Tag: Cold War

Era 12 Postwar United States: Cold War (1945 to early 1970s)

New Jersey Council for the Social Studies

www.njcss.org

Engaging High School Students in Global Civic Education Lessons in U.S. History

The relationship between the individual and the state is present in every country, society, and civilization. Relevant questions about individual liberty, civic engagement, government authority, equality and justice, and protection are important for every demographic group in the population.  In your teaching of World History, consider the examples and questions provided below that should be familiar to students in the history of the United States with application to the experiences of others around the world.

These civic activities are designed to present civics in a global context as civic education happens in every country.  The design is flexible regarding using one of the activities, allowing students to explore multiple activities in groups, and as a lesson for a substitute teacher. The lessons are free, although a donation to the New Jersey Council for the Social Studies is greatly appreciated. www.njcss.org

Era 12 Postwar United States: Cold War (1945 to early 1970s)

The middle of the 20th century marks the zenith of American power in the world. Following World War 2, international organizations were established to maintain a stable world order. The United States developed alliances to counter the threat of communism and authoritarian governments.  The cost of the arms race and role as ‘global policeman’ was costly for the government of the United States and as a result its defense of democracy and human rights faced criticisms from its elected representatives and people.

Activity #1: Bay of Pigs Invasion and Crimean Peninsula Invasion

In 1959, Fidel Castro came to power in an armed revolt that overthrew Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista. The U.S. government distrusted Castro and was wary of his relationship with Nikita Khrushchev, the leader of the Soviet Union. President Eisenhower approved the training of a small army for an assault landing and guerilla warfare. The success of the plan depended on the Cuban population joining the invaders.

On April 17, 1961 the Cuban-exile invasion force landed at beaches along the Bay of Pigs and immediately came under heavy fire.  Within 24 hours, about 1,200 members of the invasion force surrendered, and more than 100 were killed. The Bay of Pigs invasion was a disaster for the United States and President Kennedy.

In 2014, Russia invaded the Crimean Peninsula in Ukraine. Russia annexed Ukraine but the international community did not support or recognize the actions of Russia. Since 2014, Russia has tightened its grip on Crimea. It has transformed the occupied Ukrainian peninsula into a military base, utilizing it for the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Crimea currently serves as an important logistical hub for the Russian military, acting as an airbase and naval base while playing a key role in the resupply of the Russian army in Ukraine.

Bay of Pigs Invasion

Russia’s Invasion of Crimea in 2014

Questions:

  1. Did the United States have a right to overthrow an unelected ruler in Cuba who supported the Soviet Union?
  2. To what extent does geography, national security, or economic stability justify actions of large sovereign states interfering in domestic affairs in smaller states?
  3. Why did the international community fail to challenge Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014?
  4. Why does Russia want territory in Crimea and Ukraine?
  5. How can the international community best address the situation in Ukraine?
  6. If the international community accepts Russia’s illegal annexation of territory in a neighboring state, does this allow or encourage other countries to annex territories. (i.e. China, United States, etc.)

Activity #2: Human Rights Issues and Asylum Policies

As Americans enjoyed their new prosperity and role as the leader of the free world, there were voices for equality from women, African Americans, and people of color. The US also embraced global responsibilities and the threat posed by the expansion of communism.

Most Americans believe that freedom is a fundamental human right. In the post-World War 2 era, The United States found that the cost of defending democracy and human rights was expensive and difficult. In the first quarter of the 21st century, the United States experienced a state sponsored terririst attack on New York City and Washington D.C., threats of international terrorism, a divided Congress, unprecedented national debt, and conflicts in the Middle East. In 2025, there were 59 violent conflicts in the world. The interests of Russia and China are in conflict with the interests of the United States to defend democratic values and institutions and human rights.

The United States has not ratified the following international agreements on human rights:

  • International Criminal Court
  • Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)
  • Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
  • Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance
  • Mine Ban Treaty
  • Convention on Cluster Munitions
  • Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)
  • Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture

Source

Before 1950, the United States had no stated policy on asylum. However, between 1933-1945, about 200,000 refugees fleeing the violence of war, immigrated to the United States. The American people were opposed to changing the National Origins Quota System enacted in 1924.

The 1952 McCarran-Walter Act was passed over President Truman’s veto. It continues to serve as the basis of our immigration laws and policies.

“The bill would continue, practically without change, the national origins quota system, which was enacted, into law in 1924, and put into effect in 1929. This quota system—always based upon assumptions at variance with our American ideals—is long since out of date and more than ever unrealistic in the face of present world conditions.

This system hinders us in dealing with current immigration problems, and is a constant handicap in the conduct of our foreign relations.” 

In 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act (Hart-Celler Act) eliminated the quota system that was part of the McCarran-Walter Act. The Act opened immigration to people of different racial and ethnic populations, especially Asians and Africans, it continued the quotas for Mexicans and Hispanic populations and favored visas for skilled workers over agricultural or domestic workers.  

According to the UN refugee agency, a record-breaking 3.6 million new individual asylum applications were registered worldwide in 2023 with most new asylum claims made by nationals of Afghanistan, Colombia, Sudan, Syria, and Venezuela. At the close of 2023, 6.9 million asylum seekers worldwide still had pending asylum claims.

In the United States in 2023, nearly half of all asylum approvals were for people fleeing Afghanistan, China, El Salvador, and Venezuela from violence, poverty, and political upheaval.

Questions:

  1. Why has the United States refused to support international laws on human rights and crimes against humanity since World War 2?
  2. Is there evidence that the United States violates the human rights of some of its own citizens?
  3. Why have the American people reflected a restrictive immigration policy over time, even for refugees facing death or abuse in their home country?
  4. Who should be granted asylum in the United States?

History of Child Labor in the United States

Truman Library Institute

Brown University’s Slavery and Justice Report

The National Council of La Raza

The War Refugee Board

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952(McCarran-Walter Act)

The 1965 Immigration Act: Opening the Nation to Immigrants of Color(Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History)

How Should Americans Remember the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act?(Organization of American Historians)

How the U.S. Asylum Process Works(Council on Foreign Relations)

Activity #3: The Deportation of People for Their Political Views

In the years after World War 2, especially after Churchill’s Iron Curtain Speech in 1946, the United States feared a global domination of communism. This belief gained popularity after China became communist in 1949. The current administration of President Trump is identifying the Democratic party with Marxist-Leninist ideology or progressive ideas for universal health care, helping students to repay college loans, raising the minimum wage, labor unions, and deporting immigrants with legal visas and some who are not documented.

This has a ‘chilling effect’ on people, especially educators and college professors who teach about communism and Marxist socialism. It is important to understand the historical perspective over time regarding how the government of the United States has responded to situations which have called for a change in our government through elections and the violent overthrow of our Constitution and democratic institutions.

