Bernard Baruch coins the term “Cold War”

Bernard Baruch coins the term “Cold War”


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Multimillionaire and financier Bernard Baruch, in a speech given during the unveiling of his portrait in the South Carolina House of Representatives, coins the term “Cold War” to describe relations between the United States and the Soviet Union. The phrase stuck, and for over 40 years it was a mainstay in the language of American diplomacy.

Baruch had served as an advisor to presidents on economic and foreign policy issues since the days of Woodrow Wilson. In 1919, he was one of the U.S. advisers at the Paris Peace Conference that ended World War I. During the 1930s, he frequently advised Franklin D. Roosevelt and members of Congress on international finance and issues of neutrality. After World War II, he remained a trusted adviser to the new administration of Harry S. Truman. His speech in April 1947, however, was given in a completely different context. A portrait of the native South Carolinian was to be hung in the state’s House of Representatives, and Baruch was invited for its unveiling. Most guests expected that he would give a brief talk, but Baruch instead launched into a scorching attack on the industrial labor problems in the country. It was only through “unity” between labor and management, he declared, that the United States could hope to play its role as the major force by which “the world can renew itself physically or spiritually.”

He called for longer workweeks, no-strike pledges from unions, and no-layoff pledges from management. It was imperative that American business and industry pull itself together, Baruch warned. “Let us not be deceived—we are today in the midst of a cold war. Our enemies are to be found abroad and at home. Let us never forget this: Our unrest is the heart of their success. The peace of the world is the hope and the goal of our political system; it is the despair and defeat of those who stand against us. We can depend only on ourselves.”

The term “Cold War” was instantly embraced by American newspapers and magazines as an apt description of the situation between the United States and the Soviet Union: a war without fighting or bloodshed, but a battle nonetheless.

READ MORE: Cold War: Definition and Timeline


Multimillionær og finansmand Bernard Baruch mønter i en tale, der blev holdt under afsløringen af ​​sit portræt i Representantenes hus i South Carolina, udtrykket "Kolde krig" for at beskrive forbindelserne mellem De Forenede Stater og Sovjetunionen. Udtrykket gik fast, og i over 40 år var det en grundpille i sproget til amerikansk diplomati.

Baruch havde fungeret som rådgiver for præsidenter i økonomiske og udenrigspolitiske spørgsmål siden Woodrow Wilsons dage. I 1919 var han en af ​​de amerikanske rådgivere på Paris Fredskonference, der sluttede 1. verdenskrig. I 1930'erne rådgav han ofte Franklin D. Roosevelt og medlemmer af Kongressen om internationale finanser og spørgsmål om neutralitet. Efter 2. verdenskrig forblev han en betroet rådgiver for den nye administration af Harry S. Truman. Hans tale i april 1947 blev imidlertid holdt i en helt anden sammenhæng. Et portræt af det indfødte syd-karolinske skulle hænges i statens repræsentantshus, og Baruch blev inviteret til afsløring. De fleste gæster forventede, at han ville holde en kort tale, men Baruch startede i stedet i et brændende angreb på de industrielle arbejdskraftproblemer i landet. Det var kun gennem ”enhed” mellem arbejdskraft og ledelse, erklærede han, at De Forenede Stater kunne håbe på at spille sin rolle som den største styrke, hvorigennem ”verden kan fornye sig fysisk eller åndeligt.” Han opfordrede til længere arbejdsviker, no- strejke løfter fra fagforeninger og ingen afskedigelseslofter fra ledelsen. Det var bydende nødvendigt, at amerikansk erhvervsliv bragte sig sammen, advarede Baruch. ”Lad os ikke narre, vi er i dag midt i en kold krig. Vores fjender findes i udlandet og hjemme. Lad os aldrig glemme dette: Vores uro er hjertet i deres succes. Fredens verden er vores politiske systems håb og mål det er fortvivlelsen og nederlaget for dem, der står imod os. Vi kan kun være afhængige af os selv. ”

Udtrykket ”Kolde krig” blev øjeblikkeligt omfavnet af amerikanske aviser og magasiner som en passende beskrivelse af situationen mellem De Forenede Stater og Sovjetunionen: en krig uden kamp eller blodudgydelse, men en kamp alligevel.


