Advanced History Capstone Journal 2022-2023

Advanced History Capstone Journal 2022–2023

Advanced History Capstone Journal 2022–2023

“PIECE DE RESISTANCE OF THE FREE PRESS”: SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND ECONOMIC PROTEST IN FRENCH INDEPENDENT COMICS POST-1968 MOVEMENT

By Eric Bao ** Please note that this paper contains explicit imagery.

THE ECONOMIC POWER STRUGGLE IN THE FAR EAST: JAPAN-UNITED STATES RELATIONS PRIOR TO THE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR

By Yota Fukui

THE PRICE OF PARANOIA: THE FBI’S STRUGGLE TO REGAIN PUBLIC CONFIDENCE AFTER MCCARTHYISM

By Jayden Malouf

BLOOD-DIAMONDS ARE A VICEROY’S BEST FRIEND: COLONIAL STATE VIOLENCE AND THE UNRAVELING OF THE BRITISH RAJ

By Shalini Navsaria

Visit www.brooksschool.org/academics/departments/history to learn more about the history department at Brooks School.

“PIECE DE RESISTANCE OF THE FREE PRESS”: SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND ECONOMIC PROTEST IN FRENCH INDEPENDENT COMICS POST-1968 MOVEMENT Eric Bao April 10, 2023 French Caricature Artist Charles Philipon, charged with attacking King Louis-Philippe’s person and authority with art and not the sword, was brought in front of the Cour d’Assises, the court tasked with trying the most serious crimes. Was resemblance enough to condemn a man and his work? In a brilliant courtroom lecture on legal semiotics, Philipon argued that a system relying on resemblance would only “fall into absurdity.” In an attempt to justify his actions, Philipon hastily sketched a series of four images in the courtroom now known as his infamous Les Poires. Across a series of four caricatures, Philipon produces an accurate depiction of King Louis Phillipe, slowly morphing his features to fit that of a pear.1 In French, pear bears the second meaning of an oaf, depicting the king as such. Les Poires swept the coffee houses of France’s urban area and peasantry, becoming synonymous with a protest against the foolish king and an oppressive and archaic monarchy that cared only for the comfort of the ruling class. Although changes occurred within the government, as World War Two ended, the post-war era ushered in the Charles De Gaulle Administration which once again fell into the patriarchal, conservative, and oppressive government by the likes of Louis Phillipe’s Third Monarchy.

As political protests continued in comics journals, none rivaled the notoriety of Les Poires. To understand the innate ability that the cultural phenomenon of Bande Dessinees had to produce compelling, gripping, and unique polemics, their origins and their shift into cultural legitimacy must be understood. Ann Miller reveals these somewhat convoluted origins in a seminal work titled Reading Bande Dessinee and A French Comics Theory Reader.2 In a modern ecosystem, BDs are considered an integral part of the Franco-Belgian cultural infrastructure. However, this was due to centuries of history within European culture and more importantly, religion. It is crucial to consider the inception of BDs within culture as these origins serve to provide context when analyzing later works. Though true origins may date back to the paleolithic cave paintings at Lascaux, for the purposes of parsing through the political effects of BD in France, the nation itself must exist first. Though a seemingly tenuous connection, many religious images, while printing became more accessible to the wealthy, formed the foundations of many techniques found in BD. As an example, when the “Poor Man’s Bible”, or any religious stories were made using images featuring dialogue, older techniques featured the character holding a Phylactera, a scroll-like illustration containing text which creates the illusion of dialogue: the precursor to the speech bubble.3 These examples of religious teaching in early comics set the stage for many pedagogical comics to follow in France, becoming a tool of the dominant socioeconomic order.

1 Joel Vessels, Drawing France: French Comics and the Republic (Univ. Press of Mississippi, 2010), 24.

2 Ann and Bart. The French Comics Theory Reader.

3 Ann and Bart. The French Comics Theory Reader, 26.

Before delving into the intricacies of protest within comics, it is necessary to explicate their position and role within the cultural infrastructure of an industrialized France. Though comics have long been ingrained in the cultural consciousness of both France and much of Western Europe, In Reading Bande Dessinee, Anne Miller argues that before the 1970s in France, comics were largely considered infra-cultural entities, or forms of media that sat below the mass culture machine, playing a reactionary role to current events. Comics essentially served as the ante-chamber to culture with artistic movements in comics only rising through contact with vulgarity or regulations.4 Les Poires demonstrates this reactionary behavior before the 1970s, spawning only as a result of Philipon’s trial. However, during the politically tumultuous decade of the 60s, more independent publishers began to arise with 50 albums published in 1965 and 159 publications only five years later.5 The more accessible printing and distribution methods allowed the rise of more independent publishers, eventually forming discourse amongst themselves and creating their own genres and movements.

Much changed in the cultural and political context throughout the late 1960s and 1970s in France, largely affecting the way comics were inserted into and interpreted within public and popular discourses. Most critically, the May 1968 student and worker movement marked a key turning point in French politics. Charles De Gaulle and his deeply conservative views along with suffocatingly patriarchal cultural norms did not mesh with the next generation of students, yearning for social change and freedom.6 Students longed for more freedom, educationally and sexually in the tightly conservative universities while workers sought better rights and pay.7 This paper will focus mainly on comics published after 1968 as both the nation of France’s existence and the term “Bande Dessinee” existed within the cultural discourse.

This ideological struggle between BDs of the ruling class and political caricatures like that of Les Poires is best viewed through the theories of Louis Althusser and his student Jacques Ranciere. As Ranciere asserts within The Emancipated Spectator, true politics and artistry serve as innovations that tear bodies from their assigned places within social hierarchies, freeing speech and expression from all functional reduction.8 However, within the fictions produced by politics and art lies a dominant and secondary reality, or consensus and dissensus, respectively. Consensus maintains the idea of the “proper,” both implying a distribution of order between the “proper” and “improper” and denying its subjects as fictitious.9 Ranciere encourages the creation and per4 5 6

7 8 9

Ann and Bart. The French Comics Theory Reader, 30.

Ann Miller, Reading Bande Dessinée: Critical Approaches to French-Language Comic Strip, (Intellect Books, 2007), 23-24.

Eleanor Beardsley, “In France, The Protests Of May 1968 Reverberate Today — And Still Divide The French,” NPR, accessed April 2, 2023, https://www.npr.org/sections/par allels/2018/05/29/613671633/in-france-the-protests-of-may-1968-reverberate-today-andstill-divide-the-french.

Ernest Reed “May 1968: Workers and Students Together” International Socialist Review, accessed October 5, 2022, https://isreview.org/issue/111/may-1968-workers-and-students- together/index.html.

Jacques Ranciere. The Emancipated Spectator, (Verso Books, 2021), 19.

Jacques Ranciere. The Emancipated Spectator, (Verso Books, 2021), 19.

vasion of dissensus, or differences within the same, with regard to politics and art. This does not entail a restructuring of social or class order but an emerging subject that enters the public eye to innovate and disrupt. This idea of consensus and dissensus positions pedagogical and politically charged works squarely against each other. Althusser’s theories will prove critical when discussing the comics post-1968 as many scholars chose to adopt a Marxist approach towards BD at the time. In a famed 1970 essay, Louis Althusser dubbed the Ideological State Apparatus (ISA) as a tool of the ruling class, or State Apparatus, used to oppress the working-class population. Within the ISA fall entities include the church, school system, judicial system, family unit, and media.10 The choice to use Althusser’s position to analyze the ideological underpinnings of independent comics is neither arbitrary nor out of convenience. Marxist and Proto-Marxist critique was the primary method of discussing Bande Dessinee after the 1968 Movement where the French Comics field underwent a process of regulation followed by underground artists as seditious depictions of the government were banned.11 Although this paradigm became outdated moving into the mid-80s, viewing comics under Althusser will provide novel insight into understanding the potential intentions behind the work, while also aiding in avoiding the curse of “presentism”.

There is much to consider when choosing which methodologies are ideal for the analysis of independently published works as a form of protest. In Ann Miller’s The French Comics Theory Reader, Miller compiles dozens of the most influential essays spanning centuries of comics study. In relation to this article, separating the analysis of BDs from comparison to the cultures, ideologies, and histories surrounding them is detrimental to nuance as these infra-cultural objects are graphic hybridizations of many forms of media and expression.12 Also, within this essay, there will be no split of rhetorical and visual analysis in the works considered and one form of analysis will not be subordinated to the other. Because Miller positions that BDs themselves are sites of materialization for the stories created by the intentional blend of images and rhetoric, perpetually occurring at all times. By splitting narrative from art, the nuance of the artist’s motives behind the mix, and other idiosyncratic features would be overlooked. 13 Beyond the content of the BDs themselves, the articles in Miller’s book also urge critics to look beyond the panels as hybridization with other media and cultural contexts is critical in parsing out meaning. For example, a concept within French humor dubbed “Second degre” conveys a deeper sense of irony and sarcasm that is not found within the surface of narratives and must be found through a deeper understanding of culture and media.14 As stated similarly, in Modern Strategies for Pictorial Enunciation in Comics, Jacques Samson urges historians and comics theorists to view pieces through the paradigm of a “Magnifying glass and sponge.” Therefore, this article will attempt to examine all the critical minutia from the quality of the brushstroke to the sizes of the panels, while indiscriminately absorbing all narrative components simultaneously.15 10 11 12 13 14 15

Louis ‌Althusser, On the Reproduction of Capitalism: Ideology and Ideological State Appa ratuses, (1970; Verso Books, 2018), 78.

Ann Miller, Reading Bande Dessinée: Critical Approaches to French-Language Comic Strip, (Intellect Books, 2007), 88-90.

Ann and Bart. The French Comics Theory Reader, 47.

Ann and Bart. The French Comics Theory Reader, 63-64.

Ann and Bart. The French Comics Theory Reader, 147-150.

Ann and Bart. The French Comics Theory Reader, 140-143.

This paper will analyze the content and cultural backdrops of independently published comics and will not delve into the intricacies of how ideologies and messages within these works are interpellated into the cultural consciousness. Preceding the discussion of BDs published after 1968, the cultural and ideological contexts of comics under which the cartoonists of the 70s grew up are important to consider as they influenced their design and narrative decisions. Seeing Les Poires’ power to influence the peasantry against the government and ruling class in the 1800s, the Third Republic saw an opportunity to embrace the pedagogical power of comics. Like how they were once used to educate the peasantry about the word of god, the Third Republic now used them as a main tool in primary school education as free universal education expanded. These books or Le Journal de Le Jounesse contained stories of love, adventure (imperialism), and often scientific images drawn in the form of cartoons or comics.16 After the First World War and the rise of America began, so too did the golden age of imported American comics in the 1930s. To the French, these American cartoons were an insidious embodiment of capitalist greed. Like a plague, these American comics swept France, nearly drowning out domestic artists. But through the pestilence rose Herge’s Tin-Tin. From his humble beginnings used as a supplement in a Catholic Brussels newspaper, Tin-Tin never failed to proudly display the colonial mentality of civilizing other societies. Widely considered the “ideological barometer” of consensus throughout the decades of its publication, the development of a new artistic style, ligne claire, or “clear line” characterized by the thinly drawn outlines on characters and bright pastel colors became a norm in the comics industry.17 Herge’s work nourished and guided the next generation of cartoonists in preparation for the second golden age of French comics in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

France endured a similar cultural and political upheaval to the United States’ Counterculture Movement in its 1968 movement, where workers and students took to the streets in protest for better workers’ and students’ rights. An underground movement and a blossoming underground press began to take hold within France, one that took heavy inspiration from and shared a reciprocal relationship with the ideologies and aesthetics of American Underground Comics and publications. A cultural precursor to the Adult BD genre, Hara-Kiri, bore many visual similarities to the American Mad Magazine (what some call a precursor to American underground comics) but was banned in the early 70s for mocking the death of President Charles de Gaulle.18 One publication, and arguably one person, became responsible for the Americanization and creation of France’s independent BDs: Jean Francois Bizot’s Actuel.19 Unlike the Americanization seen in the 1930s, Crumb’s influence was not stained by economic greed. Only one small and niche comics magazine republished his comics, yet they were consumed ravenously by other cartoonists and dedicated readers. Bizot’s personal taste for Robert Crumb’s work meant Crumb was featured 16 Joel E. Vessels, Drawing France: French Comics and the Republic (Univ. Press of Mississippi, 2010), 35.

17 Ann Miller, Reading Bande Dessinée: Critical Approaches to French-Language Comic Strip, (Intellect Books, 2007), 17.

18 Evelyn Wang, “The French Sci-Fi Comic That Inspired Blade Runner and Akira.” Dazed, August 15, 2016, accessed November 18, 2022. https://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/32448/1/the-french-sci-fi-comic-that-inspired-blade-runner-and-akira.

19 Jean-Paul Gabilliet, “Actuel and the Acclimation of US Comix in France in the 1970s,” 2019, hal-02275648.

frequently in Actuel. In the first issue alone, “I’m a Ding Dong Daddy’’ from Zap #1, “Dirty Dog” from Zap #3, and a page on Crumb personally were all featured. Though the initial public reception to Crumb’s work was disgust, a subsection of the French BD industry embraced the novel style and by 1972, these new Adult BDs were touted as the “piece de resistance” of the free press and the BD genre as a whole became known as the “Ninth Art”. 20 The political strife of the late 60s carried into the very publishing houses that produced these politically incendiary comics. During the effervescent time of the 1970s, it is likely that the increase in regulation with the banning of Hara-Kiri and other potentially politically or culturally offensive depictions only led to more outlandish and underground comics. Like an adolescent in crisis, the cartoonists gladly embraced an “it is allowed if it’s forbidden” mentality.21 Equally so, like a band of riled-up adolescents, when the editor of Pilote, a relatively mainstream journal at the time required cartoonists to supply reasonings behind their artistic choices, he was considered to be too strict and rebellion ensued. Artists fled for independent publishers and the journal fractured into two, with Fluide Glacial and L’Echo des Savanes, the creators of Metal Hurlant, forming as a result.22 Seen as infra-cultural objects, the most widely proliferated underground or independent publications of Fluide Glacial and Metal Hurlant reflected the main economic and social protest that embodied the May 1968 movement yet also created new meaning through the distinct graphic hybridization of comics, also lambasting the patriarchal, conservative, imperialist, and oppressive Charles De Gaulle Administration.

Beyond the medium itself, the artists, publishers, and publication mediums are also reflective of the main themes of liberation and social protest found in the 1968 Movement. The very occupation of comics artists itself is a fight against the ruling class. Luc Boltanski states that people become cartoonists due to a major discrepancy between social and cultural capital.23 These artists, though classically trained in art schools or vocational schools, possessed the cultural capital to pursue the fine arts or design, but lacked the social status and capital to do so within the cultural and socioeconomic contexts of the mid-20th century. Thus, they found themselves indulging in caricatures for the lower class.24 In the pursuit of artistic and narrative freedom, three comic journals served as the benchmark of dissensus, Fluide Glacial, Le Echo Des Savanes, and Hara-Kiri.

Within these journals, all common and popular practice was banished, and Herge’s popular and widely accepted ligne claire was traded into for a more vulgar, crude, and off-putting ligne crade.25 Through this, artists could portray humanity as greedy, vile, and cruel monsters, unlike Tin-Tin’s jaded and veiled innocence of the good nature of European imperialism. More importantly, these “modern” comics were published in long albums one after the other. This stood in direct opposition to the banality of weekly comic strips that became prominent in France after the World Wars.

20 Gabillet, “Actuel and the Acclimation of US Comix in France in the 1970s” 21 Ann Miller, Reading Bande Dessinée: Critical Approaches to French-Language Comic Strip, (Intellect Books, 2007), 25.

22 Miller, Reading Bande Dessinée, 26.

23 Miller, Reading Bande Dessinée, 30.

24 Miller, Reading Bande Dessinée, 31.

25 Ann Miller, Reading Bande Dessinée: Critical Approaches to French-Language Comic Strip, (Intellect Books, 2007), 26.

It is under this newfound artistic and narrative freedom and the inception of the women’s movement and sexual revolution ushered in by the ideologies of the 1968 Movement, that these independent artists working on Fluide Glacial and Metal Hurlant began their work. Continuing their rebellious tirade, on a macro scale, both publications featured extremely sexually explicit and psychedelic scenes. Despite the notion that both journals espoused similar ideologies, Fluide Glacial remains more grounded in reality with sections with panels comprised of photographs while Metal Hurlant extends past our reality and into science fiction. The discussion in this essay will serve to create a distinction between the attempted ironic protest and the harmful images in these explicit scenes. Although both can be considered dissensus through their inherent ability to create necessary discourse within the public consciousness, the impact of these works can be magnified by demonstrating their work in parallel with the sexual revolution and in specific occasions, the women’s movement.

Moreover, though the students largely operated as the keystone in the 1968 Movement, the role and motivations of the working class are often overlooked in the historiography of the protest and strike. Attempting to tear down the existing capitalist structure and fight for their liberties, the workers of France held the largest strike witnessed by the nation. Whereas the students generated a philosophical and political shift in the French cultural consciousness, the workers were not as fortunate as the students. As the state regained control in June, state oppression and the seduction of consumer demand forced them back into the workplace.26 However, the workers repressed desires for better wages and workers’ rights did not fade. As the cultural representatives of the working class, many of the desires of the working class including anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist motifs appeared in independently published BDs after 1968.

Fluide Glacial No. 2 sets the tone for most of the following publications in the mid to late 1970s with regard to the extent of the sexually explicit depictions. The cover features a picture of someone’s backside in jeans (See Appendix A). Most compelling are the patches sewn onto the pants. Prominently featured in the brightest lit area of the pants is a patch that says “Reserve Aux Adultes” or “reserved for adults,” a clear warning for what is to follow.27 More subtly, as a protest against the industrialization and capitalist greed seen in the mainstream comics industry, a darker-lit section of the jeans features the sewn-in cursive text cousu main or “hand-stitched.”28 This notion of hand-crafted artisanal comics reflects the ideals of restoring the means of production to the worker, and in this case, the cartoonist. Moreover, this anti-capitalist, anti-consumerist notion calls back upon the influence of the American counterculture movement on French BDs. The hand-stitched jeans evoke environmentalist attitudes embodied by the Hippies in the United States.

One of the most poignant pieces of political commentary to come out of Fluide Glacial was Superdupont, a character introduced to the Adult BD ecosystem in issue #2 in 1972. A spoof of the world-famous Superman, Superdupont, the son of an Unknown Soldier buried under the 26 Michael Seidman, “Workers in a Repressive Society of Seductions: Parisian Metallurgists in May-June 1968.” French Historical Studies 18 (1993): 255–78, accessed March 10, 2023.

27 Marcel Gotlib, Fluide Glacial #2, 1975, Accessed March 8, 2023, https://archive.org/details/fluide-glacial-t-009/Fluide_Glacial_-_T002/page/n27/mode/2up 28 Marcel Gotlib, Fluide Glacial #2.

Arc de Triomphe, is an anti-chauvinistic mockery of a hero, defending the country against “Anti-France” terrorists, supporting socialist policies, and promoting economic patriotism (economic nationalism). Superdupont essentially became a satirical personification of the French values criticized by students of the 1968 Movement. Visually, Superdupont is a beret-sporting French man with a cape, mustache, and rooster patch.29 However, these patriotic and strong traits juxtaposed with Superdupont’s large gut, red nose, and small legs do not evoke the imagery of a strong superhero. More aptly, they create a satirical image of not just the hero, but the country as a whole, depicting the nation as a rotund man hiding behind the mask of nationalism and baseless pride.

Superdupont was first introduced in Fluide Glacial issue two in which Superdupont engages in a kung-fu fight with an Asian martial artist, titled Kung Fu Glacial. Throughout the nine-page comic, Superdupont is battered and bashed in every way despite often having the technological advantage in the fight, bearing brass knuckles, guns, and a cannon.30 As mentioned earlier, cultural and historical contexts only serve to build the protest and satire found in comics as during this period, the French decolonization of Indochina occurred and the Vietnam war rages. Kung Fu Glacial also serves to criticize the Western military forces and France, struggling in a war to hold onto its imperial claims against a less developed enemy. Though sufficiently beaten, Superdupont never gives up. But, after the martial artist drinks wine with ice, Superdupont is horrified and passes out on the ground (See Appendix B). While Kung Fu Glacial appears as a satirization of the fragility of the bourgeoisie, conservative, and hypermasculine French man idolized by the patriarchal culture of the time, it dually serves as an offensive gesture towards the Asian ethnicities as France lost many of its Asian colonial holdings in the same period.

Issue #8 published in 1976 features a proud Superdupont saluting on the cover with a French flag-themed background. Throughout the comic, King Mambo of what can be assumed as an African nation, Bwana, visits the French king in Paris in the hopes of buying fighter jets from the nation. In a criticism of the disorganization of the government, nobody arrives to greet and receive King Mambo as all the time telling systems in the nation have fallen behind two hours.31 Enraged, Mambo leaves France immediately. This initial sequence of events is a satirical representation of France and Charles de Gaulle’s inadequate and often ignorant handling of the decolonization of its African territories, mainly Algeria. Like how Herge and Tin-Tin painted imperialism as a polished, clean, and noble effort in the 1930s, the creators of Superdupont, raised on the panels of Tin-Tin, worked to protest and subvert the consensus on imperialism.

More strikingly, Superdupont in Issue #8 almost directly mirrors the setting of “Tin-Tin in The Congo” (See Appendix C & D). Creating a unique juxtaposition separated by decades of time, the creators of Superdupont are reaching back to undo and tear down the ideals of imperialism in a period of decolonization in France. Superdupont is then called upon to bring King Mambo back to France under the heavy economic threat that Mambo will buy his new fighter jets from either America or Russia. Flying to Mambo’s plane, Superdupont draws Mambo back with the allure of a decadent Paris. To the president, King Mambo, an African ruler turning his cheek on France 29 Marcel Gotlib, “Fluid Glacial #8,” in Superdupont - Tome 01, by Marcel Gotlib and Jacques Lob (Paris: Fluide Glacial, 2008).

30 Marcel Gotlib, Fluide Glacial #2, 1975, Accessed March 8, 2023, https://archive.org/details/fluide-glacial-t-009/Fluide_Glacial_-_T002/page/n27/mode/2up.

31 Marcel Gotlib, “Fluid Glacial #8,” in Superdupont - Tome 01, by Marcel Gotlib and Jacques Lob (Paris: Fluide Glacial, 2008), 12.

would be humiliating not only economically but even more so on the world stage. Superdupont satirizes France’s insistent need on maintaining an empire to display its grandeur after its occupation in World War Two.32 Similarly, power is also returned to the African nation as the French president begs for his return. Continuing the thread of drawing France as a nation whose power was only held up by pride and appearances, Superdupont searches for the reasoning behind the broken time. As it turns out, all of the time-telling systems in the country have been based on a phonograph recording playing over the radio (See Appendix E).33 This overly complex and archaic system which the entire nation is running on is symbolic of the publication’s attitude towards the current political system in France, thus also mirroring the anti-De-Gaulle attitudes of the 1968 movement. Finally, in a critique continuous throughout all of the Superdupont editions, the cartoonists once again protest the conservative nationalist leanings of the ruling class and De Gaulle administration, a defining characteristic of the student movement. In not only issue eight but many of the following publications, Superdupont chases a terrorist organization sabotaging the nation titled “Anti-France”. Donning all black bodysuits with no defining characteristics, Superdupont’s incessant and fruitless chase of an enemy that almost seems to not exist is representative of the government’s attitudes towards a fracturing France: refusing to create legislative change while blaming various scapegoats as “anti-nationalist” (See Appendix F).34 When examining the inflammatory and overtly racist caricatures and depictions of Africans in Superdupont, its effects reach far beyond the intended satire. In an examination of the racist caricatures in Robert Crumb’s work, Comics Scholar Rebecca Wanzo positions that the offensive jokes found in Crumb’s work, similar to those found in Fluide Glacial, exist in a space of taboo that does nothing but offend.35 The characterization of the character King Mambo as harmful from a postmodern perspective is warranted and even necessary. But despite the intrinsically offensive depictions, perhaps the clear intention for satire in the over-exaggeration of stereotypes is intended to call the rampant racist imagery into question. It would be inaccurate to deem these racist caricatures as a form of activism or protest, but by contorting the perspective in which racist imagery is viewed, Fluide Glacial encourages cultural discourse.

