Academic literature on the topic 'Cold War'

For most of the second half of the 20th century the world's political map was divided by the Cold War, a name given to the 40-year long standoff between the superpowers - the Unites States and the USSR - and their allies. Due to its geographical location and alliance with the United States, Britain was at the 'frontline' of the Cold War. As a response to increasing tensions, the British Government made arrangements by building hundreds of military sites and structures, which were often dismantled or abandoned as the technology on which they relied became rapidly ineffective. Nowadays, there is a growing (academic) recognition of Cold War sites and their new or contemporary uses, including as heritage attractions within a tourism context. This study has brought forward a constructionist approach as to investigate how heritage works as a cultural and social practice that constructs and regulates a range of values and ideologies about what constitutes Cold War heritage (and) tourism in Britain. It has done this by, firstly, exploring the dominant and professional 'authorised heritage discourse', which aims to construct mutually, agreed and shared concepts about the phenomenon of 'Cold War heritage' within a tourism context. The study identified a network of actors, values, policies and discourses that centred on the concept of 'Cold War heritage' at selected sites through which a 'material reality' of the past is constructed. Although various opposing viewpoints were identified, the actors effectively seem to privilege and naturalise certain narratives of cultural and social meanings and values through tourism of what constitutes Cold War heritage and the ways it should be manifested through material and natural places, sites and objects within society. Differences were particularly noticeable in the values, uses and meanings of Cold iii Cold War heritage (and) tourism War heritage within the contemporary context of heritage management in Britain. For some, the sites were connected with a personal 'past', a place to commemorate, celebrate or learn from the past. For others, the sites were a source of income, a tourism asset, or contrary, a financial burden as the sites were not 'old enough' or 'aesthetically pleasing' to be regarded as a monument to be preserved as heritage. Subsequently, the study also explored the (disempowered) role of visitors to the sites as passive receivers, leaving little room for individual reflections on the wider social and cultural processes of Cold War heritage. Although, most visitors believed that the stewardship and professional view of the Cold War representations at the sites should not directly be contested, this study has illustrated the idea that what makes places valuable and gives them meaning as heritage sites is not solely based on contemporary practices by a dominant heritage discourse. Despite the visitors' support for the sole ownership by site managers, and the selective representations of the Cold War and events, they did question or negotiate the idea of 'heritage' as a physical and sole subject of management practices. Despite having little prior knowledge about the Cold War era or events, by pressing the borders of the authorised parameters of 'Cold War heritage', visitors actively constructed their experiences as being, or becoming, part of their personal and collective moments of 'heritage'. By inscribing (new) memories and meaning into their identity, and therefore also changing the nature of that identity, they reflected upon the past, present and future, (some more critically than others). To conclude, understanding these discursive meanings of Cold War heritage (and) tourism, and the ways in which ideas about Cold War heritage are constructed, negotiated and contested within and between discourses also contributes to understandings about the philosophical, historical, conceptual and political barriers that exist in identifying and engaging with different forms of heritage.

Doctor of Philosophy<br>Department of History<br>Donald Mrozek<br>Both Presidents Johnson and Nixon used the ideology of military containment of Communism to justify U.S. military intervention in Vietnam. Until 1968, opponents of this intervention attacked the ideology of containment or its application to Vietnam. In 1968, opponents of the war switched tactics and began to focus instead on the President’s credibility. These arguments quickly became the dominant critique of the war through its end and were ultimately successful in ending it. The Gulf of Tonkin incident and the Tonkin Gulf Resolution were central to the change of opposition strategy in 1968. For Johnson, the Gulf of Tonkin incident had provided the political impetus to pass the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which the administration used as an insurance policy against Congressional dissent. For Congressional dissenters in 1968, inconsistencies in Johnson’s version of the Gulf of Tonkin incident allowed them to undermine the Resolution as a weapon against Congress. For the American people, revelations about the administration’s dishonesty during the incident simply added to grave doubts that Americans already had about Johnson’s credibility; the American people lost confidence in Johnson, ending his Presidency. The dramatic success of this new strategy—attacking the administration’s credibility—encouraged other opponents to follow suit, permanently altering the framework of debate over the war. This change in opposition strategy in 1968 had a number of important consequences. First, this change in rhetoric ultimately ended the war. To sustain his credibility against relentless attack, President Nixon repeatedly withdrew troops to prove to the American people he was ending the war. Nixon ran out of troops to withdraw and had to accept an unfavorable peace. Second, after the war, this framework for debate of military interventions established—between advocates using the ideology of containment and opponents attacking the administration’s credibility—would reemerge nearly every time an administration contemplated military intervention through the end of the Cold War. Finally, because opponents of military intervention stopped challenging containment in 1968, the American public continued to accept the precepts of containment and the Cold War consensus survived until the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.

