1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/15488/i-dont-like-ike/

I Don’t Like Ike

January 31, 2011 by

The Cold War was an unprecedented form of peacetime socialism, designed to appeal to big business, and Eisenhower became its spokesman. Savvy libertarians knew exactly what was going on and supported Cold War opponent Robert Taft. FULL ARTICLE by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

{ 34 comments }

Simon Grey January 31, 2011 at 10:10 am

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t understand why Americans still feel compelled to intervene in foreigner’s lives.

Brian January 31, 2011 at 10:34 am

“Savvy Libertarians,” haha, there is a oxymoron for ya. I did not read the article because the United States was going to slide into more and more statism whether the USSR existed or not.

Lee January 31, 2011 at 11:13 am

Somehow it seemed and still seems completely forgotten, that Ike was FDR’s handpicked boy to run his war. Does more need to be said?

Ohhh Henry January 31, 2011 at 1:51 pm

Nope … I’m pretty sure that if it wasn’t for Ike, we’d all be speaking Russian right now and there would be no controlled-access freeways anywhere in America.

Signed

Knee-jerk Conservatives

Eric January 31, 2011 at 2:15 pm

I always found the warning about the milt-ind-complex a bit disingenuous, after all why did he wait until he was leaving office to say that? It was probably just inserted by some speechwriter to balance the rest of the warmongering.

Here was a man who probably loved WWII as much as anyone, including Patton. What a marvelous extension to playing war as a child it must have been for the man who was the supreme commander of all (many enslaved) troops in the fight against Germany. And then 8 years of running the largest new empire in the world.

Think this might have gone to his head? Nah, never happen.

Lee January 31, 2011 at 3:22 pm

“If it wasn’t for Ike…” What a beautiful dream. Patton would have probably turned Russia into a cow pasture. And there would have been no Earl Warren to continue FDR’s socializing of this country.

newson January 31, 2011 at 9:43 pm

to eric:
not to mention that eisenhower’s reclassifying of german pow’s as “disarmed enemy forces” allowed him to kill more german soldiers in peacetime than in the war. disingenuous is right on. http://is.gd/lpJ1Ah

hsearles January 31, 2011 at 8:15 pm

“But Americans woke up one day to find that the line had suddenly changed: now Russia was the enemy to be defeated. In fact, the Russian government — already in deep economic trouble as a socialist regime — was bankrupted by World War II and dealing with incredible internal problems.”
Not only were most of the Allied powers lukewarm allies at best with Soviet Russia, but what caused the Cold War was not a sudden policy change by the United States designed by war-hawks, but was rather a continuation of the tensions between nations like the United States and Great Britain with the USSR that could be seen even while the war was being raged. Events like the Soviet blockade of the parts of Berlin occupied by the Western powers in order to gain control of all of it were what caused the Cold War – it was not simply engineered from Washington.

“The Soviets couldn’t begin to manage the world of Eastern Europe that had been given as a prize for being the ally of the United States during the war.”
Given as a prize? Have you not a kernel of historical comprehension. The Soviets took Eastern Europe as their own as the Western Powers looked on in horror knowing that nothing could be done otherwise.

“It was for this reason that Nikita Khrushchev began the first great period of liberalization that would end in the eventual unraveling of this nonviable state.”
Was not Nikita Khrushchev one of the tyrants who put down the Hungarian revolution of 1953 with force? He might have de-Stalinized his nation, but speaking of it as a “liberalization” is simply disgusting.

“The United States not only failed to encourage this liberalization, but pretended it wasn’t happening so as to build up a new form of socialism at home.”
What liberalization was there to support? Again, de-Stalinization =/= liberalization.

“Indeed, the entire Cold War ideology was invented by Harry Truman and his advisers in 1948…”‘
So the blockade of Berlin was simply a creation of Truman?

“Then there was the catastrophic Interstate Highway System, which was not built to make your trip to the beach go faster. Its purpose was to permit the military to move troops quickly. There were also cockamamie schemes of driving nuclear bombs around on those highways to prevent the commies from keeping track of them.”
It was designed for both. When the government is in charge of building roads, as it was and is, it is imperative that the government actually do what powers it claims and in this sense the interstate highway program ought to be praised.

