Soviet Security Concerns After World War II

 Michael Streich

Stalin's Demands at Yalta and Potsdam - National Archives Image

Stalin's motives for occupying Eastern Europe in 1945 were driven by fears of another invasion from the West, reparations, & the desire to spread communism.

In the aftermath of World War II and the allied agreements made at Yalta and Potsdam, half of Europe was occupied by the Red Army. Those nations would shortly be identified by the Iron Curtain, a phrase Winston Churchill used to describe the borders between the Soviet-controlled “East” and the free democracies of the “West.” Josef Stalin’s motives are usually explained by defining traditional Russian security concerns that paralleled Tsarist diplomacy before the October 1917 Revolution. Stalin’s motives, however, may have been more complex.

Soviet Goals Before the Nazi Invasion of 1941

The Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of August 1939 contained secret protocols that allowed Stalin to occupy large areas of “Eastern Europe,” including parts of Poland, once the Germans began their advance into Polish territory. The lands subsequently occupied by Russia would never be freed, even after Hitler invaded Russia in 1941 and Stalin became, by default, an ally of Britain and the United States.

Soviet Claims to Eastern Europe During the War

According to historian and diplomat George F. Kennan [1], Churchill never challenged the Soviet position in the early years of the war while President Franklin D. Roosevelt by 1942 opted to relegate any such questions to post-war negotiations. The primary goal was to defeat Germany. But until the pivotal battle of Stalingrad, Stalin demanded that the allies open a second front in Western Europe.

The opening of a second front would draw German forces from Russia, where initially, spectacular military successes seriously threatened Stalin’s position. The Soviets long maintained that, “the defeat of fascism in the Second World War [occurred because of]…the decisive part…played by the Soviet Union.” [2] In many ways this was true. The war cost twenty million Russian lives.

Stalin’s Motives for Soviet Expansion and Occupation

Western Russian historians cite traditional Russian fears of encirclement and invasion from the West, notably Germany [3]. Imperial Germany invaded Russia during World War I, occupying large areas of “European Russia.” Russian history mythologizes Alexander Nevskii – a saint in the Orthodox Church, for defeating the Germanic Teutonic Knights in the 13th century. A 1938 Soviet film by Sergei Eisenstein about the event popularized anti-German sentiment in Russia.

The occupation and control of “buffer” states on Russia’s borders was partial assurance that the Soviet Union would not again be invaded from the West. Additionally, as Stalin himself stated at Yalta and Potsdam, Russia had suffered the greatest in the war and deserved these lands as reparations. Thus, Poland’s borders were moved west and Germany was kept weak, divided by the allied occupation.

Soviet apologists after the war, however, had other motives. A 1964 commentary on Soviet aims [4] states that, “The Soviets view their foreign policy as a means to spread proletarian revolution. The neo-Czarist interpretation sees it as a means to expand Russian power and influence and to enhance the national security.”

Exporting Revolution and Creating the Socialist Commonwealth

In 1964 Soviet Premier A. N. Kosygin gave a speech in which he said, “I can assure you, comrades, that our party and the Soviet government consider it their primary task to do everything to strengthen the unity and solidarity of the socialist commonwealth…”[5] This goal, as Kennan also addresses, goes back to 1945.

The Allies may have never fully understood the tenacity of Soviet goals and aims. These were played out in the Cold War and the numerous proxy wars fought between the Soviet Union and the Western democracies, led by the U.S. Capitalism was not only economic imperialism, but contributed to western decadence. Stalin knew this in 1945, maneuvering the best deal for Soviet Russia and, according to Kennan, playing a superb hand of cards.

Stalin’s Motives After the Defeat of Hitler

Encirclement may have been a dominant aspect of Stalin’s demands, yet he opposed a Chinese invasion of India, preferring a democratic state rather than one tied to Communist China. (See Kennan) Reparations were also on his agenda: the Soviets dismantled factories and carried them east to be reassembled in Russia; local populations in countries like Romania were forcibly deported to Siberia to work.

