Thread: About Cold War and more

Originally Posted by Crocodile

To tell the truth, I joined the Comsomol simply not to stand out of the crowd. I was not a hero (and I'm not a hero now) to fight the system I dislike. The whole society those days was not really tolerant to those who singled themselves out in any way, and I was a good boy to play by the rules. I have no idea what would have happened if I refused, and I didn't really want to know that back then. Maybe nothing serious. I had other more important stuff on my mind.

Croc... I read this and became saddened by your choice of words and your situation. As a child who was different for many reasons and none of them for being a hero, I can tell you, being singled out in the US was not much of a cake walk. While I am thankful that today, it is much easier being a kid in school and being different/hero, even though in my girl's situation, it is has been the adults who are the meanest. I cannot even begin to imagine what it would have been like in the USSR for a child to say "Umm, ya know what guys, I don't wanna play your reindeer games."

Originally Posted by rockzmom

in my girl's situation, it is has been the adults who are the meanest.

Maybe, today's adults are the former kids...
I guess, the kids these days might be more focused on their iGadgets and on fitting their virtual company than on how to fit their society better.. Besides, almost everything that we've been taught to beleive and conform to eventually turned out to be garbage. Maybe, kids these days are aware of that.

I remember that when I was in grades 3-5, probably 95% of the boys my age (including me) participated in the Cub Scouts. But that percentage was, I think, unusually high because most of us were "military brats" whose fathers (or in a few cases, mothers) were stationed at a small US base in Turkey. So being a Scout was "practically mandatory" (though, of course, not literally mandatory) because of the military culture that prevailed on the base.

But in public schools back in the States, the rate of participation in Scouting programs was generally lower -- unless you happened to belong to a religious community (such as the Mormons) that strongly pushed kids to be Scouts.

Here is her essay... try not to be too harsh, remember, she is in her 1st year of high school... [edit] I forgot to mention. Even though he had not given instructions to include footnotes, as you will see she did and apparently she was the only student who did so and that was what he mentioned to the class.

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,”[1] might have been what President Eisenhower would have liked as his sound bite if it hadn’t already been used by President Roosevelt, instead he choose to go with, “There is too much hysteria.”[2] The fears of the American people after the Second World War were based in a large part on just that, fear. Would the Communism take over the world and the United States? Just how many Communists were in the U.S. Government already? How long before a nuclear attack would happen and what did one actually do if there was one? Could that Sputnik thingy really listen to everything we say? Eisenhower and his administration could choose to address these and other fears by either feeding into it or by calming it; they seemed to do a little of both as they told Americans to be calm, but their actions said to be prepared and fear the worst.

When President Eisenhower addressed the nation in March of 1954, he used the word fear six times and hysteria three times.[3] If you tell someone there is nothing to fear or not to become hysterical, the first thing they usually do is scream back at you “I am calm!” While on the face of it one might think he was trying to calm a nation, to others he was instilling the very hysteria he was hoping to avoid. When Eisenhower’s Secretary of Defense, John Dulles, was speaking about the expansion of Communism and the Domino Theory and proclaiming that “If world communism captures any American State, however small, a new and perilous front is established which will increase the danger to the entire free world,”[4] he was not helping to elevate the fears of the American public. Because, “If the Communists took over Guatemala (where is that by the way?), we are certain to be next!” Secretary Dulles only helped to fan the fires of another possible Red Scare and that there was a Communist hiding around every street corner just waiting to take over the United States.

While the threat of a nuclear attack was looming, Americans decided to ease their worries and take matters into their own hands. They began building bomb shelters and stocked them with food rations and supplies.[5] In schools, children practiced “duck and cover” drills and learned where to go in the case of an attack. The government also helped citizens by creating National System of Interstate and Defense Highways which allowed for easier movement of cars or military vehicles especially in “cities having a population of 50,000 or more and serves the country’s principal industrial and defense areas.”[6] This would enable people in high population areas or target zones such as Washington, D.C. or New York City, a way to quickly escape the city or for the military to quickly move troops to these cities should an inbound missile be detected. This mixed message from the administration of be really worried about these evil people and be prepared and ready for the worst; but, don’t panic, caused many to not know what to really believe.

