I don’t spend a lot of time looking back, but this week I’ve been thinking a great deal about my dissertation  which was published almost twenty-five years ago. Triggered by recent headlines detailing a drone strike in the middle of Isfahan, Iran, the royal city of Shah Abbas the Great, I’ve been looking at what I got right, and even more at what I got wrong.

In my past research, I examined the unintended spillover effects of Cold War militarism on three cities – Isfahan, Iran; Taipei, Taiwan; and Havana, Cuba – and I concluded that while global forces were definitely in play, after two revolutions (Cuba and Iran) and a process resulting in democratic elections (Taiwan), the local might prevail.

I expected that with the end of the Cold War, and as a consequence of domestic forces rejecting outside interference,  we would no longer see militarism have much of an impact on the urban environment. Unfortunately, this has not necessarily been the case.

So I’m taking another look at “my” cities, examining especially the forces impacting their development today.

Isfahan

Regarding Isfahan, I wrote in 2000 that it was known worldwide as one of the most beautiful ‘museum cities’ on the planet.

I was fortunate enough to live and work there during the last days of the shah, and I vividly remember the domes of Isfahan’s mosques and madrasehs shimmering bright turquoise in the desert sun, vibrant reminders of Shah Abbas and the consolidated power of Shi’ism. My memories are of the pleasures of the ‘old bazaar’, long walks through the city’s neighborhoods, lazy afternoons drinking tea in the beautiful garden of the Shah Abbas Hotel (renamed the Abbasi Hotel), and the many tours I led all over the country.

So I was surprised, even shocked, to pick up The New York Times the other day and find an article titled “Israel Launched Drone Attack on Iranian Facility, Officials Say.” I was even more distressed to find that the missile production facility they were referring to was in the heart of Isfahan. It was jarring to read the follow-up paragraph:

While the target’s purpose is unclear, the city of Isfahan is a major center of Iranian missile production, research and development.

I’ve kept up with Iran’s nuclear issue, but I haven’t followed Iran’s missile development, other than to know that the country is alleged to be supplying missiles to Russia for use in the war in Ukraine. I didn’t know that

Isfahan is a major center of missile production, research and development for Iran, including the assembly of many of its Shahab medium-range missiles, which can reach Israel and beyond. (NY Times, 1/29/2023)

I also didn’t know that there was an ammunition production plant in the middle of the city of roughly two million people.

I did recall reading that Isfahan is also the site of four small nuclear research facilities, all supplied by China many years ago.

Still, the facility that was struck on Saturday was in the middle of the city and did not appear to be nuclear-related. Clearly, I’m not as up to date as I could be.

In my dissertation I discussed in detail the impact that military-led development was having on the domicile of Shah Abbas.

I talked about how Isfahan’s ageless beauty was under siege, battered by an influx of foreign workers, Iranian military personnel, and poorly conceived development plans.

Young men were flooding into the city from villages all over Iran hoping to find work associated with the new push toward military-led industrialization, and Pakistani and Afghani laborers were brought in to help with the many construction projects associated with the burgeoning defense industry.

Regrettably, over the course of just a few years, residential development and new industry – much of it related to the mushrooming military-industrial complex – had succeeded in altering the traditional character of Isfahan and alienating long-time residents.

But now I wonder: How did a revolution grounded in tradition and aid to the poor become so militaristic that ammunition facilities and missile production plants are now planted in the middle of a city known for its mosques, its ancient bazaar, and its royal palaces?

Taipei

Another one of my cities, Taipei, Taiwan, has also been in the news, with reports that China has been menacing the island nation repeatedly. You may remember that in late December 2022:

China sent a record number of military aircraft to menace self-ruled Taiwan in a large show of force to the Biden administration, signaling that Beijing wants to maintain pressure on Taiwan even as some tensions between the superpowers are easing.

The swarm of Chinese fighter jets, maritime patrol planes and drones that buzzed the airspace near Taiwan in the 24-hour period leading to Monday morning demonstrated Beijing’s appetite for confrontation with the United States over Taiwan, the island democracy China claims as its territory. (NY Times, 12/26/2022)

Earlier, in September of 2022, President Joe Biden made headlines when he asserted in a 60 Minutes interview that the United States would come to Taiwan’s defense if China were to launch an unprovoked attack.

Consequently, some analysts fear a Chinese attack on Taiwan has the potential to draw the United States into a war with China.

Reuters published an article asserting “Biden says U.S. forces would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion.” But how likely is that?

No one knows, but a quick Google search on the topic shows that it’s hotly debated.

What we do know is that from 1950 to the present, the United States has been heavily invested in the island and in its capital Taipei. Described as a strategic-arsenal by General Douglas MacArthur, Taipei reflects US Cold War determination to militarily contain the Soviet Union and now, more importantly, the Chinese communists.

Despite the end of  the Cold War, Taipei remains a city for whom the terms communist and anti-communist remain internally meaningful. This despite the fact that Taipei’s decision to trade with communist countries has tempered its role as a center of anti-communist activities. In fact, as of August 1922, Taiwan’s economy remains reliant on trade with China, which is the island’s largest trading partner.

Still, differences over Taiwan’s status have fueled rising tensions between the island and the mainland.

Taiwan has been governed independently of China since 1949, but Beijing views the island as part of its territory, and has vowed to eventually “unify” Taiwan with the mainland, using force if necessary.

In Taiwan, which has its own democratically elected government and is home to twenty-three million people, political leaders have differing views on the island’s status and relations with the mainland.

In 1979, the United States established formal diplomatic relations with Mainland China (the PRC). At the same time, it severed its diplomatic ties and abrogated its mutual defense treaty with Taiwan (the ROC). But the United States maintains a robust unofficial relationship with the island and continues to sell defense equipment to its military. Beijing has repeatedly urged Washington to stop selling weapons to and cease contact with Taipei. You can read a backgrounder on the tense relationship between the two nations here.

