By the 1970s Iran’s rentier state had broad influence — politically, socially, and economically.

The shah had adopted a capitalistic program of industrial and economic expansion to be fueled by the regime’s expenditures on industry, construction and services. The program relied on the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Development Plans (1962-1977) for implementation and planning. The expenditures delineated in these plans were closely linked to shifts in the price of oil and, thus, to the world capitalist economy.

When the OPEC oil cartel raised prices in the early 1970s, the shah had a large influx of revenue that could be used for industrial and military modernization. When world demand for oil contracted from 1975-1977, projects had to be cut and many workers lost their jobs. Since the shah personally made all major decisions, resentment with such happenings was focused on his person. Moreover, the reliance on oil was closely intertwined with the activities of foreign transnational corporations and issues of national security.

To compare, the arrival of the American multinational in Taipei in the early 1960s had the effect of fueling extraordinary economic growth. Not only did MNCs provide labor intensive employment for thousands of Taiwanese (especially for young women), they inaugurated a proliferation of SMEs since the state required the use of local inputs wherever possible.

The role of the transnational corporation in Iran, on the other hand, was quite different. Two major sectors — oil and defense — had the most substantial impact over time.

Although oil had been Iran’s link to the global economic system since its discovery in 1908, in the context of the Cold War conflict it became a strategic commodity.

American administrations were forced to come to grips with the strategic nature of oil because, as Simon Bromley notes:

. . . oil alone, at least in the postwar period, played such a large and central role in military mobility . . . . Because of this strategic quality, US control over the international oil order played a vital role in the constitution and maintenance of its postwar hegemony.

Oil represented both the military and the economic aspects of American grand strategy.

In Taipei, the penetration of the multinational corporation, while facilitated by cooperation between the US military and the KMT government, had been dictated by the economic needs of the capitalist enterprise — a search for cheap labor and high profits.

In Iran, the penetration of the multinational oil corporation was determined by both the strategic necessity of ensuring access to oil for military purposes and by the competitive nature of the capitalist system. Consequently, the pressures on American oil companies from the US government were at least equal to those emanating from the Iranian state.

In the case of oil . . . US policy in the Middle East — specifically, in Saudi Arabia during the 1940s, in Iran in 1953-1954, and with respect to OPEC until the winter of 1973-1974 — was primarily concerned with the stability and general pro-Western orientation of the conservative oil-producing regimes, a task rendered problematic by the United States’ simultaneous support for Israel. US policy in the period leading up to the events of 1973-4 maintained this stance despite the objections of the major oil companies to price increases and nationalizations.

Still, while American oil companies were sometimes pressured by the US government to make concessions to Iran, acting in the interest of US national security rather than according to their preferred corporate strategy, unlike the case of Taiwan, the Iranian state had not been able to dictate MNC entry on its own terms.

In order to successfully resolve the Mossadegh crisis of the early 1950s, Iran had opened its doors to American oil companies under less than optimal conditions.

Regardless, by the mid 1970s, Iran had gained control. The reasons for this were twofold.

While the stated goal of the United States government was the containment of communism, oil was also of growing importance to the general coherence of world capitalism and the unity of the world market. Importantly, in the case of Iran, oil also became linked to the international arms trade.

As oil revenues grew almost exponentially, profits were used to obtain the world’s most technologically advanced weaponry which Iran was now encouraged to purchase in order to implement the Nixon Doctrine.

Global Threats

Today’s global threats are, in part, rooted in the urban growth that swept both the Soviet and Western camps during the half century Cold War.  Moreover, today’s challenges — crime, poverty, and terrorism — are quite different from those faced in last century’s ideological conflict with the Soviet Union.

As we have seen in previous posts, defense of  Western nations during the Cold War period fell largely on the shoulders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO. Today NATO remains important, but the defense against crime, poverty, and terrorism is more diffuse, less multilateral. For example, who is responsible for ensuring the public safety at a global event like FIFA’s 2014 World Cup? Does the obligation belong to FIFA, the host nation (in this case Brazil), the various municipalities where stadiums are located, or some nameless global defense organization? And has the accountability changed as a result of the terrorism in Boston that affected the widely attended Boston Marathon?

As most of us concede, the threat against urban areas has grown since the World Cup’s inception 83 years ago. And the various facets of urban development have changed also. A look back at urbanization during the period of Cold War rivalry is enlightening, providing a glimpse of the forces shaping the development of today’s megacities, targets for many current threats. Brazil’s cities are a good example.  As you can see in the graph below, Brazil’s population escalated rapidly during the Cold War period. Much of this population growth occurred in urban areas, so much so that by Cold War’s end in 1990, Brazil was 77% urbanized.

Cities, worldwide, grew at a rapid pace during the half century Cold War. Over the course of the conflict, the rate of urbanization in the developing world approached — and then exceeded — urban growth in the industrialized countries.

During the 1950s and 1960s (the first years of the Cold War), the proportion of global population in cities of 100,000 or more increased about a third faster in the underdeveloped regions of the world than in the developed ones. This growth trend reversed the urban momentum long held by First World cities.

In 1920, almost three-fourths of the worlds’s urbanites lived in western cities, while only a little more than a fourth lived in the less-developed regions. By 1990, in contrast, two-thirds of the estimated population in cities of five million or more lived in the Third World.