By 1953, America was spending 68.1% of its budget on defense from only 32.7% in 1949.[7] By 1958, this percentage decreased; however, not by much and it was not lost on the political cartoonist, Herblock, when he depicted President Eisenhower putting all of the money from the federal budget into the Missile Programs at the expense of all of the other programs like Space Development, School Construction, and Welfare Programs.[8] By spending all of the funds on Missile Programs and Defense, one can only imagine the increased fear the American public would feel at seeing this. A nation does not ramp up their military that much for no reason or if they are trying to calm hysteria. The game of “Massive Retaliation[9]” and “If you launch a deadly missile, I’ll launch two right back at you,” instead of diplomacy also did not lend itself to a feeling of security. What money was not spent on the military, President Eisenhower seemed to want it to go to education “because of the growing importance of science and technology[10]” and that this was a matter of “emergency Federal action.”[11] Learning that our Nation’s youth must become scientists and engineers is a matter if national concern and that at any moment the USSR could “push a button, and 35 minutes later much of the U.S. could be laid waste,”[12] would increase not decrease public anxiety.

President Eisenhower and his administration created more hysteria and fears than they calmed. While the fears were real, they planted the seeds and then feed into them reiterating over and over again instead of playing to the strengths that the nation already had. The fact that the USSR was so far away from the US and that McCarthyism was hysteria and not real. President Kennedy, during his inaugural address stated, “that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.”[13] However, he also followed that up with a firm yet unwavering declaration that, “We dare not tempt them with weakness.”[14] President Kennedy let the USSR and the people of America know that he wanted to stop the games and talk about peace; however, don’t underestimate him. If you thought he might be young and therefore a weak President unable to push the button, don’t test him. This speech was a much better speech to calm the nerves of Americans than, “All of these, with their impact on the human mind, makes us act almost hysterically, and you find the hysterical reactions.”[15]

---

[1] Franklin D. Roosevelt, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933

[2] Dwight Eisenhower Press Conference, March 1954, Source Document A

[3] Ibid.

[4] John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, June 1954, Source Document B

[5] Life magazine, May 1955, Source Document C

[6] Saturday Evening Post, October 1956, Source Document D

[7] Historical Statistics of the United States, Statistical Abstract of the United States, Department of Commerce, Source H

[8] Herblock, “Well, I Got That In, All Right”, the Washington Post, January 14, 1958, A14, Source Document F

[9] Must U.S.Take the First Blow?, U.S. News and World Report, December 1957, Source Document E

[10] Special Message to the Congress from President Eisenhower on Education, January 1958,. Source Document G

[11] Ibid.

[12] Must U.S.Take the First Blow?, U.S. News and World Report, December 1957, Source Document E

[13] President John F. Kennedy, inaugural address, January 1961 , Source Document I

[14] Ibid

[15] Dwight Eisenhower Press Conference, March 1954, Source Document A

"...If you tell someone there is nothing to fear or not to become hysterical, the first thing they usually do is scream back at you “I am calm!”..."

I think the arguments that Rockzmom and Throbert McGee gave about being a multinational country are valid and good arguments for trying to encourage a bit of nationalism. I understand that this is something that the USA has to handle, and that emphasising history and achievements is key to that. For me, the idea of a truly "multicultural" country is exciting and interesting.

What we have in Europe with the traditional population + "refugees" is just a weird and frustrating situation. In many cases the cultural clash is extreme and there is really no way for them, with their culture, level of education and religion to be a part of society.

America is different from Europe in that way. And I think that most people who emigrate to the USA are probably keen to put their past behind them and willing to identify as Americans.

My impression is that the USSR tried to get people to feel "Soviet" rather than anything else, but they probably did not succeed very well with the majority of people for different reasons.
Perhaps when Soviet people thought of the experiences of the the War, and about sports, they were able to identify with that nationality, but otherwise not...

The EU is another example of an artificially created country that is trying to create some kind of unity. However, the 'propaganda' for this is quite low key. Kids are told that the EU is a very successful peace project for Europe, which is essentially true, although there is more to the story.
Everyone can see the benefits for themselves when they travel in Europe, and compare with the past with endless wars that benefited practically nobody.

