A state of war: Florida from 1939 to 1945

World War II profoundly impacted Florida. The military geography of the State is essential to an understanding the war. The geostrategic concerns of place and space determined that Florida would become a statewide military base. Florida's attributes of place such as climate and topography determined its use as a military academy hosting over two million soldiers, nearly 15 percent of the GI Army, the largest force the US ever raised. One-in-eight Floridians went into uniform. Equally, Florida's space on the planet made it central for both defensive and offensive strategies. The Second World War was a war of movement, and Florida was a major jump off point for US force projection world-wide, especially of air power. Florida's demography facilitated its use as a base camp for the assembly and engagement of this military power. In 1940, less than two percent of the US population lived in Florida, a quiet, barely populated backwater of the United States. But owing to its critical place and space, over the next few years it became a 65,000 square mile training ground, supply dump, and embarkation site vital to the US war effort. Because of its place astride some of the most important sea lanes in the Atlantic World, Florida was the scene of one of the few Western Hemisphere battles of the war. The militarization of Florida began long before Pearl Harbor. The pre-war buildup conformed to the US strategy of the war. The strategy of theUS was then (and remains today) one of forward defense: harden the frontier, then take the battle to the enemy, rather than fight them in North America. The policy of "Europe First," focused the main US war effort on the defeat of Hitler's Germany, evaluated to be the most dangerous enemy. In Florida were established the military forces requiring the longest time to develop, and most needed to defeat the Axis. Those were a naval aviation force for sea-borne hostilities, a heavy bombing force for reducing enemy industrial states, and an aerial logistics train for overseas supply of expeditionary campaigns. The unique Florida coastline made possible the seaborne invasion training demanded for US victory. The civilian population was employed assembling mass-produced first-generation container ships, while Floridahosted casualties, Prisoners-of-War, and transient personnel moving between the Atlantic and Pacific. By the end of hostilities and the lifting of Unlimited Emergency, officially on December 31, 1946, Floridahad become a transportation nexus. Florida accommodated a return of demobilized soldiers, a migration of displaced persons, and evolved into a modern veterans' colonia. It was instrumental in fashioning the modern US military, while remaining a center of the active National Defense establishment. Those are the themes of this work.

Establishing a baseline of psychometric estimates of measurement of intercultural competence of Ukrainian faculty: Setting the stage for domestic and global intercultural understanding

Post-Soviet Ukraine is in a time of upheaval and transition. Internal relations between pro-Western and pro-Russian supporters have deteriorated in the light of recent political events of Euro Revolution, Russia's occupation of the Crimean peninsula, and the militant confrontations in the southeastern regions of the country. In the light of these developments, intercultural competence is greatly needed to alleviate domestic tensions and enable effective intercultural communication with the representatives of different cultures within the country and beyond its borders.^ This study established a baseline of psychometric estimates of intercultural competence of Ukrainian higher education faculty. A sample of 276 professors of different academic majors from one university in Western Ukraine participated in the research. The Global Perspective Inventory (GPI; Merrill, Braskamp, & Braskamp, 2012) was chosen as a research instrument to measure intercultural competence of the faculty members. The GPI takes into account cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal domains, each of which contains two scales reflective of theories of cultural development and intercultural communication – Cognitive-Knowing, Cognitive-Knowledge, Intrapersonal-Identity, Intrapersonal-Affect, Interpersonal-Social Responsibility, and Interpersonal-Social Interaction. Because the research instrument has neither been previously used as a measure of intercultural competence, nor administered in Ukraine, it was cross-validated using a Table of Specification (Newman, Lim, & Pineda, 2013) and two sets of factor analyses. As a result, a modified version of the GPI was created for use in Ukraine.^ Multiple linear regression analyses were used to test relationships between the participants' GPI scores on intercultural competence, and several independent variables that consisted of academic discipline, intercultural experience, and how long the participants taught at the university. The analyses determined a positive relationship between the scores on three out of six scales of the original version and two out of five scales of the modified version of the GPI and all the independent variables simultaneously. The relationship between the faculty responses on the six scales of both GPI versions and the independent variables controlling for each other produced mixed results. A unique role of intercultural professional development in predicting intercultural competence was discussed.^