Through its policy of strategic ambiguity, the United States has for decades attempted to maintain a delicate balance between supporting Taiwan and preventing a war with China. But President Joe Biden has seemingly rejected the policy, stating several times that the United States will come to Taiwan’s defense if China attacks.

For more insight into US policy regarding Taiwanese independence read a blog post by David Sanger on the Council on Foreign Relations blog.

A top concern among U.S. analysts is that China’s growing military capabilities and assertiveness, as well as the deterioration in cross-strait relations, could spark a conflict. However, experts disagree about the likelihood and timing of a Chinese invasion.

The Biden administration has announced that the Cold War Era is definitely over, and early in its tenure it took action to reorient foreign policy priorities with a new focus on China and Asia, reducing the number of staff devoted to the Middle East.  Their success in doing so, however, may be impacted by a new government in Israel and its perception that Iran is a major threat.

And so I wonder: What is happening in Taipei given all the blustering? Is the capital responding economically to the perceived military threat by an increased emphasis on arms purchases and the prioritization of defense production facilities?  And, even more importantly, what will happen to the stability of its democratic institutions? Will they collapse in light of the overwhelming military strength of the mainland Chinese?

Havana

Of “my” three Cold War Cities, only Havana seems less scary, more impacted by the economic absence of a Cold War patron than by growing military prowess.

Nevertheless, despite the death of Fidel Castro, and the retirement of his brother, Raul, the Caribbean island has not become the capitalist haven that many Americans expected – or at least hoped for. Instead, the nation remains a pariah in the eyes of many in the United States.

Legally shut off from the United States, Cuba’s relationship with China is going strong. Relations are based on trade, credits, and investments, which have increased significantly since the 1990s. China is Cuba’s second-largest trading partner after Venezuela, and Cuba is a member of China’s Belt and Road Initiative for trade. China has partnered with Cuba to upgrade its rail network and other initiatives.

Interestingly, Cuba has turned to Russsia for advice on reinvigorating the island’s private sector. The February 1, 2023, issue of the Miami Herald reports on the creation of a “Center for Economic Transformation,” in partnership with the Moscow-based Stolypin Institute for the Economy of Growth.  Read more here.

The United States policy toward both Cuba and Venezuela, nations that have had a close relationship since Hugo Chavez came to power in Venezuela in 1999, are in a state of flux.

In May 2022, over a roughly 24-hour period, the US administration announced that

Biden is expanding the number of flights to Cuba and ending restrictions on money that immigrants can send to people on the island, a vestige of Trump’s hard-line Cuba policy. The administration . . . said it would ease sanctions on Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s government if he commits to talks with U.S.-backed opposition leader Juan Guaidó, who is recognized as the country’s leader by nearly 60 nations, including the U.S.

You can read the full article in Politico here.

Meanwhile, increased Cuban migration to US has been an aggravation. You can read a Cold War Studies post about Cuban Migration to the US in 2022 here.

More recently a new parole program for Cuban migrants has been established. The Center for Democracy in the Americas reports details in its US-Cuba News Brief (1/18/2023):

The new parole program–modeled after an existing program for Venezuelans that began in October 2022–allows for up to 30,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans per month to enter the country by air through “humanitarian parole” if they fulfill the eligibility criteria, including that they are located outside of the US, apply electronically, and have a U.S.-based sponsor that can financially support them for the duration of their parole. The program allows migrants to live and work in the US for two years. The Biden-Harris administration’s new measures also carry expanded limits to asylum for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans and, consequently, “expedited removal,” or deportation, as permitted under Title 42, drawing criticism that the program violates migrants’ right to seek asylum as recognized by U.S. and international law.

In the case of Havana I wonder (and not just facetiously): Will there ever be anything new under the sun? Will Cubans ever have the food, medicine, and safe housing they need to have a secure and worry free lifestyle?

Even so, why is the child mortality rate in this poor country lower than that of the United States? And, as Newsweek reported in September 2022, why is it that ‘Americans Can Now Expect to Live Three Years Less Than Cubans’? (You can read the article here?)

Where To Go From Here

It occurs to me after this cursory overview that my dissertation could use more than a little bit of updating, so I’ll be spending some time looking at the legacy of the Cold War in the Middle East, Latin America, and Asia this coming year. I hope you’ll come back often and subscribe. This won’t be the topic of discussion every week, but it will crop up as a major theme at times.

Also watch for an announcement about a new Cold War Studies fun program — coming soon!

______________________________________________________________

Featured Image by Fulvio Spada (Flickr)

In Brazil, the path to democracy has not been smooth. Here’s a short history, taking us from the European arrival at the end of the 15th century to later periods of authoritarian rule, and then to the present day.

Outsiders Claim Sovereignty Over Indigenous Lands

When the Europeans arrived, they claimed sovereignty over Indigenous lands. From the 16th to the early 19th century, Brazil was a colony and a part of the Portuguese Empire.

(Beginning in 1578, for a brief 50 year period, Portugal lost its independence and Brazil was added to the Spanish Empire. Portugal’s independence was restored in 1668 and Portuguese colonial possessions were given back to the Portuguese crown. You can read more about this here.)

Brazil Gains Independence

The military has played a leading role in the Brazilian government throughout its history. On September 7, 1822, after a series of military campaigns, the country declared its independence from Portugal and became the Empire of Brazil.

According to Chatham House:

the empire was a constitutional monarchy with an elected parliament. But the empire only lasted until 1889 when a military coup established the First (Brazilian) Republic.

An undemocratic period followed, which saw politics dominated by powerful landowning interests. The army was the country’s most powerful institution and helped to suppress numerous rebellions.”

The Vargus Era: Dictatorship Under President Getúlio Vargas

In 1930, a revolution brought President Getúlio Vargas to power as president. Vargas ruled a Second and Third Republic as a quasi-Fascist leader inspired by Benito Mussolini in Italy. He was overthrown by the military in 1945.

