The Evolution of Cold War Rhetoric from Eisenhower to Kennedy.

The Cold War was period from the 1940s to 1991 in which there was an intense rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. This rivalry was marked by the arms and space race and the containment of communism. But more importantly, the Cold War saw an interesting evolution of rhetoric starting from the presidency of Eisenhower to the presidency of Kennedy. So how did Cold War rhetoric evolve from Eisenhower’s nuclear disarmament policy through Kennedy’s Foreign Policy?

---

Eisenhower’s Nuclear Disarmament Policy

Nuclear Disarmament is defined as “…the process of reducing and eradicating nuclear weapons, as well as ensuring that countries without nuclear weapons are not able to develop them”.[1] Eisenhower used nuclear disarmament as a tool for fighting the Cold War. To Eisenhower, the Cold War was more about world opinion, and he thought that the world had a fear of another global war. It was he goal to have “…the United States to be the principal agent for reducing this climate of fear”.[2] He used nuclear disarmament to achieve this goal by countering the Soviet Union through a series of minor agreements. It was Eisenhower’s idea to make agreements that were dramatic but were also low risk. If the Soviet Union rejected the agreements, then the US could use the rejection as propaganda. If the Soviet Union accepted the agreements, then it would be beneficial to build a foundation for more disarmament agreements.

            In April of 1953, Eisenhower gave a speech called ‘Chance for Peace’ to the American Society for Editors in which Soviet leaders were in attendance. During this speech he made proposals for the “…reduction of armaments, armed forces, and production of strategic materials for military purposes; international control of atomic energy; and universal prohibition of atomic weapons”.[3] Eisenhower believed that trust between the major powers was essential to his proposal for nuclear disarmament. Eisenhower stated that the United States was in favor of arms reduction and for a peaceful settlement to East-West conflicts. The Soviet leaders also stated that they were in favor of negotiations and the reduction of tensions. However, no agreements were achieved at this time.

            In December of 1953, Eisenhower gave another speech entitled, ‘Atoms for Peace’. The purpose of this speech was to give a description for how the American and Soviet Union nuclear stockpiles were creating a global atomic danger and to make an appeal for the cooperation of the Soviet Union and the US in creating peaceful uses for atomic energy. Eisenhower’s goal for this speech was to illustrate that a nuclear holocaust was now a possibility, to begin a reduction of the world’s atomic stockpiles and to shed light of the peaceful uses of atomic technology. The most significant goal was to open a route for a peaceful end to the atomic armaments race. In addition to this speech, he also gave another speech that employed the same method for introducing nuclear arms negotiations. He gave the speech, ‘Open Skies’ at the Geneva summit conference in July of 1955. In his ‘Open Skies’ proposal, Eisenhower proposed that there be an exchange of the “…blueprints of all military installations, placement of inspection teams and equipment in areas to be inspected, and negotiation of aerial inspection procedures”.[4] As with his ‘Atoms for Peace’ proposal, the goal of ‘Open Skies’ was to break the stalemate on negotiations and to negate the possibility of a surprise attack. However, the negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union were at a stalemate at the end of 1955. There were no major agreements made during Eisenhower’s presidency, but the policy of nuclear disarmament continued to be important to Eisenhower.

---

[1] Frazier, Brionne. “What Is Nuclear Disarmament?” ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/nuclear-disarmament-4172458.

[2] Soapes, Thomas F. “A Cold Warrior Seeks Peace: Eisenhower’s Strategy for Nuclear Disarmament.” Diplomatic History 4, no.1 (1980): 59. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24910573.

[3] Soapes, Thomas F. “A Cold Warrior Seeks Peace: Eisenhower’s Strategy for Nuclear Disarmament.” Diplomatic History 4, no. 1 (1980): 60. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24910573.

[4] Soapes, Thomas F. “A Cold Warrior Seeks Peace: Eisenhower’s Strategy for Nuclear Disarmament.” Diplomatic History 4, no. 1 (1980): 65. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24910573.

---

The Kitchen Debate

The Kitchen Debate was one of the most interesting events to take place during the Cold War. The Kitchen Debate occurred at the 1959 American National Exhibition in Moscow. The American National Exhibition showcased examples of the abundance that was available to the American consumer, such as mass-produced automobiles, televisions, and ranch-style homes. The most significant exhibit were the model kitchens that were “…stocked with technological gadgetry and modern convenience foods”.[1] The model kitchens sparked what would be called the Kitchen Debate that took place between Vice President Nixen and the Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. The debate was about the merits of capitalism and socialism. Vice President Nixon was the one that started the debate when he announced that he wanted to show Khrushchev a model kitchen that showcased an array of appliances such as a dishwasher, a garbage disposal, countertop stove and a refrigerator. During the debate. Nixon and Khrushchev took turns boasting about their countries ability to provide high standards of living, affordable homes, and laborsaving appliances.[2] During the debate Khrushchev made the argument that Americans did not have the right to housing as Soviet citizens did. He also was dismissive of the American appliances as he saw them as mere gadgets. Nixon countered these arguments by pointing out the Americans valued diversity in their consumer options and were against decisions of that nature being made by the government. He also made the argument that what Khruschev considered merely gadgets made the lives of American housewives easier.