[1] George F. Kennan, Russia and the West (NY: New American Library, 1960)

[2] A. Sovetov, “Leninist Foreign Policy and International Relations,” International Affairs, No. 4, April 1960

[3] David MacKenzie and Michael W. Curran, A History of Russia, the Soviet Union, and Beyond, 4^th Ed. (Wadsworth Pub. Co., 1993)

[4] Current Digest of the Soviet Press, December 23, 1964, Columbia University

[5] Pravda, December 10, 1964

After the end of World War II in 1945, Republicans and Democrats attempted to paint each other as being stronger when dealing with Communists. "Who lost China?" was one political balloon designed to show the nation and the world that Republicans (or Democrats) were stronger against the adversaries of the free world. America's "Cold Warriors" tried to out-do each other proving they could stand up to the USSR or Red China. 

Today, a balloon floats over Montana and the same debate errupts in an almost totally inempt Congress. Even conspiracy theorist and QANON Queen Rep. Margorie Taylor Greene wants the balloon shot down while Secretary of State Blinken, who just returned from the Middle East after a blundering attempt at peace, has cancelled a trip to meet the Chinese President  Xi Jinping. The Chinese, however, state that the balloon is non-government and non-military.

Republicans are quick to say Biden is weak. As in the Cold War, that kind of partisan nonsense got America hopelessly entangled in Vietnam, earlier, in Korea, and consistently fed the Eisenhower years with one potential conflict after another.

I can't get the Nena ditty, "99 Redballoons," out of my head. But this one balloon is white.

 Stalingrad Remembered - m.streich

The Battle of Stalingrad is often referred to as the “Verdun of World War II.” Historian Martin Middlebrook calls it the “decisive battle of the Second World War.” Stalingrad turned the Russian army from defensive operations to an offensive stance and after the surrender of Field Marshal Paulus’ 6^th Army, the Germans began a long and bloody withdrawal all along the lines of battle. Russian expert David MacKenzie writes that Stalingrad was “the psychological and…military turning point of the German-Soviet War.”

 

The Russian Winter of 1942-1943

 

Adolf Hitler, having failed to take Leningrad and Moscow, was determined to conquer the city on the Volga River that bore the name of his nemesis. Possession of Stalingrad was key to controlling the Caucasus oil fields. The deployment of 6^th Army to Stalingrad coincided with two army groups ordered into the region of Baku. Control of Stalingrad meant control of the wheat crop, manganese ore, and oil. Additionally, Russia’s largest tank factory was located in Stalingrad.

 

The attack on Stalingrad, however, came with the onset of a bitter winter. The 6^th Army and its support troops made up of Romanian and Hungarian units deployed north of the city, was not prepared for the harsh conditions nor the arrival of fresh Russian troops from Siberia. Commanded by Marshal Zhukov, Stalin’s most brilliant general, the Soviets were able to ultimately complete a double-encirclement of the 6^th Army, which was reduced to house-to-house fighting in the pursuit of conquering “Fortress Stalingrad.”

 

Hitler’s Irrational Decisions Sacrificed the Sixth Army

 

Adamantly refusing to accept the recommendations of the most senior members of the German High Command, Hitler replaced the dissenters with generals willing to accept his blundering decisions. Among those dismissed was Colonel-General Franz Halder, a talented officer who foresaw the coming German disaster in Russia due to over-extended supply lines, faltering strategy, and the growing inability to adequate resupply troops.

 

Some historians question Hitler’s choice of Friedrich Paulus as commander of the 6^th Army, an able “thinker” who had helped design and plan Operation Barbarossa, but had never held a major command post. Paulus would follow Hitler’s orders to the letter, even after it became evident that by not breaking out of the Stalingrad ring, the army would be doomed.

 

Although the Battle of Stalingrad took place in November 1942, the 6^th Army continued to defend their positions until February 2^nd 1943 when Paulus, sickly and worn, finally agreed to the Soviet surrender ultimatum. Hitler had promoted him to Field Marshal during the final weeks of the battle, knowing that no German Field Marshal had ever surrendered. Paulus was expected to commit suicide, but instead lived for many years afterward as a Soviet prisoner.

 

Final Promises and Efforts Fail to Relieve the 6^th Army

 

There is some evidence that Hitler was finally persuaded to allow Paulus to extricate himself from Stalingrad through a northern corridor still open before the final encirclement. Additionally, Field Marshal Eric von Manstein had been ordered to create Army Group Don which was to rapidly move south to Stalingrad and relieve Paulus. But Hitler’s decision changed after Herman Goring convinced him that the Luftwaffe could keep the 6^th Army supplied. As in Dunkirk in 1940, Goring’s boasts proved ineffectual.

