OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2010 04:26 pm
@roger,
maxdancona wrote:

I remember standing in long lines to take off my shoes to get on an airplane.

It is funny how so little has changed.

roger wrote:
Hogwash. What stood out in the 50's and 60's relative to air travel was the dress. We all wore Sunday-Go-To-Meeting clothes, there were no security checkpoints, and our family and friends said goodbye when we walked through the door of the plane.
YEAH !
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  4  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2010 06:46 pm
@roger,
Do I really need to explain my point so explicitly. I am not saying that people took off their shoes in the 50's.

I am saying that the "duck and cover" drills we had in the 50's and 60's are similar to the "take your shoes off" drills we have now. They are both rather pointless knee-jerk reactions to a threat we are afraid of as a society-- they don't have any practical purpose other than to make society at large feel like we are doing something.

And, the absolutist rhetoric of evil communists is the same as the absolutist rhetoric of evil Islamists. As is the way that both are portrayed as existential threats from people who hate our freedoms.

Add to this conservative politicians profiting greatly from hyping the fear of commies in the 50's is very similar to the conservative politicians hyping the fear of Islamists today.



George
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 07:48 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Do I really need to explain my point so explicitly. . .
Yes. Thank you.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 10:06 am
@George,
Yep. Me too.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 10:09 am
@maxdancona,
Ok. I agree with all of that. Did your experiences of the 50s and 60s (assuming you had some) impact your outlook into adulthood? Do you accept the myth concept that the Cold War and our involvement in it was an unnecessary fear of the unknown monster under the bed?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 10:20 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Do I really need to explain my point so explicitly.
I am not saying that people took off their shoes in the 50's.

I am saying that the "duck and cover" drills we had in the 50's
and 60's are similar to the "take your shoes off" drills we have now.
They are both rather pointless knee-jerk reactions to a threat we are
afraid of as a society-- they don't have any practical purpose other
than to make society at large feel like we are doing something.
NONSENSE; the purpose was to defend us from getting a face full of flying window glass.




maxdancona wrote:
And, the absolutist rhetoric of evil communists is the same as the absolutist rhetoric of evil Islamists.
As is the way that both are portrayed as existential threats from people who hate our freedoms.
With GOOD REASON; this was TRUE, in both instances,
along with the nazis and the Japs.




maxdancona wrote:
Add to this conservative politicians profiting greatly from hyping the fear of commies in the 50's
is very similar to the conservative politicians hyping the fear of Islamists today.
For the same REASON.
Thay share the same goals, to wit:
to conquer the world and enslave the population to their despotic ideology.


That is government doing one of its few legitimate functions.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 10:29 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:
Ok. I agree with all of that. Did your experiences of the 50s and 60s (assuming you had some) impact your outlook into adulthood? Do you accept the myth concept that the Cold War and our involvement in it was an unnecessary fear of the unknown monster under the bed?
I take exception.
The monster under the bed was real.
It was metastatic communist slavery, whose implacable goal
was permanent world despotism, ruthlessly enforced,
with 100% extermination of freedom of any Individual rights whatsoever, even as to any freedom of thought.

We know that from observation of places that fell victim to the commies.

I see a lot of ingratitude on this thread.





David
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 10:34 am
@OmSigDAVID,
I know you do, David. Until recently, I always accepted it as real, too. I'm not saying it wasn't. I'm posing a question about the possibility that it wasn't as real as I thought it was. The fear was certainly real. Of that, there is no doubt. BUT, was the fear necessary or was it based on a myth?

Keep in mind, that the word myth doesn't necessarily mean false. A myth can be true, even if not factual. It's where shades of gray come in between areas of black and white. That's the basis of my question.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 11:53 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:
I know you do, David. Until recently, I always accepted it as real, too.
I'm not saying it wasn't. I'm posing a question about the possibility that it wasn't as real as I thought it was.
U r within your rights of free speech to say that
or to ask that, the same way that some people deny that
the nazis presented the Jews with significant problems.
Historically, there was very, very little difference between
the nazis n the commies, both of whom tried to conquer the world and to exterminate their enemies.






JPB wrote:
The fear was certainly real. Of that, there is no doubt. BUT, was the fear necessary or was it based on a myth?
If the American public actually KNEW the magnitude of evil that had been actually inflicted by the commies,
then the fear woud have been a great deal more intense than it was.




JPB wrote:
Keep in mind, that the word myth doesn't necessarily mean false.
A myth can be true, even if not factual. [ ?? ]

It's where shades of gray come in between areas of black and white. That's the basis of my question.




myth   /mɪθ/ Show Spelled
[mith] Show IPA

–noun
1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event,
with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation,
esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution
.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 09:15 pm
@JPB,
I look at it in a different way.

Every dominant world power needs to have an enemy. Dominant world powers are nationalistic by definition, and nationalism is impossible to maintain without an vile enemy.

When the cold war ended, the communists, no longer a credible existential threat, simply couldn't fulfill this role . The world was out of balance. The rise of a new enemy was inevitable.

OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 10:04 pm

yeah, inevitable
0 Replies
 
2PacksAday
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 10:30 pm
Since I was born in 1970, way past the "duck and cover" days....I can't relate to any of that first hand, but I have posed a very similar question to my parents and their friends...did all of that have any affect on you/looking back do you feel you were in some way being brainwashed. Most common answer...I don't really remember feeling much, or thinking much about it....as if it were just as routine as a fire drill.