Bernard Baruch coins the term “Cold War” - Apr 16, 1947 - HISTORY.com

TSgt Joe C.

Multimillionaire and financier Bernard Baruch, in a speech given during the unveiling of his portrait in the South Carolina House of Representatives, coins the term “Cold War” to describe relations between the United States and the Soviet Union. The phrase stuck, and for over 40 years it was a mainstay in the language of American diplomacy.

Baruch had served as an advisor to presidents on economic and foreign policy issues since the days of Woodrow Wilson. In 1919, he was one of the U.S. advisers at the Paris Peace Conference that ended World War I. During the 1930s, he frequently advised Franklin D. Roosevelt and members of Congress on international finance and issues of neutrality. After World War II, he remained a trusted adviser to the new administration of Harry S. Truman. His speech in April 1947, however, was given in a completely different context. A portrait of the native South Carolinian was to be hung in the state’s House of Representatives, and Baruch was invited for its unveiling. Most guests expected that he would give a brief talk, but Baruch instead launched into a scorching attack on the industrial labor problems in the country. It was only through “unity” between labor and management, he declared, that the United States could hope to play its role as the major force by which “the world can renew itself physically or spiritually.” He called for longer workweeks, no-strike pledges from unions, and no-layoff pledges from management. It was imperative that American business and industry pull itself together, Baruch warned. “Let us not be deceived-we are today in the midst of a cold war. Our enemies are to be found abroad and at home. Let us never forget this: Our unrest is the heart of their success. The peace of the world is the hope and the goal of our political system it is the despair and defeat of those who stand against us. We can depend only on ourselves.”

The term “Cold War” was instantly embraced by American newspapers and magazines as an apt description of the situation between the United States and the Soviet Union: a war without fighting or bloodshed, but a battle nonetheless.


Eisenhower/ Truman Study Guide The questions cover Chapters 5, 6, and 7 from the Cold War book- Pearson, and Ch. 12, 16, and 17 and pages 150-161 from the Todd book. All of these sections were assigned and questions were asked in class covering most of the readings. 1. What was the difference between Cominform and COMECOM? Cominform: Communist Information Bureau (September 1947) created as an instrument to increase Stalin’s control over the Communist parties of other countries. COMECOM:

Cold By: Na Lin Introduction The Cold War is the relationship between the US and the USSR after WWII.Different views were clashing. Both sides struggle for dominance. They took every chance they can get to expand in the world.It was a rivalry that was open yet restricted.George Orwell was the first person to use the term “Cold War” in an article in England in 1945.The first person to used the term in the United States was by Bernard Baruch in a speech in 1947.The Cold War had solidified by 1947-1948


버나드 바룩 (Bernard Baruch)은“냉전”이라는 용어를 사용합니다

사우스 캐롤라이나 하원에서 자신의 초상을 공개하는 동안 발표 된 연설에서 수백만 명과 금융가 Bernard Baruch는 미국과 소련의 관계를 설명하기 위해“Cold War”라는 용어를 사용합니다. 이 문구는 40 년 넘게 미국 외교 언어의 주류였습니다.

바룩은 우드로 윌슨 시절부터 경제 및 외교 정책 문제에 관해 대통령의 고문으로 활동했다. 1919 년, 파리 평화 회의에서 제 1 차 세계 대전을 종식시킨 미국 고문 중 한 명이었습니다. 1930 년대에 그는 국제 금융과 중립 문제에 관해 Franklin D. Roosevelt와 의회 회원들에게 자주 조언했습니다. 제 2 차 세계 대전 후에도 그는 Harry S. Truman의 새 행정부에 대한 신뢰할만한 고문으로 남아있었습니다. 그러나 1947 년 4 월에 그의 연설은 완전히 다른 죄로 주어졌다. 사우스 캐롤리나 출신의 원주민 초상화가이주의 하원에서 교수형에 처해졌으며, 바룩 (Baruch)이 발표를 위해 초대되었습니다. 대부분의 손님은 그가 간단한 대화를 할 것으로 기대했지만 바룩은 대신이 나라의 산업 노동 문제에 대한 맹렬한 공격을 시작했습니다. 그는 노동과 관리 사이의“통일”을 통해서만 미국이“세계가 육체적으로나 영적으로 새롭게 될 수있는 주된 힘”으로서의 역할을 수행하기를 희망 할 수 있다고 선언했다. 노조의 공약 및 경영진의 해고 금지 공약. 바룩은 미국의 비즈니스와 산업이 함께 결속해야한다고 경고했다. “우리가 속지 말자”우리는 오늘날 냉전 속에있다. 우리의 적들은 해외와 집에서 발견되어야합니다. 우리는 이것을 잊지 말자 : 우리의 불안은 그들의 성공의 핵심이다. 세상의 평화는 우리 정치 시스템의 희망과 목표입니다. 그것은 우리를 대적하는 사람들의 절망과 패배입니다. 우리 자신에만 의지 할 수 있습니다.”