Again, according to Chatham House:

Fresh elections were held and a Fourth Republic was declared with a new constitution. But the Fourth Republic was an equally tumultuous period in Brazilian history. Vargas remained an influential figure, re-elected in the 1950s before shooting himself. Army leaders continually interfered with government, culminating in the coup of 1964 which established military dictatorship.  The army characterized the coup as an anti-communist national security operation but 21 years of dictatorship followed.

Military Dictatorship: 1964 – 1985

The second dictatorship period from 1964–1985 has been the focus of several posts on Cold War Studies.  During this timeframe, the military controlled the Brazilian government. There are several Cold War Studies posts that give detail about this period of military rule. Three are listed below.

Brazil’s Military: Repression to Ruin, discusses the rise of the military regime, repression, and the economic miracle that accompanied authoritarian rule.

Military Rule in Cold War Brazil goes into more detail about the rise of the military and the divisions in the authoritarian government, discussing moderate constitutionalists, the rise of more dictatorial hardliners and, after 1974, a more relaxed period.

Finally, Military Juntas in the Southern Cone During the Cold War, highlights Brazil in the context of the region as a whole.

Re-Democratization Begins: A Slow Process

General Ernesto Geisel became president in 1974 and began a project of re-democratization through a process that he said would be “slow, gradual, and safe.”

As promised, the transition to democracy was slow, with the military playing a stewardship role. By the time civilians returned to power in 1985, the economic miracle had run its course.

Unlike Argentina or Chile, there was never a truth and reconciliation commission into activities undertaken by the military government.

Timeline of Democracy in Brazil: 1985 – 2022

1985: A Sixth Republic or ‘New Republic’ comes into being in 1985 after a transition back to democracy.

1990 – 1992: Fernando Affonso Collor de Mello serves as president from 1990 until 1992. He leaves office after the National Congress initiates an impeachment proceeding leading to his resignation.

Former vice president, Itamar Franco, as successor, oversees the 1993 referendum on Brazil’s form of government. A presidential system is chosen.

1995-2002: Fernando Henrique Cardoso is the first president of the New Republic to be re-elected. His first election, opposing Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, known as Lula, remains the largest margin of victory in a free Brazilian presidential election. His second victory over Lula in 1998 was almost as impressive.

2002: Lula, is elected president. During his presidency from 2003-2010, there is heavy investment in new programs designed to address hunger, extreme poverty and housing issues.

2011 – August 2016: Dilma Rousseff, a member of a Marxist guerrilla group during the military dictatorship, succeeds Lula, representing his Workers Party, and becoming Brazil’s first woman president. She is impeached and removed from office in August 2016.

2018:  Jair Bolsonaro is elected president in 2018.

According to Chatham House,

he builds an electoral coalition closely tied to Brazil’s enormous evangelical movement, its beef industry and gun lobby, playing on popular nationalist resentment against international environmentalist ‘interference’ with its management of the Amazon.

He appoints an army officer to the vice presidency and raises the number of former and current military officers in government to a level not seen since the dictatorship.

Under Bolsonaro the country has an authoritarian president who is held in check by democratic institutions.

Bolsonaro repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of Brazil’s election system and threatened to use the military to protect his power if he lost the election in October 2022.

October 2022: Lula narrowly wins election to a third term over the far-right incumbent Jair Bolsonaro.

December 2022: In December 2022, following official ratification of the election result, Bolsonaro supporters attempt to storm the Federal Police headquarters in Brasília.

January 8, 2023: Protestors storm government buildings in the capital city of Brasilia, lashing out against what they say was a stolen election. Many are comparing the activity in Brazil to January 6, 2021, in the United States. If you’re interested in the similarities and differences between the two events, you’ll want to read this New York Times article.

What Does the Future Hold?

Army influence in Brazil’s government has continued to be strong and some protestors have been calling for military takeover. However, since 1985, there has not been a serious threat of a new military coup. Instead, the army takes a leading role in areas like policing, where state and local police are seen as ineffective. The army also protects the Amazon, breaking up illegal logging and other illicit activities.

For now, in Brazil, democracy is holding. But as in the United States, we’ll have to wait to see what the future might hold.

__________________________________________________________________

Photo by Sookie (Flickr)

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Brazil

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2022/08/democracy-brazil

 

Over the course of New Year’s Eve on Dec. 31, 1958 and January 1, 1959, the reigning Cuban dictator, Fulgencio Batista, abdicated his position as a result of the growing revolution led by Che Guevara and Fidel Castro, who replaced the government with a revolutionary socialist state.

Fidel Castro — popularly named “Savior of the Fatherland” and “Maximum Leader” — reached Havana  on January 8, 1959, a day after the US extended diplomatic recognition to his revolutionary government.

In their book, The Cuban Insurrection 1952-1959, Ramon L. Bonachea and Marta San Martin make a surprising claim. They say that believers in santeria saw in Fidel the reincarnation of previous leaders like the great nationalist Jose Marti who had been sent to save the nation and the people at a time of crisis. These devotees placed their special ‘protections’ along “the leader’s” path, and banners and flags hung from almost every building in Havana.

The guerillas accompanying Castro marched to waving crowds, their uniforms decorated with religious medals and santeria bead collars of various colors.

Fidel stopped at the Presidential Palace on the eastern side of the Almendares River and then crossed the river, marching toward Marinao and Camp Columbia. While the guerilla leader addressed the nation, several white pigeons, symbols of peace, were let loose. One of them circled above Castro’s head and gently landed on his shoulder.

Very few people in attendance doubted that Fidel Castro was, indeed, a man with a mission.

None the less, Havana, relatively untouched by the Cold War and anxious to shed the trappings of violence and conflict, could not envision the path that the regime would ultimately pursue.

In the 2001 essay The Day Havana Fell, published in his book Havana: the Revolutionary Moment, the photographer Burt Glinn shares his first hand photographs of the Cuban Revolution. Click here to see the photographs. They are in gorgeous black and white, and not to be missed.

The Capitalist Legacy 1945-1959

Havana, in 1959, reflected excesses and inequalities that were a consequence of the American business presence as well as foreign investment.