Much of the urban expansion during the Cold War period took place in Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East, the three regions that the two superpowers saw as most militarily significant.

Over the entire period, from 1950 to 1990, urban population grew by 604% in the Middle East, 449% in South-Southeast Asia, and 470% in Latin America.

Urban areas in the post World War II Third World didn’t develop in a vacuum. Although some were affected by the intense militarization surrounding the Cold War conflict, all cities in the developing world were subject to the same urban trends. And while differences in the Soviet and American models of urban growth and land use ultimately influenced the most important (and most closely affiliated) of their client states, many aspects of urbanization were shared in common by both the socialist and capitalist camps.

The Cold War’s Urban Problems

During the first half of the Cold War period, mutual concerns included matters associated with rapid urban expansion, particularly population growth leading to regional imbalance. Related anxieties included rural-urban migration, jobs, housing, and quality-of-life issues.

The early Cold War period — from the 1950s to the 1970s — was marked by the on-going marginalization of many urban areas and was a time when shantytowns and squatter settlements became visible to authorities, elites, and the urban population in general. Much of this marginalized housing is still with us. In fact, in the context of the 2014 FIFA World Cup, it is anticipated that “over 150,000 people will be evicted from their homes because of the World Cup.” Most of those evicted live in  favelas — Brazilian shantytowns that are being sanitized for image reasons.

SOLIDAR SUISSE, a non-governmental organization (NGO) supporting more than 50 projects in 12 countries, argues that

Relocations have already been carried out in all the major cities where World Cup matches are to be held — Sao Paulo, Curitiba, Fortaleza, Recife, etc. But the preparations for this large-scale operation have only just begun.

At kick-off time, an estimated 150,000 to 170,000 people will have been evicted from their homes. Whole neighborhoods must disappear to allow the construction of stadiums and infrastructure, such as roads or airports. On the other hand, the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympics are being used as an excuse to “renew” whole parts of towns. To compare, Raquel Rolnik, UN special envoy for housing rights, spoke of 20,000 evictions in South Africa. There have already been eight times more in Brazil!

Of course, the World Cup is not the only culprit. Other large events worldwide have triggered similar actions and policies. In every such case, people are displaced  and relocated to

sites on the outermost borders of the cities, dozens of kilometers from their original places of residence. There are hardly any schools or health facilities there. Those who had jobs can often no longer get to them because there is not public transportation. There are almost no jobs in these places, and thus no chance of income. All this constitutes a violation of the right to adequate housing. Social networks are being destroyed, which makes it even harder for people to organize their lives.

Compensation is very low for a clearance of informal housing that is not 100% legal, which is the case for the majority of the housing in Brazil’s cities. The amount is woefully insufficient to allow people to live adequately elsewhere. The former inhabitants cannot afford to return to the new buildings. Those who fight back are forcibly evicted by the police or the buildings are torn down without warning. The profits of constructing the new buildings pass through to private hands. Raquel Rolnik speaks of massive land and real estate speculation. (SOLIDAR SUISSE)

In the second half of the Cold War, additional problems were observable. Capitalist cities, especially, concentrated on questions associated with the impact of debt, structural reform (frequently imposed in accordance with guidelines established by the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund), privatization, and the globalization of manufacturing. Questions surrounding capitalism and the contest between the local and the global will be discussed in future posts. Suffice it say for now that these issues were, at times, related to a debate over the role of cities as both consumers and producers. Interestingly, this discussion also had relevance in the socialist world.

Consumer and Producer Cities

Some scholars argued that cities in developing countries worldwide could be characterized as consumer centers where

collective consumption referred to forms of services collectively provided, usually by the state — mass housing, transport, health facilities, and so on.

In the capitalist case

the provision of such services was identified as a source of political mobilisation, as it spawned urban social movements, protest groups aiming to improve urban conditions through contesting the existing pattern of collective consumption.

In the socialist case

the task before policy-makers . . . [was} to convert them into 'producer cities'.

This was seem as requiring a reduction in

the size of the largest cities (deurbanization), containing large-city growth and promoting the self-sufficiency of the urban economy, and encouraging the growth of small- and medium-sized towns and, where necessary, creating new towns.

[Havana (Cuba) is a great example of this policy approach.]

The Informal Sector

In both camps, the period from 1970-1990 became known as the era of the permanent informal sector after it became clear that “marginal sectors whether defined spatially, economically, politically, or socially were not about to disappear.”

Today, in most cities worldwide, these marginal sectors are entrenched. In Brazil,  preparation for the upcoming World Cup means that “street vendors fear for their livelihoods because the World Cup sponsors demand exclusive sales rights.”

The World Cup basic agreement plans exclusion zones around the stadiums and fan parks. According to StreetNet International, the federation of street vendors’ organizations, existing street vending licences in host cities have already been withdrawn or not renewed. In the tourist areas of the host cities, no new licences are being issued. . . Police repression in city centers has increased: vendors’ goods have been confiscated without compensation, and their stalls destroyed, they were fined, and there have been cases of physical violence. Furthermore, many street vendors have lost their sales locations in the inner city because of construction sites linked to the World Cup or to the Olympics. Displacement to the outskirts of the cities threatens their livelihood. Up to 300,000 street vendors may be affected by this. (SOLIDAR SUISSE)

To wrap up, regardless of economic or ideological underpinnings, urban concerns in the developing world converged throughout the Cold War period as neither socialist nor capitalist cities were able to devise policies to incorporate the disadvantaged. Many are now arguing that — so far as Brazil is concerned — it is FIFA’s responsibility to do what the United States and the Soviet Union were unable to accomplish. One such group says:

FIFA must finally face up to its responsibility and make a contribution to improving the living conditions of the Brazilian population. It must consistently commit itself to verifying that no human rights are violated or workers exploited. And it must not pocket all the profits, leaving Brazil with a mountain of debt.

