The Space Race, Harrison Linsey

The U.S. and Soviet Space Race;
Friendly scientific competition, or fierce political battle?


The race to space, although commonly associated with the Cold War bout between the United States and the Soviet Union, can be traced back even farther into history. In 1919, France, Britain, Germany, and the United States signed the treaty of Versailles (Schefter 1999). This temporarily stopped the conflict, and effectively ended World War I, however the fighting officially stopped in 1918 (historylearningsite 2000-2010). France, Britain, and the United States all wanted Germany to be weakened, and disarmed; stopping Hitler from achieving his goal of world domination. Despite these intentions, a compromise had to be attained, and this involved Germany remaining the powerful country it was. This may be considered the event that sparked the Space Race, because it allowed Germany to remain armed. Germany’s research of rocket propulsion greatly contributed to the growing arms race to come (Caidin 1963).
Thus, World War I was ended. Despite this fact, Germany’s ever-potent power led into a second world war from 1939-1945. One condition of the Treaty of Versailles was the abolishment of the long-range cannon. These deadly weapons proved too dangerous for warfare, and were therefore prohibited. This sparked the need for new means of long-range artillery weapons, and as a result, Germany began investing much time and means into rocket research (Heppenheimer 1997).
As rocket technology quickly developed from necessity, it quickly spread to surrounding European countries, and later, worldwide. The world was changing rapidly and greatly, and advancements in arms and weaponry really played a role in power. Many countries were making huge leaps in military technology, however Russia and the United States were really the forefront of a global arms race (Heppenheimer 1997). Machine guns, tanks, planes, and artillery were being improved time after time, and Capitalism was juxtaposed with Communism regularly.
Along came the Cold War between the United States and the U.S.S.R. The two countries fought a series of proxy wars in other countries. Each intervened and supported one side of a country’s civil war. Disguised as supporting another country, the real purpose of these wars was for the U.S. and U.S.S.R. to fight each other with minimal casualties of their own. In similar conduct to the proxy wars, the space race became a heated competition between the United States and U.S.S.R. As the goals became more and more intensive, some viewed this as a friendly scientific competition. The question is, was the Space Race another pseudo-proxy war? Was the purpose of the competition to battle between Democracy and Communism? Or a proxy for the arms race between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S?
As part of this project, I interviewed two of my Russian cousins, who lived in Kiev, Ukraine, throughout the span of the Space Race (1957-1975). Both, now married, remarked about the, to my surprise, friendly feeling towards the United States that was present in the Soviet media at the time. These findings greatly surprised me, as the viewpoint in the United States was surely of a more competitive nature. In addition, they commented on how this sort of scientific competition was “healthy” and “for the greater good”. They also mentioned how Sputnik, the first vessel to reach space (Soviet’s) gave the U.S.S.R. a great sense of pride. Sputnik was the first vessel to orbit the earth, and the Soviets viewed this as a nationalistic victory (Brzezinski 2007).
The story is very different in the United States, I discovered as I interviewed my mother. She described the accuracy and trust in the news that the American people had. News reporters, such as Walter Cronkite, renowned in their time, were watched and listened to every day by the American people. Many sources of media were easily accessible, in stark contrast to the Soviet Union’s. The Space Race was also viewed as a healthy competition in America, however there was an element of fear and disgust of the Soviet’s communism. Political leaders of both countries began to get involved with the struggle as well.
John F. Kennedy, president of the United States, announced the goal of a man walking on the moon. After his sudden and shocking death, Lyndon B. Johnson, Kennedy’s vice president and, after his death, the new president, dedicated large sums of money to the funding of America’s space program (Siddiqi 1974). The struggle between these two nations was beneficial to the improvements in space travel and exploration as well as advancements in military weaponry and arms. In addition, this Race to Space bears an uncanny resemblance to the pervading Cold War at the time, and its conflicts involving the United States and the U.S.S.R.


Interviews:


Lev:

Q: Where were you living from 1957-1975?
A: I was living in Kiev, Ukraine. I was working very hard at a factory that produced household radios for most of those years. This was after I had graduated college, and was expected to have a job. My parents and most of the rest of my family was also living in Kiev at the time, or neighboring towns, but all of them were in Ukraine.
Q: What did you hear of the Space Race?
A: There was a lot of news about the race with the United States. What may surprise you is that we had only one source of information; the government. Sure, we could listen to the radio, read the paper, watch television (in the later years of the Space Race), however all of what we saw and heard came directly from the government.
Q: Did many people question the validity of this news?
A: No. Not very much. Everybody understood where their news was coming from, however everybody just accepted this as normal, and thought nothing of it. We never knew anything different than this, and so it was alright. Much different than here in America.
Q: What was the general attitude about the space race, and towards the U.S.?
A: There were no feelings of anger or hate, or anything like that, really. Most of the news we heard was of the competition, and purely that. We all knew that there was a competition going on, but we were more interested in the great things that were happening. I remember when Russia won the race. When we successfully delivered the first person to space. That was a good day, everybody was happy.
Q: What about the Cold War? Did this have any relation?
A: No. The Space Race was not political for us at all. We did hear about some government people trying to make the space competition into some sort of political dispute, but it really was not. Remember, the U.S.S.R. was made up of many, many countries. I cannot speak for all of the others, but I can speak for my personal experience.
Q: Have you heard of M.A.D.?
A: Yes. I believe very strongly in mutually assured destruction. Russia and the U.S. were just trying to over power each other. Both countries kept building more powerful weapons, and we were scared for out lives. But even the space race was only part of the arms race.

