review of Lee Harvey Oswald's Cold War

Jim DiEugenio has given the book a positive review

His summation:

Parker has written an unusual, provocative, and insightful work. I have some disagreements, but considering the overall quality, they are really too mild to bring up. He and Seamus Coogan and Frankie Vegas (real name) are all significant contributors to the case from down under (i.e. Australia and New Zealand). Parker has had some serious health problems of late. Let us wish him well. I would really like to see the concluding volumes of this intriguing series.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/lee-harvey-oswald-s-cold-war

How others view us and our work is nearly always surprising. I never set out to write a book that was "unusual", though I did make a conscious decision not to just rewrite the works of others and to be as factual as I could.  

It also surprised me as to what Jim cited as the most unusual aspect:

The unusual thing about Parker’s book is that there really is no background. His volume blends so much of the Cold War into the story that background and foreground are almost indistinguishable. That is why I stated that the title is all too appropriate.

But I think he is right. That is the way the book turned out.

Congratulations Greg. Hope your book will get more attention from now on.

He praises your research chops while considering himself the gold standard on that account, so I'd certainly say you've received high praise from him. Hard work and a brilliant mind win the day. Nice going Greg.

Greg, your tag line says “The Cold War ran on bullshit”. Are you referring to the lies used to conduct the Cold War or do you think the Cold War was possibly a staged production on behalf of both sides? I always thought that the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union seemed like a corporate reorganization with a new business model.

Lanceman, all you have to do is read the Cold War on wiki and it will answer your question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War

Whether Greg Parker thinks it was run on "bullshit" or some other tangential is his own opinion.

lanceman wrote:Greg, your tag line says “The Cold War ran on bullshit”. Are you referring to the lies used to conduct the Cold War or do you think the Cold War was possibly a staged production on behalf of both sides? I always thought that the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union seemed like a corporate reorganization with a new business model.

Am specifically referencing psy-ups - various types of internal propaganda to keep the machine oiled and the population thankful you are there to save them. That's obviously on both sides.

I gave a very good example in my book, showing how the press published a series of articles slowly and methodically building the case for public consumption that a pre-emptive biological weapons strike would be needed. 

March 12, 1949. UP reports Secretary of Defense, James Forrestal as stating that the US “leads the world in germ warfare research;” that germ weapons are “definitely not the fantastic killers they have been labelled,” but could be “a cheap and most important means of warfare.” Major General Alden H Wyatt, head of the Army Chemical Corp reiterates that “potentially” the spreading of disease germs “is a most important means of warfare.” It is stressed that the US program is aimed “primarily” at defense and that the US is quite prepared to strike back with biological weapons if other nations should attack with them.
 
May 27, 1949. UP reports an assertion by the former chief of the air-borne infection project at the US biological warfare headquarters at Camp Detrick, Dr. Theordor Rosebery.  Dr. Rosebery states that the practicality of germ warfare cannot be proven unless it is used in war. He also warns that “defense against BW (biological weapons) as a whole is pitiably weak, so weak that none of us, civilian or military, can find much comfort in its prospect.”
           
 July 21, 1949. AP reports that the army has asked Congress for an extra 3.3 million to improve both the “defensive and offensive aspects of war with biological weapons.”
 
September 10, 1949. AP reports Director General of the World Health Organization, Dr. Brock Chisolm as declaring that biological weapons would make “large armies, navies and air forces” obsolete along with the atomic bomb. Dr. Chisolm also claims that scientists have found “one substance so deadly that seven ounces, properly distributed, could kill the people of the world within six hours.” He does not name the substance.
 
June 25, 1950. The undeclared war in Korea begins.
 
July 26, 1950. UP reports that “defensive measures against germ warfare are being drawn up.” The scientist being quoted is familiar with the program and adds “that they include no new rays or other ‘magic’ means of coping with germs. Instead, the measures would consist of “training health officers in known medical and public health practices - but on an emergency basis.”
 
November 3, 1950. AP reports that the armed forces are looking ahead to wars fought with radiological poison weapons, germ warfare, guided missiles and special devices to make maps of enemy terrain under cover of night or clouds.

December 28, 1950. UP reports that the Federal Government is urging “civil defense workers to prepare for nerve gas and germ warfare attacks upon American Cities.” The story adds that a manual issued by the Health Resources division states that automatic detection devices are essential for adequate protection” but ominously concludes such devices are not available at a price which would make their purchase and use for civil defense practical.” 
 
See how the argument builds?

 It starts "We are the most advance nation with out bio weapons program and we stand ready to use it if it is used against us"

Next we are informed that there is "no telling its effectiveness unless it is used in war and that our defenses against it are 'pitiably' weak" (which seems like almost an invitation to be attacked).

Then we are told that an extra 3.3 million has been pulled out of the tax payers' collective arsehole to improve both offensive and defensive bio capability.

Now the WHO jumps in to tell us that bio weapons would do away with the need for large armed services and make the atomic bomb obsolete. Who could argue with any of that???? And what is more, WHO tells us also that “one substance [is] so deadly that seven ounces, properly distributed, could kill the people of the world within six hours.” He does not name the substance. Okay. Got it. We have to save the world from this menace!

Next right on cue, a war by any other name erupts in Korea - the Bumfuck of Asia. 

Followed by the declaration that defensive measures against germ warfare are being drawn up. But be warned - there are no magic rays! Defensive measures will be in the form of training medical staff fresh out of Osteopath Colleges. 