Historical Context

Congress has the power to protect the Government of the United States from armed rebellion. The Insurrection Act of 1807 combined a series of statues to protect the United States from angry citizens following the Embargo Act. The issue for debate is when does the protection of free speech regarding criticism of government policies and organizing plans to change government policies or elected leaders become a matter permitting the government to use military force to protect itself.

The Posse Comitatus Act forbids the U.S. military, including federal armed forces and National Guard from enforcing civil law. The reason for this is to protect the First Amendment rights of citizens to express their beliefs. The Stafford Act (1988) permits the use of the military in times of natural disasters or public health epidemics. 

Section 252 the Insurrection Act allows the president to deploy troops without a request from the state and provides the authority to send in troops against the state’s wishes to enforce the laws of the United States or to suppress rebellion.  President Eisenhower used this power to enforce the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to desegregate the public schools in Little Rock, AK.  In 1992, the governor of California requested President George H.W. Bush to send troops to control the rioting in Los Angeles following the acquittal of four white police officers on the beating of Rodney King. Section 253 allows the president to suppress domestic violence, a conspiracy to overthrow the government, or an insurrection.  John Brown’s raid in 1859 and the Civil War are examples.

The Smith Act was passed in 1940 making it a crime for any person knowingly or willfully to advocate the overthrow or destruction of the Government of the United States by force or violence. This Act led to the arrest of leaders of the Communist Party who were advocating to overthrow the government of the United States by force.

In 1951, the Court ruled in a 6-2 decision that the conviction of Eugene Dennis of conspiring and organizing for the overthrow and destruction of the United States government by force and violence under provisions of the Smith Act.  In 1967, the decision was overturned by the Brandenburg v. Ohio when the Supreme Court held that “mere advocacy” of violence was protected speech. 

In New York, the Feinberg Law banned from the teaching of the violent overthrow of the government of the United States. Several other states adopted similar measures. When a group of teachers and parents challenged this law, the Supreme Court upheld it in Adler v. Board of Education of the City of New York, (1952) In 1967, another Supreme Court overturned the Adler decision.

Questions:

  1. If the Declaration of Independence states the right of people to dissent and overthrow an unjust government, should school teachers be allowed to teach this to young students?

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

2. Why do you think the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Dennis and Adler decisions years later? Do these reversals have a strong foundation in American law?

3. Is it possible to use the Smith Act and the Insurrection Act to bring about a change in government that would embrace a more authoritarian government and a less democratic one?

4. How can the Smith Act and Insurrection Act be abolished?  Should they be abolished?

5. What is the biggest threat facing the United States in the future? (natural disaster, political violence, artificial intelligence, public health emergency, economic crisis, etc.)   Will the best solutions to this threat come from the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branch of our government?

Thomas Jefferson Signs the Insurrection Act into Law, March 3, 1807

The Insurrection Act Explained  (Brennan Center for Justice)

Dennis v. United States

Supreme Court Rules on Communist Teachers (Adler v. Board of Education of City of New York)

Insubordination And ‘Conduct Unbecoming’: Purging New York’s Communist Teachers at the Start of the Cold War (The Gotham Center for New York City History)

Mass Deportation: Analyzing the Trump’s Adminsitration’s Attacks on Immigrants, Democracy, and America(American Immigration Council)

Activity #4: The Return of Veterans from World War 2 in the United States and Japan

Japan officially surrendered on September 2, 1945. More than 400,000 Americans, and an estimated 65 million people worldwide, died during the war. After the surrender, the repatriation of the soldiers to their home country began. Refugees also began to return to their homes. The return of the soldiers to Japan, Soviet Union, European countries, and the United States was very different. In this activity, you will compare the return of 7 million soldiers to Japan and the United States. The United States had 16 million soldiers in uniform and 8 million of them were overseas. Operation Magic Carpet was the program to transport Japan’s soldiers to their homeland. There were also millions of Korean and Chinese civilians the Japanese used as slave labor during the war who needed to be repatriated.

Japan’s navy and merchant marine navy had been destroyed during the war. The carriers Hosho and Katsuragi, the destroyer, Yoizuki, and the passenger ship, Hikawa Maru, were able to transport some Japanese soldiers. The United States, Soviet Union, and England used their ships to bring 6.6 million Japanese soldiers back to Japan. The Japanese government designated 18 ports to receive their soldiers. The U.S. role was completed by the end of 1947. The Soviet Union’s role continued through 1957. The port of Maizuru was the largest port.

The Japanese soldiers were sprayed with the chemical DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloro-ethane) to kill fleas and lice. At the time, DDT was considered a ‘safe’ chemical but in 1972 it was known to be harmful. Welcome towers were erected where citizens welcomed the retuning soldiers.

The United States also used Nisei interpreters during the years after the surrender of Japan (1945-1952) to prosecute Japan’s military leaders for war crimes, detect subversive activities and help with the drafting of Japan’s new constitution.

Most cities and homes in Japan were destroyed as a result of the war and the destruction of the two atomic bombs. Almost every family experienced the death of a loved one and they did not have a proper burial or the return of their personal belongings (sword, identification, notebooks, clothing, etc.) The new government in Japan changed the family structure which encouraged marriage and children.

The Return of Soldiers to the United States

The return of veterans to the United States began in 1944, shortly after D-Day. The government instituted a point system based on battles for the return home after the war ended and the GI Bill, which provided for education and vocational training, credit towards loans, one year of unemployment compensation, and counseling. The purpose of the GI Bill was to avoid the high unemployment and inflation that followed World War I.

“Veterans Prepare for Your Future thru Educational Training, Consult Your Nearest Office of the Veterans Administration,” n.d. Courtesy of NARA, 44-PA-2262, NAID

The repatriation of American soldiers was very successful and the income taxes from their wages paid back the cost of the GI Bill within the first few years. Veterans also purchased new homes which also increased the GDP.  Similar benefits were provided to American soldiers who served in Korea and Vietnam. New car sales also quadrupled in the first ten years following World War 2 and by 1960 about 75 percent of American households owned a car.

Questions:

  1. Why did the United States spend millions of dollars to repatriate Japanese soldiers to Japan after the surrender and why did our government pay for the inoculations and transportation of Korean and Chinese from Taiwan?
  2. What would the post-war years in Japan be like without the financial and technical assistance of the United States and the Allied Powers?
  3. As a member of Congress, would you have supported the GI Bill in 1944 knowing that the national debt of the United States was 120% above our GDP?
  • Was it fair to provide ships to transport Japanese soldiers home before all of the American soldiers were repatriated?
  • Should the United States have done more (or less) to repatriate the soldiers from Japan?