“Another influence was Hitler’s project of building cross-country roads, again to move troops.”
The Autobahn was also great for increasing the average German’s ability to move around Germany.

I simply cannot believe how this ignorant article could ever be deemed worth printing.

Richie January 31, 2011 at 9:29 pm

I simply cannot believe how ignorant people stumble upon this site and post moronic comments.

hsearles January 31, 2011 at 10:33 pm

Of course, I’m just moronic, no critiques of my post to show how I’m moronic, but I just am – to state it is enough. I’m also from the outside world, so that’s more proof that I’m moronic.

Dave Albin January 31, 2011 at 10:41 pm

“It was designed for both. When the government is in charge of building roads, as it was and is, it is imperative that the government actually do what powers it claims and in this sense the interstate highway program ought to be praised.”

and

“The Autobahn was also great for increasing the average German’s ability to move around Germany.”

Then why not let the state do everything for us? This is dangerous territory, as the information on this site helps to debunk….

hsearles February 1, 2011 at 10:01 am

“”The Autobahn was also great for increasing the average German’s ability to move around Germany.’

Then why not let the state do everything for us? This is dangerous territory, as the information on this site helps to debunk….”
That’s not the point. The point is is that the government has responsibility for the roads under the current structure of things so those governments that actually take that responsibility, rather than letting the infrastructure rot, should be have that count positively towards them.

But of course, this poster cannot even address the question of fact: was the Autobahn was a positive factor for Germany. To answer no would be to be ignorant of the role of infrastructure in society and to answer and to answer yes would be to go against the LvMI party line. Ah, the conundrum.

Anthony January 31, 2011 at 9:38 pm

hsearles,

You claim this article was ignorant of Russian aggressions… are you likewise ignorant of American aggression towards Russia? I would suggest that the cold war was a little more nuanced then government propaganda made it seem. After condemning the article here perhaps you would be interested in looking a little more closely at the stuff that wasn’t in the American (or Russian) propaganda videos.

hsearles January 31, 2011 at 10:41 pm

The fact that the United States made aggressive actions against the USSR is not good evidence against my claim that this article paints the Soviet Union in all too innocent a light while trying to pin all the blame of the Cold War on Washington. In fact, it is non sequitur, an attempt to squirm divert attention elsewhere.

Is it true, or is it not true that Soviet actions like the Blockade of Berlin from June 1948 to May 1949? If it is true then it most certainly the “Cold War ideology” was not simply an invention of President Truman.

Dave Albin January 31, 2011 at 11:19 pm

It was an overstated threat used to grow the government, plain and simple….

Ohhh Henry January 31, 2011 at 11:26 pm

That the USSR was a bunch of murderous tyrants is a given. That they tried to grab, hold and abuse as much of Germany as possible is not surprising. But did you ever stop to think about why the USA and Britain insisted that a tiny enclave of the ruined city of Berlin must be placed under their control? It made no economic sense, nor any political sense as far as I can tell, except as some kind of stupid, meaningless propaganda message (to whom or for what reason I have no idea). Or maybe it was a devious plan to carve up East Germany with US-controlled access corridors for the purposes of spying and making invasion plans. Who knows?

I haven’t studied the details of the blockade of West Berlin, but I would guess that the typical received wisdom of the cold-warrior faction of the Western powers is probably missing a few key facts.

As an analogy, consider the well-rehearsed story of JFK in the Missile Crisis. “He stood up to the Soviets” is the hawkish explanation of the event. But that is total bullcrap. The USSR stationed missiles in Cuba, pointed right at the major cities of the USA, because the Americans had just placed missiles in Turkey aimed directly at Moscow. The USSR didn’t back down, the USA did – by removing its missiles from Turkey, in return for the Soviets getting its missiles out of Cuba.