 

When Paulus surrendered his army, 90,000 surviving soldiers and officers were marched to Siberia; only 6,000 ever returned to Germany after the war. Paulus was kept under house arrest in Moscow before being allowed to move to Communist Eastern Germany where he eventually died in Dresden. Military historian Walter Goerlitz referred to Stalingrad as “the second Jena,” drawing a parallel to the Prussian defeat by Napoleon. This was the turning point in Europe that turned the tide of battle for the Russians.

 

Sources:

 

Walter Goerlitz, History of the German General Staff (London: Westview Press, 1985)

Martin Middlebrook, “Paulus,” Hitler’s Generals, Correlli Barnett, Ed. (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1989)

Lynn Montross, War Through the Ages, 3^rd Ed (New York: Harper and Row, 1960)

Theodor Plievier, Stalingrad (Vienna: Verlag Kurt Desch, 1958)

Note: My grandfather, Karl Piehl, fought and was wounded at Stalingrad. He survived to return home to his family.

 Black History Month Classroom Ideas

Celebrating Black History Month should be a priority in every American school during February. Black History Month 2009 will be even more significant due to the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. The 2009 theme for February should be “From Slavery and Struggle to Freedom and Leadership.” There are many ways individual classes and schools as a

community can vitalize this theme.

 

From Classroom to Community

 

In History classrooms, teachers can assign a “poster project” in conjunction with Black History Month. To avoid duplication, each participating class can be given separate areas of American history to draw from”

 

Colonial Period

Pre-Civil War South

Reconstruction

“Separate But Equal”

Brown v. Board of Education

Civil Rights Movement

Post Civil Rights Movement

 

Students should create posters specific to the assigned period of history. For continuity, require a specific size poster. As a caveat, limit the number of computer generated pictures students may use. Establish as criteria a very specific focus or message to be contained in each poster and encourage creativity.

 

Allow students to present their posters in an oral presentation in which they share with the class why they chose the topic and how it relates to Black History Month. After all students have presented, allow them to display the posters as a narrative, chronological collage in the common areas of the school (assuming the teacher has administrative authority to do this). This activity should take place the last week of January or the first week of February to ensure maximum impact.

 

Contact community leaders and arrange for them to judge the collages. Reward the winning class with a special privilege or a pizza party. These kinds of rewards, if part of the initial instruction, go far in providing the kind of incentive students often need to surpass expectations. Through parent-school communications (newsletters, web pages) invite parents to visit the school and “tour the gallery.”

 

Using the Public Address System

 

Each morning in February, have a student read one significant achievement of African Americans in American History over the school’s PA system. Preparing these factoids can be turned into a January assignment or function as extra credit. Allow students to submit facts from their own research and then select those that conform to a pre-assignment criterion.

 

Other Black History Month Suggestions

 

There are many creative ways to emphasize the contributions of African Americans in our history. These include:

 

Facilitating a school-wide assembly program

Inviting guest speakers from the local community

Hanging banners throughout the school

Preparing classroom bulletin boards with a Black History theme

 

Overall Student Emphasis

 

Celebrating African American achievements should never end once February turns to March. Black History Month, like Native American History Month (November) and Woman’s History Month (March), is a unique opportunity to highlight the role played by African Americans in our national history. As a people “out of many,” African American achievements were too often glossed over or forgotten in history books and classroom lesson plans. From Crispus Attucks to Rosa Parks, from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to Barack Obama, African Americans have contributed their talents and even given their lives in the march of freedom for all people. This truth must be a part of the history we teach well beyond Black History Month.

 Teddy Roosevelt in 1912: You Can't Put Down a Bull Moose! - Mike Streich MA

The presidential campaign of 1912 was drawing to a close as Theodore Roosevelt, the only living ex-president and candidate of the Progressive Party, arrived in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on October 14. Before traveling to the auditorium where he was to give a speech, Roosevelt dined at the Hotel Gilpatrick. Leaving the hotel and standing up in his car to greet adoring well-wishers, Roosevelt heard the sound of a handgun. John Flammang Schrank had walked up and shot the Rough Rider. During the next tense hours, it seemed that the McKinley assassination of eleven years earlier was about to be repeated.

