” was increasingly threatening. Possibilities for peaceful political change and economic development were elusive. 

Despite the Sino-Soviet competition, there was no good news for the West. 

___________________

Source:

Democrats Are Walking A Fine Line on The Election’s Main Foreign Policy Issue: China (The Huffington Post, August 22, 2020)

Trump cites school choice, China as second-term priorities (POLITICO, August 23, 2020)

Peter Rodman, More Precious Than Peace (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1994) all quotes from pages 87-94. 

Photograph by Andrea (Flickr)

In 1947,  New York City was able to avoid an epidemic of Smallpox. Unfortunately, the world hasn’t been so lucky this time around. Here are 8 health scares that occurred during the Cold War, some very different from the pandemic we’re facing in 2020.

#1: Small Pox (1947)

According to a post on Ephemeral New York (March 16, 2020), an American named Eugene Le Bar hopped on a bus in Mexico that was bound for Maine. Soon after boarding, he developed a headache and neck pain. Two days later he broke out in a rash. 

Le Bar got off the bus in New York, checked into a midtown hotel and, despite not feeling well, went out sightseeing with his wife. Four days later he was in Bellevue Hospital. Soon after, he was transferred to Willard Parker Hospital, a facility that specialized in communicable diseases. He died there on March 10, and during an autopsy doctors discovered that he had smallpox.

The disease spread to two other people, and then to a dozen more. 

The city took speedy action. First, hospital workers and anyone who had come in contact with the infected individuals were vaccinated or revaccinated. 

On April 4, New York’s mayor (William O’Dwyer) ordered that the entire city of 6.3 million people be vaccinated or revaccinated. New York didn’t have enough vaccine, so millions of vaccines were quickly manufactured.

A second person died on April 10, spurring the vaccination or revaccination of another 1.3 million people. The city’s slogan became: “Be sure, be safe, be vaccinated.”

In early May, the vaccination program was halted because the outbreak appeared to be contained. We’ll have to wait and see what May brings this time around.

#2: Polio (1950s)

Suspicions and conspiracy theories regarding vaccines have been around as long as vaccines themselves because they are a powerful and, frankly, a scary technology. They are based on placing a version of an often grave disease in the human body, to build up an immune response. In this sense, they carry the potential to create illness instead of preventing it. Most importantly, they are usually administered to a population that is most vulnerable in a physical, social and cultural sense . . .

Suspicions about the development and introduction of live polio vaccines in the 1950s have not only appeared retrospectively. The development of what became the tool of the current global polio eradication campaign was beset by distrust in scientific achievements and worries about intentional harm. 

Russian scientists feared that the Sabin vaccine and its trial in the Soviet Union was part of an American plot to sterilize or kill Soviet children by the millions, while American virologists were suspicious of the Russian claims regarding vaccine safety and efficacy based on field trials. 

Want to learn more? Check out our guest post by Dora Varga, a lecturer in medical humanities at the University of Exeter. The above information is drawn from that post.

#3: ASIAN FLU (1956-1958)

Death Toll: 2 million

Asian Flu was a pandemic outbreak of Influenza A of the H2N2 subtype, that originated in China in 1956 and lasted until 1958. In its two-year spree, Asian Flu traveled from the Chinese province of Guizhou to Singapore, Hong Kong, and the United States. Estimates for the death toll of the Asian Flu vary depending on the source, but the World Health Organization places the final tally at approximately 2 million deaths, 69,800 of those in the US alone. (https://www.mphonline.org/worst-pandemics-in-history/)

For a first hand account of the ‘Asian Flu Epidemic’, you can check out Sally Edelstein’s blog post. It’s full of visuals that give you a first hand look at the press coverage at the time.

#4: Agent Orange (1960s)

Long a practice range for the US Navy, forests on the Isla de Vieques off the coast of Puerto Rico were also used to test the effects of Agent Orange, a defoliant used in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War. Studies show that the incidence of cancer among the island’s population is 26% higher than in the rest of Puerto Rico, and the island’s children register high levels of mercury and lead.

In South Vietnam, the President Ngo Dinh Diem was a strong proponent of using herbicidal warfare as a key component of counterinsurgency strategy. Over 1.3 million acres were sprayed in 1968 alone.