You don't really feel "European" until you LEAVE Europe and compare yourself with people on some other continent - that's when you realise how much we have in common despite language differences. The level of enthusiasm about the EU varies a lot between countries too.

My issue with American values / nationalism is that it is sometimes used as part of the motivation for invasions etc. I.e. "there is no "freedom" in this country, we need to liberate them (and their natural resources...)". The values that are relevant for Americans are not necessarily what other people want - and if they do, let them get it themselves! What the US gets up to, in my view, is just a modern take on colonialism/imperialism - but twisted around in such a way that it is hard to recognise.

But invading a country and forcing your values on them, and obtaining their resources cheaply, IS imperialism, regardless of whether you talk about democracy and freedom, or Queen and the need for christening the pagans....
That is my view, anyway.

Originally Posted by Hanna

is just a modern take on colonialism/imperialism - but twisted around in such a way that it is hard to recognise.

But invading a country and forcing your values on them, and obtaining their resources cheaply, IS imperialism, regardless of whether you talk about democracy and freedom, or Queen and the need for christening the pagans....
That is my view, anyway.

We call that... Manifest Destiny "The phrase was used as propaganda to convince the American people that it was their God given right to move across this country expanding from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific. By taking an Overview of American Imperialism one can see there are several types of imperialism such as, Cultural Imperialism, Religious Imperialism, economic imperialism and militant imperialism. The idea of Manifest Destiny was one that incorporated religious imperialism, economic imperialism and to some extent militant imperialism."

Originally Posted by rockzmom

We call that... Manifest Destiny "The phrase was used as propaganda to convince the American people that it was their God given right to move across this country expanding from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific. By taking an Overview of American Imperialism one can see there are several types of imperialism such as, Cultural Imperialism, Religious Imperialism, economic imperialism and militant imperialism. The idea of Manifest Destiny was one that incorporated religious imperialism, economic imperialism and to some extent militant imperialism."

Interesting - I never knew about that! I checked the link and I really related to the pciture by John Gast. Perhaps that was genuinely how people were thinking back then.
What you said got me thinking...

Somehow it feels like the people in the 17th -19th century were somewhat "innocent" in their imperialism, both the Europeans and the Americans (in the way that they treated natives etc).
Does anyone agree with this?

I think that many of them genuinely did not realise that what they were doing was wrong.
Perhaps they imagined that the people they oppressed were extremely primitive, that they were spreading the true faith to them... All of this was new - they were not aware that they were involved in exploitation, imperialism etc.

But today, we all know about the terrible things that were done during the Colonial times, about slavery not that long ago, about the crazy ideas of the Nazism and about things like "gulags". We should know better than repeat any of it. We don't have the excuse of ignorance.

To knowingly engage in imperialism today, particularly with the aid of ultra modern weapons and the support of global mass media seems just so much more wicked than for a Victorian person to set up a tea plantation in India, or imagine he had a God-given right to rule America (not that this was not bad too...) In a way I can even sympathize that people in early 20th century to got so carried away with ideology that they lost the perspective that the ideology was supposed to help people get a better life, not kill them... To them, a dramatic revolution might very well have led to utopia. They were on unchartered territory and did not know what we know today.

"Do unto others as you would like to have done done to you"
We would not like a Middle Eastern country to invade us, try to force their "ideal society" on us, in our own best interest... and incidentally seize control our most lucrative businesses at the same time.

Personally I don't have a very positive view on the economic future of either Europe or the USA, so I think that imperialism might be something we will not be able to afford in the future anyway. I think we should focus on building a sustainable and fair economy (ecologically and economically) in our own parts of the world, and let the Middle East and others take care of themselves.

I understand that America uses its strength and conducts wars, I understand that the American state tries to justify all those polices, but I don't like when some people start saying that American media are somehow more truthful than any other and that those policies are more justified than any other.

Edited

Younger daughter wrote this essay earlier in the year on this topic....

Don’t Tread on Me

The U.S. has always been a place where people come to it; we never need to go to them. Most people had to travel a great distance and sacrificed family, friends, jobs, homes, etc. to start a new life. Therefore this isolation and assimilation caused us to not really need or want to participate outside of our borders. As time went on and America became more established and started generating their own goods, this caused us to rethink our views about being less self-sufficient. As more people came to the U.S. and as we expanded our interactions to other countries, we wanted to be able to grow as a nation and fulfill our Manifest Destiny and position us as a world leader.