“냉전”이라는 용어는 미국 신문과 잡지에서 즉시 미국과 소련의 상황에 대한 적절한 묘사, 즉 싸움이나 유혈이없는 전쟁이지만 그럼에도 불구하고 전쟁으로 받아 들여졌습니다.


Who used the term cold war?

Subsequently, question is, why was the name Cold War given? The Cold War got its name because both sides were afraid of fighting each other directly. In a "hot war," nuclear weapons might destroy everything. So, instead, both sides fought each other indirectly.

Consequently, who popularized the term cold war?

The first use of the term in this sense, to describe the post&ndashWorld War II geopolitical tensions between the USSR and its satellites and the United States and its western European allies (which in practice acted as satellites of the opposing force) is attributed to Bernard Baruch, an American financier and presidential

Who was involved in the Cold War?

The Cold War was an ongoing political rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union and their respective allies that developed after World War II. This hostility between the two superpowers was first given its name by George Orwell in an article published in 1945.


What does the term Cold War refer?

Cold War. Term which refers to the uneasy peace between the U.S and the soviet Union starting after WWII the two nations did not actuallly fight each other, but exchanged harsh words and ideologies.

who used the word Cold War first time? Bernard Baruch

Similarly one may ask, where does the term cold war come from?

On this day in 1947, Bernard Baruch, the multimillionaire financier and adviser to presidents from Woodrow Wilson to Harry S. Truman, coined the term &ldquoCold War&rdquo to describe the increasingly chilly relations between two World War II Allies: the United States and the Soviet Union.

What is Cold War in short?

Cold War, the open yet restricted rivalry that developed after World War II between the United States and the Soviet Union and their respective allies. The Cold War was waged on political, economic, and propaganda fronts and had only limited recourse to weapons.


Cold War Origins - Genealogy of the term

It was in the United States, not accidentally, that the Cold War as a term entered popular discourse. It was there too that much of the early discussion about its nature and causes took place and where the preponderance of historiography on the subject would later appear. The Cold War was from the beginning an American concern. It has never quite been established who coined the phrase. Nor does it much matter. Bernard Baruch, the aging financier and sometime policymaker, used the term in the spring of 1947 but in passing and without any elaboration. By his own subsequent account, Baruch took it from his friend and speechwriter Herbert Bayard Swope, who claimed he had come up with it while considering the socalled Phoney War of 1939–1940, the odd and extended early phase of World War II in Europe when nothing substantial by way of military activity took place.

The person who turned it into an integrated part of the political language, however, was the powerful newspaper columnist Walter Lippmann. In the fall of 1947, he published a series of wide-ranging articles on foreign policy that took as their critical starting point an important analysis of the Soviet Union that had appeared in the July issue of Foreign Affairs, the authoritative journal of the foreign policy establishment in the United States. The author, George F. Kennan, was a high official in the State Department, and because the piece was controversial it appeared anonymously under the signature "X"—thus rendering it known and famous subsequently as the "X Article." At the end of the year, Lippmann collected his columns in a short book he entitled The Cold War. Although he nowhere used the term in the actual writings, the idea was present throughout. In the next few years it gradually became a common reference but it only achieved general usage in the early 1950s. Against the Baruch-Swope claims to authorship, Lippmann maintained later that his choice of title had been inspired by a certain French vocabulary of politics in the 1930s, where terms such as la guerre froide (cold war) and la guerre blanche (white war) designated a state of war without open war. French lexographers have disputed Lippmann's retrospective account but the matter remains open.