I’d love to hear what you think. Comments are welcome.

As we observed in one of our previous posts,  Havana: Post WW II and Limited Industrialization, Havana was not Cuba.  The capital was quite modern and habaneros enjoyed relatively high standards of living. Still, most Cubans did not live in Havana and, by 1952, Cubans were looking for new leadership.

The idea of a military coup originated with young officers who wanted to restore order and hold new elections. They called on General Batista for leadership because he had carried out a similar program in the 1930s.

On March 10, 1952, Batista and the army easily seized power, and Havana was militarized overnight. Louis Perez recounts:

All principal army posts in Havana were seized at 2:40 a.m., and military units moved into the city to garrison strategic positions.  Bus and rail stations, airports, docks, electricity plants, radio transmitters, banks, and offices of government ministries passed under army control.  Military roadblocks sealed access to and from the capital.  Army units occupied local radio stations…Telecommunication service to the interior was interrupted. Sites of potential protest demonstrations against the coup passed under military control. Opposition press offices were closed. Local headquarters of various unions and the communist party were occupied, and union leaders and political opponents were detained and arrested. The university was closed.  Constitutional guarantees were suspended; congress was dissolved….The effects of nearly a decade of graft, corruption, and scandal at all levels of civilian government had more than adequately paved the way for the return of military. . .

Quite easily, the military became politically preeminent in Cuban politics.

Notably, the militarization of the Cuban polity was accomplished without the assistance of the United States and was unrelated to Cold War competition or confrontation.

Circumstances in 1952 were quite different from those of the 1930s, however, and the officers were soon disillusioned. Lacking popular support, Batista sidetracked the expectations of the younger officers and concerned himself solely with remaining in power.

——————————–

Do you want to see Cuba before the “capitalist invasion?”

Cold War Iran becomes a rentier state.

Iran’s oil income began rising in the 1950s when the resolution of the oil crisis made increased state revenues possible. (For background on the oil crisis see Cold War Iran in the Aftermath of the 1953 Coup.) The first large jump in sales (236%) occurred between 1954 and 1955 when the British embargo of the Mosaddegh period ended.

As a consequence of subsequent rapid growth, oil sales comprised over 41% of total government revenues by 1960, compared to only 11% in 1948. Expanded production and more favorable contracts resulted in spiraling profits over the course of the 1960s.

By the end of the decade, observers were describing Iran as a rentier state, a state which receives

on a regular basis substantial amounts of external rent. These rents, in the form of reverse flow from the sale of oil in the case of petroleum-producing countries, have very little to do with the production processes of their domestic economies. Rentier states, in short, feature economies with undeveloped agricultural, industrial, and manufacturing sectors, the inputs from any such sectors being not significantly related to earnings from the sale of oil.

Oil income continues to rise.

A second large escalation occurred in 1974 when oil prices quadrupled. By this time, also, the political consequences of Iran’s reliance on oil were evident. Since the growth of this income lessened the need for taxation, the relationship of the populace to the state was transformed and there was little semblance of a participatory political project. Because the shah controlled the distribution of the oil profits, he dictated the social, economic, and political direction of the country.

Unlike the case of Taipei where the owners of small and medium-sized enterprises (SME’s) began to contest the traditional elites and to financially support an organized opposition, Iran’s new industrial entrepreneurs didn’t insist on a political role, choosing instead to define themselves as apolitical technocrats. (You may remember that this group had gained their wealth over the course of the 1960s as a consequence of the adjustment to land reform. For ramifications see our post on 1960s isfahan.)

Concurrently, the older generation of politicians who had been active during Mosaddegh’s era weren’t intuitive about the new realities. Some believed that they still had a say in politics when, in actuality, economic and social policies were designed without regard for social consent, and “social classes were adapting themselves to state policies that were beyond their power to influence.”

The Iranian populace is apolitical.

By the mid 1970s, it was apparent to most that the role of the populace was to act as ”grateful beneficiaries of state handouts” controlled by the shah. Loyalty to his person

replaced loyalty to the state as the test of citizenship . . . . The establishment of an oil state meant a progressive erosion of the traditional linkages between the state and civil society.

As Theda Skocpol argues in her article on Rentier State and Shi’a Islam in the Iranian Revolution:

The state’s main relationships to Iranian society were mediated through its expenditures — on the military, on development projects, on modern construction, on consumption subsidies, and the like. Suspended above its own people, the Iranian state bought them off, rearranged their lives, and repressed any dissidents among them.

The state expands its control of the Iranian population.

By the mid 1970s, Iranians were becoming polarized around questions regarding the distribution of oil wealth. The issue of distribution was particularly critical in the urban arena where almost every resident relied heavily on the state for privileges, employment, and services. This topic and associated issues concerning moral decadence and conspicuous consumption were replacing the postwar discourse which had centered on political participation and rational decision-making.