When the US declared its independence from Great Britain, we were thought of as the naughty rebellious teenagers. Under George Washington and the other four fathers, our foreign policy remained the same as it was with Britain, “Don’t Tread On Me.” As the years went on, our identity, like us, matured to middle age. Other countries respected us more and we felt more confident participating in foreign affairs. By the time Theodore Roosevelt was president, we were showing the world the wisdom we gained: becoming a diplomatic leader; negotiation the end of the Russo-Japanese war; adding to the Monroe Doctrine; helped keep our open door policy with China and much more; we had shown the world that we have grown up.

During the late 1800s under President McKinley, our country’s foreign policy was one of American Imperialism. We had a desire to gain influence or ownership of areas outside the United States, for the increase in military, economic, and commercial wealth and influence they would bring to the United States. Under President Roosevelt, our strategy changed for the U.S. to become a diplomatic leader. During President Taft’s leadership (1909-1913) he stressed economic development of nations in Latin America and Asia through "Dollar Diplomacy", and went back to the “Don’t Tread on Me” philosophy in response to the revolt in Mexico. President Wilson took U.S. foreign policy in a completely new direction; the role of Big Brother, bringing morality and democracy to other nations.

Even though Americans were outraged at what was happening in Spain in the late 1890s, as our general unwritten military policy up until that time had been “Don’t Tread on Me,” it was not until the sinking of the Maine that President McKinley was forced to have the U.S. involved. In just a few short months, the U.S. (under the military leadership of Colonel Theodore Roosevelt) proved itself to be a significant military force. The Treaty of Paris provided the U.S. with almost all of Spain’s colonies. This war marked a change in how the world viewed the U.S. and how the U.S. The U.S. was no longer the rebellious little teenager; they were now a major player in world politics.

The U.S. has grown into a mature, yet sometimes still bratty, country. Our leaders who once never thought to become involved with other countries or their problems, is now known to lend not only military but financial aid. A number of former presidents have gone on to be successful ambassadors in negotiating peace agreements. While we still tend to live by the “Don’t Tread on Me” and “Speak softly and carry a big stick” policies, it has become much more difficult to stand aside and watch as humans suffer when we could possibly help them. This role we play is not often appreciated by others and we have seemed, for now, to not care so much about Manifest Destiny as much as we care about spreading democracy and being a world leader.

Hm, I think here Cold War essay was considerably better! I don't quite understand the point she's trying to make, and I don't agree with her views there either. Perhaps she was younger when she wrote that one?

I think the USA was right to break free from the UK though, and those early days of the USA are exciting to read about.
It is extremely fascinating to think about who choose to go to the USA, their reasons and what they did when they arrived in the USA.

I would like the USA the way I like Canada, but I just can't because of all the military bases that they USA has in Europe and because of all the invasions and wars lately. It's so fascinating how the USA is really plenty of countries and peoples inside one country, with states as different as Florida, Maine, Alaska or New Mexico, yet united as



As for more Cold War stuff, gosh I am so glad this is behind us!! How scary and depressing it was! Even though it was so bizarre, it seemed so normal at the time.

At the same time I am sad about all the tragic things that happened in the ex USSR area in the 1990s, and the loss of some of the good things that existed in Eastern Europe that were lost and may never come back again. In East Germany, there is a name for this "Ostalgie" which is a mix of East and nostalgia.
I think in general they are pleased about their country being reunited, but they feel somewhat cheated, and they realised that there were a few things that were actually better in East Germany ,than West Germany and they realise that those things are lost forever.

I thought about it too. )) But is it the one? I remember feeling very peaceful when reading it, I would not call it creepy, unlike another book Hanna mentioned - about children dying of cancer in a post-Apocalyptic world. o_O
I don't remember any Soviet book for children with such a brutal message about nuclear threat. Soviet propagandistic literature was often steeped in the past - most of it was about fighting Nazis or Civil War heroes.