There are, in any case, other and earlier appearances. Two are of considerable interest. In October 1945 the English writer George Orwell had referred to a "cold war" in the context of what he saw as a new historical stage where a few "monstrous super-States" would be able to divide the world between them because of their control of the awesome new weapon, the atomic bomb. Orwell surmised that these superpowers, now essentially unassailable, would agree not to use the bomb against each other but deploy it as a means of intimidating their respective neighbors in what would constitute "a permanent 'cold war.'"

Vast conflagrations such as World War II might then be replaced by a "'peace that is no peace,' an epoch as horribly stable as the slave empires of antiquity." Three such Cold War power configurations would emerge: the United States, the Soviet Union, and, potentially, China–East Asia. Highly suggestive, Orwell's grim scenario thus reserved "cold war" for the relationship between the powerful and the weak, probably an extrapolation from fascist examples of intimidation and expansion during the 1930s. His use of the term had little effect but the notion of three global hegemons would reappear three years later in his classic novel of dystopian drabness, 1984, where Oceania, Eastasia, and Eurasia engage in seemingly useless wars on the periphery in the name of meaningless propagandistic slogans, language having been reduced to a political instrument of pure manipulation.

Orwell's geopolitical vision was a postwar version of an idiosyncratic work that appeared in the United States in 1941, James Burnham's The Managerial Revolution. Here, another tripartite division of superstates, each impossible to conquer, is envisaged (Japan, Germany, and the United States). Enduring in its fundamentals, the system would nevertheless feature a myriad of diffuse conflicts, hard to get a grip on because they would be undeclared, their origins, beginnings, and endings forever mired in obscurity. Orwell's peace that is no peace, already discernible in this account, will become more explicit once Burnham had moved from renegade Trotskyist to relentless cold warrior. By 1947 he was arguing that a sort of World War III had broken out even before the second one was over, a conflict triggered in April 1944 by the outbreak of civil war in Greece. This new and all-encompassing contest required, above all, unflinching assertion of American power in the form of a world empire: the United States, not least because of its atomic monopoly, would be able to intervene to decide all global issues vital to its national security. Should the United States fail, the Soviet Union would take its place. Burnham thought the imperial project, necessarily entailing a great deal of coercion, could be combined with democracy at home. Moreover, he suggested that, rather than calling the whole endeavor an empire, one should give it the more palatable name of a "democratic world order."

The idea of a new historical condition outside the "normal" polarity of peace and war, initially distilled from the experience of fascist aggression in the 1930s, was thus in circulation by the time Lippmann put the term on the public map. There is, however, a much older use, though not as old as sometimes alleged. It appears to originate in the early fourteenth century with a Castilian aristocrat, Don Juan Manuel, who was part of the long and continuing Christian campaign to reconquer the Iberian peninsula from Islamic power. This struggle featured a wide range of irregular engagements and changing frontiers against the backdrop of a "total" political and cultural conflict between religious ideologies. Don Juan Manuel, reflecting deeply on the nature of the antagonism, is said to have called it a cold war. What his manuscript actually says is probably "tepid" or "lukewarm." The rendition "cold" is the accidental result of erroneous editorial transcription in the 1860s. Yet Don Juan Manuel's image of tepid war is not without relevance in the present context. Real war, he says, has real results in the form of either death or peace. Tepid war, by contrast, is not an honorable war between equal enemies and seems not to result in any real peace. The mistake of his subsequent editor in any case illustrates some of the problems with the metaphorical aspects of the term: the opposite of cold may be hot, in this case signifying open war, but a rising temperature can also indicate a "thaw," as in a warming relationship replacing a frosty, frigid, and unresponsive one. The term indicates, then, the absolute, polar enmity of real war without any real fighting: it is warlike in every sense except, paradoxically, the explicitly military.

