for Week 8 (3/3-3/5)

for Mon, 3/3
--read blognotes on China and Battle of China

for Wed, 3/5
--reaction paper #4 due: Both the Battle of China and China are meant to inform American audiences of the ongoing struggle of our Chinese allies against the Japanese. How do these films broach the difficult question of supporting our Chinese allies, while defiling our Japanese enemies, which is mostly based on race/ethnicity? In other words, how do Hollywood and the OWI make the Chinese into "good Asians," but the Japanese "bad Asians." Which form is more effective (Hollywood drama or more documentary government films)?

Battle of China notes

Stalwart China Losing the War

Our troubled Chinese ally…seen by Henry Luce and Frank Capra

China: burden or ally?

Alliance with China during WWII.

Leader of Free China—Chiang Kai Shek

Long history of American intervention in China.

Missionaries active since 1860s.

dreams of a vast market of 400,000,000 people

We favored the Chinese Republic set up by Sun Yat Sen before WWI

American support for respecting China’s territorial integrity in Washington Conference under President Harding.

Thousands of missionaries active; many Chinese coming to US to study.

But China was a troubled country…part modernizing, very poor, its culture battered by foreign influences: Christiantiy, technology, liberalism, communism

American investment and trade limited, but in the 1930s, Americans were horrified by Japanese attacks on Chinese civilians.

The great voice for Chiang’s China was Henry R. Luce of Time

Born in China of missionary parents

His media emphasized Chiang Kai Shek as a Christian and a modernizer (pro-American)

Truth is more complicated

Chiang’s armies huge, but corrupt. Society run by landlords and bankers connected to regime.

And in the North, a powerful communist army led by Mao Tse Tung controlled 90,000,000 people by the end of WWII.

Chiang hated the Reds more than he did the Japanese. Thought the US would beat Japan and then he could annihilate the Reds.

How do you explain the growth of communism in China and its support by millions of peasants to US civilians?

Frank Capra and Henry Luce told Americans that Chiang’s Free China was a fighting ally

There was some fighting, but Japanese were winning in China by 1944.

Capra portrays an ancient peaceful culture that never attacked anyone.

Inventive and good people.

Japan evil and a conqueror.

Sun Yat Sen as a George Washington trying to unite China. Chiang carries on his work.

Resistance to Japanese evil since 1931.

Japan’s Tanaka Memorandum out to conquer the world. China next, then the US.

No mention of European imperialism in China.

no mention of the communist problem.

Brutal Japanese bombardment of Shanghai.

Rape of Nanking in 1937 shown. Hope to break the will of Chinese.

But film shows determined Chinese disassembling factories and everything they can carry to the interior to set up new capital in Chungking.

Implies that they stopped Japan. Celebrates Chinese victory at Changsha.

But Japanese have huge areas to cover and have conquered much of China. Bogged down…not defeated.

China had manpower and space on its side, but no air power. Weak armies were poorly led.

Could never defeat Japan alone.

Not shown: Chiang’s blockade of Red with 200,000 troops. Implication that Chungking was like London.

No mentioned of famine…of killing thousands of Chinese in bombing raids in a shelter Chungking…of black market trade with Japan across the lines…of corruption—rich exempted from the draft…ruinous inflation

Madame Chiang an American heroine: Wellesley College graduate

So the implication is that we are doing well and China is resisting…no Reds.

Americans who saw Battle of China early in 1944 thought the Chinese were stronger than they were, and were shocked by her defeats in the summer of 1944. No sense of rise of communism either. Capra omitted it. We were betting on Chiang, and we were wrong.

China notes

China (1943)

China by Paramount Pictures starring Alan Ladd, Loretta Young, and William Bendix.

Is this film about China or about Americans in China?

Themes to watch for:

· Japanese atrocities

· A cynical American oil trader who changes his mind about neutrality

· A missionary educator: the American mission to China

· Praise for Chiang Kai Shek and his new China

The time is November 1941, before Pearl Harbor. But remember…the movie was release in 1943…

At this point, American audiences had cheered Madame Chiang on her US tour. We thought Chinese were shaping up and were united and fighting the “Japs”

Jones sells oil to Japan to make a buck. War is not is business. Just like Rick in Casablanca…

American oil embargo was hurting Japan.

Johnny adopts a cute pathetic Chinese “warphan” or “war orphan”. Americans donated millions to United China Relief and other Chinese organizations. Remember this photograph that reminded Americans of the “warphan” situation and the atrocities of the Japanese

Miss Grant is the teacher/missionary type favored by Henry Luce.

Then we get references to the Japanese rapists and killers in Nanking.