 

Roosevelt’s Would-Be Assassin

 

John Schrank had stalked Roosevelt as the former president traveled across the Northeast delivering speeches. Newspapers later reported that Schrank was a Socialist, but his attack on Roosevelt was motivated more by his insanity. Henry F. Cochems, in his first-hand account of the assassination attempt [1], referred to Schrank as a “paranoiac.” An October 16, 1912 New York Times commentary also placed the blame on Schrank’s insanity, discounting ties to Socialism. [2]

 

During the ensuing investigation and trial, Schrank claimed to have been influenced by a dream in which the ghost of William McKinley prompted his actions. According to historian James Chace [3], Schrank was also obsessed with Roosevelt’s intention to seek a third term as President. Although charged with assault and intent to kill, Schrank was consigned to an asylum for the rest of his life.

 

The Defiant Bull Moose

 

Schrank was tackled by security men and brought before Roosevelt who asked him why he did it. Schrank, however, was mute and taken away. Roosevelt, though wounded, insisted on going to the auditorium to deliver his speech. The 38 caliber bullet had entered his chest and his white shirt was bloody. His speech, tightly folded in his left jacket pocket, had lessened the effect of the bullet.

 

Teddy Roosevelt began his address, telling the audience, “I don’t know whether you fully understand that I have just been shot; but it takes more than that to kill a Bull Moose.” Roosevelt spoke for an hour to the 9,000 people in the auditorium. After concluding, he was rushed to the hospital. But the bullet, which missed his heart by an inch, was not removed. Cochems wrote that Roosevelt recalled both Garfield and McKinley had died after surgery to find and remove a bullet. He spent the next few days in Chicago, recovering at Mercy Hospital where he was joined by his wife Edith as well as other family members. The New York Times called the assassination attempt “…the narrowest of escapes.” [4]

 

Progressives Blame the Press

 

In an October 15, 1912 New York Times article, Montana Senator Joseph Dixon blamed the press. “For months the enemies of Colonel Roosevelt…in public speech have combined to assassinate the public and private character of the greatest living American.” [5] The implication in Dixon’s complete quote was that Schrank’s actions were either directly or indirectly related to his actions on October 14^th.

 

Impact on the Election of 1912

 

Although one physician at Mercy Hospital declared that surviving the shot would seal victory in the November election (see Cochems’ account), Roosevelt lost to Woodrow Wilson. 1912 featured a three-way race. The Republicans were split between William H. Taft, the sitting President, and Teddy Roosevelt. Their combined popular vote was 7,604,518 to Wilson’s 6,293,454.

 

Notes:

 

[1] Henry F. Cochems, Oliver Ramey, and Wheeler P. Bloodgood, The Attempted Assassination of the Ex-President Theodore Roosevelt (Progressive Publishing Company, 1912)

[2] “The Attack Upon the President,” New York Times, October 16, 1912

[3] James Chace, 1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft & Debs – The Election That Changed the Country (Simon & Schuster, 2004)

[4] New York Times, October 16, 1912

[5] “Progressives Here Had Great Fright,” New York Times, October 15, 1912

 

Other:

 

Theodore Roosevelt’s Milwaukee speech, October 14, 1912

 What Was the Compromise of 1850? by Mike Streich

The 31^st Congress was called to order December 3, 1849. After weeks of sorting through petitions, Henry Clay of Kentucky presented eight resolutions designed to “settle and adjust amicably all existing questions of controversy…arising out of the institution of slavery.” The Senate began debating his resolution the following Tuesday, February 5, 1850. By the adjournment of the Senate that summer, the “Compromise of 1850” was law, sectional tension was higher, and one of the great Senate thinkers, John C Calhoun, had died.

 

The Resolutions of Henry Clay

 

California would be admitted as a free-soil state based on its state constitution

Congress should not introduce or “exclude” slavery in any of the new territories

The western boundary of Texas should conform to the Rio del Norte

The U.S. government will pay Texas pre-annexation monetary claims

Texas will “relinquish…any claim which is has to any part of New Mexico

Slavery will continue to exist as an institution in the District of Columbia as long as it exists in Maryland

The sale or slave trade within the District will be abolished

A stronger “fugitive slave” provision be enacted

Congress has “no power to prohibit or obstruct the trade in slaves between slaveholding States…

 

Debating the Resolutions

 

Although Senator Clay envisioned a compromise designed to give the North and the South some measure of satisfaction, it stirred up a hornet’s nest of often angry debate. Many senators proposed amendments favorable to their constituencies. Senator Pratt of Maryland argued for federal compensation to slaveholders that lost income resulting from fugitive slaves. Jefferson Davis of Mississippi favored extending the 1820 Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific.