Like I said, I don’t know the details of the Berlin blockade but I would be surprised if there hasn’t been a hella lot of mythmaking going on in the back rooms of the Pentagon and in the media outlets they obviously control.

hsearles February 1, 2011 at 10:09 am

“But did you ever stop to think about why the USA and Britain insisted that a tiny enclave of the ruined city of Berlin must be placed under their control? It made no economic sense, nor any political sense as far as I can tell, except as some kind of stupid, meaningless propaganda message (to whom or for what reason I have no idea). Or maybe it was a devious plan to carve up East Germany with US-controlled access corridors for the purposes of spying and making invasion plans. Who knows?”
So does that justify the Soviet Union, who had agreed about the split occupation of the German capital (the actual reason it was split was more or less because of just symbolism, and yes we do know – all the conspiracy theorist reasons given, like carving up East Germany from Berlin, are stupid and completely impractical) trying to starve the Allied occupied portion of Berlin into submission? Yes or no, that is all I need.

“I haven’t studied the details of the blockade of West Berlin, but I would guess that the typical received wisdom of the cold-warrior faction of the Western powers is probably missing a few key facts.”
Translation: Allied actions regarding the blockade of Berlin look too justified, there must be some hidden fact that shows they were not justified.

“As an analogy, consider the well-rehearsed story of JFK in the Missile Crisis. ‘He stood up to the Soviets’ is the hawkish explanation of the event. But that is total bullcrap. The USSR stationed missiles in Cuba, pointed right at the major cities of the USA, because the Americans had just placed missiles in Turkey aimed directly at Moscow. The USSR didn’t back down, the USA did – by removing its missiles from Turkey, in return for the Soviets getting its missiles out of Cuba.”
This very same paragraph ought to be praising Eisenhower for his own Cold War policies of avoiding confrontation and trusting the American source of power as not being missiles, but its economic capability and moral authority. Putting Eisenhower and JFK in the same Cold Warrior category, as it tacitly done here, is simply erroneous.

Nathan January 31, 2011 at 11:46 pm

““Another influence was Hitler’s project of building cross-country roads, again to move troops.”
The Autobahn was also great for increasing the average German’s ability to move around Germany.

I simply cannot believe how this ignorant article could ever be deemed worth printing.”

Let us consider the fact that when the Autobahn was built the vast majority of german’s could not afford to buy a car. No matter how nice the roads were they were an example of the government spending money to increase the quality of travel for the party members and the military.

hsearles February 1, 2011 at 10:15 am

Then its strange how the German government came out not too long after with a program (i.e. the Volkswagen) to ensure that its citizens would enjoy the full use of the Autobahn. You also do not take into account the fact that Germany took 1920s America, in which one sees the Model-T available to most of the public, as an example when it built the Autobahn because it was expected that the industrial processes, like automation and the assembly line, would come to Germany and make a German Model-T. However, this did not happen and a car affordable to most of German society did not become an actuality until Hiter’s Volkswagen.

J. Murray February 1, 2011 at 6:38 am

Private highways existed long before government decided to take over the industry and monopolize itself as the key provider of transportation. Government got the very idea of a highway from private enterprise, having done it first.

hsearles February 1, 2011 at 10:10 am

Do actually give dates and instances rather than a mere statement. If you want to say that the Autobahn was an imitation of a privately-run highway, I would like to know what highway that was. Until then what you’ve said is merely just a statement with a null set of supporting instances.

Dave Albin February 1, 2011 at 12:58 pm

Follow my link below on the Lincoln Highway. There was a plan to build a transcontinental highway, without the government involved. This was spurred on, in part, by the current state of roadways at the time, some of which were private. The Autobahn, Interstate system, all grew out of this initial system of roadways. The problem is that the plans to do it privately were taken over by big business and the government conspiring together (see link below).

J. Murray February 1, 2011 at 2:53 pm

http://lincolnhighway.jameslin.name/history/part1.html

Since you can’t read anything but an immediately direct reply.

Dave Albin February 1, 2011 at 7:53 pm

What? Really?

Dave Albin January 31, 2011 at 10:12 pm

I live near the Lincoln Highway (route 30). Sadly, what started out as a good idea, with individuals, communities, and companies working together to make an improved roadway, was taken over by corporations conspiring with the federal government. Good example of how good ideas go awry….

http://lincolnhighway.jameslin.name/history/part1.html

Sione February 1, 2011 at 1:08 am

hseales

“The Soviets took Eastern Europe as their own as the Western Powers looked on in horror knowing that nothing could be done otherwise.”