The breakdown in linkage between the state and civil society was evident as the state “extended its control to all employers’ associations, trade unions, bazaar guilds, civil service associations, and rural cooperatives.” Political parties were no longer relevant.

The outbreak of the Korean War gave renewed life to Cuban sugar production. At the same time, Havana’s other economic sectors were stunted by widespread government corruption which served to inhibit economic transformation and entrench the sugar status quo.

In this environment, trade unions pursued a policy of militant reformism as a way of safeguarding employment. Interestingly, union efforts were usually effective. While unemployment and underemployment were widespread, job security for union works who had employment was virtually guaranteed.

Despite union achievements, though, the work force was not necessarily sharing in the country’s growing prosperity.

Even though real wages rose 25 percent, inflation jumped to 60 percent between 1941 and 1947. Also, non-union workers were dealing with both rising rates of inflation and high unemployment. Both groups were plagued by Havana’s threefold rise in food prices along with a doubling of the overall cost of living.

As a result, by the 1950s, there was deepening socioeconomic frustration at the country’s continued dependence on sugar, an export product affected by uncertain market conditions and intense competition. Moreover, since Cuban-US trade reciprocity was believed to undermine the diversification of the Cuban economy, resentment toward the United States increased.

Clearly, the primacy of sugar inhibited the creation of other sectors of employment at the same time that the vagaries of the harvest cycle accounted for the high levels of employment and unemployment which led to seasonal migration.

Without diversification jobs could not be created or living standards raised. However, since economic diversification would require “a realignment of domestic actors, a new role for the state, and a restructuring of Cuban-US relations,” this process was not to occur.

Nevertheless, in spite of Havana’s many challenges, the capital was quite privileged when compared to the rest of the country since unemployment and underemployment afflicted habaneros less than other Cubans.

Even though 26 percent of Cuba’s population lived in Havana province, the city was less dependent on agriculture that the country as a whole and housed nearly 50 percent of all industry. Eight of the fourteen Cuban plants with more than five hundred workers were situated in the capital.

At 9.2 percent, Havana’s illiteracy was well below the national and urban averages. The city boasted more graduates from high school, vocational school, and institutions of higher education than did the rest of the country.

In addition, Havana was home to 66 percent of all Cuba’s professionals, contained 66 percent of the country’s hotel capacity, and possessed 40.7 percent of all hospital beds. According to Marifeli Perez-Stable

Havana was not Cuba. The capital was quite modern and habaneros enjoyed relatively high standards of living. Most were literate, had achieved higher levels of education, had more access to health care, were more likely to be permanently employed, and earned better wages than Cubans in the provinces. Havana, moreover, was undergoing a consumer boom ….  While other urban areas received some [of the growing number of imported] consumer goods … New York and California department stores ran regular advertisements in Havana newspapers.

Still, most Cubans did not live in Havana and, by 1952, it was obvious to those in the countryside that postwar economic opportunities had been squandered.

Sugar dependency, economic stagnation, government scandals, and countrywide discontent spurred a military coup on March 10, 1952, which returned past President Fulgencio Batista to power.

In other words, “the effects of nearly a decade of graft, corruption, and scandal at all levels of civilian government had more than adequately paved the way for the return of military rule.”

Photograph by Lisa Reynolds Wolfe

——————————–

Do you want to see Cuba before the “capitalist invasion?”

Transnational corporations during the Cold War period concentrated on three categories of manufactured products from Taiwan and other less developed countries.

The first category (much smaller than the other two) was made up of capital or technology intensive goods including chemicals, iron and steel, light engineering goods, machinery, and transport equipment. In this area, the initial technology was usually provided by the transnational firm.

The second category included simple labor intensive products like clothing and miscellaneous light manufactures — sporting goods, travel goods, furniture, wigs, and plastic products. Here, a division of labor emerged between production done by local industrialists and global marketing done by foreigners. Production of these products was largely in the hands of domestic entrepreneurs or firms, but transnational buying groups played an important role in promoting at least some of the exports.

The clothing sector was particularly important in the Taipei case since it had been upgraded in the early 1950s under the tutelage of US advisers intent on assuring the production of high quality military uniforms.

In the apparel end of textiles, sales to mass marketers, such as K-mart, and subcontracting for foreign brand names, such as Arrow and Jantzen, accounted for a substantial part of production.

J.C. Penney, Montgomery Ward, and Sears Roebuck were also large buyers.

Exports as a percentage of textile production expanded rapidly: 19.6% in 1961; 25.6% in 1966; 38.9% in 1969; and 80% in 1982.

Taiwan’s leading sector, locally owned, thus became export-dependent, with much of the actual marketing and know-how controlled by foreigners.

The third category, products of footloose industries, involved the evolution of extremely specialized labor intensive processes for manufacturing, including assembly operations. The electronics industry which, at first, produced  semi-conductors, tuners, valves, and related components was by far the most important in this sphere. These industries were highly capital as well as technology intensive, embodying the latest technical developments.

By 1972, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore accounted for nearly half the total manufactured products from the entire less developed world. 