Thesis (D.A.)--Illinois State University, 1991.<br>Title from title page screen, viewed December 22, 2005. Dissertation Committee: Joseph Grabill (chair), Lawrence McBride, Edward Schapsmeier, Jamal Nassar, Gerlof Homan. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 164-179) and abstract. Also available in print.

This study considers the role that touring Shakespeare productions played in securing British interests during the Cold War and decolonisation. Focusing on a selection of British Council supported tours during the period the relationship between Shakespeare in Britain and Shakespeare abroad is examined. The evolution of touring Shakespeare’s use in cultural diplomacy is located within the broader history of Britain’s imperial decline and Cold War entanglements. The thesis draws upon the National Archive’s Records of the British Council; the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust’s collections; and the British Library’s Newspaper, and Manuscript collections. A wide-range of performance, administrative, and anecdotal accounts are brought to light in order to reveal the political and cultural tensions characterising each tour. The shift to using Shakespeare in post-war cultural diplomacy is determined through an examination of tours supporting British colonial interests in Egypt between 1939 and 1946, a formative era of anti-colonial agitation and emerging Cold War dynamics. The late 1940s saw touring Shakespeare assist in the re-colonisation of Australia, with cultural-diplomatic initiatives dedicated to strengthening Britain’s imperial and Cold War objectives. As the military stalemate of the 1950s witnessed the compensatory rise of culture as a political resource, Shakespeare tours countered Soviet influence in Austria, Yugoslavia, and Poland. The 1960s saw Shakespeare used in support of British economic interests in West Africa in general, and UK publishing interests in Nigeria in particular. The thesis concludes that Shakespeare productions were dispatched to Cold War and colonial destinations with the purpose of supporting Britain’s commercial and political interests; that Shakespeare proved to be an effective and protean cultural weapon in service to the British nation; and that contradictory results ensued, including resistance from reluctant hosts and disagreements within Britain’s metropolitan Shakespeare culture itself over Shakespeare’s global role.

The legitimacy of presidential actions in United States interventions in Latin America is examined. The key questions are to consider the legitimacy of the interventions in terms of the constitutional legitimacy, international legitimacy, including the United Nations and the Organization of American States, political legitimacy and public legitimacy. It discusses whether presidents considered the legitimacy of their actions, and how it affected their decision making. It considers how presidents view legitimacy and whether administrations attempted to construct an image of legitimacy for the interventions. If further considers whether there was a difference between the Cold War and Post-Cold War periods. It concludes with a discussion about how the results of the case studies can be extended to other times and place. Four case studies of interventions in Latin America are used to determine how presidents have used their power: Bay of Pigs, 1961; Dominican Republic, 1965; Panama, 1990/91; and Haiti, 1995. The study considers what the Founders intended, and how it has been interpreted over the years. Presidents have made claims about their power. Those claims are discussed against their actions. The Constitution informs the congressional legitimacy, but it is a living document and has been interpreted differently over time. The study examines how presidents can gain legitimacy in the international, political and public arenas. A main finding is that do presidents consider legitimacy but are more concerned with how their actions are perceived. The work concludes that presidents view legitimacy in a different way from that intended by the Constitution. Legitimacy is an important aspect of their decision making, but they do not follow due process. They systematically and wilfully manipulate the information to present their actions in a legitimate light. In this they have scant regard for the Constitution, or International Law. Public legitimacy is shown to be a key issue for the presidents in the study.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, San Diego, 2008.<br>Title from first page of PDF file (viewed December 16, 2008). Available via ProQuest Digital Dissertations. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (p. 206-219).