During the early Cold War period, Havana’s loyalty to the US had been taken for granted, and the government was considered a staunch ally in the fight against communism. From 1945-1959, Cuba could even be defined as a client of the United States if by cliency one refers to

a mutually beneficial, security-oriented relationship between the governments of two countries that differ greatly in size, wealth, and military political power. Clients reciprocate for the delivery of goods and services by either participating in . . . regional security plans or by accommodating to . . . desires on questions of international diplomacy and economic policy-making.

While one might debate the primacy of a Cuban-American ‘security oriented’ relationship during these early postwar years, it is hard to argue the issue of economic accommodation. Nevertheless, it is a strain to assert that the city was locked into a pattern of classic dependency in its association with the United States. It was clear, though, that to move forward Cuba needed to redefine its relationship with the superpower.

Still, the United States insisted on her unique relationship with Cuba, and the more privileged inhabitants of Havana were resistant to any reform that would threaten their many links to the American economy. For most ordinary habaneros, however, the situation was dismal.

Havana real estate had become a major investment arena, characterized by rampant real estate speculation in the post World War II period. As a consequence, at the time of the revolution, between 650,000 and 750,000 housing units were considered substandard, about one-half of the total stock of 1.4 million units. Six percent of Havana’s population lived in squatter settlements.  Much of the problem was linked to the shift to condominium construction financed by  the American business community.

Migrants Exacerbate Havana’s Problems

Havana’s problems were exacerbated by the arrival of approximately 25,000 migrants per year who were relocating to the capital from less urbanized sections of the country.

Until the revolution, the City of Havana was the destination of about 45% of all internal migrants and, with a shortage of housing and with decent paying jobs in short supply, this group placed a disproportionate strain on the city.

Even though Havana’s growth rate during the 1950s was only two percent above that for Cuba as a whole, much lower than the same figure for most capital cities in Latin America, the city’s population density was 2,200 inhabitants per square meter. Not surprisingly, the capital showed little enthusiasm for the new arrivals.

Migrants named a variety of reasons for moving to Havana.  Many (32.4%) mentioned that they were in search of new jobs. Of this group, 36.1% had low levels of schooling, 26.8% had attended some high school, and 13.7% had some college.

So long as the construction sector continued to expand, it is probable that the poorly educated, primarily white male migrants could find employment. However, only 5% of the inadequately skilled new arrivals wanted to work in construction, the sector which offered the most jobs. Thus, those moving to Havana in search of work were the least prepared or willing to take advantage of the opportunities of the labor market.

As an aside, Havana had three fourths of all Cuba’s construction jobs. The capital employed 20% of the country’s active population: 41.9% of those employed worked in the service sector, 17.9% worked in commerce, and 6.2% held jobs in industry. Interestingly, until, 1960, almost all migrants to Havana who were active in the labor force were seeking agricultural work.

New migrants with professional or technical training were not seeking employment. Rather, they had come seeking a better quality of life. Still, housing was scarce and few migrants were able to fulfill their expectations.

The Vedado Section of Havana

As previously mentioned, most available housing consisted of pricey new condominiums, a form of shelter that few newcomers were able to afford. The condominiums were concentrated in the Vedado section of Havana where construction activities related to hotels and high rises were transformative from 1945-1959.

American investment in the Vedado area was not only focused on condominium and hotel development, it was also linked to a proliferation of underworld operations.  To this day Cubans living in the area can point out mob-associated structures and recount anecdotes about the mafia notables who hung out in the area.

Hotels constructed in the area between 1953 and 1958 include the Havana Hilton, Habana Riviera, Capri, Vedado, Flamingo, and others.

The Hotel Capri was a favorite haunt of Lucky Luciano and Meyer Lanski. This Mafia group is said to have supplied financing for the Riviera.

A 1958 law facilitated international transactions by Cuban banks and is said to have supported a growing drug trade and banking sector.  In any event, the city was a center of commercialized vice, much of it underwritten by US organized crime.

Havana was famous for its glitzy, Las Vegas style atmosphere, and American businessmen were attracted by illegal drugs, prostitution and the gambling casinos which were the city’s major industry.  Not surprisingly, there was a relatively high crime rate.  A vast informal economy centered on beggars and prostitution.

American Financed Projects

American financed projects in Havana’s built environment did not revolve around Cold War militarism. Rather, they reflected the imperatives of capitalism.  These included high rise apartment buildings with water views designed to  house American businessmen and wealthy habaneros, and 3 tunnels to facilitate automobile travel in the city.

One of the tunnels, built between 1955 and 1958, was 735 meters long and was drilled between Old Havana and Havana del Este under the harbor mouth to facilitate travel to the beaches east of the city.  Another tunnel connected the luxury hotel area of Vedado with the high income housing community of Miramar to the west. Additional public works projects were associated with highway improvement, public buildings, water supply, and airports.

Capitalism, rather than militarism, was the driving factor in the city’s relationship with external actors. On the domestic scene, however, the situation was different.

The urban underground centered at the University of Havana organized opposition forces in the city and eventually confronted the Cuban regular military, supplied, in part, by the American superpower. Through this vehicle, Havana had a primary role in the insurrectionary struggle which was identified at this time primarily with Cuban nationalism.

Havana’s built environment became a symbol of the conflict when, in January 1959, Fidel Castro arrived from the Sierra Maestra and set up headquarters on the 22nd floor of the 25-story Havana Hilton dislodging both reputable American businessmen and mafia associates.  The hotel became a symbol of the fight for cuba libre, was renamed the Havana Libre, and is an emblem of the revolutionary struggle to this day.

___________________________________________________________

Sources:

Enrique A. Baloyra and Roberto Lozano, “Soviet-Cuban Relations: The New Environment and Its Impact,” in Conflict and Change in Cuba, ed. Enrique A. Baloyra and James A. Morris (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1993), 267.

Ramon L. Bonachea and Marta San Martin, The Cuban Insurrection 1952-1959 (New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1974), 74 and 329.