These countries, known as the four little tigers, had been observed to have extremely close political ties with the home countries of transnational firms, especially the US and Great Britain. Still, it has been argued that they should not be treated as special cases. Rather, they are said to reflect the two basic factors which influenced the location decisions of transnational firms, political stability and labor “docility.”

In the context of the times, political stability implied that the risks of nationalization or confiscation of assets were reduced to a minimum, and labor docility implied a strict control over trade unions, reducing the possibility of industrial disputes, enabling firms to dismiss workers for the purpose of maintaining discipline, and allowing a cutback in employment in case of recession.

In the case of Taipei, political stability and labor docility were often facilitated through repressive action. Typical statements of multinational executives emphasize the importance of both. Regarding location decisions, one businessman stated:

We won’t go into that country until the government gets the unions in line.

Another said:

We wanted a site where we could have the US Navy between us and Mainland China.

Thus, contrary to the argument that particular countries weren’t special cases, it is possible to argue that compared to other countries in the developing world, a country like Taiwan did have special qualities.

As we have seen, the militarization of Taipei under the KMT government, including the continuing imposition of martial law, assured both domestic political stability and labor docility. These repressive policies were actively supported by the US government.

The presence of US military forces as a consequence of the Cold War conflict ensured that the island was secure from external adversaries.

The presence of the US Seventh Fleet in the Gulf of Tonkin meant that goods, people, and money could flow safely to and from Taipei.

Militarization meant that the conditions necessary for successful economic development were indeed in place. Thus the degree of intervention risk was considered minor compared to that of most less developing countries including Algeria, Brazil, and Liberia.

By 1971, 200 American businesses were operating in Taiwan, the majority of them in Taipei, and foreign firms were responsible for at least 20% of the country’s manufactured exports.

For more information on Taiwan’s economic development, check out our earlier posts:

US Investment in Cold War Taiwan

The American Multinational Corporation in Taiwan

Economy in Taiwan 1959-1979

Economy in Taiwan 1959-1979 (Part II)

The importance of sugar to the Cuban economy — and to the capital city of Havana – has been summed up in the widely quoted phrase sin azucar, no hay pais (without sugar, there is no nation).

It is notable, then, that as World War II ended, circumstances surrounding the world market for sugar brought a period of prosperity and optimism to the city of Havana, a welcome relief from the capital’s depressed wartime economy.

World sugar production had declined by almost 60 percent over the course of the war, but eventually the decline of sugar production in war-torn Asia spurred production in Cuba and brought a return of normalcy to Havana’s economy.

Specifically, from a combined worldwide cane and beet production of 28.6 million tons in 1940, output fell to 18.1 million tons in 1946. Cuban production, on the other hand, rebounded, increasing from 4.2 million tons in 1944 to 5.8 million tons in 1948, a gain of almost 40 percent at a time when sugar constituted over 90 percent of the island’s total exports by value.

Much of Cuba’s sugar was shipped to the United States, leading to a heightened dependency on Cuban-US reciprocity arrangements.

As the economy grew, public works programs increased, and the government bureaucracy resumed its expansion. According to Cuban scholar Louis A. Perez, Jr:

The ranks of the civil service became bloated. The number of persons on the government payroll more than doubled, from 60,000 in 1943 to 131,000 in 1949. By 1950, some 186,000 persons, fully 11 percent of the working population, occupied active public positions at national, provincial, and municipal levels of government: another 30,000 retired employees were on the state payrolls. An estimated 80 percent of the 1949-1950 budget was used to pay the salaries of public officials. Pensions accounted for another 8 percent of national expenditures.

Because many individuals benefited from the growth of the civil service, the enlarged administration did not create concern until, as the 1950s approached world sugar production began to stabilize, it appeared that rival producers would soon threaten Cuban prosperity.

Fortunately, a Cold War crisis ensured sustained economic growth when the Korean War gave renewed life to high sugar prices.

——————————–

Do you want to see Cuba before the “capitalist invasion?”

Soccer fever is building in anticipation of the 2014 World Cup, so it must be time for Cold War Studies to turn its focus once again to The Beautiful Game in the context of the Cold War. 

Background

The first FIFA World Cup, held in 1930, was a 13 team event held in Uruguay. Since then, the contest has expanded to 32 teams. It’s  preceded by a two year qualifying process involving almost 200 teams from all over the world.

The first goal in World Cup history was scored by Lucien Laurent of France.  The first World Cup hat-trick was earned by Bert Patenaude of the USA. (For those of you who don’t know, a hat-trick in soccer is when a player scores three goals in one game. But a goal from a penalty kick doesn’t count.)

Uruguay defeated Argentina 4-2 in the 1930 final. The win came in front of a crowd of 93,000 in Montevideo.

Subsequent World Cups were held in 1934 and 1938. The tournament was cancelled in 1942 and 1946 due to World War II.

This brings us to the Cold War!

1950

Competition resumed with the 1950 World Cup in Brazil. The Cold War was in full swing by then and, for political reasons, Eastern European countries — Hungary, the Soviet Union, and Czechoslovakia — refused to participate. However, in a preview of  Cold War conflict to come between nations of the First (developed) and Third (developing) worlds, England and Chile faced off, with First World England dominating 2-0.