That’s an example of what is known as a furphy- a.k.a. purile bullshit.

Fact is the US regime agreed to award Eastern Europe to the USSR. You need to research the discussions and agreements made and confirmed at Yalta. Roosevelt (the crippled one) happily gave to Stalin and his minions almost everything they requested. In subsequent correspondence and discussion amongst themselves, members of the USSR contingent expressed surprise bordering on horror at how much they’d walked away with. Some thought there was a trap or cunning plot behind it. They couldn’t fathom the banal malevolence leading to such an inconceivable (to them) incompetance as was revealed by the behaviour of St Roosevelt and his “advisors”. Prime Minister Churchill, himself no innocent, on realising what was afoot (after being instructed that he was to have no influence whatseoever, no ability to restrain Roosevelt from giving to Stalin East Europe and all the hapless peple within it) departed the “talks” and spent the rest of the conference getting drunk. At last he understood what his “ally” Roosevelt was, what he was doing and what that casual malevolence would mean.

“Was not Nikita Khrushchev one of the tyrants who put down the Hungarian revolution of 1953 with force?”

Get it right. The Hungarian Revolution occurred in 1956. That’s three years earlier than your guess. Yuri Andropov was the head of delegation in the USSR embassy in Budapest. He was the man on the spot. You ought to read his reviews.

As it happens Premier Krushchev vacillated about how to respond for some time (you can always read his biography and interview for the details). He was not convinced that launching a military response was the right thing to do, at least not at first. He was shocked that the proleteriat/workers would rise up against their “communist brothers”. He was also greatly concerned about the possiblity of a US led invasion of Hungary which could be the lead to a broader European theatre war- definitely not someing in the interests of the USSR (although it was understood to be in the interests of certain groups in the USA at the time). Why do you suppose he might have thought that was a real possibility (it wasn’t, but he thought it was)?

Remember this well; during the weeks prior to the Hungarian Revolution the US govt owned and operated Radio Free Europe broadcast that should the Hungarians rise against the USSR then they could count on the US sending overwhelming military aid to make certain a defeat the USSR and liberty for all the Hungarians. They broadcast this in Magyar language and there was no mistaking or misunderstanding what the message was. Hungarians heard it and they believed it, exactly as was intended. When the revolution did occur it was in part the provocation of this promise that led many forward with false expectation. Ultimately the US betrayed their trust and their bravery. To this day I hear Hungarians who remember this denigrate the treachary of the US govt.

Note that the USSR intelligence agencies listened to Radio Free Europe just as intently as did those poor Hungarians. They heard the promise…

What one should not forget is the cynical manoeuverings of a US President, members of his executive and various functionaries and bureaucrats, which in no small way contributed to the situation that resulted in the uprising of ’56. Was Kruschev a tyrant? Likely so. The question remains, what should one lable a man who encourages a people to fight for their freedom and then informs their oppressors that the way is clear to supress those same people?

As the President was advised at the time, “If they rise up and fight, Mr President, and we don’t act, we shall have the blood of a lot of brave and innocent men on our hands”.

“What liberalization was there to support? Again, de-Stalinization =/= liberalization.”

So you want to pretend that there was no differnce between the policies of Stalin and Krushchev? I’d ask ARE YOU SERIOUS, but that’d be a waste of time. I figure you’re just another example of US-standard igrint.

Krushchev attempted to liberalise. He realised (as did Gorbachev in later years) that the USSR could not continue sustainably along the course it was on. He even tried a raproachment with the US but was ultimately frustrated in this.

“So the blockade of Berlin was simply a creation of Truman?”

Not such a simple creation as you’d like to pretend. Certainly Truman played a part. The policies and provocations built up to the point that the blockade occurred. It wasn’t something that occurred in isolation purely due to the super-dooper-ultra-evil of them dirty sneaky satanic ol’ Ruskies. What you need to understand is that Europe (and all the persons residing there) became a military/political plaything to be used and discarded arbitrarily. You need to ask yourself why it was that the US was involved in Europe at all. I sure do recommend you read what President Washington said about foreign adventures…

“I simply cannot believe how this ignorant article could ever be deemed worth printing.”

