Visit 14

I continued looking through the Good Fight folders and began to browse the names of those with interview transcripts. I was tempted to read Vaughn Love's folder but I instead picked out Milt Wolff's because I figured I might as well go for continuity. And also because I found him a very compelling personality in The Good Fight. And then that Hemingway piece was so beautiful--it actually made me respect him even more and wonder about him more. So I looked at his transcripts.

The interview revealed that, in the beginning, Milt Wolff was a pacifist and an aspiring artist. The part of the interview I was able to read traced his journey from this initial identity to his crossing the Pyrenees in order to fight fascism in Spain. The interviewers were trying to ask Wolff if he could pin down how exactly he came to make such an ideological change. It seems he couldn't exactly explain it until a point in the transcript which reads, "(break) From passism, from out right pacificism, to, uh, anti-fascism, which meant struggle. And that took place about the time of, uh, the Rape of Etheopia. When, uh, Mussolini's son was describing the dropping of bombs on the beer-carrying little Blacks, you know, and a bomb burst opening like flowers, like rosing, unfurling in full bloom. Uh. Which is pretty horrible stuff. And uh, my pacifism became anti-fascism at that time, as did these people who were my friends." I just thought this bit of memory was really interesting. When Wolff was describing the particular memory, about Mussolini's son's description, I thought the "flowery" bombing imagery he repeated, which he obviously found at odds with the reality of the bombs' devastation, kind of paralleled his own contradictory ideology of pacifism with his conviction that struggle was now necessary if there was to be peace.

The interviewers asked Milt Wolff if the stereotype of intellectuals plotting revolution in basements was true of the communist meetings he went to. He responded, "Not--the YCL, that I was exposed to, we didn't plot any revolution. We talked about the Popular Front. And the struggle against fascism. This was the primary goal. To preserve what democracy there was and to defeat fascism." I thought this statement was so important to understanding the motivations of the the Lincoln Brigade--that this testimony must correctly summarize what everyone was thinking and feeling at the time. But then I thought maybe Wolff was only framing it that way. I guess it's impossible to say now since these are only recollections. Still, going to the letters in the archive, you find most of the sentiments expressed are these same as these.

And I thought this was lovely: "Uh, it's the fashion now for some of us who were in that period to describe ourselves as uh, naive... uh, I remember one guy said at my house, he said, he shrugged his should, he said, 'Milt, we were only kids, then little shmucks, you know!' But that's not true at all! That's not true at all. We were, uh, we came into this thing with our eyes open from bitter experience. Uh. It, it, In full... possession of our senses, ready to commit ourselves, you know. To this prospect that was open to us for a better world. It was, it was, I mean, to look back at it now, and call it something about being dupes or something, and trying to, uh, wash your hands of it in that, doesn't make sense to me at all--because I am still committed to that idea. Through whatever avenue. I still think that, that's the wave of the future. For humanity." Milt doesn't identity what "that idea" is but I think that it's not too bad because I don't think he could have actually explained what "that idea" was. I don't think any of us can explain what our ideal vision of the future would look like. It's just a feeling, as it seems to come down to here for Wolff.

Visit 13

So I actually didn't have enough time last time I visited the archive to, I think, satisfactorily go through the Good Fight folder. I looked at some other people's blogs and it seems like they were really excited about the folder, especially the interview transcripts, so when I went back, I reordered the box.

One folder I found had at the head: Department of State Office of Arms and Munitions Control. This folder contained letters concerning resources going to Spain--but not on the Republican's side. In 1937, apparently it was found that the Atlantic Refining Company of Philadelphia sent to "the Spanish Monopoly ... two and a half million gallons of gasoline." The reporter also talks of "the great number of automobiles which continue to pass through Portugal destined for Spain." I think there was only one response included in the folder which basically said, "We know. It's okay." So, great. It was funny because it seemed like the reporter thought the information he was about to disclose would be very surprising and illicit quick action. Nope.