1954

The 1954 World Cup, held in Switzerland, was the first FIFA World Cup to be televised. The Soviet Union didn’t participate, but Hungary did, achieving recognition as the highest scoring team. Despite its success, Hungary lost to West Germany in the finals (3-2); the match is known as the Miracle of Bern in Germany. Was it a harbinger of the West’s victory in the Cold War?

1958

Brazil won the 1958 World Cup, held in Sweden, and became the first team to win a World Cup outside their home continent. The Soviet Union participated and, due to withdrawals, Israel qualified without playing a single qualifying match. This led FIFA to rule that qualification without playing was not allowed. Israel was ordered to play against one of the teams finishing second in the other groups. Israel played Wales and was defeated. Wales’ victory was the first (and so far the only) time that a country played a World Cup round after having been eliminated in the regular qualifiers. The tournament also saw the emergence of the Brazilian superstar, Pele, who scored two goals in the final. Brazil’s Cold War military regime wasn’t as enamored of Pele as the fans were, however. Eventually, he was investigated by Brazil’s 1964-1985 military dictatorship. The regime often probed leftists, as well as people suspected of being leftists.

1962

Chile hosted the 1962 World Cup. Before play began an earthquake struck, the largest ever recorded at 9.5 on the Richter Scale, prompting officials to rebuild due to major damage to infrastructure. The competition was marred by overly defensive and often violent tactics. This poisonous atmosphere culminated in what was known as the Battle of Santiago first round match between Italy and Chile which Chile won 2-0. The Italian team needed police protection to leave the field in safety. In the finals, Brazil beat Czechoslovakia for the second World Cup in a row by a score of 3-1. It was another victory for an American supported regime in the on-going East-West patron-client rivalry.

1966

The 1966 World Cup was hosted by England. South Africa was banned for violating the anti-discrimination charter through apartheid. The ban remained in effect until 1992 when the South Africa Football Association was finally accepted by FIFA. Controversy erupted when the African nations decided to withdraw in protest. They were offended when only one qualifying place was allocated by FIFA to the regions of Asia, Oceania, and Africa. The eventual qualifier from the zone, North Korea became the first Asian team to reach the quarter finals, winning at sports if not at war. England won the tournament with an extremely controversial goal over West Germany.

1970

The qualification stages of the 1970 World Cup coincided with the so-called “Soccer War” between Honduras and El Salvador, a brief war fought in 1969 over  issues concerning immigration from El Salvador to Honduras. Further conflict surrounded Israel. For political reasons, that country was grouped in Asia/Oceana. North Korea refused to play them even though this meant automatic disqualification. The finals were held in Mexico. Brazil played Italy, and became the first nation to win three World Cups.

 1974

The 1974 FIFA World Cup was held in West Germany. Few western European nations qualified,and most of those who did were eliminated early. Politics kept fans from the” Eastern neighbor states” away. The Soviet Union was a no-show, having refused a play-off in Chile for political reasons. The Cold War world remained divided between East and West, North and South. East Germany, Haiti, Australia, and Zaire made their first finals. For many attendees, though, the most important thing to emerge from this tournament was the debut of the  revolutionary Dutch Total Football System. Still, West Germany won the competition by beating the Netherlands 2-1 in the final.

1978

The 1978 FIFA World Cup was held in Argentina. The event was surrounded by controversy since a military coup had taken place in Argentina two years earlier. Nevertheless, no teams decided to stay away. Iran and Tunisia were first time participants. Tunisia won their first match against Mexico 3-1 and became the first African team ever to win a World Cup game. Argentina won the final 3-1 with the Dutch as runners-up for the second tournament running.

1982

Spain hosted an expanded 1982 FIFA World Cup. The competition featured 24 teams, the first expansion since 1934. Cameroon, Algeria, Honduras, New Zealand, and Kuwait were newcomers. The match between Kuwait and France was full of surprises. With the French leading 3-1, the Kuwaiti team heard a whistle from the stands which they thought came from the referee. They stopped playing, but the French played on, and a French defender scored. As the Kuwaiti team was protesting the goal, the president of the Kuwaiti Football Association rushed onto the field and gave the referee a piece of his mind. The referee disallowed the goal, but the French scored again a few minutes later, winning the game 4-1. The final was won by Italy against Brazil.

1986

Mexico became the first nation ever to hold two World Cups by hosting the 1986 FIFA World Cup. Canada, Denmark, and Iraq made their first finals. The quarterfinal match between England and Argentina, is remembered for two spectacular Diego Maradona goals, the first a controversial handball goal, and the second considered to be the Goal of the Century. In the final, Argentina beat West Germany 3-2, becoming the second team to win the World Cup outside their own continent.Too bad Argentina didn’t fare as well in its 1982 war against England over the Falkland Islands.

1990

The 1990 FIFA World Cup was held in Italy. Cameroon, participating in their second World Cup, made it to the quarter finals after beating Argentina in the opening game. No African country had ever reached the quarter finals before. During the match between Brazil and Chile, a firework landed close to the Chilean goalie. He feigned injury by cutting his own face with a razor blade he had hidden in his glove. The goalie, Rojas, was given a 12 year suspension, and Chile was banned from the 1994 World Cup. The United States — now basking in its Cold War victory over the Soviet Union — qualified for the first time since their early Cold War qualification in 1950. West Germany beat Argentina 1-0 to claim their third title.

In future posts, we’ll talk about the Cold War’s greatest soccer player and visit some famous stadiums. Don’t miss out. Subscribe to Cold War Studies.