Alla:

Q: Where were you living from the years 1957-1975?
A: I, like Lev who you already spoke with, lived in Kiev, Ukraine. This was a busy time for me. During the earlier of this time, I was still in college, and I was married in 1968, and we had our first son in 1969. I graduated college in ’72 and as you can see I had a lot on my plate. School, a husband, and a child were a lot to handle. When I wasn’t in college, I was working most of the time.
Q: What about your family?
A: My family was very mobile, which was odd for most people. My dad was in the Soviet military, and therefore, we had to travel wherever he went (we being Alla and her mother). For the years when I was in school, I had a very hard time. As you already know, my family moved sometimes a few times a year. Very often. I was in school, and then would immediately have to transfer to another school in another country in the Soviet Union. As you can probably imagine, this was very hard on me, as there were so many countries that were part of the former Soviet Union, each with their own schooling systems. Some countries required English, and some didn’t. I had a very hard time keeping up in general. One time, my father was sent to the Far East, still in the U.S.S.R., but very far away. During this short timeframe, I felt very lonely and isolated.
Q: What did you hear of the Space Race?
A: Surprisingly, we didn’t hear very much. There was really only one way for my family to get the news. That was through the newspaper. We didn’t have a radio, or we did, and never used it. My family was very proud when the U.S.S.R. sent the first astronaut into outer space. We always thought we were the best. We didn’t hate the United States, though. We just had fun with the competition, where the real goal was advancing medical and scientific knowledge.

Janis Traven:

Q: Where were you living and working from 1957-1975?
A: I was mostly living in Cherry Hill, NJ. Most of my family lived there as well, and it was only until college that I left. Also, I spent some time living in Atlanta for work.
Q: What did you hear of the Space Race?
A: We were very proud when the U.S. made some advancement. We really got the play-by-play from the media, and our favorite news anchor to watch and listen to was definitely Walter Cronkite. My father was a doctor, and also very interested in science. He would always marvel to me and my two brothers about how America had changed during his time. He could not believe that a man was now walking on the moon. Even more than American changed during my father’s lifetime was my great uncle Abe. When he was a boy, there were still horses and buggies driving around New York City, and he got the opportunity to see a man walk on the moon. How amazing that would be.
Q: What was the general attitude about the Space Race and the U.S.S.R.?
A: Well you must realize that I had a large part of my family living in the U.S.S.R. at the time. Although some Americans really hated the Soviets, we couldn’t really let ourselves fall into that lull. There was very little contact with our Russian cousins, however we knew they were there, and couldn’t have very hard feelings against them.
Q: What else was notable during this time period in your childhood?
A: I remember that we would have nuclear bombing drills in my classes during school. These kept us in constant fear of the Communists, and what they were capable of. We were told to hide under our desks, as if that would have helped in the slightest. This gave the opinion of the conflict between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Also the conflict between capitalism and communism. Overall it was a very interesting time period in my, however my family did not feel any hatred whatsoever towards the U.S.S.R. The Space Race was more healthy and productive competition than an


Reflections:

1. Alla and Lev are my second cousins, once removed. They moved to the United States from Kiev a little bit more than ten years ago, and are fluent in English, as well as Russian. As they live in Seattle, I spend quite a bit of time around them, and that definitely contributed to my comfort during the interviews. Both are amazingly kind people, and generous with their time. They seemed overjoyed to talk to me about their lives, and I learned some very interesting information. One setback, during the interviews, was their accent. Both have very heavy Russian accents when they speak, and this made it somewhat hard to understand the names of people, and things. Other than this minor road bump, the interviews went very well. My mother, of course was extremely easy to talk to, and provide many stories with interesting historical context.
2. In these interviews, the thing that surprised me the most was the attitude the Soviet Union and the United States had towards each other. The Space Race is commonly depicted as an epic fight between the forces of good and evil, however this was not the case when talking to Alla, Lev, and Janis. I specifically picked members of my family from the U.S.S.R, and the U.S. to compare opinions. Despite my expectations they both said the Space Race was a healthy competition and there were no hard feelings.
3. As previously stated, what I took away from the interviews was drastically different from what I expected to hear. From all that I have read about the Space Race, it has been played up to be an ruthless battle between Democracy and Communism; good and evil. From what I understood through the interviewing process, this was not the case. The opinions from all three people that I interviewed were those of national pride, and desire for knowledge to better mankind.
4. If I were to expand this project, there would only be a few things that I would decide to change. As all three people I interviewed are part of the same family, they might have had some reservations of their true feelings. My mom remarked that she didn’t sense any hate towards the U.S.S.R. because she had family there. To remedy this problem, I would locate and interview people who lived in the Soviet Union at the time who were not related to me. Also, I could find someone that lived in the U.S., but had no ties to the U.S.S.R.
5. 4 and 5 combined into one answer
6. These interviews really shed light on the fact that most of my book and Internet sources are extremely biased. I have read works from each side (U.S. and the U.S.S.R.), and all show a sense of superiority over the other. The conflict also became somewhat demonized, as it was played up to be a very hostile matter. Overall, these interviews changed my opinions greatly, for example, Sputnik was thought of, in the U.S.S.R., as a victory. Many books written by Americans would disagree

The Soviet Invasion and Occupation of Afghanistan and the United States' Reaction - Dominic Young

For my topic I researched the impact the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union made upon the United States. To more thoroughly understand this topic I interviewed three of my family members, each a different age, to get an idea of the United States’ perception of Afghanistan and the Soviet Union during this time period. All three of my interviews mainly touch on the same sort of things, although some of the responses are quite different.

