Michael S. Binder, Technical Advisor, Air Force Declassification Office
Proposal Type: Point Counterpoint
Abstract: The proposed Point-Counterpoint discussion is designed to define, as narrowly as possible, the Cold War from a cultural resources management/historic preservation point of view — specifically, to delineate those military missions and properties whose descriptions serve to illuminate the true character of the US-Soviet military competition/confrontation that was the Cold War, and to discount those missions and properties which can only be described as Cold War era.
Seeking: The goal is to develop a consensus, if possible, on the relatively simple topic of what properties from the Cold War are worth saving/preserving/documenting, and what can be safely neglected without fear of losing a valuable Cold War property. In my opinion, these properties can be slotted into one of the following five categories: offensive systems, defensive systems, command-control-communication-intelligence, space, and nuclear weapons. If a property cannot be fit into one of the five, it probably will not qualify. Such Cold War delineation has not proved to be a simple task up to now, as historians from government, academia, and the private sector have demonstrated disagreement about what material culture is eligible to be called “Cold War” and not merely “Cold War era.”
Needed resources include additional panelists who work in Cold War CRM, especially those who have a wide view of what comprises Cold War material culture. While this proposal has been listed above as Point-Counterpoint, it can also be given as a Panel or even a mini-Workshop, on which the needed additional panelists can also serve.
Related Topics: Material Culture, Preservation, Place
If you have a direct offer of assistance, sensitive criticism, or wish to share contact information for other people the proposer should reach out to, please get in contact directly: Michael S. Binder, coldwar[at]flash.net
If you have general ideas or feedback to share please feel free to use the comments feature below.
Dear Michael,
I teach American history in Munich and am involved, among other things, in attempts to found a museum of the Cold War at Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin that shall tell the history of the Cold war from an international perspective.
By defining the Cold War as “the US-Soviet military competition/confrontation” you give a very narrow definition. So do you just want to focus on these two countries? What about the countries in West and Eastern Europe involved? What about Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, China, and other places? And can it be just about weapons and military sites?
Also, while I do like the topic in general, I think the title is quite misleading in that there is no indication that this shall be about Cold War properties “only.”
As you might no, English Heritage has been mapping Cold War sites.
So you might want to think about including and critically discuss what some countries, states, cities have already declared to be Cold War sites.
So in my view, beginning with the definition of “Cold War” — which by the way was not necessarily the term used in the Eastern block — there would be a lot to discuss.
I will definitely go to the next conference. A colleague of mine talked about Berlin Cold War sites at NCPH a couple of years ago, and while I would not replicate his talk and at this point am not sure whether I’d like to give a formal presentation, I might be ready to be part of the discussion if you plan to broaden the focus beyond the US and the Soviet Union as well as purely military properties.
Kind regards,
Andreas
I just want to concur with Andreas that an international focus would make this a really interesting panel, particularly since transnational preservation questions and cooperation would make this panel truly forward looking.
As to the material culture aspects of the cold war, the Historical Society of Baltimore County (Maryland) is housed in the last county almshouse, which was used as a shelter and storage for Civil Defense supplies, some of which still remain in that building. I can’t imagine why we would want to save all of those biscuit tins or tent poles or gas masks, unless of course no one else saved them and they are needed at other to-be-preserved sites as examples of the material culture from the time period. So perhaps including some discussion of material culture preservation guidelines would also be critical.