In the same vein, another form of protest against capitalist greed, a facet of the 1968 movement, can be seen within Fluide Glacial’s parody advertisement columns or pages. However ironically, on the page where the magazine is advertising merchandise between two comics, the font the journal chooses to use is identical to the signature font of Disney (See Appendix G).36 The juxtaposition of Disney, the largest megalith of comics production against the measly call to purchase a t-shirt for a relatively smaller journal without much mainstream sponsorship creates a 32 Tony Chafer, “Decolonization in French West Africa.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of African History, 2017, accessed April 8, 2023.

33 Marcel Gotlib, “Fluid Glacial #8,” in Superdupont - Tome 01, by Marcel Gotlib and Jacques Lob (Paris: Fluide Glacial, 2008), 17.

34 The banning of Hara-Kiri is a striking example as they were condemned for seditious depictions.

35 Rebecca Wanzo, The Content of Our Caricature: African American Comic Art and Political Belonging (NYU Press, 2020), 175.

36 Marcel Gotlib, Fluide Glacial #2, 1975, Accessed March 8, 2023, https://archive.org/details/fluide-glacial-t-009/Fluide_Glacial_-_T002/page/n27/mode/2up.

sense of distinct irony. However, it is perhaps also warranted that the journal needed to sell merchandise to make ends meet and was merely poking fun at itself, though the mirroring of Disney’s trademark font provides insight into their intentions.

Following the introduction of Superdupont is a psychedelic trip of a comic titled Masse.

Though narratively clear, the images and depictions serve as a liberating protest to the conservative culture of the French State on multiple fronts, mirroring the attitudes of 1968. In regards to typography, the font is created and positioned within text bubbles extremely tightly, underscored with a gothic style. Thus, the cartoonist inadvertently discourages and diverts the observer from the text and instead to the visually bold illustrations marked with intense cross-hatching (a protest against industrialized comics), and as coined by Julian Lawrence, “LSD - Induced changes to perceptual systems.” Lawrence describes nine LSD-Induced Changes, of which, Masse employs seven out of these nine: circularity, boundary loss, movement, involution, intensity, expansion, distortion, and fragmentation (See Appendix H).37 During the counterculture movement in the United States and post-1968 France, many artists turned to psychedelics for the flights of wild creativity they afforded. One of the most prominent BD artists, Jean Giraud, divulged his personal usage of LSD and marijuana as sources of inspiration in his personal notebook, “weed[ing] himself out” at times.38 Thus, Masse creates a freeing and liberating sensation for the reader, almost vicariously experiencing a narrative hallucination, exploring a new realm and state of mind. It is through this feeling of liberation that Fluide Glacial attacks the oppressive and conservative state freeing the reader from the bounds of society. On another note, this is further representative of the reciprocal relationship shared between American underground comics and independent publications in France, similar to how the Hippies in the United States embraced drug use as a form of protest and liberation.

Next marks a slew of sexually explicit comics in the 2nd volume. The first of which is titled La Fiancee De Frankenstein. A short two-page comic consisting of only seven panels depicts a shocking scene of Frankenstein receiving oral sex from his fiance. Here, Frankenstein, the monster, is depicted as muscular and defined, despite his many scars while his fiance remains robed and drawn with frizzy and messy hair. A continuation of the Frankenstein narrative is given in the form of real photographs and models in the following eleven-page comic. Here, Frankenstein the scientist brings “Fraulein Frankenstein” to life as he makes himself a companion and lover with the help of his clumsy and foolish assistant. In the beginning, Frankenstein sticks various contraptions and even his hand inside Fraulein Frankenstein to animate her, which works.39 As she walks down into Frankenstein’s lair, she is depicted as a strong, yet oblivious feminine figure. Not long after, Frankenstein kisses his creation, expecting her to reciprocate his feelings. Subverting expectations, she bashes Frankenstein’s face in and stomps on his genitals in platform boots (See Appendix I). She then makes her own decision to kiss Frankenstien’s fool of an assistant, trans37 Daniel Worden, The Comics of R. Crumb: Underground in the Art Museum, (Univ. Press of Mississippi, 2021), 140.

38 Etelka Lehoczky, “This Is Moebius’ Brain Off Drugs: Late Artist Gets High On Life.” NPR, February 22, 2018, accessed April 5, 2023, https://www.npr.org/2018/02/22/585782228/this-ismoebius-brain-off-drugs-late-artist-gets-high-on-life.

39 Marcel Gotlib, Fluide Glacial #2, 1975, Accessed March 8, 2023, https://archive.org/details/fluide-glacial-t-009/Fluide_Glacial_-_T002/page/n27/mode/2up.

forming him into the object of her desire, a dashing prince who is modeled by another woman (See Appendix J). Given the trademark Disney text that appears when the prince speaks, one can infer that it is Prince Charming.40 As Frankenstein awakens, Prince Charming vanquishes him, eloping with Fraulein Frankenstein as they fly away in song (See Appendix K). There is no explicit reason stated by the author as to why much of the focus was placed on Frankenstein but one can speculate that the authors sought to create a modern, more sexually free rendition of the romantic themes found in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. To end the second edition, and on the back cover, is a one-page Bande Dessinee of an older man taking a bath. Instead of playing around with rubber ducks floating in the bath, the ducks are replaced with penises, which multiply as the strip continues. As the man exits the bath on the last panel, his penis is instead portrayed as a rubber duck.41 When analyzing the overtly sexual depictions and depictions of femininity within Fluide Glacial, it is critical to understand the foundations of French feminist theory. Feminist criticism has never been monolithic. Therefore, radically different from American feminist ideals, French feminists focused heavily on essentialist features and semiotic discussions of body parts and biology. Thus, much of what formed the base of French feminist theory drew from Lacanian psychoanalysis of how adolescents enter the “symbolic order” of patriarchy.42 For example, Julia Kristeva, a preeminent feminist in the 1960s theorized that upon entering the “symbolic order,” the child must renounce its bond with its mother and adopt the phallocentric language. To Kristeva, in order to truly subvert patriarchal discourse, women needed to become more aware of their own bodies and emotions.43 Most crucially, Kristeva believes that semiotics are the key to rejecting language as a whole. Adopted by feminist thinkers that followed, she held firm that this semiotic narrative could be accessed by both men and women. In 1975, Helene Cixous published a pioneering work in the field of feminist literary theory titled The Laugh of Medusa. In broad strokes, Cixous introduces the term L’Ecriture Feminine. Directly translated as “woman writing”, L’Ecriture Feminine refers to a distinctly feminine style of writing only achievable by female authors. Defined by its disruptions in narrative, eccentric, and sometimes convoluted text, Cixous attributes this to the centuries of oppression faced by women.44 The appearance of a sexualized version of Frankenstein leaves much to be explicated in relation to the feminist movement. Frankenstein by Mary Shelley itself has been one of the most important works in the development of French feminist literary theory, being lauded as one of the most influential works of L’Ecriture Feminine. What made Frankenstein especially influential was the notion that though a work of “woman writing”, which was described by theorists Gilbert and Gubar as “a walking dream… a Romantic novel about – among other things – Romanticism,” was told through three male narrators.45 It is through male narration that Shelley found it possible to 40 Marcel Gotlib, Fluide Glacial #2.

41 Marcel Gotlib, Fluide Glacial #2.

42 Nuala Kenny, The Novels of Josefina Aldecoa: Women, Society and Cultural Memory in Contemporary Spain, (Tamesis Books, 2012), 15.

43 Kenny, The Novels of Josefina Aldecoa, 16.

44 Hélène Cixous, Keith Cohen, and Paula Cohen, “The Laugh of the Medusa.” Signs 1, no. 4 (1976), 875–93.

45 Diane Long Hoeveler, “Frankenstein, Feminism, and Literary Theory.” The Cambridge Companion to Mary Shelley, (2003): 45–62.

reach such a level of influence within the patriarchy.

By juxtaposing Fraulein Frankenstein with Shelley’s Frankenstein, a bastion of feminist thought, a modern feminist reading reflective of the values of sexual freedom and liberation the 1968 movement embodied arises. As put forth by Kristeva, the semiotic, accessible by both male and female authors is a way to attack the symbolic order of language. Through the complex relationships between symbols and signifiers in comics, Fraulein Frankenstein attacks the patriarchal ruling class. Despite the appearance of Fraulein Frankenstein being oppressed by her patriarch, she reclaims power for herself through her confident posture and by vanquishing her creator and “ruler” Frankenstein. Given this context of empowerment, her nude appearance is not one of fetishization as she defends her autonomy against Frankenstein and stands confidently in her own skin. Furthermore, Fraulein’s self-determination is extended to having a choice in her own romantic desires as the assistant she kisses undergoes a transformation into an idealized version of her lover. Who despite their appearance as a prince, states she is a libere femme or free woman, perhaps finally being free to express their true gender identity.46 By subverting not only expectations of gender conformity but also sexual norms, Fluide Glacial bolsters both the feminist movement and the sexual revolution, an integral piece of the 1968 demonstrations. Despite the feminist reading in Fraulein Frankenstein, many other narratives such as the one on the back cover of Fluide Glacial draws entirely upon the monolithic phallus. Therefore, as Cixous describes, there is no room for the diversity of functions and structures of female sexual experiences. Evidently, with the clear presence of the phallus in Fluide Glacial it is difficult to provide much justification for potential irony or protest on the front of the women’s movement. In another sense, these sexually explicit comics could simply be chalked up to sick humor which serves no purpose with the rare exception of a few such as Fraulein Frankenstein.

Exiting the theoretical plane, the potential protest and liberating aspects of Fluide Glacial’s sexual freedom are revealed when comparing its depictions of femininity with mainstream depictions, dominated by patriarchal consensus. During the 1960s and 70s, Vogue France served as the arbiter of not only fashion but the idealized images of women and men. Comparing the covers themselves, the cover of the November 1967 edition of Vogue France, published one year before the 1968 movement, depicts how women were held by society to appear clothed in multiple layers (See Appendix L).47 In stark contrast, the cover of Fluide Glacial 2, discussed earlier, features a prominently placed backside of a woman. Though donning a pair of jeans, the shirt of the subject is pulled up, revealing their lower back (See Appendix A).48 All in all, despite a possible feminist reading of the sexually explicit works in Fluide Glacial, the works do well in tearing down existing societal norms in relation to sexual freedom.

However in essence, though these incendiary and grotesque works subvert the existing conservative views towards the feminine, they only serve to replace one form of patriarchy with another.

Under the guise of what appears to be the liberation of women and feminism, the all-male au46 Marcel Gotlib, Fluide Glacial #2, 1975, Accessed March 8, 2023, https://archive.org/details/fluide-glacial-t-009/Fluide_Glacial_-_T002/page/n27/mode/2up.

47 Edmonde Charles-Roux, Cover Image, Vogue Paris, November 6, 1967.

48 Marcel Gotlib, Fluide Glacial #2, 1975, Accessed March 8, 2023, https://archive.org/details/fluide-glacial-t-009/Fluide_Glacial_-_T002/page/n27/mode/2up.

thors of Fluide Glacial fail to reach the crux of both Kristeva and Cixous’ theories, inserting themselves as the new patriarchs. As seen in the comparison of covers, Vogue represents the idealized female of common taste and high class while Fluide Glacial represents the tastes of the artists, the mouthpieces of the lower working class. Through a shift in the social order, norms, and expectations, the feminine remains oppressed.

These themes of protest against the main economic order and attempts to support the women’s movement and sexual freedom found throughout the 1968 Movement are continued in Fluide Glacial #4. Continuing the thread of satirical advertisements, the very first comic in this edition is titled La Publicite Dans La Joie, or “Advertising with Joy.” The opening panel features Gotlib, one of the main illustrators and editors of the journal dressed with a Mickey Mouse mask on, calling upon the genre memory49 of Mickey’s capitalist and ideologically imperialist tirade in 1930s France. However, like Mickey, Gotlib approaches the reader with another advertisement.

However, given the context of the comic, one assumes its satirical nature. Beyond assumptions, Gotlib continues to advertise a vibrator, “a new miracle product of our national industry.”50 All of a sudden, in a small whispy text bubble from the side, appears a question from the audience, or reader, asking what makes the product so effective. Asking the age of the reader, Gotlib learns she is a young twelve-year-old girl. Gotlib removes her, warning that the magazine is for adults only and the strip moves on. The rest of the strip continues like a modern infomercial, with Gotlib bringing out a young woman to “test” the product. While still not considered “feminine writing” by any means, Gotlib approaches protests for sexual freedom and women’s rights from a different angle. There is much to be gained when considering the taste of the conservative patriarchy that the students of the 1968 Movement are attacking. Emphasized in the Vogue France covers, the conservative ruling class, when desiring a more conservative style of dress (their taste), represses the desires and autonomy of women. By subverting all notions of taste, Gotlib calls into question not only the consumerist practices of society as a whole but also the position of women. However, like before, in an attempt to liberate women through depictions of sexual freedom and the allure of “free will,” the advertisement presents, Gotlib inadvertently inserts himself as the patriarch or in this case, the advertiser.

The next strip, titled L’Eusses-Tu Cru? or “Do you believe it?” is a brilliant satirization of the old Journal d’Assies, or comics used to teach scientific or historical facts in schools. With the nature of the 1968 Movement being rooted in challenging not only the education system as a whole but the methods too, Fluide Glacial extends this into their own realm, one of Bande Dessinees. One panel teaches how to cook and prepare a blood sausage, though the diagram looks to resemble a snake instead.51 This unique semiotic combination between signifier and signified creates the humor found in this scene. Just as how the old Journal d’Assies jumped from topic to topic, so does the Fluide Glacial parody (See Appendix M). In the neighboring panel below, satire of the dominant social class is extended to the judicial system, where a court proceeding is portrayed. Instead of discussing important matters, the content of the panel is simple: “Who farted?”

Tearing down educational institutions is continued in this volume, however, this time at the 49 Tricia Jenkins and Tom Secker. Superheroes, Movies, and the State: How the U.S. Government Shapes Cinematic Universes. (University Press of Kansas, 2021), 9-13.

50 Marcel Gotlib, Fluide Glacial #2, 1975, Accessed March 8, 2023, https://archive.org/details/fluide-glacial-t-009/Fluide_Glacial_-_T002/page/n27/mode/2up.

51 Marcel Gotlib, Fluide Glacial #2.

university level as a fake journal of a university professor’s journey to Lascaux is published.52 Here, the only thing discussed in entries that span nearly a total of five pages long is how bad the caves smelled of feces and all things to do with the toilet. Volume four continues many of the key ideas of protesting capitalism but also extends to another key facet of the May 1968 Movement, changing educational institutions.

Unlike Fluide Glacial and in a science fiction dimension, renowned cartoonist Jean Giraud, whose works fill the pages of Metal Hurlant went on to influence and work on many films in the United States, most notably Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. It is interesting to note that Giraud was brought to work on Star Wars, an allegory, and criticism of Imperialism, given his past experiences including anti-ideological motifs in comic works.53 Also, Metal Hurlant became so popular within niche communities in the United States that it was translated and republished in English under the title Heavy Metal.

Metal Hurlant (Screaming Metal) was one of the most influential French adult BDs. Published in 1975, the comics featured in the magazine bear many visual similarities to comics of the American underground and even American writers by the likes of H. P. Lovecraft. Technique-wise, Metal Hurlant heavily features and is built upon a method called Crosshatching, where lines are drawn across each other to emphasize shadows. Crosshatching is a labor of love in which the author must draw perpendicular lines, one by one, in tight succession to create sensations of depth in imagery.54 In the first issue, the first story Approche sur Centauri drawn

by Jean Guirard is reflective of the psychedelic, sexual, and grotesque elements of Crumb’s work.

The first part depicts a spaceship crew preparing for a hyperspace passage. As the process begins, one of the astronauts experiences an out-of-body experience where he floats by the jagged landscape of a distant planet while assaulted by flying aliens. In the next part, another astronaut in a smaller spaceship is attacked by a large alien which begins having intercourse with the spaceship’s engine. As the alien ejaculates, the cabin fills with little aliens, attacking the astronaut. Also within the first issue are titles such as “The Mysteries of Erotica” and “C-Dopey”, a story about 2 nude humanoid lovers.55 These sorts of erotic, absurd, and fantastic plot lines fill the pages of Metal Hurlant, rebelling against the “clean” and polished images of mainstream comics by the likes of Tin-Tin. By creating visual rebellion, Metal Hurlant inadvertently criticizes the politics of the ruling class. By attacking Tin-Tin, so too is imperialism attacked. The styles of typography and visual grammar are also key to understanding the protest beyond the narrative generated broadly through art and image. Typographically, the handwritten text along with the heavily handled or crude nature of the font alludes to a more human and real connection to the work.56 52 Marcel Gotlib, Fluide Glacial #2.

53 Evelyn Wang, “The French Sci-Fi Comic That Inspired Blade Runner and Akira.” Dazed, August 15, 2016, accessed November 18, 2022. https://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/32448/1/the-french-sci-fi-comic-that-inspired-blade-runner-and-akira.

54 Daniel Worden, The Comics of R. Crumb: Underground in the Art Museum, (Univ. Press of Mississippi, 2021), 136.

55 Jean Giraud, Metal Hurlant n.1, 1975, accessed February 20, 2023, https://archive.org/details/print_201906/page/n3/mode/2up.

56 Daniel Worden, The Comics of R. Crumb: Underground in the Art Museum, (Univ. Press of Mississippi, 2021), 133.

This feeling arises mostly through the bridging of art and text through their similarly constructed styles. In terms of visual grammar, two particular elements are most striking: Cross-Hatching and Ligne Crade. Both of these were chosen styles used to directly contradict the taste and aesthetics of mainstream works. Cross-Hatching is the process in which artists labor intensely, drawing a lattice-like structure to create the effect of shadows. The monotonous labor of love that is cross-hatching is interpellated to the reader, becoming itself a protest against the industrialized industry that BDs were shifting into and adding humanity and identity back into the art. As discussed earlier, Herge’s Tin-Tin pioneered the idea and style of Ligne Clair, or “clear line” used to portray a clean and polished image of not only Tin-Tin but his imperialist adventures. Metal Hurlant tore Herge along with the public’s standards down, using a thickly lined pen to create a messy almost psychedelic perceptual system.

Similar to the depictions of femininity and in relation to the women’s movement in Fluidge Glacial, Metal Hurlant a Bande Dessinee published and drawn by men fails to support the feminist cause or relate with L’Ecriture Feminine. Though the depictions are far less vulgar and crude compared to Fluide Glacial and are often supported by the narrative flow, these images are still centered around the monolithic and unwavering phallus, Metal Hurlant allows no room for any sympathy for the feminist cause or a fight against the patriarchy. Despite this, Metal Hurlant remains distinctly separate from the possibility of being classified as only sick humor. The visual grammar of Approche sur Centaur is far more variegated than that of Kung Fu Glacial. This variation evokes a feeling of exploration from the authors, that they embarked on a quest to some visual or narrative destination, one of liberation and freedom, by putting their humanity and care into each panel. This reflects the free-spirited nature of the students in the May 1968 movement, seeking more freedom in their careers, personal lives, and culture.

Encounters with the vulgarity of the sexual revolution and regulations of the patriarchal and conservative government, exacerbated by the passions of the May 1968 student and workers movement created the Independent Comics genre and drove them to infra-cultural status. As students led to the beginning of the end for the De Gaulle administration and workers’ rights improved, independent cartoonists not bound by the restrictions of the mainstream became strongholds of political and social criticism. The most influential publications of the 70s era, Fluide Glacial and Metal Hurlant came both embody the values of the 1968 Movement, economic, social, and sexual protest while also keeping a unique voice. As the dust settled from the tumultuous early to mid-1970s era, independently published comics continued to remain a bastion of satire against the mainstream. The 1975 publisher Fluide Glacial, discussed previously, has lived on to the present. Their monthly issues continue to be published today, with issue 555 forthcoming in September 2022. Demonstrative of the polemic power the seemingly archaic medium of comics still holds, Charlie Hebdo, the publisher spun out of Pilote, had its headquarters attacked in a deadly massacre that killed over a dozen in 2015, as Islamic extremists took offense to satirized depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. In an ever-globalizing cultural landscape with satirical comic strips available at a wider scale than before, it is ever important to consider the position that independent satire comics hold in today’s ecosystem.

Acknowledgements Thank you to Mrs. Musto, Shalini, Jayden, and Yota for reviewing my drafts and providing insightful feedback for my paper.

Appendix A.57

57 Marcel Gotlib, Fluide Glacial #2, 1975, Accessed March 8, 2023, https://archive.org/details/fluide-glacial-t-009/Fluide_Glacial_-_T002/page/n27/mode/2up.

B.58

58 Marcel Gotlib, Fluide Glacial #2, 1975, Accessed March 8, 2023, https://archive.org/details/fluide-glacial-t-009/Fluide_Glacial_-_T002/page/n27/mode/2up.

C.59

D. 60

59 “Tintin in the Congo — Tintin.com,” accessed April 10, 2023, https://www.tintin.com/en/ albums/tintin-in-the-congo#.

60 Marcel Gotlib, “Fluid Glacial #8,” in Superdupont - Tome 01, by Marcel Gotlib and Jacques Lob (Paris: Fluide Glacial, 2008), 11.

E.61

F.62

61 Marcel Gotlib, “Fluid Glacial #8,” in Superdupont - Tome 01, by Marcel Gotlib and Jacques Lob (Paris: Fluide Glacial, 2008), 17.

62 Marcel Gotlib, “Fluid Glacial #8,” 18.

G. 63

63 Marcel Gotlib, Fluide Glacial #2, 1975, Accessed March 8, 2023, https://archive.org/details/fluide-glacial-t-009/Fluide_Glacial_-_T002/page/n27/mode/2up.

H. 64

I. 65

64 Marcel Gotlib, Fluide Glacial #2, 1975, Accessed March 8, 2023, https://archive.org/details/fluide-glacial-t-009/Fluide_Glacial_-_T002/page/n27/mode/2up.

65 Marcel Gotlib, Fluide Glacial #2.

J.66

66 Marcel Gotlib, Fluide Glacial #2, 1975, Accessed March 8, 2023, https://archive.org/details/fluide-glacial-t-009/Fluide_Glacial_-_T002/page/n27/mode/2up.

K. 67

L.68

67 Marcel Gotlib, Fluide Glacial #2, 1975, Accessed March 8, 2023, https://archive.org/details/fluide-glacial-t-009/Fluide_Glacial_-_T002/page/n27/mode/2up.

68 Edmonde Charles-Roux, Cover Image, Vogue Paris, November 6, 1967.

M.69

69 Marcel Gotlib, Fluide Glacial #4, 1975, Accessed March 8, 2023, https://archive.org/details/fluide-glacial-t-009/Fluide_Glacial_-_T004/page/n11/mode/2up?view=theater.

Bibliography Althusser, Louis. On The Reproduction Of Capitalism: Ideology And Ideological State Apparatus es. Verso Books, 2014.

Beardsley, Eleanor. “In France, The Protests Of May 1968 Reverberate Today — And Still Divide The French.” NPR, May 29, 2018, sec. 1968: How We Got Here. https://www.npr.org/ sections/parallels/2018/05/29/613671633/in-france-the-protests-of-may-1968-reverber ate-today-and-still-divide-the-french.

Chafer, Tony. “Decolonization in French West Africa.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of African History, October 26, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277734.013.166.

Charles-Roux, Edmonde. “Cover Image,” Vogue Paris, November 6, 1967. Accessed April 4, 2023 .

Cixous, Hélène, Keith Cohen, and Paula Cohen. “The Laugh of the Medusa.” Signs 1, no. 4 (1976): 875–93.

Dionnet, Jean-Pierre, and Jean Giraud. 1975. Metal Hurlant #1. France: Les Humanoids Associés.

Gabilliet, Jean-Paul. “Actuel and the Acclimation of US Comix in France in the 1970s,” July 2019. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02275648.

Gotlib, Marcel. Fluide Glacial n.2. 1975, Accessed March 8, 2023. https://archive.org/details/flu ide-glacial-t-009/Fluide_Glacial_-_T002/page/n27/mode/2up.

