Welcome to Module 20! In this module, we’ll examine the United States position in the postwar world. The conclusion of World War II shaped the questions which the country would grapple with in the decades to follow.
At the end of WWII, the US emerged as the world’s greatest power. It accounted for half of the world’s manufacturing capacity. It alone possessed the atomic bomb. The Soviet Union was the only other power which could rival the US at that time. Its armies occupied most of eastern Europe, including the eastern part of Germany. It gained prestige due to the fact that it had played a crucial role in defeating Hitler and claimed that communism had pulled the nation into modernity.
The two nations shared a mutual distrust and differing goals. The United States saw the Soviet Union’s communist philosophy as a threat to its mission, which was to spread their model of democracy around the world (including open markets, free trade, and free elections). In this module, we’ll explore how the US endeavored to “protect” its citizens from the threat they saw in Soviet communism. We'll also assess how the US "policed" those within the country who were suspected to be "subversive."
Three questions will guide this module blog post:
How did the end of WWII impact the United States’ place in the world?
How did the Cold War dictate standards and categories of loyalty and disloyalty?
How did the Cold War transform Americans’ relationship with the government?
Let's get started!
Part I: The End of the War
At the beginning of 1945, it was assured that the Allies would be victors in World War II. In December 1944, Hitler launched a surprise counterattack in France that pushed Allied forces back fifty miles, creating a bulge in their lines. The Battle of the Bulge produced more than 70,000 American casualties, but ultimately the assault failed. Allied forces occupied Germany in the spring of 1945, and May 8, V-E Day, marked the formal end to the war in Europe.
In 1944, FDR won a fourth term as president, but did not live to see the Allied victory. He suffered a stroke on April 12, 1945, and was succeeded by Harry Truman, his vice president. When Truman took office, he was informed by the Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, that the US had been secretly developing “the most terrible weapon ever known in human history”—the atomic bomb. FDR had authorized the Manhattan Project, a top-secret program where American scientists developed the bomb during WWII in 1940 and the weapon was tested successfully in New Mexico in July 1945.
Truman was faced with a choice of whether to end the war with Japan using the atomic bomb. As we know, he decided to do so. On August 6, 1945, the US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, killing 70,000 people immediately. In an instant, nearly every building in the city was destroyed. By the year’s end, an additional 140,000 had died, due to the effects of radiation. Three days later, the US dropped a second bomb over Nagasaki, killing 70,000. On the same day, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and invaded Manchuria, and within a week, Japan had surrendered.
The power and legacy of this weapon remained entrenched in the American consciousness after the war was over. The use of this weapon remains controversial. Four years of war propaganda had dehumanized the Japanese enemy, so few Americans criticized the decision in 1945 to drop the bomb. But in 1946, John Hersey published Hiroshima, a graphic account of the horrors suffered by the civilian population due to the bomb. More and more began to express doubts about the use of such a weapon.
Word Cloud #1:
What do you think the average American thought and/or understood about the atomic bomb at the time it was used? Enter your thoughts in the word cloud below, or access it here.
Negotiating Peace
From 1943 to 1945, a series of meetings between the Allied leaders (Britain, the US, and the Soviet Union) developed agreements for the postwar world.
At Potsdam, near Berlin, in 1945, the Allied leaders established a military administration for Germany and agreed to place Nazi leaders on trial for war crimes.
At Yalta, in the southern Soviet Union, early in 1945, Britain and the US agreed to Soviet plans to retain control of the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) and a large part of eastern Poland. This negotiation planted seeds of conflict between the US and the Soviet Union, because they disagreed over the fate of eastern Europe—Stalin was intent on establishing communism in the region.
At a meeting of forty-five nations at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in July 1944, the British pound was replaced with the American dollar as the main currency for international transactions. Additionally, the World Bank (which would provide money to developing countries and help rebuild Europe) and the International Monetary Fund (which would work to prevent governments from devaluing their currencies to gain advantages in international trade) were created. American leaders believed that these institutions would encourage free trade and the growth of the world economy. Lastly, at a 1944 conference at Dumbarton Oaks near Washington, DC, the Allies developed the structure for the United Nations.