Jill Hamburg, “The Dynamics of Cuban Housing Policy” (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1994), 588.

Grupo de Trabajo Nacional de la Encuesta de Migraciones Internas, Resultados de la Encuesta Nacional de Migraciones Internas según Niveles del Sistema de Asentamientos: El caso de Ciudad de La Havana (Havana: Centro de Estudios DEMograficos, 1996), 7.

https://www.magnumphotos.com/newsroom/politics/burt-glinn-havana-the-revolutionary-moment/

 

It’s that time of year again — a time to look back at what was good about the year that’s coming to an end.  Here are the five most read posts published by Cold War Studies in 2022.

#1: The Rise of Fast Fashion: Globalization and Waste

In today’s world, most of our clothing purchases will center on “Fast Fashion” — trendy, inexpensive garments produced in large amounts and manufactured speedily in subcontracted factories across the globe.

Worldwide we toss away 2.1 billion tons of fashion with much of it ending up in African landfills. This waste is not recycled since most clothes are synthetics, and most synthetics aren’t biodegradable. The fabrics that do break down often contain chemicals that contaminate the soil and the water table.

Read the full post here.

#2: Cold War Fashion: The Early Years (1950s-1960s)

The Cold War spurred two parallel contests: the arms race and the space race. These stand-offs raised tensions worldwide and gave rise to a sense of anxiety that permeated all aspects of daily life. In the West, even fashion reflected an on-going fear of communist infiltration, alien invasion, spies, and the Space Age. From the bikini to the spacesuit, designers integrated the themes of the day into their couture attire.

Read the full post here.

#3: The End of the Cold War: A Cold War Timeline

In today’s world, the years leading up to the end of the Cold War and the years following the destruction of the Berlin Wall have taken on renewed importance. How did the Cold War end? This timeline provides insight.

Read the full post here.

#4: It’s a Wonderful Life: Communist Propaganda?

The Frank Capra film It’s a Wonderful Life is synonymous with Christmas – at least to some. But did you know that an FBI agent left the movie’s preview claiming that it was communist propaganda?

In 1947, the FBI produced a memo asserting that It’s a Wonderful Life was a potential “Communist infiltration of the motion picture industry.”

The memo pointed out

 rather obvious attempts to discredit bankers by casting Lionel Barrymore as a ‘Scrooge-type’ so that he would be the most hated man in the picture. This, according to sources, is a common trick used by Communists.

Read the full post here.

#5: FIFA World Cup Soccer: Cold War Goalllllllllll

The 2022 FIFA World Cup begins soon with Qatar as host, and it’s full of controversy — Qatar faces Ecuador in the opening game.

So, once again, Cold War Studies is turning its focus to The Beautiful Game in the context of the Cold War. 

The first FIFA World Cup, held in 1930, was a 13 team event held in Uruguay. Since then, the contest has expanded to 32 teams. It’s  preceded by a two year qualifying process involving almost 200 teams from all over the world.

Read the full post here.

Time to Welcome 2023

I don’t know about you, but I’m ready to say goodby to 2022. It’s been a fine year, but it’s time to move on.

I’d love to hear what you’d like to read about in 2023. Just put your ideas in the contents.

Most of all, here’s to a Healthy, Happy, and Prosperous New Year!!!

The Frank Capra film It’s a Wonderful Life is synonymous with Christmas – at least to some. But did you know that an FBI agent left the movie’s preview claiming that it was communist propaganda?

In case you’re not familiar with the story, It’s the tale of George Bailey, a down-on-his-luck businessman in the fictional town of Bedford Falls. George is about to lose his loan company to the rich, evil banker Mr. Potter. Bailey considers committing suicide on Christmas Eve, thinking that his family and the townspeople would be better off without him. But a guardian angel intervenes and shows the suicidal man how much he’s helped those around him.

The FBI saw It’s a Wonderful Life—and didn’t like it.

According to the website Mental Floss, in 1947, the FBI produced a memo asserting that It’s a Wonderful Life was a potential “Communist infiltration of the motion picture industry.”

The memo pointed out

 rather obvious attempts to discredit bankers by casting Lionel Barrymore as a ‘Scrooge-type’ so that he would be the most hated man in the picture. This, according to sources, is a common trick used by Communists.

According to Professor John Noakes of Franklin and Marshall College, the FBI thought It’s a Wonderful Life smeared American values such as wealth and free enterprise while glorifying anti-American values such as the triumph of the common man.

Wise Bread quotes Noakes as saying:

What’s interesting in the FBI critique is that the Baileys were also bankers . . .  . And what is really going on is a struggle between the big-city banker (Potter) and the small banker (the Baileys). Capra was clearly on side of small capitalism and the FBI was on the side of big capitalism. The FBI misinterpreted this classic struggle as communist propaganda.  (You can read the full memo on wisebread.com. )

After further industry probes, it was asserted that “those responsible for making It’s a Wonderful Life had employed two common tricks used by Communists to inject propaganda into the film.”

The first of these tricks involved smearing “values or institutions judged to be particularly American.” In the case of It’s a Wonderful Life, the capitalist banker, Mr. Potter, is portrayed as Scroogey.

The second trick was emphasizing “values or institutions judged to be particularly anti-American or pro-Communist.” The ‘glorification’ of George Bailey’s crisis, seen through this lens, was a subtle attempt to magnify the problems of the so-called ‘common man’ in society.

Smithsonian Magazine says:

In the moment of post-war paranoia, even the idea of a community bank could be read as Communist. And George Bailey’s deep unhappiness in a quintessentially American small town life could be perceived as failure, which was broadly portrayed as Communist as well.

The FBI handed over the results of its investigation to the House Un American Activities Committee (HUAC), but for once the group chose to avoid a witch hunt and the film’s writers and director were not investigated. But the aspects of the film that raised FBI concern, are the very themes that have made it a Christmas favorite.

What do you think? I’d love to read your thoughts in the comments.