Gotlib, Marcel. Fluide Glacial n.4. 1975, Accessed March 8, 2023. https://archive.org/details/flu ide-glacial-t-009/Fluide_Glacial_-_T004/page/n11/mode/2up?view=theater.

Jenkins, Tricia, and Tom Secker. Superheroes, Movies, and the State: How the U.S. Government Shapes Cinematic Universes. University Press of Kansas, 2021.

Kenny, Nuala. The Novels of Josefina Aldecoa: Women, Society and Cultural Memory in Contem porary Spain. Tamesis Books, 2012.

Labio, Catherine. “The Inherent Three-Dimensionality of Comics.” Yale French Studies, no.

131/132 (2017): 84–100.

Lehoczky, Etelka. “This Is Moebius’ Brain Off Drugs: Late Artist Gets High On Life.” NPR, Feb ruary 22, 2018, sec. Book Reviews. https://www.npr.org/2018/02/22/585782228/this-ismoebius-brain-off-drugs-late-artist-gets-high-on-life.

Long Hoeveler, Diane. “Frankenstein , Feminism, and Literary Theory.” In The Cambridge Com panion to Mary Shelley, edited by Esther Schor, 1st ed., 45–62. Cambridge University Press, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521809843.004.

Miller, Ann. “Consensus and Dissensus in ‘Bande Dessinée.’” Yale French Studies, no. 131/132 (2017): 109–37. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44512309 Miller, Ann. Reading Bande Dessinée: Critical Approaches to French-Language Comic Strip.

Intellect Books, 2007.

Miller, Ann, and Bart Beaty. The French Comics Theory Reader. Leuven University Press, 2014.

Ranciere, Jacques. The Emancipated Spectator. Verso Books, 2021.

Reed, Ernest. “May 1968: Workers and Students Together | International Socialist Review.” Ac cessed October 5, 2022. https://isreview.org/issue/111/may-1968-workers-and-studentstogether/index.html.

Seidman, Michael. “Workers in a Repressive Society of Seductions: Parisian Metallurgists in MayJune 1968.” French Historical Studies 18, no. 1 (1993): 255–78. https://doi. org/10.2307/286966.

“Superdupont - Tome 01: Gotlib, Alexis, Lob, Jacques: 9782858158393: Amazon.Com: Books.”

Accessed April 10, 2023. https://www.amazon.com/Superdupont-01-FG-FLUIDE-GLACFrench/dp/2858158398.

Vessels, Joel E. Drawing France: French Comics and the Republic. Univ. Press of Mississippi, 2010.

Wanzo, Rebecca. The Content of Our Caricature: African American Comic Art and Political Bel onging. NYU Press, 2020.

Worden, Daniel. The Comics of R. Crumb: Underground in the Art Museum. University Press of Mississippi, 2021.

THE ECONOMIC POWER STRUGGLE IN THE FAR EAST: JAPAN-UNITED STATES RELATIONS PRIOR TO THE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR Yota Fukui April 10, 2023 Advanced History Capstone

“Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.”1 - Franklin D. Roosevelt On early Sunday morning of December 7th, 1941, 353 Japanese aircraft struck Pearl Harbor, a naval base in Hawaii.2 The surprise attack caught the United States inattentive, successfully striking eight battleships and twelve other naval vessels. The Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor started the Pacific War, a theater of World War II in the Pacific between Japan and the United States.

Nearly a century before the attack on Pearl Harbor, American Navy officer Commodore Matthew Perry’s visit in 1853 revolutionized Japan. Through gunboat diplomacy, Japan was forced to end its isolationism and open its borders to the new world of modernization and westernization filled with industrialization and imperialism ideologies. Following the Meiji Restoration, the dissolution of a feudal system, and the restoration of the Emperor in 1868, Japan began its first step in modernization. Japan, in the next decades under the slogan “Fukoku Kyohei” or “Rich country, strong army,” was determined to industrialize, create a strong army, and adopt the Western idea of imperialism.3 Driven by economic and ideological motives, by the late 19th century, Japan began to expand its new empire by annexing neighboring countries. Their ambition was to not only put their name up against the Western powers but also to acquire natural resources necessary to supply their growing industry. However, like how all empires come to an end, the Empire of Japan would meet its end in 1945 with its war against the United States. The attack on Pearl Harbor that started the Pacific War resulted from Japan’s fear of the United States’ intervention in their economic and ideological ambitions in the Far East.

Today, United States schools, when going over the attack on Pearl Harbor, solely focus on the cause and effect.

1 Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Message by President Roosevelt to Congress, December 8,” in Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, Japan, 1931–1941, Volume II, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus193141v02/d422.

2 David C. Gompert, Hans Binnendijk and Bonny Lin, “ Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor, 1941”, In Blinders, Blunders, and Wars: What America and China Can Learn, (2014): 93-106, accessed November 14, 2022. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/j.ctt1287m9t.15.

3 Michael A, Barnhart, Japan Prepares for Total War: The Search for Economic Security, 1919-1941, (NY: Cornell Univ. Press, 2009), 23.

Cause: Japan aimed to destroy the United States fleet to prevent their intervention in their campaign towards Southeast Asia to secure oil.

Effect: The United States’ entry into World War II. In further context, however, the cause of Pearl Harbor lies in a complex relationship built up in the political and economic tension between the United States and Japan over Asia. The Second Sino-Japanese War, the war between China and Japan, in 1937 pressured the United States to take action against Japan to maintain economic relations with China but also to prevent further exertion of Japanese influence. Therefore between 1938 to 1941, the United States engaged in economic warfare against Japan to cripple their war industry and dissuade further advancements. For the context of this paper, economic warfare is the use of economic means to weaken the other state’s economy, thereby reducing its political and military power. When multiple sanctions failed to stop the threat of Japan’s advance to Southeast Asia, the United States responded with a severe measure of freezing assets and an oil embargo. The United States oil embargo brought devastating consequences to Japan since 80% of the oil was imported from the United States.4 With the halt of oil imports, Japan was forced to secure an alternative to continue fueling their war efforts and nation with oil. Hence, Japan devised a plan to strike the Netherlands East Indies for oil before striking the biggest naval threat in its region, the United States. When the United States cornered Japan through a series of economic warfare and an oil embargo, they were well aware of the possible consequences of their war with Japan. When Franklin D. Roosevelt made the speech, “The United States was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the naval air forces of the Empire of Japan,” the attack may have been a surprise for the American citizen. However, due to the buildup of tension and the United States’ economic warfare against Japan, it was not so sudden from the view of the United States government.5 Many scholars in the field of United States relations with East Asia in the 20th century have conflicting opinions on the turning point when Japan and United States relations escalated into hostility. The author Frederick C. Adams in his essay The Road to Pearl Harbor: A Reexamination of American Far Eastern Policy, July 1937 - December 1938, argues that 1938, a year after The Second Sino-Japanese War, was the most significant turning point in the relations between Japan and the United States due to the conflicting attitudes towards the Open Door Policy.6 The Open Door Policy was an economic policy by the United States in 1900 that protected countries with equal access to trade with China.7 With the invasion of China, Japan sought to exploit Chinese resources and create its own economically sufficient nation. For the United States, this meant the loss of the Open Door policy with China and a declining trade with Japan. Adams, in his argument, states that after a year of consideration, the United States concluded that supporting China was more beneficial than cutting economic ties with Japan. Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor, 4 Miller, Edward S, Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan before Pearl Harbor, (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2023), 162 5 Roosevelt, “Message by President Roosevelt to Congress, December 8.”

6 Frederick C. Adams, “The Road to Pearl Harbor: A Reexamination of American Far Eastern Policy, July 1937-December 1938.” The Journal of American History 58, no. 1 (1971): 73–92.

7 John Hay, “PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, WITH THE ANNUAL MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT TRANSMITTED TO CONGRESS DECEMBER 5, 1899” in Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Annual Message of the President Transmitted to Congress December 5, 1899 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010) https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1899/d91.

1941, by David C. Gompert, Hans Binnendijk, and Bonny Lin, define their turning point as the climax before the war.8 They argue that the Japanese occupation of South French Indochina in July 1941 was the pinnacle due to the following oil embargo and freezing of Japanese assets, ultimately leading to the Attack on Pearl Harbor. The authors claim that the Japanese made a “blunder” by provoking the United States to potential southward advance, which halted their crucial oil imports.9 Edward S. Miller, like Adams, also argues that the United States exhibited hostility against Japan after the first year of the Second Sino-Japanese War. In Miller’s Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan before Pearl Harbor, he focuses primarily on the financials of Japan and United States foreign policies from the great depression up to the attack on Pearl Harbor.10 Miller, contrary to Adams’ perspectives, reveals the United States did not initially interfere with the war in East Asia because they expected Japan’s bankruptcy throughout the prolonged war. Multiple economists at the time estimated that Japan would default by 1940 due to heavy reliance on importing natural resources. Miller argues that Japan’s abundant gold reserves encouraged the United States to take the initiative instead of waiting for their never- arriving bankruptcy.

Using the justification of the Japanese bombing of Chinese civilians and their National Defense Policies, the United States began embargoing Japan as a form of economic warfare against their expansion toward China. Miller claims that the shift in the United States action suggests that after consideration, they determined defending Open Door Policy to be more economically beneficial than trading with Japan. Contrary to Adams and Miller, Japan Prepares For Total War by Michael A. Barnhart offers further insight into Japan’s perspective on their strive for autarky or economic self-sufficiency. He claims that 1940 was the turning point for Japan to plan a southward advance and ultimately consider the attack of Pearl Harbor when the United States embargoed various commodities against Japan under the justification of National Defense Policies.

The Pacific War started due to the economic power struggle between Japan and the United States. Japan wanted to achieve autarky, and the United States wanted to maintain an Open Door Policy with China. Friendly relations between Japan and the US gradually deteriorated into hostility in late 1938 when their interest in China conflicted with one another. While Japan resorted to military expansion to dominate the economy through Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, the United States, fearful of their economic consequence, retaliated against Japanese ambition by imposing a series of sanctions. The alternating cycle of the United States as the aggressor in economic warfare and Japan’s persistence and resilience in achieving autarky ultimately led to the eruption of the Pacific War in December 1941 when Japan was forced to secure another means of oil after the oil embargo.

Before arguing why the power struggle occurred, it is essential to understand the objective and interest of both Japan and the United States in their interest and influence in East Asia.

Japan’s imperial ambition started after the end of the First Sino-Japanese War in 1895.11 The First Sino-Japanese War was a year-long conflict between Japan and the Qing dynasty over the influence of the Chinese tributary state, Korea. After the Japanese victory, the Treaty of Shimonoseki granted Japan new territory on Taiwan and Liaodong Peninsula and an opportunity to possess 8 Gompert, Binnendijk, and Lin, “Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor, 1941,” 9 Gompert, Binnendijk, and Lin, “Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor, 1941,” 93 10 Miller, Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan before Pearl Harbor.

11 Jansen, Marius B., Samuel C. Chu, Shumpei Okamoto, and Bonnie B. Oh, “The Historiography of the Sino-Japanese War,” The International History Review 1, no. 2 (1979): 191–227. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/40105728.

influence over Korea. Furthermore, the Japanese victory over Russia in the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 further proved to the world that Japan was the new emerging world power in Asia. Throughout the early 20th century, Japan grew confident from multiple victories, which resulted in new, greater ambitions. Japan continued its colonialism by annexing Korea in 1910 and Manchuria in 1931. Japan believed that if Western world powers had the right to colonize Asia, they believed they, too, had the right to occupy parts of Asia. Japan’s industrialization, similar to Britain, could not support the increasing demand solely from domestic resources.12 Hence, Japan reflected a similar behavior by annexing Korea and Manchuria, like Britain colonized India and the Malay Peninsula. However, unlike the Western colonial rulers, Japan would be heavily criticized by other nations over their colonization of Manchuria in 1931. Japan especially gained criticism from members of the League of Nations, which they were part of, for the organization’s object “to promote international cooperation and to achieve international peace and security.”13 Therefore, following the protest from the members left the League of Nations in 1933 to pursue their aggressive foreign policies. Members of the League of Nations were not the only ones denouncing Japan’s occupation of Manchuria.

The United States had also stated its concern over the Japanese invasion of Manchuria as it violated the Open Door Policy. While many scholars argue that the year following the Second Sino-Japanese War was the first instance of deterioration in the relationship between the United States and Japan, the relationship observed in 1932 can be seen as the beginning of the conflict.

For Japan, invading Manchuria brought great economic benefits since Manchuria was rich in natural resources, specifically coal, and iron.14 On the other hand, it meant the United States and Japan’s actions went against their belief in resolving conflict through peaceful diplomatic efforts.15 Moreover, Japan’s expansion toward Chinese territory directly violated the Open Door Policy.

The purpose of the Open Door Policy for the United States was for them to not only access equal commerce in China but also increase trade and influence in the Far East. In January 1932, the United States responded to the Japanese occupation of Manchuria by issuing the Stimson Doctrine. Named after Secretary of State Henry Stimson, the doctrine stated that “The American Government deems it to be its duty to notify both the Imperial Japanese Government and the Government of the Chinese Republic that it cannot admit the legality of any situation de facto nor does it intend to recognize any treaty.”16 The doctrine issued by the United States signified multiple contradictions in Japanese and United States policy. For instance, the United States was 12 Gompert, Binnendijk, and Lin, “Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor, 1941,” 94 13 Dr. Lo Wen-kan, “The Chinese Legation to the Department of State,” in FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC PAPERS, 1933, THE FAR EAST, VOLUME III, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/ frus1933v03/d265.

14 John R. Stewart, “Manchuria as Japan’s Economic Life-Line,” Far Eastern Survey (1935) 4 (23): 182–186, https://doi.org/10.2307/3022242.

15 “Statement by the Secretary of State,” in FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC PAPERS, 1937, GENERAL, VOLUME I, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1937v01/d712.

16 Stimson, “Message by President Roosevelt to Congress, December 8, 1941,” in PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, 1931–1941, VOLUME II, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1931-41v02/d422

committed to creating a world with more free international trade policies that would prevent the cause of war. On the contrary, Japan was determined to achieve autarky by exploiting neighboring nations’ resources through military expansion. Japan’s ambition for self-sufficiency was evident in 1934 when Amau Eiji of Japan’s Foreign Ministry released a statement on Japan’s economic objective in China. The Amau Doctrine stated “Japan’s right to supervise all of (North) China’s economic development, and he asserted that this task belonged neither to the League of Nations nor to any other state or groups of states.”17 Japan desired to monopolize Chinese resources and economy and had very little interest in maintaining the integrity of the Open Door policy. Eiji’s statement establishing Japan’s interest in dominating Manchuria marked the starting point for deteriorating the relationship between Japan and the United States. Despite the United States’ loss of economic access in North China, the United States was inclined to create “needless” tension, especially with their isolationist sentiment.18 In retrospect, the Japanese occupation of Manchuria underlies the fundamental basis for the United States’ disapproval of Japanese expansion due to their loss of economic influence in the Far East.

Following the invasion of Manchuria, the tension in Sino-Japan relations were at an alltime high; both nations were increasing their army while propagating anti stance against each other.19 In July 1937, a skirmish near the Marco Polo Bridge in Northern China escalated into a full-scale war.20 The biggest flaw made by the Imperial Japanese Army was that they assumed the conflict would only last for three months.21 Due to Japan’s limited natural resources, Japan aimed at a short and swift decisive war. Overall, Japan’s invasion of China was successful; China’s capital Nanking had been occupied by the spring of 1938. However, Japan’s miscalculation of China’s resilience and never arriving surrender terms brought devastating consequences to their attrition and economy. While Japan strived for autarky, the war with China required massive consumption of natural resources and brought stronger reliance on foreign imports. As Miller said, “The Japanese Empire was singularly deficient in metals: iron and steel, copper, lead, zinc, and alloying elements for toughening steel. The home islands and colonies contained insignificant petroleum deposits and had the inadequate capacity to refine imported crude oil into fuels for the sea and air forces and civilian economy.”22 Due to Japan’s lack of natural resources, Japan heavily relied on imports from the United States. In 1938, the United States supplied 44% of Japan’s imports.23 The United States’ initial response to the Second Sino-Japanese War was identical to their reaction during the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. In October 1937, Roosevelt gave his famous “Quarantine” speech. In his speech, he implied peace-loving countries should unite to “quar17 Barnhart, Japan Prepares for Total War: The Search for Economic Security, 1919-1941, 116 18 Barnhart, Japan Prepares for Total War: The Search for Economic Security, 1919-1941, 116 19 Barnhart, Japan Prepares for Total War: The Search for Economic Security, 1919-1941, 82 20 Yomiuri Shimbun War Responsibility Reexamination Committee, “FROM MARCO POLO BRIDGE TO PEARL HARBOR: WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE?” Asian Perspective 31, no. 1 (2007): 193–208, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42704582.

21 Barnhart, Japan Prepares for Total War: The Search for Economic Security, 1919-1941, 91 22 Miller, Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan before Pearl Harbor, 48 23 Adams, “The Road to Pearl Harbor: A Reexamination of American Far Eastern Policy.”

antine” or sanction the aggressors.24 While no names of the aggressors were given, Roosevelt’s speech strongly implied Japan’s aggression towards China, especially when the speech was made three months after the conflict began. The quarantine speech further established the United States’ denouncement of Japan’s aggression and encouraged other major powers to boycott Japan.25 However, ironic to the Quarantine speech, the United States would not invoke its Neutrality Act of 1935 against the conflict between Japan and China. The Neutrality Act of 1935 prohibited the exports of armaments to nations at war. Congress passed the Neutrality Act under the sentiment to maintain isolationism and prevent involvement in the conflict.26 Roosevelt chose not to invoke the Neutrality Act against Japan and China because he deemed that the sanction would have significantly impacted the victim but not the aggressor.27 While reliant on natural resources, Japan was self-sufficient in its production of armaments since it could still import natural resources.

Throughout the first year of the Second Sino-Japanese War, the United States verbally condemned Japan’s aggression due to the uncertainty of the war. The United States did not go beyond verbal opposition due to many factors, such as maintaining economic relations with Japan, China’s capitulation, and Japan’s default over their heavy military expenditure.

Ever since the start of the war in China, the United States has been carefully observing the financial status of Japan. Japan’s heavy import of natural resources and its weak yen currency meant that the purchase of natural resources from the United States had to be transacted through the dollar.28 Japan’s biggest importation concern was converting its currency into the dollar. Japan had two methods of acquiring the dollars used to trade with the United States. The first method was done by exporting their goods to the United States. Due to the lack of natural resources, Japan was heavily limited in its exports. However, since the beginning of Japan’s industrialization, raw silk proved to be Japan’s most significant export and earnings of dollars. Japan’s export of raw silk in 1937 accounted for 100 million dollars, a little over half the total export of Japan.29 Despite exporting raw silk, the consumption of natural resources was heavier than their earning of dollars. Japan’s net import economy was one of the primary reasons for them to pursue autarky.

To compensate for the lack of dollars to supply their demanding industry and military, Japan began selling its gold reserves to the United States.The United States estimation of Japan’s gold 24 Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Address Delivered by President Roosevelt at Chicago on October 5, 1937,” PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, 1931–1941, VOLUME I, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history. state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1931-41v01/d283 25 Miller, Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan before Pearl Harbor, 13 26 Cordell Hull, “The Secretary of State to President Roosevelt,” FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC PAPERS, 1935, GENERAL, THE NEAR EAST AND AFRICA, VOLUME I, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1935v01/d242 27 Johnson, “The Ambassador in China ( Johnson ) to the Secretary of State,” FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC PAPERS, 1937, THE FAR EAST, VOLUME III, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1937v03/d580.

28 Miller, Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan before Pearl Harbor, 18.

29 Miller, Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan before Pearl Harbor, 30, quoted in National Association of Hosiery Manufacturers, Quarterly Statistical Bulletin of the Hosiery Industry, 1939 Review.

reserves was what determined to assume Japan would go bankrupt during its war with China.

In 1937 alone, Japan sold $264 million worth of gold to the United States.30 Many United States financial officials estimated that Japan’s gold reserves would deplete around 1938 and 1940. The United States would be proved heavily wrong when in August 1940, it was evident that Japan had a stash of more than 100 million dollars hidden in a New York account.31 In simplified terms, Japan, throughout the years of selling surplus gold to the United States, had been depositing small portions of converted dollars into custody accounts that did not require deposit recordings. The United States’ wrong estimation of Japan’s bankruptcy (and China’s capitulation) helped Japan buy time to pursue its conquest and continue purchasing natural resources from the United States.

The first instance of the United States’ economic sanction against Japan resulted from the American public protest against Japan’s moral wrongdoings.

From a country that heavily relies on natural resources from foreign imports, economic sanctions devastate their economy, industry, and entire nation. The United States’ full-scale economic sanctions would have halted their aggression and bottlenecked military and civilian industries for Japan. Before late 1938, economic sanctions against Japan were hardly ever brought up due to their false assumption of Japan’s bankruptcy. Therefore, in the first year of the war, the United States government did not offer major opposition against Japan, even after the Panay Incident in December 1937, when a Japanese aircraft sank an American gunboat in China.32 The incident was peacefully settled with Japan’s apology and paid restitution. However, the Panay Incident, along with the Japanese bombing of civilians, outraged the United States public because it was the United States’ aircraft and equipment that were used to harm innocent lives. In the spring of 1938, after Japan’s bombing raid in Canton killed more than a thousand civilians, the United States government was compelled to address the public outcry by appeasing the public demand. Hence, their denouncement of such acts of terror came as sanctions against the sales of aircraft-related equipment against Japan.33 The United States’ first embargo against Japan was in the form of a “moral” embargo due to government legal issues that prevented the Roosevelt administration from direct embargo without passing through Congress or invoking the Neutrality Act between Japan and China.34 The Roosevelt administration found an alternative solution by directly contacting the manufacturers and exporters to discourage their sales to Japan. The alternative allowed Roosevelt to impose a form of sanction without passing through Congress, which 30 Miller, Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan before Pearl Harbor, 60, quoted in Box 69, File International Foreign Accounts General 1927-1854 (1).

31 Miller Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan before Pearl Harbor, 99, quoted in Rozell to McKeon, Yokohama Specie Bank’s Reports, 3 August 1940, Box 50, File Japan Banking-Yokohama Specie Bank, FRB. 32 Joseph Grew, “The Ambassador in Japan ( Grew ) to the Secretary of State,” PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, 1931–1941, VOLUME I, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1931-41v01/d393 33 Joseph C. Green, “The Chief of the Office of Arms and Munitions Control, Department of State (Green), to 148 Persons and Companies Manufacturing Airplane Parts,” PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, 1931–1941, VOLUME II, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1931-41v02/d126 34 Miller, Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan before Pearl Harbor, 78.

at the time had a strong isolationism incentive.35 While the moral embargo did prevent sales of air crash equipment, Japan had little to no impact since its warplane industry had already been self-sufficient in production.36 Following the moral embargo on aircraft components, the United States began solidifying more towards opposing Japan not only to promote peace but also due to their reevaluation of the importance of the Open Door Policy.

Throughout the war, occupied China had been economically exploited by Japan. In occupied China, Japan adopted the yen over the yuan, Japanese zaibatsu or monopolies dominated occupied industries, and foreign enterprises were kicked out.37 When American enterprises were forced to withdraw from occupied China, this infuriated the United States government. In October 1938, Joseph Grew, United States ambassador to Japan, issued a note to Japan, criticizing their aggression and violation of their Open Door policy.38 A month later, the prime minister of Japan, Fumimaro Konoe, responded in his “New Order in East Asia” address.39 His address was similar to Amau Doctrine in 1934, where he expressed Japan’s interest in monopolizing China and would not tolerate the intervention of other powers’ economic demands. Furthermore, the statement criticized the United States and Britain for demanding an Open Door policy because they were already economically self-sufficient and that it was in Japan’s interest to complete plans for their “economic national defense” through the autarky gained from China.40 Japan’s idea of an economic national defense would later be pursued in late 1940 when Japan declared The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, a bigger version of the economic national defense similar to the Monroe Doctrine. The interaction between Grew and Konoe further demonstrates the contradicting economic ambitions of the United States and Japan in China. Moreover, Konoe’s statement clarified that the United States should take economic measures against Japan to prevent the Open Door policy from being “banged, barred, and bolted.”41 In early 1938, the United States offered financial support to China by buying fifty million ounces of silver to stabilize its yuan currency.42 This allowed China to purchase weapons from foreign nations like the United States in dollars. However, with China’s silver diminishing, in late 1938, an alternative solution to further support China was gaining interest from officials like Henry Morgenthau, United States Secretary of Treasury.43 Since the beginning of the war, Morgenthau was one of the few members of the Roosevelt administration that supported early economic 35 Maxwell M. Hamilton, “Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs (Hamilton),” FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC PAPERS, 1938, THE FAR EAST, VOLUME III, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history. state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1938v03/d579 36 Miller, Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan before Pearl Harbor, 80.