The short news reel below contains footage from the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944:
Part II: Protecting American Citizens
In 1946, George Kennan, an American diplomat working for the state department in Moscow, advised the Truman administration in his famous “Long Telegram” that the Soviets could not be dealt with as a “normal” government.
He wrote, “In summary, we have here a political force committed fanatically to the belief that with US there can be no permanent modus vivendi, that it is desirable and necessary that the internal harmony of our society be disrupted, our traditional way of life be destroyed, the international authority of our state be broken, if Soviet power is to be secure.”
Containment
Kennan suggested several methods the US should employ to combat the threat of Soviet power:
“Much depends on the health and vigor of our own society. World communism is like a malignant parasite which feeds only on diseased tissue…Every courageous and incisive measure to solve internal problems of our own society, to improve self-confidence, discipline, morale and community spirit of our own people, is a diplomatic victory over Moscow worth a thousand diplomatic notes and joint communiques.”
“We must formulate and put forward for the nations a much more positive and constructive picture of the sort of world we would like to see than we have put forward in the past…They are seeking guidance rather than responsibilities. We should be better able than Russians to give them this. And unless we do, Russians certainly will.”
“Finally we must have courage and self confidence to cling to our own methods and conceptions of human society. After all, the greatest danger that can befall us in coping with this problem of Soviet Communism, is that we shall allow ourselves to become like those with whom we are coping.”
This telegram laid the foundation for the policy known as “containment.” Under this policy, the US committed itself to preventing any further expansion of Soviet power (abroad and at home).
Truman Doctrine
In 1947, Truman put the policy of containment into effect. He asked Congress to support his policy of aid to Greece and Turkey, two nations which had formerly been aided by Great Britain. Greece and Turkey were in a strategic location and represented countries that had the potential to fall to communism. In his speech, Truman emphasized that the US, as the leader of the “free world” must shoulder the responsibility of supporting “freedom-loving” peoples wherever communism threatened them.
He argued, “The free peoples of the world look to us for support in maintaining their freedoms. If we falter in our leadership, we may endanger the peace of the world. And we shall surely endanger the welfare of this nation.” In the eighteen-minute speech, Truman used the words “free” or “freedom” 24 times. In order to drum up support for expending military aid to these foreign nations, Truman put communism into ideological terms—as a threat to freedom that the US must take action to defend.
Poll #1:
In your opinion, which of the following was more important to the American policy of containment? Preventing the spread of communism in foreign countries? Or, preventing the "infiltration" of communist ideas at home? Answer the poll below, or access it here.
US as a World Power
The US continued to exercise its policy of containment. Through the Marshall Plan, the US contributed billions of dollars to aid European nations, suffering from food shortages and economic chaos after the war, in order to combat the likelihood of these nations falling into Soviet orbit.
The US also occupied Japan after WWII, and adopted a new, democratic constitution. In addition, they stimulated economic recovery in Japan.
At WWII’s end, each of the four Allied powers (France, US, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union) assumed control of a section of Germany. In 1948, France, the US, and Britain introduced a separate German currency into their zones, in order to spur German economic revival. In response, the Soviets cut off road and rail traffic from the American, British, and French zones of Germany to Berlin. For eleven months, Western planes airlifted fuel and food to their zones of Berlin. Stalin lifted the Berlin blockade in 1949. Ultimately Germany was split into two separate nations: East and West Germany, each allied with a side of the Cold War.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed in 1949 between the US, Canada, and ten western European nations, who pledged mutual defense against any Soviet attack. This was significant because in 1949, the Soviet Union detonated their first atomic bomb, ending the US’ monopoly over that weapon.
After China’s Communist Revolution in 1949, the US became increasingly worried about the threat communism posed to the order of the world as a whole. The US’ National Security Council asserted that “Our position as the center of power in the free world places a heavy responsibility upon the United States for leadership. We must organize and enlist the energies and resources of the free world in a positive program for peace which will frustrate the Kremlin design for world domination by creating a situation in the free world to which the Kremlin will be compelled to adjust.”
Thus, the “free world,” led by the US, was pitted against the communist world, led by the Soviet Union.
Korean War
The “Cold War” became hot in June of 1950, with the Korean War. After WWII, Korea was divided into North Korea, the zone controlled by the Soviets, and South Korea, controlled by the US. In 1950, North Korea invaded the south, hoping to reunify the country under communist control. American troops entered Korea to repel the invasion, as Truman hoped to unite Korea under a pro-American government. The war settled with a stalemate around the 38th parallel, the boundary between the two Koreas. An armistice was reached in 1953.
More than 33,000 Americans, 1 million Korean soldiers, and 2 million Korean civilians died as a result of the conflict.
Despite Truman’s rhetoric of containment, communism had survived. The American people were frustrated, especially due to the loss of American lives for a battle that hadn’t really been won.
Although the Korean War did not create as much economic expansion as WWII, it did contribute to gains in the economy, as government spending created new jobs and encouraged industries to expand their productive facilities. The war also lead to a doubling of the size of the armed forces and the construction of the hydrogen bomb. The Korean War thus had the effect of accelerating the development of bombs and weapons.
National Security
Though the term “national security” is used frequently today, it has its origins in the WWII era. Coined by journalist Walter Lippmann in 1945, it was adapted by military and State Department officials who used it to describe the close relationship between domestic politics, foreign policy, and military affairs. It explained all global developments as potential threats to US interests, expressed hostility toward communism or nationalism, and exalted military readiness. It was an ambiguous term that was applied to a variety of people and settings, and acted as a kind of “state of mind.”
The rise of communism in China, the fact that the Soviet Union had the atomic bomb, and the war in Korea generated enough momentum to create a new agency in the United States dedicated to civil defense, in the name of “national security.” The Federal Civil Defense Administration was created in 1950 in order to motivate Americans to embrace readiness as a way of life. The FCDA was a paramilitary program, headed by a civilian, not military personnel. The agency was structured upon a gospel of “self-help.” At the heart of its structure were questions about the government’s obligations to its citizens and its security priorities. [1]
Congress was unwilling to pay for a comprehensive preparedness program, and many politicians were concerned that citizens would feel dependent on or entitled to government protection and post attack welfare assistance. Citizens were entrusted to take primary responsibility for their families, property, and neighborhoods. The government would step in and provide assistance when citizens could not cope themselves, but only when local authorities became overwhelmed.
Civil defense planners embraced self-help because they wanted to discourage people from thinking that the government could protect and rehabilitate everyone after an attack. These expectations might create two problems:
Because the bomb would be so destructive, planners knew it would be foolish to promise that all would survive, instead they argued that civil defense could minimize risk.
If citizens believed that the government would protect them, they would think that civil defense was unnecessary and not practice it. [2]
Thus, the doctrine of “self-help” was advantageous, because it released the government from full responsibility for citizen protection, while giving citizens a tangible role to play in the defense of their country. However, it also necessitated that the FCDA basically “advertise” the bomb. For this module, you will watch the FCDA video, “Duck and Cover.” [3]
People associated civil defense with death and destruction, and that made home preparedness a tough sell even for those who fully supported anticommunist policies and military ventures.
Because people experienced the Cold War as a “noncombat war” (except for Korea), the American people viewed it as more of a psychological rather than a physical confrontation. Citizens had to be convinced that the Cold War was a “real war.”
Poll #2:
In your opinion, did the majority of American citizens actually think that a nuclear attack was possible? Answer the poll below, or access it here.
The formation of the FCDA demonstrates the extent to which citizens were concerned about a potential nuclear attack. The fear of potential nuclear attack influenced the ideology of the American family and home. By 1956, polls revealed that nearly two-thirds of respondents believed that in the event of another war, the hydrogen bomb would be used against the United States. With this kind of certainty that a massively destructive weapon could be used against them, Americans embraced the ideal of domesticity and celebrated home life. A home filled with children created a feeling of warmth and security against these threats.