 

John C. Calhoun, whose speech was read by Virginia’s Senator Mason, called for a constitution amendment establishing two sectional Presidents. Calhoun, already frail, died in March. William Henry Seward’s speech referred to a “higher law” that superseded the Constitution in terms of slavery. Both Seward and Salmon Chase of Ohio urged the adoption of the Wilmot Proviso. Stephen Douglas of Illinois supported the resolutions in an attempt to assuage sectional discord. Although representing a Northern state, Douglas owned slaves himself through his second marriage.

 

Although President Zachary Taylor urged the speedy admittance of California into the Union, he opposed the expansion of slavery into the other territories. According to Historian Frederick Merk, “Taylor would have met any southern move toward secession at the head of the United States army.” Taylor, however, died in July and the new President, Millard Fillmore, supported the resolutions.

 

Results of the Compromise

 

Passage of the separate bills was due in large part to the efforts of Stephen Douglas, who maneuvered the legislation through Congress after Clay returned to Kentucky. Southerners, for the most part, viewed the Compromise with disdain and in four southern states, conventions met to consider secession.

 

Northerners also opposed parts of the Compromise, most notably the new Fugitive Slave Act. Both New York and Wisconsin attempted to nullify this act, without success. The issue of extending slavery beyond those states in which the institution already existed would dominate political and sectional thought for the next decade and act as a catalyst in the eventual outbreak of war.

 

Sources:

 

William W. Freehling, The Road to Disunion: Secessionists at Bay 1776-1854 (Oxford University Press, 1990).

Frederick Merk, History of the Westward Movement (Alfred A. Knopf, 1978).

Journal of the United States Senate, 31^st Congress, The Library of Congress, “American Memory”

 

 

What do Representative George Santos and Prince Harry have in Common? They both lie. Why use the term "fabrication?" Today's German Bild (13.January 2023) has an excellent article on the contradictions and "fibs" in Spare.

WHAT WAS THE "CORRUPT BARGAIN" ASSOCIATED WITH HENRY CLAY IN 1824?

PERHAPS KEVIN MCCARTHY CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION IF HE STUDIED AMERICAN HISTORY IN HIGH SCHOOL.

 Henry Clay attempted the Presidency three times yet each time he miscalculated the mood of the American people. In 1824 he came in last in a four-way race; building his campaign on Andrew Jackson’s Bank Veto in 1832, Clay failed to realize that voters saw the veto as an extension of Jackson’s heroic nature and champion of the common man. Finally, in 1844, Clay’s “waffling” on the issue of Texas annexation caused enough voters in the North to switch their support to James Birney and the new Liberty Party, costing him crucial swing states.

 

The 1824 Election

 

When the results of the 1824 election were tabulated, Henry Clay was in fourth place with 37 electoral votes. Although no candidate received enough electoral votes to win the presidency, John Quincy Adams would be selected by a vote in the House of Representatives. As Speaker of the House, Henry Clay played a pivotal role in denying Andrew Jackson the presidency. Jackson, with 99 electoral votes and almost three times the popular votes of Clay and William Crawford, would never forget Clay’s role in the so-called “corrupt bargain.”

 

1832 and the Bank of the United States

 

President Andrew Jackson rejected a premature rechartering of the SBUS(Second Bank of the US) in 1832 after Henry Clay convinced bank President Nicholas Biddle to seek a new charter. It was the issue Clay hoped would bring him into the White House. Portraying Jackson as a despotic tyrant and recalling the images of George III, Clay and his followers believed that the voters would agree and retire Jackson.