Jones agrees to transport some of Miss Grant’s Chinese students. She compares the New China to our founding fathers. A constant reference in these Chinese films. Sun Yat Sen and Chiang kai Shek like George Washington, etc.

This film worked on two levels: pity for the Chinese youth, but admiration for the fighting China of Chiang kai Shek.

You may wonder about a few improbables…how come all the girls all speak perfect English? And how did Johnny and Jones become such heroic soldiers since they were civilians? Remember this if fictional…

Miss Grant compares Jones the cynic to her father, who later converted to serving Chiang kai Shek and China.

We see Chinese guerrillas never identified as communists bring down a Japanese plane. Reference to Fifth Route Army reminds one of communist Eighth Route Army…but no mention of the reds, only of United, Fighting China.

Jones, like Americans in 1941, is being drawn into a war he doesn’t want, slowly but inexorable.

And he enjoys killing Japanese rapists. This is the world of 1943, and brutal fighting in the southwest Pacific.

With Jones, Chinese improvise and blow up important bridge.

Jones seems to fall for the war, China, and Miss Grant, all in one. Their embrace implies things that could be shown in 1943.

In the end, the Japanese officer schooled in America gloats about Pearl Harbor. Notice that Pearl Harbor is invoked in many of the movies we have seen.

The Japanese say that the “new order” will destroy the democracies.

Jones expresses faith in the “little guys” people’s war.

And the Japanese are blown apart in the bridge over the ravine.

Symbol of Japanese arrogance and coming American victory.

So Jones forgets his isolationist ignorance, defeats the Japanese, and gets the girl!

Remember this was made in 1943 when our belief in Free Fighting China was at its innocent peak.

changes to syllabus and reaction paper topics

I have made a few adjustments to our schedule as listed on the syllabus. Please make note of them. I've also tried to outline the reaction papers a little better and give you the topics (I might tweak them a bit as we go along, but it at least lets you see where we're going)

Reaction paper #4 is due on Wed, 3/5--topic: Battle of China and China films. Question: Both of these films are meant to inform American audiences of the ongoing struggle of our Chinese allies against the Japanese. How do these films broach the difficult question of supporting our Chinese allies, while defiling our Japanese enemies, which is mostly based on race/ethnicity? In other words, how do Hollywood and the OWI make the Chinese into "good Asians," but the Japanese "bad Asians."

Reaction paper #5 is due on Wed, 3/12--topic: Discuss the medium of animated shorts in informing the American public as to the war effort and our enemies. How do they take the very serious and make it into humorous (at times) cartoons? What is the value of these cartoons? Do you see any difference in representation of our enemy between companies (Disney, Warner Bros., etc)? How do cartoons stack up to other moving images that we've seen? What is their purpose?

Reaction paper #6 is due on Mon, 3/31--topic: The film The Negro Soldier is yet another Frank Capra propaganda film. It was shown to both black and white audiences, but, on the whole, both races liked it. How does the film work to instill racial pride in African Americans to convince them to enlist and fight, but not upset white audiences that might be averse to the idea of blacks fighting in the war? How does the film use (but distort) history to tell the story of black accomplishments? Is it an effective piece of propaganda?

Reaction paper #7 is due on Mon, 4/7--topic: Return to our first readings out of History Goes to the Movies that discusses how Leni Riefenstahl denied that Triumph of the Will was not propaganda. Now that you've seen the film, what do you think? If you agree with Riefenstahl's assessment of her film, then support her answer using the film. If you believe that it IS propaganda, then use the film to argue with her. In essence, I want you to tell me whether Triumph of the Will is or isn't propaganda, but make sure you use the readings (esp. History Goes to the Movies) in your response.

Reaction paper #8 is due on Mon, 4/21--topic: The two best examples of anti-Jewish Nazi propaganda are the movies The Eternal Jew and Jud Suss, but while their message is essentially the same, that Jews are a menace that has hurt Germany for hundreds of years, they do so in different ways. The Eternal Jew is presented as a documentary, presenting "fact" on the history of the Jewish people, while Jud Suss is a more Hollywood-esque feature film, with a rather despicable Jewish character as the antagonist. Which one is more effective? If you were a German citizen sitting in the theater watching these films, what impact do you think they would have on you? Warning---I think that you will need far more than 2 pages for this paper. Once you've seen them, I don't think it will take much for you to write, and write, and write (students normally find them VERY interesting, and are eager to discuss), so please don't feel constricted to 2 pages.

The Battle of Russia notes

WHY WE FIGHT SERIES: THE BATTLE OF RUSSIA BY FRANK CAPRA

The Battle of Russia…Capra later denied he had anything to do with it, but he did.

Our heroic Soviet ally.

Need for the Red Army to kill Germans and for Russians appear more like Americans for the American audience. How do you do that?...Ignore communism.