As late as 2010, many decades after the war, the question of the long-term effects of exposure to Agent Orange on human health remained controversial. Some scientists have observed a spike in the number of birth defects and stillbirths in areas known to have been heavily sprayed, but others have criticized the methodology used for studies. 

The government of Vietnam says that 4 million of its citizens were exposed to Agent Orange, and as many as 3 million have suffered illnesses because of it. While the US government has challenged these figures as unreliable, the government has documented higher cases of leukemia, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and various kinds of cancer in exposed US veterans.

By April 1993, the Department of Veterans Affairs had compensated only 486 victims out of 39,419 claims by soldiers who had been exposed to Agent Orange while serving in Vietnam.

Agent Orange was also used in Laos and Cambodia.

#5: FLU PANDEMIC (1968)

Death Toll: 1 million

A category 2 Flu pandemic sometimes referred to as “the Hong Kong Flu,” the 1968 flu pandemic was caused by the H3N2 strain of the Influenza A virus, a genetic offshoot of the H2N2 subtype. From the first reported case on July 13, 1968 in Hong Kong, it took only 17 days before outbreaks of the virus were reported in Singapore and Vietnam, and within three months it had spread to The Philippines, India, Australia, Europe, and the United States. While the 1968 pandemic had a comparatively low mortality rate (.5%) it still resulted in the deaths of more than a million people, including 500,000 residents of Hong Kong, approximately 15% of its population at the time. (https://www.mphonline.org/worst-pandemics-in-history/)

#6: HIV/AIDS (First identified in 1976)

Death Toll: 36 million

First identified in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1976, HIV/AIDS has truly proven itself as a global pandemic, killing more than 36 million people since 1981. Currently there are between 31 and 35 million people living with HIV. The vast majority of those are in Sub-Saharan Africa, where 5% of the population is infected, roughly 21 million people. As awareness has grown, new treatments have been developed that make HIV far more manageable, and many of those infected go on to lead productive lives. Between 2005 and 2012 the annual global deaths from HIV/AIDS dropped from 2.2 million to 1.6 million. (https://www.mphonline.org/worst-pandemics-in-history/)

For a personal account of life during the AIDS crisis you might want to read this article in YES Magazine. It’s titled Love in the Time of Coronavirus: A Reflection on the HIV/AIDS Epidemic.

#7: Love Canal (1978)

Watch the video below for a good history of the Love Canal disaster and ramifications.

#8: Chernobyl

If you’re like me you like to take the easy way out sometimes, and I thought the easy way to learn about Chernobyl would be to watch the 5 part series on HBO. The important thing here – and one I didn’t always remember – is that this is a fictionalized recounting with not much to glean that’s actually accurate.

Here are some more factual things you should know:

• The Chernobyl disaster was a nuclear accident that occurred on Saturday, April 26, 1986, at the No. 4 nuclear reactor in the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, near the city of Pripyat in the north of the Ukrainian SSR.
• According to the official, internationally recognised death toll, just 31 people died as an immediate result of Chernobyl. The UN estimates that 50 deaths can be directly attributed to the disaster. In 2005, it predicted a further 4,000 might eventually die as a result of the radiation exposure.

(For more information you might want to read the BBC’s assessment of The True Toll of the Chernobyl Disaster. You can read it here.)

• According to an article in Wired (May 13, 2019), The Chernobyl Disaster May Have Also Built A Paradise. According to the article, “some scientists think the radioactive, human-free landscape might now be a haven for plants and animals.” You can read that article here.

You still might want to watch the HBO series to pick up on life in the Soviet Union at the time, and the atmospherics of the disaster. Just don’t use the information presented there in your research or on an exam.

Can you think of other scares? Let us know in the comments section below. I thought of the Bhopal disaster in India a bit too late for this post. (You can read about it on Wikipedia here.)

The photo by Amit Gupta (Flickr) is of the Smallpox Hospital on Roosevelt Island in New York City. It was abandoned in the middle of the last century.

Concern

It’s election season in the US and more than one of the Democratic primary contenders is touting one form or another of the following: “Our Democracy is in Danger; Our Democracy is at Stake; This Election is About the Future of our Democracy.”

