ALBA Visit #9 and “The Good Fight”

Hearing one of the directors of The Good Fight mention that the film’s first cut was about six hours long was no surprise to me after having seen the enormity of material in the box that the directors’ contributed to ALBA. There were probably thousands of pages of interview transcripts, which constituted the bulk of the files, and hundreds of pages of other research.

The interviews comprised an amazing amount of stories about, and insights into, the lives of various volunteers. In a certain sense it is a shame that more of these stories could not be incorporated in the film, but as a filmgoer I do understand and appreciate the editing. I tried to sift through some of these interview transcripts to identify content aligned with my final project ideas, and came away with some useful material. One of my next blog entries will more deeply analyze my findings, but for the time being I will just summarize my research, because there were many documents that I need more time to read, analyze, quote from, and cite, documents that are in the process of being photocopied for me by Tamiment Library (another valuable library service of which any of my classmates without camera or scanner might like to take advantage).

I noticed a couple of questions relevant to my project that were well addressed, albeit anecdotally, by the interviews with veterans: How did those associated with the cause of the Republic become politicized (politically socialized)? Where and how did they get their information? The anecdotal evidence suggests that most of these volunteers and their social networks were approximately working class, were directly affected by the Depression, and thus became politically liberal. It also seems that by-and-large these people became active in political scenes that aligned with their interests, be they socialist, communist, anarchist, civil rights oriented, or just generally liberal, and that these groups became bases of political knowledge, and disseminated and filtered news and new political information. One of the most influential examples was the Communists’ publication of the Daily Worker, which I will soon begin reading en masse, along with pamphlets, etc., to begin answering my questions about particular political perceptions and actions. However, as far as I know there are no published statistics to underwrite these ideas, or to comment on the extent to which people were active in any given group or were targeted by activism (please let me know if you are aware of any), and I doubt I could put together any such statistics given my time constraints. So it seems I will be doing, in large part, what many other historians did, namely, aggregating anecdotal evidence to paint a big picture as reliably as I can. I suppose in a field of inquiry like this, constructing a coherent and compelling narrative out of potentially misleading bits and pieces is a somewhat inevitable occupational hazard.

Research Post #1 Update

Update

The books I mentioned earlier will still be handy to some extent, but the focus of my project has changed, and will be considerably more anchored in the archives. I still plan to research non-intervention and the embargoes, and my project will still be politically oriented, but I will focus on the people who broke away from the isolationism of their time, who were not directly involved in the governmental politics surrounding non-intervention, about and from whom there is lots of archival material, including copies of The Daily Worker, pamphlets on microfilm, letters, and various other selections from ALBA and elsewhere. I plan to juxtapose my findings from these archival materials with knowledge about both the governmental and public politics surrounding non-intervention 1) to explore why and how these “ground-level” participants came to reject isolationism, the popular political stance of their era, 2) to shed some light on the limitations of their information, and 3) to examine how these limitations shaped their efforts to understand and change policy.

A preliminary outline of the questions to be addressed might look like this:

-What did persons/groups a, b, and c know about policies/political interactions x, y, and z?

----How did they perceive x, y, and z?

----What did they do about it?

-What are the whole stories of x, y, and z as we know them today?

----How did x, y, and z affect a, b, and c, and vice versa?

-What can be inferred about the consequences of this "knowledge gap" experienced by a, b, and c?

-If a, b, and c had more knowledge about x, y, and z, how might their history have gone differently? [Whether this last question is appropriate is yet to be determined]

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Professor Fernández and Peter Carroll for their guidance and insights.

To any of my classmates who have not already done so, I recommend consulting Professor Fernández about your final project. He is very helpful and approachable.