Another thing I found that was very interesting was a folder called "Veterans Lists." It was interesting because it was I guess basically a log of the filmmakers' impressions of all the veterans they interviewed. A heading read, "Vets betwixt the Coast" and listed names under different cities and states. It was kind of funny to read because next to many names were comments like these: "nice but dull;" "not there long, opportunist;" "political, stubborn;" "incomprehensible, unpleasant." It gave a little insight into the process of narrowing down which veterans would be featured in the film and it even suggested that it was actually easier picking out the personalities than one might think.

Reading the Peter Carroll book, I came across the fact that the government demanded that the VALB list with the Attorney General as a foreign organization. Also in Carroll's book was the mention of a piece Hemingway wrote to accompany a bust of Milt Wolff. These two facts came together in this folder that contained a letter from the Subversive Activities Control Board to Milt Wolff listing 20 (labeled a-s) accusations of communist activity for each of which he must write a rebuttal 30 days after receiving it. The letter's purpose was obviously to intimidate and overwhelm. Still, in the same folder I found a copy of the piece Ernest Hemingway wrote about Wolff. I get really happy whenever I come across his words because I've read so much of his stuff and so much criticism of his work. Whenever I read something he wrote for the real world, it resonates with the values I see in his literature. So, I found what he wrote about Milt very compelling and beautiful: "He is a retired major now at twenty-three and still alive and pretty soon he will be coming home as other men his age and rank came home after the peace at Appomattox courthouse long ago. Except the peace was made at Munich now and no good men will be at home for long." These lines round out a comparison Hemingway of Milt Wolff to Lincoln, playing off his leadership of the Lincoln Brigade. The last line is so forcefully sad because of Hemingway's pessimism and the invocation of a loaded proper noun contrasted with that of a lost generalization. I wondered why this tribute was included in the folder. I wondered if maybe someone sent this piece on to the Board as an additional piece of testimony in defense of Milt Wolff.

Visit 12

Earlier in the week, I finally finished off the Lardner folder. The visit before that I had read a great many of his letters when suddenly they stopped and all I had left were letters from others. But before I get to my discovering his death and my reaction, I wanted to write about some things he had said.

This is why the archives are great. You can read passages like this one: "There are still some phases of war that I haven't seen, so that I am not sorry to be returning to the front, but for your comfort it is very unlikely that we shall see action for some time. There is a lot of reorganization and remoralization to be done. One thing that makes me more satisfied with life than ever is that I have a very good idea of what I am going to do with my life."

There are several things I wanted to touch on within this. First, there's the hint that morale was sinking amongst the troops and that structural work had to be undertaken, probably due to loss of lives and dwindling of resources. On a personal note, however, I found that I really identified with Lardner in this passage. I understood that going back to the front meant for him more experiential knowledge and I was glad that that was something for which he was still seeking. I guess I felt similar to him then because I sort of do the same thing--I'll try things just to gain the experience and the knowledge that comes with it. Still, we know Lardner wanted to write. So that might be a reason for his wanting to see more fighting--so that he could accurately render the experience. I was really glad when I read that he thought he'd found a clear direction for his life from then on. I'm always hoping I'll reach a moment like that in my life and it's gratifying to see that it does happen for some people. At the same time, it's infinitely sad. Just as he finds he understands himself and his purpose, his life is cut short. It's very tragic--so tragic that it's literary. There's even a term for it in Greek--anagnorisis--the point of recognition of one's identity; knowledge that comes too late and is often followed by tragedy.