Maizuru Repatriation Memorial Museum

Return to Maizuri Port: Documents Related to the Repatriation and Internment Experiences of Japanese (1945-1956)   (UNESCO)

The Afterlife of Families in Japan (Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi)

U.S. Naval Institute

The American Soldier in World War 2

Veterans Return Home From World War 2 (U.S. Army Documentary)

Serviceman’s Readjustment Act, 1944 (National Archives)

Einstein’s Postwar Campaign to Save the World from Nuclear Destruction

Einstein’s Postwar Campaign to Save the World from Nuclear Destruction

Lawrence S. Wittner

This article appeared originally in Foreign Policy in Focus. It is reprinted with permission.

Although the popular new Netflix film, Einstein and the Bomb, purports to tell the story of the great physicist’s relationship to nuclear weapons, it ignores his vital role in rallying the world against nuclear catastrophe. Aghast at the use of nuclear weapons in August 1945 to obliterate the
cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Einstein threw himself into efforts to prevent worldwide nuclear annihilation. In September, responding to a letter from Robert Hutchins, Chancellor of the University of Chicago, about nuclear weapons, Einstein contended that, “as long as nations demand unrestricted sovereignty, we shall undoubtedly be faced with still bigger wars, fought with bigger and technologically more advanced weapons.”

Thus, “the most important task of intellectuals is to make this clear to the general public and to emphasize over and over again the need to establish a well organized world government.” Four days
later, he made the same point to an interviewer, insisting that “the only salvation for civilization and the human race lies in the creation of a world government, with security of nations founded upon law.”

Determined to prevent nuclear war, Einstein repeatedly hammered away at the need to replace international anarchy with a federation of nations operating under international law. In October 1945, together with other prominent Americans (among them Senator J. William Fulbright, Supreme
Court Justice Owen Roberts, and novelist Thomas Mann), Einstein called for a “Federal Constitution of the World.” That November, he returned to this theme in an interview published in the Atlantic
Monthly. “The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem,” he said. “It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one…As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable.” And war, sooner or later, would become nuclear war.

Einstein promoted these ideas through a burgeoning atomic scientists’ movement in which he played a central role. To bring the full significance of the atomic bomb to the public, the newly-formed Federation of American Scientists put together an inexpensive paperback, One World or None, with individual essays by prominent Americans. In his contribution to the book, Einstein wrote that he was “convinced there is only one way out” and this necessitated creating “a supranational organization” to “make it impossible for any country to wage war.” This hard-hitting book, which first appeared in early 1946, sold more than 100,000 copies.

Given Einstein’s fame and his well publicized efforts to avert a nuclear holocaust, in May 1946 he became chair of the newly-formed Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists, a fundraising and
policymaking arm for the atomic scientists’ movement. In the Committee’s first fund appeal, Einstein warned that “the unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” Even so, despite the fact that Einstein, like most members of the early atomic scientists’ movement, saw world government as the best recipe for survival in the nuclear age, there seemed good reason to consider shorter-range objectives. After all,
the Cold War was emerging and nations were beginning to formulate nuclear policies. An early Atomic Scientists of Chicago statement, prepared by Eugene Rabinowitch, editor of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, underscored practical considerations. “Since world government is unlikely to be achieved within the short time available before the atomic armaments race will lead to an acute danger of armed conflict,” it noted, “the establishment of international controls must be considered as a problem of immediate urgency.” Consequently, the movement increasingly worked in support of specific nuclear arms control and disarmament measures.

In the context of the heightening Cold War, however, taking even limited steps forward proved impossible. The Russian government sharply rejected the Baruch Plan for international control of
atomic energy and, instead, developed its own atomic arsenal. In turn, U.S. President Harry Truman, in February 1950, announced his decision to develop a hydrogen bomb―a weapon a thousand times as powerful as its predecessor. Naturally, the atomic scientists were deeply disturbed by this lurch toward disaster. Appearing on television, Einstein called once more for the creation of a “supra national” government as the only “way out of the impasse.” Until then, he declared, “annihilation beckons.”


Despite the dashing of his hopes for postwar action to end the nuclear menace, Einstein lent his support over the following years to peace, nuclear disarmament, and world government projects. The most important of these ventures occurred in 1955, when Bertrand Russell, like Einstein, a proponent of world federation, conceived the idea of issuing a public statement by a small group of the world’s most eminent scientists about the existential peril nuclear weapons brought to modern war. Asked by Russell for his support, Einstein was delighted to sign the statement and did so in one of his last actions before his death that April. In July, Russell presented the statement to a large meeting in London, packed with representatives of the mass communications media. In the shadow of the Bomb, it read, “we have to learn to think in a new way…Shall we…choose death because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest.”

This Russell-Einstein Manifesto, as it became known, helped trigger a remarkable worldwide uprising against nuclear weapons in the late 1950s and early 1960s, culminating in the world’s first
significant nuclear arms control measures. Furthermore, in later years, it inspired legions of activists and world leaders. Among them was the Soviet Union’s Mikhail Gorbachev, whose “new thinking,” modeled on the Manifesto, brought a dramatic end to the Cold War and fostered substantial nuclear disarmament. The Manifesto thus provided an appropriate conclusion to Einstein’s unremitting campaign to save the world from nuclear destruction.

The Atomic Bomb: Albert Einstein’s Letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt
Digital History ID 1184
Author: Albert Einstein
Date:1939
https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textb
ook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=1184

Annotation: In August 1939, six months after physicists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman had demonstrated the process of nuclear fission, Albert Einstein, at the urging of physicist Leo Szilard, wrote to President Franklin D. Roosevelt about the danger of Nazi Germany creating an atomic bomb.


Document: Sir:
Some recent work by E. Fermi and L. Szilard, which has been communicated to me in manuscript, leads me to expect that the element uranium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the immediate future. Certain aspects of the situation which has arisen seem to call for
watchfulness and, if necessary, quick action on the part of the Administration. I believe therefore that it is my duty to bring to your attention the following facts and recommendations:


In the course of the last four months it has been made probable-through the work of Joliot in France as well as Fermi and Szilard in America-that it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium, by which vast amount of power and large quantities of new radium like elements would be generated. Now it appears almost certain that this could be
achieved in the immediate future.

This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs, and it is conceivable-though much less certain-that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy the whole port
together with some of the surrounding territory. However, such bombs might very well prove to be too heavy for transportation by air.


The United States has only very poor ores of uranium in moderate quantities. There is some good ore in Canada and the former Czechoslovakia, while the most important source of uranium is the Belgian Congo.


Yours very truly,

In view of this situation you may think it desirable to have some permanent contact maintained between the Administration and the group of physicists working on chain reactions in America. One possible way of achieving this might be for you to entrust with this task a person who has your confidence and who could perhaps serve in an inofficial capacity. His task might comprise the following:


a) to approach Government Departments, keep them informed of the further development, and put forward recommendations for Government action, giving particular attention to the problem of securing a supply of uranium ore for the United States:


b) to speed up the experimental work, which is at present being carried on within the limits of the budgets of University laboratories, by providing funds, if such funds be required, through his contacts with private persons who are willing to make contributions for this cause, and perhaps also by obtaining the co-operation of industrial laboratories which have the necessary equipment.