I’ve had conversations with family members, close friends, and acquaintances, but the jury seems to be out on what damage — if any — Donald Trump is doing to our democracy. Some say “the foundations of our democracy are deep and strong. They can withstand four more years of the same.” Others, more reminiscent of Chicken Little, are almost shouting “the sky is falling, the sky is falling.” Still others suspect that “we’re crying wolf in a crowded theater.”

Since I don’t have a crystal ball and I can’t foresee the future, I decided to go back and take a look at the highly regarded 2018 book titled How Democracies Die by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, Professors of  government at Harvard University.

The Question

Here are some thoughts from the book’s Introduction starting with the question my friends and family have been trying to answer: “Is our (American) democracy in danger?”

The Cold War

The failure of democracy is not new. Democracies have failed before. During the Cold War, the authors note:

Coups d’etat accounted for three out of every four democratic breakdowns.

What happened in Chile provides a good example.

On September 11, 1973, President Salvador Allende of Chile was the victim of a coup led by General Augusto Pinochet. Allende had been elected three years earlier ‘at the head of a leftist coalition’.

According to the authors:

Within hours, President Allende was dead. So, too, was Chilean democracy.

[For more information on Chile during the Cold War be sure to take a look at our Chile post here.]

Happening Now

Levitsky and Ziblatt go on to say, though, that in today’s world:

Democracies may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders — presidents or prime ministers who subvert the very process that brought them to power . . . [often] democracies erode slowly in barely visible steps.

Venezuela is a good example of what’s happening today.

Hugo Chavez was popularly elected in 1998, coming to power as a political outsider promising to build a more “authentic” democracy, by using oil wealth to improve the lives of the poor. In April 2002, he was briefly toppled by the military, but he persevered. He maintained a democratic veneer even as his regime gained control over much of the media, arrested or exiled opposition politicians, and eliminated presidential term limits.

After Chavez’ death, his successor Nicolas Maduro won questionable reelection. By 2017, “nearly two decades after Chavez first won the presidency . . . Venezuela was widely recognized as an autocracy.”

According to Levitsky and Zeblatt:

This is how democracies now die. Blatant dictatorship — in the form of fascism, communism, or military rule — has disappeared across much of the world. Military coups and other violent seizures of power are rare. . . . Since the end of the Cold War, most democratic breakdowns have been caused not by generals and soldiers but by elected governments themselves . . . .

10 Takeaways

Here are 10 more takeaways from the intro to the book.

1. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are “legal,” approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts.

2. People don’t immediately realize what is happening. Many continue to believe they are living under a democracy.

3. An essential test for democracies isn’t whether ‘extremist demagogues’ emerge, but whether political leaders, and especially political parties, work to keep them from gaining power in the first place.

4. When fear, opportunism, or miscalculation leads established parties to bring extremists into the mainstream, democracy is imperiled.

5. Institutions alone aren’t enough to rein in elected autocrats. Often these individuals use the institutions of democracy to kill it. For example, they pack the courts, buy off the media, and rewrite the rules of politics to ‘tilt the playing field’ against opponents.

6. Democracies work best where constitutions are reinforced by unwritten democratic norms. Good examples of these norms are mutual toleration and restraint.

7. Democratic norms in the US began to erode in the 1980s and 1990s and accelerated in the 2000s. Donald Trump may have built on this process, but he didn’t cause it.

8. The erosion of democratic norms in the US is rooted in extreme partisan polarization and conflict over race and culture.

9. There are reasons for alarm in the US today. But other countries’ experiences teach us that breakdown is neither inevitable or irreversible.

10. We need to learn from other countries to see the warning signs — and recognize the false alarms.

What’s Next

In sum, I don’t like what I’m reading,  but I’m not jumping to conclusions either. I’m anxious to read the book’s case studies to see what I can figure out. I hope you’ll join me. You can buy the book on Amazon by clicking on the image below. It’s my affiliate link.

Or you can check it out from your local library.

Let me know what you think of the author’s argument in the comments.

Photograph by djandyw.com aka nobody (Flickr): Venezuela protest, February 15, 2014.