The last letter we have in the folder is dated September 19th, 1938, and its last sentence reads: "This is not a very cheerful letter but I will do better next time." As I scanned the last folders I realized there was no next time. To me, that last letter set an oppressively sad tone. I may have started crying then or it may have been after John Murra's letter. Murra's letter was perfect. It was addressed to Lardner's mother and told all about James' adventures and accomplishments in Spain, how kind and intelligent he was. That part was about three-fourths of the letter. The revelation of James' death was subtle and sort of indirect, followed by a statement that there was nothing more to say of it. After I had gotten over the shock of James' death and went back the second time to finish the folder, I looked at Murra's letter again and tried to imagine a mother receiving that letter. And then I tried to imagine John Murra, lying in a hospital bed in Spain attempting to write a condolence letter to the mother of one of his closest friends now dead. I just think this series of letters is a great microcosm of the suffering experienced by every American volunteer and family wrapped up in the Spanish Civil War. But it doesn't stop there. It points further toward toward the tragedy of the Spanish people, and even further into the future when innocent civilians all over the world were ravaged and devastated by fascism.

Questions have been coming to me now about the relevance of the Spanish Civil War. I envy that generation for their activism and their passion, and in a strange way, for the great evil they witnessed in their time. For at least they could identify that evil and fight it. In our time, there is no clear enemy, no obvious manifestation of the darker side of human nature. How can we carry on the fight? To where has fascism slipped away? And is it growing, ready to emerge in a new twenty-first century form?

Visit 11

As requested, the last time I visited the archive I checked out the Good Fight box hours before actually seeing the film. Another student was using the box when I came in. I asked what folders were interesting since the box was pretty big and I had about an hour and a half to read after walking over from work.

The first interesting thing I looked at was a letter from Clute Wilton's father to the Secretary. His letter began with an impressive opening where he recounts his family's involvement in patriotic wars: a father in the Civil War, a great, great grandfather in the Revolutionary War, two sons in the Great War, and one currently fighting in Spain. The rest of Mr. Wilton's letter serves to connect his son's current fighting in Spain to the values and spirit of those fighting in the other American wars mentioned: "He has asked me to write to you, to ask you in the name of all that is fine and true and great in our American tradition to please give the Spanish government just a fair chance. " He says that his son has informed him that ammunition from America is killing American soldiers in Spain while "we do not permit the real government of Spain to buy ammunition from us." He calls this policy "one of the most inhumane, diabolical, and un-American practices I have ever heard of." I just thought this letter was interesting because it connected Spain's cause with America's in a way that I haven't seen before. And after having seen the movie last night it reminds me of a quote from one of the veterans: "The government wasn't representing the thoughts of the people."

This becomes very disconcerting when studying the American opinion of the Spanish Civil War because, as far I as I can think, this may have been the first time where the government deliberately ignored the will of the people, rendering the premise and the promise of our government to represent the people barren. Vietnam was the first wide-spread instance of this. Was the Spanish Civil War its precursor?

I ask the question because there was a folder that really obscures the answer to the question. The folder was called Franco's Fascism or something like that. I began to read an article called "Life in Nationalist Spain" dated October 1937 from the publication The Commonweal. Reading the first paragraph, I wrote down a quote that I thought was particularly laudatory of the Republican side: "it is not only the courage of his troops that is winning the war but the magnificent organization and cooperation of civilians of all classes." As I continued reading, I realized there was something wrong with my comprehension of the article, for it was turning pro-Franco. I looked at the quote again and picked out "his troops"--Franco's. This shocked me. It was the first of many shocks I would receive reading through the publications in this folder. I remember I was extremely tired when I got into the archive, but my indignation woke me up. I became absorbed in this folder and actually didn't get to look at anything else.

To answer the quote above, we know that Franco's army was not a cooperative coalition of all civilian classes. It was of the upper classes. And the troops weren't even civilian--a good fraction were foreigners. Many outrageous statements followed that were either untrue or scarily close to descriptions of fascism. In fact, there was an entire article with the aim of proving that Franco's Spain was not fascist--but contained several descriptions that fit exactly the fascist model.

