Turning the Good War Home Front Bad: Historians' Counterattack on the Greatest Generation

2005 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-10
Author(s):  
Roger W. Lotchin
2017 ◽  
Vol 94 (3) ◽  
pp. 20-36
Author(s):  
Alistair W. Fortson

Richmond, California, a small industrial center north of Oakland and just east of San Francisco, expanded from a prewar population of 23,000 to more than 100,000 permanent residents in 1942. While Henry J. Kaiser's shipbuilding corporation advertised for—and city leaders sought—white skilled labor, military realities and expanding Allied production needs encouraged the hiring of unskilled African American, indigenous, and Chinese American men and women in unprecedented numbers. While the early struggles of workers to find housing and adequate services in Richmond and the East Bay more broadly have been clearly documented by historians, a legacy of continued substandard housing and services disproportionately affected minority workers and their families. Redlined, or denied rental applications because of race through legal policy and unofficial neighborhood agreements, minority workmen and women disproportionately remained in substandard housing even after the construction of federally funded housing units. Exposed to industrial pollutants, urban waste, and human effluent despite the efforts of both humanitarian-minded industrialists and local, state, and federal government officials, these minority groups faced racial and class-based challenges during World War II home front production, which have been overshadowed by the triumphant image of Rosie the Riveter and the total war victory of that “greatest generation.” Research in the Bancroft Library, the Richmond Museum, and other archival databases demonstrates how public contracts became sources of private money for industrialists, leading to the development of facilities that public funds could not support, and thereby reducing the quality of life for minority residents.


2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Candice A. Alfano ◽  
Jessica Balderas ◽  
Simon Lau ◽  
Brian E. Bunnell ◽  
Deborah C. Beidel

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah Gibbs ◽  
Ruby Johnson ◽  
Lawrence Kupper ◽  
Sandra Martin
Keyword(s):  

2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josephine Botting

The creation and viewing of war films was one of the elements in the process by which Britain attempted to come to terms with the horrors of the First World War. During the interwar period, war films took two main forms: those which reconstructed famous battles and melodramas set against a wartime backdrop. However, the film Blighty, directed by Adrian Brunel in 1927, took a slightly different approach, focusing not on military action but on those who stayed behind on the Home Front. As a director during the silent period, Brunel trod a stony path, operating largely on the fringes of the industry and never really getting a firm foothold in the developing studio structure. He remains well regarded for his independent productions yet also directed five features for Gainsborough at the end of the silent period. Of these film, his first, Blighty, is perhaps his most successful production within the studio system in terms of managing a compromise between his desire to maintain control while also fulfilling the studio's aims and requirement for box office success. Brunel's aversion to the war film as a genre meant that from the start of the project, he was engaged in a process of negotiation with the studio in order to preserve as far as possible what he regarded as a certain creative and moral imperative.


2020 ◽  
pp. 97-114
Author(s):  
Elena M. Burova ◽  

The article covers the issues of initiative acquisition of archives in the documents of personal origin during the Great Patriotic War, the organization of work to identify and collect the wartime documents. Collecting documents of ordinary citizens, in particular letters from the front and to the front is analyzed. Proposals to create the specialized archives of documents on the history of the war were never implemented. Quite a lot of the actions, search operations and expeditions were conducted in the country, for example, the “Chronicle of the Great Patriotic War”, the “Frontline letter”, the “Search”, the “Memory”, etc., during which a significant number of documents of war participants and home front workers were collected and stored. Not so much of the documents of personal origin of the war participants are concentrated in the archives. In general, there prevails the collection type of organization for storing documents from the period of the Great Patriotic War. With reference to the corpus of documents of personal origin of the war period the research literature pays its attention mostly to correspondence and diaries, memoirs. Historians and archivists, analyzing wartime letters, offer different classifications depending on the authors, recipients, subjects, etc. The article provides a generalized classification of letters based on their inherent similarities. The author also analyzes the reasons for a small number of extant diaries and memoirs, and provides examples of their classification. Likewise the article describes current approaches to the collection of personal papers within the frames of the Moscow Glavarkhiv project “Moscow – with care for history” and the Ministry of Defense project “The Memory Road”.


2004 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 47-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariela Freedman
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document