Welcome to the holiday issue of Cold War Magazine. We’re all about Cold War history, culture, and politics. Most of all. we’re about Cold War fun! In this issue, we double down on Cold War toys, and Christmas traditions in the early years of the Cold War. Here are some of the articles you’ll find.

Cold War Toys

Early Cold War toys tell us a lot about the beginning years of the half century conflict. They were one way parents could communicate important issues of the day to their children.

Santa Claus Meets Ded Maroz

Most Americans so demonized the Soviets that it was hard to imagine Russian families around a Christmas tree opening presents. This was a big mistake.

Just Like Mom

According to American Cold War ideology, homemakers in the US were a bulwark against communism. Girls’ toys reflected the consumer economy of the day.

Boys’ Toys

While girls were busy learning about fashion from Barbie, boys were learning how not to be”sissies.”

Also:

Toys for the Atomic Age

Do You Hear What I Hear? (Only available via PDF download).

You can check us out on your mobile device!  OR access the magazine as a PDF. Just click here to download.

I am a Cold War baby, born into a contentious and argumentative Irish-American family. Holidays  and Sundays always found someone storming away from the dinner table. But there were certain things we didn’t fight about — like Santa Claus and the Pilgrims. I thought they were sacred. But I learned something today when I came across a multitude of articles arguing about the meaning of Thanksgiving. Santa Claus may still be sacred, but the Pilgrims certainly aren’t.

This may not mean much to you if you don’t live in the United States, but just bear with me. Every country has its heroes and its legends and, for most Americans, Pilgrims top the list. They’re the backbone of our country.

The story I heard when I was growing up goes something like this:

Settlers arrived in the New World on the Mayflower in 1620 to escape religious persecution. They established the Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts, but then went through some very hard times.

The native Americans helped them, and the colonists had a good harvest. In gratitude to God, they held the first Thanksgiving, sharing the fruits of their labor with Squanto and other Indian friends who had taught them how to hunt and farm in their new environment.

The Thanksgiving celebration became a yearly tradition soon shared with the other early colonies. As America grew and prospered, the annual holiday of thankfulness and gratitude was institutionalized, continuing until the present.

Is this the story you grew up believing? Maybe. Maybe not.

If you grew up in the second half of the Cold War you might have heard a different take. I only heard it recently. The new interpretation of Thanksgiving which has been around since at least the late 1960s goes something like this:

The early settlers at Plymouth experimented with a system of collective ownership of farmland which led to widespread famine. They eventually abandoned this system in favor of private ownership. Farmers became more productive, the harvest was bountiful, and Thanksgiving was their celebration. This makes the Pilgrims America’s first staunch anti-communists.

Sound good?

Well wait a minute! This narrative was first told through a Cold War lens, and first gained popularity at the height of the Cold War.  The actual timeline tells a different story.

In actuality, the first Thanksgiving was held in 1621 two years before the Pilgrims shifted to private ownership.  At the time of the first Thanksgiving, there was a system of collective ownership in the colony known as the “common course,” an agreement that all agriculture should be a collective, community undertaking.

The “common course” was abandoned in 1623, two years after the first Thanksgiving celebration. At that time, because of a corn shortage, the colonists “began to think how they might raise” more.  It was decided, according to their governor, William Bradford, that “they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves.” Bradford “assigned to every family a parcel of land,” ending the communal cultivation of corn.

So what’s the real story?

I think the best way to find out would be to plow through a couple of books. The most definitive would be Governor William Bradford’s Of Plymouth Plantation, first published in full in 1856. The most popular version of this writing, though, was edited by the historian Samuel Eliot Morison in 1952. I haven’t read the governor’s journal, so I can’t expound on his story, but I do know that Morison’s version was published during a time period when Americans were becoming extremely suspicious of the Soviets and their economic system. So it’s fair to say that the work was edited through a Cold War lens. But don’t take my word for it.

Richard Pickering, a historian of early America and Deputy Director of Plimoth Plantation, a museum dedicated to keeping the Pilgrims’ story alive says:

The Challenges of the cold war and dealing with Russia are reflected in the text . . . .

William Hogeland, the author of Inventing American History agrees. He says:

Across the political spectrum, there’s a tendency to grab a hold of some historical incident and yoke it to a current agenda. It doesn’t always mean there’s no connection, but often things are presented as historical first, rather than as part of the agenda first.

