Atomic Assurance a Volume in the Series

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Atomic Assurance a Volume in the Series Atomic Assurance a volume in the series Cornell Studies in Security Affairs Edited by Robert J. Art, Robert Jervis, and Stephen M. Walt A list of titles in this series is available at cornellpress . cornell . edu. Atomic Assurance The Alliance Politics of Nuclear Proliferation Alexander Lanoszka Cornell University Press Ithaca and London Copyright © 2018 by Cornell University The text of this book is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License: https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. To use this book, or parts of this book, in any way not covered by the license, please contact Cornell University Press, Sage House, 512 East State Street, Ithaca, New York 14850. Visit our website at cornellpress.cornell.edu. First published 2018 by Cornell University Press Printed in the United States of Amer i ca Library of Congress Cataloging-in- Publication Data Names: Lanoszka, Alexander, author. Title: Atomic assurance : the alliance politics of nuclear proliferation / Alexander Lanoszka. Description: Ithaca [New York] : Cornell University Press, 2018. | Series: Cornell studies in security affairs | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018016356 (print) | LCCN 2018017762 (ebook) | ISBN 9781501729195 (pdf) | ISBN 9781501729201 (ret) | ISBN 9781501729188 | ISBN 9781501729188 (cloth ; alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Nuclear nonproliferation— International cooperation. | Nuclear arms control— International cooperation. | Nuclear arms control—Government policy—United States. | Nuclear nonproliferation— Government policy—United States. | United States— Foreign relations—1945–1989— case studies. Classification: LCC JZ5675 (ebook) | LCC JZ5675 .L36 2018 (print) | DDC 327.1/747— dc23 LC rec ord available at https:// lccn . loc . gov / 2018016356 To my parents Contents Acknowledgments ix Introduction: The Alliance Politics of Nuclear Proliferation 1 1. How Alliances (Mis)Manage Nuclear Proliferation 10 2. American Security Guarantees during the Cold War, 1949–1980 29 3. West Germany, 1954–1970 48 4. Japan, 1952–1980 79 5. South Korea, 1968–1980 110 6. Nuclear Proliferation and Other American Alliances 132 Conclusion: Understanding and Managing Alliances in the 21st Century 149 Notes 159 Index 197 vii Acknowl edgments It took many years for this book to come together. At Princeton University, John Ikenberry was especially helpful and generous; he never let me lose sight of the big picture. Tom Christensen, Keren Yarhi- Milo, and David Car- ter provided extensive and varied feedback. Aaron Friedberg provided use- ful commentary and support—through the Bradley Foundation—at a criti- cal juncture when this proj ect was still in its infancy. I also benefited im mensely from fellowships at the Security Studies Program and the Dickey Center for International Understanding at the Mas sa chu setts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Dartmouth College, respectively. At MIT, where I was a Stanton Fellow, I am grateful for the mentorship I received from Barry Po- sen and Frank Gavin. Indeed, Frank has been a wonderful ally over the years. I learned much from Owen Coté, Vipin Narang, and Jim Walsh as well as Henrik Hiim and Julia Macdonald. The Stanton Foundation contributed funding to this proj ect. At Dartmouth, I held a manuscript workshop that saw the participation of Bill Wohlforth, Steve Brooks, Ben Valentino, Jeff Friedman, Brian Greenhill, Joshua Shifrinson, and Katy Powers. Tim Craw- ford drove up from Boston and took the lead at that workshop, providing me with a new vision for the manuscript. I have many other friends and colleagues to thank, whether for the sup- port they provided or for the feedback they gave when I was working on this book. They include Alexander Alden, Dan Altman, Danny Bessner, Mat- thew Fuhrmann, Kiichi Fujiwara, Kate Gheoghegan, Mauro Gilli, Andrea Gilli, Tsuyoshi Goroku, Brendan Green, Kristen Harkness, Matthew Kroe- nig, Raymond Kuo, Akira Kurosaki, Christine Leah, Andreas Lutsch, Rupal Mehta, Rohan Mukherjee, Leah Sarson, Jonas Schneider, Luis Simón, Henry Sokolski, Jeffrey Taliaferro, Nobuhiko Tamaki, and Simon Toner. Michael ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Hunzeker, in partic u lar, read numerous drafts over the years. I could not have asked for a better friend. Sandy Hager, Leonie Fleischmann, Iosif Kovras, Ronen Palan, Inderjeet Parmar, and Madura Rasaratnam are among the many scholars and friends who have made City, University of London a wonderful place to work. I apologize to those whom I forgot to mention. I also thank Roger Haydon, for his superb assistance, and the staff at Cornell University Press. They are all consummate professionals—it was a pleasure to have the opportunity to work with them. Robert Art and the reviewers gave terrific feedback that helped me to clarify and to improve key parts of the book. Emmanuelle Richez entered my life when this book was already under review. She has been a tremendous source of love and