I understand that Germany has actually stopped the sale of uranium from the Czechoslovakian mines which she has taken over. That she should have taken such early action might perhaps be understood on the ground that the son of the German Under-Secretary of State, von Weizsacker, is attached to the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institute in Berlin where some of the American work on uranium is now being repeated.
[signed] Albert Einstein


The secret of the bomb should be committed to a World Government, and the United States should immediately announce its readiness to give it to a World Government. This government should be
founded by the United States, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain —the only three powers with great military strength. All three of them should commit to this World Government all of their military strength.


The fact that there are only three nations with great military power should make it easier rather than harder to establish such a government . . . Since I do not foresee that atomic energy is to be a great boon for a long time, I have to say that for the present it is a menace. Perhaps it is well that it should
be. It may intimidate the human race into bringing order into its international affairs, which, without the pressure of fear, it would not do.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/11/einstein-on-the-atomicbomb/656626/

Russell-Einstein Manifesto (London, July 9, 1955)
https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/keydocuments/russell-einstein-manifesto/

In the tragic situation which confronts humanity, we feel that scientists should assemble in conference to appraise the perils that have arisen as a result of the development of weapons of mass destruction, and to discuss a resolution in the spirit of the appended draft. We are speaking on this occasion, not as members of this or that nation, continent, or creed, but as human beings, members of the species Man, whose continued existence is in doubt. The world is full of conflicts; and overshadowing all minor conflicts, the titanic struggle between Communism and anti-Communism.

Almost everybody who is politically conscious has strong feelings about one or more of these issues; but we want you, if you can, to set aside such feelings and consider yourselves only as members of a
biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire.

We shall try to say no single word which should appeal to one group rather than to another. All, equally, are in peril, and, if the peril is understood, there is hope that they may collectively avert it.
We have to learn to think in a new way. We have to learn to ask ourselves, not what steps can be taken to give military victory to whatever group we prefer, for there no longer are such steps; the question we have to ask ourselves is: what steps can be taken to prevent a military contest of which the issue must be disastrous to all parties?


The general public, and even many men in positions of authority, have not realized what would be involved in a war with nuclear bombs. The general public still thinks in terms of the obliteration of cities. It is understood that the new bombs are more powerful than the old, and that, while one A
bomb could obliterate Hiroshima, one H bomb could obliterate the largest cities, such as London, New York, and Moscow. No doubt, in an H-bomb war, great cities would be obliterated. But this is one of the minor disasters that would have to be faced. If everybody in London, New York, and Moscow were exterminated, the world might, in the course of a few centuries, recover from the blow. But we now know, especially since the Bikini test, that nuclear bombs can gradually spread destruction over a very much wider area than had been supposed.


It is stated on very good authority that a bomb can now be manufactured which will be 2,500 times as powerful as that which destroyed Hiroshima. Such a bomb, if exploded near the ground or under water, sends radio-active particles into the upper air. They sink gradually and reach the surface of the earth in the form of a deadly dust or rain. It was this dust which infected the Japanese fishermen and their catch of fish. No one knows how widely such lethal radio-active particles might be diffused, but
the best authorities are unanimous in saying that a war with H-bombs might possibly put an end tothe human race. It is feared that if many H-bombs are used there will be universal death, sudden only for a minority, but for the majority a slow torture of disease and disintegration.


Many warnings have been uttered by eminent men of science and by authorities in and both sides would set to work to military strategy. None of them will say that the worst results are certain. What they do say is that these results are possible, and no one can be sure that they will not be realized. We have not yet found that the views of experts on this question depend in any degree upon their politics or prejudices. They depend only, so far as our researches have revealed, upon the extent of the
particular expert’s knowledge. We have found that the men who know most are the most gloomy.

Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war. The abolition of war will demand is tasteful limitations of national sovereignty. But what perhaps impedes understanding of the situation more than anything else is that the term “mankind” feels vague and abstract. People scarcely realize in imagination that the danger is to themselves and their children and their grandchildren, and not only to a dimly apprehended humanity. They can scarcely bring themselves to grasp that they, individually, and those whom they love are in imminent danger of perishing agonizingly. And so they hope that perhaps
war may be allowed to continue provided modern weapons are prohibited. This hope is illusory. Whatever agreements not to use H-bombs had been reached in time of peace, they would no
longer be considered binding in time of war, manufacture H-bombs as soon as war broke out, for, if one side manufactured the bombs and the other did not, the side that manufactured them would inevitably be victorious.

Although an agreement to renounce nuclear weapons as part of a general reduction of armaments would not afford an ultimate solution, it would serve certain important purposes. First, any agreement between East and West is to the good in so far as it tends to diminish tension. Second, the abolition of thermo-nuclear weapons, if each side believed that the other had carried it out sincerely, would lessen the fear of a sudden attack in the style of Pearl Harbor, which at present keeps both sides in a state of nervous apprehension. We should, therefore, welcome such an agreement though only as a first step.

Most of us are not neutral in feeling, but, as human beings, we have to remember that, if the issues between East and West are to be decided in any manner that can give any possible satisfaction to anybody, whether Communist or anti-Communist, whether Asian or European or American, whether White or Black, then these issues must not be decided by war. We should wish this to be understood, both in the East and in the West.

There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.

Resolution:
We invite this Congress, and through it the scientists of the world and the general public, to subscribe to the following resolution: “In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will
certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them.”

Representation of National Identity in the Wake of the Sputnik Crisis

Representation of National Identity in the Wake of the Sputnik Crisis

Matt Triolo

“I got a phone call at my home in Princeton about 7:00 PM on Friday evening, October 4, from the New York Times aeronautics reporter, Richard Witkin. Had I Heard? What is the reaction to the U.S rocket community? My response is not even in my memory” said Martin Summerfield.  He went on, “But the impact of the launch on the United States, as well on my own career, would be powerful indeed… by 1962 a growth so rapid membership in the institute of Aeronautical science, as membership quadrupled from a few dozen to 20,000 in response (to Sputnik)” (Harford, 1999) At the dawn of the Space Race both the Soviet Union and the United States responded to the launch of Sputnik, which up until that point was the greatest technological feat ever achieved by man. This launch came at a pivotal time in the Cold War. As now each nation put resources into; What does the response of the Soviet Union and the United States say about each respective nation?  Does national identity reflect the true intentions of a nation or is it just an image to share with the rest of the world?