No, I don't think it was that book. The book I remember was set in Siberia, I think. There were wolves in it. But I might have been 11 or 12 years when I read it, so it is really hard to remember. But it must have been somewhat popular to have been translated into Swedish though... I suppose another option was that the book was only set in Russia, but not written by a Russian author. Or I am mixing up Russia and Poland (for some reason I did that when I was a kid). Maybe it will come to me - at least I remembered that German book.

I remember reading a few war stories from the childrens war stories from the USSR though - books from the library! Memorable and more dramatic and realistic than anything else about that era, apart from maybe the diary of Anne Frank.

I am pleased to have grown up in an era were children actually read worthwhile books in their spare time.

Don't you think that what one reads in childhood affects how you think when you grow up?

As an example of what I mean by "subtle connotative bias", consider a pair of passages describing two major events of 1956: the suppression of an anti-Soviet uprising in Hungary, and the Suez Canal crisis. The original Russian paragraphs are in bold, with my English rendering after that. In a few places, I couldn't decide on the best translation, so I've marked those with red text in square brackets, putting the most literal translation first.

В 1956 г. до предела обострилась ситуация в Венгрии, где возглавляемое М. Ракоши руководство растерялось и выпустило из-под своего контроля развитие политических событий. В стране начались антикоммунистические, антисоветские демонстрации. Было сформировано новое правительство Имре Надя, распущена компартия. По требованию Надя войска СССР, находившиеся в Венгрии по Варшавскому Договору, покинули Будапешт и другие населенные пункты.

In 1956 the situation in Hungary was strained to the limit, where the leadership headed by Mátyás Rákosi had [gotten lost little by little / become confused / lost its sense of direction] and allowed the development of political events to slip from its control. Anti-Communist, anti-Soviet demonstrations began to take place in the country. A new government under Imre Nagy was formed; the Communist Party was disbanded. Soviet troops that had been stationed in Hungary under the Warsaw Pact left Budapest and other populated areas, at the demand of Nagy.

Венгрия заявила о выходе из ОВД, открыла границу с Австрией, приступила к организации добровольческих антикоммунистических вооруженных отрядов. Они контролировали обстановку в столице, арестовывали и убивали приверженцев прежнего режима. Армия, рабочий класс и крестьянство вели себя пассивно.

Hungary announced its withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact, opened the border with Austria, and proceeded to organize volunteer anti-communist armed divisions. [These militias] tightly monitored the environment in the capital city, and they went about arresting and killing the supporters of the old regime. The army, the working class, and the peasantry behaved passively.

В ночь на 4 ноября 1956 г. группа коммунистов во главе с Я. Кадаром объявила о создании Временного рабоче-крестьянского правительства и обратилась к Москве с просьбой вновь ввести войска в Будапешт для пресечения кровопролития. СССР, заручившись предварительно согласием членов ОВД, бросил свои танки на венгерскую столицу и в считанные дни безжалостно подавил восстание.

On 4 November 1956, [at nighttime / under cover of darkness], a group of Communists headed by Y. Kadar declared the creation of a [temporary / interim] Workers-Peasants Government and appealed to Moscow with a request to send troops back to Budapest in order to put a quick stop to bloodshed. The USSR, having gotten the prior agreement of the Warsaw Pact members, sent its tanks to the Hungarian capital and in just a few days they mercilessly repressed the [uprising / insurrection] .

Some comments from me, with key quotations from the text in blue.

"Армия, рабочий класс и крестьянство вели себя пассивно." Note that another way to express ALMOST the same idea might be "Армия, рабочий класс и крестьянство по-видимому тихо одобряли аресты и убийства приверженцев прежнего режима" ("[They], apparently, quietly approved of the arrests and killings of old-regime supporters") -- but that would put a different spin on the analysis! And it would be interesting to know how a Hungarian textbook would characterize the behavior of the army, workers, and peasants during this crisis; were they really "passive"?

And this struck me as an especially "juicy" turn of phrase: "the Communists asked Moscow to send Soviet troops для пресечения кровопролития" ("for the nipping-in-the-bud of bloodshed") -- compare this with the American military euphemism "humanitarian peacekeepers and advisers", which in actual practice often means soldiers with automatic rifles, tanks, and helicopter gunships.

"СССР, заручившись предварительно согласием членов ОВД" -- When the USSR wanted to do something, the "prior agreement" of the other Warsaw Pact members was little more than a polite formality for the sake of appearances. (But of course, the same might be said with regard to the USA and other NATO members!)

Finally, I was undecided about the fairest translation of восстание in the last sentence -- "uprising" can be neutral or positive, but "insurrection" has a more negative connotation in English. Native speakers, what do you think? Similarly, I wasn't really sure whether "они убивали приверженцев" ("they killed the loyalists") should be considered an example of "connotative bias" or not. But, for example, "они казнили приверженцев" ("they executed the loyalists") or "приверженцы пропадали в бое" ("the loyalists perished in the fighting") might be two alternative wordings, each with rather different spins.

Anyway, on to the Suez Canal:

Другой узел противоречий между СССР и Западом существовал по проблеме отношений с государствами «третьего мира», число которых множилось в условиях распада колониальной системы. Москва стремилась распространить свое влияние на эти страны, одновременно оказывая им энергичное содействие в борьбе с империалистическими поползновениями великих держав. Последнее наиболее ярко проявилось в драматических событиях, развернувшихся в 1956 г. вокруг Египта.

Another [knot / bundle] of [contradictions / opposing viewpoints] between the USSR and the West existed with respect to the question of relationships with "Third World" states, whose numbers multiplied in the conditions [that followed] the collapse of the colonialist system. Moscow was striving to extend its influence on these countries, simultaneously making available to them energetic assistance in the struggle with the imperialist ["vague urges" / inclinations] of the great powers. The latter [i.e., the "energetic assistance" from Moscow] most vividly revealed itself in the dramatic events that [unfurled / unrolled / developed] in 1956 over Egypt.


Пришедшее незадолго до этого к власти в Каире национально-демократическое правительство Г. Насера национализировало контролируемый Англией Суэцкий канал, вынудило англичан покинуть военные базы в Александрии. В поисках противовеса Западу Насер пошел на сближение с Москвой, заключив, в частности, договор о поставках советского оружия, что было совершенно необычным для того времени. Осенью 1956 г. Англия, Франция и Израиль договорились о совместных военных действиях и начали агрессию против Египта.

The national-democratic government of Gamal Nasser, which had only recently come to power in Cairo, had nationalized the UK-controlled Suez Canal, and had forced the British to abandon their military bases in Alexandria. Seeking a counterweight to the West, Nasser had [gone to closer ties with / courted / cozied up to] Moscow, and in particular had reached an agreement about delivery of Soviet weapons, which was completely unprecedented for that time. In the fall of 1956, the UK, France, and Israel agreed on joint military actions and launched an offense against Egypt.


Советское правительство потребовало немедленно ее прекратить и заявило, что не будет препятствовать своим добровольцам выехать в Египет для участия в боях. Ультиматум возымел действие, и иностранные войска покинули эту арабскую страну. Закрепляя успех, СССР начал активно развивать торговые и военные связи с государствами Ближнего и Среднего Востока.

The Soviet government demanded an immediate end to this aggression, and announced that it would not obstruct its volunteer soldiers from traveling to Egypt to participate in the fighting. The ultimatum had the desired effect, and the foreign armies left this Arab country. Having solidly succeeded, the USSR began to actively develop trade and military ties with states in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Comments:

"Москва стремилась распространить свое влияние... в борьбе с империалистическими поползновениями" Isn't it a double-standard to say that the USSR merely wanted to "extend its influence", but Western powers had "imperialist tendencies"? Admittedly, the word поползновение implies a rather weak effort (per Ozhegov) -- which is why I suggested the translation "a vague urge". So it's not like the text openly demonized the Western powers by comparing them to бешеные собаки ("rabid dogs"), for example. Still, it seems biased, even if it's subtle.

"Насер пошел на сближение с Москвой" -- as opposed to "Москва пошла на сближение с Насером"! Hmmm, I wonder if the USSR ritually discouraged Nasser three times from attempting to convert... =)

"заявило, что не будет препятствовать своим добровольцам выехать..." -- it seems highly unusual for a government to say, "we won't prevent our volunteers from going out to join the fight", as though they have no control over where the military goes and what it does! But I suppose that a government might use such language for internal propaganda purposes, and also as a veiled threat to foreign audiences. So if this was the actual phrasing used by Moscow in 1956, the textbook should probably have placed it в кавычках ("in quotation marks"), to alert the reader that the authors writing today do not necessarily agree with the colorful rhetoric used by the Soviet government a half-century ago.

