Thesis (doctoral)--Universiteit Utrecht, 1999. / "NUGI 661/654"--P. [4] of cover. Includes bibliographical references (p. 263-280).

Thesis (doctoral)--Universiteit Utrecht, 1999. / "NUGI 661/654"--P. [4] of cover. Includes bibliographical references (p. 263-280).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--North Texas State University, 1988. / Typescript. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 201-206).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--North Texas State University, 1988. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 201-206).

Doctor of Philosophy / Department of History / Mark P. Parillo / The United States Army became the dominant U.S. government agency for post-World War II occupation planning. Despite President Roosevelt’s own misgivings, shared by several influential members of his Cabinet, the Army nonetheless prevailed in shaping occupation policy in accordance with its understanding and priorities. The Army’s primacy resulted from its own cultural and organizational imperatives, to include its drive towards professionalization and its acceptance of legalized standards for conflict in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Other related factors included the Army’s ability to create coherent internal doctrine, the training and experience of its leaders, the relative weakness of comparative civilian agencies, the real-world experiences of civil affairs in North Africa in 1942-43, and the personality and leadership style of President Roosevelt himself. As a result, the Army created internal training and education, doctrine, and organizations that operated both at the strategic and tactical level to implement military government in accordance with the Army’s institutional understanding. The Army’s planning and implementation of military government in Germany, Austria, and Korea show the effects of the Army’s dominance in planning and implementing the postwar occupations. Furthermore, in these three occupations (unlike Japan’s), of particular concern were how the Americans interacted with their Soviet counterparts in the occupied territories at the beginning of the Cold War. As these three occupations reveal, American military government in those locations, as well as the actions of the occupants themselves, profoundly shaped American interests in those countries and thus profoundly shaped American policy during the early Cold War.

O presente trabalho consiste no estudo da atuação de dois juristas no contexto do regime militar brasileiro (1964-1985): Victor Nunes Leal, ministro do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), foi aposentado compulsoriamente em janeiro de 1969, em decorrência do Ato Institucional n° 5/1968; Raymundo Faoro, presidente do Conselho Federal da Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil (OAB) entre 1977-1979, tornou-se importante interlocutor da sociedade civil com o Governo Geisel, pelo retorno da democracia. As obras dos dois juristashistoriadores, respectivamente Coronelismo, enxada e voto: o município e o regime representativo no Brasil (1949), e Os donos do poder: formação do patronato político brasileiro (1958), reeditadas em 1975, também são analisadas, a partir de tema específico: o poder público e o poder privado no Brasil e sua relação com o desenvolvimento incompleto da cidadania no país. Apesar de adotarem perspectivas teóricas distintas, as obras servem à compreensão do debate clássico da historiografia brasileira entre privatismo e patrimonialismo, o que não as reduz a categorias estanques. Por sua vez, retratam dois perfis intelectuais: Faoro, o pensador de temas abrangentes, sem a formação técnica de historiador, e Leal, representante das primeiras gerações dotadas de saber acadêmico especializado. / The present essay aims at investigating the performance of two jurists throughout the Military Government in Brazil (1964-1985): Victor Nunes Leal Minister of the Supreme Court (STF) retired compulsorily in January 1969 as a consequence of the Institutional Act number 5/1968; and Raymundo Faoro President of the Federal Council of the Brazilian Lawyers Order (OAB) from 1977 to 1979 became an important interlocutor between civil society and the government of President Geisel, on behalf of the return to democracy. Additionally, the works of these two jurists and historians, respectively: Coronelismo: municipality and representative government in Brazil (1949), and The Owners of Power: the Formation of Brazilian Political Patronage (1958), both re-edited in 1975, are under analyses due to a common topic: the incomplete development of citizenship in Brazil and its relation to public and private power in the country. Despite of adopting a different theoretical perspective, both works are helpful to the understanding of the classic debate on Brazilian historiography between Privatism and Patrimonialism, although these are not depurate categories. Furthermore, these works portray two very distinct intellectual biographies: Faoro, a thinker of broad themes, who had no technical studies in History; and Leal, who represents the first generations of a specialized academic knowledge.