You can download our 2010 free soccer e-book here. Read our 2010 posts on FIFA World Cup Soccer here:

Cold War Studies: South Africa World Cup Soccer

Cold War Studies: Football World Cup 2010

Cold War Studies: World Cup of Soccer

 Cold War Studies: The World Cup Soccer

Cold War Studies: FIFA Soccer World Cup Group E

Cold War Studies and FIFA Soccer World Cup Qualifiers Group F

 Cold War Impact on FIFA World Cup Soccer Group G

The Cold War and Group H Qualifiers: FIFA Soccer World Cup 2010

Cold War and Soccer War: Koman Coulibaly vs. USA

With a population of 935,650 inhabitants, 1945 Havana covered an area of 724 square kilometers.

The city was composed of six counties or municipios: La Habana, Marianao, Regla, Guanabacoa, Santa Maria del Rosario, and Santiago de las Vegas.

The six municipios had quite different characteristics. Like most cities in the developing world, post World War II Havana reflected several divisions.

• First, the city demonstrated the vast differences in quality of life which separated the Third World from the more advanced industrialized nations.
• Second, the city flaunted its position as the primate city of Cuba, revealing vast discrepancies between life in urban versus rural areas of the country.
• Finally, inside its boundaries, the city exhibited a variety of internal divisions which could be observed within the various municipios.

La Habana contained the colonial core known as La Habana Vieja (Old Havana), as well as the main shopping district, Centro Havana, with its elegant 19th century promenade. It also included the working-class industrial areas of Cerro and Diez de Octubre and, in contrast, the neighborhood of Vedado which housed the 20th century hotel and entertainment district.

Marianao contained Havana’s most fashionable residential suburbs  prior to the 1959 revolution while Guanabacoa and Santa Maria del Rosario were old colonial towns.

Santiago de las Vegas was more sparsely populated, while the small municipio of Regla was home to many followers of the Afro-Cuban religion, santeria. Long before the 1959 revolution, Regla was known for its revolutionary traditions.

Havana was  home to both the privileged and the marginalized, reflecting both Las Vegas style glamor and the struggle of hardworking residents.

Social divisions were exacerbated by geographical divisions.

The older and more densely populated sectors of Havana were separated from the more affluent and suburban areas of the city by the Almendares River.

The prosperous suburbs west of the Almendares were in close proximity to Camp Columbus, the military installation designed and funded by the United States. The camp dominated and protected the city’s moneyed periphery.

Havana was greatly affected by World War II. At its outbreak, Cuba was considered almost a territory of the United States.

The island’s participation in the war on the side of the Allies served to further solidify the relationship, facilitating trade agreements as well as loan and credit programs between the two countries.

In 1941, the US and Cuba signed a lend-lease agreement whereby Cuba received arms shipments in exchange for expanded North American use of Cuban military facilities.

Wartime agreements, however, did not bring prosperity to Cuba or to its capital city Havana. Instead, many sectors of the economy suffered and shortages were widespread. This was due, in part, to restricted trade with Europe resulting from hazards associated with trans-Atlantic shipping.

Cuban exports to Great Britain and Spain declined, those with Germany and Italy ended altogether and, after the German occupation of France in 1941, Cuba lost the French market.

The cigar industry suffered the most, and many of Havana’s cigar factories were forced to close.

A lack of steel and iron disrupted the construction industry, causing widespread unemployment in the building trades.

Tourism declined markedly from 127,000 visitors in 1940 to 12,000 in 1943. Many hotels were forced to close and restaurants greatly reduced their services.

On the other hand, railroad traffic increased when the threat of German submarines forced sugar producers to haul their sugar by rail to Havana. From there, the product was shipped under convoy to the United States where it sold for below market prices.

Surprisingly, wages rose during wartime. Nevertheless, prices rose more quickly and the tax structure changed as new taxes were imposed and old ones were raised. As conditions worsened, by the mid 1940s,  public office offered the greatest opportunity for individual enrichment. According to Louis A. Perez, Jr.,  “embezzlement, graft, corruption, and malfeasance of public office “permeating every aspect of municipal government.”

By war’s end, Havana was disheartened and demoralized.

Photograph by Lisa Reynolds Wolfe.

——————————–

Do you want to see Cuba before the “capitalist invasion?”

Known to some as the Red Scare of 1919, the First Red Scare was a precursor to the Red-baiting and witch hunting that occurred in the years following World War II. During this period:

People truly believed that Reds were under the bed — not to mention in the water supply, creeping through the halls of government, and even spying from space.

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. First some background.

After the Russian Revolution, communism was dreaded by America’s business and industrial leaders. Fearing labor unrest, they treated it like the plague. According to Red Scared!: The Commie Menace in Propaganda and Popular Culture, a 2001 book by Michael Barson and Steven Heller:

These same leaders forged secret alliances with racists, jingoists, and other America-first fanatics in spreading anti-Communist propaganda throughout the nation. In turn, they succeeded in convincing a mass of Americans that their lives were threatened by Communists who were nestled among the immigrants entering the United States.

After the 1917 Russian Revolution, Bolshevism became totally entrenched in Russian life, and in 1919 the American Communist Party was founded in Chicago. Refusing to recognize Lenin’s government, President Wilson committed arms and troops to the war against Bolshevism abroad and increased the level of anti-Communist propaganda at home.