This is the worst: "The mission of the new state according to General Franco himself is the establishment of social justice in Spain according to the teachings of the Catholic Church. AS the means necessary to fulfill this mission the state must be organized in the best and most efficient way, it must posses unity and hierarchy, it must be guaranteed stability and independence from party politics ... If there are any rights suppressed it will be the 'rights' of irresponsible agitators to incite mobs to burn and to loot." Two things particularly stand out: 1) "independence from party politics"--this statement effectively categorizes Franco's state exactly in place with the rest of the single-party states of that time and the rest of the twentieth century. 2) The fact that the author feels the need to mention and justify "rights suppressed"--"if there are any"--sends a signal to the discerning reader that this action is much more sinister than the defensive author aims to let on.

These were just a couple of examples of unsettling statements found in these publications. It was extremely interesting to me to find these papers because I now wonder if a large segment of the population believed these articles and helped to cancel out the voice of the pro-Republican activists.

Visit 10

My last visit to the archive just about finished James Lardner's folder. I would have read the rest but Tamiment was closing. I plan to finish it off next time. I did get to find out that James didn't make it, which I could have found out by reading a finding aid, I suppose, but I feel as if you always forget whether the person you're reading from died there or not. You don't remember the fact and it doesn't become real until you read the actual letters of condolences. Because you almost feel like they're still alive, when reading the letters. It's much more heartbreaking, then, to read through a box without knowing the outcome. Sometimes I chide myself for not researching the person more before I start reading, but I think I will stop that because, in not knowing, the series of letters becomes so moving.

This folder, Folder 4 Aug-Sept 1938, opened sort of dramatically with postcards indicating to the recipients that Lardner had been wounded. I would just like to compliment whoever arranged the folder this way because the next piece of correspondence was a letter to Mrs. Lardner explaining the exact details of the event, those details for which I had immediately begun to search after the first brief postcards piqued my anxiety for Lardner. The arrangement, therefore, was actually exciting and satisfying. Weird experience, I guess.

As early as September 2, 1938 Lardner knew that Spain was preparing to release the International Brigades: "This paragraph is confidential and possibly inaccurate. From a number of events and opinions and rumors I gather that a gradual and lengthy process of removing the I.B. from Spain has begun. Herbert Matthews, N.Y. Times correspondent...says he thinks it will take six months or so." This excerpt reveals that at least the war correspondents and journalists had access to this sort of confidential information early. I guess it's just surprising to me reading these letters how much information was available and known by the troops. I mean, contrast this war with WWI, where the soldiers barely knew what they were fighting for. In Spain you'd think that foreigners volunteering there would have no ideas whatsoever about the larger picture, but in this war they do. I guess it speaks for the political commitment and international outlook of the volunteers. Because they were passionate they were knowledgeable.

I was going to write about James Lardner's death and my reaction but I think I will save what I have for next blog post after I've finished the last few documents in the box. I want to sort of close totally on the subject. So I need the totality of the information.

Visit 9

One of the greatest benefits of reading Lardner's letters is coming across lines where he's spot on in his analysis of the world situation. Because he's a writer, he knows how to convey these ideas in an effective way, which he's constantly doing because the main interlocutor out of the folders is his skeptical and reluctant mother.

In one very interesting letter he defends the Soviet Union, but not unconditionally, while taking stabs at the policies of the U.S. Lardner seems to have a more realistic attitude about Russia than we might expect: "there may not be the same kind of freedom of speech as in the United States, but you have to remember that the Russians are carrying through a project which was generally considered impossible when they started." Not only does he present Russia's situation with nuance, he also seems to know enough about the economy and demography of Russia to know that, based on those two subjects, it was one of the least likely of the powerful countries to be able to carry out a Marx-inspired revolution at that time in Europe.

We don't have the letters Mrs. Lardner wrote back but we get an idea of her arguments through reading Lardner's responses. Apparently, Mrs. Lardner tried to make the case that much progress had been made back home. Perhaps this was the view of many in the country. Lardner counters, "As for the progress made in your lifetime in the public attitude toward the exploitation of labor, et al., it seems to me that the simultaneous progress in the number of unemployed makes it look rather empty. Not to mention the number of wars." Here, Larder really cuts into the U.S., making good points about its failures and hypocrisy. Perhaps this disillusionment with their country and its failures to serve them and their loved ones was what drove so many young Americans to become internationalists, concerned not just for their own freedom and well-being, but for that of citizens across the continents.