Interview of Clarence Young, my Grandfather

Dominic: What do you remember about the early Invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union?

Clarence: Yes. What I thought was that it was again the Soviet Empire trying to take control of the economy of an area of the world. Vietnam was still fresh in my mind. It was very clear as I had studied all about the conflict in Southeast Asia. The United States stepped in over Frances' position in trying to take over the Soviet encroachment.

Dominic: So, the Soviet invasion and the following occupation were very clear to you?

Clarence: Yes, because the United States was going to have to commit money and troops back to that area of the world. We were going to have to take our gross national product and commit it just like today for our current occupation in Germany, the Middle East, South Korea, etc. The United States still today has air and army bases in Germany. A lot of the planes out of Iraq come out of Germany. From the Second World War we still have troops in Japan, South Korea, Germany, Okinawa, and the Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan).

Dominic: For what reason do you believe the Soviet Union eventually withdrew?

Clarence: What was going on in Russia that made them pull out of Afghanistan? Ronald Reagan was trying to outspend them and spent them into oblivion. Perestroika had a huge effect too. Gorbachev became Premier and spent a lot of time and money to stop the occupation. Grandma and I met Gorbachev in 2007 when he was in Seattle. We got a signed copy of his book and got to shake his hand.

Clarence: Anyway… Concern was we were going to commit all of our assets to another war. Doing so takes away from programs that need to happen like agriculture, the space program education, etc. What we did to stop Soviets had to happen. That culture is not something we want to spread, even Gorbachev agreed. If the United States didn’t react like they did, it was going to lead to a nuclear war.

Dominic: So, how you think the United States in general reacted to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan as 1989 approached? Jimmy Carter considered the invasion "the most serious threat to peace since the Second World War."

Clarence: I agree because it would lead to nuclear confrontation. They reacted very cautiously. The United States boycotted the Olympics and was right in doing so. The Soviets were going to continue on after Afghanistan. They weren't going to stop. The most highly educated country in that area of the world was Pakistan. Iran was highly educated. Iraq was also highly educated. Carter did the right thing by implementing the Olympic boycott. The Soviets in turn also boycotted LA Olympics. The United States eventually had to get the United Nations involved. Our Senator, from the St. of WA, Henry "Scoop" Jackson. He was a dem[ocrat] and a hawk. He believed in strong diplomacy and advocated the United Nations’ involvement.

Dominic: Did you or your family members or the media itself have any real idea of the results of the occupation or its implications? If not, did you have any predictions of what was to come?

Clarence: There was serious concern about nuclear buildup. It was in the paper all the time. The Jews were trying to get out of Russia because of the suppression of free speech and the United States was using their pressure for accepting immigrants. A lot went to NZ, Canada, and Israel. The Soviets were allowing the Jewish immigrants to leave and they were the educated and went into the education system. All these things were interconnected and happened at same time and opened up a dialog. No country can survive without trade. The Soviets needed to sell raw materials, hardware, natural gas, etc. and they were all being embargoed.

Dominic: So why do you think the invasion occurred?

Clarence: Laying the groundwork to control the Middle East. Also, to control that area of the world. The Soviets would establish military bases. The United States does that too today.

Dominic: I heard in other sources that the Soviet Invasion was mainly about securing the USSR’s borders. What do you think of this opinion?

Clarence: There were no resources in Afghanistan. It was just a stepping stone. Maybe they knew of resources but they didn't have the capital to process minerals (building processing plants). It was a stepping stone to control that part of the world. The Soviets needed bases for nuclear weapons.

Dominic: How do you feel the general perception of the USSR evolved from the viewpoint of the US over the course of the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, and how do you think the occupation may have affected this perception?

Clarence: The general perception was they were encroaching and this was going to be another Vietnam. This was 13th or 14th century culture and they [Afghanis] didn't have the means to fight. It was pretty evident that they [Soviets] weren't going to stop there. They were going to move on. The whole invasion was used to show their brute force (The Russian Bear).

Dominic: So you believe that the invasion caused a huge change in United States-USSR relations?

Clarence: If they hadn't done that, it would have been totally different. Maybe the Jewish people wouldn't have been able to emigrate. Reagan came in after Carter and outspent them.

It was a big change in relations. Major. From an old country boy from NE.

Dominic: Well, thank you for your insightful interview.

Interview of John Young, my Uncle

Dominic: So, what do you remember about the early Invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union?

John: I was 10 years old. My first reaction was "where is Afghanistan and why does this matter?” But I also remember thinking in my young mind that this just shows how evil the Russians are and that they are threatening.

Dominic: Why did you perceive the Russians to be so "evil?"

John: That's a good question.

John: Um, I guess it was just assumed that the Russians were evil and were not to be trusted. I don't remember reading the news as a kid, but I do remember having this mistrust of the Russians. I guess it came through osmosis and the rhetoric of the time. I remember the 1980 election and some of the rhetoric around that time. But I guess that came after the invasion, huh?

Dominic: Well, the invasion occurred in late 1979, and the occupation lasted until 1989

John: Yeah - I guess I would equate 1979 more with the Iranian Hostage situation more than the invasion of Afghanistan. I guess my emotions toward the Russians pre-Invasion were the product of the messages about Russia I got in TV shows and movies (like James Bond movies). Certainly nothing concrete meeting an actual Russian.