37 Adams, “The Road to Pearl Harbor: A Reexamination of American Far Eastern Policy.”

38 Barnhart, Japan Prepares for Total War: The Search for Economic Security, 1919-1941, 91, quoted in Grew, Diary entry for October 1938, Grew Papers, vol. 93.

39 Barnhart, Japan Prepares for Total War: The Search for Economic Security, 1919-1941, 131 40 Barnhart, Japan Prepares for Total War: The Search for Economic Security, 1919-1941, 132, quoted in FRUS, 1938, 3:366-68.

41 Adams, “The Road to Pearl Harbor: A Reexamination of American Far Eastern Policy.”

42 Adams, “The Road to Pearl Harbor: A Reexamination of American Far Eastern Policy,” quoted in 2 Blum, From The Morgenthau Diaries, I, 508 See also Everest, Morgenthau the New Deal and Silver, 121; Young, China and the Helping Han. 43 Adams, “The Road to Pearl Harbor: A Reexamination of American Far Eastern Policy.”

pressure against Japan. His justification for supporting China was to “keep the Western Pacific from being completely dominated by Japan.”44 Morgenthau’s philosophy was to undermine the threat of Japan by supporting China in its war efforts to prevent their potential expansion southward. The United States, along with interest in defending the Open Door policy, feared Japan’s further expansion towards Southeast Asia and its colonies, the Philippines and Guam.45 While it was in the United States’ interest to prevent Japan’s further expansion by supporting China, they were reluctant to support China due to their concerns about China’s capitulation. In November, the United States’ perspective drastically shifted when Chiang Kai-shek, leader of the Republic of China, assured Roosevelt that China would continue opposing Japan.46 Following the assurance from China, late 1938 marked a turning point in the United States foreign policy against the Far East when their position hardened towards further financial support. The United States government concluded that losing economic influence in their eastern hemisphere outweighed the consequence of maintaining friendly terms and trade with Japan.47 Therefore, by December 1938, the United States agreed to lend 25 million dollars in exchange for China’s tung oil sales over five years.48 The loan of 25 million dollars would allow China to purchase further war armaments in their war. Maxwell Hamilton, chief of the state department’s Division of Far Eastern Affairs, was one of the few officials against the project since aiding China implied United States involvement and bias in the Sino-Japanese conflict. He stated, “Unless the United States is prepared to give substantial and long-continued assistance to China. And if that decision is made, it should be made with the realization that that course may lead to armed conflict with Japan.”49 The proceeding with the Tung oil project clearly emphasized the United States determination to challenge Japan’s new order even if it meant jeopardizing their relationship with Japan. The United States’ commitment to aid China is further proven when they began adopting a new strategy of direct economic pressure against Japan, starting with the termination of the United States-Japan Treaty of Commerce and Navigation of 1911.

The Treaty of Commerce and Navigation of 1911 was an agreement signed in 1911 between the United States and Japan that focused on improving economic and diplomatic relations.

The treaty granted “each citizen and companies the rights and privileges of domestic commerce, 44 Adams, “The Road to Pearl Harbor: A Reexamination of American Far Eastern Policy,” quoted in Henry Morgenthau, Jr, Papers (Franklin D Roosevelt Library, Hyde Park); Foreign Relations..., 1938, III, 562-63 45 Barnhart, Japan Prepares for Total War: The Search for Economic Security, 1919-1941, 128 46 Adams, “The Road to Pearl Harbor: A Reexamination of American Far Eastern Policy.” quoted in Morgenthau Diaries, Book 147, pp 435-36, Morgenthau Paper 47 Stanley K. Hornbeck, “Memorandum by the Adviser on Political Relations (Hornbeck),” FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC PAPERS, 1938, THE FAR EAST, VOLUME III, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history.state.gov/ historicaldocuments/frus1938v03/d580 48 Adams, “The Road to Pearl Harbor: A Reexamination of American Far Eastern Policy.” quoted in Agreement between the Export-Import Bank and the Universal Trading Corporation, Dec 13, 1938.

49 Maxwell M. Hamilton, Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs (Hamilton), FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC PAPERS, 1938, THE FAR EAST, VOLUME III, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history. state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1938v03/d579

freedom of ships to come and go, equal travelers right, and mutual right to open consulates,” and the treaty helped reduce tariffs.50 In July 1939, the United States announced their six-month notice in their withdrawal from the treaty citing that they were reconsidering their economic interests in Asia.51 The United States interpreted Japan’s unequal treatment of American commerce in China to be a violation of the agreement.52 From Japan’s point of view, the United States’ withdrawal from the treaty indicated their interest in supporting China and enacting sanctions or tariffs on Japan. Moreover, it was prime evidence that the once affable relationship had deteriorated into hostility following the war with China. The United States, after the treaty’s expiration, would later pursue a new strategy of economic sanctions against Japan.

Between the time for the Treaty of Commerce to expire, World War II erupted after the German invasion of Poland in September 1939. The initial outbreak had little to no impact on the relationship between Japan and the United States. The United States declared neutrality and adopted the Neutrality Act of 1939 on 4 November 1939.53 The Neutrality Act of 1939 permitted the United States to continue selling arms to nations that could cash and carry in their own foreign ships.54 However, despite the United States declaring neutrality, it was biased towards Britain’s side due to Congress’s belief that helping democratic nations would protect U.S. security.55 The modification to the Neutrality Act favored the Allies, who controlled the sea and money, over Germany, who were blockaded and short in cash. The United States’ favor of the Allies would influence their making of National Defense policy when United States’ resources began concentrating on aiding Britain.

Ten days after the capitulation of France in June 1940, Congress passed “An Act to Expedite the Strengthening of the National Defense,” which granted the President the power to ban exports of any commodities to any countries he chose.56 The Export Control Act’s primary objec50 “Treaty of Commerce and Navigation - Protocol Of A Provisional Tarif Arrangement Between The United States And Japan,” PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, WITH THE ANNUAL MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT TRANSMITTED TO CONGRESS DECEMBER 7, 1911, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1911/pg_315.

51 Cordell Hull, “The Secretary of State to the Japanese Ambassador ( Horinouchi ),” FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC PAPERS, 1939, THE FAR EAST, VOLUME III, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1939v03/d530.

52 Joseph Grew, “The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State,” FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC PAPERS, 1939, THE FAR EAST, VOLUME III, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1939v03/d597.

53 “Proclamation of September 5, 1939, Proclaiming the Neutrality of the United States in the War Between Germany and France; Poland; and the United Kingdom, India, Australia, and New Zealand,” FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC PAPERS, 1939, GENERAL, VOLUME I, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history. state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1939v01/d729 54 Miller, Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan before Pearl Harbor, 80.

55 Miller, Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan before Pearl Harbor, 79.

56 “Proclamation No. 2413 Signed by President Roosevelt, July 2, 1940.” PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, 1931–1941, VOLUME II,

tive was to conserve their natural resources to begin their rapid war armament production. Concurrently, the executive power granted the Roosevelt administration the ability to embargo Japan and any nations under the justification of their “national defense.” By July 26, the strategic and critical commodities for manufacturing arms were identified. Most early restrictions, such as aluminum, had little to no impact on Japan since they were self-sufficient in most controlled products. However, halting aviation gasoline, 87 octane, and higher gas proved to be a hindrance for Japan.57 The proposal to halt aviation oil came from Japan’s immense order in aviation oil on July 17, 1940. Despite the immense surplus of United States aviation oil, the Roosevelt administration enlisted aviation oil as a restricted commodity solely to hamper Japan’s war efforts. Morgenthau, in response to the embargo of aviation oil, advocated for a further embargo on petroleum. Morgenthau and many other officials, such as Henry Stimson, believed denying all oil supplies was the best way to prevent further expansion from Germany and Japan.58 Roosevelt denied Morgenthau’s request since he had a different perspective on embargoing oil against Japan. He stated, “If these oil supplies had been shut off or restricted the Japanese Government and people would have been furnished with an incentive or a pretext for moving down upon the Netherlands East Indies in order to assure themselves of a greater oil supply than that which, under present conditions, they were able to obtain.”59 Roosevelt, unlike Morgenthau, understood that the sanction of petroleum on Japan would force them to secure another means of soil in the Netherlands East Indies, a colony of an Ally nation.

The British also shared the same perspective as Roosevelt when the British ambassador informed the British’s fear of Japan’s strike towards Southeast Asia, “the British are fearful that this licensing measure may result in the Japanese taking steps to ensure possession and control of the petroleum products in The Netherlands Indies.”60 In response to the halt of aviation oil, Japan accused the United States of unfair bias. Both nations knew the context of national defense was solely a strategy for U.S.’s economic warfare to hinder the Japanese economy and aid the Allies. For the Unit(Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/ frus1931-41v02/pg_211 57 Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Regulations Governing the Exportation of Articles and Materials Designated in the President’s Proclamation of July 2, 1940, Issued Pursuant to the provisions of Section 6 of the Act of Congress Approved July 2, 1940,” PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, 1931–1941, VOLUME II, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus193141v02/d137.

58 Irvine H. Anderson, “The 1941 De Facto Embargo on Oil to Japan: A Bureaucratic Reflex,” Pacific Historical Review 44, no. 2 (1975): 201–31, https://doi.org/10.2307/3638003.

59 Sumner Welles, “Memorandum by the Acting Secretary of State,” PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, 1931–1941, VOLUME II, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/ frus1931-41v02/d292, 60 James Clement Dunn, “Memorandum by the Adviser on Political Relations ( Dunn ) to the Under Secretary of State ( Welles ),” FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC PAPERS, 1940, THE FAR EAST, VOLUME IV, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1940v04/d638,

ed States, the Export Control Act was the ultimate justification for halting the export of natural resources to Japan. United States halt on aviation gas did not significantly impact Japan since they would find a loophole in the act by purchasing gasoline just below 87 octane and refining it back home. Japan’s alternative infuriated the Roosevelt administration, yet they could only watch Japan exploit the loophole under Roosevelt’s order not to interfere with petroleum. Despite the United States’ failure to hamper Japan’s industry, the sanction on aviation oil underlined their ability to halt any natural resources to Japan. In response to Japan’s continued aggression, the United States shifted its focus towards more critical natural resources like scrap metal towards the end of 1940.

In August 1940, Walter Rozell, an official for the Foreign Department of the New York Fed, discovered Japan’s secret stash of 100 million dollars.61 Japan had been storing portions of dollars from the gold trade in New York banks without the U.S. government’s notice. When it was evident Japan would not be bankrupt any time soon, it was in the interest of United States officials to pursue stronger sanctions against Japanese industry and economy. Morgenthau’s eagerness to apply economic sanctions against Japan led to his focus on scrap metal, essential in every war armament from guns, bombs, to warships. Morgenthau then drafted an order to convince Roosevelt that an embargo of scrap metal was necessary, falsely claiming that “the American steel industry could operate at only 60 percent of capacity if no scrap supplies were available.”62 Morgenthau was concerned that strengthening the American navy was futile when American steel was used in Japanese warships.63 Roosevelt refused the initial proposal, reasoning that it would be best to remain friendly with Japan.64 By this point, the relationship between the two nations had a firm fixed policy. The United States was determined to continue imposing economic sanctions against Japan unless they were to halt their aggression. On the other hand, Japan had invested everything in conquering China and achieving autarky. Roosevelt’s action of allowing exports of scrap metal and oil to Japan was not to improve relations but to appease Japan. Barnhart, in his book, said, “If the United States could refrain from extreme economic measures and maintain the status quo in the Pacific until Britain triumphed in Europe, Japan would eventually return to sobriety.”65 The United States believed their best strategy against Japan was to prevent Japan’s southward advance so that the Allies could continue accessing their natural resources from their colonies British Malaysia and Netherlands East Indies. By delaying Japanese expansion as much as possible, the United States hoped Britain would avoid dealing with a new theater of war in Asia. Despite the United States’ efforts to delay Japan’s expansion toward the South, their goal failed when Japan began showing interest in occupying French Indochina.

Japan’s scrap metal stockpiling mitigated the steel embargo’s initial economic consequence.

From 1937 to 1940, Japan imported, on average, 2.1 million tons of scrap metal, annually accu61 Miller, Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan before Pearl Harbor, 99, quoted in Rozell to McKeon, Yokohama Specie Bank’s Report, 3 August 1940, Box 50, File Japan Banking-Yokohama Specie Bank, FRB. 62 Barnhart, Japan Prepares for Total War: The Search for Economic Security, 1919-1941, 188, quoted in Morgenthau Papers, Diaries, 285:1, 124-26, 185, 366-67, and 286:190-96.

63 Barnhart, Japan Prepares for Total War: The Search for Economic Security, 1919-1941, 128, quoted in Grew to Hull, 14 February 1938, DF 894.11/772.

64 Miller, Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan before Pearl Harbor, 92, quoted in Roosevelt Proclamation 2413 with Regulations, 2 July 1940.

65 Barnhart, Japan Prepares for Total War: The Search for Economic Security, 1919-1941, 192.

mulating 0.8 million tons.66 Hence the accumulation allowed the stockpile to be at 5.7 million tons after the United States embargo. The fifteen months of scrap reserves, their production of 2.1 million tons, and increased imports from British Malaya and the Philippines were enough to supply Japan’s scrap consumption of 4.4 million tons. The United States embargo on scrap metal could not cripple Japan’s industry because oil remained accessible from the United States, and Japan was able to find alternative nations to trade scrap metal. In retrospect, the United States was in a predicament in their strategy of economic warfare since all strategic commodities besides oil were sanctioned, yet sanctioning oil would catalyze their southward advance. By the time Japan occupied Indochina, it was clear to the United States and the Allies that Japan’s invasion of Southeast Asia was imminent.

On August 1, 1940, Japan announced the new economic order, Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (GEACPS). The idea of the GEACPS was to promote a self-sufficient economic bloc in Asia free of Western colonialism.67 Japan’s declaration of its sphere of influence was the equivalent of the United States Monroe Doctrine since Japan sought to dominate the Far East sphere without any Western colonial presence in Southeast Asia.68 Furthermore, the GEACPS played a key role in promoting nationalism and militarism through its ideology of pan-Asianism. The ominous threat of southern advance GEACPS’ true intention would be evident a month later when Japan would present an ultimatum to the French Government showing their interest in the right to station troops in North Indochina.69 The ultimatum, the first indication of Japan’s advance to the south, placed the United States in a position to apply strict foreign policy against Japan to pressure and dissuade their footing in Southeast Asia. On September 26, 1940, following the Japanese invasion and occupation of Northern French Indochina, the United States revoked Japan’s licensing to scrap metal exports.70 The next day, almost as if for Japan to push away the United States, they signed the Tripartite Pact with Nazi Germany and Italy.71 For Japan, singing the Tripartite Pact had two benefits. First, the Tripartite Pact and the Axis alliance served to deter any intervention from the United States by pressuring them from both the West and the East.72 Secondly, negotiations over French Indochina would favor Japan when the governor of Indochina, Vichy France, was a client state of Nazi Germany. The capitulation of mainland France had fragmented colonies into either Free France or Vichy France, and Indochina had landed in the hand of Vichy. For 66 Miller, Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan before Pearl Harbor, 93, quoted in Roosevelt, Proclamation 2417 with Regulations, 26 July 1940.

67 Anne E. Booth, “The Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere: 1942–1945,” In Colonial Legacies: Economic and Social Development in East and Southeast Asia, 148–63. University of Hawai’i Press, 2007. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt6wr2vx.13.

68 John R. Murnane, “Japan’s Monroe Doctrine?: Re-Framing the Story of Pearl Harbor,” The History Teacher 40, no. 4 (2007): 503–20, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30037047.

69 Barnhart, Japan Prepares for Total War: The Search for Economic Security, 1919-1941, 192, quoted in Grew diary entries, July and August 1940, Grew Papers.

70 Miller, Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan before Pearl Harbor, 93.

71 Barnhart, Japan Prepares for Total War: The Search for Economic Security, 1919-1941, 194, Roosevelt to Stettinius, 5 September 1940, Official File 342, Roosevelt Papers.

72 Joseph Grew, “The Ambassador in Japan ( Grew ) to the Secretary of State,” FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC PAPERS, 1940, GENERAL, VOLUME I, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/ frus1940v01/d704.

Japan, occupying northern Indochina was imperative in their war against China. By controlling the primary trade route of imports into China, the blockade would help cripple China’s attrition.

According to Barnhart, the United States reasoned that an embargo on scrap metal was necessary when Japan’s “complete economic rupture was imminent, and hence the advance had to be commenced.”73 However, it would be the scrap metal embargo that pushed Japan to embark on the lingering idea of a southward advance.

Until mid-1941, Japan showed no interest in pursuing the South as the war with China kept them occupied. The Second Sino-Japanese War, which was supposed to last less than a year, marked their fourth year by 1941. In an attempt to end the war with China and negotiate friendly terms with the United States, Japan sent a proposal to the United States in May 1941. For context, Japan’s proposals have been inconclusive with the United States and China since 1937. The letter stated, “It is our present hope that, by a joint effort, our nations may establish a just peace in the Pacific.”74 In a letter from Japanese Ambassador Nomura, it requested United States cooperation in the Sino-Japanese peace deal and resumption of amicable terms in exchange for guaranteeing the independence of the Philippine Islands. In response, the United States sought Japan to guarantee equal opportunity in the Pacific. However, Nomura explicitly declared that Japan’s ambition in Asia was concurrent to the United States Monroe Doctrine, which emphasized their interest in dominating Asia against other major powers.75 The negotiation did not settle since the United States opposed being on the receiving end of the Monroe Doctrine and losing its influence in the Far East. The significance of this proposal from Japan reflects the calm before the storm. Japan knew this proposal was no different from the previous negotiations. However, it reaffirmed Japan’s pursuit of a southward advance. Their plan would become evident to the United States when Japan further demanded to Vichy France their rights to occupy the southern part of Indochina.76 Operation Barbarossa, also known as the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, alleviated Japan from the potential Soviet invasion from the north. This was met with overwhelming military officers advocating for Japan to pursue a southward advance filled with rich natural resources.77 The next month, Japan sent an ultimatum to Vichy, France, for the total occupation of its Asian colony. Japan justified its action against the United States by saying that its action was imperative in securing their shortage of food supplies and natural resources but also in military security when “foreign powers were bent upon a policy of encirclement” against Japan.78 73 Barnhart, Japan Prepares for Total War: The Search for Economic Security, 1919-1941, 197.

74 “Draft Proposal Handed by the Japanese Ambassador ( Nomura ) to the Secretary of State on May 12, 1941,” PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, 1931–1941, VOLUME II, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1931-41v02/d248 75 Cordell Hull, PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, 1931–1941, VOLUME II, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1931-41v02/pg_284.

76 Barnhart, Japan Prepares for Total War: The Search for Economic Security, 1919-1941, 226, quoted in U.S. Congress, Pearl Harbor Attack.

77 Barnhart, Japan Prepares for Total War: The Search for Economic Security, 1919-1941, 209.

78 Sumner Welles, “Memorandum by the Acting Secretary of State,” PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, 1931–1941, VOLUME II,

For the colonial powers, the threat of Japan occupying South Indochina created the underlying threat of a platform used to launch an invasion into their colonies.79 The United States, in particular, condemned Japan’s action by stating, “The steps which the Japanese Government has taken also endanger the safety of other areas of the Pacific, including the Philippine Islands.”80 With Japan’s occupation of southern Indochina, the United States’ suspension of Japan’s southward advance changed to conviction. The growing concern over Japan’s slow but steady preparation for their southward advance had the Roosevelt administration question their action in providing oil to Japan.

With no more strategic commodities besides oil left for the United States to the embargo, suggestions of freezing Japanese assets gained interest, especially after they froze German and Italian assets on June 14.81 The United States was convinced that Japan’s southward advance was inevitable and deemed it futile to continue providing oil to Japan. Hence, with the approval from Roosevelt, the freeze of Japanese assets was announced on June 14. The freezing of assets not only froze Japan’s stash hidden in New York but also indirectly imposed a full-scale embargo since their prerequisite to purchase commodities from the United States required access to the dollar.

The United States’ indirect embargo on oil had a more significant effect than the previous embargo because they gained cooperation from Netherlands East Indies, Britain, and their dominions in freezing Japan’s assets.82 Japan had no other nations to import oil from and was desperate to find a new alternative for their oil.

Between the freeze and Japan’s final decision to attack Pearl Harbor, Japan offered several proposals to the United States. The first proposal in September offered to guarantee equal commerce with the United States, restrictive military measurements in Indochina, and willingness to negotiate with China in exchange for the United States unfreezing assets and suspending military activity in the Far East.83 Japan aimed to find a compromise to satisfy the United States while maintaining overall influence on the Far East Region. However, the United States would only agree on terms if Japan followed the three fixed points, “getting troops out of China, commercial policy, and the Tripartite agreement.”84 The United States policies were fixed because Japan would (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/ frus1931-41v02/d291.

79 Miller, Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan before Pearl Harbor, 173 80 “Press Release Issued by the Department of State on July 24, 1941,” PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, 1931–1941, VOLUME II, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/ frus1931-41v02/d230 81 “Press Release Issued at Poughkeepsie, New York, by the White House on July 25, 1941,” PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, 1931–1941, VOLUME II, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history.state. gov/historicaldocuments/frus1931-41v02/d184 82 Miller, Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan before Pearl Harbor, 174 quoted in Harold R. Stark, Chief of Naval Operations to FDR, 21 July 1941.

83 “Draft Proposal Harmed by the Japanese Ambassador ( Nomura ) to the Secretary of State on September 6, 1941,” PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, 1931–1941, VOLUME II, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010),https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1931-41v02/d338.

84 Joseph W. Ballantine, “Memorandum of a Conversation,” PAPERS RELATING TO

not swallow such extreme terms, and diplomatic de-escalation was impossible. Japanese leaders felt United States terms as an insult to their nations since they were proposing to give up their ambitions after pouring four years of blood, sweat, and tears.85 With negotiation inconclusive, the war between Japan and the United States was inevitable due to their respectively contradicting ambition to conquer and maintain peace in the Pacific.

The United States did not offer to negotiate any terms with Japan because it could no longer trust Japan to adhere to new treaties after it breached the Open Door Policy.86 Furthermore, the United States understood that the southern Japanese advance was inexorable and that providing oil only helped Japan. With no access to oil and oil slowly depleting with time, Japan was cornered in a position to find an alternative quickly. Their best gamble was to strike the United States Navy stationed in Pearl Harbor to deter the most posing threat in the Pacific Ocean. As Roosevelt feared the most, the Japanese invasion of the Netherland East Indies was imminent, and the government called for nations in Southeast Asia to be on high alert. On November 11, 1941, the United States navy department released a press statement, “The only thing we can be sure of was that the Pacific, no less than the Atlantic, calls for instant readiness for defense. In the Pacific area, no less than in Europe, interests vital to our national security are seriously threatened.”87 Despite the United States’ advocacy to prepare for defense against Japan, they would be caught vulnerable on early Sunday morning of December 7th, 1941, when 353 Japanese aircraft struck down on a naval base in Pearl Harbor. The following day on the eighth, Japan simultaneously invaded Southeast Asia: Burma, Thailand, British Malaya, the Netherland East Indies, and the Philippines.88 Japan’s final adaptation after the full-scale economic embargo was to secure natural resources found in Southeast Asia.

The economic power struggle in the Far East between Japan and the United States led to the attack on Pearl Harbor and the beginning of the Pacific War. Japan’s ambition of autarky through invading China resulted in increased reliance on United States imports to supply their war industry. However, the United States’ desire to maintain economic influence in China through the Open Door Policy and Japan’s threat to Western colonies in Southeast Asia gradually deteriorated their relationship into hostility. When the United States imposed economic sanctions to prevent Japanese expansion, Japan was forced to find alternatives in their natural resources by THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, 1931–1941, VOLUME II, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/ frus1931-41v02/d400.