 

Jackson, however, was seen as a man of the people, a hero who championed the cause of simple, hard working Americans. Jackson, who hated all banks, saw the national bank as the “great whore of Babylon.” Everywhere he went, everyday people cheered him as their advocate. The bank issue backfired. According to Paul Boller, “For the first time in American history a President took a strong stand on an important social issue and then asked for the approval of the voters at the polls.” [1]

 

The Annexation of Texas and the 1844 Election

 

The annexation of Texas was the chief issue in the 1844 election. Democrat James K Polk favored annexation. Significantly, Polk’s stance was based on his sincere views favoring immediate expansionism. Polk wanted to unite the nation between both oceans, assert American claims in the Oregon Territory, and bring Texas into the Union.

 

Henry Clay, however, viewed the issue in terms of his own presidential ambitions. At first, Clay opposed Texas annexation, gambling on the Northern vote. Northern voters, for the most part, rejected the idea of bringing in another slave state. Sensing that his chance of victory might be better if he switched positions, Clay came out for annexation. This cost him crucial Northern votes.

 

Page Smith [2] gives an interesting analysis of the 1844 vote. Polk won the election with less than 1 percent of the popular vote, yet in pivotal states like Ohio, James Birney, the antislavery candidate, polled over 8,000 votes. In Pennsylvania Polk won “by a bare 6,000 votes out of more than 328,000 cast.” Birney’s total in the election was 62,300. Had Clay not switched his position on Texas, many of the Birney votes might have gone to him.

 

Although Henry Clay never became President, his long political career left an indelible mark on American History. Returned to the National Senate in 1850, Clay would endeavor to craft a final compromise designed to avert Civil War. For this he was vilified by many Southerners.

 

Sources:

 

[1] Page Smith, The Nation Comes of Age: A People’s History of the Ante-Bellum Years (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981) p. 207.

[2] Paul F. Boller, Jr. Presidential Campaigns From George Washington to George W. Bush (Oxford University Press, 2004) p. 53.

It Would seem that the Republican Party has Traded one Liar, Madison Cawthorn, for another, George Santos. Trivia: who was the "Continental Liar from Maine"? It was James G. Blaine who puts both above men to shame and almost became President in the late 19th Century.

Happy Birthday - also - to Ludwig van Beethoven, (1770) who shared this day with my mother, Ingrid  Streich.

Happy Birthday Mom from All of Us Alive and in Heaven! December 17, 2022. Miss you terribly!

(Born December 17, 1930 in Hamburg, Germany)
 

Bombs We Now Call "Weapons of Mass Destruction" are bigger than ever and well past the midnight hour of usage. michael streich

The following was penned in 2009 for Suite101 and talks about a time all of these global fears first emerged. We spoke of containment, an "Iron Curtain", First Strike weapons, and taught the children how to duck and cover. I was one of those children. Born in 1953, in Germany, my mom and grandma (Oma) survived Operation Gomorrah, 1943, the near absolute destruction of Hamburg. Yet here in the United States, safety was an illusion.

People brave many obstacles to come here, to be those huddled masses yearning to be free. But there is also a price. Perennial war or wars, each time getting worse. Now we have to fear Russia's threats over Ukraine as they slip nuclear missiles into silos near southern Moscow, ostensibly one for London and one for Washington DC according to today's British newspapers.(16.12.2022)

And in Asia we are faced with an intransigent Taiwan, an ever belligerent Peking, and, of course. Donald Trump's lunatic "Rocket man" in Pyongyang.There are few remaining survivors of Pearl Harbor but their lives are a testament to the blood that must be shed to save Democracy and freedom in the world. 

All of these dilemmas face us as we begin 2023, a year of decision and a year of sobriety. Read the essay below, and make up your mind to stop the mad scramble to are the world with true weapons of mass destruction.

 

In the early years of the Eisenhower presidency, the atomic bomb dominated foreign affairs considerations. Ever since the Manhattan Project produced the bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bomb was viewed as the ultimate weapon to be used in achieving U.S. goals containing Communism. Realists like J. Robert Oppenheimer realized the terrible potential and counseled against the development of more power nuclear weapons. Even Winston Churchill, in his prescient “Iron Curtain” speech, called for international control of the bomb.

 

From Containment to Liberation and the Use of the Bomb

 

In 1949 the Soviet Union tested its first atomic bomb, well ahead of U.S. intelligence analysis suggesting it would take the Communists years to develop. This, however, did not change assumptions regarding the use of the bomb. Rather, a policy of “massive retaliation” was developed by the Eisenhower administration. Even if the Soviets had the bomb, the U.S. would massively retaliate “by means and at places of our own choosing.”