comfort, motivating me always to see the bright side of things and to power through the work that needed to be done when this proj ect was in its final stages. I am very grateful to have her support. Fi nally, I want to thank my family. I have treasured their emotional sup- port and encouragement. Some of the issues raised by this book acquired a personal significance for my relatives and me, as we have become alarmed by the geopo liti cal developments in Poland’s region that began in 2014. I es- pecially thank Danusia, Kasia, Rafał, and my grandparents Marianna and Tadeusz. Most of all, I thank my parents, Anna and Marek, to whom I dedi- cate this book. Their love and unconditional support were never in doubt. x Atomic Assurance Introduction The Alliance Politics of Nuclear Proliferation Tensions were high on the Korean Peninsula. Fears of nuclear proliferation were rife, and a newly elected American president had gone on record say- ing unflattering things about the South Korean government. Such was the context in mid-1977 when the American ambassador in Seoul met with vari- ous government officials and scientists, in part to discuss what could be done to prevent South Korea from undertaking nuclear weapons activities. During that meeting, a nuclear scientist proposed that one solution would involve the United States extending the same “nuclear umbrella policy” to South Korea as that given already to Japan. This proposal struck the ambas- sador as nonsensical. After all, South Korea benefited from a nuclear um- brella thanks to its treaty alliance with the United States and the tactical nuclear weapons that American forces had stationed on its territory. The only change to the alliance was the full withdrawal of American ground forces from South Korea— a policy for which President Jimmy Carter had advocated during his presidential campaign. And so the ambassador wrote back to the State Department in Washington, decrying “the evidence of ig- norance at very se nior government levels of either costs or risks [sic] in- volved in the weapons development program over and above seriously ad- verse impact on US relationship [sic].”1 Car ter ultimately decided against his planned troop withdrawal, and South Korea did not acquire a nuclear weapons capability, but the episode raises impor tant questions that continue to resonate into the twenty-first century. Why did the alliance break down so as to create proliferation risks? And to what extent was the alliance responsible for restraining South Korea’s nuclear ambitions? These questions in turn speak to a much larger concern: what is the relationship between alliances and nuclear proliferation? Ever since the United States forged its alliances with partners around the world at the beginning of the Cold War, many experts agree that alliances have yielded impor tant strategic benefits. Alliances enable the United States 1 INTRODUCTION to manage local conflicts, to prevent arms races, and to reassure partners that the United States will defend them in a military crisis that involves a shared adversary. The result is that recipients of these security guarantees feel less need to acquire their own nuclear weapons. Even when allies have pursued nuclear weapons development, the United States would coerce them into halting their ambitions. Such is the emerging narrative of the American ex- perience of the nuclear era: that alliances are effective nonproliferation tools and that the Cold War is largely a story of American nonproliferation suc- cess. This nonproliferation mission could become more challenging to un- dertake if predictions of American decline are true and allies are growing in power relative to the United States. This book challenges this emerging narrative by making two related claims. The first claim is that military alliances are impor tant tools for thwart- ing nuclear proliferation, but they are more susceptible to breakdown and credibility concerns than some accounts in the international relations liter a- ture presume. Indeed, why alliances should ever be a viable solution for nu- clear proliferation is puzzling, since international agreements ought to be fundamentally unbelievable in the absence of a world government that can enforce them. Even if we accept that strong commitments are possi ble, those very commitments risk emboldening those allies to undertake aggressive for- eign policies that are contrary to the interests of the United States. The second claim is that although the United States has played a key role in enforcing the nuclear nonproliferation regime, we should be careful not to attribute too much success to the United States. It encountered severe dif- ficulties in curbing suspect nuclear behav iors of key allies like West Germany and Japan, to say nothing of Great Britain and France—allies that feared American abandonment yet succeeded in acquiring nuclear weapons. South Korea often serves as an example of the effectiveness of American coercion, but the state of its nuclear program made South Korea an easy target at a time when the United States wanted to demonstrate its commitment to nuclear nonproliferation.