            The importance of researching the topic of national identity and Sputnik comes at the crux of the Cold War. During this era image and ideology reigned supreme as competing spheres of influence were ever growing and expanding. Prior historians have delved into the topic in order to uncover the finer points and develop the historiographical conversation even further. The relevance of the topic goes further as national identity and learning how nations portray themselves has a continuing legacy across all eras of modern history.  The use of newspapers official reports, as well as propaganda footage reveals the identity each nation was trying to portray in a post Sputnik world as the space race moved forward. The response to the successful launch of Sputnik showcases the national identity and ideologies of both the United States and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union doubled down on the glory of their socialist and communist society being the only way of the future. In contrast to this the United States realized their own scientific shortcomings, and buckled down and rely on innovations from a capitalist system in order to make up lost ground in the Space Race. Identifying national identity can greatly assist students within the classroom it allows them to have a greater understanding of what countries are involved in a given conflict as well as makes certain countries easier to identify through their national Identity. With a subject like the Cold war this is fairly important and beneficial for students, the cold war sees two drastically different forces shaping the world around them. Understanding the national identity of each side of the cold war will allow for greater understanding. With the cold war taking up much of the 20th century there is a wide range of history for students to learn associated with this era, so having a deep and rich understanding of the source material is vital.

The use of Sputnik specifically is also important. While the United States of America claimed victory in the Cold War it is important to recognize it was not as one sided as contemporary history leads students to believe. The Soviet Union took an early lead in the space race and remained a head of the United States for much of the Space race. Introducing how behind the United States was builds a better historical narrative and further supports students in learning the topic. Within sputnik there are a great deal of Primary sources that show the inner workings and thought processes of the United States and Soviet Union. Overall, this article will be a resource for teachers to learn about national identity in the early stages of the space race as well as a deep dive into sputnik as an educational tool for teachers to cover a wide range of ideas.

            The origins of the space race lie deep within the Cold War, as global conflict developed the need and desire for scientific advancement. It seemed impossible to be without innovation and a drive to compete globally.  The Cold War saw the world divided into influence spheres of superpowers, the United States and The Soviet Union. Following the end to a long and devastating World War most nations worldwide were defeated and crumbling looking to rebuild from what they lost. The United States of America and the Soviet Union were the only nations standing, both with daring dreams of global influence and prestige. The Cold War put ideology at the forefront as now nations of the world found themselves taking sides between an ever-growing communist sphere and the free world. As the Cold War developed tensions rose in pockets of proxy wars where USSR backed forces squared off with American forces.  This global game of chess encompassed all aspects of life, trade, and warfare and diplomacy. The Cold War was the peak of 20th century global politics, the heights of which would never be seen again. Historian John Gaddis “No one today worries about a new global war, or a total triumph of dictators, or the prospect that civilization itself might end. That was not the case when the Cold War began. For all its dangers, atrocities, costs, distractions, and moral compromises, the Cold War—like the American Civil War—was a necessary contest that settled fundamental issues once and for all.” (Gaddis, 2007)

            The Soviet Union found themselves in a peculiar and significantly powerful position following the Second World War. The Yalta conference preceding the end of the Second World War played a significant role in shaping the Cold War for the Soviet Union. The agreement made between Churchill and Stalin would divide Europe into influence spheres. The Soviet Union liberated former Nazi Germany territory in Western Europe that they would turn into new additions to the Soviet Union. The USSR with rising influence outside of Europe, in Asia and the surrounding regions. The Soviet Union was a powerhouse of an authoritarian communist state running on government control of production as well as control over all aspects of life. This nation was expanding and ready to make its mark in global politics cementing itself as true superpower.

            For the United States the Second World War established the growing nation as a competitive superpower. For years prior the United States had gone from a non-influential nation to the top dog for the western world. Being left relatively unscathed by two World Wars allowed the United States to grow to the levels of its contemporaries. Following the Second World War the United States used its wealth to rebuild Europe bolstering its position as both an ally to Eastern Europe and a superpower. As the world moved into the Cold War the United States saw communism as a looming threat to both global security and freedom. In order to meet the rising threat, the United States adopted a policy of containment with the goal of stopping the spread of communism and furthermore the expansion of powers by the Soviet Union. In the early stages of the Cold War the United States developed new technologies in order to meet the threat of communism.  This policy throughout the Cold War would expand to the space race, matching the Soviets where ever possible. The space race was a new challenge that would bring American strength and innovation to the forefront to meet a menacing advisory.

            National identity refers to the way a country views itself in regards to the rest of the world. For some national identity is the idealized version of a nation, showing the characteristics that it wishes to share with the outside world. These national identities often have a great deal to do with the leading ideology of a country. Communist nations tend to value national unity, while other free nations will value freedom and innovation. During the Cold War national identity and prestige were everything as the world was divided into growing influence spheres. National identity moves nations along it inspires individuals to act as for their nation and inspire bouts of patriotism and nationalism.

As the Cold War moved forward the developments in military rockets quickly turned to ambitions out of this world. Combine competing ambitions with the backdrop of the Cold War and the space race was born. Scientific developments moved at breakneck speeds and a push to get to the stars was now an achievable goal. On October 4th of 1957 the Soviets took great leaps and bounds launching the satellite Sputnik into the atmosphere dawning the start of the space race and a new era in the history of the Cold War. The world watched as the Soviet Union rocketed past them. For the United States, the policy of containment now reached outside the globe as they attempted to contain any communist threat even in space.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or the USSR was a dominant force in both Western Europe as well as global politics for a majority of the 20th century. Its reach knew no bounds moving into the middle of the 20th century.  Its dominant rise and position as a global superpower seemed unstoppable rivaling any western challenger. The carefully crafted identity of the Soviet Union revolved around imagery of strength, the will of the people and party as well as a sense that the Soviet way of life was the most fruitful and effective. The peak of USSR dominance was at the inception of the new space race where the USSR was literally thousands of miles ahead of its contemporaries. The successful launch of Sputnik signaled to the world what scientific heights the Soviet Union was capable of as well as how far behind the rest of the world was. Through publications of the era, it is clear that the successful launch of Sputnik represented the national identity of Soviet Union strength, unity, and superiority to the outside world and at the core of Soviet messaging.

            Soviet identity believed they were destined to conquer and claim the new frontier for humanity. Space was a new boundary for human exploration, it was the next natural step for a species that has controlled the rest of the planet. The Soviet identity was centered on the Soviet Union being the best form of humanity. Being the first to conquer space fit perfectly within the goals and ambitions of the Soviet Union. A key aspect of the identity of the Soviet Union was the development of an us vs them mentality, the rest of the western world was evil and that the Soviet Union was above all and no other way of life could have paved the way for the future. Another focal point of Soviet identity that was critical during the early stages of the space race was the sense of unity and strength shared by all Soviet peoples. Unity and power were the cornerstone of Soviet thinking, as historian Sarah Davis Wrote, “According to the propaganda, power in the USSR belonged to the people, namely the workers and peasants” (Davies, 1997). The aura of the USSR being of the people created a sense of unity with each person being a cog in a much larger and grand mechanism. The national identity of the USSR inspired scientists and the Soviet government to have made the transition into aiming for space. The Soviet space program slotted in perfectly into that identity with it being a driving force behind the mentality of those behind it.