I simply can’t understand how someone like you gets to be so intellectually dull. I mean, really, did you not realise how badly you’d expose your own imbecility and pig-ignorance by posting the purile bullshit that you recently did? You disgrace yourself.

Sione

newson February 1, 2011 at 9:30 am

churchill wasn’t ever so drunk to be unaware of the certain fate of the cossacks he handed over to their enemy, stalin. perfidious albion, indeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Cossacks_after_World_War_II

Lee February 1, 2011 at 10:13 am

While we’re celebrating the glories of Ike, let’s not forget that while he used troops to enforce socialism here, he was also getting us involved in Vietnam; the troops he sent there as so-called advisers were, I believe, the first American ones. Something of a paradox.

hsearles February 1, 2011 at 10:46 am

“Fact is the US regime agreed to award Eastern Europe to the USSR. You need to research the discussions and agreements made and confirmed at Yalta. Roosevelt (the crippled one) happily gave to Stalin and his minions almost everything they requested. In subsequent correspondence and discussion amongst themselves, members of the USSR contingent expressed surprise bordering on horror at how much they’d walked away with. Some thought there was a trap or cunning plot behind it. They couldn’t fathom the banal malevolence leading to such an inconceivable (to them) incompetance as was revealed by the behaviour of St Roosevelt and his “advisors”. Prime Minister Churchill, himself no innocent, on realising what was afoot (after being instructed that he was to have no influence whatseoever, no ability to restrain Roosevelt from giving to Stalin East Europe and all the hapless peple within it) departed the “talks” and spent the rest of the conference getting drunk. At last he understood what his “ally” Roosevelt was, what he was doing and what that casual malevolence would mean.”
Tell me, what other option did the Western powers have but accept Soviet hegemony in the East? Start a Cold War by not accepting that when the Soviet military is fully mobilized and their economy geared for war? The West got lucky the Soviets stopped where they were and a good diplomat knows not to push his luck. I for one am happy that Roosevelt and not Churchill was the one negotiating with the USSR.

Furthermore, there was simply no sound option other than “happily” give in to the Soviet annexations in the east. Unless of course, you wanted war and I do not think any of us would have wanted that.

“As it happens Premier Krushchev vacillated about how to respond for some time (you can always read his biography and interview for the details).”
In life, responsibility flows up the chain of command. Krushchev, as the first secretary of the Soviet Union, must be take ultimate responsibility for Zhukov’s decision to send in the military. No amount of guilty writings after the fact can take away his guilt for what the Soviet Union did to Hungary in 1956.

“What one should not forget is the cynical manoeuverings of a US President, members of his executive and various functionaries and bureaucrats, which in no small way contributed to the situation that resulted in the uprising of ’56.”
I am not defending Truman, so don’t change the topic.

“‘So the blockade of Berlin was simply a creation of Truman?’

Not such a simple creation as you’d like to pretend. Certainly Truman played a part. The policies and provocations built up to the point that the blockade occurred. It wasn’t something that occurred in isolation purely due to the super-dooper-ultra-evil of them dirty sneaky satanic ol’ Ruskies”
Ah yes, more unnamed provocations. But again, you are changing the topic. The Berlin blockade is an example that proves the statement in the article this is a response to that the Cold War ideology was a creation of Truman and his cronies in Washington DC wrong.

“‘I simply cannot believe how this ignorant article could ever be deemed worth printing.’

I simply can’t understand how someone like you gets to be so intellectually dull. I mean, really, did you not realise how badly you’d expose your own imbecility and pig-ignorance by posting the purile bullshit that you recently did? You disgrace yourself.”
Nay, I am hitherto undisgraced and still right.

Sione February 2, 2011 at 3:32 pm

Quit with the dishonest evasions and self-contradictions already. You need to study historical fact and abandon the national mythology you learnt to recite at state school.