Recommended publications
  • Commercial Attaché, Embassy of Mexico the Embassy of Ireland In
    Commercial Attaché, Embassy of Mexico The Embassy of Ireland in Mexico is recruiting a Commercial Attaché who will report to the Deputy Head of Mission responsible for trade and economic promotion. This is a new role and the successful candidate will be offered a one year contract, renewable for a maximum of two additional years. The key objective for the role of the Commercial attaché will be to promote Ireland’s economic interests in Mexico and to facilitate and support Irish companies wishing to enter or expand in the Mexican market, principally in the areas of agribusiness (particularly dairy), ICT (particularly software services for the telecoms industry and digital media), financial services and education. Role Profile Specifically, the new Commercial Attaché will: Cooperate with strategic partners in Mexico to identify and capture economic opportunities for Irish companies, including drafting market opportunity assessments; Expand the Embassy contact network in the agribusiness, ICT, financial services and education sectors and in other sectors as identified by the Embassy as priorities; Consolidate and expand the embassy’s information on Irish companies operating in the Mexican market or seeking to enter the market, as well as maintaining a comprehensive contacts database and networking with key Irish business people; Liaise with and support the development of the recently established Irish-Mexican Chamber of Commerce and work with the Chamber, ProMéxico, COMCE and other Mexican business organisations, as well as Irish state
    [Show full text]
  • Responsible Business Conduct and Economic Diplomacy Tools
    Responsible business conduct and economic diplomacy tools June 2017 mneguidelines.oecd.org This concept note was prepared for the session on promoting responsible business conduct (RBC) through economic diplomacy tools at the Roundtable for Policy Makers that took place on 28 June 2017 within the framework of the OECD Global Forum on Responsible Business Conduct. It sets a basis for reflection and discussion on how RBC standards can be embedded in economic diplomacy. Economic diplomacy refers to government services and support provided to business in foreign markets. This can take the form of financial support such as export credits, investment guarantees and direct lending, but can also include other public services such as trade missions, capacity building activities and access to information and networks through embassies. These tools are not only instrumental to promote foreign trade and investment, but they can also be powerful levers for governments to guide corporate behaviour and support best practice on responsible business conduct (RBC). Although far from mainstream, some governments have recognised this potential and are using economic diplomacy to create incentives for business to behave responsibly. There are several reasons for this. First, governments as economic actors should not contribute to adverse impacts of business operations. Second, although trade and investment promotion is a competitive field among countries, it is in governments' interests to create a level playing field and ensure that companies are subject to fair competition and do not profit from public services with irresponsible practices. Third, insufficient attention to corporate conduct by national companies in foreign markets can negatively affect the country's image abroad.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Diplomacy in Africa: the Impact of Regional Integration Versus Bilateral Diplomacy On
    MWP 2016/18 Max Weber Programme Economic Diplomacy in Africa: The Impact of Regional Integration versus Bilateral Diplomacy on Bilateral Trade Author Sylvanus Author Kwaku and Afesorgbor Author Author European University Institute Max Weber Programme Economic Diplomacy in Africa: The Impact of Regional Integration versus Bilateral Diplomacy on Bilateral Trade Sylvanus Kwaku Afesorgbor EUI Working Paper MWP 2016/18 This text may be downloaded for personal research purposes only. Any additional reproduction for other purposes, whether in hard copy or electronically, requires the consent of the author(s), editor(s). If cited or quoted, reference should be made to the full name of the author(s), editor(s), the title, the working paper or other series, the year, and the publisher. ISSN 1830-7728 © Sylvanus Kwaku Afesorgbor, 2016 Printed in Italy European University Institute Badia Fiesolana I – 50014 San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) Italy www.eui.eu cadmus.eui.eu Abstract The paper examines the impact of two main instruments of economic diplomacy regional integration