Research Post #1

I began researching my final project today, which is going to focus on the rationale for, the effects of, and the reactions to American non-intervention, probably including some discussion of international non-intervention. It seems that ALBA is only sporadically helpful to this line of inquiry, so I would much appreciate any suggestions for relevant archival material, in ALBA or elsewhere. Considering the limitations of ALBA I consulted the big green Historical Dictionary of the Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939 at Tamiment, which was a great introductory source. I suggest using that dictionary to anyone pursuing extra-archival research because every entry is accompanied by a list of suggested further reading. These lists led me to a somewhat obscure book from 1968 called American Diplomacy and the Spanish Civil War by Richard Traina, which I am getting through Amazon, and which should be a useful source. The only problem I noticed with the dictionary is that it is pretty old (I am not sure how old) so there are some newer books out there that it will not be able to suggest. One such newer book is Arms for Spain: The Untold Story of the Spanish Civil War (1999) by Gerald Howson, which focuses on the role of arms, and lack thereof in the case of the Republic, and has some handy sections discussing the American political climate surrounding neutrality and gives some insight into the inner workings of Roosevelt’s state department. I was lucky enough to come across this book searching through the Strand bookstore’s Spanish History section, which I also recommend for extra-archival research. If anyone has any suggestions for further readings or research on my topic, please let me know.

Note: Another interesting title I just noticed on the Strand’s website is The Spanish Civil War, The Soviet Union, And Communism (2004) by Stanley G. Payne, but it’s out of stock at the Strand. Bobst may have it, and Amazon definitely has it, if this is relevant to anyone’s research.

ALBA Visit #8

Yesterday I started reading the Marjorie Polon Papers, specifically Bill Bailey’s letters to Marjorie during the Spanish Civil War, which span from spring or early summer 1938 to November 1938. The content of these letters is very similar to that of the other letters I have read, except that Bailey’s letters are some of the longest, going into more gory war details. Certain aspects of his letters stood out to me and raised some questions.

For one, Bailey echoes one of Abe Osheroff ‘s complaints from his interview on the Facing Fascism DVD, about how heartbreaking it can be not to receive letters. Bailey wrote, “About the toughest piece of misery to go through in any war is to fail to receive letters from people.”^[1] Bailey did not suffer as great a lack of letters as Osheroff, but this somewhat hyperbolic statement seems to reflect a widely held feeling on what was a sensitive issue. In the shoes of a combatant, perhaps a statement like Bailey’s may not have sounded hyperbolic at all.

Bailey also wrote, regarding volunteers who lied about their age, “…a few of [the young volunteers] I know to be about 15 years of age, are a sure willing bunch, always asking the old timers packs of questions. They feel swell being amongst us and we feel likewise about them.”^[1] This was shocking to me. If what Bailey wrote is true, this is the only source I have ever seen discussing volunteers that young. Just as surprising to me as their purported age is Bailey’s attitude towards them. The presence of underage combatants is generally viewed as exceptionally hazardous, isn’t it? And how reliable is Bailey’s knowledge about the attitudes of his fellow “old timers”? If Bailey’s report is accurate, what are the implications of this seemingly strange, not to mention illegal, situation?

Additionally, Bailey is one of the volunteers who explicitly wrote about the necessity of lifting American non-intervention. He prophetically implied that successfully protesting the embargo against Spain would be the difference between victory and defeat, and that protesting non-intervention was the American thing to do, which I though was an apt articulation. Though I still wonder about the logic behind the timing of writing on this essential topic. Once again, it seems a little late in the game, but hindsight may be distorting my view of the issue…

Citations

1. 4^th Letter from Bailey to Polon, Fall 1938; Marjorie Polon Papers; ALBA 159; box 1; folder 1

Tamiment Library/Robert F. Wagner Labor Archives

Elmer Holmes Bobst Library

70 Washington Square South

New York, NY 10012, New York University Libraries.

ALBA Visit #7

I was reading the Guide to the Alvah Bessie Papers today when I came across a diamond in the rough: A copy of a single letter from Ernest Hemingway to Milton Wolff, circa 1940.

I figured this letter would be friendly, but that notion was deep-sixed after just one sentence. Hemingway begins by saying, “I won’t try to explain how conceited, confused, and stupid your letter was.” Apparently Wolff disparaged Hemingway in an earlier letter, which, as far as I can tell, is not in ALBA. It is apparent from the rest of Hemingway’s letter that Wolff called Hemingway a “rooter” as opposed to a fighter, and criticized For Whom the Bell Tolls.