"...и иностранные войска покинули эту арабскую страну" -- So, the USSR rattled its sabres and persuaded "foreign" armies to leave Egypt, in the very same year that it sent its own "foreign" troops (i.e., non-Hungarians) and tanks into Budapest!

"СССР начал активно развивать торговые и военные связи" -- Note that "the active development of trade and military ties" is more or less exactly the same bland and pleasant phraseology that the so-called Western imperialists have generally used to describe their own involvement in the Third World.

* * *

Anyway, I brought up these examples not for the purpose of finding fault with Marcus's history textbook -- again, I'd expect that current US textbooks would be filled with very similar "spin". And probably the majority of American high-school teachers DON'T encourage their students to scrutinize the texts for "connotative bias" and "spin", as I tried to do above.

But I wanted to point out to Hanna that subtle indoctrination and "creepy propaganda that you're not aware of being subjected to" is not a uniquely American phenomenon. And I wouldn't say that it's necessarily "creepy" or evil. Any successful, stable society -- even one that allows and encourages free-thinking dissenters -- has to "indoctrinate" its children with, at least, some very basic axiomatic truths and taboos that define the society.

I've been offline from the Internet for a few days, but in the meantime I was reading through the long excerpts from a Russian history textbook provided by Marcus.

First, thanks to Marcus for sharing them!

Second, I strongly recommend these readings to Hanna and other students as a translation exercise!! There's plenty of tricky grammar typical of written Russian (e.g., really looong participial constructions), but at the same time the formalism of the grammar can be a help for non-natives. And the vocabulary is a bit repetitive, so even if some words are unfamiliar and you have to use a dictionary, you'll keep seeing those same words again and again. So your reading will gradually get faster after several paragraphs. And you'll be refreshing your knowledge of Cold War events while also getting a fresh perspective from the Warsaw Pact side. It's like killing three or four birds with one stone. =)

Third, I was favorably impressed by the quality of the historical discussion and thought it was pretty fair and even-handed. True, it was clearly from a Soviet/Russian POV, but reading it as an American, I never thought, "Wait, that's completely one-sided -- what blatant propaganda!" Instead, while the descriptions of the США or Запад were sometimes bluntly critical, they were generally counterbalanced by self-criticism of Soviet policies.

Even so, there were some instances of what seemed to be subtle bias resulting from the "connotations and nuances" of words or phrasings. However, I don't think these cases were any worse than what you'd find in a US high-school textbook covering the same events -- except, of course, the American text would tend to be biased in the opposite direction!

Thank you for your comments and your POV, Throbert McGee!
It definitely adds to the discussion.

"заявило, что не будет препятствовать своим добровольцам выехать..." -- it seems highly unusual for a government to say, "we won't prevent our volunteers from going out to join the fight", as though they have no control over where the military goes and what it does!

"Добровольцы" are not necessarily military men, it could be any civilians who volunteered to help of their free will. But it was manipulation on a Soviet part, of course, since no one could leave the country without state approval, civilian or not, and a statement that no one would be "discouraged" from helping was almost the same as saying outright that these attitude would be silently encouraged.

"В ночь на..." is neutral, it means that something happened between 0 am and roughly 5-6 am. So "under cover of darkness" is probably too poetic a translation.

Насчет постапокалиптических мультиков (speaking of postapocalyptic cartoons), I hope everyone has seen Будет ласковый дождь, an absolutely outstanding 1984 Soviet animation based on the 1950 short story "There Will Come Soft Rains" by Ray Bradbury. (Bradbury's title, in turn, came from a 1920 anti-war poem by Sara Teasdale.)

Anyway, in the cartoon, all the humans are dead but the buildings are mostly intact (possibly a reference to a neutron bomb?) and the only living creature seen is a bird that tries to shelter inside a still-functional "robot house" that automatically continues to make breakfast, do the laundry, vacuum the floor, etc.