In a sense, the nuclear family offered a degree of protection against the threat of nuclear attack. In the face of those who predicted the end of the world through this terrifying weapon, Americans had lots of children—essentially resisting the threat they saw to their future. [4]
Containment at Home
The FCDA’s discourse promoted civil defense as something the family could handle as a domestic unit. Families were supposed to run drills for preparedness and evacuation in case of an attack. Families were expected to be prepared to recognize warning sirens, prepare their home shelters, be able to prevent and fight fires at home, know rescue techniques, have adequate food and water stored, and know basic first aid.
In a book distributed by the FCDA, Home Protection Exercises, each of these tasks was broken down even further into smaller, discrete tasks that both children and adults could perform. Families were supposed to rehearse the tasks, knowing which family member was supposed to do what. Because civil defense was centered on the home, it became a “woman’s concern,” because the skills required to prepare and survive an attack aligned with a housewife’s domestic duties.
Many women took their duties extremely seriously, and organized, using existing networks of women’s clubs, to better prepare their families and communities for a possible nuclear attack. [5]
Critiques of Containment
Scholars and journalists critiqued the US policy and rhetoric of containment. One criticism, raised by historian William Appleman Williams in 1959, was that Americans operated on the premise that most of the difficulties in the world were caused by the Soviet Union or agents of the Kremlin. This blinded them to the idea that perhaps their own policies (especially trade or economic policies) had anything to do with these difficulties. In addition, setting up the world as a black and white “free” and “communist” was too simple.
Williams asserted that,
“America defined assistance to other people far too much in terms of anti-Russian and counter-revolutionary objectives, and as a necessity for the continued functioning of the existing system in the United States. In the realm of ethics and politics this point of view has led America to define legitimate behavior almost solely as anti-Russian conduct.” [6]
Therefore, no matter how repressive a nation was towards its own people, if it joined the anticommunist alliance led by the US, it was counted as a member of the Free World. For example, the US considered South Africa to be a member of the Free World, even though it was controlled by a white minority with an oppressive racial apartheid system.
Part III: Policing American Citizens
While the United States was concerned with “containing” communism abroad, increasingly people became worried about containing and policing suspected communists in their midst. In Part III, we’ll examine the impact of this desire to root out “subversives” in the late 1940s and 1950s.
House Un-American Activities Committee
The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) was a group of congressmen in the House of Representatives who conducted a series of hearings to investigate the occurrence of communism in various aspects of American society. In 1947, they launched a series of hearings about communism in Hollywood, calling well-known screenwriters, directors, and actors to testify before the committee.
Some who were called testified that the movie industry harbored numerous communists. But others refused to answer the committee’s questions about their political beliefs or to “name names” of other communists, on the grounds that the hearings violated the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech and political association. The committee charged ten individuals (known as the “Hollywood Ten”) with contempt of Congress, and they served jail terms of six months to a year. As a result, they were blacklisted from Hollywood, basically unable to get a job again, along with many others who were accused of communism. The podcast assigned for this module tells the story of Hazel Scott, an extremely famous pianist and jazz singer, whose career was destroyed because she was blacklisted after testifying before HUAC.
Watch a short clip from this 1950 documentary on the Hollywood Ten to hear some of their voices. (The entire clip is 15 minutes. I recommend watching at least the portion between 7:55-11:40. You don't have to watch the entire thing!)
In his testimony before HUAC, then-actor (future president) Ronald Reagan articulated the conflict over HUAC:
“As a citizen I would hesitate, or not like, to see any political party outlawed on the basis of its political ideology. We have spent 170 years in this country on the basis that democracy is strong enough to stand up and fight against the inroads of any ideology. However, if it is proven that an organization is an agent of power, a foreign power, or in any way not a legitimate political party, and I think the Government is capable of proving that, if there is proof there, then that is another matter…”
Was it a citizen’s right to withhold information about their political affiliations? Or was it a citizen’s obligation to the state to reveal that information if the state deemed it necessary?
