Television
Revisiting the Cold War in CNNs weekly series
By RAYMOND A. SCHROTH
When we arrived in Mannheim, Germany, in January
1956 as brand new second lieutenants in the 67th Antiaircraft Artillery
Battalion (Automated Weapons, Self-Propelled) to play our part on the
NATO team, our commanding officer, Lt. Colonel Gershon, took us aside for
some motivational words. His analysis of a number of crucial factors -- the
weather, the condition of the harvest and so on -- made it highly probable that
this was the season Russia was going to attack.
My job when the alert sounded was to lead the four tanks (really a
tank body with a revolving twin 40-mm. gun in its turret) and four half-tracks
armed with 50 caliber machine guns out the gate and down to a bridge over the
Rhine River and save that bridge from the Russians -- either shoot them down if
they flew in low or mow them down if they attacked on land.
But after a while we didnt have to be strategic geniuses to
realize that our part on this team was basically symbolic. We were
a tripwire, holding the enemy for whatever time it took for the big missiles
with the nuclear warheads to float through the stratosphere and reduce both us
and them to radioactive dust.
For anyone old enough to remember President Franklin
Roosevelts return from Yalta and who, as either an observer or
participant, has lived through the events portrayed in CNNs controversial
24-part documentary on the history of the Cold War, the weekly series -- now in
its second half, to run through April 4 -- is a chance to relive some of the
best and worst moments of our time.
For all those born later, for whom the Cuban missile crisis is but
a page in the history book and the Vietnam War is a psychological or moral
burden that his or her Vietnam veteran father carries silently through the day
until it awakens him at night, the series is a unique chance for todays
college generation to enter the life histories of its parents and
grandparents.
Some episodes drag. Others should chill the bones of anyone who
allows the images and words to have their effect. A Russian veteran of the
Afghanistan invasion says: We rounded up women and children, poured
kerosene on them and set them on fire. It was cruel. We did it. But we had to.
They had been torturing our wounded soldiers with knives. And: A
young soldier might kill just to test his gun, or to see what the insides of a
human being look like. ... Its like being drunk on blood.
A CIA operative who directed our gun shipments to the Afghanistan
Islamic radicals, who were anti-communist, says without blinking an eye,
It was our goals and their blood.
Five years ago, Ted Turner, perhaps moved by the same spirit that
led him to establish the Good Will Games when the Americans boycotted the
Moscow Olympics to protest Russias Afghanistan invasion, reached out to
Sir Jeremy Isaacs to do a documentary on the Cold War -- with a sense of
urgency, before the participants were dead. Isaacs had produced the great TV
documentary on World War II, The World at War, narrated by Laurence
Olivier.
But what point of view would inform the documentary? A creator can
achieve his purpose with a variety of editorial decisions: careful editing of
file footage, selecting the participants to be interviewed, voice-over
narration, scholarly talking heads who explain the significance of
what we have just seen.
The Turner-Isaacs team determined that this story would: (l) be
evenhanded, rather than the story of a victory from the victors
point of view; (2) although Olivier protege Kenneth Branagh would
narrate a script by about a half-dozen writers, they would tell the story from
the bottom up, through participants -- famous and unknown -- on both sides. No
talking heads to explain what the pictures meant.
When the main characters are still alive -- or even, like Clark
Clifford, at the brink of death, or old but still quick, like George F. Kennan
-- we hear directly from them. So, too, we hear from all the living
ex-presidents, except Reagan. We hear from Robert McNamara, who sees more
rational genius than insanity in the strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction
(MAD); Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin; North Vietnamese military mastermind
Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap; and Czech President-playwright Václav Havel.
And, inevitably, there is Henry Kissinger -- who, among other
things, engineered several of the least moral strategies the U.S. employed,
including the overthrow of the democratically elected Salvador Allende
government in Chile and the U.S. carpet bombing of Hanoi. Bombs fell not so
much to force Hanoi to the conference table, as the script says, but to mollify
South Vietnams Premier Thieu, who feared -- correctly -- that the U.S.
would abandon him.