Dominic: Well, to expand on that, how do you think the media reacted to the invasion/occupation, compared to other events such as the invasion of Iraq?

John: That's kinda hard for me to answer, as I was a just a kid and media was so different then.

John: There would be video of Russian tanks rolling. I think I remember rhetoric denouncing then US Foreign policy as being weak on communism. This is tied in with Iranian hostage situation and Carter's failed rescue mission, that the US had gone soft, and therefore, there would be no repercussions. It certainly wasn't a 24 hour news blitz like we experience today.

Dominic: Interesting, but did the invasion ever directly affect you or your family?

John: Not really. The net effect was more of a lingering fear. The invasion was just evidence that we had something to fear. It made the possibility of World War III seem more real, and almost inevitable. One had this feeling that one day, it was going to happen. In fact, I remember having a dream wherein I was walking near my house and seeing the fighter planes overhead and having an understanding that all was lost. Maybe not as a direct result of the invasion but certainly of that time.

Dominic: That's very interesting, how different things felt at the time.

John: Yeah - I don't have the same fear of terrorism that I did of total annihilation.

Dominic: Your brother Patrick told me that he felt somewhat unconcerned with the invasion following the initial fear of 1979-1980. Was this also true with you?

John: I guess after the initial shock of the invasion, it just became another line on the network news, sort of the way Afghanistan is with us today. We don't hear much about it. Plus after Brezhnev died, the Soviets didn't seem as threatening. Their rhetoric seemed less palpable.

Dominic: Well, overall, how do you think the Reagan handled the invasion and occupation compared to Gorbachev and his actions toward ending the war?

John: You mean in regards to ending the occupation?

Dominic: Right

John: I recall the word Mujahedeen being mentioned a lot. I didn't know what that meant until much later. It was understood that we were doing something in Afghanistan, but nothing overt. Afghanistan seemed more like a term of 80's cold war rhetoric, than a real place. By the time Gorbachev came to power, one could start to feel the threat of World War lifting.

Dominic: So Gorbachev felt like a good guy at the time, even as a Russian?

John: He felt less threatening, like he could be trusted. He was different than the rest. I don't think I have any more on that though.

Dominic: Alright, did you or your family members or the media itself have any real idea of the results of the occupation or its implications? If not, did you have any predictions of what was to come?

John: I don't think so. I think the general reaction was one of relief, a sign that one of the great fears of our lives was lifting. I don't remember having any thoughts about what would happen to Afghanistan until I remember hearing the word Taliban. The failed occupation of Afghanistan was symbolic of the failure of the Soviet Union. Kind of a reverse domino effect, as Cuba began to seem less threatening; communism in Central America seemed untenable.

Dominic: Interesting

John: So it was more about world politics rather than Afghanistan.

Dominic: How do you feel the general perception of the USSR evolved from the viewpoint of the US over the course of the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, and how do you think the occupation may have affected this perception?

John: You mean how Americans perceived the USSR?

Dominic: Yes, over time

John: Kinda how I was saying earlier: after Brezhnev, the Soviets seemed leaderless, lacking that fear-mongering figurehead. Think Kim Jong Il, except less comical and sitting on top of a huge nuclear arsenal. Whether or not that was the reality is impertinent. We thought they didn't care about their people and that they would risk it all. By the end of the occupation, they seemed feckless and inept. By 1989, they seemed stuck in another time: technologically, culturally, and economically. The cold war literally thawed over the 80's.

Dominic: Wow, very insightful

John: I was just talking about Kim Jong Il today and the jokes about the North Korean soccer team. We used to joke like that about the Russians.

Dominic: So do you believe that the overall invasion was a futile attempt and that no real major events occurred that could affect the United States at the time?

John: I think initially the thought was that "wow, the soviets are still willing to unilaterally invade other countries under shaky pretense" (kinda like what we do know). I think that it was an attempt to grab natural resources. It's the same old story of controlling oil and distribution.

Dominic: So do you think there are a lot of parallels between US & USSR invasions?

John: I think there are a lot of parallels. The difference here is the pretense for war. When we invaded Afghanistan, the world saw it as a necessity, as a response to Taliban harboring of criminals. So this had been a long time coming. But historically, occupations of Afghanistan don't seem to work out. I don't think we'll be any more successful. The current reason for our effort in Afghanistan is to secure natural resources. The defense lesson of World War II was that controlling oil means controlling the fuel of mechanized infantry. The Axis powers really lost the war when they lost stable fuel supplies. Control of the Middle East is about controlling the energy for military mobilization.

Dominic: That's an interesting perspective…well, thank you for such an insightful interview.

Interview of Patrick Young, my Father and John’s older brother

Dominic: What do you remember about the early Invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union?

Patrick: The immediate reaction from everyone was fear. There was a great deal of anxiety that this could be the beginning of World War III, that this was just a first step toward a larger war. But that did not last too long once it was clear that the US was not going to retaliate or defend Afghanistan.

Dominic: What was the initial reaction of yourself and your family following the invasion?

Patrick: Initially there was fear, but then that dissipated and quite frankly the story generally faded into the background. My father made the comment that he was very relieved that there was no longer a draft, unlike during Vietnam.

Since the US was not getting involved militarily and there was no immediate danger for anyone in our family the whole war faded into the background until the boycott of the Olympics

As a 13 year old, the boycott of the Olympics is still the part of the story that had the strongest impression on me.