and commercial diplomacy on export flows among African states. We test whether there is any evidence of a trade-off or complementary interaction between these two instruments in trade facilitation. We compare the effects of these two instruments of economic diplomacy on bilateral trade by employing a gravity model for 45 African states over the period 1980-2005. The results show that bilateral diplomatic exchange is a relatively more significant determinant of bilateral exports among African states compared to regional integration. We also find a nuanced interaction between these two instruments of economic diplomacy: the trade-stimulating effect of diplomatic exchange is less pronounced among African countries that shared membership of the same regional bloc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Price of Alliance: American Bases in Britain
    / THE PRICE OF ALLIANCE: AMERICAN BASES IN BRITAIN John Saville In 1984 there were 135 American military bases in Britain, most of them operational, some still being planned or built. This total was made up of 25 major operational bases or military headquarters, 35 minor or reserve bases, and 75 facilities used by the US Armed Forces. There were also about 30 housing sites for American personnel and their families. The term 'facility' covers a variety of different functions, and includes intelligence centres, stores, fuel supply points, aircraft weapon ranges and at least fourteen contingency military hospitals. Within this military complex there are five confirmed US nuclear weapon stores in the United Kingdom: at Lakenheath in East Anglia; Upper Heyford in Northampton- shire; Holy Loch and Machrihanish in south-west Scotland; and St. Mawgan in Cornwall. Other bases, notably Woodbridge and Alconbury, are thought to have storage facilities for peacetime nuclear weapons. All this information and much more, is provided in the only compre- hensive published survey of American military power in Britain. This is the volume by Duncan Campbell, The Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier. American Military Power in Britain, published by Michael Joseph in 1984. It is an astonishing story that Campbell unfolds, and the greater part of it-and certainly its significance for the future of the British people- has remained largely unknown or ignored by both politicians and public. The use of British bases by American planes in April 1986 provided the beginnings of a wider awareness of the extent to which the United Kingdom has become a forward operational base for the American Armed Forces within the global strategy laid down by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington; but it would be an exaggeration to believe that there is a general awareness, or unease of living in an arsenal of weapons controlled by an outside power.
    [Show full text]
  • The Blitz and Its Legacy
    THE BLITZ AND ITS LEGACY 3 – 4 SEPTEMBER 2010 PORTLAND HALL, LITTLE TITCHFIELD STREET, LONDON W1W 7UW ABSTRACTS Conference organised by Dr Mark Clapson, University of Westminster Professor Peter Larkham, Birmingham City University (Re)planning the Metropolis: Process and Product in the Post-War London David Adams and Peter J Larkham Birmingham City University [email protected] [email protected] London, by far the UK’s largest city, was both its worst-damaged city during the Second World War and also was clearly suffering from significant pre-war social, economic and physical problems. As in many places, the wartime damage was seized upon as the opportunity to replan, sometimes radically, at all scales from the City core to the county and region. The hierarchy of plans thus produced, especially those by Abercrombie, is often celebrated as ‘models’, cited as being highly influential in shaping post-war planning thought and practice, and innovative. But much critical attention has also focused on the proposed physical product, especially the seductively-illustrated but flawed beaux-arts street layouts of the Royal Academy plans. Reconstruction-era replanning has been the focus of much attention over the past two decades, and it is appropriate now to re-consider the London experience in the light of our more detailed knowledge of processes and plans elsewhere in the UK. This paper therefore evaluates the London plan hierarchy in terms of process, using new biographical work on some of the authors together with archival research; product, examining exactly what was proposed, and the extent to which the different plans and different levels in the spatial planning hierarchy were integrated; and impact, particularly in terms of how concepts developed (or perhaps more accurately promoted) in the London plans influenced subsequent plans and planning in the UK.
