Welcome to Part 2 of History Less Traveled! If you haven’t read Part 1 then please click here to read it right now!
We left off on my last post with sphere of influence and how that sphere of influence really took on a new meaning especially in terms of competition between countries. If we want to be specific, the only spheres of influence that mattered were the United States and the Soviet Union. We also learned that the cold war consist of multiple dichotomies. Now mind you, this is the way I viewed the cold war. Part of this series is an intellectual exercise for me, to be able to explain something in my own way with all my knowledge. If you’ve read anything about history written by me, you should know that I don’t like to memorize facts, dates or people. I could honestly care less. Its a waste of time. History is to be learned by concepts and ideas. History is not just dates and people its events and actions. This is the lens that I view it through. Once you learn to view it like that then you can add a critical lens. A critical lens allows you to question why events occurred in the way they did. This is where history gets interesting. Instead of just knowing that Dwight D. Eisenhower was a supreme commander in WW2 and then became president in 1953. You would ask how did Eisenhower go from pure military man to President of the United States? If you look at past presidents you would see that there is actually precedent such George Washington, Uylsses S. Grant, and Andrew Jackson just to name a few. My point is that this series on the Cold War should help you think about the cold war in more than just people, dates and places.
Supreme Commander to Commander in Chief
In my lengthy introduction, I hinted at what the second paragraph of this post will be on. Believe it or not, Eisenhower is one of the most important presidents in US history. He came into office with a unique setting. The US had never enjoyed a roaring economy and the respect that we had in mind to late 1950s. As I aforementioned Eisenhower comes from a military background. It should be noted that during the war, he actually refused to play politics with either Roosevelt or Churchill. I think he was noble and correct in doing so because mixing military and politics is dangerous. This post isn’t about that. I should also mention Eisenhower gave one of the most important speeches in history about the military industrial complex which is one of my favorite topics. Unfortunately, that is a separate post entirely. Eisenhower was instrumental in stoking the competition between the US and Soviet Union. When the Soviets launched the sputnik in 1957, Eisenhower responded by pushing money into education especially math and science. Ironically enough, Eisenhower raised military spending by quite a bit meanwhile, warning about the dangers of the military industrial complex. It makes complete sense that he would be the one to point out given his military background. Unfortunately, during that time Eisenhower had faulty intelligence about where the Soviets were in their progress compared to the Americans. Much of the money for the military was not spent on troops or anything like that. It was spent on research and development of nuclear weapons.
Arms Race: Good vs. Evil
I briefly touched on the nuclear proliferation in part 1. The reason why Eisenhower is so important for the cold war is because his policies led the US to be way ahead of the soviets. You can look at the arms race in two ways. Another dichotomy: Good vs. Evil. Eisenhower intentions were supposedly good. He did great things like his research funding helped invent GPS, internet, space travel and many other technologies that today we find as common place. On the evil side, he helped invent big and more powerful nuclear weapons, intercontinental ballistic missiles and hydrogen bombs. During cold war the US held thousands more nuclear weapons than anyone else. I believe it was thought that the amount nuclear weapons in the cold war could blow up the earth like 100x over. Now if you know nothing about nuclear weapons much less war then here is you all gotta know: Nuclear war is about deterring the enemy. For example, if country A has 5 nukes and country B has 3 nukes, which country do you think would attack first? If you answered A or neither you would be correct. You could reason that country A has more bombs so therefore they could outlast the opponent assuming their weapons still intact. The more likely scenario and the reason why no nuclear attacks have occurred since Japan, is that neither attack first because nuclear war is total destruction. Its not beneficial to use them for anyone. Fortunately today the arms race is dead, at least between Russia and the US. Also the UN prohibits most weapon making activities.
JFK: What can you do for your country?
This will be the last topic for this part, just because my goal is to keep these under 1200 words. Anyway, fresh off of his military industrial complex speech, Eisenhower handed over the presidency to a young handsome man named John F. Kennedy. Kennedy was also a military veteran. I’ll be referring to John F. Kennedy as JFK. He is actually most famous for being assassinated while in office. That alone is a huge conspiracy which is not relevant to this post. However, in the cold war especially at home and in Vietnam, JFK made some significant moves. JFK delivered a famous speech in which he ask what you could do for your country? Its pretty unexpected to hear that from a democrat especially considering what we call a democratic politician nowadays. The speech was significant because it was a call to arms. He was trying to rally the American people to push back again the evil Soviets. Once again playing on this dichotomy of good vs evil. JFK also was in talks with Martin Luther King Jr. to write and eventually pass a civil rights law. It should be noted that JFK’s predecessor passed that bill. JFK had some really great intentions which is probably the reason he was killed in office.
However, JFK was not unaware of the cold war. He had his eyes fixed on Vietnam. Vietnam is sort of similar to the Korea situation. The southern part of Vietnam was democratic leaning. The northern part of Vietnam was being influenced by the Soviets and China. JFK just couldn’t let those south Vietnamese fall to communism. But he also knew he couldn’t just invade for no reason. So he came up with a bright idea to send about 11,000 special forces into Vietnam. I believe they called them advisers. JFK smartly just send some economic aid to South Vietnam showing them support. Unfortunately, JFK wasn’t so adept at handling other hot spots in the world especially ones close to home such as Cuba. Next time on Part 3.
If you enjoyed this part 2 the please leave a like or comment. You can also follow for more! Thank you for reading.