After charging the Hollywood Ten, a series of a series of highly publicized legal cases followed. Whittaker Chambers, mentioned in the clip above, who was an editor at Time magazine, testified that Alger Hiss, a high-ranking official in the State Department, had given him some secret government documents to pass to the Soviet Union. Hiss denied the charge but was convicted of perjury and served five years in prison.
The most sensationalized trial was of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, a Jewish communist couple from New York City. In 1951, a jury convicted the Rosenbergs of conspiracy to pass secrets concerning the atomic bomb to Soviet agents during WWII. Their chief accuser was Ethel’s brother who had worked at the Los Alamos nuclear research center. The case against Julius was based on highly secret documents that could not be revealed in court. There was almost no evidence against Ethel Rosenberg, and later her brother admitted that he had lied in some of his testimony about her. They were convicted of conspiracy—a weaker charge than spying or treason—but they were executed in 1953.
Poll #3:
In emergency circumstances, do you believe the state has a right to force citizens to reveal their political affiliations? Answer the embedded poll below, or access it here.
Poll #4:
And a follow-up question to Poll #3, do you believe the Cold War constituted such an “emergency”? Answer the embedded poll below, or access it here.
Internal Security Act
The fear of communism was integrated into the political system, and its effects filtered down to impact people’s daily lives and jobs. In 1950, Congress passed the Internal Security Act which:
Made it unlawful to conspire to perform any act that would “substantially contribute” to establishing a totalitarian dictatorship in the US.
Required members of communist organizations to register with the attorney general, barred them from employment in national defense, and denied them the right to obtain passports.
Imposed stringent controls on immigrants, aliens, and naturalized citizens, blocking the entry of those who had belonged to totalitarian organizations, provided for deportation of suspected alien subversives, and permitted the government to revoke the naturalization of those who joined a “subversive group” within five years of obtaining citizenship.
Authorized president to detain persons if there were “reasonable grounds” to believe that they might conspire to commit espionage or sabotage.
Although Truman vetoed the bill, Congress overrode his veto. This act demonstrates the extent to which the state was “protecting” its citizens by “policing” them from within. Paul Robeson, a famous African American singer and actor, had his passport revoked under this act because he was a suspected communist, due mainly to his outspoken critiques of racism in the US.
Truman also instituted a loyalty program for federal employees. In cases where “reasonable doubt as to the loyalty of the person involved,” a person could be dismissed from federal employment. “Reasonable doubt” could rest on associating with persons considered to be communists, attending meetings to raise money for “suspect causes,” or even subscribing to radical publications. The burden fell on employees to dispel doubts, creating an environment of fear and suspicion.
McCarthyism
The name most commonly associated with the fear of communism is Joseph McCarthy, who was a senator from Wisconsin. McCarthy gained prominence by claiming that communists had infiltrated the government, and asserted that the most eminent and respectable Democrats were serving the communist cause by waging a “caricature of a war” in Korea. He spared no government agency in the Truman administration of his accusations. Using the Senate subcommittee he chaired, he carried out hearings and charged people with communist affiliations.
McCarthy used particularly heavy-handed tactics, including alluding that government officials were “perverts,” morally as well as ideologically. “McCarthyism” came to signify the American climate of conformity during this time. People became afraid to voice unpopular views or express controversial opinions, for fear of being called out as communist or subversive.
The association of any person, project, or department with communism or socialism could cause it to be derailed or negatively impacted.
States created their own committees, modeled on HUAC, which which investigated communists and other dissenters. Throughout the country, those who failed to testify about their political beliefs could lose their jobs. Certain states required loyalty oaths from teachers, pharmacists, and other professionals. In Indiana, local anticommunist groups forced public libraries to remove Robin Hood from the shelves, because it advocated “taking from the rich and giving to the poor.”
In 1954, as McCarthy’s accusations became more and more wide-ranging and wild, more and more people started to question his tactics. He was censured by the Senate in 1954. One of the contributing factors was that he had accused a high-ranking official in the Army of communism.