Sources:

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/60792/25-wonderful-facts-about-its-wonderful-life

https://www.wisebread.com/fbi-considered-its-a-wonderful-life-communist-propaganda#memo1

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/weird-story-fbi-and-its-wonderful-life-180967587/

The Holiday Issue of Cold War Magazine is now online.

You can read it here!

We’re all about Cold War history, culture, and politics. Most of all, we’re about Cold War fun! And we’re easy to read.

Many people think that the Cold War was just a half century confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union. But it was really much more than an international conflict. Those of us who lived it know that the Cold War was a “state of mind,” encompassing every aspect of life from fashion and decor to bubblegum cards and comic books.

In this issue, Cold War Magazine doubles down on Cold War toys and Christmas traditions.

Table of Contents

FROM THE PUBLISHER

COLD WAR TOYS AND THE BIRTH OF CONSPICUOUS CONSUMPTION

SANTA CLAUS MEETS DED MAROZ

EVERGLEAM CHRISTMAS TREE

JUST LIKE MOM

BOYS’ TOYS

TOYS FOR THE ATOMIC AGE

DO YOU HEAR WHAT I HEAR?

Why not check us out now?

 

 

Now that Labor Day is over, the “fall fashion” season is in full swing. And in today’s world, most of that buying will center on “Fast Fashion” — trendy, inexpensive garments produced in large amounts and manufactured speedily in subcontracted factories across the globe.

At first glance, this is good news. Despite inflation, you can buy more clothes while spending less money than at the height of the early Cold War in 1960.

Here’s an interesting factoid:

In 1960, an average American household spent over 10 percent of its income on clothing and shoes – equivalent to roughly $4,000 today. The average person bought fewer than 25 garments each year. And about 95 percent of those clothes were made in the United States.

Today, the average American household spends less than 3.5 percent of its budget on clothing and shoes – under $1,800. Yet, we buy more clothing than ever before: nearly 20 billion garments a year, close to 70 pieces of clothing per person, or more than one clothing purchase per week . . .

But there is a downside. Only about 2 percent of this clothing is made in the United States, thanks to the offshoring and globalization that took hold in the 1980s. Industrial centers up and down America’s Eastern Seaboard and across the South have become ghost towns as factories have emptied and employees have filed for unemployment.

We talk about ‘going global’ now like it’s something new. But it isn’t. The globalization of trade started more than 2,000 years ago with merchant traders and the ‘old’ Silk Road. From its earliest beginnings, fashion has been integral.

Going Global: A Brief History

According to a piece by the World Economic Forum, we’re now in the midst of Globalization 4.0. There’s a wonderful visual timeline on their site (although a little bit blurry) that’s worth taking a look at. You can access it here.  The snippets below are taken from the above article to provide a brief history.

The Silk Road in the 1st Century B.C.

As of the 1st century BC, luxury products from China started to appear on the other edge of the Eurasian continent – in Rome. They got there after being hauled for thousands of miles along the Silk Road. Global trade links were established for luxury goods – silk and spices.  These goods comprised a very tiny segment of the economy.

Muslim Traders in the 7th-9th Centuries

As the new religion of Islam spread in all directions from its Arabian heartland in the 7th century, so did trade. By the early 9th century, Muslim traders dominated Mediterranean and Indian Ocean trade; afterwards, they could be found as far east as Indonesia. Spices were the main focus of the expansion and, like before, they made up only a small volume of the economy. While we’re not talking about ‘globalization’ as we know it today, the original Belt (sea route) and Road (Silk Road) of trade between East and West did now exist.

The Age of Discovery: The 15th Century On

In the Age of Discovery, from the end of the 15th century on, European explorers connected East and West – and accidentally discovered the Americas. Yet economists today still don’t regard this era as one of true globalization. The global economy was still very much siloed and lopsided. The European empires set up global supply chains, but mostly with those colonies they owned. Their colonial model was chiefly one of exploitation, including the shameful legacy of the slave trade. The empires thus created both a mercantilist and a colonial economy, but not a truly globalized one.

The Modern Era:

The First Wave (19th century-1914)

The first wave of globalization, which roughly occurred over the century ending in 1914, was the era of the First Industrial Revolution.

Exports worldwide rose from a share of 6 percent of global GDP in the early 19th century, to 14 percent on the eve of World War I.

In 1914, the outbreak of World War I brought an end to this period of globalization.

By the end of World War II, trade as a percentage of world GDP had fallen to 5 percent – a level not seen in more than a hundred years.

Second and third wave of globalization

The end of the World War II marked a new beginning for the global economy. Under the leadership of a new hegemon, the United States of America, and aided by the technologies of the Second Industrial Revolution, like the car and the plane, global trade started to rise once again.

In the early decades after World War II, institutions like the European Union, and other free trade vehicles championed by the US were responsible for much of the increase in international trade.

Although the Iron Curtain divided the world into two spheres of influence, the Soviet Union saw a similar increase in trade, albeit through centralized planning rather than the free market.

The End of the Cold War

When the Iron Curtain fell in 1989, globalization became a truly global phenomenon. Worldwide, trade once again rose to 1914 levels: in 1989, export once again counted for 14  percent of global GDP. It was paired with a steep rise in middle-class incomes in the West.

The newly created World Trade Organization (WTO) encouraged nations all over the world to enter into free-trade agreements, and most of them did, including many newly independent ones. In 2001, even China, which for the better part of the 20th century had been a secluded, agrarian economy, became a member of the WTO, and started to manufacture for the world. In this “new” world, the US set the tone and led the way, but many others benefited.

At the same time, a new technology from the Third Industrial Revolution, the internet, connected people all over the world in an even more direct way.

Since the end of the Cold War, fashion has grown from a $500 billion trade, primarily domestically produced, to a $2.4 trillion a year global industry.

As one would expect, given the growth of the industry and its global reach, the impact has been dramatic.

The Impact of Globalized Fashion: The United States

Up until the late 1970s, the US produced at least 70 percent of the apparel that Americans purchased.

