Building a left coast: the legacy of the California Popular Front and the challenge to Cold War liberalism in the post-world war two era

The Cold War in the late 1940s blunted attempts by the Truman administration to extend the scope of government in areas such as health care and civil rights. In California, the combined weakness of the Democratic Party in electoral politics and the importance of fellow travelers and communists in state liberal politics made the problem of how to advance the left at a time of heightened Cold War tensions particularly acute. Yet by the early 1960s a new generation of liberal politicians had gained political power in the Golden State and was constructing a greatly expanded welfare system as a way of cementing their hold on power. In this article I argue that the New Politics of the 1970s, shaped nationally by Vietnam and by the social upheavals of the 1960s over questions of race, gender, sexuality, and economic rights, possessed particular power in California because many activists drew on the longer-term experiences of a liberal politics receptive to earlier anti-Cold War struggles. A desire to use political involvement as a form of social networking had given California a strong Popular Front, and in some respects the power of new liberalism was an offspring of those earlier battles.

Public policy and foreign-based enterprises in Britain prior to the Second World War

This article examines the early evolution of British policy, prior to the Second World War. The British government adopted an ‘open’ policy towards foreign direct investment (FDI), despite periodic fears that some foreign acquisitions of UK firms in key sectors might be detrimental to the national interest, and a few ad hoc attempts to deal with particular instances of this kind. During the 1930s, when the inflow of foreign firms accelerated following Britain's adoption of general tariff protection, the government developed a sophisticated admissions policy, based on an assessment of the likely net benefit of each applicant to the British economy. Its limited regulatory powers were used to maximize the potential of immigrant firms for technology transfer, enhanced competition, industrial diversification, and employment creation (particularly in the depressed regions), while protecting British industries suffering from excess capacity.

A matter of choice: strategy and discretion in the shadow of World War Two

American policy-makers are predisposed towards the idea of a necessary war of survival, fought with little room for choice. This reflects a dominant memory of World War II that teaches Americans that they live in a dangerously small world that imposes conflict. Critics argue that the ‘choice versus necessity’ schema is ahistorical and mischievous. This article offers supporting fire to those critiques. America’s war against the Axis (1941–45) is a crucial case through which to test the ‘small world’ view. Arguments for war in 1941 pose overblown scenarios of the rise of a Eurasian super-threat. In 1941 conflict was discretionary and not strictly necessary in the interests of national security. The argument for intervention is a closer call that often assumed. This has implications for America’s choices today.

„Let ´em have it – right on the chin.“ – Die Haltung der britischen Öffentlichkeit zum RAF-Flächenbombardement 1939-1945

In „’Let ‘em have it – right on the chin.’ – Die Haltung der britischen Öffentlich-keit zum RAF-Flächenbombardement 1939-1945“ wird durch die Untersuchung der vier Tageszeitungen Times, Manchester Guardian, Daily Express und Daily Mirror sowie der wöchentlichen Berichte des britischen Informationsministeriums nachgewiesen, dass 1942 ein Konsens in der britischen Öffentlichkeit für Flächenbombardements eintrat. Diese Einigkeit entstand aufgrund der Kriegssituation, sozialpsychologischer Mechanismen und realpolitischer Erwägungen und verfestigte sich 1943 und zum Teil auch 1944 deutlich. Die öffentliche Meinung kehrte sich in den drei Jahren zwischen 1940 und 1943 vollständig um und wandelte sich 1944 erneut: Während 1940 die Mehrheit gegen die Bombardierung der deutschen Zivilbevölkerung eingestellt war, fand in den folgenden drei Jahren eine Entwicklung statt, die 1943 in den Konsens, 1944 aber in die Tabuisierung des Themas mündete. Dabei verstärkten insbesondere zwei Argumente den Prozess der Konsensbildung: Nachdem bis Anfang 1941 die Bedeutung der Begrifflichkeiten so weit vereinheitlicht worden war, dass beispielsweise die Mehrheit der Briten etwas mit dem Ausdruck „Flächenbombardement“ anfangen konnte, setzte sich im Laufe des Jahres 1940 – in Presse und Bevölkerung parallel – ein Feindbild durch, das das gesamte deutsche Volk in Haftung nahm und es insofern auch für die deutschen Luftangriffe auf Großbritannien verantwortlich machte. Erst daraus erwuchs die Rechtfertigung für die Forderung nach Vergeltung, die durch diese Begründung von bloßen Rachegelüsten losgelöst werden konnte. Seit dem deutschen Angriff auf die Sowjetunion im Juni 1941 galten Flächenbombardements – hier folgten Bevölkerung und Presse der britischen Regierung – außerdem als Vorbereitung für die Westoffensive. Eine Mehrheit sprach sich schon 1941 für Flächenbombardements aus, mit den großen Angriffen 1942 und vor allem 1943 war der Konsens dann so vollständig erreicht, dass kritische Stimmen fast gänzlich verstummten. Als mit der alliierten Landung in der Normandie 1944 ein wichtiges Argument für die Notwendigkeit von Flächenbombardements wegfiel, setzte eine Tabuisierung des Themas ein, die sich 1945 verfestigte. Insgesamt beleuchtet die Arbeit, durch welche Faktoren in einer Kontroverse eine gesellschaftliche Einigkeit im Großbritannien der frühen vierziger Jahre erzeugt wurde. Dieser Zusammenhalt war notwendig, um die Handlungsfähigkeit der Gesellschaft zu gewährleisten, so dass sich der Konsens in der Kriegssituation als wichtige Überlebensstrategie erwies. Erreicht wurde er aber auf Kosten des für eine demokratische Gesellschaft auch charakteristischen Pluralismus von Meinungen und Einstellungen.

An Ethical History of Photography in Combat and of Combat Photography in the United States during World War II

With the United States‘ entry into the Second World War, the word ?censorship? was seen largely as antithetical to, rather than a necessary counterpart to, victory among Americans. People did not want to be censored in their writing, photographs or speech,but it proved to be necessary even before the war began, in order to protect government secrets and the people on the home-front from scenes that were too disturbing. Even before the war had officially begun, there were problems with censorship among journalists and newspapers. The initial response of outrage in reference to censorship in the United States was common among journalists, newspapers, magazines, and radio news; nevertheless, there was a necessity for censorship among Americans, on the home frontand the front lines, and it would be tolerated throughout the war to ensure that enemies of America did not gain access to information that would assist in a defeat of the United States in the Second World War. The research I have conducted has dealt with the censorship of combat photography during World War II, in conjunction with the ethics that were in play at the time that affected the censors. Through exploring the work of three combat photographers — Tony Vaccaro, James R. Stephens and Charles E. Sumners — I wasable to effectively construct an explanatory ethical history of these three men. Research on the censorship and effects it had on the United States brought me to three distinctareas of censorship and ethics that would be explored: (1) the restrictions and limitations enforced by the Office of Censorship, (2) a general overview of war and photography as it influenced the soldiers and their families on the home-front, (3) and the combat photographers and personal and military censorship that influenced their work. Although their work was censored both by the military and the government, these men saw the war in a different light that remained with them long after the battles and war had ceased.Using the narratives of Tony Vaccaro, Charles E. Sumners and James R. Stephens as means for more in depth research, this thesis strives to create lenses through which to view the history and ethics of censorship that shaped combat photography during the Second World War and the images to which we refer as representative of that war today.