But we are moved less by the great men than by the scores --
sometimes millions -- of men and women we never heard of before but who endured
the Cold Wars hardships or witnessed its slaughters.
During the Berlin Air Lift, a hungry and grateful teenager cheers
on an American pilot by telling the pilot he cares more for his freedom than
for food. As the East Germans wall off East from West Berlin, the camera
lingers on an East German border guard. Suddenly he turns, runs toward the
camera, and leaps over the barbed wire separating him from the West.
When Soviet tanks roll into Lithuania, one nearly crushes a young
woman protester under its treads. Isaacs researchers found both the guard
and the girl for interviews.
In the opening episode, when U.S. troops first meet the Russian
army face-to-face at the Elbe River in the last days of the War in Europe, an
American G.I., who has never seen a Russian before, discovers that they look
like anyone else: They could have been Americans.
If CNN had interviewed this Cold War vet, I would have recalled
freezing nights on maneuvers along the Czech border in 1956, as we listened to
the news during the Hungarian uprising. With our tanks and half-tracks, we
thought, we had just the weapons to save the freedom fighters from
the Russians. Maybe we would be going in.
American political conservatives do not like this series. Jacob
Heilbrun in the New Republic (Nov. 9, 1998), syndicated columnist
Charles Krauthammer in the New York Daily News (Nov. 2, 1998, and Jan. 4), and
Ronald Radosh in The New York Times (Jan. 9), blast what they consider
its moral equivalence approach, as if the Cold War had not been a
struggle between good and evil but between two world powers somehow equally
responsible for its crimes.
Criticisms focus on the episode Reds, where, Branagh
says, Both sides turned their fear inwards against their own people. They
hunted the enemy within. In America, this fear expressed itself in
McCarthyism; in Russia, the Gulag.
The script says Alger Hiss was convicted of perjury without adding
that the most recent scholarship says he was a spy. For me, the two stories fit
awkwardly in the same hour. But in no way does CNN imply that Americas
pursuit of internal communism was morally equal to Stalins sending 6
million suspected dissenters to prison camps.
Indeed it is hard for me to see how anyone who actually watched
the whole 24 hours could conclude anything but that Stalin and, to varying
degrees, most of his successors, were ruthless, sometimes bloodthirsty,
monsters. And that communism as a system failed not because we outgunned it but
because it was rotten at the core -- because it had a false understanding of
human nature. It did not see what the boy in Berlin saw, that freedom was worth
more than bread.
Longer than this little debate, I hope we will remember the
images. Above all the jubilant faces on the crowds of East Berliners who poured
through the gate and destroyed the Wall when Mikhail Gorbachev -- if anyone,
the true hero of this sorry time -- decided the Soviet Union would not use
force to stop the Russian satellites yearning to breathe free.
And I hope we remember the corpses: 2 million killed by our
bombings of North Korea; those machine-gunned on the steps of the Cathedral in
San Salvador; Archbishop Oscar Romero in his coffin; nuns raped, killed and
buried by Salvadoran military; 70 naked Romanians executed and displayed.
Today, if the Cold War is dead, we can still wonder
about what will take its place in defining Americas national purpose.
Deterrence kept the peace, says CNN, by keeping
us in a permanent state of alarm. Against whom will we arm ourselves, if
thats what it takes to maintain our military-industrial way of
life? Internally, against Central American immigrants and welfare
mothers? Internationally, Fidel Castro, Arab terrorists we initially armed in
Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein have replaced Stalin and Mao Zedong. Our
government is proud that we may have killed 1,600 Republican Guards in the
recent bombings.
We have killed so many people -- for good reasons --
that a corpse, unless he or she represents someones vested interest, is
no longer a human being, at most a statistic and an anonymous picture in a
documentary.
At the end of the 24 hours of the Cold War, one
question persists: Will we ever have a leader who can inspire us by our hopes
rather than our fears?
Jesuit Fr. Raymond A. Schroth is assistant dean of Fordham
College Rose Hill.
National Catholic Reporter, January 29,
1999
|