By 1980, even though about 70 percent of the clothing Americans bought was still made domestically, a new segment of the apparel business was popping up, soon to experience rapid growth.

Labeled Fast Fashion, the focus was on trendy, inexpensive garments produced in large amounts and manufactured speedily in subcontracted factories across the globe.

A handful of big retail chains like Gap Inc. and J.C. Penney began transitioning away from actually making their own clothes.  Instead, they increasingly just designed and marketed them. To keep prices down, they slashed manufacturing costs by offshoring to some of the world’s poorest countries where labor costs were low.

Offshoring caught on across the industry just as globalization took hold.

Early adopters began to develop vast global supply chains that allowed them to divide up each step of the production process, sending the work to whichever location offered the cheapest, most efficient services. According to Elizabeth Cline, author of Overdressed: The Shockingly High Cost of Fast Fashion, by 2003, Gap was ordering its clothes from more than 1,200 different factories in 42 countries.

Labor in Developed Countries

In 1991, as the Cold War ended, 56.2 percent of all clothes purchased in the United States were American made. By 2012, that percentage had declined to 2.5 percent.

Between 1990 and 2012, the US textile and garment industry lost 1.2 million jobs, more than three-fourths of the sector’s labor force. Not surprisingly, the work went to Latin America and Asia. Large textile mills and factories had been emerging in these areas since the mid-1970s. Their operations offered incredibly cheap labor and raw materials, as well as the capacity to quickly manufacture huge orders.

American textile manufacturers just couldn’t compete. The average US garment worker makes about 38 times the wage of his or her counterpart in Bangladesh.

At the same time that US workers were losing their jobs, the number of apparel and textile workers globally nearly doubled, from 34.2 million to 57.8 million.

Trade Deficits

Offshoring created massive trade deficits in the West, and the fashion industry is a good example of globalization’s impact.

In 2017, Britain imported 92.4 per cent of its clothing. In the European Union, only Italy managed to hold on to its domestic clothing industry. It did so largely because of its reputation in the luxury fashion market.

By 2017, US apparel exports totaled roughly $5.7 billion, while imports were about $82.6 billion.

Americans say they’re concerned about the trade deficit. Yet, according to a 2016 poll, when given the choice of a $50 pair of pants made offshore vs. an $85 pair manufactured in the US, 67 percent of respondents said they would opt for the cheaper ones – even if their household income was more than $100,000.

Human Rights in Developing Countries

Fashion is the most labor-intensive industry worldwide, employing 1 in 6 people around the globe. Fewer than 2 percent of these workers earn a living wage.

Most apparel workers are women; some are children.

The Planet

The World Bank estimates that the clothing sector is responsible for nearly 20 percent of all industrial water pollution annually.  It releases 10 percent of the carbon emissions in our air.

The fashion industry consumes one-fourth of all chemicals produced worldwide.

In the last 20 years, the volume of clothes Americans throw away yearly has doubled from 7 million to 14 million tons, equaling 80 pounds per person per year.

Of the more than 100 billion items of clothing produced each year, 20 percent go unsold. Leftovers are usually buried, shredded, or incinerated.

Worldwide we toss away 2.1 billion tons of fashion with much of it ending up in African landfills. This waste is not recycled since most clothes are synthetics, and most synthetics aren’t biodegradable. The fabrics that do break down often contain chemicals that contaminate the soil and the water table.

The Predominance of Fast Fashion

ZARA

Zara is the world’s largest fashion brand, producing more than 450 million items in 2018.

The parent company of Zara, Inditex, reported $28.63 billion in sales for 2017, of which Zara made up two-thirds or about $18.8 billion.

In 2016, Amancio Ortega of Inditex was the second richest person in the world (after Bill Gates) with a net worth of $67 million.

By 2018, 5 of the world’s 55 richest individuals were fashion company owners.

SHEIN

The fast fashion brand Shein was recently profiled by The New York Times. You can read the article here.  As The Times notes:

Shein — officially pronounced “she-in,” though often pronounced “sheen” — recently surpassed Amazon as the most downloaded shopping app in the United States, according to analysis by Sensor Tower. Shein is privately held and declined to share financial figures but was estimated by Coresight Research to bring in $10 billion in revenue in 2020.

As Shein has grown, so have the controversies surrounding the company. It has been criticized for selling a swastika necklace, copying the work of major designers, working with suppliers that violate labor laws, and failing to make necessary disclosures about factory conditions. Last year elevated levels of lead were found in some of its products – a toddler’s jacket, for instance.

What Do You Think?

BlackRock CEO Larry Fink thinks the war in Ukraine is accelerating the end of globalization that has shaped the new world order for the last 30 years.

Selected Sources:

From KAED.org – Why America Stopped Making Its Own Clothes – Stephanie Vatz (May 24, 2013)

The Bureau of Labor Statistics

A Brief History of Globalization – World Economic Forum

Overdressed: The Shockingly High Cost of Fast Fashion – Elizabeth Cline

Conscious Closet – Elizabeth Cline

Fashionopolis: The Rise of Fast Fashion and the Future of Clothes – Dana Thomas

The People’s Republic of Shein – New York Times (September 1, 2022)

Photographs:

Featured Photo by RamitaGirl67 (Flickr)

Silk by fdecomite (Flickr)

Coca Cola by Jerry Clack (Flickr)

Zara by Mike Mozart (Flickr)

When history buffs think of 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis is often the first thing that comes to mind. Alternatively, some look back on Vietnam and the expansion of the Vietcong (VC) insurgency into South Vietnam. Fifty-three American soldiers were killed in South Vietnam during the year while the South Vietnamese armed forces suffered 4,457 killed in action, 10 percent more than the total killed in 1961.

If you’re talking to a pop culture aficionado about the year, you may learn more than you ever wanted to know about the death of Marilyn Monroe on August 4, 1962.

But finally, if you come across a movie critic, you’ll probably hear all about what a stellar year it was for film. In fact, many argue that 1962 was the best year ever for Hollywood movie makers and their viewing audiences. So in these last lazy days of summer, why not kick back with a big bowl of popcorn and your favorite streaming device?