85 Barnhart, Japan Prepares for Total War: The Search for Economic Security, 1919-1941, 236.

86 Joseph W. Ballantine, “Memorandum of a Conversation,” PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, 1931–1941, VOLUME II, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/ frus1931-41v02/d402.

87 Cordell Hull, “The Secretary of State to Mr. Justice Owen J. Roberts,” FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC PAPERS, 1941, THE FAR EAST, VOLUME IV, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010),https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1941v04/d594.

88 Gregg, Huff, and Majima Shinobu, “Financing Japan’s World War II Occupation of Southeast Asia,” The Journal of Economic History 73, no. 4 (2013): 937–77, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24551008.

increasing their production, finding loopholes in aviation gas, trading with other nations, and eventually, further military expansion. Japan’s desire to dissuade further United States intervention in the Far East ultimately resulted in defeat in 1945. Ever since the end of World War II, Japan, under the heavy influence of the United States, has transformed into a democratic nation that prohibits the establishment of a military under its new constitution. Today Japan-United States relations are characterized by strong economic and political ties where Japan relies on the United States for its national security. With the emergence of China as a new global superpower, the geopolitical tension between the United States and China over Taiwan resembles similarities between the United States and Japan over China in the 1930s. History often repeats itself. The legacy of the Pacific War should serve as a reminder that resolving conflict peacefully through diplomacy is imperative to avoid another war and violence.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Mrs. Musto for helping and supporting me in writing this paper. I would also like to thank my classmates Shalini, Jayden, and Eric for peer editing.

Bibliography Adams, Frederick C. “The Road to Pearl Harbor: A Reexamination of American Far Eastern Policy, July 1937-December 1938.” The Journal of American History 58. no. 1 (1971): 73–92. Last Accessed, October 12, 2023.

Ballantine, Joseph W. “Memorandum of a Conversation.” PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, 1931–1941, VOLUME II, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010).https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1931-41v02/ d400.

Ballantine, Joseph W. “Memorandum of a Conversation.” PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, 1931–1941, VOLUME II, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010). https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus193141v02/d402.

Barnhart, Michael. A. Japan Prepares for Total War: The Search for Economic Security. 19191941. (NY: Cornell Univ. Press, 2009). Accessed February 13, 2023.

Booth, Anne E. “The Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere: 1942–1945.” In Colonial Legacies: Economic and Social Development in East and Southeast Asia. 148–63. University of Hawai’i Press, 2007. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt6wr2vx.13.

“Draft Proposal Handed by the Japanese Ambassador ( Nomura ) to the Secretary of State on May 12, 1941.” PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, 1931–1941, VOLUME II. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010). https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1931-41v02/d248.

“Draft Proposal Harmed by the Japanese Ambassador ( Nomura ) to the Secretary of State on September 6, 1941.” PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, 1931–1941, VOLUME II, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010). https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1931-41v02/d338.

Dr. Lo Wen-kan. “The Chinese Legation to the Department of State.” in FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC PAPERS, 1933, THE FAR EAST, VOLUME III, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010). https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/ frus1933v03/d265.

Dunn, James Clement. “Memorandum by the Adviser on Political Relations ( Dunn ) to the Under Secretary of State ( Welles ).” FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DIP-

LOMATIC PAPERS, 1940, THE FAR EAST, VOLUME IV, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010). https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1940v04/d638.

1939, GENERAL, VOLUME I. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010). https://history. state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1939v01/d729 Gompert, David C. Binnendijk Hans and Lin, Bonny Lin. “ Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor, 1941”. In Blinders, Blunders, and Wars: What America and China Can Learn. (2014): 93-106.

Accessed November 14, 2022. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/j.ctt1287m9t.15.

Green, Joseph C. “The Chief of the Office of Arms and Munitions Control, Department of State (Green), to 148 Persons and Companies Manufacturing Airplane Parts.” PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, 1931–1941, VOLUME II, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010). https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/ frus1931-41v02/d126 Grew, Joseph “The Ambassador in Japan ( Grew ) to the Secretary of State.” FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC PAPERS, 1940, GENERAL, VOLUME I. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010). https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/ frus1940v01/d704.

Grew, Joseph “The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State.” FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC PAPERS. 1939. THE FAR EAST, VOLUME III. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1939v03/d597.

Grew, Joseph. “The Ambassador in Japan ( Grew ) to the Secretary of State.” PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, 1931–1941, VOLUME I. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010). https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/ frus1931-41v01/d393 Johnson. “The Ambassador in China ( Johnson ) to the Secretary of State.” FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC PAPERS, 1937, THE FAR EAST, VOLUME III, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010). https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1937v03/d580.

Hamilton, Maxwell M. “Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs (Hamilton).” FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC PAPERS, 1938, THE FAR EAST, VOLUME III. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010). https://history.state. gov/historicaldocuments/frus1938v03/d579.

Hay, John. “PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, WITH THE ANNUAL MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT TRANSMITTED TO CONGRESS

DECEMBER 5, 1899.” in Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Annual Message of the President Transmitted to Congress December 5, 1899 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010.) https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1899/d91.

Hornbeck, Stanley K. “Memorandum by the Adviser on Political Relations (Hornbeck).” FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC PAPERS, 1938, THE FAR EAST, VOLUME III, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010). https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1938v03/d580.

Huff, Gregg, and Shinobu, Majima “Financing Japan’s World War II Occupation of Southeast Asia,” The Journal of Economic History 73, no. 4 (2013): 937–77. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24551008.

Hull, Cordell. PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN. 1931–1941, VOLUME II, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010). https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1931-41v02/pg_284.

Hull, Cordell “The Secretary of State to Mr. Justice Owen J. Roberts,” FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC PAPERS. 1941, THE FAR EAST, VOLUME IV. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010). https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/ frus1941v04/d594.

Hull, Cordell “The Secretary of State to President Roosevelt.” FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC PAPERS, 1935, GENERAL, THE NEAR EAST AND AFRICA, VOLUME I. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010), https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1935v01/d242.

Hull, Cordell “The Secretary of State to the Japanese Ambassador ( Horinouchi ).” FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC PAPERS. 1939, THE FAR EAST, VOLUME III. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010). https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1939v03/d530.

Marius B. Jansen, Chu, Samuel C. Okamoto, Shumpei and Oh, Bonnie B. “The Historiography of the Sino-Japanese War.” The International History Review 1, no. 2 (1979): 191–227. http://www. jstor.org/stable/40105728.

Miller, Edward S, Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan before Pearl Harbor, (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2023). Accessed December 28, 2023.

Murnane, John R. “Japan’s Monroe Doctrine?: Re-Framing the Story of Pearl Harbor.” The History Teacher 40, no. 4 (2007): 503–20. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30037047.

“Press Release Issued by the Department of State on July 24, 1941.” PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, 1931–1941, VOLUME II,

(Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010). https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/ frus1931-41v02/d230.

“Press Release Issued at Poughkeepsie, New York, by the White House on July 25, 1941,” PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, 1931–1941, VOLUME II, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010). https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1931-41v02/d184.

“Proclamation of September 5, 1939, Proclaiming the Neutrality of the United States in the War Between Germany and France; Poland; and the United Kingdom, India, Australia, and New Zealand.” FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC PAPERS, “Proclamation No. 2413 Signed by President Roosevelt, July 2, 1940.” PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, 1931–1941, VOLUME II, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010). https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/ frus1931-41v02/pg_211.

Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt. “Address Delivered by President Roosevelt at Chicago on October 5, 1937.” PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, 1931–1941, VOLUME I, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010).

Roosevelt, Franklin D. “Message by President Roosevelt to Congress, December 8.” in Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, Japan, 1931–1941. Volume II. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010). https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus193141v02/d422.

Roosevelt, Franklin D. “Regulations Governing the Exportation of Articles and Materials Designated in the President’s Proclamation of July 2, 1940, Issued Pursuant to the Provisions of Section 6 of the Act of Congress Approved July 2, 1940.” PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN. 1931–1941, VOLUME II, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010). https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1931-41v02/d137.

“Statement by the Secretary of State.” in FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC PAPERS. 1937, GENERAL, VOLUME I. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010). https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1937v01/d712.

Stewart, John R. “Manchuria as Japan’s Economic Life-Line.” Far Eastern Survey (1935) 4 (23): 182–186, https://doi.org/10.2307/3022242.

Stimson, Henry. “Message by President Roosevelt to Congress, December 8, 1941.” in PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN. 1931–1941.

VOLUME II. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010).

“Treaty of Commerce and Navigation - Protocol Of A Provisional Tarif Arrangement Between The United States And Japan.” PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE

UNITED STATES, WITH THE ANNUAL MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT TRANSMITTED TO CONGRESS DECEMBER 7, 1911. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010). https:// history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1911/pg_315.

Welles, Sumner “Memorandum by the Acting Secretary of State.” PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, 1931–1941, VOLUME II, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010). https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/ frus1931-41v02/d291 Welles, Sumner. “Memorandum by the Acting Secretary of State.” PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, 1931–1941, VOLUME II, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010). https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/ frus1931-41v02/d292 Yomiuri Shimbun War Responsibility Reexamination Committee. “FROM MARCO POLO BRIDGE TO PEARL HARBOR: WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE?” Asian Perspective 31, no. 1 (2007): 193–208, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42704582.

Allen, Katherine. “Hobby and Craft: Distilling Household Medicine in Eighteenth-Centu ry England.” Early Modern Women 11, no. 1 (2016): 90-114. Accessed January 29, 2021. doi:10.2307/26431441.

Boursier, Louise Bourgeois. Woman in Labor. 1707. Accessed February 11, 2021. http://resource. nlm.nih.gov/101449097 Browne, John. A Compleat Treatise of the Muscles, As They Appear in Humane Body, and Arise in Dissection; With Diverse Anatomical Observations Not Yet Discovered. 1681. Accessed January 29, 2021. https://anatomia.library.utoronto.ca/islandora/object/anatomia%3AR BAI022/pages?page=2 D’Arconville, Genevieve. Female Skeleton, Drawn from Front View Only, Studied for Its Devia tion from the Male Skeleton, and Male Skeleton Studied from Back. 1759. Accessed February 14, 2021. https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/eascfa/dinner_party/heritage_ floor/genevieve_d_arconville Fissell, Mary E. “Introduction: Women, Health, and Healing in Early Modern Europe.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 82, no. 1 (2008): 1-17. Accessed January 29, 2021. http://www. jstor.org/stable/44448504.

Lady. The Whole Duty of a Woman: or a guide to the female sex. 1701. Accessed February 7, 2021. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A65957.0001.001?view=toc

Merchant, Carolyn. The Death of Nature. New York: HarperOne, 1980.

Mercury, Stamford. VERSES written by a young Lady, on Women born to be Controu’d!

1733. Accessed February 7, 2021. https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/ bl/0000202/17330705/001/0001 Proverbs 11:29 (NIV).

Rossiter, Margaret W. “The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science.” Social Studies of Science 23, no. 2 (1993): 325-41. Accessed January 29, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/285482.

Rueff, Jakob. Midwife Assisted Childbirth. 1580. Accessed February 11, 2021. http://resource.nlm. nih.gov/101436173 Schiebinger, Londa. “Skelettestreit.” Isis 94, no. 2 (2003): 307-13. Accessed February 11, 2021. http://ezproxy.bpl.org/login?url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/379389 Schiebinger, Londa. “The History and Philosophy of Women in Science: A Review Essay.” Signs 12, no. 2 (1987): 305-32. Accessed January 29, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3173988.

Schiebinger, Londa. The Mind Has No Sex? Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989.

Sherron De Hart, Jane, and Linda Kerber. “Gender and the New Women’s History.” In Women’s America: Refocusing the Past. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Sleigh, Elizabeth and Whitfeld, Felicia. 1647-1722. Accessed February 14, 2021. https://wellcome library.org/item/b19558442#?m=0&cv=6&c=0&s=0&z=0.5316%2C0.2202%2C0.2078% 2C0.1305 Strocchia, Sharon T. “Introduction: Women and Healthcare in Early Modern Europe.” Renais sance Studies 28, no. 4 (2014): 496-514. Accessed January 29, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/24423851.

Thomas von Soemmering, Samuel. Female Skeleton. 1796. Accessed February 14, 2021. https:// www.jstor.org/stable/2928435 Wale, Samuel. Series: The Oxford Almanac. 1755. Accessed February 7, 2021. https://www.brit ishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1854-0614-31

THE PRICE OF PARANOIA: THE FBI’S STRUGGLE TO REGAIN PUBLIC CONFIDENCE AFTER MCCARTHYISM Jayden Malouf Advanced History Capstone April 9th 2023

“The communist party is the greatest danger to the internal security of the country.

Its objectives are diametrically opposed to those of the United States. It is, therefore, the duty of every American citizen to be vigilant in his support of the FBI in its efforts to neutralize this threat. The FBI has been, and will continue to be, in the forefront of the fight against Communism. Through its counterintelligence program, the Bureau has effectively neutralized many Communist spy rings and has broken up numerous Communist front organizations which sought to further the cause of Communism in America.” J. Edgar Hoover. (1960) The end of the Cold War in 1991 marked a major turning point in world history. The Cold War was the period of tension and competition between the United States and the Soviet Union that lasted from the end of World War II in 1945, to the date the Soviet Union fell in 1991.1 Communism, which was based on the principles of classless society and state ownership of the means of production, was the guiding ideology of the Soviet Union.2 Throughout the Cold War, the US government and many Americans saw communism as a major threat to their way of life, and the FBI and other intelligence agencies monitored and investigated individuals and organizations suspected of having ties to communism.3 Knowing this information about the Cold War is important to the understanding of communism because the conflict between the US and the Soviet Union during this period was largely a battle between two opposing ideologies: capitalism and communism. During the Cold War, the United States saw communism as a threat to its own capitalist system and democracy, and sought to contain its spread around the world. This helps contextualize the reasons for communism’s rise and decline as a political and economic system while showing how much of a threat communism really was.

The FBI’s active role in investigating and monitoring communist activities during the Cold War era eventually intersected with one of the most significant scientific and military undertakings of the time. The Manhattan Project was a research development program during World 1 Kenneth O’Reilly, “The FBI and the Origins of McCarthyism.” The Historian 45, no. 3 (1983), accessed April 1, 2023.

2 Ellen Schrecker, “McCarthyism: Political Repression and the Fear of Communism.”

Social Research 71, no. 4 (2004): 1041–86, accessed February 20, 2023. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40971992.

3 Schrecker, “McCarthyism: Political Repression and the Fear of Communism.”

War II that produced the first nuclear weapons.4 It was led by the United States government with support from the United Kingdom and Canada, and involved many refugees from Europe who had fled Nazi persecution.5 The project was conducted in secret, and involved multiple sites across the US, including Los Alamos, New Mexico, where the actual design and construction of the first atomic bombs took place.6 There were several instances of infiltration of the Manhattan Project, which contributed to the growing fear of political infiltration and espionage during the Cold War era. One of the most notable cases of infiltration was that of Klaus Fuchs, a German-born physicist who worked on the Manhattan project from 1943-1945.7 Fuchs was a member of the Communist Party of Germany and had many contacts with Soviet Intelligence. Fuchs passed on information about the Manhattan Project to the Soviet Union, including detailed technical information about the design and construction of the atomic bomb. Fuchs was arrested in 1950 and sentenced to fourteen years in prison.8 Another popular known case of infiltration of the Manhattan Project involved Theodore Hall, a young American physicist who also worked on the Project.9 Hall passed on information about the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union, including detailed information about the design of the bomb’s trigger mechanism.10 Hall was not caught until 1995, when he was in his 70s. The infiltration of the Manhattan Project by individuals with communist sympathies or contacts with Soviet intelligence contributed to fears of political infiltration and espionage during the cold war era. The revelation that highly sensitive information related to the development of nuclear weapons had been passed on to the Soviet Union raised concerns about the potential damage that could be done to national security by individuals with communist sympathies or ties to foreign intelligence agencies. The Infiltration of the Manhattan Project seemed to confirm these fears, and contributed to the development of a broader cultural and political climate of suspicion and fear in the Cold War era. The FBI’s legitimacy during the Cold War era was largely contingent upon its ability to effectively combat communism and secure the trust of the American public, but as its power grew, the FBI increasingly engaged in unconstitutional activities that eroded its legitimacy and raised questions about its abuse of power.

In this paper I will be examining the complex relationship between communism and the FBI during the cold war era, using a combination of primary sources and scholarly articles. By analyzing primary sources such as government documents, congressional testimony, and personal accounts, this paper will investigate the extent of the FBI’s surveillance and persecution of alleged communist sympathizers, and how this impacted individuals and society at large. This paper starts by analyzing the Rosenbergs and the FBI’s involvement within their case and their connection to the Soviet Union. Then this paper begins to go deeper within the history of the FBI and talk about the HUAC (House Un-American Activities committee, specifically the Hollywood ten 4 Spencer Reece, “The Manhattan Project.” Poetry 198, no. 4 (2011): 294–294, accessed April 3, 2023. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23046075.

5 Reece, “The Manhattan Project.”

6 Bill Streifer, “The Investigation: J. Edgar Hoover and The Manhattan Project.” American Intelligence Journal 33, no. 2 (2016): 54–62, accessed April 4, 2023. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26497089.

7 Streifer, “The Investigation: J. Edgar Hoover and The Manhattan Project.”

8 Streifer, “The Investigation: J. Edgar Hoover and The Manhattan Project.”

9 Streifer, “The Investigation: J. Edgar Hoover and The Manhattan Project.”

10 Streifer, “The Investigation: J. Edgar Hoover and The Manhattan Project.”

and the Case of Alger Hiss. Next, the paper discusses the dangers of the COINTELPRO program within the FBI and the controversy surrounding that. Lastly, this paper will integrate the Watergate scandal into this paper and discuss the FBI’s actions and the overall public opinion of the controversial scandal.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which was established in 1908 with the primary mandate of investigating and enforcing federal law, including cases related to interstate crime, fraud, and civil rights violations, in order to maintain public order and protect national security.11 The FBI played a significant role in the fight against communism in the United States. The FBI was tasked, by J. Edgar Hoover, with monitoring the individuals and organizations suspected of having ties with communism.12 The FBI’s efforts to counter communism were part of a broader anti-communist movement in the United States that included the McCarthy hearings and other efforts to root out alleged communists sympathizers in government, media, and other sectors of society.13 This was the period known as the Red Scare which was marked by widespread fear and paranoia. Many innocent people were falsely accused of being communist sympathizers and faced persecution and blacklisting.14 This illustrates how the FBI as a government agency can use their authority to silence dissent and crush political opposition, even when those accused are innocent.

The FBI gained legitimacy and increased its power and influence during the Cold War through its efforts to fight communism. The perceived threat posed by communism, both domestically and internationally, provided the FBI with an opportunity to expand its mandate and carry out extensive surveillance aimed at suppressing the spread of communism ideology. During this time the FBI was able to position itself as an essential bulwark against the communist threat, and its actions were often seen as necessary for national security and American values. This perceived threat also gave the FBI greater political capacity and allowed it to expand its budget and resources.15 In addition, the FBI’s anti-communist activities were often carried out with the support and encouragement of the US government and the broader public. The public perception of the FBI was largely shaped by the agency’s role in fighting communism. The FBI enjoyed this widespread support and was a well respected and legitimate organization. The support was also reflected in the media at times and FBI agents were frequently if not almost always portrayed as brave and patriotic defenders of American freedom. However, the FBIs anti-communist activities also generated controversy and criticism. As mentioned before, with the FBI’s new legitimacy and their ability to demonstrate extensive surveillance was sometimes seen by some as a violation of civil liberties and an abuse of power.16 The public perception of the FBI was very complex and reflected political and cultural tensions of the time. The FBI was seen as a legitimate agency while also being seen as controversial and critical.

11 Schrecker, “McCarthyism: Political Repression and the Fear of Communism.”

12 Schrecker, “McCarthyism: Political Repression and the Fear of Communism.”

13 Kenneth O’Reilly, “The FBI and the Origins of McCarthyism.” The Historian 45, no. 3 (1983): 372–93. Accessed February 26th http://www.jstor.org/stable/24445173.

14 O’Reilly, “The FBI and the Origins of McCarthyism.”

15 Schrecker, “McCarthyism: Political Repression and the Fear of Communism.”

16 Ellen Schrecker, “Archival Sources for the Study of McCarthyism.” The Journal of American History 75, no. 1 (1988): 197–208. https://doi.org/10.2307/1889667, Accessed February 27th 2023.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the FBI’s reputation began to deteriorate from a respected and legitimate institution, to an untrustworthy and secretive institution that was abusing their power.17 During this period, the FBI was accused in engaging in a wide range of unconstitutional activities including surveillance of political activists, racial and religious minorities, and anti-war protesters.18 The FBI’s COINTELPRO program, which aimed to neutralize political dissent and infiltrate political organizations, was especially controversial and led to widespread public criticism.19 The Watergate scandal of the 1970s, which revealed the extent of the Nixon Administration’s abuse of government power, also contributed to the skepticism about the FBI’s actions.20 In the aftermath of Watergate, Congress and the public began to investigate the FBI’s activities and uncover a range of abuses, including the illegal use of wiretaps, break-ins, and false arrests.21 These revelations damaged the FBI’s reputation and led to calls for greater oversight and accountability. Knowing how the FBI was able to abuse their power during the Cold War is important not only for understanding the argument in this paper but also for understanding the history of political repression in the US. Understanding the impact of the FBI’s actions on communism is crucial in order to grasp the significance of this chapter in American history, as well as the potential consequences of unchecked government power. There are many previous historians and scholars who have contributed to our understanding in the topic of McCarthyism and the FBI that are worth noting. For example, in a seminal work of study, Ellen Schrecker, a historian who has written extensively on McCarthyism and its impact on American society, argues that McCarthyism was a product of the post World War II era, during which Americans became increasingly concerned about the threat of communism.22 She notes that this fear was fueled by a number of factors, including the rise of the Soviet Union as a global superpower, the spread of communism in China and Korea, and the perception that communist sympathizers had infiltrated American society.23 She clearly argues that the fear is driven by the public perception of communism rather than fueled by the FBI. Moreover, John Earl Haynes has argued that American communists, particularly those who were affiliated with the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), were actively involved in espionage activities on behalf of the Soviet Union. Haynes argues that Senator Joseph McCarthy’s anti-communist crusade which reached its peak in the early 1950s, was largely fueled by the FBI and its Director, J. Edgar Hoover.

Though some scholars like Haynes believed that using informants and surveillance during McCarthyism was a power move, others have been more critical. David Wise, a journalist/author who has written largely on American intelligence agencies, including the FBI, has been very critical of the FBI’s historical practices of domestic surveillance and the use of informants. Wise ar17 Schrecker “Archival Sources for the Study of McCarthyism.”

18 John Drabble, “To Ensure Domestic Tranquility: The FBI, Cointelpro-White Hate and Political Discourse, 1964-1971.” Accessed February 22nd 19 Drabble “To Ensure Domestic Tranquility: The FBI, Cointelpro-White Hate and Political Discourse 20 Donald A. Ritchie, “Investigating the Watergate Scandal.” OAH Magazine of History 12, no. 4 (1998): 49–53. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25163236. Accessed April 3rd 2023.