How to address: the Hitler-Stalin pact? The Great Purges of the 1930s? Invasion of Poland? Apologize for Stalin?

In 1943, films like Mission to Moscow and The North Star (I tried, and tried, and tried to find copies for us to watch, but no luck so far L ) were sold as pro-American and pro-Ally. So was Capra’s movie.

FDR hoped that the Soviets would become more open, more liberal, would need western aid after the war.

Capra risked wrath of FBI: He had dealt directly with the Soviet embassy to obtain footage.

Stalin ordered the film shown in Soviet theaters with his own introduction.

Capra later hounded about these facts once we were out of WWII and in the Cold War, this time against the Soviets.

for Week 5 (2/11-13)

for Mon, 2/11
-no new reading assignments. Just make sure you've done the Capra readings from 2/6

for Wed, 2/13
-read blog notes on Battle of Russia (no notes for Battle of Britain)
-reaction paper #3 due--The Why We Fight series is the most significant piece of government-sponsored propaganda of the Second World War. What methods/tools/themes/images/music/etc does Frank Capra use to convince the new recruits (and later the public) as to why we fight?

Note: I expect you to begin to incorporate the readings into your reaction papers, not simply write it from the viewing of the film. While it is possible to answer the question without the readings, papers that neglect to discuss them in some way, shape or form--even simply quoting--cannot earn top grades on the paper. You need only discuss the 2 films we watched on Wed, Feb 6th. If you would like to discuss the first part Prelude to War that we viewed the second day of class, that is fine, but not necessary.

Remember that we will not meet formally on Monday, February 18th. In lieu of class, you should begin/continue working on your research paper proposal, or take the time to review some of the films that are on reserve in preparation for the midterm exam.

Why We Fight notes

Frank Capra and “Why We Fight” America’s greatest propaganda films? Capra, an Italian immigrant…at first insecure and unhappy in America. Later he became a famous Hollywood director making “Capraesque” films, musicals, escapist films, little man challenges the big shots…very popular stuff during the Depression of the 1930s (like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington) War Dept and General Marshall needed to tell recruiters why we were fighting this war. Decided to recruit Capra Happy to serve, followed orders. Proud of his work and received the Legion of Merit for it. Pamphlets not enough, needed films. Americans in 1917 had faith, and needed it again now. Marshall was media savvy. Liked movies and knew the power of pictures in Life Magazine. Signal Corps resented Capra. They had been making training films and did not want to release Nazi films to him. Information Division houses Capra under Marshall, not in the Signal Corps. 8 officers and 35 enlisted men later total of 150. $400,000 spent on Why We Fight, a fraction of War Department film budget Capra wary of communist writers on his staff, but some of his footage you will see was sympathetic to our communist ally Russia and to the Reds fighting Japanese in China. But Capra had to fill out reports on his writers and John Sanford was barred as a Red or premature anti-fascist, but later worked on The Battle of Russia. Capra not politically involved. Wanted to win the war. Disliked Hollywood Reds. Trouble during McCarthy era. Capra had allowed some apologies for the Hitler-Stalin Pact into the series…did not want to undermine our ally Russia. Made Russia sign the pact to buy time for the inevitable onslaught by the Nazis. Capra was impressed by Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will. Nazi propaganda rally from 1934 scared Capra. He suppressed his earlier admiration for Mussolini common among Italian-Americans before the war. Capra uses footage from the enemy in order to work against them. “Let their own films kill them” Capra came up with the brilliant idea of destroying fascism by showing its own propaganda: arrogant, aggressive, crude, submissive, totalitarian…fanatic lunacy. Contrasting this with his imagined America: religious, family oriented, tolerant, patriotic. Series conceived in the summer of 1942…slavery vs. freedom and decency Capra focuses blame on Nazis, not German people, but no so with the “Japs” FDR : WAR FOR SURVIVAL Films were simplistic, but powerful. Made for average GI, many of whom had never graduated from high school. Why We Fight had seven parts: Prelude to War (which we’ve already watched), The Nazis Strike, The Battle of Russia, The Battle of Britain, The Battle of China, etc. Capra produced the films and helped assemble the footage and rework the scripts. Marshall and Stimson had to approve the films. FDR meddled too. Films made in Hollywood to be able to work without interference from Washington, at least somewhat. Prelude to War won an Oscar in 1943 OWI (Office of War Information) war of showing the film in theaters: backlash claiming it was FDR reelection propaganda, and OWI had promised Hollywood that the government would not compete with its production. Fear for budgets in Congress. Postwar survey of GIs who had seen the films showed mixed reactions…some knowledge useful but some war of staged scenes and one-sided presentations, but War Department convinced of its value…millions saw them.