Want to watch outdoors? Here are 15  Backyard Movie Night Ideas from The Spruce.

The 35th Academy Awards were held on April 8, 1963.  Below are the five nominees for 1962’s best films. You can judge whether they live up to the hype:

Academy Award Nominees for Best Film of 1962

Lawrence of Arabia, one of the most celebrated epics in the history of cinema, is based on the life of T. E. Lawrence and his 1926 book Seven Pillars of Wisdom. The story centers on Lawrence’s experiences in the Ottoman Empire’s provinces of Hejaz and Greater Syria during World War I, including his involvement in the Arab National Council. Nominated for 10 awards and winner of 7, the film is widely regarded as one of the greatest and most influential films ever made. In 1991, it was deemed “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant” by the United States Library of Congress and selected for preservation in the National Film Registry.

To Kill a Mockingbird tells the story of Atticus Finch, a widowed lawyer in Depression-era Alabama, who defends a black man against an undeserved rape charge, and his children against prejudice. The screenplay is based on Harper Lee’s 1960 Pulitzer Prize–winning novel of the same name. A box-office success, it earned more than six times its budget. Also a critical success, the film won 3 Academy Awards, including Best Actor for Gregory Peck, and was nominated for eight, including Best Picture.

Mutiny on the Bounty tells a fictionalized story of the real-life mutiny led by Fletcher Christian against William Bligh, captain of HMAV Bounty, in 1789. Partly shot on location in the South Pacific, the film was panned by critics, and was a box office flop.

The Music Man is a musical film based on Meredith Wilson’s 1957 Broadway musical of the same name. It tells the story of traveling con artist Harold Hill who targets the naïve residents of a small town in 1910s Iowa by posing as a boys’ band leader to raise money before he can skip town. The film was one of the biggest hits of 1962. Widely acclaimed by critics, it was nominated for six Academy Awards. In 2005, the film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.”

The Longest Day is an epic American  war movie, filmed in black and white. Shot in docudrama style, it portrays the events of D-Day from both the Allied and German points of view. Civil-rights groups objected to the film because, as Time Magazine reported in 1963, “not one Negro was seen in the movie.” The film does accurately show how the Allied invasion caught the Germans off-guard. Nominated for five Academy Awards and winning two, it’s best seen on the big screen.

Other noteworthy films from 1962

The Manchurian Candidate, starring Frank Sinatra, Laurence Harvey, Janet Leigh, and Angela Lansbury, is a political suspense classic. Per Wikipedia, the plot centers on Korean War veteran Raymond Shaw, a member of a prominent political family. Shaw is brainwashed by communists after his Army platoon is captured and returns to civilian life in the United States, where he becomes an unwitting assassin in an international communist conspiracy. Like many other 1962 movies, it was It was selected  for preservation in the United States National Film Registry.

Bird Man of Alcatraz is a largely fictionalized version of the life of Robert Stroud, who was sentenced to solitary confinement after having killed a prison guard. A federal prison inmate, he became known as the “Birdman of Alcatraz” because of his growing interest and love for birds after he finds an orphaned sparrow in the prison yard.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence tells the story of a  senator who rose to fame for killing a notorious outlaw. He returns for the funeral of his old friend and reveals the truth about his deed. The film stars John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart. In 2007, it was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.”

Days of Wine and Roses is ( according to Amazon Prime) a searing, bittersweet study of an alcoholic couple on the rocks. Their marriage deteriorates, and their lives spiral into disaster, as a result. The film stars Jack Lemon and Lee Remick.

Lolita, based on the 1955 novel by Vladimir Nabokov, follows Humbert Humbert, a middle-aged literature lecturer who becomes sexually infatuated with Dolores Haze (nicknamed “Lolita”), a young adolescent girl. Owing to restrictions imposed by the Motion Picture Production Code, the film toned down the most provocative aspects of the novel, sometimes leaving much to the audience’s imagination

Jules and Jim: Rotten Tomatoes says that, along with Godard’s Breathless, François Truffaut’s Jules et Jim is probably the essential French New Wave film. Set before and after World War I, it describes a tragic love triangle involving French Bohemian Jim, his shy Austrian friend Jules, and Jules’s girlfriend and later wife Catherine.

The Miracle Worker tells the story of Anne Sullivan’s struggle to teach the blind and deaf Helen Keller how to communicate. Academy Awards went to Best Actress Anne Bancroft as Anne Sullivan and Best Supporting Actress Patty Duke as Helen Keller.

Whatever Happened to Baby Jane follows an aging former child star tormenting her paraplegic sister, a former movie star, in an old Hollywood mansion. The film met with critical acclaim and was a box office success. The intensely bitter Hollywood rivalry between the film’s two stars, Bette Davis and Joan Crawford, was pivotal to the film’s initial success.

The Beginning of a Genre

Finally, it would be negligent of me to ignore the appearance of Ian Fleming’s magnetic charmer, James Bond, in his first film, Dr. No.  Although it was the first of the Bond books to be made into a film, Dr. No was the sixth novel in Fleming’s series. In the film, James Bond is sent to Jamaica to investigate the disappearance of a fellow British agent. The trail leads him to the underground base of Dr. Julius No, who is plotting to disrupt an early American space launch from Cape Canaveral with a radio beam weapon.

While the film received a mixed critical reaction upon its release, it has gained a reputation over time as one of the series’ best installments.

Dr. No also launched a variety of secret agent films that flourished in the 1960s – The Spy Who Came In From The Cold, The Ipcress File, and The Venetian Affair are just a few. The film also initiated a comic book adaptation and soundtrack album as part of its promotion and marketing.

___________________________________________________________

Featured photo by Loren Javier (Flickr): Peter O’Toole/Lawrence of Arabia – Madame Tussaud’s Hollywood.

Thanks to Wikipedia, Amazon Prime, and Rotten Tomatoes for their critiques of the films.