Interestingly, though, the Red Scare begins much earlier than 1917. Let’s start our timeline with the Manifesto of the Communist Party, published in 1848.

Red Scare Timeline: 1848-1927

1848: Karl Marx and Frederic Engels write the Manifesto of the Communist Party. It declares: “A specter is haunting Europe, and that specter is Communism.”

1879: Josef Stalin is born in the Georgian village of Gori and christened Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili. In 1912, Lenin gives him the name Stalin — Man of Steel.

December 26, 1893: Mao Zedong is born in the farm village of Shaosan, not far from Changsha, the capital city of Hunan province.

1903: Lenin leads the split from the 5 year old Russian Social Democrat Labor Party. He forms the Bolshevik Party.

January 9, 1905: Bloody Sunday erupts. The  Imperial Guard of the absent Czar Nicholas II, at the direction of the grand duke, opens fire on a crowd of several thousand unarmed laborers marching on the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg to protest mistreatment; 1500 demonstrators are wounded or killed.

1905: Eugene V. Debs, the Socialist Party candidate for president in 1900 and 1904, founds the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). The group is known as the Wobblies.

November 7, 1917: The October Revolution (the Russian calendar was used) marks the Bolshevik seizure of power with forces that number no more than 250,000. The 15 member Politburo is formed immediately. Josef Stalin, a founding member and an experienced revolutionary activist, is given the post of People’s Commissar of Nationalities.

1917: Lenin’s State and Revolution is published.

1917: Congress passes the Espionage Act, making it illegal to mail literature “advocating or urging treason, insurrection, or forcible resistance” to the laws of the United States.

April 1918: Lenin forms the Revolutionary Military Council.

July 8, 1918: The Romanov royal family — the czar, the empress, and their children — are shot to death by the Bolshevists. Their bodies are buried in a remote forest, but their graves are rediscovered in 1922.

1918: Congress passes the Sedition Act, which forbids anything “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive” being either spoken or written about the US government or the Constitution.

September 1918: Eugene V. Debs is tried in Cleveland and found guilty of violating the Espionage Act. He is sentenced to 2 concurrent 10 year terms, asserting: “While there is a lower class, I am in it: while there is a criminal element, I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.” He served his time in an Atlanta penitentiary, even though Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer urged President Wilson to grant him clemency.

March 1919: Lenin establishes The Comintern, the Third Communist International. Its mandate is to coordinate Communist activity worldwide via decree from Moscow.

April 30, 1919: A postal clerk in New York discovers bombs in 20 packages addressed to a variety of government officials. The bombs are set to explode the next day, on May Day. The attack launches America’s First Red Scare.

August 1919: The Justice Department creates the General Intelligence Division. Its first director is J. Edgar Hoover, a graduate of George Washington University Law School.

August 1919: Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer asks Immigration to deport black activist Marcus Garvey. But he doesn’t go to prison until his arrest in January 1922 on charges of mail fraud. His sentence is commuted in 1927, and Garvey is deported back to his native Jamaica.

1919: John Reed’s books, Red Russia and Ten Days That Shook the World, are published. They’re based on his first-hand account of the 1917 Revolution. Back in the US, Reed is expelled from the Socialist Party. He and Benjamin Gitlow form the Communist Labor Party. For a few years, it competes with the Russian led Communist Party of America. Later in 1919, Reed returns to Russia. The Comintern gives him money and instructions to further the growth of the Communist movement in America. Jailed in Finland on his way back to America, Reed falls into poor health. He dies in Moscow in 1920. Lenin sees to it that he is buried within the walls of the Kremlin — the only American to ever be so honored.

January 10, 1920: The League of Nations is formed. It’s dissolved on the same day in 1946, shortly after the founding of the United Nations.

September 16, 1920: A bomb explodes on Wall Street, killing 30 and injuring many others. Anarchists are blamed.

1920: The Red Army, led by Georgi Zhukov, defeats the White Army of the Cossacks and other counter-revolutionaries. This ends Russia’s civil war.

November 1920: The first Chinese Communist Manifesto is published in Shanghai.

May 1921: The Communist Party of America (CPA) and John Reed’s Communist Labor Party (CLP)  merge into the American Communist Party (ACP) at a convention held in Woodstock, NY.

December 24, 1921: Newly elected President Warren G. Harding orders the release of Eugene V. Debs from prison. In 1920, while in prison, Debs had run as the Socialist Party candidate for president. He boldly stated: “I consider the Russian Revolution] the greatest single achievement in all history. I am still a Bolshevik. I am fighting for the same thing here they are fighting for there.”

April 3, 1922: Stalin is elected general secretary to the Central Committee, the most important post in the Party.

December 1922: The USSR is officially formed.

January 21, 1924: Lenin dies and is succeeded by Josef Stalin.

January 1925: Leon Trotsky is removed from his position as commissar for the army and navy and chairman of the military council.

October 1925: The National Negro Labor Congress is organized by the Communist Party.

August 23, 1927: Anarchists Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti are electrocuted. They were convicted of robbery and murder in 1921. Their trial and execution become rallying points for American progressives.

Thanks to Red Scared a book by Michael Barson and Steven Heller, for the information presented in this post.