            The Soviet identity was strong presence through the core of its own space program, the space program was emblematic of the Soviet Union as a whole. The idea of unity and being just part of the larger mechanism was seen throughout the space program. The celebrity associated with advancements in space travel for the most part was not seen in the Soviet Union. The most glaring hidden figure of the Soviet space program was the mind behind Sputnik itself, Sergei Korolev was a dominant figure in the Soviet space program being a chief designer that was anonymous during his time being represented merely through a pseudonym. “For Korolev, an engineer-manager of tremendous achievement and high ego, to have to reconcile himself to career long obscurity” (Harford 1999). The Soviet identity was focused on the larger picture of workers together leading to one of its greatest minds being denied appropriate recognition for their contributions to history.

            In October of 1957 the mythos and identity of the Soviet Union was still holding strong and this was reflected in party publications of the time. Pravda was one such publication, controlled and operated by the Communist Party. Pravda was the first and most common dose of propaganda given to citizens of the Soviet Union. Issues of Pravda were a conduit for information within its circulation, millions of daily issues reported on changes in official Policy as well as propaganda that served to strengthen ties to the Communist Party and the Soviet Union as a whole. For all state-run companies, organizations and the military had subscriptions to Pravda with the express purpose of driving home the party messages and keeping readers minds closed to any other information. The publication of this particular issue comes in at a pivotal moment the Soviet Union’s history as they overtook the rest of the world in space travel.

            The Soviet Space program and its accomplishments were kept mostly in secret. This publication serves as a rare glimpse for the world serving its purpose as a propaganda piece as well as a representing Soviet identity. As in all issues of Pravda this particular issue focused on spreading the glory of the Soviet Union through information and the famous propaganda of the publication. The successful launch of Sputnik saw the Soviet Union surpass the rest of the world scientifically for a moment and the writers behind Pravda needed to write about and promote this. At the core of this newspaper is Communist Party propaganda. While sharing information about the launch is important the main goal is to drive home the message and the praises of the Communist Party. This Pro party sentiment comes to a head during the last section of the article, “Artificial earth satellites will pave the way to interplanetary travel and, apparently our contemporaries will witness how the freed and conscientious labor of the people of the new socialist society makes the most daring dreams of mankind a reality” (Pravda, 1957). This moment in history is where the USSR shined the brightest and was the sole winner dominating any global competition. It seemed at least for the members of the Soviet Union who bought into the Soviet propaganda that Socialism and the ways of the party were the path to the future. Within this article the wide ambition following the launch of Sputnik were dreams of interplanetary travel. The publication of articles like these fits in with the narrative of the Soviet Union moving into the future and communism being the way of the future.

            To the party leaders, optics were seen as priority, portraying the grand nature of the Soviet Union. This was key in crafting and maintaining a national identity with the glory of the Soviet Union shown with great power through grand military parades.  These parades were common along with praising the roots of the USSR in revolution. This sort of celebration was seen even in the space program. Sputnik was a huge accomplishment for those in the Soviet Union combining this achievement and celebration that the Soviet Union was exactly what the Communist Party wanted. In an interview Cosmonaut Georgy Grechko told the story of the Communist Party’s request for a procommunist launch, “After Sputnik 1, Sergei Korolev went to the Kremlin and Khrushchev said to him, we never thought that you would launch Sputnik before the Americans. But you did it. Now please launch something new in space for the next anniversary of our revolution. The anniversary would be in one mouth… and we launched on November 3rd 1957, in time for the celebration of the revolution” (Grechko, 1989) This is emblematic of the identity of the Soviet Union due to its origins in revolution and its desire to lead the world in strength and innovation. The glory of the Soviet Union continued its legacy with another successful launch on the 29th anniversary of the USSR.

            Propaganda posters are a mainstay of the Soviet Union as a promotion for both nationalism and party unity. A picture is truly worth a thousand words and a propaganda poster might be worth double that. A poster can appeal to anyone and simply looking at it can convey a message; this is in contrast to other forms of propaganda that might require more of an active participation from the viewer. Pieces such as pamphlets and books require the viewer to both know how to read and also at a high enough reading level to understand what is being written. Posters could be viewed by anyone and are eye catching while spreading the message to the biggest possible audience in an efficient manner. Soviet era propaganda posters had the unique job of spinning famine and hardship as well as creating a certain image for the leadership.  “A concerted propaganda campaign tried to portray the country’s leaders in a populist guise, an image that clearly had the potential to resonate with the people’s own representations”. The widespread use of propaganda and more specifically posters carried out a specific goal in influencing the largest portion of the population.

            In response to the launch of Sputnik Soviet propaganda used this great success to further the identity of the Soviet Union through propaganda posters. These posters crafted following the rise of Sputnik communicated Soviet ideals to the masses, promoting both the glory and the strength of the Soviet Union. One poster published in 1958 depicts a series of rockets launching into outer space with Sputnik 1 being at the bottom and more advanced and futuristic rockets above it. The USSR is the only country seen on earth with a red star and golden leaves at the base. Along with this imagery there is a simple tag line “Fatherland! You lighted the star of progress and peace. Glory to the science, glory to the labor! Glory to the Soviet regime!”  (Rzhevsky, 1958). This poster encompasses a great deal of soviet ideals, the fatherland in the forefront represents the great nationalism of the USSR, that sense of nationalism and pride is credited for the accomplishments of Sputnik and the larger space program as a whole. Praising the Soviet regime within this poster bolsters the national identity the communist party was attempting to craft. Another poster in this collection takes a slightly different route with the focus being on the Soviet worker. This poster has a young fit and good-looking man in the forefront, an ideal caricature of a Soviet man. He is a working welder, there are a few other men working in the background symbolizing the power of the soviet worker. Over the shoulder of the welder’s shoulder there is a rocket being launched connecting his work to the soviet space program.  At the bottom of the poster there is a line stating “I am happy – this is my work joining the work of my republic” (Rzhevsky, 1958). With this line the main objective of the poster is clear in showing the people of the USSR that they should be proud and happy to work and do their part to support their country and that it is the strength and will of the people that allows the USSR to reach these heights. These posters are just a few of the hundreds of examples of the Soviet Union using the success of sputnik to continue to cultivate and grow their national identity.

            The Soviet Union following the initial launch of Sputnik looked to praise their accomplishments and spread their ideology. In propaganda pieces such as Pravda and the previously seen posters there is a constant emphasis on communist values and communist superiority. Those who worked in the Soviet space program were influenced by the Soviet national identity, figures like Korolev were forced to not be a public figure because it did not match with the Soviet identity. Moving forward in the Space race the USSR would rely on successes like Sputnik and other early advancements to build and share their identity as a superpower.