This thesis examines strategies of rule deployed during the British occupation of north-western Germany from 1945 to 1949 and explores instances of cooperation and conflict between the occupiers and the occupied population. While the literature has primarily looked at the occupation through the lens of big political projects, this study analyses the application of quotidian ruling strategies and the making of stability on the ground. Techniques for controlling the German population were devised during the war and transmitted to officials through extensive training. Lessons from previous occupations and imperial experiences also entered the Military Government’s ruling philosophy by way of the biographical composition of its top cadre. Once in Germany, the British instituted a system of ‘indirect rule’ which relied on focal points of visibility as embodied by their local officials charged with cooperating with German notables, and invisible instances of supervision in the form of mass surveillance of civilian communications. To illustrate the way the occupiers dealt with conflict, the thesis analyses the dispensation of punishment for breaking Military Government laws, demonstrating that the British often issued severe punishment when their monopoly of force was contested, thus belying the notion of a particularly docile occupation. During mass popular protests, however, they sought to use moderate German trade unionists as intermediaries tasked with diffusing popular unrest, who were co-opted in exchange for material and propagandistic support. The British also used German administrators at the local and regional level, many of whom had a distinctively technocratic and conservative profile and who were appointed for their administrative experience rather than for their political inclinations. Through lobbying by British ecclesiastical figures, the occupiers also cooperated extensively with the German Churches, who were seen as effective partners in the re-Christianisation of Germany and increasingly as an essential bulwark against Communism. The thesis concludes that the long-term legacies of the British occupation lay in the effects of ‘indirect rule’, which exacerbated social inequalities by strengthening the profile of certain social elites at the expense of mass politics. The occupation is finally placed within the comparative context of occupations in Western Europe during the mid-20th century, which had the common legacy of buttressing elites who were primarily concerned with the making of stability rather than with participatory democracy, thus giving the post-war era its conservative mould.

In May 1945, United States Military Government (MG) detachments arrived in assigned areas of Bavaria to launch the occupation. By the summer of 1945, the US occupiers became the ironical combination of stern victor and watchful master. Absolute control gave way to the "direction" of German authority. For this process to succeed, MG officials had to establish a stable, clearly defined and fundamentally strict environment in which German officials would begin to exercise token control. The early occupation was a highly unstable stage of chaos, fear and confusing objectives. MG detachments and the reconstituted German authorities performed complex tasks with many opportunities for failure. In this environment, a crucial MG obligation was to help secure law and order for the defeated and dependent German populace whose previously existing authorities had been removed. Germans themselves remained largely peaceful, yet unforeseen actors such as liberated "Displaced Persons" rose to menace law and order. The threat of criminal disorder and widespread black market activity posed great risks in the early occupation. This thesis demonstrates how US MG established its own authority in the Munich area in 1945, and how that authority was applied and challenged in the realm of criminal law and order. This study explores themes not much researched. Thorough description of local police reestablishment or characteristic crime issues hardly exists. There is no substantial local examination of the relationship between such issues and the early establishment of MG authority. Local MG records housed in the Bayertsches Hauptstaatsarchiv (Bavarian Main State Archives) provide most of the primacy sources. This study also relies heavily on German-language secondary sources.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Columbia University, 1903. / Published also as Studies in history, economics and public law, vol. 20, no. 2.

This thesis traces the origins of a colonized and militarized Hawai`i, ultimately leading to the years of military rule, 1941-1945. It examines the ways in which the Hawaiian Islands differed from the United States mainland prior to and throughout the war years, and demonstrates that Hawai`i's history is much richer than the "Remember Pearl Harbor" framework acknowledges. Focusing on long time residents (Islanders or locals), rather than on the large population of migrant Americans also in the archipelago during the war, it addresses ways in which military rule controlled and Americanized the people of Hawai`i. Finally, it illuminates the ways in which local stories challenge national ones: How were America and Hawai`i different places in 1941? / Graduate