Finally, we are sadly informed that a bio attack is imminent and that automatic detection devices are essential. But oops. "Bad luck people. They are too fucking expensive, so you're on your own. Oh, what's that? You think we should make a pre-emptive strike to save humanity? Lord fuck a duck! Why didn't we think of that? Well, okay then!"

Ultimately, the US was accused of using bio-weapons in Korea  but denied doing so - despite those who allegedly dropped them admitting it after capture (whether under extreme coercion or not), and there was also evidence found for it, whether it was planted by the enemy or not.

In short, it is a contentious issue as to whether US did use it. What should should be incontrovertible is that they clearly wanted to use it and prepped a nation to not only accept its use but to beg for it. 

This is the type of propaganda that spread in newspapers, TV, radio and Hollywood and caused an explosion in secretive little home defense groups to spring up such as within CAP and every other like organization. It caused alliances between various veterans groups and the FBI, Junior FBI's sprung up on campuses everywhere, psychiatrists, psychologists and other allied health professionals were enlisted. Businesses and business people were enlisted. It became the biggest and best boom industry to get into. 

And again I point out, it was the same on both sides. Except many a pleb behind the Iron Curtain knew what the State was feeding them was bullshit. They also knew that they had no choice but to swallow. In the West, we were a tad more naïve.

JFK_Case wrote:Lanceman, all you have to do is read the Cold War on wiki and it will answer your question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War

Whether Greg Parker thinks it was run on "bullshit" or some other tangential is his own opinion.

How do you like your propaganda fed to you? With a bit of sugar?

Even JFK bought into the bullshit Domino Theory,

But the link does correctly trace the roots of the term "Cold War" to George Orwell.

Origins of the term
Main article: Cold war (general term)
At the end of World War II, English writer George Orwell used cold war, as a general term, in his essay "You and the Atomic Bomb", published 19 October 1945 in the British newspaper Tribune. Contemplating a world living in the shadow of the threat of nuclear warfare, Orwell looked at James Burnham's predictions of a polarized world, writing:

"Looking at the world as a whole, the drift for many decades has been not towards anarchy but towards the reimposition of slavery... James Burnham's theory has been much discussed, but few people have yet considered its ideological implications—that is, the kind of world-view, the kind of beliefs, and the social structure that would probably prevail in a state which was at once unconquerable and in a permanent state of "cold war" with its neighbours"

Had that term not been coined, the world may have taken a very different path. The power in putting a name to anything cannot be empathized enough. Orwell himself knew this, which is why he has a department culling words from the dictionary in 1984.  

In this case, the name was coined and the blueprint for what it this newly minted ideology should look like behind the layers of secrecy, were very succinctly spelled out by Orwell.  The smart money followed and the propaganda machines kicked in.

Orwell did not predict the concepts of Cold War and Permanent War. He invented and enabled them with the power of names and words.

greg_parker wrote:Orwell did not predict the concepts of Cold War and Permanent War. He invented and enabled them with the power of names and words.

The more I think about this, the more I agree.
 
When I was a kid, I often heard/said things like "Sticks and stone may break my bones but names will never hurt me." While that's true in a direct, literal sense, I came to see how words, especially labels, can have a profound psychological effect on people and shape how they think, act, and perform. Sort of like hypnotic suggestions, words can influence things for good or for ill.
 
I've seen this play out many times with some who were called certain names or things. "You'll never amount to anything," "You're a bum, just like your ol' man," "You don't have what it takes," etc. It often worked out that way over the years, like a prophesy. Not always, of course. Different people have differing levels of susceptibility. Some are impervious. But when dealing with a large population there will be many who fall victim to the words that are part of a focused propaganda campaign.
 
I recall even the Bible mentioning the power of words:
 
"When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. Likewise, the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire...."
 
Relentless bullshit propaganda—words, names and labels—can be a powerful force. The Cold War indeed ran on it.

StanDane wrote:

greg_parker wrote:Orwell did not predict the concepts of Cold War and Permanent War. He invented and enabled them with the power of names and words.

The more I think about this, the more I agree.
 
When I was a kid, I often heard/said things like "Sticks and stone may break my bones but names will never hurt me." While that's true in a direct, literal sense, I came to see how words, especially labels, can have a profound psychological effect on people and shape how they think, act, and perform. Sort of like hypnotic suggestions, words can influence things for good or for ill.
 
I've seen this play out many times with some who were called certain names or things. "You'll never amount to anything," "You're a bum, just like your ol' man," "You don't have what it takes," etc. It often worked out that way over the years, like a prophesy. Not always, of course. Different people have differing levels of susceptibility. Some are impervious. But when dealing with a large population there will be many who fall victim to the words that are part of a focused propaganda campaign.
 
I recall even the Bible mentioning the power of words:
 
"When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. Likewise, the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire...."
 
Relentless bullshit propaganda—words, names and labels—can be a powerful force. The Cold War indeed ran on it.

Good to see you posting again, Stan. Not because you're agreeing with me here, but because you have a way of explaining things that make the ideas very accessible - a fact that was really highlighted in your book.

Meant to add we have a saying here... "give it a name and you can have it..."

Not really meant as any deep philosophical gem... more a light-hearted, self-deprecating comment when someone gives you a compliment for something you've made (and which may not have turned out as expected)...  but it does recognize the importance of putting a label or a name to things.