In pondering his Muslim enemies, Don Juan Manuel was highly respectful of their qualities as warriors but in the end his study had to do with a conflict that was doctrinally irreconcilable in nature, indeed civilizational: there was no frame in which European Christendom and Islam could understand one another as equal adversaries. "Peace" could only result from a total victory and liquidation of the enemy as an independent force. A century later, however, Europe itself was rent asunder by confessional struggles regarding the very orthodoxy of Christianity. In the long process during which these struggles were played out, the modern concept of the state emerged along with a sharply defined, dichotomous understanding of war and peace. Simply put, confessional conflicts (and war) were effectively banished from the sovereign inside of the new, inviolate state borders. To wage war from then on is, supposedly, the exclusive right of sovereigns. Understood as a legitimate political means, such warmaking can only take place externally against enemies who are essentially legitimate equals similarly engaged. These intramural, European wars, in principle, are only to be conducted for limited gains, not for the absolute end of total liquidation of the enemy as a political entity. A whole apparatus regulating these limited wars is constructed, based on the premise of an absolute distinction between inside and outside as well as between war and peace.

This is, in short, the birth of international law as we know it. It is a profoundly Eurocentric order. Although challenged severely by the French Revolution, it survived essentially down to the 1930s, when the fascist powers launched a series of aggressions that broke decisively with the earlier, sharp distinction between the states of war and peace. Thus, Japan's war against China was officially classed as an "incident" Italy called its intervention in the Spanish Civil War "not warmaking" and Hitler expanded his territory through successive ultimatums and threats of violence that did not become open war. A range of state actions seemed to have emerged that constituted some form of state close to but below the level of actual war. The traditional system (declaration of war, rules of conduct, rights of noncombatants, neutrality), which had been codified in the Hague Convention in 1907 and achieved a strong resurgence in the legalistic 1920s, appeared to have been set brutally aside. It was this process, then, that eventually would draw two immense new powers onto center stage, both with universalizing, quasi-confessional claims: the United States and the Soviet Union. The "origins" of the Cold War lie in this event, more particularly in the diverging ways in which the two regimes understood and dealt with the antifascist war and its aftermath.


1950 – the Korean War breaks out

January, 31, 1950: U.S. President Harry Truman begins the development of hydrogen bomb. The bomb is tagged as a much powerful bomb than the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

February 14, 1950: The Soviet Union and Communist China enter into a 30-year friendship treaty.

March 1, 1950: Under the Official Secrets Act, Physicist Klaus Fuchs was sentenced to 14 years in prison for spying for the Soviets.

June 25, 1950: Communist North Korea invades South Korea, marking the beginning of the Korean War.

June 28, 1950: U.S. President Harry Truman sends U.S. forces to support South Korean forces.

September 26, 1950: Seoul is recaptured by a U.S. led United Nations forces.

September 29, 1950: The U.S. led forces begin to make a push into North Korea.

October 20, 1950: Pyongyang falls into the hands of United Nations forces.

November 26, 1950: Communist China comes to the aid of the North Koreans. Pyongyang falls back into the hands of North Korea.


In 1945 George Orwell coined the term “Cold War” and predicted decades of nuclear anxiety

George Orwell was an English writer who is best known for his socially engaged literature that satirized totalitarianism and criticized social injustice.

His novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four” is the primary works of dystopian literature, and “Animal Farm” is among the best allegorical critiques of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and social system of Stalinist Russia.

Orwell’s passport photo during his Burma years.

Orwell coined many neologisms that were to become a vital part of cultural theory and the English language itself. He invented the term “Big Brother” to describe an all-seeing government able to control every move of its citizens and was the first social critic to introduce the notion of the “thought police”, an institution that enforces the prohibition of the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press.

The term “Cold War” is used to describe the period of political tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union which lasted for several decades. The term is fitting because there was no major direct military conflict between the two nations, but the threat of a nuclear war was constant. The two sides battled through political conundrums, espionage and regional conflicts known as “proxy wars”.

However, many people are unaware that the term “Cold War” was coined by none other than George Orwell himself. In 1945 Orwell published an essay entitled “You and the Atomic Bomb”, in which he expressed concern over living in a world which is aware of the existence of nuclear weapons capable of immense destruction. Orwell predicted that the second half of the 20 th would be known as the age of nuclear anxiety.

