Thread: About Cold War and more

Originally Posted by Marcus

BBC, The New York Times etc are not much different from FoxNews. Russia Today is probably different, but who watches it? All the big Western media belong to one group of people, behave coordinately and are connected with the states. Of course there is more possibilty to publish something in the West than in the Soviet Union, but that happens only because the Western rulers are able to make their people ignore other sources of information.

I agree that although the BBC is good, it often takes the official position of the UK. The "politically correct" agenda when reporting UK internal news is very tiresome. For example, their reports on Russia are very predictable. Lack of democracy, Khodorkovsky and spies.... That's all you ever read about Russia.

I think Russia Today covers Europe very well indeed, but I am relatively certain that they are somewhat biased in their coverage of Russia. According to RT, everything in Russia is more or less pretty good, despite the fact that Russia has many well known problems. RT would be much more credible if they occassionally acknowledged those, and did a bit of investigation about it.

In terms of coverage of the USA, it would be nice if they occassionally did a positive piece -- not everything in the USA is bad and the US is not necessarily going straight to hell in a handbasket... It's almost entertaining to see how the British RT presenters look just the tiniest bit amused as they read the latest grim report from the US.

Likewise they clearly have an agenda to show that the EU and the Euro is a failure. I don't think they have ever said anything nice about the EU, or the Euro, and there are plenty of good sides to this.

They are VERY good at covering important and interesting stories in Europe that get neglected by mainstream media. They are not held back by the "politically correct" censorship on certain issues - this alone is worth watching RT for.

I turned on RT in the kitchen at work in the UK a few times. I heard several people commenting that the coverage on some important story was very good, saying stuff like "what channel is this, it's really good". RT has mainly British presenters and I think some people did not understand that it is Russian.

Media in Sweden is totally insane - 95% all media have the exact same opinion about everything (it's always been like this, but they have changed their position on lots of things for the worse over the last 15 years - I did not mind it so much when I agreed with most of what they were saying. Now I do not, so I can't actually be bothered to read it. They are politically correct to the extreme, and constantly chew the latest PC agenda. Anyone who dares express a different opinion is subjected to such a character assassination that his career is practically over. I really pity those Swedish people who can't speak any other language and are not able to get an alternative perspective. The sheer volume of media in the USA for example means you could easily get a lot more variation than in Sweden. Same thing in Russia, despite potential state interference in media.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Hanna

There were a number of really creepy books about a post nuclear war society which perhaps some remember? One that I remember one was about animals that lived in a Russian town after all the people had died in a nuclear war. The animals tried to understand what happened, and in the process made some wise observations about the madness of an arms race. Anyone remembers that book?

This? But it's about US town

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?

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!

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.

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.

There were a number of really creepy books about a post nuclear war society which perhaps some remember? One that I remember one was about animals that lived in a Russian town after all the people had died in a nuclear war. The animals tried to understand what happened, and in the process made some wise observations about the madness of an arms race.

The general scenario reminds me of the famous cartoon short Peace on Earth (MGM, 1939), which was remade by Hanna-Barbera in 1955 as Good Will to Men. Needless to say, the remake was deeply concerned with the threat of nuclear annihilation, while the original was still concerned with mustard gas and other "high-tech terror weapons" of the First World War. As the wikipedia article notes, the remake made more direct references to the Christian Bible than the original one did, perhaps reflecting 1950s paranoia about Soviet atheism. But otherwise, the plots are the same -- humans are extinct, and cute little cartoon animals try to understand what happened.

But wikipedia doesn't say anything about the original cartoon being based on a book, whether set in Russia or elsewhere. But both versions of the cartoon are available on YouTube, and worth watching (they're under 10 minutes each).

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 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. 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

Hmmm... I don't see it as intentional/additional propaganda. Bradbury was extremely popular in the USSR, and I think that relocating the setting to some Soviet suburb would've seemed weird to his fans and a bigger propagandistic "trick", i.e. a hint (among other theories), that the evil you-know-who attacked us and destroyed our cities.
Also I did not expect that a cuckoo clock which played an American anthem and waved a flag would be seen as "Soviet propaganda" from American POV. It did not exist in the original (so yes, there was an agenda behind adding it), but Americans are proud of their patriotism, are they not? )

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

Hmmm... I don't see it as intentional/additional propaganda. Bradbury was extremely popular in the USSR, and I think that relocating the setting to some Soviet suburb would've seemed weird to his fans and a bigger propagandistic "trick", i.e. a hint (among other theories), that the evil you-know-who attacked us and destroyed our cities.
Also I did not expect that a cuckoo clock which played an American anthem and waved a flag would be seen as "Soviet propaganda" from American POV. It did not exist in the original (so yes, there was an agenda behind adding it), but Americans are proud of their patriotism, are they not? )

Certainly, we're proud of our patriotism, but a flag-waving cuckoo clock seems like a heavy-handed and unrealistic caricature of patriotism. (Also, our flag-waving tends to be on July 4th and a few other national holidays, such as Memorial Day, which is on the last Monday of May -- but the cartoon is set on New Year's Eve, when flag-waving and anthem-playing is not customary.) On the other hand, perhaps it's pointless to complain about an "unrealistic" caricature in a cartoon that features a robot-butler with laser beams!

But it's an excellent point you made that, if the cartoon had showed a destroyed Soviet city, that could also be seen as anti-US propaganda, blaming America for the attack. (Although I think it's implied in the original story and in the cartoon that the destruction was mutual and global, and thus blame is pointless because there's no one left to point fingers at, and also no one left with fingers to point!)

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

"

Originally Posted by rockzmom

I think this is the idea that my generation and my girl's generation has been raised with.

Yup. So, no sane US officer would dare to start a nuclear war having that thought in mind. (And it was broadly assumed that the US was doing the same kind of screening and testing to ensure only the sane and psychologically stable officers were in command of the strategic weapons.) If the US would not be directly attacked, the US would most likely not intervene with a very quick war in Europe. So, the USSR had never really planned to INVADE the US. (The Red Dawn was never to happen! ) The US Army was never really thought as a primary opponent (except for the limited contingent in Europe). As far as I remember, the first and foremost "possible enemy" for the Soviet Army was the Bundeswehr as the most able military opponent.

Originally Posted by rockzmom

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

I remember that too! It was a very good film.

And when it comes to who was right or wrong in the cold war, I am glad that I was never forced to take sides and made to think that one of the sides were good and the other bad. Things were considereably less black and white back in those days.

Some things were clearly more attractive about the USA, and some things about the USSR were admirable or nice too. And there were some very unattractive sides to both countries.

Plus, seeing TV and films from both sides made a difference too, but towards the end of the cold war, there was definitely a dominance of American material.

All through the 1990s there was a sort of ideological and power vacuum politically, where Communism had simply disappeared. Confusion for some, economic misery for some - a missionary fields, endless new markets and political allies for others.