Hemingway took these criticisms very hard, yet he has no particular response to the idea that he was a “rooter” or to any criticism leveled against For Whom the Bell Tolls. In his anger Hemingway proceeds to reiterate his own credentials and assassinate the character of Wolff, rather than employ any logical argument.

In response to the charge that he was a “rooter” Hemingway asks, “…given what experience I have and what talents I may possess what would you like me to have done to aid the cause of the Spanish Republic that I did not do?” and he takes the issue no further, seeming uncertain about it himself. Hemingway also says, “…I was in wars, commanded troops, was wounded etc before you were dry behind the ears. So don’t give me the old soldier talking to the non-combatant.”

Seemingly in defense of For Whom the Bell Tolls, Hemingway says to Wolff, “At the time the book deals with you did not know Marx from your ass…” Hemingway punctuates the letter with statements like “…we are not friends any more…” and “I always thought you were a great guy and now I think you are a prick.” Regardless of what Wolff said, Hemingway comes off like a bitter four year old, and all of his points seem irrelevant to any meaningful, logical discourse.

This falling out makes me wonder intensely what Wolff had to say, and also makes me wonder if the vehemence and irrationality of Hemingway’s response were inspired by feelings of conflict or guilt about his behavior during the war.

Citation

Hemingway, Ernest: Letter to Milton Wolff (typed copy), 1940; Alvah Bessie Papers; ALBA 24; box 5; folder 32

Tamiment Library/Robert F. Wagner Labor Archives

Elmer Holmes Bobst Library

70 Washington Square South

New York, NY 10012, New York University Libraries.

ALBA Visit #6

During this visit I read the Joseph Kleinman Papers, which consist of eleven letters written by Joseph to his friends Morris and Nettie Srebnick, and Morris, Pauline and Demos Eitzer, who all lived in New York City. The letters begin July 15, 1937, shortly after Joseph’s arrival in Paris, and end June 28, 1938. Joseph died in September 1938 at Sierra Caballs.

Of all the correspondence I’ve read so far, Joseph’s is the least frequent, averaging less than one letter per month, but at the same time it is very consistently optimistic about the fighting and his involvement with the ALB. Despite Joseph’s exceptional morale, his letters end up following the same trend as all of the others I’ve read thus far. His tone starts off confident, even jubilant, and remains confident for a long time, but by his last letter he is battle-hardened (if not weary) and he is pleading for the repeal of the U.S. Neutrality Acts of 1937. It seems like this tonal trend is evident throughout the ALBA collections.

Joseph is minimally apologetic about the infrequency of correspondence, citing how busy he is and how essential his work is (although he laments the lack of incoming mail especially towards the end). Also, his writing style is akin to stream-of-conscious, which makes me wonder if he was in a big hurry even when he took the time to write, or if he just had a unique style, or perhaps both. Most interesting to me is Joseph’s emphasis on the need to undo American neutrality, which only comes about in his last letter, June 28, 1938. He says:

…my dear comrades you have got to work a little harder to get the now infamous neutrality law annulled, so the republican government can buy material to defend its people and cities… if you can get this damnable law done away with you will have done more for democracy and the Spanish Republic than all the international brigades.^[1]

It surprises me that this crucial plea only occurs in Joseph’s last letter. I wonder what made Joseph take up this issue at this time. Did the need for materials grow especially dire? Were previous shortages not severe enough to inspire his writing against neutrality? Was this topic suggested by the chain of command? Neutrality was certainly a prevalent topic of conversation among the volunteers, but when did a coherent anti-neutrality movement develop? I also wonder: if Joseph had acknowledged the issue of neutrality earlier, could he have been more effective? I would like to do more research at some point, to gain insight into these questions and help illuminate the issue of neutrality.

Citations

1. Last Letter to the Srebnicks and Eitzers, June 28, 1938; Joseph Kleinman Papers; ALBA 271; box 1; folder 4

Tamiment Library/Robert F. Wagner Labor Archives

Elmer Holmes Bobst Library

70 Washington Square South

New York, NY 10012, New York University Libraries.