            Following the conclusion of the Second World War the United States presented itself as both a pillar of democracy and innovation. With a crippled Europe the United States transformed itself into a superpower moving into the 1950s. At odds with USSR, the undertones of the Cold War raged on within the United States. A unique combination of communist fear and American exceptionalism prevailed within this era. That fear translated swiftly across the United States following the launch of Sputnik. What was once a global rival was now turning itself into a new threat that was beginning to eclipse the United States scientifically. Within the United States response to Sputnik its own national identity is revealed, an identity consisting of innovation, freedom and strength. Through legislation of the era, perspectives of leaders as well as publications of a free press this identity is clear and continues to be robust as the space race waged on following Sputnik.

            The national identity of the United States goes back to its roots and continued to develop throughout the young nation’s history. While there is a spotty record for freedom for all within the United States there is certainly a belief that the ideal of Freedom is present. Looking at the founding documents of the United States freedom as a right is clearly expressed in the nation’s own Bill of Rights, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (U.S. Constitution, 1788). While the first Amendment is a small portion of the larger Constitution as a document it does serve as an early statement of this ideal of freedom.  The United States sees itself as exceptional to other nations. As a political scientist Richard Rose writes “America marches to a different drummer. Its uniqueness is explained by any or all of a variety of reasons: history, size, geography, political institutions, and culture” (Rose, 1989). This ties into its national identity as the United States and its unique qualities sets it apart from other western nations. The United States as a pillar of strength and democracy was a newer phenomenon prior to the two World Wars, with the United States not nearly as powerful or influential but following those global conflicts the United States left the wars relatively unscathed compared to its contemporaries becoming a super power in its own right. Nevertheless, the United States adopted this identity with full force and vigor and portrayed it throughout the entirely of the Cold War and especially in its response to the Sputnik Crisis.

            During the Sputnik crisis fear dominated the political and national conversation with a sense of danger settling in for many Americans. The Sputnik crisis within the United States refers to the time following the launch of Sputnik where the United States and the rest of the western world was plunged into panic and fear that the USSR was able to conquer a new and important feat in the Space race. What was once a belief that the United States and the western world were superior to the USSR was now shattered as they overtook them scientifically. This shock rippled throughout American society, “Along with official responses the launch and its symbolism unleashed vast and often effects on the domestic front due to society-wide crisis mentality it engendered. It changed the very mindset with in which Americans viewed communism and the Cold War” (Boyle, 2008). In an instance the Space race and by extension the cold war heated up as the USSR was a threatening force to American citizens. For American citizens fear went wild. The Soviets as one American General put it were “seeing into our bedrooms” (Goodpaster, 1941).  For much of the Cold Warn Americans believed in their own country’s strength and support, this was challenged for the first time for many Americans. These new fears in the wake of Sputnik were felt in the west globally, “Sputnik’s launch exacerbated pre-existing British fears that the Soviets were becoming more technologically advanced and leading the cold war.” (Barnett, 2013). For the western world, the USSR now threatened their way of life due to the Americans belief that the launch of Sputnik will lead to new military dominance from the success of the launch. For the duration of the Cold War both nations were in an intense arms race and now Americans feared that the Soviet Union had surpassing them.  This initial panic would loom over the space race as it developed acting as a driving force for innovation.

            Within the United States it is the duty of a trusted newspaper to report on the events of the world as they pertain to the lives of everyday Americans. With the Sputnik crisis American newspapers were some of the first reporting and sharing information with the American public. The New York Times is a long-standing American newspaper responsible for a rich news reporting history. In 1957 following the launch of Sputnik the paper published an Article chronicling the momentous event.  In the article titled “Soviet Fires Earth Satellite into Space; It Is Circling the Globe at 18,000 M.P.H.; Sphere Tracked in 4 Crossings Over U.S.” the event is reported on laying out facts about the launch as well as addressing potential panic. The first point of potential panic came from the title, the title mentions how many times Sputnik has traveled over the U.S. For an American it is terrifying that something the Soviets built is able to travel that fast directly above you. This leads to the fear of military application which was a central fear during the Sputnik crisis. The New York Times quells this fear by stating “The satellites could not be used to drop atomic or hydrogen bombs or anything else on the earth, scientists have said. Nor could they be used in connection with the proposed plan for aerial inspection of military forces around the world.” (Jordan, (1957). Panic following Sputnik was a significant part of the United States early reaction to the launch of Sputnik seen in a variety of other news sources. Moving forward past initial reactions the United States relied on its strength and innovation in order to make strides within the space race.

            For American media Sputnik represented the struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union, so time sensationalism reigned supreme. Fear sells newspapers and magazines this fits into the capitalist mindset of using any means to turn a profit. For many nothing is more American than capitalist principals. Following the launch American media began a true and massive publication campaign around the successful launch, a “media riot” (McQuaid, 2007) had absorbed the United States. The threat of communism was a huge part of this push to report on Sputnik, while fears about safety and national security were on the forefront. Some publications saw this as a turning point within the Cold War in favor of the Soviet Union, “The implications of Sputnik were clear to the editors of the San Francisco Chronicle, who proclaimed the satellite’s launching as a clear Soviet victory in the Cold War” (Kennedy, 2005).  Other American newspapers took different stances on the crisis, “The New York Times devoted extensive coverage of the events and attempted to decipher the meaning of the Soviets’ scientific breakthrough, including a small article that analyzed the meaning of the word “Sputnik.” (Kennedy, 2005). Sputnik was a sensation so something as trivial as the name of the satellite was a part of speculation.  New technology was in the hands of the Soviet Union “The press, pushed the panic button journalists needed sources, and that some “exaggerated the danger of the Soviet satellite” (McQuaid, 2007). The USSR achieved the impossible up until that point and it was high and popular news to report on it across the United States.

            With the outpouring of panic and fear following Sputnik it was now the role of the government to calm the public and announce a path to American success. During WW2 newsreels were an extremely effective way to give important information to an anxious American crowd. These reels were produced by the United States government post Sputnik as a way of calming Sputnik anxiety in an attempt to get the United States both back on track as well as portraying an identity of innovation and freedom. In this reel titled “Reds Launch First Space Satellite” was released three days after the launch of Sputnik and aimed to give the facts explaining what a satellite is and what its function was. This information was spread in order to stop panic and get the record straight on Sputnik. The rest of this news reel focuses on the United States own satellite ambitions, which was due to free and strong workers and would come to fruition in early 1958. The description of the segment from 1957 stated “Animated films graphically show how a mighty three-stage rocket placed an artificial moon into an orbit around the earth—a feat that occasions Western re-appraisal of Red missile progress” (Motion Picture 200-UN-30-82, 1957). This refers to what an American rocket would look like as well as a reappraisal of the Soviet accomplishments hinting that American innovation will yield a much stronger rocket. The governments public response to Sputnik through this film shows the identity that the United States was trying to cultivate as well as calm some of the panic other media outlets spread.