Patrick: I was absolutely shocked that we were actually going to boycott the Olympics. In fact, that summer we attended an exhibition basketball game of the US Olympic team vs. an NBA all star team at the Kingdome.

Patrick: The Olympic team was doing a national tour because they had nothing else to do. There was a deluge of stories in the media about Olympic athletes that had their dreams destroyed because of the boycott. At that time and at my age that seemed like a very big deal.

Patrick: A random memory about that exhibition basketball game: Jack Sikma was one of the stars for the Sonics, who had won a championship just one year earlier. He was on the NBA all star team that played the Olympic team. He had been a straight haired, extremely pale tall dude. Well he showed up for this exhibition with an extremely dark tan and a curly perm. He looked really bizarre.

Dominic: Really? Sounds interesting. So would you say that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan directly affected you and your family?

Patrick: Yes in the sense that it affected us all by steering world events. But I did not really understand why the war was occurring until I was much older. On an immediate level, not really. It was discussed, and we were frightened at first. But as it dragged on and on it became clear that this was becoming the USSR's Vietnam. And in the context of Reagan's America that fact became one of many building blocks of an overall "rebirth" in American pride that happened in the '80s.

But that's more an observation after the fact.

Truthfully, my strongest impressions are about the Olympic boycott and Jack Sikma's perm.

Dominic: Well, that sounds interesting. Do you think that the Olympic boycott was a direct result of the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan?

Patrick: Yes. That's not a belief that's a fact. President Carter literally said it was.

It was an unpopular decision, and many cite it as one reason that he lost the '80 election. That and the hostage crisis.

Dominic: How do you feel President Reagan handled the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan after his election in 1980, compared to how Carter handled the Invasion?

Patrick: I can't really identify any specific action that Reagan took. My primary memory is that the war dragged on, the USSR wasn't winning.

After the first year or so, the story faded into the background.

Kind of like us and Afghanistan now.

We have been fighting in Afghanistan for almost 10 years.

Dominic: Well, how you think the United States in general reacted to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan as 1989 approached? Jimmy Carter considered the invasion "the most serious threat to peace since the Second World War."

Patrick: You mean 1979

Dominic: No; 1979-1989, the occupation ended in 1989

Patrick: I think the reaction was mostly rhetoric and show. Bold statements and empty gestures.

Dominic: Well, to rephrase my question, did you or your family members or the media itself have any real idea of the results of the occupation or its implications? If not, did you have any predictions of what was to come?

Patrick: No, not really. In 1989 I was mostly discouraged and disillusioned with American government because of the election George Bush I. I remember him taking some credit for it and that pissed me off. In retrospect, he may have been right!

Actually, now that I think about it....

By 1989, we had already seen some major changes happen in the USSR. Glasnost and Perestroika. Gorbachev was absolutely making anything seem possible. I would say that the withdrawal from Afghanistan seemed to be a natural step in the progression that eventually led to the destruction of the Berlin Wall. It was not shocking at all.

Dominic: How do you feel the general perception of the USSR evolved from the viewpoint of the US over the course of the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, and how do you think the occupation may have affected this perception?

Patrick: The perception of the USSR at the time of the invasion was consistent with the overall perception since 1946. The ultimate endgame for the USSR was to spread communism throughout the globe. Since the end of the Vietnam War, there had been a softening of this stance. A belief that peaceful co-existence was possible (detente). The invasion demonstrated how futile this was. During the occupation, there were many comparisons between the USSR/Afghanistan situation and the US/Vietnam. During the majority of the '80s this was the primary narrative. By the end of the decade, Gorbachev had completely changed what we considered was possible with the Soviet Union. By 1989 it was clear that these changes were real and permanent. Anything seemed possible. The withdrawal from Afghanistan seemed inevitable and felt like one piece of a larger story: The collapse of the Soviet Union.

Dominic: So you believe that the overall invasion was a futile attempt and that no real major events occurred that could affect the United States at the time?

Patrick: That sums up how I felt from about 1982 on. 1979 I was a little concerned. 1980 I was irritated that the Olympics were boycotted. 1981 I wasn't thinking about Afghanistan.

Dominic: Well, thank you for your time in helping me better understand the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

Patrick: You're welcome

Civil Liberties in America - Emma Meersman

When international warfare enters the United States, the government will stop at nothing to accomplish their own ends. Fear is a tool that is commonly used to manipulate the American people into allowing the violations of civil liberties in the name of national security. Three major examples of this occurrence in history include the Japanese Internment of World War II, the McCarthy Era during the Cold War, and the 9/11 World Trade Center Attacks.

Interview 1 - Gaylin Gardette is my neighbor, a woman in her mid-forties, who is part Japanese, part Native American, and part Hawaiian. Her grandfather was a full Japanese man living in America in World War II when Pearl Harbor occurred. She will speak about his experiences as well as her own knowledge of the Cold War and 9/11.

What was your experience with the Japanese internment of World War II?
My grandmother was named Rhione Honore. She was half Native American and half Hawaiian. As the only girl in a very traditional family, a marriage was arranged for her when she reached her late teens. This was several years before the tragic bombing of Pearl Harbor. My Japanese grandfather, Harry Suehiro, lived in a community in Los Angeles. The two met there, in East Los Angeles. That was the Asian area of the city. My grandparents got married and had just had their first child when World War II entered the United States.

What happened to them then?
Well, once the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, a whole culture of fear took over the country. To the American people, the Japanese became the enemy, period. It did not matter if it was the Japanese abroad or in the United States. All Japanese were seen as violent and cruel monsters for attacking America. The internment was concentrated especially on California and Los Angeles in particular, known for its enormous Japanese population.