Homophobia and the Cold War
McCarthy’s use of the term “perverts,” and his disdain for those he deemed to be homosexual was part of a larger context of homophobia during this era. “Gay baiting” became almost as ferocious as “red baiting,” as suspected gays and lesbians were stigmatized, harassed, and forced to “name names” of others they knew to be homosexual.
Like communists who would presumably infiltrate and destroy the society, sexual “perverts” could spread their poison by association. A Senate report claimed that “One homosexual can pollute a Government office.”
The FBI, led by J. Edgar Hoover, an all-out effort to discover the personal sexual habits of those under suspicion of subversive behavior, as well as those who were seeking government employment. Sexual “deviants” were supposedly security risks, because they could be easily seduced, blackmailed, or tempted to join subversive organizations, since they lacked the will and moral stamina to resist. Supposedly homosexuals were “easy prey” for communists who used seduction to gain secrets.
“Sexual perversion” was grounds for not hiring and firing government employees, according to Executive Order 10450, which was President Eisenhower’s version of a loyalty program.
In this context, the “ideal” domestic family mentioned earlier became even more significant. If you existed outside of that ideal, and were unmarried or didn’t have children, you could be perceived as “perverted” and “immoral” and “unpatriotic,” and were forced to live with stigma and harassment.
Poll #5:
Which do you believe had more of an impact on the way American citizens experienced the Cold War? The fear of a nuclear attack? Or the fear of being exposed as a communist or "subversive"? Answer the embedded poll below, or access it here.
Cold War Immigration Policies
Immigration policies in the Cold War era were geared towards both keeping communists and subversives out of the country, and rooting out subversives and communists who were already in the country.
In 1952, Congress passed its first major immigration bill since the Immigration Act of 1924, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (also known as the McCarran-Walter Act).
Senator Pat McCarran (D-Nevada) proposed the bill. He saw revision of the nation’s immigration laws as a tool in the United States’ battle against communism. Immigration was viewed as a matter of “internal security.”
The McCarran-Walter Act:
Retained the quotas based on national origin and the numerical ceiling of 155,000 immigrants a year.
But, eliminated the ban on Asian immigration and the racial bar to citizenship (although Asian countries still had very strict quotas, 100 people per year).
Set up a new system of occupational preferences (requiring at least one-half of each country’s quota to go to persons with specialized skills deemed in short supply in the US).
Expanded grounds for deportation, making aliens deportable for acts that were not grounds for deportation at the time they were committed, eliminating the statute of limitations for nearly all deportable offenses, and narrowing the grounds of eligibility for a suspension of deportation. The act authorized the deportation of immigrants identified as communists or “subversives” (including those deemed to be gay or lesbian) even if they had already become citizens.
"Operation Wetback"
The McCarran-Walter Act speaks to the impression that US officials felt the need to stave off the impact of subversives overrunning the country. The language of “invasion” was applied specifically to Mexican laborers, especially in the Southwest.
According to Joseph Swing, commissioner of the INS in 1954, undocumented Mexican migrants constituted “an actual invasion of the United States.”
The attorney general asserted that subversives entered the country disguised as farm laborers. Newspaper and magazine articles asserted that Mexico was a center of undercover Soviet activity. [7]
In order to combat the “hordes of aliens facing us across the border,” Swing launched “Operation Wetback.” (Yes, that was the actual name!) This was a military-style operation that consisted of locating and deporting undocumented Mexican workers throughout the Southwest. Swing employed 750 immigration officers, Border Patrol officers, and investigators; 300 jeeps, cars, and buses; and 7 airplanes.
Operation Wetback apprehended 3,000 undocumented workers a day, and some 170,000 during the first three months. Overall, from 1953 to 1955, the INS apprehended over 800,000 Mexican migrants. It returned them to Mexico by bus, train, and boat. The INS relied on newspaper propaganda to garner support for their cause, creating a buzz around their success.
However, during this operation, the number of bracero contracts increased. Remember the Bracero Program was a guest worker program between the US and Mexico started during WWII. Thus, there was a clear message: Mexican immigrants were not wanted in the US if they came on their own, but they could come as Braceros. This represents the state’s need to control and regulate Mexican labor. The same people who were coming as undocumented migrants were coming as Braceros — would it matter if Braceros were communist?