Another book you might want to read is Making Haste From Babylon: The Mayflower Pilgrims and Their World (2010) by Nick Bunker. I haven’t read this book either. So I can’t really answer the questions: What is historical fact? What is political agenda?

But I have figured out that the political ‘right’ in the United States has its own version of Thanksgiving, a revisionist history that’s very different from the narrative that I learned as a kid in my very conservative community. Instead of thankfulness and family, this group’s focus is on the idea that Thanksgiving is a celebration of the pilgrims’ abandonment of socialism in favor of free enterprise.

Various conservative and libertarian personalities have weighed in on this topic, people like Henry Hazlitt in 1968, and, later, George F. Will and Rush Limbaugh. Their interpretations are summed up in the last paragraph of Richard J. Maybury’s piece in the blog Mises Daily called The Great Thanksgiving Hoax. Maybury argues:

. . . the real meaning of Thanksgiving, deleted from the official story, is: Socialism does not work; the one and only source of abundance is free markets, and we thank God we live in a country where we can have them.

What do you think? Were the Pilgrims socialists? Or were they capitalists? What do the Pilgrims mean to you?

My answer to these questions comes quite easily. I like to pretend like I’m in grade school again in Mt. Healthy, Ohio, at the height of the Cold War. I’m marching down the aisle of my school auditorium, my arms full of canned goods, belting out the hymn we always sang near Thanksgiving:

Come ye thankful people come —

raise the song of harvest home;

all is safely gathered in,

ere the winter storms begin.

God our maker doth provide

for our wants to be supplied;

come to God’s own temple, come,

raise the song of harvest home.

The text of this hymn was written in 1810, long before before the First Red Scare and the later Cold War. It was also written before the earliest publication of William Bradford’s journal. For now, it’s the interpretation that I favor. But I may think differently after this Thanksgiving when I finally have a chance to watch the PBS film by Ken Burns called The Pilgrims, a two-hour documentary that supposedly endeavors to tell the true story of the early colonists. Will the documentary settle the arguments or will it just be another piece of revisionist history? Watch it and decide.

 

Featured Photograph by Henry Zbyszynski on Flickr

Unfortunately, this issue of Cold War Magazine is no longer available. The article 9 Commie Mummies is available on the blog. Read it  here. 

The latest issue of Cold War Magazine has just been published. Highlights include:

Cold War Halloween by Sally Edelstein: Traipsing from house to house, we fell in with a coterie of trick or treaters consisting of Zorro, Frankenstein, an army nurse and a Spaceman toting a white pillowcase bulging with candy corn, tootsie pops and pixies, who insisted on ringing the bell on every front door.

Lenin’s Tomb: A Halloween Visit by This Ruthless World: Here is a perfect story for Halloween: the story of how I got to see Lenin’s mummy on the occasion of being inducted into the Young Pioneers.

What to do with Zombie Stalin: Sean Munger writes about about Stalin’s corpse–the “zombie Stalin” that was, despite the great generalissimo’s death, still hanging around uncomfortably nearly eight years later.

9 Commie Mummies by Cold War Studies: 

What happens to a Communist leader when they die? Well, they’re mummified of course. What does that entail? Well, it’s been the stuff of Halloween Scares for hundreds of years.

Cold War Studies has the Christmas spirit early this year. WooHoo! So we’ve decided to bring you a series of 6 posts that are all about Christmas during the Cold War. The first is on the growth of the toy industry in the United States during the half century long conflict. But for those of you who are more interested in the Soviet Union, no worries. Our second post will be all about Ded Maroz, the Soviet version of Santa Claus.  Enjoy!

Toy Stores Flourish

Early Cold War toys tell us a lot about the beginning years of the half-century conflict between the United States and the USSR. During this timeframe, ideology permeated all aspects and objects of daily life. Even toys! After all, toys were one way that parents could communicate the important issues in their world to their children. In the United States, toys contributed to the consumer culture of the early Cold War years, passing on the values of prosperity to the next generation.