            The significance of the Kitchen Debate was not that it was only a debate about the merits of capitalism versus socialism but also that it was about the importance of food. After World War II, the United States became the world’s most productive industrial economy and had an unprecedented capacity to produce food and fiber. The Soviet Union was completely devastated in their industrial and agricultural base after World War II.[3] Khrushchev had a goal of outpacing American farmers by using socialist measures. This endeavor pitted the United States and the Soviet Union into a race for agricultural supremacy and a battle for each country to showcase how their respective economies could feed the hungry. The United States experienced an immense increase in agricultural productivity and farm output such that the “…annual agricultural growth rate almost tripled in the decade after 1940…”.[4] However, the Soviet Union was not as successful. Although, they believed that they would achieve their goal of surpassing American farmers, the Soviet Union witnessed the worst farm yields and their stores lacked meat and diary products. This failure to produce an abundance caused disgruntled citizens to “…ridicule Khrushchev’s repeated promises of plentiful food”.[5] However, the Soviet leaders were eventually forced to ask the United States for permission to purchase American grain and this resulted in Khrushchev being removed from office.

---

[1] Hamilton, S. and Phillips, S.T. (2014) ‘Introduction: The Kitchen Debate in Historical Context’, in The Kitchen Debate and Cold War Consumer Politics: A Brief History with Documents. Boston, Mass: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 1.

[2] Hamilton, S. and Phillips, S.T. (2014) ‘Introduction: The Kitchen Debate in Historical Context’, in The Kitchen Debate and Cold War Consumer Politics: A Brief History with Documents. Boston, Mass: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 9.

[3] Hamilton, S. and Phillips, S.T. (2014) ‘Introduction: The Kitchen Debate in Historical Context’, in The Kitchen Debate and Cold War Consumer Politics: A Brief History with Documents. Boston, Mass: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 24.

[4] Hamilton, S. and Philips, S.T. (2014) ‘Introduction: The Kitchen Debate in Historical Context’, in The Kitchen Debate and Cold War Consumer Politics: A Brief History with Documents. Boston, Mass: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 25.

[5] Hamilton, S. and Phillips, S.T. (2014) ‘Introduction: The Kitchen Debate in Historical Context’, in The Kitchen Debate and Cold War Consumer Politics: A Brief History with Documents. Boston, Mass: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 28.

---

Kennedy’s Foreign Policy

Kennedy’s foreign policy centered around a flexible response to the threat of nuclear arms. This flexible response allowed Kennedy to continue in the build up of the United States nuclear weapons that could be used as a threat against the Soviet Union. But it also allowed Kennedy to “…develop different strategies, tactics, and even military capabilities to respond more appropriately to small or medium-sized insurgencies, and political or diplomatic crises”.[1] Kennedy’s foreign policy was marred by a series of failures and the occasional success. One such perceived failure was the Vietnam War. This war would become Kennedy’s most lasting influence on America foreign policy as it would last for a considerable amount of time. In addition to this, in the words of the historian, Robert Dallek, “Kennedy was really doubtful about the wisdom of escalating the war,” and was developing a plan as early as 1962 to remove all troops in stages”.[2] A success to his foreign policy was the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. In October, American pilots photographed evidence of Soviet missiles in Cuba even though Khrushchev had given assurances that there were no plans to place missiles in Cuba. Kennedy immediately formed the Executive Committee of the National Security Council. A few days later, Kennedy made an address to the American people and that alerted the Soviet Union to the fact that they had been spotted in Cuba. In Kennedy’s address, he “…announced a blockade of Cuba, declared that an attack from Cuba would be understood as a Soviet attack requiring response in kind, stepped up American military readiness and asked for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council”.[3] This would result in the Soviet Union to remove their missile from Cuba.

The Evolution of Cold War Rhetoric is an interesting demonstration of how the use of words can affect the development of relations between nations. The rivalry between the United States and Soviet Union during this time was an intense period of tensions both militarily and politically. At the end of the Cold War, it was ultimately the United States that came out on top, and this contribute to how the Cold War is one of the most influential periods in American history.

---

---

[1] OpenStax United States History II, Lumen. Available at: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-ushistory2/chapter/kennedy-and-the-cold-war/ (Accessed: 07 December 2023).

[2] “JFK and Foreign Policy.” PBS. Accessed December 7, 2023. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/feature/john-kennedy-and-foreign-policy/.

[3] “JFK and Foreign Policy.” PBS. Accessed December 7, 2023. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/feature/john-kennedy-and-foreign-policy/.

---

How to Cite:

Hilda Snodgrass, “The Evolution of Cold War Rhetoric from Eisenhower to Kennedy,” Digital History at USC Aiken, 2023, https://digitalhistoryusca.com/2023/12/07/the-evolution-of-cold-war-rhetoric-from-eisenhower-to-kennedy/

Featured Image caption.

John F. Kennedy and Dwight D. Eisenhower. Photograph. oldpics.net.

---

---

Resource List

The Kitchen Debate and Cold War Consumer Politics: A Brief History with Documents by Shane Hamilton and Sarah Philips

A Cold Warrior Seeks Peace: Eisenhower’s Strategy for Nuclear Disarmament by Thomas F. Soapes