 

There were many “places” that qualified between 1952 and 1955. The United States threatened to use the bomb during the Korean conflict, notably when disagreements erupted over prisoner exchanges. In 1954, the use of smaller, “tactical” bombs was discussed as a means to relieve the besieged French garrison at Dien Bien Phu in Vietnam. The fortress fell before final decisions could be made.

 

When the Chinese threatened to invade Quemoy and Matsu in an attempt to ultimately defeat Chinese Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek, President Eisenhower again threatened to use the bomb against China. The bomb was perceived, in all of these cases, as a convenient solution, particularly since the U.S. defense budget had been significantly cut in efforts to balance the federal budget.

 

Yet each of these cases represented the potential of using such weapons of mass destruction against Asian people. The situation in Europe was quite different. The Iron Curtain separated NATO troops from the Warsaw Pact. The stalemate was beyond Containment and liberation was out of the question. This became painfully obvious in 1956 during the Hungarian uprising. Eisenhower was not prepared to risk a world war with both opposing sides using nuclear weapons.

 

Asia, however, was another matter, particularly since the chief protagonist of Communist insurgency was China, which possessed no similar weapons (although the Soviet Union was also very busy assisting the many wars of liberation and training its leaders in Russia). It was the fact of using the bomb against another Asian country that aroused serious concerns among the British.

 

Brinkmanship and the Erosion of Global Security

 

Secretary of State John Foster Dulles enunciated the policy of brinkmanship, the notion of going to the very brink of war in order to achieve specific outcomes. Threatening to use the bomb was one example of brinkmanship. As in the case of China and Taiwan, Russia urged Chinese restraint. Dulles knew that the Russians were as hesitant to use the bomb as the U.S. was, but wanted to confront the crisis with a show of strength.

 

As more bombs were constructed with the capacity to completely obliterate an enemy population, global security became a dream of the past. More nations eventually joined the “nuclear club” and ways were found to deliver warheads faster and more efficiently, such as from submarine platforms. In short, any direct confrontation could lead to annihilation. This was best seen with the practice of brinkmanship during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In that crisis, Secretary of State Dean Rusk stated, “we were eyeball to eyeball and the other guy just blinked.”

 

Although the bomb may have ended the Pacific War and Harry Truman’s decision to use the weapon was sound, it turned into a sterile weapon that left a global legacy of fear and insecurity.

 

Sources:

 

Gar Alperovitz, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima & Potsdam, The Use of the Atomic Bomb & the American Confrontation with Soviet Power (Penguin Books, 1985)

Stephen E. Ambrose and Douglas G. Brinkley, Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938 (Penguin Books, 1997)

George F. Kennan, The Nuclear Delusion: Soviet-American Relations in the Atomic Age (New York: Pantheon Books, 1983)

 

Marjorie Taylor Greene is a danger to our Democracy, stirring up crowds in support of Donald Trump's Stolen Election claims and most recently, claiming that if she had led the January 6th insurrection, she would have used weapons. Her comments were Satire, so she says. 

Own up to your convictions, no matter how convoluted and unAmerican they are!  This same Congressional Representative said, two years ago, that she believed in "Jewish Space Lasers," among her many lunatic ideas. 

Any representative that supports her should be ashamed.  This is the on-going history of a great Republic that has committed many wrongs in the past, but ultimately championed liberty and gave the world an ideal that rejected the Hitlers, Stalins, and now the Putins of the world. Ms Greene does more harm by opening her uninformed mouth.

Herschel Walker: " I don't even know what the heck is a pronoun." 

That is the sad state of affairs in American politics. A former president wants to terminate the Constitution. A senate candidate speaks of vampires and werewolves. And these guys are supported by the party of Lincoln. I'm sure Senator Cruz (who really is a Canadian) knows about pronouns or he would never have graduated from top Texas schools, then Princeton and Yale.  Mr. Lincoln would disown all of them.

How about them Pronouns, Herschel?  

 How Thanksgiving Made It's Debut michael streich

The first Thanksgiving, celebrated by Pilgrim colonists and Wampanoag Indians in 1621, was very different from the traditional Thanksgiving observed every November in contemporary America. Having barely survived their first New England winter, the Pilgrims, upon late year harvesting, set aside a day of giving thanks. They could not have accomplished this without assistance from the native peoples. Contemporary Americans interested in duplicating this first Thanksgiving meal will be in for a surprise. Among the several missing ingredients was the dominant part of each Thanksgiving feast, the turkey.