Can you tell me more?
Well, here is a small bit of Japanese history to put things in perspective. First, their government built up a huge army in order to become a superpower and take control of the world. Their culture was centered on the brutal military and government. This all took place during the Second World War. In America, propaganda was based on the ruthless Japanese monsters, which furthered the opposition to all Japanese. Frankly, there was some truth behind the propaganda back then.

What happened to your grandparents after Pearl Harbor?
The pair faced an incredible surge of discrimination, for my grandmother had the skin color of an African-American, and my grandfather was obviously Japanese. They also had to deal with distrust, especially on my grandfather’s part. Luckily, their marriage had granted my grandfather his citizenship, so he was able to avoid deportation. He made a good living, so my great-grandparents were satisfied with their choice for my grandmother. Once America became involved in the war, my grandfather, like many other Japanese, grew deathly afraid of internment. Actually, he was one of the few Japanese Americans who was able to escape. After the beginning of the war, all Japanese were made to register with the government so that they could be watched. Everyone had to register, and everyone had to go to the camps. It is so hard to believe that it happened in this country.

So how did your grandfather escape internment?
As I said before, he was fairly well off, and he had many connections within the community. Somehow, he was able to convince the government officials to stamp his papers when he registered saying that he was Hawaiian. I have no doubt that bribery was somehow involved. Unfortunately, his avoidance earned him a mandatory trip to Hawaii in 1942. He was forced to leave his wife and my newly born mother behind in America. Eventually, their marriage was annulled. My grandfather was able to escape internment, but he interned himself. While he was afraid to return to America, those consequences resulted from his self-internment. He had no idea what would happen to him if he were found out, and because of his fear, my grandparents never really had a chance to get to know one another. My mother grew up without a father.

What part did fear play in all of this?
The Japanese Americans had heard horrible stories of German death camps, and they believed that they were about to be massacred. They feared the camps of the Holocaust with a passion. Once all of the Japanese had finally been interned, my grandmother who remained behind compared her community to a wasteland. Hardly anyone was present, and all her friends had been taken. She was afraid for all the people in her life, for she did not know their fates. When the Japanese finally returned, things were never the same. Fear and discrimination still existed, and the community was forever impacted.

When did the propaganda against Japanese first appear?
I’m not sure, but I believe that it began once the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The fact that there were Japanese within America greatly alarmed many United States citizens. People could clearly see that fact that the Pacific Rim was quickly being taken over by the Japanese. Many people from Japan were already in California.

What happened once the war ended?
After the atomic bombings, Japan became peaceful. In turn, the Japanese Americans were seen as weak, and became frequently bullied targets. The government had encouraged this discrimination through internment. Once they planted the seed that Japanese Americans were different and needed to be locked away, discrimination and racism naturally progressed. All Japanese living in the United States at that time were incredibly angry, for their lives were taken away through internment. It was a horrible contradiction in history that all of this occurred in a country that encouraged freedom.

On another note, what do you know about McCarthyism?
McCarthy and the Red Scare in general were based on the fear of an enemy on home turf and the need to control this. Everyone needed to know who was a communist and how they were spying on us. The realization of espionage in the war was just coming into being and encouraged civilian paranoia. As long as the government was doing something to control the communists, people were pacified. It did not matter whether there was misinformation or wrongly accused communists. This follows a principle that I call ‘group think’. The idea behind this is, ‘if I can convince this many people that others are bad, we can go after them.’

How does this relate to the Red Scare?
McCarthy was able to use his version of ‘group think’ to convince enough people that creative people were bad and susceptible to communism. They were able to get their own ideas out through a combination of liberal views, power, and money. The government supported McCarthy’s attack, for they liked the idea of creating a panic and getting rid of the communists. The process of Russian expulsion was promoted, for the government needed a new enemy to focus on because the Japanese had been defeated. This involves the government’s need to have an enemy in order to create fear. If the government has an enemy, they can go to war, which sometimes makes money for the country.

What was your experience with 9/11?
I believe that Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were both similar in that they were acts of terrorism which opened the gates to pursue enemies. Honestly, after 9/11 I was really hoping that the government was not going to intern the Muslims. I think that the media did a good job of stepping up and trying to stop the discrimination, though there definitely still is racism.

What changes have you noticed since 9/11?
Obviously, there have been airport screenings after the attack. Once, when I was travelling on a business trip, the airport officials were randomly pulling people out of line for extra security checks. I was pulled out for an extra check, and when I got into the new line, I noticed that every single person selected had brown skin. This was blatant discrimination of American citizens. I believe that today, the government is using ‘group think’ and ignorance to keep people feeling safe. This helps to turn mass attention away from noticing scenes such as the one in the airport that day.

What are your opinions on the 9/11 conspiracy theories?
Honestly, my first thought upon hearing the theories was, “Oh my god, what has Bush done now?” I believe that the government needed an enemy show that Bush was a good leader, regardless of the fact that the economy was doing well and there was no war. This was a situation of greed, and Bush needed to prove to his father that he could be a good leader. I am not sure what to make of the theories themselves, though they are probable.

What happened after 9/11?
There was an upsurge in American pride following the attacks, though it was against the Bush and Cheney administration. In fact, there was a republican military commander that left his post after 9/11 and found common ground with the democrats. He was that opposed to what Bush and Cheney were doing.



