Customer Reviews

America's Cold War: The Politics of Insecurity

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

In the last months there were published a number of very good books on the Cold War.This book, however, is unique, because of its excellent analysis of the ideological conflict which spanned the latter half of the twentieth century.
Briefly stated, the authors' thesis is runs like this: the Cold War could have come to an end in the late fifties or in 1963, after the Cuban Missile Crisis ended.But there were other factors which unnecessarily prolonged the conflict and the Americans were responsible for this.
The story starts with Charles Beard's advice that, since America is a superpower separated from Europe, there "is no need for its militarization".Reality was different and the era of Woodrow Wilson
proved that if the USA did not become actively involved in worldly affairs, it would become isolated in light of the rising dictatorships in Europe and elsewhere.After the end of WW2,the Cold War started because of many and various reasons.The arms race gained momentum especially after the dropping of the two atomic bombs over the Japanese cities.It was only a matter of time and good intelligence gained from Russian spies for the Russians to get an atomic bomb of their own.President Truman,who is described by the authors as seeing the world in terms of black and white, preferred to take a tough hand against the Russians.The McCarthy years only inflated this atmosphere .The famous NSC-68 paper, drawn by Paul Nitze, advocated an aggressive approach towards the Reds.
But how to to this? How can you intimidate your enemy? By building a massive and expensive arsenal which was to be achieved by a military- industrial complex.Thus, the military budget shot up from $14 billion in 1949 to $ 53 billion in 1953(See page. 127)
In the bipolar world after 1945, the United states could not deal adequately with the Soviet Union ,their bombs and the Chinese by strengthening thier alliances or establishing new one.Therefore,The USA turned to increase its own military capabilities.As a result of this policy, there were many sectors which had a lot to benefit from it-the armed forces,arms industrialists,labour unions associated with weapons industries,universities and other firms that had connections to military research.Corporations such as Lockheed,Convair,General Dynamics,McDonnell,Pratt and Whitney, and Gruman-many of them clustered in Texas and California- became hugely profitable and highly dependable on militery contracts.Their lobby representatives on the House and Senate were key players that determined defense expenditures.
Eisenhower, who took a tougher hand against the Soviets,understood how dangerous such a nexus was for the USA and the world and in one of his speeches warned and alerted the American people against this danger of "military-industrial complex"- an alliance of gropus which benefited from endless growth of military spending and endless overseas confrontation.(p.193)
All this continued during the Kennedy-Johnson administrations, in spite of the fact that specialists warned that the USA would never win the Vietnam war, and this course of events ran until the demise of the 'Evil Empire'- as it was dubbed by Reagan.All this went on in spite of the fact that the American policy- makers knew very well that from the end of the fifties the USA had the upper hand in the arms race and that the Soviet Union stopped being a real threat to the USA.Kennedy, for instance, had this information, but he had to satisfy the appetite of the military-industrialists' complex.
Add the fact that some other lobbyists- Israeli and Latin American-
put a lot of pressure on the various administrations to sell their respective countries weapons and you get an even greater ,vast panorama of this mammoth complex.
Could the Cold War have ended earlier? Yes, it could.But there was "an addiction" to magnify the supposed danger to the USA(p.369) which only increased the presence of duty personnel and military commitments in many countries in the world.The authors claim, justly, that this phenomenon is still going on these days.
This book will hammer at you on every page and you wil get new insights about this fascinating period like you never had before.
Five stars definitely go to this meticulously-researched, interesting and original book!

In this a couple of history professors, one American and one British, look at the American role in the Cold War and conclude the following:

1. There was no real Soviet 'threat'
2. Most of the 'threat' was generated by the US arms industry to keep the arms orders flowing.

They don't quite say this in so many words (very bad for careers, that sort of thing) but that's their drift. Of its ilk it's OK but it's small beer compared to, for example, Peter Dale Scott, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman.

Robin Ramsa

American Professor Frederick Logevall and British Professor Campbell Craig have teamed to give us a look at the reasons for the Cold War. Be aware you are about to look at things in a different perspective. We usually think of the United States working against the spread of Communism. This book lessens the Soviet threat and looks more closely at American politics and its impact on the Cold War. It is well worth the read to examine this idea whether you agree or not. The book often reads like an advanced lecture, but obvious these teachers are well versed and familiar with the details. RECOMMENDED