INS Confession Program
In the context of China’s communist revolution in 1949, state officials became more suspicious of Chinese immigrants living in the US, wondering if they could potentially be communist spies. The FBI started targeting cities with large populations of Chinese Americans, hoping to root out potential subversives. Included in this campaign was a program designed to officially discover which Chinese families were in the US on the basis of false documentation, the “paper sons and daughters” we examined earlier in the semester.
The Chinese Confession Program was carried out by the INS beginning in 1956 and lasted until 1966, who pledged to help legalize Chinese who confessed to their illegal status.
.jpg)
The INS had a great deal of discretionary authority as to how the confessions were to be carried out (including the threat of deportation). Given the atmosphere of anti-communism, and the rumors of potential mass deportations, many Chinese who came under investigation did find reasons to confess.
Between 1957 and 1965, at least 11,336 Chinese Americans confessed to having entered the US under false claims of citizenship. Another 19,124 people were implicated as holding false citizenship claims by the confessions of others. [8]
The INS believed it could shut down the system of illegal Chinese immigration by securing the confessions of entire families. The vast majority of those who confessed to having paper citizenship did successfully receive legal status. A small number were deported.
The confession program encouraged Chinese Americans to “name names” of others who were suspected of false citizenship papers, which exposed certain left-wing activists who then became subject to deportation. The confession program encouraged a feeling of distrust and fear within the Chinese American community, people feared being “outed” by others. It also contributed to the association of Chinese immigrants once again with illegality and disloyalty, compounded by the threat of communism in this context. In your reading for this module, Fae Myenne Ng discusses her father’s experiences with the confession program.
Conclusion:
After the end of WWII, the US emerged as one of the world’s greatest powers, rivaled by the Soviet Union.
During the Cold War, American citizens were encouraged to take matters of civil defense into their own hands to protect their families from communist threats inside and outside of the country.
As the United States became the leader of the “Free World,” increased fear and suspicion regarding subversive and communist infiltration hardened the definitions of loyalty and disloyalty.
Citations:
[1] Laura McEnaney, Civil Defense Begins at Home: Militarization Meets Everyday Life in the Fifties (Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2000), 7.
[2] McEnaney, Civil Defense Begins at Home, 38-39.
[3] McEnaney, Civil Defense Begins at Home, 30.
[4] Elaine Tyler May, Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era (Basic Books, 1988), xviii.
[5] McEnaney, Civil Defense Begins at Home, 87.
[6] William Appleman Williams, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy (New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1972), 290. Originally published 1959.
[7] Mae Ngai, Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America (Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2004), 247-248.
[8] See Ngai, Impossible Subjects, 202-224.
In your opinion, which of the following was more important to the American policy of containment? Preventing the spread of communism in foreign countries? Or, preventing the "infiltration" of communist ideas at home?
I believe that preventing the spread of communism in foreign countries was more important to the American policy of containment because the American government used this policy to justify their own infiltration into foreign countries and foreign affairs.
With proper and in full spring, the threat of communism is being pumped en mass. Americans know the atomic bombs exist, but the idea of spies infiltrating the country and working to destroy their way of life was closer to a threat to them. Their loyalty is on the line, and with how Japanese Americans were confined during WWII, any notion of not being loyal had a clear example for the population. All the posters and films had Americans doubting their neighbors and spurred them into a sense of paranoia.
In your opinion, did the majority of American citizens actually believe that a nuclear attack was possible?
From my knowledge, back then everyone was afraid of a nuclear war. Everyone knew the amount of nuclear warheads being produced in both sides of the cold war.
Which do you believe had more of an impact on the way American citizens experienced the Cold War?
In my opinion, if we were in the American citizen's position at that time, we would probably feel the fear of a nuclear attack. We must have heard about it and how it would destroy the world, so this could create frightening for many people.
Do you believe the Cold War constituted such an “emergency”?
I don't think it was an emergency because citizens were convinced that it was a real and normal war.