In 1905, Germany's chief of the General Staff, Alfred von Schlieffen crafted the "Schlieffen Plan" in an effort to solve what he saw as the civil-military and strategic problems then facing the country. It was an ambitious strategic plan intended to surround and defeat the French army through a decisive campaign in northern France. Beyond the plan's operational details, Schlieffen also called for political and fiscal changes that he believed were necessary in order to achieve military victory. These changes, however, entailed sweeping military and political reforms that would dramatically change the political makeup of the German government and its taxation structure. Despite these efforts, Schlieffen and his successors failed to solve the problem they faced in regards to civil-military relations, strategic planning, and army funding. Specifically, the civilian and military spheres of the German state rarely coordinated policy and strategy. This lack of sustained coordination between the two spheres helped to create many of the conditions that led to the creation of the Schlieffen Plan and the eventual failure of the German army in the Great War. The army's political inability to present a unified front in support of the Schlieffen Plan left it internally weak, and vulnerable to later French and Russian counterattacks, and ultimately defeat at the Battle of the Marne in 1914. / A Dissertation submitted to the Department of History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. / Fall Semester 2016. / November 14, 2016. / Alfred von Schlieffen, Alfred von Tirpitz, First World War, Helmuth von Moltke the Younger, Imperial Germany, Schlieffen Plan / Includes bibliographical references. / Michael Creswell, Professor Directing Dissertation; Mark Souva, University Representative; Jonathan Grant, Committee Member; George Williamson, Committee Member; Kurt Piehler, Committee Member.

Taken as a whole, the progressive reformers who interacted with Syrian-Lebanese and Armenian immigrants generally tried to help, rather than hinder, the two peoples as they began to adjust to life in the United States. Many of the same reformers who sought to aid the two groups were strong nativists who disliked southern and eastern European immigrants’ occupational and political choices and considered Asian immigrants too “alien” to assimilate into the United States. Yet several self-described progressives – both pluralists who accepted most ethnic groups and xenophobes who feared and detested the majority of immigrants – helped the Syrian-Lebanese and Armenians in a variety of ways. They helped the immigrants find employment in the United States. They defended the two groups as “White” and therefore as eligible to become U.S. citizens. And, when passing discriminatory legislation against immigrants from the Asian continent, progressives in Congress carved out exceptions for the two groups. When officials create immigration policy, they are drawing legal lines of inclusion and exclusion. Sometimes the divide falls along the lines of ideology, other times the line is drawn to separate groups of people by geography, class, or religion. As policy-makers work through this process, their biases can have a dramatic effect on immigrants’ lives. The Syrian-Lebanese and Armenians understood the importance of emphasizing the ways in which their socio-economic characteristics aligned with the socio-economic preferences of the era’s policy-makers. This dissertation interrogates the apparent contradiction of progressive nativists advocating in favor of Syrian-Lebanese and Armenian immigrants. By doing so, this work illustrates the intricacies of progressive era policy-making and the far-reaching impact that obscure Congressmen, a lame-duck Senator, and officials buried deep within the federal bureaucracy could have on the lives of everyday individuals trying to navigate life in their new country. / A Dissertation submitted to the Department of History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. / Summer Semester 2018. / May 4, 2018. / Armenian, Immigration, Lebanese, Policy, Progressives, Reform / Includes bibliographical references. / Jennifer Koslow, Professor Directing Dissertation; Leigh Edwards, University Representative; Suzanne Sinke, Committee Member; Peter Garretson, Committee Member.

No description available.

No description available.

From November 10 to November 24, 1902, a four-member subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Territories, led by Indiana Republican Albert J. Beveridge, investigated the fitness of Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma for statehood. This thesis focuses on the brief hearings conducted in four Arizona towns--Prescott, Phoenix, Tucson, and Bisbee. The hearings provided a wealth of information about the economic, social, and political character of Arizona Territory at the turn of the century. Over 300 annotations illuminate the people, places, events, and industries mentioned in the hearings. Sectionalism, party politics, and personal biases influenced the type of evidence collected. The investigation and resultant document (Senate Document 36, 57 Congress, 2 Session, Serial 4420) generated a political tempest which delayed admission for a decade.

In an effort to discover the implications of their views regarding the desirability and possibility of overcoming alienation in modern society, a study of alienation and labor in the thought of Karl Marx (1818-1883), Max Weber (1864-1920), and Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) was carried out. It was argued that, while the term "alienation" is broad and has become a catchword for many ills of modern society, it offers a special form of insight into a wide range of problems and is still useful in a critique of modernity. Alienation is not just a general, abstract concept, but denotes definite, concrete conditions of existence for human beings. The young Marx and Arendt made extensive use of the term. Weber did not; however, it was shown that his writings have an affinity with those of Marx and Arendt which can best be described by the concept. The similarities as well as the differences among the views of the three thinkers were explicated, and the failings of each were also pointed out. The study demonstrated that Marx contributes much of value regarding alienation in the economic sphere. And, while Arendt's concept of world alienation is useful in understanding totalitarian domination, her ideas about the relationship of religion and sociology to alienation, as well as alienation with the economic sphere itself, are not as useful as those of Marx and Weber. Even though he does not adequately deal with the possibility of totalitarian abuses of power, the study maintained that Weber's discussion of politics is the most useful of the three. / It was concluded that, in order to understand alienation in modern society, one must use the insights of all three thinkers: Marx, regarding the domination and superfluity of workers engendered by the capitalist mode of production; Weber, regarding the alienating consequences of the "disenchantment of the world" and the rationalization process, bureaucratic domination, the consequences of the loss of economic status, and the necessity for politics; and Arendt, regarding world alienation and totalitarian domination. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 48-03, Section: A, page: 0736. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1987.