US President John F. Kennedy and the Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev at the Vienna summit, June 4, 1961.

The first person to use the term in connection with the political tension between the United States and the Soviet Union was the famous English journalist Herbert Bayard Swope, who was a three-time recipient of the Pulitzer Prize.

During the Cold War, the US conducted around 1,054 nuclear tests by official count, between 1945 and 1992.

In a speech written for Bernard Baruch, a prominent political advisor to the American Democratic Party, Swope wrote: “Let us not be deceived: we are today in the midst of a cold war.”

George Orwell’s concerns and predictions expressed in his novels and essays were stunningly accurate. He predicted the age of global nuclear paranoia of the Cold War, the age of police brutality and the mass surveillance of citizens, and the uncontained spread of unregulated neoliberal capitalism.

Journalist Herbert Bayard Swope in 1917.

Sadly, Orwell died in 1950 at the age of 46 and never saw the end of the Cold War.

He also never witnessed the emergence of the digital age, a development that saw many of his predictions became a reality.


Bernard Baruch: We Need an International Law with Teeth

“The basis of a sound foreign policy, in this new age, for all the nations here gathered, is that anything that happens, no matter where or how, which menaces the peace of the world, or the economic stability, concerns each and all of us…

Now, if ever, is the time to act for the common good. Public opinion supports a world movement toward security. If I read the signs aright, the peoples want a program not composed merely of pious thoughts but of enforceable sanctions — an international law with teeth in it…

Let this be anchored in our minds: Peace is never long preserved by weight of metal or by an armament race. Peace can be made tranquil and secure only by understanding and agreement fortified by sanctions. We must embrace international cooperation or international disintegration…

The solution will require apparent sacrifice in pride and in position, but better pain as the price of peace than death as the price of war.”

Though he would in the following year coin the term “Cold War”, Baruch concluded this speech with the ungrudging proposal that all nuclear weapons be placed — through a thirteen-step procedure — under some intergovernmental authority. You think that sounds idealistic? Yeah, me too. Or at least anachronistic, especially in a time when the international community flounders purposelessly, not only in its attempt to curb the annexation of Eastern Ukraine, but also in keeping track of a massive commercial airliner with 200 cell-phones on board. What would it possibly do with a couple thousand nuclear bombs?

Though the number of active nukes has shriveled to around 4,100 from a peak of 68,000 in 1985, Baruch’s point is a serious one, especially when our attention is drawn to the Korean Peninsula or the once-unified Pashtun region split between Pakistan and India. Neither of those two neighbors, nor the hermit kingdom of the Kim dynasty, is yet to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, even though they are armed with an estimated 200-plus total (though not all active) warheads.

As someone born in 1989, I’ve never felt the disquiet of a duck-and-cover drill. Nor did I spend geography week in Kindergarten as my mom did: ogling anxiously at the massive Soviet Union — a red Rorschach blot that provoked only ugly words. Fear. Danger. Enemy. Still, if we can form a post-9/11 position toward nuclear weapons, it must rest on the tension between the unfortunate fact and terrifying contingency which follow: The human animal’s technological progress is outpacing its moral progress what happens when an apocalyptic ideology lays its hands on apocalypse-inducing weaponry? In other words: can there be any doubt that if Muhammad Atta had a nuclear bomb, he would have used it?

There are two additional paragraphs, supplied by Martin Amis in his suggestively titled Einstein’s Monsters (1987), which illuminate a critical generational difference in our attitudes towards the inevitability of living with nukes.

My father regards nuclear weapons as an unbudgeable given. They will always be necessary because the Soviets will always have them and the Soviets will always want to enslave the West. Arms agreements are no good because the Soviets will always cheat. Unilateral disarmament equals surrender. And anyway, it isn’t a case of “red or dead.” The communist world is itself nuclear-armed and deeply divided: so it’s a case of “red and dead.”

Well, dead, at any rate, is what this prescription seems to me to promise. Nuclear weapons, my father reminds me, have deterred war for forty years. I remind him that no global abattoir presided over the century-long peace that followed Napoleon’s discomfiture in 1815. And the trouble with deterrence is that it can’t last out the necessary time-span, which is roughly between now and the death of the sun.