21 Ritchie, “Investigating the Watergate Scandal.”

22 Schrecker, “McCarthyism: Political Repression and the Fear of Communism.”

23 Schrecker, “McCarthyism: Political Repression and the Fear of Communism.”

gues that the FBI’s massive intelligence gathering operation, which included wiretaps, informants, and undercover agents, provided much of the information that McCarthy and other anti-communist crusaders used to identify and accuse their targets. His research on McCarthyism and the FBI emphasizes the ways in which government agencies can use their extensive powers of surveillance and intelligence gathering to suppress dissent and stifle democratic discourse.24 Other scholars maintain that the FBI had established its reputation as a competent and effective law enforcement agency before the McCarthy era, and that its anti-communist activities during the Cold War only added to its reputation as a protector of national security. Meaning that while the FBI did in fact use communism in order to gain power and respect, there were other people, places, and things that also proved the FBI as a protector of the nation. In contrast, Athan Theoharis in his book, “The FBI & American Democracy: A Brief Critical History,” was extremely critical of the FBI during the time of McCarthyism. Theoharis argues that the FBI’s reputation was built on its investigations of organized crime. He builds on his argument by stating that the FBI’s anti-communist activities during the Cold War were part of a broader effort to protect the country from the FBI’s association with McCarthyism, while the FBI was hoping to maintain its long standing reputation as an effective law enforcement agency.25 The FBIs legitimacy in the early Cold War period was instrumental in shaping American attitudes towards domestic security and law enforcement. The Red scare and the perceived threat of Soviet espionage created a climate of fear and suspicion which the FBI was able to capitalize on to expand its power and influence. The FBIs legitimacy allowed it to play a key role in shaping public discourse around issues of national security and civil liberties. The agency’s aggressive pursuit of suspected communists and subversives, including its use of informants and undercover agents, helped reinforce the idea that national security concerns justified intrusions into individual privacy and civil liberties. The FBI did this through the HUAC and the COINTELPRO programs later discussed.

The FBI’s most popular use of the red scare to gain power and trust within the public was the case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. The FBI first became aware of Rosenberg’s alleged involvement in Soviet espionage in 1943, when a Soviet defector named Igor Gouzenko provided the agency with information about Soviet Spy rings operating in North America.26 The FBI’s investigation into the Rosenbergs and their association continued for several years, but it was not until the early 1950s that the case began to attract significant attention from the media and public. In 1950, both the Rosenbergs were arrested and charged with passing atomic secrets to the Soviet Union.27 The FBI played a key role in gathering evidence against the Rosenbergs, including testimony from their former associate and technical experts who analyzed the documents that the Rosenbergs were accused of passing to the soviets. The FBI also conducted wiretaps and surveillance on the Rosenbergs and their associates, and used this information to build a case against them. The FBI’s actions during the Rosenbergs case helped to shape public opinion about the threat of Soviet Espionage and the need for aggressive action against suspected spies. The agency portrayed the Rosenbergs as dangerous traitors who had put American security at risk, and ar24 David Wise and T. B. Ross, “The Invisible Government. Random House” 1964, accessed February 20th 2023.

25 John C. McWilliams and Athan Theoharis “The American Historical Review” 111, no. 3 (2006): 869–70. https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr.111.3.869a. Accessed February 20th 2023.

26 O’Reilly, “The FBI and the Origins of McCarthyism.”

27 O’Reilly, “The FBI and the Origins of McCarthyism.”

gued that their prosecution was necessary to protect the country from further espionage. The case became a major news story with the FBI’s evidence and tactics coming under intense scrutiny from both supporters and critics. The public opinion fell in favor of the supporters due to the now heightened fear of communist infiltration. The FBIs actions in the Rosenberg Case are just one example of how the agency used the Red Scare and McCarthyism to gain legitimacy and expand its power.

The Red Scare provided the FBI with a pretext for aggressively pursuing suspected spies and subversives. Ever since the case of the Rosenbergs, the FBI portrayed itself as the primary defender against Soviet espionage and argued that its actions were necessary to protect American security. By doing so, the agency was able to justify its aggressive tactics and portray itself as a crucial part of the nation’s security apparatus. The Red scare and McCarthyism provided the FBI with a climate in which it could operate against suspected communists and subversives. This helped to legitimize the agency and expand its power, as it was seen as an important bulwark against the perceived threat of Soviet infiltration. The FBIs actions in the Rosenberg case are just one example of how the agency used the Red Scare and McCarthyism to gain legitimacy and expand its power. The climate of fear and suspicion created by these phenomena provided the agency with a pretext for aggressively pursuing suspected spies and subversives, and helped to portray the FBI as a crucial defender against Soviet espionage.28 During this time the public opinion on the FBI was mostly positive. Americans saw the FBI as their primary defender and protector. The public believed that the FBI did everything in their power to help keep their national security safe and therefore started to depend on the FBI enhancing the agency’s legitimacy.

The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) was a congressional committee established in 1938 with the mandate of investigating subversive activities in the United States, the HUAC and the FBI were connected as they world together or many projects and investigations together.29 The FBI also provided investigative leads and information to the HUAC that were used in its hearings and investigations.30 The committee was originally created to investigate fascist and Nazi groups, but after World War II, the HUAC began investigating alleged communist. The FBI played a key role in establishing and running the HUAC. The Committee summoned a number of Hollywood writers, directors, and producers to testify about their political beliefs and associations due to their alleged involvement with communism.31 Ten of these individuals who became known as the “Hollywood Ten,” refused to answer the committee’s questions, citing their Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination.32 As a result, the HUAC charged the “Hollywood Ten” with contempt of Congress, and they were subsequently blacklisted from the movie industry.

The blacklist made it very difficult for the individuals to find work in their chosen profession and had a chilling effect on free speech and political expression in Hollywood. One of the members of the “Hollywood Ten” who is often cited as particularly noteworthy is Dalton Trumbo. Trumbo 28 Tim Palmer, “Side of the Angels: Dalton Trumbo, the Hollywood Trade Press, and the Blacklist.” Accessed February 21st 2023.

29 Palmer “Side of the Angels: Dalton Trumbo, the Hollywood Trade Press, and the Blacklist.”

30 Palmer “Side of the Angels: Dalton Trumbo, the Hollywood Trade Press, and the Blacklist.”

31 Robert K. Carr, “The Un-American Activities Committee.” The University of Chicago Law Review 18, no. 3 (1951): 598–633. https://doi.org/10.2307/1597778. Accessed February 23rd 2023.

32 Carr “The Un-American Activities Committee.”

was a successful Hollywood screenwriter who was blacklisted and imprisoned for his refusal to testify before the HUAC. Trumbo was an active member of the Communist party in the 1940s and had been involved in left wing political causes for much of his life.33 In 1947, he was called to testify before the HUAC about his political beliefs and activities. Like the other members of the “Hollywood Ten,” Trumbo refused to cooperate with the committee, citing his Fifth Amendment right against self- incrimination.34 As a result, Trumbo was blacklisted from the movie industry and was unable to find work as a screenwriter for several years. During this case, the FBI helped and encouraged the HUAC with monitoring and investigating the suspected communist activities in Hollywood. The FBI also provided intelligence to the HUAC to support its investigations.

The FBI’s involvement in the Hollywood Ten case, along with the HUAC’s investigations and the subsequent trial, had a chilling effect on the entertainment industry and led to the blacklisting of many individuals who were suspected of having communist affiliation. The FBI with the use of the HUAC ruined many names and lives as when they were blacklisted they could not find jobs or get anyone to take the time to look at their work, many believed this to be extremely controversial. The FBI showed their abuse of power in this case through illegal surveillance and investigation of individuals based on their perceived political beliefs and associations. The FBI violated first amendment rights when the Hollywood ten were charged with contempt of congress for refusing to answer questions about their political beliefs and associations before the HUAC. The FBI and the HUAC used coercion and intimidation tactics to pressure the Hollywood Ten and other witnesses to cooperate with their investigations. The FBI’s role in providing evidence and testimony against the Hollywood Ten, which contributed to their prosecution and conviction, is an abuse of power and a form of coercion. The FBI’s involvement in the Hollywood Ten case has been criticized for its perceived political bias and partisanship. The FBI, under Hoover’s leadership, targeted individuals and groups with leftist or progressive political beliefs, including alleged communist, while overlooking or ignoring other forms of political extremism or criminal activity.35 The case of the Hollywood Ten is just one of the many examples of how the FBI abused its power during the Cold War era by engaging in surveillance, investigations, coercion, and intimidation tactics against individuals based on their political beliefs and associations, violating their constitutional rights and exhibiting political bias. The case serves as a cautionary reminder of the potential dangers of government overreach and individual civil liberties and individuals rights.

On the other hand, The Alger Hiss case was one of the most high-profile investigations carried out by the HUAC and the FBI. Alger Hiss was a former State Department official and prominent member of the American political establishment who was accused of being a Soviet spy by a former communist named Whittaker Chambers.36 The case began in 1948, when Chambers testified before the HUAC that Hiss had been a member of a secret communist cell in the 1930s and had passed confidential government documents to him for transmission to the Soviet Union.37 An official FBI record states: “Mr. Whittaker chambers, now an editor of “Time Magazine” had advised this 33 Carr “The Un-American Activities Committee.”

34 Carr “The Un-American Activities Committee.”

35 Carr “The Un-American Activities Committee.”

36 Allen Weinstein. “The Alger Hiss Case Revisited.” The American Scholar 41, no. 1 (1971): 121–32. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41209038. Accessed April 3rd 2023.

37 Weinstein. “The Alger Hiss Case Revisited.”

Bureau that when he was engaged in Communist underground work for the soviet [redacted] in washington during the early thirties, Alger Hiss originally employed by the Agricultural Adjustment Administration and subsequently by the Department of state, was a member of the underground communist espionage group which include [redacted] and [redacted] .”38 Hiss vehemently denied the accusations and sued Chambers for libel.39 The FBI and the HUAC launched investigations into the allegations, and Hiss was eventually indicted for perjury for denying that he had passed secret documents to Chambers.40 The case went to trial in 1949 and became a major spectacle, with both sides presenting evidence and witnesses to support their respective claims.41 The prosecution relied heavily on Chambers’ testimony and on the so-called “Pumpkin papers,” a set of microfilm documents that Chambers claimed to have hidden in a pumpkin patch on his farm.42 The defense argues that Chambers was an unreliable witness and that the documents have been faked. After a highly publicized trial, Hiss was found guilty of perjury and sentenced to five years in prison.43 The case had far-reaching implications for American politics and society, and fueled the growing anti-communist sentiment of the time. The Alger Hiss case was a significant victory for the FBI and helped establish its reputation as a powerful and effective law enforcement agency. It helped establish the reputation of the FBI because it helped enhance the FBI anti communist image as a diligent and effective agency in uncovering the prosecuting alleged communist spies and sympathizers. The case was seen as a major success because it demonstrated the FBI’s ability to conduct complex investigations and gather intelligence about individuals who were suspected to be involved in subversive activities. The case helped reinforce the public perception that the FBI was a vital institution in the fight against communism and other threats to American security. The agency was praised for its efforts to protect the country from communist infiltration and espionage.

The public opinion on the House Un-American Activities committee was deeply divided during the height of the committee’s investigations in 1947-1970.44 On one hand, many American believe that the HUAC and the FBI were necessary to protect national security and root out communist influence in the United states. The Cold War was underway, and there was a widespread concern about the Soviet Union and its potential to infiltrate American institutions.45 Some people felt that the HUAC’s and FBIs investigations were a legitimate response to this threat. On the 38 John E. Hoover, “Alger Hiss FBI Records .” Internet Archive, FBI, 9 Jan. 1955, https:// archive.org/details/AlgerHissWhittakerChambers/Hiss%2C%20Alger-Whittaker%20Chambers-Misc%20Field-1/page/n7/mode/1up. Accessed Februrary 3rd.

39 Weinstein, “The Alger Hiss Case Revisited.”

40 Weinstein, “The Alger Hiss Case Revisited.”

41 Weinstein, “The Alger Hiss Case Revisited.”

42 Weinstein, “The Alger Hiss Case Revisited.”

43 Tim. Palmer, “Side of the Angels: Dalton Trumbo, the Hollywood Trade Press, and the Blacklist.” Cinema Journal 44, no. 4 (2005): 57–74. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3661125. Accessed February 14th 2023.

44 Palmer, “Side of the Angels: Dalton Trumbo, the Hollywood Trade Press, and the Blacklist.”

45 Palmer, “Side of the Angels: Dalton Trumbo, the Hollywood Trade Press, and the Blacklist.”

other hand, there were many Americans who opposed the HUACs and FBIs tactics and saw the committee’s investigations as a violation of civil liberties and free speech.46 The committee relied heavily on hearsay and guilt by association to implicate individuals as communists or communists sympathizers, and they often used tactics that were seen as coercive or intimidating. As news of the HUAC investigations spread, tension escalated, and protests erupted in various parts of the country. In 1966 riots occurred in major cities such as New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, as well as in smaller towns where HUAC hearings were held. Demonstrators including artists, intellectuals, and civil rights activists, voiced their opposition to the committee’s tactics, viewing them as an infringement on free speech and a violation of constitutional rights. In some cases, clashes between protesters and law enforcement turned violent. Police used tear gas, batons, and arrests to disperse crowds, while protesters threw rocks, bottles, and other objects in response.

The riots resulted in injuries, arrests, and property damage. The confrontations between protesters and authorities fielded public anger and criticism of the HUAC and the FBI. This led many people to view the HUAC and FBI as an overzealous and potentially dangerous institution. Even though there was extreme backlash from the public, there was not enough to where they stopped or stripped the power of the HUAC and FBI. COINTELPRO, or the counterintelligence program, was a series of covert and illegal operations conducted by the FBI from the 1950s to the 1970s, with the aim of disputing and neutralizing political dissidents and civil rights organizations.47 The program targeted a wide range of groups, including the Black Panthers, the Ku Klux Klan, the socialist workers party, and the American Indian Movement.48 COINTELPRO was characterized by a range of illegal and unethical tactics including wiretapping, blackmail, disinformation campaigns, and even assassination attempts. The program was designed to destabilize and discredit targeted groups to create internal divisions within these organizations. The COINTELPRO program was ultimately exposed in 1971, leading to a series of congressional investigations and reforms.49 The COINTELPRO program was exposed for violating civil liberties, abusing power and having a lack of accountability while having severe impacts on the lives of communities targeted by the program.

While the FBI was a federal agency and ultimately accountable to the government, the agency did not obtain explicit consent from the government to conduct the activities of COINTELPRO.50 In fact, some of the activities were explicitly against the law and the US constitution. Though it is worth noting that the FBI was operating during the Cold War, a time of intense political tension and fear of communist infiltration, some government officials may have tacitly approved or turned a blind eye to the FBI’s actions. The exposure of the program was a major blow to the FBIs reputation for it showed their abuse of power, this led to increased scrutiny of the agency’s actions and tactics. Though the FBI was previously supported and given power 46 Palmer, “Side of the Angels: Dalton Trumbo, the Hollywood Trade Press, and the Blacklist.”

47 John Drabble,“To Ensure Domestic Tranquility: The FBI, Cointelpro-White Hate and Political Discourse”. 1964-1971. Accessed February 13th 2023.

48 Drabble,“To Ensure Domestic Tranquility: The FBI, Cointelpro-White Hate and Political Discourse 49 Drabble,“To Ensure Domestic Tranquility: The FBI, Cointelpro-White Hate and Political Discourse 50 Rosalyn Baxandall, “Precursors and Bridges: Was the CPUSA Unique?” Science & Society 66, no. 4 (2002): 500–505. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40404029. Accessed February 15th 2023.

and legitimacy, COINTELPRO showed a different motive of the FBI therefore ruining its reputation for many reasons. The program violated civil rights and liberties of American citizens while also exposing a multitude of illegal activities by the FBI. Though the HUAC also did expose the cruel intentions of the FBI however, the COINTELPRO program was more publicized therefore more publicly criticized. The targets of COINTELPRO were often groups and individuals who were advocating for civil rights, social justice, and other progressive causes.51 The FBI’s actions under COINTELPRO were seen as an attempt to silence and suppress dissent, and as an attack on the values of free speech and democracy, which caused even more controversy with the public opinion of the FBI. One example of the FBIs COINTELPRO program targeting the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) was the case of Gus Hall, the longtime leader of the CPUSA. In the 1950s and 1960s, the FBI conducted extensive surveillance of Hall and his associates, believing that they were involved in subversive activities.52 Hall wrote: “We were aware of FBI infiltration and harassment from the beginning, but we never suspected the extent of the government’s effort to destroy us. It was a war and the FBI was the enemy. The agents who came to our meetings were not there to gather information or to protect the country. They were there to destroy us, and they would stop at nothing to achieve their goal.”53 In addition to surveillance, the FBI also used informants to gather intelligence on Hall and the CPUSA and provided the FBI with detailed information about the organization’s activities. The FBI also engaged in efforts and encouraged divisions within the group. In one instance, the agency planted a forged letter suggesting that Hall was secretly working with the Soviet Union, in an attempt to undermine his leadership and create divisions within the CPUSA. This case was significant because it was one of the last major prosecutions of the CPUSA by the US government.

The trial relating to Hall was highly publicized and attracted attention from both supporters and opponents of the Communist Party. Through the action taken in the Gus hall case and with other examples of the COINTELPRO program, the public opinion was generally more negative once the program was exposed. Many Americans were outraged by the extent of the FBIs surveillance and harassment of political activists, civil rights leaders, and other individuals who had not been charged with any crime. Civil liberties advocates, in particular, were extremely vocal in their opposition to COINTELPRO, and called for greater oversight and accountability of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. The COINTELPRO violated the constitutional rights of those targeted and the FBI’s tactics amounted to an abuse of power and a threat to democratic values.

The fear of communism is what initially drove the public to have this trust in the FBI, however, with the FBI continuously abusing that trust and their new found power, the public fear was less focused on communism and more directed to the fear of the FBI and what their new power could do to their freedom.

Richard Milhous Nixon was the 37th President of the United states, serving from 19691974. He was born on January 9th 1913, in Yorba Linda, California, and died on April 22, 1994, in New York City.54 Nixon was a Republican politician who rose to national prominence as a con51 Rosalyn Baxandall, “Precursors and Bridges: Was the CPUSA Unique?” Science & Society 66, no. 4 (2002): 500–505. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40404029. Accessed February 15th 2023.

52 Baxandall, “Precursors and Bridges: Was the CPUSA Unique?”

53 Baxandall, “Precursors and Bridges: Was the CPUSA Unique?”

54 Fred Smoller, “Watergate Revisited.” PS: Political Science and Politics 25, no. 2 (1992):

gressman in the 1950s and then as Vice President under Dwight D. Eisenhower from 1953-1961.55 He ran unsuccessfully for President in 1960, losing to John F. Kennedy in a close election. However, he won the presidency in 1968 and was re-elected in a landslide in 1972.56 Nixon’s presidency was marked by several significant events vietnam war, the Cold War, the Watergate Scandal, and the impeachment proceedings against him.57 He was known for his foreign policy initiatives, including the opening of diplomatic relations with China and the signing of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the Soviet Union.58 Nixon had a very complex relationship with the FBI and was marked by controversy, as he sought to exert political control over the agency and use it for his own purposes. However, his presidency was also marred by the Watergate scandal, in which his administration engaged in illegal activities, including the cover-up of a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate complex.59 The Watergate scandal was a political scandal that occurred during President Nixon’s administration in the early 1970s.60 The scandal began with a break-in at the Democratic National committee headquarters in the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C on June 17, 1972.61The burglars were caught, and it was eventually revealed that they were working for the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CRP), which was Nixon’s campaign organization.62 As the investigation into the break-in continued, it became clear that the members of the Nixon administration were involved in covering up the incident and obstructing justice. The scandal widened to include illegal wiretapping, bribery, and other illegal activities carried out by members of the White House staff and the CRP.63 The Cover-up was eventually exposed through the efforts of reporters, congressional investigations, and court cases.64 In Nixon’s resignation letter it states: “Pursuant to its resolutions of the House of Representatives it’s committee on the Judiciary conducted an inquiry and investigation on the impeachment of the president extending over more than 8 months. The hearings of the committee and its deliberations which received wide National publicity over television radio and printed media resulted in votes adverse to Richard Nixon on recommended articles of impeachment.”65 Nixon himself became implicated in the cover-up, with evidence showing that he had authorized the payment of hush money to the burglars and had attempted to use the power of his office to 225–27. https://doi.org/10.2307/419713. Accessed March 13, 2023.

55 Fred Smoller, “Watergate Revisited.”

56 Fred Smoller, “Watergate Revisited.”

57 Fred Smoller, “Watergate Revisited.”

58 Fred Smoller, “Watergate Revisited.”

59 Donald A. Ritchie, “Investigating the Watergate Scandal.” OAH Magazine of History 12, no. 4 (1998): 49–53. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25163236. Accessed March 23, 2023.

60 Smoller, “Watergate Revisited.”

61 Smoller, “Watergate Revisited.”

62 Ritchie, “Investigating the Watergate Scandal.”

63 Ritchie, “Investigating the Watergate Scandal.”

64 Smoller, “Watergate Revisited.”

65 Richard Nixon, “Richard Nixon’s Resignation Letter and Gerald Ford’s Pardon.” National Archives Foundation, 12 Aug. 2014, https://www.archivesfoundation.org/documents/richard-nixon-resignation-letter-gerald-ford-pardon/. Accessed March 17, 2023.

obstruct the investigation.66 This begs the question why was the FBI not involved in protecting democracy and exposing the Watergate scandal. The FBI during this scandal was proving to be more of a self serving and power hungry agency rather than an agency that wants to protect its nation.

The FBI’s involvement in Watergate or lack thereof ultimately exposed that they are not an institution created solely for protecting the people but rather was a more self-serving in their motivation. It also exposed the abuse of power by the FBI when they halted their investigation regarding the Watergate break-ins, the abuse of power regarding support from the political party in power, covering up evidence, and engaging in obstruction of justice. The initial investigation into the Watergate break-in was conducted by the Washington, D.C police department, but the FBI became involved soon after.67 FBI agents were able to trace some of the money used to pay the burglars back to CRP.68 As the investigation continues, FBI agents discover evidence of other illegal activities, including wiretapping and illegal campaign contributions. FBI Director L. Patrick Gray was also implicated in the scandal, as it was revealed that he had destroyed documents related to the investigations to White House officials in order to protect Nixon.69 The FBI’s investigation was also complicated by the fact that Nixon had appointed a loyalist, William Ruckelshaus, as acting director of the agency, who was seen as potentially undermining the investigation.70 In addition to its investigation role, the FBI also faced criticism for its handling of the Watergate scandal. The agency had been too slow to investigate the break in and had not pursued leads aggressively enough and therefore almost let the scandal happen. The FBI also is accused of working too closely with the White House and the Nixon administration, leading to concern about political interference. This was also a concern because the FBI abused their power as a trusted government agency in order to protect a political member in power so the FBI would be able to maintain their power.

The Watergate scandal had a profound impact on public trust in the FBI, as the agency’s handling of the investigation raised serious concerns about political interference and based investigations. The slow response of the FBI to break-in, combined with the agency’s close ties to the Nixon administration, eroded public confidence in the agency’s ability to conduct a fair and impartial investigation. The FBI did not fully investigate the matter and by doing this they failed to pursue leads that could have uncovered the full extent of the corruption within the Nixon administration. The agency’s director, L. Patrick Gray was accused of destroying documents related to the investigation and sharing sensitive information with the White House officials, which further fueled suspicions about political interference in the agency’s work. It is thought Gray did this in order to maintain his position at the FBI and to gain more support within the government.

The Watergate scandal damaged the FBIs reputation and created lasting doubts about the agency’s ability to conduct impartial investigations into matters of political corruption.

The FBI, historically, used communism as a means to gain power, but ultimately then abused that power. The FBIs actions during the Cold War era, particularly through its COINTELPRO, targeted individuals and organizations deemed to be associated with communism, often employing illegal and unethical methods, which led to the violation of civil liberties and abuse 66 67 68 69 70

moller, “Watergate Revisited.”

Ritchie, “Investigating the Watergate Scandal.”

Ritchie, “Investigating the Watergate Scandal.”

Ritchie, “Investigating the Watergate Scandal.”

Ritchie, “Investigating the Watergate Scandal.”

of power. Throughout its history, the FBI engaged in surveillance, harassment, and intimidation of individuals and groups suspected of being communist sympathizers, resulting in violation of constitutional rights, including freedom of speech, assembly, and privacy. The FBI’s actions were not limited to monitoring and investigating actual or suspected communist activities but also extended to dissenting voices and civil rights activists who were critical of the government’s policies.

Furthermore, the FBI’s abuse of power was exemplified by its use of covert operations, such as infiltration of organizations and the use of informants to gather information, disrupt activities, and even incite violence. However, despite the FBI’s initial justification for its actions as combating communism, it became evident that the agency’s real motivation was to consolidate and expand its own power. The FBI’s overreach, disregard for civil liberties, and abuse of power were driven by a desire to maintain control, suppress dissent, and preserve the status quo, rather than upholding democratic principles and protecting the rights of American Citizens. It eroded public trust in government institutions, damaged the reputation of the FBI, and proved that the FBI abused the power they were trusted with by the government and the public. The FBI’s actions during this period continue to be a dark chapter in American history and a reminder of the danger of unchecked government power.