This dissertation will explore the life and career of Jean Andoche Junot. Junot came from a middle class background and his position in French society rose quickly when he met and befriended Napoleon Bonaparte. His skills as a brave and dynamic soldier distinguished him and he accompanied Bonaparte on his campaigns to Italy and Egypt. After Napoleon was made Emperor of the French, Junot held civilian, diplomatic, and military posts. In 1807, he conquered Portugal but was expelled from the country in 1808 by the British. He continued to serve Napoleon in various capacities until his death in 1813. During his service to France, he emerged as a competent, loyal, and skilled administrator, general, and governor. Junot was at the cross roads of many significant events in Napoleonic Europe and impacted directly their events. For years, he influenced the events in the Peninsular War, he participated in the Russian Campaign, and served as one of Napoleon's hand picked symbols. No serious works in any language have been devoted to his life, although, there have been a fair amount of articles written in French, English, and Portuguese which covered aspects of his life. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 56-12, Section: A, page: 4908. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1995.

This dissertation aims at providing a fresh evaluation of the military career of Nicolas Charles Oudinot, using extensive archival sources, as well as previously overlooked family papers. A new study is justified because his two previous biographies, both published in the middle of the nineteenth century, are apologetic and often inaccurate. / Oudinot, in many ways was a product of the French Revolution. The son of a brewer, he began his military career during the Revolution in the National Guard, ultimately rising to the rank of marshal of France. His success was made possible by the Revolution's principle of promotion by talent rather than birth. / Though one of the lesser-known marshals, Oudinot played an important role in the military success of France during the Revolution and Empire. As the chief of staff to Massena in 1799 he helped plan the attack on Zurich. Commanding the Grenadier Division between 1804-1808 he fought at Wertingen, Amstetten, Hollabrunn, and Austerlitz. In 1807 Oudinot's Grenadiers defended their position outside Friedland for hours until Napoleon arrived with reinforcements to win the battle. In 1809 he fought at Aspern-Essling and, after the death of Marshal Lannes, assumed command of the Second Corps, acquitting himself with honor at the Battle of Wagram. In 1812 Oudinot was instrumental in saving the army at the crossing of the Beresina. Oudinot continued to lead his troops during the campaigns of 1813 and 1814, fighting at Bautzen, Luckau, Grosbeeren, Dennewitz, and La Rothiere. At both Leipzig and Bar-sur-Aube, Oudinot served as the rear guard of the army, protecting its retreat. / Oudinot was an important figure during the Napoleonic period. His career and reputation is in need of reassessment by historians. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 51-05, Section: A, page: 1735. / Major Professor: Donald D. Horward. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1990.

This study demonstrates how debates in the United States over the supervision of the nation’s youth population from World War I to World War II among political, military, and educational leaders paved the way for the establishment of the disproportionate draft of young men in their late teens and early twenties as a democratic, American way of conscripting civilians for World War II. In 1918, when World War I necessitated the induction of men under age twenty-one, U.S. Congress decided that these young soldiers should be endowed with special educational benefits available only to them and not to older soldiers. In short, a clear distinction between “children” and “adults” that age twenty-one signified and a co-relation between legal majority and the obligation to serve had existed. In World War II, by contrast, the debate over whether to induct minors centered on the physical and mental maturity of minors rather than what legal obligation the minors owed to the state. This shift in focus from majority to maturity was no mere accident but reflected the changes in the social conceptions of youth and the youth’s relationship to the state that took place in American society in the years between the two world wars. This study illuminates the changes by incorporating the military mobilization of civilians, a topic that historians have largely treated as a short-term deviation in U.S. history, into U.S. political and cultural history, and by weaving together wide-ranging materials including federal government documents, pacifist statements, educational associations’ studies of youth, court cases, and periodicals. The debates over youth in the years from World War I to World War II revolved around the issues of national security, access to higher education, and the jurisdiction of the federal state, all of which were going through substantial conceptual transformations: the spread of the idea that schooling beyond grammar school helped youth land a better job; the institutionalization of military training programs such as ROTC in civilian colleges and universities; the problematization of youth as an economic, educational, and ideological problem in the Great Depression and the broadening of the age range of “youth” to include men and women in their twenties as well as teens; the rise of the federal government as a custodian of youth as symbolized by the establishment of the New Deal programs such as the Civilian Conservation Corps and the National Youth Administration; and the need to redefine the meaning of military service in a democracy vis-à-vis the rise of dictatorships elsewhere in the world. By the time World War II necessitated the disproportionate draft of youth, the stage had been set for many Americans to accept the idea that the federal government was in a position to determine youth’s educational and career paths in war and peace; that drafting youth indicated drafting men who were single, less stable in the labor market, less mentally mature, and less skilled; and that serving the national good was among higher education’s primary goals. The perceived “democratic” mobilization of American civilians for World War II had thus internalized the interwar stratification of youth according to the individual youth’s potential to serve the collective good by way of prioritizing the nation over the individual.

acase@tulane.edu