    [Show full text]
  • Sac's Kissing Cousins
    Ground crewmen bring a British RAF Bomber Command Vulcan V-bomber to a high state of readiness. In case of nuclear war bombers of the British V-force would likely spearhead any retaliatory attack. Vuleans, the world's largest delta. wing bombers, carry either conventional or nuclear bombs internally and one Blue Steel standoff weapon externally. Although there are some misgivings about the future, today's British RAF Bomber Command is decidedly a viable force for the 1960s. Here is a report on the powerful capabilities of the United Kingdom's nuclear aerospace force . SAC'S KISSING COUSINS HE officer commanding, seated in the War Room of his operational control center, reached for the T red phone and spoke an order into it which ener- gized his widely dispersed command. The order was a single word—Scramble! A small but superbly trained band of men sprang into action. With machine precision, they raced By Richard Clayton Peet through prescribed checkout procedures, preparing their planes for flight. Jet engines began their roar. Seconds later, hundreds of aircraft were on the roll. In less than two minutes, a giant nuclear retaliatory armada was airborne. Most Americans would immediately conclude that the situation described was taking place in our own Strategic Air Command. We have become accustomed 28 AIR FORCE Magazine • January 1964 Sir John Grandy, Bomber Commander CinC, credits Valiant, first V-bomber, today is used primarily as a tanker. technical innovation and high crew proficiency with Here a Valiant refuels one of the Vulcans that made the first keeping Bomber Command a viable force in the 1960s.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Military Nuclear Strategy And
    The Development of Military Nuclear Strategy and Anglo-American Relations, 1939 – 1958 Submitted by: Geoffrey Charles Mallett Skinner to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History, July 2018 This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. (Signature) ……………………………………………………………………………… 1 Abstract There was no special governmental partnership between Britain and America during the Second World War in atomic affairs. A recalibration is required that updates and amends the existing historiography in this respect. The wartime atomic relations of those countries were cooperative at the level of science and resources, but rarely that of the state. As soon as it became apparent that fission weaponry would be the main basis of future military power, America decided to gain exclusive control over the weapon. Britain could not replicate American resources and no assistance was offered to it by its conventional ally. America then created its own, closed, nuclear system and well before the 1946 Atomic Energy Act, the event which is typically seen by historians as the explanation of the fracturing of wartime atomic relations. Immediately after 1945 there was insufficient systemic force to create change in the consistent American policy of atomic monopoly. As fusion bombs introduced a new magnitude of risk, and as the nuclear world expanded and deepened, the systemic pressures grew.