The lessons we learned from this complex chapter in American history are relevant today as we grapple with the issue of government surveillance, national security and individual rights.

The controversy surrounding the FBI’s surveillance and investigation practices presented again in 2016, when the FBI launched an investigation, as part of a larger probe into Moscow’s political interference, to determine whether Trump campaign advisor, Carter Page coordinated with Russia to influence the presidential election.71 During this investigation, the FBI used traditional or old investigation methods, including, interviews, interrogations, documents analysis, illegal wiretapping, and improper spying to collect evidence and build a case against Page. This investigation was closely related to the Cold War Era. During this time, this US government was highly vigilant about foreign influence and espionage activities, particularly by foreign adversaries such as Russia. The FBI’s investigation into Page was part of a broader effort to uncover and counter potential Russian interference in the US political system, including the 2016 presidential election. The tactics employed by the FBI investigating Page were largely deemed unconstitutional and were consistent with the heightened concerns of the FBI tactics used during the Cold War era. Mark Twain states that “history does not repeat, but often rhymes For the FBI, the Cold War era is a terrible time to rhyme.”72 The occurrence of such transgressions is deeply concerning for those who value civil liberties and national security.73 It is extremely important to note that as an impartial agency tasked with upholding federal laws and safeguarding national security, the FBI is expected to remain independent and non-partial. However, there have been concerns and allegations that the FBI does take the side of whoever is in political power, potentially compromising its objectivity and integrity. Such perceptions of bias within the FBI will erode public trust and have impli71 Bill Rivers “FBI Abuses in Domestic Surveillance of the Trump Campaign Eerily Echo Red Scare Raids.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 10 Jan. 2020, Accessed April 5th 2023. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/fbi-abuses-domestic-surveillance-trump-campaign-eerily-echo-red-scare-ncna1113696.

72 Rivers, “FBI Abuses in Domestic Surveillance of the Trump Campaign Eerily Echo Red Scare Raids.”

73 Rivers, “FBI Abuses in Domestic Surveillance of the Trump Campaign Eerily Echo Red Scare Raids.”

cations for its ability to carry out its mission effectively. The perception of bias within the FBI can have detrimental effects on its ability to fulfill its mission of safeguarding both, suspicion on the integrity of the thousands of dedicated agents, analysts, and staff who worked tirelessly to uphold the law and protect the nation. As a cornerstone of national security, the FBI has a long standing reputation for upholding the law and protecting the country from threats. The FBI has a rich history of tackling crime, terrorism, and corruption, regardless of political affiliation. Their dedicated agents work tirelessly to uphold the rule of law and investigate criminal activities without bias.

Their work has resulted in the apprehension of dangerous criminals, the prevention of terrorist attacks, and the safeguarding of national security. While concerned about perceived political bias within the FBI, the agency is still a crucial pillar of national security and law enforcement.

The FBI’s historical use of communism as a means to gain power, followed by its abuse of that power, is a sobering reminder of the dangers of unchecked government authority. The FBI’s actions during the Cold War era violated civil liberties, eroded public trust, and undermined democratic principles.

Acknowledgements Thank you to Mike Malouf for continuous editing in grammar punctuation and historical accuracy. Thank you to Shani Rosenstock for insightful feedback on the organization of this paper along with helpful edits and suggestions. Thank you to Jerry Rosenstock who gave good proofreading insight on what could be improved in this paper. A big Thank you to Laila McCain who worked with me and gave me suggestions when needed and edits when asked for. Thank you to Dean Charpentire for reading over my essay and giving helpful information and suggestions.

Thank you to Casey Callahan who provided much needed help with footnote formatting and bibliography. Thank you to Shalini Navsaria for peer editing and suggestions on my paper. Thank you to Eric Bao for peer editing and suggestions on my paper. Lastly, Thank you to Michele Musto for guiding me throughout the paper with consistent edits and suggestions that helped me finish this paper.

Bibliography Baxandall, Rosalyn. “Precursors and Bridges: Was the CPUSA Unique?” O’Reilly, Kenneth. “The FBI and the Carr, Robert K. “The Un-American Activities Committee.” The University of Chicago Law Review 18, no. 3 (1951): 598–633. https://doi.org/10.2307/1597778.

Drabble, John. “To Ensure Domestic Tranquility: The FBI, Cointelpro-White Hate and Political Discourse, 1964-1971.

Hoover, John E. “Alger Hiss FBI Records .” Internet Archive, FBI, 9 Jan. 1955, https://archive.org/ details/AlgerHissWhittakerChambers/Hiss%2C%20Alger-Whittaker%20Chambers-Misc%20 Field-1/page/n7/mode/1up.

McWilliams, John C., and Athan Theoharis. The American Historical Review 111, no. 3 (2006): 869–70. https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr.111.3.869 Nixon, Richard. “Richard Nixon’s Resignation Letter and Gerald Ford’s Pardon.” National Archives Foundation, 12 Aug. 2014, https://www.archivesfoundation.org/documents/richard-nixon-resignation-letter-gerald-ford-pardon/.

Origins of McCarthyism.” The Historian 45, no. 3 (1983) Palmer, Tim. “Side of the Angels: Dalton Trumbo, the Hollywood Trade Press, and the Blacklist.”

REECE, SPENCER. “The Manhattan Project.” Poetry 198, no. 4 (2011): 294–294. http://www.jstor. org/stable/23046075.

Ritchie, Donald A. “Investigating the Watergate Scandal.” OAH Magazine of History 12, no. 4

(1998): 49–53. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25163236.

Rivers, Bill. “FBI Abuses in Domestic Surveillance of the Trump Campaign Eerily Echo Red Scare Raids.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 10 Jan. 2020, https://www.nbcnews.com/ think/opinion/fbi-abuses-domestic-surveillance-trump-campaign-eerily-echo-red-scare-ncna1113696.

Schrecker, Ellen. “McCarthyism: Political Repression and the Fear of Communism.” Social Research 71, no. 4 (2004): 1041–86. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40971992.

Schrecker, Ellen W. “Archival Sources for the Study of McCarthyism.” The Journal of American History 75, no. 1 (1988): 197–208. https://doi.org/10.2307/1889667.

Smoller, Fred. “Watergate Revisited.” PS: Political Science and Politics 25, no. 2 (1992): 225–27. https://doi.org/10.2307/419713.

Streifer, Bill. “The Investigation: J. Edgar Hoover and The Manhattan Project.” American Intelligence Journal 33, no. 2 (2016): 54–62. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26497089.

WEINSTEIN, ALLEN. “The Alger Hiss Case Revisited.” The American Scholar 41, no. 1 (1971): 121–32. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41209038.

Wise, D., and T. B. Ross. The Invisible Government. Random House, 1964.

BLOOD-DIAMONDS ARE A VICEROY’S BEST FRIEND: COLONIAL STATE VIOLENCE AND THE UNRAVELING OF THE BRITISH RAJ Shalini Navsaria April 10, 2023 Advanced History Capstone Among the famed crown jewels of the British empire lies the Indian Koh-i-noor. The once 186-carat diamond ranks among the largest and most valuable in the world, and its history is just as rich. Initially owned by the Mughal ruler Babur in the 1500s, the diamond has a long history of being passed, or taken, from dynasty to dynasty. It had become a symbol of power and domination, worn by centuries of South Asian rulers that placed the stone at the center of their crowns. Centuries later in 1849, the British East India Company annexed the Punjab region of India, taking the Koh-i-noor to Queen Victoria in England. Much of the stone’s appeal came from what it exemplified: whoever owned the Koh-i-noor owned India. Over the years, it was cut down to 106-carats and reshaped to fit the will of the reigning British sovereign.1 Borne from brutality and subjugation, the blood-diamond is a fitting representation of what the British did to India over the three centuries of their rule. Today, it is still proudly displayed in the Tower of London, serving as a painful reminder of the deep-rooted damage Britain inflicted on the Indian subcontinent and its people. This violence and its consequences can be seen from the Mutiny of 1857 to the Partition of 1947, leaving the Indian landscape forever marred by its colonial oppressors.

The British East India Company(BEIC) began this tradition of violence as early as the late 18th century, initially economically exploiting Indians until it had a hold in the then Mughal-ruled subcontinent. The company then raised an army nearly 250,000 soldiers strong, many of whom were Indian soldiers known as sepoys. In a time where it was widely accepted that colonized people were inherently inferior to their rulers, physical violence was prevalent. It was not until the Indian Mutiny of 1857 that the British government formally took control of India, although Britain claimed the BEIC as its holding in a 1773 charter. The rebellion made it clear that the company could not handle insurgent sepoys fighting for their religious rights, and Britain could not afford to lose the colony as it was already dependent on massive Indian exports of tea, fabric, and grain.

The transfer of power marked the official beginning of the British Raj. Britain employed the strategies of Divide et Impera that had served them well in the many other colonies they had around the world. A large majority of Indians lived in poverty, as the British drained India of many of their resources to serve their imperial needs, having no concern for Indian livelihoods.

Mass famines ravaged the country, killing somewhere between 12 to 29 million Indians from 1876 to 1902.2 British soldiers stationed in India often used brutal forms of punishment to make 1 Danielle C. Kinsey, “Koh-i-Noor: Empire, Diamonds, and the Performance of British Material Culture,” Journal of British Studies 48, no. 2 (2009): 391–419. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25483040.

2 Kim A. Wagner, “‘CALCULATED TO STRIKE TERROR’: THE AMRITSAR MASSACRE

examples out of Indian subversives. In this time period they were often shot out of cannons so that Hindu and Muslim families could not carry out the customary funeral rite of cremation.3 Hanging was a popular form of lethal punishment until its victims became martyrs in the community, which prompted the British to turn to the dehumanizing death by firing squad. The British only began to stray from these barbaric practices during and after World War I, as the war incited a worldwide concern for human rights. This shift became clear in the aftermath of the 1919 Amritsar Massacre. The British public was largely outraged at General Dyer’s actions, which their conflicted government reacted to by hesitantly stripping his rank of Brigadier-General and pushing him into retirement.4 In an attempt to justify the cruel reality of British rule that has only recently been recognized, many historians have claimed that this treatment was a necessary evil in Britain’s modernization of the country. These historians argue that Britain’s introduction of the railroad and capitalism industrialized and united Indians that were once left to the “primacy of natural processes.”5 Often called imperial nostalgia, this phenomenon is still pervasive in the 21st century.

Shashi Thadoor, an Indian Congress MP, wrote extensively about these claims, disproving almost all of them in his book ‘Inglorious Empire: What the British Did to India.6 Thadoor called this argument “the myth of enlightened despotism,” eloquently pointing out the contradiction through his language.7 By exploring the regression of Indian proto-industrialization for Britain’s sake, the segregation of railroads, and the mass famines that the introduction of Britain’s laissez-faire policies catalyzed, Thadoor was able to discredit the outdated rhetoric that Britain had a modernizing influence on its colonies. Such sentiments are rooted in white supremacy and exceptionalism, as they paint Indians and all colonized people as primitive peoples with crude cultures that are incapable of self-governmenance.

Imperial nostalgia also has a tendency to overlook contributions made by colonized people. A prime example of this can be seen during World War II, in which by the end of 1942 around 1,226,000 Indian men had fought.8 Kaushik Roy’s article, ‘Expansion and Deployment: The Indian Army During World War II’, follows deployment methods and rates throughout the AND THE SPECTACLE OF COLONIAL VIOLENCE,” Past & Present, no. 233 (2016): 185–225. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45215228.

3 Kim A. Wagner, “‘CALCULATED TO STRIKE TERROR’: THE AMRITSAR MASSACRE AND THE SPECTACLE OF COLONIAL VIOLENCE.” 4 Kim A. Wagner, “‘CALCULATED TO STRIKE TERROR’: THE AMRITSAR MASSACRE AND THE SPECTACLE OF COLONIAL VIOLENCE.” 5 Mark Brown, “Colonial States, Colonial Rule, Colonial Governmentalities: Implications for the Study of Historical State Crime,” State Crime Journal 7, no. 2 (2018): 188. https://doi. org/10.13169/statecrime.7.2.0173.

6 Shashi Thadoor, Inglorious Empire: What the British Did to India. London: Penguin Books Ltd, 2018.

7 Shashi Thadoor, Inglorious Empire: What the British Did to India, 149.

8 Kaushik Roy, “EXPANSION AND DEPLOYMENT OF THE INDIAN ARMY DURING WORLD WAR II: 1939-45,” Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research 88, no. 355 (2010): 248–68. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44231771.

war, creating a timeline that indisputably shows India’s contribution to the war.9 These statistics are especially helpful when coupled with Indian motivations for enlisting. For instance, many Indians felt the need to join the army in hopes of aiding the independence movement. Tarak Barkawi discusses this as well as the sociology of Indian battalions in his article ‘Culture and Combat in the Colonies: The Indian Army in the Second World War.10 By dividing motivations under societal and organizational categories, Barkawi was able to stray from the typically eurocentric analysis of military sociology. He determines that a mixture of nationalism and colonial pressure led to the Indian army’s large involvement in the war. Recognizing and acknowledging India’s influence in World War II is a large part of understanding how dependent Britain was on India, even well into the 20th century. By understanding the basis of imperial nostalgia, it is easy to determine that it is merely a justification for imperialism and has no place in modern historiography.

When discussing Indian presence in World War II, it is incredibly important to also analyze the homefront during the war. Without it, much of the Indian perspective and experience is lost. In India, Mahatma Gandhi was leading the Nationalist Movement to unprecedented heights.

This is widely accepted, however, local Indian politics are rarely considered in conjunction with the movement. Ian Talbot fills this gap in ‘The Second World War and Local Indian Politics’ while focusing on the region of Punjab, the center of the Indian Nationalist Movement.11 By explaining how politics in rural provinces were also deteriorating on a local level, Talbot illustrates how they subsequently contributed to the deteriorating relationship between India and Britain nationally.

The Indian Nationalist Movement was moving steadily along at this point, fueled by Gandhi’s satyagraha philosophies, which he defined as “the force which is born of truth and love of non-violence,” that reverberated throughout the country.12 In ‘Gandhi and Nkrumah: A Study of Non-Violence and Non-Cooperation Campaigns in India and Ghana as an Anti-Colonial Strategy’, Robert Addo-Flemming explores the efficiency of peaceful anti-colonial movements.13 Not only does this comparison bring a refreshing view to the study, but it also utilizes carefully explained definitions to develop the Indian Nationalist Movement’s eventual success.

Although Gandhi and the Indian Nationalist Movement’s influential role in India’s independence is not often questioned, Britain’s role in the Partition of India certainly is. This has a lot to do with the disagreement within the Indian National Congress, most notably between Ali 9 Kaushik Roy, “EXPANSION AND DEPLOYMENT OF THE INDIAN ARMY DURING WORLD WAR II: 1939-45.”

10 Tarak Barkawi, “Culture and Combat in the Colonies: The Indian Army in the Second World War,” Journal of Contemporary History 41, no. 2 (2006): 325–55. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036389.

11 Ian A. Talbot, “The Second World War and Local Indian Politics: 1939-1947,” The International History Review 6, no. 4 (1984): 592–610. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40105423.

12 Quoted in Robert Addo-Fening, “GANDHI AND NKRUMAH: A STUDY OF NON-VIOLENCE AND NON-CO-OPERATION CAMPAIGNS IN INDIA AND GHANA AS AN ANTI-COLONIAL STRATEGY,” Transactions of the Historical Society of Ghana 13, no. 1 (1972): 65. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41405805.

13 Robert Addo-Fening, “GANDHI AND NKRUMAH: A STUDY OF NON-VIOLENCE AND NON-CO-OPERATION CAMPAIGNS IN INDIA AND GHANA AS AN ANTI-COLONIAL STRATEGY,” 65-85.

Jinnah and Jawaharlal Nehru, concerning India’s future post-independence. Y Krishan’s article ‘Mountbatten and the Partition of India’ explains how Britain’s mismanagement of the Partition caused damage and brought on violence in both India and Pakistan.14 This argument is not widespread and often considered radical, yet popular reasoning fails to take the centuries of Divide et Impera policies that led to Hindu and Muslim Indians’ fractured relationship into account. Omitting the harm that Britain caused over the years only perpetuates imperial nostalgia.

This damage is a large part of the colonial state violence that consistently appears throughout the British Raj’s long history. State violence was inherent and necessary to maintaining colonial rule. However, over the Raj’s three centuries, the British government constantly shifted their tactics to account for a changing world. To adjust for this, expanding colonial state violence’s definition as well as defining other important terms is essential. For the purpose of this paper, I define colonial state violence as an act catalyzed by the ruling state in a colony that demoralizes, divides, and punishes its subjugated people. While this can include physical violence, it also includes acts that can be categorized as exemplary violence. Kim Wagner defines exemplary violence as “the very permanence of power and authority” in ‘Calculated to Strike Terror: The Amritsar Massacre and the Spectacle of Colonial Violence.’15 Using my definition of colonial state violence, it can be seen littered throughout the long history of the British Raj. From its most pure and brutal forms seen in the 1919 Amritsar Massacre to its more modern, performative forms after the massacre, Britain’s use of exemplary violence informed much of India’s social, political, and economic landscape during the unraveling of the Raj. The Amritsar Massacre marked the true beginnings of decolonization in India. It was at this point that colonial state violence began to be self-destructive to the British institution and fueled the Indian Nationalist movement. This paper aims to examine colonial state violence’s role in the destruction of British India by understanding each form of violence and the changes it catalyzed in the Indian landscape. This will be accomplished by examining multiple case studies chronologically throughout India’s decolonization period.

By 1919, World War I and its aftermath put serious economic, social, and political strains on the British empire. The Treaty of Versailles had yet to be signed, leaving many countries vulnerable and still reeling from the war. However, simultaneously, the British were imposing their rule in ways that fundamentally changed Indian public policy. The Indian Nationalist Movement, with Mahatma Gandhi at its helm, was rapidly gaining supporters and significance during this time to peacefully fight against the changes they were seeing in their country. In an effort to patch over the cracks that were forming in their indispensable colony, British officials introduced the Rowlatt Act. The act criminalized any act of sedition against the Raj.16 In and of itself, the implementation of the Rowlatt Act was a form of colonial state violence. The British colonial system was acting in the way it was built to, using force and stifling rule to make their dominance clear.

Thus, when Punjabi Nationalist leaders Dr. Kitchlew and Satyapal organized a peaceful protest against the act on April 10th, 1919, British officials promptly arrested them under the very act 14 Y. Krishan, “MOUNTBATTEN AND THE PARTITION OF INDIA,” History 68, no. 222 (1983): 22–38. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24418393.

15 Kim A. Wagner, “‘CALCULATED TO STRIKE TERROR’: THE AMRITSAR MASSACRE AND THE SPECTACLE OF COLONIAL VIOLENCE.” 16 “Jallianwala Bagh Massacre,” Government of India, [n.d.], accessed November 17, 2022. https://indianculture.gov.in/stories/jallianwala-bagh-massacre.

they were protesting.17 On April 10th, when dissenters still gathered to protest the act and the jailing of their leaders, it was with the same intention of punishment that General-Brigadier Dyer ordered his soldiers to fire in the crowd, killing 379 and wounding over 1200, firing a total of 1650 bullets.18 This act of brutal physical violence came to be known as the Amritsar Massacre, also known as the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre. In one of the purest forms of state-sanctioned violence, the massacre showcased British attitudes and intentions towards Indians. In Dyer’s own words, “(I) Continued to fire until the crowd dispersed, and I consider this is the least amount of firing which would produce the necessary moral and widespread effect it was my duty to produce if I was to justify my action… It was no longer a question of merely dispersing the crowd, but one of producing a sufficient moral effect from a military point of view not only on those who were present, but more especially throughout the Punjab. There could be no question of undue severity.”19 Dyer’s statement leaves no room for questioning his intentions, and subsequently the intentions of the colonial system he was acting on behalf of. Referring to my definition of colonial state violence, an act catalyzed by the ruling state in a colony that demoralizes, divides, and punishes its subjugated people, Amritsar is a clear example of its functioning in British India. However, in a changing world, Dyer was met with outrage from the British public, a phenomenon born from the post-war shifting global public opinion on human rights. The imperial narrative that characterized the British empire as a civilizing, superior force was beginning to lose its credibility.

This unprecedented reaction forced the British government to reevaluate the appearance of colonial state violence in their systems. It was with this in mind that the Hunter Commission Inquiry dismissed Dyer from his position in India, thus quelling humanitarian arguments. However, it is important to note that this change did not completely reverse British imperialist sentiments, and that many traditionalists remained in the highest ranks of the government. The fact that only the House of Commons, and not the House of Lords, voted for Dyer’s removal, illustrates this.20 To many, Indian-born Dyer became a martyr, betrayed by the liberal politicism of his time. This gave way to Britain’s shift away from overt physical violence in their practices, making Amritsar the last glaring stain in Anglo-Indian relations. Consequently, from then on, colonial state violence became harder to recognize. However, state violence remained ingrained in the well-oiled colonial systems, it just appeared in different forms.

In order to account for this change, it is important to rely on a broad definition of state 17 “Jallianwala Bagh Massacre,” Government of India.

18 Kim A. Wagner, “‘CALCULATED TO STRIKE TERROR’: THE AMRITSAR MASSACRE AND THE SPECTACLE OF COLONIAL VIOLENCE.” 19 Reginal Dyer, “Quote from General Dyer who ordered 1919 Amritsar Massacre, Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar, Punjab - India,” Faculty Research and Publications, Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library, [n.d], accessed February 28, 2023, http://dx.doi. org/10.14288/1.0215847.

20 Kim A. Wagner, “‘CALCULATED TO STRIKE TERROR’: THE AMRITSAR MASSACRE AND THE SPECTACLE OF COLONIAL VIOLENCE.”

violence: an act, not limited to physical violence, catalyzed by the ruling state in a colony that demoralizes, divides, and punishes its subjugated people. As the true beginning of decolonization, Amritsar caused a shift to the use of subtle, psychological exemplary violence to punish the colonized. For example, three years after Amritsar in 1922, Gandhi was jailed under the Rowlatt Act for “bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt or exciting or attempting to excite disaffection towards His Majesty’s Government.”21 Thus, the legacy of state-sanctioned violence for the purpose of punishment continued in a form of violence that could not be seen with the naked eye. This version of subjugation began rotting the colonial system from the inside, as Gandhi’s jailings merely enraged members of the nationalist movement, further stoking the flames of revolution.

As Britain maintained its colony further into the 20th-century amid the growth of the Indian Nationalist Movement, World War II heavily altered India’s role in the British empire. Before the war, the government had been focusing most of its resources and planning on keeping its many colonial holdings from rebelling and gaining independence. However, once Britain became involved in the war, it was entirely committed to the glory of a triumph over the Axis powers.

This subsequently strained Anglo-Indian relations, and perpetuated by acts of state violence, ultimately drove Britain out of India. Economically, Britain became even more reliant on India than it had antebellum. At the beginning of the war in 1940, Britain agreed to reimburse India for any expenses it incurred during the war. This amount, called the sterling debt, rose to devastating heights by the end of the war. Thus, the relationship between colonized and colonizer was reversed: the British government owed India money. This burden combined with the hundreds of thousands of tons of grain, cotton, iron, and more left Britain incredibly reliant on its Indian colony. The sheer numbers are enough to understand India’s contribution to the war: “(The) Colony’s entire output of timber, woollen textiles and leather goods, as well as three quarters of its steel and cement, were diverted to the defence of the British Empire. India was, next to Britain, the largest contributor to the Empire’s war.”22 It is easy to glorify India’s contribution in World War II, but it is important to understand that these contributions were at the cost of India’s welfare. India did not have all of these supplies to spare, yet they were exploited by the British for the purpose of funding the war since India and its people were seen as inconsequential. This act, yet another example of state violence, set the tone for the Raj during World War II. Draining Indian resources also weakened the subcontinent, which bred further distaste for India’s colonial oppressors. Even with the shifting dynamics of the Anglo-Indian relationship, Britain still used colonial state violence to punish and take advantage of India for its own purposes.