When I was 8, 9, 10ish, which was during one of our peacetime lulls....the big news stories I remember were nearly all about child abductions/serial killers....and I always wonder how/if that has shaped my generations outlook.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2010 08:11 am
@2PacksAday,
2PacksAday wrote:

Since I was born in 1970, way past the "duck and cover" days....I can't relate to any of that first hand, but I have posed a very similar question to my parents and their friends...did all of that have any affect on you/looking back do you feel you were in some way being brainwashed. Most common answer...I don't really remember feeling much, or thinking much about it....as if it were just as routine as a fire drill.
Yeah, it was; no big deal.
Fanatical pacifists objected, trying to ridicule the drills,
preferring that we just surrender to communist slavery,
because thay REALLY LIKED communist slavery.

The classrooms had huge windows, showing to the outside.
If a bom went off far enuf away not to destroy the building,
it might still smash the window with its shock wave,
sending fragments of glass across the room,
so we ducked down, to avoid potential flying glass.

The commie-lovers pretended that we were trying
to avoid the effects of a direct hit, by ducking.
As true liberals, thay twisted the facts.





David
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2010 09:11 am
@maxdancona,
I'm more interested in the start of the cold war at this point. I agree, I think, with the assessment that there has to be a boogie man. That if there isn't a real one, human nature is to create one.

I've likened similar sentiments on a smaller scale in a business or work setting. I've called it the Frank Burns syndrome. Frank was the surgeon on M.A.S.H that everyone loved to hate. I've seen the dynamic play out many times in my career. There was always a "Frank". If the Frank-du-jour left the group then it seemed to be only a matter of days before the new "Frank" was identified.

I've been doing a lot of reading about different theories of why and when it started. All of them probably "true", David, in some respects, but none of them giving the complete picture.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2010 09:12 am
@2PacksAday,
This is one of those times when I wish my parents were still alive. I need to ping my siblings and see what they say...
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2010 10:55 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:
I'm more interested in the start of the cold war at this point.
I agree, I think, with the assessment that there has to be a boogie man.
That if there isn't a real one, human nature is to create one.
The Moslems started blowing our places up; naval ships n embasies.
Boogieman was auto-creating.





JPB wrote:
I've likened similar sentiments on a smaller scale in a business or work setting.
I've called it the Frank Burns syndrome.
Frank was the surgeon on M.A.S.H that everyone loved to hate.
Entertainers deem drama or comedy to be deficient without a villian.



JPB wrote:
I've seen the dynamic play out many times in my career.
There was always a "Frank". If the Frank-du-jour left the group
then it seemed to be only a matter of days before the new "Frank" was identified.

I've been doing a lot of reading about different theories
of why and when it started.
The Third World War started
before the Second World War ended; it started before the Second World War began.
It started when communism took over Russia.
Communism was planned n organized in theory as a world government.





JPB wrote:
All of them probably "true", David, in some respects, but none of them giving the complete picture.
A survivor of a nazi concentratin camp might tell u all that he remembers,
and still not be "complete" about everything that existed.

Reading your thread,
I feel almost like a Jew who is denounced for "exaggerating" how bad the nazis really were.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2010 01:41 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Reading your thread,
I feel almost like a Jew who is denounced for "exaggerating" how bad the nazis really were.


Well, that's not my intent, David. It's my nature to question dogma; be it political dogma, religious dogma, or historical dogma. The root of history is "story" and stories tend to be biased and sometimes prejudiced by the opinion of the individual doing the telling. History classes are included in the colleges of Arts and Sciences of most universities. In many places, it is further sub-classified as an art rather than a science.

I know you feel strongly about this topic, and my aim is not to try to dissuade you, or anyone else, away from their thoughts. I don't know that your previous statement is the only valid view.

Quote:
It was metastatic communist slavery, whose implacable goal
was permanent world despotism, ruthlessly enforced,
with 100% extermination of freedom of any Individual rights whatsoever, even as to any freedom of thought.


I found one presentation of the historiography of the cold war at this wiki site.

Quote:
As soon as the term "Cold War" was popularized to refer to postwar tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union, interpreting the course and origins of the conflict has been a source of heated controversy among historians, political scientists, and journalists.[1] In particular, historians have sharply disagreed as to who was responsible for the breakdown of Soviet-U.S. relations after the Second World War; and whether the conflict between the two superpowers was inevitable, or could have been avoided.[2] Historians have also disagreed on what exactly the Cold War was, what the sources of the conflict were, and how to disentangle patterns of action and reaction between the two sides.[3]

While the explanations of the origins of the conflict in academic discussions are complex and diverse, several general schools of thought on the subject can be identified. Historians commonly speak of three differing approaches to the study of the Cold War: "orthodox" accounts, "revisionism," and "post-revisionism." Nevertheless, much of the historiography on the Cold War weaves together two or even all three of these broad categories.[4]
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2010 01:54 pm
sting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rk78eCIx4E
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2010 04:17 pm
@JPB,

It remains a FACT that when and since Marx created it,
it was a system of WORLD government.

Before that can come into being,
freedom therefrom must be suppressed by force.
History also shows that communist doctrine favors annihilation of freedom lovers.
The LUCKY ones got killed.
The rest lived in terror and slavery.

U can whitewash the Reds if u wanna.





David
0 Replies
 
GracieGirl
 
  3  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2011 08:33 pm
Wow! Thanks for the link JPB! I havent read the whole thing yet, but this is tons of info! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Cold War
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/04/2022 at 03:26:03