    [Show full text]
  • A Dynamic Approach to NATO Coercive Diplomacy in Bosnia and Kosovo
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives Rethinking Coercive Diplomacy A Dynamic Approach to NATO Coercive Diplomacy in Bosnia and Kosovo Henning Køhler Knutsen Master Thesis, Department of Political Science Faculty of Social Sciences UNIVERSITY OF OSLO Spring 2012 II Rethinking Coercive Diplomacy A Dynamic Approach to NATO Coercive Diplomacy in Bosnia and Kosovo Henning Køhler Knutsen III © Henning Køhler Knutsen 2012 Rethinking Coercive Diplomacy: A Dynamic Approach to NATO Coercive Diplomacy in Bosnia and Kosovo Henning Køhler Knutsen http://www.duo.uio.no/ Print: Reprosentralen, University of Oslo IV Abstract After the Cold War, with the advent of low-interest, “optional”, post-modern warfare, regional conflicts and failed states have illuminated the radars in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization member states. For these countries, as the expected need for military force relinquished, its actual use increased. Left with a need for improved tools for handling the increasing number of international security issues, the strategy of coercive diplomacy has never been of more current interest. This thesis seeks to address a lacuna in contemporary theorizing about coercive diplomacy, namely the under-theorization of the adversary. Through within-case and cross-case analysis of the NATO interventions in Bosnia- Herzegovina and Kosovo, I attempt to show how both scientists and political decision-makers can benefit from a more in-depth analysis of the coerced. The thesis takes the theoretical framework developed by Bruce Jentleson and Christopher Whytock as a starting point. As a significant step in the right direction, their model of coercive diplomacy better accounts for the motivations, interests, and expected reactions of the target state.
    [Show full text]
  • Gunboat Diplomacy of the Great Powers on the Ottoman Empire
    Journal of International Eastern European Studies/Uluslararası Doğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi, Vol./Yıl. 2, No/Sayı. 2, Winter/Kış 2020) ISSN: 2687-3346 Araştırma Makalesi Gunboat Diplomacy of the Great Powers on the Ottoman Empire: With Particular Reference to the Salonika Incident (1876) and Armenian Reform Demands (1879-80) Fikrettin Yavuz* (ORCID ID: 0000-0002-3161-457X) Makale Gönderim Tarihi Makale Kabul Tarihi 01.12.2020 08.12.2020 Abstract Throughout history, gunboat, a small vessel of a naval force, has been turned into a term of coercive diplomacy. Gunboat diplomacy, associated with chiefly the activities of the Great Powers, means the use of naval power directly or indirectly as an aggressive diplomatic instrument. It seems highly probable to see many examples of this coercive diplomacy in the world history, particularly after the French Revolution. Naturally, the Ottoman Empire, always attracted attention of the Great Powers, was exposed to this policy of the Powers. During the nineteen century, the rivalry among the European Powers on the Ottoman territorial integrity became a common characteristic that led them to implement gunboat diplomacy on all occasions. In this context, this article firstly offers a critical analysis of gunboat diplomacy of the Great Powers on the Ottoman Empire within the dimension of two specific examples: The Salonika Incident and Armenian reform demands. In addition, it aims to contribute to the understanding of gunboat diplomacy of the Great Powers and Ottoman response by evaluating it from native and foreign literatures. Keywords: European Powers, Ottomans, Gunboat Diplomacy, Salonika, Armenian, Reform * Assoc. Prof. Dr., Sakarya University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Department of History, Turkey, [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Diplomacy As an Instrument of Progress and Promotion of the Republic of Croatia