Toy stores flourished as the toy industry became big business when the economy revived after World War II. In 1939, census takers counted 821 workplaces where toys were made. By 1947, they recorded 2,198 such locations. In the United States, toys contributed to the consumer culture of the early Cold War years, passing on the values of prosperity to the next generation.

Brand Names Matter

Parents could buy child-sized shopping carts so that their children could “practice shopping,” filling the carts with exact (but empty) boxes of SOS scouring pads and Kellog’s Corn Flakes as well as Campbell soup cans. The “goods” reinforced advertisers’ messages that brand names mattered — no generics were allowed.

Shopping board games were also popular. Milton Bradley promoted the “Acme Checkout Game” with markers in the shape of supermarket carts. Players moved around the board through the aisles of merchandise, losing turns in long checkout lines. That this type of play reinforced the American dream was clearly enunciated by Richard Nixon at the 1959 Kitchen Debate with the Soviet Union’s Nikita Khruschev, Nixon pointed to America’s growing consumer economy as a sign of American strength and democracy, asserting that the politics of freedom and democracy were embodied in the ability of American consumers to buy freely and to choose among a variety of diverse brands and products.

Photograph by James Vaughan (Flickr)

The Suburbs Dominate

Many of the era’s toys were focused on the family centered ideology that had taken hold during the post war period. Much of the pretend grocery shopping took place in America’s new suburban communities. The suburbs symbolized two aspects of Cold War domestic ideology: the consumption ethic and the glorification of the nuclear family. Suburban homes were new and builders — encouraged by government policies — had designed them specifically for family life.

Photograph by Robert Couse-Baker (Flickr)

Life in the suburbs absolutely required at least one family car. There had been no investment in public transportation. Instead, the state and federal highway system had been expanded to connect suburbs with their nearby cities. Not only were cars necessary, they were an important symbol of status and buying power. American car manufacturers created new models annually and toy cars followed suit, offering as many choices as the real thing.

Photograph by Joe Haupt (Flickr)

The Family Room

So far as the home was concerned, the “family room” became an increasingly important feature, crystallizing the Cold War’s family ideal. The term was first coined in 1946, referring to a space designed for informal family interaction or “togetherness.”

Cold War togetherness required a room of its own because space was needed for all sorts of games and equipment. The family room of the 1950s spotlighted the primacy of children and their play. And, of course, there were plenty of Cold War toys to play with. We’ll talk about lots of those in coming posts.

Cover photograph courtesy of Anne (Flickr)

COLD WAR MAGAZINE is proud to bring you in-depth articles on Cold War history, culture, and politics. This month we’re giving thanks with our issue titled A COLD WAR THANKSGIVING.

If you’re a PC User you can pick up your issue by clicking here.

If you have an iPhone or iPad you’ll find us in the iTunes Store. Click here for more information.

Maybe you’re one of the ones who wonder about “The Meaning of Thanksgiving.” If so, this issue is perfect for you. Our articles talk about that topic in the context of the Cold War.

We have a Cold War take on “The Pilgrims,”

If you can’t imagine eating turkey without cranberry sauce, be sure to read all about “The Cranberry Scare of 1959.” 

Finally, we know that “Everyone Loves a Parade!” so we take a look at Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade over the years, focusing on the Cold War timeframe.

Overall, the Thanksgiving issue of Cold War Magazine is just right for everyone who wants to give thanks, have fun, and learn a little bit of trivia at the same time.

We hope you’ll join us as a regular reader of Cold War Magazine. Each issue is totally different because our readers know that the Cold War was more than just a half century confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Cold War Magazine is a good match for those of you who are nostalgic for the 1950s, those of you who are interested in political propaganda or the Red Scare, and those of you who are intrigued by mid century modern, Cold War fiction, or James Bond movies.

If you’re a PC User you can pick up your issue by clicking here.

If you have an iPhone or iPad you’ll find us in the iTunes Store. Click here for more information.

Subscriptions to Cold War Magazine are free at present, but we will soon be charging for some subscription tiers. To make sure you’re grandfathered in, SUBSCRIBE NOW.

I hope you all have a wonderful Thanksgiving!

LISA REYNOLDS WOLFE (Publisher)

We hope that in-between you’ll visit the Cold War Magazine Blog and listen to our Podcasts on iTunes.