Arguably, the Soviet adaption does introduce some "political spin" that's different from the original. Bradbury was an American author writing in an American magazine for a mostly American audience, and the story is set in the post-WW3 remains of a futuristic California suburban town -- because Bradbury wanted his anti-nuclear story to have a maximum psychological impact on Americans, warning them against any delusions that WW3 will be limited and survivable.

The cartoon version by "Узбекфильм" studios, crucially, retains the suburban-California setting of the original (instead of relocating it to, say, the reuins of a futuristic Odessa suburb!), and therefore the cartoon-skeletons that Soviet audiences saw crumbling to dust are the bodies of dead Americans, rather than dead Soviets. However, this isn't simply a case of the director trying to be completely faithful to the source, because the cartoon also adds some elements NOT found in Bradbury's story, such as a laser-shooting "Automatic Defense Robot" and a robotic "cuckoo clock" that plays the US national anthem and waves a little US flag (those damned American capitalists -- warmongers and jingoists to the end!).

So, there is a little bit of "Soviet propaganda" in the cartoon adaptation (just as the 1955 remake of "Peace on Earth" added some "religious propaganda"), but with that caveat in mind, it's still a must-watch.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

The cartoon version by "Узбекфильм" studios, crucially, retains the suburban-California setting of the original (instead of relocating it to, say, the reuins of a futuristic Odessa suburb!), and therefore the cartoon-skeletons that Soviet audiences saw crumbling to dust are the bodies of dead Americans, rather than dead Soviets..

You see, when I first read that story by Bradbury, I haven't really realized that fact. Also, in his Fahrenheit 451, if you remember, Bradbury has the [evil] cities destroyed and I never really realized back then those were actually the American cities. The Soviet propaganda worked the way that the nuclear Holocaust would always be global, so there would be no winners. I'm not sure how it looked from the US side, but from the USSR side it looked like: "Come on, let's destroy all the nuclear arms! We only have them because you had them first so we had no choice." If you remember, the Soviet Union supported ANY peace movement. For example, if you remember, the anthem of the socialistic World Federation of the Democratic Youth was composed in the USSR and started with words "The children of all nations, we live with a dream of peace. During these years of horror we're going to fight for the happiness." It's only years later I realized that the strategic plans of the USSR were to lightening-fast conquer Europe in days, assassinate the leaders of the US putting the weight of the decision to start the nuclear war with the Soviet Union on the shoulders of the newly appointed leaders. By the time those people could make any decisions, there would be nothing to defend in Europe and the USSR would not attack the US or use the nuclear weapons. It would therefore be the full responsibility of the US military leaders (and local US officers) to either start the destruction of the entire humanity or just not being involved with what happens in Europe. It was assumed the latter would occur. As soon as Europe would be liberated from the damn capitalism and the people would eventually set free from the unfair exploitation and have the chance to happily work, the local socialistic movements of all countries would gain very strong momentum. Also, many countries waiting to see which superpower is more powerful would haste to dump the US as soon as possible and to make friends with the USSR as soon as possible to get a better slice of the pie which is still hot from the oven. The capitalistic world would subsequently shrink even more meaning that the global market would also shrink inevitably cutting the revenues of the capitalistic world. The obvious outcome would follow. The entire propaganda of the USSR had to instill into minds of the entire world a simple idea that if the nuclear war starts, it would inevitably mean the destruction of the entire humanity and possibly of the entire global ecosystem. (Which is possibly true.) That simple and powerful idea played in favour of the USSR plans for the WWIII and strategically disadvantaged the US. Like I said earlier, I think by the late 70s - early 80s the US had little to no chance. It ought to be mainly a pshychological war with the US itself. But, there had always been a chance some crazy colonel on an isolated Alaska nuclear silo would receive no orders from the higher command and push the button first causing the domino effect. That's why I think some of the high leaders of the Soviet Union eventually chickened, Andropov died, and the "remodeling" started as a way to revive the economy a little and prolong the well-being of the Party and the leaders.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

The entire propaganda of the USSR had to instill into minds of the entire world a simple idea that if the nuclear war starts, it would inevitably mean the destruction of the entire humanity and possibly of the entire global ecosystem. (Which is possibly true.)

I think this is the idea that my generation and my girl's generation has been raised with. I clearly remember the movie War Games. "The only winning move is not to play

"