    Economic diplomacy as an instrument of progress and promotion of the Republic of Croatia Babić, Marko Doctoral thesis / Disertacija 2019 Degree Grantor / Ustanova koja je dodijelila akademski / stručni stupanj: University of Zadar / Sveučilište u Zadru Permanent link / Trajna poveznica: https://urn.nsk.hr/urn:nbn:hr:162:497993 Rights / Prava: In copyright Download date / Datum preuzimanja: 2021-10-07 Repository / Repozitorij: University of Zadar Institutional Repository of evaluation works SVEUČILIŠTE U ZADRU i LIBERTAS MEĐUNARODNO SVEUČILIŠTE ZAJEDNIČKI POSLIJEDIPLOMSKI SVEUČILIŠNI STUDIJ MEĐUNARODNI ODNOSI Marko Babić ECONOMIC DIPLOMACY AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROGRESS AND PROMOTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA Doktorski rad Zadar; Zagreb, 2019. SVEUČILIŠTE U ZADRU i LIBERTAS MEĐUNARODNO SVEUČILIŠTE ZAJEDNIČKI POSLIJEDIPLOMSKI SVEUČILIŠNI STUDIJ MEĐUNARODNI ODNOSI Marko Babić ECONOMIC DIPLOMACY AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROGRESS AND PROMOTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA Doktorski rad Mentor Viši znanstveni suradnik, Miomir Žužul, dr.sc. Zadar; Zagreb, 2019. UNIVERSITY OF ZADAR BASIC DOCUMENTATION CARD I. Author and study Name and surname: Marko Babić Name of the study programme: Joint postgraduate doctoral study International Relations Mentor: Senior scientific associate Miomir Žužul, PhD Date of the defence: 10 July 2019 Scientific area and field in which the PhD is obtained: social sciences, interdisciplinary social sciences II. Doctoral dissertation Title: Economic diplomacy as an instrument of progress and promotion of the Republic of Croatia UDC mark: 339.9:327>(497.5) Number of pages: 274 Number of pictures/graphical representations/tables: 8/ 15/ 25 Number of notes: 355 Number of used bibliographic units and sources: 148 Number of appendices: 4 Language of the doctoral dissertation: English III.
    [Show full text]
  • World War 11
    World War 11 When the British Government declared war against Germany in September 1939, notices went out to many people requiring them to report to recruiting centres for assessment of their fitness to serve in the armed forces. Many deaf men went; and many were rejected and received their discharge papers. Two discharge certificates are shown, both issued to Herbert Colville of Hove, Sussex. ! man #tat I AND NATIOIUL WVlc4 m- N.S. n. With many men called up, Britain was soon in dire need of workers not only to contribute towards the war but to replace men called up by the armed forces. Many willing and able hands were found in the form of Deaf workers. While many workers continued in their employment during the war, there were many others who were requisitioned under Essential Works Orders (EWO) and instructed to report to factories elsewhere to cany out work essential to the war. Deaf females had to do ammunition work, as well as welding and heavy riveting work in armoury divisions along with males. Deaf women were generally so impressive in their war work that they were in much demand. Some Deaf ladies were called to the Land Army. Carpenters were also in great demand and they were posted all over Britain, in particular in naval yards where new ships were being fitted out and existing ships altered for the war. Deaf tailors and seamstresses were kept busy making not only uniforms and clothing materials essential for the war, but utility clothes that were cheaply bought during the war.
    [Show full text]
  • Memories Come Flooding Back for Ogs School’S Last Link with Headingley
    The magazine for LGS, LGHS and GSAL alumni issue 08 autumn 2020 Memories come flooding back for OGs School’s last link with Headingley The ones to watch What we did Check out the careers of Seun, in lockdown Laura and Josh Heart warming stories in difficult times GSAL Leeds United named celebrates school of promotion the decade Alumni supporters share the excitement 1 24 News GSAL launches Women in Leadership 4 Memories come flooding back for OGs 25 A look back at Rose Court marking the end of school’s last link with Headingley Amraj pops the question 8 12 16 Amraj goes back to school What we did in No pool required Leeds United to pop the question Lockdown... for diver Yona celebrates Alicia welcomes babies Yona keeping his Olympic promotion into a changing world dream alive Alumni supporters share the excitement Welcome to Memento What a year! I am not sure that any were humbled to read about alumnus John Ford’s memory and generosity. 2020 vision I might have had could Dr David Mazza, who spent 16 weeks But at the end of 2020, this edition have prepared me for the last few as a lone GP on an Orkney island also comes at a point when we have extraordinary months. Throughout throughout lockdown, and midwife something wonderful to celebrate, the toughest school times that Alicia Walker, who talks about the too - and I don’t just mean Leeds I can recall, this community has changes to maternity care during 27 been a source of encouragement lockdown.
    [Show full text]