Again Lardner shows great insight into the international situation as evacuation time draws nearer. He writes to his mother, "Don't pay any attention to the non-intervention committee. There is not chance of Hitler's or Mussolini's withdrawing support from Franco before it is all over..." This was interesting to me because I hasn't thought about whether there actually was a committee for non-intervention and whether they published any of their own news or propaganda. Still, it's clear from this excerpt that whoever spread this news was not to be believed. Maybe there was a lot of false information and false hope circulating at the time.

Towards the very end of one of the correspondence folders, there's this prediction: "It looks as if it would drag on here until some big change in the international situation decides the outcome. Fortunately almost any change would favor us." These lines, to me, are so regrettably sad. One, because they are so true. Two, because they reveal still how much optimism was possessed by the Americans who believed in and fought for this cause. Larder was right. The international situation would decide the outcome. And he was right that almost any change would benefit the Republicans. But there was no change. The war did drag on, and the world watched and said nothing as Franco finally marched into Madrid.

Visit 8

So my new guy has been James Lardner. Last time, I read the second folder in his box and this time I got through at least one more--it may have been two; I forget. I skipped the first one because it pre-dated his enlistment in the war and I wanted to jump into his service in Spain. As of now, I plan to go back to those papers. I think they may be more interesting after I know what happens to him during the war.

I don't know if Lardner ended up writing any literature as a result of his experiences but I'm reading the letters hoping that something shows up. If not, I'm doing the same thing that I would with any other volunteer. And I really like reading Lardner's letters because he's a writer. He's perceptive and intelligent and a lot of the time his analyses match up exactly with what historians have said about the same subjects.

In the letters Lardner says he's become a corporal and commands four men, 3 of whom are Spaniards. This was new for me. Thus far, I haven't come across explicit instances where Americans and Spaniards fight together. I thought the Americans fought with the Americans and the Spaniards with the Spaniards. I know that they fought under command of mixed nationality, but I didn't think the mixing went on below those upper ranks. Lardner did mention the boys were in their teens. Maybe that had to do with it. Maybe they weren't actually soldiers, just boys recruited from the local village?

Something very interesting to read was Lardner's justification of communists and their ideology. Of course the mother's letters are not available but it's clear that much of Lardner's letters are written as a response to arguments his mother puts forth against communism--which is very interesting. Even though her son is risking his life in Spain for a lot of these ideas, the mother doesn't give unconditional support without criticism. Instead, they argue. I've been very interested, since I've started reading these letters, in what the other American opinions were concerning the Spanish Civil War, communism, the Soviet Union, etc. Most of what we've been reading has taken the communist perspective. Therefore, these letters were extremely interesting because, through Lardner's counter-arguments, one can identify the initial objections and learn the opinions of someone holding an opposing view to that which I have been used to reading.

Lardner says: "In the first place"--which is indicative of an argumentative response--"it is not the goal of the Communist Party in any country to establish socialism or communism by violent overthrow of the government" but rather "to win the people over to their way of thinking by peaceful, organizational methods." Lardner recognizes, however, that violence does play a role in the communist struggle and justifies it by pointing out that force is simply the means through which opponents of communism maintain power. Therefore, communists are forced to fight back with force.

I'm unsure whether 1) this is really the official reason for the prominence of violence in communist ideology or at least propaganda or whether 2) this does not match up with official doctrine and is just Lardner's justification to his mother and maybe to himself. It sort of is sophisticated reasoning, however, and I would prefer myself that the first of the two options is the true one.

Lardner quoted negative stereotypes about communists which I thought I should record: "dirty bomb-throwing foreigners etc." Sounds like Bolshevik? What significance does this hold for the history of that time?