When beginning to examine the impact of this new dynamic, it is important to consider Indian military contributions, specifically motivations behind enlisting in the Indian Army. Many Indians joined under the promise of Indian independence once the war was won. Within Indian battalions soldiers were divided up by race and religion in hopes of creating cohesive units.23 21 Report of the Trial of Mahatma Gandhi, March 18, 1922, accessed December 4, 2022. https://www.mkgandhi.org/swmgandhi/chap05.htm.

22 Quoted in Madhusree Mukerjee, Churchill’s Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II, Gurgaon: Penguin Books, 2018.

23 Tarak Barkawi, “Culture and Combat in the Colonies: The Indian Army in the Second World War.”

Under advisement from the Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Indian units were not to have Indian commanders, as he believed it would be cruel to subject British soldiers to the rule of Indians.24 Yet again, the British were employing Divide et Impera strategies to create an effective army while also reinforcing their perceived racial superiority. In a 1941 letter from Viceroy Amery to Churchill, Amery stated: “The whole basis of our policy… is that it is Indian divisions and not our refusal to surrender authority that is holding back India’s march towards the ‘declared goal.’”25 By recognizing that this form of rule was inherent to the colonial structure and dates back to the days of the British East India Company, it can be seen that Divide et Impera is a form of colonial state violence. The policy fulfills the demoralization portion of the definition since British officials believed that if Indians were to unite across racial and religious lines that they would be able to gain independence. These strategies were intentionally implemented to deepen divides within Indian communities as well as to increase hostilities between groups, namely between Hindus and Muslims. In short, British state violence beget the violence that deteriorated Hindu-Muslim relations. During war time, this was even more important for the preservation of British India since the British empire was losing money and resources at rapid rates. Therefore, British leaders sowed divides at the heart of the war effort: in Indian battalions. By doing this, the British were able to maintain and intensify their rule over the country while simultaneously undermining Gandhi and the Indian Nationalist Movement’s fight for independence on the homefront.

Much like the state violence seen in Divide et Impera policies within Indian battalions, similar violence can also be seen in other strategies enacted specifically during and for World War II. In 1941, many British officials were wary of a Japanese attack on Indian soil. If the Japanese took Calcutta, then the British would have no access to supply routes in China.26 This matter was of major concern, as Britain was heavily reliant on Indian as well as other Asian exports, and without Chinese trade routes they would have no way of transporting goods. Churchill, in line with his typically dictatorial and aggressive stance on India, opted to enact a scorched earth policy on the shores of Bengal, where the Japanese would land in their predicted invasion. Japan never attacked, yet all Indian military, industrial, and transport machinery was destroyed, as well as boats, food, and water, in anticipation of their invasion.27 For a country already experiencing widespread famine at the hands of British exploitation, this policy was devastating. Coined the Denial Policy, this act destroyed many livelihoods, as most careers in the area depended on access to the boats the British had burned. It also engendered a rice famine in Bengal that would affect the area for years to come. This case is another example of colonial state violence. It was implemented with no regard for the thousands of Indian lives it would affect. Although British motivations were militaristic and economic in nature, the severity of the act suggests ulterior motives intent on discouraging the Bengali people. While many may argue that it was necessary to the war effort to enact such a harsh policy, it would never have been considered on British soil. It was only 24 Madhusree Mukerjee, Churchill’s Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II. 25 Quoted in Madhusree Mukerjee, Churchill’s Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II, 13.

26 Madhusree Mukerjee, Churchill’s Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II, 13.

27 Madhusree Mukerjee, Churchill’s Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II, 64-65.

because the scorched earth was scorched Indian earth, and because affected families were Indian families, that the policy was ever considered or carried out. In this case it is easy to see the true roots of colonial state violence, and how it was inherent to the belief system that drove colonial structures. The colonial machine operated under the assumption that colonizers were innately superior to the people they were colonizing. Thus, in British India during wartime, ruining thousands of Indian lives was a means to justify a more vainglorious, empirical end.

On the homefront, all of these acts of colonial state violence perpetrated during World War II were creating more anti-imperial sentiment than ever before. Living conditions had worsened since the start of the war, with resources consistently moving out of the country at Britain’s behest. Most severe of all was the national famine that was affecting the lives of a vast majority of Indians. Before the war, India usually imported around a million tons of rice and wheat from Britain annually. However, during wartime in 1942, India only received 5% of the 600,000 tons Viceroy Amery had requested, yet it was still exporting close to half a million tons of foodgrains a year.28 This disparity caused a serious food crisis, especially in Bengal where the Denial Policy had already done massive damage. Many Indians in lower classes turned to desperate measures to feed themselves and their families. Women turned to the incredibly dangerous job of prostitution, often taking the risk of getting kidnapped or assaulted for the possibility of pay and food. People were driven mad by their hunger, and in crazed acts of desperation would throw their children in nearby rivers to end their suffering. On top of this, many criminals were being released from prisons to make room for members of the Indian Nationalist Movement, increasing crime rates on a national scale.29 At this point, Indians were fed up with the British government, and all of these acts of state violence began to fuel the independence movement.

The stark difference between Britain’s brutality and the Indian Nationalist Movement’s peaceful civil disobedience campaigns goes to show how Britain’s ideologies had no place in India. It was at this time that the phenomenon Kim Wagner coined “an excess of colonialism” set in.30 Simply put, Indian people had had enough. This sentiment was reflected in the Quit India movement as well as within the Indian National Congress. Firstly, it is important to acknowledge the shortcomings of using non-violent non-cooperation as the basis of a liberation movement.

Gandhi’s hopes of achieving self-governance through it was at times idealistic, which is reflected in the partial failure of his Quit India movement. However, by fighting colonial state violence with satyagraha, the movement attacked the colonial system at its core. Gandhi described satyagraha as: “Working on the conscience of those against whom it is being used, sapping their confidence in the exclusive rightness of their case, making their physical strength impotent, and weakening their resolution by insinuating a sense of guilt for the 28 Madhusree Mukerjee, Churchill’s Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II, 128-130.

29 Madhusree Mukerjee, Churchill’s Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II. 30 Kim A. Wagner, “‘CALCULATED TO STRIKE TERROR’: THE AMRITSAR MASSACRE AND THE SPECTACLE OF COLONIAL VIOLENCE.”

sufferings they have a part in causing.”31 By questioning the veracity of Britain’s superiority complex, Gandhi’s tactics were doing more than fighting violence with violence, instead he was using their acts of state violence against them.

The self-destruction this led to can be seen in the Cripps Mission and Quit India movement, and subsequently within the Indian National Congress with the end of the British Raj fast approaching.

In March 1942, the Cripps Mission was sent from Britain to India in order to negotiate a resolution concerning World War II that would appease Congress and Parliament members alike.

Thiscame after much pushback regarding Indian funds and other resources being used for the war effort as well as the issue of independence from the Indian Nationalist Movement. Gandhi, Nehru, and Jinnah wanted nothing short of complete self-governance for India. Sir Stafford Cripps’ proposition, however, fell short of the mark. The declaration proposed, “the creation of a new Indian Union which shall constitute a Dominion, associated with the United Kingdom and the other Dominions by a common allegiance to the crown, but equal to them in every respect, in no way subordinate in any aspect of its domestic or external affairs.”32 The statement was contradictory in its language; India would of course remain subordinate to the crown if it was to continue to have allegiance to it. In response, on August 5th, 1942, the Indian National Congress passed what came to be known as the Quit India resolution. In it, Congress “necessitates the independence of India and the ending of British domination.”33 It also gave Gandhi full-confidence in leading the country to this goal, reinforcing their pledge of non-violence. On August 9th after the release of this document, Gandhi, Nehru, and many other members of Congress were arrested. Before being jailed, Gandhi spoke a call to action, stating “Satyagrahis must go out to die, not to live. They must seek and face death. It is only when individuals go out to die that the nation will survive.

Karenge ya marenge(We shall do or die).”34 Thus, the Quit India movement began, driven by morals and hope that uplifted the nation. This was the complete opposite of the functioning of colonial state violence, making the movement an effective attack against the colonial system. Thus, when hundreds of thousands of protesters answered Gandhi’s call, the police brutality that ensued merely killed the British system from the inside.35 Even though the death and jailings of thousands of protesters did not end British rule, and Gandhi’s own hunger strike in February 1943 was not heard, Gandhi had given Indians back the power the Raj had worked centuries to suppress.

Colonial state violence was no longer demoralizing the Indian people, instead it was empowering them, ultimately leading to the Raj’s demise.

31 Quoted in Robert Addo-Fening, “GANDHI AND NKRUMAH: A STUDY OF NON-VIOLENCE AND NON-CO-OPERATION CAMPAIGNS IN INDIA AND GHANA AS AN ANTI-COLONIAL STRATEGY,” 66.

32 British War Cabinet, “Statement and Draft Declaration by His Majesty’s Government,” March 30, 1942, accessed February 2023. http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1942/1942-03-30a. html 33 Indian National Congress, “Quit India declaration,” 1942.

34 Mahatma Gandhi, “Quit India speeches,” August 1942.

35 Sarah Ansari, “An Introduction to the Quit India Movement,” British Library, last modified November 7, 2022, accessed February 2023.

Although Gandhi was able to unite Indians under a common goal during the Quit India movement, there was much conflict within the Indian National Congress. The main issue was the Communal Problem: what to do about the growing Hindu-Muslim divide and bloodshed it was causing. Bloody fighting between Hindu and Muslim communities, primarily in Bengal and Punjab, had 15 million Indians potentially facing a mass exodus from their homes, with 1 to 2 million dying from the violence itself.36 Within the Indian National Congress, Jawaharlal Nehru of the Indian National Congress Party was stalwart in his efforts to foster peace while maintaining one united India, and Ali Jinnah of the Muslim League believed that the solution was to form an all Muslim state. Many Raj apologists argue that the Partition of India was Jinnah’s sole creation.

It is true that Jinnah advocated for the formation of Pakistan. However, one must look at India’s storied history of colonial state violence perpetrated at the hands of British India to see the true cause of the Hindu-Muslim divide. Much of this divide was caused by the stark racial and religious hierarchy the British ingrained into the Indian landscape over the centuries of its involvement in the country. It was British India’s own ruthless policies such as Divide et Impera and other acts of state-sanctioned violence that caused further violence between Hindu and Muslim communities. As discussed previously, Britain did this intentionally, knowing that a divided India would not be able to unite against them. The British government was “not at all attracted by the prospect of one united India, which will show us(the British) the door.”37 However, on the heels of a devastating world war and after decades of persistent pleas for independence from the Indian Nationalist Movement, Britain was looking for a swift way out of the Indian subcontinent and the internal conflict it had catalyzed. Even then, it made sure to take India down with it. Lord Amery advised over a decade before Indian independence day that “a partition of India, like the partition of Ireland and just as fruitful of future trouble, may be the only immediate solution.”38 In 1947, deciding that dividing the country would be the best way forward, Lord Mountbatten, the last viceroy of India, was put in charge of overseeing the Partition.

With this decision, Britain was able to maintain power and influence over India even after its independence. After Mountbatten announced that Britain would depart from India in August of 1947, Sir Cyril Radcliffe was given just six weeks to draw the lines dividing one India into three separate states.39 In their haste, the British government continued the mismanagement of India, again showing intentional malice in the fate of the country they had occupied for centuries. With the knowledge that it would cause further bloodshed between Indians, and in accordance with the British colonial system, the British government split India into India, Pakistan, and East Pakistan; the same day they finally left India to self-governance. Churchill himself understood the violence it would continue to cause, stating: 36 William Dalrymple, “The Great Divide,” The New Yorker, last modified June 22, 2015, accessed December 7, 2022. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/29/the-great-divide-books-dalrymple.

37 Quoted in Madhusree Mukerjee. Churchill’s Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II, 10.

38 Quoted in Madhusree Mukerjee, Churchill’s Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II, 12.

39 Shalini Navsaria, “An Excess of Colonialism: Colonial State Violence in British India,” last modified December 9, 2022, accessed February 2023.

“I cannot but doubt that the future will witness a vast abridgement of the population throughout what has for sixty or seventy years been the most peaceful part of the world and that, at the same time, will come a retrogression of civilization throughout these enormous regions, constitution one of the most melancholy tragedies that Asia has ever known.”40 Churchill, as well as some modern historians, would assign the blame to members of the Muslim League, namely Ali Jinnah. Responsibility is also often placed on the Indian Nationalist Movement in their failure to create a united India across religious divides. However, both arguments conveniently omit the centuries of rule that sundered Indians across religious lines with the intent of enacting punishment that would leave people weak and unable to fight against their rule.

This subsequently pushed British rule and violence deeper into the fabric of the Indian landscape.

In a 2004 oral history conducted by Emory University students under the instruction of Deepta Bahri, survivors of the Partition gave their own thoughts on the causes and intentions behind the Partition.41 A Hindu man living in Akoti, Gujarat during the Partition stated that, “Jinnah is what they call the “Puppet of Imperialism.” British convince the Nehru to make the partition and fight because the British don’t want to see that the India will be united, with Muslims. They want to see the split and the fighting. They want to divide and rule, like they going to return.”42 This understanding of the Partition and functioning of state violence is not new. Those who experienced the violence first-hand also experienced the inner-workings of the colonial machine. Even those that did not feel so strongly about Jinnah recognized the role the British played in the creation of religious divides and subsequently the Partition. The study also quotes a Hindu man who left Chakrala district Sialkot, Pakistan and eventually settled in Hoshiarpur, Punjab, India that took this view.43 Especially as a migrant, this man was in arguably one of the best positions to comment on the origins of the Partition. He stated that: “The Muslim league was not that bad…Jinnah was not that bad; he was made that bad. He was given this impression that you have live–Muslims have to live, in a separate state. They need to have a separate state. That’s why Pakistan came to be.”44 It is clear that he was of the opinion that the creation of Pakistan was a British creation, brought on through the manipulation of The Muslim League and Ali Jinnah. Britain never wanted a united, prosperous India; they wanted a country and a people to control and exploit for their own benefit. Thus, on August 15th, 1947 when they finally departed India, they knowingly left a frac40 Quoted in Madhusree Mukerjee, Churchill’s Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II, 263.

41 Deepika Bahri, “Partition: Oral Histories,” Emory University, last modified September 13, 2020, accessed April 3, 2023. https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/postcolonialstudies/2018/05/02/partition-oral-histories/.

42 Quoted in Deepika Bahri, “Partition: Oral Histories.”

43 Deepika Bahri, “Partition: Oral Histories.”

44 Quoted in Deepika Bahri, “Partition: Oral Histories.”

tured country and people behind.

Bankrupt Britain left India in haste, deepening the issues they had created in the Indian landscape. Their legacy would not be forgotten, or rather it could not be forgotten. Over the centuries of British rule, from the British East India Company in the 1700s to the Partition and independence of 1947, colonial state violence was the defining feature of the Raj. It was necessary to gain and maintain British rule in India; without the demoralizing force that divided Indians across religious lines and suppressed dissent and protest, the Raj would not have survived for as long as it did. Although it was ever-present, the profound effect colonial state violence had on the decolonization of the country was showcased during the many events discussed in this paper.

Following from the beginnings of decolonization with the 1919 Amritsar Massacre to World War II’s consequences and the Indian Nationalist Movement on the homefront and ultimately Indian independence and the 1947 Partition, colonial state violence was used in forms of brutal, physical force as well as subtle, psychological forms of subjugation. It was through this exemplary violence that the British Raj began to unravel after 1919, as the strategies no longer quelled opposition and instead fueled it because of the progressing humanitarian beliefs of a post World War I world. The divides the British sowed were so deep that by the time they left over two centuries after British arrival, they had become almost indistinguishable within Indian society itself.

This notion is reinforced by the continued violence after Indian independence. Just as Churchill predicted, the Partition did not create peace between Hindu and Muslim populations.

As the British learned over the centuries of the British Raj, dividing populations across religious lines begat more division and violence. Predictably, the cultural differences between Pakistan and East Pakistan began to deepen after the Partition. It took less than 30 years for all out war to break out over religious differences between the two territories. In the years between the Partition and the onset of the war a liberation movement began to grow in East Pakistan, pushing for a free Bengali state. In 1970, the Awami League, led by Bengali nationalist Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, won the election over the candidate from the Pakistan People’s Party. On March 25th, 1971 after months of dissent in Congress, the Pakistani army entered East Pakistan. Their goal was to physically suppress supporters of the liberation movement as well as people belonging to the Hindu minority, which were also perceived threats.45 The Bangladesh Liberation War began and ended in 1971, fraught with war crimes and brutality akin to the early days of the Raj. The Pakistani military did to East Pakistan what the British had done to India centuries before. They employed familiar tactics, drawing from British policies such as Divide et Impera when forming militias on specific radical religious lines in order to create more hatred to fuel their war. Mass murder was joined with mass deportations, another familiar tactic displayed during the Partition, leading nearly 15 million displaced East Pakistanis to return to India.46 With India and the United States entering the war for their own personal initiatives, Pakistan surrendered after two weeks of fighting. It is easy to recognize the parallels between Pakistani warfare and the colonial state violence that was employed throughout India’s long colonial state violence.

Acknowledgment of the connection, however, is often overlooked. One must remember the state 45 “The Bangladesh Liberation War,” The Ohio State University, [n.d.], accessed March 24, 2023. https://origins.osu.edu/milestones/bangladesh-liberation-war?language_content_entity=en.

46 “The Bangladesh Liberation War.”

violence that led to the creation of Pakistan, and that Pakistanis themselves were once persecuted minorities and nationalists that were tirelessly fighting against the colonial machine. The Bangladesh Liberation War and the deep divides that caused it are a direct result of the systematic division and violence Indians suffered during the Raj. Thus with the end of the war, yet another country was born from the aftermath of colonial state violence at the hands of the British Empire.

This unfortunate reality must be accepted if there can be any progress out of the colonial abyss. The effects of British rule in South Asia have outlasted colonial governance itself, and it is those people and countries that continue to suffer the consequences. Meanwhile, Britain is allowed to revel in its prosperity and advancements and question why members of their Commonwealth are still bleeding. By freeing said colonies, Britain absolved themselves of any responsibility for the countries’ difficulties. Simultaneously, by creating an institution like the Commonwealth of Nations, they are able to relish in the glory days of the British Empire. Today, Britain holds onto much of its value and supremacy in international spheres from the relationships they hold in the Commonwealth. Whether it be from their long history of exploitation or from practices such as modern tourism, Britain benefits from the violence they now condemn. Imperial nostalgia is still perpetuated by these former imperial powers, as they continue to profit from their past colonial holdings. Britain showcases their dominance and continued control over their former colonies, especially India, through performative measures. Ignoring the requests of many, Britain refuses to return the historical artifacts they took from around the world during their colonial era. These relics often represent much more than can be seen with the naked eye to the people they were taken from. Unwilling to let go of their hold on India, Britain still possesses the cut and shaven Indian Koh-i-noor, the very picture of power and dominance. It remains their crown jewel, on proud display in the Tower of London, where each year millions of people from around the world come to gawk at the brilliance of India’s stolen history.

Thank you to Mrs. Musto, Ms. Binder, Eric, Jayden, Yota, and Zeb for reviewing my drafts and providing feedback for the betterment of my paper.

Bibliography Addo-Fening, Robert. “GANDHI AND NKRUMAH: A STUDY OF NON-VIOLENCE AND NON-CO-OPERATION CAMPAIGNS IN INDIA AND GHANA AS AN ANTI-COLO NIAL STRATEGY.” Transactions of the Historical Society of Ghana 13, no. 1 (1972): 65–85. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41405805.

Ansari, Sarah. “An Introduction to the Quit India Movement.” British Library. Last modified No- vember 7, 2022. Accessed February 2023. https://www.bl.uk/voices-of-partition/articles/ introduction-to-the-quit-india-movement.

Bahri, Deepika. “Partition: Oral Histories.” Emory University. Last modified September 13, 2020.

Accessed April 3, 2023. https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/postcolonialstudies/2018/05/02/ partition-oral-histories/.

Barkawi, Tarak. “Culture and Combat in the Colonies: The Indian Army in the Second World War.” Journal of Contemporary History 41, no. 2 (2006): 325–55. http://www.jstor.org/sta ble/30036389.

British War Cabinet. British Empire and Africa Report, April 15, 1919. Accessed December 3, 2022. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/aftermath/p_amritsar. htm British War Cabinet. “Statement and Draft Declaration by His Majesty’s Government.” March 30, 1942. Accessed February 2023. http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1942/1942-03-30a.html Brown, Mark. “Colonial States, Colonial Rule, Colonial Governmentalities: Implications for the Study of Historical State Crime.” State Crime Journal 7, no. 2 (2018): 173–98. https://doi.org/10.13169/statecrime.7.2.0173.

Dalrymple, William. “The Great Divide.” The New Yorker. Last modified June 22, 2015. Accessed December 7, 2022. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/29/the-great-di vide-books-dalrymple.

Dyer, Reginald. “Quote from General Dyer who ordered 1919 Amritsar Massacre, Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar, Punjab - India.” Faculty Research and Publications. Vancouver : Universi ty of British Columbia Library. [n.d]. Accessed February 28, 2023. http:// dx.doi.org/10.14288/1.0215847.

Gandhi, Mahatma. “Quit India Speeches.” August 1942.

“Indian Mutiny.” Encyclopedia Britannica, inc. [n.d.]. Accessed December 4, 2022. https://www.britannica.com/event/Indian-Mutiny.

Indian National Congress. “Quit India Declaration.” 1942.

“India: Partition.” Tufts University. [n.d.]. Accessed December 4, 2022. https://sites.tufts.edu/atrocityendings/2015/08/07/india-partition/#Atrocities.

“Jallianwala Bagh Massacre.” Government of India. [n.d.]. Accessed November 17, 2022. https://indianculture.gov.in/stories/jallianwala-bagh-massacre.

Kaul, Dr Chandrika. “The British Raj in India 1858-1947.” BBC. Last modified March 3, 2011.

Accessed December 4, 2022. https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/independence1947_01.shtml.

Kinsey, C., Danielle. “Koh-i-Noor: Empire, Diamonds, and the Performance of British Material Culture.” Journal of British Studies 48, no. 2 (2009): 391–419. http://www.jstor.org/sta ble/25483040.

Krishan, Y. “MOUNTBATTEN AND THE PARTITION OF INDIA,” History 68, no. 222 (1983): 22–38. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24418393.

“Milestone in History: India-Pakistan Partition.” The Ohio State University. [n.d.]. Accessed De cember 4, 2022. https://origins.osu.edu/milestones/december-2017-india-pakistan-parti tion?language_content_entity=en.

Mukerjee, Madhusree. Churchill’s Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II, Gurgaon: Penguin Books, 2018.

Navsaria, Shalini. “An Excess of Colonialism: Colonial State Violence in British India.” Last modi fied. December 9, 2022. Accessed February 2023.

Radcliffe, Cyril, Map of Indian and Pakistani lines, 1947.

Report of the Trial of Mahatma Gandhi, March 18, 1922. Accessed December 4, 2022. https://www.mkgandhi.org/swmgandhi/chap05.htm.

Roy, Kaushik. “EXPANSION AND DEPLOYMENT OF THE INDIAN ARMY DURING WORLD WAR II: 1939-45.” Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research 88, no. 355 (2010): 248–68. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44231771.

Talbot, Ian A. “The Second World War and Local Indian Politics: 1939-1947.” The International History Review 6, no. 4 (1984): 592–610. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40105423.

Thadoor, Shashi. Inglorious Empire: What the British Did to India. London: Penguin Books Ltd, 2018.

“The Bangladesh Liberation War.” The Ohio State University. [n.d.]. Accessed March 24, 2023.

https://origins.osu.edu/milestones/bangladesh-liberation-war?language_content_enti ty=en.

Wagner, Kim A. “‘CALCULATED TO STRIKE TERROR’: THE AMRITSAR MASSACRE AND THE SPECTACLE OF COLONIAL VIOLENCE.” Past & Present, no. 233 (2016): 185–225. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45215228.

This year’s Capstone students on the night of the prom. From left to right: Yota Fukui, Shalini Navsaria, Eric Bao and Jayden Malouf.

At Brooks School, we seek to provide the most meaningful educational experience our students will receive in their lives.

Brooks School 1160 Great Pond Road North Andover, MA 01845 www.brooksschool.org (978) 725-6300