Establishing a Baseline Measurement of Intercultural Competence of Ukrainian Faculty: Setting the Stage for Domestic and Global Intercultural Understanding

Post-Soviet Ukraine is in a time of upheaval and transition. Internal relations between pro-Western and pro-Russian supporters have deteriorated in the light of recent political events of Euro Revolution, Russia’s occupation of the Crimean peninsula, and the militant confrontations in the southeastern regions of the country. In the light of these developments, intercultural competence is greatly needed to alleviate domestic tensions and enable effective intercultural communication with the representatives of different cultures within the country and beyond its borders. This study established a baseline of psychometric estimates of intercultural competence of Ukrainian higher education faculty. A sample of 276 professors of different academic majors from one university in Western Ukraine participated in the research. The Global Perspective Inventory (GPI; Merrill, Braskamp, & Braskamp, 2012) was chosen as a research instrument to measure intercultural competence of the faculty members. The GPI takes into account cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal domains, each of which contains two scales reflective of theories of cultural development and intercultural communication – Cognitive-Knowing, Cognitive-Knowledge, Intrapersonal-Identity, Intrapersonal-Affect, Interpersonal-Social Responsibility, and Interpersonal-Social Interaction. Because the research instrument has neither been previously used as a measure of intercultural competence, nor administered in Ukraine, it was cross-validated using a Table of Specification (Newman, Lim, & Pineda, 2013) and two sets of factor analyses. As a result, a modified version of the GPI was created for use in Ukraine. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to test relationships between the participants’ GPI scores on intercultural competence, and several independent variables that consisted of academic discipline, intercultural experience, and how long the participants taught at the university. The analyses determined a positive relationship between the scores on three out of six scales of the original version and two out of five scales of the modified version of the GPI and all the independent variables simultaneously. The relationship between the faculty responses on the six scales of both GPI versions and the independent variables controlling for each other produced mixed results. A unique role of intercultural professional development in predicting intercultural competence was discussed.

A State of War: Florida from 1939 to 1945

World War II profoundly impacted Florida. The military geography of the State is essential to an understanding the war. The geostrategic concerns of place and space determined that Florida would become a statewide military base. Florida’s attributes of place such as climate and topography determined its use as a military academy hosting over two million soldiers, nearly 15 percent of the GI Army, the largest force theUS ever raised. One-in-eight Floridians went into uniform. Equally,Florida’s space on the planet made it central for both defensive and offensive strategies. The Second World War was a war of movement, and Florida was a major jump off point forUSforce projection world-wide, especially of air power. Florida’s demography facilitated its use as a base camp for the assembly and engagement of this military power. In 1940, less than two percent of the US population lived in Florida, a quiet, barely populated backwater of the United States.[1] But owing to its critical place and space, over the next few years it became a 65,000 square mile training ground, supply dump, and embarkation site vital to the US war effort. Because of its place astride some of the most important sea lanes in the Atlantic World,Florida was the scene of one of the few Western Hemisphere battles of the war. The militarization ofFloridabegan long before Pearl Harbor. The pre-war buildup conformed to theUSstrategy of the war. The strategy of theUS was then (and remains today) one of forward defense: harden the frontier, then take the battle to the enemy, rather than fight them inNorth America. The policy of “Europe First,” focused the main US war effort on the defeat of Hitler’sGermany, evaluated to be the most dangerous enemy. In Florida were established the military forces requiring the longest time to develop, and most needed to defeat the Axis. Those were a naval aviation force for sea-borne hostilities, a heavy bombing force for reducing enemy industrial states, and an aerial logistics train for overseas supply of expeditionary campaigns. The unique Florida coastline made possible the seaborne invasion training demanded for USvictory. The civilian population was employed assembling mass-produced first-generation container ships, while Floridahosted casualties, Prisoners-of-War, and transient personnel moving between the Atlantic and Pacific. By the end of hostilities and the lifting of Unlimited Emergency, officially on December 31, 1946, Floridahad become a transportation nexus. Florida accommodated a return of demobilized soldiers, a migration of displaced persons, and evolved into a modern veterans’ colonia. It was instrumental in fashioning the modern US military, while remaining a center of the active National Defense establishment. Those are the themes of this work. [1] US Census of Florida 1940. Table 4 – Race, By Nativity and Sex, For the State. 14.