Posted on 01/12/2024 6:05:47 PM PST by Fiji Hill
In a speech at a Council on Foreign Relations dinner in his honor, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles announces that the United States will protect its allies through the “deterrent of massive retaliatory power.” The policy announcement was further evidence of the Eisenhower administration’s decision to rely heavily on the nation’s nuclear arsenal as the primary means of defense against communist aggression.
Dulles began his speech by examining communist strategy that, he concluded, had as its goal the “bankruptcy” of the United States through overextension of its military power. Both strategically and economically, the secretary explained, it was unwise to “permanently commit U.S. land forces to Asia,” to “support permanently other countries,” or to “become permanently committed to military expenditures so vast that they lead to ‘practical bankruptcy.'”
Instead, he believed a new policy of “getting maximum protection at a bearable cost” should be developed. Although Dulles did not directly refer to nuclear weapons, it was clear that the new policy he was describing would depend upon the “massive retaliatory power” of such weapons to respond to future communist acts of war.
The speech was a reflection of two of the main tenets of foreign policy under Eisenhower and Dulles. First was the belief, particularly on the part of Dulles, that America’s foreign policy toward the communist threat had been timidly reactive during the preceding Democratic administration of President Harry S. Truman. Dulles consistently reiterated the need for a more proactive and vigorous approach to rolling back the communist sphere of influence. Second was President Eisenhower’s belief that military and foreign assistance spending had to be controlled. Eisenhower was a fiscal conservative and believed that the U.S. economy and society could not long take the strain of overwhelming defense budgets. A stronger reliance on nuclear weapons as the backbone of America’s defense answered both concerns–atomic weapons were far more effective in terms of threatening potential adversaries, and they were also, in the long run, much less expensive than the costs associated with a large standing army.
Dulles probably chose January 12 because it was the anniversary of Secretary of State Dean Acheson's infamous "Perimeter" speech in which he outlined America's defensive perimeter in Asia but left out South Korea, which many critics believed was an invitation for Stalin to invade that country.
McCarthy called Achinson, “ that stripe pants a- hole.”
Dulles was the type Eisenhower was referring to in his farewell speech warning.
This one and ‘Bombs Away’ Lemay just loved to bomb the carp out of the cities and paved the way for today’s air force to continue same policies.
Eisenhower is a far under rated President: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Dwight_D._Eisenhower
We had one of the more prosperous times (jobs, rising incomes, low inflation, growth in manufacturing), the WWII recovery of Europe, our military was powerful, he gave us the national highway system, and did much for civil rights (people forget that).
When he did have a recession spring on him, he and his administration handled it well and its impact was small: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1958
Many of his “infrastructure” projects (unlike this bucket of lies riddled with pork today) we are STILL benefiting from: rural electrification, highways.
He wasn’t a loud mouth, his words were very measured and well thought out. He was a true “strategic thinker” (big picture, long term). He didn’t belong to some special demographic (gay, black, woman, Latino) which seems to be all important today. I think that is why his presidency, although very successful, is forgotten in time.
Eisenhower was NOT a fiscal Conservative by the standards of the time, Golwater called his Administration, “ A dime store New Deal.”
He sold out McCarthy, spent too much, and let
a lot of land go Commie. He also shut down an attempt to put the Constitution over Treaties
.
Very terror. All of it.
We should have had a prosperous time. WW2 was over. The US economy was the only one that was unscathed by the war.
We had very little competition at the time.
Some think that's how it should be now....that's an unrealistic expectation to think the world economy would not have grown.
IMHO,
The US squandered a lot of opportunities. Pure micro vision (benefit of a small group at the expense of all) and short sighted (3 year time horizon - political system) corporate greed which the politicians promoted has led us to where we are at.
The American political class is beholden to the big corporations and oligarchs who own them. The MSM, big tech, are also owned by these same few. They are the ones contributing to the campaigns, charities, foundations, hiring family members, buying art, paying $10-$20K for a plate of chicken and reserving entire round tables at political fund raisers, pay $20 million for a 45 minute speech, hire family as consultants, pay millions to lobbying groups... There is a small sliver of people in America who in reality have a vast and disproportionate impact on policy and regulations. These people can literally change the laws, like Bill Gates, big pharma or Disney did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
Do you really think he gave >$300 to the elections because he cares so much about democracy? https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/9/1/21417022/mark-zuckerberg-elections-300-million-facebook-center-for-tech-and-civic-life
Zuckerberg had the the FTC and others breathing down his neck, accusing Meta of being a monopoly and wanting to break them up: https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ceos-amazon-apple-facebook-google-face-congressional-antitrust/story?id=72034939 After the 2020 elections all that just sort of vaporized! Why and how do you think that is?
It’s a monopoly game but do not think that the rules of this game apply to all or are consistent.
Why does this matter? Off shoring and in ever lasting pursuit of cheap/slave labor, tax, labor law and EPA avoidance, has made those in big tech (Apple), manufacturing (GM), and retail (Amazon) into billionaires, but the nation as a whole has suffered as those jobs which created the middle class went away. The US has created a new middle class in the PRC though!
For years Americans were sold some lie about how everyone wins with globalization and offshoring, but in reality all it has done is make the US DEPENDENT on foreign manufacturing and in some cases even tech, destroy the middle class and create a near third world situation of many poor and a few extremely rich (no different than South of the border, only not that extreme yet).
The US is where it is today not because of some inevitable world macro economic trend, rather because of short sighted corporate greed and a political class which takes their direction from the heads of these corporations and financial institutions which of course all only act in their own best interest.
McCarthy is overly villainized by Hollywood and the far left that often throw his name around without actually even knowing much about it.
He was mostly right and that was proven when the Cold War ended and the Russians actually opened up records to us which proved that indeed some of the folks accused by McCarthy were what he claimed they were. Furthermore, there is the Venona project that became public and though overlooked by a left which simply wants to maintain their simple black and white world view also shows that he was mostly right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project
But he also took it to far. People have rights (which he ignored) and they are allowed to have dissenting views even if those do not fit the contemporary world view. A Kangaroo justice system is just as wrong by the political right in the 1950s when McCarthy had his BS hearings etc. as they are today when the left has the upper hand and goes after folks for January 6 or wants to use the legal system to remove Trump from the ballot. In a Republic ruled by a Constitution and laws, it’s the means to the end which matters more than the end.
He was right about everything.
This is so true. McCarthy was a Senator. He was in charge of hearings in the Senate about alleged communist infiltration in the military and state department. It was a committee in the House that dealt with blacklisting Hollywood people.
Back in the day when this country still cared about freedom.
On a lighter note, here's this:
Carol Burnett sings I Made a Fool of Myself over John Foster Dulles
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.