In this article, the author is talking about a historians works and the many books he has published. The article begins to talk about John Lewis Gaddis and his most recent book about the Cold War. They use quotes from his book in their writing to bring up talking points such as the strategic genius that Eisenhower was and what he brought to the table. Throughout the article, the author talks about different significant events that happened during the Cold war. An example of this would be the Bay of Pigs, a U.S. embarrassment during the Cold War. Although it isn’t a first hand account, it is still a good strategy to use because Gaddis has extensive knowledge about this topic and is the second to best thing aside from a first hand account. It is a long article but it gets the point across about the Cold War and what it was like being in the middle of it and the effect is has on the world to this day. The author uses this historian because he can give him more info on the topic at hand and at the same time can give a more analyzed point of view of the topic he is talking about. Grimes, William. “The Cold War: A New History.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 1 Jan. 2006, www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/arts/the-cold-war-a-new-history.html.
In this opinion article Westad, the author, talks about post Cold War and what it meant for the U.S. and Russia. Throughout the article, Westad criticizes the U.S. for stealing Russia and taking away their purpose as well as fighting random wars that are far away from their border. Westad seems to think that because of the way that the Cold War ended, it affects the U.S. today in their decisions about things like terrorist attacks and wars. This article is about the less tense side of the Cold war but the author is trying to show how the U.S. makes these imperialist mistakes sometimes and smaller countries follow because they think it is the right thing to do. The U.S. is a big brother to some people and other countries look up to the U.S. as an example. In this article, the author thinks that the U.S. made a bad example of itself during the Cold war, even if the U.S. was victorious (in a sense). The article is relating the Cold War events and how it turned out to recent events that the U.S. and world have had to deal with. The author uses things like terrorism to compare with the Cold War. Westad, Odd Arne. “The Cold War and America's Delusion of Victory.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 28 Aug. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/opinion/cold-war-american-soviet-victory.html.
Throughout the photo gallery, viewers will continuously notice the bombs being moved or almost worshipped. In one particular photo, a nuke is being “celebrated” at a parade. Besides the bombs, the second most common thing to see is Khrushchev and JFK, these two leaders were part of the majority of the Cold War. Drawings of bomb shelters are also very common, this was a normal thing for families in the U.S. to have at the time and they are very uncommon at this time today. Most of the pictures follow the same general ideas: Khrushchev vs. JFK, bomb shelters, and nuclear missiles. By just glancing at the mass amount of these pictures, most viewers understand the main point of the Cold war with little background knowledge. These pictures of bombs and leaders during the cold war really allow the viewer to understand the stress and tense pressure the world was under during the time of the Cold War. “Cold War Photos That Will Never Let Us Forget.” History Things, 23 Jan. 2017, http://historythings.com/cold-war-pictures-wont-let-us-forget/.
In this picture, on the left is Khrushchev a russian leader and on the right is JFK. Both of these people were prominent figures during the Cold War. Both of the leaders are sitting on bombs and arm wrestling on a table. Both JFK and Khrushchev are sweating as if they are tired and ready to give up but wont. This political cartoon is representing the Cold War and the tense moments the world had to endure. Both of the men in this picture are using the policy of brinkmanship, by going to a dangerous length without backing down in order to scare your opponent. This policy was used by both leaders at the time and that’s why the world was so scared. Both sides had nukes in their pocket and the threat of using them had been thrown around quite a lot during the Cold War. The nukes they are sitting on signify a huge war that would scar the world forever. I think that both leaders had a silent agreement to not use the nukes because they knew the consequences it would bring. They wanted to act tough for their countries so nothing was lost, this resulted in public fear and the use of bunkers. Illingworth, Leslie Gilbert. “Kennedy versus Krushchev: Cold War Political Cartoon.” Social Studies and History Teacher's Blog, Multimedia Learning LLC, 2 May 2010, www.multimedialearningllc.wordpress.com/2010/05/02/kennedy-versus-khrushchev-cold-war-political-cartoon/.
In this song by Sting, the band sings from the point of view of Americans against the Russians. The song talks about how Khrushchev is making these threats but America doesn’t and will not care about these threats. Later on, it gets more emotional and Sting begins to bring Children into the son by saying “I hope the Russians love their children too”. Near the end of the song, Sting begins to talk about how neither side truly wants to start a nuclear war because everyone knows the consequences it can bring to not only the two opposing countries, but the entire world. A song is an extremely good propaganda strategy, and this song seems to be following that criteria in the first verse. Sting talks about how the U.S. won’t listen to these empty threats and they aren’t scared of the Soviets. In the second verse it slowly gets more emotional by beginning to talk about the lives of children. He uses this strategy of talking about children to say if the Soviets truly love their children they won’t start a nuclear war and bring horrors into their kids lives. In the last verse, Sting talks about the consequences further and he uses his words to express how each side of the Cold War is feeling. He explains that no one really wants a nuclear war and it would be devastating for the world. I think that Sting began the song on a rebellious tone but as it progressed it slowly got more heartfelt. This is a good strategy because through the use of music, an international language, both sides can relate to the problems of nuclear war and the benefits of avoiding one. StingVEVO. YouTube, YouTube, 16 Apr. 2010, www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHylQRVN2Qs.
This is a video made in 1951 that is aimed at protecting children. In the video a tune is used with the words “duck and cover” as to explain to the children what to do when their parent aren’t around and a possible nuke goes off. As an educational video, the government attempts to explain to the youth of the public the seriousness of a nuclear bomb and what to do in case one goes off. The beginning of the video is a song about bert the turtle avoiding a bomb from the monkey. The song goes in with this first part, then in the last ¾ of the video, a person is talking about exactly what to do in different scenarios such as school or in a field. I think that the video the government made is a great way of getting their point across because they know that families and kids are going to be watching their TV shows and when this comes on kids will listen to the tune and possibly learn something from it. The use of a catchy tone is also good because songs can get stuck in our heads and when this happens we constantly think about it. The song initially gets the attention of the viewers then they are focused on the video when the more serious part of it comes on. The government sent this program out to everyone because people needed to know what to do if a nuke ever actually hit U.S. soil. Although the duck and cover strategy would never work and people would still die of radiation poisoning, it gave a bit of security to the public during the Cold War. nuclearvault. YouTube, YouTube, 11 July 2009, www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKqXu-5jw60.