Interview 2 - Thomas Meersman lived through most of the Cold War and the 9/11 attacks and is also my uncle. Today, he is a newspaper reporter in his late fifties living in Minneapolis with his family. He experienced the Cold War as a child in Spokane, and will speak about his memories from that time as well as his perceptions of 9/11.

What was your general experience with the Red Scare and McCarthyism?
Around that time, I was just a kid, and unaware of politics. The Cold War was talked about in school, especially in history class. We were given information about how communism had taken over many countries, and unless we were watchful, it could take over the world. I remember that we had drills for air raids in which we had to duck and cover so that we resembled turtles. These drills were similar to earthquake drills, but these occurred when the civil defense siren rang out. This was for the practice that there might be a bomb. There were even jingles for the duck and cover positions, those that advertised that you wouldn’t be hurt if you were a turtle. I was aware that the Soviets were bad and communism was all-consuming, for that was what I had been taught. We were told that the United States needed to stand up and have a strong defense in order to avoid being like the Soviet Union.

Were these advertisements propaganda?
The people that put out these advertisements believed that it was propaganda, but they knew what they were in for after World War II. The government knew that it had to play up the enemy to avoid another serious war. It was necessary for us to match the Soviets in military strength. In the case of war, the population needed to know how to defend itself, despite the fact that being like a turtle wouldn’t matter much against an atomic bomb. The enemy stood for the very opposite morals than us, and the government needed to broadcast that as much as possible.

What was your perception of communism?
I realized that communism was happening elsewhere and that we needed to be fearful of it. We could not let Vietnam fall, for if the progress of communism was not stopped, soon the United States would be the only free country left. McCarthy was running around trying to find anyone in the country who was associated with communism at all. His actions further validated the lesson that communism was wrong and bad.

Was this especially so with blacklisting?
Many good careers were ruined by McCarthy and his communist lists. Amazing writers all over the country were accused of opposing capitalism, and after this they were virtually unable to be published. This was especially horrible because these were sometimes false charges that ruined successful careers.

Why do you think the people were wrongly accused?
It is all part of a power thing. The government and McCarthy knew that Americans feared communism, and they were able to garner attention and popularity through their actions. Many people agreed with McCarthy. Some people felt relieved by his initiative, though others were unsure of whether the trials would make a difference. These people were more concerned about what was occurring in other parts of the world and were not scared until the legitimate threat of communism was brought to the United States.

How did the government respond to McCarthy?
McCarthy was basically in charge of the hunt for communists. Edward Murrow, a television and radio reporter of the time did a documentary on McCarthy at one point. It included evidence of how McCarthy had taken his hunt too far and it berated him for his harsh actions. Many people closely followed Murrow’s opinion, so he was too powerful to be ruined by McCarthy for his opinions. Following this documentary, the public began to doubt McCarthy, and many people realized that he was ruining the lives of fellow Americans. The press and the public opinion were able to turn things around rather than the government’s will in this case.



What do you remember about the day of 9/11? How did it feel to you?
The televisions in the newsroom are always on to multiple channels in order to follow other stories. When I came into work on that morning, I saw my coworkers gathered around a television screen on which the World Trade Centers were collapsing. Over the course of the morning, I constantly watched the televisions to see what was happening and what else would happen. The reaction that many people had was pure shock. No one could believe what had come to pass, including myself. There were immediate repercussions of the attacks, including the facts that all plane in the air at the time landed at the nearest airports. All airports in the country were closed for days, and I remember writing an article about the travel issues in the nation.
George Bush, meanwhile, was apparently put into a plane and was flown around in the air so that he would not get hit with another bomb. This sparked uncertainty among the public, for no one know how many more violent planes existed. Everyone wondered whether it was over, or whether there would be more bombs. The populace felt very sad that day for the country in general, and it was a new tragedy that we would have to live with. America suddenly felt more vulnerable, for we had been attacked on our own soil. I knew that there would immediately be new restrictions and things would never be the same as they were on September 10th.

What do you think of the 9/11 conspiracy theories?
I think that the theories are ridiculous, for the president is the president, and he does not need any more power than he already holds. I do believe, however, that Bush was looking for an excuse to go to war with Iraq. He lied about many things, especially the fact that Iraq had nukes, for they most certainly did not. Cheney was also lying about the Iraqis being at fault, for al-Queda were obviously behind the 9/11 attacks. The theories do not make any sense and there is no convincing evidence that someone in the United States would attack their own country to make themselves more powerful. Bush was still popular at the beginning of his presidency and he had three long years ahead of him. His popularity did not need to be boosted, and he was still learning how to govern the country.

What happened once the war began?
Bush’s credibility with the American populace went out the window when he made the decision to bomb Afghanistan. Though not everyone had problems with attacking Afghanistan, Bush then pressed his luck with targeting Iraq. He began to build a case to target Iraq, but that resulted in confused and opposing public. Bush grouped all Middle Easterners together as terrorists, which was a fatal mistake. The American people disagreed with him, but they did not completely speak out. Bush maintained that going to war was patriotic of the Americans.

How did the Americans react to terrorism and the Muslims within the country?
People began to look at those who appeared to be Middle Eastern with more suspicion, and some Muslim businesses were damaged. There were some protests in predominately Muslim neighborhoods near where I live, and I know that a few people even got hurt. The populace was upset and emotional and needed a target to attack. Their ignorance of the conflict in the Middle East caused the attack, while the Muslims being targeted were scared for themselves. Some tried to speak out, for they had absolutely no desire to be synonymous with the term of terrorists.


Did the government wanting to bomb the Middle East help people’s attitude towards the Muslims?
The bombing persuasions occurred several years after the discrimination, but because of the people’s desire for revenge against terrorists, it was easier for the government to start a quick war in Afghanistan. As that country was the source of the problem of 9/11 and a center of terrorism, the American public was able to be convinced. This was a much harder sell for Iraq, which was not the source of the 9/11 attacks. The government needed to put together a list of the most wanted terrorists in order to show the people the existing danger.

This is basically propaganda, is it not?
Yes, the message was that America needs to protect itself by attacking Iraq. The idea was that a leader from a culture similar to that of Iraq bombed the United States, so Iraq was therefore linked to the bombings of 9/11. This was all done to garner the support of both the public and a large portion of the government. Many people were uneasy and wanted proof of connections to Iraq, but the response they were given was that the information was classified.

What changes have you noticed since 9/11?
I have noticed the increased security around nuclear power plants since the attacks. There has also been less information available to reporters, and therefore the people in general, for news stories. Information in national infrastructure is sparse so that it does not get out and present a target for hostile terrorist groups. Many internal structures of the government are kept quiet out of the fear that they could be attacked.

Is the mindset of “they are among us” present?
Yes, especially since I heard about a Pakistani man who drove a van into Times Square three months ago. The van was noticed by several people and was deserted with smoke and popping noises emanating from it. Once the police arrived on the scene, they explored the van and found it filled with explosives that failed to detonate properly. Apparently, the man in possession of the van had gone to Pakistan and had received money and training in order to accomplish this attack.
This event merely enforces the fact that people are still aware that anything can happen—not necessarily just from foreigners in airplanes. Events such as the van have led to increased security in countries worldwide, for terrorism can occur anywhere at any time. This mindset did not begin with 9/11, but it certainly increased since then.

How were your work and the media in general affected by 9/11?
Personally, I was not greatly affected by the attacks, for the local news reports that I do progressed unchanged. As a reporter, I notice that information about certain systems that would be vulnerable to terrorists is difficult to obtain. In order to get the information, it is necessary to go through more channels, meaning that some reporters need to work harder to get their stories. The local news basically remains the same, though there may be a slight increase in the attention paid to the demographics of Muslim communities after 9/11. Muslims and their religion were definitely spotlighted directly following the attacks.



The government censorship that you mentioned is interesting.
Yes, the nuclear power plants (the Nuclear Regulatory Committee) closed their websites down for months in order to clean it and make sure that there was no information included that could be valuable to enemies. There is still a lot of information included in the website, but the committee took out a great deal of it. I know that there used to be more information available on that website, so I think that they might have been watching what people who accessed the site were looking into. I would be very unsurprised if the government was tracking the interests of some people, or tapping the phones of others. It is always impossible to know whether security is innocent or abusive, which brings us back to McCarthyism and the Red Scare. The question remains: How far is too far when it comes to public security? Civil liberties in America are a careful balancing act which shifted to one side following 9/11.



Interview 3 - Deborah Wiese is a family friend in her mid-fifties who currently works as a reference desk librarian in Port Townsend. She studied political science in college and experienced part of the Cold War and 9/11. Deborah will talk about her opinions on McCarthyism as well as her beliefs about the 9/11 attacks.

What do you remember about McCarthyism and the Red Scare?
Well, I was born in Wisconsin in 1955, and that was the state that McCarthy was from. I grew up in a republican family who was very patriotic and did not question the government. They did not support McCarthy, believing that civil rights were extremely important. The Red Scare, though I do not remember much of it, reminded me greatly of the premise of the Salem witch hunts. There was so much fear in both cases. During the trials of suspected communists, I felt that they were unjust and they broke the constitution. In the United States, people are allowed to be members of opposing parties, but these trials caused suspected communists to lose their jobs for no good reason. This was a time in our country’s history that was bad.

What about 9/11?
I do not believe that 9/11 was as bad as McCarthyism, though it was still bad. People were against attacking Afghanistan, and they realized how harmful our actions could be through their grief. I wish that they would have taken the matter through international court. Iraq and Iran had nothing to do with the attacks, and they did nothing wrong. The conflict only created hardship for Iraq and the United States. I suspect that there were definitely more deaths in Iraq than the media reported to America. The Bush administration merely used 9/11 to do something that they had wanted to do.

What did you observe after 9/11?
Everyone was in a state of shock, horrified by the attacks. They were suddenly aware of why people who do not have power turn to terror to accomplish their goals. People in our country suddenly got ideas that Muslims were terrorists, and that the country was at war with terrorists in general. The media certainly did not help, as it promoted the ideas of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, and it targeted terrorists as enemies. The voices of those who were against the bombings became subdued, though there were demonstrations opposing the bombing. It was like the power of the people did not exist.
What changes have you noticed since 9/11?
First of all, there has been an increase in border patrols and in security checks. The released fact that Guantanamo was holding terrorists against their wills has done nothing to help the government’s image in the eyes of the people. Many see 9/11 as a threat to their civil liberties just like the McCarthy era. The government has played up the fear angle, and Obama is stuck attempting to lessen it. Obama still needs to make more progress against terrorists, but terrorists are only one threat to our country and the planet. There are more serious threats to the planet that cannot be solved with bombing.

Do you believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories?
I think that rigging the buildings to explode would have been too complex, but I just do not know. Based on the government, I can see why people would believe the theories. However, the fact remains that there is no concrete evidence in support of the 9/11 conspiracy theories.