Social Media
Minds @gpslife12
Facebook: Garrett’s Life Experience’s Blog
Technically Analytics 
Sadly the arms race is very much alive, and perhaps more dangerous than ever. The Russians have recently pulled out of the START treaty and are developing new and terrifying nuclear weapons. They have developed the most powerful nuclear weapon ever, a 100 megaton underwater drone nuclear torpedo. It uses a device ‘salted’ with cobalt to produce the maximum possible radioactive contamination, it is designed to be detonated in a port and render it useless and uninhabitable for hundreds of years. They have developed a nuclear powered cruise missile with practically unlimited range, a concept that the US explored in project Pluto in the 60’s but didn’t build because it was too dangerous. They are deploying the nuclear armed Iskander medium range ballistic missile in Kaliningrad in violation of the START treaty. They have deployed the new Borei class missile submarines, the Satan 2 ICBM and both the Kinzhal hypersonic air launched ballistic missile and the Avangard boost glide hypersonic re entry vehicle. There is no defense against these weapons and they seem to have a lead vs. the US. Apparently these are real projects, although it’s hard to say how many the cash strapped Russians actually built. You mentioned faulty Intel in the Cold War driving the hysteria. The most notable example of this was the ‘bomber gap’ in the 50’s, when the Soviets flew the Myasischev M-4 ‘Bison’ bomber formation around in circles at the Tushino air show giving western observers the impression that they built vast fleets of their heavy bombers when they in fact possessed very few. The same mistake would be repeated by the west in the 60’s with fear of a ‘missile gap’ The Russians call this maskirovka, and they are good at it. Nevertheless they are very good technicians and should not be underestimated.
Interesting how good are your sources on their current nuclear weapon capabilities? Now I would be worried, however, I think Putin is smart enough to know that you never strike first. I’ve heard of the bomber gap I just forgot about it. Thats a good point, might have to edit that in there. The Russians are great at designing weapons. Like their T-34 tank was amazing during WW2. I know the Panzer Tank and Tiger Tank are great too. But the way they can pump out quality tanks is insane. I guess in a way the state run production is more focused plus all those natural resources help. Then again, America’s production power used to be renown. Too bad that is history.
That’s all open source material, you can definitely read about all those weapons on the web at multiple sites. Putin had a big press conference a year or so ago showing off all his new toys. The Russians definitely build some effective weapons, ironically the one that’s probably killed the most people of them all is the humble 7.62x39mm rifle Automat Kalashnikova of 1947 and its other AK variants. A good rifleman is the deadliest weapon of all.
I gotta check that out sometime. Yeah I remember hearing about Putin’s big press conference. YAAASS AK 47 is the best gun ever. I’ve never shot one but I’d love to give it a try.
Personally I’m probably more of an AR guy, but I like AK too. Century Int’l Arms Red Army Standard US made AK is outstanding, I’ve got to shoot one and it rivals AR accuracy. It’s probably higher quality than many combloc AK.
Accuracy is always important but I feel like in an automatic rifle isn’t quite as important since theres so many bullets coming out. Obviously in a sniper rifle I would care a lot more.
That’s true, but of course due to our unconstitutional gun laws it’s highly illegal and next to impossible to get full auto. Also full auto wastes a lot of ammo, it’s not really all that necessary for a trained rifleman. The Soviets and their satellite states have literally flooded the world with an order of magnitude more full auto AKs than any other rifle. They’re dirt simple and reliable for any untrained conscripts to use.
Untrained conscripts need full auto especially if your shooting for the first time. Yeah its unfortunate. I hate gun laws so stupid. I’d just like to shoot one then display it lol. I’m more of a shotgun or like a M1 grand bolt action guns. I also find muskets and flint locks pretty sweet. The bolt action guns are fun and satisfying.
I like bolt action too. The M1 Garand was actually semi auto, chambered in .30-06. Its predecessor, the M1903 Springfield was the bolt action gun and the first gun chambered in the .30 caliber of 1906 (.30-06).Gen. Patton called the Garand ‘the greatest battle weapon ever devised’. .30-06 (7.62x64mm) is a full power battle rifle cartridge, and is vastly more powerful than the intermediate cartridges like 7.62x39mm or 5.45x39mm AK, or 5.56×45/.223 AR round. The Russian Mosin Nagant bolt action rifle of WW1-WW2 fired a 7.62x54R round of similar power to the ‘ought six. M1 Garand is not to be confused with the M1 Carbine, an early semi auto attempt at an assault rifle which fired a completely different, relatively low power .30 carbine round more similar to a pistol round. I’ve shot a modern .30-06 hunting rifle, the Ruger American rifle, and that’s one sweet gun. The recoil from those big rounds is addictive, although 12 gauge shotgun with slugs is a bit much IMO, it’ll bruise your shoulder pretty bad, although I learned to shoot on a 12 gauge soooo recoil dosen’t bother me.
Yeah I’m aware theres many variants of but I specifically love the M1 Garand. I’ve actually shot a bolt action 12 gauge shotgun. I didn’t find the recoil too bad. I was only like 15 or 16 years too.
Too bad the CMP wants so much coin for those old Garands and 1903 Springfields, I’d love to have one. OTOH the Mosin is available for dirt cheap, less than $200, so I may pick up a Mosin Nagant M44 one of these days. Surplus Soviet ammo is dirt cheap too, and steel core is available, deadly stuff.
I wish I could buy one too, I feel like because I live in NYC it would be nearly impossible without people freaking out. I gotta move outta here soon, driving me nuts. I love guns I just don’t get to shoot them or own them.
That definitely sucks. You could probably own a bolt action rifle, not too many restrictions on those. Come to KS, you can own anything short of an actual full auto. I could go to the grocery store open carry the latest High capacity semi auto 9mm and nobody will even bat an eye. I see people do it all the time, I feel personally safer knowing that people are armed, the crazies are less likely to do anything and if they do it’ll be over for them PDQ.
Thats exactly my sentiments. I’m sure could get one but I have no where to store it properly tho. I could potentially store in upstate new york where Im originally from because my parents still live up there. Where I’m from is basically the middle of nowhere so gun restrictions arent really enforced.