 

The First Thanksgiving Feast in 1621

 

Writers and food historians differ as to what specific foods were served at that first Thanksgiving. Anthropology professor Anthony Aveni, for example, writes that Pilgrim men were sent out to kill wild turkeys and other fowl for the feast. British historian Godfrey Hodgson, however, denies that wild turkey was part of the feast, citing the archeological absence of any turkey bones found at the early settlement as well as the inability to shoot turkeys with the type of weaponry used by the Pilgrims.

 

Fowl killed for the meal included duck and geese. Original source records from that early period all state that when the Wampanoag Indians arrived, they brought five slain deer. Thus, the first Thanksgiving featured venison, although it was cooked as a stew that included beans, corn, and squash. Robert Ellis Cahill, commenting on this first feast in his analysis of the first American cookbook from New England, states that Indians also brought oysters.

 

Contemporary Thanksgiving Foods not Found at Plymouth in 1621

 

The Pilgrims served no pumpkin pies, although pumpkins were grown by the native peoples. In later years, pumpkin slices were fried and then baked as a pie. But in 1621, the Pilgrims had no ovens. Additionally, sweet potatoes did not exist in New England. This also was missing at the first Thanksgiving.

 

Cranberries grew in abundance and the native peoples cooked them as a sauce for fish and meats. Europeans, however, would not learn about this until the 1670s. Further, in 1621, the Pilgrims had no sugar, necessary in the preparation of a Thanksgiving cranberry sauce.

 

Corn bread, however, was most likely present at the first Thanksgiving. According to Cahill, corn bread as well as corn on the cob was introduced by the Wampanoags at this first festival. Indian bread was made from roasted corn ears, something that could even be taken on long journeys. Beans were also prominently featured. Beans contained protein and came in a number of varieties. In future generations, New England would become famous for baked beans, usually made with the kidney bean.

 

The First Thanksgiving was a Celebration of the Harvest

 

The Pilgrims learned much from their Indian neighbors. Native peoples showed the Europeans how to use fish such as lobster to fertilize crops. Unlike Europeans used to the crop-rotation methods dating back to the Middle Ages, Indians in New England grew most of their crops together so that one type of plant would enhance the growth of others. Pumpkins, for example, grew on the outer rim, thus protecting corn, squash, and peas from weeds.

 

Aveni writes that, “Every agrarian culture sets its own time of the year aside for the purpose of giving thanks, usually at the beginning of the end of the harvest season…” European traditions, well known by Pilgrims, celebrated the harvest period in a variety of ways, many tied to either old pagan festivals or Christian adaptations. Anthropologists cite such harvest practices as nearly universal and trace them back to ancient times.

 

Celebrating an Authentic Pilgrim Thanksgiving

 

Americans desiring to replicate the first Thanksgiving must be prepared to give up apple and pecan pies, mashed potatoes, stuffing, and the centerpiece roast – the turkey. Substituting venison, which is sold at grocers like Whole Foods or can be ordered on line, cooked as a stew with the appropriate vegetables and served in a common bowl would be a courageous start.

 

Not all foods, however, need to be so different. In 1621, the Indians heated their corn, creating pop corn. According to Cahill, the Pilgrims had butter, saved from their voyage. Although rancid, the Indians doused the buttery liquid over their pop corn, perhaps the first time in America that anyone snacked on hot buttered pop corn.

 

Sources:

 

Anthony Aveni, The Book of the Year: A Brief History of Our Seasonal Holidays (Oxford University Press, 2003)

Evelyn L. Beilenson, editor, Early American Cooking: Recipes from America’s Historic Sites (Peter Pauper Press, Inc.,1985)

Robert Ellis Cahill, Sugar and Spice and Everything: A History of Food and America’s First Cookbook (Old Saltbox, 1991)

Godfrey Hodgson, A Great and Godly Adventure: The Pilgrims and the Myth of the First Thanksgiving (Perseus Books, 2006)

Jack Weatherford, Indian Givers: How the Indians of the Americas Transformed the World (Fawcett Books, 1988)