            The American government and the global science community at large were taken aback by Sputnik where out of nowhere the Soviets had overtaken the United States, it was now up to the leadership of the United States to respond. From the inception of the Sputnik crisis President Dwight D. Eisenhower was optimistic and saw potential benefits from the Soviet success of Sputnik.  For the American people an address from President Eisenhower represented a sense of security and safety that was lost during the initial fallout of the launch of Sputnik.  Following being briefed on the crisis Eisenhower urged advisors to look five years ahead and decided that he would meet the Sputnik challenge (Divine, 1993), this shows the strength and innovation that the United States was attempting to cultivate in the post Sputnik crisis working hard and in order to excel against Soviet advisories. In his first presidential address following the launch of Sputnik “President Eisenhower made a statement goal providing the American people with a summary on the Administration’s position on the U.S. satellite program and the status of that program” (Kennedy, 2005). This message served a dual purpose of communicating that the United States was not as far behind the Soviet Union and that similar scientific breakthroughs to Sputnik from the United States were on the horizon. It is the leaders of a country that embody the messaging as well as the identity of a nation. In times of crisis this is amplified. During the Sputnik crisis Eisenhower wanted to portray the very best of American identity pushing for scientific developments in order to secure its place as a strong nation. 

            Many within the United States government saw education as a root cause of the United States failure to beat Sputnik to space, and educational shortcoming led to a new push for improved American education.  The proposed solution for this educational problem came in the form of the National Defense Education Act, a piece of legislation with the goal of improving American schools to eventually match and surpass Soviet schools. This ideally would lead to a smarter generation in time and a generation that could overcome any Soviet space program. While a smarter and more educated citizenry benefits all aspects of a country the passage of the National Defense Education act was to directly address the Sputnik crisis and the space race. Within Title IX of the act there was a real push to allocate more resources to science and scientific communities at large through the establishment of a science information service. The implications of this service would help further develop American space programs. The Act states “The Foundation, through such Service, shall (1) provide, or arrange for the provision of, indexing, abstracting, translating, and other services leading to a more effective dissemination of scientific information, and (2) undertake programs to develop new or improved methods, including mechanized systems” (U.S. Congress, 1958). Through this service there were new systems for collecting and analyzing scientific data as well as programs for development of mechanized systems which means rockets and other effects of a highly technical nature. Outside of developing new systems for science there was a push to get skilled students into higher education. According to Title II this included those “whose academic background indicates a superior capacity or preparation in science, mathematics, engineering, or a modern foreign language” (U.S. Congress, 1958). Math and science happen to be two of the key parts to developing a successful space program. Putting a focus on students who succeed in those attributes can yield valuable assets for the United States. The development and passage of this Act in the wake of Sputnik reveals how the United States is willing to innovate and strengthen itself in order to come up on top in the Space race.

            The launch of Sputnik in the fall of 1957 changed the history of the Cold War forever as now the space race was in full swing and the push to the future could not be stopped. The Soviet Union’s achievement through the launch of Sputnik cemented itself as a competitor during the early formative years of the Space Race. Its accomplishment sent shockwaves throughout the globe igniting the fierce competition of the space race in the backdrop of the Cold War. Within the response to the launch a nation’s identity remained at the forefront showcasing the most important ideals of a nation. For the Soviet Union the response to Sputnik was deeply rooted in the ideals for the Soviet Union, focusing on unity and glory of socialism. For the Communist Party and the larger Soviet Union as a whole promoting their idealized society through the achievement of their space program was imperative. Propaganda posters painted the USSR as a global leader in both science and technology. For the Soviet Union faults came in the failure to promote individuals and the heroes like the way the United States did, however this fit into the identity since the Soviet Union was far more concerned with keeping an image of unity and party loyalty then individual accolades.

            For the United States in a post Sputnik world, portraying an image of innovation and a country willing to rise to the challenge was a top priority. During the crux of the Cold War the United States focused on containing and matching any Soviet threat of expansion. This found its way to relevance during the time of Sputnik in that the United States had to match the Soviets in the Space race. Following initial panic and fear the response of the United States was focused on promoting American Innovation and freedom, showing its strengths as a global superpower.

            National identity in the midst of the Cold War played an extra important role as now global influence was something both superpowers had to contend with and develop. Being the strongest nation had a way in spreading the ideology of both the United States and the Soviet Union. Sputnik revealed how both these nations acted in times of achievement and crisis showcasing to the world their own carefully crafted self-image. The historiography remains clear that Sputnik played a decisive role in revealing national identity in the early stages of the Space Race. Sputnik remains an important educational tool showcasing the tensions of the era as well as what Soviet and the United States national identities looked like. For students this valuable event encompasses a great deal of what students need to know about the early tensions of the Cold War.

References

CNN. (2014). Cold War (Andrew Goodpaster interview), episode 8, “Sputnik, 1949-1961.”

Barnett, N. (2013). Russia wins space race.’” Media History, 19 (2). 182–195.

Boyle, R. (2008) A red Moon over the mall: The Sputnik panic and domestic America. The Journal of American Culture, 31 (4), 373-390.

Davies, S. (1997).”Us against them”: Social identity in Soviet Russia, 1934-41. The Russian Review, 56 (1), 70-89.

Divine, R. (1993). The Sputnik challenge. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Gaddis, J. (2007) The Cold War a new history. New York: Penguin Books.

Grechko, G. (1989, October 20). Grechko interview. Pravda.

Harford, J. K.(1999). How One Man Masterminded the Soviet Drive to Beat America to the Moon. New York: Wiley.

Jorden, W. (1957, October 5). Soviet fires earth satellite into space; It is circling the globe at 18,000 m.p.h.; sphere tracked in 4 crossings over U.S.  The New York Times, October 5, 1957.

Kennedy, I. (2005). The Sputnik crisis And America’s response. Dissertation (M.A.), University of Central Florida.

McQuaid, K.  (2007). Sputnik reconsidered: Image and reality in the early space age.” Canadian Review of American Studies, 37 (3),  371-401.

[1] Motion Picture 200-UN-30-82; Universal Newsreel Volume 30, Release 82; 10/7/1957; Motion Picture Releases of the Universal Newsreel Library, 1929 – 1967; Collection UN:

Rose, R. (1989). How exceptional is the American political economy? Political Science Quarterly, 104 (1), 91.

Rzhevsky, S. (2019). Propaganda posters of Soviet space program 1958-1963.” Retrieved from https://russiatrek.org/blog/art/propaganda-posters-of-soviet-space-program-1958-1963/.

U.S. Congress. (1958). United States code: National Defense Education Program, 20 U.S.C. §§ 401-589. 1958.  Retrieved from the Library of Congress.