The deal carving up Europe was made well prior to the end of WW2 and BEFORE the USSR army occupied East Europe. Your hero Roosevelt gave East Europe away to the USSR even though there was no need to do so.

Note that the USSR military at one point was in occupation of Austria (or much of it). They departed. Think on why.

Some hints:

At the end of the war ALL of the allied powers were mobilised and on a war economy footing. Don’t try to pretend the Western ones were somehow not prepared or not as strong as the USSR.

In reality the USSR was in dire condition. Years of waging a ruthless scorched earth war, including genocidal massacres of civilians (by both sides), the difficulties of the long supply chain for the Soviet army (exactly the same proplem the Germans had encountered when their armies advanced deep into Russia), the problem of retaining control over an army (rapidly degenerating into random violence and crime) which the Soviet leadership could not afford to become too exposed to Europe (couldn’t afford for the troops to realise that communism resulted in far inferior conditions of life) and the disfunctional nature of the Soviet leadership meant the Soviet military was far from having the capability to face up to the Western Allies. Waging hostilities against the West was not possible. The Soviet leadership knew it. They needed to gain regional stability as quickly as they could and get the bulk of the army home.

Much of the industrial support of the Soviet war effort came from the USA and Gt Britain and the Commonwealth. That included weapons, ammunition, aircraft, ships (including warships), food, machine tools, production machinery, engines and transmissions, munitions and high explosives, know-how and designs, training and expertise and advice. Without this the Soviets would not have been able to achieve the military success they’d achieved against the Germans. Against the Western Allies in Europe they were near helpless (in fact, towards the end of hostilities the weakness of the Red Army hoarde was demonstrated when they suffered defeats in Hungary by a rump of Wermacht and Magyar regular forces). The Soviet leadership well knew the limitatations of their situation and the weaknesses of their supply lines and military. As a result they operated conservatively and carefully. They avoided confrontation, exctly as Rothbard indicates.

Despite knowing that it was US and British supplies that kept the USSR war machine operational, Roosevelt gave…

Your contention, ” The Soviets took Eastern Europe as their own as the Western Powers looked on in horror knowing that nothing could be done otherwise” is false- a nonsense. There was no reason for Soviet hegemony in the East (as you put it) save for one. That was that the US govt regime awarded it to them.

As far as changing the topic is concerned, you mentioned the Hungarian Revolution. Not only did you raise the subject but you also got the dates wrong (it was in 1956, not in 1953) and it would seem you also labour under the misapprehension that Truman was President when it occurred.

What I’ve done is demonstrate you were not in possession of facts and that you didn’t know what you were on about. It remains correct that Hungary was signed away to the USSR by your hero St Roosevelt. Further, the US govt regime cynically manipulated the situation in ’56 to encourage Magyars to rise up in the expectation that the US govt actually would be as good as its word and live up to promises to help. Meanwhile the US regime intended to do nothing whatsoever. Their plan was to exploit negative publicity that the Soviet crushing of the revolution would generate internationally. Keep the Cold War buring at the cost of a few thousands of ordinary lives…

In conclusion you remain as you were, pig-ignorant of the facts of history. Despite your insistence that you are right, you remain in error. Worse, you are in the position of possessing nowt but a blind faith in ignorance. It is to be recommended that you go away and undertake some sold research into what Rothbard wrote and WHY he wrote it (he provides the source citations to which you are going to need to refer). Much of the material you require is available on this site free of charge.

Sione

newson February 3, 2011 at 9:38 am

to sione:
ot, granted, but here’s a podcast which may interest you with regard to biological determinism. apologies if you’ve already listenend to it.
http://mises.org/media/4691/Necessary-and-Sufficient-Causes-of-the-Industrial-Revolution-Some-Critical-Remarks-on-Mises-and-His-Explanation

Sione February 3, 2011 at 1:09 pm

Newson

I’m familiar with Hoppe’s work and I’ll download the podcast. What is the relevance to Ike etc?

Please elaborate.

Sione

newson February 3, 2011 at 5:24 pm

none whatsover. “ot” – off topic.

Sione February 3, 2011 at 11:41 pm

Oh. I didn’t realise. Got it now.

Sione

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: