The Potsdam Conference and the Cold War

The Final Meeting of Allied Leaders in WW II Began a New Era of Wars

Dec 13, 2009 Michael Streich

Although elements of the Cold War may have originated at Yalta, the Potsdam Conference validated Soviet European occupation and produced new global conflicts.

Photograph credit:

Michael Streich

Potsdam

July 17, 1945 would be the last time the “Big Three” – Winston Churchill, Josef Stalin, and Harry Truman, would ever meet. Truman had replaced Franklin Roosevelt earlier that year when FDR died. Churchill himself would be replaced before the conference ended, having lost parliamentary elections in Britain. The new PM, Clement Attlee, would be inconsequential, symbolic perhaps of the British Empire itself. The Potsdam Conference would represent the first crucial step in the origins of the Cold War.

The Symbol of Soviet Military Might in Ruined Berlin

The Berlin or Potsdam Conference was held in the Cecilienhof Palace, built in 1917. The surrounding suburb had emerged unscathed from the bombing during the war and from the Soviet attack and occupation of the Reich’s capital city. It would be Berlin, surrounded by what would become East Germany that symbolized more than anything else the Soviet resolve in Eastern Europe during the Cold War

Although the city had been taken by the Russians, agreements called for three separate zones administered by the Soviets, the Americans, and the British. A fourth French zone was later added. In Berlin, Soviet troops where everywhere and large posters of Stalin and Marshal Zhukov hung from buildings. Stalin’s immense army was his trump card in the days of negotiations that resulted in the permanent occupation of Eastern Europe by Russia, referred to as an “Iron Curtain” by Churchill less than a year later.

First Signs of the Pending Cold War

History writer Douglas Botting writes that, “The conference was destined to be…not so much the finale to a past conflict as the overture to a new one – the worldwide tremor of the Cold War…” Although reparations issues were settled at the conference, more ominous results involved a Soviet-led Poland, recreated at the expense of Germany’s eastern frontier. After his election as chancellor in 1969 by the SPD, Willy Brandt formally acknowledged the contentious Oder-Neisse line.

The American atomic bomb test in New Mexico took place the day before the Potsdam Conference began. It would be the subtle bargaining chip Truman would hold over Stalin, not knowing that the Soviets were already working on their own bomb, a feat that ended with a successful test four years later. The bomb, though used to end the war with Japan, would ultimately be deemed a sterile weapon in the face of Soviet divisions parked across the European divide. Yet atomic bomb production would lead to the hydrogen bomb, ICBMs, and a deadly arms race characteristic of the Cold War and producing such policies as “mutually assured destruction.”

The departure of Churchill was more than symbolic. Britain, bankrupt and war weary, would witness the final end of empire, a process Attlee presided over. Although there were attempts to revive imperial notions, such as the French debacle in Vietnam and Algeria, there would be no return to colonialism. This was firmly reinforced during the 1956 Suez Crisis when the two superpowers threatened drastic action against Britain and France.

Potsdam and the Cold War

The final World War II conference between allied leaders transitioned the victors into a new more deadly era that was called the Cold War. Wartime alliances were replaced with suspicion and animosity as the nations of the world witnessed a competition for proxy states and satellites in the global conflict between democracy and Communism.

Sources:

• Stephen E. Ambrose and Douglas G. Brinkley, Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938 (Penguin, 1997)
• Douglas Botting, From the Ruins of the Reich: Germany 1945-1949 (Crown Publishers, 1985)
• Lewis Broad, Winston Churchill: The Years of Achievement (Hawthorne Books, 1963)
• “Protocol of the Berlin (Potsdam) Conference, August 1, 1945,” Documents on Germany, 1944-1961, Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate (Greenwood Press, 1968.

Any republication, in print or digital, is forbidden without express written permissio0n of the author.

 Nanking and the 2nd Sino-Japanese War 1937

Taking the Chinese Capital Led to Full-Scale Atrocities

Michael Streich

March 7, 2009

The second Sino-Japanese War began in 1937 after the Japanese, jointly occupying Tientsin, provoked the Chinese into confrontation. Japanese aircraft bombed Shanghai and began an invasion of the city. To their surprise, soldiers of the Nationalist government under General Chiang Kai-shek defended bravely and with a stubborn will. Despite their heroic attempts, however, Shanghai fell on November 37 and the Japanese army, under the command of General Matsui Iwane, began its march to Nanking, the Chinese capital. What happened at Nanking would be called “the forgotten holocaust,” a public massacre of hundreds of thousands.

 

Expansionism and Bushido

 

With an expanding population following the decades after World War I, Japan looked to China as a solution to feed her people. Additionally, the lure of dominance, an Asian sort of Manifest Destiny, according to Iris Chang, fit into the determination that Japan was destined to rule Asia. Ever since the Meiji Restoration, Japan “adopted the Samurai ethic of bushido as the moral code for all citizens.”

 

Japanese successes were already a source of historical pride. The First Sino-Japanese War yielded land gains from China including Formosa (today Taiwan). The 1905 Russo-Japanese War showed that an Asian nation could obliterate a Western power, Admiral Togo’s sinking of the second Russian fleet at Tsushima a clear example.

 

Every facet of Japanese culture and society focused on a military orientation that stressed the superiority of Japan, preached a hatred of the Chinese, and subsumed any individuality into the national cult, much like Hitler would do in Nazi Germany. Japanese boys were taught early in life the importance of total obedience. Personal weakness was never tolerated. All of this was reinforced by Shinto, the state religion.

 

The Nightmare of Nanking

 

H. J. Timperley, writing in the July 19, 1938 Times, points out two significant facts in his report on the Japanese massacres in Nanking. The first fact quotes informants stating that Japanese generals “were angry at having to complete their occupation under the eyes of neutral observers…” These observers included foreign diplomats, including those of Nazi Germany, who were repulsed and appalled by the extent of the slaughter. This large-scale massacre was completed openly, in front of the world.

 

Secondly, Timperley targets Japanese officers: “The most damning point in this ghastly story is…that such outrages were allowed to continue beneath the eyes of the responsible officers for a period of months.” These outrages included mass killings, 57,000 alone on the slopes of Mufu Mountain. POWs were used for bayonet practice, were decapitated, machine-gunned, and burned alive. Thousands of women were raped and then murdered.

 

After the Japanese took Shanghai, they marched toward Nanking, killing anyone along the path. The Chinese city of Suchow was reduced from a population of 350,000 to less than 500. A three-pronged maneuver encircled Nanking, protected on two sides by the Yangtze River. Although they outnumbered the Japanese, most of the Nationist troops surrendered.

 

At this moment, Lt. General Asaka Yasuhiko, a member of the Imperial family, arrived from Tokyo to take command from the ailing Iwane. One of his first orders was to kill all POWs. Although there may be some question as to whether he himself issued the order, he did not rescind it once troops began to systematically kill the Chinese soldiers.

 

At the time the massacres were being carried out, Prince Konoe, the Japanese Prime Minister, stated that his government hoped that China would “…extend a hand of cooperation with Japan. (The Times, December 15^th, 1937) The Japanese government did its best to erase Nanking from the historical record. According to Iris Chang, writing in 1997, Japan has never apologized for the atrocities committed in Nanking in late 1937 and into 1938. Memories of the event continue to plague Sino-Japanese relations in the post modern era.

 

Sources:

 

Iris Chang, The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II (Basic Books, 1997).

“Nanking Only A Beginning,” The Times, London, December 15, 1937.

H. J. Timperley, “The Terror in China: Japanese Outrages,” The Times, London, July 19, 1938.

The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to reprint in print or on line must be given by Michael Streich in writing.

 The Gallipoli Campaign 1915-1916

The Strategy to Remove Turkey From Participation in World War I

© Michael Streich

 Mar 18, 2009

The Allied endeavor to secure the Dardanelles and capture Constantinople resulted in huge casualty counts and the ultimate withdrawal from the Gallipoli peninsula.

Throughout 1915, British and French efforts to remove Turkey from World War I were centered on the Gallipoli campaign. Strong Turkish defenses guarded the Dardanelles approaches to Constantinople. Conceived in part by the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, the endeavor would ultimately fail, representing, according to one historian, a “useless, futile waste.” Opinions differ on the soundness of the operation, yet the end result was an appalling loss of life.

Gallipoli as Grand Strategy or Grand Folly

The Gallipoli campaign was designed to remove Turkey from the war and open a southern line of supply to a beleaguered Russia. Unfettered access to the Dardanelles meant the possibility of a swift victory at Constantinople, the effect of which would have been the fall of the Turkish government. The Turks, however, under the command of Mustafa Kemel, forced a campaign of attrition, resulting in British evacuation by January 1916.

Philip Haythornthwaite, historian and author of forty books on military history, assesses Gallipoli as, “the one strategic idea of the war; yet it was also one of the most ill-managed in history.” (23) The naval campaign began in February 1915 under Admiral John de Robeck. Relentless bombarding of Turkish shore defenses failed to produce victory. Additionally, Turkish mines successfully disabled several British and French warships. De Robeck ended the naval campaign at the very moment the Turks were considering withdrawing, but the British did not know this at the time.

The interim period between the end of the naval campaign and the start of the land assault creating several bridgeheads enabled the Turks to strengthen their defenses. Allied troops consisted of British regular units, a small French contingent, and ANZAC units, the most famous of which was the Australian Light Horse. Under the overall command of Sir Ian Hamilton, the largely summer landing operation was poorly coordinated. Allied troops, for the most part, were held to their trenches and had difficulty breaking out of the initial beachhead. Even a second landing of British forces at Suvla Bay, north of the ANZAC bridgehead on August 6-7 failed to break the stalemate.

Exposing the Gallipoli Debacle and Evacuation

Sir Ian Hamilton continued to downplay the enormity of the disaster until several war correspondents managed to bypass military censors and present a true picture of the on-going carnage. Keith Murdoch (father of Rupert Murdoch) visited Gallipoli and, with the assistance of other correspondents who had been there longer, delivered to London and the British political and military leaders an account of the mismanaged campaign. Hamilton was recalled, replaced by Sir Charles Monro, whose task, ultimately, was to evacuate the troops from the peninsula. Ironically, this was the only part of the campaign to succeed brilliantly.

Harvard University historian Niall Ferguson assesses Gallipoli differently. In his estimation, a British victory at Gallipoli would have only benefited Russia and allowed that nation to “come a step closer to realizing her long-cherished aim of controlling Constantinople.” (291) Ferguson also argues that Britain should have used troops spent on the various ancillary campaigns on the Western Front and that these other deployments – Gallipoli, Mesopotamia, and Palestine, were more concerned with post-war Imperial strategy.

The Gallipoli failure cost Winston Churchill his position in the government. As to the Anzacs, the anniversary of the first landing at the Dardanelles became “ANZAC Day,” the national day celebrated by Australians in commemoration of the many young lives lost at Gallipoli.

Sources:

Niall Ferguson, The Pity of War: Explaining World War I (Basic Books, 1999).

Philip J. Haythornthwaite, The World War One Source Book (London: Brockhampton Press, 1994).

Phillip Knightly, The First Casualty (Harcourt Brace Javanovich, 1975).

The copyright of the article The Gallipoli Campaign 1915-1916 in WW I History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish The Gallipoli Campaign 1915-1916 in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Welcome to Gallipoli

Picture credit: Michael Streich when he visited the battle site.

 Nagumo at the Battle of Midway

Japan's Top Carrier Commander Experiences a Decisive Loss

© Michael Streich

 Mar 20, 2009

Vice Admiral Nagumo's string of successes included Pearl Harbor, Rabaul, Port Darwin, and Ceylon, leading to a feeling of invincibility & causing the blunders at Midway.

Up to June 4, 1942, the naval career of Japanese Vice Admiral Chuichi Nagumo had been stellar during the first months of the Pacific war. As Japan’s top carrier commander, Nagumo’s carrier strike force attacked Pearl Harbor on Sunday morning, December 7, 1941. The surprise attack was a success, although no American carriers were affected. Between Pearl Harbor and Midway, Nagumo’s carriers expanded Japanese domination of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. It was Admiral Yamamoto’s “decisive” Midway battle, however, that ended Nagumo’s string of successes. These successes also led to a notion of Japanese invincibility and over-confidence.

From Pearl Harbor to Midway Island

The attack on Pearl Harbor was simultaneous with other Japanese actions in the South Pacific. In these actions, Vice Admiral Nagumo played a significant role. His victories at Rabaul and Port Darwin were followed by a swing into the Indian Ocean with the intent of destroying British naval forces and bases centered at Ceylon.

Nagumo’s destruction of the Colombo naval base, including naval repair shops, railroads, and an airfield, enabled Japan to establish a defensive perimeter from Southeast Asia to Singapore while confining British naval threats to east Africa. The April 1942 campaign left his fleet sorely in need of overhaul as plans were already finalized to begin the Midway operation in early June.

Nagumo at the Battle of Midway

At the time Nagumo’s carrier force was within striking distance of Midway, Japanese intelligence had not discovered the presence of two American carrier task forces, let alone their exact locations. Task Force 16, commanded by Rear Admiral Ray Spruance, included the Hornet and the Enterprise; Task Force 17, led by Rear Admiral Frank Fletcher, included the recently repaired Yorktown, heavily damaged at the Coral Sea months earlier.

Although Nagumo was supported by Vice Admiral Kondo’s invasion fleet, Yamamoto had divided his carriers, a mistake that might have been a factor in the overall battle plan. Nagumo’s air strike against Midway depleted his planes. When the American carriers launched their attacks against Nagumo’s four carriers, he was outnumbered. If Nagumo had the light carriers Ryujo and Junyo, part of the diversionary operation at the Aleutians, the odds might have been in his favor.

Poor intelligence was also a key factor in Nagumo’s staggering losses. According to Paul Dull, “Nagumo’s air reconnaissance was grossly inadequate…” The inability to know the American carrier strength caught Nagumo off-guard as he exposed his flight decks while rearming his planes. Dull states: “The confusion involved in changing the armament of his planes after the Tone’s No. 4 plane sighted an enemy carrier was also the fault of his inefficient communications system.” (167)

Louis Allen cites possible Japanese over-reaching in the Bay of Bengal during the Ceylon operation as a long range factor at the Coral Sea and Midway. “If…Nagumo had not reached out for Ceylon…the carrier group might not have been short of skilled pilots and might have avoided the reverses….in the Coral Sea and at Midway.” (34)

Defeat of First Mobile Force, Carrier Strike Force

After dispatching the heavy carriers Akagi, Kaga, and Soryu, American aircraft located Hiryu, which had become separated from the main force. By the end of the battle, all four carriers had been destroyed. The Americans lost the Yorktown. Vice Admiral Nagumo was reassigned as Yamamoto ordered a withdrawal, unable to lure Admiral Spruance into a night battle involving capital ships.

Vice Admiral Nagumo committed suicide in 1944 at the end of the battle for Saipan, shot in the back of the head by a naval officer who had volunteered for the task. The long career of the “diminutive” admiral, known for his gruffness and uncommunicativeness, had ended. He was promoted to full admiral posthumously.

Sources:

Louis Allen, The Politics and Strategy of the Second World War: Singapore 1941-1942, series edited by Noble Frankland and Christopher Dowling (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1977).

Paul S. Dull, A Battle History of the Imperial Japanese Navy (1941-1945) (United States Naval Institute, 1978).

John Toland, The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire 1933-1945, Vol. 2 (New York: Random House, 1970).

The copyright of the article Nagumo at the Battle of Midway in WW II History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Nagumo at the Battle of Midway in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Admiral Nagumo

 

Pagan Origins of Christmas

Ancient World and Barbarian Influences on December 25th

Oct 14, 2009 Michael Streich

Almost all accepted Christmas celebrations are traced to Near Eastern, Roman, and pagan barbarian cultures that were adopted by the Church to legitimize December 25th.

Christmas, as a Christian day of celebration, is traced back to the 3rd and 4th centuries at a time the growing church institution began to define theological beliefs as an ordered system. December 25th, coming only four days after the Winter Solstice (depending on which calendar style is being used), corresponded to a number of ancient celebrations honoring the sun. When later Protestant groups like the Pilgrims and Puritans identified Christmas as a pagan celebration and refused to honor it, they were accurate in describing the “heathen” (Fraser) origins of Christmas.

Mithras and the “Heavenly Goddess”

The ancient Near Eastern cult of Mithras was a potent rival to early Christianity, featuring a number of similarities in belief. In fact, late 3rd Century persecutions of Christians, notably under Diocletian and Galerius, strongly identified Christians as just another version of the cult of Mithras.

The cult of Mithras found support in Egypt, the same hotbed of early Christian heretical beliefs such as Donatism and Arianism. In Egypt, adherents equated the nativity with the birth of the sun as well as the birth of Mithras which occurred on December 25th. Their celebrations included the image of an infant that was conceived by the Heavenly Goddess, a deity also associated with the Middle East goddess Astarte.

According to social anthropologist, Sir James Fraser, the celebration was marked by lights and festivities. His conclusions suggest that early Christians “borrowed directly from” their “heathen rival” by establishing the date of Christ’s birth on December 25th.

Roman Influences

Astronomy and anthropology professor Anthony Aveni states that the official church designation for Christmas on December 25th came in 354 CE. In the pagan Roman tradition, December 25th was also devoted to the sun. The birthday of the sun was celebrated by the lighting of candles and the day itself was identified with both Apollo and Mithras.

This was also the Roman Saturnalia, a celebration of seasonal cycles that began a period of revelry and carnivalesque behavior. This continued with the early church well into the Middle Ages when the period of Christmas (so named in 1058 from the terms Cristes Maesse or Mass of Christ) became a time of misrule, boy bishops, and festival. According to Aveni, during the celebration of Saturnalia presents were exchanged and pagan temples adorned with new sprigs, the forerunner of mistletoe. Aveni writes that “Saturnalia strengthened the social hierarchy.”

Other Historical Roots of Christmas Celebrations

The decorated Christmas tree is traced back to the pagan peoples of barbarian Europe, particularly the Germanic groups, that hung gifts meant for their deities on sacred trees. Similarly, the Yule log is frequently traced to Scandinavia where a large tree trunk was burned on the night of the Winter Solstice. The etymology of the word “jolly” finds roots in the Nordic term “jol” which is associated with yule.

Christmas caroling is traced to the 11th Century CE and equated with the Halloween practice of “trick or treat” in which the carolers hope for food or drink in return for their singing. Protestants viewing Christmas through a strict prism might be interested in knowing that the Christmas crèche, universal today in churches celebrating Christmas, began with the Catholic saint Francis of Assisi, who also instituted the “Midnight Mass.”

Post Modern Christmas Considerations

Contemporary Christmas celebrations have added new icons and practices. The commercialization of Christmas has made the holiday a barometer of consumer spending, able to affect stock markets and bankrupt retailers unable to compete in the shopping frenzy.

New icons like Rudolph, Frosty the Snowman, Scrooge and his ghosts, and the wily Grinch have redefined the holiday. Ironically, the same Christian groups that decry these icons as well as rabid consumerism wish to return to a Christmas celebration that was steeped in pagan origins.

Sources:

• Anthony Aveni, The Book of the Year: A Brief History of Our Seasonal Holidays (Oxford University Press, 2003)
• Sir James George Fraser, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion (New York: the Macmillan Company, 1966)

 

Christmas and Candlemas in Medieval Times

When Christians Disposed of Trees and Household Greenery

Dec 21, 2009 Michael Streich

Indoor greenery from the Winter Solstice until Candlemas ensured the return of vegetation while candles and other household fire anticipated the return of spring.

   

When to bring Christmas trees and other seasonal greenery into the house and when to dispose of such items is more than superstition. Traditional customs governing these aspects of the Christmas celebration are rooted in pre-Christian Europe as well as Roman practices. Indoor greenery, coupled with fire – a Yule Log or candles, referred to agricultural concerns and the anticipation of the return of the sun and planting season. Prior to the early modern period, Christians did not dispose of indoor greenery until February 2nd, Candlemas – or the Feast of the Purification of the Virgin in the Medieval Church calendar.

The Christmas tree and other Indoor Greenery

The Winter Solstice represented the high point of darkness and silence. Even the earliest human communities grew accustomed to the seasonal changes and looked to the heavens to appease the spirits or gods that were believed to control the patterns of nature. Over time, rituals became more elaborate and ensconced in festival patterns repeated yearly as part of on-going cycles celebrating the harmonization of nature and human communities. During the Roman Saturnalia, laurel and other greenery was hung in homes and in temples, a tradition later fused with early Christian practices.

As Christian missionaries made their way into pagan Northern Europe, similar customs were encountered and adopted into the ecclesiastical cycles charted by the church. The practice of bringing greenery into a house - whether holly, ivy, bay, mistletoe, or rosemary, at the time of the winter solstice served several purposes. The old pagan ideals of superstitious “good luck” tied to the return of vegetation also provided sacramental order within the ecclesiastical calendar, ensuring uniformity of worship.

Christmas trees were not brought into a house until Christmas Eve. In the modern tradition, they were not discarded until Twelfth Night. For many Christians, Epiphany signaled the end of the Christmas period. But according to medieval tradition, no indoor greenery was disposed of until Candlemas. February 2nd represented the end of the official Christmas season for the church. The blessing of candles at Candlemas was the transition from darkness to light and symbolic of all life, not just vegetation.

Candlemas and the Importance of Light

Candlemas originated in the 4th Century and is tied to both the Purification of the Virgin Mary and the presentation of Jesus in the temple. Candles, in church tradition, have always been symbolic of Christ as “light of the world.” It is therefore logical that the Feast of Christ’s presentation in the temple should be accompanied by the blessing of candles.

On Candlemas Eve, Medieval Christians brought candles to the church to be blessed. These included large family candles that were only lit at times of death or during storms, although some researchers differentiate between these family candles and “rain-or-storm-candles.” So-called “penny candles” were used during Advent and All Souls. Slender, red candles were lit during childbirth.

It is evident that the magical use of candles, although part of church sacramentals, was tied to several important themes: Christ as light of the world who brings life, sustains life, and promises eternal life. Since most Christians in the Middle Ages were peasants (estimates are 98% of the European population) engaged in some type of farming, these images were not only important but tied peasants closely to church order and conformity.

Christmas Greenery and Christmas Light

The presence of fresh greenery and light, from candles or a traditional Yule Log, pointed to the return of spring and fertility. The growth of the church in Europe and the ecclesiastical seasonal cycle imposed on the faithful incorporated these often magical traditions. Like the blessing of votives in the Temples of Diana on her festival days in Ancient Rome, so also the church blessed candles before the sacrificial altar. Christmas and Candlemas and indelibly linked.

Sources:

• Charles Panati, Sacred Origins of Profound Things (Penguin, 1996)
• R.W. Scribner, Popular Culture and Popular Movements in Reformation Germany (London: the Hambledon Press, 1987)

Rudolph Demonstrates Earlier Values in American Culture

Michael Streich November 4, 2009 

1964 was, according to writer Jon Margolis, the “last innocent year” and the “beginning of the ‘sixties.’” It was the year the Beatles first appeared on the Billboard chart with “I Want to Hold Your Hand” and it was the year the Beatles made their American debut, first on the Ed Sullivan Show and then live at the Washington, DC Coliseum. Muhammad Ali became world heavyweight boxing champion and Sidney Poitier was the first African American to win a Best Actor award. 1964 was also the debut of America’s most enduring Christmas specials, “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer,” on December 6^th, sponsored exclusively by General Electric.

 

The United States Over Fifty Years ago

 

“Rudolph” aired five months after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed by Congress and one month after Lyndon Johnson became president. It was a time Americans, every wary of worldwide Communism and the Domino Theory, were moving closer to the tragedy of Vietnam. Whether by accident or subtly indirect, “Rudolph,” in many ways, paralleled those fears while positing the notion that in the end, good always triumphs over evil.

 

Despite being treated as a misfit by everyone including his father, Donner, Rudolph remained polite, addressing everyone as “sir.” Jeopardizing his own life for the good of his friends, he secretly left the Island of Misfit toys alone, his shiny nose making him a sure target of the Abominable Snow Monster. These were powerful messages for children watching the story on television.

 

The Abominable or “Bumble” represented the antithesis of all Rudolph was taught to believe. According to Sam the Snowman, “He’s mean and nasty…and he hates anything to do with Christmas.” Nothing could be more un-American in 1964 than hating Christmas. In the original screenplay, Donner advises his son that “Someday…we’ll be rid of that Abominable Snow Monster, then Christmasville will be safe for good.”

 

Gender Roles and Masculine Stereotypes

 

Rudolph’s nose sets him apart, much like Hermey’s desire to be a dentist, hardly a suitable profession for an elf. Yet Hermey doesn’t even look like an elf, making him a misfit all the more. In both cases, the characters are mocked and shunned because they don’t fit into established male roles. When Donner decides to finally brave the storm and search for his buck, he forbids his wife to join him: “this is man’s work.”

 

Eventually, both Mrs. Donner and Rudolph’s girlfriend Clarice break the norms and set off on their own. The entire party is captured by the Snow Monster and held in his cave. Rudolph attempts to fight the monster but is knocked unconscious. At this point, Yukon, Rudolph’s friend from the journey to the Island of Misfit Toys, and Hermey use ingenuity and subterfuge to neutralize the beast by pulling his teeth. Once the teeth are pulled, the threat is over.

 

Aftermath and Redemption

 

Both Rudolph and Hermey are welcomed back, each allowed to find their niche within the conformity of Christmas Town. Even the Abominable, now tamed, joins the community, finding a positive way to make a difference. Christmas is saved from cancellation when Rudolph’s nose enables Santa to cut through the fog and make his deliveries.

 

The story of Rudolph, taken from Robert May’s 1939 story and Johnny Marks’ 1949 hit song, represented sacrifice, heroism, social acceptance, and perseverance. American children were taught these same traits in school in regard to the Cold War. “Rudolph” merely reinforced this message.

 

Sources:

 

Rick Goldschmidt, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer: The Making of the Rankin/Bass Holiday Classic (Bridgeview, Il: Miser Bros. Press, 2001)

Jon Margolis, The Last Innocent Year: America in 1964 (New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1999)

Karal Ann Marling, Merry Christmas: Celebrating America’s Greatest Holiday (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000)

Any republication of this article in any form may only be made with the written permission of the author.

 The Wizard of Oz as Allegory and Fairy Tale

Deconstructing a Classic American Book Written for Children

• Jun 12, 2009
• Michael Streich

Ever Since Henry Littlefield's 1964 interpretations of the Wizard of Oz as political allegory were published, scholars have attempted to build on that analysis.

Frank Baum’s The Wonderful Wizard of Oz has, for decades, been taught as an example of Gilded Age political allegory, reflecting Populism and the gold versus silver debate. Popular American History survey texts like America Past & Present (Robert A. Divine, Et Al., Pearson/Longman) devote 2-page feature essays to the interpretation. Baum himself, writing in April 1900, states that the book “was written solely to please children of today.” How is the Wizard of Oz to be viewed?

The Interpretations of Henry Littlefield

Henry M. Littlefield’s interpretations of Baum’s book were published in 1964. Littlefield, a high school teacher, attempted to provide students with a more interesting way to understand the Populist issues of the late 19th Century. David B. Parker, writing in Journal of the Georgia Association of Historians, [1] analyzes subsequent interpretations that took Littlefield’s conclusions further.

Writing in March, 1988 (Los Angeles Times), Michael A. Genovese, then at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, gives readers the allegorical representations:

• Dorothy is Everyman
• The Tin Woodman is the Industrial Worker
• The Scarecrow is the Farmer
• The Cowardly Lion is William Jennings Bryan
• The Wizard is the President
• The Munchkins are the “little people”
• The Yellow Brick Road is the Gold Standard
• The Wicked Witch of the East represents bankers and capitalists

The deconstruction of the Oz story continued. A college essay, posted on the Cornell University website and written by Grant Wang and Dan Jacobs goes even further. As an example, quoting from the book, Wang and Jacobs related the broken or missing yellow bricks in the road to Oz as Baum’s way of revealing “his opinion that although the gold standard had holes and obstacles, it could still last through the long haul.”

The Wizard of Oz as a Fairy Tale

Psychology Professor Sheldon Cashdan, in his book The Witch Must Die, analyzes Baum’s story as “a fairy tale not only for our time but for all time” and compares the tale’s dynamics to other popular fairy tales. [2] According to Cashdan, Dorothy’s trip to Oz reflects the unconscious and the many twists and turns are a “metaphor for personal growth.”

Cashdan’s chapter on Baum’s story highlights the multi-faceted way scholars can take a story and suggest a myriad of interpretations. Was Baum influenced by folklore, as happens in many fairy tales? [3] To what extend did Baum support and sympathize with Populism.

An Alternative View of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

David Parker quotes from a 1919 biographical piece written by Martin Gardner about Baum and his political beliefs and activities. Gardner concluded that Baum was “inactive in politics” but his sympathies were “on the side of the laboring classes.” Could these have been Baum’s munchkins who, in his book, slaved night and day for the Wicked Witch of the East?

But Baum also supported women’s suffrage. Dorothy might have better represented the emerging feminist whose self-actualization prepared her to kill the evil witch at the end of the story. Dorothy, a girl, was the leader of the intrepid troupe. Cashdan identified and analyzed each specific “shortcoming” relative to the Scarecrow, Lion, and Woodsman.

Yet it was Dorothy whose adventures and confrontations with evil brought out the missing elements in each companion. It was Dorothy who ultimately killed the witch and exposed the wizard as a hypocrite. Dorothy emerges as the heroine, having overcome tremendous obstacles.

Many Ways to Interpret Oz

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz might have been written, as Baum stated, simply as a modern fairy tale. But, like the popular Hollywood interpretation that can easily be used to allegorize the Great Depression, it can be seen in many intriguing ways.

Sources:

• [1] David Parker, “The Rise and Fall of the Wonderful Wizard of Oz as a ‘Parable on Populism,’” Journal of the Georgia Association of Historians, vol. 15 (1994), pp. 49-63
• [2] Sheldon Cashdan, The Witch Must Die: How Fairy Tales Shape Our Lives (New York: Basic Books, 1999) see chapter 11
• [3] Jennifer Howard, “From ‘Once Upon a Time’ to ‘Happily Ever After:’ Fairy-tale scholars explore the nuanced history of the genre,” The Chronicle Review published by The Chronicle of Higher Education, Section B, May 22, 2009, pp.B6ff

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

Michael Streich - Former Adjunct Instructor, History & Global Studies